Talk:Hasbara/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Category: Propaganda

I am removing the Category:Propaganda link from this NGO article. I see that you have worked on another NGO page, Al Mezan Center for Human Rights, and yet you have not classifed that as propaganda. Non-governmental organizations are not categorized as propaganda groups. --Viriditas 07:01, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hasbara is a technique that can be translated variously as "propaganda," "advocacy," "advertising," "interpretation", or "education". You are welcome to add any or all of those categories, as far as I'm concerned. The Al Mezan Center is a Palestinian human rights organization that promotes human and civil rights without regard to politics. You are comparing apples and oranges by comparing the generic technique or process of partisan political promotion with an organization that promotes human rights in a non-partisan manner. It is true that that some organizations carry the name Hasbara and one gives out "Hasbara Fellowships" but this does not make them non-partisan human rights organizations. By its very definition, hasbara is partisan. It seeks to promote one side, one political point of view. If you agree with the Zionist project and its political point of view, hasbara campaigns on behalf of Israel do not appear to be propaganda. They appear to be a series of pleasant truths. If you are neutral about the content, then the process of disseminating information to promote a particular national political agenda falls in the category of propaganda. Al Mezan promotes human rights in a non-partisan way. They do not promote partisan political points of view. Documenting human casualties of the Israeli occupation may have political consequences but the Al Mezan Center also documents abuses by the Palestinian Authority so they are not partisan. Advocating human rights is not partisan and it is not propaganda (unless you are not human, then it may seem to be unfair). Advocating political points of view in support of a political party or nation is partisan and it is propaganda. I hope this helps clear up the issue. Alberuni 00:43, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You just described the Al Mezan Center for Human Rights as a propganda group. Their mission statement advocates the development of economic, social, and cultural rights - an entirely political process that necessitates a lobbying position. Al Mezan explicitly advocates an anti-Israel political point of view and their own activities page describes Al Mezan as a political lobbying group whose entire purpose is to accuse Israel of human-rights violations and war crimes. It just can't get any more propaganda-oriented than that. Alberuni, can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you claim that Al Mezan does not promote partisan political points of view? Their entire existence is based on the promotion of the partisan, political point of view that Israel is guilty of human-rights violations and war crimes. Meanwhile, not one word or article exists on Al Mezan's allegedly "non-partisan" website detailing the extensive human rights abusives of Palestinians by Palestinians, against other Palestinians, mostly women and children. --Viriditas 12:16, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Alberuni, for your language learning pleasure, here are the real translations to Hebrew of all these terms

English	Hebrew	Transliteration
Propaganda	תעמולה	Taamula
Advocacy	קידום	Kidum*
advertising	פרסום	Pirsum
interpretation	פרשנות	Parshanut
education	חינוך	Hinuh

^*Kidum is a pretty sucky translation for advocacy. However, "to advocate" is translated as "לקדם" so the related noun, Kidum, seemed to be the best fit.

In short, if you want to translate Hasbara, it only translates to "explaining". As for your second point, yes, Viriditas was comparing apples and oranges, but this in no way means that one is propaganda and the other is not. As far as NPOV is concerned it is immaterial whether it is an organization or a generic name. Gadykozma 01:01, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. Al Mezan may call themselves a human rights group, but instead of addressing human rights issues in the Palestinian community Al Mezan chooses to engage in propaganda dissemination on an international basis. Their press releases are nothing but anti-Israel propaganda pieces that are distributed whenever terrorists attack Israel. This is a standard propaganda tactic used to deflect attention away from Palestinian terrorists and onto Israel after Palestinian terrorists target and murder civilians. --Viriditas 11:58, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you Gadykozma for the Hebrew lesson. Of course, I wrote that hasbara can be translated as propaganda - and in fact it has frequently been translated that way. Words often have more than one synonym and translated words can usually be approximated by several synonyms depending on usage. While the word hasbara may mean "to translate," the practice of hasbara is not just translation, it is political advocacy/propaganda. Alberuni 01:32, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks you for the enlightening lesson on the philosophy of translation. Now, all I'm asking for is that you do not use phrases such as "hasbara is translated as propaganda" or "hasbara is a Hebrew word meaning propaganda" which are just plain false, but that you use phrases such as "the term hasbara is often used to relate to actions which might more properly be named propaganda" or some such. This is not an issue of translation but of word usage. When hasbara is used in Hebrew as propaganda, this is also done euphemistically. Translating it as "explaining" or "explanation" would accurately preserve the euphemistic use that existed in the Hebrew origin. Gadykozma 01:40, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

IZAK, please don't add the "in a broader sense" sentence again. To my native speaker eyes, its wrongness is so glaring it just hurts. Hasbara in Hebrew is a plain and simple word. It has no "narrow sense" and "broad sense". It means what it means, which is explaining. When a native speaker sees the word hasbara used to describe Israeli propoganda efforts, he understands that this usage is euphemistic. Please do not try to obfuscate this fact. Gadykozma 13:01, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hasbara also means interpretation, and the Ben Yehuda dictionary concurs. Parshanut does mean interpretation, but it often has a religious connotation. That said, "explanation" is the simple translation of the word hasbara. Jayjg 14:07, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What about פרשנות ספורט (parshanut sport), the standard term for sports commentation? Gadykozma 14:21, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Note: "often has a religious connotation". "Often" is not "always", or even "usually". Jayjg 14:38, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I only wanted to say that my personal feeling is that the connection between parshanut and religion is quite weak. The sports cmmentary was just an example. But we are really digressing here. Gadykozma 13:21, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Israeli MFA position

On the Israeli Foreign Ministry site we can find article by ambassador Gideon Meir where he states that there is no exact word in english and "[hasbara] is not mere propaganda", i.e. it is propaganda, but not only propaganda. Quote: First of all, the word “hasbara” itself is a problem. There is no real precise translation of the word in English or in any other language. It is not mere propaganda, nor is it an attempt to merely “explain” Israel’s policies and reality, nor is it just a matter of providing information. In no place in its article (and yes, he writes a great deal about other diplomatic efforts also) did ambassador say that hasbara is NOT propaganda. If Israeli ambassador can take such stand and foreign ministery promotes it then we should see no problem with it. Therefore I see putting this seemingly untranslatable phenomena back to "propaganda" category as justified. As we see in the Category:Propaganda there are many things which do not translate directly as "propaganda", but are rather methods, forms, devices or techiques related to propaganda. --Magabund 11:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Category:Propaganda has been deleted without discussion again

I dispute the neutrality of this article until the reason for this constant deletion is justified. Alberuni 15:48, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The reason has been explained to you a dozen times. You may keep ignoring it as you wish. --Viriditas 11:48, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Viriditas, you are not being very helpful with your last couple of edits. First of all, if the reason has been explained a dozen times, you probably should be giving at least 2-3 references to the corresponding edit histories. The controversial issues in the editing of which you're engaging are being discussed here and in the Talk:Propaganda page, and consensus seems to crystallize out of the discussion. Look also at the link to the propaganda discussion below and contribute there if you want to express a different opinion. Alberuni, probably, should not have used the word "vandalism" in the check-in comment reverting your action, but he has a point. Assuming good faith, I believe that you haven't read the recent 2 days' worth of discussion. Before that, indeed, Alberuni was not cooperative and acting without justification, also using extremely POV formulations without consensus and attacking others. If that was the basis for your actions, I can understand your frustration, but this just proves you should have assumed more good faith and read the recent developments. Since being listed on the RfC, he has definitely been improving his habits. Therefore, I suggest you turn down your swift editing pace and engage more in explanatory discussions. BACbKA 18:33, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing me back on track to the task at hand. In the next few hours or so I will post a lengthy response in a separate section on this page as well as the Propaganda page. Again, thanks for bringing clarity to this discussion. Please see Hasbara is advocacy not propaganda for some insight on my objection. I believe the correct category is either Activism or Israeli activism. --Viriditas 10:12, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Category:Propaganda

Does this article belong in this category? Does it not belong in this category? Please discuss.

