Talk:Israel-related animal conspiracy theories/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Article Move

Although I love the phrase "Mossad shark and Zionist vulture", I think this article should probably be moved to a different name since there are other animals discussed in the article. Perhaps "Accusation of Israeli Animal use in Espionage" or "Mossad Animal use Conspiracy Theories" would be more inclusive? Qrsdogg (talk) 15:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it should focus on the more general animal element since the shark and the vulture are not the only accused. I like "Mossad Animal Use Conspiracy Theories". Anyone have anything better? Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree. The discussion about the name is also going on here. I believe it should be kept in one place. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

How about Zionist Attack Zoo? It's a name apparently created by the Elder of Ziyon blog (see link for additional examples), that now returns quite a few hits on google. It's neutral, humerous and neither too specific (shark & vulture) nor too far reaching ("Mossad conspiracies" is a bottomless pit, and some may disagree what is a conspiracy and what is not). Poliocretes (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be in common use among reliable sources, though. We need to go for a descriptive name rather than a cutesy name. "Mossad animal use conspiracy theories" might be good except it doesn't seem like everything is being attributed to the Mossad, so maybe "Israel animal use conspiracy theories"?

Other problems: while some of the POV issues (namely, some of the "lol Arabs and Muslims they're dumb" language) have been dealt with, there are still issues - for example, why, oh why is the Stephens quote in the lead? Why is it in the article at all? Why does the article seemingly deliberately avoid mentioning the Arab and Muslim scientists in the cited sources who called out Shousha or worked on bird banding projects with Israelis, or the other government officials who support plausible explanations? Could we possibly get some more non-American sources? Why the hell is a humorous news title attributed as a quote to one of the parties involved?

Even if this is dealt with, I'm still not sure this article can exist. Even in the sources that link several of these incidents together, there's no indication that this is a phenomenon in and of itself (rather than a few amusing incidents in a broader fear of Mossad techniques), making this article a collection of news. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to also write an article about something which is not a conspiracy theory [1][2]. Biophys (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, it might be, except... it was written already.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Are the little fish under the shark involved in the crimes? They have prison-stripe coloring...TCO (talk) 21:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Ha-ha-ha, a good one! You are right those fishes are called Convict tangs, and as Mossad they got convicted with no guilt :)--Mbz1 (talk) 05:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the unilateral move to a different title was not a good idea. With such new title, one should probably start from the blood libel and finish by 9/11 conspiracy theories... Is that what you want? Biophys (talk) 04:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

One cannot start from the blood libel, because the blood libel came about much before Israel was created, and 9/11 should be mention in the article of course.Almost everybody has agreed the article should be renamed to a more suitable name, so I did.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd strongly prefer this article be moved to "Animal conspiracy theories" or "Animal conspiracy theories involving Israel" to keep the focus on this notable recurring theme of Mossad-trained rodents, insects, birds, sharks, and such rather than opening it up to be a dumping ground for the kajillion or so boring non-animal conspiracy theories involving Israel. - Dravecky (talk) 07:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, it looks like most of the other Conspiracy theories involving Israel are already well covered by different pages, such as 9/11 conspiracy theories, EgyptAir Flight 990, and Blood_libel#Contemporary. I think there is enough RS coverage of the animal angle to justify keeping an animal focused conspiracy article. Qrsdogg (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I believe you are right. I will move it again, and work to fix it.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Layout

Would be nice if one picture (shark probably, more impressive and first word in the title, the Batman of our story, not the Robin (both puns intended)) were up in the lead on the right. TCO (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep it on the animals

Narrow the topic please.TCO (talk) 07:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Anyone?

Am I the only one who finds it problematic that over thirty edits later, no one has seen fit to quote any of the Arabs or Muslims who think these theories are ridiculous or who are endorsing realistic explanations? Yes, yes, I know, be bold, but it's not like the article has been lying dormant. God, it's like you want this to be biased. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

