Talk:Public diplomacy (Israel)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

This article is set up with a purpose to mark the inclusion of Hasbara into the Category:Propaganda disputed. It is intended to host the discussions on categorizing Hasbara as propaganda or not doing it. Once a consensus is reached, the present article will safely be deleted. Feedback on the hack is welcome here or at my talk page.

Please discuss whether Hasbara should be included into the Category:Propaganda here and not at Talk:Hasbara. On the other hand, please discuss the wording of Hasbara, including the parts that relate to its definition as propaganda by some, not here, but rather at Talk:Hasbara instead.

BACbKA 20:42, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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.

Categorization dispute split off to Hasbara_%28disputed_if_it_is_propaganda%29

As an attempt to defuse the dispute here over the article inclusion into Category:Propaganda, I have created a test case of making a tentative category inclusion using a special trick I have just thought of — creating a redirect to Hasbara from Hasbara_(disputed_if_it_is_propaganda), the redirect being categorized under Category:Propaganda. I have moved the relevant talk threads over there. As a bonus, we no longer have the oversize page warning when attempting to edit the present talk page.

Please stop categorizing this article under Category:Propaganda (note that this is what I would like to have done myself because I believe that Hasbara is propaganda) until a consensus is reached at Talk:Hasbara (disputed if it is propaganda).

Please discuss whether Hasbara should be included into the Category:Propaganda there at Talk:Hasbara (disputed if it is propaganda) and not here. On the other hand, please discuss the wording of Hasbara, including the parts that relate to its definition as propaganda by some, here, and not at Talk:Hasbara (disputed if it is propaganda) instead.

While I am watching both talk pages, I would suggest that you leave comments on the split I have done either at Talk:Hasbara (disputed if it is propaganda) or at my talk page, rather than here. BACbKA 21:06, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The redirect has been speedied w/o a notice here, and has now been restored. Unfortunately its talk page hasn't been restored yet (I've posted a request to do so to the admin in question). It has been listed on the redirects for discussion page, please vote there. OK, it's all restored now, so both discussions are now available. Please vote if you care. (Current consensus is to delete the redirect). --BACbKA 17:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Definitions

The definition of hasbara is Propaganda, not Zionism. The Propaganda page has Hasbara related links, the Zionism page does not mention the word. The best solution would be to build a page here describing hasbara in more detail. Justify your redirect edit to Zionism. Alberuni 14:36, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is not accurate to divide links into anti-Israel and pro-Israel

It's a sick worldview that perpetuates an us vs. them identity of perpetual defensiveness, aggression, and self-victimization. Alberuni 05:04, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Alberuni what are you carrying on about? Since Hasbara comes from those concerned about Israel in a POSITIVE way, it's reasonable to assume that their web-sites are pro-Israel. Now, since you were the one to inject web-sites that have nothing to do with a positive view of Israel, they are in fact HOSTILE to Israel and the Hasbara associated with it, it should then be logically correct to say that those sites are anti-Israel. It's a case of logic, and its not about a "mentality". You know, being on a Jihad can also be described as a terrible "mentality" (in fact it's something with far worse results nowadays...self-destructivenes, often involving suicide and homicide) so don't get so worked up...IZAK 05:19, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I can understand both the sociopathic victimized feeling of persecuted Jews and the psychotic rage of Arabs dealing with the injustices perpetrated by those Jews, believe me. That's beside the point. Did you even read the links? Some of them are pro-Israeli but critical of the failures of hasbara campaigns. Let;s show a little subtlety in our analysis and not divide the world categorically into pro-Israel and anti-Israel. There's alot more going on than that simplistic division. Alberuni 05:31, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Something of what you say is valid. And by the way, User:Jayg has taken care of the problem you mention and changed the links to pro and anti Hasbara making it more accurate. Happy now? IZAK 05:42, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's better but still an unnecessary division of "us against them". It's hasbara about hasbara.Alberuni 05:58, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I see, how quaint, now you are turning hasbara on its head inverting its meaning to mean (according to you) how to undo hasbara or how rejecting something means that it should no longer be...this kind of distorted fallacious manner of tendentious twisted thinking cannot be taken seriously at all...try something else...IZAK 06:25, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Category: Propaganda

Moved to Talk:Hasbara_%28disputed_if_it_is_propaganda%29#Category: Propaganda BACbKA 20:38, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Propaganda article

By the way, in addition to adding this to the Propaganda category, Alberuni is attempting to promote his POV on Hasbara by adding a number of Hasbara related links, and a highly POV description, to the Propaganda article. Jayjg 14:38, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why don't you state your specific objections to the facts presented on the Propaganda Talk page before deleting other people's work to suit your POV? Alberuni 14:46, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page has improved a great deal and is now NPOV

