Talk:Book burning/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Removing an entry?

I've tried looking for any source whatsoever to the entry concerning the book burning at Grande-Cache, Alberta, but can only find the same single sentence in over a dozen websites with no references to be found. I'm new to editing Wikipedia so I'm hesitant to delete it right away. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable about the subject could decide whether it needs to be rewritten, or removed, or whatever else? 66.142.186.2 (talk) 05:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

This should be of interest in deciding the fate of the section:

"Wikipedia's entry on book burning has a little section with the heading "Books 'contrary to the teachings of God' (at Grande Cache, Alberta)." The section was added in 2005 from an IP address near Calmar, Alta. No source was given but the section has been there ever since, at least until Sept. 14, 2010.

"It refers to a book burning in the 1990s by the Full Gospel Assembly in Grande Cache.

"We could not find a report on the event by CBC News, or other media.

"We spoke to Melody Livingston, secretary of Cornerstone Mountain Assembly in Grande Cache. The church changed its name from Full Gospel. She has been living in Grande Cache since 1985. We also spoke to Cliff Newbury in Calgary, who was Full Gospel's pastor in the 1990s. Neither could recall a book burning by Full Gospel in the 1990s."

Source: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/09/10/f-book-burning-timeline.html

With that now on the CBC website, it is probably not appropriate for us to change/delete the section on Grande Cache. 159.33.10.92 (talk) 18:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Dead Sea Scrolls

I think this is largely myth, but the supposition that the Dead Sea Scrolls represent a set of biblical sources suppressed by Constantine_I and the First_Council_of_Nicaea is one of the more famous proposed incidents of book burning. It may not be literal, but the meaning is the suppression of ideas through literary censorship. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morticae (talk • contribs) 21:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

List

Hey, I have an Idea. Instead of adding more events to the list, how about just moving it to another, new article? Less is more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clammybells

The list is also described as a "Chronology", but lacks many dates, or discernible temporal organization. --Morticae (talk) 20:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Someone needs to put some good info on the Nazi book burnings. Maybe there's already good data here at the Wiki. Any takers? --Dante Alighieri

God, and Heine was Jewish too... what a thing to be right about. --Dante Alighieri

Beatles records

Beatles records are just that, records. That info should be in the Beatles article, not here. --Eloquence

I disagree the first paragraph states that in modern times other media has been burned. The famous Beatles record burning episode (After John Lennon's bigger than Jesus quote) included the burning of publicity material such as posters and books as well. Mintguy

That's OK, but if we say "targets for book burnings have included" we should list actual books. I have no problem including burning of other media, but perhaps that should be done in a separate list (can be in this article for the time being). --Eloquence

I disagree. I think the term "book burning" is understood as an abstract concept, not a set of literal incidents. The destruction of any information could be considered "book burning", but it must have been done in the context of passion, fear, censorship, etc. This is why purging an email server does not qualify--it lacks emotional symbolism. If you define it too literally, you risk a slippery slope scenario. Are periodicals "books"? Magazines? Newspapers? Where are we to draw the line? --Morticae —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC).

One thing that would interest me: In Michael Hutchison's Anatomy of Sex and Power, the author states that the nazis burned Darwin's books. He doesn't cite a source, though. Can anyone confirm that? Do we have a list of the books burned by the nazis? --Eloquence

Part of the problem with the Book Burnings in Nazi Germany was that most of these events were mostly informal. Adolph Hitler indicated in his books what kind of subjects he hated, and "suggested" in his speeches what subjects the people ought to remove from their lives...but then it was up to individual Nazis what materials to bring to the burn. Unfortunately, unless someone could interview each and every person who burned a book in Nazi Germany, we may never be able to prove what materials were burned or why. --Sassman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.131.59 (talk) 08:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Religious groups

In some religious groups, converts are encouraged to burn "heretical" or "satanic" books or other works in their possession from their lives prior to conversion. For instance, youths in America who convert to various sorts of fundamentalist Christianity have been encouraged to burn or otherwise destroy occult related hobby materials (tarot cards, ouija boards), role-playing games, and nonreligious rock music. This is not the same as the public spectacle of book burning, though culturally it touches on many of the same themes. --FOo

We need to distinguish between forced and voluntary book burning. The Potter burnings, the one described in the Bible etc. are voluntary burnings. There were also voluntary comic book burnings in post-war Germany, instigated by the church (called "Schmökergrab-Aktionen"). I'm not sure how voluntary these really were, though, since teachers at the time had quite some authority over children. --Eloquence

I need help

hi i was wondering if you guys could answer some questions for me

Why were books burned during the Qin Dynasty?

What are the similarities of book burnings?

why did Nazis in Germany engage in book burnings during world war2?

