Jump to content

Talk:Israel-related animal conspiracy theories/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Rats conspiracy theory

An editor today removed the conspiracy theory about supernatural rats. I would like to hear the reasoning for this removal. The reasoning provided in the edit summary is strange—how is this not a conspiracy theory? —Ynhockey (Talk) 15:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

None of the sources refer to this specifically as a conspiracy theory. If Palestinians have seen settlers releasing rats in Palestinian neighbourhoods, that is simply a report, not a conspiracy. Neither would it be unreasonable for Palestinians to conclude that the rats were being released in a malicious attempt to affect their quality of life. For something to be a conspiracy theory, it has to include a major element of irrationality. But apart from a few sarcastic comments in op-eds, there is no obvious element of irrationality in these reports, and until I see a reliable source that clearly establishes that the WAFA claims were absurd - for example, a full quote from the WAFA report itself (all the current sources provide are cherry-picked phrases with no clear attribution), then I don't believe this story can reliably be considered a "conspiracy theory". It should be obvious that sarcastic op-eds that employ exaggeration for effect are not sufficiently reliable sources for the exceptional claims being made in this section. Gatoclass (talk) 02:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
The mere suggestion that Jews bring in rats with a goal to kick out Arabs and replace them with Jews falls under "conspiracy theory" whether it is correct or isn't correct. "Such [conspiratory] allegations reflect a sick mindset and are part of a long-standing tradition of blaming Israel and Jews for almost everything that goes wrong in Arab countries and the rest of the world."[1] In this event, the only reason that there are regular rats -- not the cat chasing ones that can distinguish Arab from Jew -- is low sanitary conditions in the Old City and not an evil Jewish plot. Regardless, it is not up to you or me to judge the rationality of these conspiratory allegations. We're here to convey what has been published by reliable sources. JaakobouChalk Talk 03:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
We are not talking about "Jews". We are talking about settlers; a group of people known for their hostility and racism towards Arabs. People who publicly decry "expel the Arab enemy". People, one of whom (Baruch Goldstein) massacred a large number of people because he considered them to be "Arabs". We are talking about people who put up shrines to Goldstein. We are talking about people who have in the past attempted to blow up Arab elementary schools and Muslim sites of worship. It is actually pretty racist to assign the behavior of settlers to that of "Jews" as you have done.

In any case, it is still not a conspiracy theory. A conspiracy is an act carried out in secret. A bunch of settlers with pickup trucks loaded with rats in cages is not a conspiracy. Hence believing that it happened, whether true or not, is not a conspiracy theory.

You did make one good point though. It is not up to us to make the call. We have to present sources. As long as reliable sources describe it as a conspiracy theory then we can call it a conspiracy theory. The problem is that none of the sources presented do call it a conspiracy theory. There are four sources. One of them is a good source (Jerusalem Post). The others are not sources at all. They are opinions referring to the JPost story. None of them consider this a conspiracy theory. Some express the opinion that it is absurd. But none are calling it a conspiracy theory. Which actually makes it OR.

There is also another problem. Even if it was a conspiracy theory, it is not a conspiracy theory leveled against the state of Israel. It is a conspiracy theory leveled against settlers. Settlers are not Israel and Israel is not settlers. In fact, recent polls indicate that a majority (60%) of the Israeli public oppose the settlers. So how is this an "Israeli zoological militancy conspiracy theory"? Poyani (talk) 12:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey Poyani, as we're trying to build a collaborative spirit here I would have to ask you to read WP:SOAP and then consider rephrasing your above commentary in a manner that is more suitable to building a collaborative effort. To give an example to something which you should consider striking out, I note that there are a few hundred thousand Jewish settlers and you lumped them all with a single incident of terrorism. I'll review your notes again once you revise them. With respect, JaakobouChalk Talk 14:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Jaakobou. Please don't read my last post as a stand-alone note. It was a response to what you wrote. I was not implying that settlers are racist (I certainly did not imply that they were all terrorists). I was implying that the notion that some settlers target Arabs is not a "sick mindset" (your words). I also was not trying to engage in advocacy against the settlers. Only trying to drive my point home. I am perfectly aware that large numbers of settlers are settlers because of religious obligation or due to government incentives (all besides the point). However, as the examples I posted (such as Goldstein and those who build shrines to him) show, it is not a "sick mindset" or a "conspiracy theory" to assume that some settlers are hostile to Arabs.

Note that this is still besides the point. At best the notion that the rats section is a "conspiracy theory" is OR.

Having said that, I am sure that I am not the only one who finds it rather ironic that you are accusing me of WP:SOAP. Read the article we are discussing. It is a WP:SYNTH, which collects unconnected events, not particularly notable, and presents them in a way which makes an entire race of people (Arabs) look completely insane. Poyani (talk) 15:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

If any reliable sources refer to it as a conspiracy theory, then it is in the scope of this article. If other reliable sources deny that this is a conspiracy theory, then this should be noted as well. We need to include both sides, Wikipedia is not censored. Marokwitz (talk) 16:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
No source (reliable or otherwise) refers to it as a conspiracy theory. Many argue that it is absurd. But no one is arguing that it is a conspiracy theory. I think the problem here is that this distinction is not being made. An absurd claim is not the same as a conspiracy theory. I may claim that the moon is made of blue cheese, but that doesn't make my view a conspiracy theory. Claiming that a group of people secretly switched the moon with cheese would be a conspiracy theory. It involves a conspiracy (secretive act against the public). Arguing that a bunch of settlers in plain daylight dumped a bunch of rats or boars in a Palestinians property is not a conspiracy theory (even if you feel that it is absurd). Poyani (talk) 17:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
The whale and the vulture are conspiracy theories. Some have suggested that the state of Israel is secretly using these animals to spy on their countries. That is a conspiracy. Poyani (talk) 17:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Poyani,
I will not repeat my request again and we cannot discuss your points of concern when your comment is so severely inflammatory. Please, I know you mean well, but regardless of how rude a topic might seem, you need to phrase yourself with relevance and without offensive hyperbole. JaakobouChalk Talk 18:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
What about my comment are you finding inflammatory? I am certainly not trying to be inflammatory. My comments about settlers may have been very badly worded (as I said I was trying to respond to your comment) and I can see how reading them on their own could be interpreted as an attempt to attack the settlers, but as I mentioned before that was not my intention. I was trying to make a point. I don't see how anything I wrote after that could be considered inflammatory. Poyani (talk) 21:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
The articles raised the theory of a conspiracy by settlers to drive Arabs out of their homes by releasing genetically engineered super rats. Whether this theory is absurd or absolutely true, this falls under the definition "conspiracy theory" and under the scope of this article. A conspiracy theory is by definition "A belief that some influential organization is responsible for an unexplained event". Having said that, in order to ensure this article does not fall into the pitfalls of yellow journalism, we should make absolutely sure that only reliable sources are cited. Marokwitz (talk) 05:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
That is just my point. We have no evidence that WAFA has accused Israel of "releasing genetically engineered super rats". The section in question is supported by one straight news report (the JPost article) which simply states the claim that settlers are releasing rats in Arab neighbourhoods and quotes an official dismissing the claims as a "fiction". The other three sources are to sarcastic op-eds that are clearly employing exaggeration for effect. But the sarcastic claims made in these op-eds are being reproduced in this article as if they were straight reporting. Who exactly said the rats are "giant", "supernatural", that they breed "four times as often", that they "like to attack Arab children"? We have no evidence that WAFA made any of these claims, we only have sarcastic references to the WAFA report from opinion editors. Per WP:REDFLAG, that simply isn't sufficient support for extraordinary claims of this nature. Gatoclass (talk) 12:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Editorials are not considered reliable sources for anything but the opinion of their writer. Any such improper uses of editorials should be removed or attributed as an opinion. Marokwitz (talk) 13:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Markowitz. I don't think your definition of "conspiracy theory" is accurate. I think conspiracy theory is defined as "A belief that some covert/secretive influential organization is responsible for an unexplained event". The "covert/secretive" portion is key since it is the definition of a "conspiracy".

