Don't You Dare Call Slaughter of Jews 'Massacres' or 'Pogroms' on Wikipedia

 

The Aleppo pogrom of 1947 is sanitized by pro-Hamas editor 'Smallangryplanet'

This blog calls Wikipedia's pro-Hamas editors the "Wikipedia flood," after the Hamas killers who crossed into Israel on Oct. 7 to commit genocide. But in practice it isn't a flood as much as it is constant background noise, practiced by hundreds of committed and probably paid operatives, who manipulate Wikipedia processes through sheer numbers, cynical abuse of the rules and determination.

As I've documented in this blog, every article dealing even remotely with Israel and "Palestine" is twisted into pro-Hamas propaganda, and articles on Jewish suffering in the Middle East are censored to remove language, however justified, that tends to make the Arab and Muslim world look bad.

That brings us to the article on the pogrom that massacred Jews in Aleppo, Syria, in 1947, or as Wikipedia tepidly puts it the "1947 anti-Jewish riots in Aleppo." 

The Aleppo pogrom was just that. "Pogrom" is defined as "an organized massacre of helpless people,

specifically such a massacre of Jews." It's a simple concept, and the Aleppo pogrom clearly fits the definition. Seventy-five Jews were murdered and hundreds were injured. The Syrian Jewish community fled en masse in its aftermath and it was not unique. Similar massacres spread throughout the Arab world on the eve of the creation of the State of Israel.

The pogrom is described as just that by numerous scholars, among them the respected Israeli scholar Benny Morris in his book "1948." Morris is noted for his independent and even iconoclastic view of the conflict.

But for the Wikipedia Flood, that will not do. Whenever massacres of Jews in the Arab world are described, antisemitic editors descend on the articles to police the language. Words like "massacre" and "pogrom" are reserved only for Arabs in the Middle East.

So it was with the Aleppo pogrom. Even though the article on the pogrom has called it that for a long time, making it the "stable" version of the article, a member of the thought police made sure that it no longer did. The anti-Israel editor "Smallangryplanet" swooped down in two edits recently to remove every single reference to "pogrom," turning the slaughter into "riots." 

In so doing, "Smallangryplanet" removed categories and lists putting the Aleppo pogrom in the same league as other pogroms and massacres.  

Inclusion in a list of "Anti-Jewish pogroms during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War"? Now way. Not only is the Aleppo pogrom not included on the list, but the list itself is no longer at the bottom of the article. 

The same for a list of "Massacres or pogroms against Jews." Aleppo is not there either because this was, after all not a massacre or a pogrom. A mere 75 Jews dead. Just a rounding error. And besides, they're Jews. When Palestinians are killed by accident by Israeli forces, that is always, always termed a "massacre" on Wikipedia.

Two listings of massacres and pogroms—gone.

The same fate was meted out to inclusion of the Aleppo pogrom in the categories "Anti-Jewish pogroms in the Middle East" and "Massacres in 1947."

'Massacre' and 'pogrom' categories? No way.

So wait a moment, you ask. Given his blatant prejudice, wasn't this "POV-pusher" (as such editors are called on Wikipedia) swept up in the supposed dragnet of anti-Israel editors by the so-called "Arbitration Committee late in 2024? That arbitration "case" received ample publicity despite its paucity of results, and was widely cited (though not by this blog) as a sign of improvement at Wikipedia.

Nope. The editor in question was not named as a party and was not sanctioned.  In fact, Smallangryplanet actually gave evidence to the feckless, inept "arbitrators." He targeted two editors viewed as enemies by the Flood. 

His lawfare worked. Both editors were indefinitely banned from articles on "Israel and Palestine," broadly construed, by the arbitrators.

As for Smallangryplanet, he's working the system just fine. 

A few months later, there was evidence that he was engaged in "sockpuppeting" (creating phony accounts) as well as blatant "POV-pushing." Yet he escaped action by the Arbitration Committee, which in April defeated a motion to indefinitely topic ban him. Arguing in favor of topic-banning, one arb pointed out that he consistently agitated in favor of naming killings of Palestinians as "massacres."

Despite overwhelming evidence of one-sided (not to mention hypocritical) editing, the Arbitration Committee let "Smallangryplanet" off the hook, as it usually does with pro-Hamas editors.