First that you have to do is trying to assume good faith. I did spend a few hours looking for the material you pointed out here. I found this site. This is forum, and could not be added as RS to the article I guess (I added it to external links). I tried to find the article in Al-Ahram Al-Arabi that is mentioned there, but was not able to do it. I am sure it is there, but I just could not find it. By all means the views of moderate Muslims should be included in the article. Please help to find those.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The Ahram source is already cited in the article, you lucky dog, you! And I can't remember which article I read this in, but Hesham Gabr, who's some government functionary or another, said that the shark attack was probably prompted by people feeding, or some other non-stupid explanation. Even Shousha himself, the guy who originally came up with the idiot theory, said that it was probably from people throwing sheep carcasses in the water. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe the Ahram article that is cited in the article, is not the one I was looking for last night. That one was written 2 years ago I believe. I really would like to find it, but now I added this opinion by a Palestinian journalist. I hope you'll like it. I wish somebody, who knows Arabic would contribute to the article too.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the language barrier is probably an issue. Maybe it's worth paging Wikipedia:WikiProject Arab world, presumably some of those people speak Arabic and can get some Egyptian and Saudi papers. (Re: Ahram - I see. I didn't follow the link, and thought you were referring to an Ahram article on the shark specifically, which quotes an Egyptian marine biologist and is already in this article.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you just add the material you think is relevant rather than accusing other people of bias? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure I'll get round to it if it doesn't get deleted at AfD (after I did a decent amount of work on the former "Nazism in Arab Palestine" article, which got deleted, I don't like to waste my time). I just thought it was interesting how several parties had been working very hard to improve this article, yet none of them had thought that one way of improving it might be making it into less of an anti-Arab/Muslim attack page. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

What I find interesting is you accusing people of bias for not including information they may not have even seen. The least you could so is provide some sources you think would help balance the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Since people are citing articles, I don't think it's out of line to assume that they've read them. But who knows, maybe people do edit that irresponsibly. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I've added an NPOV tag to the article since several editors have raised the issue of bias. Qrsdogg (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I actually added a few opinions like this one, for example, and I do not believe there's a reason to tag the article.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

That was definitely a good addition to the article; I put the tag on because several people raised the issue of POV in the deletion discussion. Qrsdogg (talk) 02:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

When you add such a tag, you should open a section with specific NPOV problems you have with the article, so those problems can be solved. Just adding a tag because "people said there are POV problems" won't generate the kind of discussion that is needed to have the tag removed. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

My mistake then. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Note

If somebody adds something to the article or changes something it should be made sure that the references formatted properly. --Mbz1 (talk) 13:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Boars

What have the wild boars got to do with a conspiracy theory? It looks like some pretty classic OR to me, to include two news reports and insinuate that the news agencies were lying in some form. I was going to remove it straight away, but just wanted to check that I haven't completely missed something here. SmartSE (talk) 14:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The conspiracy theory part is where they say they were released by settlers rather than being normal wild boars that roam the area, I think. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It could have been an OR, if it were not mention in this source together with the other cases, and in this source together with the other cases --Mbz1 (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

POV edit not supported by the source

unomi made this edit that has two parts in it. The first part claims: "Apparently quoting the South Sinai governor the conspiracy theory reporting was picked up by the Israeli media where it became attributed to "Egyptian officials" It is sourced to this article. There's nothing in the source that supports the edit made by unomi.

The second part of unomi edit was adding a new section. This is not animal conspiracy theory. This case is not mentioned in any source that mention other cases together. It should be removed as OR and POV--Mbz1 (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

A reliable source needs to call it a conspiracy theory (or words to that effect) for it to be included in this article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Lets take it one at a time then. You are right, I did fail to include sources.

The BBC source that you show above states that Israeli media picked up the story "apparently quoting" the governor, they state that the Jerusalem Post was one of the outlets running with it. Egypt: Sinai shark attacks could be Israeli plot is that story. In that story the JP writes: "Egyptian officials say they have not ruled out the possibility that a fatal shark attack in Sinai on Sunday could have been a plot by the Mossad." what is interesting is that it also has this line: "Shousha speculated that the sharks in the deep sea could have become frenzied after a ship transporting livestock dumped dead sheep into the waters."

