Jump to content

Talk:Freedom of thought/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

what exactly

an effort to limit the use of words of language is a form of restricting freedom of thought.

(2nd para., last sentence.)

does this mean? the sentence would make more sense to me w/o th words "of language". I would like- for a brief bit- to examine thier value in this sentence.

to read it out loud helps it makes sense (I think). so, my instinct tells me it's not yet reached it's best written version.

it seems unlikely but I must ask:

has someone written that there have been efforts to say "let's put a cap or limit on the english lexicon", whether from a dictionary-complier's POV or some other "language authority"'s? or does it just refer to PR , talking points, orchestrated town-halls, staged forums and what-not?

there are many contexts or varieties of ways in which language may be restricted not trillions of which have anything to do with any "totalitarianism real". so, some thought or another isn't necess. oppressed by the banning or discouraging of "certain" words in the same way as it would be in a dictatorial situation. I wann avoid just adding the word "certain", to make "certain words", cuz that kinda changes th tone. anyone?? KzzRzzKnocker 07:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge freethinking, freethought and freedom of thought

For discussion, see Talk:Freethinking#Merge_freethinking.2C_freethought_and_freedom_of_thought nirvana2013 16:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I've opposed it there so far as this article goes, because this is a different concept. GRBerry 16:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

to 64.231.104.53

Your deletion of content from the section Internet Censorship and Freedom of Thought only rendered the entire section meaningless. You called this content POV pushing. Can you explain how this POV here? Thanks. Shannonduck talk 18:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps not POV (I'll let 64.231.104.53 debate that point), certainly OR, and probably incorrect. The few Bible verses I tries on Google gave quite good results. Do you have some reputable sources that support your text? Furthermore, I don't think the paragraph is meaningless without your text, and calling another user a vandal (as you did in your edit summary) is not [WP:CIVIL]]. Fram 14:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. Your calling my edit POV was not civil. Your calling my edit OR is not civil. If you want civility, act civil. As far as the search results go, they are variable..up and down and wildly changing and have been for a year and a half on Google. I happen to be somewhat of an expert on the subject of many of the search engines. In the last few months the search results on Google, Yahoo, etc. are downright scary. So the results you got when you searched will probably be different in a month or two when you do the same search. As far as POV, I just happened to search for certain words from the book of Matthew. I wouldn't doubt the same sort of lack of meaningful results, would come up with a search for a quote out of the Koran. Review what it says in WP:OR. This is not that. But I apologize for the vandal comment. Shannonduck talk 23:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and also, you said "You don't think the paragraph is meaningless without my text." The whole paragraph and section is my text. Shannonduck talk 23:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Internet Censorship and Freedom of Thought

A current example of propaganda, censorship and therefore suppression of freedom of thought, is the control of information on the world wide web. This can readily be seen by going to any of the (currently few) major search engines left now, such as the English Google, Yahoo, Answers or MSN. Search results for certain topics, such as religious texts, often have little to do with the keywords provided in the search. Although results on Google, for example, periodically change radically, it is often nigh on impossible to find actual quotes from the gospel books of the New Testament, for example. Instead, pages with ads for hotels, pages that seem to have little or nothing to do with the query or personal interpretations for Jesus' words come up in the results. Fascism and Communism are examples of states that stifle religious freedom, freedom of speech and thought, and that censor information concerning freedom of thought.

To Fram and 64.231.104.53: if you don't understand the above section of this article, then I suggest you re-read (if you did read already) the entire article. then give it a few days to settle in. Ponder it carefully. I don't mean to be insulting here. Just think about it some before you decide to throw it away. It only furthers what has already been said in the rest of the article. Shannonduck talk 23:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Is it true? Is it verified independently of Wikipedia and its editors (i.e., in published, reputable, reliable sources)? If not, it shouldn't be here, by WP:V. I have tried to verify it (by conducting some OR), and at least in that search, it didn't look true. So the text as it stands is incorrect and much too broad, and needs verification, sources, ... It doesn't matter if it is in line with the rest of the text or not, it has to be true and verifiable. Fram 12:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

IMO its completely irrelevant and should be deleted. Wiki doesn't use independent research...205.188.116.134 22:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Invalid linking from articles

This page has been spammed into pages "Related Articles" sections spuriously. I call this spam because most of these pages are not related to this article in any form. This includes articles related to neuroscience, psychiatry, and anti-psychiatry. This article is not related to many of these things because they are sciences and this page is effectively philosophy.

For example this page talks of neurochemistry but isn't really related to the science. Let alone is it valid to link to this page from individual things like the page on 'Dopamine' when the understanding of something like Dopamine is far too limited for it to be in any way an accurate depiction of anything to do with Freedom of Thought.

Personally, I believe that this spamming is being used to generate attention between yet another growing fringe-cliche. However I believe it should be frowned upon simply because it adds clutter to otherwise very informative articles. --Kintaro 17:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


Request for Sources

A request for sources is not a POV. None of the articles about the authors listed makes mention of Entheogens. Why not provide sources instead of removing the tags, if not because proper sources cannot be found? Bulbous (talk) 22:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you finally decided to explain your edits on the talk page. You wrote on your user talk page:

not a single article mentioned "entheogens". As for the suggestion that the first citation was "uncontroversial common knowledge", that is just ludicrous.

