Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal conspiracy theories involving Israel


 * 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. The consensus is keep--whether to retitle or even divide needs to be discussed, but should be discussed on the talk p.  DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Animal conspiracy theories involving Israel
Note to closing admin: the title when the article was created and nominated for deletion was Mossad shark and Zionist vulture. Mbz1 moved it to Conspiracy theories involving Israel then to Animal conspiracy theories involving Israel on January 7. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 01:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC) Further note: The article was moved to Israeli animal spy conspiracy theories by Neptune 123 on January 11. un☯mi 10:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC) ---


 * – ( View AfD View log )



Two half-baked news-stories, "cooked" into one "article"? This is simply not encyclopedic. (Nice pictures, though!) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - The editors who created this page clearly did so for POV reasons, in an attempt to disparage the countries involved; hence, this page fails WP:ATTACK. Additionally, the topics strike me as barely WP:NOTABLE at best. NickCT (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - as one stated here: : ""Mossad shark and Zionist vulture" sounds like a great idea for a webcomic, not the name of an encyclopedia article." Huldra (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - At Talk:2010_Sharm_el-Sheikh_shark_attacks the 'conspiracy angle' attributed to the governor was shown to be one throwaway remark on live television that was used by sensationalist media. The article is a mishmash of information that is largely not notable. u<b style="color:#551">n</b><b style="color:#451">☯</b><b style="color:#351">m</b><b style="color:#251">i</b></i> 20:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - article definitely needs some work (and a new title), but the subject of (alleged) Israeli Animal use in Espionage does appear to me to have received reliable source coverage:  . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qrsdogg (talk • contribs)
 * Just so this is clear: Two blurb articles and a tongue-in-cheek op-ed substantiates an entire article about animal-based conspiracy theories? You would agree that twenty news agencies all reporting the same thing does not mean there's 20 reliable sources for an article... right? Bull dog123  06:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that there has been more than just a couple blurb articles and an op-ed at this point. This article and this article seem to be fairly significant news articles about the topic. You may say that they are intended to be humorous, but it appears to me that these are in a different category than, say, a Dave Barry column. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So you'd say the arrest of the vulture is an event, right? Where is the WP:INDEPTH coverage, and what is the lasting WP:EFFECT? The only places that connect the vulture and the shark story are op-ed pages doing it - mostly - for giggles. Which is the only reason there's WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE - unless they arrest a squirrel next. Problem is, this very article is treating it like an academic discussion... which it's not and never has been. It's clear as day this was made for WP:POV... maybe WP:POINTish motivations. Bull dog123  19:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the vulture story is not itself deserving of an article, so we do have common ground there. I think that the subject of "accusations of Israeli animal use in espionage" (which might make a good title for the article) in general has itself received some news coverage (and as you mention, a ton of op-eds) and is notable enough for an article. Qrsdogg (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, a combination of 2 events, neither of which is particularly notable, being used in a slanted article. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  20:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - low notability sensationalist POV nonsense. Off2riorob (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable, well sourced article.Each and every used source is a reliable one. I did not combine the events in the article myself. All the sources have them combined already.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to List of conspiracy theories Keep - the event is verifiable, well-sourced, and Reliably sourced. However I believe that the event is better off covered under the List article, as opposed to being a stand-alone article (I also would be interested in seeing how many 'Delete' votes would be 'Keep' if the "[country] being disparaged" was Israel, but that's another kettle o' gefilte fish...). The Bushranger One ping only 20:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong keep The article is well sourced. Although each event might be not notable by itself, the combination of all of them together, and a tendency of creating wacky conspiracy theories against Israel in Arab countries is notable and is discussed in all the sources. The only reason the article was nominated for deletion is I just do not like it, and this reason is not good enough to delete the article. Broccolo (talk) 20:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is title is clearly wrong and should be renamed something along the lines of "Mossad Animal Use Conspiracy Theories." This subject -- accusations of Israel making use of animals for malicious purposes - is, as a whole, covered by a variety of reliable sources. If somebody here can't deny that, then the subject clearly merits an article. And I would like protest the gross personal attack and lack of good faith demonstrated on the part of NickCT. As Broccolo says, this is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence that "animal use conspiracy theories" are a notable subdivision of "Mossad/Israel conspiracy theories" - the article's a loosely related collection of news pieces. I like Off2riorob's description of the article as "POV nonsense." Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge per The Bushranger, but without leaving a redirect. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename and expand scope per cmadler. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename to "Arab-Israeli conspiracy theories" or some other more NPOV title, and treat it as a spin-off of List of conspiracy theories. But the present title, while hilarious, should not exist. cmadler (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep renamed article. My concern was with the article title, and that has been addressed. cmadler (talk) 19:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 *  Keep. Need to expose this use of animal allies.  Umm...I like the title too.  It's a lot pithier than conspiracy theory, blabla.  And also more neutral.  It leaves open the possiblity that the animals are collaboraters.TCO (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename: The two incidents have been linked by quite a few reliable sources as a simple search of google news for "mossad shark vulture" will show. I agree it needs a better name, which should include other such theories. For example, this notes that Mossad has also been accused of infecting mosquitos with HIV. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, possibly rename or merge: I don't see all the POV people are talking about, and personally thought it was a fun read. Arguments on the N basis also fail my smell test, Washington, Huffington and the BBC -- good enough for me. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Secret operations by Israili animals (would cover both espionage and attack uses) P.s. I've seen the US marine mammels in action. Stunning. Been walking down a dock and had one of those things go clear from pen to pen right over my head, from out of nowhere. Stunning. Really nifty what those things can do.TCO (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I would like to ask everybody, who votes for renaming the article, please come up with a good name. No matter what will happen to this deletion request the article could be renamed right now. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not as catchy as Mossad shark and Zionist vulture (or Mossad spark and Zionist culture), but how about List of conspiracy theories in Arab–Israeli relations or Conspiracy theories in Arab–Israeli relations? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, as has been noted above: most about the "Mossad shark" is already (or should be) in the 2010 Sharm el-Sheikh shark attacks-article. If we aim for 5000 trillion articles on wikipedia, then we can always have an article on the "Zionist vultures conspiracy". Sigh. Huldra (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Alleged Zionist Plots could host these two and much more (naturally, we'd need redirects from Mossad shark, Zionist vulture, Settler rats and Jewish pigs). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename: Arab-Israeli conspiracy theories or similar sounds good to me.Ekem (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The only name worthy of this non encyclopedia twaddle is, redlink deleted - the title suggested by User:No More Mr Nice Guy, such as jewish pigs - think yourself lucky I have no authority here or you wouldn't be editing in this topic area at all. Off2riorob (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)Off2riorob (talk) 22:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * See Reappropriation.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 23:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * maybe I'm confused by the bad grammar, but did user Off2riorob just call a group o users Jewish pigs and suggest they have no right to edit in this topic area? 74.198.9.183 (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Significant coverage in reliable independent sources means it's notable, the depth of coverage provides sufficient information for a stand-alone article, and the article does a good job of explaining the cultural context and ongoing impact. As much as I love the article title I agree it should probably be renamed, but renaming discussion can happen through the talk page, not AfD. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of conspiracy theories. The current title is too weird for anyone to look for, yet too narrow to allow the addition of similar events.   Will Beback    talk    23:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of conspiracy theories. This article is a conflation of two events without any direct relation between them, and they belong in a wider list. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk)
 * Comment It's not a "conflation" of two unrelated events (i.e. WP:SYNTH). Several reputable sources have linked these stories together as a notable trend. Plot Spoiler (talk) 00:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