Category:Propaganda says:

Propaganda is a specific type of message presentation, aimed at serving an agenda. Even if the message conveys true information, it may be partisan and fail to paint a complete picture. The primary use of the term is in political contexts and generally refers to efforts sponsored by governments. The intent of the category is for government sponsored and items easily classified as propaganda.

Does hasbara fit this definition? Does it not fit this definition? Why or why not? —No-One Jones ^(m) 15:52, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Anything which educates, promotes or engages in public relations could fit a broad definition of propaganda. That's why propaganda categorizations have been restricted to groups who engage in control and emotional manipulation. Hasbara doesn't do this. Hasbara is about advocacy on behalf of Israel in good faith, unlike propaganda. Hasbara exists to counter anti-Israel propaganda through activism and advocacy. It is not promoting Israel so much as it is explaining and defending it from propaganda, much like a public interest group educates and activates the public while defending issues of interest to their group. --Viriditas 10:59, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hasbara as it has come to be used to mean pro-Israel political advocacy clearly fits this definition. Hasbara is political advocacy on behalf of Israeli interests. It is partisan and one-sided, not even pretending to present a balanced picture of Israeli politics, the Arab-Israeli conflict, the plight of the Palestinians or the Middle East in general. It is geared entirely to support the interests of the Jewish state by promoting the Israeli perspective and the positive aspects of Israel to the world, specifically to voters and elected officials. Hasbara organizations sponsor multimedia advertising and letter-writing campaigns, visits to Israel by prominent politicians, exchange programs, etc all designed to promote a selective positive view of the Israeli state. You will not likely find an Hasbara organization critical of Israel or Israeli policies. They wouldn't be doing their hasbara job correctly if they detracted from Israel's image. This is not to say that other countries do not engage in propaganda. The US is promoting a new Arabic language TV channel in the Mideast. That's also a propaganda effort insofar as it promotes the political vision dictated by its sponsors. The Palestinian Authority and the Saudi government hire US PR firms to burnish their image. That's also propaganda. It's not unique to Israel. If Wikipedians wish to create articles about other national propaganda efforts that would be great but trying to deny that hasbara is a form of propaganda is an effort at censorship. Alberuni 16:07, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Alberuni, you wrote: Hasbara as it has come to be used to mean pro-Israel political advocacy clearly fits this definition. Since you agree that Hasbara is an advocacy organization, then you will admit it does not belong in the propaganda category. --Viriditas 00:20, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I would assume that you would have no problem with us adding pages about al-jezeera (sp?) (if there are any) as propaganda as well, correct? If so, I have no quarrel with you about the propaganda category.--Josiah 16:40, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Both Saddam Hussein and the U.S. government accused Al Jazeera of propaganda so I have no problem with your adding it to the category. I don't dispute that al-Jazeera has biases, as do most news agencies like FOX, ABC, CBS, Washington Post, Reuters, Maariv, etc., and there will always be some people with the POV that these are sources of propaganda. I think though that the comparison between news agencies and hasbara is false. They are different types of thing. News agencies may engage in propaganda, some of them are established for that specific purpose, but hasbara is not a particular news agency; it is the practice of political advocacy. Therefore, hasbara is more clearly a type of propaganda than a specific news agency which might engage in propaganda. Read the Propaganda page and Category:Propaganda items. Even Voice of America is listed under propaganda because it reflects and promotes U.S. government policies. Al Jazeera is technically independent and does not promote any particular government's POV but if you want to categorize it as propaganda, that's fine by me. Alberuni 17:06, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Alright, then I have no quarrel with you. I carry both an 'both or none' position. If neither page is put in the propaganda category, then i have no problem. If both are, I have no problem, but I do have a problem if only one of them is.--Josiah 23:12, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think it does belong to the Propaganda category. See my comments on Talk:Propaganda#Anti-Israel_propaganda_efforts_are_continuing. BACbKA 19:07, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Consensus favors putting hasbara in category propaganda but User:Jayjg keeps reverting the category addition. --Alberuni 16:08, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

First of all, you keep confusing consensus with a vote. Second, at least two editors here do not feel the category is appropriate, a third one has given at best conditional support, and a fourth has given no opinion. Only you seem to support it; hardly "consensus" in my view. Jayjg 18:24, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why pro-Israeli propagandists can't stand for category propaganda

They think their propaganda is the truth. --Alberuni 18:46, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Most people do think their own propaganda is the truth. That's why the whole category is a pretty bad idea. - Mustafaa 19:29, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is not hard to understand how "Hasbara"(advocatory 'explaining' as is done by most Hasbara organizations especially on college campi) can be argued not to be a propaganda effort for the present (1947-2005) policies of israel. The pro-israeli editors accepted on this site have proven themselves to be "Hasbara" agents through their undocumented claims that "Hasbara" as practiced from the start of the State of Israel in 1947 to the present date is not partisan public relations advocacy.

Latest original research moved to Talk: page

I've removed the following original research to the Talk: page:

• The Israel Broadcasting Authority, Israel's state broadcasting network. English translations of IBA news programs are sometimes available on Mosaic.

In addition, the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs sponsors several front organizations:

• The Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre, which claims to be an "independent organization" [1] but was run until mid-2006 by the director of the Ministry's press division (now the Israeli ambassador to France) on a "leave of absence".[2]
• Hasbara Fellowships was "started in 2001 in conjunction with Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs." [3].

In 2002, the Israeli State Comptroller's office issued a report critical of Israel's PR efforts, "A lack of an overall strategic public relations conception and objective" and lack of coordination between the various organizations were mentioned. Funding levels are modest; the Ministry of Foreign Affairs spent about US$8.6 million on these efforts in 2002, and the Government Press Office was only budgeted at US$100,000.[4]

John, you may see yourself as a crusading investigative reporter, uncovering a Zionist conspiracy, but that doesn't mean you can completely ignore policy. Which reliable sources have characterized IBA's broadcasts as hasbara, or Mosaic's re-broadcast of them as hasbara? Which reliable sources have tied the MFA's PR efforts to hasbara? Which reliable sources have identified Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre and Hasbara Fellowships as Israeli "front organizations"? Have you decided that you can identify them as such, because an Israeli Ministry employee took a leave of absence to run one of these organizations, and because the other was founded by Aish HaTorah in 2001 in coordination with the MFA? This is a bit much. Your "properly cited" nonsense has got to stop; original research is often cited up the wazoo, but that still doesn't make it anything but original research. I ask in all seriousness; have you read the No Original Research policy? In particular, the part that forbids a "novel narrative or historical interpretation"? How about the part that forbids introducing "an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source"? I'm going to assume good faith for now, and just attribute your edits to having missed those parts of the policy, because otherwise, I would have to assume that you are disruptively editing Wikipedia, in contravention of policy, in order to pursue your own agenda. Please, again, read the policies carefully, and desist from this policy violation. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. This business of having to provide extra citations for anything that isn't pro-Israel is time-consuming. But here we go again.

Here's a collection of stories on BICOM that make it clear how close their ties are to the Israel Foreign Ministry. [5]. These are from the Jewish Chronicle newspaper, although you have to pay to get that access directly. See "His mission - to sell Israel's story to the UK". Shek's job was to start up BICOM; he was on leave from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to do that, and now he's back there, as Israel's ambassador to France.

BICOM seems to be trying to become the UK equivalent of AIPAC. See "So they say they’re in charge", from the Jewish Chronicle. "While a debate goes on in the community’s upper echelons over whether Bicom should remain a mainly-behind-the-scenes player focussing on media or a more upfront pro-Israel lobby similar to the American Aipac, it has become a potential recruitment ground for a new generation of lay leaders, among them Bicom’s chairman, Zabludowicz, and deputy chairman Michael Lewis — one of a number of South Africans now making his mark." They're recruiting big-money donors - Poju Zabludowicz, the current chairman of BICOM, is a billionare. Haaretz says BICOM is doing a better job at PR than the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. "Banal messages in bad English".

