Talk:Art student scam/Archive 2

Interesting link
I found a link someone posted on a blog comment, it's on an Israeli student work site. Google translate:. It is about joining a team on student work visas to sell oil paintings in the US, the company is called "Renaissance Art". Before anyone cries "original research", I am noting this here as a lead for others who can speak Hebrew to follow up on, I don't want to include this link in the article. Fences &amp;  Windows  21:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's evident there was a venture wherein some Israelis went overseas and sold mass-produced paintings, and here's some more original research -- is that anymore a "scam" than what Mark Kostabi famously did? Depends how the art was presented, including signatures etc., re appropriation art. But I digress. RomaC  TALK 05:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Strange Yale Student Link Should not be attached to this Wikipedia article
This has nothing to do with the article and no reasonable person would confuse these two articles. I hope this is not yet another attempt to water down the article and distract from the spying.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 04:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC) I'm referring to the link at the top of the article main page.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 04:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Precise, please, it's not constructive to so frequently question whether edits you disagree with may be an attempt to harm the article. That said, I also don't know why the link to Yale student abortion art controversy is there, the other article never uses the word "scam" (or "hoax," although a source uses that word, and there is a direct from "Yale student abortion art scam"). Overall, it is difficult to see how readers could confuse the two articles. Fences and Windows' edit summary is ["hatnote"] and I'm not sure what that means that is explained here, and seems to apply to similarly-named articles. Anyway let's wait and see what the editor has to say. Respectfully, RomaC  TALK 04:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * When you Google the search string the first two results, and most of the other results on the first page, are articles about the Yale performance art controversy; and that subject also comes up when you Google ; but in neither case does the Wikipedia article about that subject show up in the first couple of pages. So I can see where someone might think there's a reasonable need for the DAB hatnote to facilitate someone trying to find that article, especially since the actual name of the article (Yale student abortion art controversy) is peculiar.--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, with the top ghits are for Aliza Shvarts' project, but googling the title of this article, doesn't yield those results. Agree some might see a reasonable need for this "hatnote," I'm not sure myself, but let's see. RomaC  TALK 05:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

If the problem is that somehow these articles get mixed up, can you also explain why a link to the yale thing was posted on this page but an "art student scam" link wasn't posted on the yale page?Preciseaccuracy (talk) 05:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

If this is the logic, shouldn't Michael Jordan's page also have a hatnote to the page about Jordan Michael Smith, the country of Jordan, and the article about the Jordan river as it might be possible that someone searching for Michael Jordan might have meant to be searching for these?Preciseaccuracy (talk) 06:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Since it was fences who made this edit, I'm going to assume good faith for now as he did provide the link to the Insight article. He should still explain why he attached the strange yale thing.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 06:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * er... Jordan's page does "For other people named Michael Jordan, see Michael Jordan (disambiguation)."Cptnono (talk) 06:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes other people with the exact same name which is nowhere near the case in this instance.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 06:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to argue MoS and guidelines with you until you read these. Manual of Style (lead section) Hatnote. If you take a look at those and disagree please feel free to state why.Cptnono (talk) 06:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's best to wait for a response from Fences&Windows .  Davtra   (talk) 06:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Er... It's a disambiguation note. When searching for news stories on the art student scam, I also came across many references to the Yale hoax. So I figured that readers might come to this article by mistake, and that a hatnote directing them to the hoax would be helpful. I'm not attempting to "dilute" this article! Disambiguation notes are normal, there's no ulterior motive. I think Preciseaccuracy had better calm down, stop trying to allocate people into "with him or against him", and stop assuming the worst of people. If people think that it's unlikely that people would confuse an "Art student scam" with an "Art student hoax", then by all means remove the note as I'm not wedded to it being there. Fences  &amp;  Windows  15:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Consensus that the current title doesn't fit the topic of this article
Agree The current title doesn't fit the topic of this article. The title should reflect the allegations of spying by Israel on the United States which it does not.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 07:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean the current title of this article? And what should the new title be?  Davtra   (talk) 08:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The current title seems perfect to me. It's about a scam that involves con artists posing as art students. The spies were also posing as art students, so the title is still valid even if you want to focus on that stuff.(Huey45 (talk) 08:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC))

