Talk:Book banning in the United States (2021–present)

Iowa bill

[1] [2]

Probably don't need to include here until there are more sources talking directly about its impact on books. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 11:06, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that in late 2021, a spokesperson for the ALA told ABC News that she had "never seen such a widespread effort to remove books on racial and gender diversity"? Source: https://abcnews.go.com/US/authors-color-speak-efforts-ban-books-race/story?id=81491208
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Crazy (Willie Nelson song)

Created by Rhododendrites (talk). Self-nominated at 03:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC).

• Open to other hooks. The subject doesn't lend itself to short-and-snappy, I don't think. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• I am reviewing Bruxton (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
• Interesting subject. The article is new enough and long enough. It has a few long quotes which are properly attributed - but they trip the copyvio trigger. The article is neutral and has correct inline citations. The QPQ is completed. My concern is that the article may be WP:SYNTH and WP:OR because I do not find any source which discusses a "2020–22 book banning in the United States". From our article: "The involvement of national advocacy groups also sets the 2020–22 trend apart from book challenges of the past" (The inline citation does not put the years 2020–22 together) Source. I will let a more experienced editor review the article. I did enjoy the article. Bruxton (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review. I'm surprised to see the OR concern. The article is based first and foremost on coverage of the phenomenon as a whole rather than specific examples. It's one of those subjects that doesn't have a clear name, so the title is more descriptive, but there's no shortage of sources talking about this trend in US (and other) media. I can gather a bunch of links here when I get home later, but there are a bunch in the article and it's easily googlable. Maybe I don't understand the issue. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:53, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• A subset of the sources which deal with this specific book banning trend: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] ... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: From my reading of the RS, no historian or researcher put the years 2020-2022 together as a book banning era. The article takes facts from 2020, 2021 and 2022: to put the article together we either did original research or we synthesized the facts into a historical era. It may very well be a new era in U.S. book banning, but I do not know if we can be the first to write about it. I am going to allow another editor to review, but I left this here to clarify my reasoning. Bruxton (talk) 02:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Bruxton: if we can be the first to write about it - ? Did you look at the links above? Coverage of it is everywhere. Like I said, it's not a subject that has a clear name, so the title needs to be descriptive. Is your primary point about the year span in the title? If that's the issue, I don't necessarily disagree. There are a lot of sources identifying a trend in book banning taking place, identifying specific themes and characteristics of that effort, etc., and most of it is from mid-2021 through early 2022. I was initially was going to title the article as such, but there are enough sources talking about how it began as a reaction to social movements in 2020, so I erred on that side. There's certainly a valid discussion on what it should be called, but it sounds like you're saying the article itself or its subject is OR/SYNTH, not just the title, and that's what I just don't see. All that said, I'll respect that you'd rather someone else complete the review, so no response necessary. It's just, you know, a concerning claim that has implications beyond DYK, of course. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Bruxton, I think this is a WP:NDESC situation. It's permissible to have an article title that accurately describes the content, even if reliable sources don't use that particular phrasing. RS are noting a trend but not naming it. Readers will understand the scope of the descriptive title, and see that the bannings defined by the scope are discussed as a group by RS. Firefangledfeathers 03:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers and Rhododendrites: Thank you for the guideline link Firefangledfeathers. Bruxton (talk) 14:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

To T:DYK/P1

Title

This is one of those topics that doesn't have a clear common name, even while it's about a clearly notable trend which has some distinct characteristics that separate it from similar kinds of trends in the past. The current title, "2020-22 book banning in the United States" is an effort to satisfy WP:CRITERIA to the best I could, but it's worth discussing. Most of the sources focus on 2021 or 2022, but others also frame it as part of the reaction to the 2020–2022 United States racial unrest, which is why I put it at 2020-22 rather than 2021-22. Maybe that was a mistake, I don't know -- that's a big reason I'm opening this thread in the hope of getting some additional thoughts. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

To my understanding, the book banning seemed to really pick up in 2021, it's just that the 2020+ racial unrest is really an ongoing thing. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 00:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Why 2020?

