Talk:List of books banned by governments

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

10,000 Dresses[edit]

Is 10,000 Dresses banned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where specifically do you mean? Cooljeanius (talk) (contribs) 02:34, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Book banning[edit]

In the U.S., books can be challenged by individuals and sometimes, if the demand is great enough they will be removed from school and libraries. However, this is not government book banning such as occurs in other countries. Anyone can still buy the book. Parents who send children to school do have the right to request changes to curriculum, as do people who pay taxes for libraries that in their community can have voice their opinion about which are purchased. Owners of bookstores (online or physical) should be able to determine what books they carry. Those who say they do not have the right to do this are limiting the rights of other people. If a book is actually banned in the U.S. they would not be available. But actually they're quite easy to purchase. However, nobody should be forced to buy them. 2600:8803:F506:7A00:DC71:8FB9:5898:A617 (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So, while ignoring the normative portions, since this isn't the place for those sorts of debates, I'd just like to point out that there is a separate list called "List of most commonly challenged books in the United States" that seems to be more what you are talking about. Cooljeanius (talk) (contribs) 04:13, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You have it backwards. This list should be officially banned books. Mostly empty. The other link you provided can be for the performative politicians like yourself. (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that's what I said. The separate list, List of most commonly challenged books in the United States, is the one for what most political book banning debates are about, while this list, List of books banned by governments, is for officially banned books. We seem to be in violent agreement. Cooljeanius (talk) (contribs) 23:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What a joke[edit]

I can go on Amazon and buy every one of these books. Nothing here is banned in the US. I assume the whole list is more of a political statement by the individual authors. If you're going to put historical bannings be sure to include that they didn't let me read batman comics in school twenty years ago. Better document that. (talk) 14:58, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shockingly, the US isn't the only nation in the world.
None of these books are currently “Banned” in democratic countries and are available from Amazon, Barnes and Noble, etc. to anyone who wants to buy them. WP is sometimes laughable. 2600:1700:1111:5940:B9C1:7C8F:22C5:6745 (talk) 20:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you'd actually read the article, you'd realize this list includes historical banning, and yes, some of them were banned by the governments of Democracies. Bkatcher (talk) 00:18, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did read the article. The short description says “This article is about books banned by governments.” No modern, democratic government bans books, none. Some schools and libraries, locally restrict/ban books in various countries, but that subject already has 100 articles. This article is misleading. It makes no commentary about this being a historical listing and it makes no commentary about modern views. It also says nothing about theocratic and autocratic governments that still ban books in the 21 century. It is basically useless to any uninformed reader. An encyclopedia can do better. 2600:1700:1111:5940:B9C1:7C8F:22C5:6745 (talk) 03:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It literally has the year the books were banned. No one who even skims this article will think this is a current list. Bkatcher (talk) 03:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And none of those books are still banned by modern democracies, yet that failed to be mentioned. One sentence would do wonders or a split between historical and current bans. How could anyone not think that this is context that matters? It should certainly matter to an “encyclopedia”. 2600:1700:1111:5940:B9C1:7C8F:22C5:6745 (talk) 06:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Cooljeanius has has adjusted the wording in the lead paragraph to make it clearer that the list encompasses historical bannings. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 15:55, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Much improved clarity, thanks all. 2600:1700:1111:5940:40FA:80F5:FDC4:F932 (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ridiculous Catcher in the Rye Sequel[edit]

This book is not banned in any form of censorship by a government, it is a copyright infringement lawsuit. It is misleading to include it and it would lead to all kinds of fandom derivative works needing to be added, misleadingly, to this list when it is clearly about government censorship. Here is a recent example, is this book banned by the government? No sane person would say that a government is censoring a Lord of the Ring sequel. @Ymblanter please self revert, Wikipedia doesn’t need to be hard and I am not sure what value you are adding with just a review of the edits. 2600:1700:1111:5940:8486:A76E:6775:9A26 (talk) 04:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please wait until this discussion has been completed or died out. I myself do not have an opinion on the matter, but if you keep reverting we will just protect the article and you lose physical ability to edit it. Please read WP:BRD. Ymblanter (talk) 08:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you don’t have a position why are you reverting me? You realize the other party goes months without editing? This kind of garbage is why Wikipedia is losing donors and influence. My comments are straight forward, reasonable and obviously not vandalism. 2600:1700:1111:5940:8486:A76E:6775:9A26 (talk) 18:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As predicted, 4 weeks after my original edit and there is no response to the talk page discussion. 2600:1700:1111:5940:F4BE:EB60:3563:4A52 (talk) 03:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not sure why you expect an answer. So far, you only provided a personal opinion. Ymblanter (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IP might be removing it for the wrong reasons, but it's been tagged as unsourced since 2022 so I removed it. DonQuixote (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! (and I did have unsourced as the first word in my edit summary) 2600:1700:1111:5940:F4BE:EB60:3563:4A52 (talk) 22:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]