Wikipedia Freezes 'Zionism' Article as Anti-Zionist Polemic

Wikipedia rebuffs a request to fix the 'Zionism' article

In a previous blog item I described how last September, a Wikipedia administrator permanently banned efforts to alter a blatantly false anti-Zionist passage in the Zionism article.

The passage reads: "Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible." As pointed out in detail by Aaron Bandler in the Jewish Journal, the passage is blatantly false: 

In my blog item I wrote: "That sentence, which accuses Israel's founders of ethnic cleansing in Wikipedia's voice, unattributed, is there to stay. And if you don't like it you can pound sand or, even less productively, you can argue it out on the 'talk' page of the article, which is tightly controlled by anti-Zionist editors."

As always seems to happen on Wikipedia, the situation has actually worsened. Now the entire Zionism article is shielded from meaningful changes in the same peremptory, arbitrary manner. A wholesale "rollback" of the article to a more neutral version is not allowed.  

Since returning the entire article to its pre-propaganda state would entail changing that passage, the entire article is now set in stone as far as wholesale changes are concerned.  That false passage is holy on Wikipedia. It is like the Gospels. Immutable.  

Yesterday, an "IP" editor made a simple request: that the article be rolled back to its state prior to the post-Oct. 7 Hamas propaganda binge, what I call the "Wikipedia Flood." They suggested this version as more consistent with Wikipedia's neutrality principals.

The IP editor argued:

Recent edits may have significantly altered the tone and neutrality of the article, including removal or reframing of historically and factually supported content. I believe that version offered a more balanced representation, particularly in describing the historical background of Zionism, its relation to Jewish self-determination, and the context of antisemitism — which now appear to be diminished or excluded.

An administrator, "TarnishedPath," summarily denied the request, saying:

There is a moratorium on [a]ll discussion about editing, removing, or replacing "Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible." 

They cited this discussion from Februuary, which engraved in stone that false anti-Zionist passage. It's a twelve-month moratorium, which means it expires next February if it isn't extended. Which, of course, it will. The Flood won't vanish by then.

What this episode demonstrates, yet again, is that Wikipedia's anonymous "administrators" and the "arbitrators" above them have broad discretion to do pretty much whatever they want, without oversight or meaningful supervision, even when they violate the site's core principles. 

One of those principles, cited during the brief discussion yesterday, is "WP:CCC," "Consensus can change." Yes, consensus can and does change—sometimes. But when a handful of editors flood an article to pepper it with anti-Israel rubbish, the phony "consensus" they create is permanent.

That's what critics of Wikipedia need to grasp. The "Wikipedia Flood" of anti-Israel editors and their allies and enablers twist and disregard site policies and "pillars" at will. Concepts like "oversight" and "accountability" are foreign to Wikipedia, which is why it is incapable of internal reform. 

When It Comes to anti-Zionist Poison, Wikipedia is 'The Encyclopedia NOBODY Can Edit'

 

Don't you dare remove that foul lie from the Wikipedia Zionism article.

It's not a revelation to point out that when it comes to Zionism, Wikipedia is as chilly as a Mt. Everest base camp. But it's actually worse than most people realize. Worse than even I realized, and I broke the story of how the Wikipedia Zionism article had been turned into anti-Zionist propaganda by the "Wikipedia Flood" of Israel-hating editors.

On Sept. 13, an administrator added to the article a "hidden note" decreeing that a sloppily worded, poorly sourced nugget of anti-Zionist propaganda—Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible—was henceforth baked into the first paragraph of the article.  

That sentence, which accuses Israel's founders of ethnic cleansing in Wikipedia's voice, unattributed, is there to stay. And if you don't like it you can pound sand or, even less productively, you can argue it out on the "talk" page of the article, which is tightly controlled by anti-Zionist editors.

The wording of that untouchable sentence has been widely derided as making a mockery of history. 

In his excellent Jewish Journal article on the Zionism article, journalist Aaron Bandler pointed out that this sentence was described as "false" by Middle East historian Asaf Romirowsky, who heads Scholars for Peace in the Middle East and the Association for Study in the Middle East and North Africa. 

And in my blog item I pointed out:

The sourcing of that and other anti-Zionist statements includes a long roster of anti-Zionists. The sourcing of the statement cited above include anti-Israel extremists such as Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi, infamous for his support of terrorism, all quoted at length in a footnote. 

Prof. Romirowsky elaborated in the Jewish Journal article that before Israel was established, “the Jewish community was willing to accept whatever proposal was offered to them, even the desolate land itself, just the idea of having a homeland.”

