This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Book banning in the United States (2021鈥損resent) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources:聽 Google ( books聽路 news聽路 scholar聽路 free images聽路 WP聽refs)聽路 FENS聽路 JSTOR聽路 TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Book banning in the United States (2021鈥損resent) appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 7 March聽2022 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
On 1 April 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to 2021鈥2023 book challenges in the United States. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
Probably don't need to include here until there are more sources talking directly about its impact on books. 鈥 Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Theleekycauldron (
talk)聽11:06, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Created by Rhododendrites ( talk). Self-nominated at 03:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC).
if we can be the first to write about it-聽? Did you look at the links above? Coverage of it is everywhere. Like I said, it's not a subject that has a clear name, so the title needs to be descriptive. Is your primary point about the year span in the title? If that's the issue, I don't necessarily disagree. There are a lot of sources identifying a trend in book banning taking place, identifying specific themes and characteristics of that effort, etc., and most of it is from mid-2021 through early 2022. I was initially was going to title the article as such, but there are enough sources talking about how it began as a reaction to social movements in 2020, so I erred on that side. There's certainly a valid discussion on what it should be called, but it sounds like you're saying the article itself or its subject is OR/SYNTH, not just the title, and that's what I just don't see. All that said, I'll respect that you'd rather someone else complete the review, so no response necessary. It's just, you know, a concerning claim that has implications beyond DYK, of course. 鈥 Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
This is one of those topics that doesn't have a clear common name, even while it's about a clearly notable trend which has some distinct characteristics that separate it from similar kinds of trends in the past. The current title, "2020-22 book banning in the United States" is an effort to satisfy WP:CRITERIA to the best I could, but it's worth discussing. Most of the sources focus on 2021 or 2022, but others also frame it as part of the reaction to the 2020鈥2022 United States racial unrest, which is why I put it at 2020-22 rather than 2021-22. Maybe that was a mistake, I don't know -- that's a big reason I'm opening this thread in the hope of getting some additional thoughts. 鈥 Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
I question the premise of this article. The American Library Association, which is cited as a source for this article, reported that there were "156 challenges to library, school, and university materials and services in 2020. ... 273 books that were targeted ...." But for the previous year, they found "377 challenges to library, school, and university materials and services in 2019. ... 566 books that were targeted ...." The 156 challenges received in 2020 were actually the fewest that they reported in the preceding 20 years. I would also note that this article seems to ignore any challenges to materials based on negative portrayal of people of color, such as seen here, or the inclusion in the ALA's 2020 top 10 of To Kill a Mockingbird ("Banned and challenged for racial slurs and their negative effect on students, featuring a 鈥渨hite savior鈥 character, and its perception of the Black experience"). -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
聽moved. As for Dr. Seuss, here's the thing: several of the sources cited (and more) do mention it, but primarily in the context of highlighting [what the sources claim to be] a hypocrisy of the people who objected to Dr. Seuss "getting canceled" now arguing to ban a bunch of books. Part of the reason it's not included as part of the noted trend is that they weren't really banned -- they just went out of print following criticism. That's a pretty big distinction. There's also a distinction in that people's objection to the Dr. Seuss books were racist caricatures -- not some critical commentary intended to teach students about some aspect of history or culture. To Kill a Mockingbird likewise comes up from time to time in these sources, but I haven't seen it be one of the big stories. There are several specific books which have been challenged multiple times and which received some amount of coverage for being challenged, TKaM included, but I also didn't list most of the others with a couple exceptions. That is to say, I certainly don't object to adding TKaM somewhere if it fits, but the vast majority of challenged titles, even those in the top 10, aren't named specifically.
As elsewhere, I began with a couple dozen sources writing about the book banning trend generally and let those articles guide the shape of the article. I think it does a pretty good job of reflecting that big picture, even if it misses some of the details (which can be added where WP:DUE). 鈥 Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
The current title of this article is very misleading!
Please consider the definition for book banning. I believe that this article is about books removed from middle school and high school libraries and curricula in the United States. Possible alternative titles might be '2021-2022 school book bans in the United States' or Public school book bans in the United States 2021-22'.