As for the context of the comment see for example this where they write: "When Egypt Today asked the region’s governor, General Abdel-Fadeel Shosha, what he thought of the theory, he said he couldn’t rule it out." The whole story is just sensationalist journalism gone wrong. The well poisoning we can discuss after this has been resolved. un☯mi 06:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm following you. Are you trying to analyze the origins of the story? I believe that's considered WP:OR. Not sure why you deleted the BBC interview with an Egyptian expert (which specifically calls it a conspiracy theory), either. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The source was supplanted as the contents were improved. I am not trying to analyze the origins of the story, I am relating the BBC stating the origins of the story. The BBC clearly state "Israeli media picked up the story .. apparently quoting .. " - the sources with deal with the context relate how the governor was specifically asked to comment, and we have plenty of sources which state that the governor cited the sheep carcass theory repeatedly - both before and after. Please refrain from holding wikipedia hostage to a POV war. un☯mi 15:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm still not following you. There are plenty of sources that relate the governor's opinion, which don't say anything about the Israeli media picking up the story, for example this (not that the Israeli media picking it up means anything. There are plenty of Israeli media outlets that are reliable sources). If the issue here is that he also said it might have been sheep carcass, then that should certainly be included in the article. Please refrain from accusing me of holding wikipedia hostage to a POV war. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not following you either, unomi, and I agree it looks like you are doing an original research. But let's assume good faith, and maybe I will change my mind. Here's what I ask you to do: 1) post here the exact content you want to add to the shark section of the article. 2) Post here the link to the source this content comes from. 3) Provide the exact quote from the source that explains your proposed addition. That's it. I believe it is a reasonable request. --Mbz1 (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

There are a number of issues with the text as it stands, but it is probably easier to take them one at a time.

• The context and our presentation of the governors quote.

As this source reports "When Egypt Today asked the region’s governor, General Abdel-Fadeel Shosha, what he thought of the theory, he said he couldn’t rule it out." the ABC source that NMMNG cites states "Last month the governor of Egypt's South Sinai region said he was not ruling out speculation ..." our current text states as fact "attributed Sharm el-Sheikh shark attacks to Israel" which is nowhere near the same thing, it also emphasizes this with "Eventually Governor Shousha himself changed his mind adopting much more reasonable explanation of the shark attacks" while we have many sources that say that this was his theory both before and after, and even reported to be his theory on the same day in the original JP article. See also his statements on the matter: "South Sinai Governor Mohamed Abdel Fadil Shousha on Sunday dismissed suggestions of a connection between Israeli intelligence and the recent spate of shark attacks at the Red Sea resort of Sharm al-Sheikh."[3] rebuttal of the allegations here "Meanwhile, at a press conference on Thursday, South Sinai Governor Mohamed Shousha reiterated that he had never aired suspicions that Israel was somehow involved in the attacks, as was reported by certain news agencies.".

I believe that the following is closer to NPOV:

Prompted in a TV interview to comment on the theory, the governor of South Sinai, Mohammad Abdul Fadhil Shousha, was reported to have said it couldn't be ruled out: "What is being said about the Mossad throwing the deadly shark [in the sea] to hit tourism in Egypt is not out of the question. But it needs time to confirm."[4] he later directly dismissed the theory.[5]

What do you reckon? un☯mi 09:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I recon that's fine for the governor, but we should note he was not the only person with this theory, see here: "Rumors surfaced in Egypt recently indicating an Israeli link to the incidents". There's also the diving expert and a couple of others. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't take issue with the rest of the text, I didn't alter it in my attempt to edit the article. un☯mi 13:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

If you want to add this text Prompted in a TV interview to comment on the theory, the governor of South Sinai, Mohammad Abdul Fadhil Shousha, was reported to have said it couldn't be ruled out: "What is being said about the Mossad throwing the deadly shark [in the sea] to hit tourism in Egypt is not out of the question. But it needs time to confirm."[4] he later directly dismissed the theory.[5] I do not mind, except changing the words directly dismissed the theory to changed his mind adopting much more reasonable explanation of the shark attacks, but on the other hand it is already in the article.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Except that we have no evidence that he ever changed his mind from the 'sheep hypothesis', he apparently never thought that Israel was behind it, just was not in a position to rule it out. As the saying goes: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." Both before and after and indeed in the original Jerusalem Post article - he refers to the sheep carcasses. un☯mi 09:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Odd revert

Could you explain in more detail your rationale for this revert, ברוקולי ? un☯mi 16:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

See above and do not put user names of the editor in the title.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Arabic language sources

I added information from three Arabic sources, but my Arabic is very poor, and I used Google translate. If somebody, who knows Arabic, sees an error in translation, and/or could find other Arabic language sources please do add those in. I am especially interested in Arabic language sources that do not agree that the vulture was a Zionist spy. I would like to add some of those to the article. --Mbz1 (talk) 03:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Quotes Originally in English?

There are a couple problems in the English of the quotes here, but I'm not sure where they originate from. If the statements were originally made in English (likely not all of them), then they can't be cleaned up grammatically, but if they're translations I would like them to be fixed. I think the accusations are absurd, but at the same time leaving quotations supporting the other side in improper English while Israeli ones are correct feels a little POV to me.