One could argue that BICOM, having been jump-started by the loan of a top leader from the Israel Foreign Ministry, is now running under its own power and on its own money, so it's not a "front organization", just an affiliate. There's no question, though, that it's in the business of promoting Israel and cooperates with the Foreign Ministry in doing this. So a rewrite may be appropriate. Maybe we need an "Affiliated pro-Israel public diplomacy organizations" section.

As for Hasbara Fellowships, they say themselves that they're affiliated with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Denying that is just silly.

Incidentally, as of June 2006, Israel is "rebranding". The term "hasbara" is out. "Public diplomacy" is in. "Part of the rebranding, Mr Meir claimed, will be to do away with the familiar – and much-derided – Hebrew term hasbarah, which means “explanation.” The ministry’s information department is to be retitled the “Department of Public Diplomacy.”" [6] So it's probably time to rename this article. --John Nagle 03:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

John, I don't understand what is so difficult about adhering to WP:NOR? Which reliable sources describe these organizations as "front organizations"? Also, please quote the reliable source that states that Hasbara Fellowships is "affiliated with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs". Quote them exactly.

The process of editing articles within policy will be much easier for you once you realize that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that accurately and neutrally summarizes established knowledge, not a crusading magazine that does investigative journalism and exposés. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

"When the Israeli Foreign Ministry sought to combat anti-Israel propaganda on college campuses, it called on Aish HaTorah to develop the Hasbara Fellowships. This program flies hundreds of student leaders to Israel for intensive training in pro-Israel activism , while guiding and funding pro-Israel activism on 80 college campuses." "Programs in Israel", from aish.com That seems to settle the matter. --John Nagle 19:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It does? I don't see how. The Israeli Foreign Ministry asked Aish HaTorah to do something, and Aish HaTorah did it. Aish HaTorah is not a "front organization" for the Israeli Foreign Ministry, it's an Orthodox Jewish outreach organization that runs synagogues and Jewish education programs. I'm astonished that you still find it so difficult to understand the WP:NOR policy; the sources say exactly what they say, no less, and certainly no more. You keep trying to insert "an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source." It's actually getting tiresome at this point; just quote the sources, don't draw your own conclusions from them. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Come on Jay, you know perfectly well that a worldwide Jewish conspiracy runs the world. AISH and the Israeli Foreign Ministry are BOTH part of this conspiracy, so in effect they are synonymous with each other. Elizmr 11:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The worldwide conspiracyt is a stupid suggestion, but AISH is financed by the Israeli government in its Hasbarah efforts, so it is an employee of that government in those efforts, but without identifying itself openly as such. That makes it a front orgqaniation. Where is the disagreement here? 88.155.134.126 11:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Quick question. If this: "Hasbara is viewed positively, and is actively encouraged, by almost all Jewish, Zionist, and Israeli organizations and instititutions," is accurate, wouldn't wikipidias policy on conflict of interest mean most of you should consider not editing this article? You could be suspected of not editing for accuracy but in order to, in the words of the article, "promote Israel to the world at large." Shia1 01:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed uncited material "Hasbara is viewed positively, and is actively encouraged, by almost all Zionist and Israeli organizations and instititutions.[citation needed] They believe that hasbara bears similarities to programming on the Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, and the BBC World Service." That's uncited original research. With weasel words. WP:WEASEL. "Almost all Zionist and Israeli organizations and institutions" is far too broad. That's a broader claim than "hasbara.org", the Israeli Foreign Ministry, or AIPAC makes. --John Nagle 16:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, a funny hasbara article: Hasbara I can get behind. The Israeli Consulate in New York is promoting a bikini spread in Maxim, "Women of the Israeli Defense Forces". Really. The consulate staff discovered that Israel's image was too conservative and "meant little to young American men". --John Nagle 16:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I've removed all sorts of other unsourced material, and original research, along with dead links, links to personal websites, and links to non-hasbara websites. There's a whole section regarding the Israeli government that appears to be orginal research; please find sources referring to the material listed there as hasbara, or it will be removed. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of dead links is against Wikipedia policy. See WP:CITE. Policy is to fix them, not destroy them. "If none of those strategies succeed, do not remove the inactive reference, but rather record the date that the original link was found to be inactive — even inactive, it still records the sources that were used, and it is possible hard copies of such references may exist, or alternatively that the page will turn up in the near future in the Internet Archive, which deliberately lags by six months or more. When printed sources become outdated, scholars still routinely cite those works when referenced." --John Nagle 18:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

They weren't used a citations, they were external links. Dead external links should be removed. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

A strange claim. WP:CITE actually says "External links/Further reading sections are not as important, but bad links in those sections should also be fixed." This is part of an ongoing editing pattern. Citations are removed for specious reasons, then later the related material is tagged as "uncited", then removed.[7] Please monitor this user for this pattern of behavior. Thanks. --John Nagle 17:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The Israel Project and Fuel For Truth

I've moved the following two items to Talk: for further discussion:

• The Israel Project, USA
• Fuel For Truth, USA

As far as I can tell, neither source provided says that the organizations in question practise hasbara. In fact, the second source doesn't even use the term hasbara. Can John Nagle quote the sentences he thinks support their inclusion? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

For the the Israel Project, the source article, in the Jerusalem Post, says "The government's “growing sophistication” when it comes to hasbara is already paying off, according to Calev Ben-David, the director of the Israel office of The Israel Project, an organization which tries to improve Israel's image by educating the press and public about Israel." That should be clear enough.

For "Fuel for Truth", ejewishphilanthropy.com, in their article "The New Hasbara" [8], identifies Fuel for Truth as engaging in hasabara. That's not a neutral source, but it is pro-Israel. That article quotes heavily from the article cited, but the article cited doesn't actually use the term "hasbara". The "List of Hasbara Organizations" at Volunteers for Israel [9] lists "Fuel for Truth". (They also list CAMERA, Honest Reporting, and the Israel Project.) "Fuel for Truth" people have appeared with Hasbara Fellowships people on talk shows [10], but that's a weak association.

So Israel Project goes back in, and we can argue here about Fuel for Truth. --John Nagle (talk) 02:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The Israel Project is talking about the Israeli government's hasbara efforts, not its own. It says the Israeli government engages in it, it doesn't say that it does. So, it will stay out pending some better sourcing. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, this is funny. Jayjg (talk · contribs) is trying to deny that The Israel Project is a hasbara operation. Let's find a few more sources.

• How Israel can Improve Its Hasbara Public Relations, from the Freeman Center for Strategic Studies. "It is my hope that the Israel Foreign Ministry will heed this warning and reassess their policy on hasbara before any more damage is done to the reputation of Israel and the Jewish community in this country." ... "Recent efforts, like that of the Israel Project will fail as will the Israeli Foreign ministry effort." So there's an article about hasbara, complaining that the Israel Foreign Ministry and the Israel Project are doing a bad job of it.
• The Coalition of Hasbara Volunteers lists both the Israel Project and FuelForTruth as action groups under their umbrella.
• Interview with Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi, head of the Israel Project, in Hadassah Magazine. "Q Why do people call The Israel Project a revolution in hasbara, pro-Israel information? How does it defer Jewish individuals or organizations from complaining about media bias or error? A. We strengthen Israel’s image and build support for public policies that make Israel safer. To do that, we are educational rather than confrontational, proactive rather than reactive. When a reporter is on a deadline and about to file a major story...we understand he needs to get the facts, sound bites or visuals to do the story right and in time for deadline. We work within that framework, knowing that complaints afterward aren’t going to help very much." So there's the head of the organization agreeing that it's a hasbara operation.

