Template talk:Censorship
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Is Historical Revisionisn really a form of censorship? Shinhan 13:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Removing and minimizing historical facts does fall under censorship. However, note that the template is referring to the negative form of historical revisionism (negationism), and not the legitimate form of historical revisionism.--TBCTaLk?!? 03:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Ah yes, good that I asked here :) Thank you for the explanation Shinhan 10:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image
I object to the image used on this template. Such an extreme example implies that Wikipedia has the opinion that all censorship is bad. This is hardly a neutral point of view. Voretus/talk 16:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- What censorship is good? o.O Shinhan 20:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Help me understand what POV a photograph can take on besides an optical one? MrBucket 19:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Maybe you should pose this question on some other, more popular page to gather more discussion. Like Talk:Censorship. Shinhan 07:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
-
I came here to see if there was any previous discussion, so I'm just going to post this note here (even though I realize this thread is a couple months old). I agree with Voretus; I'm not a fan of censorship in general, but there's a world of difference between bleeping out bad language on TV and burning books in Nazi Germany. Besides which, it is biased to assume that all censorship is bad; obviously a lot of people think it's good and, in fact, almost everyone values at least some level of censorship. I'm sure we can come up with a more generic graphic to depict the topic. Kafziel Talk 22:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree with the choice of image. It looks more like a computer error than an act of censorship. Also, it can be claimed to be anti-arab and pro-tech and "recentist". Image for image, the previous one is better, I think. Book burning, is, after all, an "established" censorship practice. On the Censorship article i added an image of an actually censored page, dunno how well it would work in the template, but being from a european newspaper is a bit less prone to sensitivities. BTW, I was playing devils advocate on the pro and anti part. I think we should be objective and maintaining NPOV. In portugal Censorship forced artists into more creative wording for instance. Is that good or bad? Not for us (wikipedia) to decide, I think. Galf 09:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's lisence infomation is incorrect anyway. It's exact copyright status is complex but it isn't CC.Geni 03:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Do you refer to the web page or my newspaper proof? because mine is released under CC-BY 2.0. Also, can we please DISCUSS the image thing before changing it? it's a template and it affects many pages. Galf 13:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