There is only one short sentence describing it as propaganda so everyone should be satisfied but if the Propaganda Category is removed again without explanation, I will add the {{NPOV}} dispute label. Alberuni 06:12, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Stop telling everyone how they should feel and think. And more importantly, stop making threats when you don't get your way. --Viriditas 12:22, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't perceive the above comment by Alberuni as a threat. This is exactly what the {{NPOV}} marker is for. Please also see my comment to you below. Alberuni, your choice of language was not the best here – you probably meant to say everyone should hopefully be satisfied by now and I will have to add... BACbKA 18:40, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Restored Material

I have restored the material deleted without comment which points out the fundamental similarity between Hasbara and the work of the VOA. Please discuss before changing. Lance6Wins 12:38, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Category:Propaganda has been deleted without discussion again

Moved to Talk:Hasbara_%28disputed_if_it_is_propaganda#Category:Propaganda has been deleted without discussion again BACbKA 20:38, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Category:Propaganda

Moved to Talk:Hasbara_%28disputed_if_it_is_propaganda%29#:Category:Propaganda BACbKA 20:38, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Edward Said's article Propaganda and War

The Edward Said article cited in the external link is all about Israeli hasbara propganda campaigns as the first sentence makes clear: "Never have the media been so influential in determining the course of war as during the Al-Aqsa Intifada, which, as far as the Western media are concerned, has essentially become a battle over images and ideas. Israel has already poured hundreds of millions of dollars into what in Hebrew is called hasbara, or information for the outside world (hence, propaganda). This has included an entire range of efforts: lunches and free trips for influential journalists; seminars for Jewish university students who over a week in a secluded country estate can be primed to "defend" Israel on the campus; bombarding congressmen and -women with invitations and visits; pamphlets and, most important, money for election campaigns; directing (or, as the case requires, harassing) photographers and writers of the current Intifada into producing certain images and not others; lecture and concert tours by prominent Israelis; training commentators to make frequent references to the Holocaust and Israel's predicament today; many advertisements in the newspapers attacking Arabs and praising Israel; and on and on. " Do not delete external links to relevant articles just because you disagree with the opinions expressed in the articles or have an antipathy to the author. Alberuni 15:35, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Alberuni, the anti-Israel article by Said mentions the word Hasbara once, and Said asserts that it is propaganda because it is "information". That makes no sense. Additionally, Said provides absolutely no references or citations for these claims, or for any alleged "propaganda campaigns", nor does Said discuss anything to do with Hasbara as an NGO. In essence, the article is an off-topic rant, and merely acts as propaganda itself, since Said prefers to rumormonger and bash Israel rather than argue rationally. Further, Said implies a moral equivalence between victim and aggressor (a propaganda tactic) and provides a ciruclar argument in favor of "50 years of Israeli propaganda". This is only one of dozens of propaganda tactics found in the article. According to Said, all information is propaganda, so is Said inferring that his article is propaganda? The link should be removed since it does not discuss or analyze Hasbara, but merely documents Said's own anti-Israeli propaganda tactics. I find it extremely ironic that you would post a propaganda piece from the anti-Israel opposition in order to document your claims that Hasbara engages in propaganda. The article does nothing to seriously consider the question, and it should be removed as off-topic. I have nothing against an article that purports to show Hasbara as a propaganda organization, but this article fails to do any such thing, and instead serves as propaganda piece at best, and an anti-Israel rant at worst. --Viriditas 23:50, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The link discusses hasbara as propaganda. If the External Links section is going to list a half dozen official hasbara sites, I don't think it's asking too much to include this link. Edward Said only used the word once because once he defined it he didn't need to use it again. He doesn't write that all information is propaganda, he writes that the translation of hasbara is, "information for the outside world". While this might not be the best definition and Said was a notoriously long-winded intellectual, his description of the many other tactics involved in hasbara campaigns is enlightening: "lunches and free trips for influential journalists; seminars for Jewish university students who over a week in a secluded country estate can be primed to "defend" Israel on the campus; bombarding congressmen and -women with invitations and visits; pamphlets and, most important, money for election campaigns; directing (or, as the case requires, harassing) photographers and writers of the current Intifada into producing certain images and not others; lecture and concert tours by prominent Israelis; training commentators to make frequent references to the Holocaust and Israel's predicament today; many advertisements in the newspapers attacking Arabs and praising Israel; and on and on." Towards the end of the article, he announces plans for the launch of a pro-Palestinian information campaign to counter the domination of a pro-Israeli perspective throughout the media and Bush administration. Ironically, this article was released in the first week of September 2001, "a day late and a dollar short," as they say. Alberuni 01:12, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Alberuni, you say that the article discusses hasbara as propaganda, but upon closer examination, it doesn't. The examples Said gives are not acutal references but rhetoric, and he does not give names, places, dates, or citations. In fact, there isn't any evidence for anything Said writes about in the article (although this doesn't mean it doesn't exist). Everything you quote Said as writing serves as rhetorical propaganda, as it fails to address Hasbara in specific terms. If he claims there are many advertisements in the newspapers attacking Arabs and praising Israel, I would like to see the evidence. Sadly, Said infers that there is something wrong with defending Israel, and this article illustrates Said's bias more than it does the alleged propaganda of Hasbara. I suggest you find better links to make your case, as this link does not address this issue of Hasbara but is a simply a platform for anti-Israel propaganda. --Viriditas 08:02, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Propaganda war against Hasbara

