Radicalisation is defined as the ‘the action or process of causing someone to adopt radical positions on political or social issues’. Extremists know that they cannot easily enter the mainstream using traditional routes, but Wikipedia, one of the world’s most popular websites, has provided them with a direct voice into every home with online access.
Editing Wikipedia, certainly at the high level needed to consistently edit Wikipedia’s ‘Jewish’ ‘Israel’ or ‘Palestine’ pages (please don’t tell me everyone can edit Wiki – it is a myth), is almost a full-time role that needs a particularly obsessive character. Who does this – and – more importantly why? I have no doubt the motives of some are benign – but what about those who you wouldn’t want to speak directly to your children – and certainly not when their true intentions are masked?
This article is part of ongoing research into Wikipedia’s radicalisation issue. It is even more timely considering that Wikipedia is currently on another donations drive. Please make sure that everyone you know is aware of the dangers inherent in using and funding the Wikipedia website.
The StandWithUs example
I start this tour with a look at the page for StandWithUs. SWU’s main function is education – empowering young Jews with enough knowledge to counter the incessant demonisation campaign they will face, especially on campus.
This is Wikipedia’s opening paragraph on the StandWithUs page:
The opening sentence claims that it is a right-wing organisation; that it is known for working closely with the Israeli Government and the intro provides information regarding supposed positions on ‘settlements’ and the ‘West Bank’. Everything else about SWU is lost beneath these meaningless smears. What does ‘working closely with the Israeli government’ even mean? And is Wikipedia suggesting that if Israel were to reach an accord with the Palestinians, and to withdraw from some lands to enable the creation of a viable Palestinian state, that SWU would oppose the Israeli government? How does that even make sense?
And where does the ‘Right-Wing’ label come from. When the page was originally edited to include the smear (and it was intended as a smear, which is why I reference it as such), it relied on a single source. It now relies on four.
- Source 1. The original source. A ‘report’ on the ‘Israel Lobby’ by David Miller and his gang that was published by Miller’s outfit ‘Public Interest Investigations‘ (Spinwatch and Powerbase). Anti-Israel conspiracy theorist Miller is currently under investigation for antisemitism. The other two authors are also anti-Israel BDS activists (Cronin, Marusek)
- Source 2 – an unsourced use of the words ‘right-wing’ in an Israel-bashing 2012 article from Israel-bashing ‘Settler Colonial Magazine’ written by Nada Elia. Elia is an anti-Israel BDS activist.
- Source 3 – an unsourced use of the words ‘right-wing’ in a book review written by Nicola Perugini. Perugini is an anti-Israel BDS activist.
- Source 4 – an unsourced use of the word ‘right-wing’ on page 298 of a book written by Ilana Feldman. Feldman is an anti-Israel BDS activist.
In other words – *all of the sources* Wiki have relied on to smear StandWithUS in the opening sentence, are from unreliable, Israel hating, BDS activists.
The incomparable bias against StandWithUs
I have provided solid evidence that online terrorists butchered the page of StandWithUs – successfully smearing the organisation with the opening paragraph. The rabbit hole here is to spend time arguing about subjective positions or where a piece of information should be held on the page. I don’t do rabbit holes. All that is needed to *PROVE* beyond argument that StandWithUs has been attacked by anti-Israel online terrorists is to compare the SWU page with other pages of NGOs connected to education or activism on the conflict. The question is simple – is SWU treated differently because it is seen as a pro-Israel outfit?
- The page on the UK NGO ‘Yachad‘ does not contain the word ‘left’ – as in ‘left wing’ anywhere on the page. It opens with a dry encyclopaedic entry about Yachad’s identity and activity. The page contains no criticism at all.
- The page for the ‘Palestine Solidarity Campaign‘ also opens with a straightforward and benign description. Incredibly, given the groups history, it does not contain the word ‘antisemitism’ anywhere on the page. In fact, it has no criticism of the group at all and the page has been ring-fenced to protect it.