Why were hiduists burning books in India?

if you guys could help that would be great thanks

Zany additions by Anonymous User:142.177.169.163

If anyone think these look a little weird, check the other contributions of this anymous zealot. Wetman 06:21, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC) Other spurious entries have crept in and are removed here for discussion:

• 1947: US government burns the library of Dinshah Ghadiali: The US had no authority to be burning the books of this well-known quack.
• March 17 1960, New York City: FDA burns the books of Wilhelm Reich (as had the Nazis in November 1933) This claim is made at a special-pleading website and is unlikely. (The date is St Patrick's Day, quite a busy day in NYC.)
• the book Making of a Godol: A Study of Episodes in the Lives of Great Torah Personalities (2003) by Nathan Kamenetsky has been banned in some ultra-orthodox Jewish circles Perhaps so. This is a list of histor8ic book-burnings.

So - did governments of the US order the burnings of these books, or not? While you're checking into it, here's another: "Federal agents burned his (Charles Augustus Lindbergh, Sr.) books, including Why Is Your Country At War? and the papers and contents of his home office in Little Falls, Minnesota." Kwantus 21:07, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)

Sorry, but I had to remove the external link you added due to the spam filter kicking in. —Viriditas | Talk 08:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

---

I think there does need to be a statement that at least some people find the idea of book burning to be offensive. That it's found such on the grounds of book burning being censorship, or the connotation book burning has because of the Nazi book burnings, and the book burnings that occur today. JesseG 23:44, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

The more historical detail can be mustered in the entry, the more readers will come to that very conclusion on their own. Let the burnings speak for themselves. And let's not leave out the Christian book burnings of pagan literature and "heretical" material. Wetman 02:05, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The destruction of Wilhelm Reich's books and laboratory notes under court order is well-documented. I'm not sure whether it should be classed as a "book burning" in the sense described in this article, though. While his books and notes were in fact destroyed by burning, this was done by officers of the court in a trash incinerator. It was not a ritual for the public "edification" in the sense of Nazi book-burnings. [1]

Legally, Reich was in contempt of court; he had violated a court order to cease publishing his "orgone energy" writings. (This publication was condemned as practicing quack medicine.) Morally, a person who loves freedom may find it repulsive (and deserving of the term "book burning") whenever agents of government seize and destroy printed works belonging to a person who desires their publication.

So I can see three possible meanings of "book burning" here. Which one this article chooses to describe must control whether Reich's (or any other) works are considered "burned books":

1. Any destruction by fire of printed matter, for the purpose of preventing its publication or dissemination.
2. Any public ritual of destruction by fire of printed matter, for the purpose of denouncing it.
3. Any objectionable destruction by fire of printed matter which is today regarded as valuable.

Naturally, the third option is subjective and thus problematic for Wikipedia. I recommend one of the other two. —FOo 02:34, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Tenacious D Records

Were they really burned?

Somehow I realy doubt the sincerity of whoever edited that in.. 69.47.134.196 19:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The Harry Potter Verses

The Satanic Verses, burnt by Muslims who considered it blasphemous

the Harry Potter books, burnt by some American Christians who considered them satanic

This angers me so much. Rowling was burnt by some Christians, while Rushdie was burnt simply by Muslims. Bias? Eurocentricisim? The only reason that I'm not being bold is that I'm finding myself more and more pissed at the media doing this and that I may not see an important factor that I otherwise might. So, I'm asking you people, is there any reason to keep it like it is? And if not, how do you think we should state it? Does the some clutter Wikipedia or do you think it makes it seem less biased? --Dyss 04:19, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC) (foaming)

Here's an idea: Perhaps we should not list any case of book-burning which cannot be backed up by a reference documenting the following:

• The works burned
• The place and date of the burning
• The persons responsible (individuals or official organizations -- not identity groups like "Christians" or "Muslims")
• The stated motives, if attested

The reference doesn't have to be linked in this article, if the specific act of book-burning is described in more detail in another Wikipedia article, such as Serapeum or Bonfire of the Vanities.

And we should not be making generalizations like "burned by Christians" or "burned by Muslims" or whatever, even if qualified with a weasel word like "some". There are many millions of Muslims in the world, most of whom have probably never been in any sort of contact with a copy of The Satanic Verses. --FOo 14:56, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That might be a good idea, you have my support for it, but I can see a few problems with it:

• Some of these happened so long ago that reliable data on them might simply be impossible to find now. The Bible quote, the Sibylline Books, Qin Shi Huang's orders. If the book burning was a good example but simply to old to have a (reliable) date pinned it shouldn't go I think.
• The big one: if we cannot call them Christians, Muslims etc. what CAN we call them? Don't get me wrong, I think making generalizations is very harmful to the Wikipedia, but in some cases this might be problematic. If we can say "People belonging to this-or-that religious sect" or "followers of religious leader Bob" or even "inhabitants of this town", that would be ideal of course. I'm definately going to try to pin some names on these. But this might not always be possible.

The works of Jewish authors and other "degenerate" books were burned by the Nazis in the 1930s and 1940s.

This one will be quite hard. There is not one single incident, the term Nazis is quite vague (I can imagine some citizens joined in the burnings without being Nazis) and there are no books listed. This one could probably either be removed or meged with the one below it (which gives a group, date and examples of works burned) but the last two might be especially problematic. I'm not sure if Khomeini was the person who called for people to do this, but if that was so a air way to put it, in my eyes, would be "On xxxx Khomeini called all Muslims to burn copies of TSV. On place x, y and z a massive burning happened soon thereafter" (I'm making this stuff up, I'll go see if I can find some information after this).