spying doesn't fall under the category of "scam"Preciseaccuracy (talk) 08:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Disagree per Huey45.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No. The spying allegations are bound up in the art student scam, but the scam goes beyond the spying allegations. I think the subject should be "Israeli art student scam", as that's mainly how it's known (and that the China material is unconnected), but I'm not going to make a fuss about it. Fences  &amp;  Windows  15:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Split?
The original intent of this article was the Israeli espionage thing. It was rejected by many and was a POV coatracky mess. However, there is some coverage. Two sources admit that it didn't pick up steam while one of them contradicts itself and says that it was a big story. There is some coverage. Enough to be considered significant under GNG? I would lean towards yes. The other concern is the scandal mongering. Wikipeida is not about that. But if an article is created that makes it clear that the most recent and more significant sources dismiss it as an urban legend in the lead then that might be OK. Any thoughts on retrying the original intent of this piece in a separate article?Cptnono (talk) 02:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose That article has already got it day under the sun, when it was displayed at the main page as DYK. The deletion request on it was closed as "no consensus". Practically no main stream media has covered the subject. user: Preciseaccuracy claimed she decided to edit the article after she read about Russian spy rings. If one to compare the two's coverage, one could easy see the difference. IMO the article is fine as it is. Maybe it should be nominated for the deletion one more time, but "to split", no.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * How dare you oppose my proposal! No not really. I do want to say that any consideration of a split should not be impacted by Preciseaccuracy or Factsontheground not being the best editors. I see some coverage and think there is a possibility of it working if done the right way. If you say your oppose is not a reaction to other editors screwing up I will of course believe you but keep an eye on that just in case. I really could be completely wrong and do see good reasoning for this article to be killed so am not too worried about it either way.Cptnono (talk) 02:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, my oppose has absolutely nothing to do with any editor involved with the article. If I am not mistaking, I voted for it deletion, and my opinion about the article (that it would have been much better off deleted and forgotten) has not changed ever since. IMO the deletion of this article will make Wikipedia reputation a little bit better.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "IMO the deletion of this article will make Wikipedia reputation a little bit better" LOL. Worded harshly but I hear you. Don't exactly agree but no worries.Cptnono (talk) 03:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If the article were split, both parts would be too obscure to warrant an article. It should be left as it is. The Israeli spy ring is basically the same as the standard scam anyway, except that they weren't just looking for easy money, they were also trying to gather information (or at least that's how the story goes). (Huey45 (talk) 03:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC))
 * I actually agree with MbZ1, I don't think Wikipedia should give such articles even one minute of glory. --Gilisa (talk) 06:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If you look at the list of scams and confidence tricks at the bottom, this one is just as deserving of an article as most of the others. It's interesting and would save a lot of unsuspecting people from the scam. The article certainly shouldn't be deleted. (Huey45 (talk) 09:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC))


 * Oppose I had liked how the article had developed from POV coatrack to generic article, not unlike the article for occupied territory. The section on the Israeli angle, personally don't think it should be included, but was also fine per UNDUE weight. The article was okay until recently an editor decided to open up the battle again and expand the section with nothing really new at all. I still don't see any reason to split to a separate article like Moon Hoax Theory. --Shuki (talk) 11:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Support the split. The topic about a guy in china whom you've just met on the street trying to sell fake art that he claims is real is completely unrelated to israelis posing as art students spying on the United States. This has to be one of the strangest mergers of two unrelated topics on wikipedia. These should definitely be separate articles. The israeli spying did receive a significant amount of coverage as demonstrated by the at least ten sources that have been posted. These sources also treated the suspected israel spying in a very serious manner. The only source that claimed to dismiss spying on the u.s. admitted that it didn't even obtain the sixty page page dea document which included names, drivers license numbers, passport numbers and in some cases the military id numbers of around 100 israelis in the u.s. posing as israeli art students all across the country. These students were found hanging around military bases, diagramming secured areas of government buildings and in another case described as engaging in what seemed to be intelligence gathering activity. The Salon journalist contacted at least 6 dea agents mentioned in the document from across the country who confirmed the encounters described in the document as accurate and not an "urban myth." The title of the new article should be ""Suspected Israeli "Art Student" Spying on the United States"".Preciseaccuracy (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Good luck with that title.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose because it just to stir mud. --Gilisa (talk) 16:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