There's more, but that should be enough for now. Denial here is just silly. --John Nagle (talk) 02:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

John, all I ask for is properly cited material from reliable sources - that's not silly. If you would have provided, for example, the Hadassah Magazine citation from the start, this wouldn't have been a problem. I've restored it using the Hadassah Magazine citation. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Apparently people like "John" here are using this hebrew word and this article to push some sort of anti-Jewish agenda. Noticed this trackback today: http://www.demonoid.com/files/details/264697/?show_files=#comments Try to keep this site civil and free of your personal bias. Thank you. 67.220.13.184 (talk) 07:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

CAMERA, Honest Reporting, the ADL, the Internet Haganah, the Israel Project and Fuel for Truth all need to be listed here. In addition, we need a category for Israel front-groups and pro-war propaganda groups. Members of these groups need to recuse themselves from editing wikipedia articles about the wars they support and the people they dehumanize and demonize. NonZionist (talk) 18:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Here

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/09/israel-foreign-ministry-media —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brutusbrutusbrutus (talk • contribs) 10:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The Economist has a story this week on hasbara regarding the Gaza war.[11]: "Israel has fully utilised its expertise at hasbara, a Hebrew word meaning literally “explanation”, but referring more broadly to image promotion. Platoons of on-message spokesmen are available to foreign reporters in Israel at all hours of the night and day." --John Nagle (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Original research moved to Talk:

The following sentence was recently inserted into the article:

In 1977, recently elected Likud Prime Minister, Menachem Begin named Shmuel Katz to become the "Adviser to the Prime Minister of Information Abroad".

References

Can the person inserting explain why this is an example of hasbara? I'm pretty certain the concept only came into being in the 1990s. Does the source refer to this posting as hasbara? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

First, the person reads the previous, highly referenced section, which quite clearly indicates that usage of the term ‘hasbara’ dates in the western (English) media from the late 1970’s and comes from the Likud government of that time. Then, the person notes that in that era, prior to hasbara being re-defined as ‘explaining’, that the term is specifically understood to mean “overseas image-building” and “it is called hasbara when the purpose is to reshape public opinion abroad.”

Second, the person who really considers himself an editor, then uses an underrated Wiki-policy and notes the unique similarity between those documented definitions and the contemporaneous, specifically quoted (but awkward) phrase, “Adviser to the Prime Minister of Information Abroad”. Based on this commonsensical policy and the serendipitous reference, the editor considered it relevant for inclusion in the article, but he was aware of possible competing concerns, and had to find the appropriate location for insertion. The editor also wanted to modify the phrasing into something more grammatical, but that would have been OR, based on the reference; he considered it may have come from a verbatim Hebrew phrase, and left the RS alone.

The editor looked at the new ref, read what it said, and decided that it was more relevant for inclusion in the existing ‘Israeli government hasbara’ section, than in the ‘Early English media usage of hasbara’ section; the editor was concerned about possible accusations of WP:SYNTH, if for example, it was added following the first sentence of that section, where it is similarly relevant. Since this editorial judgment has been questioned, it is open to comment over exactly where it should be placed. My editorial opinion is that usage of hasbara by the Israeli government should be documented for the time of the term’s emergence in English media; its first 15 years of usage is currently undocumented and the ref seemed to best fill that hole. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 02:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I see. So you have a reference to the term being used in 1979, and nothing specific tying it to this specific political appointment in 1977? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Stated another way, based on the chronological order of refs we have an awkward but descriptive term "Adviser to the Prime Minister of Information Abroad" that appointed in 1977, from a 1978 ref. Then hasbara arrives in the media scene gets defined with a nearly identical term, which is used in the same specific context from the same governmental administration in 1979 and 1981. Like I said this seems a reasonable amount affinity, but if you feel it goes better in the prior section, that is OK too. Also below, we have the Israeli source that notes the way Likud uses hasbara, as opposed to Labor. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I see. So you have nothing whatsoever tying this material to the topic of hasbara other than your own original research. Please find material that actually refers directly to the topic of this article, hasbara. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

While you appear to look, I consider you fail to see. This may be caused for example, by your certainty that ‘the concept only came into being in the 1990s’. Do you still hold that view, after reading it? The refs indicate the concept dates to the late seventies, and meant something quite different. I can understand your specific un- or mis-informed view might also cause you to believe only the current ‘explaining’ definition; I will also speculate that you may therefore consider that only the current definition applies. That, I am afraid, is original research on your part since the term was previously and differently defined by RSs, and fundamentally different than the present-day MFA-Hasbara Fellowships-Aish HaTorah definition provided. While your view may be true now, it was not the case in the period currently under discussion. It was defined by RSs as such in that time period. That is not original research, and the material “actually refers directly to the topic of this article, hasbara” at that time.

Besides using the then-current terms defining hasbara, it notes the appointment and resignation of the advisor to the PM. I read that position is now official in the MFA and the ‘coordinator’ is also called the ‘Hasbara czar’; that seems to be a real and official change in hasbara’s governmental usage and meaning; previously he had only been an advisor the the Likud PM. That change is currently undocumented in the article, I’ll work on it and note some other relevant material.

It is not OR on my part and the stated policy pigeon-hole is WP:common sense. What I see as OR on your part seemingly, is to use only the current definition and position to limit inclusion of other documented uses and positions in a very different documented era. Your flippant one-line replies seem insufficiently substantiated; so let’s work on this and find the best wording to put where. Possibly there is less WP:SYNTH in adjacent sentences than I thought, but the undocumented 15-year gap in Israeli government’s hasbara usage remains a prominent hole in article credibility. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 05:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I should also add, in light of this[12] recent find and this[13], I had expected a little more AGF circumspection than your insufficiently substantiated circumscription of the topic. I haven’t bothered to look too closely, but I found this:

In 1977 when Begin finally upset the Labor Party's long monopoly on power, Katz returned briefly to public life, initially as Begin's personal representative to the United States. When Begin disavowed his commitment to put Katz in charge of Israeli information abroad (Katz had seized on the opportunity to transform Israel's miserable efforts in this area) and threw aside his ideological principles to achieve a paper peace with Anwar Sadat, Katz resigned. To the astonishment of Begin, who tried to buy him off with an offer he was convinced could not be refused -- the high prestige post of UN ambassador -- Katz refused.

I will admit that the source [14] is highly pov’d, but it is not my pov. I have re-inserted it, as originally placed. Wikipedia’s wool should be worn, not have it pulled over its eyes; it is Wikipedia’s clothing, not the Emperor’s new clothes. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

CO48, this really won't do. Your source doesn't mention hasbara, and all of your original research claiming the material is relevant is just that, original research. Per WP:NOR, "Even with well-sourced material, however, if you use it out of context or to advance a position that is not directly and explicitly supported by the source used, you as an editor are engaging in original research; see below." Now please stop ignoring policy, arguing that "common sense" allows you to over-ride it. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I've fixed the problem. I found a cite calling Katz the "founder of hasbara in America"[15], based on the book he wrote in 1973. Katz himself quotes Moshe Dayan as saying ""We don't need hasbara. It is important what we do, not what we say". [16]. That article is worth reading, because Katz goes into the history of Israel's hasbara efforts. --John Nagle (talk) 05:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Outdent. I had found it too and introduced it elsewhere (without looking); I self reverted that edit, since your formulation covers the 15yr history-hole in usage I was concerned about. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 07:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry guys, that won't wash. To begins with, the source says that Katz's work Battleground, published in 1973,

... works as an encyclopedic source-book for those involved in Israel's hasbara (public relations) effort, as well as a quick way to get a firm grounding in the ins and outs of the Arab-Israeli conflict. This is the book that Americans For a Safe Israel (AFSI) and other groups distributed thousands of copies of for decades to pro-Israel activists across America. With the publication Battleground alone, Katz could have earned the title of the father of hasbara in America."

It says with the publication of that book in 1973 he could have earned the title of "the father of hasbara in America". However, it mentions nothing of his 1977 appointment. Now, if you want to include material about the book, that's fine, as long as you accept Arutz Sheva as a reliable source - if I were you, I'd consider the implications of that carefully. What you cannot do, however, is take material from one source about his book being used for hasbara, take material from another source about his appointment which says nothing about hasbara, and tie the two together to promote the conclusion that both were examples of hasbara. I will quote WP:SYN:

Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research.

