Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Shock sites

I'm just trying to make sure I get this right; you don't condone material that can be found on shock sites, do you? I don't think I need to go into specifics. --Anittas 17:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

We don't condone anything. We support the current Wikipedia policy, which states: "While obviously inappropriate content (such as inappropriate links to shock sites) is usually removed immediately, except from an article directly concerning the content (such as the article about pornography), some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links, provided they do not violate any of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view), nor the law of the state of Florida in the United States, where the servers are hosted." Kaldari 23:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

userboxes.

Stop with the userboxes alerts, please. This project, and it's longest term members, come down on differing sides of said controversy. Do not obscure our purpose (RF - the change to the censorship clause, the Quaran picture) Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedians against censorship on Japanese Wikipedia

I just created the "Wikipedians against censorship" project page on Japanese Wikipedia. link Hermeneus (user/talk) 12:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

If my Japanese was any good I would help you out, but I wish you good luck with it! 頑張って！Gerard Foley 17:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Refactored from alerts page:

• • • While you are keeping wikipedia uncensored, you might want to read about straw men and maybe even why slippery slopes are silly and why the Iran argument makes no sense Mikkerpikker ... 16:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Problem at Sun tanning

I tried to add free license images to this article but User:Wyss is being funny about it, reverting my version here and claiming that the top image will eventually be removed by "other users". I would appreciate peoples help and/or advice on this. Thanks Sven the merciless 04:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I can see why this picture can be interchangible with other pictures which are less revealing, but I don't see why removing that picture for another picture is censorship. Plus, I feel only one or two pictures are needed for the article, and atleast one picture should be a picture which documents sun damage upclose. A sun burn perhaps? --OrbitOne 19:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

LordRevan and Admin Cencorship of Templates

I am OUTRAGED to learn that the powers-that-be have cencored many of the templates that were considered "politically incorrect." We as the Wikipedians aganist Cencorship should fight against this. Considering the fact that the Administration has cencored these right-winged based templates, I believe that many of the left-wing templates should be taken off of this site. Some of the right-wing templates that have been censored are Anti-UN, Wikipedians who believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, Wikipedians who consider themselves Politically Incorrect, Wikipedians who are Pro-life, Wikipedians who consider themsleves Born Again Christians. These are all of the ones that I can think of that have been cencored, but there could be more. As a user, I believe we should combat all forms of censorship. I think all those who agree with me should rise up against the left-wing held admin and set things right. LordRevan 22:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

This is for censorship of Wikipedia articles. The place to complain about your userboxes being censored is WP:UBP. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Help

Guys, i need help. As you know, wikipedia has every type of things that are notable only withing a small group, everything from articles disgusting sex games, to pokemon cards, to warhammer to UFO.

My problem is that as soon as i creat a article in good faith and in aimes to enirch wikipedia with representation of the ideas of the 9/11 Truth movement, there comes a AFD on the article within 5 houres, claiming it has no notability in the big world. Take a look at this, and give me a comment:

Thanks and peace. --Striver 17:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, is there any other WikiProject that could be intrested in taking a look at this? --Striver 17:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not censorship to delete your poorly written, uncited, unverifiable bad articles. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll

I only just found this poll. Perhaps people here would be interested. Gerard Foley 21:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Stop it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Censorship Alert - Justin Berry

In an unprecedented move, Jimbo deleted an article about Justin Berry after Justin Berry called Jimbo over the phone and complained to him about the content of the article (the contents of the original article can be seen here). Since Jimbo violated his own rules regarding the handling of content disputes and never specifically listed what was wrong with the article, nobody is quite certain of what facts are "appropriate" for the article, and which are not. Attempts at reinserting the factual information from the deleted article are now being censored by a handful of editors. Corax 22:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

This isn't censorship - it is asking for sensitivity about a living person - and there are no restrictions on the recreation of the article. There is just extra vigilence expected taht everything included by verifiable and meet the rules of the NPOV. Trödel•talk 01:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

First, restricting the content of what is supposed to be an encyclopedia because that content might offend or otherwise miff people reeks of third-reich book-burning. If the verifiable facts in a certain article rub you the wrong way, you always have the option of not reading it. If we are going to pull back from reporting information about Justin Berry because Justin Berry does not like it being reported, are we going to hold back on reporting information on Jim Bakker because Jim Bakker does not like it? How about Bill Clinton? How about Scott Peterson?

