Talk:List of banned films/Archive 1

Archive 1

page restructuring

• I removed Birth of a Nation from the list of famous banned movies because it was never actually banned and was a box-office success.
• I erased the list of famous banned movies and instead moved them to individual country timelines
• Moved Snuff Films to "See Also" and removed the clumsy POV commentary.
• Removed "Does the Internet Change Everything?" section and re-wrote it into the introduction.
• Removed "mechanisms for getting films unbanned" section because it doesn't actually provide any information, just obvious generalities.
• Combined "Banning versus censoring", "Famous laws or codes used to ban/censor films", and removed "famous organizations promoting banning/censorship of films".
• Removed "newsy" external links and external links that dealt primarily with censorship other than films.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Buddhainabucket (talk • contribs) August 2004

opportunities to contribute

• Go through the external links for information that's relevant to the article and write it in to wherever you see it necessary, and then remove the external link.
• Add countries and films to the timelines! Iran in particular has an interesting practice of censoring, releasing to wide acclaim, and then banning movies- over and over again.
• I don't know much of anything about Australia- someone who is familiar please go through the australian timeline, clean it up, and wikify it.

Buddhainabucket talk 1:00 PM Aug. 19, 2004

"Birth of A Nation" was banned in several cities in the USA, but never nationwide. Other films banned in specific cities include the 1932 Scarface, banned in Chicago, and Freaks from the same year, banned in Cleveland.

• I wanted to add the film The Pink Mirror which has been banned in India under the header India, but couldn't. Could you please include the following details:

'Gulabi Aaina (The Pink Mirror)', a film on Indian transsexuals produced and directed by Sridhar Rangayan. The Indian Censor Board banned the film. The censor board cited that the film was 'vulgar and offensive'. The filmmaker appealed twice again unsuccessfully. The film still remains banned in India, but has screened at numerous festivals all over the world and won awards. The critics have appluaded it for its 'sensitive and touching portrayal of marginalized community'. BBC, YIDFF, Queer India

China (ben hur)

It is said that China banned 'ben hur' in 1930. the film wasn't released until post-war, so i'm assuming this means that book (as this is where the link goes). however, this is a list of banned films, not books.

There was a famous silent version of Ben Hur in 1926. Maybe it was this one?

• • • • Actually, this is not quite true. I watched Ben Hur with a friend of mine in the movie house for students at Peking University. If formally available at one of China's most famous universities, it can't be a very serious ban on the movie. Mc4932 (talk) 04:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Bhutan (The curious case of Benjamin Button)

I contacted the Embassy in London and received back an email stating from the consulate that this film was freely available there and not banned,I removed it from the list but subsequently it has been replaced. anything more I can do about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkNobleMan (talk • contribs) 17:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC) ApologiesDarkNobleMan (talk) 02:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC) if I have not followed a protocol here, removed Curious case of Benjamin Button again as it was on list again, I can supply an email from consulate to verify this. darknobleman

Babe

I can't believe Babe is banned! Until I realized the story of a piece of hog might not be tantalizing to the Malaysian censors. Mandel 17:27, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

The movie was actually unbanned and made available on VHS and VCD almost a year later iirc. My cousin has a legal copy of the movie on VHS - bought it soon after the movie was unbanned iirc. I last saw the movie available on VideoCD next to Babe II at a video store I frequent. And on that point, I don't believe Babe II was ever banned- iirc it was being promoted over the radio quite heavily.219.93.44.71 08:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Spain

I am sure that Spain under the dictatorship of Francisco Franco banned more films than Australia. For example, almost all of the films of Luis Bunuel were banned in Spain during the Franco years, and films such as The Battleship Potemkin which espoused pro-Communist points of view were banned.

uk

The word viable in the UK section should probably be liable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.30.151 (talk) 07:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC) werent exorcist and straw dogs subsequently banned on video?

No, and no. Uncut and passed as 18, the timing discrepency is due to the 24 to 25 fps speedup. --Kiand 16:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

ive checked imdb and i am correct they were banned on video in uk

The IMDb is incorrect, as it often is. I, however, checked with the film censors office. --Kiand 21:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Certificates FVF026704 and BFF026704 for Straw Dogs; EVF029742 and about ten others for The Exorcist; if you want to check. But believe me, the IMDb is wrong. --Kiand 21:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

IMDB is not wrong, they are two of the most famous banned films ever in the UK? Read the review below, it states everything.