I question the premise of this article. The American Library Association, which is cited as a source for this article, reported that there were "156 challenges to library, school, and university materials and services in 2020. ... 273 books that were targeted ...." But for the previous year, they found "377 challenges to library, school, and university materials and services in 2019. ... 566 books that were targeted ...." The 156 challenges received in 2020 were actually the fewest that they reported in the preceding 20 years. I would also note that this article seems to ignore any challenges to materials based on negative portrayal of people of color, such as seen here, or the inclusion in the ALA's 2020 top 10 of To Kill a Mockingbird ("Banned and challenged for racial slurs and their negative effect on students, featuring a “white savior” character, and its perception of the Black experience"). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Metropolitan90: As I wrote above, I was unsure how best to mark the date based on WP:NDESC, but based on the feedback I've gotten, it probably should be 2021-22. There are undoubtedly a lot of sources noting a specific trend, but you raise a good point about e.g. Dr. Seuss, which wasn't an intentional omission. In fact, many of the sources I cited mentioned it. I'll take a closer look and give it a shot later tonight or tomorrow. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

 moved. As for Dr. Seuss, here's the thing: several of the sources cited (and more) do mention it, but primarily in the context of highlighting [what the sources claim to be] a hypocrisy of the people who objected to Dr. Seuss "getting canceled" now arguing to ban a bunch of books. Part of the reason it's not included as part of the noted trend is that they weren't really banned -- they just went out of print following criticism. That's a pretty big distinction. There's also a distinction in that people's objection to the Dr. Seuss books were racist caricatures -- not some critical commentary intended to teach students about some aspect of history or culture. To Kill a Mockingbird likewise comes up from time to time in these sources, but I haven't seen it be one of the big stories. There are several specific books which have been challenged multiple times and which received some amount of coverage for being challenged, TKaM included, but I also didn't list most of the others with a couple exceptions. That is to say, I certainly don't object to adding TKaM somewhere if it fits, but the vast majority of challenged titles, even those in the top 10, aren't named specifically.

As elsewhere, I began with a couple dozen sources writing about the book banning trend generally and let those articles guide the shape of the article. I think it does a pretty good job of reflecting that big picture, even if it misses some of the details (which can be added where WP:DUE). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• Note that the link I provided about Dr. Seuss was that the Chicago Public Library had removed six of his books from their system. (This followed on the publisher removing the books from print, but it was a separate decision by the library; the library still had copies of the books and chose to take them out of circulation.) Considering that what some of this article is talking about is objections to books being in libraries and identifying that as book banning, I would think that a library banning six books from its own system would count too. The larger point I'm trying to make is that not all of the calls to remove books come from the same segment of the ideological spectrum, as this article seems to imply. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:39, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Some problems with this recently created article

The current title of this article is very misleading!

• There hasn't been an increase in books banned in the United States in general. The content of the article does not claim that there has been an overall increase in the number of books banned in the US, between 2021 and 2022 or at any other time.
• Likewise, the article does not focus on banned books, i.e. books that are no longer allowed to be published or sold or made available in public libraries in the United States.

Please consider the definition for book banning. I believe that this article is about books removed from middle school and high school libraries and curricula in the United States. Possible alternative titles might be '2021-2022 school book bans in the United States' or Public school book bans in the United States 2021-22'.

The content of the article is contradictory in many places. The sources cited often attribute parents as the source of outcry for banning/removing books in schools that their children attend. (There are egregious abuses that the sources mention, of some of these parents filing hundreds of requests for a particular book to be removed, or for every book on topics such as sex education or racism be removed.) In parts of the article, this is described in a way that IS consistent with the sources. In other parts of the article, "conservative" or "GOP" special interest groups are described as the organizers of these book removals. These contradictions are present in the same paragraph even! There are sources provided that corroborate the allegation that external groups are organizing parents to object to the books. The article needs to be cleaned up to present both groups as drivers of book removals. (Remember please that in the United States, public schools are governed at a local level by school boards. Parents and citizens have the right to voice their objections to the content of school curriculum and public school library books.)

