Template:Did you know nominations/Censorship of the Bible

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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:23, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Censorship of the Bible

(

)

1973 Ko-Tân Colloquial Taiwanese Version New Testament

... that a Presbyterian-Catholic New Testament in Taiwanese was confiscated by the government in 1975 for using the Latin alphabet instead of Chinese characters?The Presbyterian Church in Taiwan and the Advocacy of Local Autonomy, page 6 of the document, electronic page 22 (of the pdf) "In 1975, after the KMT confiscated romanized Bibles and prohibited the printing of romanized texts"
ALT1:... that in 2019, Pinterest censored the term "bible verses" as "brand unsafe" and made it disappear from autocomplete search results?tech-insider-blows-whistle "Project Veritas reviewed the “Sensitive Terms List” and discovered that Christianity-related terms like “christian easter” and “bible verses” were marked as “brand unsafe.” The insider explained to Project Veritas in an interview that such terms are removed from auto-complete search results." and Pinterest bans... "Additionally, “Bible verses” and other Christian terms also are listed on Pinterest's offensive terms list, a list that employees add terms to manually."

Created/expanded by Epiphyllumlover (talk). Self-nominated at 23:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC).

Date and length fine. I have had to amend the hooks slightly so they include the link to the article in places I thought were appropriate (feel free to move them if you think I put them in the wrong place @Epiphyllumlover:). My preference would be for ALT1 but I'm sure there are many other good possible hooks that could be suggested. QPQ is not needed as this is the first nomination, No close paraphrasing. Good to go. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment on ALT1, Project Veritas is a notorious activist group which has form in fake news and disinformation so I would be wary of citing content from them. Cowlibob (talk) 14:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

It is also cited to Christian Post, which is what I am relying on when I approved it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't look like Christian Post have independently verified it "On Tuesday, an anonymous whistleblower at the company told Project Veritas that Pinterest...". They are going by what Project Veritas said or what Live Action said. It would be the same as citing from a secondary source which said "according to The Canary". Cowlibob (talk) 17:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you to User:Piotrus for inviting me to submit this to DYK. I was not planning on it when I read his invite and that changed my mind. As for the nature of the allegation against pinterest, it is of a sort that at the time anyone could verify simply by typing in "Bible ver" like someone did for the journalism targeting it. If it was a hoax, they would have been quickly called on it. However, as of right now, pinterest has removed the censorship of the term "bible verses" from their autocomplete. It shows up now. Yet this sort of "brand unsafe" concern is not completely dead as multiple tech businesses have strict policies regarding religion and advertising. For example, I am of the understanding that if a publisher of Catholic books wanted to place an ad on the main google search for a Catholic translation of the Bible, they could still do so, but would be prohibited from advertising that the translation is in fact Catholic. As the technology for market segmentation increases, I would imagine this problem will get worse before it gets better.

So if this article is privileged with showing the picture, I would prefer to use the hook with the KMT government in Taiwan censoring the Bible. Otherwise I have no preference. That hook is satisfying because it suggests the faction within Catholicism that favored vernacular translations went from being a minority at Trent to being the majority today. The use of Latin letters instead of Chinese characters may be a bastardization of the language, but it is easier to read and reaches more people, similar to how vernacular European translations during the centuries past were not proper Latin as spoken by the educated, yet could read more people. The law in Taiwan seems analogous to how it would be if the English speaking governments banned books written in Simple English in an attempt to prevent the overall language from being dumbed down.

If for some reason a third hook is needed, maybe the one with the New Testament in Bretton first being put on the Index, only to be published by the Catholics themselves just a half-century later when the full Bible came out.

This article changed me somewhat. I was more prejudiced against Jehovah's Witnesses before realizing that some of the garbage in their organizations is historically related to the Counter-Reformation. Just as an African-American child immersed in a culture of stereotype threat risks fulfilling the stereotypes, a Protestant child (of the past) immersed in a culture where he is a heretic, illegal, and destined to be persecuted also risks fulfilling the stereotype. This inclination gets passed on from generation to generation. So fundamentalisms don't just create themselves, they are nursed by elements within Western civilization that like to be legalistic and correct, that enjoys oppressing the weaker groups, and that intentionally talks past outsiders rather than communicates with them. I think publicizing this article could help increase overall awareness and decrease bigotry.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:25, 11 March 2020 (UTC)