Pretty bad, huh? Well don't try to fix it. When it comes to articles in what Wikipedia calls the "Palestine-Israel area," editors must have 500 edits and at least thirty days under their belts before they can edit. But not even that helps when it comes to that false statement. As a practical matter, for that sentence Wikipedia is the "encyclopedia nobody can edit." 

The "hidden note" in the lead of the Zionism article

In an action that received little attention outside Wikipedia, on Sept. 13, a volunteer administrator, ScottishFinnishRadish, inserted a "hidden note," invisible to the public but viewable by editors seeking to edit the article, essentially acknowledging the Wikipedia Flood's ownership of that passage. 

His (or her?) hidden note reads:

The following text is the result of consensus on the talk page. Changes to the text have been challenged and any further edits to the sentence should be discussed on the talk page and consensus obtained to change. 

Since "consensus" is the Holy Grail of Wikipedia, anyone trying to change it without "talking it out" on the stacked-deck "talk page" will find that, at a minimum, he or she is wasting his or her time, and risks getting tossed out of Wikipedia or otherwise flogged. 

That was precisely the fate of an editor who raised the issue on the "talk page" a few days ago. He is being shot down in flames, and the "hidden note" has of course been cited. Like all discussions in this topic area, this one is going on and on and on.

What makes all this even more Orwellian is that the hidden note was not the work of one of the anonymous anti-Israel operatives of what I call the "Wikipedia Flood," who work 24/7, successfully, to turn Wikipedia into an anti-Israel propaganda machine.

Ironically ScottishFinnishRadish is actually one of the better administrators willing to venture into this topic area, and is unpopular with some of the very worst Flood editors for failing to do their bidding to their satisfaction. As far as Wikipedia administrators go, he is one of the "good guys."  

But his job is to enforce the rules, and ScottishFinnishRadish knows perfectly well that on Wikipedia, the Flood calls the shots.

Postscript: Note the comment that came in concerning SFR after I posted this. The commenter makes a good point. I may have been too charitable in calling them "one of the 'good guys.'"

How Wikipedia Erases Arab Terrorism

The Wikipedia article on Black September does not describe it as a terrorist group

According to Wikipedia, Black September, the notorious terrorist group that kidnapped, tortured and slaughtered Israeli athletes at the 1972 is not a terrorist group.

Hamas, the bus-bombers and butchers of 10/7, is not a terrorist group as far as Wikipedia is concerned.

But Irgun, the Jewish pre-state paramilitary group? Now, that's a terrorist group.

The following is a guest blog exploring how Wikipedia's pro-Hamas editors have ensured that articles on terrorist groups never actually say that they are terrorist groups—except when they are Jews.

*                               *                               *

Since the early days of Wikipedia, millions of words have been written to debate whether a person or organization is correctly described as a terrorist. 

The only source of authority is the Wikipedia Manual of Style whose Word to Watch policy advises against using the word "terrorism" or "terrorist" in an article "unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." 

This means that people, organizations, and actions are not supposed to be described as terrorists or terrorism in "wiki-voice," but rather only with the source of the designation in the text (e.g. "The New York Times described the operation as 'terrorism'"). 

Although this policy is an absurd exercise in moral relativism, it is also frequently ignored when it comes to Israel and its enemies.   

Here is the starkest example: the opening sentences to the Wikipedia Articles on "Zionist Political Violence" and "Palestinian Political Violence:"   

Zionist Political Violence:
Zionist political violence refers to acts of violence or terrorism committed by Zionists in support of establishing and maintaining a Jewish state in Palestine. These actions have been carried out by individuals, paramilitary groups, and the Israeli government, from the early 20th century to the present day, as part of the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. 

Palestinian Political Violence: Palestinian political violence refers to actions carried out by Palestinians with the intent to achieve political objectives that can involve the use of force, some of which are considered acts of terrorism, and often carried out in the context of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Common objectives of political violence by Palestinian groups, include self-determination in and sovereignty over all of Palestine (including seeking to replace Israel),[7][8] or the recognition of a Palestinian state inside the 1967 borders. This includes the objective of ending the Israeli occupation. More limited goals include the release of Palestinian prisoners held by Israel and recognition of the Palestinian right of return.  

An attempt in April, 2023 to change the name of the article to "Palestinian Terrorism" was defeated in short order.   

This discrepancy is also apparent when comparing articles about Palestinian terrorist organizations to Israeli groups: The Ledes for the Wikipedia articles on Hamas, al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and even Black September use the same misleading formula to inform the reader that these are terrorist organizations and always at the very end of the Lede: "[Group] has been designated a terrorist organization by [Countries]." Nothing more.  