My last observation is that the article doesn't articulate what is meant by "book banning" anywhere.

• Are the publishers of the books being stopped from publishing and selling them? If so, by whom? Neither parents nor Republicans nor the Daily Caller can do that, even if they wanted to.
• Were the books removed from public libraries or public school libraries?
• Were the books part of the curriculum in public schools, taught by teachers and approved by the local or state education authorities? I think that might have been what was attempted, but it needs to be stated much more clearly.

Instead, the article focuses on three particular books, with extensive quotes from the authors of those three books. Two of the books are graphic novels, not print books per se. The article describes the third book as being a source of contention because of the copious obscene language, so it isn't clear why there is anything notable about parents and community members objecting to it being used to instruct children.

As Bruxton commented above, the article has a strong aspect of WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. The premises in the article can be supported by the sources that are referenced, but that isn't done as it is written now.--FeralOink (talk) 06:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@FeralOink: Thanks for outlining.

There hasn't been an increase in books banned in the United States in general - As far as I know, there isn't good data about absolute numbers of books being banned. The best we have are organizations like the ALA, which wrote in January that "The last year, especially the last few months, has seen a dramatic increase in book challenges nationwide". So in that case, yes, "challenges" rather than "bans" (some number of those challenges do not successfully become bans).

Likewise, the article does not focus on banned books, i.e. books that are no longer allowed to be published or sold or made available in public libraries in the United States. - ?? Where did you get that definition? Even our article on book censorship lays it out pretty clearly right in the lead, attributed to Marshall University Library: a banned book as one that is "removed from a library, classroom etc." and a challenged book as one that is "requested to be removed from a library, classroom etc.". It's not specifically about publishing, selling, or public libraries. I mean, yes, when an oppressive national government intervenes in the publication of books, that's also banning books, but that's an extreme form.

2021-2022 school book bans in the United States - it is primarily about schools, but not entirely, although you would be right to point out there's almost no mention of public libraries. The reason is the way the sources tend to frame it -- as a trend in book banning. Several of the sources mention public libraries, but with almost no detail. Like the Strauss piece in WaPo: Now we are seeing a new wave of book bans, marked by an unprecedented number of challenges and intense polarization. Its focus: narrowing the universe of information in schools and public libraries that... (she doesn't really go into detail about the public library aspect of that). There are several like that. There are also a handful about public libraries (for example), but I didn't include them because I tried to follow what got national coverage, reaching to local sources to supplement rather than trying to list everything.

In other parts of the article, "conservative" or "GOP" special interest groups are described as the organizers of these book removals. - It's not a contradiction, but it may be unclearly written. It's an old playbook, but one which hasn't been exercised in this way in a while: organizations mobilize local parents and parents' groups and supply them with resources, strategies, templates, activities, etc. In the end it's the parents making the challenges, and the national groups push the parents, publish lists of books for parents to challenge, urge parents to go to meetings, provide them with effective arguments, etc.

Parents and citizens have the right to voice their objections to the content of school curriculum and public school library books. - Yes, and it's hard to say which challenges are a parent which sees a book, reads it, and decides it's inappropriate, and which challenges are based on the wider activist efforts. None of this is illegal -- it's just a very well documented form of activism via "parents' rights".

My last observation is that the article doesn't articulate what is meant by "book banning" anywhere. - responded to this above, but it's a good point that the article should be clearer. Not all of the answers to the questions you've asked are available, but I can try to better explain this and clean up terminology where possible.

focuses on three particular books - ? You mean the three "notable cases"? Again, I tried to follow what got national coverage, and only wanted to list anything that was covered by multiple sources. Those three seemed like sensible subsections, but there are almost certainly others which could be added. Reading what you wrote again, based on "extensive quotes" and "graphic novel", I presume you mean Maus and New Kid, but don't know the third. While Maus merited its own subsection as a notable case due to the amount of coverage that one got, the article doesn't "focus on three particular books". There are quotes from a few authors whose books were banned, yes. Are you saying they're excessive?

