Wikipedia’s Jewish Problem

Pages: 1 2

Wikipedia is used by 68 million people a month.  Google Jerusalem, Israel, the Holocaust, jihad – the first reference to come up is Wikipedia.  Most users mistakenly think it is an encyclopedia.  Actually it is a special sort of blog, self-styled “the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.”  Open an article, click on the edit tab, add or remove what you like.  Everyone in the world writes Wikipedia.

The Wiki ideal is consensus.  Think of the above topics and consensus.  The Wiki rule of anonymous contributions abets abuse.  Editors who disagree duke it out on the discussion page, a sort of Lord of the Flies world where ganging up and bullying reign.  Wiki co-founder Larry Sanger left the project in protest against this “mob rule.”  As Sanger put it, “A few of the project’s participants can be, not to put a nice word on it, pretty nasty. And this is tolerated.”

Unless you like endless fighting with anti-Semites and Israel-haters, it is not pleasant to try to contribute to topics dealing with Israel.  Major topics like Jerusalem or the Holocaust attract enough attention that destructive editors’ depredations are kept at a minimum.  More specialized topics, like Hajji Amin al-Husseini, the Nazi founder of the Palestinian movement, are a mess.  Propaganda purporting to be reference material, such as “Israel and the Apartheid Analogy,” is tolerated although it is against the rules.

Wiki has guidelines, such as using referenced sources and not insulting fellow editors.  There are also rules – more than one hundred pages of jargon-laden rules against ‘edit warring’ alone – including a rule to ‘ignore all rules.’  They are indeed ignored most of the time.  Then suddenly one is enforced by summary judgement by Wiki’s anonymous “administrators.”  If a rival editor’s complaint is judged favorably, you are banned from Wiki on the spot.  It is frontier justice: no time to present your case, no review of the controversy. This system has not worked well on Jewish or Israel related topics.  As Larry Sanger points out, it is a system that is easily gamed by the malicious, abetted by a nerd culture that doesn’t understand proper supervision.

I had read a Jerusalem Post article saying that Wiki was being flooded by pro-Palestinian activists.  I was aware the Electronic Intifada had worked the Wiki system so that CAMERA volunteers had been banned, because working together violates a Wiki rule.  I clicked around on various discussion pages on Jewish or jihadi topics, interested in finding editors who were advocating accurate information.  On topic after topic, when I clicked on the Jewish editor’s name, I discovered they, too, had been banned.

I should have turned back right then, but I can be naïve and stubborn.  I thought I could avoid the pitfalls.  I told myself it would be satisfying to add good, solid content.  Although all things Jewish are my special interest, I thought I might succeed if I avoided Israel and anything contemporary or directly political. I thought I’d be guarded by the rule of having authoritative references for every statement.

I was a professional writer for fifteen years, and take great pleasure in accurate research.  I wrote three books that were translated into five languages and am most proud that my two fact checkers found only one error in the last book.  So it was natural that in retirement I thought it would be meaningful to contribute to Wikipedia.

I had an idea for a well-documented topic on which there is universal consensus among experts.

This topic appealed to me because it is about accuracy and journalistic ethics, something close to my heart.  I decided to put in some information on “The New York Times and The Holocaust.”

Years ago I had the privilege of auditing a class on the Holocaust with Eli Wiesel at the BU Divinity School, and came across a research article by a journalism professor, Dr. Laurel Leff that I never forgot.  While it was happening, and something could have been done, the New York Times had a deliberate policy to bury news of the Holocaust.  The Times published the reports of the roundups, the gas chambers, the death toll, but by telling the news in a few sentences, in inch-high articles, on inside pages, they deliberately insured that the public didn’t understand that the Jews of Europe were being massacred.

While this sorry story of illegitimate journalism is unknown to the general public, the record of the New York Times, like the rest of Holocaust history, is exhaustively documented.  On their 100th anniversary and 150th anniversary, the New York Time’s admitted it had “buried” the news of the Holocaust.  It has been the subject of a museum exhibit, turned into a documentary; with interviews of top journalists and Holocaust experts. In 2005 Dr. Leff published a full page book on the subject, Buried by the Times: The Holocaust and America’s Most Important Newspaper.