(contribs) 23:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Content could be merged (without a redirect) into a new article about Animals in espionage, so long as the Mossad shark material doesn't overwhelm it. Or to List of conspiracy theories. Also, I hope the author will be asked not to create any more non-encyclopedic articles. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 23:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If this article were "non-encyclopedic" it would have been speedy deleted, and you SM would not have been proposing to merge any content of it to other articles. --Mbz1 (talk) 00:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of conspiracy theories. Listing the two conspiracy theories involving Arab-Israeli relations in that list makes sense to me.— Chris! c / t 23:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.  — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I cannot understand how an article could be merged in a list. It will be undue weight I believe. --Mbz1 (talk) 00:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - the 'Mossad shark' conspiracy theory is already adequately covered at 2010 Sharm el-Sheikh shark attacks. It doesn't need its own article as well, which links it together with other dubious allegations. While I accept there is a broader story here - evidently, the idea that Israel is using animals to spy on/attack Arab countries has caught on in certain areas - I'm not convinced it's a notable one. The coverage to me seems like the standard 'news of the weird' kind you get around this time of year; I don't see much serious assessment of this phenomenon in a way which would indicate long-term notability. Robofish (talk) 01:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I wish you were right, but I am afraid you are not. It (I mean conspiracy theories) are not going away any time soon. Tonight I found this site that supposedly is here "To advocate peaceful reform in the Muslim world based on democracy and human rights and to offer practical strategies for such change". The article named "Epistemology to the Muslim World" says: "Abu Toameh may not have considered the possibility that Israel’s infamous spy agency, Mossad, had found a way to train rats to infest only gentiles. There is now evidence that the Mossad has adapted this technique for use with sharks. Earlier this month at least two sharks attacked five European tourists off Sharm al-Sheik, Egypt, killing one. No Israeli swimmers were targeted by the sharks. According to the governor of Southern Sinai, Abed Al-Fadij, “We must not discount the possibility that Mossad threw the shark into the sea, in order to attack tourists who are having fun in Sharm al-Sheikh. Mossad is trying to hurt Egyptian tourism in any way possible, and the shark is one way for it to realize its plan.” and continues: "There are laughs aplenty to be found in such stories, but in the end they are quite chilling." http://www.ahl-alquran.com/English/show_news.php?main_id=13932. So as you see the Muslims themselves are concerned about the problem. No, those conspiracy theories are not going away. --Mbz1 (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The article you are quoting is not, as you say, from "the Muslims themselves", but is a copy of blog post from a self-styled "neocon" on a U.S.-based website generally supportive of U.S. foreign policy. --NSH001 (talk) 10:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Given how this article has expanded and developed since my first comment, giving more illustration of long-term notability, I've changed my opinion to Keep. Robofish (talk) 15:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As an aside, if this is kept, it definitely belongs on Unusual articles. :) Robofish (talk) 01:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to ossad Animal Use Conspiracy Theories. There seems to be enough RS to keep this one alive. --Guerillero &#124; My Talk   02:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Info I moved the article to Conspiracy theories involving Israel. I believe this name is better than suggested Arab-Israeli conspiracy theories because even now the article has information about conspiracy theories of Iran that is not an Arab country. Later on a new theories that do not involved Arab countries could be added to the article.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, you haven't substantially altered any of the article's content - it's still a string of only loosely related news pieces. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well those "loosely related news" as you call them were not related by me, you know. They were related by BBC, Fox News,Haaretz and dozens more reliable sources.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, I cannot see any valid policy based reason for deletion, the topic is well sourced and notable. Marokwitz (talk) 06:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per refs reflecting notability.  Whether it should be renamed, and whether the scope should preferably be expanded, are not IMHO the issue we are !voting are here -- those are proper subjects for discussion on the article's talk page (when and if the article is kept).  That is not to say that they are not possibly thoughts with legs ... just that this is not the place to determine whether they should be accepted, just whether the article should be kept.