This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
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)
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)
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 are just that, records. That info should be in the Beatles article, not here. -- Eloquence
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
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
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
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:
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)
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 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":
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)
Were they really burned?
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)
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)
---
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)
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."
"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)
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
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
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)
According to Myst canon, an age exists independently from the description of it. Alksub 21:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
No time for discussion right now, but I'm putting these here for future reference
Kodansha "Friday" (by Kōfuku no Kagaku)
Anti Mumia-Abu Jamal books (at Berkeley)
"The laws of England" (by artist John Latham)
Cgingold 15:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
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.
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)
- 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
The article on Norwegian author Knut Hamsun says:
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)
I read an old article which states.
Is there any truth to these statements? -- Anaccuratesource ( talk) 08:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
8digits ( talk) 01:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
8digits ( talk) 01:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
"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)
I have reverted these latest additions by IP 81.132.46.110 for the following reasons:
-- Saddhiyama ( talk) 09:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:56, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.sikhnn.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=383When 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:38, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
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)
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)
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 are just that, records. That info should be in the Beatles article, not here. -- Eloquence
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
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
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
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:
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)
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 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":
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)
Were they really burned?
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)
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)
---
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)
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."
"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)
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
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
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)
According to Myst canon, an age exists independently from the description of it. Alksub 21:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
No time for discussion right now, but I'm putting these here for future reference
Kodansha "Friday" (by Kōfuku no Kagaku)
Anti Mumia-Abu Jamal books (at Berkeley)
"The laws of England" (by artist John Latham)
Cgingold 15:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
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.
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)
- 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
The article on Norwegian author Knut Hamsun says:
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)
I read an old article which states.
Is there any truth to these statements? -- Anaccuratesource ( talk) 08:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
8digits ( talk) 01:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
8digits ( talk) 01:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
"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)
I have reverted these latest additions by IP 81.132.46.110 for the following reasons:
-- Saddhiyama ( talk) 09:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:56, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.sikhnn.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=383When 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:38, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
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)