Credit to peoplesvoice for this graphic Systematic gatekeeping for Jewish interest on Wikipedia

Wikipedia is a wonderful idea, brilliantly implemented, but it was always bound to have weaknesses as regards hot topics. Enough biased editors would always be able to skew articles on any particular topic - and nationalist topics are the worst affected. One can find all kinds of head-to-head disputes over, say, small countries in Eastern Europe, where there is lots of news badly covered by professional journalists and hence easily distorted.

In one area, the problem is much more serious, covering far more articles than any other, and that is the Israel-Palestinian topic. Basically, Wikipedia was holed below the waterline as soon as editors such as Jayjg became firm personal friends of Jimbo Wales and set about writing history the way they wanted it to be. Jayjg was eventually told to knock it off, but only after most articles within the topic were heavily contaminated by the activities of him and his numerous cronies, great and small. Towards the end of 2010, one can still see a few very high-quality editors left and a huge amount of the most utter dross, editors who should, in very many cases, have been identified and stopped within days of their first appearance.

The content of this page is intended to demonstrate the bias within Wikipedia brought about, ultimately, by the selective promotion of Zionists such as Jayjg to all administrative roles.

Some of this page is a collection of evidence of the organisation (and funding) behind this manipulation.

Worthy articles preserved by Wikispooks

Articles deleted from Wikipedia

2001 Israeli Nerve Gas Attacks Based on the evidence of multiple witnesses, there is good reason to believe that something unusual happened in February and March of 2001 in at least 8 locations in the Gaza strip and the West Bank. A number of foreign observers were killed in the months that followed.

In many cases such as this, editors start good articles on important subjects at Wikipedia and immediate action is taken to delete them. The deletion attempt (AfD in Wikipedia parlance) forces the editor to defend his creation, making it difficult to concentrate and make any improvements, while other editors never get the chance to contribute.

Unlike most of Wikipedia, the contents of these articles is rendered inaccessible. As a result, rather few of these attempts have been preserved and it is particularly important to save such material and share it with others here.

Articles under threat of deletion

Before concluding that weeding out is a normal enough activity in any collection, and that it must have been carried out according to some recognised procedure and policy, observe another article that has mountains of strong references:

Criticism articles white-washed

2001 Israeli art scam & spying concerns. This scam is now relatively famous and may be widespread but in 2000 and 2001 it was only being operated by young Israelis in the US and their methods caused a spying scare. This article survived a deletion attempt but only in a white-washed form, it has been re-written up as if neither the Israeli connection nor the suspicions of spying were significant. Another feature here is that (perhaps in order to poison the discussion atmosphere) the article was wilfully vandalised by a very experienced editor who escaped all censure.

This example demonstrates how good articles full of useful information are systematically edited to remove material from reputable sources (if it does not suit the Zionist aims) and add information from other, often dubious sources. No matter what the topic, the Israeli version must come first and there are constant problems trying to maintain neutral tone and avoid weasel words.

Other Hasbara tricks

A course for Wikipedia Hasbara operatives

Policies implemented to advantage Zionism

Arbitration Committee refuses to defend the Wikipedia naming convention. This May 2009 affair probably marks the end of Wikipedia making any attempt to be even-handed. The point at issue was whether articles should use "Judea and Samaria" (prefered useage of Israeli settlers and their ideological supporters) or "West Bank" the prefered useage of almost everyone else. Evidence presented included some 80 secondary/tertiary sources saying that "Judea and Samaria" are historical or partisan terms and no more than 6 bona fide examples of non-historical and non-partisan use and (without going into detail, but for fairly obvious reasons) the latter does not amount to evidence. Nevertheless, the Arbitration Committee (or ArbCom) refused to make a ruling on encyclopedia policy instead handing out a banning order on 5 of the "West Bank"-supporting editors and 4 of the "Judea and Samaria" editors (two of the latter later found to be sock-puppets of a banned user). The only gain for accuracy of articles was the final temporary exclusion of Jayjg (a notorious Zionist and member of the upper circles at WP) from Israel/Palestine articles.

temporary exclusion of Jayjg (a notorious Zionist and member of the upper circles at WP) from Israel/Palestine articles. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Israeli settlements June 2010. An attempt to preserve neutrality and use primarily the internationally accepted wording "Israeli settlement" (rather than Israeli town/village) for Jewish building on Palestinian land won a vote of editors by 25 to 9. However, the extremist minority (even within Israel) was privileged by a declaration that the consensus reached was non-binding.