That's about as clear as it gets. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Reworded Katz info and changed to cite from Jerusalem Post. --John Nagle (talk) 05:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It works for me, I don't have ownership/censorship issues, which are otherwise wiki-justified. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Good work; I've also removed the irrelevant WP:NOR bit about his 1977 appointment; people can click on the link to find out more about Katz, if they're so inclined. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Again, the material in question doesn't mention hasbara, and it is only your synthesis that suggests it is. Please take policy seriously. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Condescending smile, again, since the previous ‘relevance’ argument for the deletion was fallacious[17], based on the content, a new SYNTH argument is proffered in its place. I note this argument is new to this location, and it is acceptable as currently written. I am looking at it. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 08:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

My very first, and continuing objection to this material is that it consisted of original research. That hasn't changed. You and John have now joined it up with another source, thus turning the original research into synthesis, a sub-species of original research. The "relevance" argument is also, of course, still quite valid; you have still failed to produce a source indicating that Katz's 1977 appointment as "Adviser to the Prime Minister of Information Abroad" is relevant to this topic. Let me repeat that; you have still failed to produce a source indicating the appointment's relevance to this topic. Instead, you have joined it up with different sources that actually do mention Katza and hasbara - but which nowhere mention the 1977 appointment. You really can't have it both ways; if you say that the material is about hasbara, then you must produce the source tying it directly to hasbara. If you merely state it is "background", then it is irrelevant to the topic. And this little game of trying to use various other sources to try to include the material is, of course, synthesis. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleting a reference to the New York Times with the excuse of "original research" is a bit much. Katz is a major figure in the history of Israeli external PR efforts; he was the PR guy for the Irgun, and he was in and out of the Israeli government for decades. A one-line reference to his background isn't out of place. --John Nagle (talk) 15:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Continually adding a reference to an article that nowhere mentions hasbara with the excuse "POV deletion" is a bit much. It's rather disappointing to have to keep quoting policy to editors who should know better, but here goes anyway:

Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research.

Please start taking it seriously. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Out-dent. To maintain talkpage flow, I will comment here on J’s twin concerns of OR and SYNTH, but will note in all AGF, I am unsure which of his twin hats I must address, that of a user with a determined pov, or that of an admin, or both. My question arises from the seemingly excessive bolded shouting of the first post (21:45, 8 April), but it did catch my eye, and I can certainly understand legitimate administrative frustration as indicated later by the terminal, comma’d ‘seriously’. To address your admin concerns that editors have “still failed to produce a source indicating the appointment's relevance to this topic”. I will none that this seems a rather narrow view, because the appointee appears to be very relevant. I base this on sources that have called him the “father of Hasbara in America”, as already ref’d by John above (although he mistakenly quoted the source). I believe this will alleviate your administrative concerns regarding the appointee’s relevance to the article and note that the cite miraculously includes the term. Since the source’s phrasing appears very significant and relevant, as well as giving a why and a birth-date, it likely should be included in the lede. You also say "but which nowhere mention the 1977 appointment". I will work on that, noting that the appointee was later appointed, this seems to avoid your concentration on the appointment itself. Smirk. Knowing smile.

Unfortunately, this does not yet specifically address the ‘appointment’s’ relevance, which admittedly, was where this editorial go-around started. I suppose this may best be addressed chronologically, for example, by noting the term’s usage in successive years, or when Menachem hosted a get-together. With previously noting the father and his child's birth date in the lede, this may not be so much of a commonsensical leap, but I have no idea of what OR arguments a calendar and sequential events might cause. Metaphorically speaking, the fathers influence over the child would seem quite relevant especially in those early, formative years; I am concerned, lest we find a mother, we might end up with a bastard child. I will work on this, as well as its aunts, uncles, cousins and god-parents elsewhere. We will have to re-visit this ‘appointment’, but adding chronological relevance properly within the article, should narrow this administrative editorial gap.

Deep breath. Regarding your SYNTH concerns, I request clarification about the quoted policy posted by the admin. These are somewhat simple A,B,C questions, which also question the ‘that advances a position’, which was not included in the admin’s original quote, as it is titled. The questions seem simple enough to ask. The first question: Is ‘C’ the ‘that advances a position’ part, or is it something else like, ‘to reach a conclusion‘? The second question is: If there are just an A and a B (and D, E, F, and G), but no ‘C’ that reaches a conclusion, is this SYNTH? Or, are A and B just RS’d and V’d facts that allow the readers to think for themselves. I await your administrative reply regarding these two questions. Respectful sigh, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 04:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I have just noticed this on the original research noticeboard, where I left the following comment: The Knesset website in English states that Katz was "Advisor to Prime Minister on Information Policy, 1977-1978"[18]. The Hebrew original is "יועץ ראש-הממשלה להסברת חוץ" [19] , which can be transcribed as "Yoetz Rosh ha-Memshala le-Hasbarat Hutz". So his official title included the word hasbara; this is a perfectly legitimate edit, and not at all original research. RolandR (talk) 20:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Good catch. Thanks. Please update the article accordingly. --John Nagle (talk) 15:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Great catch, and barnstarry thanks, if I knew how. Despite this, I am not optimistic that the game or management method will change. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

So what's the consensus on this? Does anyone now object to including the new information Roland found in the article? --John Nagle (talk) 16:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Strange sentence in lede

"There are a number of hasbara websites on the Internet, which deal with other, unrelated Jewish issues." What's that supposed to mean, anyway? I'm inclined to delete it. It's not cited. --John Nagle (talk) 19:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Kill it. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Ya, sounds reasonable, since it says little. The lede doesn't really comply with MOS, very well. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 23:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, consensus seems to be to drop it. It's gone. --John Nagle (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

We have an ongoing problem with insistence that items referenced in the article must include the Hebrew word "hasbara". This is the English Wikipedia, and properly we should be using an English title, per WP:ENGLISH.

There's an inherent POV implicit in using a Hebrew word for a political concept, in that most of the sources using the word will tend to be Israeli. --John Nagle (talk) 15:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions? I don't think there's a good English word or phrase that summarizes the concept. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 16:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The phrases "Israeli public relations" or "Israel public relations" or "Israel PR" show up in many relevant articles:

• "Why Are Israel's Public Relations So Poor?" (JCPA)
• "Israeli intensifies PR campaign to gain int'l sympathy for Gaza operation" (Haaretz)
• "Livni aide defends foreign minister's decision to leave wartime PR to experts" (Jerusalem Post).
• "Sharon asks Netanyahu to help "improve Israel's public relations image" (Voice of Israel)

"Hasbara" tends to be used by pro-Israel writers, and "Israeli propaganda" is sometimes used by anti-Israel writers. Both sides use the phrase "public relations" with reference to Israel's external promotional efforts. Many of the "hasbara" references also use the term "public relations". So "public relations" seems to be the neutral phrase.

There was an official effort from the Israeli Foreign Ministry back in 2005 to substitute the phrase "public diplomacy" for "hasbara"[20]. So even the Foreign Ministry moved away from using the term "hasbara". --John Nagle (talk) 04:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflict. As the refs clearly indicate the definition has evolved over the years, depending partly on degree of Revisionist Likud spin and Labor's slowing RPMs or adding 'backspin'. I have no problem with this specific foreign word on Wiki.en, because we are bombarded by it; I do have problems with the growing number of other similar foreign words, however. Some of these I've run across recently appear to be playing with hasbara heartstrings excessively loud, almost orchestrated with perfect hearing from the right and nearly deaf on the left. It seems the conductors' view of what constitutes stereophonic sound seems to have drifted from a balanced neutral setting. Alternatively, it might be a neologic definition of surround sound, to which we must become editorially accustomed. What does policy say regarding usage of foreign words, when yes and when no? Is it based on notability; that view seems policy compliant, without looking. Regards,CasualObserver'48 (talk) 05:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

See Public diplomacy. That's an interesting read, in that some of the definitional issues that plague this article are addressed in a broader context. --John Nagle (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Quite right John, the broader context certainly puts the word in proper perspective. The early days are defined in the last lines. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 00:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