A simple google search has revealed some very interesting developments that has taken place over the last year. I have noticed an attempt by anti-Israel propagandists to in effect, equate Hasbara with propaganda through the fabriaction and deliberate editing of Hasbara documents that teach people how to counter propaganda. The person or people in question have posted an edited version of Hasbara's Seven Basic Propaganda Devices, an article that according to Hasbara, "explains how each of these devices is used by Palestinian activists... to manipulate their audience....the article...gives ideas for countering these propaganda techniques, as well as a few more positive suggestions." Now, what the anti-Israel propagandists have done is edit out the part about dealing with Palestinian propaganda, and instead, they have altered the article to make it look like Hasbara is promoting the very propaganda it is in fact countering. The person or people who fabricated this article and then posted it on indymedia websites around the world even admits that the posted fabrication is edited. Of course, who is going to take the time and compare the original document with the one that is posted? At last count, this fabricated document was posted on Vancouver Indymedia, Resist.ca, UK Indymedia, and many other sites. --Viriditas 00:17, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It looks fairly clear that this is a copy of the World Union of Jewish Students handbook on how to engage in effective advocacy. The person who posted it to Indymedia edited out the introduction complaining about pro-Palestinian propaganda and how the writer feels it is necessary it is to neutralize pro-Palestinian information but otherwise accurately copied the highlights of the handbook describing how to engage in effective advocacy. I don;t think it's that big of a deal. If you think it is, you can leave a comment on Indymedia or the other sites. The original source for this comprehensive grassroots advocacy handbook is listed as an External Link. That seems good enough. Alberuni 01:29, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I suggest you compare the two articles again and read for comprehension. It is not fairly clear that this is a copy of the WUJS handbook, and in fact, it is fairly clear that it is an edited fabrication by the author in question (the author deceptively claims "This post contains 'highlights' from their Hasbara Guide" when in fact, the author misleads the audience by omtting Hasbara's statement that the excerpt is an example of Palestinian propaganda). In reality, when one compares the "highlights" to the original article (contained as a sub-section on this page), one immediately notices the absence of many key paragraphs. The author dishonestly makes it looks like Hasbara encourages propaganda, when in fact, the full article makes it clear that they are countering the propaganda techniques used by Palestinian activists. The original author failed to include this statement on the main page leading up to the guide as well:Seven Basic Propaganda Devices: Outlines seven common ways in which speakers and campaigners attempt to manipulate their audience. This practical article explains how each of these devices is used by Palestinian activists, and gives ideas for countering these propaganda techniques, as well as a few more positive suggestions. Even more telling is the fact that the article in quesiton is named "Palestinian Propaganda explained from WUJS". Alberuni, you claim that the author only edited out the introduction, but that is simply not true. There are many paragraphs that do not appear in the document that was posted. You claim that the article is about how to engage in effective advocacy, when in fact it is about countering Palestinian propaganda. All of these facts were left out of the edited version posted on the indymedia sites, as well as many paragraphs that further describe countering propaganda. In reality, the person who posted the edited version, deleted all references to Palestinians in order to make it look like Hasbara was encouraging the use of propaganda. Many of the paragraphs are combined from separate pages on separate topics that have been edited down to make it look like Hasbara encourages propaganda. You claim that the author only edited out the introduction and a few other points, but in fact that is not true. The entire article is composed of many different articles, and the author has deleted major paragraphs from those articles in order to make it look like Hasbara is pro-propaganda. The Hasbara Palestinian Propaganda page has 29 paragraphs, while the author of the indymedia posts has only included 23 of those paragraphs, of which many are edited down to only one sentence. In the other sections, the indymedia author doesn't even credit the multiple web pages that were edited to form this post. Most of the explanatory material has been purposefully deleted in order to skew the appearance of Hasbara. You may not think this is big deal, but when someone does a hack job on an organization in order to damage their credibility, it is a big deal. In fact, it's the very definition of propaganda. Are you saying that you don't think malicious propaganda is a big deal? --Viriditas 02:41, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Good research, Viriditas, you should include a summary of this in the article itself. Jayjg 02:52, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That's an interesting idea. Thanks for the tip. I'll try to add a small paragraph. --Viriditas 08:05, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Malicious propaganda and hack jobs are not honest work but it's still not that big deal if look at it in perspective. The publisher is some anonymous poster on Indymedia with a limited audience. He/she posted 23 of 29 of the paragraphs important to you by your own count, not bad considering he/she only promised highlights. Even though I didn't notice the level of manipulation that you noticed, I still don't think it's worth mentioning in Wikipdia because it's too obscure. What are you going to say, "Some Indymedia poster did a malicious job editing a description of the WUJS handbook"? It's not worth wasting your time - but be my guest. I'm sure you can find more blatant examples of Arab propaganda like the ubiquitous cartoon that seems to be on alot of Wiki Mideast pages of "Nasser kicking Jews into the sea" from that 40 year old Lebanese newspaper. I'm sure there are enough other examples to fill pages called Arab Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism if you just look hard enough. Ooops, already been done! Alberuni 03:48, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The 23 of 29 paragraphs represents less than half of the article, whereas the rest is cut up from other articles, meaning that dozens (possibly more) of paragraphs are missing. So the context is not only in error, but so is the meaning derived from the presentation, i.e. Hasbara supports propaganda. Also, I never claimed this was an example of arab propaganda, you did. I merely observed that it was anti-Israel. --Viriditas 05:11, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I can understand why one might object to the editing, but the unedited version leaves almost exactly the same impression as the edited one. It is, quite frankly and rather openly, recommending the use of a variety of propaganda devices - the only difference is that it's presenting them as a response to Palestinians allegedly using the same devices. - Mustafaa 00:46, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Rather than resorting to reflex reversion, IZAK, can you suggest any specific problems with this version? - Mustafaa 10:26, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi Mustafaa, for one, please read the detailed research and response of User:Viriditas above (Talk:Hasbara#Propaganda war against Hasbara) and you know, why have you come here with your sabres rattling, it seems that this article is touching a raw nerve which makes one wonder that perhaps it's argument is valid... IZAK 10:31, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I read it, and replied. Can you be more specific? - Mustafaa 11:13, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Here's the actual article from the World Union of Jewish Students: Seven Basic Propaganda Devices. It begins Propaganda is used by those who want to communicate in ways that engage the emotions, and downplay rationality, in an attempt to promote a certain message. To effectively present Israel to the public, and to counter anti-Israel messages, it is necessary to understand propaganda devices. This article applies a list of seven propaganda devices to the Israeli situation, and by doing so allows an understanding of some of the ways in which public opinion is fought for in the International arena. Read the rest for yourself. It's a how-to guide for pro-Israel propaganda, and it's quite open about it.