Second, there apparently are restrictions on what can be contained in the article: whatever offends Justin cannot be included, no matter how factual that content is. That is why I posted about this debacle here. Corax 01:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Please provide an example of a factual statement that cannot be included in the article because it "offends Justin". Thanks! JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, just take a look at the history of the article. Pretty much everything but a small, two-sentence paragraph keeps being removed in spite of the fact that the content is taken directly from a New York Times article. Corax 01:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I've moved this to the talk page for two reasons: It falsely identifies Jimbo as a censor (see WP:OFFICE), and it is too long for an acceptable notice. Having said that, there is obviously a censorship problem on the page and I encourage advocates to attend the discussion of the new article. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 11:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

ALERT

Just thought I'd make you all aware of Wikipedia:Wikiethics which is in short a censorship proposal. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 03:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the user who started the Wikiethics proposal was offended by the Mohammed cartoons, and upset that they could not be removed under standing wikipedia policy. I think that this is rather telling as to the intent of the new proposal; it seems likely one of the first uses of such a new policy would be to strike the cartoons as "offensive." Sensitivity should only be a concern in writing the encyclopedia when choosing among equivalently informative options. Preferences over information and sensitivity must be lexicographic. Tomyumgoong 20:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Rename?

Given the mfd on this project, would you perhaps consider a renaming of the project, perhaps renaming to WikiProject Freedom of information or some such variation, which delineates the goal better than the somewhat misleading title, which imples that people who are not members are supportive of censorship. Hiding talk 10:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The mfd appears to be more related to the heat on the Justin Berry article. From what I can garner, the mfd is entirely inappropriate and based on incorrect facts, and very few actual members of WAC are actually involved. So, I respect your suggestion but I don't think it should be based on any findings from the mfd.

But I think your request has merit anyway. Please remember we're talking about defending a policy wikipedia is not censored. If the policy changes it's wording to wikipedia is an exercise in freedom of information we could lose the word 'censorship', but we should follow the wording of the WP:NOT policy.

It seems you are more opposing the word against than anything. Perhaps wikipedians patrolling censorship is a better name for dealing with your concerns, or even the freedom from censorship project. Since you've implied that your stance on censorship is neither pro nor anti, I am open to changing the name so it embraces users of a variety of sliding scale opinions on how actively you would like to partake in censorship issues. Would you feel more welcome to participate if the name were changed? Do you think it would help the group avoid group mentality problems? ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 11:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedians Patrolling Censorship is a better name than we have now, but it still sounds clunky... Keep those ideas comin? Copysan 00:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

My editing style is to follow WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, so I find myself already contributing whether you or I are aware of each other. I don't really wish to join a wikiproject merely to express myself as being against censorship, nor do I feel it should be neccessary to do so. Wikipedia:WikiProject Freedom from censorship is certainly an alternative. Please note my concern is not based in the [[Justin Berry] affair but rather the divisive quality of the name. I endorse the policy at WP:NOT but feel the policy should be at the heart of the issue, not the users battling it. The WikiProject term already denotes that it is a group of users who have gathered together, thus I do not see the need to restate it. Please note, I do not wish to cast aspersions on the goal itself. I would hope that you would look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use as an inspiration, they have not seen fit to declare themselves Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for fair use. Hiding talk 12:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)2

It's not a conspiracy Hiding. It's simply a group with a goal. If you think the wording can be improved you can make a suggestion without making a case that someone deliberately created a false dichotomy to incite a revolution. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 13:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

At no point have I meant to declare that someone deliberately created a false dichotomy to incite a revolution. I find it hard to even read such an accusation in my words. I am merely offering my opinion that the current name is thought divisive, as per comments at the mfd, and offering a suggested alternative. Hiding talk 13:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Truly I mean no offense Hiding, but I notice you merely took 300 words to offer a 4 word name change?

• You say: "(the name of this group) implies that people who are not members are supportive of censorship."

This is saying that you think the name alone causes division on censorship issues. This is a false dichotomy.