But what if we can not find a specific group that burned it but we only find a lot of smaller ones? Let's say that a variety of Christian groups decided that HP was diabolic? Of course we would not want to pin it on all Christians. What do we do in this case?

I'm going to see if I can associate some names with incidents now. Thanks for your help and I'm glad I'm not the only one who finds these generalizations problematic. --Dyss 22:04, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Even in the case of the Nazi book burnings, we should be able to come up with some names and dates. However, I agree with you that my criteria above are overstated ... I suspect that actions taken on the part of a government or political party, as part of a stated policy that is known to history, can be attributed as such rather than (e.g.) needing exact dates of Nazi book-burnings. Of course it would be nice to have exact dates for major burnings, and I think we can:

• Here is an image from the National Archives, captioned "Nazi students and SA unloading "un-German" books as fuel for a book burning on May 10, 1933 in Berlin, Germany."
• Here is another, same date.

We are much safer, in terms of neutrality, to state that an action was taken by members of a specific organization (such as the SA, or the Roman Nth Legion) rather than by people fitting a particular description (such as Germans, or Christians). --FOo 22:22, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Completely agree. It's much harder to 'accidentally fall into a group' if that group is a real organization instead of a label. Those photos are nice and I think I'll put one up with this article. The USHMM doesn't mind people using information or media. --Dyss 23:06, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

Kind of like the memetic equivalent of genocide. Trying to completely remove a certain type of idea from the "meme pool" so that your competing idea survives. But I guess this is just "original research". Anyway it can be incorporated into the article? Anyone notable who shares this idea? - Omegatron 06:46, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Shh. Good thing you didn't add that to the article. The Original Reasearch Police would have closed us down. ByW, "What links here" gives further examples of bookburning that might be added to the timeline. --Wetman 09:36, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

Removed non-book burning list

Plesae move elsewhere; create a separate article for this information; &c. None of it is very informative or referenced, at any rate. +sj + 19:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Famous incidents of other items ceremoniously burnt in protest

• Registration passes burned by Indian and Chinese citizens in South Africa, as urged by Mahatma Gandhi.
• Beatles records, after John Lennon's out-of-context remark that the Beatles were "more popular than Jesus" (see History of the Beatles).
• Bras, during the feminist movement, to symbolically protest the perceived holding back of women under the guise of "support" and "care".
• Draft notification cards, during the anti-Vietnam War movement of the 1960s and 1970s
• The flag of the United States, in protest (although other nationalities' flags could be burned in protest, this is of particular controversy in the United States; see flag desecration).
• Ozzy Osbourne's and Iron Maiden's albums were publicly burned and smashed, particularly after the release of Maiden's The Number of the Beast album.
• Dixie Chicks records, in protest of their opinion on U.S. President George W. Bush's policies.

Weakening the concept

I removed the following description of book burning, regarding digital media. Regardless of content, the wording was vague and misleading. For example, "it can be thought of as book burning". Breakfast cereal can be thought of as rocket fuel, but that does not make it so.

The deletion of any type content is not considered book burning. This application of the term is laughable when compared to the Nazi book burnings or any number of other historical incidents. I don't want to be mean, but if someone stops hosting your blog that is not book burning. In fact, by this definition, every time someone alters a Wikipedia article they are guilty of "book burning". Also, destroying evidence is simply a misapplication of the term.

I agree with the last sentence. The rest, I've rewritten to be, in my opinion, more accurate.

Having said that, I believe that digital book burning is a very serious and very important issue. The ease with which media can be distributed over the Internet makes the systematic purging of that media possible as well. Technologies such as digital rights management attempt to stem the distribution but not the deletion of works, presenting the opportunity for repression of ideas. Also, if content can be deleted but never copied, then it is almost assured that the content will no longer exist at some point. This is not quite book burning, but raises interesting questions along the same lines of thought.

"The current trend of digital communications and archiving has resulted in cataloging of written works on digital media. When these works are destroyed by deletion or purposeful purging of these works, it can be thought of as book burning. Some modern examples of this are: deletions of nodes by people other than their authors on web sites such as Everything2, the deletion of archived emails and data when trying to hide evidence. Book burning is the destruction of written works whether the medium of destruction used is fire or deletion."