It's common knowledge to anyone who knows the topic, and I fail to see any controversy around attributing the opinions of authors and organizations. Perhaps you could show me the controversy and the disptue? Now, before I address your query, I would like to know if your challenge is complete, because I don't want you to start moving the goalposts when I address it. Is your challenge complete? —Viriditas | Talk 01:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's look at the content that Bulbous has disputed:

  • Despite the many laws concerning freedom of thought, amongst philosophers, there is no consensus on what thought itself actually is. However, the field of neurochemistry uses a pragmatic view in linking thoughts to patterns of brain activity - ‘almost everyone now agrees… that the subject of mental properties and events is a physical thing.’[1]
Bulbous requested a source for this, even though it was sourced to George Botterill and Peter Carruthers, ‘The Philosophy of Psychology’, Cambridge University Press (1999), p3. The edit history shows that Bulbous removed the footnote and added a "fact" tag.[2] So, in that instance, we see that Bulbous removed the footnote that referred to the source in the references section and added a fact tag.
  • Laws that attempt to regulate what goes on inside a person’s head have long been regarded with suspicion. Queen Elizabeth I removed one such law, several hundred years ago, because, according to Sir Francis Bacon, ‘She would not make windows into men’s souls’.[3]
Again, the statement was previously sourced in a footnote to The Hon. Sir John Laws, ‘The Limitations of Human Rights’, [1998] P.L. Summer, Sweet & Maxwell and Contributors, p260. Bulbous removed the footnote and added a fact tag.[4]

Bulbous has disputed the following additions:

And:

Bulbous has also added in the following content without references:

Is there anything else? —Viriditas | Talk 01:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, please! You're making a ridiculous fuss over a simple request for sources, starting with your first edit in which you deleted my ((fact)) tags, calling me a "POV-pusher", when all I have done is edit and adjust the formatting and presence of sources on this page. I have not made any content edits or expressed any opinions; how does that possibly make me a "POV-pusher"?
My previous edits actually *corrected* improper footnote notation on this page. I have *improved* this article by formatting properly. If you actually spent as much time sourcing the edits as you have whining about my request on my talk page and here, we wouldn't even be having this discussion and the article would be much better served. Bulbous (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
How does removing a reference and replacing it with a cite tag improve the article? Perhaps you can show me the diff where you did that. I just looked and could not find it. As for sourcing your most recent round of requests, you have not fully answered my questions. I will once again state that the material is common knowledge to anyone who knows the topic. That means, in case you didn't know, that sources are easy to find. You have previously removed a former incarnation of this material added by one editor, and you have recently added cite request tags when another editor added more material. I am also waiting for you to add references to the unsourced content you added back into the article that was removed by another editor. —Viriditas | Talk 21:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Sigh... simply adding an statement and then closing it with a square bracket, a numeral, and another square bracket is not adding a footnote (at least as far as Wikipedia is concerned). A statement sourced with some kind of ambiguous symbolism is an unsourced statement. If you look, a lot of what I did in the diffs you provided above was to fix improper references. Once again, your contention that the material that I am requesting to be sourced is "common knowledge", simply means that it should be *easy to source* and once again coming back to the talk page to blather about it is a waste of all of our time. If you can source it, then do so, and we can move on to more productive discussion. Bulbous (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
You removed the footnote and added a fact tag, thereby removing the connection to the references section. I don't see how your edits "helped" in any way, when you could have taken the time to format the citation. I don't see how your edits improved this article. As for disputing the content of multiple editors, I have asked you several times, to describe your objection to their edits. Your objection to the use of the word "entheogen" is irrelevant, as it is being used as a synonym (and it is important to understand the history of such terms, which have changed a half-dozen times). Twice, an editor has added content about Timothy Leary, Aldous Huxley and Terence McKenna that is easy to source. Have you tried to actually find references for it, or are other people supposed to keep doing your homework for you? At what point do you take an active role as an editor, here? Did you contact the editors who made the edits? If you aren't actively engaging in research and editing, I don't see what your purpose is here. Anyone can add a template tag to an article, but you have to have a reason to do it, otherwise it's disruptive. And yes, I'm still waiting for the reference to the Casey William Hardison material that you added back into this article without a source. Let's hope, of course, that the reference refers to "freedom of thought", otherwise it's getting removed. —Viriditas | Talk 22:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
This discussion is more than pointless. Your goal cannot be other than to be disruptive. If you could source the edits, you would have, and no further comment would be necessary (indeed, none would have been necessary from the start, as sources were all I wanted in the first place). If you can not source the edits, then you have lied to us that the statements were "common knowledge", and also wasted our time here. Either way, you are not being productive. Grow up. Bulbous (talk) 01:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Let me be clear: do not remove references and replace them with fact tags. Do not add unsourced material into the article when another editor has removed it. And do not make baseless challenges to material unless you are willing to discuss it. I have asked you to explain your removal of content and your placement of citation tags based on your shady history editing this page. I have provided diffs of your questionable edits above. The cognitive freedom material appears fully sourced in the parent page. The religion material appears unsourced, which you have ignored. The use of the word "entheogen" has nothing to do with the material in question. Your edits caught my attention because your edit summary stated that you were using citation tags to mark the material for removal: this is bad faith editing. These tags are meant to be used in a specific manner, in conjunction with discussion on the talk page when it is necessary. I am glad that you took my request for clarification seriously on your user talk page, and began to address the problem on the talk page of the article, but I find your efforts at improving this article unsatisfactory. You seem to believe that material you add does not require sources, but the materal others add, does. Could you address this problem? —Viriditas | Talk 02:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe, as is Wikipedia policy, that *all* material requires sources (even those edits that self-proclaimed experts consider "common knowledge"). You can consider all three uncited statements (inlcuding the one I restored) as "Deletion Pending". And deletion will come sooner rather than later since you seem absolutely unwilling to source these common knowledge edits. If you would stop wasting our time on this page and devote 1/10th of your energy to properly sourcing these edits, we would be done here. I'll give these edits a week. If you dispute the requirement to source them, then we can go to dispute resolution, where the lack of sourcing will lose the day. Bulbous (talk) 02:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I hope the seven day deadline you've given yourself is enough time for you to do the research necessary for you to add citations to the material you've added to this article. If it isn't, let me know and I would be happy to help you. —Viriditas | Talk 03:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, I have never seen so much energy expended on a simple request for sources. If someone challenged ME for sources, especially ones that I felt were "common knowledge", I'd go out and find those sources and shut that challenger up. The fact that you keep coming back to the talk page and challenging my right to request sources, or questioning my motives only serves to prove that YOU HAVE NO DEFENCE. Time to put up or shut up. This meta-discussion is tiresome. Bulbous (talk) 03:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I want to apologize for my delay in replying to your last comment, as I was temporarily indisposed rolling on the floor, uproariously laughing at the sweet, sweet irony of your wish to "shut that challenger up" in a discussion page on the topic of "freedom of thought". Yes, my opinion is that the material you refuse to discuss is common knowledge, and yes, the material you added to the article remains unsourced. If you need my help sourcing your material, let me know. —Viriditas | Talk 05:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Seven days, no sources = removal. Prepare to cite sources or fade away. Bulbous (talk) 05:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
It's a shame that we'll lose the Casey William Hardison material you added. Oh well. —Viriditas | Talk 05:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Back on topic

