Talk:Redaction

On 15 May 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved. The result of the discussion was moved to Document redaction.

De-sanitization

Are documents ever "de-sanitized"? I've seen U.S. FOIA documents dated in the 1950s that still contain significant redactions. When it gets to be 60 years past and we're not dealing with sensitive technology like nuclear weapons or personal intelligence sources, this really becomes inexplicable, and in some cases makes it difficult to construct the real historical record of many decades ago. -Rolypolyman (talk) 02:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i know several years late to the party. the answer to the above depends on the level of information and its initial classification. most "sensitive" documents only have a protection period of up to 10 years. however several highly sensitive documents and ones that have an active risk to security & civillian safety (such as plans on the black bird plan) or super sensitive/embaressing info about personal still living (such as the clinton coverup and technically area 51 being redacted) can be blocked for many, many years. there are even several shadow ops reports in Aus/UK of information deemed to dangerous for public knowledge and flagged never to be redacted. 152.91.9.153 (talk) 05:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sanitization (classified information). 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.cnet.com/AT38T-leaks-sensitive-info-in-NSA-suit/2100-1028_3-6077353.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090106031302/http://www.cryptosmith.com/docs/BH%20MLS%2006a.pdf to https://www.cryptosmith.com/docs/BH%20MLS%2006a.pdf

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) 09:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sanitization In Popular Culture

Should we add an “In popular culture” section? A popular fiction-writing website called SCP Foundation censors information by using black boxes, much like the black boxes shown in the pictures on this article. They also replace info with ”[REDACTED]” or “[DATA EXPUNGED]” sometimes as well. Also, the website is about a fictional organization with the same name and that organization keeps a lot of their information classified in-universe. 100.36.44.138 (talk) 12:59, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 May 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to Document redaction. WP:BARTENDER. A ptopic takeover can be discussed separately. (closed by non-admin page mover) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 18:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sanitization (classified information) → ? – The article and concept are not specific to classified information, and is probably named with "(classified information)" by historical accident. Possible new names:

Sanitization (sensitive information) - close to current title
Sanitization of sensitive information - avoid parenthetical qualifier
Information sanitization, Document sanitization - possible more concise titles
Any of these, but with "redaction" rather than "sanitization". My impression is that "redaction" is more common in general usage, but I'm not sure.

Make sure it's distinguishable from Data sanitization article, which describes a different concept (although the techniques might be used together). 73.223.72.200 (talk) 20:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)— Relisting. >>> Extorc.talk 08:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)— Relisting. >>> Extorc.talk 15:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What about Document redaction—blindlynx 16:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or, maybe just Sanitization (classified information) → Redaction; and Redaction → Redaction (literary technique) or something similar. Wracking ^💬 00:14, 29 May 2023 (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.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Redact which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]