Both of these cases concern naming conventions, which should be relatively easy to arbitrate over. The much bigger problem, and one we're similarly expected to believe cannot be arbitrated for, is the exclusion of good sources and the inclusion of poor ones. With a constant supply of new and obviously biased editors, and savage enforcement for "edit-warring" and other offences (sometimes invented) against non-Zionists, it is no surprise many articles adhere so strongly to the Israeli narrative.

Historical period chosen to favor Zionist narrative

A particular problem is the complete erasure of any mention of pre-1948 existence almost anywhere in articles. Some 400 towns and villages with histories going back 2000 years have practically vanished, at least from articles devoted to their modern day location.

Strong preference for Zionist sources

Any Arab or Arab-friendly source is liable to be dubbed a "hate-site" while far worse sources, sometimes with obvious conflict of interest (even settlers themselves) are freely used. Known terrorist groups, provided they're Zionists, receive laudatory mention. A number of obvious Israeli propagandists, even from groups once labelled terrorists by the Israelis themselves, are quoted as if they were historians while the views of modern-day propagandists are similarly treated as if they were neutral observers.

Pro-Zionist articles get admin protection

In most Israel-Palestine articles, good material will have been aggressively edited out and poor material introduced.

Outright Hasbara articles

Articles like the following demonstrate the hypocrisy with which deletion is applied, when much more valuable and significant work is often lost.

Pallywood - an article seeking to give legitimacy to an Islamophobic canard. The word itself is of negligible significance in reliable sources and has reasonably been described as an "ethnic slur". Unsuccessfully nominated for deletion here, a second attempt here ended in an administrator saying it needed to be renamed, which has not been done.

Jewish Internet Defense Force, a FaceBook group. Nominated for deletion here, here and here. Wikipedia publicises and gives credibility to an "attack" group that puts POV into Wikipedia articles.

Arabs for Israel - what appears to be one woman and her blog gets two entire Wikipedia articles, that one and this. Her writing and speaking on her departure from Islam and her personal views on Israel can at best be no more than interesting. Meanwhile, real scholars of the Middle East, researching and publishing on affairs that greatly improve our understanding of issues, get no such adulatory over-attention. (Please correct me at "Discussion" via the tab at the top if I've missed anything).

It is necessary to mention that in a few cases non-Zionists have sought to delete Zionist-narrative articles on various grounds, usually of racism, here "Racism in the Palestinian territories" is nominated on the grounds of irredeemably bad-writing.

Delete: Racism in the Palestinian territories A quick check shows that the reference list (standing at 52 entries) of "Racism in the Palestinian territories" seems totally dominated by sources liable to make accusations, many of them on entirely ideological grounds (ie they have no obvious even-handed interest in "human rights"). For comparison, there are 112 references at Racism in Israel, at least 90% from similarly biased sources more likely to defend against accusations. (This Aug 2010 deletion attempt is a bit of a mystery, there seems no possibility of it succeeding).

Also present, though again perhaps not in great numbers, are articles that exclude discussion that typically make Zionists feel uncomforatable - here is an example:

Anti-Zionism is an article that appears to de-legitimise the views of an enormous part of world-opinion which is supportive of Zionism (according to many or all of the usual definitions) but is critical of Israel in ways that could or have been described as anti-Israel. The article opens with "Anti-Zionism is opposition to Zionism and the State of Israel". The word Israel appears often enough (143 times) while the word/phrases "anti Israel", "antiIsrael" and "anti-Israel" do not appear. As pointed out here, searches for the terms "Anti-Israel" and "Anti-Israel movements" are re-directed to anti-Zionism, tending to mislead the casual reader into supposing that all criticism of Israel is "denial of its right to exist".