Dubious Sentence

"Established beliefs of Epicurus was burned in a Paphlagonian marketplace by order of the charlatan Alexander, supposed prophet of Ascapius ca 160 (Lucian, Alexander the false prophet)"

The use of "charlatan" and "supposed prophet" seem point-of-view to me, and should be deleted, unless the whole is a quote, which I doubt. 82.176.202.214 13:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

If one doesn't understand that Alexander, posing as a prophet of Asculapius, is indeed a charlatan, perhaps one hasn't fully grasped Lucian's satiric essay. I wonder whether the expression "POV" isn't quite grasped either. Lucian's narrative is not meant to be taken as the gospel truth, however, and this article is meant to instance actual book burnings. The detail in Lucian's tale is meant to have verisimilitude: the burning of texts in public must have been a familiar trope to Lucian's readers and hearers. --Wetman 03:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

My Views

I think that Book Burning is acceptable in SOME circumstances, after all a book is just Leather and paper,it is the text of a book the words themselves rather than their format. i find that the burning of evil books (in my view) such as the Da vinchi code and other such works which undermine everything that people hold dear is right and should be carried out, but the burning of Philosophical works which are unbiased is wrong. may i give a fictional account now, if a book was published which was morally wrong and features pages and pages of pure filth, graphic violence sex and so on i would get my friends together and burn hundreds of copies of that book to show our discust to its evil content and that in my view is a good thing, but to burn works of great importance to society such as the works of shakespeare or the dialogues of plato is a bad thing. now your comments please-Ted Barlow

Basically, it is not books which are burnt, it is ideas. And this is done by those in adequate power to suppress the rise of suspected opposition. But most of these acts are undertaken without the knowledge of anyone else. When a race is to be erased even the knowledge of its existence is not to be spared.

On the other hand, most of the events we know of have being made of public knowledge solely for the purpose of expressing discontent, disapproval and to bring to limelight an organization that fears the fall of its popularity/notoriety rating below "acceptable" levels. An auxiliary purpose, evident in many past occurrences especially of lately - due to media suppport-, is as an inexpensive, albeit rather effective, instrument of initiating violent riots and mass genocides between rivaling, usually extremist, groups in particularly in third world and under-developed nations and societies that have no effective machineries for secular education. --Light

Talk pages are for discussing Wikipedia articles, not for inviting soap-box oratory on the subject being covered. Wikipedia articles are reports on what has been done and written, not on what ought to be thought or done. --Wetman 22:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words

The weasel words in this article need to be fixed. Examples: "Many people find book burning to be offensive", "Some feel...", etc. --dm ^(talk) 01:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Rewrote the caption: "Many readers find an image of books being burned provacative," or somesuch. Korossyl 15:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Rationale for change to "In Fiction"

"Supporting this view is the fact that destroying a Descriptive Book does not destroy the Age: it merely severs the Link."

According to Myst canon, an age exists independently from the description of it. Alksub 21:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Text of deleted entries

No time for discussion right now, but I'm putting these here for future reference

Kodansha "Friday" (by Kōfuku no Kagaku)

• The Kodansha's magazine "Friday" critic Kōfuku no Kagaku has been the subject of bookburnings by Kōfuku no Kagaku, for instance at Tokyo in 1991.

Anti Mumia-Abu Jamal books (at Berkeley)

• In September 2000, students at the University of California, Berkeley seized copies of Cop Killer: How Mumia-Abu Jamal Conned Millions Into Believing He Was Framed by Dan Flynn during a protest of his speaking engagement promoting the book.

"The laws of England" (by artist John Latham)

• in 1966 as part of the Destruction in Art Symposium held by Fluxus in London, John Latham constructed three large 'skoob towers' (towering piles of books) named 'the laws of England' which he set fire to outside the British Museum

Cgingold 15:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Falun Dafa books

I've just removed this newly-added section from the article so it can be trimmed and edited for NPOV. (It was added by an anon. IP, obviously a partisan on the issue, maybe even a Falun Gong adherent.) I don't have the time to do it myself at the moment, but I didn't want to leave it there in its present form. However, I do think it deserves an entry, so I hope somebody will take it on.

Falun Dafa books were burned in 1999 and following years in an unprecedented act of persecution by the Chinese Communist Party. The books were teaching the principles of the Falun Gong practice for improving one's mind and body, Truthfullness, Compassion, Forbearance. The government of the PRC gave the disputable reason, that Falun Gong would bring unstability to the country and the regime. The burning of Falun Dafa books was a repeated act and occurred as a part of a large-scale persecution of Falun Gong practitioners by the Chinese Communist Party.

It would also be good to have a citation, since the book-burning isn't referenced in the Falun Gong article. Cgingold 18:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

This entry was not added by me, however I too think it's relevant here. Basically in 1999 there were more then 70 million people practicing Falun Dafa in mainland China. This means at least these many books, were seized and burned. Here are 2 video links to back this up [2] 38min:49sec; [3] at 5min 40 seconds; plus a Washington Post article [4] --HappyInGeneral 09:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The persecution of Falun Dafa is extensively reported on the Falun Dafa websites: [5] [6] and other third party web sites: [7] [8]. However since this is an ongoing event still happening today in China, the Chinese Communist Party is also engaged in an extensive information blocking, cover-up and disinformation activities, just take a look at a local example: [9] --HappyInGeneral 10:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

- I have changed the section, so that it's NPOV compliant and added reference to Falun Gong's stance. There are two equal sentences now, so that NPOV is kept, and no references have been deleted. Emanuil Tolev 14:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Most recent Chronological Order

Hello, a question: Wouldn't it make more sense to have the most recent cases on top and have the chronological order from the most recent incident to the most ancient incident? --HappyInGeneral 13:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming

My personal views What is a book made out of, normally? Paper! What is paper normally made from? Trees! Paper=Tree+Saw+Paper Mill? Tree=Water+Carbon Dioxide? Burn paper release Carbon Dioxide. Right? Carbon Dioxide destroys the world! So uh? Djminisite - Talk | Sign 18:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality?