The article about Black September is particularly ironic: the Lede won’t call Black September a terrorist organization, but does immediately note that its attacks "led to the creation or specialization of permanent counter-terrorism forces in many European countries."   

Now let’s take a look at the Wikipedia article on the Irgun. Here are the first three paragraphs from the Lede:   

The Irgun (Hebrew: ארגון; full title: Hebrew: הארגון הצבאי הלאומי בארץ ישראל HaIrgun HaTzvaʾi Ha-Leumi b-Eretz Israel, lit. "The National Military Organization in the Land of Israel"), or Etzel (Hebrew: אצ״ל) (sometimes abbreviated IZL), was a Zionist paramilitary organization that operated in Mandatory Palestine between 1931 and 1948. It was an offshoot of the older and larger Jewish paramilitary organization Haganah (Hebrew: Hebrew: הגנה, Defence).[1] The Irgun has been viewed as a terrorist organization or organization which carried out terrorist acts.[2][3][4][5  

The Irgun policy was based on what was then called Revisionist Zionism founded by Ze'ev Jabotinsky.[6] Two of the operations for which the Irgun is best known are the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem on 22 July 1946 and the Deir Yassin massacre that killed at least 107 Palestinian Arab villagers, including women and children, carried out together with Lehi on 9 April 1948. 

The organization committed acts of terrorism against Palestinian Arabs, as well as against the British authorities, who were regarded as illegal occupiers.[7] In particular the Irgun was described as a terrorist organization by the United Nations, British, and United States governments; in media such as The New York Times newspaper;[8][9] as well as by the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry,[10][11] the 1946 Zionist Congress[12] and the Jewish Agency.[13] Albert Einstein, in a letter to The New York Times in 1948, compared Irgun and its successor Herut party to "Nazi and Fascist parties" and described it as a "terrorist, right wing, chauvinist organization".[14] 

(Boldface added) The difference in emphasis could not be clearer. Fully half of the Lede about the Irgun is dedicated to connecting it to terrorism, compared to a mere sentence for any of Israel's enemies.   

Even a mild tempering of Israel's demonization cannot be tolerated. For about five years, the Lede to the Irgun artucle included the statement that "the Irgun went to considerable lengths to avoid harming civilians, such as issuing pre-attack warnings; according to Hoffman, Irgun leadership urged "targeting the physical manifestations of British rule while avoiding the deliberate infliction of bloodshed."

These were statements from scholarly works published by Bruce Hoffman and Max Abrahms, two respected academics who specialize in terrorism and provided a bit of balance to the Lede about the Irgun. They were removed by well-known anti-Israel editor IOHANNVSVERVS because they did not conform with his prejudices and the already biased article about the Irgun:   

"Bruce Hoffman, whose understanding of the Irgun is fringe and false, contradicted by the rest of the information in this article as well as the page List of Irgun attacks" Hoffman's expertise seems to be about terrorism in general and not specifically the Irgun or Israeli/Palestinian history."  IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC) 

Let’s turn to some Wikipedia articles about specific terrorist attacks:   

The list of terrorist attacks committed against Israelis is (sadly) so long that I could not look at each article, but many of them have had the word "terrorist" removed from the Lede or the rest of the article and the incident is referred to as a "suicide attack" or “suicide bombing" and the terrorists are dubbed "militants” or “assailants"    

Now let’s look at the article for the King David Hotel Bombing. Here’s how it starts:  

The British administrative headquarters for Mandatory Palestine, housed in the southern wing[1] of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, were bombed in a terrorist attack[2][3] on 22 July 1946, by the militant right-wing[4] Zionist underground organization Irgun during the Jewish insurgency.[5]   

When it comes to Jewish groups, there is no problem describing their acts as terrorist attacks in "wiki-voice."

One last example of the hypocrisy in play:   

In August, 2024, there was a discussion that successfully changed “Palestinian Suicide Terrorism” to “Palestinian Suicide Attacks.” In arguing for the change, notorious anti-Israel editor Iskandar323 said that “Terrorism" isn't actually a description of an event or act at all, but just a POV characterisation.”  Iskandar323 (talk) 15:03, 22 August 2024 (UTC). 

In his next comment, he expounds that  "the label is normally inappropriate for all but the broadest concept pieces where "terrorism" is the only conceivable name for the topic. Unless the first sentence goes "X is the carrying out of acts of terror by Y", the topic isn't terrorism, but something more specific. Here the subject is extremely specific to A) Palestinian nationalism and B) suicide bombings, as the first line explains, and so should be titled as such. The broader concept here is meanwhile Palestinian political violence. Per MOS:TERRORISM, labels such as terrorism should generally only by applied in the body, and with attribution, not liberally and loosely. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC) 

Sounds principled doesn’t it?  