Uncontrolled personal attacks

The survival of articles so obviously trivial as the Facebook group Jewish Internet Defense Force or actively offensive, such as Pallywood (immediately above) is a measure of the pervasive chill felt by editors due to uncontrolled personal attacks. Because all your contributions can be viewed, mud-slinging suffered at minor articles just draws unwelcome attention to more important articles one is trying to write or improve elsewhere. It sometimes seems as if Wiki-stalking is not a punishable offence when non-Zionists are the victims.

Discussing Reliable Sources and MEMRI (a translation service operated by ex-military Israelis) draws a pointless imputation of bigotry from an administrator.

Time-wasting arguments against all sense

See what you think - this May 2010 discussion on the "Founding myths of Israel" is an example of time-wasting arguments being used to advantage hasbara. It's one of 100s of such cases but it caught my eye. Why? Well, the Zionist arguments being inserted into articles are themselves time-wasting arguments being used to advantage hasbara!

This is my commentary on what's going on in that extended discussion:

1) The complaining editor (lets call him Editor X) believes there are articles that "recite well-known Zionist viewpoints in the neutral voice of the encyclopedia". Propaganda is appearing in the body text of articles.

2) Editor X explains how he believes this effect is achieved, it's by censoring even the works of respected Israeli authors such as Ilan Pappe, Avi Shlaim, Eugene Rogan, and Benny Morris from articles. (By no means all of "the left" - Benny Morris revels in being quite right-wing).

3) Editor X produces evidence that these Israeli authors are indeed well respected authorities.

4) Editor X's complaint is that anything even quoting respected Israeli authors edits is subject to "reverts and bizarre claims that the authors of the textbooks are misquoting sources, lying, promoting fringe theories that are out-of-the-mainstream, or have nothing new or interesting to say on the subject".

5) Editor X wishes to see "a project where we can cite the material in my college-aged kid's Middle East Studies textbook" Editor X reminds everyone that published Wikipedia policy states "articles should describe all significant views ... fairly weight the authority accorded each view ... with the aim of providing neutral, encyclopedic coverage about the issues".

6) Now look at the behaviour of Editor Z, who is trying to obstruct the addition of good material, using obviously "time-wasting arguments". This editor is a top Wikipedian, an appointed "reviewer" and has completed an enormous 34,000 edits.

7) Now, editor Z is actually working at the Wikipedia for the sole purpose of preventing good sources being used - calling the Islamic scholar Yusuf al-Qaradawi "that asshole" and a "bloodthirsty hatemongering racist". Extreme enough to make the point?

8) Then note that a second worthless editor arrives, editor Y is coming to the support of editor Z. Editor Y is strongly linked to off-wiki collusion for which they get off scot-free.

9) The time-waster (editor Z, a very experienced editor in good standing, remember) goes into something that can only be called a rant and an odd reference to what may be editor X's real life.

These "collaboration" pages are provided for calm discussions and cooperation between editors of opposing view-points - what chance of this when such bad-tempered and threatening behaviour by Zionists is tolerated? Much more scholarly non-Zionists have often been heavily restricted for less than that.

Obvious pro-Zionist editor bias

Wikipedia admins (some of them proudly Zionist) are extremely harsh on any suspicion of racism aimed at Jews or Israelis (the terms commonly treated as interchangable). This serves a double-purpose - when a particular phrase is used almost exclusively by Zionists (in some cases, not even that, the settler minority and their supporters not supported by most Israelis) then pointing this out can be used as an excuse for stopping sensible discussion with accusations of racism. "Poisoning the well" it is called at Wikipedia and it's easily recognised - partisan enforcement makes it just another weapon in the arsenal of Zionist editors against non-Zionist editors.