Here are some definitions from online dictionaries.

Merriam Webster: : a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators.

Dictionary.com: a theory that explains an event as being the result of a plot by a covert group or organization; a belief that a particular unexplained event was caused by such a group.

 : Wiktionary: A hypothesis alleging that the members of a coordinated group are, and/or were, secretly working together to commit illegal or wrongful actions including attempting to hide the existence of the group and its activities.

: Wikipedia: The term "conspiracy theory" may be a neutral descriptor for any legitimate or illegitimate claim of civil, criminal or political conspiracy. To conspire means "to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or to use such means to accomplish a lawful end."

According to all of these definitions, a claim that settlers released a bunch of rats in an Arab neighborhood is not conspiracy theory. All of this is OR anyways. No reliable or unreliable source actually refers to this as a conspiracy theory. It should not be listed here. Poyani (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


So what is the final decision here? "Yay" or "Nay" on deleting the section about the rats? Poyani (talk) 20:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


Okay, I am going to remove the rats section. I guess if anyone has any objections they will speak up. Poyani (talk) 22:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
The conspiracy here is that the alleged 'intentional' use of 'supernatural' rats had a 'goal'. Dp not remove this section again. JaakobouChalk Talk 08:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The Gharkad tree

I wonder if the "Gharkad" tree story can be considered a conspiracy theory?

"The Day of Judgement [...] the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." [Hadith]

On the other hand, this article deals with Zoology, not Botany. Perhaps we should rename this article to "Zoological and botanical conspiracy theories"?

Are you joking? That has nothing to do with conspiracy theories. Marokwitz (talk) 07:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
It's imaginative, but I don't think it fits as a regular event. Could possibly be mentioned if someone used it as a reference for why people are so quick to believe these ridiculous conspiracies.. but I haven't seen that article yet. JaakobouChalk Talk 08:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
What can be explained as figurative expression should not be characterised as a conspiracy theory. The language employed is clearly poetic and subject to a metaphorical interpretation.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 19:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I was referring the hypothetical situation where a notable source makes the connection. Ignore my comment please, I am not endorsing this angle to be inserted into this article. JaakobouChalk Talk 19:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Partisan Pigs

Libel: Jews spread pigs to destroy PA agriculture Source: Palestinian TV (Fatah), May 23, 2011PA TV program Palestine This Morning on the role of agriculture in the Salfit district.Abd Al-Rahim Mislah, head of the Kufr Yasouf council, talks about the pigs destroying agriculture: “The Jews brought the pigs to help them fight against us, to destroy the agriculture.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 19:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Why is the BBC article relevant? The report discusses an individual's proposal to train pigs as 'guard dogs'; can you explain what that has to do with zoological conspiracy theories in the Arab media?
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 00:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I am bringing RS to the table which documents the plan by a group of settlers to use pigs in the occupied territory against the Palestinians. You are alleging a "conspiracy theory" on the basis of a claim by an obviously biased propaganda outlet. As is your usual MO your last edit was meticulous in deleting referenced information that does not fit your POV.
In my view unless you have a reliable source saying this is a "conspiracy theory" it should be deleted from the article. There seem to be credible reports in multiple RS of the use of pigs by settlers against Palestinians in the West Bank. [2], [3], [4]. This is not an isolated case, the Guardian article refers to "hundreds" of pigs in " a number of Jewish colonies in the West Bank". If the allegations about a "conspiracy theory" remain, at the very least we have a duty to report the multiple RS discussing use of pigs by the settlersDlv999 (talk) 07:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Also, since when does CNN report conspiracy theories? It seems to me that mainstream sources are treating the allegations about the pigs seriously, while it is only the fringe sources that are claiming this is a "conspiracy theory". Dlv999 (talk) 08:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
The "pig legion" story isn't relevant because it's a different issue to the claims of pigs being released to destroy Palestinian farmland. They are both just stories that happen to involve pigs. Whether or not the feral pig story belongs here is something I am still considering, as I am trying to find time to work through all the relevant links. Gatoclass (talk) 08:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
The feral pig story quotes the head of the Kufr Yasouf council as saying that the Jews brought the pigs to "fight against us". Well, in my view, if you are going to call that a "conspiracy", you have a duty to also document the fact that mainstream sources have reported a plan to train a "legion" of pigs to defend the settlements. Dlv999 (talk) 09:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The conspiracy is that the wild pigs that are found in Israel are part of a plan to discriminate against the Palestinian farmers and damage their crops. You cite an individuals proposal to train a pig to guard a settlement. How is this connected? Mention of pigs and Israel does not constitute relevance.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 09:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

"Following an outbreak of settler violence against a West Bank village, CNN reported the Mayor saying that the attacks and harassment occurred on a daily basis". This article is not on settler violence, kindly confine your attention to the article at hand and trim unnecessary information. Can you pay better attention to your citations, as once again, this one does not work.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 09:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The allegations of the release of feral pigs were reported credibly by CNN in the context of continued settler violence and destruction of property. Removing the context in which the claims were reported by RS in an attempt to inaccurately paint the accusations as a conspiracy is POV pushing in my view. Dlv999 (talk) 10:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Ank, as well as violating WP:1RR your latest edit to me seems to be a violation of NPOV. You have removed the evidence that CNN credibly reported the allegations about the feral pigs, while you have been keen to include the specific names of the Palestinian and Arab news sources that also reported the allegations. You have also removed the context in which the Mayor made the allegations as reported by the RS, which I think is important. As per CNN, the claims were made in the aftermath of confirmed Israeli settler vandalism, and I think this should be reflected in the article. Dlv999 (talk) 16:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


