Talk:Memory hole

Speaking of memory hole...

As of 11/29/2009 the seventh reference no longer points to a valid article. Can someone try to find a copy of it. I've been looking but cant find it. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090731/ap_on_en_ot/us_tec_amazon_kindle_lawsuit

General Notability Guideline notice

This article in danger of deletion for non-notability? Who said irony was dead? Viracocha (talk) 23:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Send The Memory hole down the memory hole?

Of course! What could be more appropriate?! Pawyilee (talk) 17:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Censorship is bad, and so is the attempt to delete this article

I've added citations and other material. This phrase and its history is important. It does not belong on the Ash heap of history. Unintended irony ought to spike this misguided attempt at Deletionism. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 05:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Stan

Video goes down the memory hole too

Especially when it makes a politician look bad. Just try to find video of New Jersey Senator Frank Laughtenberg's "It's about control!" rant or the Southwest Airlines union employee who yelled that he didn't care if the airline went bankrupt because of the strike. One my mother saw 50+ years ago was a prominent Democrat party member declaring on live TV that the Democratic Party was communist, then the video was abruptly cut off. In the USA, when a Democrat slips up and accidentally tells the truth about the real motives of the Party "IT'S ABOUT CONTROL!" you can bet the complicit news media makes damn certain that video goes down the hole and will never be broadcast again. The only reason any Republican politician's gaffes get repeated ad-nauseum is because the American media is staffed mostly with Democrats. Yes, even at the so-called GOP mouthpiece Fox News Channel they're mostly Democrats. Just check the public records of media employees political campaign donations. CBS NBC and ABC employees give very little to the GOP. FOX employees give less overall than the other three, but the numbers I've seen show about 60% of their donations are to the DNC.

The problem with proving that something has been effectively "memory holed" is that if you can find irrefutable documentation, or a recording, of something a government, the media, a corporation etc has tried to eliminate, then it hasn't been eliminated. The hope of recovering such evidence is that the people who have ordered the elimination are also paranoid enough to preserve a copy somewhere just in case it might come in handy, for example to do a character assassination on a party member who decides to change sides. For example, if Laughtenberg decided to run on the GOP ticket, I'd lay good odds his control rant would hit YouTube right quick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.232.94.33 (talk) 11:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Institute for Historical Review - not a reliable source

The Institute for Historical Review is a notorious Holocaust denying outfit and a fundamentally unreliable source. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 54#Institute for Historical Review. Please do not insert material into this article citing it or based on it. Thanks! Jayjg ^(talk) 20:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your suggestion and disparaging appraisal. IMHO, they are obviously wrong on the Holocaust. That being said, this falls under the other general rule. "Even a stopped (analog) clock is right twice a day" See Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach. That they are wrong on some major controversies does not establish that they are wrong on this larger point. I could even agree that this would not be my first choice for a source, but it is difficult to find a source that articulates this viewpoint in quite this way, at least in a direct manner. The issue here is WP:Verifiability, not WP:truth. Indeed, if one looks at various sources (Google "Memory hole" and "George W. Bush" "war crimes" and "water boarding"), it is clear that what they are describing is a government manipulation of knowledge, where 'inconvenient' facts (and even governmental history) are suppressed and are relegated to the "Memory hole." And that's just one example. There is deliberate government 'disinformation', and periodic remaking of history. That is a fact that is indispensable to this article. So if you have a better suggestion for a source, please bring it forward, so that we can put it in instead. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Stan

I can make out the case point-by-point. See e.g.]

1. Wamu put down the memory hole.
2. From The Memory Hole: Bush WH Statement Condemning Torture - After His Own Torture Program Began By Logan Murphy Monday Jul 13, 2009 2:30pm
3. Thursday, May 15, 2008 Memory Hole: Sistani's Reach.
4. United States Performed Experiments On Detainees June 7, 2010 — Ron Chusid from an anarchist site.

This is not meant to focus on Mr. Bush. Rather, it suggests that Memory Hole describes what governments sometimes do.