The content of the article is contradictory in many places. The sources cited often attribute parents as the source of outcry for banning/removing books in schools that their children attend. (There are egregious abuses that the sources mention, of some of these parents filing hundreds of requests for a particular book to be removed, or for every book on topics such as sex education or racism be removed.) In parts of the article, this is described in a way that IS consistent with the sources. In other parts of the article, "conservative" or "GOP" special interest groups are described as the organizers of these book removals. These contradictions are present in the same paragraph even! There are sources provided that corroborate the allegation that external groups are organizing parents to object to the books. The article needs to be cleaned up to present both groups as drivers of book removals. (Remember please that in the United States, public schools are governed at a local level by school boards. Parents and citizens have the right to voice their objections to the content of school curriculum and public school library books.)
My last observation is that the article doesn't articulate what is meant by "book banning" anywhere.
Instead, the article focuses on three particular books, with extensive quotes from the authors of those three books. Two of the books are graphic novels, not print books per se. The article describes the third book as being a source of contention because of the copious obscene language, so it isn't clear why there is anything notable about parents and community members objecting to it being used to instruct children.
As Bruxton commented above, the article has a strong aspect of WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. The premises in the article can be supported by the sources that are referenced, but that isn't done as it is written now.-- FeralOink ( talk) 06:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
There hasn't been an increase in books banned in the United States in general- As far as I know, there isn't good data about absolute numbers of books being banned. The best we have are organizations like the ALA, which wrote in January that "The last year, especially the last few months, has seen a dramatic increase in book challenges nationwide". So in that case, yes, "challenges" rather than "bans" (some number of those challenges do not successfully become bans).
Likewise, the article does not focus on banned books, i.e. books that are no longer allowed to be published or sold or made available in public libraries in the United States.-聽?? Where did you get that definition? Even our article on book censorship lays it out pretty clearly right in the lead, attributed to Marshall University Library:
a banned book as one that is "removed from a library, classroom etc." and a challenged book as one that is "requested to be removed from a library, classroom etc.". It's not specifically about publishing, selling, or public libraries. I mean, yes, when an oppressive national government intervenes in the publication of books, that's also banning books, but that's an extreme form.
2021-2022 school book bans in the United States- it is primarily about schools, but not entirely, although you would be right to point out there's almost no mention of public libraries. The reason is the way the sources tend to frame it -- as a trend in book banning. Several of the sources mention public libraries, but with almost no detail. Like the Strauss piece in WaPo:
Now we are seeing a new wave of book bans, marked by an unprecedented number of challenges and intense polarization. Its focus: narrowing the universe of information in schools and public libraries that...(she doesn't really go into detail about the public library aspect of that). There are several like that. There are also a handful about public libraries ( for example), but I didn't include them because I tried to follow what got national coverage, reaching to local sources to supplement rather than trying to list everything.
In other parts of the article, "conservative" or "GOP" special interest groups are described as the organizers of these book removals.- It's not a contradiction, but it may be unclearly written. It's an old playbook, but one which hasn't been exercised in this way in a while: organizations mobilize local parents and parents' groups and supply them with resources, strategies, templates, activities, etc. In the end it's the parents making the challenges, and the national groups push the parents, publish lists of books for parents to challenge, urge parents to go to meetings, provide them with effective arguments, etc.
Parents and citizens have the right to voice their objections to the content of school curriculum and public school library books.- Yes, and it's hard to say which challenges are a parent which sees a book, reads it, and decides it's inappropriate, and which challenges are based on the wider activist efforts. None of this is illegal -- it's just a very well documented form of activism via "parents' rights".
My last observation is that the article doesn't articulate what is meant by "book banning" anywhere.- responded to this above, but it's a good point that the article should be clearer. Not all of the answers to the questions you've asked are available, but I can try to better explain this and clean up terminology where possible.
focuses on three particular books-聽? You mean the three "notable cases"? Again, I tried to follow what got national coverage, and only wanted to list anything that was covered by multiple sources. Those three seemed like sensible subsections, but there are almost certainly others which could be added. Reading what you wrote again, based on "extensive quotes" and "graphic novel", I presume you mean Maus and New Kid, but don't know the third. While Maus merited its own subsection as a notable case due to the amount of coverage that one got, the article doesn't "focus on three particular books". There are quotes from a few authors whose books were banned, yes. Are you saying they're excessive?
