Talk:Israel-related animal conspiracy theories

Nominate for deletion
This article is clearly propaganda 121.45.171.107 (talk) 02:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Material removed from article (Rats section) pending verification
In July 2008, the official Palestinian news agency, Wafa, accused Israel of using "supernatural rats" that "can even chase away Arab cats" to encourage Arab residents of the Old City of Jerusalem to flee in panic.

and

The Irish columnist Ian O'Doherty wrote after the incident: "Terrifyingly, the rats even know the difference between Jew and Arab and they leave the Jews alone while terrorising the Arabs. Further proof, as if any were needed, that these Jews are just too sneaky for their own good. That, or the fact that Palestinian newspapers are perhaps a little biased in their coverage."

was removed, both give a 2008 article as source ref which is a dead link. A search on wayback turns up http://web.archive.org/web/20141222032347/http://m.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/ian-odoherty/save-us-from-the-jewish-rats-26465732.html which although apparently the same subject matter, is dated in 2012.

Assuming it is the same subject matter, then the material fails verification because WAFA is nowhere mentioned.Selfstudier (talk) 17:32, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

http://www.swuarchive.com/news/article.asp?id=487 identifies (with quotes) two other Palestinian newspapers (Doherty also says two Palestinian newspapers but does not name them).

Taken together the two sources appear to contradict the assertion in the Jewish Post reference that the material was published by WAFA.

There is a discussion about this at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#The_rat_story

Anyone want to try and clear things up?

Selfstudier (talk) 17:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Agreed, it fails verification so I removed it. It also is not a conspiracy theory. Im The IP  (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

what is there to clear up ? As you wrote above, the Ian Odoherty article is about the same incident. the incident is from 2008, and Odoherty wrote about it in 2012. There's no contradiction here at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric Ahmet Oğuz (talk • contribs) blocked sock Selfstudier (talk) 19:45, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Hyenas
The section Israel-related_animal_conspiracy_theories is an unsubstantiated allegation. That is not the same thing as a conspiracy theory. Thus, the section should be removed. Im The IP (talk) 16:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No its not, its reported by WP:RS.Please gain a consensus as per requirement in this page --Shrike (talk) 17:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "Palestinians accused Israeli settlers of releasing wild hyenas in Jenin." That is an unsubstantiated allegation. But it is not a conspiracy theory. Since it is not a conspiracy theory, it is irrelevant for this page. Im The IP  (talk) 17:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

About the Third Opinion request: The request made at Third Opinion has been removed (i.e. declined). Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, Third Opinion requires thorough talk page discussion before seeking assistance. If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:28, 12 December 2020 (UTC)


 * All conspiracy theories are unsubstantiated allegations. It belongs in the article.   D r e a m Focus  19:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)


 * A conspiracy theory requires an imagined conspiracy. The text in question doesn't allege that a conspiracy exists and it is therefore not a conspiracy theory. The source does not claim that it is a conspiracy theory either. Im The IP  (talk) 20:14, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The top of the page clearly states: Zoological conspiracy theories involving Israel are occasionally found in the media or on the Internet, typically in Muslim-majority countries, alleging use of animals by Israel to attack civilians or to conduct espionage. These conspiracies are often reported as evidence of a Zionist or Israeli plot. So that's what this is. Any claim of Israel using animals in this way, is listed here.   D r e a m Focus  20:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The cited article reads : Ramallah: Palestinians in the occupied West Bank city of Jenin say that Jewish colonists have released wild hyenas into the eastern part of the town. I cannot see how that sentence have anything to do with an Israeli or Zionist plot. It's not a conspiracy theory either. Im The IP  (talk) 20:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Jewish colonists are Zionists. See Zionism.  Two people have stated it belongs in the article, one person who wanted to delete the entire article at AFD wants it removed.  Consensus is for it to remain.   D r e a m Focus  23:15, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

