Jump to content

Talk:Censorship in Islamic societies

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

History of censorship

[edit]

Clearly a start-up page. Will work on it more later. One important subject is the history of censorship in Islam. Casprings (talk) 05:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's talk and improve the article

[edit]

I made a few changes and commented [1]. Please do not revert. Give me a few days to research and source this a little. Frankly, I found it wrong that article was proposed for deletion without any discussion here. I will return to editing later. Thanks. My very best wishes (talk) 06:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the list of websites that Islamic states allegedly censor:

Year Country Websites Additional information
2011 Saudi Arabia Faith Freedom International, WikiIslam, Answering Islam, The Religion Of Peace, MuhammadTube & Jihad Watch. All are blocked on the country's pornography blacklist
Iran Jihad Watch, Faith Freedom International & Answering Islam
United Arab Emirates Answering Islam, Faith Freedom International, JihadWatch, MuhammadTube, TheReligionofPeace & WikiIslam
Pakistan Jihad Watch, MuhammadTube & TheReligionofPeace.
2009 Saudi Arabia Faith Freedom International, WikiIslam, & Answering Islam All are blocked on the country's pornography blacklist
Iran Faith Freedom International
United Arab Emirates Faith Freedom International
Pakistan WikiIslam & Answering Islam
2008 Saudi Arabia Faith Freedom International
Iran Faith Freedom International
2007 Saudi Arabia Faith Freedom International
Iran Faith Freedom International
Pakistan Faith Freedom International
Kuwait Faith Freedom International Some ISP level blocks
Indonesia Faith Freedom International Some ISP level blocks
2006 Saudi Arabia Faith Freedom International
Iran Faith Freedom International
Pakistan Faith Freedom International

[1]

  1. ^ "Websites Censored by Islamic Governments". WikiIslam. Retrieved 30 July 2012.
Before we even begin to talk about whether that belongs in this article or in another article, please find a reliable source, not a joke source. As well, I have again removed the material you restored which is not censorship and so on. This article is not a WP:COATRACK for everything you personally dislike about certain Muslims; "censorship" actually does have a meaning. The way to convince people that this is a legitimate article is to add good material, not to restore rubbish that other users have done the work of removing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikis are not reliable sources. Especially WikiIslam as has been discussed before in the reliable sources section. Scholarly sources would be adequate. NarSakSasLee (talk) 20:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No one said that was a reliable source. My very best wishes (talk) 23:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

[edit]

While this restriction certainly won't stop editors from adding non-censorship, news incidents, and stuff that belongs in country articles if they really want to, I'd like to suggest that editors try to use scholarly sources when writing the article, rather than synthesizing news sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Scholarly sources would be better. NarSakSasLee (talk) 20:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course scholarly sources are better, but the quoted and currently removed by you sources are multiple RS. If you are in doubt, please ask at RS noticeboard. My very best wishes (talk) 23:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some of them are reliable sources, but in order to keep the article about the ostensible topic, not a list of synthesized anti-Muslim news crap, I am recommending that you use scholarly sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm coming into this as an uninvolved editor and I'm concerned about the mass removal of sourced material. Can you please explain why each is not appropriate? Otherwise I'm inclined to revert the removal. Please remember, there is no requirement in Wikipedia that only scholarly sources may be used. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 23:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I said: I removed material that was not censorship. You are not being censored every time a Muslim disagrees with something you say. Censorship entails some entity with the authority to do the censoring - protests, threats, and even murder do not constitute censorship. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with that, however not all of the removals are so limited. For example, what is the basis for removing this:
  1. ^ SAUDI ARABIA Catholic priest arrested and expelled from Riyadh - Asia News
  2. ^ BBC NEWS | Middle East | Saudi minister rebukes religious police
It clearly refers to governmental authority, and sharia law punishes the depiction of the prophet. GregJackP Boomer! 01:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
However, neither of the sources had anything to do with depiction of the prophet or with any other censored material. Fancy that. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or this:

Clearly government action. GregJackP Boomer!