There is universal consensus on the facts.  New York Time’s retired executive editor Max Frankel nailed it this way on November, 2001, in their full-page 150th anniversary self-assessment, “Turning Away from the Holocaust.”: “No article about the Jews’ plight ever qualified as the Times’ leading story of the day, or as a major event of a week or year.” The Times ran only five editorials that mentioned Europe’s Jews out of more than 17,000 during the war.  Readers of the Times would not know that the Warsaw Uprising involved Jews. The Time’s consistently editorialized in favor of President Roosevelt’s decisions to bar European Jews trying to flee the death camps.

When the death camps were liberated, Eisenhower summoned the nation’s top editors and publishers to join him as eyewitnesses. The Times sent Julius Ochs Adler, vice president and another family member of the Times dynasty.  His account of Buchenwald ran on page six.

Max Frankel called the Times decision to bury the news of the Holocaust ‘the bitterest journalistic failure of the century,’ a tragedy that abetted Hitler’s genocide. He admitted the policy was directed by publisher Arthur Hays Sulzberger, for both political and personal reasons.  Sulzberger didn’t want Jews to be considered a people, with a right to a homeland in Israel; he didn’t want his paper criticized as Jewish; and he didn’t approve of Jews helping fellow Jews.  He didn’t want any daylight between his paper and FDR, including FDR’s policy to ignore the ongoing Holocaust.  Frankel asserted that having learned this lesson of past failure, the Times has since ‘shed its sensitivity about its Jewish roots’ and dropped its hostility to Israel.

Frankel quoted Dr. Leff extensively.  He characterized her as “the most diligent independent student of the Times’ Holocaust coverage.” Leff documented how The New York Times, which defined the Holocaust as a non-story for the national media, made it impossible for Jewish groups during the war to galvanize the public or politicians to do anything for Hitler’s Jewish victims.

Legendary New York Times editor A.M. Rosenthal (promoted to editor in 1961, he was forbidden to use his full name, Abraham, as it was too Jewish for the Times) was asked in a 2001 interview aired on the History Chanel, to review the Time’s Holocaust coverage. “…it was no good. It was paltry. It was embarrassing. It was wrong. It was morally and journalistically wrong…If the Times had come out big on this, that would have brought a lot more attention in the country.”

Among experts on the topic there are some minor points of discussion: was New York Times owner-publisher Arthur Hays Sulzberger more motivated by political considerations, fear of anti-Semitism or the desire to protect his own privileged position as an assimilated Jew?  Did he downplay the Holocaust because he felt welcome in the American elite only as long as he was indifferent to Jews and Zionism – the equivalent of liberal journalists today to whom fitting in at cocktail parties is more important than accuracy about Israel? His writings indicate a sincere belief in the Reform Judaism of his day, which repudiated Jewish peoplehood and nationhood.  Like Jewish liberals today, he hated Jewish loyalty, preferring compassion for all mankind.  All these motives are supported by Sulzberger’s public speeches and private letters.  All agree he set the policy to bury news of the Holocaust and was unopposed by any editor at the Times.

Pages: 1 2

  • Jim Johnson

    For "Compassion for all man kind" you can not leave out any part of man kind.

    • anonymous

      Is a person or group is deliberately spreading malicious falsehood and inciting hatred you have an obligation to confront it, it's not compassionate to do nothing while injustices are being committed

  • insecticide

    The situation at WIkipedia is far worse than you indicate. There are hundreds fo entries related to the Arab-Israeli conflict that have been subverted and given an anti-Israel or anti-Semitic twist by a team of Wikipedia vandals, working with Wiki communist editors (they also subvert entries related to communism). Wiki owners know about the problem and refuse to fix the problem. One of the worst anti-semitic communist editors is a British Stalinist named Roland Rance.

  • R. Teff

    This was covered (at the time) on the Wikipedia Review, in a thread about Bali ultimate: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=29

    Most of your points about Wikipedia are spot-on, but there's probably a semi-valid fairness argument to be made that if they singled out the New York Times for failing to adequately cover the Holocaust (by giving the subject its own Wikipedia article), they'd have to carry separate articles for all the other prominent US newspapers who failed to adequately cover it too.

    There was a similar brouhaha over Edwin Black's book "IBM and the Holocaust" – Wikipedia users who were almost certainly IBM employees and/or PR people fought tooth and nail against a separate WP article on the subject, though WP did manage to keep an article on the book (barely). Considering the incredible complicity that IBM had in Nazi affairs in general, and the murder of Europe's Jewish populations in particular, if WP couldn't have an article on that, there's not much hope for an article specifically about the shameful behavior of the New York Times.