RfC on hyenas as an animal conspiracy theory

 * The following is a closed discussion of a RfC. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a close review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the RfC was: Consensus against the inclusion of this material (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Does the section about hyenas belong in this article? 06:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No: 1. The first sentence In January 2016, Palestinians accused Israeli settlers of releasing wild hyenas in Jenin. is only sourced to this Gulf News article which is a very weak source. 2. "[A]ccus[ing] Israeli settlers of releasing wild hyenas" is an accusation not a conspiracy theory. Thus, this is WP:OR since the Gulf News article doesn't claim it is a conspiracy theory. 3. The second and fourth sentences (In 2014, IDF soldiers found an abused hyena in Hebron ...) is not about a conspiracy theory either. 4. If a Daily Mail article describes an Englishman accusing his Scottish neighbor of releasing his dogs on his children would we put it in an article titled British-related animal conspiracy theories? Im The IP  (talk) 08:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No: This doesn't appear to be a "conspiracy theory" per se, but an event (Jenin residents fend off hyenas [1 ]) which has been presented with a conspiratorial twist by a single source. I couldn't find any source claiming this "conspiracy theory" is a belief actually held by people living in the area. Until a second source can be added, we should treat this as a minor local story given a sensationalist title by one publication. PraiseVivec (talk) 11:50, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , There is another Conspiracy source Could be used as primary source --Shrike (talk) 12:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I missed that. The fact that the two sources are three years apart could be an argument in favour of this being indeed a more widely held belief. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Would you consider to change your vote Shrike (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , perhaps, but I need to see more arguments for this being a widely-held belief in the region and not just an example of hack journalism. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * A page on the domain  with an unknown author is hardly a WP:RS. A Wikipedia article referencing that page in order to build a case about the supposed existence of a widespread conspiracy theory would be an example of impermissible WP:OR.  Im The IP  (talk) 15:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Its a primary source a perfect example of Anti-Israeli propaganda--Shrike (talk) 15:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)


 * No - Per User:ImTheIP's comments about poor sourcing. NickCT (talk) 18:13, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes All conspiracy theories are unsubstantiated allegations, its the same thing. You don't need those covering it to use the word "conspiracy".   D r e a m Focus  18:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Don't conspiracy theories need some conspirators? An unsubstantiated allegation need not have any.Selfstudier (talk) 19:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

*Yes - there is more than one source for this - e.g - https://www.timesofisrael.comjenin-residents-fend-off-hyenas/. It is easy to find, practically the first result of Google. don't you do a simple search before making these suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric Ahmet Oğuz (talk • contribs) 16:54, 19 December 2020 (UTC) Strike 500/30 Arbpia Selfstudier (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC) blocked sock Selfstudier (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes There is already two sources that talk about this conspiracy.--Shrike (talk) 07:54, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No — One weak source is nowhere near enough. The part about an abused hyena is of course nothing whatever to do with the subject of the page and must be deleted regardless of the result of this RfC. And, Shrike, primary sources are subject to reliability requirements just as much as secondary sources are. Zerotalk 08:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Do reliability requirements stay in place for primary sources even when he subject is conspiracy theories? By definition the primary source of a conspiracy theory will never be a reliable one. Genuinely asking. PraiseVivec (talk) 14:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. For example, lots of unreliable sources claim that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from Trump. We wouldn't use those sources but rather more reliable sources that describe what this conspiracy theory is all about. Im The IP  (talk) 16:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * No, due to insufficient sourcing. Idealigic (talk) 16:04, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No, not covered as a conspiracy theory in the sources, and generally minimal coverage anyway. If something is so WP:FRINGE that only a single source mentions the accusation and there's no coverage even discussing or debunking it, the correct thing to do is to not cover it at all. --Aquillion (talk) 15:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No The source used is weak and doesn't mention anything about conspiracy theories. Seems UNDUE and OR. Some1 (talk) 04:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion
I removed this, despite the ongoing RFC, because it seemed totally unrelated to even the alleged conspiracy theory: In 2014, IDF soldiers found an abused hyena in Hebron and sent it to receive treatment in Israel. Three Palestinian abusers, from the village of Beit Ummar, were prosecuted. Feel free to restore it if someone can argue that it's actually relevant to the topic, but I'm not seeing any connection at all beyond the word "hyena". There's no mention of a conspiracy theory in that source, no connection to the accusation in the previous sentence beyond both involving hyenas, and (unlike the other part of the section) not even an accusation that could be construed as a conspiracy theory. It feels like perhaps the intent is to convince the reader that the animal abuse was connected to the accusation preceding it (ie. the hyena was mistreated by people who believed the alleged conspiracy theory), but if so then that is unambiguous WP:SYNTH - nothing in the second source mentions the accusations at all or even acknowledges that they exist. --Aquillion (talk) 15:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Should be a list
This is not a real subject, should just be a list. Selfstudier (talk) 18:48, 12 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's a bit tenuous. A disparate collection of anecdotal paranoias. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2023 (UTC)