  1. In reference to my supposed violation, can you point out where the ArbCom 1RR stipulations are applied to this article. I see no mention of this on the page.
  2. I accept as fact the CNN's reporting of the mayor's allegations; I saw no reason why source specification was necessary and presented this in an unattributed factual manner, why are you insistent on mention of the source?
  3. I am keen to mention "the specific names of the Palestinian and Arab news sources" because the article details "conspiracy theories propagated by the Arab media and Arabic language websites."
  4. Your edit stated "Following an outbreak of settler violence against a West Bank village, CNN reported the Mayor saying that the attacks and harassment occurred on a daily basis and included ..." Considering this is a paragraph on pig conspiracy claims,
  • Why is the mention of pigs a mere 'inclusion' to the bulk of your edit, and not the focal point?
  • Why are the mayor's comments that the "attacks and harassment occurred on a daily basis" relevant?
5. You constantly plonk your edit in a paragraph with scant regard to the structure of the paragraph and its flow. Why do you feel it acceptable for the introduction of a paragraph on a pig conspiracy in the Arab media to be, "Following an outbreak of settler violence against a West Bank village, CNN reported the Mayor saying that the attacks and harassment occurred on a daily basis and included the release of 300 wild pigs into the Palestinians fields, leading to the destruction of crops." Your blinkered attention to content had lead to a shoddy substandard beginning, and needed amendment. I suggest you read other paragraph introductions on Wikipedia to understand the standard required and how to formulate an acceptable introduction.
6. Why do you feel that an individual's proposal to train pigs as a guard dogs is at all relevant to the conspiracy that the indigenous wild pigs of Israel are part of a plan to discriminate against the Palestinian farmers and damage their crops.
7. I will happily engage in arbitration should you fundamentally and irreconcilably disagree with me.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Are you seriously claiming that Zoological conspiracy theories (Arab–Israeli conflict) is not "related to the Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed"? Also, let's cut to the chase here, do you not think that the fact CNN reported the so called conspiracy theory might put in the realm of a credible (though thus far unproven) accusation and certainly outside the remit of the definition you have just quoted me? Dlv999 (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
You expressed displeasure at my amendments so I have articulated the specific concerns I had regarding your edit. Please respond to the points raised so that we can produce a satisfactory collaborative effort (which I have achieved with other partisan editors.) You liberally accuse me of POV pushing but shy away from the explanatory dialogue. I direct you once again to the issues I have raised and urge you to address them.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 22:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
The main displeasure I have is that you are blatantly violating the rules regarding editing in this topic area. As long as you continue there is no discussion here.Dlv999 (talk) 22:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I am a new inexperienced editor and am sometimes inadvertently at fault. Please note that there was no ArbCom reminder on the Talk page and I have tried to rectify this. I urge you to collaborate with me on the specific concerns I have raised with regards to your edit.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 23:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I am also an inexperienced editor, but the 1RR rule is fairly obvious to anyone who spend more than five minutes in this topic area. You have been warned for violating the rule before [5]. It is true that there is there is no ArbCom reminder, but I find it hard to believe that anyone could reasonably think Zoological conspiracy theories (Arab–Israeli conflict) is not "related to the Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed". After reflection I have decided to withdraw from further involvement on this article and its talk page. Dlv999 (talk) 23:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Change of Title

Currently the title does not reflect that this article's ambit is conspiracy theories "propagated by the Arab media and Arabic language websites" as expressed in the lede. The sources mention "the Arab masses", "Arab coverage of Israel" I wish to alter the title to reflect this.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you please let us know what title you propose, with due regard to Wikipedia:Article titles#Neutrality in article titles, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Naming, and Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material that advances a position? As it stands, the lede appears at the moment to be synthesis, in that we appear to have no meaningful source which actually uses the term "Arab zoological conspiracy theories", and which actually discusses such theories as a subject distinct from the general 'conspiracy theories' that are sadly part of Middle-Eastern politics. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Which Wikipedia policy stipulates that the exact article title must be contained within a source? This is an example of a descriptive title that are invented specifically for articles. You appear to be making liberal use of Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material that advances a position, note that this does not simply refer to the combining of material but rather the advancing of an original conclusion that arises from this. The term in the lede is a vestige from the previous name change and I shall similarly revert this.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 18:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

"Bird conspiracy" and conflicting sources

Our article says that

  • Turkish "authorities" turned over the European bee-eater
  • to "security services",
  • after "the authorities claimed that the bird's nostrils were abnormally large and hosting surveillance equipment" (my emphasis);
  • and that the "Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel" responded saying that the tags are commonplace.

BBC News, by contrast, reports that;

  • "local" "villagers" turned over the European bee-eater
  • to "government experts", apparently from "the regional office of the Turkish agriculture ministry"
  • it was "the villagers" who had decided the nostrils were suspicious because unusually large and might host surveillance equipment
  • it was "local police" who had to be persuaded
  • by the aforementioned Turkish agriculture ministry, that the bird posed no threat
  • it was, again, the Turkish agriculture ministry that "assured residents of the village, near the city of Gaziantep, that it was common practice to fit a ring to migratory birds"
  • it's also mentioned that a counter-terrorism unit "became involved at one point", but there are no specifics

What's in our article doesn't seem to misrepresent the ynetnews source used for it. So, which source should we prefer, or should we reflect elements of both, or should we look for more? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

What is in the article does indeed mistate the ynet source, which does not specifically claim the Turkish "authorities" claimed the nostrils were abnormally large. Other than that, I was already highly sceptical of the ynet source before you posted this BBC report, as it is not based on an original ynet report but is reporting secondhand what unspecified Turkish media supposedly said and so on. The claims currently in the article are an obvious example of WP:REDFLAG, and should not be there without impeccable sourcing which the brief ynet report clearly is not. The BBC source is obviously the more detailed and reliable report.
I might add however that I have much broader concerns about this article, for one thing that it doesn't truly discuss "zoological conspiracy theories" but merely lists a number of supposed examples of such theories. An in-depth discussion of the topic is impossible since there are no reliable sources which specifically discuss such conspiracy theories in detail. The article should be deleted in my view since it only serves to denigrate an ethnic group, but it already survived one AFD. Gatoclass (talk) 12:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Looking at that AFD, it is clear that you already made your view very clear many, many times and the consensus ruled against you. Do you think that continuing to whine is going to accomplish anything? If you don't like the article nobody is forcing you to contribute to it. If you feel it should be deleted, go ahead and open a new request. 74.198.87.97 (talk) 22:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
The bbc is a far better source, in any case. They have a large bureau in Turkey (J. Head is an old mate, I haven't seen him for many years but he is a seasoned pro). The ynet article does not appear to have any reporting on the ground, I'm not aware of them having a Turkey bureau, and ynet (Yedioth Ahronoth) tends to be rather sensationalistic and nationalist in their reporting on these kinds of matters.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

"Arab tendency to blame Israel for internal problems"

Really? this is in the lede, is this considered NPOV? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.12.117.90 (talk) 01:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

What do you surmise to be the NPOV or other POV explanation for all the anti-Israel conspiracy theories?

