According to Israel and the United States, the Jerusalem is a city that lies in the borders of Israel. According to some revisionist editors on Wikipedia, that is not the case. This is one example of someone silently removing Jewish sites from Israel.

Image: Chatham University JKM Library/flickr

Apparently Jerusalem is Not In Israel is a post from: Wikibias

Last summer, I discovered the politically loaded topic of Hummus on Wikipedia. I had completely forgotten about it, and one day found myself on the topic again. I made a mindless edit to correct the regional attribution from “Palestine” to “Palestinian Territories,” as it is a factual and well supported correction, and was reminded of the insanity of anti-Israel editors on Wikipedia.

While everyone can agree on what Hummus is and where it is popular, deciding what to call those places is the subject of thousands of edits. I just stumbled upon the page again and did a little light reading. I am still blown away by the discussion on the talk page. Here is my (least) favorite part:

Agree with SD. I don’t see why everytime someone comes along to project their political problems with the geographic term Palestine, we should accomodate them by introducing, in this case, Orientalist eupheumisms. The source says Palestine, its a reputable academic source discussing the subject in question, rejecting the wording is pure IDONTLIKEIT. Well too bad. (Sorry TFighterpilot but I’m getting kind of tired of this. Check the archives). Tiamut^talk 08:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

What is really being said here is that well researched facts and realities do not matter, as long as enough people disagree and have a source that they deem liable. I think this is a pretty good source, but the anti-Israel folks probably would just dismiss the Anti-Defamation League as a non-reliable source.

Oh yeah, and when the Palestinians did take their bid for official statehood to the United Nations, it failed. There is not, and has never been, a country called Palestine.

Image by Tracy Hunter on Flickr

The Battle of the Hummus is a post from: Wikibias

I recently discovered this comment on the discussions regarding the origin of Jesus:

Its clear that there are no shortage of reliable sources stating that Jesus was a Palestinian, a Palestinian Jew or a Palestinian Christian. Palestinian people of today recognize Jesus as one their ancestors. Yasser Arafat once famiusly said he was the first Palestinian martyr and Elias Chacour, a Palestinian priest, called him a compatriot. There are many other examples of this as well.” -Tiamut

Jesus Christ is not identified on wikipedia as a Palestinian. And, do you really trust Yasser Arafat as a reliable source for history? Yasser Arafat was a known terrorist.

Jesus Christ is still a Palestinian is a post from: Wikibias

“I added a source confirming Jesus as a Palestinian. There is no reason Jesus, aside from people’s personal POVs and agendas, should not be included on the Palestinian page. He was the founder of Christianity; a Palestinian religion that had adapted and eventually spread worldwide. The fact that many Palestinians converted to Islam after the Islamic Conquest and the centuries thereafter does not change the history of Palestine.”

Jesus Christ is a Palestinian is a post from: Wikibias

I was just doing a little searching around the Wikis and came across the page for US President Barack Obama. A political page brings out the worst in biased editors, and this page has not bucked the trend. However, it also has an army of people watching it on both sides of the debate.

Keeping Pages NPOV

We all know that there are plenty of pages with biased statements. Look no further than topics surrounding ongoing violent conflicts and you will find plenty of racism and hatred sprinkled in with the facts on the ground.

The only controversial pages that I have seen kept in a relatively NPOV state are ones surrounding highly debated issues with a lot of passion and visibility on both sides. Keeping the debate very active is the key to success. While in some controversial topics only a handful of editors are watching (if you are active in one of these topics, you know the usual suspects by name), others have so many people watching that we can’t help but be factually honest and accurate.

The Obama page has over 70 pages of discussion archives and the main article includes noteworthy topics. Even some of the most controversial topics, where people like Rush Limbaugh spread anti-Obama hatred, have been handled well. For example, discussions of accusations of Obama’s religious views are noted and include both sides of the debate, but end with the facts.

Where NPOV Fails

People are often not even aware of their biases. And just because something is the “most common phrase” does not mean it is not loaded. Just 50 years ago, someone would not look at you twice for calling a black person a “nigger,” but we all know that we not an NPOV term. The same goes for terms like “Israeli Occupied Territories,” which are, in fact, disputed territories. But, that topic has been beaten up many times on this blog and many others.