Here is a a source that uses Memory hole against liberal media:

1. Ringo’s Pictures, A Short Walk Down Memory Hole Lane

But finding a quote that uses "government" and "memory hole" in the same sentence is difficult. Here is maybe a source, complete with printed sources:

1. Memory hole quotations.

Here is a memory hole article concerning South Carolina and slavery, remaking of history & history books(to omit Thomas Jefferson's contribution to founding the republic, etc.):

1. April 10, 2010 The memory hole is fired up. Opednews.com
2. Networked blogs, Memory hole.

I reformatted this. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Stan

• WP:RS doesn't allow us to use unreliable sources, even if we think they happen to be right about something. Most of the sources you've provided are similarly unreliable; blogs etc. Have you looked carefully at the sources WP:RS considers to be reliable? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOR and material sourced to blogs removed

The following material has been removed from the article:

The phrases "memory hole" or "down the memory hole" are often used as an accusatory metaphor or analogy.

In an ironic twist of fate, in 2009, Amazon.com's electronic book, the Kindle, was purged of copies of Orwell's Nineteen eighty-four and Animal Farm. Customers who earlier downloaded those books found them surreptitiously erased from their Kindles, in what some said was the books being "sent down a memory hole." The book retailer denied accusations of "Big Brother-like behavior", and stated that the books were uploaded to the Kindle store by a publisher who did not have reproduction rights, thereby necessitating the deletion. "We removed the illegal copies from our systems and from customers' devices, and refunded customers," a spokesman said. Some critics likened this to Barnes & Noble selling a book, then burgling a house to reclaim it while leaving a check. Amazon.com stated that they might not repeat the actions in the future. A Shelby Township, Michigan student is the lead plaintiff in a proposed class action lawsuit, which claims that his annotated notes for a class were rendered "useless" when his Kindle's copy of 1984 was purloined using secret technology to invade his computer via an undisclosed Trojan horse.

Wikipedia and its administrators have been accused of sending articles, including the Belmont Club article, into the memory hole. As one critic notes: “Power means the power to delete. Power means the power to form the narrative. He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future. We of the Belmont Club are not here. But we understand.” Note: The deletion of that article was undone.

On Sept. 17, Jimmy Wales the founder of Wikipedia and the community's most celebrated member, created a one-sentence article that read: "Mzoli's Meats is a butcher shop and restuarant [sic] located in Guguletu [sic] township near Cape Town, South Africa."

Twenty-two minutes later, the article was removed under Wikipedia guideline CSD A7 (WP:Criteria for Speedy Deletion: Articles: No. 7), which says that an article can be summarily deleted -- with no discussion or notice to the author -- if it contains "no assertion of importance/significance." The matter was subject to a lively debate: some opined that it was a deliberate slight to Mr. Wales; another editor said the article was unimportant WP:cruft. One editor suggested: "Delete with fire. . . . If anyone but King James had started this arty it would have been cast into the memory hole within an hour. Doubt this? Then test it by starting an article on a local restaurant you like and see how long it remains alive."

Much of this is sourced to blogs, and therefore not appropriate material for a Wikipedia article, per WP:SPS. The rest is merely examples of people using the phrase, rather than discussing it, and is therefore WP:NOR. In addition, some of the links are dead. Please discuss further here. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Needless to say, I support the removal of this material. In rough order: The Amazon Kindle material is perfectly appropriate for inclusion on our Amazon.com or Amazon Kindle articles, but inclusion here is not justified, and appears to have been done just to take a swipe at Amazon's ironic bungling; as such it violates neutrality to single this out. The Wikipedia material is similarly out of place, and similarly appears to be a gratuitous swipe at Wikipedia over one dispute, in addition to not meeting the exacting standards we should have for coverage of ourself. The random usage examples appear to be mostly swipes at the George W. Bush administration, and sourced to blogs that are prominently linked as a consequence; this violates neutrality, reliable sourcing, and undue weight policies. Note that the opening paragraph is not that great either; I left in in mostly because modern usage of this term is an encyclopedic topic that ought to be explored, rather than because it was high-quality material. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Notes

You did not bother to display the actual footnotes and sources. I have taken the liberty of correcting this apparently inadvertent (but highly material) omission.

And you also conveniently overlooked/Memory holed the fact that there was an earlier attempt to Speedily Delete this very article for lack of content, which you now want to replicate. I am sure that these are inadvertent oversights on your part. WP:AGF.

Only footnote 14 was a dead link, so the representation that "some" are dead would be factually unsupported. I note that under Wikipedia:Linkrot this is no ground to remove the material, which I have now put back.

At least some of this is from the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Pajamas Media, Yahoo! News and Opednews.com, which would seem to be reputable sources. You and I may not agree with them, but that is hardly the standard.