Bulbous, you have disputed the following additions other editors have added. Please explain why you have disputed this content:

Wired 8.05 calls Timothy Leary the "populist demagogue" of the psychedelic community. According to Lee & Shlain, Timothy Leary's organization, The International Federation for Internal Freedom (IFIF) "believed that everyone should be allowed to use mind-expanding chemicals because the 'internal freedom' they provided was a personal and not a governmental matter. They envisioned a society in which large numbers of people would seek higher consciousness, ecstasy, and enlightenment through hallucinogens." Leary argues that psychedelic drugs may be used favorably throughout his book, The Politics of Ecstasy (1968;1998), as well as many other texts. In The Politics of Psychopharmacology, even Alexander Shulgin describes Leary's stance as a "very blatant public position concerning the open use of these remarkable drugs". In the same book, Leary writes: "Why is the topic of drugs so taboo? Because the use of drugs is the first and the last frontier of human freedom. They give the individual the power to move his consciousness in any direction he desires; given control of his own nervous system, the individual essentially can become the kind of person he wants to become...Richard Glen Boire explains the force driving the taboo--regulation of consciousness. The government is mandated to maintain the status quo and that extends into the privacy of our thoughts and perceptions. Unauthorized mental states are not permitted...I learned this lesson-the hard way. I was hounded, shackled and imprisoned, like a common criminal, for experimenting with my consciousness-and suggesting that others do so as well. The persecution was unrelenting until I finally bowed to authority and told the "truth" - then they set me "free"." (Richard Glen Boire is a Senior Fellow at the Center for Cognitive Liberty & Ethics.) Leary argues throughout these two books and many others, that certain psychoactive drugs may be used to favorably alter the way we think, and that drug prohibition infringes upon the "constitutional right to change consciousness". Additional illustrative examples number in the dozens, if not hundreds.