Sources

Additional sources for the article:

this is actually on topic (not a joke)

Had some buddies come back from Iraq and they said there was a theory there, that the US was releasing some sort of rodents or such, can't recall exactly and my google-fu did not bring it up. But you could maybe search on it.TCO (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

This may be the Killer badgers ... in the Basra area they were blamed on the British, but it seems all Coalition forces have been deploying them. FFS. 62.196.17.197 (talk) 16:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Enough

The recent ridiculous edit wars are quite enough. Under the authority of WP:ARBPIA#Standard discretionary sanctions, this article is placed under the following restrictions:

  • To reduce the impact of throwaway accounts, the article is placed under a modified 1RR restriction, as follows:
    1. All editors are limited to one revert per any rolling 24 hour period, excluding reverts of clear vandalism.
    2. Editors with less than 500 article edits, less than three months old or are anonymous editors are under the above 1RR restriction with no exceptions.
    3. Editors not subject to the #2 above can revert edits by those who are subject to #2 without breaking 1RR, but are still subject to the general edit warring policy.
  • To inhibit the addition of WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS material to this article in violation of the principles of Wikipedia,
  • No editor may add or readd any alleged instance of a conspiracy theory, unless such addition or readdition has been proposed on this talk page at least 48 hours in advance, and either
  • No objection was made to adding or readding the content; or
  • An uninvolved administrator determines that there is a consensus to add or readd the content.
  • No editor may remove content added in compliance with this restriction, unless the removal has been proposed and discussed in the same manner, and either there was no objection, or an uninvolved administrator determines that there's a consensus to remove the content.
  • Removal of content added in violation of this restriction is exempt from 1RR.

T. Canens (talk) 18:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Can somebody explain how 1) and 3) are not contradictory?
  • Why 2) is necessary, why would someone have supposed that they were excluded from these restrictions?
  • Why a partisan position is adopted in these restrictions. Namely, editors have a carte blanch to removed existing material (as the restriction imposed only applies to subsequent "content added in compliance with this restriction") but yet, editors have to jump through the various hoops that Mr Canens has crafted if they wish to add material? Ankh.Morpork 18:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
You're right. These restrictions are inappropriate. I suggest people disregard them. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 01:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Go ahead, see what happens (no, seriously don't). --Activism1234 01:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
No, seriously, ignore all rules that prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. By policy, bad rules like these should be disobeyed. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 01:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Anyone actually wanting to 'improve Wikipedia' would start by deleting this heap of garbage. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Where would you put it as a subsection? The topic is notable, but this is listcruft. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 02:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Andy, your personal distaste for the article doesn't dicatate how Wikipedia has worked. It was made clear at the ARBPIA clarification this won't be deleted, and your opinion is welcome, but consensus at this article's AfD demonstrated that it should be kept. It even made it to DYK. --Activism1234 02:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Everything goes at DYK, and a keep at AfD only demonstrates that there is coverage of the topic - it says nothing about the quality of the article. It doesn't even preclude the article frome being merged and redirected to another article where it doesn't get the appearance of a coatrack.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
This article is dumb. Consensus can change. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 02:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Yup. And personally, I think that deleting DYK would improve Wikipedia too... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh, wow. Did you know that when that AfD was open, this article was called "Animal conspiracy theories involving Israel?" That's an AWESOME name. "Zoological conspiracy theories (Arab-Israeli conflict)", by contrast, sucks horribly. :-( 24.177.121.137 (talk) 02:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Yep - and at one point it was "Israeli animal spy conspiracy theories". Bye and large, an article that changes title multiple times is more or less guaranteed to be WP:OR, synthesis, or just plain flakey. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind removing "zoological" from the title and just changing it to "Conspiracy theories in the Arab-Israeli conflict." That'd open the door for a lot more info. Then again, that amount may become too much... --Activism1234 03:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
And then presumably we'll have further debates about whether conspiracy theories by Israelis (and their supporters, e.g. [6]) about what their 'opponents' are up to will merit inclusion. Oh joy. That will be fun... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Eurabia seems to be about Europe and Arab countries, not Israel. We can always limit the scope if necessary. --Activism1234 03:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Are you seriously suggesting that the Arab-Israeli conflict has no relevance to Bat Ye'or's conspiracy theories? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not getting involved in this argument. If we make a title change, let me know. --Activism1234 03:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
You made a suggestion - I pointed out the consequences. And your proposal was clearly more than a 'title change'... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, my proposal was. So I repeat - if we do make a title change, which could affect the article, let me know. --Activism1234 03:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

arrest

Okay, the description of authorities repeatedly placing wild animals "under arrest" is amusing, but I don't think it's appropriate. Is there a translation issue here? Wouldn't "detain" or "capture" be better? 24.177.121.137 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone want to, you know, talk about the article a little? 24.177.121.137 (talk) 02:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
It would probably be best to start by checking what the sources actually say - most of them seem to be in English. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
That's too much work, and this is just a list of news articles. Let's cut out all of the 'X Conspiracy' sections, and replace them with a bullet-pointed list of animals about-which there have been theories. And then we can all stop this petty bitching. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 02:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Do the discretionary sanctions prohibit me from making drastic changes to the article that obviate most of the controversy by reducing it's length substantially? 24.177.121.137 (talk) 03:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
I've amended the Saudi Arabia January 2011 vulture section, replacing 'arrested' (no quotes) with 'detained' (with quotes) to properly reflect what the source says. There are a couple of further sources in Arabic which I can't look into. As for your suggestion, I can see the merits of it - maybe you could produce a draft of what you are proposing - we can then see if we can get a consensus (fat chance...). AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
I went much, much farther. Feel free to revert. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 03:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
You do realize there isn't any consensus or a discussion regarding these extremely serious changes and complete removal of a ton of info... I highly recommend a self-revert. --Activism1234 03:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Yo, nothing about this article is 'extremely serious.' Lighten up, friend! 24.177.121.137 (talk) 05:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

2008 Iranian pigeon incident

I've had to delete this for now - the section was a clear copyright violation, in that it consisted of a truncated copy-and-paste of the source: [7]. If it is to be restored, it needs to be properly paraphrased at minimum, to comply with policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

How about...