- The entry for the highly toxic and highly criticised group Students for Justice in Palestine is also straightforward.
- Another extremist group ‘War on Want’ also has a page that doesn’t carry any negative commentary.
- The page of Jewish Voice for Labour almost reads like an advert.
It is only the pro-Israel groups that are attacked and smeared. Given that the SWU opening paragraph is clearly subjective and breaks Wikipedia’s own standards in numerous places – it is inexcusable that these have been left to stand. So let us take a closer look at what happened.
Under the Wikipedia Hood – the ‘right wing’ addition
Anyone who follows this research understands that my focus is always on what is taking place ‘under the hood’. What appears on the pages is what these propagandists want you to see. But Wikipedia’s inner engines are transparent. All of the background information is available online – which allows us to take a closer look at the motivation of the people making the edits.
Until September 11th 2020, the StandWithUs page did not contain the words ‘right-wing’ outside of a rebuttal in the criticism section (remember that the pages of – Yachad, the PSC, War on Want – do not contain a section on criticism at all – see how this bias works). On 11/9 (or 9/11) a Wikipedia editor named “ImTheIP’ – added an introduction containing *ALL THREE* of the issues mentioned above.
In January 2021 a Wiki editor tried to remove the ‘right wing’ label and replace the demonising opening paragraph. It was swiftly put back in place by a notorious anti-Israel Wikipedia *administrator* ‘Zero0000’ (real name – Brendan McKay). As a powerful Wiki Administrator, if you argue with McKay – he can ban or suspend you. Thus cementing the smearing of SWU in Wikipedia.
Following the trail of ImTheIP
ImTheIP opened the account in March 2015. His initial comments and edits were all about the Holocaust. What bothered him about the Holocaust page? The fact that non-Jewish victims were not given more attention. That is the subject which apparently motivated him to register an account. Since then his edits have been almost exclusively anti-Israel in content.
I believe I am close to uncovering ImTheIP’s real identity. The account holder may be Swedish and connected to Stockholm University (possibly Kista campus – so if you know of an anti-Israel academic activist there – probably with maths / physics/ IT background – let me know).
The evidence that this is a hard-core Israel hater is visible throughout its edits. It is all anti-Israel, and pro-BDS material. One of the ‘useful links’ saved was even a link to submit an article to the online hate magazine ‘Electronic Intifada’.
ImTheIP believes that pro-Israel outfits are untrustworthy by definition. This is what it had to say about using them as sources:
But it does not hold that same disdain for hard-core anti-Israel outfits at all – and often relies on them as sources. This person’s twisted bias means they are not fit to edit a book of ABC’s let alone a widely used online reference tool.
At the same time as it was smearing SWU via their Wiki page, ‘ImTheIP’ also attacked the pages of AIPAC, the Israel Allies Foundation, the Milstein Family Foundation, the Reut Group and the Simon Wiesenthal Center. The editor’s modus operandi was often the same.
As an example – he added an unsourced and irrelevant sentence into the introductory paragraph of the page on the Israel Allies Foundation.
It may be true that *some* Palestinians want East Jerusalem as their Capital (some want it all) – but none of this is relevant to the introductory paragraph of the IIF.
ImTheIP butchered the StandWithUs Wikipedia page because of his ideological bias. I have no need or desire to go through every action he took, but the criticism section was also over-populated with edits by the same user (see examples 1,2).
The Pisgat Zeev Stabbings
One page of interest that ‘ImTheIP‘ created on Wikipedia, was on the Pisgat Zeev stabbings in 2015. None of the earliest edits on the page included anything about the actual victims at all – rather focusing on the attackers, their possible innocence – and their injuries. The fact that a 13 year old Israeli boy was seriously wounded was ignored when the page was created – the concerns lay elsewhere. The initial creation almost reads like a defence brief.