or maybe the title "Israeli "art student" scam and suspected spying." The part about buying art from guys on the street in china that they say is real but is actually fake if deemed notable could be called "forbidden city art con," con though is an overstatement, who would actually believe they were buying original works of art from some guy they just met on the streets of china, a country known for numerous counterfeit goods.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Procedural oppose—without commenting on the merits of the proposal, I will oppose because one should generally not try to change the consensus of an AfD through a process other than AfD or DRV. —Ynhockey (Talk) 21:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you expand on that? I was under the impression that DRV was to see if there were procedural problems in the closing of the discussion. And since it was "no consensus" it really is up in the air. The rewrite does appear to be why it was not deleted but that might be my interpretation. So if a discussion here is not appropriate what is the next step? I have little doubt that the article could turn into scandalous ridiculousness but think the story might be notable enough. Cptnono (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Support (Allegations of) espionage operations are not reasonably connected to tourist traps. If a fellow robs a bank while dressed as a clown, and that event is notable, the Wiki article should not then be loaded up with accounts of other improprieties committed by people dressed as clowns. We should have a "See also" link, that's the way to deal with this. RomaC TALK 04:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC) What do you mean doa, at least two users support the article splitting because the topic of a chinese "tourist trap" is completely unrelated to a suspected israeli espionage operation in the U.S.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 19:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Follow up It looks to me that this proposal was DOA. Just to clarify, it is my belief that the story has notability and hold very little opinion about the actual allegations except for some of them being clearly muckraking.Cptnono (talk) 06:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Certainly no consensus here or in previous conversations. One editor is even doing it procedurally (which I kind of disagree with but understand) since the proper venue may need to be one that addresses the original deletion discussion. So yes, DOA. There is no chance this is happening right now. I don;t really like that but so far that is how it is.Cptnono (talk) 01:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Support I think that the following links might point towards some reliable sources dealing with the purported round-up of an Israeli spy ring:.    ←   ZScarpia  00:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Objective Third Party Request

Editors both support and oppose an article split. The argument is that Allegations of Israelis posed as "art students" spying on the United States should have its own article and should not be filed under the title "Art Student Scam." There are numerous reliable sources describing allegations that Israelis posed as art students were involved in spying on the United States between 1999-2001 so this does not deal with wingnut conspiracy theories. I encourage you to thoroughly look through the sources in order to make an informed decision.

Note: the Forward article describes a dismissal of 2004 spying in Canada and not 2001 spying in the U.S. This article also treats allegations of spying on the U.S. as inconclusive.

Note 2: the Washington post article, which was written before a number of the articles is the only source to outright dismiss spying allegations as an urban myth, In the Salon.com article, a high level intelligence agent referred to journalist Christopher Ketchum by veteran d.c. correspondent with contacts in the fbi and cia refers to the Washington Post article as a plant by the fbi.

It is necessary that you thoroughly go through at least some of the sources as some of them directly contradict the Washington Post Article. If you have time, it might also help to watch the 20 minute Fox special on Israel Spying on U.S that describes the art students (links to fox possibly subject to copyright notice so I can't provide them). Given these sources, there are no grounds for deletion due to lack of coverage nor the pushing of "urban myths" as all sources, most of which came after the post article point to spying allegations as at the very least inconclusive.