Actually Straw Dogs was according to this website banned for many years on video. This from another website :

During the early 1980s Straw Dogs was made available on home video in the original cinema version. Prior to the introduction of the Video Recordings Act (VRA) in 1984 it was not necessary for video releases to be separately classified by the BBFC and so Straw Dogs was released on video on the basis of its existing ‘X’ cinema certificate. After the introduction of the VRA it became necessary, however, for Straw Dogs to achieve a separate video classification certifying its suitability for ‘home viewing’. Under the staggered system for classifying the huge number of videos already on the market it was necessary for English language films classified by the BBFC between 1st January 1970 and 31st December 1974 to receive a video classification, or be withdrawn from circulation, by 1st March 1988. Straw Dogs was therefore legally available on video in the UK, uncut and without a video certificate, until March 1988.

Along with The Exorcist and Death Wish, Straw Dogs was ultimately removed from video shops in 1988 because the BBFC’s then Director, James Ferman, did not feel that it would be appropriate to classify this particular film for video release ‘at that time’. [1]

As the article goes on it explains that it wouldn't be till 2002 that the film would be uncut. Lummie 03:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Citing sources

This article has been edited by many hands, presumably in good faith, but there seem to be few if any citations to reliable sources. Much of what is here seems to be based on anecdotal evidence or movie lore. A list like this simply lacks credibility because it is unreferenced. Can we start cleaning it up, please? I added the {{unreferenced}} tag to help attract some attention from editors. MCB 06:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Fahrenheit 9/11

2004: Farenheit 911 Banned in Augusta Georgia citing gross inaccuracy and extreme liberalism on behalf of Michael moore

I'm deleting the above listing since I have found no evidence that it is accurate. Surely if Fahrenheit 9/11 had been banned, there would have been plenty of news coverage saying so. --Metropolitan90 07:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Iraq

I am ALMOST positive that South Park Bigger longer uncut was banned in Iraq Becuase of Saddam & Satan's Homsexual Relationship, right?

Here's a source you might want to use, enjoy:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0158983/trivia --THobern 21:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Banned in US

This section could be written to be more factual and specific than generalized. Likewise, it neglects the fact that movies depicting or implying child fornification is in fact banned in the US, or at least certain states (think foreign films). I wish I could remember the name of a specific movie that fits this profile but I cant. 66.58.168.110 06:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Ken Park!

(self?)censorship in US

How about the movie Death of a President? I read that this film was banned by almost 100% of the theaters. Why is this phenomenon (in general) not mentioned in the main article?

Wrong. Some theatres refused to show it, and TV stations refused advertising for it, but it was not banned. The film was theatrically released (I saw it in a theatre myself) although didn't do very well at the box office.64.183.77.59 19:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I watched a documentary called Helen's War (2004) that said the film If You Love This Planet (1982) made by the National Film Board of Canada was banned in the U.S. as Foreign Propaganda despite winning an Oscar in 1983 at the American Academy Awards for Best Documentary, Short Subjects. It was not on the list and I can't find an edit tab to add it. Wdblmnop 19:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

++++Song of the South++++ How about "Song of the South" because of its racism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.135.162.111 (talk) 14:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Egypt section

a movie star named Samantha Kaur Alukh was listed in the Egpyt section, claiming that this star was banned because of open support for Israel. But I've checked through the Internet, in the IMDB, but couldnt find any information about this star. (her name wasnt mentioned in all websites that google searched except this page.) Can anyone add some information about her, or just confirm her existence in the film industry? Tache 16:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems like vandalism to me.

Category:Banned films

I have proposed deleting the category - it is too vague, and misleading.