This article does not satisfy the criteria for B class for any of the Wikprojects that supposedly assess it as such.-- FeralOink ( talk) 07:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus. No !votes or further consensus after relisting. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Material Works (contribs) 01:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
2021鈥2022 book banning in the United States 鈫 2021鈥2023 book challenges in the United States 鈥 Book censorships attempts are still ongoing. In addition, this page focuses on many unsuccessful attempts to ban or restrict titles, not always successful ones. aaronneallucas ( talk) 23:22, 1 April 2023 (UTC) 鈥斅Relisting.聽 Wikiexplorationandhelping ( talk) 23:47, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
PEN America says book bans in public school libraries this year are on pace to top last year's high mark, when there were more than 2,500 instances of book bans in U.S. schools
"Between 2021 and 2022" are the first words in the article. I think that's a non-intuitive use of the word "between". If something is between the chair and the wall, it's in a space that exists between the chair and the wall. There's nothing like that between 2021 and 2022. I'd prefer "Starting in 2021". That would also solve the problem caused by the current phrase "Between 2021 and 2022" which suggests that the activity stopped at the end of 2022. Novellasyes ( talk) 15:07, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
It looks like a prior discussion about changing the title of this article so that instead of saying "2022" it says "2023" was closed, no consensus having been reached. I'd like to see a reconsideration of that. I gather that the issue then was "where are the news links proving that continued book banning activity is occurring in 2023". This has been addressed to some extent. However, to me the main reason to change it to "2023" is that any random reader of this article would automatically assume from the current title "2021-2022 book banning in the United States" that this activity ended in 2022, and that the article is about a past event -- an event or a set of activities that is now over. The title as it exists strongly implies that. It shouldn't strongly imply that or leave that impression in the mind of the reader. Novellasyes ( talk) 16:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved. WP:SNOWBALL*. There is a clear consensus that this topic extends into 2023. A further proposal can be made for 2021鈥損resent or similar. (*If anyone, involved or not, tells me within a week that they object to this closure, then I will reopen.) ( non-admin closure) {{replyto| SilverLocust}} ( talk) 10:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
2021鈥2022 book banning in the United States 鈫 2021鈥2023 book banning in the United States 鈥 There is ample evidence that the wave of book banning has continued into 2023. In fact, it is occurring even more so than in 2022, according to sources already cited in the article. As @ Novellasyes has noted, leaving the title as it is now implies that this wave of book bans is not still occurring, which is just factually incorrect. BappleBusiness [talk] 01:38, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
While I understand and am sympathetic to the comparison, I think that having an image directly comparing these book bans/burnings and the Nazi book burnings seems a bit like original research. (I have no objection to the recent book burning to be used as an illustration, it's the side-by-side comparison I think is OR). GnocchiFan ( talk) 12:40, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Dimadick ( talk) 13:53, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
References
Public discussion of this topic includes a lot of debate and ambiguity not present in this article. Both Right and Left activists have worked to limit access to books they find harmful. On the Right, it's mainly been by outside efforts to remove books from school libraries and curricula; on the Left it's by through pressure on booksellers like Amazon or Target not to sell certain titles, on copyright holders like the Seuss estate to withdraw titles, and on librarians (or choices by librarians themselves) not to acquire books for public libraries, or to withdraw them from circulation, based on perceived harmful content. Neither approach is literal "banning" in the sense of eliminating a book entirely by government action. The rightwing school library campaigns may be closer to "banning" by some definitions, but the leftwing approach may be more effective in actually making it very hard for adults as well as minors to read specific books (like "When Harry Became Sally" or whatever it's called).
This article, while well-written and researched, frames the question in a tendentious way and ignores lots of conservative perspectives in non-deprecated sources. Llajwa ( talk) 22:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
article on book bans itself disagrees with both your definition... There is in fact a whole subsection of book ban (book censorship) devoted to school library shelf removal, so this argument doesn't make much sense. Regardless, if we have an article that disagrees with how the press and major organizations use a term, that article should probably be updated (but that would be a matter for another talk page). In this case, because Wikipedia follows how subjects are characterized in reliable sources, the title here uses "banning". You can get a sense of this if you highlight instances of "ban" on the page and look at the references section -- it's pretty ubiquitous in coverage of this subject. 鈥 Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Book banning in the United States (2021鈥損resent) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources:聽 Google ( books聽路 news聽路 scholar聽路 free images聽路 WP聽refs)聽路 FENS聽路 JSTOR聽路 TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Book banning in the United States (2021鈥損resent) appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 7 March聽2022 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
On 1 April 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to 2021鈥2023 book challenges in the United States. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
Probably don't need to include here until there are more sources talking directly about its impact on books. 鈥 Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Theleekycauldron (
talk)聽11:06, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Created by Rhododendrites ( talk). Self-nominated at 03:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC).