 * http://dir.salon.com/news/feature/2002/05/07/students/index.html    Salon...        Provides the most in depth coverage (6 pgs.)
 * http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2002/mar/06/internationaleducationnews.highereducation The Guardian
 * http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_12_18/ai_84396672/  Insight
 * http://web.archive.org/web/20020321021731/http://real-info.1accesshost.com/janes1.html    Janes Intelligence
 * http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/2002-03-20/fishwrapper.html Creative Loafing
 * http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/spies-or-students-1.45243 Haaretz
 * http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20020307&slug=notspies07 Washington Post
 * http://www.forward.com/articles/5250/ This article refers to a different situation of Israelis spying on Canada in 2004 that was dismissed, but treats the 1999-2001 allegations of Israeli spying on the U.S. as inconclusive
 * http://www.zeit.de/2002/41/Tuer_an_Tuer_mit_Mohammed_Atta -note: this article is in german, from die zeit, its easy to translate with google or yahoo
 * 20 minute Four Part Fox News Special with Brit Hume and Carl Cameron about Allegations of Israel Spying on the United States

Link to the Wikipedia Article "Art Student Scam"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_student_scam

Preciseaccuracy (talk) 03:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

user:mbz1 colluding with user:broccoli
Allegations from another user of collusion between mbz1 and broccoli on a different article occurred on July 7 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&diff=prev&oldid=372275171#Collusion_between_Broccoli_and_Mbz1

Mbz1 continues to collude with Broccoli. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Art_student_scam#Editors_supporting_the_proposal Preciseaccuracy (talk) 09:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You have already been asked to stop this behavior. When the debate is not going the way you want the last thing you should do is make such accusations. Take these allegations along with the ones about other editors to the appropriate noticeboard if you feel there is hard evidence that people are out to get you. You are also canvassing in a forum shoppingesque manner by posting this on multiple user talk pages. Cptnono (talk) 09:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am very tempted to delete the above. This is being brought up when Mbz1 is blocked and unable to defend herself. Broccoli's contribution here is minimal and hasn't made a major difference to how the article is going. If you are really concerned about this go to the admin boards butI don't think a charge of meatpuppetry can be sustained here.--Peter cohen (talk) 09:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright peter, although I believe there is substantial evidence of collusion, if you want to delete this entire section you have my permission as it is now on the notice board.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 12:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Broccoli suddenly shows up to vote without any previous comments on the talk page only two hours after mbz1, saying that he agrees with mbz1. The other link is of an accusation that another user made on July 7th that Mbz1 was repeatedly colluding with brocolli. These two links combined are very strong evidence that Mbz1 is colluding with broccoli.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 10:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)10:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Do not continue to discuss this here instead of the appropriate noticeboard.Cptnono (talk) 10:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Since this slanders have been posted here, I will add my response: I take interest in Mbz1 articles and edits, and in places I think it is necessary I add my comments as well. It's not so hard to follow after her. I'm just using the contrib's page... Broccoli (talk) 12:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Why would you vote on an article that you haven't commented on before? Also could you provide some examples where you've voted opposite of mbz1?Preciseaccuracy (talk) 12:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Precise, I realize it might seem to you that Broccoli simply followed Mbz1 over to the straw poll and nodded his head in agreement, but there are often editors who vote on straw polls who had not been previously active in discussions. Actually I think there were some on "both sides" doing so in this case. Anyway your concern is noted, suggest you drop this now. RomaC  TALK 19:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, dropped for now.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 20:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree w/Roma's well-stated comment. It's one thing to raise a question.  Quite another to make an accusation as to which one does not have evidence.  It may seem like a small difference to Precise Accuracy, but given his name it is one I would think he might be sensitive to in the future.  I suggest he strike through any inappropriate over-statements.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have already brought this up at his ANI request. Enough is enough.Cptnono (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * As a matter of fact I have to admit I am colluding with... Preciseaccuracy. I suddenly show at this talk page without any previous comments here and just two hours after no, not even a single purpose account, but a single article account Preciseaccuracy started beating a dead horse.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Presumption of Coordination http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:EEML#Presumption_of_coordination Preciseaccuracy (talk) 03:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list has nothing to do with No personal attacks's "Comment on content, not on the contributor." I personally don;t mind if it happens here and there but your repeated assumptions of the worst kind of faith on the article's talk page and quasi canvasing is too much.Cptnono (talk) 04:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Consensus that an editor has WP:GAMEed this article and now wants the title to fit the modified topic