Also see the Hasabara Handbook - Promoting Israel on Campus, which is entertaining. The "Seven basic propaganda devices" is from page 22 of that handbook. --John Nagle 22:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Personal remarks by User:Alberuni moved over to User talk:Jewbacca, to whom they were directed. BACbKA 20:49, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

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

Moved to Talk:Hasbara_%28disputed_if_it_is_propaganda%29#Why pro-Israeli propagandists can't stand for category propaganda BACbKA 21:06, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hasbara is propaganda

All evidence from pro-Israeli websites:

• "The literal meaning of the Hebrew word hasbara is interpretation. It has also been translated as propaganda." [1].
  • Yes, but the link doesn't highlight who translates it as what. Is it critics or supporters who translate it as propaganda? Jayjg 16:11, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• "The students also took part in workshops with experts in hasbara, an Israeli term that means 'explanation'; essentially, hasbara is equal parts information and propaganda." [2].
  • In the view of this author, it is a mix of education and propaganda. Jayjg 16:13, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• "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.[3].
  • That is an article critical of the JNF, and the source it refers to clearly differentiates hasbara from propaganda, referring to them as two different things. Jayjg 16:08, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• ""Hasbara" in Hebrew means "Explanation", and it is basically the act of explaining and defending Israel's actions and her right to exist. Unfortunately, "Hasbara" also has a bit of a pejorative connotation, meaning "Propaganda" in the view of many Israelis." [4].
  • This link outlines the fact that some Israelis view it negatively as propaganda, while others don't. Jayjg 16:09, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• "There is passivity all-round and a lack of effectiveness both on the ground and in Hasbara (propaganda, education, argument presentation)." [5].
  • This link presents multiple possible translations of hasbara, which do not all mean the same thing, and only one of which is propaganda. Jayjg 16:09, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• "During the past two years, ad-hoc hasbara (propaganda) committees have sprung up across Israel made up of citizens trying to compensate for the government failure to tell Israel's story to the world." [6].
  • Yes, that letter writer referred to is as propaganda. Jayjg 16:23, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• "Israeli hasbara [propaganda; information] portrayed Arab peace initiatives as ambiguous at best." [7].
  • What makes you think that article is "pro-Israeli"? In any event, the author provides two alternative explanations. Jayjg 16:17, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And on and on and on. Strong evidence has been presented that hasbara is a form of propaganda and is widely viewed as such, even by Israelis who are not critics of hasbara. Of course, among non-Israelis, the perception that hasbara is pro-Israeli propaganda is even more widespread. So, the Wikipedia article is wrong. It is not just "critics" who contend that hasbara is propaganda. Even Israeli supporters of hasbara recognize it as a form of propaganda. --Alberuni 15:56, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You have provided strong evidence that many people view hasbara as propaganda, while others do not, or view it as part propaganda part other things. Presenting it unambiguously as propaganda is taking the POV of those who consider it to be propaganda. Unfortunately categories do not allow nuances or asterisks warning readers that the designation is contested. In any event, as Mustafaa said above, the whole category is a bad idea. It should probably be deleted, but that's not a fight I'm willing to take on right now, especially because whenever I vote for anything, that almost guarantees 3 specific votes against whatever I voted for. Jayjg 16:20, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC) Jayjg 16:17, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You will not allow any amount of evidence to overcome your own biases. Hasbara is perceived as propaganda by hasbara critics and proponents as indicated in the numerous links I provided. It is not viewed as propaganda only by critics as this article claims. The Category:Propaganda is appropriate because hasbara is viewed as propaganda by many, if not most, people (not including you). Your continuous and unreasonable obstruction of edits that you personally disagree with, even in the face of overwhelming evidence, is unacceptable. --Alberuni 17:15, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Your continuous and unreasonable obstruction of edits that you personally disagree with, even in the face of overwhelming evidence, is unacceptable."