Well here is Iskandar323 arguing in favor of categorizing the 2024 Lebanon Pager Explosions as “terrorism” because he is sure it is and because various others say so.  

We should mention it in the form of the WP and state that numerous international law experts have characterised it as an act of terrorism. That is uncontroversial. Many have, including also, separately, Geoffrey Nice on Middle East Eye. It was textbook state terrorism. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC) 

And here is his justification for descrbiing the King David Hotel Bombing as a terrorist attack in wiki-voice:  

[I]n this particular instances, the terroristic nature of the act is particularly well attested in reliable sources, our go-to, including tertiary ones such as the Encyclopedia of terrorism. This page also has a section that explains at length why the act was considered terroristic, alongside Irgun itself, which was condemned by all the authorities involved.  Iskandar323 (talk) 13:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC) 

Ironically, the next comment is from Nableezy who says "Lots of attacks are called terrorist attacks on WP, so you are mistaken (just for example, Afula mall bombing, but lots more)." nableezy - 14:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC).  

The words "terrorist attack" were removed from that article in March 2024. 

Anti-Zionist Wikipedia Editors Decree: The 'Zionism' Article Is 'Neutral'

The 'neutrality is disputed' tag was removed 25 minutes later. Note the anti-Zionist phraseology.

The Wikipedia article on Zionism has prompted widespread outrage for portraying the movement for Jewish self-determination as a "settler colonialist" project. I've written four posts, beginning with this one, documenting how the article was peppered with anti-Zionist propaganda, and the media has been all over the story.

Certainly to say that this widely reviled article's neutrality is not disputed would be delusional. But in the fantasy land of Wikipedia, in which every article related to Israel is controlled by a "flood" of Israel-haters and antisemites, reality doesn't matter. 

Proof of that can be found in a fight underway in the "talk" or discussion page of the Zionism article. An effort to "tag" the article for possible—I repeat, only possible—lack of neutrality, in violation of a core Wikipedia policy, has been repeatedly thwarted by anti-Zionist editors. Working with an anti-Israel administrator, and organized offsite, the anti-Zionist editors have crushed efforts to remove bias from the article.

The article was first tagged Sept. 29 as part of a broader dispute over the neutrality of the article, especially its lead section. A more recent effort by another editor to tag the article was stymied by the same coterie of editors. As usual, that was followed by talk. Lots of talk, day after day of browbeating and bullying by anti-Israel editors, aimed not to find "consensus" but to wear down the "enemy."

A permalink to the talk page in its current state, showing the various "discussions," can be found here.

The fact that so much energy would be devoted to preventing the insertion of a routine, commonplace "maintenance" tag is emblematic of the power and fanaticism of anti-Israeli editors. 

Such tags have a simple purpose: to alert editors to possible article issues, in this case, lack of neutrality. To quote the instructions for use of the neutrality tag, it is placed on articles that are "reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view." It is extremely common, and is present on some 7,300 articles, as the instructions point out. 

But when editors hostile to the subject of an article control that article, questioning its neutrality is never "reasonable." Doing so can be lethal when an administrator is part of the mob, as is the case here.

The following post by "Stephan rosie," a new recruit to the anti-Zionist "Wikipedia Flood" who has already compiled an impressive block record, summed up the mentality at work here. 

All zionism sub-ideologies agree on the core principles of zionism itself, such as the colonization of a land that is inhabited by other pre-dominantly non-jewish population to establish a jewish majority. This is the essence of the zionist project regardless of which kind of zionism sub-ideology you are talking about as stated in reliable sources. the article lead is talking about the core principle of zionism as a whole regardless of the minor differences as between political zionism vs socialist zionism, such differences is to be detailed in the article body, not the lead. Stephan rostie (talk) 08:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Note that "Zionism" is spelled in the lower case to showcase his contempt.

To aid the effort to keep that tag off the page, the anti-Israel editor "Valereee," an administrator who cheerfully puts her "tools" at the disposal of her fellow anti-Zionists, weighed into the fray by quoting an essay she selected to support her comrades in the fight against the neutrality tag. 

A few hours later, taking off her "editor" hat and putting on her "administrator" hat, she restricted editing of the Zionism article. It was not the first nor last time she has acted as an administrator in articles on Israel, despite her record of anti-Israel editing.

