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.
 

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 [1]. I restored it and he reverted me again here [2]. 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 [3]. 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, [4] 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)

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 121.99.80.175 (talk) 03:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Dolphin[edit]

The paragraph about the dolphin that I contributed was removed unilaterally by Markowitz and I have reverted it. His reason for the removal was that dolphins have been trained on occasion for military roles. That is indeed true, but no evidence has ever been offered that Israel employs dolphins for military or espionage purposes. I have expanded the paragraph to include additional information published over the past several days, including the assertion by the highly-respected Foreign Policy magazine, that the dolphin story is yet another example of an animal conspiracy theory.Zozoulia (talk) 10:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Other mammals[edit]

I propose moving the dolphin paragraph to a new sub-section to be called "Mammals," which would also include accusations of wild pigs being used to destroy Palestinian crops and rats being introduced into the Jerusalem sewer system to chase Arab residents out of the city:

In several speeches, Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas has accused Israel of releasing wild boars to destroy agricultural fields in the West Bank in order to cause damage to produce and intimidate farmers.[1] "Every night, they [Israelis] release wild pigs against us," Abbas was quoted as saying. An Israeli government official responded, "It's a pity the Palestinian Authority president chooses to propagate such rubbish, and it raises questions about his real position on Israel."[2]

Palestinian spokesmen have also accused Israel of releasing rats into the Jerusalem sewer system as a weapon to displace and expel Arab residents of the Old City. Israel's goal was to "increase the suffering of the [Arabs] in Jerusalem by turning their lives into a real tragedy and forcing them to evict their homes and leave the city," Hasan Khater, secretary-general of the Islamic-Christian Front in Jerusalem, was quoted as saying. Jerusalem Municipality spokesman Gidi Schmerling, however, replied that the report was "pure fiction" and had no connection to reality.[3]

Comments? Zozoulia (talk) 10:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ Turkish Weekly. November 22, 2014 http://www.turkishweekly.net/2014/11/22/news/abbas-accuses-israel-of-using-wild-boars-against-palestinians/. Retrieved August 24, 2015.  Text "Abbas accuses Israel of using wild boars against Palestinians" ignored (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. ^ Abu Toameh, Khaled; Keinon, Herb (November 22, 2014). "Report: Abbas accuses Israel of using wild boars against Palestinians". The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved August 24, 2015. 
  3. ^ Abu Toameh, Khaled (July 20, 2008). "Palestinians: Israel uses rats against J'lem Arabs". The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved August 24, 2015.