Wired 8.05 named Aldous Huxley the "aristocrat of psychedelics". Huxley is known for advocating and taking LSD suggesting in The Doors of Perception (1954) that mescalin and lysergic acid were 'drugs of unique distinction' which should be exploited for the 'supernaturally brilliant' visionary experience they offered." According to Lenson in On Drugs, "Aldous Huxley argues that psychedelic drugs can cleanse cognition to resore some of its infantile immediacy." In The Mystic Heart, Teasdale calls Huxley a "major thinker in entheogenic studies". According to Wilson's The Mammoth Book of True Crime, Huxley "recommended that [mescalin] should become as freely available as tobacco or alcohol, since it was less harmful than either." According to Lee & Shlain's Acid Dreams, "Huxley felt the best way to bring about vast changes in society was to offer [LSD] to the talented, the well-born, the intelligent rich, and others in positions of influence." In the same book, the authors note, "Huxley...recognized that certain drugs, particularly hallucinogens, produced radical changes in consciousness that could have a profound and beneficial effect...Huxley unabashedly declared himself a propagandist for hallucinogenic drugs..." In Brave new World Revisited, Huxley writes, "LSD...a perception-improver and vision producer that is, physiologically speaking, almost costless. This extraordinary drug...has power (like peyote) to transport people into the other world...[the experience is] profoundly significant and enlightening...the fact that minds can be changed so radically at so little cost to the body is altogether astonishing." According to Torgoff in Can't Find My Way Home, "Huxley...first cautioned Leary, telling him that there were people in the society who would do anything to stop this kind of research. The celebrated British author of The Doors of Perception understood very well that the first drug prohibition went all the way back to the Bible, to the forbidden fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. Huxley gave Leary one simple message: Go slow..." After completing his novel Brave New World in 1931, Huxley wrote an essay in the Chicago Herald Examiner addressing drugs and prohibition, revealing his feelings on the matter: "the results of prohibition are not encouraging. Men and women feel such an urgent need to take occasional holidays from reality, that they will do almost anything to procure means of escape." Years later, Huxley responded to the negative reviews about his mescalin experience documented in The Doors of Perception, writing: "How odd it is that writers...may sing the praises of alcohol (which is responsible for about two-thirds of the car accidents and three-quarters of the crimes of violence) and be regarded as good Christians and noble fellows, whereas anyone who ventures to suggest that there may be other and less harmful short cuts to self transcendence is treated as a dangerous drug fiend and wicked perverter of weak-minded humanity". On the subject of prohibition and the use of mescalin, Huxley wrote in The Doors of Perception: "The universal and ever-present urge to self-transcendence is not to be abolished by slamming the currently popular Doors in the Wall. The only reasonable policy is to open other, better doors in the hope of inducing men and women to exchange their old bad habits for new and less harmful ones...But the need for frequent chemical vacations from intolerable selfhood and repulsive surroundings will undoubtedly remain. What is needed is a new drug which will relieve and console our suffering species without doing more harm in the long run than it does good in the short. Such a drug must be potent in minute doses and synthesizable...it should produce changes in consciousness more interesting, more intrinsically valuable than mere sedation or dreaminess, delusions of omnipotence or release from inhibition...The urge to transcend self-conscious selfhood is, as I have said, a principal appetite of the soul. When, for whatever reason, men and women fail to transcend themselves by means of worship, good works and spiritual exercises, they are apt to resort to religion's chemical surrogates..."

Wired 8.05 calls Terence McKenna the "crunchy libertarian" of the psychedelic community. Like Leary, McKenna wrote many books arguing that entheogens may be used to favorably alter the way we think. He advised taking psychedelic mushrooms, and believed that "the presence of psychedelic substances in the diet of early human beings created a number of changes in our evolutionary situation" and he believed DMT revealed deep insights into the fabric of reality. In Can't Find My Way Home, McKenna states that psychedelics are "what people have been doing for thousands and thousands of years. It's all about getting in touch with what has been suppressed by history." McKenna advocated "a kind of 'deputized minority-a shamanic professional class, if you will-whose job it is to bring ideas out of the deep, black water and show them off to the rest of us". Furthermore, McKenna "advocated great caution" until the time came that "psychedelics might become decriminalized." According to McKenna, "I intend to keep talking about it until somebody snuffs me or we get some action, because I have taken a complete inventory of world civilization, and DMT is definitely the most interesting thing on this planet." McKenna criticizes drug prohibition in many forums, with quotes like, "We're playing with half a deck as long as we tolerate that the cardinals of government and science should dictate where human curiousity can legitimately send its attention and where it can not. It's an essentially preposterous situation. It is essentially a civil rights issue, because what we're talking about here is the repression of a religious sensibility. In fact, not a religious sensibility, the religious sensibility." In one lecture, McKenna said: "I advocate the use of plants with a history of shamanic usage. Because these things are illegal, human research is essentially outlawed. As users we suffer under the prohibition, but imagine that science, one of the most powerful forces in our society, has been told, "Get lost. Forget about psychedelic chemistry and forget about human studies." Reagarding Steve Kubby's book Politics of Consciousness, a book whose central thesis equates the War on Drugs with a war on the freedom of thought, McKenna writes, "I thought that The Politics of Consciousness brought the issue of drugs and freedom out of the closet and placed it where it needed to be, right in the middle of the turn of the millennium agenda of the American society. If the pursuit of happiness, enshrined in our nation's founding documents, means anything, it means the right to explore one's own mind using traditional substances and approaches."

In the case of the Center for Cognitive Liberty & Ethics, they have explicitly stated that they seek "to foster cognitive liberty - the basic human right to unrestrained independent thinking, including the right to control one's own mental processes and to experience the full spectrum of possible thought.[12] CCLE is focused on "protecting the unlimited potential of the human mind". The group maintains that "drug prohibition infringes on the inalienable right to freedom of thought", a "fundamental right" which the CCLE is "committed to gaining legal recognition" for in the name of "cognitive liberty". [13] In one of many articles about different drugs and legislation that would curtail their use, CCLE has written that "...by making it a criminal offense to 'use or be under the influence of' MDMA...[prohibition legislation] makes criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens based solely on an 'unapproved' state of consciousness. This prohibition, in addition to codifying an Orwellian concept akin to 'thought crime,' is an unconsitutional infringement on the fundamental right to freedom of thought as protected by the First Amendment, and on the fundamental right to privacy, including the Fifth Amendment right to autonomy over one's interior thoughts".[14] —Viriditas | Talk 11:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I am just stunned. How much time did you waste typing all of that? *Why didn't you just footnote the edits and save us both a lot of hassle?* Clearly there are two sources that justify those lines I tagged. Why couldn't you have simply added them to the article and refrained from engaging in a pointless debate? Bulbous (talk) 15:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello? After all of that effort, why are the fact tags still up? You seem to have reliably sourced the edits. Why haven't the sources been added to the article? Bulbous (talk) 03:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Freedom of thought and Magisterium