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as article appears to cross the verifiability and notability thresholds. As a bonus, this can be a single merge destination for any and all other future articles involving allegedly Mossad-trained animals, allowing interested editors to keep that single article neutral and well-focused. (The name still needs work, but that discussion is not for here.) - Dravecky (talk) 07:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a linguistic shame that we lost the cute dual superhero title. that said, I would restrict the content to animal theories.  That's what makes it interesting and really would be undue weight if scope is broadened to a general treatment of the conspiracy theories (which could verge from the more absurd to even correct suspicsions of Mossad operations).  So I bet the 9-11 stuff is covered fine on some other page and more appropriate there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs)
 * delete A propaganda piece which attempts, through highly selective quotation, to paint a false and misleading view of its subject. The shark attack part has already been dealt with at 2010 Sharm el-Sheikh shark attacks. It doesn't need a separate article of its own. The vulture part is of similarly low encyclopedic value, and linking the two together is a piece of synthesis, not allowed in the encyclopedia. While the organisations used for sourcing are generally reliable, these items are really just pieces of trivia, there for a bit of humorous entertainment and not worthy of notability. They might belong in "trivia" sections of articles, but such sections are also discouraged here. --NSH001 (talk) 10:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: it's not prohibited synthesis when it's the Washington Post and the Toronto Star (among others cited in the article) making these comparisons, linking the events together. - Dravecky (talk) 14:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:SYNTH linking unrelated conspiracy theories, each of them advanced only by a small number of people, and a striking violation of WP:NPOV. This is the third article Mbz1 created and put up for DYK in just the past month on the theme of murderous/stupid Muslims, the other two being When_we_die_as_martyrs and Flora_and_Maria.betsythedevine (talk) 12:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC) Changing !vote below to merge and striking this one. betsythedevine (talk) 17:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Those who read the article and its sources before making knee-jerking comments here at the afd would realize that this does not violate WP:SYNTH because the sources tie the two incidents together. The fact that Mbz1's articles are always put up for deletion (they rarely get deleted, btw) speaks more to the ridiculous attempts at censorship then bad article subjects. If anyone is interested in fighting the demonization of ethnic groups they may be interested in speaking up at Articles for deletion/Criticism of Israel, where the article being discussed is the only article on Wikipedia dedicated to the criticism of a country, a country that already has abundant articles dedicated to its criticism.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 15:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact I wrote about 60 articles from which 4 or 5 at the most were nominated on deletion, and only one was actually deleted, and another was merged. I could be mistaken by 1 or 2, but not more.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The sources that tie these phenomena together are humor pieces whose authors are enjoying a good laugh at those stupid credulous critics of Israel, just as this article does. One would never guess the actual existence of military animals or the sophistication of modern spytechno reading their condescending mockery. The article's POV tone includes for example "Saudi Arabian authorities arrested what they described as a "Zionist" vulture and charged the bird with spying for Israel", sourced to a BBC article that describes Saudis as "detaining" the bird, not "arresting" or "charging" it. I am sure that Arab countries have their own anger-radio hosts just as the US does--and I am sure Israel too has the very same blowhards with opposite sign-- but not every nonsense idea mentioned by Glenn Beck deserves to be inflated into something generally believed within the USA. betsythedevine (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Some of the sources are humor pieces, but many of them are straight news pieces that tie these events together . The existence of military animals and the sophistication of modern spytechno has no more bearing on this article's notability than the exitence of controlled demolitions has on the notability of 9/11 Conspiracy theories. And if you're going to hinge your argument on the supposed difference between "detained" and "arrested", then it's worthwhile pointing out that the Washington Post article usese the term "arrested". Two for the show (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * — Two_for_the_show (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 12 edits before contributing to this AfD. Care to explain how you got here? Bull dog123  01:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Jackson Diehl's piece is not a Washington Post article, it is a humorous blogpost expressing his own POV. He also says "So Arab media and officials who rave about spying vultures and Mossad sharks deserve to be mocked." Not exactly an