 * Agree. The article was a classic generic encyclopedia article about one scam, similar to others in the scam category. Preciseaccuracy, came out of nowhere and has placed WP:UNDUE weight into one of the reported scams, and is now claiming a 'consensus' to change the title. Bad form and bad faith. --Shuki (talk) 11:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment This is unlike other articles in the scam category because there have been no notable allegations that, for example, Three-card Monte hustlers comprised a foreign espionage operation. RomaC  TALK 12:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. What User:Shuki has said above is completely right. Oops, does that mean I'm colluding with him now? (Huey45 (talk) 12:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC))
 * Yawn If a trigger happy admin comes near this article, they'll be a lot of possible blocks.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't know if I would go as far as calling it gaming but PA has certainly pushed for a change of scope and might be considered filibustering. I get why though since it is a notable story. I think PAs time would be better spent getting a draft up for a new article focusing on the spy ring and presenting it to see if editors who commented at the deletion discussion could be persuaded.Cptnono (talk) 05:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

New subject heading to make my comment appear to be important
Article was originally about suspected spying but was whitewashed and the focus was shifted to a tourist trap.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What? The "Israeli art student scam" is really what this is about (if you check the sources), and the allegations of espionage that this scam gave rise to in the US are certainly worth detailing. And do note that the possibility of spying wasn't a "conspiracy theory": spying does happen, and the DEA report contained some genuine reasons to suspect it, not just hysteria. Fences  &amp;  Windows  15:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

So fences, you believe that allegations of one of the largest spy rings in history doesn't deserve its own article and should be filed under the category of scam/con/trick?Preciseaccuracy (talk) 19:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Alleged spy ring. Yes, I do indeed think that this is the best way to organise the material we have. And I don't think the current article is whitewashed. Perhaps it is that cheque from the Mossad that I just cashed that persuaded me? Fences  &amp;  Windows  17:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Fences, can you look at these two before and after diffs. Notice how peter's “reorganization” results in the entire first paragraph dismissing the allegations as an urban myth and nonsense without qualification. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Art_student_scam&diff=376120760&oldid=376118526 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Art_student_scam&diff=376131742&oldid=376120760 Preciseaccuracy (talk) 17:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what is the relevance of those diffs? One of them is even by you. I've edited the page since then, as have others, and neither reflect the current state of the article. I'm not sure you're thinking very clearly. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

What is the reasoning behind putting an article about spying allegations under the unrelated title of scam?Preciseaccuracy (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice non sequitur. The reasoning is that the spying allegations and the US version of the scam are intimately connected. The scam could have been cover for espionage, or the DEA could have mistaken the scam for espionage, or it could have been a drugs ring, but the narratives fit together. I've already given you advice on seeking outside opinions about splitting the article, so why are you yet again asking the same question here? I repeat: you do not appear to be thinking very clearly. I think you need a break from this topic to get some perspective. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

So should the current Russian spy ring be filed under an article about housewives?Preciseaccuracy (talk) 22:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The Russian spy ring is established as a genuine case of spying. This is an allegation that has been denied by the officials in the supposedly victim state. No one's quite sure whether there was anything more sinister than fraud going on and, if there was, whether it was Israelis doing the sinister things or other Middle Easterners related to Islamicist groups or whether it was a drug gang trying to infiltrate the DEA.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, the analogy about housewives isn't that good but I'll think of a better one.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Romac's earlier analogy is a more apt description. He said...

"a hypothetical: Allegations of a spy ring using "falafel chef" as their cover. Wouldn't the "spy ring" angle be more notable than the "falafel chef" cover? What I mean is wouldn't such an (alleged) espionage operation (if notable enough) get its own Wiki article apart from the "falafel" article?"Preciseaccuracy (talk) 22:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The DEA report said: "A majority of those [Israeli "art students"] questioned has stated they served in military intelligence, electronic signal intercept, or explosive ordinance units. Some have been linked to high-ranking officials in the Israeli military. One was the son of a two-star general, one served as the bodyguard to the head of the Israeli Army, one served in a Patriot missile unit. That these people are now travelling in the U.S. selling art seems not to fit their background." One of those arrested was Lt. Peer Segalovitz, who had been, apparently, a platoon leader with Israeli special forces 605 Battalion in the Golan Heights. Sounds as though the DEA had good reasons to think that they'd rounded up an Israeli spy ring.    ←   ZScarpia  03:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * All Israeli men have to spend a year or so in the army when they're young; it's compulsory. The fact that these "art students" had completed their military service is of no help to the spy claims. (Huey45 (talk) 05:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC))


