Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoological conspiracy theories (Arab-Israeli conflict)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was weak keep. A much more compelling "fails WP:N" argument would need to be made in the face of sources like [1] and [2] for that policy position to carry the day. SImilarly, arguing that the article "ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject" might be possible, but I don't see the argument being made here - merely that it's a synthesis to mush them together. A couple of sources seem to do that mushing e.g., There is, I believe, a NPOV problem, probably mostly a result of using primarily English language sources? I can't find a consensus to delete on that ground - such would be an exceptional result, which would require a strong consensus for it, which obviously doesn't exist. What else is there? Numbers marginally favour keeping, and "Meets WP:N" is a generally a good argument. One might prefer "no consensus, leaning towards keep", rather than "keep, leaning towards no consensus", but the difference is pretty academic - a relisting wouldn't have a chance of ending up anywhere else. Fix the article by more fairly representing the Arab POV. Maybe, or maybe not, split - I don't know, and don't see a consensus to do so here (but probably not to not do so, either). WilyD 08:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zoological conspiracy theories (Arab-Israeli conflict)[edit]

Zoological conspiracy theories (Arab-Israeli conflict) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

At this point the article appears to be turning into little more than a WP:INDISCRIMINATE listing of WP:NOT#NEWS events serving as a WP:COATRACK intended to demean the Arab and Muslim community. Notability is not really the issue here as these events are simply being combined to conjure up a notable subject, which would generally include any Israel-centric misinformation in the Arab and Muslim community including matters not regarding animals. The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Agree WP:COATRACK. Also seems to fall afoul of WP:Notability. Can anyone point to a single source that actually covers "Zoological conspiracy theories" generally, rather than individual examples of said theories? NickCT (talk) 21:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The topic on its own is well known, notable, and sourced. Almost every single source utilized in the article mentions other conspiracy theories, which they deem as a trend. This entire nomination smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This article does appear to demean Arabs/Muslims (assuming the theories are untrue) but this is irrelevant policy-wise even if this was the intention. There are far more articles and editors with the sole intention of demeaning Jews but I don't see anyone getting all anxious about those articles or nominating them for deletion. Nothing new I suppose. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recent developments have simply drawn my attention to the article and it has nothing to do with bias, at least not on my part. Just because you can cobble together enough sources about tangentially-related events to say together they meet the notability criteria does not mean it does not violate other policies. Quite a large number of the sources in this article do not even allude to "conspiracy theories" at all, with some of the instances describing the claims as such being from partisan sources that raise an additional WP:UNDUE concern.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • @brew - re far more articles and editors with the sole intention of demeaning Jews - Can you point to some of those articles so we can work to delete them as well? NickCT (talk) 00:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reason there's no article Criticism of the American government is because there's so much criticism, it wouldn't fit in a single article: instead we have everything from Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina to Criticism of American foreign policy to Criticism of Franklin D. Roosevelt (see List of criticism and critique articles#America-specific, and yes the US is the only country to have its own sub-heading on that page). If you like, maybe somebody could create more articles critical of Israel? --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@brew - re Criticism of the Israeli government - You know, this article doesn't really seem to pass the sniff test. I'd agree it raises WP:SYNTH, WP:COATRACK,WP:NOTESSAY,WP:SYSTEMICBIAS concerns. The fact that there aren't any other "Criticism of the XXX government" articles seems to lend heavily to the systemic bias idea. Why is only the Israeli government worthy of criticism? Tell you what brewcrew. Point me in the direct of a deletion nomination for this article, and you got my vote! NickCT (talk) 16:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an assorted collection of criticisms of the Israeli government; it's a discussion of the phenomenon of criticism of the Israeli government. For example, there is the oft-discussed question of whether criticism of the Israeli government is antisemitism; that is covered in the article. There is the question of whether the Israeli government is criticized for actions that are normal among sovereign states; this is covered in the article. Topics such as the impact of constant criticism by the world media on the Israeli psyche, the disproportionate focus on Israel by human rights groups and the United Nations, and the suppression of criticism of Israel internationally are topics that enough commentators have written on that the article can, but is not composed of, synthesis. Shrigley (talk) 22:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, well even if you forget the synth concerns for a moment, you're still left with the huge question of why there aren't any "Criticism of the XXX government" for governments other than Israel. I'm sure that "enough commentators", as you put it, have written works criticizing every government underneath the sun. Why don't we have Criticism of the Albanian Government? Could it perhaps be that articles of that nature are tremendously unencyclopedic? NickCT (talk) 12:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the entire article is a coatrack, then it's a pretty good reason for deletion. Notability of the topic itself has not been demonstrated. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NickCT and Devils advocate. Take a look at the alleged "Pig conspiracy" for example. The allegation of settlers releasing pigs onto Palestinian land as part of a well documented campaign of violence and intimidation is reported credibly by CNN [3] along with a number of Palestinian and Arab sources [4],[5]. There is not a single source which says this is a conspiracy theory. Those which cast doubt on the allegation are Palestinian Media Watch[6] (An activist organization run by a Settler), Arutz Sheva [7]("voice of the Settler movement") and an Opinion piece[8]. Why on earth are we reporting this as a conspiracy theory? And this kind of sourcing generalizes to the whole article. Dlv999 (talk) 22:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely sure what your position is. If you are claiming that these are true and not conspiracy theories, then you are not making a valid argument for deletion. If anything these "animal attacks" are even more notable and you are disagreeing with the nominator's main argument for deletion -- that the article demeans Arabs and Muslims.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I have no idea where you are coming from with this. Are you saying that you think it acceptable to have an article on "Zoological conspiracy theories" including material based entirely on partisan sources and opinion pieces, none of which even refer to the existence of a conspiracy theory? Dlv999 (talk) 23:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CNN was quoting someone making an allegation. Pretending they were reporting it as fact is, well, not very nice. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NMMNG, I said "The allegation of settlers releasing pigs onto Palestinian land as part of a well documented campaign of violence and intimidation is reported credibly by CNN". The allegation was reported credibly by CNN (not as some crazy conspiracy theory) as I said. I did not say they they reported it as fact, I said they reported the allegation. I would ask you to retract your snide remark. Either way there is no RS which says this was a conspiracy. Dlv999 (talk) 23:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article was already submitted for AfD, and survived by a landslide. Consensus was to keep. The article's subject is notable and covered by a variety of RS outlets, and includes significant information, and there have been many reactions by various people to this info. The entire topic is well sourced to RS outlets and is verifable, which includes Huffington Post, BBC, Washington Post, etc. Some people oppose it here simply because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, or are upset that the previous AfD's consensus was to keep, but it's a pretty far-fetched claim to say that an article that numerous admins voted to keep an AfD is to "demean Arabs." I don't think any of us are mind-readers. --Activism1234 23:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and perhaps rename per my comments at the previous AfD. There are RS that connect these together, noting previous cases when reporting new ones. It does not fail WP:N nor can it seriously be described as a COATRACK when all the cases fit the title of the article. What's it supposed to be a coatrack for? Silly myths involving Israel controlling animals? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NickCT and Devil's Advocate. It's arrant nonsense – essentially OR, with editors collecting reports of disparate incidents to form a supposed topic (zoological conspiracy theories) that the sources are not writing about as such. --JN466 23:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The material on the shark attack claims could easily be moved over to the article that actually covers the shark attacks and the other incidents would fail a WP:ROUTINE consideration. None of these claims have independent notability and most of them are only tenuously connected. At best we could move some of the material to the article on "Antisemitism in the Arab and Muslim world" since a few of these incidents are discussed in that context, but I don't think any of this is significant enough to so much as merit a redirect from this bizarre name.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is why as a whole, and as noted on the previous AfD, they form a notable article reliably referenced. The article was first called "Mossad Shark and Zionist Vulture," but this limited the scope and as mentioned, may not have created sufficient notability for 1 article. A lot of people supported the article but opposed the name. The name was changed to the current one. Indeed, some of the sources here do establish notablity for the article. I doubt these conspiracy theories would t fit in an article about anti-Semitism in the Arab and Muslim world... --Activism1234 03:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those articles are unlikely to be created, because we do not have a cabal of editors who spend there time trying to edit war racist and demeaning material into the encyclopedia targeting the British, as we do in the case of Arabs/Muslims. Dlv999 (talk) 07:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
