Talk:Public diplomacy (Israel)/Archive 1

message: 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)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

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

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Category: Propaganda

message: 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)
thread_title:  Israeli MFA position 

message: I dispute the neutrality of this article until the reason for this constant deletion is justified. Alberuni 15:48, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Category:Propaganda has been deleted without discussion again 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Propaganda]] 

message: They think their propaganda is the truth. --Alberuni 18:46, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why pro-Israeli propagandists can't stand for category propaganda 

message: 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_%28disputed_if_it_is_propaganda%29, 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)
thread_title: Categorization dispute split off to [[Talk:Hasbara/Propaganda Category|Hasbara_%28disputed_if_it_is_propaganda%29]]

message: 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)
thread_title: Definitions

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: It's better but still an unnecessary division of "us against them". It's hasbara about hasbara.Alberuni 05:58, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  It is not accurate to divide links into anti-Israel and pro-Israel 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: [[Propaganda]] article

message: 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  dispute label. Alberuni 06:12, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I don't perceive the above comment by Alberuni as a threat. This is exactly what the  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)
thread_title:  This page has improved a great deal and is now NPOV 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Restored Material 

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Edward Said's article Propaganda and War 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Good research, Viriditas, you should include a summary of this in the article itself. Jayjg 02:52, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an interesting idea.  Thanks for the tip.  I'll try to add a small paragraph.  --Viriditas 08:05, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Propaganda war against Hasbara

message: 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)
thread_title:  Why pro-Israeli propagandists can't stand for category propaganda 

message: 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)
thread_title:  ICIC quote is repeated 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  This page 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Renaming the article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I think it did work out well, but each to their own I guess.  --Ben Houston 15:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do POV reflective categories belong on an article? Is policy a solution?