WELCOME to ziowiki.

You are wrong, as I have clearly explained, and the article should not be included in the category, which itself should be deleted. I am tired of having to fight every single one of your attempts to turn Wikipedia into a forum for expressing your political beliefs; this is not the purpose of Wikipedia. And I'm not the only one who objects to this characterization, others have done so as well. Neverthless, in the spirit of compromise, do what you will; I have bigger issues to deal with. Jayjg 20:16, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Folks, just for the record: I am an Israeli citizen, naturaly a supporter of Israel (I mean, I live here, pay taxes etc.), and I still think that Hasbara is propaganda. I also see nothing wrong with the fact. I believe that the current wording of the article is POV and insulting to people like myself, by implying that believing that hasbara is propaganda I am not supporting Israel. BACbKA 12:35, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Where does the article do that? Jayjg 17:03, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I was referring to the following paragraph:

Critics maintain that Israel's hasbara efforts are propaganda. Israel's supporters contend that Israel's efforts are no different from any governmental or corporate effort to positively advertise their unique views, functions, and achievements in hopes of winning over the hearts and minds of the undecided, opponents and skeptics. Others state that hasbara is not propaganda, because "while propaganda strives to highlight the positive aspects of one side of a conflict, hasbara seeks to explain actions, whether or not they are justified."

The 1st 2 sentences there IMHO carry the negative implication I had mentioned in my previous post. BACbKA 19:28, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

How about changing "Israel's supporters contend" to "Supporters of hasbara contend"? That should get rid of the implication. Jayjg 15:20, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The thing is that I don't oppose hasbara, and I don't have a problem with it being propaganda. How about smth like this:

Hasbara is perceived as propaganda by some people. Critics maintain that Israel's hasbara campain bends the truth in attempt to silence any opponents of Israeli poicies. Others, even if agreeing that hasbara is propaganda, contend that Israel's efforts are no different from any governmental or corporate effort to positively advertise their unique views, functions, and achievements in hopes of winning over the hearts and minds of the undecided, opponents and skeptics. Yet others define hasbara as activism as opposed to propaganda, because "while propaganda strives to highlight the positive aspects of one side of a conflict, hasbara seeks to explain actions, whether or not they are justified."

(I relate myself to the 1st "others" group mentioned) BACbKA 20:58, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's good to see that even an Israeli Zionist can be sensible. I appreciate your attempts to make reasonable edits to hasbara, BACbKA. The narrow-minded Zionist bigots that think they own Wikipedia refuse to consider reasonable edits like this - unless an Israeli makes them. --Alberuni 16:43, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

They DO OWN wikipedia. This is news to you?

Reply posted at your talk page, as this becomes pretty personal talk rather remote from the Hasbara article contents. BACbKA 20:04, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So, is my intro re-wording acceptable? I understand that Alberuni has nothing against it, what about the other active editors of this page? Should I treat the 2-day silence as "I don't care" from all of you? BACbKA 16:29, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jayjg, or wikiGOD has a problem with is, so kiss your edit goodbye. What a JOKE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.242.82 (talk • contribs)

Which critics "maintain that Israel's hasbara campain bends the truth in attempt to silence any opponents of Israeli poicies"? Can you name them? Jayjg 01:57, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Are you really debating this. Who doubts Hasbara is propaganda? Look at the definition of propaganda. If hasbarah, or Israel advocacy, is not propaganda the word propaganda does not mean anything. Propaganda is the use of rhetoric to promote a certain viewpoint. How does hasbara not fall into this category? 88.155.134.126 10:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"He's NOT "debating" it. He's MAKING SURE this definition never makes it to the main article. Screw what you or anyone else things. This is the Wikipedia Achilles heel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.242.82 (talk • contribs)

Calm down, already. We have Nathan Guttman has characterized hasbara as "pro-Israel propaganda" in the article, so that position is represented. There's been considerable progress on this article and some related articles. The organizations which are pro-Israel but sometimes pretend to be neutral (mostly CAMERA, MEMRI, and Honest Reporting) are now correctly identified in their own articles. They don't always claim to be neutral when talking to their own constituencies, which results in verifiable references. Over at Jewish lobby, there used to be an article which essentially claimed any use of the term was anti-semitic. That's been dialed back quite a bit, after the discovery of many references to the term in a routine political context. Wikipedia is driven by reference. Find the verifiable citations and the article will follow. Screaming will not help. --John Nagle (talk) 19:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