False accusations of this kind of bias/racism against Israelis abound, with often serious consequences for quite innocent editors but eg here none for the accusers. (On that occasion the accusations came from a previously-caught sock-puppet (a user in the CAMERA case) but was still allowed to make over 2000 prejudicial edits before final ejection and return under a different name). Meanwhile, offensive racism towards (the rather few) non-Israeli editors from the Middle East has been brushed off as trivial.

Outward shows of pro-Palestinian partisanship are rare and have often be treated as reason for offensive personal comments. Pro-Palestinian collaboration has never been proven, and seems unlikely since few such editors will respond to the e-mail feature. This has not stopped Zionists claiming there has been conspiracy eg an entry at "Zionism On The Web".[1]

Zionist editors happily decorate their Home Pages with factually dubious defenses of their views, sometimes sinking to the really offensive. There is a picture of a D9 bulldozer (similar to the one under which Rachel Corrie died) with "this machine saved many lives" displayed on the Home Page of one editor who remains in apparent good-standing. Two of the very worst examples of really discredited pro-Israel books ("The Case for Israel" and "Since TIme Immemorial") were shown as "Favourites" on the Home Page of another editor in good standing (this page was wiped of its history and re-built in a similar very Point-of-View fashion).

Some of the most notorious editors have eventually been restricted but the damage they do in terms of driving away the honest is considerable. Other such editors, perhaps because they can afford (perhaps funded?) to travel to Wiki-meets all over the world seem to be beyond any meaningful sanctions. Wikipedia's 10th Anniversary was celebrated in Israel in August 2011,[2] despite the fact that the US State Dept knows and warns that a visit there will unpleasant or impossible to all Palestinian-Americans[3] and many others.

Administrator bias

Suprising though it will seem, Wikipedia is similar to the Main Stream Media in one very important respect. It has an owner and, even more than in the corporate world, this owner has a reputation for heavy-handed interference in the workings of his creation.

Wikipedia now takes a ferocious attitude to anyone pointing out what's going wrong, but a bit of its shameful secret can still be seen in the quite early days, 2006 "the people who run Wikipedia have a Zionist point of view" directed to a user who was "being ganged up on" Yas121. Detailed criticism includes this "massive opposition to Jayjg (over 100 people voted against him) .... *still* appointed him to the Arbitration Committee again."

Naturally, the problems at Wikipedia are now much more severe than they were then. At the time of the writing of the above, this notoriously biased administrator had only been contributing and learning the ropes for 2 years, he's now (Sep 2011) been there for 7 years. He continues to be very active in articles (43 edits in the 24 hours previous to my writing this, less Saturday when he does not edit for religious reasons), and (almost certainly) still very active behind the scenes. (He's been exposed for this too). It's not even as if his bias is concealed, his original application for administratorship had to be extended because of an excess of editors brave enough to vote against him. Even though he obviously had the blessing of the boss, many of those supporting him noted the obvious "Point of View" nature of his work.

Other notorious administrators have been promoted since then, while NPOV {Neutral Point of View] editors have been hounded and banned, as detailed elsewhere. Administrators wield almost unlimited and uncontrolled power to do as their employer requires. "Employer" may seem a surprising word - surely the Wikipedia project is based entirely on volunteers? Maybe, maybe not - this editor boasts of having carried out 40,000 edits in his first 2 years. Do the maths, that's one edit every 10 minutes of a 10 hour working day (and he is believed to spend a lot more time in e-mail). Needless to say, this is not the work-rate of a careful editor. The particular comment above appears at an article on Hamas where the Zionists have, needless to say, insisted on portraying Palestinians as the most depraved people ever to have walked the earth.

Known attempts to organise editing

Despite accusations made at the time of the CAMERA affair, there seems to be no evidence (or indeed reason to suspect) that there has been unwarranted cooperation or collusion or organisation amongst Wikipedia editors tending to be critical of Israel. A close look at the listing here shows no evidence of weeding articles tainted, if not overwhelmed, with Zionist propaganda.