if we can be the first to write about it-聽? Did you look at the links above? Coverage of it is everywhere. Like I said, it's not a subject that has a clear name, so the title needs to be descriptive. Is your primary point about the year span in the title? If that's the issue, I don't necessarily disagree. There are a lot of sources identifying a trend in book banning taking place, identifying specific themes and characteristics of that effort, etc., and most of it is from mid-2021 through early 2022. I was initially was going to title the article as such, but there are enough sources talking about how it began as a reaction to social movements in 2020, so I erred on that side. There's certainly a valid discussion on what it should be called, but it sounds like you're saying the article itself or its subject is OR/SYNTH, not just the title, and that's what I just don't see. All that said, I'll respect that you'd rather someone else complete the review, so no response necessary. It's just, you know, a concerning claim that has implications beyond DYK, of course. 鈥 Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
This is one of those topics that doesn't have a clear common name, even while it's about a clearly notable trend which has some distinct characteristics that separate it from similar kinds of trends in the past. The current title, "2020-22 book banning in the United States" is an effort to satisfy WP:CRITERIA to the best I could, but it's worth discussing. Most of the sources focus on 2021 or 2022, but others also frame it as part of the reaction to the 2020鈥2022 United States racial unrest, which is why I put it at 2020-22 rather than 2021-22. Maybe that was a mistake, I don't know -- that's a big reason I'm opening this thread in the hope of getting some additional thoughts. 鈥 Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
I question the premise of this article. The American Library Association, which is cited as a source for this article, reported that there were "156 challenges to library, school, and university materials and services in 2020. ... 273 books that were targeted ...." But for the previous year, they found "377 challenges to library, school, and university materials and services in 2019. ... 566 books that were targeted ...." The 156 challenges received in 2020 were actually the fewest that they reported in the preceding 20 years. I would also note that this article seems to ignore any challenges to materials based on negative portrayal of people of color, such as seen here, or the inclusion in the ALA's 2020 top 10 of To Kill a Mockingbird ("Banned and challenged for racial slurs and their negative effect on students, featuring a 鈥渨hite savior鈥 character, and its perception of the Black experience"). -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
聽moved. As for Dr. Seuss, here's the thing: several of the sources cited (and more) do mention it, but primarily in the context of highlighting [what the sources claim to be] a hypocrisy of the people who objected to Dr. Seuss "getting canceled" now arguing to ban a bunch of books. Part of the reason it's not included as part of the noted trend is that they weren't really banned -- they just went out of print following criticism. That's a pretty big distinction. There's also a distinction in that people's objection to the Dr. Seuss books were racist caricatures -- not some critical commentary intended to teach students about some aspect of history or culture. To Kill a Mockingbird likewise comes up from time to time in these sources, but I haven't seen it be one of the big stories. There are several specific books which have been challenged multiple times and which received some amount of coverage for being challenged, TKaM included, but I also didn't list most of the others with a couple exceptions. That is to say, I certainly don't object to adding TKaM somewhere if it fits, but the vast majority of challenged titles, even those in the top 10, aren't named specifically.
As elsewhere, I began with a couple dozen sources writing about the book banning trend generally and let those articles guide the shape of the article. I think it does a pretty good job of reflecting that big picture, even if it misses some of the details (which can be added where WP:DUE). 鈥 Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
The current title of this article is very misleading!
Please consider the definition for book banning. I believe that this article is about books removed from middle school and high school libraries and curricula in the United States. Possible alternative titles might be '2021-2022 school book bans in the United States' or Public school book bans in the United States 2021-22'.