ICIC quote is repeated

The article includes two instances of "Israel Citizens Information Council (ICIC): "The purpose of the ICIC is to assist efforts to explain Israeli life from the vantage point of the average Israeli citizen. Towards that end, the ICIC enlists Israelis from all walks of life to participate in its various projects..." in consecutive paragraphs. This is probably not a good thing. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

This page

Hasbara is a euphemism for propaganda. Everyone knows that. This article in its current state is an example of it. --Zero 02:27, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

In English language, the term "propaganda" carries very negative connotations. Everyone knows that. Can you provide a synonym without such emotional baggage? ←Humus sapiens←ну? 02:45, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

No. Because Hasbara is propaganda. Just because it carries negative connotations doesn't mean we can't accurately describe what it is. I suppose you're going to tell us that Radio Liberty etc were not propaganda broadcasters either. Heck let's just remove all references to propaganda on wikipedia except perhaps related to Nazis and Soviets since we all know Nazis and Soviets are evil right? Nil Einne 13:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course hasbara is form of propaganda, as a regular reader of Ha'aretz I can assure that if that term is used, it is explained as propaganda, PR etc. It should be noted that Jayjg's arguing above is quite laughable, no offense, but try to look at it with some criticism... Of course we can find some source, which disputes that Goebbels was making propaganda, but does it stop us from putting nazi Germany's "Public Relations" to Propaganda category? Magabund 23:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Renaming the article

This article needs to be renamed, because the title is not in English. See WP:UE. Suggestions here:

• "Israeli activism" (This is what Hasabara Fellowships calls their web site.)
• "Israeli public relations" (Non-specific)
• "Israeli lobbying" (Lobbying is specifically directed at governments, though)
• "Israeli propaganda" (What SourceWatch calls it.)
• "Israeli public diplomacy" (What SourceWatch suggests as an euphemism.)
• "Israel advocacy" - the Hasabara Handbook uses this term.

Comments? --John Nagle 03:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

There's no requirement for titles to be in English, if a non-English word is the most commonly used term. WP:UE is not policy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You can't rename the article. English speakers would understand any of your suggested names, and thus understand that hasbarah is the biased promotion of a pro-Israeli view point. That is bad hasbarah. Wikipedia articles are perfect places for hasbarah, until other people understand that they are being used that way. 88.155.134.126 11:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ad hominem

User Jayjg removed category:Propaganda with laughable comment that the category was added by holocaust denier (by which he meant me). There are at least two problems with this approach. First, tarnishing name of another wikipedia contributor and second, removing/changing something in article because it was added by (allegedly) wrong person. So when we start checking background of every person editing Wikipedia? Maybe we have some bad guys here? Should we mark some persons as heretics also? Is mr. Jayjg short of arguments or what? What do you do next time when some other person puts this category back? --Magabund 10:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

That edit, "02:32, 25 July 2006 Jayjg (Talk | contribs) m (→Criticism of Hasbara - remove category added by Holocaust denier)", really was out of line. --John Nagle 16:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why. We often have neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers roaming around Jewish/Israel-related articles trying to cause trouble. I don't see the need to pretend they're regular editors. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Therefore you are also insinuating that I am trying to cause trouble and of course neo-Nazi and Holocaust denier? Not nice way to do business. All the years I have been reading Ha'aretz, they have described the word as propaganda. Even if this is not direct translation from Hebrew it clearly falls into the category. --Magabund 19:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

There has been a great deal of discussion and debate about including this article in that category, and the decision was to leave it out of the category, because it was simply an accusation made by polemical sources. Would you recommend adding "Islamism" to the "fascism" category? As for "Holocaust denier", perhaps I should have merely described him as a "David Irving, Fred Leuchter, and Germar Rudolf supporter". Does supporting Holocaust deniers make you an Holocaust denier yourself? Possibly a moot question. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

From what time is Ha'aretz a polemical source? What you, Jayjg are actually doing is clearly diminishing credibility of all Wikipedia. Trying to describe me as a supporter of Holocaust deniers (again insinuating that I am one) may seem wise to you to undermine an opponent, but this is actually nauseating. Is this a place where people can honestly exchange ideas or place of inquisition and whitchhunt? Btw. Where was "the decision to leave it out of the category"? All I have seen is your stubborn refusal to accept that most of the sources agree with, claiming that this is somehow "disputed". We can of course go back to the old way, create an article Hasbara(disputed if it is propaganda) --Magabund 19:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I can only judge by your contributions, but you do seem to make edits about, and arguably favorable to, Holocaust deniers. I see nothing wrong with referring to that when you subsequently make an edit attacking Israel. Indeed, that's what contribution histories are there for: so we know who we're dealing with. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest you read WP:NPA one more time? Have you seen such a sentence: "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme." This is really going overboard here. First, where do I attack Israel exactly? And you "see nothing wrong" with calling me a holocaust denier based on couple of edits? --Magabund 21:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