The article, if it becomes more complete, should discuss the controversial relationship between freedom of thought and the Roman Catholic Magisterium. It appears that historically, the notion of freedom of thought was created against the influence of the Church Magisterium, during the 18th century Enlightenment. ADM (talk) 01:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I would disagree with that assertion, but if you get a reliable source that makes that same assertion, I would have to concede it is relevant and should be included. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Arianism and freedom of conscience

Is there any evidence to suggest that Arius advocated a personalist christology and an early form of freedom of conscience ? According to Fr. Romanides, there is, since Arius insisted that the Father is related to and generates the Son not by nature, but by will. Athanasius insisted that the Father is related to and generates the Son not by will, but by nature. [15] ADM (talk) 02:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Staying on Topic

This topic has too much on Freedom of Expression. Expression is tied to thought but it has its own page, for example, the discussion about censorship. Also, isn't the drug use discussion also more about expression rather than inhibition of freedom of thought? --Azileretsis (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Freedom of Thought/Freedom of Speech

I think it is a vio of wp:NOR that these are separted entities. Here is book that says they are equal.Tstrobaugh (talk) 17:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Christian slant

The repeated references to Christianity seem gratuitous here. The article as a whole seems to be carrying a thesis that freedom of thought was rooted in European religious traditions and brought to fruition with the creation of the USA. Leaving aside the truth or falsity of this thesis, its very presence in the article appears to be a NPOV violation. I'd like to hear a second opinion. --61.214.155.14 05:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here's mine. It's noteable that you said "Leaving aside the truth or falsity of this thesis". Why would you say that? Leaving aside the truth is the last thing we want to do. If it is demonstrably true, and I believe it is, we generally don't censor the truth for the sake of "political correctness" on Wikipedia. Unless you can demonstrate other origins for the roots of Freedom of Thought / Conscience. And actually, history shows that Christianity originated in Asia, not Europe -- and also, forms of it had spread in Africa fairly early, and were relatively accepted without as much resistance when compared to Europe, but certain modernists always choose to present Christianity as a "European religious tradition". Hmmm.. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 11:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

When I spoke of "European religious tradition" I was paraphrasing the article. Here's an actual quote:

... this same freedom has been cherished and developed to a great extent in the modern western or Judaeo-Christian world, such that it is literally taken for granted.

This development was enshrined in words in the United States Constitution by the Bill of Rights, ...

The reason I was saying that the truth or falsity of this claim is irrelevant is that NPOV means that Wikipedia articles should not be pushing any agenda at all. In particular, I think this article has big problems with Geographic bias; it is heavily steeped in the self-mythology of the USA, while making no admission of the possibility that the concept of freedom of thought may have arisen in other cultures.

Naturally, if it can be proven that freedom of thought is indeed a purely Christian construct, then that would constitute an encyclopaedic fact that should be appear in the article. Merely implying it, however, is a NPOV violation IMHO. --61.214.155.14 01:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The truth is never irrelevant. But I'll tell you what - if you think the article is US-centered, why don't you try expanding the article with verifiable sources about Freedom of Conscience in other traditions. Here's a hint: It was a major component of Haile Selassie's philosophy, he was the Emperor of Ethiopia and he actually said quite a lot on how important Freedom of Conscience is. I have been thinking about adding this to the article for some time to counter this kind of geographic bias allegation. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The following sections should be removed, not necessarily because they be gratuitous, rather simply because the context is wrong. These verses are describing the power of a man over his own spirit and upon his death maintaining his corporal spirit connection in defiance of God's wishes (to take his spirit)69.81.186.106 01:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC) This impossibility of controlling thought is perhaps summarized in the Biblical context nowhere more succinctly than in Ecclesiastes 8:8: "There is no man that hath power over the spirit, to retain it; neither hath he power in the day of death." In other words, trying to control the thoughts of others is as pointless as trying to control death.

I agree. I read the Ecclesiastes verse as "retain the spirit" meaning staying alive (preventing spirit from leaving body) which is reinforced in the "he neither has power in the day of death". Matthew's verse I believe refers to the refusal of the Pharisees to accept the preaching of the gospel - when John preached in poverty, and Jesus preached in decadence, they criticised them either way. So the wedding/mourning songs means that they couldn't please them no matter how they played to them. If you read verses in the context of the passage it will usually make sense. When I read the references I was taken aback and found them to be completely out of context and seemingly random. I actually came on here just to point out the tangentiality of the verses. 138.25.131.45 (talk) 09:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
That might be your own interpretation of that verse, but certainly not the only one. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps but, it does say no power to retain the spirit (at death). Without going to the Hebrew, to be relevant here, an appropriate verse could have used "a spirit" or "the spirits" or "the spirit of another". Next, the hebrew is translated thusly "[There is] no man that hath power over the spirit to retain the spirit; neither [hath he] power in the day of death". http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1161822584-2102.html#8 The neither seems to be tying the two together. 69.81.186.106 00:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

"A Prominent Characteristic"

I removed the following line:

"While freedom of thought is said to be one of the fundamental principles of most democracies, the attempted suppression of freedom of thought is a prominent characteristic of totalitarian and authoritarian regimes."