• You say: "I endorse the policy at WP:NOT but feel the policy should be at the heart of the issue, not the users battling it."

This is saying that you think users come here to start battles.

Did you not expect someone would want to discuss your critical judgements against this group? I request you add Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith to the list of policies you like to follow. The WAC group was started in good faith. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 14:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Um. I'm not sure what's happening here. I came here and asked if the project would think about changing its name. Doesn't seem too unfair a proposition. You seemed to agree. After that, I'm not entirely sure how it went pear shaped. I'm quite happy for people to take my suggestion and do with it what they want, I recognise the consensual nature of the Wikipedia. I thought there was a reasonable suggestion with Wikipedia:WikiProject Freedom from censorship, perhaps people will consider that, fair play to you if you reject it, all I can do, and indeed, all I did, was to ask you to consider my suggestion. I can't see any point discussing your interpretation of my words, since I don't actually agree with that interpretation, and have already stated that any such interpretation was not meant, so I am happy to let my words rest as they are and be my own defence. As to your request to assume good faith, please be assured I follow it daily, but thanks for the gentle reminder. I hope you are not too offended if I ask you to consider your own words in the light of that policy. Happy editing! Hiding talk 16:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you didn't mean to lace your words with critical judgements of the group. Like I said, no offense intended. Happy editing to you to. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 23:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I would like to propose wikipedians and censorship as a possible name to change to.--Clawed 02:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy and Sensitivities

Hello editors. Many users have this noticeboard on their watchlist. If you are unsure of the accuracy and neutrality of a statement, run it by another editor before you post it on the board. It very would be very easy to mercilessly delete an anti-censorship group if we were perceived as hostile towards well meaning wikipedians.

So, simple. Don't be hostile. It isn't necessary. Please respect peoples sensitivities. This is too serious an issue to be sensationalised. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 22:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Objection To The Justin Berry Notice

This was posted on the notice board. I've copied it here (which is more than it deserves):

• I still haven't seen any evidence that WP:OFFICE was ever invoked on the Justin Berry article by anyone authorized to exercise it, which according to the current draft of the policy, is one individual with the name "Danny." The Justin article was never listed on the WP:OFFICE page, and claims of WP:OFFICE by various admins seem to have been little more than a convenient pretense to blank everything added to the Justin article without any forthcoming explanation, and to ban anyone who complained. Since the rewritten article, which is currently being left alone, is a superset of properly sourced information which mere days ago, was being deleted on sight, it is pretty clear that several admins in this dispute greatly exceeded their authority. I'm not going to single them out by name, but given the egregious admin misconduct here, I think it would be a nice PR gesture to reverse all the blocks which stemmed from the Justin controversy. Jimbo merely blanked the article, and politely asked that it be rewritten by new authors. He didn't ask for an Inquisition to be held. Some people here have let their personal views about sex abuse, minors, and minor-attracted adults motivate them to use their admin privileges to attack others, and that has damaged Wikipedia's public reputation. Dismissing the resulting mess as an "edit war" is at best disingenuous. 66.109.195.60 07:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

And I only just got finished asking users not to be hostile. I apologise for any misunderstanding we might have. It's really as simple as 123:

1.) WP:OFFICE The Wikimedia Foundation receives an increasingly large number of phone calls and emails from people who are upset about various things on the site. Sometimes these complaints are valid; more often they are not. However, in most cases, even with the invalid complaints, there is a short-term action which can and should be taken as a courtesy in order to soothe feelings and build a better encyclopedia in the long run. WP:OFFICE reverting a WP:OFFICE may be grounds for blocking.

2.) Mr Berry called and complained. Jimbo reset the article.

3.) The end.

What followed was an issue of discrimination and ethics, not censorship. How much these two issues overlap is something to be discussed on talk pages, not on noticeboards. The article on Justin Berry is now rewritten and editors have expressed their happiness that the article is much better. There doesn't appear to be any remaining issues of censorship. If you want to start a discussion below please talk about the issues, finger point and say whatever you want. Just keep hysterical outbursts off the noticeboard, it's inappropriate. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 12:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

1. from WP:OFFICE..."I have created this page for Danny (Danny is a longtime Wikipedian who is an admin in English Wikipedia, and globally a steward. He works for the foundation, primarily as my assistant, but increasingly in working on grant applications) to use to signify why he is deleting or blanking something per my authorization. This does not signify any authoritarian top-down action without approval, but rather signifies a temporary action to allow us to be kind while we sort out the encyclopedic way forward.