Footnote 4 is from Crooks and Liars, which is itself at least a notable blog/commentary. Crooks and Liars received the "Best Video Blog" blog award at the Weblog Awards in 2006, and a "Best Weblog About Politics" at the 2008 Weblog Awards. Time Magazine listed Crooks and Liars as one of the 25 Best Blogs of 2009

You have dealt with all of the material "in general".

There is considerable irony in your attempt to bowdlerize discussion about Wikipedia Administrators.

Your critique is a Throw out the baby with the bath water approach that will simply make this a demonstration of the fact. Res Ipsa Loquitur. Censorship exists.

I will be back with additional material.

Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 00:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Stan

I see, so your argument is that if you call me false names, then the material will retroactively have always met policy. I disagree. Moreover, while I have a fairly thick skin, I find that WP:CIVIL is an excellent policy for keeping dicussions on point. Assertions that Jayjg or myself are just plain bad people does not suffice to justify article content that doesn't meet policy. Also, you have not addressed at all the argument that this material is far off topic in this article. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I am not calling you names. I agree that WP:CIVIL and WP:CANDOR must be respected. That footnotes 1 through 10 demonstrate the perjorative use of the phrase "Memory hole" as a common perjorative should at least make them worthy. These are not being offered as hearsay 'for the truth of the matter asserted' but for the context and ubiquitous way this important phrase has been placed in our language. This article is not just about the novel -- you and I have a very different view of relevance. I suggest that Wikipedia should be WP:Inclusionism and err on the side of too much of the irrelevant, and not on the side of too little of the relevant. I think the readers should be able to winnow out what they need.

The other material (not specifically mentioned by me) is relevant to the larger censorship and symantic and language issues involved in memory holes.

With due respect, whether you (or I) are bad people or not is irrelevant, and not something I assert. I assume that we may have all gotten too wrapped up, and said (or implied) things we will disavow, regret or even apologize for in the morning. Argument Ad hominem won't help resolve the editorial issues. For my part, civility will reign supreme. If any slight was taken, I apologize.

However, you are glorifying a very narrow reading of the rules, and have wholesale ripped the heart and soul out of the article. And in fact, your approach to this "debate" shows a less than objective and line-by-line and citation-by-citation analysis. The subject deserves better than that. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 02:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Stan

"footnotes 1 through 10 demonstrate the perjorative use of the phrase "Memory hole" as a common perjorative" = original research. You can't go sweeping the web for a bunch of random uses of the phrase, cobble them together here, and then draw conclusions based on your impressions of how they're used. If they were reliable sources then that would be synthesis, but they're mostly not even reliable sources. Here's a hint: when the url ends in ".blogspot.com", don't use it. Wikipedia should not "be WP:Inclusionism and err on the side of too much of the irrelevant"; rather, Wikipedia should err on the side of WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI, per Wikipedia:Restoring part of a reverted edit I have rewritten a portion and resourced part of the discussion of the Memory holing of two Orwell books by Amazon.com. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 14:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Stan

External links removed

	Gavia immer removed the following:

External links

-

• Kick, Russ, The Memory Hole (rescuing knowledge, freeing information) - Includes documents released under the US Freedom of Information Act that reveal government activities rarely reported by the mainstream media.]

-

• Memory hole quotations.

-

• Orwell today.

-

• Shenk, David, Op-Ed Contributor The Memory Hole - November 3, 2006 New York Times.

As I will not be accused (and wrongly) of violating the WP:3RR, I think we should discuss this too. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 01:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Stan

As noted in my edit summary: the first belongs at The Memory Hole (web site), not here; the two following links fail WP:ELNO points 2, 11 and 13; and the last is not particularly useful on its own without context or accompaniment. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

User:7&6=thirteen, as stated, the first 1 is at the wrong article, the next 2 fail WP:ELNO. The last one is mildly interesting, but it isn't about the topic of this article; it's about Alzheimer's disease. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Amazon material

The following material has been removed from and restored to the article several time:

