Talk:Censorship
|
|
I think that the article “censor” should redirect to this censorship article. When most people use the word “censor,” they're using it as a verb, to describe the act of censorship. Such links should go directly to this article. The article about censors in ancient Rome should be renamed “Censor_Ancient_Rome” or whatever, with links provided for the small minority of people who are actually looking for that discussion when they type in or link to “censor.” -Blackcats 7 Feb, 2005, 04:30 GMT
- /Archive 1 - May 10 2004 and earlier
That's why you don't look up verbs.
| Contents |
Quotation
I don't understand the quotation and it doesn't seem relevant to the article (although it is an interesting logical fallacy). I'm removing it. Ambush Commander 04:39, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
Next
Question, is the edit policy of wikipedia a form of cenorship?
History needed
This article currently covers censorship as it exists at the moment, but is lacking in any sense of history -- and this is a subject with a large history, in which current positions and actions are much influenced by that history. (Some UK content is also needed.) DES 07:51, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Censorship on wikipedia?
An admin is abusing her position to block content at feces. Check it out at talk:feces.