If you go here you can see the page appeared when I first saw it. This is the text:
Jews sans frontieres is a website and blog run by the anti-zionist Jewish activist Mark Elf. It is a play on the name Jeux Sans Frontieres which was an Anglo-French tv game, better known in the UK as It's a knockout, and also the name of a song by Peter Gabriel.That was nice. Nothing I could disagree with there. Plenty others could, I know.
Jews Sans Frontiers is one of the leading campaign sites against zionism and anti-semitism. He has confronted individuals such as Gilad Atzmon, who in his website denies Mark's allegation that Atzmon is "deeply racist and Anti-Semitic" .
Mark Elf is opposed to "Jewish statehood because it cannot be had without continual colonial settlement, ethnic cleansing and racist laws". He scans the media, debunking propaganda and explicating the other Jewish perspective.
But anyway, the deletion discussion has a life of its own. There's a deletion proposal (actually called "project") page, a discussion page for that, an edit page and a history page, all for the deletion proposal.
Well while the discussion was going on about whether or not to delete the whole entry someone has come and changed the originial entry to insert this above the text that was already there:
Jews sans frontieres is a website and blog run by Jewish activist Mark Elf, who is striving to give an unbiased view of the current political and humanitarian affairs relating to anti-Semitism, Zionism and Palestine occupation, based on many media sources. It has a great value for English speaking people to find information on the above topics, which are often hidden in the back pages of news sites or purposely ignored by the media.Now I have to take exception to that. I don't strive to be unbiased. I try to be accurate for sure at the same time as being totally biased against zionism. That's what makes me anti-zionist.
But there's more. I already mentioned the interventions from "Rob Foster." Here's a reminder:
Jewssansfrontieres has been the subject of complaints re libel. The blogger has accused Guardian journalist of inventing material in a national newspaper, for which he has supplied no evidence. Violation of copyright laws. Frequently throws around accusations based on speculation. Unreliable material based on pursuit of personal vendettas.Well my thoughts as to the identity of Rob Foster prompted another intervention from the same:
The most recent remarks on Mr Elf's site confirm my earlier comments: 'Frequently throws around accusations based on speculation. Unreliable material based on pursuit of personal vendettas' - Rob FosterNow then someone called Dogville came up with this:
OTOH at least we know in "Mr Elf"'s case who is throwing around accusations, whereas you are less forthcomingI know I know, even I'm bored with this now but there's a little bit more.
Keep -- significant and much-linked to blog that provides useful coverage of a controversial and endlessly-proliferating subject. (Arguably the explosion of debate here itself demonstrates noteworthiness in some ways.) But the article itself needs serious improvement. Dogville 07:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I thought William Avery was some kind of zionist watchdog censoring the Wikipedia content accordingly. I was soon to be disabused by his visit to an earlier post. You see this happened two days after the whole thing began:
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC).You see what happened here is that this guy has alerted people who might be interested in all things "Jewish" that there's something they need to see. He then hit Delete as if to encourage others to do the same. So now we get to William Avery's post to my earlier comment:
I am the harmless Wikipedia drudge William Avery. (Warning: an account of Wikipedia bureaucracy, which may enrage and amuse committed bloggers, follows.)I didn't understand some of what was said there but look at this line again:
The article at Wikipedia was marked as a proposed deletion, on the grounds that it didn't comply with the wikipedia guidelines for web notability at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:WEB. This provided an interval of 5 days to improve it. However, Lordb's removal of the 'proposed deletion' tag provided for the start of a debate on actual deletion. My eyes have certainly been opened by the rapidity with which the deletion debate was added to a "list of Judaism-related deletions".
Interesting blog anyway, especially the stuff about 'Old Nick'. I still think a link to this blog from the Wikipedia article an Anti-Zionism is most appropriate, rather than a whole article on the blog itself, but I'm really not used to this world where not being pro means you're anti. Maybe for my next trick I should propose the merger of the articles Zionism and Anti-Zionism.
My eyes have certainly been opened by the rapidity with which the deletion debate was added to a "list of Judaism-related deletions".A Wikipedia editor has come face to face with the Israel lobby. If he looks at the discussion to the entry itself he'll see an even less subtle face.