 * "Many of them were highly trained in electronic intercept and intelligence work that was far beyond the compulsory military training required by Israeli law." - Interview with Christopher Ketchum, Democracy Now

This was also presented in the four part fox news special with Brit Hume and Carl Cameron about suspected israeli spying where it was said about the suspected 140 spies


 * "Most of those individuals said they had served in the Israeli military, which is compulsory there. But they also had, most of them, intelligence expertise, and either worked for Amdocs or other companies in Israel that specialize in wiretapping."

This was also mentioned in the salon article http://dir.salon.com/news/feature/2002/05/07/students/index.html


 * "Many of the students, the DEA report noted, had backgrounds in Israeli military intelligence and/or electronics surveillance; one was the son of a two-star Israeli general, and another had served as a bodyguard to the head of the Israeli army."

This was also mentioned in the Creative Loafing Article


 * "Perhaps most intriguing, the Israelis' military and intelligence specialties are listed: "special forces," "intelligence officer," "demolition/explosive ordnance specialist," "bodyguard to head of Israeli army," "electronic intercept operator" -- even "son of a two-star (Israeli) army general." "

http://clatl.com/2002-03-20/fishwrapper.html

The fact that their military training was far beyond compulsory was described in at least four reliable sources.

Huey, why do you keep misrepresenting the contents of sources?Preciseaccuracy (talk) 06:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

If I remember rightly, those arrested were also employees of a couple of IT / Telecoms companies, also an odd circumstance for people posing as art students.    ←   ZScarpia  12:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't forget the movers and to sellers. They were not art students were they?Cptnono (talk) 21:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposal
Other proposals have discussed how to address certain edits and sources but this is my overall thoughts on it:

'''Propose gutting the paragraphs related to Israel spying. A simple line or two should be sufficient for this article.'''

It is off topic bloat unless it is determined that a title change or modification of the scope of this article is needed. My preferred solution would be to wikilink to an article about the espionage. This could be a separate article based soley on the story or one based on the broader topic of Israeli spying. I don't care which. Articles such as those not being created or currently linked to should not negatively impact thtis article right now, though. The wishes of many editors who thought "keep" was an acceptable !vote were under the impression that this would not digress into an article on spy allegations. That has not occurred. Cptnono (talk) 22:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Sweet idea
I can't believe of all the editors saying that they think this is just a conspiracy and want less of it are shying away from such a step. Too drastic? I need to retitle this "Not a sweet idea and you should feel dumb" :) Cptnono (talk) 04:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Booooo, that idea sucks