Hasbara since 1977

The Wikipedia article on hasbara is misleadingly entitled "Public diplomacy (Israel)" but is remarkably open on Israel's support for hasbara and it's history. In 1977 recently elected Likud Prime Minister Menachem Begin (hard-line fascist according to Einstein) chose fellow ex-terrorist Shmuel Katz d.2008 to become "Adviser to the Prime Minister of Information Abroad". Shmuel Katz had already earned the title "the father of hasbara in America" with the publication of "Battleground: Fact and Fantasy in Palestine" in 1973. The book was said to be "an encyclopedic source-book for those involved in Israel's hasbara effort" and was distributed in thousands by AFSI and other groups for decades across America.[4] 24 years later, Katz published a retrospective of Israeli hasbara efforts and said that the task of Israel's hasbara "must be tackled not by occasional sudden sallies but by a separate permanent department in the government."[5] Sharon did increase hasbara efforts, but did not create a cabinet-level ministry for that purpose.[6]

In May 1992, the Jerusalem Post reported that American Jewish leaders hardly reacted to news that the Foreign Ministry's hasbara departmen would be eliminated as part of a sweeping reorganization of the ministry.[7] Malcolm Hoenlein noted there had been talk of streamlining the ministry's hasbara functions for some time. He said that merging the department's functions with those of the press department did not portend any downgrading in the priority the Likud government gives to hasbara abroad. Abe Foxman of the ADL reacted similarly, saying he was "not distressed or disturbed", and noted that disseminating hasbara has always been the responsibility of every Foreign Ministry staff officer, especially those working abroad; if eliminating one department means everyone will assume greater responsibility for his or her own efforts in distributing hasbara then he is all in favor. It also reported that personnel in foreign hasbara departments would be shifted to press departments, which is where much of the work currently done by hasbara officials properly belongs. He explained that Israel's efforts to provide hasbara abroad would focus on media communications.

In August 2001 (during the Second Intifada) the Palestinian-American professor Edward Said identified several hasbara methods used by pro-Israel groups: "This has included an entire range of efforts: lunches and free trips for influential journalists; seminars for Jewish university students who over a week in a secluded country estate can be primed to "defend" Israel on the campus; bombarding congressmen and -women with invitations and visits; pamphlets and, most important, money for election campaigns; directing (or, as the case requires, harassing) photographers and writers of the current Intifada into producing certain images and not others; lecture and concert tours by prominent Israelis; training commentators to make frequent references to the Holocaust and Israel's predicament today; many advertisements in the newspapers attacking Arabs and praising Israel; and on and on.[8]

In 2002, funding levels for the hasbara effort were said to be modest, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs spent about US$8.6 million that year and the Government Press Office was only budgeted at US$100,000.[citation needed] The Israeli State Comptroller's office issued a report critical of Israel's PR efforts, "lack of an overall strategic public relations conception and objective" and lack of coordination between the various organizations were mentioned.[9]

In 2005 an article in the Jerusalem Post the Deputy Director-General for Media and Public Affairs (reprinted by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs), entitled "What 'Hasbara' Is Really All About" said that "public diplomacy is not a cure-all for all of Israel’s problems in the arena of public opinion" and "Israel’s image is largely event-driven, rather than argument-driven".[10] Other information from this source is the "Guide to the Middle East Peace Process" with claims such a "Since its establishment in 1948, the State of Israel has sought peace with its neighbors through direct negotiations".[11]

In May 2007, the Hasbara Fellowships of Aish HaTorah (co-sponsored since 2001 by the diplomatic arm of the Government of Israel, Israeli Foreign Affairs Ministry) is said to have written that "Wikipedia is not an objective resource but rather an online encyclopedia that any one can edit. The result is a website that is in large part is controlled by 'intellectuals' who seek re-write the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. These authors have systematically yet subtly rewritten key passages of thousands of Wikipedia entries to portray Israel in a negative light. You have the opportunity to stop this dangerous trend! If you are interested in joining a team of Wikipedians to make sure Israel is presented fairly and accurately, please contact [our] director". (A similar advocacy campaign on Wikipedia was later launched by the CAMERA but was caught in improper activities in May 2008, see above).