If you wish to discuss that - please go to Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_16#Category:Banned films -- Beardo 00:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

China

The sentence for China is confusing and contradictory. Are "most" foreign films banned, or are "one third" of them banned? --Storkk 17:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I took out "* 2006: Over The Hedge, for its depictions of the free world‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› . (Possibly banned in theatres, but widely available for purchase in DVD retailers)" Someone was obviously trying to be a smartass. --Rykoshet 1:29, 29 October 2006 (EST)

Not Banned in China

People need to be REALLY CAREFUL when saying that a film is banned in the PRC. Most films are not banned, in fact very few are. What happens is that the Chinese government imposes an import quota on foreign movies (I think it's about 20 movies a year) and won't allow more than that quota in theaters regardless of how non-political and non-sensitive the films are.

This isn't censorship, it is market protectionism. The government is afraid that foreign films with big SFX budgets and big name actors (EVERYBODY in China knows the big Hollywood stars) will take box office earnings away from domestic movies and bankrupt domestic film companies.

You also need to be careful when saying that something is available on DVD. The chances are that the DVD version of a foreign film that is not in theaters will be pirate.

perfectblue 18:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

New Zealand

I'm working on some of the films listed as banned in New Zealand. I've found, so far, that the IMDB is a highly inaccurate source for this information. I'll post justifications of any films I remove here. First up is Natural Born Killers which was never banned, and has been R18 since 1994. The official judgement of the New Zealand Office of Literature and Film Classification is here: [2] --Dom 00:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Your link is to the wrong film. The correct judgement is here: [3]. This states it is R18 and not banned. 219.89.197.134 03:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

s/Thrillers/Killers/ - Heh. Thanks for pointing that out! --Dom 11:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Next, Kite (film) - given an R16 rating, which isn't even the highest attainable [4]. Available in video stores, was shown in theatres. --Dom 00:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Visitor Q is an interesting one. There was a brief injunction where it couldn't be shown because the classification was in doubt, but it was never banned. The classification is still 'objectionable except if the availability of the publication is limited for the purpose of study in a tertiary media or film studies course or as part of a film festival organised by an incorporated film society, and in both cases to persons R18.' [5] --Dom 00:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Day of the Woman was never banned. The decision doesn't appear in the public database, because that doesn't go back far enough, but I put in a request with the information unit of the office of film and literature classification. Here's what they had to say:

Thank you for your email. The film I Spit on Your Grave was classified as 'R20 contains graphic violence, content may disturb' by the Chief Censor of Films in 1985. It has not been classified as objectionable in New Zealand.

Under the current legislation (the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993) the DVD is classified as 'R18 contains graphic violence and sexual violence'.

I've now got the New Zealand list to the point where every entry has a reference linking to the decision record. --Dom (talk) 23:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

semi-banned at IMDb

When you type "Baise-Moi" or "Rape Me" in the search bar at IMDb it does not list [6], somebody should write something about this phenomenon I think.

For anyone curious about this, I believe I know the reason why. X-rated movies and actors could easily be found during a search using the IMDB search bar prior to Amazon acquiring the website. I believe that Amazon removed from most of the X-rated material from the IMDB search engine since the company doesn't sell a majority of those films. You can still do a search for the movies on IMDB via Google, though and get a result. LegitReality 02:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The Profit

Does anyone know where I can find that movie "The Profit"? -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.162.105.172 (talk • contribs).

Looking at what people claim to be an injunction against "The Profit" there seems to be no nationwide injunctive in place against its showing. I don’t think “The Profit” is banned in the US. According to what people claim to be an “injunction” it was only prohibited from being shown immediately prior to jury selection. Indeed, it is pretty much impossible in the US to obtain any larger “prior restraint” against people. http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/TheProfit/injunction.pdf

I think people need to do more research on this before posting. 68.33.203.109 15:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Malaysia section

The Malaysia section on this page currently reads in part, "Malaysia has a history of banning films as it cracks down on sex, violence and obscenity, which would have caused a chaos throughout the community. ... Censorship is adequate if only some portions of the film require censorship, but if too much censorship is required, making the film meaningless, the film is best banned." Not only is this poor English, it comes across as incredibly POV --- and that POV is pro-censorship, which seems odd for Wikipedia anyway. Maybe this is a case of "lost in translation." Was this editor really trying to suggest that the Malaysian "community" would be plunged into "chaos" by a lack of censorship, or was this a troll, or what? --Quuxplusone 23:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Good to post that here, but in a case like that feel free to simply remove the POV language in its entirety, which I did after you called attention to it. --MCB 21:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to add a few films to Malaysia including. The Piano (1993) American Beauty (1999) Crank (2006) Hard Candy (2005)