In an ironic twist of fate, in 2009, Amazon.com's electronic book, the Kindle, was purged of copies of Orwell's Nineteen eighty-four and Animal Farm. Customers who earlier downloaded those books found them surreptitiously erased from their Kindles, in what some said was the books being "sent down a memory hole." The book retailer denied accusations of "Big Brother-like behavior", and stated that the books were uploaded to the Kindle store by a publisher who did not have reproduction rights, thereby necessitating the deletion. "We removed the illegal copies from our systems and from customers' devices, and refunded customers," a spokesman said. Some critics likened this to Barnes & Noble selling a book, then burgling a house to reclaim it while leaving a check. Amazon.com stated that they might not repeat the actions in the future. A Shelby Township, Michigan student is the lead plaintiff in a filed class action lawsuit, which claims that his annotated notes for a class were rendered "useless" when his Kindle's copy of 1984 was purloined using secret technology to invade his computer via an undisclosed Trojan horse.

Ignoring, for the moment, whether or not the material belongs here at all, the sources used included the following:

• Pogue, David , July 17, 2009, Some E-Books Are More Equal Than Others, Pogue's Posts - The Latest in Technology From David Pogue, New York Times.
  • A somewhat reliable source that nowhere mentions "memory hole", and is therefore not appropriate for this page per WP:NOR.
• Amazon sued over Kindle deletion of Orwell book, July 31, 2009. Yahoo! News
  • Dead link, source cannot be assessed.
• Gonsalves, Antone. Amazon Kindle E-book Deletion Prompts Lawsuit – Amazon angered customers when it remotely deleted two books in from Kindle e-book readers without notifying their owners. July 31, 2009 InformationWeek
  • A reliable source that nowhere mentions "memory hole", and is therefore not appropriate for this page per WP:NOR.

In the future, please ensure that the sources used all comply with the content policies; people have been requesting this for many weeks now. In addition, please ensure that responses do not refer to other editors, or make vague allusions to various conspiratorial attempts to suppress the TRUTH™. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is the last redraft that you deleted. Your edit summary said 'Those are better references but there is a question of serious undue weight'.

You simply eliminated the material, without proposing to curtail it. Indeed, you have gone form criticizing the sources to criticizing he placement. You opined that sources did not mention "Memory hole" or "1984". In fact they do; I included the many references to deal with your unfounded objections. The Yahoo article and this material has been in this article for over a year. And now you say that it is an unreliable dead link. As I indicated above, link deterioration does not make the material invalid. Indeed, there are a multiplicity of additional sources. This whole episode is a good example of the use of "Memory hole" and similar tactics from Nineteen eight four. The answer is that it will be included because it belongs here.

I would also note that this material has been here for over a year. While you say that "people" have made objections, I assume that means the two of you -- and the only earlier recorded objections were to the use of a website that had connections with Holocaust deniers, and that reference was removed.

You also recently had objections to various blogs. Those references were removed.

Kindly refrain from giving me advice on how to edit. It comes across as not WP:CIVIL and is both condescending and a violation of Wikipedia:Don't be officious.

Apparently all you know how to do is WP:DELETE, and you have no interest in compromise, joint editing or WP:CANDOR. I would note that the two of you have a prodigious number (percentage) of reverted and undone edits. This may be cause for you to reflect on your conduct here, but that is up to your conscience. I will not tell you what to do.

Here is the text you deleted:

- In an ironic twist of fate, in 2009, Amazon.com's electronic book, the Kindle, was purged of copies of Orwell's Nineteen eighty-four and Animal Farm. Customers who earlier downloaded those books found them surreptitiously erased from their Kindles, in what some said was the books being "sent down a memory hole." The book retailer denied accusations of "Big Brother-like behavior", and stated that the books were uploaded to the Kindle store by a publisher who did not have reproduction rights, thereby necessitating the deletion. "We removed the illegal copies from our systems and from customers' devices, and refunded customers," a spokesman said. Some critics likened this to Barnes & Noble selling a book, then burgling a house to reclaim it while leaving a check. Amazon.com stated that they might not repeat the actions in the future. A Shelby Township, Michigan student is the lead plaintiff in a filed class action lawsuit, which claims that his annotated notes for a class were rendered "useless" when his Kindle's copy of 1984 was purloined using secret technology to invade his computer via an undisclosed Trojan horse.

-

Amazon thereafter apologized and thererafter offered to restore the deleted books back to users’ Kindles. In fact the lawsuit was settled on September 25, 2009.

To see the references look here.