So how about Public diplomacy (Israel) as a title? With, of course a redirect from Hasbara. --John Nagle (talk) 14:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at the "Meaning of the term" section of the article. Unless there's a general agreement among the sources that hasbara is public diplomacy, I'm reluctant to rename the article. Also, I recommend that any move be postponed until after Saturday, when Jayjg and other editors who are observing Passover will be able to comment. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Google hits:

• "public diplomacy" israel - 133,000
• "hasbara" - 122,000
• "public diplomacy" hasbara - 1,500

That's not definitive, but it's a strong indication that "public diplomacy" is a mainstream phrase as used in conjunction with Israel. As for the terms being synonymous:

• "Sometimes we use the term “hasbara” and, sometimes we say, “public diplomacy”." United Jewish Communities
• "Bye-bye, 'hasbara.' Say hello to 'public diplomacy'" Op-ed in Jerusalem Post
• "The hasbara apparatus needed a body that would co-ordinate its agencies, coordinate the messages and become a platform for co-operation between all the agencies that deal with communication relations and public diplomacy." - The Guardian, quoting Yarden Vatikai, head of the Israeli National Information Directorate

The Jerusalem Post regularly uses "public diplomacy" and "hasbara" together, as synonyms. Try a Google news archive search for "public diplomacy" and "hasbara" That may be Jerusalem Post house style. The terms have been used synonymously in Haaretz, in Israeli government output, and by various pro-Israel organizations. So I think we have a good case for a change. --John Nagle (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It's been a week with no objections. Any comments before the move? --John Nagle (talk) 15:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the move, but will note that any follow-on editorial action I might take would be based on how well edits within the page accommodate the move. It would entail specifics that are not currently included, since it wasn't always called that, additionally, the specific ref would not need to include the specific word. I can see ways that would be both positive and negative for NPOV. I dunno, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 01:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Did move, made a one-line change with a citation to an official Israeli source equating hasbara with public diplomacy. --John Nagle (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Casing

Shouldn't "hasbara" be consistently lower-case? It's not a proper noun. Right now, the text is inconsistent. But I'm not sure what the Hebrew rules for this are. --John Nagle (talk) 01:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Changed to lower case where appropriate. --John Nagle (talk) 16:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

There are no upper or lower case letters in Hebrew, so John's question above does not apply. RolandR (talk) 21:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Attias Shay links.

A new editor just added three links to Israeli TV station articles, in Hebrew. I cleaned up the links, fixed a redirect problem, and moved the links to the external links section. That was just formatting work. Whether or not they help the article isn't clear. From what I can get from looking at the articles via Google Translate, the first reference (Google's translation) seems to be on point and might be useful in the article, probably as a footnote somewhere. The other two I'm not too sure about. Comments? --John Nagle (talk) 02:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Christianity and Islam

It would be interesting if we could have information on how the Hasbara deals with Christian and Muslim attitudes towards the state of Israel. There has been a tendency is recent years to make distinctions among Christian writers according to pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian sympathies, something which is perhaps due to the influence of the Hasbara. There have also been complaints from Muslim activists who claim that the Hasbara has been a driving force in the clash of civilizations mentality and in related issues of Islamophobia. ADM (talk) 09:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

What happened to the archived discussions??

The links above lead nowhere. Did the old discussions dissapeared? they never existed or am I looking in the wrong place? Likeminas (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

they might have been censored. Recently this happens on Wikipedia more and more often78.131.137.50 (talk) 00:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

No need for paranoia. I think I fixed the links. Zero^talk 03:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Promotion of Hasbarah

Good day,

I inserted yesterday one more bullet to the list at Public_diplomacy_(Israel)#Promotion_of_hasbara with a link to: http://www.zionism-israel.com/ which is an excellent hasbarah source. I inserted this line:

• Zionism & Israel Information Center

it was reverted twice. Why? Please explain. Thomasbraun321 (talk) 00:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a directory service. Please review WP:EL. Thanks. --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Katz, the explanation is not very clear. Please explain what part of that policy are you referring to.

You refer to the guidelines. "Typically, links are removed because they fail the external links guideline. Although many links are deleted because they were placed by spammers, links to good sites are also removed on a regular basis. This is because Wikipedia isn't a directory service; the mere fact a site exists does not mean it warrants a link."

Dear Katz, hasbara.com which is linked there as I remember has these Alexa ratings: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/hasbara.com

Rank: 11,588,032 That is noplace really (smaller ranks are better) It has 12 sites linking in. Despite the name, it represents nobody and it is not an example of anything.

Zionism Israel.com by contrast has over 500 inbound site links and an alexa rank of

213,635

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/zionism-israel.com

ZIIC probably gets more traffic in a day than hasbara.com will get in a year. It is absurd and unjustified to remove ZIIC and leave Hasbara.com

Please allow ZIIC to be added to the list. They do an excellent job at Hasbarah. Superlative. Thomasbraun321 (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm convinved. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Katz, I reinstated my bullet. It is a perfectly valid and popular source of Kosher hasbarah. Thank you and Shalom! Thomasbraun321 (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Removed, along with the other one you highlighted above. We're not a directory service, and the answer (if there are problem links) is to clean them up, not add more. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Ckatz,

I gotta say that I was convinced that the link involved should be added. Also, I could not understand what part of EL you're referring to and I am a fairly experianced user. Explain yourself further please.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion or exclusion is not necessarily an indication of the quality of a particular link. The overall goal with the EL section is to avoid long lists of links; that is why there is a pre-existing note calling for the links section to be trimmed. As Thomasbraun noted above, hasbara.com gets less traffic - so it was removed as well, rather than simply adding yet another link. Others will probably go as well as the section is reviewed and trimmed. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Heyo Ckatz,

For starters, 5-6 external links is not too many links by any standard I'm aware of. Secondly, you seem to be choosing links without any explanation or logic that I can tell (no offense intended) and the argument that there is a pre-existing note when it was added just the other day seems to miss out. I've no objection to discussing the merits of each of the links but one of them was shown to have a high alexa index rating and it, by the perspective of two editors fitting. We can change our minds if you possibly consider a more elaborate review of the external links, but as of now, I'm not even convinced that there are too many external links. For now, there is no harm with the links staying on the page (there is consensus for this) while you try and rephrase your arguments.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You're using a very slim interpretation of "consensus", especially given that the editor who is primarily arguing for the link to be included has really only done that; one has to use caution when a new editor's primary actions involve repeatedly adding links to a specific site. We need to establish why a particular site warrants inclusion, not just add it because one person repeatedly says they like it. Beyond that, it has been a long-established Wikipedia convention that we seek to reduce links sections the minimum necessary to support the article, rather than simply adding more. (FYI, there are sixteen external links in the EL section, not "5-6". The editor who added the "linkfarm" template was certainly correct in doing so.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

We are not here to promote hasbara sites via an external link spam farm. We are not here to provide links to sites that do an "excellent job at Hasbarah. Superlative." That comment suggests that perhaps Thomasbraun321 isn't familiar with the discretionary sanctions. We should be aiming for "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject" as it states in Wikipedia:EL#What_should_be_linked. That means sites about hasbara rather than actual hasbara. If we do include pro and con sites we're obliged to ensure that neutrality is maintained by balancing opposing perspectives in the link count. Most of the existing links should be removed in my view. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

We are not here to promote hasbara sites or #Criticism_of_Hasbara sites via an external link spam farm. If I'm not mistaken, there is a fair relationship between notable sites of value and if someone wants to reduce sites, I'd suggest we start with ones of lesser merit for inclusion rather than focusing on one side. In the instance you're suggesting, we'd also remove the Israeli Foreign Ministry website, but that would be a really weird removal considering the inherentness of the link to the topic. I'm open to a general discussion in the community over how external links should look in this article, but certainly if there is 'Criticism of Hasbara' links, then the natural thing would be to have a 'Promotion of Hasbara' section as well. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Has anybody noticed the fundamental imbalance of the external links. The "Criticism of Hasbara" section contains links to articles critical of hasbara, while the "Promotion of Hasbara" section has links to sites that engage in hasbara. I recommend:

• We get serious about pruning the "External links" section, especially the "Promotion of Hasbara" portion.
• We replace some (or most) of the links in the "Promotion of Hasbara" with links to articles supportive of hasbara (or about the necessity of hasbara).