But the most damning incident of all – and the real ‘Gotcha’ moment – occurred on the page for Students for Justice in Palestine. On 28th August 2020, just two weeks before he butchered the page on SWU – the editor ‘ImTheIP‘ stripped criticism about antisemitism from the opening paragraph on the SJP Wiki page.
Before the edit:
‘ImTheIP’ argued that the comment on antisemitism in the opening paragraph was ‘criticism’ and therefore belonged elsewhere – and so moved it (hid it) to a place further down the page.
This is a great example of how the Wikipedia bias works and how the institutional antisemitism sustains itself. On this specific SJP page – ‘ImTheIP‘ can stand its ground – because it has a point to argue – and if you challenge it – you’d probably lose. But this is the same user that went to the SWU page two weeks later – and butchered the introduction in a manner completely at odds with their own earlier stance with SJP – and it is that difference that exposes the online terrorism.
Another similar example – four days before the SJP edit – on the page of Raed Salah, ImTheIP made dozens of edits, including stripping from the introduction all mention of violence and possible Hamas ties. He even felt compelled to point out (in the intro) that Salah’s arrests ‘ have only increased his popularity’.
This is why to understand Wikipedia’s bias you have to compare the way these pages are treated. Racism is not about a single action – it is about how one person or subject is treated differently when compared to others. For there to be discrimination there must be a benchmark.
Given the blatant discrimination, the attack on the SWU page was clearly antisemitic in nature.
ImTheIP has made a total of 13000 edits on Wikipedia.
The toxic motivations of Wikipedia editors
The issue of motivation is often overlooked. To become a top Wiki editor is difficult and requires intensive work – often needing dedication spanning years. It may be nice to imagine rows of scholars all intent on providing the world with knowledge and willing to burn the midnight Wiki candle after a long day teaching elsewhere – but that image is as real as Narnia. In real life, little motivates people as much as obsessive hatred.
Take the page on the ‘Israel Lobby in the United Kingdom’. A sewer of antisemitism I have spoken about before. That page was created by a user called ‘Arthur Warrington Thomas’. He also created 231 other WikipedIa pages including those for the ‘JLC‘, ‘Christian Zionism in the UK‘, ‘Lobbying in the UK‘ and ‘They Dare to Speak Out‘ (a book on Israel’s influence on US politics).
From his edits Arthur Warrington Thomas appears to be a raging antisemitic conspiracy theorist with a major fetish for the Nazi Occult. He also seems to have a soft spot for radical Islamists (and may well have converted in about 2007). One example of his edits – he added complimentary views to the page on the Holocaust denier David Irving. He is all over Wikipedia pages about 9/11 and 7/7 conspiracies. There is little doubt about his motivations. 8,350 of his edits still exist on Wikipedia.
The user ‘Tiamut’ provides another good example. Tiamut openly supports terrorism:
This terrorist supporter has created 149 pages on Wikipedia. This includes a page on ‘killings and massacres in Mandatory Palestine’. Her version of events claimed the Jews were ‘principle instigators’ of the early massacres (eg 1929) that were committed against them. Other examples of her edits include placing warm and humanising content on the page of Yahya Ayyash – the chief Hamas bombmaker responsible for horrific suicide bombings during the Oslo Peace process. We can have little doubt about the toxic motivations here – Tiamut is an online terrorist. 31,514 of Tiamut’s edits are currently ‘informing’ readers of Wikipedia.
I have also discussed the user ‘Onceinawhile’ previously. I am not the only one who has noticed its bias. Onceinawhile has created 280 Wikipedia pages, many of them to enable the addition of sources in an attempt to ‘revise’ (read ‘distort’) the history of ‘Palestine’ . Onceinawhile also spends her/his time moving from edit to edit, watering down pages about attacks on Jews. For example, the user butchered the page on the attack on Jews during the Nebi Musa Festival in 1921, to blur the truth of what really occurred. 36002 of this user’s edits are currently helping to ‘inform’ readers of Wikipedia.