I'm about to start work, but I hope to have time to go through and address what I can address this evening. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The article on book bans itself disagrees with both your definition, the definition used in this article, the definition used recently in some newspapers and the definition used by the ALA: "Banned books are books or other printed works such as essays or plays which are prohibited by law or to which free access is not permitted by other means." Free access to all books discussed in this article is permitted through any book retailer, Amazon, and countless libraries. Unfortunately, since the only content allowed to be included in Wikipedia is that which comes from a source which has previously been voted on by a number of editors as being reliable, if those sources are wrong, then necessarily the content on that topic's Wikipedia article will be wrong as well. It is important to remind oneself of this fact and to view Wikipedia not as a collection of accurate information, but simply a mirror of what certain, selected sources have stated in the past. - 2A02:810A:12C0:598:D11A:2F48:4D53:D9FD (talk) 14:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Not a B class article

This article does not satisfy the criteria for B class for any of the Wikprojects that supposedly assess it as such.--FeralOink (talk) 07:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 1 April 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: no consensus. No !votes or further consensus after relisting. (closed by non-admin page mover) MaterialWorks (contribs) 01:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

---

2021–2022 book banning in the United States → 2021–2023 book challenges in the United States – Book censorships attempts are still ongoing. In addition, this page focuses on many unsuccessful attempts to ban or restrict titles, not always successful ones. aaronneallucas (talk) 23:22, 1 April 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 23:47, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

• Move to 2021–2023 book banning efforts in the United States, as the most descriptive and accurate title. "Book challenges" could refer to things like National Novel Writing Month, or read-a-book challenges. BD2412 T 19:39, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

  @BD2412 What about Book banning efforts in the United States (2021–present) as the title? It declutters the title a little bit and is more true to the article which largely deals with unsuccessful attempts to ban books? aaronneallucas (talk) 03:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  I would be fine with that as well. BD2412 T 03:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - There is absolutely nothing in the article having to do with 2023. There were a flurry of sources which dealt with a trend in "book banning" (mostly referring to efforts to ban books, including successful and unsuccessful attempts) in early 2022. With the report that it increased in 2022, it makes sense to see it as part of the same subject, it doesn't seem sensible to just assume anything which might be added to the article this year will be part of the same trend. We need sources to make that connection first. @BD2412 and Aplucas0703: What is it in the article that suggests 2023 should be included? Have you seen sources which are clear that it's part of the same trend? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:57, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
  • @Rhododendrites::
    • Smith, Tovia (March 23, 2023). "Plot twist: Activists skirt book bans with guerrilla giveaways and pop-up libraries". Morning Edition. PEN America says book bans in public school libraries this year are on pace to top last year's high mark, when there were more than 2,500 instances of book bans in U.S. schools
    • Povich, Elaine S. (April 3, 2023). "As book bans gain favor, Virginia superintendent proposes getting rid of school libraries". Stateline.org.
    • Stanton, Andrew (April 4, 2023). "Ron DeSantis' Book Ban Comes Back to Bite Him". Newsweek.
  • BD2412 T 20:53, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

The third is about something that happened in 2022. The second is a local source about one meeting this year, but the context it provides talks about a trend in 2021-2022. The first is more about reactions to banned books generally, but does offer the most relevant claim: "The free speech group PEN America says book bans in public school libraries this year are on pace to top last year's high mark". But that's all we have so far, and none of it is actually in the article. Even if that claim in particular were added to the article, it's an indication that the trend may be continuing, but we have a lot of sources that specifically talk about 2021-22. Still opposed to moving an article to a title that describes neither the content of the article nor what the sources have described as part of a single trend. We'll quite likely get there, but it's just too soon. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:04, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I see nothing suggesting that books banned in 2021-22 have been restored since. A book ban that remains in place is a current event. BD2412 T 03:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

That's an odd argument. Yes, something banned in 2022 might still be banned, but they were banned in 2022. Many of the efforts to ban books didn't even succeed, but were still nonetheless part of the subject. By the logic you're suggesting, this subject will last forever, regardless of whether any sources talk about it, as long as some school district that banned a book in 2022 has declined to unban it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

New this morning:

• Rose, Andy (April 12, 2023). "A Texas County that was ordered to return banned books to its shelves is set to consider shutting down its library system". CNN.