    It's easy to blame people like "Bali ultimate" (whoever he is) for these things, but all he's doing is erring on the side of caution (though obnoxiously so). The real problem is the Wikipedia system itself, which practically demands of its users that they put aside cultural sensitivities, ethics, and common sense in favor of a plethora of incoherent and self-contradictory rules. It's a failed system being propped up by Google, the blogosphere, and now Facebook, all of whom seem to think it's less likely that spam will be found there.

  • Charles R Disque

    This is good- yet more documentation of the left wing domination of the media. But what's the solution? What's to be done. Identifying the problem is only a start. Why can't a coalition like the David Horowitz Freedom Center, Nat'l Review Online, Heritage Fndn, etc., etc., form a rival Wiki, or at least a supplement to Wiki. Something like this could be used regularly to get "the rest of the story."

  • Georgann Marks

    Ms Mcquillan says her interests are "all things Jewish" – gosh what a surprise.

    And I love the stealth name change… so we think she's "just another American" who wants Jews to get a "fair shake"….. how noble.

    and how about that Wikipedia "banning Jews"?!?

    I have been banned from dozens of Jewish owned websites because I DARE to question Jewish hegemony and crypsis.

    So HOORAH for Wikipedia! FINALLY – someone stands up to the JEWS.

    Now if the rest of us can rattle our chains a bit – we might survive their attack on the Obama presidency from their many many power slots across the country.

    The Jew is always positioned to advance the interests of Jews – over the rest of us.

    Anti semitism is not some ancient Albanian blood feud…. it's an ongoing lesson in measuring the habits of specific ethnicities…. and how this particular one is not capable of coexistence with any other….

    Americans need to revisit WWII mythology – and rethink who did what to whom – and why.

  • solemnman

    jJews who had assimilated and risen to the top in Hollywood and the news media ,distanced themselves from the issue to preserve the covert nature of their connection to a people who had ,,before and during the war, been publically defamed in publications and radio by,among others, Father Coughlin and Henry Ford. Roosevelt ,an unabashed antisemite,was being referred to as Rosenfeld and was being accused by the isolationist antisemites of going to war to save the jews-a charge he tried to avoid by completely ignoring the Holocaust.

  • Rob

    This is an excellent example of the malign pro-Palestinian Internet War to delegitimise and/or erase truth about Israel. Iteven extends to Holocaust issues signifying the true malignincy of their cause. There have been numerous problems with Wiki on the subject of Israel. It is no longer appropriate for them to deal with this deeply contentious issue like any other subject as their site will just become another pro-Palestinian propaganda weapon. BTW I wonder is "Bali Ultimate" a reference to the Bali Bombings?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/aspacia aspacia

    I often have to edit out Wiki sources found in student papers explaining that it is an invalid source. Actually, most professors and teachers do this. Do not give-up hope, the word is out, and has been for at least ten years.

    • Max Daddy

      The first entry I ever checked in Wikia proved to be total BS.

      It's like a "drive by" source akin to Leno's "Man on the street" segments.

  • http://ziomania.com ziomania.com

    YOU TOO? FUNNY! VERY FUNNY!

    I found this article quite amusing. My experience at Wikipedia (last time I participated was more than 5 years ago) is quite different. Wikipedia was taken over by Jews immediately after it came into being. I once spent an entire day updating an article and the my edits were removed and I put them back on again and they were removed again and it finally dawned on me that my time was too precious to waste it haggling on Wikipedia. I then called it ‘Wikipedia’. You mentioned ‘Israel’ but not the word ‘Jew’. Are you aware that it is the only word in the entire universe when you search for it that Google returns warnings ‘offensive search results’? Go ahead and try it. The episode behind it had to do with a white supremacist website by the name of Jewwatch that ranked #1 when one searched for the word ‘Jew’.

  • http://ziomania.com ziomania.com

    'Tis been a very short time that I was allowed to post here at your blog and I was in fact surprised that you let me post even one message! I knew that sooner than later that you would ban me because my arguments are hard to refute! THE THEFT OF PALESTINE IS INDEFENSIBLE!