In October 2008, two pigeons were arrested near the Natanz nuclear facility in Iran, who were allegedly spying on Natanz. An Iranian report alleged that one of the pigeons carried metal rings and "invisible strings," which are believed by security forces in Iran to be a spying tool.[1]While Iran is suspicious of Israel, pigeons are not known to take part in Israel's intelligence activities.[2]

--Activism1234 03:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The source says nothing whatsoever about 'charges'. As for the rest, 'paraphrase' does not mean 'leave out necessary details needed for the material to make sense', and nor does it mean 'swap the words around'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
I've fixed the issue of the charges. As for leaving out necessary details, thanks for being so specific... That's not really helpful for me if I want to fix it. Be a bit more friendly, not so grumpy! :) --Activism1234 03:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
I think you'll find that the consensus is that we don't use the Daily Mail as a source for anything remotely controversial. The Telegraph at least makes clear that the 'strings' were alleged to have been used for carrying some kind of device, rather than being 'spying tools' themselves. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Can you show me at the RSN noticeboard where consensus states not to use the Daily Mail as a source for anything "controversial?" Doesn't seem controversial, the story is backed up by The Telegraph as well. --Activism1234 03:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
And that may not be what The Telegraph says. It says, "It said that some metal rings and "invisible" strings were attached to the bird, suggesting that it might have been somehow communicating what it had seen with the equipment it was carrying." The Telegraph doesn't discuss any other equipment, and seemed to me to be referring to the metal rings and strings. --Activism1234 03:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
This is a waste of time. This level of specificity is unencyclopaedic. 70.194.74.49 (talk) 04:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

let's destory 90% of this article with fire

...because it's really, really poorly written. I was serious about this edit. Can anyone explain why it is that Wikipedia needs to maintain a slow-speed liveblog of media reports involving Israeli animal spies? 24.177.121.137 (talk) 05:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

See WP:COATRACK. NickCT (talk) 21:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Toameh's article, a RS?

He says for instance that "After the rats and wild boars -- which the Palestinians also claimed were used by Israel to drive them out of their homes and lands -- now the sharks have been recruited to destroy Egypt's tourism industry." But the CNN piece [8] says the boar stuff did happen. (The section on the boars was removed.) This brings into question whether Toameh is making well informed commentary of if he is just a political hack. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Couple of points.
  • The CNN piece does not verify that the boars were released by settlers, but it reports the allegation made by a Palestinian Mayor as credible (in the context of an ongoing campaign of settler violence), not as some sort of wild conspiracy theory. From the sources I have read the pig story is an unconfirmed allegation. Partisan Palestinian/Arab sources support the idea that it happened, partisan Israeli sources support the idea that it didn't happen. CNN simply reports the allegation. I don't see any justification for inclusion in the article.
  • There are two articles by Toameh. One is a news report for the JPost [9] (which can be used for verification for facts without attribution). The other is an opinion piece for a right wing neo-con think tank [10]. This is Toameh's personal opinion and should not be used for verification of fact without attributing as the authors opinion. You can see from the language he uses in the article that this is not an objective piece of reporting, but a personal opinion, bordering on polemic ("Such allegations reflect a sick mindset....The ultimate goal, of course, is to demonize Jews and de-legitimize Israel. This is the kind of incitement that prompts radical Muslims to wear explosive belts and set out on suicide missions against Jews....") This article can be used but it should be clearly attributed as the opinion of the author. Dlv999 (talk) 21:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Boars in the lead

I think "According to Khaled Abu Toameh, writing for the Gatestone Institute, the Palestinian Authority has accused Israel of using wild boars to destroy Arab crops in the West Bank and drive farmers out of their lands.[7]" should be removed as well. Or add CNN for NPOV balance. I see the rest of the stuff about boars was removed earlier. [11] Tijfo098 (talk) 22:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I've removed it as part of my rewrite of the lead. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

By the way

Someone might want to create an article for Gil Yaron. He has a page de:Gil Yaron in German with some sources (which look RS, but are also in German). Tijfo098 (talk) 23:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

unwarranted removal of sourced information

Why Bali ultimate is allowed to violate 1RR, to remove sourced information from the article and to call his actions removing "propaganda designed to spread hate"? I read this article before Bali ultimate deleted half of it. The article was funny but there was no hate there, not towards Arabs anyway.109.123.115.21 (talk) 20:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Just take him to WP:AE. His blatant violation of 1RR, and refusal to revert after being notified of the restriction, coupled with his repeated personal attacks should be enough to get him a short block and a topic ban. --(Preceding unsigned comment left by IP operated by User:NoCal100)-- (as hypothesized by User:Bali ultimate)
It's a vicious propaganda exercise, which exists solely to denigrate and spread hate, and is not a "topic" that exists in academic literature or the quality press. At least it's been reined in from the true depths it started at. By the way, your syntax and odd use of English are familiar.Dan Murphy (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
ORLY? BBC;The Telegraph, The Week;BBC; The Telegraph;ABC;Discover Magazine and many others are engaged in a vicious propaganda exercise, which exists solely to denigrate and spread hate, and only Bali Ultimate of Wikipedia, is here to stop that hate from spreading. No, Bali, that hate is spread by people who arrest griffons for spying for Israel and claim sharks work for Mossad. Incidentally I enjoyed your conspiracy theory about my English, and I thought you do not like conspiracy theories. LOL.109.123.82.246 (talk) 00:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Let's be clear: My name is "Dan Murphy." I have a track record. I am known. I can be evaluated. You're just another anonymous shit-heel using Wikipedia (since it ranks high in google searches) to spread hate. You're also probably a "sock-puppet" though I don't give a shit about that kind of stuff (though I have no respect for the asshats that do it to avoid scrutiny).Dan Murphy (talk) 02:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Since when? You created "Bali Ultimate" account in 2008. Two years ago you admitted being "an idiot". I cannot argue with this. In 2012 you're saying "My name is "Dan Murphy"? Please do not tell me that you were editing Wikipedia for four years as just another anonymous shit-heel. LOL. Incidentally who is "Dan Murphy" anyway? The first result in my "evaluation" returns "Australia's favourite liquor store". In any case I like seeing you're getting angrier and angrier. Carry on.--109.123.115.221 (talk) 02:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

New source of commentary/connection

[12] I assume this Yigal Schleifer is going to get torn down as a propagandist as well. So I'm not bothering to write anything anymore just to see it reverted. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Hardly. But a blog noting an amusing rumor among a bunch of villagers (all of 4 paragraphs) that had to do with their unsophisticated initial reaction to discovering a dead tagged bird used to build an "encyclopedia article" of this grand, and frankly malicious, scope, is something else again. This is the issue.Dan Murphy (talk) 02:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
The fourth graph is the money graph, in Schleifer's piece, of course, the rest is laughs:

An incident that recently took place in Cypriot airspace, though, might indicate that Turkey is also feeling threatened by a different kind of Israeli bird. As Reuters reports, the Turkish military said today that it had to scramble some of its fighter jets earlier this week after an unidentified Israeli plane violated the airspace of Northern Cyprus, the Turkish-speaking part of the divided island. Considering the ongoing tension over gas and oil exploration in the waters of the eastern Mediterranean between Turkey on the one side and Israel and Greek Cyprus on the other, it's likely that the explanation for how an Israeli aircraft ended up in Turkish Cypriot airspace is a little less innocent than how the suspected "Israeli spy" bird ended up in Gaziantep.Dan Murphy (talk) 02:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Recent move reverted

I've revered the move of this article to List of animal attacks (Arab-Israeli conflict) because that's frankly a completely different topic. If someone wants to write about that, they can, but this article is about something else. Most of the alleged conspiracies here are about spying, not attacks. Per WP:BRD, if someone wishes to propose the move according to WP:RM and gain consensus for the new title (and implicitly vastly different content) they should first obtain consensus here. My opinion is that the completely different topic should be written from scratch. I see no benefit in moving this page to that title. (And we do have Animal-borne bomb attacks, which covers most of the real attacks using animals in this conflict.) Tijfo098 (talk) 16:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Any move should first be discussed. Title is completely different. --Activism1234 16:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Yup. Just plain stupid. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Birds, cats and witchcraft

Below I provided a few quotes from the interview with Walid Muhammad Hajj a Sudanese national released from the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, which was aired on Al-Jazeera TV on December 12, 2010. This interview should be mentioned in the article. This interview is important piece of evidences on how conspiracy theories are born.