There are also a few music dvd's banned from Malaysia too including. I know there is a banned Kylie Minogue one and a Metallica one, but I don't much about those. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RainbowsandAshes (talk • contribs) 05:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Pakistan

The Pakistani government has banned the import of Indian and American films, leaving piracy as the only way to distribute them. They have also recently banned The Da Vinci Code supposedly out of respect for the Christian community there.

What is an American film and why isn't the Da Vinci Code one? 203.109.240.93 12:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Malaysia #2

The Malaysia section states 'for non-muslims only' ... how does one ban movies for a specific religious group? I was looking at the history to see if I could find which edit added this. I guess it would be good to add a 'search history' feature to Wikipedia ;). → [[User:Icez|Icez {[[User talk:Icez|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Icez|contrib]]}]] 04:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm speculating it says on the DVD/VCD cover it's for non-Muslims only. Potentially vendors may be required to check the MyKad or more likely I suspect may just tell the person it's for non-Muslims only. More likely (obviously this wouldn't be directed by law) racial profiling may be involved and vendors may carry out one or both of the earlier suggestions if a Malay person (or someone who looks like one) tries to buy a copy. Most likely though I suspect this ban isn't really enforced (and given how easy it would be to obtain a pirated copy there is really no point and also I suspect most Muslims aren't particularly interested in watching it either). Having said that a Muslim in possesion or caught viewing the movie could probably be prosecuted under Malaysia's Syariah law for Muslims. Note that alcohol and other non-Halal food products like those derived from pigs are widely available in Malaysia. I've never really heard about most enforcement activiy carried out on the people selling the products, it's usually the Muslims who are caught drinking (or whatever but drinking is obviously one of the primary ones) who are prosecuted Nil Einne 10:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

China section

I have some concerns about the China section. One of the problems is that China only allows a limited number of imported movies every year as the article states (I've heard the it's 25). As such, it's difficult for us to claim a certain motive for not showing a film, even if it is a box office hit unless an official in the PRC gives such a reason. Note that the reason why I'm aware of this is because the recent Bond flick was the first ever to be shown. However we don't mention any of them (and some of them did touch on China somewhat). What I think we should do is only report cases were we have a reliable source which suggest the Chinese have a certain motive in not showing the film. We can attribute this claim to said source and we can also mention the official reason and let the reader decide. If there is no reliable source which makes any claim about why the movie was not shown we should not mention it at all. It is not up to us to decide why certain movies were not shown or suggest movies weren't shown because the Chinese officials didn't like the content, such an attempt would fall foul of verifiblity and OR policies. Currently, the Brokeback Mountain article includes references which attribute motives and includes the official Chinese reason. When I have time I'll copy these to this article if someone hasn't done it already. The rest are likely to be removed unless references can be found to support the claims. P.S. I'll keep the banned outright ones which are a different issue Nil Einne 10:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Why "banning" in the US doesn't tell the whole story

Here is the rub. In the US, at worst, a person or company could be enjoined from distributing a film. This takes place in the context of copyright violations, and is similar to an injunction against, say, distributing counterfeit handbags. This doesn't mean that other's can watch the film, or that existing copies of the film can't be shown -- though the showing might violate the terms of the film's license. So, as a practical matter any "banning" of films is more of a commercial dispute. Yes, from time to time some municipality tries to "ban" a film, but this is usually lasts as long as it takes someone to get into court.68.33.203.109

Municipalities banning films seems to have been much more common in the first half of the twentieth century, as the article demonstrates. Pre-World War II Chicago had particularly strong film censorship, Since the institution of the MPAA ratings system, the banning of films by municipalities has become rare.71.160.204.47 05:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)).