The content of the article is contradictory in many places. The sources cited often attribute parents as the source of outcry for banning/removing books in schools that their children attend. (There are egregious abuses that the sources mention, of some of these parents filing hundreds of requests for a particular book to be removed, or for every book on topics such as sex education or racism be removed.) In parts of the article, this is described in a way that IS consistent with the sources. In other parts of the article, "conservative" or "GOP" special interest groups are described as the organizers of these book removals. These contradictions are present in the same paragraph even! There are sources provided that corroborate the allegation that external groups are organizing parents to object to the books. The article needs to be cleaned up to present both groups as drivers of book removals. (Remember please that in the United States, public schools are governed at a local level by school boards. Parents and citizens have the right to voice their objections to the content of school curriculum and public school library books.)
My last observation is that the article doesn't articulate what is meant by "book banning" anywhere.
Instead, the article focuses on three particular books, with extensive quotes from the authors of those three books. Two of the books are graphic novels, not print books per se. The article describes the third book as being a source of contention because of the copious obscene language, so it isn't clear why there is anything notable about parents and community members objecting to it being used to instruct children.
As Bruxton commented above, the article has a strong aspect of WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. The premises in the article can be supported by the sources that are referenced, but that isn't done as it is written now.-- FeralOink ( talk) 06:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
There hasn't been an increase in books banned in the United States in general- As far as I know, there isn't good data about absolute numbers of books being banned. The best we have are organizations like the ALA, which wrote in January that "The last year, especially the last few months, has seen a dramatic increase in book challenges nationwide". So in that case, yes, "challenges" rather than "bans" (some number of those challenges do not successfully become bans).
Likewise, the article does not focus on banned books, i.e. books that are no longer allowed to be published or sold or made available in public libraries in the United States.-聽?? Where did you get that definition? Even our article on book censorship lays it out pretty clearly right in the lead, attributed to Marshall University Library:
a banned book as one that is "removed from a library, classroom etc." and a challenged book as one that is "requested to be removed from a library, classroom etc.". It's not specifically about publishing, selling, or public libraries. I mean, yes, when an oppressive national government intervenes in the publication of books, that's also banning books, but that's an extreme form.
2021-2022 school book bans in the United States- it is primarily about schools, but not entirely, although you would be right to point out there's almost no mention of public libraries. The reason is the way the sources tend to frame it -- as a trend in book banning. Several of the sources mention public libraries, but with almost no detail. Like the Strauss piece in WaPo:
Now we are seeing a new wave of book bans, marked by an unprecedented number of challenges and intense polarization. Its focus: narrowing the universe of information in schools and public libraries that...(she doesn't really go into detail about the public library aspect of that). There are several like that. There are also a handful about public libraries ( for example), but I didn't include them because I tried to follow what got national coverage, reaching to local sources to supplement rather than trying to list everything.
In other parts of the article, "conservative" or "GOP" special interest groups are described as the organizers of these book removals.- It's not a contradiction, but it may be unclearly written. It's an old playbook, but one which hasn't been exercised in this way in a while: organizations mobilize local parents and parents' groups and supply them with resources, strategies, templates, activities, etc. In the end it's the parents making the challenges, and the national groups push the parents, publish lists of books for parents to challenge, urge parents to go to meetings, provide them with effective arguments, etc.
Parents and citizens have the right to voice their objections to the content of school curriculum and public school library books.- Yes, and it's hard to say which challenges are a parent which sees a book, reads it, and decides it's inappropriate, and which challenges are based on the wider activist efforts. None of this is illegal -- it's just a very well documented form of activism via "parents' rights".
My last observation is that the article doesn't articulate what is meant by "book banning" anywhere.- responded to this above, but it's a good point that the article should be clearer. Not all of the answers to the questions you've asked are available, but I can try to better explain this and clean up terminology where possible.
focuses on three particular books-聽? You mean the three "notable cases"? Again, I tried to follow what got national coverage, and only wanted to list anything that was covered by multiple sources. Those three seemed like sensible subsections, but there are almost certainly others which could be added. Reading what you wrote again, based on "extensive quotes" and "graphic novel", I presume you mean Maus and New Kid, but don't know the third. While Maus merited its own subsection as a notable case due to the amount of coverage that one got, the article doesn't "focus on three particular books". There are quotes from a few authors whose books were banned, yes. Are you saying they're excessive?