Also, within the past few days

• Tager, James (April 10, 2023). "Missouri's new effort to punish libraries is vindictive and harmful". Missouri Independent.

I have added these to the article. It is difficult to define book banning efforts as being confined to a particular period when those efforts are not only continuing, but being escalated within the time frame of this discussion. BD2412 T 12:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• Relisting comment: Nothing really agreed for now, relisting for more consensus. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 23:47, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

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.

First words in the article

"Between 2021 and 2022" are the first words in the article. I think that's a non-intuitive use of the word "between". If something is between the chair and the wall, it's in a space that exists between the chair and the wall. There's nothing like that between 2021 and 2022. I'd prefer "Starting in 2021". That would also solve the problem caused by the current phrase "Between 2021 and 2022" which suggests that the activity stopped at the end of 2022. Novellasyes (talk) 15:07, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I will WP:BOLDLY make the change. BappleBusiness^[talk] 03:42, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Back to the title of the article and 2023

It looks like a prior discussion about changing the title of this article so that instead of saying "2022" it says "2023" was closed, no consensus having been reached. I'd like to see a reconsideration of that. I gather that the issue then was "where are the news links proving that continued book banning activity is occurring in 2023". This has been addressed to some extent. However, to me the main reason to change it to "2023" is that any random reader of this article would automatically assume from the current title "2021-2022 book banning in the United States" that this activity ended in 2022, and that the article is about a past event -- an event or a set of activities that is now over. The title as it exists strongly implies that. It shouldn't strongly imply that or leave that impression in the mind of the reader. Novellasyes (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 4 July 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. WP:SNOWBALL*. There is a clear consensus that this topic extends into 2023. A further proposal can be made for 2021–present or similar. (*If anyone, involved or not, tells me within a week that they object to this closure, then I will reopen.) (non-admin closure) {{replyto|SilverLocust}} (talk) 10:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

---

2021–2022 book banning in the United States → 2021–2023 book banning in the United States – There is ample evidence that the wave of book banning has continued into 2023. In fact, it is occurring even more so than in 2022, according to sources already cited in the article. As @Novellasyes has noted, leaving the title as it is now implies that this wave of book bans is not still occurring, which is just factually incorrect. BappleBusiness^[talk] 01:38, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support. I agree. It's getting worse. 03:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkatcher (talk • contribs)
• Support. High-quality sources like The New York Times are saying things like "Two years into a surge of book bans across the United States", and running an article like "Book Bans Rising Rapidly in the U.S., Free Speech Groups Find" as of April 2023. The Guardian has "Book bans in US public schools increase by 28% in six months, Pen report finds" from that same month. These came shortly after the last RM closed, and the article has been expanded to include info on 2023 bans, legislation, and executive branch action, though overall summary of the trend so far this year hasn't yet been added. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support It is not over yet. Dimadick (talk) 06:34, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support with a proviso. Is there some way to name this article that doesn't require an annual reconsideration of changing the title? (Which would be required if the wave extends into 2024.) There might be an elegant way to do that but I don't know what that is. In the absence of such an idea, I support changing the "2022" to "2023". Novellasyes (talk) 12:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Does "Book banning in the United States, 2021 - " work? or "Wave of book banning in the United States, 2021 - ". Novellasyes (talk) 14:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support - Yeah, looking at the sourcing it does seem like there's a good reason to move this now. I was the most vocal opposing the move a few months ago, when the sourcing wasn't quite there, so I suspect this could just be snow closed. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

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.

