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 keep. Sandstein 17:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This article is either WP:POVFORK or WP:SYNTH. Someone has taken a bunch of divergent news articles about Israel, Mossad, and animals and made it into an article. While the statements in the article are sourced, the composition is original. I cannot find a single book or academic source discussing the topic "Israel-related animal conspiracy theories." ImTheIP (talk) 22:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some of it may very well be propaganda. E.g it is not uncommon for Israel-friendly media to mistranslate Arabic sources, inadvertently or intentionally, to present a picture of Arabs as crazy conspiracy theorists. For example, here is an al-Quds article about the problems boars cause to West Bank farmers. You can read it using Google translate. But on the Wikipedia page, the topic is presented as nothing more than an Arab conspiracy theory. ImTheIP (talk) 23:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is very oddly specific and definitely looks like WP:POVFORKKeep in light of the articles listed below Hunter 23:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Star (is that a reliable news site?) article is exactly the kind of reporting that shouldn't be used to build contentious articles. Here's a quote from the article The Palestinian news wire WAFA reported a few years ago during the Intifada that Israelis were releasing giant rats in East Jerusalem. These killer rodents, “large as dogs,” were supposed to scare the locals out of their homes to leave this equally holy and contested city to the Jews (who apparently are not afraid of giant rats). There is no evidence of any Wafa article about "killer rodents" nor of the "large as dogs" quote. Same thing with the blog post in WaPo This just in: Saudi Arabia has arrested a bird on charges of spying for Israel. When and where was the bird arrested and by whom? Was the bird released or was it prosecuted? He links to Haaretz so "obviously" it must be true? It's all just a big whispering game where so called "journalists" writes some click-baity garbage based on what they read in some other click-baity garbage. ImTheIP (talk) 02:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That article is written by Khaled Abu Toameh who is a fellow at the far-right think tank the Gatestone Institute whose chairman Amir Taheri is a well known spreader of bullshit. The distance between Tehran and Jerusalem is 2 000 km so giant rats in Tehran has very little to do with rats in Jerusalem. In Toronto Star's article, "large as dogs" was in quotation marks so if that phrase isn't in Wafa's supposed article, the journalist who wrote it is a liar. And even if (big if) Abu Toameh's reporting is accurate, the claim is that settlers "flood the Old City of Jerusalem with rats." That's is an unsubstantiated claim but not a conspiracy theory. Wikipedia articles should not be based on trite clickbait no one can verify the correctness of. ImTheIP (talk) 06:03, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Arutz Sheva (Israel National News) is Israel's version of the Daily Mail. It's absolute trash. Sorry, the argument "lots of people have repeated the claim so it must be true" is not great. ImTheIP (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Admittedly the phrase "oddly specific" was very much on the tip of my tongue when I saw this. But the publications given by DreamFocus above show that there is indeed a theme here that has been recognized and discussed as a whole, which makes it a valid article topic (this is also dealt with in the last section of the article.) No comment on possible anti-Arab/Israel/bee-eater slant in the individual items... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yeah, despite the "WTF?" article title this is actually quite a thing in RS, and so merits coverage. Alexbrn (talk) 09:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-sourced, albeit weird, article. I'm inclined to keep it here. Oaktree b (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I don't think that the title is accurate, the subject is notable and within scope. Shankargb (talk) 00:01, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, covered by reliable sources over an extended period of time.--11Fox11 (talk) 04:29, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oaktree_b: "Well-sourced, albeit weird, article." See WP:SIGCOV and WP:ODD. 20:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meet WP:GNG Some of the sources for example [1],[2],[3],[4] There is probably much more, those sources don't talk about individual cases but about the whole phenomena --Shrike (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete think about it: what if anyone started USA-related animal conspiracy theories, or British-related animal conspiracy theories, would such an article have any chance of surviving? I think not, -and not that you would be in any lack of material. BTW, this "article" was started by a now long-banned editor, who "specialised" in making Arabs/Palestinians look bad. Huldra (talk) 23:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Imagine a moment, that someone started the USA-related animal conspiracy theories, where each and every instance mentioned in the article involved ...Afro-Americans, would you have accepted such an article? I think most of you would see it for what it was: cherry-picking instances in order to suit once prejudice.
Well, this is exactly that, 100% of the "instances" mentioned are about Arabs/Palestinians/Muslims. If you don't accept Afro-Americans "hate-articles" (or Chinese, Mexican-American, or Gay "hate-articles"), why would you accept Arabs/Palestinians/Muslims "hate-articles"? Huldra (talk) 22:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:LISTN and WP:GNG, article has plenty of sources that cover these "conspiracies" individually, some of which could have individual wikiarticles if they weren't here, also a couple of editors above have provided sources that discuss a number of them. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that appeals to WP:LISTN requires the article to be "list-like". That is, either have a title on the form "List of ..." or otherwise have the appearance of a "list". This article doesn't so WP:LISTN doesn't apply. ImTheIP (talk) 12:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Rubbish article.BlueD954 (talk) 07:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First, the accusation that Khaled Abu Toameh is unfit to be used as a source because the Gatestone Institute publishes articles he writes is cherry picking and, frankly, seems politically biased. He is an award-winning (Muslim Arab) journalist who writes for The Jerusalem Post and formerly worked for NBC News. Second, Conspiracy theories in the Arab world, specifically animal conspiracies -- like the widely repeated belief that Jews are descended from apes and pigs -- (mentioned in the article Antisemitism in Islam) have a pedigree and have significantly impacted pan-Muslim public opinion of Jews and Israel (see, for example, Mohsin Khan's English translation of the Holy Quran, Chapter 5, Sūrat l-Māidah). Therefore, the subject is scholastically relevant. ZozouliaZozoulia (talk) 13:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abu Toameh is a "senior distinguished fellow" at the Gatestone Institute. Sometimes guilt by association is unfair, but not when a person associates with lunatics infamous for inventing propaganda out of thin air. ImTheIP (talk) 20:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Sometimes guilt by association is unfair, but not when a person associates with lunatics infamous for inventing propaganda out of thin air." That's your opinion. That claim would be the equivalent of saying that since yours is also the opinion of the Council for American-Islamic Relations, which was an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorist financing case in U.S. history, then you are also an unindicted co-conspirator in financing terrorism. That's an Ad hominem, which is a rhetorical reaction inconsistent with the neutrality that defines our editing discussions. Deleting an article on the basis of an ad hominem attack is the cyber equivalent of book burning. But the argument is also a red herring, since Khaled Abu Toameh authored only two of the 53 articles cited in the footnotes. That does not indict the relevance and accuracy of an entire article. Please post instead whatever facts he cited in those two articles that you dispute Zozoulia (talk) 09:07, 25 November 2020 (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.