Talk:Ban Bossy/Archives/2014

Censorship

There seems to be some highly narrow interpretations of the word censorship—believing the term applies only when a government agency bans a word, therefore making its use here moot. So much so that some have taken it upon themselves to summarily remove, without discussion or consensus, any mention of the word, along with category membership, in this and other related articles. If you are one of these people. I ask you to please re-read censorship. Note the definition indicates "Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable..." and that "Governments, private organizations and individuals may engage in censorship." There is nothing I can find which restricts the use of the word to campaigns initiated by a government agency. Given the above definition and the clear fact this privately run campaign openly calls for the ban of the word merely because some find it offensive, clearly and plainly is censorship. In fact, there is nothing vague about it. It's almost the textbook definition of censorship. If you disagree and feel so strongly that you must run around removing references, I ask you to please indicate why you believe this isn't censorship. What is it, if not censorship? I will be replacing the removed links and words and would like to come to a consensus here. Lexlex (talk) 05:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey there Lexlex, I noticed the edits from VoluntarySlave as well and I am assuming good faith on their part. I notice that you both have about the same number of edits, give or take a thousand. I don't perceive an agenda on their part, and I don't perceive an agenda on your part. I do agree that the the campaign is at its base a censorship campaign, since they are clearly trying to "ban", or suppress, or censor the use the word "bossy". Just because the government isn't issuing the ban doesn't mean that it isn't censorship. In the interest of maintaining a Neutral Point of View, we should perhaps find a neutral middle-ground that allows for the neutral description of the campaign, with neutrally-written opposition to the campaign. Neutrality is why I re-inserted Censorship in the "See Also" section, but I don't think that 1st Amendment issues belong in that section, since the Government isn't telling people to stop using the word. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The campaign uses the phrase "Ban Bossy", but I don't see anywhere where the campaign makes any suggestions as to ways in which people should be prevented from using the word; indeed, the campaign is not primarily about using the word "bossy" at all, as is clear fromthe campaign's website and the references in the article from the NY Daily News and USA Today. The only source I can see in the article which refers to the campaign as "censorship" is an NY Post op-ed (and a non-RS YouTube video). As an op-ed, that's only a reliable source for the writer's own opinion, which would justify our including the fact that this individual has criticized the campaign as censorship, but I'm not sure it makes it appropriate to categorize the article under censorship. However, if the campaign has been widely criticized as promoting censorship (ideally, if there is a tertiary source discussing criticism of the campaign which mentions that it has been widely criticized as censorship), then we should categorize as such.VoluntarySlave (talk) 08:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

VoluntarySlave, please read this article Self-censorship for the relevant form of censorship this campaign encourages. It does not advocate direct legislative intervention, but instead a societal change where the word is considered pejorative. Very similar to Nigger, although the definitions do not actually support the assertion. 75.130.155.203 (talk) 02:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Adding a section for criticism

Would it be a good idea to add a section regarding the criticism of the movement? I've seen a lot of criticism of this movement, and not just from YouTube users or people on Twitter. I've seen an article on LA Times and Joan Rivers has even said a few things about it. Not to mention one of the main videos has a lot more dislikes than likes on YouTube.

WP:SOFIXIT. Be bold. Add a criticism section. (Though I'm glad you have an ability to use a talk page.) If somebody reverts/disagrees with you, they'll likely create an entry here where you can discuss the section and its addendum/omission. Ging287 (talk) 20:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I've found two articles: one from The New Yorker and the other from Chicago Tribune. Both criticize the movement. Are they reliable sources under Wikipedia' policies? 76.254.13.11 (talk) 01:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, IP 76, yes, those are good sources. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)