Walid Muhammad Hajj: "That's right. I remembered an incident with a guy who sat next to me in the morning. When they brought the milk, he began to urinate into the milk."

Interviewer: "In front of you?"

Walid Muhammad Hajj: "Yes. I said to him: 'Why are you urinating in the milk?' That's when we knew that he was under a spell. After he had recovered a little, after we read Koranic verses to him, he said to me: 'The birds on the barbed wire would talk to me, and tell me to urinate in the milk. When the guards pass by my cell, the sound made by their pants talks to me.'"

Interviewer: "They tell him to urinate in the milk?"

Walid Muhammad Hajj: "Yes." [...]

Interviewer: "Did they ever use witchcraft on you?"

Walid Muhammad Hajj: "There was one attempt."

Interviewer: "How did they do it?"

Walid Muhammad Hajj: "Once, when I was sleeping – on the floor, not on a bed – I suddenly felt that a cat was trying to penetrate me. It tried to penetrate me again and again. I recited the kursi verse again and again until the cat left."

Interviewer: "But there wasn't really any cat there?"

Walid Muhammad Hajj: "Absolutely not." [...]


31.193.133.169 (talk) 18:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

This has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of the article. We do not speculate about the 'origins of conspiracy theories', and we certainly don't do it based on the comments of someone who wasn't even involved in the subject of the article: Walid Muhammad Hajj wasn't detained in Guantanamo Bay over any alleged involvement in the Arab-Israeli conflict. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't see the connection between people urinating in milk (I do it all the time, don't you?) and conspiracy theories in the Arab-Israeli conflict... Agree with Andy. --Jethro B 00:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Iranian

Although not technically Arab, I'd like to mention the following two:

In October, 2008, Iran “arrested” two pigeons who were reportedly staking out the nuclear enrichment facility in Natanz. A year earlier, the Iranian press agency IRNA reported that 14 spy squirrels working for the West had been arrested “at the very last moment.”

from the [13] Toronto Star report. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

It was previously in the article. The only reason it was removed was for "copyright violation," not because of a content dispute (unless the copyvio was a pre-text, but I can't know that). Feel free to use this passage, it has a bit more info and 2 other refs.

In October 2008, two pigeons were arrested near the Natanz nuclear facility in Iran, who were allegedly spying on Natanz. An Iranian report alleged that one of the pigeons carried metal rings and "invisible strings," which are believed by security forces in Iran to be a spying tool.[1]While Iran is suspicious of Israel, pigeons are not known to take part in Israel's intelligence activities.[2]

--Activism1234 03:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

What is the rationale for including considering it does not fit the criteria of the article topic (i.e. incidents relating to the Arab Israeli conflict) Dlv999 (talk) 21:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Is this going to be the argument, "There shouldn't be anything on Wikipedia about Arabs and anti-Semitism, because tehcnically Arabs are Semites?" "Technically, Iran isn't Arab." Iran, the financer of Hamas and Hezbollah and which opposes Israel strongly, is certainly involved in the conflict, I think that's pretty clear... --Activism1234 21:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
In which case, the article title has to be changed to match the content - it isn't an 'Arab-Israeli conflict'... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Bee-eater

The Bee-eater incident, which is already included in the article, happened in Turkey. They are not Arabs either (or involved in the I-A conflict much). Tijfo098 (talk) 23:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Nope - it should probably go. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe not. This is what the BBC says at the end:

It would be much simpler to move this article to its proper title Israel-related zoological conspiracy theories in Muslim countries. The lead already describes them as such. The attempt to restrict them to the Arabs is artificial. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Turkey is a secular democratic Republic. Anyway, as it stands the material needs to be removed per WP:COATRACK because it does not fit the criteria for the current article topic. Dlv999 (talk) 08:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Last time I checked it had a Muslim majority, so I fail to see how your points have any relevance to this discussion. The Egyptian state is more or less secular too. And since when did democracy prevent the spread of conspiracy theories? Tijfo098 (talk) 11:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
As it stands the material is not relevant to the current article topic so it needs to be removed ASAP per WP:COATRACK. Dlv999 (talk) 11:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia articles are not suitable sources for other Wikipedia articles - see WP:CIRCULAR
  • Saying that Turkey is involved in the Arab Israeli conflict because it has a significant Arab population is OR, you will need an RS that specifically says this - seed WP:OR
  • The Arab Wikipedia also lists Brazil, Spain, Mexico, France, Argentina among others as "Regions with significant Arab populations" - none of them are part of the Arab Israeli conflict. Dlv999 (talk) 09:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I also agree that now that the article was moved, and no reasonable rationale was submitted in opposition, the debate is not moot. I take no position on the matter without the article move. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Arab Nyheter

Does anyone know anything about Arab Nyheter? I raised a question about its reliability at RS/N a while back, but nobody cared to answer [14]. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I looked at it briefly and it doesn't look very neutral to me. For one thing, it quotes from Jerusalem Post, which used to be the unofficial mouthpiece of that government, I also see a link to U.S. News in the politically conservative end of the spectrum; for another thing, the articles look sort of cherry-picked. On the other hand, their articles are all from some other source, and they do provide good links, so the trick would be vet the sources in their links, which is the original source of the story anyhow. Neotarf (talk) 22:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Pig material

Dlv999 removed a section because he objected to the word "conspiracy", and said unless they called it that in the sources, it shouldn't be in there. [15] Why does the exact word have to be used in the coverage? Is there any sincere doubt this qualifies as a claim of conspiracy? I say, add it back in. Please post Support or Opposed and state your opinion. Dream Focus 17:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

There were five sources supporting the pig material:-

Of the five the news report by CNN is by far the best source for verification of facts in the Wikipedia voice. In the CNN report there is no mention of a conspiracy, no implied conspiracy, no hint of a conspiracy. The issue is reported as an allegation of pigs being released onto Palestinian land made by a Palestinian major in the context of a very real and well documented campaign of settler violence and intimidation. Gulf news (a partisan Arab source) supports the idea that the incident occurred while Arutz Sheva and Palwatch (Partisan Israeli sources) support the idea that it did not happen. We should be following the internationally recognized mainstream third party RS on this in reporting it as an (as yet) unconfirmed allegation. As such it has no place in the article. Dlv999 (talk) 17:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