As a general rule, fewer editors leads to more bias. The more eyes and traffic a topic has, the more likely we are to see plenty of edits keeping things in balance. One page with regular biased statements that are seldom fixed right away is my old high school. It is an athletic powerhouse in the region and has many detractors. Just head to the history page for Cherry Creek High School to find plenty of vandalism and hatred. Then look at how long it took to be corrected.

You Are Part of the Team

Don’t forget that you can always go in and fix a problem. If you are certain that your edits are factual and well sourced, you can confidently make changes that will be in the open encyclopedia indefinitely. Just beware of the trolls and edit warriors that might be waiting to do battle with you over the truth.

Highly Edited Articles Highlight Potential Bias is a post from: Wikibias

The modern state of Israel is often criticized for a variety of actions, some of which have been deemed reminiscent of Nazi Germany. The most discussed comparisons include a perceived use of concentration camps, the following of Lebensraum, and many other actions by both the Nazis and Israelis.
Many critics of the comparison believe that the concept itself of comparing Israel to Nazi Germany is antisemitic regardless of the substance of the comparison. Other critics refute the stated similarities as false or exaggerations.

The article was deleted a day after its creation, but I managed to pull a few screenshots to demonstrate just how easy it is to promote bigotry on Wikipedia:

Israel and Nazi Germany, Wikipedia-style. is a post from: Wikibias

From an anonymous tipster:

Administrator Malik Shabazz apparently thinks legitimate criticism of the user Carol Moore is a “personal attack,” and reverts any criticism of her antisemitic posts on site.

Evidence

Does it create a hospitable environment if Wikimania is held in a country that probably would make it very difficult for Arabs and Muslims to enter for the conference? Not to mention anyone suspected of being critical of Israel, including on Wikipedia? If editor members of this project (Jewish and gentile) considered “antisemitic” because they include negative information on the state of Israel or its most aggressively politicized supporters were excluded from entering Israel for the conference, while those considered pro-Israel were permitted, wouldn’t that be relevant? Something tells me those who are critical won’t even bother going to the conference.

Carol provides no proof that Arabs or Muslims would have difficulty accessing the conference. Previous Wikimia events have taken place in nations ruled by ruthless regimes, like Egypt. Why Carol failed to protest the lack of rights for Arabs then is a mystery. Or is it?

It is obvious she cares very little about the rights of Arabs and Muslims. Her concern is limited to Israel. And administrators like Shabaz have allowed her to propagate these views without warning or punishment.

Administrators protect anti-semitic statements made by Wikipedia edtors. is a post from: Wikibias

At least two of the hijackers of Air France Flight 139 “two Germans from the German Revolutionary Cells—Wilfried Böse and Brigitte Kuhlmann” have their own articles for their involvement in this affair.

In light of that, how can editors justify not giving this pilot his own article? Notorious is okay but heroic is not?

Michel Bacos Deletion Alert is a post from: Wikibias

Note: Guest post from anonymous messenger. Content has been edited.

On January 2, 2011, editor Greg L, who appears to regard himself as a “great mind,” decided to rewrite the article on Nation, asserting “It’s time to start over on this article.”

Entering the discussion with the self-title of “experienced editor“, Greg L provides his adult assessment of the article:

As an experienced editor, I know crap articles when I see them. This one is beyond hope, with POV-pusing, Original Research, and zilch for citations. It is beyond hope. Just throw it away and build a new one from scratch with more contributions from experienced Wikipedians and less from I.P.s out to change the world by soap-boxing here. Seriously; just toss this one and start fresh.

While the “crap” version might have needed some polishing, it is hard to argue the original version is inferior to the gutted edition that exists today.

The article has been essentially reduced to a platform for the Palestinian cause with no mention of other nations.

50,000 users visited that page on a single day in June.

Wikipedia. Where anyone can rewrite the history of the world.

Nation and Wikipedia is a post from: Wikibias

Discussion.

Full article

Islamization of Jerusalem Deletion Alert is a post from: Wikibias