I have more than met you half way. Every one of your legitimate concerns has been addressed and rectified. Let's work this through. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 15:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Stan

User:7&6=thirteen, I didn't delete the material, and your comment referred to other editors, and made vague allusions and accusations about attempts to censor, place material in a "memory hole", or suppress the TRUTH™. As explained, the sources listed above are inappropriate for this article, and therefore cannot be used - do not restore them. Please try responding again, this time referring only to policy, and whether or not the sources and material used satisfy WP:UNDUE, WP:V, and WP:NOR. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You are right. You did not make the last deletion, and I apologize for my mistake and the factual error. The sources are appropriate. Deal with the sources that were just deleted. This is better sources than 90% of the wikipedia articles. I would appreciate dialogue, not just "no." There are other fora to deal with this, and you do not have the final word. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 16:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Stan

With any sources, this is still a matter of serious undue weight on one incident with one thin hair of a connection to the topic of the article. That material belongs in Amazon.com or Amazon Kindle, not here, and with impeccable sources it will still belong in Amazon.com or Amazon Kindle - not here. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Gavia immer & Jayjg With respect, can we work this out? Would WP:Mediation help? For you to question all of these sources seems out of line. Likewise, the relevancy of this is (IMHO) indisputable. We need to stop blaming, deleting, and start creating and compromising. We are smarter than to let this become a WP:Edit war. There has got to be a work around. Let's fix the problem, not fix the blame. Let's try to reach a WP:consensus as to the right way to improve the encyclopedia. That's my request. Best regards 7&6=thirteen (talk) 16:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Stan

If you'd stop reverting in the policy-violating material, that would be a good start. Now, we can't actually work anything out until you start addressing the issues that have been raised. To begin with, most of the sources you have brought don't even mention the term "memory hole", and therefore cannot be used. In addition, as Gavia immer points out, even the remaining ones only mention the phrase "memory hole" in passing, and are actually about an issue that happened with the Amazon Kindle, and are therefore more relevant there. The consensus-building starts when you list all the sources that actually discuss "memory hole" here, and start discussing whether or not they are appropriate. Convince us using sources and how they comply with policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is the reflist, which you deleted (again). Note the word "Memory hole" in the titles. Note also that all of the other sources specifically refer methods from "1984", which in context means "Memory hole". Likewise, what do you think "Orwellian deletion" means, if not 'memory hole'. Frankly, I don't see why it has to use 'magic words' to get the point across. You can be obtuse, or you could actually read the articles. Take your pick. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 18:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Stan

Adding the "reflist" template down here is unhelpful, since it only reflects the references used in the paragraph in the section above, not the references used in this new paragraph, and in any event gives no specific information about each source. Please don't re-add it; instead, please list each source individually, as I have above, and show where it explicitly discusses the concept of "Memory hole". These "magic words" are required to show that one is not doing original research. WP:NOR states in the lead section:

To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented.

The bolding is in the policy itself. Now, the only way you can show that the material is directly related to the topic of the article (memory hole), is to show where it explicitly discusses the concept. An individual editors' opinion that material is conceptually relevant is not good enough to comply with policy, an explicit relationship must be present in the source itself.

Also, comment only about article content, sources, and policies, not other editors, per WP:NPA. Please make this be the last time I have to mention this. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, comment only about article content, sources, and policies, not other editors, per WP:NPA. Please make this be the last time I have to mention this. Thanks. Ditto. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Stan

Please do not remove the Reflist 7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Stan

The list of references you keep duplicating is already found above, at Talk:Memory_hole#Notes. Adding a section for it here is wasting space for irrelevant material because, as explained, this reflist you keep duplicating is not the list of references used in the Amazon paragraph, but rather, as already explained, the list of reference provided for the paragraph in the section above. Please do not restore it. Instead, bring the references that you want to use for the Amazon material, and explain how they are directly related to the topic of the article (memory hole), and show where they explicitly discuss the concept. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

This is the list of references that was last reverted out of there. 'Please to not remove the Reflist. You do not get to alter my comments. Thank you.

Those who wish to see the last big REVERT and its sources will have to look To see the references look here.[User:7&6=thirteen|7&6=thirteen]] (talk) 23:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Stan

I would not include the Amazon "material" based on this discussion. --Tom (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

References

Merge with Damnatio memoriae

Please see the rationale and discussion at Talk:Damnatio_memoriae#Merge_with_memory_hole and comment there (not here), to keep the discussion centralized. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)