  • Anonymous

    '“stub” (Wiki jargon for treatment accorded to trivial topics)'

    Well, there goes any plausibility of this article. A "stub" is just an article that's particularly short. It has nothing to do with how important or trivial the topic is, or how the topic should be treated. Your description says to me that this article is just a rant, really. Nothing interesting here, people, move on.

    A tip: if you start editing Wikipedia feeling like it's a battle against some imagined leftists (or rightists for that matter), you will get in a battle with some people you think are leftists (or rightists). You can't fight a battle, you'll lose. You could have gotten much farther by a touch of humility and working with Bali ultimate, say, to find somewhere where your article could thrive. Instead you wasted it on fighting with people and name-calling, and you haven't learned your lesson yet.

    Even if you're talking about insane terrorist Nazi bastards, you can always get farther through diplomacy than through war. Always. ALWAYS.

  • insecticide

    Entries at Wikipedia related to teh Arab-Israeli conflict are being systematically vandalized and given an anti-Jewish or anti-Israel slant. This is being done by a team of anti-Semites and communists, led by one Roland Rance, a British Stalinist anti-Semite. Wikipedia is aware of the problem and refuses to correct it!

  • Paardestaart

    Well,of course we have a problem.
    What happened at Wiki is typical for the way Israel and the jews are seen and portrayed in circles of western intelligentsia, and also for their refusal to exclude pure anti semite activists out of the islamic world. They no longer recognize anti semitism since in their circles it has been called 'anti zionism'.

  • Bruce Fancher

    Thanks for writing this. My only criticism is that you should replace the term "Wiki" with "Wikipedia." A "wiki" is a type of software, which is used by, but what was not invented at Wikipedia. Writing an article about Wikipedia and referring to it as Wiki, is like writing a review of Microsoft Excel and referring to it only as "Spreadsheet" throughout.

  • Bruce Fancher

    Thanks for writing this. My only criticism is that you should replace the term "Wiki" with "Wikipedia." A "wiki" is a type of software, which is used by, but was not invented at Wikipedia. Writing an article about Wikipedia and referring to it as Wiki, is like writing a review of Microsoft Excel and referring to it only as "Spreadsheet" throughout.

  • mickthequick

    This is a rare and important article which merits vast circulation all over the world. I intend to mail it to everyone I know.

    And not just for a brief moment, but over and over.

    Those – like the NY Times (to this very moment) – who conceal demoniacal evil yet wear the mask of idealism need to be thrust forcibly into the Sun of Truth.

    Wikipedia is bad news, a cesspool. The whole concept is flawed, a terrible error. I honestly don't know how these concealers of vast genocide and suffering can live with themselves.

    Thank you, Ms. McQuillan, for an outstanding service to us all, living and murdered.

  • Kaldari

    I don't understand why you are complaining that Wikipedia is "flooded by pro-Palestinian activists", but then defend the efforts of CAMERA to skew Wikipedia to a pro-Israeli point-of-view. Neither of these groups are contributing to ridding Wikipedia of bias and propaganda.

  • Nathaniel

    Please look at your own user talk page — you were blocked for breaking the three-revert rule, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:3RR. As another policy page says, you're supposed to comment on content, rather than on contributors; even if someone is as biassed as you believe Bali to be, you should let that person demonstrate their bias. As well, Bali's behaviour isn't really relevant to your unblock; that's why your request for unblock was denied. Finally, please know that there really is a dispute resolution process; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_re….

  • badaboo

    Wikepedia is a vital source for the intellectually lazy , and the intellectually dishonest . An editable psuedo -encyclopedia , Wikeoedia is a farce , and anyone quoting from it a fool .

  • badaboo

    ….and talk about "banning ' , it's actually quite common around here .

  • Steve from Bogota

    Karin, just sue the bastards, you can make millions from it and donate them to a good cause of your choice. Hopefully, it would destroy the cloak of Wiki's anonimity once and for all.

    Is there a young aggressive lawyer in your country that would take this case on consignment?