You are mixing different stories. The conspiracy is that the indigenous pigs of Israel are the result of a zionist plot to uproot Palestinians. That the CNN reports that a mayor alleges that settlers released pigs during an attack does not impact upon the veracity of this conspiracy theory - a strange unsupported viewpoint held by a small minority. Ankh.Morpork 17:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Gulf watch [21] states what is obviously a conspiracy that Israel is doing something with animals to hurt the Palestinian people.
The farmers believe that the herds of the wild pigs have been introduced around their lands as part of a well-designed Israeli plan to force them to run away.
"The Israelis have released huge numbers of those pigs near our areas, knowing exactly the grave damage those pigs can cause to our crops," Medhat Abu Khader, a Palestinian farmer who has 68 acres of land behind the barrier told Gulf News.
"In rare cases, the farmers have killed pigs which attacked them, and were shocked to find official plastic serial codes around their necks in a clear indication of official Israeli involvement," he said.
Eyewitnesses have also testified that the Israelis have released huge numbers of wild pigs from trucks near the lands.
May sound like it to you but CNN is the only mainstream third party RS we have on the issue does not report it as such: "The latest incident occurred in the village of Deir Istiya, Rosenfeld said. No arrests have been made. Deir Istiya Mayor Nazmi Salman said the assailants were in a red Peugeot car and sprayed slogans "insulting to Muslims and Palestinians." "This is not the first time Deir Istiya village (has) come under attack by the settlers," Salman said. "Deir Istiya is surrounded by nine Israeli settlements, and we are attacked and harassed by settlers on daily basis." Salman said settlers released some 300 wild pigs into the farming fields of the village, which destroyed and damaged the seasonal crops of the Palestinian farmers. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak called the attackers "hooligans." "The army, the police and security forces will work with full force against these hooligans who are bent on aggravating the fragile situation between Israelis and Palestinians and between the state of Israel and its neighbors," Barak said." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlv999 (talk • contribs)


Since the material was added in violation of the arbitration remedies at the top of this page, its deletion was entirely proper. As for reaching a consensus as to whether anything can be readded to the article, I suggest we start by laying out what sources are being cited for what claims, and then either reaching a consensus ourselves, or asking at WP:RSN, as to whether the sources are in fact valid for the material cited. Only then can we discuss what, if anything, can be added to the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
The pig material was appropriately removed. Dan Murphy (talk) 21:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree. The sources for a claim of conspiracy theory are too marginal in this case. CNN only says "Salman said settlers released some 300 wild pigs into the farming fields of the village, which destroyed and damaged the seasonal crops of the Palestinian farmers." It doesn't say anything else, whether the claim is true, false, a conspiracy (theory) etc. Not good enough for this article. And Gulf News [22] presents these attacks as factual and gives some credence to the Palestinian claims that the pigs were intentionally released (because it's citing only Palestinian claims, with no rebuttals). These two sources couldn't possibly be used to support the idea that it's just a conspiracy theory, because neither one says anything casting doubt on the Palestinian claims. That leaves only Arutz Sheva and Palestinian Media Watch possibly making claims of conspiracy theory in this case. Given that more mainstream sources don't cite or reproduce their claims, Sheva and PMW are insufficient in my view, especially because the (related) incidents are otherwise covered in the more mainstream press. Essentially, the claim of conspiracy theory is itself WP:FRINGE in this case. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Page moved without consensus

There was no consensus to move the page yet again, I note. Are we all going to ignore the WARNING about ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES here, and carry on regardless? Or is anyone actually the slightest bit interested in doing anything but filling this joke of an article with more facile propaganda? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you see anything inherently wrong with the actual move? His edit summary - "more inclusive" - is a sound rationale. Though I would prefer Israel related zoological conspiracy theories or simply Israel related animal conspiracy theories.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
'More inclusive' certainly - an opportunity to add even more dubious material. I expect another set of conspiracy-theorists entirely will shortly be filling the article up with all sorts of 'what the Jews are up to' nonsense shortly. The new title opens up a whole new can of worms. And then there is the problem of deciding what 'related' means. If we can't agree on who is 'an Arab', do we stand any chance of consensus over that? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
The reason why I think it is better is because these conspiracy theories are not clearly part of the Arab-Israeli conflict. For example Saudi Arabia has not been in direct conflict with Israel for years but conspiracy theories still emanate from that country. The conspiracy theories are all related to Israel but we don't know for sure how much they are related to the conflict, and our assumptions are OR.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
And how are you proposing we tackle the problem of deciding what 'related' means without engaging in OR? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Don't get your question. I dont think it is OR to claim that a conspiracy theory is "related" to Israel when the theory claims that Israel is behind the attack or spying. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I also thought you would be in favor of the move as your concern that the entire intention is to demean Arabs is now lessened. "Arab" is not in the article name and the article is now not limited to Arabs.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
No, the article can now be used to demean other people as well. Is that supposed to be an improvement? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Coddling Arab sensitivities is not my goal on Wikipedia, so I don't know, but I imagine it's not as embarrassing when more than one group makes these types of conspiracy theories. However, Wikipedia policy, of which I am more interested, is consistent with this move as it removes the OR-ish "conflict," as explained above. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I support it, saves us hours of silly semantic arguing over whose an Arab, and allows for the info. --Jethro B 19:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The consensus seem pretty solid so I don't think a straw poll is necessary, but I would like a straw poll to an even better name -- Israel related zoological conspiracy theories or simply Israel related animal conspiracy theories.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Israel-related zoological conspiracy theories seem the best choice to me. "Animal" (which is a noun) being used as an adjectival phrase there is a bit tortuous. And there should be a WP:HYPHEN in "Israel-related". I'm sure Mr. Murphy can suggest some other improvements. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
The first one seems like the best choice. --Jethro B 22:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Ignoring contentious issues of subject and content, 'zoological' in this context can only mean 'relating to animals' - which makes the suggested title 'Israel-related animal-related conspiracy theories'. Or at least, it would were it not for the fact that most people seeing the word 'zoological' are actually more likely to associate it with a collection of caged exotic beasts. English is blessed with many synonyms, but this really isn't the best one in the circumstances. Could I suggest as a way to avoid yet another edit war we perhaps ask a neutrally-worded question at the language reference desk regarding a less convoluted way to name an article concerning alleged animals, alleged Israelis, and alleged conspiracies? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Andy. "Zoological" suggests it has to do with zoology, that is, with the study of animals, which is not the case. A zoological conspiracy conveys that zoologists are in some conspiracy, say in classifying the red panda. What's wrong with "animal"? Nouns are used attributively (not as "adjectives") all the time. And simpler language is generally better.