Example of what I mean - "resisted the arrest by emitting a large amount of 'a foul smell waste out of his mouth.'" Simple error, should be "foul smelling" instead of "foul smell," but I don't know whether or not I can fix it. Also, if possible it would be nice for such clean ups to be done by someone who speaks the original language, as I don't want to butcher anything due to not knowing Arabic or Hebrew. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.108.51.159 (talk) 14:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Is unequivocally describing this as a 'conspiracy theory' a violation of NPOV?

From the 'Reaction' section:

"American journalist James Bamford, who writes about the American intelligence community, suggests that there is some credibility to suspicions that animals are being used in espionage. He cites CIA attempts to build robotic fish and dragonflies for use in surveillance as evidence that it is possible to use animals in espionage". [6]

This seems to check out from the source. Given that there is at least some credibility to the claim that Israel mught theoretically be using animals for espionage, isn't a simple assertion that this is all a 'conspiracy theory' a violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view principles? Certainly many of the claims seem to fit the general 'conspiracy' mindset, but that in itself isn't evidence one way or another as to whether there is any truth at all behind it. In any case, Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to be written on the basis that we know 'the truth', but instead, based on what external sources say. We have a journalist with knowledge of espionage stating that there could be something to this, so we should say the same. On this basis, the title needs revision, and the lede needs rewriting, to properly reflect the uncertainty. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I added that section about Bramford to try to find some balance after a number of editors raised the issue of POV in the article. There are some good sources that do refer to them as conspiracy theories though:[7][8]. I agree that when there is a difference in the way that external sources talk about the subject it should be noted in the lede. The article title has been moved a few times already though, so I'm loathe to jump in and move it again. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I just took a quick shot at revising the lede, feel free to revert me if you think I made it worse. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

any more questions

about this edit in which a quote from The Wall Street Journal is linked... well to the (what a coincidence) The Wall Street Journal was removed as copyright violation--Mbz1 (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

From the Washington Post: 'The Wall Street Journal's Bret Stephens pointed to the Mossad shark and other Arab conspiracy theories as an example of "the debasement of the Arab mind."'[9]

From the article: In the article named Egypt's Prison of Hate. You know a country is in trouble when it blames shark attacks on the Mossad Bret Stephens from The Wall Street Journal's pointed to the Mossad shark and other Arab conspiracy theories as an example of "the debasement of the Arab mind." - My italics indicate the section which is an unattributed quotation. I have twice pointed this out in edit summaries. I expect a prompt and full apology for the insulting pesronal attack in Mbz's edit summary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

How much time should be lost on such easy to check reference! The above quote is linked to this source that has nothing to do with washington post. The opinion linked to the Wall Street Journal. I do not know how I could explain this better.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The words "...pointed to the Mossad shark and other Arab conspiracy theories as an example of..." are taken directly from the Washington Post article. This is uncited, and thus a WP:COPYVIO. How difficult is this to understand? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

At first I thought that you are trolling and is out to irritate me, but now... I cannot understand how you are capable of editing Wikipedia at all, if you have such difficulties in understanding such a simple thing? Have you clicked on this source? Do you see the words Washington Post there? Don't you see that this is the site for the Wall Street Journal? Now relax, take a deep breath and repeat all of the above again. Now, do you still see Washington post anywhere in the source? --Mbz1 (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

FACT. The words I have just quoted are plagiarised from the Washington Post article I linked. See for yourself. This is WP:COPYVIO, and as such, reverting is exempt from the WP:3RR rule. I am thus obliged to remove them. If you were to bother to read what I'd written, rather than just spouting random insults, you'd have saved us both a lot of time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

FACT. The words you quoted above have nothing to do with Washington Post. They are coming from this source that is the web site for the Wall Street Journal, that has nothing to do with Washington post. Please, please, please click this source, just click and then read. It should not be very hard. --Mbz1 (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

So you haven't looked at the Washington Post article to see if the words I have quoted are from there? The WSJ article is a subscription service. Are you a subscriber? And are you stating explicitly that the words "...pointed to the Mossad shark and other Arab conspiracy theories as an example of..." are in the WSJ article? They are in the Washington Post. Are you suggesting the Post plagiarised the WSJ? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not suggest anything. I know nothing at all about the Washington Post. I took the quote from the Wall Street Journal. Here's the whole quote But the ultimate source of Arab backwardness, unmentioned by most of these studies, lies in the debasement of the Arab mind. When the only diagnosis Egyptians can offer for their various predicaments—ranging from sectarian terrorism to a recent spate of freak shark attacks at a Sinai beach resort—is that it's all a Zionist plot, you know that the country is in very deep trouble.