Some jurisdictions might attempt to "ban" a film, but often the bans are more symbolic, since anyone can challenge the bans in court, and obtain attorneys fees under 42 U.S.C. 1988(b). Usually an attempt to "ban" a film, just makes more people want to watch it.68.33.203.109

somebody check this up

can somebody check this up about Borat, it is listed on banned films in the China section, and I may afraid it may be misleading. --Dark paladin x 22:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

If You Love This Planet

I am removing If You Love This Planet from the list for now. I have not found any reliable sources that claim this documentary was banned in the US. It was labeled as political propaganda by the Pentagon, but I have not found a single example of it being banned in the US. It was banned by the CBC until it won the Oscar, however that would be the Canadian government.LegitReality 02:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Cowboy Bebop movie banned in Iran and Iraq?

I noticed on IMDB that Cowboy Bebop: Knockin' on Heavens Door was banned in Iran and Iraq.

You guys might want to look here to understand:

Iran

Iraq

Look for where you can see Cowboy Bebop: Tengoku no tobira. SaintFireMole 02:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

Hi, I came by this page after seeing the AFD for List of films banned in Malaysia and I think this page's contents are somewhat dubious with regards to listing various countries and banned movies in them. The sources are lacking in many cases, and in others, it's obviously incomplete. And I'm not sure that including list of banned films is all that good of an idea for this page anyway, it tends to promote clutter. I'm not sure what should be done, since the various censorship by country pages are also incomplete, but I do think it's worth considering what might be done over all. FrozenPurpleCube 22:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Only ONE SINGLE film ever banned in Argentina resp. Brazil????

During all those military dictatorships? I can't believe it.

I am sure there were other films banned in Argentina and Brazil during the years of military rule that are not listed. I would also think there would have been quite a few films banned in Portugal and Greece during the era of dictatorships in those countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.208.216 (talk) 05:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hostel Part 2

Hostel Part 2 is not banned in Ireland. It was given an 18s rating and shown in the cinemas. It has just been released on DVD here and it is still rated 18. So the details provided here are wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkReviewer (talk • contribs) 19:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You are right it is not banned, I've removed it. IFCO link for Hostel Part II: http://www.ifco.ie/IFCO/ifcoweb.nsf/SearchViewFilm/EA51765F11D59129802572F8005B4499?OpenDocument&OpenUp=True —Preceding unsigned comment added by Still raining here (talk • contribs) 12:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Australian "banned" films

Should it be noted under the Australian section that these films aren't actually "banned" as the name of the page suggests. Films refused classification by the OFLC are illegal to buy or show publicly in Australia but aren't banned in the sense it is illegal merely to own them. Maybe a little note to clarify this, since the title of the article implies otherwise. Cheers, Rothery 16:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC).

In my personal opinion, that might as well be banned. If you have no possible way of obtaining it other than to go over to your buddies house that happens to have some copy he brought over from America or China or something, assuming that it's legal to import them that way, they might as well be completely banned. Again, this is just my opinion. --216.48.138.28 (talk) 12:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

No references or sources?

I've replaced the unreferenced parameter in {{articleissues}} with the primarysources parameter, as the statement that the article does not reference any references or sources is no longer accurate, and I believe that it is the most appropriate parameter. -- Gordon Ecker 09:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I have replaced the primarysources parameter with the more appropriate refimprove parameter. -- Gordon Ecker 00:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Simpsons movie in Egypt

The simpsons movie was actually released 2 days earlier than the US release in Egypt, since theatres only change playing movies on wednesdays. I personally attended it that day. The question is, how to modify that without it being considered an unverified claim?..

Starfox 01:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't you just remove it from the list? The claim that it's pending for banning is unverified and doesn't cite any sources. -- Gordon Ecker 02:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Will do :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starfox (talk • contribs) 03:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

IRELAND- HOSTEL 2 How is this banned? It was in cinemas and is available for rent>? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.124.89.62 (talk) 16:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Bruce Almighty

Bruce almighty is NOT currently banned in Turkey, I saw it at like 5 different video atores FYI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.243.64.31 (talk) 10:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Is Kill Bill banned?

