Dr. Leff’s information on Sulzberger is chilling. Here are a few examples I included in the Wiki article: “Sulzberger took over the running of the New York Times on Ochs’ death in 1935. He adopted a policy against printing any letters on the persecution of Jews in Germany, claiming that if he published letters decrying persecution, he would have to in fairness also publish letters in favor, so, he explained, “many valuable contributions attacking anti-Semitism have been excluded from these columns.”
Sulzberger was incensed when Roosevelt used the term “Jewish race” in a statement on the refugee problem. The Times publisher wrote there was “no common denominator” between the “poor unfortunate Jews now being driven around what was recently Poland….and myself.” “In Poland this Jew is a part of a recognized minority. … I, fortunately, (am) in no such category.” Sulzberger explained “after a great deal of effort” he had purged the Times of such terminology – that is, the word Jew.
In June of 1942, he wrote: “As far as I am concerned, if a Jew were to become a Christian Scientist, he would cease being a Jew…I am quite prepared to admit however, that …Hitler, in particular, has made this transition difficult.”
After visiting the death camps in Europe in 1945, Sulzberger gave an address to a Reform temple stating that there was an overemphasis on Jewish refugees, who were after all, only a minority of the victims. He criticized Jews who tried to focus world interest on the problem of Jewish survivors, still in camps in Europe, “instead of using their great moral strength to plead the cause of all displaced persons.”
I only found one controversial opinion on this topic, articulated by Harvard University Professor Ruth Wisse, who sees the New York Times repeating the same mistakes of the 1930s, as it buries news of Arab neo-Nazi motives and agendas:
• Seventy-five years ago anti-Semitism found its home on the European right. Today it’s more likely to be found among intellectuals of the Left who, Prof. Wisse argues, suffer from a “massive intellectual resistance to acknowledging the threat.” … The Times missed the way Adolf Hitler’s abuse of the Jews signaled a broader danger to the democratic freedoms and civil liberties of everyone, and set in stark relief Hitler’s ambition to dominate the world. Prof. Wisse accuses the Times of a similar blindness today, when embarrassment over Jewish causes governs the newspaper’s coverage of the Middle East, and the paper fails to report “in copious detail on the unmistakable signs of growing Arab extremism that erupted with spectacular force in the attacks on America of September 11.”
I decided not to include the Wisse quote. Intelligent readers could draw their own parallels to present day New York Time’s coverage of the Islamists’ neo-Nazi war against Israel.
So you won’t find the Ruth Wisse analysis in Wikipedia. Yet, perhaps her comments shed light on what follows — for you will not find the rest of the information either.
Do not bother to go to Wiki to read my entire article. It is not there. It has been removed and a short, inaccurate and polemical “stub” (Wiki jargon for treatment accorded to trivial topics) has been put in its place. The information on Sulzberger that I added to the Sulzberger bio has been entirely removed.
The section I added to the New York Times page was also removed. You can find a few sentences buried at the end of the article under a general sub-heading, “Controversy and Criticism,” next to such scandals as junior journalist Jayson Blair’s plagiarism in 2003. Wikipedia has buried the news of the New York Times burying the news of the Holocaust. History repeats itself without shame.
How did this happen? My initial post on the New York Times page attracted the attention of three hostile editors. They claimed I was a liar, the topic trivial, and that the Times had “dropped the ball only a little.” They outnumbered me. Playing the Wiki system, they had me banned from the page while they removed the original article and substituted a few inaccurate paragraphs. They blocked the fact the Times had famously apologized in their 100 and 150th anniversary additions. They blocked references to Dr. Leff’s full length book. They blocked quotes from the founding directors of the Holocaust Museum, Michael Berenbaum; the Wyman Center for Holocaust studies, Rafi Medoff; Harvard’s Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, Marvin Kalb; and they blocked A. M. Rosenthal, managing editor of the Times from 1962-78 and executive editor until 1988. They blocked all mention of Sulzberger, and all the details and numbers that give the topic its impact by making it meaningful. In short, they bury the news of the New York Times burying the news, much as the Times did it years ago.
Wiki now informs the public that “according to two authors… The New York Times coverage of the Holocaust … was not as prominent as it should have been. … Deborah Lipstadt alleged the paper was particularly responsible for the press not giving adequate coverage to the Holocaust.”
Although all contributions are anonymous, you can learn something about fellow editors by clicking on their name, which leads you to a page that lists all their Wiki contributions. Their leader, whose user-name on Wiki is “bali ultimate,” announced his special interest was the Obama election. He was active in removing any criticism of the New York Times. The only article he seems to written was on the Times of Jordan. He had made thousands of edits in wiki and boasted that he liked to “correct” other people’s work. He broke many rules with his lack of references and savage personal attacks on other editors, but got a free pass from the administrators, for reasons not obvious from the outside.
Wiki powers-that-be (it’s not clear who they are, as that is anonymous as well) banned me from contributing to the article without the permission (‘consensus’ in wiki-speak) of the three hostile editors. I played the game on the discussion page, but all that came out of it was something obvious: it is an abusive experience to be told you need consensus from anti-Semites on facts about the Holocaust.
Finally I decided to turn to the Wiki “administrators” and ask that bali and his two sidekicks be banned from the topic for refusing to participate in consensus. Not one of their assertions were referenced, a cardinal Wiki rule. They were insulting to other editors, another Wiki rule broken. They had deleted an entire article, breaking the rule against ‘vandalism.’
I went to the help page to ask for feedback on my proposed complaint. Asking how to frame the problem, I characterized bali ultimate as a “functional Holocaust denier.” I explained that although this was a small Petri dish, the germ was the same. He and his cohorts were denying this one small piece of Holocaust history: they had argued that the topic was a lie, was trivial, that the experts are just expressing an opinion, official acknowledgements mean nothing, the facts are merely ‘alleged,’ and the entire topic should be deleted.
Bali ultimate had been stalking me. He preemptively reported to the administrators that I called him a Holocaust denier. He declared himself ‘livid’ (whining he faced similar accusations in the past). Perhaps there is a special rule that one may not use the term Holocaust denial, even in a question.
I was immediately banned – within minutes – from Wikipedia for criticizing bali, without the chance to defend myself. The administrators refused to review what had been going on with the article over the course of six months. I was directed to apologize. I decided instead to write this article.
Wiki has an Israel problem. Wiki has a Jewish problem. Wiki has a kangaroo court problem. Wiki reaches hundreds of millions of people with misinformation about Jews and Israel. We have a problem.
Karin McQuillan is a former Peace Corps Volunteer, psychotherapist and author, specializing in Africa and the Middle East.
Pages: 1 2
For "Compassion for all man kind" you can not leave out any part of man kind.
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
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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’.
'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!
'“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.
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!
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'.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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….
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 .
….and talk about "banning ' , it's actually quite common around here .
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?
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.
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
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.
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!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…
Well written and spot-on. Wikipedia should be referred to as Jihadipedia.
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.
Whiny cunt.
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.
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.
Yes, Wikipedia has many anti-semitic Europeans (go figure, they're the ones who did the Holocaust) and pro-Palestinians (pro-terrorist).
Excellent article. Thank you, Karin.
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.
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.
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".
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.
wikipedia is hijacked by jews
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.
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.