In 2008, Yarden Vatikay was appointed to coordinate Israel’s domestic and foreign media policy[12] as a new "Hasbara czar", heading a "unit to coordinate Israel’s domestic and foreign media policy".

In 2009, Israel's foreign ministry organized volunteers to add pro-Israeli commentary on news websites.[13][14][15] In July 2009, it was announced that the Israeli Foreign Ministry would assemble an "internet warfare" squad to spread a pro-Israel message on various websites, with funding of 600,000 shekels (c $150,000).[16][17]

In 2011, the Jewish Foundation has an apparently updated listing of "Israel Education Resource Center: Web Links" though with some dead links.[18]

The Israeli government continues to offer such training as the 2009 "Ambassador's course" to community leaders, educators, students and activists in the Diaspora ... an opportunity to acquire both a comprehensive overview of the conflict, tools to understand Palestinian propaganda/media bias and the means to advocate Israel's policy.[19]

Further efforts to improve Israeli public relations include such as the Israel Citizens Information Council (ICIC): The purpose of the ICIC is to assist efforts to explain Israeli life from the vantage point of the average Israeli citizen. Towards that end, the ICIC enlists Israelis from all walks of life to participate in its various projects ... One of our major activities is the production of special Powerpoint presentations which we post on our website. These presentations review specific aspects and issues related to Israel and the Middle East.[20]

Hasbara successfully resisted

In June 2010, respected blogger Mondoweiss detailed these examples of hasbara successfully resisted. He says "One of the most striking trends following the flotilla attack has been how quickly Israeli hasbara has been exposed and discredited by internet journalists. Robert Mackey has a post on the Times Lede blog highlighting some examples today - Max Blumenthal's reporting on the doctored IDF audio of the attack and Noam Sheizaf's work on Turkish photos of the Mavi Marmara attack which contradict IDF claims. To these two I would add Lia Tarachansky and Blumenthal's work disproving the IDF's claim that the flotilla was linked to Al Qaeda, Jared Malsin's work confirming the doctored audio, and Ali Abunimah, who has been in the lead on many of these stories and lately has been reconstructuing the path of the Mavi Marmara to show it was actually fleeing at the time of the Israeli attack. All of this has appeared on the internet and are helping to shape the story, despite the Israeli Foreign Ministry's best efforts".

Hasbara Fellowships is an organization that sends students to Israel and trains them to be "effective pro-Israel activists on their campuses". Started in 2001 in New York in conjunction with the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. They claim to have trained nearly 2,000 students on over 220 North American campuses. More details at the Wikipedia article linked.

Wikipedia Review This web-site is/was somewhat resented by the Wikipedia community but is not branded as an attack site and editors in good standing sometimes contributed. Once important, WR is now slow-moving but retains considerable historical interest. Some scandal (Essjay affair) some documentation of particularly abusive editors. No discussion of Israel-Palestine or abusive Zionist admins permitted, all replaced with a notice "Moved to the appropriate page, click here" and a dead link.

Wikipedia editing courses launched by Zionist groups The Guardian 18 August 2010

Wikipedia Watch Interesting critical information about Wikipedia

WikiScanner A tool which consists of a publicly searchable database that links millions of anonymous edits on the free online encyclopedia Wikipedia to the organizations where those edits apparently originated, by cross-referencing the edits with data on the owners of the associated block of IP addresses. It does not work on edits done using a user-name and so its usefulness is limited to attempts at anonymous editing and content production. It is a VERY useful forensic tool.

Israel pays propagandists to write comments on the internet - Youtube video at a 'My Israel' sponsored Wikipedia editing course

Please help keep this site running by donating or spreading the word about our Patreon page. As of 17 September, our 19 Patrons are giving £67/month, which is 2/3 of our webhosting bill.