Is there a way out? George W. Bush thought he had an answer with the freedom agenda, and Barack Obama thinks he has one in what might be called the respect agenda. But freedom and respect for what? Egyptians will enjoy neither until they develop and adopt a set of political ideas that rests on something more than obscurantism, conspiracy and a zero-sum struggle for power.

In a word, Egyptians need liberalism (of the old-fashioned kind), which begins not with a vote but with an education. Distributing an Arabic translation of the complete works of John Locke, starting with his "Letter Concerning Toleration," would be a good place to begin undoing the damage so cruelly done in Alexandria. taken from this source.

Now if you still do not believe me here's the trick I will teach you. Go to Google search and type "the debasement of the Arab mind" exactly as I did with quotes. See the very first link? Click it, and read the article. here's the link to the search, just click the first one, and read the whole article from the Wall Street Journal Mbz1 (talk) 20:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#A possible COPYVIO at Israeli animal spy conspiracy theories. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The issue here isn't in the part of the text that comes from The Wall Street Journal, but in the part that does not, such as "pointed to the Mossad shark and other Arab conspiracy theories as an example". This content was published at the Washington Post on January 5th. Clearly, Mbz1 has read the Washington Post article, since when the text was added on January 6th, it was enclosed in quotation marks and cited to that source: [10]. It obviously did not come from the Wall Street Journal, but from the Washington Post. I have not yet looked to see when the quotation marks were removed or for what reason, but we cannot copy text from a source without properly acknowledging it, in accordance with Wikipedia:Plagiarism and Wikipedia:Non-free content. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Ignoring the need for quotation marks, why would anyone bother to add the phrase "the debasement of the Arab mind" to this article? That is not neutral, not encyclopedic. No "debasement of the Arab mind" was proven in the article—it's just a phrase to incite, a violation of WP:NPOV#Impartial tone. The bit should be completely rewritten, not quoted. Binksternet (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

That's totally up to contributors of the article. I'm only here for the copyright question and have not even looked at the context of the quote (which keeps me all "uninvolved") --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• Info English is not my first language. As I initially understood the word "debasement" I saw nothing really bad there. I did not look it up in a dictionary because there's a similar word in my mother tongue and it has nothing to do with "degenerate". Besides the quote was taken from the Wall Street Journal, but after User:Beeblebrox called me "racist" and then said on his talk page that I said that "all Arabs have degenerate minds", I believe the quote should not be represented in the article. I still cannot understand why so many native speakers of English saw no problem with the quote before User:Beeblebrox did.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I respect your removal of that phrase. Binksternet (talk) 12:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I just reverted User:Gatoclass who removed it from the article with the edit summary "racist comment". My reasoning for supporting the inclusion of the quote in the article is that it is notable that such a statement appeared in a major U.S. Newspaper. I won't revert the removal of the quote again, but I think it should stay because it should be noted what kind of reactions this topic generated. If a newspaper of record in the U.S. was provoked into running a racist editorial because of this story, I think that fact (that such a piece was published) merits inclusion in the article. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Did you happen to read Bret Stephens? un☯mi 05:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Not every week, but I've read his columns a few times. Qrsdogg (talk) 05:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I've herd his interview on CNN or FOX about Egypt. He is a very smart and a very reasonable person.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• I have opened Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Possible_NPOV_issue_at_Israeli_animal_spy_conspiracy_theories. un☯mi 18:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I have been contacted on my talk page about this dispute (User talk:Sandstein#Question about BLP) and am applying full protection for a month to stop the edit war. I am also issuing an 1RR block and an arbitration enforcement warning to Gatoclass (talk · contribs) for his two reverts today, [11] and [12], pursuant to Wikipedia:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction. The block is not an arbitration enforcement block because my understanding is that this general 1RR restriction was imposed under community and not arbitral authority.