How can Wikipedia tolerate that? Well, theoretically it doesn't. The rules state that administrators are free to contribute to any article or subject area, but they can't do that and use her "tools" to enforce the rules in that area. But as I've stated many times before, the rules don't apply to the Wikipedia Flood and its allies, especially administrators.

Even though Valereee created and largely wrote an anti-Israel article on the politicization of food in the Middle East, she insisted that she was "uninvolved" in the subject area. Backed by the Wikipedia Flood and by her fellow administrators (who tend to back each other up no matter what), she successfully argued that she should continue to wear both hats in articles relating to Israel, her anti-Israel editing notwithstanding. 

With anti-Zionist editors calling the shots, it's not surprising that they view the Zionism article as "neutral" and any effort to doubt its neutrality as heresy. And with anti-Zionist administrators like "Valleree" on their side, correcting the site's pervasive anti-Israel hate can be deeply inadvisable if you want to keep your editing privileges. 

As I pointed out a few weeks ago, in a post describing a bizarre action by the anti-Israel administrator "Doug Weller," Wikipedia administrators don't have to play by the rules. They set the rules as they go along. So if an anti-Israel administrator like "Vallerree" or "Doug Weller" bars you from articles on Israel or tosses you off Wikipedia altogether, there's not much you can do about it. Administrator actions can be and are reversed—but only for members of the Wikipedia Flood.

Wikipedia Administrators: Toe the Anti-Zionist Line or Be Blocked

'MaskedSinger' is threatened with serious consequences if he continues to do----what?

 The "Wikipedia Flood" of anti-Israel, anti-Zionist and sometimes antisemitic editors could not control articles without the active cooperation of the site's volunteer "administrators," who hold great power over lesser editors. Many of them are anti-Zionist themselves, and use their "tools" with greater impact than dozens of lesser editors.

Administrators can deny you access to the site entirely. They can ban you from topic areas, including everything related to Israel. They are subject to limited oversight and are only rarely removed, no matter how biased or incompetent they may be.

A good example just arose on Sept. 22, when the editor "MaskedSinger" was blocked for two months by the anti-Zionist British administrator "Doug Weller." As far as I know (please comment or email me if I missed something), no one actually complained about this editor. "Doug Weller" took it upon himself to do this. It is almost unheard-of for anti-Zionist editors to be throttled out of the blue in this manner, and usually they withstand sustained complaints with nothing happening to them.

This user's block was so gratuitous, so outwardly unfair, that it should have been immediately reversed but it was not. This entire process, including the selective and harsh punishment, serves as a warning (intentionally, I believe) to editors coming to the Zionism and other articles to counter anti-Zionist editors: toe the anti-Zionist line or be blocked.

"MaskedSinger" has been active in the Zionism article, which has been rewritten as an anti-Zionist polemic.  As I explained in a previous blog item, this user has pointed out the historical roots of Zionism dating back to antiquity. He has done so on the "talk" or discussion page of the article. A review of the past 1000 edits of the article shows that he has not edited this article for at least the past four years! (My apologies for stating in a previous version of this post that he edited the article. He did not. He just talked about it.)

Did his merely talking about that article prompt this block? What was wrong with what he said on the discussion page? Or was "Doug Weller" just angry about all the negative outside attention this article has received and taking it out on "MaskedSinger"? 

It's plain that his motive was the latter. I say that because "Doug Weller" was laughingly vague, and did not even attempt to be fair or even say with any specificity why he was blocking him. "And if this continues after you are unblocked, expect an indefinite block," "Doug Weller" warned. 

If what continues after he is blocked? He didn't say. In fact, no grounds were stated, but the block record says, without elaboration, "lack of good faith, personal attacks, persistent disruption." That of course can be said about every single anti-Israel editor. Note that the block record refers to the discussion page ("Talk:Zionism") as well as the article proper, when as I mentioned he has not edited the article.

As typically happens in such situations, other admis backed up "Doug Weller" without a second thought. His lack of providing an explanation was fine with them. "Doug will probably explain further when he's at leisure to," said the veteran administrator "Bishonen."

An appeal of the block was denied by another administrator, "PhilKnight," and the reason was illuminating: "Could you say if unblocked what you would do? Would you continue to argue the bible can be used as a historical source? I think you need a break from that." 

"MaskedSinger" was not in fact advocating use of the Bible as a "historical source" but as background for explaining the historical roots of Zionism. 

This is a good example of how Wikipedia administrators, due to their own ideological blinders (Doug Weller), bureaucrat rigidity (Bishonen) and simple incompetence ("PhilKnight") stack the deck for the Wikipedia Flood.

