Talk:Israel-related animal conspiracy theories

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Israel (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Animals (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon Israel-related animal conspiracy theories is within the scope of WikiProject Animals, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to animals and zoology. For more information, visit the project page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Alternative Views (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative Views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Skepticism (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Page moved without consensus[edit]

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 the name change. Makes more sense. Should we do a straw poll on who sincerely objects to it, and who supports it? Dream Focus 19:37, 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)

  • I support it too as entirely sensible. I had already proposed something similar in the sections above. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:56, 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. Though I would note that page moves are not under the silly restrictions as it does not include additional article material.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:11, 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)
  • Note. The phrase "Zoological conspiracy theories" is used directly by WP:RS. For example see [1]. Marokwitz (talk) 08:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
    • That was written well after this article appeared on Wikipedia. Most likely WP:CIRCULAR. There was another opinion piece which directly linked to the Wikipedia page. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Do you have any evidence that it is circular? I don't think this is necessarily true. And it doesn't really matter, JP is a reliable source, which adds credence to using their terminology, over a made up title. But don't feel too strongly about it. Marokwitz (talk) 13:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Shark rewrite[edit]

I have rewritten the shark material to reflect what actually happen and remove puffery restored recently with the sole purpose of making Egyptians in general look as stupid and "shiftily conspiratorial" as possible. The current section is a neutral summary of events, using non-partisan sources.Dan Murphy (talk) 21:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Except that it's anything besides a neutral rewrite. Firstly, it removes a whole ton of information. Secondly, WP:IDONTLIKEIT or trying to read the minds of others ("sole purpose of making Egyptians in general look as stupid") isn't a valid reason for this. Thirdly, it's anything but neutral, and contains a load of weasel wording ("squashed as ridiculous") and WP:OR ("scattered media reports") to minimize the conspiracy.
You should've at least discussed this at first, propose this version and discuss it... --Jethro B 21:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
It's an editorial. Also, it didn't get prior consensus per the restrictions above. I'm going to restore the prior version. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
And so the edit warring goes on... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
So now two full-time Wikipedia propagandists (dedicated to making Arabs and Muslims look as bad as possible) have edit warred an ignorant diver that no one ever heard off as the first opinion anyone reads about, exaggerated a conspiracy that very, very few people ever heard off let alone believed (I have many, many Egyptian friends and had an apartment in Cairo for years) and downplay official reaction that was quite reasonable. The flurry of idiotic news stories lasted 2-3 days. In Wikipedia, they live on forever. Why? To serve a political agenda. Of course!Dan Murphy (talk) 22:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
See WP:SOAP, WP:AGF, and WP:NPA. Also, unfortunately, your personal statements regarding contacts in Egypt can not be taken as RS here. Also, consider examining the diffs again. There is no edit-warring here, there was a revert by 1 editor, from a version that was heavily biased and violated ARBPIA restrictions. I'm quite shocked that I'm being implicated as edit-warring here, where all I've done is discussed this on the talk page! That's besides the tragic insults hurled at me, which really don't contribute to a good, pleasant atmosphere and collaborative editing, and violate the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. --Jethro B 22:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Let me be clear. "No more Mr. Nice Guy," your fellow ideological partisan who you often coordinate edits and reverts with, reverted me here [2]. I restored it and he reverted me again here [3]. So far you're just backing your ideological comrade on this talk page. But you stand at the ready with support. Y'all are masters at gaming the whole website to play a propaganda game. Good faith? I'm a grown man and I've observed your behavior long enough. Assumptions of good faith get replaced by reasoned and informed opinion.Dan Murphy (talk) 22:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Wait... So you already made this edit before, got reverted, and then thought it'd be OK to slide it in? And then, when you got reverted, it's all part of a grand conspiracy on Wikipedia? To top it off, editors aren't even allowed to say their opinions anymore, contrary to WP:CENSOR? This is interesting... Again, please stop alleging that this is part of some conspiracy or that there's a coordination of edits here - there isn't any proof of such, and you really have no basis for this defamatory, untrue claim through a single revert by 1 editor when you inserted material that was previously objected to and reverted... --Jethro B 22:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm saying that a large part of your mission on Wikipedia is to spread hate. I'm saying the same thing about No More Mr. Nice Guy. And yes, I'm saying my edit was far more neutral, fair, and reflected by reality. I'm also saying that there is a large amount of coordinated reverting and associated shenanigans at arbitration enforcement and on talk pages. So it goes, so it goes.Dan Murphy (talk) 22:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Apparently you think this article is an op-ed page. That is not the case. Perhaps if you stuck with the sources rather than editorialize all over the place, it wouldn't be necessary to revert you. Considering the current text is supported by such sources as the BBC, Al Ahram, and Reuters, among others, your assertion that "very, very few people ever heard off" it seems like a lot of wishful thinking. Not that stuff you pluck out of thin air is really relevant here, but at least try to stick to something plausible.
As for your accusation I'm here to "spread hate", you might want to retract that before I'll have to do something about it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Please maintain primary sources, including highly partisan primary sources, where they are relevant. I am referring to [4]. To be clear, I am not saying that the Egyptian diving instructor is right. To the contrary, I think an Egyptian diving instructor might know that Elphinstone Reef, in Egypt, well within the Strait of Mandeb, is advertised as a good place for people to dive with Oceanic Whitetip Sharks, [5] quite a fearsome species. But people have to have access to the sources directly to take in the nature of the broadcast, the little digs like the diving instructor mock-defending himself for working with an Israeli and so forth, as well as to see for themselves the absurdity of the claim. If you're going to write an article about conspiracy theories you have to talk about some peculiar ideas and cite some peculiar sources.
  • A better option to neutralize a nutty theory here is to include one of our three excellent photos from the Oceanic Whitetip Shark article, all three of which were taken in different years, all well before 2010, in Egypt. With the right legend (based strictly on the original file description) you would provide an amusing juxtaposition for our readers. Wnt (talk) 06:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Tell me why I should second-guess this particular source's copyright releases, apart from its viewpoint? It looks like a professional organization from the article. It certainly might have obtained a release for the clip. It may be even be that, to translate and comment on the brief excerpt shown, it is exercising Fair Use appropriately within the law. It is obviously not a pirate site, not some anonymous proxy posting stuff, not some teenager who doesn't know what he's doing. You might as well say that I can't link to a Google Maps view because they might have infringed the copyright on somebody's satellite photo. Either we reject every reference of every kind because it might be pirated, we accept every reference we can reasonably take on good faith as being legitimately licensed, or we reject only the ones we happen to disagree with for some ideological reason unrelated to copyright. I prefer #2. Wnt (talk) 13:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
If Tom Friedman of The New York Times says that MEMRI is good and reputable enough for him, it's good enough for me. --Jethro B 00:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Partial cherry-picking of sources.[edit]

