Wikipedia/Hasbara

Credit to peoplesvoicefor this graphic

Wikipedia was widely recognised as being heavily dominated and biased towards Israel even before evidence of deliberate and well-funded interference started to appear.

The content of this page concerns the bias within Wikipedia brought about, most probably, by the selective promotion of Zionists 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 There is good reason to think, from multiple witnesses, that something 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.

Criticism articles white-washed

• 2001 Israeli art scam & spying concerns. A scam that (initially at any rate) was only operated by young Israelis and caused something of a spying scare. In this case, the article survives but in a white-washed form, it has been re-written up as if neither factor was significant. This particular case is also slightly notable because the article was wilfully vandalised by a very experienced editor who escaped all censure.

In other cases, articles full of useful information are edited to remove good material and put in bad, while neutral tone is abandoned in favour of the Zionist narrative.

Other Hasbara tricks

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. It concerned whether articles should use "Judea and Samaria" (prefered useage of Israeli settlers and their ideological supporters) or "West Bank". Evidence 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 exclusion of Jayjg, a notorious ex member of ArbCom, but the loss included almost the last of the scholarly non-Zionists Nishidani, MeteorMaker and G-Dett.
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Israeli settlements June 2010. An extremist minority (recognised as such even within Israel) was privileged by a single administrator when an attempt to preserve neutrality and use only the internationally accepted wording "Israeli settlement" wins the vote by 25 to 9, but is declared non-binding. These Requests for Comment are a regular feature of Wikipedia but it was a surprise to see disillusioned editors even attempting to operate policy in an neutral fashion as regards Israel-Palestine.

Pro-Zionist articles get admin protection

• Operation Defensive Shield amongst many egregious faults, the Israeli narrative that the atrocity was a response to suicide bombs has been allowed or made to dominate. Started by a Zionist, see the first attempt to introduce a neutral tone here.
• Gaza War - the Israeli narrative is allowed to dominate eg "the war resulted in a tactical battlefield success for Israel and represented a significant tactical defeat for Hamas" with no mention of the much more important strategic consequences. Started by a Zionist, see here.
• Gaza Flotilla Raid - Israeli narrative dominates. Unbelievably, after 10,000+ edits, there is not now a single mention of the valuable Israeli raid on flotilla - review of media sources report collecting all the eye-witness testimony, while there are 8 references to "Israel Navy commandos: Gaza flotilla activists tried to lynch us".

In most Israel-Palestine articles, good material will have been aggressively edited out and poor material introduced. A particular problem is any editing that mentions the pre-Israel population of named locations. At Wikipedia, the refugees simply never existed in what is now Israel.

Outright Hasbara articles

• Pallywood - an article seeking to give legitimacy to an Islamophobic canard, the word itself is of negligible significance in any of the reliable sources. Twice nominated for deletion here and here - slated for re-naming but that has not happened.
• Jewish Internet Defense Force Nominated for deletion here, here and here.

While not very common in Wikipedia, articles like this demonstrate the hypocrisy of deleting far more significant work.

Uncontrolled personal attacks

The survival of articles so obviously trivial as Pallywood and Jewish Internet Defense Force is a measure of the pervasive chill felt by editors due to uncontrolled personal attacks.

Known attempts to introduce bias

• CAMERA's Wikilobby scheme rumbled in April 2008. A blatant attempt to undermine all entries by creating biased administrators.
• Zionist propaganda body seeks volunteers to distort Wikipedia input on Middle East - thepeoplesvoice.org - 26 November 2009
• Israeli settlers expand campaign to manipulate entries on Wikipedia - IMEC 18 August 2010

Despite accusations, there is no reason to think anything like this has ever happened amongst non-Zionists. In fact, it sometimes seems as if non-Zionist editors are terrified of being seen to cooperate, let alone collude.

External links

• 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.