Above all it serves as a warning to Wikipedia editors everywhere if they are thinking of countering anti-Zionist editors and their allies in the Wikipedia leadership. Administrators will be watching you. Some of them are themselves anti-Zionist. Their buddies will back them up. 

They will block you or ban you from the topic area for any reason or no reason at all. They will do this even if you haven't actually edited an article and are just talking about it on the discussion page. They will back each other up no matter how wrong they are. They will not even pretend to be fair. 

'Zionism Has Ancient Jewish Roots? Who Cares?' Say Anti-Zionist Wikipedia Editors (Updated, 9/23)

Anti-Zionist Wikipedia editors shrug off Zionism's ancient roots

If you want to understand how completely broken Wikipedia is for anything related to Israel—how slanted, how fallacious, how downright delusional—look at the discussion currently underway on the "talk" or discussion page of the Zionism article, which has been twisted into anti-Zionist propaganda by anti-Zionist editors.

It's a matter of historical fact that Zionism is embedded in Jewish texts and practice going back to the fall of the Second Temple. But the anti-Zionist editors who control the Zionism article don't care about history. They care only about their agenda, which is to use Wikipedia as a weapon in their fight against Israel's existence.

An editor named "MaskedSinger" raised one of the numerous falsehoods and distortions in the article, the claim right at the top of the article that Zionism "emerged in Europe in the late 19th Century." 

He wrote:

This is patently untrue. If you want to go back to the start, it began when the Children of Israel were enslaved in Egypt. After the exodus, they were making their way back to Israel. They had to wander in the desert for 40 years but then conquered the land under the leadership of Joshua. Fast forward however many hundred years and they were exiled from the land, but the desire to return was crystalised than and there. Sure, with raging and horrible anti-semitism in Europe in the late 19th century Zionism become more prominent and relevant, but it didn't begin then. By then, the concept was already thousand of years old.

One only has to read Psalm 137 - By the rivers of Babylon, There we sat down, yea, we wept, When we remembered Zion.

Clearly the origins of Zionism predate the early 19th Century and are not European. They go back a millennia. But the anti-Zionist editors would have none of it. They want to portray Zionism as a European colonial movement. They want that far up in the article and they will fight fiercely to keep it that way.

So the pushback was fierce. A core group of anti-Zionist editors suddenly materialized and immediately began "tag teaming" to push their point, no doubt coordinating their actions offsite. 

"Your sources are the Bible and Wikipedia? Right," sneered the anti-Zionist editor Selfstudier, who recently larded one of his talk-page comments with an antisemitic trope. Actually "MaskedSinger" had simply linked to a Wikipedia article, he had not used it as a source. Misrepresenting what other editors have just said is contrary to Wikipedia rules, but is a common practice of the anti-Zionist contingent.

"My sources are world history," the new editor responded.

Then came the threats. 

When pro-Hamas editors encounter new editors who challenge their control of articles, they resort to threats to have the "enemy" sanctioned by cooperative administrators: "If your sources aren't WP:RS, you're disrupting this page," responded the anti-Zionist editor "Levivich."  "Disruptive" editors are subject to sanctions.

To drive the point home, "Levivich" followed up with an even cruder threat to lower the boom on "MaskedSinger" for daring to challenge their control of the Zionism article: 

"If I wasn't already knee deep in a big SPI draft, I'd be filing at ANI or AE . . . about somebody bludgeoning this talk page claiming the Bible is an RS. At the very least we should all stop engaging with this nonsense." 

"SPI" is a "sockpuppet investigation" draft, meaning he is planning to accuse another editor of using multiple accounts. "ANI" and "AE" are acronyms for disciplinary boards. Lastly, "nonsense" translates to "disagreeing with anti-Zionist editors." 

Nableezy struts his stuff

"This isn’t the world according to the Bible. Or rather the world according to one person on the internet’s understanding of the Bible," said the veteran pro-Hamas editor "Nableezy," noted for proclaiming his support for "armed struggle" (terrorism) on his personal Wikipedia "user" page.

The discussion has droned on since then, with "MaskedSinger" outnumbered and therefore destined to lose—if he's lucky. If he's not lucky, he'll be kicked out of Wikipedia or otherwise sanctioned, as threatened.

"Talk page" discussions deal with "sources" and "policies." They matter for most Wikipedia articles. But for articles on Israel it ultimately comes down to one thing: numbers. Numbers mean control. The anti-Zionist editors have the numbers, the organization and the determination, They decide which sources are "reliable" or not. They determine which "policies" will be obeyed and which will be ignored. 