  • Ryan

    I've have had a look at your Wikipedia user page and edits, and it seems like you would have been best advised to come to a better understanding of how Wikipedia works before getting involved in editing potentially controversial subjects. While there are doubtless some antisemetic people on Wikipedia (and some anti-arab people and other racists and bigots of all stripes for that matter), as there are everywhere in the world, I don't think that's the explanation for your experience. Rather, what I think got you in trouble is that a lot of experienced Wikipedians have strong reflexes against edits that appear to be pushing a perspective or to be the product of original synthesis of sources by an editor. They're also very down on edit warring, which is when you repeatedly make a change that others oppose, in a short time frame. It helps if you get an understanding of how Wikipedia works before diving in the deep end. My advice is to start editing much less controversial subjects on Wikipedia first and learn all the policies, then work your way towards more controversial subjects. Note that you have NOT been banned – you were only blocked from editing for one day on June 18. Since then you've been free to carry on. Also, note that nobody has "directed" you to apologise for calling another editor a Halocaust denier. An editor suggested you apologise, but a suggestion is only a suggestion. Overall, it seems like the problems you encountered were of your own making, even if inadvertently, but there's nothing stopping you learning from your mistakes and trying again.

    • Malcolm Schosha

      I would agree with Ryan that Karin McQuillan's lack of experience editing Wikipedia was a part of the problem, but that is only because she did not understand how to speak wiki-speak, not because she did anything that would be considered wrong anyplace in all the world but Wikipedia. In fact it was Bali Ultimate who committed multiple violations of Wikipedia rules, and was allowed to get away with it. For instance Bali Ultimate called her a "liar" multiple times on the article's talk page, which is considered a violation of the Wikipedia rule "assume good faith" of other editors, and the rule "no personal attacks" against other editors. These violations of Bali Ultimate were even discussed on the main Wikipedia noticeboard for discussing user violations (on AN/I), and nothing was done about it, even though the rules suggest cutting new users (such as Karin McQuillan) more slack than experience users, such as Bali Ultimate. So things were done contrary to Wikipedia's own rules.

      I tried to extend some help in saving the article, but I was already a banned from editing Wikipedia, and so not in a strong position to help. Too bad things turned out as they did, but that is how things frequently are Wikipedia. Considering the nasty treatment given to her, and the kowtowing treatment of Bali Ultimate, it is not surprising that she does not want to return to editing Wikipedia and subjected to more of the same.

      Malcolm Schosha

  • Rob

    As Wikipedia can be edited by anyone anywhere in the world, so long as they know English, it's becoming a nasty example of "information warfare." The "consensus" issue is easily corrupted. Sometimes editors with an "agenda" seek help from their buddies, who then join in. They can sway the admission of truthful and well-sourced material by just saying "Agree with xxx," and the material can be removed under the guise of "consensus." Much like letting a court defendant pick their own jury.

    It won't be long before infowarriors from ME countries, whether here or there, are taking over this global encyclopedia. Just look at how Arabs have deleted history from their schoolbooks. Wikipedia was based on the fantasy that all people seek the truth, and deep down want democracy, free speech, free press, and real facts.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/sos sos

    When I see someone posting comments citing wiki for the authority of their statements I immediately view it with a jaundice eye. This preconception is warranted by the obfuscation and historical contortions performed on behalf of of the global warming crowd alone!!! Medieval warming period? ……. Was is about yeh long?…….. And about yeh hot? Sorry, never heard of it!!

  • James O'Brian

    I studed the holocaust in high school. There is no basis to the "gas chambers" story. And the "6 million" number is a huge exaggeration which Jews use to garner sympathy for Israel. Jews use the so-called holocaust as a pschological weapon to legitimize their theft of Palestine and to make themselves (ie. Jews) look like victims even though they regularly commit war crimes against the Palestinians. Just look at the Goldstone Report, something we had to write a paper on.

    • STS

      What high school was it that taught you there were no gas chambers and who is the teacher who gave you a task of writing a paper on the Goldstone Report?
      How appalling.

  • myname

    The problem here is the state of Israel, not Wikipedia. They have made some bad judgements and the world is starting to become fed up with it. Israel has public opinion against it, throughout the world with the exception of a large part of America. This sentiment is reflected in Wikipedia. At what point does truth still matter when most of the world is against you ? Truth is no more than an interpretation of history by the current majority class. Wikipedia is the interpretation of the majority class.