encyclopedia-quality source for factual information about any topic.betsythedevine (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Saudi Arabia Arrests Vulture ... as Israeli Spy;Authorities in Saudi Arabia arrested a suspected Mossad spy when they captured a vulture.Residents and local reporters told Saudi Arabia's Al-Weeam newspaper that the matter seemed to be linked to a "Zionist plot" and swiftly alerted security services. The bird has since been placed under arrest.;True Story: Saudi Arabia "Arrests" Vulture on Suspicion of Being An Israeli Spy;The arrest of the vulture - whose identification code is R65 - comes several weeks after an Egyptian official voiced the suspicion that a shark that attacked tourists off the Sinai shore was also acting on behalf of Mossad.A vulture tagged by scientists at Tel Aviv University has strayed into Saudi Arabian territory, where it was promptly arrested on suspicion of being a Mossad spy;"A vulture tagged by Israeli scientists was "arrested" on suspicion of being a Mossad spy after "(Everywhere highlighted by me).--Mbz1 (talk) 19:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * These are not multiple independent quality sources of factual information, these are a bunch of light-reading pieces feeding off one another. Haaretz is the closest to WP:RS on the list and likely a source for the others--but if they really meant to state the bird was "arrested" it is surprising they do not expand on what would be a really startling and interesting event .. that a government treated a bird like a human criminal or spy, taking it into custody in order to place criminal charges against it. betsythedevine (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see The Daily Telegraph is not WP:RS. My bad.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The Telegraph cites the Haaretz article; its wording "placed under arrest" is certainly not emphasized in such a way as to suggest the bird was really treated like a human criminal. betsythedevine (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep – the topic is notable (covered in-depth by numerous reliable secondary sources) and many of these sources directly link the incidents as a broader topic, therefore the accusations of WP:SYNTH don't hold. The title shouldn't be "Mossad shark and Zionist vulture" though. —Ynhockey (Talk) 18:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Per talk page consensus the title was changed to Animal conspiracy theories involving Israel.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems adequately sourced and notable, though article has NPOV issue. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is interesting and well sourced subject. The nominator was unable to provide any reason for deletion. "Simply non-encyclopedic" is not a valid reason (it means merely "I do not like it").Biophys (talk) 05:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. As noted above, the nominator has not actually articulated a reason for deletion that is rooted in policy. Other commenters who have argued "synth" clearly do not understand the Synth policy - it is not Synth when multiple reliable sources tie seperate incidents together and treat them as a phenomena. With the new name, I don't see anythign wrong with the article.Two for the show (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * — Two for the show (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep (or Merge into larger article on animals as spies). Just yesterday I heard on cable tv (RussiaToday maybe) someone debunking allegations that Israel had sent squirrels to Iran and the vulture in as spies. Listing WP:RS that debunking things that really are silly is a purpose of this encyclopedia, isn't it? I'm not saying the article may not need improvement in a number of ways but the topic is notable. (Of course, it might also be merged into the larger conspiracy article if the amount of material is WP:Undue.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Update: 1/9/11 Fareed Zakaria mentioned the incident. On the other hand remember there have been lots of stories about military technologists trying to get little cameras on flies or bees or whatever for spy purposes, so there is some grain of truth in the conspiracy theories, as there is in many. So just bringing out the facts is useful for showing evolution of such theories and debunking the obviously paranoid or fabriced ones. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Update 2: Another story on Russia Today about a variety of ways animals have been used as detectors and even spies. (The Russian cat that immediately got hit by a car.) Dophins by USA, etc. Maybe the info should be Merged into larger article on animals as spies - as I changed my "vote" to. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought it was a US spy kitty that got hit by a taxi? betsythedevine (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd support that as well. Bull dog123  06:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. For all the reasons the four people above me said. Passionless (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment:
 * Firstly; Mbz1 (talk) has forgotten to tell us that s/he started an article a month ago called Egyptian shark attacks conspiracy theory. This was voted to be merged into 2010 Sharm el-Sheikh shark attacks.  (See link above).  Now the theories are rehashed...but no link to the main story! I repeat: the shark-part belongs in the 2010 Sharm el-Sheikh shark attacks-article.