'Best sources' on Zionism, as determined by an anti-Zionist Wikipedian

Two hours after "MaskedSinger" dared to contradict the anti-Zionist poison in the Zionism article, "Levivich" rushed to create a list of "best sources" top-heavy with anti-Zionist polemics, to ensure that anti-Zionist views dominate the article going forward, and to reinforce the anti-Zionist determination to ignore ancient Jewish texts that provide the very basis for Zionism. He posted them directly below MaskedSinger's post on the Zionism article talk page.

It all comes down to numbers. On any given issue, what matters is which numbers of editors can be scraped together offsite to support or oppose what the anti-Zionist editors want. And what the anti-Zionist editors want is an anti-Zionist Zionism article.

The "origins of Zionism" discussion is still underway at this writing but its outcome is preordained.

UPDATE: "MaskedSinger" was rewarded for his good work on Sept. 22 by the anti-Zionist British administrator "Doug Weller," who blocked him for two months (permalink). See this blog item.

Anti-Zionist Wikipedia Editors Fight to Control 'Zionism' Article

Fix the anti-Zionist slant? No way. Reinforce it? Sure!

Ever since my blog item appeared on the Wikipedia Zionism article, there have been complaints on social media about how the article had been transformed into an anti-Zionist polemic. These were picked up by the Jewish-American press, and today it caught the attention of the Israeli media.

Author Hen Mazzig observed on X that the article's disparagement of Ashkenazi Jewish links to the Holy Land mirrors the discredited Khazar theory of Jewish origins. The Zionism article, he said, "isn't just inaccurate, it's downright antisemitic." Wikipedia, he said, "has become a hate site." Congressman Ritchie Torres said on X that "Wikipedia caricatures Zionism" and engaged in a "warped telling of history" by branding Zionists as "colonizers."  

The 'Khazar' theory

Wikipedia advertises itself as the "encyclopedia anyone can edit." That is how it sells itself to the donors and NGOs that pour money into its coffers, providing top people at the Wikimedia Foundation with enormous salaries (see Schedule J, here). So naturally, once they became aware of the terrible state the Zionism article was in, a number of people—established editors and newcomers alike—tried to rid the article of its anti-Zionist and antisemitic slant. 

The result is an exhibition of the control that pro-Hamas editors over the Zionism article and others, how Wikipedia's processes are rigged in their favor, and how nearly impossible it is to dislodge them. 

Much of the activity is taking place on the "talk" or discussion page of the article, which now appears like this.

First a long-established editor weighed in with an explanation of how the lead paragraph gave excessive weight to "a particular interpretation of Zionism as a specific form, namely the 19th century through 1930s versions of Zionism," ignoring its future evolution,

Ignoring their points entirely, their argument was dismissed in a one-sentence reply ("I disagree. The thing in itself as described by the best academic sources is the way to go") by the anti-Zionist editor Dan Murphy, an ex-reporter whose peculiar claim to fame (a disgusting, mocking tweet on the ISIS beheading of hostage Steve Sotloff) I described in a previous blog post.

And on it went, on and on and on. It was the beginning of a 4700-word back-and-forth that is still underway at this writing, involving multiple editors. That's not 4700 words over a period of weeks or months. That's 4700 words over one single day. This discussion began only yesterday and it has already stretched into such astonishing length.

That is typical of discussions when the Wikipedia Flood of pro-Hamas editors are involved. They just go on and on and won't let up, pouring on the verbiage in wearisome and repetitive quantities. As I described in a blog post last month, Wikipedia talk pages under the control of anti-Israel editors use such methods to wear down their opponents, using the sheer numbers that they can bring to bear. 

The reaction to the Zionism article's sorry state brought out another asset in the pro-Hamas editors' arsenal: the "extended confirm" rule.

Anti-Zionist editors' control of the articles is enhanced by that rule, which requires that in the "Israel/Palestine" subject area you must have thirty days on Wikipedia and 500 edits in order to edit an article or even discuss the subject on the "talk" page. 

What this means, in a practical sense, that the "encyclopedia anyone can edit" is actually an encyclopedia that, in relevant subject ares, is dominated by a handful of pro-Hamas operatives, with the aid of feckless, biased and passive site administrators.

Yes, you can make an "edit request" if you don't meet the "extended confirm" requirement. See how two such requests were handled. They are in the illustration at the top of the page.

First came a request to change anti-Zionist language in the lead paragraph back to where it was before it became anti-Zionist. That was shot down easily. It was "under discussion above" by editors who met the "extended-confirm" rule. That nicety was happily pointed out by one of the anti-Zionist editors.