I am not experienced with issues on neutrality, but I believe the section on "Abkhazian Research Institute of History, Language and Literature & National Library of Abkhazia (by Georgian Troops)" expresses a non-neutral point of view. However, I am not experienced enough with the conflict to do any edits without ensuring that everything will be true. --69.222.66.30 (talk) 14:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, that did seem more like a Letter to the Editor ("They are also destroying themselves" ?!) so I have removed the most obvious POV statements from that section.--Saddhiyama (talk) 15:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The Arab Islamic Conquest

Can someone include the book burnings done by the Arabs during the Islamic conquest. As the Arab Islamic armies invaded Persia and Byzantine lands, many books, libraries and information based sites/stones were destroyed. Notably, many Persian libraries were burnt including the famous Shiraz and Ispahan libraries, amongst the burnings of libraries, many books were banned, sought after and burnt across Byzantine, Persia and Islamic India. Apart from the bruning of whole libraries, the individual books sought door to door and burnt were Zoroastrianism, Spiritual, Hindu, Science, Lingual and Philosophical subject books. Lingual books that taught Vedic, Sanskrit, Persian (Parsi/Farsi), Avestan and other other local languages were also burnt and for a while large populations were forced to speak Arabic. Any information that was considered anti-islamic were banned from being produced, written or discussed. Information that dictated spiritual paths other than Islamic were banned and restricted from even being produced, which led to the beginnings of the current day Sufism resulting from many Darvish's wanting to keep their spirituality even under Islam. Many Byzantine and Persian scientists, mathematicians and architects were force fully made to innovate on behalf of Islam starting what today is known as Islamic art, Islamic science etc. Even today, most Islamic innovaitons find their historical beginnings in Iran and eastern Iraq which were under Persian rule at the time of the Conquest. For almost 2 centuries, Persians practiced Zoroastrianism in secret whilst pretending they were muslims outdoors, many were caught and killed, until most gave up and gave in to the eventuals of the Islamic rule. Many sacred books though were secretly transported to India where they found safety amongst some refugees creating the beginnings of the 2nd largest Zoroastrian community after Iran in India known as P(F)arsi's. Although not as much some Jews were also the target of the Islamic conquest, but were sparred in many ways as many Imams considered Moses a religious figure, though not a prophet. Any non-Abrahamic religion saw its near doom, and I am sure apart from the Persians and Turks (Byzantines) there were many other North-African and Sub-Continent Asian spiritual groups who saw their books burnt and their knowledge and wisdom destroyed as they were awakened to the sword of Islam. If someone is willing to help, I can provide endless number of books, texts and citations that will help shed light on this chapter of Asian history, which is not talked about much. --89.167.221.131 (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Citation for Soviet Book Burnings in the Baltic States

Rebecca Kurth's book ‘Libricide: The Regime Sponsored Destruction of Books and Libraries in the Twentieth Century’ (2003, Praeger Publishers Inc) makes reference to the book burnings in Soviet-occupied Baltic States on p.56 --SaraFL (talk) 15:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Moral, and cultural side to book burning.

I have included the following for discussion and or inclusion.

"Some particular cases of book burning are the result of unacceptable according to generally accepted moral, community and or religious standards; for example child pornography."

Seems book burning has always been portrayed as a negative cultural event. However in the case where the material in anti-culutral, illegal or immoral, then book burning or destruction of books and modern day media may be justified, morally acceptable and legal.

Example child pornography or material promoting death or hatred of others.

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 18:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Ain't it awful

In general this article is pretty good about stating the when's where's and why's of these events but not everything has a source. We need to be careful about that; otherwise it just turns into a game, "Ain't it awful." For example, the Etrusca Disciplina are stated to have been burned in the 5th century without source (a guess on someone's part?) and yet Joannes Lydus, a credible sources, reports on reading some of it. He lived in the 6th. Never assume more than you actually know from the record; the article will gain in credibility, and we all would like to know why anyone should burn a book or a library. In the case of the Disciplina, it probably gave the rules for human sacrifice in Etruria - but we need to know things like that. We certainly are not through with burning books by a long shot. If I have to mail a book at the post office and they ask me if it is any dangerous content, I retort that it is a book, and do they consider that dangerous? In fact I know people who have been persecuted for the material they read and I have been warned more than once by various agents about reading the wrong books, and no one was accepting any educational excuses. Some books you have to hide on your shelves. So, to truly strike a blow for freedom, let's do this article right.Dave (talk) 12:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Holy crap, two point SEVEN SIX?