What do other editors think? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)Jaakobou, please refrain from simply reverting the links back in; they were removed per the above discussion. Keep in mind that the site that started this discussion was added not by consensus, but instead by an editor whose primary edits were solely to argue for its inclusion. The consensus here is that the links section needs to be trimmed, not expanded; I have removed one that was from an SPA, plus one that was recommended for removal in the resulting discussion. Instead of simply restoring these two links, work on trimming other non-essential links from the entire section (both pro and con). --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

An older version

After checking an older version[21] to see how things have changed; I corrected the first line and replaced a fact tag with the ref, which had once been there. I still question however, why the previous MFA/Aish HaTorah mention (shown in that diff, below line 36) was been dropped from the article? It seems quite relevant, uses the specific term, illustrates a basic concept and method. It also shows changing official gov’t involvement, as opposed to the already noted differing political/ideological attitudes concerning its use. In the absence of any wiki-specifics against it, I believe with some minor re-phrases, it should be returned.

I will also mention that material in the article should show its notability and that hasbara is quite broadly disseminated outside official channels, which unfortunately, the name change seems to excluded. Much of this, if included, could more collaboratively end the discussion on the number of external links above. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Foreign Policy source

Breein1007 has rejected this source as a reliable source because it is an op-ed, however it is a straight news piece from the "Dispatches" section of Foreign Policy magazine. It is not an editorial and is not the personal opinion of the author but news about the latest ad campaign from the Israeli govt. I could take it to WP:RSN but that would be time consuming for all involved. Note that Breein1007 has repeatedly reverted other common sense edits of my own, such as pointing out that the settlements are a ey issue of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict [22], [23]. It is getting a bit old. Factsontheground (talk) 23:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is the quote directly from your source:
"Dmitry Reider is an Israeli journalist whose work appears in the Jerusalem Post, Haaretz, and the Guardian. He co-authors the foreign-affairs blog Kav Hutz and also blogs in English here."
Are you familiar with Dmitry Reider? He is an opinion writer and blogger. He is not a news reporter for the Foreign Policy magazine. Regardless of which section of the magazine published his piece, it is still not news. Breein1007 (talk) 23:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

PS: I'd be happy to join a discussion at WP:RSN, although it's quite clear to me that it is not needed, because this isn't even a complex issue. If you decide that it is worth your time however, please do let me know so that I can join in. Breein1007 (talk) 23:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

grassroots

One of the interesting things about hasbara is that it is not only a government/country-directed effort and in fact many unaffiliated people are doing it without realizing, while others have formed their own grassroots hasbara initiatives based on their personal pov whether it's a blog, talkbacks, letters to the editor, and editing on WP. I'm looking to add this to the article but cant too much of anything RS to back that up. --Shuki (talk) 22:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

If a man walks into a door and I tell everyone, "hey, look! that man ran into a door"...this is hasbara. The word means just "To bring explanation to" from the root סבר, this is a normal word. It is not much different than saying "Public statement of fact as we perceive it". There's no evidence that they lie, but this is all that the article implies...it's all written in a derogatory light. But it is user encyclopedia for idiots, by idiots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.236.74 (talk) 15:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

"Hasbara czar"

I have never heard the word "Czar" used in Hebrew in this way. I know that the word "Czar" has become a common American figure of speach, but for an Israeli it is not at all common. It sounds out of place, and in fact even somewhat offensive. When I googled the Hebrew term צאר ההסברה or צאר הסברה I found no online refernce to it, only some pages where the word צאר and the word הסברה where not even in the same pragraph. When I googled the word צאר alone, I found referances to the Russians czars, or to some high officials in the American governemt (and these cases were clear direct translations from American media, sometimes with a short explanation to strange use of the word). Please consider removing "Hasbara czar" and using a more appropriate translation of the title. Hezy Amiel (talk) 18:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

POV?

I do not see a Wiki Article on Palestinian public diplomacy, public relations, etc. Is the focus on discussing the arguments on Israels behalf as a organized effort, which is not often done for other political positions, not itself POV? And perhaps part of someone's public diplomacy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricardianman (talk • contribs) 21:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is Pallywood, which is a derogatory term used by some for pro-Palestinian propaganda. I'm not sure there's a formal Palestinian equivalent for institutions like the IDF Spokesperson's Unit. Robofish (talk) 20:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

well, despite the existence of Pal security forces, there isnt quite a Pal equivalent to the IDF. I am sure the PA has media relations people. A google search for Palestinian Authority Spokesperson reveals hits, for example http://articles.cnn.com/2010-09-05/world/iran.west.bank.comments_1_palestinian-authority-peace-talks-nabil-abu-rudeineh?_s=PM:WORLD

Of course national militaries often have their own spokespeople apart from the rest of the government. http://www.defense.gov/news/ http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/PressCentre/MediaEnquiries.htm

Ricardianman (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Is the focus on discussing the arguments on Israels behalf as a organized effort, which is not often done for other political positions, not itself POV? -- No. And perhaps part of someone's public diplomacy? -- No. However, your insinuations are. -- 68.111.35.169 (talk) 06:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Use of "copyright" issues to justify censorship

I added some interesting material about current trends in hasbara and have had my edits reverted twice now by‎ Malik Shabazz claiming that referring to Israeli media reports is a copyright violation. As I understand it one is allowed to make fair use of copyright material, and on-line media reports are widely quoted by other media outlets. I beleive that my edits were useful and done in good faith and that Malik's intention has been to censor any discussion which does not suit his beleifs or political stance.

I am reinserting my edits here for general consideration:

Edit one:

Neil Lazarus argues that "Low budget, grassroots Hasbara 2.0 has come of age. The internet-based HonestReporting, for example, has an impressive track record keeping track of media bias. The secret weapon of this small non-profit is simple: a database of tens of thousands of supporters who will email papers expressing opinions in support of Israel." ^source He also states that the IDF’s YouTube page "has an overwhelming tendency to upload videos of Israel bombing Hamas sites, and appears to be aimed at boosting morale on the home front rather than promoting a positive campaign. Few are aware of the need for accurate and timely video clips. Last year, film footage of IDF troops landing on the flotilla sailing toward Gaza and being attacked by activists received over a million hits. Unfortunately, the video was released twelve hours too late to really sway opinion." Some have suggested that the delay in posting video is due to the process of editing and careful vetting of footage.

A new course elective at the University of Haifa aims to equip students with online hasbara tools to fight the increasing delegitimization of Israel. Entitled “Ambassadors Online,” the spring semester class – the first of its kind – will explore international news coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and attempt to rectify alleged media bias. Though it does not offer university credit, the course will teach students about the main issues behind Israel’s delegitimization. They will hear from Foreign Ministry officials and learn to use social networking sites to defend government policies on an ad hoc basis. The four-hour program is the brainchild of Prof. Eli Avraham, who teaches communications at the University of Haifa and who felt the need to respond to what he said was an epidemic of anti-Israel media activity. Haifa U offering students new elective in ‘hasbara’

Edit two/three:

External links

• IDF Youtube channel````

Copying and pasting entire paragraphs from the source is a copyright violation. The text under the edit box clearly says "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted." If you don't recognize when you've copied and pasted text from one window to another... well, there's nothing I can do to help you. This raises questions of competence.

On the other hand, if you're just acting disingenuous, I advise you to knock it off. Copyright violation is taken very seriously at Wikipedia and repeat offenders may be blocked or banned. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

That is why I have re-edited the first part with much less quotation. Undoing three edits because you have a problem with one is NOT a reasonable response and the copyright policy says that questionable cases (like the limits of fair use) should be flagged on the discussion page.```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djapa84 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

There was, and is, no questionable case. Copying and pasting text from a source is never acceptable. If you think your copying-and-pasting satisfies the fair use exception to copyright law, please explain how it passes Wikipedia's non-free content criteria.