I will be making comments about the NPOV issue in the thread mentioned by Unomi above.  Sandstein  18:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

If someone is still concerned about NPOV of the writing style, as is quite reasonable, I suggest bringing forth (e.g. to the talk page) a rewrite suggestion so that we can mull over the concerns and move the article forward in a more collaborative spirit. If not, I'll probably make a few edits in the spirit of my last comment on the NPOV discussion board. Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

This is just used to make fun of Arabs

This isn't even for knowledge. It just uses Arabs as jokes. It should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.212.162 (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. This page violates many of Wikipedia's policies. Much of the information provided has nothing to do with the topic (such as the Iran squirrel or pigeon incidents in which Israel was not even mentioned). Other information presented is wrong of misinterpreted (for example the "mosquito" claim, according to the cited source, is a "Frisbee sized" machine, not an animal - another opinion piece briefly mentions it but there are no sources for this story on the internet). A lot of the other material is contentious (for example, the story about settlers releasing wild boars into Palestinian farms is not that far-fetched - settlers are known for their disruptive behaviors towards Palestinian agriculture and wild boars have been used in such a way many times in the past in other conflicts). Some material has no sources (snake in west bank). Other material has very unreliable sources or generalizes specific statements (for example, the idea that Israel may be releasing "sting rays" into Egyptian waters is based on an interview of one Egyptian taxi driver during a news broadcast and cannot be used to generalize against all of Arab society). The page suffers from serious POV (for example the rats in East Jerusalem are described as "anti-Arab" despite the fact that no such description is used by any source. The article itself is not notable as it is a collection of questionable news sources often from minor publications, put together in a very flimsy way. Some of the sources are not reliable (they are opinion pieces from non-mainstream news sources). Many of the news articles are purposely misinterpreted (for example, the bird in Saudi Arabia and Yemen were taken because they had University of Tel Aviv tags on them).

Perhaps most importantly, the article is at best, original research, and at worse, an act of trolling. Not one of the sources claimed that there were concerted Israeli Animal spy conspiracy theories spread across the Arab world. The article is just a list of minor incidents with extremely limited following and little interest within the Arab World.

I'm going to propose the article for deletion. Poyani (talk) 19:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Notability, Original Research and NPOV

I was thinking of adding the N/N, OR, NPOV, and/or NOT tags. And later nominate in AfD. I thought we should put in discussion first before pursuing.

Can editors really justify the existence of this article? Most of the content are not even related to the topic. For example, none of the sources about the pigeons and squirrels in Iran even mention Israel. How are they an "Israeli animal conspiracy theory"?

Furthermore, the notion that the assumption that release of wild-boars by settlers into Palestinian farmland is a "conspiracy theory" meets neither NOR nor NPOV.

The "jelly fish" in Egypt is based on the translation of an interview with one non-notable person (a local taxi driver) during a live TV broadcast on an Egyptian news show. That is neither notable nor a reliable source.

And even the other incidents describe animals with GPS from Israeli institutions (probably studying their migration patterns for some scientific study), which got very limited coverage and were not at all notable.

As I said, this just seems like a poorly gathered series of unrelated events which received limited coverage and are not notable. It is an indiscriminate collection of information, a series of events and a stand-alone list neither of whcih meet the criteria for notability.

If you feel differently please discussPoyani (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The mention of "anti-Arab" rats is very clearly a violation of NPOV. No source describes the rats as "anti-Arab". Another point, the items I listed in the last sentence of my previous post very clearly violate WP:SYNTH. Poyani (talk) 16:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

This article was already up for deletion, with arguments similar to yours, with a result of "keep". Please review that discussion. Ruby Tuesday ALMWR (talk) 17:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Hey Poyani -- the above editor has it right. We waste time here on wp (I recognize you are a raw newbie, with under 100 edits to your name), but try to do it w/new issues not just-concluded ones that have been deemed a "keep". I'm sure you can understand -- it starts to look like tendentious editing, and even we start to think we are wasting our time. I wouldn't add tags -- they are not supported by consensus, as reflected in the AfD.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I've rewritten the "rats" section, which contained several claims unsupported by the sources, which conflated the report itself with what commentators said about it, and which was clearly written in an inappropriate style. There are some other obvious problems with this article which I will try to address at some point. Gatoclass (talk) 06:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can see the result of the AfD was merge, not keep. In any case, I don't think the ad-hominem about my experience is relevant. My point is accurate. The AfD was not about this article anyways. It was about the shark and vulture sections which were merged.