Wow, that's a lot of examples? Are they really all notable? Moreover, can they be merged together into bigger sections, or at least the section divided into (eg) Ancient times, middle ages, modern day so we don't have seventy six subsections. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to figure out a way we could display this information a bit more effectively and I've got a couple ideas. I'm going to rebuild the page in a sandbox and when I've got it put together, I'll link it here for input, tweaking, and consensus for replacement.
--K10wnsta (talk) 20:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Ceremonial Book Burnings

Although the content offered here is important, its presentation is blatantly unencyclopedic and exists as a microcosm of a page run amok with unneccesary listings. Moreover, its list incorporates several links to obscure websites.

My efforts to improve it were reverted, so I'm leaving this assessment in the hopes that another editor might make an effort to write it to a higher standard.
--K10wnsta (talk) 21:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The Day after Tomorrow

1. In the 2004 film The Day After Tomorrow (movie), to avoid freezing to death, the main character suggests burning books to survive, much to the horror of two librarians, with the main characters choosing to avoid the wooden furniture, which would have burned hotter and longer, for plot reasons.

is this appropriate. And wooden furniture would be treated with chemicals which when burnt could possibly cause harm? Catprog (talk) 06:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Such is not done to destroy culture even if the effect is the same. The book is awful and the movie is even worse for implausibility... but the burning of books is done for the survival of people. The librarians insist that single copies remain in the stocks. Burning seven of eight copies of The Brothers Karamazov is not as objectionable under the circumstances as burning all four copies of The Communist Manifesto or even Mein Kampf. Book-burning for political purposes is for denying the past (even if recent).Pbrower2a (talk) 16:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

"¡Abajo la inteligencia!" (Down with intelligence!)

Just checking, not knowing Spanish - is this the correct meaning in this context - or might it mean 'down with intelligentsia' , that is, intellectuals? That is, was the intent glorification of stupidity or anti-intellectualist sentiment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.230.251 (talk) 17:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

US government books burning?

According to definition: Book burning, biblioclasm or libricide is the practice of destroying, often ceremoniously, books or other written material and media. The 10000 books will be burn even if 'recycled' under CO2 media pressure.

Author Anthony Shaffer Binding Hardcover Dewey Decimal Number 355 EAN 9780312612177 ISBN 0312612176 Label Thomas Dunne Books Manufacturer Thomas unne Books Number Of Items 1 (10000) Number Of Pages 320 Product Group Book Product Type Name ABIS_BOOK Publication Date 2010-08-31 Publisher Thomas Dunne Books Release Date 2010-08-31 Studio Thomas Dunne Books Title Operation Dark Heart: Spycraft and Special Ops on the Frontlines of Afghanistan -- and The Path to Victory ASIN 0312612176 Sales Rank 4 [10] class threader ( threading.Thread ): —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Quran burning smell preemptively. Who show coincidence [11]? About 61,500,000 results . News: Pastor Terry Jones all 14680 Speaking Of Book Burning: Pentagon all 256

The Pakistan cross-border surveillance operation using sophisticated eavesdropping technology operation was shut down by (sources anonymous) concerned officially about offending Pakistan. Another unofficial reason (withholded from book) was assessment for local nuclear engagement and war proliferation. (Washington Post / sIRC)

John express something what can be readed that Wikipedia has to be helpful for some agency. Is here the case:

• Genreral problem with ace staff has,
• genral Joe has to stuff back sh it into donkey ass.

• • 08:08, 12 September 2010 User:99.90.197.244

Please propose your edit here so someone else can translate it into English. I don't agree that this belongs in the article. --John (talk) 16:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

how lie der Hund begraben + [12]Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 20:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

When this IP chooses, he/she can write in normal English. He's made comments similar to " helpful for some agency" before, eg here where he says something obscure about my 'agency reasons'. Dougweller (talk) 17:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Book burnings by Anti-Nazis

The article on Norwegian author Knut Hamsun says:

A week after Hitler's death, Hamsun wrote a eulogy for Hitler, saying “He was a warrior, a warrior for mankind, and a prophet of the gospel of justice for all nations.”[2] Following the end of the war, angry crowds burned his books in public in major Norwegian cities

Is this the only known incident of Anti-Nazi book burnings? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Bloggz (talk • contribs) 20:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Can this be confirmed?

I read an old article which states.

• - 1. Bibles were publicly burned on May 27, 1923, in Rome, in homage of the virgin Mary.
• - 2. In the New York Times, March 6, 1952, appeared an article under the following headings: “Protestant Cleric Is Beaten in Spain. Youths Invade Chapel and Set Fire to Bibles, Pews and Hymnals.”

Is there any truth to these statements? --Anaccuratesource (talk) 08:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Theodore Dreiser's works (at Warsaw, Indiana)

Curiously there is no mention of this in the Theodore Dreiser article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.33.114.129 (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Nazi library and book burning

I am not trying to excuse Nazi war crimes but I am not sure that some the criticism listed on this page is justified. The books the Nazis destroyed in public displays appear more for public display than for destroying the records of the books.