Image used in the article

While I understand and am sympathetic to the comparison, I think that having an image directly comparing these book bans/burnings and the Nazi book burnings seems a bit like original research. (I have no objection to the recent book burning to be used as an illustration, it's the side-by-side comparison I think is OR). GnocchiFan (talk) 12:40, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

p.s. I am aware that the image went viral on social media for its likeness to Nazi book burnings, but we really need a reliable, third-party source in order to use this image in the article. GnocchiFan (talk) 14:57, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done I recently removed it because it goes against Wikipedia's Manual of Style guidelines for images (MOS:SHOCK). RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 06:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this rationale too; the image is shocking and not representative, as most of these bans – insidious though they might be – do not involve large-scale book burnings. If we do include this, we need to have reliable third-party sources about this specific event – especially as the image has a fair use rationale. GnocchiFan (talk) 01:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I totally agree that the side-by-side comparison, which has existed for less than a week, is original research and should be removed. But I disagree with @RadioactiveBoulevardier, the image itself is not a violation of MOS:SHOCK because fire isn't shocking, it's just not. There are also plenty of reliable third-party sources about the event (Guardian, NBC, CNN, Newsweek, Vice - and that's just on the first page of google) justifying its inclusion. I think the image is valuable enough to include under fair use, and if MOS:SHOCK is really a concern, maybe we could include it along with information about the event later in the article. However, I do agree that a burning might not be representative of the book bans. I've been trying to search for an alternative image; is there another image we can use? BappleBusiness^[talk] 01:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

In most of the Western world, the very act of a public book burning is in itself shocking, and as in most of the cases books were simply removed from the shelf and not publicly burned, the image isn't representative of the overall picture, and thus falls under MOS:SHOCK.

As for a replacement image, the main issue is that it, of course, needs to be free content. I would suggest protesters with signs or something. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 03:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't be against including this book-burning incident later in the article, but would only include sources which link this incident directly to this spate of book bans. (I don't know if this really needs illustrating, but if others think it does then I won't oppose if it's not in the lead). GnocchiFan (talk) 13:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

We have the sources needed to verify the book burning. The photograph is by far the most iconic from the book banning efforts thus far. The only problem is that it can be difficult to illustrate book banning efforts without showing the violent/fiery side of it. Take a look at the Kanawha County textbook controversy for example. Are most attempts simple challenges. Yes. Can you illustrate that with an image? Probably not. BTW, I am the one who uploaded it under fair use originally. I talked with Tyler Salinas directly, who approved of the usage in this article (and actually seemed somewhat excited about it). I am happy to attempt to get back in contact with him to ask if he would be okay with putting under a free-content license. aaronneallucas (talk) 00:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I really appreciate the effort, and have no doubt the event happened. re sourcing: My main concern was that a lot of the reliable sources didn't seem to make a direct link between the book bans and this burning incident, although a number of sources provided here do exactly that, so I'm not bothered about that anymore.

In short: I have no problem mentioning the book burnings in the article text (even if it is just a sentence or two) and using that image to illustrate. But I really don't believe it belongs in the lead, which is probably best left blank.

P.S.: I'm definitely no expert on what constitutes fair use, or image licensing. I have nominated the image for deletion mostly because it is not used on this article; if it gets used, I will withdraw the nomination / PROD. GnocchiFan (talk) 01:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

"In most of the Western world, the very act of a public book burning is in itself shocking" The United States are an exception, since it always had strict censorship standards. The article on book burning and the List of book-burning incidents clarify that the United States has a long history of burning books:

• "Following John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry in 1859, slaveholders and their supporters spread panic about abolitionism, believing that anti-slavery conspiracies would lead to widespread slave revolts. Pro-slavery southerners burned books in Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas, including textbooks from public schools. Books that were critical of slavery, or insufficiently supportive of it, were seen as "anti-Southern" by the book-burners. "
• " Anthony Comstock's New York Society for the Suppression of Vice, founded in 1873, inscribed book burning on its seal, as a worthy goal to be achieved. Comstock's total accomplishment in a long and influential career is estimated to have been the destruction of some 15 tons of books, 284,000 pounds of plates for printing such "objectionable" books, and nearly 4,000,000 pictures. All of this material was defined as "lewd" by Comstock's very broad definition of the term – which he and his associates successfully lobbied the United States Congress to incorporate in the Comstock Law."
• "In 1948, children – overseen by priests, teachers, and parents – publicly burned several hundred comic books in both Spencer, West Virginia, and Binghamton, New York. Once these stories were picked up by the national press wire services, similar events followed in many other cities. "
• "In the 1950s, over six tons of books by William Reich were burned in the U.S. in compliance with judicial orders. In 1954, the works of Mordecai Kaplan were burned by Orthodox Jewish rabbis in America, after Kaplan was excommunicated."