I certainly disagree that this is a waste of time. The article is at least a case of WP:SYNTH, which was not addressed in the AfD. Even if they article is kept, it is as it stands, very very poor. What do the Iranian pigeons and squirrels have to do with Israel? What do the wild boards have to do with conspiracy theories?Poyani (talk) 15:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

That's odd. My computer reflects the following close: "The result was keep. The consensus is keep". Again, I note that you are a raw newbie. But please note that by editing here you are bound by wp:consensus. And the "result of the AfD" is plainly reflected in the close of the AFD. Your experience is relevant, because we take a gentler, explaining, non-biting approach with newbies, and understand that the wp rules are many and an editor who has just started to edit wp cannot possibly have the same experience with them as an experienced editor. We also have tags for comments by editors who have made few comments outside of an area. The fact that an editor is a newbie is quite relevant in these regards. If you mean to suggest perhaps that you have wp experience that goes beyond that reflected in your edit history -- perhaps other than as editor Poyani, perhaps -- well, that is another matter completely, and then of course the "don't bite the newbies" and "few edits outside this area tag" issues would not apply to you. Perhaps that is the case; certainly, you know better than I, and it would not be inconsistent. In addition, as wp:consensus indicates, tendentious editing against consensus violates certain core wp principles. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually it looks a lot better now after Gatoclass's revision. I still think it is just hit piece on Arabs describing a news story which barely got coverage, but I'll let it be. Poyani (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

On reflection, I think Poyani has some valid points. I've deleted the rat and boar sections because they have nothing to do with animal spying - also deleted the pigeon and squirrel references as they don't mention Israel. Gatoclass (talk) 05:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Page move

"Zoological militancy"? What is that supposed to mean? Gatoclass (talk) 02:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

A good question. I haven't a clue. Unfortunately, I'm clueless as to how one reverts such things too. Perhaps someone else can sort this out... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The absurdity of this page continues. Now it is about conspiracy theories having to do with with the militancy of Israeli scientists working on animal biology! And just how are releasing rats, boars, or snakes "zoology"? How are vultures and sharks with GPS transmitters "zoology"?Poyani (talk) 12:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theories

The wild boar attacks do not fall under the category of "conspiracy theories". A conspiracy theory is a plot carried out in secret. Settlers releasing a bunch of wild boars into a Palestinian farm is in no way a plot carried out in "secret". The same is true of settlers marching into Arab neighborhoods with "steel cages" full of rats. It is not a conspiracy theory unless it is carried out in secret. Poyani (talk) 12:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The plan has to be secret, not the actual action. For example, in the 9/11 conspiracy theories, 9/11 isn't a secret but a small minority believes that it was not carried out by al-Qaeda, etc. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 06:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't that is an accurate description of a conspiracy theory. A conspiracy theory is work carried out by secretive individuals and organizations. The 9/11 conspiracy theories you mention are a prefect example. Conspiracy theorists claim it was secretly implemented by the US government. Likewise, the JFK assassination conspiracy theorists claim that secret organizations were involved in the assassination. A bunch of settlers driving in a pickup truck into a Palestinian farm and releasing a bunch of wild boars is not a conspiracy theory. I don't even think you can argue that the planning is secretive. Some settlers are very vocal about their numerous plans to disrupt Palestinian agriculture. They often assault olive harvesters. In this case they seem to have developed a less time consuming method of seriously disrupting Palestinian farmers. By releasing a bunch of wild boars into their farmland. If your argument is that this incident is a myth, please note that this is OR. No serious source is discounting that this actually happened. Haaretz, for example, reported on this story, but said that anything coming from Maan should be viewed with skepticism. It did not claim that the story did not happen. As I have noted before, it is not at all an absurd story. It could very well have happened given the history of the settler movement and their vehement opposition to the Palestinians and their agriculture, and given their "price-tag" policy. Poyani (talk) 16:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is another question. According to this article "Israeli settlers on horseback set fire to fields of olive trees and stoned Palestinian cars in the West Bank yesterday, apparently in response to the Israeli army’s removal of an illegal outpost in the area." Given that the attack was planned in secret, does that make it a "Israel zoological militancy conspiracy theory"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poyani (talk • contribs) 16:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Only if the horses helped plan the attack. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Well then, given that the snake, sharks, rats, vulture and boars also did not "help plan the attack", then should they all be deleted? Poyani (talk) 20:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Mosquito-HIV & Jellyfish Sources