This article does not satisfy the criteria for B class for any of the Wikprojects that supposedly assess it as such.-- FeralOink ( talk) 07:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus. No !votes or further consensus after relisting. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Material Works (contribs) 01:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
2021鈥2022 book banning in the United States 鈫 2021鈥2023 book challenges in the United States 鈥 Book censorships attempts are still ongoing. In addition, this page focuses on many unsuccessful attempts to ban or restrict titles, not always successful ones. aaronneallucas ( talk) 23:22, 1 April 2023 (UTC) 鈥斅Relisting.聽 Wikiexplorationandhelping ( talk) 23:47, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
PEN America says book bans in public school libraries this year are on pace to top last year's high mark, when there were more than 2,500 instances of book bans in U.S. schools
"Between 2021 and 2022" are the first words in the article. I think that's a non-intuitive use of the word "between". If something is between the chair and the wall, it's in a space that exists between the chair and the wall. There's nothing like that between 2021 and 2022. I'd prefer "Starting in 2021". That would also solve the problem caused by the current phrase "Between 2021 and 2022" which suggests that the activity stopped at the end of 2022. Novellasyes ( talk) 15:07, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
It looks like a prior discussion about changing the title of this article so that instead of saying "2022" it says "2023" was closed, no consensus having been reached. I'd like to see a reconsideration of that. I gather that the issue then was "where are the news links proving that continued book banning activity is occurring in 2023". This has been addressed to some extent. However, to me the main reason to change it to "2023" is that any random reader of this article would automatically assume from the current title "2021-2022 book banning in the United States" that this activity ended in 2022, and that the article is about a past event -- an event or a set of activities that is now over. The title as it exists strongly implies that. It shouldn't strongly imply that or leave that impression in the mind of the reader. Novellasyes ( talk) 16:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved. WP:SNOWBALL*. There is a clear consensus that this topic extends into 2023. A further proposal can be made for 2021鈥損resent or similar. (*If anyone, involved or not, tells me within a week that they object to this closure, then I will reopen.) ( non-admin closure) {{replyto| SilverLocust}} ( talk) 10:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
2021鈥2022 book banning in the United States 鈫 2021鈥2023 book banning in the United States 鈥 There is ample evidence that the wave of book banning has continued into 2023. In fact, it is occurring even more so than in 2022, according to sources already cited in the article. As @ Novellasyes has noted, leaving the title as it is now implies that this wave of book bans is not still occurring, which is just factually incorrect. BappleBusiness [talk] 01:38, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
While I understand and am sympathetic to the comparison, I think that having an image directly comparing these book bans/burnings and the Nazi book burnings seems a bit like original research. (I have no objection to the recent book burning to be used as an illustration, it's the side-by-side comparison I think is OR). GnocchiFan ( talk) 12:40, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Dimadick ( talk) 13:53, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
References
Public discussion of this topic includes a lot of debate and ambiguity not present in this article. Both Right and Left activists have worked to limit access to books they find harmful. On the Right, it's mainly been by outside efforts to remove books from school libraries and curricula; on the Left it's by through pressure on booksellers like Amazon or Target not to sell certain titles, on copyright holders like the Seuss estate to withdraw titles, and on librarians (or choices by librarians themselves) not to acquire books for public libraries, or to withdraw them from circulation, based on perceived harmful content. Neither approach is literal "banning" in the sense of eliminating a book entirely by government action. The rightwing school library campaigns may be closer to "banning" by some definitions, but the leftwing approach may be more effective in actually making it very hard for adults as well as minors to read specific books (like "When Harry Became Sally" or whatever it's called).
This article, while well-written and researched, frames the question in a tendentious way and ignores lots of conservative perspectives in non-deprecated sources. Llajwa ( talk) 22:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
article on book bans itself disagrees with both your definition... There is in fact a whole subsection of book ban (book censorship) devoted to school library shelf removal, so this argument doesn't make much sense. Regardless, if we have an article that disagrees with how the press and major organizations use a term, that article should probably be updated (but that would be a matter for another talk page). In this case, because Wikipedia follows how subjects are characterized in reliable sources, the title here uses "banning". You can get a sense of this if you highlight instances of "ban" on the page and look at the references section -- it's pretty ubiquitous in coverage of this subject. 鈥 Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)