True. Maybe We Are Doomed. Or Wikipedia is, anyway. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Weak Delete) changing to Weak Keep (see below) - each of the "items" in the article is fine (might need some editing and more RS), but the article itself as a whole is OR and SYNTH. i have no doubt that if i had posted it, i would be shot down left and right (mostly left). so, my weak is that if we can find a separate RS that talks about the zoological conspiracies in toto (pardon the pun, dorothy), then sure, keep the article, otherwise, delete it, and maybe add this information to an existing page (and that will be fun to decide which one). oh, and why aren't the following on the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal-borne_bomb_attacks#West_Bank_and_Gaza_Strip (which i will be happy to add anyway, ok?) Soosim (talk) 07:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These sources discuss the general topic area and not just individual cases in isolation:
Washington Post
Secret agent vulture tale just the latest in animal plots
What is Responsible for Miseries of the Arabs?
Egypt's Prison of Hate - You know a country is in trouble when it blames shark attacks on the Mossad.
Epistemology to the Muslim World
the wash post, star and gatestone all speak of more than one incident, so yes, those are not bad. of course, some are opinion pieces so must be labeled accordingly. and like colap's comment below, i would rename the article to something like "possible zoological conspiracy theories regarding suspected zoological attacks by Israel". Soosim (talk) 12:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Washington Post - Opinion blog should be attributed to author per WP:NEWSBLOG, which it is not.
Secret agent vulture tale just the latest in animal plots- The Toronto Star
What is Responsible for Miseries of the Arabs? An opinion piece(not attributed in the article)
Egypt's Prison of Hate - You know a country is in trouble when it blames shark attacks on the Mossad. - An opinion piece (not attributed in the article)
Epistemology to the Muslim World - a blog named neocon corner (not attributed in the article).
Can someone explain to me, if the purpose of this article is not to denigrate Arabs and Muslims, why have we built an article based on a small collection of rightwing neocon blogs and opinion pieces (all unattributed in the article). How can a collection of blogs and opinion pieces (Defined as Primary Sources by WP:NOR[10]) be used as justification for notability when WP:PRIMARY states that "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability" and that "Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided." Dlv999 (talk) 12:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Add "List of" in front of this article's title and it becomes acceptable by Wikipedia standards. It's true that I can't find a similar topic in a paper encyclopedia of conspiracies,[11] but Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER! I have asked the WP:ARS for help. They are experts on this type of material. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It brings together well-attested events with commentary that indicates a connection. If the majority believes there's not evidence to call it a conspiracy theory (and I'm slightly unsure myself) it could be renamed to Zoological attacks in the Middle East or something similar, but the article should stay. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as propaganda - which is quite evidently exactly what it is. Do we have an article on Conspiracy theories (Arab-Israeli conflict)? Nope. Do we have an article on Zoological conspiracy theories in general? No we don't - in spite of the misleading and self-evidently misleading redirect. So why do we have this article, on this 'subject'? Quite simply, because there are enough people, both within the mass media and within the Wikipedia 'community' (which of course includes a well-coordinated group of pro-Israel/Zionist POV-pushers who needless to say are responsible for much of the article content, and are quite willing to misrepresent sources in order to make the subjects of their propaganda look even more ridiculous) who like to see as much material portraying their enemies as backward and ill-educated (or worse) as possible. It is an utter disgrace to Wikipedia that the project has been abused in this way, and it is high time that it was stopped. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What you may not realize is that this article is not even being limited to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The "pigeon conspiracy" is talking about something that happened in Turkey and they aren't Arabs. Another was a claim about Iran, which is predominantly non-Arab. Basically it just being used to record any bizarre claim of Israel using animals to do bad things. None of these have notability on their own and the general subject is only occasionally covered trivially in connection with these incidents.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is interesting, well written and well sourced.