"If this works out, I may authorize other people to use it as well (people handling OTRS email queues, people on the legal team, etc.)--Jimbo Wales 21:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)"

2. In the preceeding, Jimbo states that all WP:OFFICE blankings will be done by Danny, who will cite WP:OFFICE when doing them.

3. Jimbo is not Danny, nor did Jimbo cite WP:OFFICE when blanking the Justin article.

4. What followed included discrimination and ethical lapses, but was also censorship. The fact that we now have an article, and all new material is not being instantly deleted, has to do with admins backing off their earlier feeding frenzy, for whatever reason.

5. This is not an "hysterical outburst." If Jimbo wishes to state that the original blanking was done under WP:OFFICE and the admins acted appropriately in citing WP:OFFICE for their actions, (although they claimed reverting stuff on other related articles was WP:OFFICE, when it clearly was multiple reversion of non-vandalism), I will cede the point.

6. Undoing all Justin-related blocking would demonstrate good will on the part of Wikipedia, soothe the feelings of the angered, and encourage them to contribute to Wikipedia in the future, instead of spending their time trashing Wikipedia in their blogs, perhaps justifiably.

7. Good PR is avoiding even the appearance of censorship, even if you think you have some complex explanation of why something technically isn't censorship. 66.109.195.60 15:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Based on additional information I've obtained from an offsite mirror of the original Justin Berry article, I'm going to revise my comments above. It appears that Jimbo originally blanked the article with the comment "This page temporarily blank.' WP:OFFICE" in the edit history, but when he deleted the article and its revision history to create a new one, he erased his own WP:OFFICE notice. Never assume malice where stupidity will suffice, I guess. My comments about it being censorship, the admins deleting new stuff that was not taken from the blanked article, frivolous banning, and suggested remedies still apply. Overall, I would now characterize the episode as "poor communication." 66.109.195.60 18.46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Dismissing it as "poor communication" disingenuous at best!!! Hehe, just kidding! Yes, I agree. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 01:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Where did you find this original copy of the article? Copysan 00:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

There's an interesting new Web Site about Wikipedia. They have the original Justin article, as well as other deleted things, and biting commentary. 71.212.67.10 06:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Censorship alert

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_American_criminals_and_victims

I believe it has encyclopedic value but it shows some Jews in a negative light so its being considered for deletion. Please offer some assistance.

Jerry Jones 22:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It looks like a standard VfD to me. I see nothing there that suggests an attempt at censorship. Gerard Foley 00:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Member list

I feel like what I'm saying is rather unimportant in comparison, but...I could, if people wanted, to reorganize the member list in alphabetical order. —Mirlen 02:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Major Censorship alert!

On the Talmud page posting anti Christian quotes which are verifiable factual information which is in fact in the Talmud have been continually removed. The article is extremely one sided. Both the Quran and Christian pages have all of the anti-Semetic quotes posted and I dont see why the Talmud should have another standard. Why should the Talmud be given special treatment? Please assist.

Jerry Jones 09:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it would be helpful it they weren't false quotes invented by anti-Semites. Jayjg ^(talk) 10:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

censorship of inconvenient facts

here's a fact: some members of the jewish community are world-class musicians, chess-players, physicists, mathematicians etc. i'd imagine this fact is well noted at wikipedia in category boxes etc. if it isn't, you'll encounter no problems in noting it. here's another fact: some members of the jewish community have been involved in fraud and financial and political scandal. for examples of the difficulty you will face in noting this fact, up to and including a threat of indefinite blocking, examine the history of e.g. David Garrard (property developer), Barry Townsley, Jewish Care, Conservative Friends of Israel. nothing that suggests any link between the jewish community and wrongdoing is permitted, and is quickly removed on often ludicrous grounds, e.g. marriage by a businessman into an important business family is trivia. jamaissur ^{lemon or lime?}

It's odd to stick in the first paragraph of an article the name of the subject's father-in-law, unless of course you're an anti-Semite desperate to find a Jewish link to the subject because he's involved in a scandal, and flailing around are able to find only that the wife's father is a Jew, so bang, in that goes as practically the first sentence. If you discover that the subject's dog walked past a synagogue last week, that'll doubtless be your next edit. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually SV, I'm not sure why you chose to revert here. I presume you are doing so because you feel the comments had undue weight? Can you elaborate? It looks like the facts were cited correctly and were indeed true information for the article. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 03:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I will add though, the entire article looks a little slim. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 04:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

"A little slim"? If you have a look at User:Jamaissur's contributions (including the now deleted articles), you will note that they consist almost entirely of entries intended to tie alleged British Jews to scandal and Israel. After seeing this go on in two dozen articles, he has been informed that he needs to actually write proper articles about individuals, not just copy often unsourced boilerplate attempting to smear British Jews. I'm not going to continue going around turning his defamatory boilerplate crap articles into proper stubs. Until he starts doing so, his edits simply will not stick. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

They have not been 'often unsourced' and you censor sourced material anyway. The rule I'm breaking is 'Obey the orders of Jewish admins' -- who do not follow to follow the rules they apply to others. If I'd described your comments as 'bleating' or your edits as 'crap', this would have been another big ground for blocking me. jamaissur ^{lemon or lime?}

Unfortunately, Metta Bubble, you won't get unevasive or accurate answers from Slimvirgin or Jayjg, if you get any at all. In reply to her comments: it is not odd to note that a businessman has married into an important business family. Nor was that the "only" fact about Barry Townsley censored by admin User:Jayjg. The Guardian doesn't care about his dog either, but she cut a fact about him taken from The Guardian (see Jewish Care). jamaissur ^{lemon or lime?}

Back from a 48-hour block (after two 24-hr blocks).

The rule has been: censor all facts linking members of the Jewish community to wrongdoing and harass users attempting to include them. This happens because Jewish admins and their allies have very great influence and power here at Wikipedia -- another fact that cannot be acknowledged or discussed. Andrew Rosenfeld has been linked with a general charity, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, by the same admin, User:Jayjg, who has worked to censor 1) Rosenfeld's links with Jewish Care; 2) Barry Townsley's links with Jewish Care and with the Israel Center for Economic and Social Progress; 3) Townsley's marriage into an important Jewish business family. All 'trivia' according to Jayjg. Same for David Garrard (property developer)'s links with Jewish Care, World ORT and Conservative Friends of Israel. 'Trivia' again. Admin User:Slimvirgin and her friend admin User:Sean Black have censored facts in a way that no-one they disagreed with would have been allowed. So what I'd like to know is:

• Why doesn't Wikipedia acknowledge that truth and comprehensive encyclopedic content take second place to favoured special interests and that censorship has been and will be employed whenever a favoured group so decides? If this is a good thing, why not let everyone know?
• Why isn't the enormous power wielded by Jewish admins and their allies openly acknowledged by Wikipedia? Again, if it's a good thing, why not let everyone know?
• Even if it is a good thing, will it remain so? Power tends to corrupt, and unexamined power tends to corrupt faster. Would Jayjg, Slimvirgin et al be happy to see some other group have the power their team presently has? (Rhetorical question, obviously.)

jamaissur ^{lemon or lime?}

Jamaissur, your agenda at Wikipedia has been to create articles on people you believe are British Jews involved in a particular political scandal. There were several non-Jews involved in the same scandal, but you notably haven't created articles about them. To have an article on a charity, Jewish care, consist almost entirely of the allegedly controversial activities (unrelated to the charity) of one of its donors is clearly absurd. As I've warned you, if this situation continues, you'll be blocked indefinitely. Finally, you don't know whether the admins who are watching you are Jewish or not. That they must be to want to remove your edits is another one of your anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion. That helped a lot. Jamaissur? Is it possible you could team up with somebody capable of writing the pro information about the relevant articles? I feel confident I would enjoy the articles a lot more if they were the product of a process like that. Overall, I find it hard to label this a censorship issue because it documents a current event. Yet, I don't have an opinion on the matter, except to say Wikipedia isn't a newspaper. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 01:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

true, it isn't, but facts from newspapers are freely used here -- except when a favoured special interest group decides to censor them. i'd also have thought that censorship of facts in current events still counts as censorship, and is possibly an even more serious kind, given that more people will be coming here to read about the current event while it's current than later. note also that for raising the points above, i got blocked for a week. jamaissur ^{lemon or lime?}

WP:NOT includes the policy that Wikipedia is not a news source; such readers as you mention should be using Wikinews instead. Trying to limit Wikipedia articles on current events to verifiable and NPOV facts, rather than everybody's unencyclopedic interpretations and speculations, is not censorship, it's a proper standard. Many editors are trying to keep any "special interest group" from including one-sided news content. Barno 14:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Precious gem to watch

When a square goes white it means the image has been deleted. CrayZ 01:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

To date only 4 images there have been deleted.

• Image:Coolness.jpg, by User:Humus sapiens, "obscene image"
• Image:PIX018.JPG.jpg, by User:Cryptic, "I4: no source since 08:20, 25 February 2006"
• Image:VisionsYoga.jpg, by User:Angr, "I3"
• Image:Carlsontwins.jpg, by User:BradPatrick, "Not acceptable fair use argument. Deleted."

The first and last seem to have been deleted improperly. I've contacted the users asking for more information. ~MDD4696 14:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Humus sapiens responded saying he was reverting vandalism; User:BradPatrick was removing blatant copyright infringement. Everything seems fine. ~MDD4696 20:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Has project gone inactive?

There have been no changes to the project page or this talk page in almost a month now. If nobody replies, I will mark this as inactive.--Frenchman113 on wheels! 00:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Strangely the member's page is active. -- 127.*.*.1 02:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

What? Wikipedians against censorship inactive? That would be a shame. Why do you think so? gala.martin (what?) 16:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

This project is definitely NOT inactive! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 18:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I would give it longer than a month. Most projects on Wikipedia go through periods of inactivity. They usually aren't marked as inactive, though, unless they've been stagnant for several months. Kaldari 15:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The thing is that unlike content projects we don't usually go out and edit articles unless there's censorship going on. It's more of a "values" project, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for writing an encyclopedia. Loom91 06:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Critics being silenced

Please keep an eye out. Some people are trying hard to remove criticsim of wikipedia even if it could be constructive criticism. We should have freedom of speech here. User:Sceptre has a talk page full of "don't remove other peopl's comments" from other users and has been deleting pages he disagree with. Please keep an eye out. Navigatrix 12:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Sceptre's talk page has only two comments on removing talk page comments, both related to a single issue. User:Lou franklin (which I suspect was your original account, Navigatrix) was spamming people's talk pages with a frustrated rant. Sceptre reverted these. ~MDD4696 13:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi All

This User 87.17.136.171 has categorized as Humor the project page against censorship. I am wondering how this "fact" is considered in the English Wikipedia. --Fragolino - ^{(Follow the white rabbit!)} 17:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it is viewed with disdain and lo! It was quickly reverted. We have enemies as past events have indicated. ;) -- 127.*.*.1 00:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Please give a consensus and offer assistance -Censorship

I have worked on an article for Charles Coughlin and I have entered a dispute with an editor. I want the opinions of wikipedians against censorship on whether or not this is censorship. This editor refuses to discuss this and deletes this sentence continually without a reason which leads me to believe that he takes personal offense to it and that is why he wants it removed even if its informative and has great encyclopedic value.

Here is the article and the line in bold is disputed and being continually removed:

After 1936, however, Coughlin increasingly expressed sympathy for the fascist policies of Hitler and Mussolini as an antidote to Bolshevism, though this was before World War II began. His radio broadcasts also became overtly anti-Semitic. He also began publication of a newspaper, Social Justice, during this period, in which he printed anti-Semitic accusations such as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Like Joseph Goebbels, Coughlin claimed that Marxist atheism in Europe was a Jewish plot. On Nov. 20, 1938, two weeks after Kristallnacht, when Jews across Germany were attacked and killed, and Jewish businesses and homes burned, Coughlin blamed the Jewish victims, saying that "Jewish persecution only followed after Christians first were persecuted." After this speech, and as his programs became more anti-Semitic, some radio stations, including those in New York and Chicago, began refusing to air his speeches without pre-approved scripts. This made Coughlin a hero in Nazi Germany, where papers ran headlines like "America is Not Allowed to Hear the Truth." On December 18, 1938 two thousand of Coughlin's followers marched in New York protesting potential asylum law changes that would allow more Jews to enter the country, chanting, "Send Jews back where they came from in leaky boats!" and "Wait until Hitler comes over here!" these protests continued for several months. Donald Warren, using information from the FBI and German government archives, has also argued that Coughlin received indirect funding from Nazi Germany during this period.

Why I think it should stay: I believe this line should stay because I feel the whole article just says that Father Coughlin is anti semetic. It doesnt say why he is anti semetic and there are major holes in the article. Its one sided. This one line explains a lot because one:

1-It's accurate. It makes a connection to fascism as the article goes over. 2-It explains why someone like Father Coughlin, as a priest, would support a Nazi regime 3-The article talks about Father Coughlin being fascist but doesnt explain why. This one sentence makes a big connection to Coughlin supporting fascism. 4-It's Father Coughlin's viewpoint and explains why he supported the Nazis.

I am just trying to make the article fair and balanced without it being one sided. The whole article joes goes on about him being anti semetic facist but it doesnt say even one time why he was anti Semetic. I tried to add Father Coughlins viewpoint and it was being continually deleted without even a reason. I won't even get an answer. Please read the whole article over and give you opinion on whether or not this is censorship or if I am wrong. Here is the article: Charles Coughlin

Thanks,

Jerry Jones 21:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

First, I should point out that I do not know much about Charles Coughlin. Secondly, you don't have to copy the entire article here. Finally, I'm not sure if this is censorship but reverting that sentence over POV is definately not right. However, the points over original research and verifiability still stand. If you can provide citations to back it up I think you have a case. -- 127.*.*.1 13:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You need some references to state your sentence (this is true in general, and expecially if the issue is disputed). On the other hand, if true, the part Coughlin claimed that Marxist atheism in Europe was a Jewish plot should stay. Anyway, in Europe there were many people claiming Jewish plots, so I do not understand why referring to Goebbles; of course, this also can be cleared with a suitable reference. --gala.martin (what?) 13:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Help Request

Category:Anti-Semitic people

NEW VOTE

KEEP - This category was already voted on Vote and the decision was to KEEP. This +cat was posted for deletion without posting a WP:CFR or mentioning it on the +cats talk page. Just another sneaky trick to try to get it closed without a fair opportunity to vote. Please note, there are a lot of anti-Semites on the Internet that would love to shut this +cat down, they should not be allowed to do so Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship SirIsaacBrock 10:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Userbox vandalized

The Template:User freespeech userbox was vandalized, changing the box text and removing all references to this project. I have reverted the changes. Just a quick FYI. — Wwagner 16:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Userbox poll

A userbox poll is nearly done, and could do with a bit of support. It aims to stop Admins deleting userboxes and censoring people's opinions on their own userpages. - • The Giant Puffin • 12:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

"It is important to monitor the fact that POV pushers (in this case pedophiles)..." - Jimmy Wales

See here: [1]Skinnyweed 20:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Israeli apartheid deletion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Israeli_apartheid_%28phrase%29

This term is apparently offensive to some people, but the article itself is well-researched and balanced. I think it needs a little tweaking in the lead, but is otherwise of high quality. Despite this, it seems as though a lot of people want to delete it for reasons that do not seem entirely reasonable to me. I feel that this is a form of censorship. Al 21:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

In case it's not already clear, you'll note that I'm not asking anyone to vote pro or con. Rather, I'm bringing this issue to the attention of a group dedicated to fighting censorship. In fact, I regret voting on this issue and would not recommend it to anyone. It seems clear that people are not voting on an honest basis, so any participation only lends legitimacy to this censorship attempt. Thank you for understanding. Al 23:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

When the scientists went mum (and still are going) on the issue of intelligent design in order to not lend legitmacy to the debate, they got a couple school districts changing it anyways. Shutting up about injustice simply allows a group to continue its oppression without publicity by your silenced comments. Therefore, if you've got a view, speak it up. Copysan 01:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Question

Would anyone like to investigate as to why User:Pimpalicious was banned, and whether it was discussed beforehand? 131.111.8.104 16:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

censorship alert- discussion

I strongly disagree with the accusation against my putting the alert on the notice board, I believe this is EXACTLY the appropriate place for this as this project is against ANY censorship in Wikipedia not just articles. For my full explanation you can refer to the discussion page on the issue.By the way, I find it ironic that Hipocrite as a member of Wikipedians against censorship tries to censor both my opinion and the very crucial vote thats been going on that is all about censorship, in addition I find it more than ironic that I'm accused of a "non-neutral" comment on the notice board by a user that himself expresses a clear "non-nuetral" comment in the sentence previous to his acustion of inuetrality (number 1). This irony also goes to the comment Hipocrite posted below. Tal :) 16:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This project was designed to deal with article content, not your whinging about how you can't have pretty boxes and call yourself a satanist on your user page. Go somewhere else. I'm not a member - I'm a founding member. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

N.B the fact that you are allegedly the "founding member" gives you no special privileges over other members, and thus your historical role is insignifcant to my argument... And note that I'm not going anywhere unless you block me (which will be a very clear cut case of rude form of censorship).Tal :) 16:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Note that my very comment has been self-censored by me due to alleged "threats" by a certain member...Tal :) 16:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Calm down guys. It's not worth busting an artery about. Kaldari 21:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hans Christian Andersen

I would like to enlist my fellow anti-censorship members to suppress the campaign by one member to remove the cited academic references to Hans Christian Andersen's sexuality. Her complaint is that her child read it. Wikipedia should not be a place where references are removed because they mention homosexuality or masturbation. I would post this to the notice board, but I'm not quite sure how to yet :) Thanks! Wjhonson 05:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up Wjhonson, I'm keeping an eye on it now although I doubt you'll have any more trouble from that particular user (Perri Rhoades) a quick glance through their other contributions and it looks like they've decided to part ways with wikipedia for other reasons. Caprosser 09:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I was wrong about Perri Rhoades going away, they are still at it unfortunately, I reverted their edit putting the material into its own section but I think its within reason to add the citations needed request and from what I gather that shouldn't be much of a problem for you to do so I'd recommend doing it quickly and hopefully everyone can move on. Caprosser 01:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Paulinus of Nola

Again an alert, an anon editor keeps reverting Paulinus of Nola when I've posted a portion of a letter he wrote, which was published in an anthology. The portion I've posted is the exact (translated) words of Paulinus. The other editor is reverting based on an POV. So I'd appreciate support in reverting back, as I'm at my 2revert limit now. Thanks. Wjhonson 16:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh and the other editor refuses, so far, to discuss the scholarly issues of the text (if there are any), he just reverts based on his opinion, not that of a published source. Wjhonson 16:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"Wikiporn" deletions

I included information regarding the "wikiporn" deletions on the project page. CharonX/talk 12:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The MFDs seem to be against Userspace galleries. We should move all the User space links and etc to this WP Talk against censorship space (note that a gallery has already been created within this WP talk page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship/Gallery).
The reason can be: "Pornographic or sexually explicit pictures are often the subject of some controversy, and are often the targets of attempts to censor Wikipedia. This page is intended to make sure any pornographic picture has its due process in AfD. Any time a box goes blank or a red link goes red, interested parties should read on the AfD or the Speedy Delete page to see if the deletions were a part of censorship or just normal goings on in Wikipedia."
Also we should not include Commons pictures (since the scope of this project is Wikipedia). Fair use and otherwise article-only pictures should be linked. Copysan 18:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Inquisition censorship

I am seeing some religious censorship in Inquisition article. Some people are deleting any references to Inquisition practices, statistic death count, or persecution to any religion references (hindu, jew). I need help

I will look into this. Darthgriz98 19:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean, expecialy when they used the term coercion, there was no coercion involved, more like if you don't join you will be executed and persecuted if you were lucky enough. Probably someone defending the RCC or someone trying to butter up the article, it happens all the time. Nobody likes to hear mean things, except this is not what wiki is for. I'll help you out. Darthgriz98 19:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 14:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 19:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)