 * Nice section titles. Cutting down the material about the espionage allegations without it appearing at sufficient length in another article is not an acceptable solution - split it, merge it to another article, or write a whole new article on Israel spying on the US (I suggest this approach), but don't remove that content first. And we are not bound by what people argued at that AfD; many of the deletion arguments were based simply on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The arguments that attempt to dismiss this as a "conspiracy theory" and brush it under the carpet should not be given weight. The spying allegations are what really made this scam notable; it barely scrapes notability without it. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear. I support a full treatment of the DEA espionage bit in its own article. The AfD discussion did not achieve a consensus against a fact-driven, neutral article. Binksternet (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey that means it still might be a super sweet idea as long as another article is created. I still don't think this article should be bound by that but understand the objections.Cptnono (talk)
 * @Fences&Binks -- Yup, been supporting this for what seems like eons. Alleged Israeli spying is what made the event notable, write an article on that. Have another article on the paintings scam, i.e. where (NA, Oceania, China), what (media, subjects, prices), etc. as part of the con games article category. Wikilink the paintings scam to the spy story that might have used the scam as a cover and vice versa. That's simple; that's Wikipedia. RomaC  TALK 00:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Romac. It makes sense to have an article that focuses on the 1998-2001/2 allegations of Israel spying on the U.S. along with keeping a description of the espionage allegations in this article. I've probably said this in no less than several thousand words. For now, I might take at least a temporary break as this process has been a little exhausting.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 01:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this a consensus?Preciseaccuracy (talk) 04:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Its consensus that you guys thought my idea was no good but still supported it in a roundabout fashion :). It is also not consensus on anything else since there is only a drop in the bucket here compared to the rest of the commenters (who I have really started disagreeing with since it should be split).Cptnono (talk) 04:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Chronology, Fox report came first, than Guardian/Washpost/new york times, then other reports, add more information about the Guardian article, add detail about dea report, add direct rs quotes
First came reports of the scam, then the Fox news special was the first to connect the art students to allegations of Israel spying. The guardian article "Israeli student spy ring revealed" was released simultaneously with the washington post article. The New york times took its cue from the guardian and couldn't confirm the story so didn't report on it. Other sources cover spying allegations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Preciseaccuracy (talk • contribs) 21:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

add direct quote from Haaretz, about the post and forward articles, this quote may need to be shortened, but don't delete entirely. Also, if it is to be shortened, don't take it out of context or distort its description of the Forward article.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 21:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "... the Fox news special was the first to connect the art students to allegations of Israel spying." So it wasn't the DEA or any other kind of law enforcement agency? This whole spying story was just a conspiracy theory created by tabloid pseudo-journalists? (Huey45 (talk) 04:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC))

Fox news seems to have been the first to broadcast and report on the possible connection. As you already know, the Dea document came months before the Fox broadcast.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 06:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Merged spying allegation sentence into first paragraph, put hong kong horrors quote in asian section, deleted link to wikipedia article "yale student abortion art hoax." Fences had said it was okay if I deleted this link earlier.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 16:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The dea memo and Fox point to students saying that they are from fake bazala academy and the university of Jerusalem, the Komo paper suggests Hebrew University and Bazalel Academy. I included all four. University of Jerusalem is commonly referred to as Hebrew University and maybe Bazala is just a mispronounciation of Bazala.

Also, added subsection titles for easier comprehension.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 00:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

User Shuki Deleted my Comment
User Shuki deleted my comment questioning "Who is Jiujitsuguy and why is his first comment on this article a direct one sentence vote. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jiujitsuguy#Question_2 "

I went to User:Shuki's talk page about this and discovered that Shuki is “topic-banned until 23:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC) from articles about towns, cities, settlements, and other places or locations in Israel and neighbouring countries.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Shuki#Topic_ban_notification

Preciseaccuracy (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Stop trying to make other editors look like assholes. Your comment should probably have been kept since a simple warning would have sufficed. And this one up above isn't necessary.Cptnono (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Shuki I think you need better reasons than your own relevance standards for deleting others' Talk page comments, can you revert that removal please?
 * It is natural that Precise wonder when a series of editors drive by to register the same vote on an article where they hadn't been previously involved. It might look concerted. RomaC  TALK 00:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Roma, I was editing this article before some of these 'new editors' signed up. I'm waiting for one to screw up since I am certain it is a sock. Someone faking simple editing issues like 'forgetting' to sign comments only a week ago, already has the balls and WP policy knowledge to to make accusations at multiple admin noticeboards to complain about others and make blatant attempts to discredit veterans like Mb and Jiu. The infatuation with one article is also a sign about not wanting to stray far into other areas of interest early on so as not to risk exposing themselves. It is not 'natural' at all to be so suspicious of others unless they themselves have that criminal mind to think about it (and / or have the experience themselves of doing it). --Shuki (talk) 00:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Shuki, it is not unnatural to be suspicious of someone who deletes other users edits and is “topic-banned until 23:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC) from articles about towns, cities, settlements, and other places or locations in Israel and neighbouring countries.”Preciseaccuracy (talk) 00:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)