So are you arguing that you are indeed a Holocaust denier, but that we should not use this affiliation to dismiss or discredit your views? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course not! How dare you repeat your personal attacks? I stated what WP:NPA states. But you can read it yourself, no? I am pointing out that Slimvirgin is making things out of thin air. In no way am I attacking Israel here nor deniying Holocaust. And I am arguing that you are repeatedly attacking me personally. This has nothing to do with hasbara/propaganda article. --Magabund 22:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

If you think a question asking for clarification of your own comments, which were certainly ambiguous, are personal attacks, then I'm not sure I can explain the policy to you in a way that will have meaning for you. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Calling me a Holocaust denier was certainly [WP:NPA|personal attack]], trying to insinuate further with the same words (and without any apology) constitutes continuation of the same attack you started. Btw. you do not need to explain the policy, I can read myself. And of course it is quite ironic that Jayjg uses propaganda methods outlined in hasbara handbook in the very same discussion. --Magabund 23:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, what is ironic is that you would claim to be concerned about WP:NPA, while using the talk page to accuse me of using "propaganda methods". Is there anything you would like to say about article content? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not "claim" anything, I simply stated that you used personal attack against me, calling me a Holocaust denier (which of course is false). And as you have made no apology then I consider this a continuation of your attack and therefore continued violation of WP:NPA policy. --Magabund 23:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

If you are not a Holocaust denier, then I certainly apologize for mistaking you for one. Your edits in support of David Irving, Fred Leuchter, and Germar Rudolf must have given me the wrong impression, as did your inserting links to a Holocaust denier's website in Wikipedia articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I also note this comment by Magabund, which seems to completely contradict his earlier and continued actions of adding this article to this category. Is this simply an example of WP:POINT? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not see what you want to show here. I was (and am) supporting the argument made by Hetware that "being classified as such (whatever that may be) by a political advesaries hardly constitutes proof". And yes, I am strongly against "overcategorising", but I don't think it is applicable in this case. --Magabund 19:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

See the Hasabara Handbook, page 22, which covers how to use this technique to support Israel:

This article applies a list of seven propaganda devices to the Israeli situation, and by doing so allows an understanding of some of the ways in which public option is fought for in the International arena.

Name Calling

Through the careful choice of words, the name calling technique links a person or an idea to a negative symbol. Creating negative connotations by name calling is done to try and get the audience to reject a person or idea on the basis of negative associations, without allowing a real examination of that person or idea. The most obvious example is name calling - "They are a neo-Nazi group" tends to sound pretty negative to most people. ..."

That Hasabara manual, published by the World Union of Jewish Students, says they are in the propaganda business. The introduction says "This publication is endorsed by the Education Department of the Jewish Agency for Israel, and by the Joint Distribution Committee". Those are large, mainstream pro-Israel organizations. This clearly establishes that "Hasabara" is propaganda. --John Nagle 18:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Nagle seems to be in error, quoting an already debunked IndyMedia/Palestinian student group press release that attempted to make the same claim, instead of the Hasbara manual itself, which claims exactly the opposite of what is stated. The "seven propaganda devices" are in fact those of antisemitic and anti-Israeli propagandists, as the manual makes clear on p. viii. I would ask Mr. Nagle to do his homework before accepting any claim at face value. —Viriditas | Talk 01:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm quoting that directly from the Hasbara manual. It's a fascinating read, by the way. I'm amused to watch the twisting and turning here. Remember, this started because one an editor accused someone of "Holocaust denial". --John Nagle 04:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't remember, because I wasn't part of that discussion. You're also quoting out of context as is the Source Watch site. As I currently see it, the problem with categorizing Hasbara as propaganda is with the broad definition itself. In the interests of fairness, I've been trying to find reliable, neutral sources that describe Hasbara as propaganda. So far, I've been unable to find any. Additionally, if the term were not used in such a selective fashion, we would find Category:Propaganda by country populated by nation. Instead we find a focus on Nazis, China, the former Soviet Union, and the United States. What does this tell you? —Viriditas | Talk 04:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