--Collingwood (talk) 13:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. - Well sourced, high quality sources. It's really disappointing to see attempts to censor material in WP, we have enough of that in the mainstream media these days. I should add that I personally don't like wording like "conspiracy theories" in article titles though, as it denigrates the article contents and is inherently POV. What it essentially means is "the content of this article does not reflect the current presentation of the mainstream media in the United States and United Kingdom". Rangoon11 (talk) 13:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith. This has nothing to do with censorship, but is instead about addressing a problematic article that has proven to be little more than a magnet for ORish agenda-pushing. Most of the contents that actually has some relevance can be easily merged to other pages.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. - Per all above. Flayer (talk) 14:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I can see the WP:COATRACK concerns, but all-in-all, is reasonably sourced. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete The topic of the article is a claim, namely that Arabs are prone to invent animal related conspiracies, it then provides a list of putative examples of such. However, none of the sources describe the main claim, namely that all of these cases are examples of the same phenomenon. It therefore breaches WP:SYNTH, and WP:COATRACK. The sources do not support the notability of the topic, because they are all about single events, not about the general topic of zoological conspiracies. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well then you clearly haven't read them, for example the BBC source states "The vulture is the latest animal to be accused of being an unwitting Mossad operative", the World Affairs source links use of rats and sharks, and the Washington Post piece links vultures and sharks. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Delete as per Maunus above. Unless some way of preventing the obvious coatracking can be found. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—the article refers to a number of conspiracy theories all well sourced and tied to a broader topic which the article discusses. The reasons cited for deletion by almost everyone who wants to delete refer to specific problems with some of the article's content. I admit that the article's quality fluctuates and that's not desirable, but this is not a valid argument for deletion. The vast majority of the article's content has to do with what the article is about, so it's not a WP:COATRACK. If some of the content is not relevant to the article, those arguing for deletion are welcome to make a case for deleting that content on the article's talk page. I find it funny that one of the arguments for deletion above claims that there is a conspiracy by certain editors to write articles such as this. —Ynhockey (Talk) 15:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pretty obviously a synthesis of individual incidents into a made-up phenomenon. There are no reliable sources either in the article or offered in this discussion that treat this as a topic in itself. I thought we had grown out of exploding whales, but clearly, judging by the continued existence of that article and the support that this one has attracted, we haven't. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • As written above by Rangoon, "for example the BBC source states "The vulture is the latest animal to be accused of being an unwitting Mossad operative", the World Affairs source links use of rats and sharks, and the Washington Post piece links vultures and sharks." So I see a connection to a topic being used in these refs. --Activism1234 20:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can see no such statement in the BBC article.[12] The articles in World Affairs[13] and The Washington Post[14] are both opinion pieces and each mentions two incidents involving animals along with other non-zoological incidents. There's nothing there that presents zoological conspiracy theories as a topic in themselves. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tangential and trivial connections at best that do not deal with a general subject of "zoological conspiracy theories" as you claim. We could expand the conspiracy section at the article on the actual shark attacks, noting briefly in like a sentence or two that said theory was seen as being part of a pattern that included the claims about the rat and the vulture. However, I don't think redirecting this name to there would be appropriate.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Phil Bridger, you're looking in the wrong BBC article. The statement is in this article dealing with the vulture. --Activism1234 20:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, so we have 15 words of coverage in one news article. Are we really going to keep an article on that basis? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, of course. As the nominator of the first AfD, I have not changed my mind about this (steadily increasing) heap of garbage. Of course, I expect it to be kept, (as such garbage always is) with "some" help...with the normal "recruiting", and socks. (Editors can go back and see for themselves how many of those who voted "keep" in the first AfD have since been banned as socks. I assume Nocal, Matanmorland and the rest are already out in force. ) However, I retain the satisfaction that other people have nominated this article (off-wikipedia) as among the "Worst of Wikipedia". Hurrah! This article (+ quite a few others) serves absolutely no other purpose than to "prove" that Muslims/Arabs/Palestinians are a backward and ignorant lot. No wonder Anders Behring Breivik loves English Wikipedia: it "confirms" all his beliefs. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Demonizes Arabs and Muslims" is a WP:JDLI argument. Sources that on the surface only discuss only one incident, in fact note the existence of trends, antisemitic canards, etc. Shrigley (talk) 22:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good thing that is not the only argument presented. We have reports that are almost entirely just random news events collated into an article based on some sources making trivial connections. It relies as the basis for its inclusion on there being enough sources to get keep votes, rather than relying on there being significant discussion of it as an independent subject in multiple reliable sources.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update. I've edited the article a fair bit to make it easier to see which sources link the events and provide commentary on the pattern [15]. I hope this helps alleviate the SYNT concern. The title is still a bit problematic because few sources refer to the Arab overreaction as "conspiracy theories". We should probably consider renaming the article to something else, but nothing good comes to mind now and it's not really a topic for this discussion. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:29, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It turns out that most of the press commentary is about two events, one of which (the shark one) has a separate article already. These are both pretty recent events (2010, 2011). I checked Conspiracy Theories in the Arab World: Sources and Politics [16] (a 2010 book) and it has no mention of any animal-related spying/attack theories. The neutrality of about half the sources of commentary has been disputed, and these have been deleted [17] [18]. So, it looks like this article may have been created a bit too soon. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There were actually a lot more conspiracy theories on this article... But once the restrictions were in place, any editor who didn't like it (you know, because it somehow makes them look bad) could freely remove it, and not worry about it ever getting reinserted since they'd just oppose it on the talk page... --Activism1234 01:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was a lot of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH material in the article. The restrictions were put in place to stop edit warring and WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. So far they appear to have been successful. Dlv999 (talk) 07:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A lot of content was recently removed from the article. I remember reading about the giant rats years ago. [19] mentions that, as well as two pigeons arrested in 2008 for staking out a nuclear enrichment facility, 14 spy squirrels being arrested, and the super rats. My internet keeps going out, so hard to search right now. But these various things do get coverage, and no reason not to put all animal related conspiracies together on one page. Dream Focus 08:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that a large number of content has already been deleted seems like a reason to delete rather keep the article.Poyani (talk) 16:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep broadly per brewcrewer. There seems to be a lot of confusion here (especially per recent block deletions) between needing to prove that there were supernatural rats, and needing to show that there was a popular impression or panic about supernatural rats. No-one seriously claims that Zionist Death Kittens are real, merely that there is a noteworthy conspiracy theory claiming they are. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No-one is saying that you need to prove there were supernatural rats. I have no idea where you are getting that impression from. The claim that there was "a popular impression or panic about supernatural rats" was only coming from Palestinian Media Watch, an agenda driven activist organization run by a settler - which falls a long way short of the sourcing needed for such a WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim. Dlv999 (talk) 09:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From Palestinian Media Watch: "A report Palestinian Media Watch presented to the United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs in 2008 indicated that the Palestinian Authority was engaging with enemies of the United States on a shared platform of hatred toward the U.S. The report argued that under such circumstances the creation of an independent Palestinian state would contribute to the undermining U.S. efforts toward world peace." Tijfo098 (talk) 10:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Presenting a report to a United States House Committee does not automatically confer reliable source status for wikipedia articles. For instance Human rights organizations, such as Human rights Watch([20], [21]), regularly testify or submit reports to House Committees, but they are not regarded as RS for verifying facts in the Wiki voice. Dlv999 (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Activist and My Very Best Wishes. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 01:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:N. --173.241.225.163 (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC) Struck, likely banned editor. Amalthea 18:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The fact that this even requires a discussion (let alone a divided one) is a testament to how badly wikipedia's systems are failing. This article is beyond ridiculous. It was originally a badly written WP:Synth. Over the years the original research advanced in this article was picked up by a few opinion columnists and now the wikipedia article lists them as sources, a perfect example of content creation via circular references. And it is all done to push a POV. Notice that to date there is not even one single notable or reliable source pushing the synthesis presented. Not a single one. Just opinion writers who wrote their synthesis after this article was created. And yet we still have all these votes for "keep".Poyani (talk) 16:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What evidence do you have that this article has been the source of the third party sources quoted within it?Rangoon11 (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What happened to the rats???? so not fair. bring back the rats! Soosim (talk) 17:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This topic is notable there are plenty of sources that discuss those theories so its meet WP:N and WP:DIVERSE.For example [23]--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or maybe it's because this article was created as a result of all the conspiracies floating around at that time, also accumulating in various op-eds, which were also collected in a JPost piece... Also note the JPost piece focused on a different zoological event, and then mentioned the other conspiracy theories since it was connected to the actual story (and no, I don't think anyone has control over when historical events occur). I don't think it's too wise to speculate conspiracy theories regarding RS outlets, there's no possible way to back up that unsourced speculation. Let's be realistic here. --Activism1234 23:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Jerusalem Post article is an obvious case of circular sourcing. I do not even remotely think the author came up with "Israeli zoological militancy conspiracy theories" all on his lonesome when the Wikipedia article used that exact same term at the time the article was written.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I must say, it's odd that the name of the article changed in April 2011, the journalist used that exact (strange) turn of phrase in August 2011 and the article name was changed to something else in October 2011, because that particular turn of phrase was strange. It really was a strange phrase and the use of it by a journalist "at random" during the few months it was in place suggests either the journalist was using WP as a source or the journalist is the editor who made that change and used the phrase here before using it in an article there. I don't think that's a "conspiracy theory" - neither of those is illegal or unethical. It just means that source doesn't make for a particular good-quality source for this article. It's either WP citing a source citing WP or it was WP:OR in the first place for which someone has manufactured a source. Stalwart111 (talk) 05:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is this actually your 17th edit to Wikipedia or did you edit previously under another user name? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see the relevance of this question here. You should ask on my talk page. As it is, I've made occasional contributions to Wikipedia for at least 6 years anonymously, and registered in order to make a more substantial commitment. I also see no point in contributing without familiarising myself with the policy of the website. In light of this, it sounds like you would do well to remind yourself of WP:GOODFAITH. If you have suspicions about my account, take them up with an admin. HauntologicalPhenomenon (talk) 04:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SPI on you opened. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you waited six whole years before your felt confident enough open an account. So noble, so very noble. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable individual events (per WP:EVENT - these lack persistent significant coverage or lasting effects) do not dodge the notability requirements by being glued together. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After thinking some more about this, the combination of absurdly narrow title/topic with the AE-imposed rules make a decent article impossible. The fact that most sources tying together the rather recent events are opinion pieces in the press doesn't help either. I've started improving animals used in espionage instead. The wider topic of Israel/Mossad-related conspiracy theories (not necessarily involving animals) and the proclivity of the public and press in Muslim countries (even in those far away from Israel) to believe and disseminate those is covered in more reliable sources. [24] [25] An article on that would be less contestable by the anti-activist activists. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that's a really good idea. Then these individual incidents, if they are to be covered, can have more context. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can also mention it a teensy bit in the article on the shark attacks under the conspiracy section there, since that is mainly what prompted the talk.