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 [6]) 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. [7]

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[edit]

The supposition that they were captured because of spying suspicions is based only on Diehl (and presumably other op-eds). The story in Science [8] 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)

another one[edit]

In Sudan.— Preceding unsigned comment added by No More Mr Nice Guy (talkcontribs)

whats the wacky rule again before it can be included? a 64% consensus over 4 days or 71%$ consensus over 6 days? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
48 hours, unless someone has many many Sudanese friends and had an apartment in Khartoum. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Snakes, pigs and rats, and another vulture[edit]

1. I can identify no specific source for the 2 paras below other than the Maan Palestinian-Arab news agency quoted in the first. The date of these allegations was around 2009-10. All species concerned are of course animals of low status and/or unclean to both Jews (making them a double insult) and Arabs. Samaria is part of what it usually called the West Bank.

A rumour among Arabs in Samaria: Israelis are training snakes to attack innocent farmers, according to the Bethlehem-based Maan news, associated with the PA. A snake bit a woman outside a village adjacent to the Jewish city of Ariel. Local Arabs said that after the attack, the snake “escaped” toward Ariel. The snake's movement was taken as a sign that it had been released from Ariel by Israelis intent on harming Arabs.

PA villagers in the same area were the first to accuse Israelis of using trained pigs to attack Arab farmers. Several such accusations have been published by PA media. In addition, PA media has accused Israel of unleashing “anti-Arab super rats” in Jerusalem.

2. An almost identical vulture story, this time set in Sudan, appeared in the New Zealand Herald, 13 December 2012. The item was not attributed, but was almost certainly from AP, which is almost the only agency the title uses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)