There are numerous newspapers and academics that describe Hasbara as propaganda - it is really easy to find references, for example [8]. Propaganda, one should remember is simply "a specific type of message presentation directly aimed at influencing the opinions of people, rather than impartially providing information." Also, the first rule of propaganda is that one can't call it propaganda right? heh. Just because of the last fact it is difficult to put it into that category. That said, there is enough referenced material for discussing this clearly in the article -- how many people navigate Wikipedia via the categories anyhow? --Ben Houston 05:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Please read my comments again. I have been unable to find any reliable, neutral sources that use the term. Some, however, do consider the notion, but do not state it as fact. —Viriditas | Talk 06:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Where does it say they're propaganda? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Your original research is fascinating; however, the manual itself is highlighting that other groups use propaganda to vilify Israel, not stating that hasbara is propaganda. Indeed, the examples given are all of opponents of Israel using propaganda. In addition, the manual states up front that purpose of the handbook is to teach people how to react to anti-Israeli propaganda. Finally, Wikipedia:Categorization states Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category. Categorizing hasbara as "propaganda" is clearly a controversial way of creating a POV; in fact, exactly the kind of thing this manual talks about in the "Name Calling" section you quoted. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not want to go offtopic here, but again Jayjg is making moot points about original research, which does not apply to talk pages and ignores No Personal Attacks, which apply here.--Magabund 21:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you're talking about here: Pointing out on the Talk: page that we can't use original research in articles is quite relevant, but false claims of WP:NPA are not. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that Hasbara is related to propaganda but to say that it is only propaganda is too strong and POV. From that perspective, I am of the opinion that the category isn't appropriate. It does belong in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict category. --Ben Houston 19:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Article endorsed by Israeli MFA

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 techniques related to propaganda. --Magabund 11:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Can you post a link, please? —Viriditas | Talk 11:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, here it is: What “Hasbara” Is Really All About

So have you found a reliable source that actually states that it is propaganda? So far you seem to have found one that states it is not propaganda. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Israeli FM seems valid WP:RS. It states that Hasbara "is not mere propaganda", which implies that at least partly it is. There is no need to state that it "is" 100% propaganda. I am arguing that it falls into that category. In Propaganda catecory there are number of articles which should be deleted if we had to find RS that states explicitly "X is propaganda". --Magabund 00:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, please don't use deliberately misleading edit summaries to make controversial edits which violate policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Do POV reflective categories belong on an article? Is policy a solution?

See Talk:Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid#Do_POV_reflective_categories_belong_on_an_article.3F_Is_policy_a_solution.3F for an attempt at a centralized discussion of this issue. --Ben Houston 14:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The last time I saw someone try to create a "centralized discussion" page, it didn't work out very well. Let's keep discussions on this article on this article's talk page. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it did work out well, but each to their own I guess. --Ben Houston 15:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed citation

Hi, Jayjg, why did you remove this citation: [9]? Johnathan Cook is a professional journalist whose work has been printed in The Guardian amongst other world newspapers. The fact that he characterized hasbara as "propaganda" is important, relevant and factual information. Deuterium

From what I can tell, Jonathan Cook is an activist and propagandist, Zmag is an unreliable source, and in any event Cook didn't describe it as "pro-Israel propaganda". Perhaps you should add your edit to User:Deuterium/Bad_edits and remove mine, now that the facts have been explained to you. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, Jonathan Cook is a professional journalist who has been published in world newspapers.

In what way is Zmag "unreliable"? It is a high profile, published magazine with editorial controls.

Cook did characterize hasbara as "propaganda", what other kind of propaganda would it be other than pro-Israeli? In any case, you should have removed the "pro-Israel" part, not the entire citation. Deuterium 06:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Having something printed in the "Comment is free" section of the Guardian does not make you a "professional journalist"; he is a freelance author, and his articles, and the places they are "published", make it clear he is actually an activist and propagandist. Zmag is a radically leftist magazine; why do you consider it "high profile" and what "editorial controls" does it have? As for the rest, even if the source had been reliable, which it wasn't (on multiple grounds), Cook didn't call it "pro-Israel propaganda", yet you misleadingly quoted him as saying that. Rather than blaming me for not fixing your bad edit, you shouldn't have made it in the first place. Are you going to add your edit to your attack page now? Jayjg ^(talk) 06:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Jonathan cook has been published in far more than the "Comment is free" section of the Guardian

The Guardian, The Observer and The Times (London), The International Herald Tribune and Le Monde diplomatique (Paris), Al-Ahram Weekly (Cairo), Al-Jazeera English language website (Doha), The Daily Star (Beirut), The Middle East Report and Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (Washington), Przekroj (Warsaw), The Irish Times (Dublin)

Zmag is a well known, printed magazine and features high profile authors such as Noam Chomsky, Alexander Cockburn, Tim Wise, Ward Churchill, Amira Hass, Norman Solomon, Robert Fisk, John Pilger, Howard Zinn, Edward S. Herman, Anthony Arnove, and Eleanor Bader, (and occasionally) Barbara Ehrenreich, and "Mickey Z". Deuterium 07:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

But what exactly has he had published in these sources, some of which are less than reliable? Opinion pieces promoting a political agenda? As for the authors who have written for Zmag, your list makes my point; the names I recognize (quite a few) are quite radical and controversial. What were those "editorial controls" you mentioned before? Can you describe them? Jayjg ^(talk) 07:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg just removed more properly cited material that shows connections between the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs and various other organizations. Claiming that anything that isn't pro-Israel is "original research" has to stop. This really is a bit much. The information demonstrating that the Ministry is involved with those organization is from their own sites and from pro-Israel sources, even. --John Nagle 19:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The level of "involvement" you claim in the article is not backed up by any sources, and you still ignore the original research policy; see section below. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)