Wikipedia’s never-ending terrorist support
The Wikipedia Editor Nableezy also openly supports terrorism:
Nableezy has also waged an online war with Zionist editors, creating false accusations against them and leading to many being banned. This type of activity deepens the concentration of anti-Jewish haters and skews Wikipedia’s antisemitic bias even further.
An example of Nableezy’s bias, was to remove a list of the names of the victims from the page about the Passover Massacre at the Netanya Park Hotel in 2002. For some reason a list of Jewish victims offended him. Yet Nableezy, who also made edits on the page on the 1994 Massacre at the Cave of the Patriarchs, felt no need to remove a similar ‘memorial’ listing the names of Arab victims. The Patriarch page still has the victims listed – but the Passover page with the Jewish victims names had them removed. This is another clear example of anti-Jewish bias in the editing of Wikipedia and these terrorist supporters.
There are 38,938 live edits on Wikipedia, that were made by this terrorist supporter. Nableezy often appears to run a joint campaign on pages with another online anti-Israel saboteur called ‘Nishidani‘. Their names frequently appear together. Nishidani takes the credit for no less than 83785 edits on Wikipedia.
Wikipedia and endless antisemitism
The page for ‘Jewish Voice for Labour‘, the Yevsektsiya type group that formed to protect the antisemitism in the Corbyn project – contains almost no reference to the 1000s of reputable articles criticising the group and its members. In itself that fact is jaw-dropping. When compared to how SWU or the page for the Campaign Against Antisemitism are treated it shows how deeply the Wikipedia bias runs. The glorifying JVL page was created by a user named ‘Tanbircdq’. The user was eventually banned from editing Wikipedia for running multiple accounts. He claims to be a British Bangladeshi and his edits would seem to confirm this.
Tanbircdq set about making edits on 100s of pages related to Labour’s Antisemitism – promoting those such as Jenny Manson (Chair of JVL) or Jackie Walker (see examples 1,2,3) along with deleting anything that criticised them (see examples 1,2,3). One quick example of note is the addition of Avi Shlaim’s nationality as solely ‘Israeli’. Shlaim has lived in the UK for 55 years. The addition of the ‘Israeli’ nationality is a clear propaganda exercise intended to boost the credibility of Shlaim’s comments on Israel and Antisemitism. It is also an act of blatant racism and I doubt that this Wiki editor truly believes that immigrants who have been here for over 50 years should have their British citizenship/nationality revoked. This is clear evidence of a targeted online attack on the truth.
The user created 395 Wikipedia’s pages, and this sock-running (multiple accounts) online terrorist – despite the ban – still has 17,188 live edits on the Wikipedia website. There is no way of knowing how many edits all of this user’s socks also made.
There are 1000s of pages related to Jews, Israel and antisemitism and countless editors trying to butcher those pages. Here are just two further examples.
ZScarpia has made 10325 live edits on Wikipedia. The majority of his contributions have been related to Israel, Jews, antisemitism and Zionism. ZScarpia often places his arguments on the Wikipedia ‘talk pages’, rather than directly editing the article. In a recent discussion on the page for the ‘Israel Lobby in the United Kingdom’, he suggests that I am connected to the ‘GnasherJew Crew’. (GnasherJew is an online Twitter account well-known for exposing antisemites). To support this smear ZScarpia relies on four sources – and one – the Jewish News one – is a bogus link that has nothing to do with me or Gnasher. The other three are:
- 1 The Dorset Eye – is an online antisemitic rag – that has frequently made outlandish conspiratorial accusations against Jewish anti-racism campaigners.
- 2 The Twitter Account called ‘Socialist Voice’ – seriously? A Twitter account born from the deepest gutter of antisemitic Corbynism. A Labour-expelled person who thinks Marks and Spencers and Tesco’s are Jewish companies with Jewish blood (see).