Is Kill Bill banned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Australiaaz (talk • contribs) 03:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, you live in New Zeland, and the only country on the actual article that lists Kill Bill is Malaysia, so my guess would be no. I suggest you do more resarch on it, because it seems that there are some minor accidents with some movies on the list. --216.48.138.28 (talk) 12:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Israel

The article shows some bias against Israel by omitting to mention that its censorship regulations, though wide ranging in principle, are very rarely enforced in practice. Mentioning powers of arrest and closure of newspapers is misleading if the only example brought is of a single banned movie (and indeed it is difficult to mention examples as they rarely occur, but ignorant readers aren't to know that). In other countries with much more severe censorship, the article is minimal in spelling out its intensity, leaving readers to assume a more rosy picture than reality. In Iran, for example, banning of films, satellite dishes, arrest of journalists and newspaper closures regularly occur, though for some reason the article makes no policy commentary there- only listing banned movies. Either all sections should include equal policy discussion or none.

Kite not banned in Norway

Kite is not banned in Norway, but I'm not abel to find out when it was un-banned. I would think it was around the same time Cannibal Holocaust were un-banned. --80.203.58.152 (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The Da-Vinci code not banned in Norway

The Da-Vinci code was not banned in Norway! The prime minister has no influence on this subject what so ever, plus, movies are not banned and censored any more. - Unless the movie contains real life scenes of child pornography, extreme violence etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Litjajen (talk • contribs) 16:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Narration?

I love the beginning of the article personally, and it reads better than some novels. However, does anyone feel it is a bit too poetic or narrative to include? Melaisis (talk) 17:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Trivial issues

A link in the section about Finland points to a disambiguation page. Please edit it to point to the film rather. It's the link for 'cruising'. (Amazing to read this list!) k thx bye —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.221.37.30 (talk) 09:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Also there's a typo, film 'spielen wir liebe' is baNNNed, with 3 n's.

Malaysia's list

I would like to inform that the list of movies banned in Malaysia is not accurate...for example...The Simpsons Movie,Iron Man and Superhero Movie are movies that are NOT banned...so please review the list again.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sangeetha 85 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Da Vinci Code was never banned in Malaysia, in fact this PG13 flim was shown with no cuts in the cinemas but with an 18PL restriction whereby minors below 18 were prohibited from entering the cinema. The flim was relased for VCD/DVD relase by Mediamax.com Sdn Bhd and shown on satelite via Astro on AXN in October 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adaml11600 (talk • contribs) 07:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

iran

Matrix Revolutions and fahrenheit 9/11 both broadcasted from iran tv channels . they are not banned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.47.244.50 (talk) 16:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

BORAT in New Zealand

Not banned, or edited in any way. It was passed uncut as an R16 film both theatrically and on DVD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.37.32.2 (talk) 00:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The Great Dictator was most certainly not banned til 1998; the first public screening after the Third Reich was in 1958; no idea whether it was actually banned at all after 1945. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.83.110.244 (talk) 21:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Song of the South banned in the United States

http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/sots.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.76.112.227 (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Seven Year In Tibet is not banned in China

Please verify the following sources (via translate.bing.com) http://movie.mtime.com/166927/

The movie's title in Chinese is 西藏七年, try plugging it into a Chinese search engine such as Baidu or Sohu, you will not see the obligatory censorship notice.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 00:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Sadiaarabia

It is any movie is bannad in Sadiaarabia? it is a muslimic country it must be any objectionable material der is forbidden —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.96.216.180 (talk) 15:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Russia

The Russia section states that Borat: Blah Blah Blah was the first non-pornographic film to be banned since the fall of the Soviet Union. However, South Park: BLU came out ~7 years before Borat. So, this statement makes no logical sense unless someone were to state that South Park: BLU was banned after Borat. While it's possible that the movie wasn't banned until the show itself was (after Borat's 2006 release), the statement about Borat is either flat-out wrong or needs clarification.

yeah, I noticed this too. I guess I'll just change it for now. If someone knows something I don't, by all means, change it back, just please leave a note or reference or SOMETHING. --216.48.138.28 (talk) 12:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Family Guy is banned in Russia?? It is shown on TV every day here! Sorry for my bad English.--95.55.114.153 (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Hellas

What is Hellas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.12.144.17 (talk) 04:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Hellas is the Greek word for Greece. In most cases in the English language version of wikipedia, Greece is preferable to Hellas. Pnelnik (talk) 18:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Concerning Provinces And Territories

As written:

2006: Bumfights is banned in seven of the ten [Canadian] provinces and territories; the remaining three give it an R rating.

There are thirteen provinces and territories in Canada; ten provinces and three territories. What is the intended meaning? 24.207.85.160 (talk) 21:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

"Paradoxically"

The intro contains the sentence:

Paradoxically, banning a movie often completely fails to achieve its intention of preventing a movie from being seen

Something failing to achieve its intention is not a paradox; it's just a failure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbyi (talk • contribs) 21:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right. The sentence is poorly worded. I think the word ironically is a better fit.--SEWalk (talk) 06:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, fixed. I've changed it to Ironically. Ruodyssey (talk) 04:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Citation required for the list of films banned in Ireland

A citation is required for the list of films banned in Ireland.
Is the current list complete?
Pnelnik (talk) 18:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

For example on Rocky Road to Dublin page in wikipedia, it mentions that the film was not officially banned, though there were some efforts to surpress it. Pnelnik (talk) 10:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Citations are needed for a lot of films here, there seem to be a lot of people confusing controversies over films for an outright ban. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 13:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Harry Potter Banned In Denmark?

This, I presume, is a joke? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.16.112 (talk) 23:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Organization Queries

Why is the section called "Timelines" when it appears to be more of an organization by territory. There seems to be a lot of inconsistency between the various sections regarding format. Some use just year, title, short reason, some use tables, some are using both. Should redlinked or nolinked films really be included? Should all of the lists be given a massive clean out to remove non-banned films (like China simply not allowing importing of a foreign film, which is really not a "ban" - I would think ban would be limited to films banned in their home country) and all of the unsourced? The lead and the "Banning versus censoring" are also almost entirely unsourced, seeming to point to OR. Thoughts on redoing them to be a single, more comprehensive lead that makes it clearer what constitutes a banned film and why it would be in the list? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The article is titled "list of banned films", not "list of films banned in their countries of origin". -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Banned films would imply they were banned worldwide. Being banned in one country does not, IMHO, make it a "banned" film unless it was explicitly banned in its country of origin/production. Considering the large bulk of films do not even get exported out of their country, banning in other countries is fairly pointless and meaningless unless it was explicitly banned when an export was tried. If Argentina says "we ban film x" does it matter if no one intended to even show the film there in the first place? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Isn't anyone else bothered by the fact so many of these so-called banned films have no references proving they were and why? LargoLarry (talk) 13:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm very bothered by it. People just seem to be randomly adding stuff in. That's why I mentioned cleaning out all of the unsourced ones as a clean up option :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should ignore properly sourced bans of foreign films. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I am going to add notes to all uncited "banned" films. I will remove any still unsourced ones after January 31. Is there any disagreement with this? Joshua Scott (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Consistency of format

We need to either put all sections in tables or all in bulleted list form. I don't care which as long as we're consistent. (It looks like more of them are in bulleted list form so I'm leaning to that style, mainly because it would be less editing to achieve but also because I think it is a little easier on my eyes.)

What is the consensus on preferred format? RJFJR (talk) 18:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

My thought is for tables, in spite of the work required. Every film in this article should have a citation, and possibly a reason. That data really calls for a table format. Thoughts? Joshua Scott (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't add unreferenced films to this article

This article is (IMHO) a disaster of unsourced allegations and disorganized lists. Per WP:Verifiability, any controversial statements require a citation, so any films added to this list without a reference will be removed. Joshua Scott (talk) 00:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

We're missing a lot of citations here

I don't think I've ever seen so many missing citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mad Dingo704 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I added all those, and I've been adding a citation here and there when the mood strikes... Even one more cite helps, so if you can, fix some of those, even if it's just a bare url in brackets. Joshua Scott (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

For Canada, many of the citations (particularly the Maritimes) can be found by searching for said films at the website for the Maritime Film Classification Board. However, their site has been broken for many months. 142.167.183.109 (talk) 02:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Article Focus

I've re-written the lead section of the article, I feel like it needed to be changed to better express which films should be in the list. My feeling is that (per the title "banned films") it should only include notable films that have been banned. I'm also confused by the "Timeline" heading at the beginning of the article. I'm not sure how we fit censorship into a timeline. I think it's already logical and assumed that the films would be listed in chronological order. Anyway, please feel free to revert if I've ignored some previous concensus. I'd love some thoughts on cleanup. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) talk 02:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I've cut the "in their country" bit. The list currently includes both foreign and domestic bans, and IMO it should continue to include both unless it's split into separate lists for foreign and domestic film bans. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Wolf Creek?

2005: Wolf Creek was temporarily banned in the Northern Territory to avoid influence during the trial of Bradley John Murdoch for murder. It was re-released in the Northern Territory in January 2006. Was this an OFLC ban or a legal injunction to prohibit influencing the jury? It sounds like the latter. The television mini-series Underbelly had a similar temporary injunction in Victoria and Blue Murder in NSW due to ongoing criminal trials at the time. LamontCranston (talk) 13:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Mikey (1992) was never rated 18

It rejected outright. See here: http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/rejected.htm http://www.bbfc.co.uk/website/Classified.nsf/c2fb077ba3f9b33980256b4f002da32c/c2df63d4540210dd8025660b000f83cf?OpenDocument —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.231.92 (talk) 19:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Removals

I'm removing the films that I can't find sources for. I am going to move the removed ones here, if anyone knows of a substantiating source, please feel free to put the film back in the article with a source.  --Joshua Scott (formerly LiberalFascist) 16:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Switzerland

• 1994: Blutgeil

Vietnam

• 1986: Platoon

Yemen

• 2006: The Omen
• 2006: Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan

Iceland

if hostel 1 and 2 are banned in Iceland then noone is enforcing that law as I see them for rent and sale all over the place and last house on the left was recently shown on the government funded puplic state tv station. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.157.68.240 (talk) 02:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Heavy focus on Muslim countries

Why is there such a heavy focus on Islamic countries (particularly Malaysia)? I don't get it. Practically every good comedy movie is listed as banned in the Middle East or Malaysia. Is this all true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.2.241 (talk) 14:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Major cleanup

I cleaned out lots of unsourced content. The tags were from January 2010 or earlier, and the content had presumably been there for some time. Let's keep a tight ship here. No content without sourcing! Filmfluff (talk) 23:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason for your keeping certain unsourced titles, such as those alleged to be censored in Burma and Bhutan that are also unsourced from January 2010 or earlier? Quigley (talk) 23:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Definitely an oversight. I'll do it now. Filmfluff (talk) 06:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

They are gone now. I left a few that had recent "citation needed" tags. Filmfluff (talk) 06:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Evil Dead

the film Evil Dead which is known as Tanz der Teufel here, was banned in Germany (or still is, i dont know) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.229.5.58 (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Faces of Death Series

Faces of Death (1978), also released under the title The Original Faces of Death, is a mondo film which guides viewers through explicit scenes depicting a variety of ways to die and violent acts. It is often billed as Banned in 40 Countries. The film has been banned (at least temporarily) in Australia, Norway, Finland, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Sited from Wiki. I thought for sure it would have been listed in your Banned Films List but apparently not. I don't know much about using Wiki, but if someone who knows what they're doing wants to add it I'm sure it will be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agonyflips (talk • contribs) 06:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

South Korea

I do not understand this. South Korea

   * 1996: Scream[citation needed]

Bans made prior to 1980 have all been lifted.[citation needed] According to the Internet Movie Database, there are no currently banned films in South Korea.[85]

If all bans prior to 1980 have been lifted and there are currently no banned films how does this account for Scream being banned in 1996? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.117.170.132 (talk) 00:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it means that the ban has been lifted on scream specifically, it's just not been not mentioned explicitly. --Veyneru (talk) 20:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Germany

The Eternal Jew: This movie has been banned ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.117.81.144 (talk) 09:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Meaning of "banned" in UK

Near the start of the article we read: "this list includes only films that have been explicitly prohibited from public screening." But some (all?) of the films in the UK list have simply been denied a certificate by the BBFC. That is not banning. Such films could be shown in public cinemas if the local cimema licensing authority had no objection. 213.122.60.79 (talk) 15:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)