The SS (in charge of the Holocaust from 1942) had its own corps of tame scholars (of culture, racial science, archaeology etc.) who collected religious objects (e.g. Torahs) as well as prohibited books. This could be interpreted either as raw data for SS study projects (e.g. Ahnenerbe)

This site seems to have a fairly decent account.

http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/oad/hist1.htm

They were being preserved to be studied

The last bit is particularly interesting

"Within Germany many seized collections were moved to depots in the countryside, due to the dangers in the cities from Allied bombing."

The Nazis seem to have gone to some trouble to preserve these collections. Hardly the actions of a book burner.

Here are sopme more references

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/02-21-46.asp

It is a report from Soviet Prosecution. It does talk about books being destroyed that are unsuitable, but overall it shows a pattern of looting of libraries, archives, scientific research institutes and museums. Then the books are being confiscated and shipped to Germany.

It states for example dealing with the Ukrainian Academy of Science

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "We reaped a rich harvest in the library of the Ukrainian Academy of Science, treasuring the rarest manuscripts of Persian, Abyssinian, and Chinese literature, Russian and Ukrainian chronicles, the first edition books printed by the first Russian printer, Ivan Fjodorov, and rare editions of the works of Schevtchenko, Mickiewicz, and Ivan Franko. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Note here Russian and Ukrainian works are not being destroyed but kept.

It also states that the ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The library of the University of Prague was henceforth accessible to Germans only. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Later we read that Czech books are also being saved

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "A decree of the autumn of 1942 ordered all university libraries to hand over all early printed Czech works and first editions to the Germans. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

About the only example in this page I can see was Slovenian libraries. That area was in the middle of a bloody civil war and partly Italian and German occupied. Without knowing more details, I do not completely trust the Soviet Prosecution report.

I also did a web search on several of these Polish libraries for their destruction by German forces and found little however I did find some rather fascinating comments which support my views.

http://www.bn.org.pl/download/document/1245746225.pdf

1944, October On October 2, 1944, following the fall of the War saw Uprising, the Poles last and desperate rebellion against the occupant forces, the special troops of Brandkommando set fire to the collections at the Krasi ski Library. The National Library thus loses most of its special collections.

1944, November

By virtue of the arrangement with the Germans, the Pruszk w Operation(akcja pruszkowska) begins, aimed at the evacuation of the objects of art and historical book collections spared destruction and left among the ruins of Warsaw. The remnants of the National Library's collections are transported to Pruszk w, a town not far outside Warsaw. The operation is completed on January 14, 1945.

Clearly one point is clear from reading this document, the Nazis did not destroy nearly as much as they could have done if it was their intension.

8digits (talk) 11:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Your premise that the claim in the sentence was that the books were burned in order to destroy "the records of the books" is false. Nowhere does it say that in the paragraphs in question. Read the sentences again: "because the books destroyed were irreplaceable and their loss constituted a severe damage to cultural heritage, and/or because this instance of book burning has become emblematic of a harsh and oppressive regime." This is why I object to your deletion of these inarguably notable instances of bookburning (same goes with your removal of the burning of the library of Alexandria which certainly qualifies for the first premise about severe damage to cultural heritage regardless of how or when it burned). While the lead is certainly questionable since it is not sourced and does seem to go into interpretations that could have been reworded, your premise for deleting these particular examples is wrong and I stand by my objection to them. I am not quite sure what it is you are trying to source with the numerous citations above, but I suggest you take them to the talk page of the Nazi book burnings articles. This article is about all notable book burnings regardless of the intent of the arsonists. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you give me some reasonable cites that the Jewish books destroyed were irreplaceable and their loss constituted a severe damage to cultural heritage.

Also we are not sure whether the Library of Alexandria was purposely destroyed, all we have is some possible theories of what happened. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Alexandria#Destruction 8digits (talk) 13:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

For the second time, the article does not necessarily claim that Jewish books destroyed were irreplaceable and their loss constituted a severe damage to cultural heritage (although rare and unique handwritten editions of the Tora and other religous literature were actually destroyed). Please try and read the bolded part in the citation of the article I presented you with above. That is the part that is probably the most relevant regarding the nazi book burnings. Also be aware that it was not only Jewish books that were burned by the nazis, they also burned communist and other political literature they deemed unacceptable (for example the archive of the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft was burned).

Concerning the Library of Alexandria you are right that scholars recently has questioned whether it was a deliberate deed, but throughout most of history it has been presented and used as such, so it is a very notable instance of a book burning that is "long and traumatically remembered" (as quoted from the article). --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is what the articole states

"Some particular cases of book burning are long and traumatically remembered - because the books destroyed were irreplaceable and their loss constituted a severe damage to cultural heritage, and/or because this instance of book burning has become emblematic of a harsh and oppressive regime. Such were the destruction of the Library of Alexandria, the obliteration of the Library of Baghdad, the burning of books and burying of scholars under China's Qin Dynasty, the destruction of Aztec codices by Itzcoatl, and the Nazi book burnings of Jewish literature."

The Library of Alexandria the Wikipedia should say it was possibly a destruction as we are not sure if it is a notable instant or a legend. As far as the Nazis are concerned, it is not true that the books the Nazi destroyed in Jewish literature were irreplaceable and their loss constituted a severe damage to cultural heritage, if you take out the word *Jewish* it is true.