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It could only possibly 'solve the problem' for material which could be cited as being a 'Mossad related conspiracy theory'. There was too much WP:OR in the article as it was - having to guess which particular Israeli agency was being accused of zoological monkey-business (so to speak) would be stretching it, even for nonsense like this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now there's a misdirected redirect if ever I've seen one. Sadly, there are a hell of a lot of 'Conspiracy theories involving Israel' which have nothing to do with sharks, vultures or puffer-fish - and as such much more deserving of in-depth coverage in Wikipedia. The problem is of course sourcing. It shouldn't be difficult to find plenty of proper academic coverage of the way the old anti-semitic tropes have been redirected at Israel, but there is a real problem knowing where to draw the line when almost any criticism of Israel is seen by a few (or maybe more than a few?) as evidence of antisemitism. I suspect that any general article on the proposed subject would rapidly degenerate into the same old Wikipedia battleground article, of little use to a reader actually trying to get a clear view of a complex topic. I am increasingly coming round to the opinion that there are some subjects that Wikipedia's 'anyone can edit' methodology is incapable of covering in a useful way. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:56, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to closer - As of this post, I move the article to List of animal attacks (Arab-Israeli conflict) and rewrote the lead to read: List of animal attacks (Arab-Israeli conflict) is a compilation of incidents in which a country is alleged to use an animal to attack Arab or Israeli civilians or conduct espionage, such as part of a Zionist or Israeli plot. I suggest closing as no consensus (which is where the discussion was headed anyways) and relisting at AfD to allow editors to consider the topic as a list without the problems of trying to justify a prose article or justify a topic with a vague article name. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seems like a pretty big unilateral change without any prior discussion... I'm not sure everyone is going to agree to this... --Activism1234 15:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A list of animal attacks (Arab-Israeli conflict) topic is viable as supported by the content already in the article. The article name "Zoological conspiracy theories (Arab-Israeli conflict" tried to aggrandize the topic into something more than it is, and that is what was turning editors away from supporting the topic. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The old article worked towards trying to prove that there are zoological conspiracy theories in the Arab-Israeli conflict. There were animal attacks, some people thought that one country or another was behind the attack, reporters reported on it. That's all that happened. But the events did happen and there is enough of such information to form a topic in which Wikipedia can publish in the form of a list article. I revised the article to move it away from being about conspiracy theories,[26] so that the article can continue to move towards being a representative survey of the relevant literature rather than an original source of conclusion for different events. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is complete nonsense. Had you even read the article before you moved it? It isn't about 'animal attacks', but about alleged conspiracies using animals. And why the hell do you think it is remotely appropriate to move an article to another subject matter without any discussion whatsoever in the middle of an ongoing AfD discussion? I see your move has been reverted. If you want Wikipedia to have an article on the subject you propose, start one (if you can find sources to meet the guidelines). AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There seems enough common information about these to justify the article. A list of actual use of animals in combat would be a different topic, and should be written DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "common information" has mostly been editors finding tenuous connections between events, or just adding anything they think fits. At its core the article was focused on the shark incident and the vulture incident, but the basis for an article was tenuous there as well. We have material about shark attacks that could easily be moved over to the article on the shark attacks that prompted the conspiracy theories, as that was a big part of what made the event notable. Beyond that none of the other incidents, even in combination, would really be able to withstand a faithful application of WP:NOT#NEWS. The vulture stuff was basically just tacked on to discussion about the sharks because the events happened around the same time. When it was put in some sort of context, such as in this article, it is often put alongside plenty of conspiracy theories that have nothing to do with animals.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "editors journalists, mostly in op-eds finding tenuous connections similarities between these events (which they say fits well in the overall picture of the ease of propagation of other Israel-related conspiracy theories in Muslim majority countries)". There, fixed it for you. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Op-eds and opinion blogs are defined as Primary Sources by WP:NOR[27]). WP:PRIMARY states that "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability" and that "Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided." Dlv999 (talk) 13:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those are examples. If all opinions are disallowed (as primary sources or whatever other wikigimmick), then we wouldn't be able to write anything about the critical reception of a book for instance, because all book reviews are opinions. I agree however that better sources of opinion should be sought for contentious material like this. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zoological_conspiracy_theories_(Arab-Israeli_conflict)&oldid=1136465733"