The crying “History” button at the top right sends its regards. Yes, the World Jewish Congress has published a report that demands Wikipedia add a feature to view the history of articles, see what actions were performed by whom, and “host forums and discussions within the Wikipedia community to address concerns about neutrality and gather feedback for policy improvements”. It also wants to force all admins and above to reveal their real names.
For anything non-controlversial and science related Wikipedia is fine. But when it comes to geopolitics Wikipedia is extremely Western biased. And in the case of middle eastern topic severely compromised. It’s an important place to play with words and selectively put disinformation so people who think they get educated leave brainwashed.
There’s far far more, I wrote a lengthy comment once about Wikipedia claiming israel’s 1967 invasion war a “pre-emptive attack” which is a very dubious claim at best and debunked by many israeli leaders already. Wikipedia might be open for review but with the amount of Zionists involved in editing Palestine related articles there’s no way real change gets through. Ironically Wikipedia instead just has an entirely different page explaining why it’s actually not a pre-emptive attack but nobody is going to look through that. They will see the summary of the first article and the damage will be done.
The ADL is one of the biggest Zionist slander lobbies that call any criticism of israel “anti-Semitic”. Wikipedia still listing the ADL as a “reliable source” cannot mean anything else than israel having huge influence on Wikipedia’s politcy.
Any organisation that endorses the ADL or uses them as a “news source” is severely compromised it’s as simple as that. It’s like people quoting Russian state propaganda as evidence. By now everyone knows the ADL is an israeli slander lobby
Not exactly sure what you’re arguing about the six-day war, but if you mean that it should be an unjustified invasion instead of “pre-emptive”… My first impression of “pre-emptive” is unjustified and at best marginally better than an invasion, and the UN seems to agree in Article 2 (4) of the UN charter. That “entirely different page” is also summarized in the six-day war–page’s “Controversies” section, but I assume you’re talking about the lede. “On 5 June 1967, as the UNEF was in the process of leaving the zone, Israel launched a series of preemptive airstrikes against Egyptian airfields and other facilities, launching its war effort.[28] Egyptian forces were caught by surprise, and nearly all of Egypt’s military aerial assets were destroyed, giving Israel air supremacy” does not give me an impression that Egypt planned to invade.
The ADL is one of the biggest Zionist slander lobbies that call any criticism of israel “anti-Semitic”.
Even if that were true, “there is consensus that the labelling of organisations and individuals by the ADL (particularly as antisemitic) should be attributed.” That converts it into an opinion. Nowhere have you demonstrated that the ADL has a track record of falsifying facts, not opinions such as labeling people.
Pre-emptive means that an imminent threat is coming and they struck it first. Aka that “israel had the right to defend itself” before even being attacked. Which was a straight up lie.
If you’re not informed about the ADL here’s a decent article on it. The more you read up on the ADL the worse it gets.
Since the 7 October attacks, the ADL has been working with law enforcement to crack down on college campus activism that it sees as antisemitic. They developed a legal strategy to go after branches of Students for Justice in Palestine, and reached out to 200 university leaders calling on them to investigate the group for allegedly providing support to Hamas, which the group vehemently denies. ADL has described grassroots calls for protests of Israel’s military campaign as “pro-Hamas activism”.
Again, Wikipedia’s reliable source listings are only concerned about the quality of the source’s factual reporting. Having a horrible bias in judgement does not preclude factual reporting.
had the right to defend itself” before even being attacked
And many people think that’s wrong. Just saying that that’s the reason Israel and most publications claim Israel did that is not claiming that it was justified.