That's not the end of the road for "Smallangryplanet" or the article. His edits may be changed, and he may be disciplined. But what of it? There are plenty of other Hamas operatives to take his place.

Wikipedia's Latest Blood Libel Underlines the Need for Action

 

Not a tragic accident but a 'massacre' and a 'genocide'

Whenever Israel commits a tragic blunder, such as the killing of 15 people in ambulances in Gaza, you can expect two things: the IDF will investigate and promptly release its findings, and Hamas will call it a "massacre" that is part of a plot to commit "genocide" against all Palestinians.

No make that three things. Wikipedia will adopt the Hamas narrative. 

Thus Wikipedia has an article titled "Rafah paramedic massacre," which it describes as "Part of the March 2025 Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip during the Gaza war and the Gaza genocide." In the lead paragraph, the word "massacre" is footnoted to this article in the virulently anti-Israel British organ The Guardian. 

There is nothing especially atypical about this latest effort by Wikipedia to smear Israel using  incendiary language that is prohibited by the site's policy, which ostensibly is designed to promote "neutrality." As this blog has pointed out numerous times in the past, site policies such as "NPOV," the "neutral point of view" policy, are routinely disregarded as far as Israel is concerned. 

"Impartial tone"? Forget about it. 

"Contentious labels"? Perfectly OK. 

"Non-judgmental article titles"? You've got to be kidding.

This article, which is almost ridiculously slanted against Israel from its Hamas-fed title on down, is a vivid demonstration of how the recent "Palestine-Israel" arbitration case did not put a dent into the "Wikipedia flood" of anti-Israel editors and their campaign to use Wikipedia to vilify Israel. What it shows is that the "flood" is exceptionally large, and has an immense talent pool to draw on when a few of its members are sidelined.

The creator of this article was a Wikipedian who was totally uninvolved in the arbcom case, User:Skitash. He has been around since 2022 and has produced a large volume of edits, but has kept his head down and has avoided controversy as far as I can see. He has received some off-wiki criticism for removing Kurdish as an official language of Iraq and for "vandalizing all the pages of Moroccan cities by removing their Tamazight name. Tamazight being the native language of North Africa." He has engaged in the same tendentious behavior by removing Amazigh names. 

Wikipedia jurist 'CaptainEek'

Islamists and pan-Arabists hate references to indigenous cultures (such as Jews). Therefore, this editor's contributions suggest a Moroccan focus and perhaps a Moroccan location. He or she also is one of the many Wikipedia editors who proudly sport the "user box" saying they support the "right of return" (Israel's destruction.

In fairness, it should be pointed out that Skitash did not write this article alone. It was a group effort, consisting of a number of anti-Israel  Wikipedia editors, not a single one of whom sought to tone down the pro-Hamas slant of the article, which originally did not have "massacre" in its title. The article was given that title by User:Rafe87, who edits aggressively to push the pro-Hamas point of view and has even been sanctioned. Like "Skitash," "Rafe87" was also not on arbcom's radar screen in the recent case.

These editors' agenda has not caught the attention of Wikipedia, but you can bet that the off-wiki criticism (including this blog) will do so. One member of the largely anonymous "Arbitration Committee," called "CaptainEek," has gained support for the view that editing an article in a manner consistent with off-site criticism is verboten, even though it does not violate Wikipedia policy. But violating Wikipedia policy? That is OK with her.

Even if Rafe87, Skitash and dozens of other pro-Hamas editors were to be punished for their behavior, as a few more visible editors were recently sanctioned by arbcom, it would make little difference. Wikipedia is structurally anti-Israel, is flooded with pro-Hamas operatives, and under U.S. law it is unaccountable and invulnerable to outside pressure. Not much can be done about that. But the tax exemption of the Wikipedia parent company is another matter.

Since Wikipedia clearly does not serve the public interest, one area that should be explored is removal of the Wikimedia Foundation's tax-exempt status.

The Trump Administration is expected to act against Harvard's tax exemption. Whether that's valid or not is for others to decide. But look at this article, this rubbish, this Hamas propaganda and ask yourself: Why does the U.S. taxpayer support a website that produce this drivel in not one but thousands of articles?