- 3 Tony Greenstein’s blog – is written by ‘notorious‘ antisemite and conspiracy theorist, Tony Greenstein – who in addition to being looney tunes was also expelled from the Labour Party over abusive behaviour.
It should come as no surprise that this is the sewer ZScarpia swims in. But these forces are inside Wikipedia’s engine – distorting the information written there.
The last example in this article is Jontel, a persistent and veteran Wikipedia editor on Jewish and Antisemitism issues. The account name appears more often than almost anyone else on most of the more toxic pages (see 1,2,3,4). There are 16,388 existing edits from this user. Jontel has created just one page – the page for Labour Against the Witchhunt – a group now proscribed by the Labour Party – and widely recognised as being nothing more than a group of toxic antisemites.
Jontel recently stripped out mention of antisemitism from the introduction on the page of David Miller. A Bristol Professor embedded deep inside an antisemitism scandal. Jontel insists only ‘basic facts’ should be in the lead. This of course is the position of all these Wikipedia editors – until it comes to organisations such as StandWithUs – at which point it becomes okay to stuff the lead and the page full of baseless accusations.
The other example from Jontel that I wish to present is from the page of Countdown Co-Presenter and staunch anti-racist Rachel Riley. Following Riley’s public stand against Antisemitism in the Labour Party her page was frequently attacked and butchered by Corbyn’s faithful band of Wikipedia editors.
“He (Corbyn) has shared an event on Holocaust Memorial Day, called Never Again From Auschwitz to Gaza. He has shared platforms with terrorists. The debate about who’s a terrorist comes up but they’re classified as a terrorist by the US, by the UK, by the EU. He’s sharing platforms with these people, he’s giving a legitimate voice to holocaust denial. Surely you can have compassion and fight for the Palestinian cause without sharing your bed with holocaust deniers and virulent anti-Semites.”
Jontel deleted this entry – but it is the message above the deletion that is most worthy of note – he references Rachel Riley as a ‘Zionist’ and this quote as her ‘diatribe’:
The above comment says it all really. This is Wikipedia – and these are the people writing it. Use it at your peril.
A real world effect
What is on Wikipedia pages has a real-world effect. How many Jewish students have seen Wikipedia’s demonising opening paragraph on Stand With Us and refrained from contacting the organisation because it is labelled ‘right wing’? Remember, Wikipedia probably influences more people than any other source on earth – the disinformation and distortions do real damage.
There is little doubt that *millions* of entries and deletions on the website have been made by 1000s of accounts who have set out to butcher the truth and deliver a message that spreads antisemitism. Jews are a quintessential minority group – we will never be able to match the number of our enemies.
But it is darker than even this. Neo-Nazis and Islamist terror supporters are clearly using Wikipedia as a radicalisation tool. It accumulates over time as each edit often builds on the one placed there before. Today it is a pyramid of toxic lies that is impossible to unravel. These people rush to create hostile new pages demonising Israel at every opportunity – any reported incident is enough to create a page. This one-way ballooning of an anti-Jewish Wikisphere is distorting reality beyond all recognition. If Wikipedia was a book – no school would permit it in the library.
The bottom line is that these online propagandists are rewriting history and openly spreading pro-Islamist and antisemitic ideologies. And there is not a single parent out there whose children do not use this website as a key referencing guide – even at school. Surely enough is enough.
Can you help to support my investigative research?
This is all part of ongoing research – on Wikipedia, Anti-Zionism in Academia, and a growing problem with antisemitism and rising radical Islamism. I engage in forensic research, much of it undercover – it is unique, hard-hitting and it goes wherever it needs to. But this research also depends on community support. The results speak for themselves and for seven years I have been exposing hate and creating headlines.
I battle back against those who seek to revise history and expose antisemitism. I fight when others don’t. Please help If you can, please consider making a donation.
You can make one-off or regular PayPal donations using the donate button below.
If you wish to provide regular monthly support outside of PayPal you can also do this via my Patreon page
Every contribution is both needed and truly appreciated