Talk:Israel-related animal conspiracy theories

Sources

Additional sources for the article:

• http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=203173
• http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=235919
• http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4229295,00.html

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)

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)

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)

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."[13] 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. Jaakobou^{Chalk 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, Jaakobou^{Chalk 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. Jaakobou^{Chalk 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. Jaakobou^{Chalk 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. Jaakobou^{Chalk 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. Jaakobou^{Chalk 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. [14], [15], [16]. 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 [17]. 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?

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 should be disobeyed. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 01:30, 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)