Dimadick (talk) 13:53, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

While this is a very intersting (and disturbing) read, the point remains that an image of book burning is not typical of the current moves to ban books in the US, and is undue for the lead. GnocchiFan (talk) 13:35, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

References

This is pretty non-neutral

Public discussion of this topic includes a lot of debate and ambiguity not present in this article. Both Right and Left activists have worked to limit access to books they find harmful. On the Right, it's mainly been by outside efforts to remove books from school libraries and curricula; on the Left it's by through pressure on booksellers like Amazon or Target not to sell certain titles, on copyright holders like the Seuss estate to withdraw titles, and on librarians (or choices by librarians themselves) not to acquire books for public libraries, or to withdraw them from circulation, based on perceived harmful content. Neither approach is literal "banning" in the sense of eliminating a book entirely by government action. The rightwing school library campaigns may be closer to "banning" by some definitions, but the leftwing approach may be more effective in actually making it very hard for adults as well as minors to read specific books (like "When Harry Became Sally" or whatever it's called).

This article, while well-written and researched, frames the question in a tendentious way and ignores lots of conservative perspectives in non-deprecated sources. Llajwa (talk) 22:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

So add a section. I'm shocked that Amazon would refuse to sell ANY title. Bkatcher (talk) 03:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Could you link to some of those sources? Neutral on Wikipedia means that we're faithfully summarizing the body of reliable sources on a subject, giving weight to aspects according to how much of that coverage they receive. Since the overwhelming amount of coverage of "book banning" in this time period relates to the [largely conservative] movement, that's what the article is primarily about. There's also a lot of what the left does, even if it did get coverage, which is hard to call "book banning", e.g. Seuss is briefly mentioned in the article, but that was the decision by an estate not to publish certain works which had long been criticized, not an action by officials and not an appeal to an official body to make a ruling to formally remove it. Regardless, I haven't taken a deep dive into the sources in more than a year at this point, so it's entirely possible the conversation has changed. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:38, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi, User:Rhododendrites, thanks for replying. I'm confused by the overall framing of "book banning" - what is the rationale for describing removing a book from a school curriculum, or even a school library, as "banning" - if it is still available in stores and public libraries? A commentator above wrote:

The article on book bans itself disagrees with both your definition, the definition used in this article, the definition used recently in some newspapers and the definition used by the ALA: "Banned books are books or other printed works such as essays or plays which are prohibited by law or to which free access is not permitted by other means."

I know that conservative efforts to remove books from curricula have often been described as banning in liberal media. Is that the rationale? Llajwa (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

article on book bans itself disagrees with both your definition... There is in fact a whole subsection of book ban (book censorship) devoted to school library shelf removal, so this argument doesn't make much sense. Regardless, if we have an article that disagrees with how the press and major organizations use a term, that article should probably be updated (but that would be a matter for another talk page). In this case, because Wikipedia follows how subjects are characterized in reliable sources, the title here uses "banning". You can get a sense of this if you highlight instances of "ban" on the page and look at the references section -- it's pretty ubiquitous in coverage of this subject. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

OK, thanks for engaging. Llajwa (talk) 16:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I would be interested in seeing a reference for the former poster's ALA definition, since as a librarian I have never heard it before. Rather, I have heard this from the ALA: "A challenge is an attempt to remove or restrict materials, based upon the objections of a person or group. A banning is the removal of those materials." https://www.ala.org/bbooks/aboutbannedbooks Wordchoreographer (talk) 15:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Iowa House File 2545

Iowa bill signed on June 10, 2024 which removes books on the Holocaust and World War II from school districts. Sets a pretty big precedent for future book bans. Salmoonlight (talk) 21:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC)