Talk:Censorship in Israel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Censorship in Israel article.
Article policies
Israel Portal
Censorship in Israel is part of WikiProject Israel, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Israel articles.
Project Israel To Do (Drop-Down Menu):
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Blankings

Please do not remove sourced content. // Liftarn

please do not add irrelevant content, whether sourced or not, and provide citations for unsourced content. Isarig 19:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Everything was sourced. I noticed you put tags asking for sources next to the source itself. Possibly the problem is that you changed the text so it no longer matches what the source say. // Liftarn
No, it was not sourced. For example, the statement "In 1967 Israel prohibited the display of the Palestinian flag and national colours, a violation is punishable by fines or imprisonment" was not supported by the 2002 US state department report used as a reference. Isarig 10:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll look into that, but you did change the sentence "The Israeli Military Censor has the power to turn off a broadcaster, stop information and put journalists in jail." (supported by sources) to "The Israeli Military Censor has the power to prevent publication of certain news items. Journalists who bypass the military censor or publish items that were censored may be subject to criminal prosecution and jail time" (not supported by sources). You introduced new information and slaped a {{cn}} tag on it. // Liftarn
Yes, I changed an unencyclopedic phrase into one that factually describes the process involved. Israel, liek any other democracy, follows a certian porcess - the censor can no more "put journalists in jail" than the minister of commere can jail an insurance comapny executive for failing to meet some regulatory provision. I'd still like to see a cite to the actual letter of the law. Isarig 10:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, you were being bold, but until you find a source better describing it why not stick to what the source actually say? // Liftarn
Because this is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox for venting against countries you don't like. Isarig 10:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Per WP:V and WP:RS it should say what the sources say. That you don't like it is irrelevant. // Liftarn
Ok, the ban on the flag seems a bit tricky. I have one source saying 1967[1], one saying 1980[2] and some giving no year and just that it is banned[3][4][5]. // Liftarn
These sources say th efalg is banned in teh territories. Please find some relaibel source, that cites the law under which the flag was banned. Isarig 10:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
That is not needed per WP:V. It may be banned not by law, but by interpretation of the law or simply a statement. // Liftarn
Then find a reliable source that provides the law being interpreted. Alternatively, this can be phrased as "Palestian sources allege that..." Isarig 13:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
All the sources say it is banned. If you want the article to say something else you first find a source, then change the article. You can't just change the article to whatevery you feel like and thens lap on a {{cn}} tag. As it says on Wikipedia:Verifiability "There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag.". // Liftarn
I'm afraid you didn't real all th eway through. That sentence continues " Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. ". I am perfectly happy to remove it, aggressively, if that's what you want. Isarig 14:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
So far I have noticed that you remove sources[6] rather than add them. // Liftarn

[edit] WP:3O request

Hello. Someone reported the above dispute at WP:3O. I don't precisely understand what the dispute is, though. Could someone please just briefly post the two contested phrases together with their respective sources? Sandstein 20:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this[7] says it all. The source (Editor & Publisher: AP Reveals Israeli Censorship, Says It Will Abide By Rules) says "The Israeli Military Censor has the power to turn off a broadcaster, stop information and put journalists in jail.", but Isarig wants it to say "The Israeli Military Censor has the power to prevent publication of certain news items. Journalists who bypass the military censor or publish items that were censored may be subject to criminal prosecution and jail time", but has not found a source for that so he slapped on a tag to it. The second issue is the blanking mentioned above. // Liftarn
The article has a quote which is unencyclopedic and incorrect. I phrased it in correct terminology - the tag is needed in order to support the claim. Isarig 08:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Surely no one means to say that the censor can directly order a journalist to be jailed without any formalities ("... put journalists in jail")? That's what the AP article seems to suggest. It appears to me that the sentence quoted in the AP article is a journalistic paraphrase of what Isarig writes ("... may be subject to criminal prosecution and jail time"). Such paraphrases are maybe appropriate in journalism, where the point is to get the essentials of a story across, but not in an encyclopedia article, which should get the formalities right. Accordingly, we should research the actual Israeli law at issue which covers the powers of the censor, and use that as as a source. Until such other sources are found, I think we should use Isarig's text, which is simply better as a matter of encyclopedic style. Sandstein 08:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

As regards the "blanking issue", Isarig, maybe you could explain why you deleted the content you did? Is it supported by the cited source or not? Sandstein 08:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The material is sourced, but irrelevant to this article. This article is about "censorship in ISrael" - the material I removed is about military operations in the West Bank during which some Palestinian buildings serving TV stations were damaged. Isarig 10:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
They weren't damages as in "Oops...". They were intentionally targeted and you may explain the military necessity of using the stations transmitter for broadcasting porn. // Liftarn
If this concerns military PSYOPS operations against Palestinians, maybe this content belongs in some article about these conflicts, and not in an article about censorship in Israel? I think we have articles about each of these battles, wars, operations and what not. Sandstein 07:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. We indeed have many such articles, where this might be appropriate. Isarig 08:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Or we could rename the article to "Censorship in Israel and the occupied territories". or do you suggest a separate article for censorship there? // Liftarn
Either would be possible, if we have sufficient and appropriate content for it. But I don't think these incidents of Israel bombing and hijacking a Palestinian TV station is sufficient or even appropriate content for an article or section on "Censorship in Israel and the occupied territories":
  • We're talking about a specific number of military operations here, not a policy of censorship as such. Censorship would be when Israel would force the Palestinians to submit content for approval prior to publication. Bombing and hijacking a station, on the other hand, may be an act of war or a war crime of some sort (depending on one's point of view), but it's not censorship in the traditional sense.
  • An article or section on "Censorship in the occupied territories" would also need content about traditional censorship, if any, by Israel or by any of the Palestinian authorities or faction (e.g. by Hamas in Gaza?). If we just covered these TV station incidents, we would imply that there is no censorship otherwise, which may be wrong.
Accordingly, I suggest we place coverage of these TV station incidents in the appropriate article(s) about the Israeli/Palestininian conflict, at least until we have content to fill a section or article about actual censorship in the Palestinian territories. Sandstein 11:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Before Isarig blanked it[8] it was put in the Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict article. // Liftarn

[edit] Censorship of anti-israeli ideas

this is a big fat huge lie. And should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.229.104.93 (talk) 15:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed

This article might need some attention from people with better knowledge on Israeli laws on censorship. For example, the assertion that "anti-Israel content" may be banned without further reasons seems quite odd, and needs to be more specified as to what it actually means and confirmed by independent sources. The current source given for this assertion (an article from 1982 titled Palestine — The Suppression of an Idea might not be the most credible since it's obviously an article written from a highly Israel-critical perspective. /Slarre (talk) 03:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)