  • Rob

    I tried to post this message yesterday but it wouldn't go up – This is an excellent example of the malign pro-Palestinian Internet War to delegitimise truth about Israel. Iteven extends to Holocaust issues signifying the true malignincy of their cause. There have been numerous problems with Wiki on the subject of Israel. It is no longer appropriate for them to deal with this deeply contentious issue like any other subject as their site will just become another pro-Palestinian propaganda weapon. BTW I wonder is "Bali Ultimate" a reference to the Bali Bombings circa 2002.

  • HGatWP

    I've spent time editing wikipedia and also mediated disputes. While there are plenty of anti-Jewish/Israel people trying to control articles, the same is true for a significant number of Jewish editors. The anonymity does seem to be a factor in the level of contentiousness and game-playing. Nonetheless, if you remain civil, use reliable sources, and be persistent, it's almost always possible to get a reasonable editing result. Most newcomers arrive w/preconceived notions and then lose their cool when they don't get their way. If you try to understand the perspective of different editors, who may be from anywhere in the world, you can contribute productively as long as you don't get arrogant, rude, act unilaterally, etc.

    • American Patriot

      @HGatWP That's actually not the case. You can be sourced to the hilt with reliable sources and if you're outnumbered by a group of editors with a certain point of view, your edits will never see the light of day. Wikipedia is a numbers game and as it stands now, the anti-Israeli contingent has the numbers.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/eric1985 eric1985

    I went through this for two years before giving up. I founded Wikiproject Israel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Israel/) and fought for a long time to keep articles accurate and factual. You explain exactly why I gave up. A new group, called Wikiproject Palestine, was created by a group of anti-Semites and continually banded together to win each edit war. I got sick of it. Now I write on my blog instead (http://www.israelsituation.com), where I know I can control bias and lies.

  • Adina

    Eric, Karin, come back, we need you on Wikipedia. Everything you say is true. And things you do not say, such as Israel-related topics are the worst, but other hotly-contested terrain has similar problems.

  • Adina

    It would be wonderful if someone would run a blog dedicated to tracking the anti-Israel writing and the jihad against Zionist editors on Wikipedia. the way
    http://thebrothersofjudea.blogspot.com/

    tracks the anti-Israel writing on the Huffington Post.

  • mel

    Thank you, Karin, for this illuminating article and for all your efforts. It is extremely frustrating and depressing to read about what happened to your Wikipedia article.

  • Paardestaart

    Wonderful article – my compliments for your dedication, patience and tenacity.
    II did not, but should have realized of course that this agitprop was so pervasive. Did miss McQuillan really mean Electronic Intifada as a specific initiative, not as an indefinite phenomenon I mean?
    Because if she did, a dutch member of parlement is involved in this site, subsidized by the dutch government…

  • American Patriot

    Well written and spot-on. Wikipedia should be referred to as Jihadipedia.

  • Phgustaff2

    I believe Bali has an article about himself on Wikipedia and his conflicts of interest have been mentioned numerous times. He's a political activist, and I suspect he operates multiple accounts. You might try Wikipedia Review where some of the veterans can provide additional details.

  • jyutfhjyvgjyu

    Whiny cunt.

  • coolpolitealex

    well it's a change hearing the Jews complaining that they can't defend the undefensible,because the state of Israel has only itself to blame .Unless Israel stops the killing of the Palestinians,and gives them their land back,then i'm sorry anything or anyone defending Israel will,"and should" be ignored ,because the very fact of Israel's existence is wrong ,and unless there is a" one state solution" excepted by all ,then there will never be a just peace.

  • Rand

    Readers interested in this topic would do well to look at the discussion page for the New York Times article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_New_York_Times#new_section_on_nytimes_and_holocaust) (and maybe its revision history) as well as the article's own edit history (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_New_York_Times&offset=20100522222231&action=history) paying particular attention to the edits/comments by Cimicifugia, who appears to be the author of the piece above. It sheds some light on the argument that took place.

  • WikipediaIsLies

    Yes, Wikipedia has many anti-semitic Europeans (go figure, they're the ones who did the Holocaust) and pro-Palestinians (pro-terrorist).

  • STS

    Excellent article. Thank you, Karin.

  • Patricia Campbell

    I happen to know that the author of the article published it under her "real" name. For some time I've been very skeptical about Wik,ipedia and haven't used it for years to do any kind of serious fact-finding.

    Wikipedia is crap, and people who us it for information are stupid and lazy. The vitriol in some of these posts scares me and I'm not a Jew.