Then cane a request to reinforce the anti-Zionist language in the lead with a footnote from a book about "settler colonialism." Of course! Consider it done.

The Wikipedia Flood does not like scrutiny. Within the past few hours, the anti-Zionist ex-reporter Murphy complained about the social media and press attention the article had been getting, in a section he sneeringly titled "Bat Signal."  

Murphy's word choice, which he borrowed from the Batman comics, gives an idea of the arrogance and condescension many Wikipedia editors display toward the outside world. They are both hypersensitive to and dismissive of external attention, even though everything they do is visible to the outside world.

Pro-Hamas editors like Murphy do their article-slanting in the open. Every single word that they write is a matter of public record for all to see. This entire blog is an accumulation of what they do and write on one of the world's most trafficked and influential websites. 

So when the pro-Hamas editor "Selfstudier" makes use of an antisemitic slur ("pound of flesh") on a discussion page, it's right there in plain view for everyone to see. One does not require any special access. You just simply have to go on the web and read.

Yet they just can't stand it when anyone holds up a mirror to what they do.  

Anti-Zionist Editors Trash Wikipedia 'Zionism' Article

Anti-Zionist spin in red (click to enlarge)

As part of our continuing series of blog items focusing on Wikipedia articles trashed by anti-Israel editors, a good example is the article on Zionism.

The article, which currently looks like this, reads as if it was written by a coterie of anti-Zionist activists. Because it was.

The slanting of the article, almost certainly coordinated offsite, took place in a spasm of edits by pro-Hamas editors subsequent to Oct. 7, when the article was reasonably stable and was not heavily edited. At the time of the "Al Aqsa Flood" slaughter in the Gaza Envelope, it provided a balanced and neutral depiction of Zionism, noting criticism by anti-Zionists but not giving undue emphasis to it. Then the Wikipedia Flood invaded the article.

It took a lot of hard work by pro-Hamas editors to turn the article on Zionism into anti-Zionist propaganda, with some of the most toxic changes happening in the past few weeks. 

On August 11, the prolific anti-Zionist editor "Levivich" added at the top of the article that "Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible."  

The sourcing of that and other anti-Zionist statements includes a long roster of anti-Zionists. The sourcing of the statement cited above include anti-Israel extremists such as Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi, infamous for his support of terrorism, all quoted at length in a footnote. 

On Wikipedia, Zionism is defined by people who hate Zionism. It's the Wikipedia way, as pointed out in this blog and in a recent Jewish Journal article. 

Anti-Zionist sourcing cited by anti-Zionist editors results in an anti-Zionist article that makes a mockery of Wikipedia's supposed "neutral point of view" policy. Thus the frequent and prominent references to Zionism as a "colonial" movement, and the watering down of text that points out that Zionism is actually a movement of return of an indigenous people to their homeland. 

A sentence that read 

This process was seen by the Zionist Movement as an "ingathering of exiles" (kibbutz galuyot), an effort to put a stop to the exoduses and persecutions that have marked Jewish history by bringing the Jewish people back to their historic homeland 

was edited to read 

The process of Jews moving or 'returning' to the land (around today's Palestine and Israel) they purportedly had been exiled from, was seen by the emerging Zionist movement as an "ingathering of exiles" (kibbutz galuyot), an effort to put a stop to the exoduses and persecutions that have marked Jewish history by bringing the Jewish people back to their historic homeland.

Note "purportedly" and how other language was added to downplay the roots of the Jewish people in the Holy Land, which is well-established historical fact.

An effort by an editor to return the article to its pre-Oct. 7 state was twice reverted today, with the results shown in the illustration at the top. The anti-Zionist poison is outlined in red.

The editor who sought to fix the article was promptly targeted by an administrator on grounds of "gaming the system," and was banned from the topic area.*  

The Zionism article is an excellent example of how anti-Zionism is baked into Wikipedia through slanted sourcing and a "flood" of well-established anti-Zionist, anti-Israel and often just plain antisemitic editors, who are allowed to run rampant by indifferent "administrators," often themselves anti-Israel, abetted by a do-nothing Arbitration Committee and a Wikimedia Foundation that looks that other way.

*In fairness, this editor did "game the system" by making trivial edits like this to inflate his edit count. To cement their control over the topic areas, pro-Hamas editors pushed through a rule requiring editors to have at least thirty days editing experience and 500 edits in order to edit "Israel/Palestine" articles.. In a previous blog item I warned against edit-inflation games to surmount this unfair rule.