I thought it was obvious, but your recent comments are making me think that it is necessary to state explicitly not only that censorship entails the existence of an authoritative body doing the censoring, but also of censoring actually happening. *facepalm* –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, do you not call arresting, putting on trial, convicting, and imprisoning being "censoring actually happening"? *double facepalm* - I mean if you don't feel that this is worthy of discussing, I don't have a problem with adding it back into the article. As a second point, prior restraint, something that chills free speech by governmental action, such as by religious or "thought" police is also a form of censorship. If needed, I can produce plenty of articles from both legal and academic journals that are directly on point. GregJackP Boomer! 02:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the lack of government action that's a problem, there was obviously government action. It's that nothing is being censored in the case of a blasphemy prosecution for a teddy bear's name. Is the name "Muhammad" being censored? Of course not, that's ridiculous. Empty threats to restore the inappropriate material because you haven't got your way in the talkpage discussion are beneath you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously you do not understand censorship - the mention of the name Muhammad in a derogatory way was prohibited, i.e., censored. I've restored that to the article. GregJackP Boomer! 03:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since you haven't bothered to make a convincing case for including this incident of non-censorship, I've removed it again until such point as you can find a source for it that demonstrates its relevance. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Look on p. 682 of the BYU L. Rev. article, in addition to other spots throughout that article. It specifically discusses the use of defamation of religion laws to censor minority religious views, among other issues. GregJackP Boomer! 11:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of the word "censorship" anywhere in an article that discusses the incident is not sufficient to label the incident as "censorship." The writer appears perfectly competent and presumably could have described it as censorship if she wished; other examples in the section include placing the Quran in washrooms or defacing a poster of the Quran. I'm beginning to question the WP:COMPETENCE of people I'm dealing with, here. I know I suggested using scholarly sources, but if you're going to demonstrate that you're incapable of reading a source, perhaps you should limit yourself to suggesting material on the talkpage and letting people who know what they're doing help you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You removed a lot of sourced materials as "non-censorship". Who said it was not censorship? You? According to most common definition (see censorship), "Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body. It can be done by governments and private organizations or by individuals who engage in self-censorship.". This is not necessarily government. Of course killing or putting people in prison simply for telling something (which would be nothing special in any western society but was condemned as offense to Islam or Mohammed) belongs here. And it was described accordingly in sources, like here. My very best wishes (talk) 04:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Questionable source aside (dude, we are not basing our article on the work of an author who openly advocates Islamophobia), this refers in what way to material I removed? I retained the Satanic Verses material, which appears to be the only overlap between Bloom's ridiculous article and ours. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

We request that editors comment on the following issues: 1) does this article require the use of solely academic sources; 2) does the article require explicit use of the word censorship in the source; and 3) is a restricted definition of censorship to be used, i.e. only by governmental agencies, or is the definition used in the Wikipedia article correct, where censorship may be by the government, media, private groups, or individuals?

Use of solely academic sources

[edit]
There is a clear consensus, that the solely use of academic sources is not required. Armbrust The Homonculus 07:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The use of solely academic sources is not required.

  • Support, as proposer. Wikipedia policy only requires the use of reliable sources. GregJackP Boomer! 10:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is according to WP:RS, one of "five pillars". My very best wishes (talk) 14:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dismiss question as irrelevant. I have requested that users prefer scholarly sources in order to move away from their previous practice of adding as many flash-in-the-pan news pieces into the article as possible; that's a comment on editor behavior, not on the reliability of news sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Living in multicultural and fairly peaceful Leicester, I note the successful use of an academic study of gypsies by 5 local authorities which allowed proper discussion, previously deemed racist to take place. I also note difficulties with the English Defence League article. JRPG (talk) 13:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not required but such scholarly sources are the best possible ones. Unopposed scholarly sources help us make statements of fact in Wikipedia's voice. Binksternet (talk) 03:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Half Support no article is above and beyond our policies - that said counter view points by prominent/influential individuals and organizations in Islamic society should be considered valid for the topic if there positions are viewed at large by the populace (this society) as valid.Moxy (talk) 21:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Scholarly sources are the best possible. 188.116.36.6 (talk) 06:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, while it is obviously the case on all of Wikipedia that non-scholarly sources are acceptable there is a trend of unreliable sources being presented as reliable in this article. One currently extant example as of this comment is Bill O'Reilly, who is a pundit and commentator. WP:RS, and simple sense, warns that they are rarely reliable sources for matters of fact. In this article right now there's nothing sourced to an opinion piece that isn't also sourced to a more reliable article, but it has happened in the past and given the obvious political minefield that is this topic it would be wise to adopt as consensus a reminder to editors to practice due caution in selection of sources.--Talain (talk) 17:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Use of the word censorship in the source

