Talk:Public diplomacy (Israel)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Latest original research moved to Talk: page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Israel Project and Fuel For Truth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here

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

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

Original research moved to Talk:

The following sentence was recently inserted into the article:

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strange sentence in lede

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

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

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

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

Requested move

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Google hits:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Casing

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

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

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

Attias Shay links.

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

Christianity and Islam

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

What happened to the archived discussions??

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

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

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

Promotion of Hasbarah

Good day,

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

• Zionism & Israel Information Center

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

213,635

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Ckatz,

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

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

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

Heyo Ckatz,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An older version

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

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

Foreign Policy source

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

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

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

grassroots

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

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

"Hasbara czar"

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