I will changed it and see what you think

8digits (talk) 15:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You just didn't read what I replied at all, do you? The nazi book burnings refer to the second half of the sentence, that which comes after "and/or". Your changes are not acceptable since they are obviously based on a misunderstanding of what it actually says. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

We do not know for sure the cause of the Library of Alexandria, even if your logic is correct why was my change rejected by you.

As far as the NAZI, the NAZI did burn books among others Jewish authors but what book burnings of Jewish literature did they do?

I will change it again and we will see how we go.

8digits (talk) 11:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The article asserts nothing about the cause of the fire of the Library of Alexandria. I'm not sure what you were trying to say when you reworded the lede to say "Examples quoted include the destruction of the Library of Alexandria" instead of just "Examples include" (you do not say who you are "quoting"), so I've reverted it. --McGeddon (talk) 12:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

How many sockets do you use? If this continues, I will ask that the IP address be traced and you get banned.

There is little proof and it is disputed that the Library of Alexandria was an example of book burning. The NAZIs did a few public book burning but not what you say. They as I showed above actually on occassions went to much trouble to save Jewish books too. You want to dispute this, it should go in the details

8digits (talk) 20:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

If you're suggesting that the scope of this article be narrowed to only include politically-motivated book burnings, then I'd tend to agree. I don't think many people consider accidental but tragic library fires to be "book burnings". All I was reverting was your insertion of the unclear adjective "quoted", and some detail I felt was redundant. --McGeddon (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry for my earlier remarks, please accept my apologizes.

8digits (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I think so, if a library accidentally burns down, it is not an act of book burning. Also I think there are two different types of book burning, one is the ceremonial type such as recently when a preacher burnt a Koran. That was done for show and not to destroy the contents of the book, the other example is when the book burning is actually censorship such as the burning of books and burying of scholars under China's Qin Dynasty would be an example of that.

8digits (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

German Rudolf

"Rudolf's "Lectures on the Holocaust" were confiscated and ordered to be destroyed, that is to say: burned in waste incinerators under police supervision." Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.246.151.181 (talk) 05:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Reverted recent additions

I have reverted these latest additions by IP 81.132.46.110 for the following reasons:

1. Unsourced claim that book burning may be counter-productive (it may be true but it needs a reliable source for verification).
2. The section about Nazi book burnings is a copyvio copypaste from List of book-burning incidents.
3. Fahrenheit 451 is already mentioned in this article. It does not need to be in the "See also" link or have yet another section with a summary.

--Saddhiyama (talk) 09:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Well done. Dentren | ^Talk 00:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Musical scores

Does the burning of musical scores and recordings also count as book-burning if a political imposition? I can easily imagine the Nazis destroying any musical works of Gustav Mahler on "racial" grounds. Surely, musical scores burned with novels and non-fiction in Nazi Germany. Phonograph records were burned along with books in the Pinochet dictatorship.

Not to be counted -- composers destroying scores of music that they produced if they found such works inadequate for dissemination, let alone pages of works with errors or preliminary works subsequently released after revisions. Pbrower2a (talk) 15:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Definition

The current definition seem dubious. "Book burning ... is the practice of destroying books or other written material. ... Book burning is usually carried out in public, and is generally motivated by moral, religious, or political objections to the material". By that definition, disposing of old newspapers, junk-mail, bank statements, shopping lists, etc is "book burning" (and the second sentance implies that most people who do that do so in public and for idological reasons). Surely the idological reason for the destruction should be central to the definition. A quick Google search turned up this definition: ""Book burning" refers to the ritual destruction by fire of books or other written materials. Usually carried out in a public context, the burning of books represents an element of censorship and usually proceeds from a cultural, religious, or political opposition to the materials in question." (source: http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005852). Shall we use that definition, or can anyone think of a better one? Iapetus (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Changed lede and added reference. Iapetus (talk) 08:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Book burning. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110819215807/http://www.fourthcentury.com:80/index.php/urkunde-33 to http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/urkunde-33
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706180619/http://www.freedomtoread.ca/links_and_resources/bannings_and_burnings.asp to http://www.freedomtoread.ca/links_and_resources/bannings_and_burnings.asp

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) 22:56, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Book burning. 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://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/urkunde-33
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070615224715/http://www.harjas.com/downloads/Press_Release_BC_Sikh_Community_March30.pdf to http://www.harjas.com/downloads/Press_Release_BC_Sikh_Community_March30.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.sikhnn.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=383
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080110133818/http://www.mrsikhnet.com/2006/01/happiness-and-siri-guru-granth-sahib_09.html to http://www.mrsikhnet.com/2006/01/happiness-and-siri-guru-granth-sahib_09.html

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) 10:38, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Cultural genocide

I won't object if my sentence appended to the lead is downgraded to a "see also" item. At present, the cultural genocide page describes an ill-fated term, but clearly some relevant idea exists in this space. — MaxEnt 03:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)