[edit]
There is a clear consensus, that the word censorship doesn't need to be explicitly used in the source, if the meaning is clear from the context. Armbrust The Homonculus 07:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

An article does not need to explicitly use the word "censorship" in order to be useful as a source, so long as the meaning is clear from the context of the article.

"GregJackP is clearly hoping" is not an argument. My very best wishes (talk) 16:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. You state that you oppose, but then your comment says the exact same thing that you're opposing. I'm don't understand. Are you saying that the word "censorship" does or does not have to appear in the source? GregJackP Boomer! 03:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for asking. My position is always that an intelligent reader can easily discern whether a source discusses the topic or not. I support the wording above: a source "does not need to explicitly use the word" in order to be useful. I take a very dim view, however, on tangential and peripheral sources brought in to coatrack a topic, or to create a synthesis of views. The source, in this case, should be discussing Islamic censorship, not something else. Binksternet (talk) 03:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Definition of censorship

[edit]
There is rough consensus for the following definition: "Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body. It can be done by governments and private organizations." Armbrust The Homonculus 07:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The definition already in place in the Censorship article should be used. That definition states: "Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body. It can be done by governments and private organizations or by individuals who engage in self-censorship."

Not only censorship can be conducted by another person (for example your boss), but it can be conducted by the person itself, which is widely known as self-censorship. My very best wishes (talk) 16:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Same reasons per Roscelese. Get rid of "individuals" and "private organisations" and I'll support. There are nutters in every society. Can't COATRACK. NarSakSasLee (talk) 16:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • OpposeWhen you speak of censorship IN ISLAMIC SOCIETIES, you are clearly not speaking of reminding yourself not to mention Aunt Lily's large mole (aka self-censorship) nor a company's redaction of outgoing communications to insulate from lawsuits or divulging corporate secrets. This is about the different approaches of GOVERNMENTS in different Islamic Societies to Censorship, or it really isn't an Article that belongs on WP. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I can see your point on private individuals and have struck that from the proposal. I am not sure on private organizations, as there are clearly some that operate to censor in various societies (not just Islamic, although that is what we're dealing with here). Just for information, the definition used here was pulled directly from the censorship article. If there is a better definition that should be used, I'm open to it. GregJackP Boomer! 21:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I would like to disagree with crossing this out and with the argument by Anonymous209.6. The Islamic censorship is special because it comes from Islamic law. However, it will also have a lot of similarities with any other censorship, and it will include self-censorship as a part of the subject. Having certain similarities does not mean that Islamic censorship is not a well defined independent subject. Let's simply use the most commonly accepted definition of censorship. My very best wishes (talk) 00:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Same reasons per Roscelese.JRPG (talk) 13:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Roscelese's comment above objected on the basis of "actions of private individuals ... against other private individuals ...." Subsequent to her opposition, I struck through the "individuals" part of the definition, to where it now reads "governments and private organizations." Do you have an objection to the definition now, since it excludes individuals? If so, may I ask what we would need to change, so that we can come up with a workable definition? Perhaps "private organizations acting at the behest or with the approval of government? Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 17:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per amended JRPG (talk) 18:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The sources don't have to specifically use the word for it to count. You are allowed to use common sense here. Dream Focus 16:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amended definition of censorship

[edit]
No consensus. Armbrust The Homonculus 07:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Revised definition per conversation above: "Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body. It can be done by governments and private organizations acting at the behest or with the approval of government.

Comment Much better, I think you have to include "other controlling body", since in many parts of the world, who is the government is a question. Also "private organizations acting at the behest or with the approval of government." is necessary, since the division between government an quasi-goverining entities even when there is a stable political structure can be confusing. I'm a little less positive about including "media outlet" in the definition. If a media outlet decides not to run a story, that is an editorial decision, regardless of the reason. Making editorial decisions (and self-censorship by the media) at the behest of Government, OK as censorship; decision not to run a story because it might offend, not OK as Censorship in Islamic Societies. Still, good progress.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 12:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support So long as it's with approval, tacit or otherwise, of government then its censorship. JRPG (talk) 13:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, but with more general interpretation. "Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient as determined by a person or group of perceived authority" since often times a religious organization can censor, as can a governmentt, and in the case of Islamic Societies - there often is no difference between the two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriot1010 (talk • contribs) 05:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removing more irrelevant material

[edit]

This article is not List of times Muslims assassinated or attacked people, and also every way in which religion forms part of the state apparatus, and also the times when political censorship took place in a Muslim-majority society. Y'all are claiming that there's a topic here, but your editing isn't bearing that out - if "Islamic censorship" is a thing, then why has nearly all the material added to this article not been about that thing? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are many people who are currently engaged in discussion at AfD and on this talk page. Please wait for a day or so and let them respond before removing sourced materials from the article. At this point, I would rather wait and see what other people think before responding here in detail. Thanks, My very best wishes (talk) 16:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's sourced but irrelevant. I could also "source" information about Bob Dylan's Highway 61 Revisited, but that also wouldn't belong in this article. Please get off your high horse; you added the material a day ago, it's not as though there's some consensus state that you're protecting and I'm violating. As the editor adding the material, it is in fact your job to demonstrate that it merits inclusion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. I wish you good luck with improving this article. My very best wishes (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've reverted because it is relevant. Please do not remove sourced material that is subject to a content dispute until: a) you have consensus, and b) the RfC is closed. GregJackP Boomer! 17:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That isn't how it works; you do not edit under the presumption that everything you add is shiny and good unless there's a consensus against it, you need to demonstrate consensus for it. As I said above, it's not as though I came into a stable article and shook everything up; y'all added a lot of random crap in the past two days and are now treating it as a sacred cow. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is exactly how it works. You were Bold and removed sourced material. I disagreed with your action and Reverted you, and per WP:BRD, opened up a Discussion on the talkpage, including a RfC. You do not get to edit under the presumption that everything you remove is dull and bad unless there's a consensus for the removal - it works both ways. Let the process play out, let's see what the consensus is, and we'll go from there. I assure you that I'll go along with the community consensus. It's not something that has to be determined immediately - what's the hurry? It may end up being moot if the AfD closes for deletion. GregJackP Boomer! 22:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually it started when you removed sourced material, here and here. This was reverted here by My very best wishes, who opened a discussion on the talkpage, here. There was some discussion, in which you and NarSakSasLee suggested that academic sources be used. The material was removed again, even though supported by multiple WP:RS, which is where I came in, and reverted your removal of sourced material. This is before any material was added by me.
In addition, I posted the RfC in order to generate discussion. You cannot just arbitrarily remove sourced material while it is under discussion. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 23:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me just tell that I am absolutely not opposed to removal of significant portions of text, complete rewrite or whatever. I only suggest that they worked toward improvement of the article, rather than toward proving that the subject does not exist by removing as much material as possible. My very best wishes (talk) 03:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Removing irrelevant material is an improvement to the article - and it helps you because it makes it less likely that people will !vote to delete because "well, almost nothing in the article is censorship, clearly they're trying to make an article on a topic that doesn't really exist" and they don't want to (and don't want readers to have to) sift through a lot of irrelevant crap for the tiny bits of on-topic material. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, but I'm not going to revert. Since you won't let the RFC or AFD play out, I've requested that an admin revert your last deletion and protect the page until we can come to some form of consensus. GregJackP Boomer! 02:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DF, Roscelese won't pay any attention to your comment. Numerous editors have commented on that to no result. The page had to be protected to stop their vandalism of the article. GregJackP Boomer! 15:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LOL no, that isn't true. Is your position so very weak that you feel you need to lie about people who disagree with you? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coatrack/POVFork and References tags

[edit]

Please identify exactly which references do not meet Wikipedia standards, either by templating the reference or identifying the exact reference on the talk page.

In addition, please identify specific parts of the article that you believe are either Coatrack or a POVfork.

Only by identifying the specific problems can we work on correcting them, or in the event of a disagreement, work at determining what the consensus of the community is.

If the problems are not identified, I will probably remove the tags. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 00:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been identifying the coatrack material for several days now, but unfortunately you keep reverting me. But I'll pretend that you actually are interested in solving the coatrack and RS problems, and answer the questions anyway. Incidents of non-censorship which do not elaborate the ostensible topic of the article - like murders by individuals, threats by radicals, "controversy" about depictions of Mohammed, and the existence of religious police - create a coatrack that's really just about how terrible those Muslims are. Amongst the unreliable sources are the O'Reilly Factor, Asianews.it, and AINA. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided not to bother with this anymore. I'll just prepare another article in userspace. It's not worth trying to improve one here. GregJackP Boomer! 02:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship in Islamic Societies v History of religious censorship. Isn't the current title inherently NPOV?

[edit]

I hope I'm not covering old ground here and I'll admit I'm an atheist, albeit one with an above average understanding of both the new and old testament. If the article included the tragic history of burning of Christian heretics in Europe up to 1612 then it would not appear an attack on a single religion. JRPG (talk) 16:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not an attack on anything and a perfectly legitimate encyclopedic subject because there is a book with exactly same name [2], as well as other books on the same subject that can be found even by Google book search. We also have a page on the more general subject of Censorship by religion, which could be renamed to History of religious censorship. I would not mind. My very best wishes (talk) 16:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have pages on the Medieval Inquisition, Heresy in Christianity, Auto-da-fé, Heresy in Judaism, Index Librorum Prohibitorum, Inquisition, Spanish Inquisition, Heresy in Orthodox Judaism, Salem witch trials, Matthew Hopkins, Witch trials in the Early Modern period and so on and so forth, not to mention the martyrs such as More, Latymer and so forth. We also cover contemporary issues such as [{Fred Phelps]] the Catholic abuse cases (about which we have almost 300 articles).
To take articles in isolation and claim that we either need a corresponding and balancing article about another faith ("Islamic sex abuse cases in Ontario" for example) or addition of material to "balance" the article (so that we, for example, should merge the articles on heresy in different religions to show "balance") is to miss the point. The first approach would result in spurious articles, the second in a spurious and specious balance - Sati is not a significant problem in Islam, Christianity, Judaism or Buddhism, as far as I know.
My main concern with this article title is the breadth of the topic, and it should ideally become an overview article, since we are talking about dozens of societies over more than a millennium. Rich Farmbrough, 02:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Your point about such an article ideally being an overview is very sound. One of the huge problems I've been facing in my editing of this article is users' tendency to throw every individual incident they can at it to see what will stick (most of it doesn't stick because it's not censorship, but that aside), resulting in a scattershot list that doesn't give any idea of the topic. If this were treated as a parent article for the articles on censorship in the various countries in question, focusing on the more religious bits but ultimately using summary style and keeping the details in the country articles, that right there would be a better start. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do we edit with full protection?

[edit]

Personally, I think full protection while an AfD is going on is ridiculous. We should be allowed to edit the article to improve it. But, whatever, here's some sources we should use.

Islam, Censorship and `The Satanic Verses' - Los Angeles Times
Censorship and Persecution in the Name of Islam - Middle East Media Research Institute
As fundamentalist Islam expands, some artists embrace censorship as a shield from society - Los Angeles Times
Coping With Islam: Censorship in Dutch Academia - Canada Free Press
A night not at the opera; Germany and Islam (A row in Germany about censorship) - The Economist
In Egypt, artists bemoan censorship but see society as the real censors - Associated Press

This is just a sample of possible sources, but it's a starting point. SilverserenC 04:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I was initially positive about this list, but then I took a closer look and three of the sources are obviously ridiculous, two are duplicates, and one is about the Satanic Verses thing which we already have three articles on. The Economist one is on "self-censorship" in a particularly tangential way. The other LA Times or AP article is good in that it discusses an issue rather than an incident (which has been the problem even with the few relevant additions to the article), so it could possibly be useful if the topic is demonstrated through reliable sources which discuss it, but because of the stated fact that a lot of this isn't about religion but politics, I'm not sure that it can itself be used to demonstrate the topic. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but everytime we would try and improve the article, including using the academic sources demanded, one editor would always revert it as "not relevant" or "coatrack" even while we were trying to discuss it. If the page wasn't protected, she would have continued until there was no content, and then asked for speedy deletion on those grounds. GregJackP Boomer! 05:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alternately, every time you try to drag the article down even while we were trying to discuss it, "one editor" would always revert it back to a more stable state. If the page wasn't protected, you would have continued until the page included that time your local Muslim organization ran a newspaper ad (because if they ran an ad, someone else must have been prevented from running one! censorship!) and every individual Palestinian terror attack (because those Israelis might have produced things were they not killed). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, i've dealt with that sort of thing before. I guess I should just post these example sources in the AfD, so people there can see them. SilverserenC 07:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ways forward to expand

[edit]

The lead is a bit of mess. It really needs to summarize the rest of the article.

Also, there should be something about Background of Islamic Thought on Censorship or something like that with discussions on what exactly (in terms of hadith, et cetera) is cited in support of censorship. Comparisons with Catholic church censorship and other cultures would be fantastic.

In terms of nations, everything could be expanded. There's nothing right now on Morocco, Yemen, Bosnia, and many other majority Islamic countries.

Also, the details about Islamic pressure in Western nations should be opened up as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.47.0.74 (talk) 09:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship In Non-Islamic Countries

[edit]

This whole section is a bit problematic but I've removed the previously closing section as being particularly unencyclopedic.

  • The murders of Dutch politician and LGBT activist Pim Fortuyn in 2002 and Dutch documentary filmmaker Theo Van Gogh have also been cited as acts of Islamic censorship by individuals such as author and columnist Doug Bandow.[1]

That something has been cited isn't encyclopedic. Either the information should be stated outright as a fact with the citation being a citation or it simply shouldn't be mentioned. A murder in a country which is not governed in any way by any Islamic organizations does not appear to me to be even remotely close to the slowly developing consensus of what censorship is on this talk page and thus I believe that it and anything like it warrants removal.--Talain (talk) 17:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I hope that the users who have been strenuously working to brand anything bad individual Muslims do as "Islamic censorship" will, this time, let the removal stand. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that I agree with Talain in terms of the 'definition of censorship'. The article refers to the murders as Islamic censorship right there explicitly. Thus, the sentence referencing Misters Gogh and Pim was included. Although it is a blog post being cited, that post is from a 'news blog' from a well-known news magazine and commentary organization.
The intellectual distinction that he (I assume you're a 'he') is drawing, however, is an important one. What occurs in Iran where books are banned by constitutionally-organized government crony organizations that scrutinize minor details in the name of Islamic purity... is rather different from what happened to the Dutch-- which was the work of isolated madmen, people who were not acting as any kind of organized government representative of anything. Perhaps one can compare it to Apartheid South Africa's racial policy to, say, anti-black hate crimes that have made news in the U.S. recently (done by lone wolf madman, prosecuted by the state).
As long as no more sources are brought up explicitly linking the Dutch murders to 'Islamic censorship', then I suppose Talain has made the right move. I don't particularly have a strong opinion. More discussion is needed.
Roscelese, I'd like you to be specific about what exactly in this article right now is a problem. The majority of the article is largely well-cited, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.120.2.78 (talk) 23:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://spectator.org/blog/2010/02/09/islamic-censorship-in-europe

Iraq and censorship

[edit]

Previously, the section read:

  • Under the regime of Saddam Hussein, censorship for both socio-political and religious justifications was widespread. In particular, the Iraqi Law on the Censorship of Foreign Films of 1973 banned the showing of anything with "the propagation of reactionary, chauvinistic, populistic, racialist or regionist ideas, of favouring the spirit of defeatism, serving imperialism and Zionism", prohibiting as well anything "defaming the Arab nation and its goals". Hussein's government effectively had the ability to ban any film for any reason whatsoever at any notice. (Cinemas of the World: Film and Society from 1895 to the Present)

That is, indeed, flatly factually wrong. Saddam personally was not responsible for those actions (being enacted before he had that sort of administrative control in Iraqi history).

With some back and forth, it now says:

  • Censorship for both socio-political and religious justifications, intertwined, was widespread in Iraq's government in the 20th century. In particular, the The Iraqi Law on the Censorship of Foreign Films of 1973 banned the showing of anything with "the propagation of reactionary, chauvinistic, populistic, racialist or regionist ideas, of favouring the spirit of defeatism, serving imperialism and Zionism", prohibiting as well anything "defaming the Arab nation and its goals". Iraq's government effectively had the ability to ban any film for any reason whatsoever at any notice. (Cinemas of the World: Film and Society from 1895 to the Present)

And that is completely correct, as per the source. Admittedly, more information is needed about what censorship existed before the 20th century, what censorship exists there today, and... many more things could be added. At least, this is a start.

That is a change from the disputed:

  • Censorship for political reasons also exists. The Iraqi Law on the Censorship of Foreign Films of 1973 banned the showing of anything with "the propagation of reactionary, chauvinistic, populistic, racialist or regionist ideas, of favouring the spirit of defeatism, serving imperialism and Zionism", prohibiting as well anything "defaming the Arab nation and its goals". Iraq's secularist government effectively had the ability to ban any film for any reason whatsoever at any notice. (Cinemas of the World: Film and Society from 1895 to the Present)

The above text is perhaps technically correct but also misleading (because of what is left out). The source explicitly states that both religious and socio-political concerns played a role in Iraqi censorship. The description of the government as "secularist" is true, but the text should make clear from the context that a secularist government can impose religious censorship. That is exactly what also occurred under (as already cited in this article here elsewhere) Mubarak's Egypt as part of bargaining deals with political opponents.

Thoughts? (P.S. Did not mean for "Please actually read the source cited" to sound like a personal attack, in retrospect it might and that was not the intent.) 72.47.0.74 (talk) 08:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The actual quote is "Islamic law is frequently cited as a justification for censorship, though in practice it is a combination of religious and political factors which motivate the regulation of cinema. The far-reaching nature of censorship is exemplified by the Iraqi Law on the Censorship of Foreign Films of 1973..." and so on. There is nothing here that suggests that the law also exemplifies religious censorship in addition to exemplifying carte blanche for the secularist Ba'ath regime; the preceding paragraph, indeed, is extremely clear about the fact that the examples it's presenting are generally political, and in the Schindler's List example it even specifies that what was here an ostensibly religious reason for censorship was really a political one. Basically, I think you're reading the source as saying "here are examples of religious censorship mixed with politics," but what it is actually saying is "here are examples of political censorship with an occasional religious surface justification." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Censorship in Islamic societies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Censorship in Islamic societies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Censorship in Islamic societies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Almohad Censorship on forced conversions

[edit]

The disenfranchised inland Berbers revolutionaries replaced the orthodox Almoravids and enforced an even stricter form of Islam, especially in Andalusia. Almohad medieval state-media promoted forced conversions of the double-tax Dhimmis. Opposition including the newly forcefully converted Jewish Tax-collector that warned of the economic consequences of forced conversions, Almohad believed in their ability to keep creating wealth by eternal Jihad using the seemingly unlimited supply of converts to impose the smaller Islamic tax on a bigger population, opposed to the double-tax on the Dhimmi subjects. Dawn prayer daily headcounts were enforced, muslims and converts who didn't appear in dawn prayer rosters were persecuted on a regular basis. Almohad strict censorship played a major role on the reactionary inquisition that enforced a similar reverse censorship campaign. Almohad1184 (talk) 00:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian Constitution reference

[edit]

Dear Wikipedians: As I rarely edit, am posting this as a suggestion for you to consider.

In this section: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Censorship_in_Islamic_societies#Egypt

The government has used article 44 of the new Egyptian Constitution as justification for their measures, which states "insult or abuse of all religious messengers and prophets shall be prohibited".[25]

However that reference is to an obsolete Egyptian Constitution from before 2014.

In an unofficial English translation of the 2014 Egyptian Constitution I did not find that language: https://www.sis.gov.eg/Newvr/Dustor-en001.pdf .

Recommend removing or rewriting that sentence and the use of the associated footnote.

Sincerely,

Martin L. Buchanan writer and software developer Laramie, WY, USA — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinLBuchanan (talk • contribs) 21:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Censorship_in_Islamic_societies&oldid=1261353770"