This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Deplatforming article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Deplatforming. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Deplatforming at the Reference desk. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2020 and 4 March 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Jpfleur2.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 19:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 May 2021 and 31 July 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Peer reviewers:
Tunjesh.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 19:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
The definition in the first sentence currently says,
Deplatforming, also known as no-platforming, is a form of Internet censorship in which social media and other technology companies suspend, ban, or otherwise shut down controversial speakers or speech.[1]
There are several problems with this:
In fact, deplatforming has been used to refer to shutting down invited speakers, and afaict that was the original use, it was extended to online activity later; however, earliest use is still t.b.d. Either way, the word is broader than online-only activity. Since the definition in the first sentence is incorrect, and some of the remainder of the article are based on a biased opinion piece which suffers from a due weight problem, the lead needs to be rewritten to provide the correct definition based on reliable sources, and there needs to be some trimming and reorganization of the body sections to provide proper weight to all senses of the word.
Fixing the definition sentence is the most urgent requirement, because due to Wikipedia's ranking on the Web, the incorrect definition appears directly in search engine results when searching for the term. Mathglot ( talk) 21:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
It's sufficiently improved, imho, that the {{ Rewrite lead}} tag can be removed. However, this is just the first sentence, not the whole lead, and there's still a lot more work needed. Some concomitant changes were made to the article body as well, notably moving up the section on university speakers, since online deplatforming is relatively recent and should go after, and adding some new content.Deplatforming, also known as no-platforming, is a form of political activism or prior restraint by an individual, group, or organization with the goal of shutting down controversial speakers or speech, or denying them access to a venue in which to express their opinion.
{{
Rewrite|article}}
tag and worried by the sheer number of edits you had already made when I first looked. I'm glad that I walked away for a few hours before checking back. As it now stands, your edits have clearly improved the article substantially. I was also embarrassed to discover that you were perfectly right about the {{
failed verification}} tag. Thank you.
Lwarrenwiki (
talk) 05:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC)I almost hesitate to raise this subject, because it's such a bottomless cesspit and a major honeypot for trolls, but the truth is that Gamergate has plenty of turmoil and issues around the question of deplatforming. Maybe rather than include much about it here, we could just mention it in passing, and add a wikilink, and be done with it. Mathglot ( talk) 00:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Another element which I think could be much improved in the article, is better content about the culture wars aspects; including the left-right political divide (at least in the U.S.; not sure how that broke down in the U.K.), who got disinvited, and by whom (top or bottom of the power hierarchy), and the free speech issues that are tied in with it.
Whether and whom to invite to speak, has been politicized for a long time. In the 1950s (even before) and 1960s, American universities, some at least, were under paternalistic or authoritarian guidance by eminences grises of the Establishment, so conservative by nature. They were comfortable with mainstream (read: white, capitalist, Christian, non-leftist, male) opinion of the day. The flowering of the 1964 Free Speech Movement which was a spontaneous, grass-roots, student-led protest against this authoritarian squelching of free opinion was partly in reaction to the attitude of the university administration of the day. The term "culture wars" came much later, but this was perhaps an early battle of that war, but in those days, university administrations were conservative and authoritarian, and they were the ones disinviting, or rather, not inviting speakers they disagreed with from their positions of power at the top of the academic heirarchy, that their students would have liked to have heard. It's interesting how the situation today is pretty much the reverse, with the disinviting and deplatforming that is going on, coming from the bottom of the hierarchy, namely, the students. Also, the target of disinvitation/deplatforming has reversed: now, it largely targets speakers with opinions on the right of the political spectrum, whereas in the 1950s and 60s, it targeted those with opinions on the left.
A common feature, whether targeting those on the left or the right, is the issue of censorship that arose in both cases. The WSJ article raises the issue of censorship by the left of those with conservative opinion; I'm sure other sources can be found for the reverse situation that was the case in the 50s and 60s. Censhorship in academia is another hot button issue of the culture wars, and it would be interesting to trace the parallels, and the contrasts, in accusations of censorship then and now, and the arguments that were/are used to defend their actions (who of course reject any notion of "censorship") by those who were/are accused of it. An asymmetry in comparing the two epochs, is that although academia and corporations existed both then and now, the internet is a more recent phenomenon, so there's no "1950s internet" with which we could contrast the current social media atmosphere.