I left a "citation" flag up for a while, and have decided to now remove this line. "Totalitarian" regimes (a term I dislike, but that's another matter) are generally (or always, I guess) characterized by a suppression of certain beliefs, and the promotion of a "correct" set of beliefs, but the sentence I removed implies something positively Orwellian... which is actually my point: I get the feeling someone mistook Nineteen Eighty-Four for a history book rather than a parable, a documentation of actually-existing totalitarianism rather than a warning about the path he saw places everywhere going down. Or, conversely, it demonstrates that "totalitarianism" itself is fiction, but I'm getting off-topic again. :) --MQDuck (talk) 00:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

What is forcibly changing the beliefs of someone if not attempted suppression of freedom of thought? Even the management practise of 'managing culture' and the beliefs and values of employees, I find to be the reprehensible not only suppression of thought, but even worse act of conditioning and changing of it itself so that the product is a different human being (for what is a human if not a personality and set of thoughts and feelings?). This may not be totalitarianism, but it is current managerial theory, and it is real. 138.25.131.45 (talk) 09:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
We see that you have a very definite personal POV, but what makes you think your POV is relevant here? We require citations and references to published reliable sources. Please carefully read WP:SOAP. 96.228.15.212 (talk) 11:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Drug prohibition

I removed the drug prohibition section as off topic and not meeting Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources and notability within this topic. The idea that prohibition of drugs is somehow against freedom of thought is a fringe idea, and the sources quoted were of course fringe websites. We would need a mainstream reliable source that puts the topic as a notable topic within freedom of thought to even include it here. I do not oppose it being in Wikipedia, as if genuine sources can be found it should be covered, but I strongly oppose it being covered in this article as it's hugely POV-pushing to even include it. IF someone can properly source it and find scholarly experts mentioning it, feel free to make a separate article, which this one can link to in the see also section. Otherwise it's just a case with someone with a minor fringe view trying to use this article as a soapbox to push their own opinions here. DreamGuy (talk) 17:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Original research

The section entitled "Suppression" seems to contain original research. I am primarily concerned with the part mentioning Bible quotations, since these quotations seems very open for interpretation, and one concluding that they hint at freedom of thought is not what seems most likely. We need reliable secondary sources in this section. Lacking those I propose some serious weeding out of the worst OR-violations. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Brain Control Interfaces

Low frequency radio BCIs have progress to the point where neural firing patterns can be controlled remotely. This allows for anything the brain does to be induced by a 3rd party. Everything from inner speech, right through to sensations can be induced. The same technique also allows for thoughts to be reconstructed by a supercomputer. This section needs to be updated to reflect such technological developments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.233.17 (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Thought reconstruction is slightly exaggerated. Rich Farmbrough, 10:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC).

Wooley v. Maynard

"In Wooley v. Maynard, the U.S. Supreme Court held there is a "right of freedom of thought protected by the First Amendment" 430 U.S. 705, 714 (1977)."


I removed this line from Suicidal ideation, it may be of use in this article. Rich Farmbrough, 10:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC).

Holocaust denial/revision

This should be included in the article, people who research the holocaust and offer scientific findings other than what is accepted by jewish people are persecuted, harrassed attacked and jailed. it is an abhorrent attack upon freedom of thought — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.168.214.210 (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you do it yourself? Just remember to use reliable secondary sources. And while the question of whether holocaust denial bans and other such laws infringes on freedom of thought certainly is relevant for this article, you will find that your interpretation about people who "research the holocaust and offer scientific findings other than what is accepted by jewish people are persecuted, harrassed attacked and jailed" is very much a fringe view and as such would not be acceptable here. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It does not matter if it is a fringe view or not, what matters is if it occurs which it does, and if it's an attack on freedom of thought which it is. I will work on adding it to the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.168.214.210 (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I would urge you to read Wikipedia:Fringe theories before you add anything, because it does matter very much in Wikipedia whether it is a fringe view or not as Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

it isn't a theory — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.168.214.210 (talk) 16:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

While the IP has a point, and one that has exercised a lot of civil liberties theorists, it is really a matter of freedom of speech rather than of thought. Rich Farmbrough, 10:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC).

NSW (Australia) Sedition Crime

Removed following paragraph:

It is interesting to note that in New South Wales, Australia, imagining the de-thronement or removal of the Sovereign is one of the most serious legislated criminal offences, punishable by up to twenty-five years' imprisonment (s12, Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) no 40).

This is simply not true, as can be ascertained by reading the clause in full:

[16]

There is no limit to freedom of thought inherent in this law; there is only a limit to freedom of expression. The people of NSW must not openly agitate for armed overthrow of the state or the various organs of the government of the state.