  • Malcolm Schosha

    I would agree with Ryan that Karin McQuillan's lack of experience editing Wikipedia was a part of the problem, but that is only because she did not understand how to speak wiki-speak, not because she did anything that would be considered wrong anyplace in all the world but Wikipedia, and very little that violated even Wikipedia rules. On the other hand, it was Bali Ultimate who committed multiple violations of Wikipedia rules, and was allowed to get away with it. For instance Bali Ultimate called her a "liar" multiple times on the article's talk page, which is considered a violation of the Wikipedia rule "assume good faith" of other editors, and the rule "no personal attacks" against other editors. These violations of Bali Ultimate were even discussed on the main Wikipedia noticeboard for discussing user violations (on AN/I), and nothing was done about it, even though the rules suggest cutting new users (such as Karin McQuillan) more slack than experience users, such as Bali Ultimate. So things were done contrary to Wikipedia's own rules.

    Bali Ultimate was, in fact, the one who lied about the original content of the article he decimated, claiming (for instance) that the article had accused Arthur O. Sulzberger of antisemitism. That was not true, but even though I pointed that out, there was no interest from Wikipedia administrators in correcting the problems, or in sanctioning Bali Ultimate.

    I tried to extend some help in saving the article, but I was already a banned from editing Wikipedia, and so not in a strong editing position. Too bad things turned out as they did, but that is how things frequently are Wikipedia. Considering the nasty treatment given to her, and the kowtowing treatment of Bali Ultimate, it is not surprising that she does not want to return to editing Wikipedia and subjected to more of the same.

  • Malcolm Schosha

    My comment above was, in part, a reply to a comment by someone who called himself 'Ryan'. I did a little searching this morning and found that his Wikipedia user name is Ryan Paddy, as can be seen in a discussion of this very article, which is found on Bali Ultimate's Wikipedia user talk page, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bali_ultim

    Aside from his support for the very problematic Wikipedia editing of Bali Ultimate, Ryan Paddy was been active in editing an article called "Israel and the apartheid analogy", which can be read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_the_apart

    The latest of many edits he made to that article can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel_
    and there seems to be no doubt which side of the issue he is on. A number of comments by Ryan Paddy can also be found on the talk page for that article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Israel_and_the_

    Perhaps it is a little closed minded on me, but in my view anyone who supports the idea that Israel is practicing apartheid against Palestinians is at minimum low level (garden variety) antisemitic. Ryan Paddy defending Bali Ultimate in his comment above suggests a likely common cause between them, based on the principle that "birds of a feather flock together".

  • http://www.wikibias.com Wikipedian

    I just founded a new blog to address this very issue. Please visit wikibias.com and take a look. Also please tell your friends. To ensure I am not banned from Wikipedia, I can't do a lot of advertising without giving away my identity.

  • Jack

    wikipedia is hijacked by jews

  • http://samec.org.ua pikup

    Heya i’m for the primary time here. I found this board and I to find It really helpful & it helped me out a lot. I am hoping to offer one thing again and help others like you helped me.

  • Edgar O'Neill

    My judgement concerning Wikipedia is that it is pretty fair. Thank goodness the Jewish lobby everywhere have not been able to manipulate it to their own ends. I notice some sites are advising people not to donate – I suspect the Jewish lobby is partly behind this because they are not objective to countries ' like Brazil, Israel….' but I know its only Israel they are pissed off about.

  • db

    Ridiculous. The reason they spared words is probably because they’d been printing the number six million and the word holocaust for thirty years before that, and it wasn’t true then. Also, they were likely picking up a lot of those articles from Bolshevik and Menshevik rags. Look, the fucking thing is made up. Everyone’s gotta just stop being a big baby about it.

  • Good why pay sutty

    Yeah, we have a really huge jewish problem with wiki, bigtime!

    But it’s not this stake of lies the anti-Gentile philo-semite scribbler has perpetrated above.

    The wiki is tottally and utterly censored by HASBARA – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasbara_Fellowships – a pro-jewish propaganda organisation recruiting its Internet agitators worldwide. Their only purpose in life is to distort or deny historical facts or to clamor down any person more skillful from them. They have been trained in the use of various socio-techniques, they especially aim in sophistics [use of sophism] and eristic – both being concious yet false and manipulative conducts of (seemingly correct) rhetotics and logics invented by sick minds to help win disputes. Sophistics date back to ancient Greece.