Israel-related animal-spying conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories of Israel using animals for spying. Conspiracy theories of Israel spying with animals. — kwami (talk) 22:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that some of the theories claimed Israel used animals to attack, not only to spy. My two suggestions avoids this problem.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theories about I."? Are there other conspiracy articles? Maybe the animals could be combined with tainted water or nuclear waste dumping or whatever other theories you've got documented. I agree "zoology" doesn't work, per WP:COMMONNAME, and anything with "Arab" is out of the question if you're going to include Turkey or Iran. Neotarf (talk) 23:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, I also prefer Israel related animal conspiracy theories over Israel related zoological conspiracy theories for the reasons outlined above by others.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
At either rate, it should have the hyphen between Israel and related, as in Israel-related. And yes, limiting the scope to just spying or attacks is too narrow. --Jethro B 23:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Ok, Kwami convinced me to use animal instead of zoological. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

If I've got this clear, Israel-related animal conspiracy theories seems to be what is supported here. Are there any objections? If not, we can proceed with the page move after a sufficient amount of time passes with no objections. --Jethro B 00:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Concur, in that it at least avoids the word 'zoological', though as I've made clear already, I think it may be opening the article up to material that is beyond the intended topic. Regarding Brewcrewer's comment, don't you think that reaching a consensus before moving a controversial article is common sense? Just because the restrictions don't say you can't do something, it doesn't mean that you should do it, surely?... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with the "Israel-related animal conspiracy theories" title too. And as an aside, if someone can find a historical/ancient conspiracy theory involving animals and Israel, that would probably be amusing, but we don't have to automatically include it. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Andy, how does it open up material beyond the intended topic any more than the article now?
  • Tijfo, that'd be interesting, but a bit tough, unless you want to take Biblical stories, in which case that would certainly be WP:OR as you'd have people saying we can't take a side and say that the Bible isn't real. If I encounter a conspiracy theory in historical documents, I'll have everyone know... --Jethro B 02:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't clear about what I meant (insomnia finally catching up with me) - it was dropping the 'Arab-Israeli conflict' bit earlier that seemed problematic, in that though it was clear what the intent was (to include e.g. Iran, and questionably Turkey), it opened it up to all sorts of other vaguely-Israel-related conspiracy theories - and there isn't exactly a shortage of those. If some deranged loon turns up wanting to include something on claims about the late Robert Maxwell doping horses at the Grand National say, we might find it hard to argue that it is outside the scope of the article - though hopefully we shouldn't have problems over excluding such nonsense per lack of sources. There may be grey areas though - and the wider the scope, the more room there is for dubious material that none of us may have considered - and 'we don't like it' isn't the best grounds for exclusion. (Just to be clear, I've no reason to believe that Maxwell ever doped horses - I've never even seen it alleged, and have just made it up on the spot.) AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Well I think that goes against what Tijfo was saying earlier, where he supported opening this article to even historical events not part of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Now, if Robert Maxwell was alleged to dope horses, I promise you that I will support you in opposing including it here. However, if it's alleged that he doped horses, as ordered to do so by Israel in order to fend off Arab countries in the Six Day War, then it may be appropriate here (and would probably be appropriate under the previous title as well). The story would need to be connected with Israel - not just be about a person who is alleged to have a connection with Israel or in his entire life made a statement about Israel.
That said, you said you support the title change. I think your concern is well-founded, but is too much and I don't see it coming to light. If it does, we can revisit the discussion.
I think we've got the opinions of most of the people involved here. Would there be any opposition if I go and move the page after a few hours of no opposition here? --Jethro B 03:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Partial cherry-picking of sources.

That is 'partial', in both senses of the word. I've just removed (for other reasons - it included an unattributed copy-paste of the source) a section with a quotation from an Israeli avian ecologist to the effect that "Ignorance causes these stupid beliefs that they are used for spying". The original source (the Jerusalem post [24]) gives a fuller quotation: "We can be enemies or have disputes on water or borders or other issues, but birds and other wildlife belongs to all of us and we have to cooperate,” Hatzofe said. “We actually do have cooperation across the borders with some colleagues in countries that we are technically enemies. Ignorance causes these stupid beliefs that they are used for spying". This selective partial quotation of a source is not only a violation of WP:NPOV, but also almost certainly of WP:BLP in that it extracts Hatzofe's 'ignorance' comment from a broader context that actually demonstrates that he sees the supposed 'ignorance' as less than endemic. Likewise, we quote an opinion piece (not the best source) from the Washington Post for a statement that "Tel Aviv university had also tagged another vulture and a pelican which were captured in Sudan and accused of being spies". But what explanation does the source actually give for the 'spy accusations'? It mentions Bret Stephens' (of the WSJ) theory of "the debasement of the Arab mind", but also offers "a more benign explanation":

...Israel's real technological prowess and its real covert operations. As Max Boot [also of the WSJ] points out, Mossad's most recent suspected exploits are almost as fantastic as the fantasies. Israel is widely believed responsible for the Stuxnet computer worm, which appears to have done serious damage to Iran's centrifuges and its Busheir nuclear plant. And Mossad is the leading suspect in the high-tech bomb attacks on two leading Iranian nuclear scientists last month. One was killed and the other seriously injured when passing motorcyclists slapped adhesive bombs onto their cars.

So Arab media and officials who rave about spying vultures and Mossad sharks deserve to be mocked. On the other hand, they can cite the paranoid's defense -- just because they believe the Mossad is staging wild covert operations against them doesn't mean it's not true. [25]

Quoting an opinion piece for 'spy accusations', but omitting the broader context of actual covert operations which may fuel the conspiracy theories is again misrepresentation of the source. If this partisan cherry-picking of sources continues, I will raise the matter elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

No need to be so grumpy about it, I think most of those issues are fixed now. Marokwitz (talk) 14:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Vulture and a pelican in Sudan

The supposition that they were captured because of spying suspicions is based only on Diehl (and presumably other op-eds). The story in Science [26] is more reserved: 'Israeli ornithologist Yossi Leshem says the incident is the third such arrest (so to speak) of a bird tracked by Israeli scientists in 3 decades. In the late 1970s, Leshem says, Sudanese authorities detained an Egyptian Vulture tracked by Israeli scientists, and in the early 1980s, a tracked White Pelican was caught in the same country. "It's not a huge problem, but it happens. This is the Middle East," says Leshem, of Tel Aviv University in Israel.' Tijfo098 (talk) 00:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b "Iran Iran arrests pigeons for 'spying' on nuclear plant". The Daily Mail. October 20, 2008. Retrieved September 24, 2012.
  2. ^ a b "Iran arrests pigeons 'spying' on nuclear site". The Telegraph. October 20, 2008. Retrieved September 21, 2012.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel-related_animal_conspiracy_theories/Archive_2&oldid=1136268586"