In reality, around four-tenths of the NSW population openly expresses their republican sentiments whenever asked by pollsters. A senior shadow minister (resident in NSW) led a political campaign to remove the Queen of England as Australia's head of state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.9.33.7 (talk) 23:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

More global views needed

In researching the concept of freedom of thought in other cultures, I have found other important traditions that ought to be looked at beside just the western background. In particular the Edicts of Ashoka, and the Seventeen Article Constitution of Prince Shotoku are also documents with statements that have been used to promote freedom of thought to some degree; I was thinking about quoting these documents to globalize the article a bit. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

You can do that. But remember to provide some reliable secondary sources that connects these particular primary sources with the modern scholarly term "freedom of thought". It seems the article already has too many examples of primary sources lacking secondary sources as it is. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Bible quotes

As I mentioned in an old thread above, the Bible quotations is WP:OR without any kind of secondary source to qualify them in regard to freedom of thought. As noone has questioned my remarks I have deleted the passages. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not quite sure what to make of this edit comment: "Not OR... the fact that the phrase is found in the Bible is the whole basis for its history in Western thought, are you kidding?". That in itself seems to me to be the epitome of original research. We cannot take for granted such grandeous claims that some Bible passages are the "whole basis for [the history of freedom of thought] in Western thought", it is exactly such claims that needs secondary sources in order to be included in the article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Have you seen what major Bible commentaries have to say of profound relevance to this article, particularly for the verse from St. Paul's 1 Corinthians? This is a major source for the western concept of Freedom of conscience, like it or not. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
No, I haven't seen any such commentaries, because none are cited. And remember that freedom of conscience is not necessarily the same as freedom of thought. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
They are the same as far as this article is concerned: this is the article for "freedom of conscience" because as it says it is the same thing. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

You seem awfully fast at making frivolous allegations of hidden agenda against other editors, when all I ask for is secondary sources connecting the primary source citations to the article subject. But you still haven't gotten around the fact that the current version is original research as it consists entirely of primary sources, and none of the quotations even mentions the term "freedom of thought" (or "freedom of conscience") even once.

And yes I am "sublimely oblivious to 2000 yrs worth of commentaries on these very verses", as I suspect many readers are as well. I am afraid I am going to insist that you provide some reliable secondary sources that mentions these particular passages in connection with the term "freedom of thought", otherwise they have to go. Let's give it a week, and if no changes has occurred they will be deleted. I think this is only fair, seeing as I made the first objection to them 1½ years ago, and no effort has been made to correct the problems during the whole of that period of time! --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

All it would take at any point in the last 1.5 years, would have been to look up what some famous commenters have commented in their commentaries, it's really not all that hard to find these days is it? But, if you will be patient for one week, I will come and spoon feed some of them to you when I get enough time. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 10:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I am a bit surprised that a veteran user calls basic Wikipedia policy "spoon feeding", and I could become a little concerned about how many of your other edits shows such disregard for them, but I will let that pass for now. A week should be ample time for you to ladle from that millenia old great pool of commentaries you keep mentioning. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I see that you added some sources and cited claims to the article, and those are all good. However the section that concerned me, namely this one:

"The obvious impediment to censoring thought is that it is impossible to know with certainty what another person is thinking, and harder to regulate it. Many famous historical works recognize this. The Bible summarizes in Ecclesiastes 8:8: "There is no man that has power over the spirit, to retain it; neither has he power in the day of death." A similar sentiment is expressed in the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament, where he likens those who attempt to control the emotions of their neighbours to "the children in the marketplace" who try to produce dancing with a happy song and mourning with a dirge, and then express frustration at their futility in trying to do so (Matthew 11:16). The concept is developed more specifically in the writings of Paul ("For why should my freedom [eleutheria] be judged by another's conscience [suneideseos]?" 1 Corinthians 10:29.)"

It is still only sourced with primary sources, and thus still constitutes original research. It reads like the Wikipedia narrator interprets Bible passages through a modern reading, and that is not permitted according to Wikipedia policy: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation... Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so". So I have deleted the section in question, leaving the introduction as it connects to the later passages, but that also needs to be sourced. If you find any reliable secondary sources to back up these interpretations, you are welcome to reinsert it in the article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I indeed added several sources to Further Reading for the Biblical interpretations of Freedom of Conscience. These sources are so rich in this area that in truth, the article could be expanded greatly on the Biblical interpretations alone from these sources. Removing this information from the article yet again after these sources have been added is a serious blunder. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Since you have not adressed the problem of OR by adding citations to reliable secondary sources in the passage, yet still revert my attempt at removing the OR, I have thought it necessary to adress the problem at the Original research noticeboard. I welcome any comments on the matter there. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Mind control

The section about thought control will soon be expanded. I want to show how media shapes public opinion in "democratic" Western countries. Any help would be welcome. With respect, Ko Soi IX 04:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

i agree that there should be a section on this. by "mind control" it is not that one individual controls another individual like a remote control car. there are scholarly works written on this topic. most notably by Noam Chomsky titled "Necessary Illusions Thought Control in Democratic Societies". and after the invasion of Iraq, there has developed a "media reform movement", do to failure of the corporate mass media to adequately probe the US gov'ts blatant lies. the massive concentrations of media ownership warned Ben Bagdikian in his "Media Monopoly" could have awful ramifications in the future. and indeed it has. what is not covered constitutes a form of mind control if certain things are left out or others are repeated over & and over. VeriGGlater 15:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest considering adding something regarding DARPA‘s Narative project either under a mind control heading or perhaps otherwise. It could also be framed in the context of CIA programs including MK/Ultra. Jcunme (talk) 04:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Inability to alienate/enforce curtailment