There are some references here and there in the article about these aspects of deplatforming, but I think the article would benefit by a section on this subject, and there seems to be sufficient sources to write one. Mathglot ( talk) 06:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
The article needs a terminology section, discussing where the term came from. The British group, No Platform, prefigures it, as does, perhaps, the university regulations at University of California that sought to avoid giving controversial figures a "platform for propaganda". Where the term came from, when it was first used in its current form and by whom, and related terms, derived terms, and synonyms could all go in this section. Imho, the section sequence should be: Lead, Terminology, Introduction, History (doesn't exist yet). The History section could have some of the other sections that currently appear at top level (H2 headrers) moved down as H3 subsections of a new History section. Mathglot ( talk) 06:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Uk: the statutory obligation upon universities to consider denying particular “extremist” speakers a platform because of the risk that others might be drawn into terrorism
https://theconversation.com/counter-terrorism-prevent-strategy-receives-a-boost-from-the-courts-and-statistical-evidence-113949 Etc. Zezen ( talk) 20:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
I’m surprised to see UK antifascism written out of this history, as both middle class student politics of No Platform and working class militant action (43 Group against the British Union of Fascists in the 40s, Anti-Fascist Action against the National Front/BNP in the 80s/90s, right back to the Battle of Cable Street) are generally seen as the folks who originated both the tactic and the term “De-platforming”.
Especially since there is an different article in the same topic under No Platform (which itself, writes out non-student based deplatforming)!
Might I suggest a merge of these topics?
Until that time, I’m marking this article with the “Globalize” warning, and adding the British versions of this article to the “See Also” section. 69.86.18.8 ( talk) 20:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Here’s a first couple of references for the origin of the term itself, traced back to the British opposition to Moseley, but coming to province in the 70s as a term.
[1
https://books.google.com/books?id=3wVDDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=“no+platform”+%2243+group%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjmjL_tzMTkAhUSy1kKHUJyAhYQ6AEIWDAH#v=onepage&q=No%20platform&f=false] [2
https://books.google.com/books?id=cYCsAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT222&dq=“no+platform”+fascism&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjD_P7uzsTkAhV8ITQIHZYqBpc4ChDoATAAegQIARAD#v=onepage&q=“no%20platform”%20fascism&f=false] [3
https://books.google.com/books?id=OZ5EAQAAIAAJ&q=“no+platform”+tactic&dq=“no+platform”+tactic&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiT-KWZz8TkAhUN11kKHQgOBGgQ6AEIZDAJ] [5
https://books.google.com/books?id=dD5dDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA116&dq=“no+platform”+fascists&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjb44GH0MTkAhWHjFkKHf7sDWgQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=“no%20platform”%20fascists&f=false]
69.86.18.8 (
talk) 20:57, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Is his opinion worth the wp:weight given in this article, given that it's cited from his self-published website? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.125.8.212 ( talk) 19:02, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Why not mention the contrary and probably more prevailing opinion, such as expresseed in https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/09/facebook-restricts-free-speech-popular-demand/598462/ "Treating platforms like governments—encouraging their control, but constraining them with flimsy versions of democratic input or due process—is not part of democracies’ usual playbook when companies gain too much power, or when their businesses cause harm. Market forces and competition are supposed to keep private commercial power in check. When those fail to do so, the next line of defense is to enforce competition law, not to establish new quasi-governmental rules for companies." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.125.8.212 ( talk) 19:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
I've added some description regarding the above subject matter, but if it's more appropriate to be added to another article on Wikipedia, please let me know "to the talk page of my user page". I will edit it myself. Thanks.-- Kyuri1449 ( talk) 05:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
There is no such thing as "deplatforming", despite what nazis (so called alt-rights) would say. All contributors to this article should be banned from Wikipedia forever to learn them a lesson, because Wikipedia must be not used for rightist propaganda. 185.17.127.237 ( talk) 22:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm looking for the right article: Political power comes across as academic, but as recent events have shown, there is no practical limit to the potential resources which might be devoted to it. This article provides a glimpse into this power. Any suggestions for that article? -- Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 13:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
I found a list of the Political powers which POTUS 45 instantly lost by his deplatforming in this citation: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-legacy-obliterated-norms-chipped-institutions-end/story?id=75275806&cid=clicksource_4380645_8_three_posts_card_hed -- Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 14:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Ms. Cornish is insufficiently notable nor a notable expert in the particular subject matter at hand. Further, the position isn't defensive: it is specifically misleading, and has the character of a non neutral descriptions.
Is this a normal section to write in an article marked controversial? There is no such entry on the page for censorship, for instance, perhaps this should merely be a subarticle of that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.230.208.252 ( talk) 11:52, May 23, 2021 (UTC)