Does anyone actually have a source of the mosquito-HIV claim? The current sources have 2 problems. The first one describes a "mosquito" as an Israeli made unmanned areal vehicle while the second only mentions the claim in passing, in ten words, without explanation or context. I tried searching the net for sources. Aside from wikipedia and these two sources, all that shows up from a google search is a forum post on the FaithFreedom website followed up by a bunch of blogs referencing to it. Is there any actual news sites devoted to this story? If not why is it here? Poyani (talk) 12:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The Jellyfish claim has even a bigger problem. Only one source mentions it and it cites another source. The primary source is a MEMRI translation of an interview on Egyptian TV about the shark attack conspiracy. The "jellyfish" claim is mentioned by a local taxi driver interviewed by the announcer, in passing. Is one anonymous, non-notable person mentioning something in passing enough to list it as a conspiracy theory "propagated by some Arab and Iranian media"?Poyani (talk) 12:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed your entire complaint, but MEMRI is a good source and Egyptian TV is not non-notable. That doesn't mean that Jellyfish should have their own section, but certainly, there is room to mention it within the paragraph related to the Shark attack. I gave the page a quick look and I'll be reworking your recent edit some as, while it had some merit, was too much on the deletionist side of things. Still, I wouldn't want to rush into things so I'll give it a good look tomorrow rather than make a mediocre quick edit at this point in time. One thing that caught my attention was that you completely removed mention of the jelly fish even though it is mentioned in the source.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jaakobou. I agree with you that Memri and Egyptian TV are good sources. My complaint regarding the Jelly Fish is that it is mentioned by one taxi driver during a random interview with people passing by in the street. Can that really be described as a conspiracy theory "propagated by the Arab media"? It seems clear to me that it is the opinion of one random person, which lacks notability. To put it in perspective, I have a neighbor which honestly believes that the mafia controls every government in the world. Would you consider that a western conspiracy theory worthy of mention in wikipedia? If he were ever to mention this during a random TV broadcast, would it make it a "conspiracy theory propagated by the Canadian media?Poyani (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

If he were on TV and there was an article about mafia related conspiracies then, yes, there would be room to add whatever silly story he propagates on TV in the related paragraph. The only question is how much prominance should his silly story get -- and in this event, it should get a minor mention in the paragraph about the main story -- i.e. the Shark theory. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

That is where I disagree with you. I don't think the ramblings of one random taxi driver on a TV show can be classified as a notable Arab "conspiracy theory" spread by the "Arab media", worthy of mention on wikipedia. It is fringe at best (even if that). It is certainly not notable. It was never reported on by any media outlet. WP:UNDUE specifically addresses this issue. It states "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." Here we are not talking about a "tiny minority". We are talking about one non-notable individual. Poyani (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding the difference between main topic and relevant encyclopaedic context content. The main topic, which is a notable Arab "conspiracy theory" spread by the "Arab media" is the "Mossad Shark Attack" story. A relevant context detail from that story is that "jellyfish" were mentioned on Egyptian TV as also involved. This is not a case where a view of tiny minorities is explained as a known opinion but rather a case where it is presented as a factual detail -- I'll phrase something and if you're so certain that it is too much, we can have a community review on the matter -- hopefully by people not interested in drama... that is never fun. *shrug* Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

If you put in in the proper context and give it only the weight it deserves then I am fine with it. Poyani (talk) 19:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm pondering on merging the overview into the theories subheading as a lead paragraph instead of a list down before I handle the jellyfish issue. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Supernatural

Roscelese, I've noticed that you've simply reiterated your reasoning on yet another revert. However, the cited source clearly states the input as "according to two Palestinian newspapers". As such, your reasoning doesn't follow WP:RS policies. If you still believe that this is not a valid reasoning, you need to open the discussion on a dispute resolution forum rather than just revert once a week without discussion and consensus building. Best, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

What is the likelihood that only this sarcastic opinion piece is quoting the Palestinian newspapers, when none of the actual news reports on the rats use the word "supernatural"? In particular, the JPost piece quotes the WAFA story at length; the word "supernatural" does not appear. Looking further, O'Doherty appears to be getting the word from another opinion piece several days earlier by Itamar Marcus. This piece, too, quotes the reports at length, and nowhere does the word "supernatural" appear except in Marcus's own editorializing. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the web-work. I will give your presentation on the issue some serious thought and see how we can work this out. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The fact that the O'Doherty piece says that Osama bin Laden likes to play with fuzzy kittens is probably a tip-off that we shouldn't be taking it seriously Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted the "Rat" section as it's not a conspiracy theory. Gatoclass (talk) 09:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)