You will be disappointed to learn that changing a few words here and there, called close paraphrase, doesn't get rid of your basic copyright problem.

Honestly, is it so difficult to summarize in your own words what a source says? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to paraphrase again but the page you refer to at close paraphrase states that "Limited close paraphrasing is appropriate within reason", and I fail to see how one can discuss someone else's opinion piece without quoting at least some of what they say. How are we to discuss current events and political debates if we cannot refer to the media?

Yes, limited paraphrasing is permitted, but once again you copied and pasted the entire paragraph and changed just a few words. Is it really so hard to summarize in your own words what the source says? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from deterministic approach based on news sources

You cant take a stand in an encyclopedic entry after couple of newspaper opinions, for example one can find countless sources claiming the USA foreign policy is being propagantic and imperialistic, but you obviously wouldn't determine it in the first paragraph of its entry. act objectivly as possible, the fact i dont have an account on wikipedia dost mean im wrong.

The proper place for the "propaganda" issue is at a "critism" part of the entry, you are welcome to create it. have a nice day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.203.108 (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

We're not "taking a stand", we're reporting what reliable sources have written about the subject. Yes, you can find sources that describe the U.S. that way, but I doubt that they're reliable sources, as that phrase is used in Wikipedia. The sources that say hasbara is a euphemism for propaganda are high-quality reliable sources. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

It would be better if people were a little less sensitive about this word and just followed the sources. Classifying something as propaganda isn't a mere "criticism". Please read our article Propaganda and have a look at some sources that describe the various approaches to defining propaganda, "Propaganda- Theoretical and Historical Aspects" for example. Also note that this article is covered by WP:1RR so I'll add the template. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

@Sean.hoyland- its not about it, its about staying as accurate as possible, i never said calling it propaganda is bad its just not one voice opinion.

(btw for looking into israeli propaganda more accuratly look for תעמולה or פרופגנדה)

@Malik Shabazz - first few words on your sources: the first is from, "thenational.ae" website which is the "Abu Dhabi Media company"s english publication.. the second is written by dan fisher, is known for anti-israeli articles, and almost was denied press credentials by israeli consul. look it up. The third one is an Opinion essay that was written 21 years ago (1991). Actually the book is only one i can consider but is one source out of many books with different approaches.

I think you fail to understand what the kind of sources that would be reliable in this case. The content Host can be as reliable as they get, but newspapers has Many authors which Varies by opinions. These kind of sources would be excelent in an entry on these very personals for example, describing their ideas and opinions, but not in an entry that is A definition of a term.

Fact is, the notion that הסברה - equals propaganda is far from absolute (i would say the counter opinion is more wide spread, but the point is it doesnt matter). By stating one opinion - in the first paragraph of an entry - as if its determined - you DO take a stand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.203.108 (talk) 18:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I haven't done a proper survey of sources so I'm not in a position to comment about the distribution of views on the matter, but when organizations like the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, in an article (link p. 4) about the Jewish National Fund, write things like "The covenant also added new duties to the activities of the JNF: the redeeming of land from desolation, dealing in hasbara (propaganda) and providing Jewish-Israeli education. According to clause 16, “the government will extend aid to the JNF for hasbara and propaganda activities in Israel and abroad.”" it suggests that, at least from this source's perspective, it's not controversial to treat them as synonyms. I have to say, I don't find this surprising at all, even from an organization like IASPS. To say "and is also a euphemism for propaganda" in the lead is not wrong. It is certainly the case. It's not the whole story but the rest of the story is already in the lead. So, it seems to me that you are removing one part and leaving the other, despite the sourcing. Also, bear in mind that the lead is meant to summarize the article per WP:LEAD. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

IP 79.181.203.108, it was your responsibility to try to gain WP:CONSENSUS here, on this talk page, after you were first reverted at 11:14, 28 April 2012‎. Your 5 attempts to push through your desired version have now been reverted by 3 different editors. Your behaviour constitutes edit warring, and will result in your editing privileges being blocked if you continue in the same way. Please familiarise yourself with the policies I've linked to in this post, before you proceed.  – OhioStandard (talk) 05:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Question

I couldn't understand from the article how is Israeli Public diplomacy efforts are different from other countries and bodies? Anything on the web that qualifies as gov "hasbarah" that i can see? --Mor2 (talk) 04:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Euphemism

I don't know who the person is who undid my edit, is he in charge of the page? I am new to editing wiki. He told me to discuss it here, but I want to just re do my edit. He says the use of the euphemism is well sourced. Well, I can source the use of the term "retarded" even more strongly, since it is used as a euphemism for "not very bright" in common parlance. Can someone respond to whether I can revert to my edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oopsiedoop (talk • contribs) 03:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you can revert your edit. Then somebody else will change it back. That's why you were advised to make a substantive argument here why the material should be removed. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

"I am new to editing wiki": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MagicJack&diff=prev&oldid=310166548 (almost 5 years ago). IMHO, your edit history looks like that of a mole. You might have burned your sleeper account. --80.114.178.7 (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. However, I don't accept the subsequent editor's argument as substantive and laid out why. So how does the substantive argument action work in practice? Oopsiedoop (talk) 03:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)oopsiedoop

Well, then, have fun edit warring. It'll lead to your being blocked. Then maybe you'll accept the argument as substantive. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 1 December 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to overturn 2009 discussion. I'll move the talk page archives so they're at the same title as the parent. Jenks24 (talk) 04:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

---

Public diplomacy (Israel) → Hasbara – The title was boldly moved without consensus against WP:TITLECHANGES using the justification that WP:ENGLISH should be used, however, Public diplomacy (Israel) is clearly not the WP:COMMONNAME nor a translation of the word. The term hasbara is used throughout the article. Tanbircdq (talk) 00:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Biblioworm 21:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Please see the previous move discussion, from 2009, at Talk:Hasbara/Archive 2#Requested move. (For some reason, the talk page archives weren't moved along with the article.) 66.87.114.232 (talk) 02:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, I think it's a good idea to ping @Nagle:, the editor who moved the article in 2009. 66.87.114.232 (talk) 02:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The same arguments that applied in 2009 still seem to apply. It wasn't a "bold move"; there was discussion lasting two weeks. Useful cite: the Jerusalem Post article "Bye-bye hasbara, Say hello to public diplomacy" [24]. The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs prefers the term "public diplomacy.[25] John Nagle (talk) 05:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Public diplomacy of Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111001163236/http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1232292897417&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1232292897417&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Public diplomacy of Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061020120443/http://www.ujc.org/content_display.html?ArticleID=137571 to http://www.ujc.org/content_display.html?ArticleID=137571
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080424065402/http://electronicintifada.net/downloads/pdf/080421-camera-wikipedia.pdf to http://electronicintifada.net/downloads/pdf/080421-camera-wikipedia.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080424065407/http://electronicintifada.net/downloads/pdf/080421-camera-wikipedia2.pdf to http://electronicintifada.net/downloads/pdf/080421-camera-wikipedia2.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Hasbara pictures:

Own work made for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs during Operation Pillar of Defense

share if you found something on Wikimedia here.--109.64.106.198 (talk) 15:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

In order to qualify for inclusion, there would need to be a published reliable source that referred to this image as an example of hasbara. Wikipedia editors can't decide what is or isn't hasbara. Reliable source have to do that. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Public diplomacy (Israel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/4175

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Invasion of the troll armies: from Russian Trump supporters to Turkish state stooges

The Guardian article https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/nov/06/troll-armies-social-media-trump-russian has a section on hasbara: "In 2013, the Israeli government revealed that it would also recruit 'covert units' however. These would be staffed by a mixture of international supporters and domestic students, whose high intelligence, low income and familiarity with social media make them generally well suited to professional trolling." The Guardian article is also cited here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_election_interference_by_Russia#Russian_trolls Keith McClary (talk) 00:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)