    Jews however are known for having invented a sophist system of their own, called pil-pul, to be found in the talmud. This false and deceitful dialectics is probably also in use by HASBARA members.

    Anyway, getting back to wiki – you can get banned for virtually mentioning the “J” word alone. Not to mention any sort of reasonable and profusely referenced/sourced criticism of not only various takes on different facts from history, but of contemporary apartheid policies of Israel as well. Not only will you become a target for [eventually] being eliminated from wiki-project, you are going to be denied any “fair” trial or ability to defend yourself, should you write anything that could be viewed as unfavorable to Jews (virtually anything). G-d forbid quoting JEWISH (sic!) sources like this http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3342999,00.html which equal to accusing Jews of having been responsible for the Jewish-made Gentile holocaust at least several times larger than the alleged German holocaust of European Jews.

    Or mentioning the forgery of the holocaust facts, manipulating figures, etc.

    This joke of an “article” isn’t worth a word of commentary, it’s THAT blatant of a lie.

    • Anton

      The art you refer to is known as Sophistry. The Greeks used it until they discovered Logic. The Jews are good at sophisizing around the rules of their own religion.

  • Anton

    Israel and the Jews have full time internet monitors who monitor posts of internet users, record their comments and IDs and cross-reference them with other data to catelogue and profile anyone who posts the smallest slight against Jews, Israel or anything Kosher. Try editing any of the Wiki “blogs” about Israel, Jews, the Talmud, just to name a few. See what happens. You’re post will get deleted withing 20 minutes. The truth is, the TRUTH isnt always found in Wikipedia.

  • Rita Rabbitowitz

    no one cares about the holocaust anymore.

    • John

      The Zionist cult does, passionately. It’s provided them with the cover and means from blackmail, embezzlement and pity to colonize, usurp and steal for themselves the land once belonging to others called Palestine.

      • Israel

        “blame the Jews for my misfortune”

        Sorry but a lot of modern tech comes from is Jews and zionists so could you not use them anymore?

        Americans are getting stupider, have fun supporting those sharia anti-Christian terrorists in Gaza.

  • James Albert Charles Stuart

    The undeniable Soviet Bolshevik mass murder of over 60 million innocent Europeans in the last century receives scant if any attention in the modern world, and yet we are constantly brow beaten and have our noses forced into a false or grossly exaggerated narrative that these same Bolshevik jews were the real victims of the war. Ridiculous. Victors are the opposite of victims.

    Ashkenazi “jews” won WW II and everybody else lost. They now rather predictably using their media to lie about who the victors and victims actually were.

  • Jon

    Boo-hoo. Today, Wikipedia is completely unbalanced toward Jews and against Christianity. To illustrate, take a look at the articles: “Antisemitism and the New Testament” and “Jesus and the Talmud”.

    To start, both articles are documenting the same thing: interfaith hostility. Except that the article accusing the Christian text gets “Antisemitism” in its title and the article accusing the Jewish text jsut has the innocuous name of the God being trashed in the Talmud. If parity were a priority at Wikipedia, at the very least the article would be titled “AntiChristianity in the Talmud”. This is a single example in the title. THe articles don’t get much better. Any article accusing Judaism of being anti-anything is soift-peddled in favor of the Jewish defense, and any article claiming antisemitism is written, again, to the Jewish perspective. That’s a pretty pretty disgusting state of affairs if a balanced Wikipedia is truly your concern. The thing is, such an imbalance of perspective plays directly inot the hands of antisemites. Showing simple but consistent phrasing disparities and POV imbalances, like I did above, is enough to make many of their points.

  • CulturalMarxismIntensifies

    oy vey remember the holohoax goyim…

  • Savingstone

    I thank God Almighty he endowed the Founding Fathers with the insight to include the 2nd Amendment so that when the vile filth, like the commentors here try to murder, pillage, and loot the Jews, I will be standing ready to fill them with lead…I’m not afraid of you Jew hating filth…If you come to harm my family and community, I will kill every single one of you animals. the 10 Commandments don’t say “Thou shalt not kill” – that is just the illiterate translation of Europeans. Rather it is “Thou shalt not murder”. But we all know these scum are just giant fat @ss losers or 3rd world muzzie throwbacks.