While it may come to pass in the near future that some government, agency, or individual may be able to detect thoughts and impose criminal or other penalties for having specific thoughts it's unclear how this would happen today. Therefore I think the title or concept of "Freedom of Thought" may need revision as any curtailment of such a freedom is inextricably linked to a subsequent freedom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idasod (talk • contribs) 16:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Civil-Commitment As A Limitation On Freedom Of Thought

In the U.S. people are free to think only insofar as their thoughts are acceptable to psychiatrists, otherwise they can be locked up. 70.166.114.8 (talk) 07:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Idasod (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Other than suicidal or homicidal ideations can you please provide a source or example?

The Right to Freedom of Thought & Cognitive Liberty

The right to freedom of thought is the accepted international legal terminology regarding this right; hence it is probably the best language to use to defend/describe it.

Cognitive liberty is a distinct, yet important sub-category of this right, usually associated with a particular socio-political movement in the US. To use the right in question to achieve international policy change in a field such as global drug prohibition, it is probably best to use its common name: the right to freedom of thought (a.k.a. the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion – see art. 18 ICCPR).

With regards to the suggestions to merge this article with ‘freethought’ or ‘freethinking’, these are rather philosophical/political ideas, as opposed to a traditional legal or moral right. Therefore I am opposed to merging these articles but hope that people will expand this one!

freedom of thought vs. cognitive liberty

as per the question below regarding drugs, there should be some disambiguation between freedom of thought vs. cognitive liberty. cognitive liberty is the natural extension of the idea of freedom of thought I would suggest making cognitive liberty a break-out article from freedom of thought, especially regarding the freedom of consciousness/drug issue. There is a distinction, which is why the CCLE is not called the CFTE. Erasurehead 10:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

drugs

does this freedom allow ppl to alter their conscienceness?

The section that equates drug legalization with freedom of thought seems like a non sequitur. I think that section is a form of political advocacy with tenuous and nonobvious connections to the topic at hand and should be moved to a separate article on the topic. Xj 05:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

What is taking an illagal drug other than a thought crime? --mms (talk) 11:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent Design

"Examples of effective campaigns against freedom of thought are the censoring of debate on intelligent design..." This claim needs to be given some sort of context (when and where was debate on ID censored?). It doesn't seem very NPOVish as it is. --Jsnow 23:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I also feel that the passage Jsnow mentioned is somewhat NPOV, but I'm going to change it on the grounds that it's simply false. I hear and read debate on ID all the time, so the campaign has obviously *not* been effective. TotoBaggins

Idasod (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)I've never heard of censoring the idea of ID. I've heard a lot about whether or not it should be taught in a science class in a public school setting. One has virtually nothing to do with the other.

holocaust denial

WP:FORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I think the issue of holocaust denial and questioning elements of the holocaust (such as numbers) belongs in this article, as it could be considered thought policing. Several European countries prosecute and imprison people for having an opinion on the holocaust which differs from the official account. Since none of us were alive to have first hand proof of what happened, it shouldn't be unreasonable for differing opinions to be respectfully voiced.

There are still ppl who were alive back then
and public expression is something else than thougt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.223.22 (talk) 14:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

i fully agree people such as Ernst Zündel and David Irving have been persecuted and inprisoned for their thoughts, you are free to question and judge any group of people except for the jewish94.168.211.137 (talk) 19:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

What about Baby Yar, did that happen the way it is narrated in Holocaust history (32,000+ Jews of Kiev machine-gunned over a ravine in two days, women, toddlers and all, in late September 1941)? Was it the Jewish conspiracy that forced the reportage of the event to back-pages of then "Jew-controlled" and "Jew-owned" New York Times?? Is the Moon made of green cheese? Are these the items of "free thought"? Is Freedom of Thought aimed at pursuit of Truth, or the Denial of it? WillNess (talk) 14:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I dont agree or disagree with these people's views, it is just an observation that people who hold these views are persecuted by people who dont and that is an attack upon freedom of thought94.168.211.137 (talk) 17:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, their spreading of deliberate vicious lies is the attack on Freedom of the Thought of everyone else, which must be protected. Deliberate lie is a thought crime - it is a crime against thought. When you are lied to, it directly attacks the very thought process of yours. Liars should be stopped from spreading more lies and thus hurting more thinkers. WillNess (talk) 08:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

No they should not, they should be free to spread their lies and everyone else is free to believe or disbelieve those lies, lies and mistruths come across in your above post also "Thought Crime" does not exist anywhere outside of Orwells "1984" and we should keep it that way, not encourage more restrictions upon our personal freedoms, and your accusation that someone expressing their freedom of thought is actually an attack upon it is beyond abhorrent94.168.211.137 (talk) 16:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

porn

banning/censuring/adult only avalability of porn can be seen as an attack on freedom of thougt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.223.22 (talk) 14:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Freedom_of_thought/Archive_1&oldid=1144674406"