 * Secondly, about the "Mossad vultures": As one who has grown up with HC Andersen´s lovely stories, I am quite familiar with how one little feather can become five hens...or should a say a Mossad vulture spy. Lets see how this started: 1 -one- report in "a Saudi newspaper" al-Weeam  (which I have never heard of, and is certainly not in List of newspapers in Saudi Arabia, ...though there is a website by that name registered in SA). According to the story "residents and local reporters told Saudi Arabia's Al-Weeam newspaper that the matter seemed to be a "Zionist plot." The accusations went viral, with hundreds of posts on Arabic-language websites and forums" Who say it has gone viral? The Israeli newspapers Maariv (who first reported it),  then translated into English by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. And from there copied to the rest of the world. (As anyone with 2 cent knowledge of news/newspapers know: there is always room for a good animal story!) And not a single Saudi official is quoted or named in this story.  I have been searching the net for this "gone viral" (I have followed Arab, including Saudi-Arab bloggers for several years now, on and off.) Guess what? I find no, not a single trace of it going "viral" in the Arab world. (Of course, if I could write Arabic, and was set on demonizing the Arab world, I could easily post "hundreds  of posts on Arabic-language websites and forums" "believing" the story...Just saying´.)  But.... it has "gone viral" on anti-Arab sites, where the "story" shows a very nice progression. It is now "Saudi Arabian security forces have arrested a Mossad vulture...etc.  To quote HC Andersen: " Such stories should not be hushed up.... And it got to the newspapers, and it was printed. And it is quite true. One little feather may grow till it becomes five hens." We should update Andersen: ""Such stories should not be hushed up.... And it got to wikipedia, and it was printed. And it is quite true. One little feather may grow till it becomes  five Animal conspiracy theories involving Israel."  (I´ll take the rats & boars later; I´ve had enough of wading through garbage for tonight) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Interesting comment. One could still have a justification for keeping it as a meme.  Although I do get how this thing gets a lot of play because of the funniness and that might dramatize the event itself.  Not to get too meta, but we could write a story about how it blew up.  And I'm not sure how we do that really (even if valid) given the RSes are not turning the eye inwared.  I guess you could blog on it somewhere.  Plus of course, we here drive the blowing up.   That said, I really love the original title and just the whole article.  TCO (talk) 18:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And the reason to delete under Wikipedia policy? ScottyBerg (talk) 23:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:ATTACK, WP:NOTABLE (and possibly  WP:SYNTH for the rats and boars) . If we had a WP:5 hens from one feather, I would would use that, too. Cheers. Huldra (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, thnx. The refs & content demonstrate notability and I don't see the others applying. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec)How is this WP:ATTACK, other than the fact you don't like it? It certainly passes WP:N since it's been covered by quite a few reliable sources (your personal investigations into its origins notwithstanding). As for the SYNTH, if you think parts of it are synthesis you can bring that up on the article talk page. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * user:Huldra, is this too much to ask you to assume good faith and stop making ungrounded accusations? Yes, I wrote a big article about shark attack conspiracy theory that was merged to other article, but where and why I should have mentioned about this merged article? I did not re-write it, but included a 1% of it as a subsection in this article. Now, why are you claiming the story was fist reported by Israeli newspapers Maariv This source as well as a few other cites Saudi newspaper Al Weeam. The only reason to delete this article is I just don't like it. Please take a look at this site that I translated from Arabic using Google translate. Here's one more Arabic language site that cites as their source Saudi paper HarmonyAny more questions? Cheers.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * User:Huldra seems quite eloquently correct and I thank him for his amusing comments, its a children story with a massive anti Jew position. Off2riorob (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A similar context exists for the shark story, as was shown here and here. The resident editors seem opposed to clarifying the context. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#748">u</b><b style="color:#647">n</b><b style="color:#547">☯</b><b style="color:#447">m</b><b style="color:#347">i</b></i> 08:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete attack article created by editor with history in this area. A matter of failing synth and undue weight for starters (both the shark and the vulture thing were far from ever being widely believed -- they were played for laughs, however, about the "stupid arabs."). There is far too much commitment to denigrating others with weak sourcing and that needs to stop. Probably an RFC on the matter will be needed.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Well-referenced notable article. I don't see any valid reason for deletion. --Neptune 123 (talk) 14:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete (or Merge relevant material to military animals) per NickCT and Bali_ultimate. More wiki-garbage that needs to be cleaned up. Being "well-sourced" does not immediately qualify the article as a keep. Bull dog123  22:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If the sources are reliable and independent, and they provide significant coverage, then yes, well-sourced usually is the same thing as notable. If you want to cite one of the exceptions to WP:N, such as, say, WP:NOT, would you care to do so, and explain why you feel it's applicable? - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Care to not hound my contributions? Any serious discussion with you has proven to be fruitless, so sorry, I don't consider your chime-ins worth responding to anymore. Thanks. Bye. Bull dog123  00:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find I was here on 6 January, three days before you, but I'm conscious that it would be ridiculous to use the same logic to accuse you of hounding me. The reality is I'm a prolific contributor to AfD generally and the likelihood is we'll regularly meet on the same debates.  I make no apologies for challenging bad arguments, and I happily take your comments above as a concession that you have no policy-based defence of your argument. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't reply to your "keep" !vote with nonsense. You, however, did reply to my !delete vote with nonsense. Pretty sure it's obvious who's trying to pick a fight here. If you wanted to engage in serious encyclopedia-building discussion, you had your opportunity on my talk page earlier last month. Also, over a month and you've made none of the suggested changes (yes, you made suggestions) to any of the actors lists. Sorry, I don't take your comments seriously anymore. "Well-sourced is not the same thing as notable." is in reference to the numerous "Keep it's sourced." votes. That's it. Bull dog123  00:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure what part of my comment was "nonsense". I'm assuming you're using it in the sense of "valid content that Bulldog123 doesn't agree with", in much the same way as you use the words "garbage" and "rubbish".  The last time I interacted with you was a series of attempts to offer my assistance in improving articles that you were unhappy with, and your reply was that you |quite definitely weren't interested in that help and would prefer not to interact with me (relevant portion of that very long edit is the last two sentences); I've accordingly avoided those articles.  It's sad to find that this was the Wikipedia-equivalent of pulling my pigtails, and it was secret code for actually wanting my help, but I'm now heavily engaged in improving several other articles and would prefer to focus on those. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The part where you're trying to start a debate about whether "having verifiable sources equals notability." You want to talk about religion and politics too? Point is: we're not gonna get anywhere. You're just nitpicking one tangential remark I made... paying no attention to the other !delete voters. The crux of the !vote is "per NickCT and bali_ultimate" ... hence why we use "pers" in AfDs... sometimes other users already said all there is to say. If by offering help, you're referring to this post... I didn't respond because the AfDs hadn't even closed, and because - as I had explained - there is no way to improve those specific articles. Not because I was giving you the cold shoulder. Anyway, off topic... I don't want to hijack any more AfDs. Bull dog123  01:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I edited my rationale above... in case it was misleading. Bull dog123  01:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. NickCT and BaliUltimate made a WP:ATTACK argument (page is primarily an attack page) without arguing whyWP:ATTACK applies to this page or, indeed, who the page is attacking (I'm certainly unclear myself).  So what I'm saying is you haven't made a policy-based argument in as much as you've similarly avoided explaining how the cited policy applies to this article.  This is the reason that "per" arguments are normally a bad idea except in cases where the person you're supporting has delivered a well-explained and unambiguous argument.  WP:ATTACK is possibly a relevant argument, so it would benefit from your further elaboration. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:ATTACK is given... WP:UNDUE, WP:SYNTH and the WP:OR-violations stemming from WP:SYNTH are all policy-based violations... but that's been drilled to death above me so I don't know why you're forcing me to re-hash it. This gets minimal coverage in news (often only in gag-related editorials: ) and no coverage in academia. Hiccup Girl gets more coverage than this and she's nothing but a side-note on hiccups. Also, see what I mean by nit-picking? You're not jumping all over User:Passionless for his contribution: "For all the reasons the four people above me said." Bull dog123  02:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Passionless is a new user with an obviously poor argument, and despite the fact that I happen to want a Keep outcome myself, I doubt that the admins are going to take Passionless' comment as being a strong basis for that result. Your arguments, on the other hand, are certainly capable of being strong and policy based, even if they don't always rise to that potential, and so it's worth taking the time to separate out the knee-jerks from the genuinely useful contributions.  Plus my experience is that when you're pressed you sometimes come up with better arguments than your initial one, which benefits the project generally.  WP:UNDUE is a much better argument than WP:ATTACK here and while I don't agree that it applies (again, it's not clear what, exactly, is receiving the undue emphasis to the detriment of our NPOV) it's probably something that the closing admin should consider. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No bulldog's arguments are not strong, they look more like trolling. No policy was violated in the article, and about news coverage, well it depends on the search criteria,and of course there was coverage in New York Times as well. I do hope that the closing administrator will not be intimidated by absolutely unwarranted claims about the policy violations. There was none, and by request I could provide explanations why no policy were violated. --Mbz1 (talk) 02:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record, these are not solely my arguments. I'm not making any new arguments about why this article is a joke. Everything of value has been said above. If I could redirect to something new like WP:GOMAKEFUNOFMUSLIMSSOMEWHEREELSE, I would. Incidentally, most of the op-ed articles that undergird its very existence do treat it like a joke... literally. Bull dog123  06:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not "coverage in the New York Times" when opinion columnist Roger Cohen writes about "The Captive Arab Mind" and mentions the shark-attack theory as an illustration of idiot conspiracy theories. Editorials and op-eds are entitled to push POV, Wikipedia articles are not. Wikipedia already has an article about the shark attacks, also co-created by Mbz1 (or at least the conspiracy part of the article was created by Mbz1); what I don't see in that NYT op-ed is any support for THIS article currently being discussed for AfD. Cohen says nothing about generalized animal conspiracy theories. betsythedevine (talk) 03:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * True, that was an op-ed piece in the New York Times, although there have been other news articles focused on "generalized animal conspiracy theories" about Israel. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Mbz1's claim, to which I was replying, was that news mentions of the shark attack theory (the subject of a completely different DYK-nominated Wikipedia article by her) support the notability of THIS article, and that one oped mention in the NYT of shark attacks constituted "coverage in the New York Times" of the subject of THIS article. The subject of this article, as Qrsdogg accurately notes, is "generalized animal conspiracy theories." I am now looking at the one article in The Australian used  to evince news articles in general. It is clearly another opinion piece not WP:RS for factual material.  Even its first sentence is contrafactual -- "FIRST there was the killer shark that Egypt said Mossad had dropped in its coastal waters to scare off tourists from its Red Sea resorts." There was one Egyptian official who did not immediately contradict a suggestion that Israel had caused shark attacks, not any general official statement by Egypt. If the first sentence of the article is a lie, what does that say for the rest of it? betsythedevine (talk) 05:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * While you may not like with the wording of one of the sentences in the article (I suppose it should have been worded better), I certainly disagree with your characterization of this article as a non-RS opinion piece. Qrsdogg (talk) 05:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment From Conspiracy theory: "Conspiracy theory was originally a neutral descriptor for any claim of civil, criminal, or political conspiracy.[1] However, it has become largely pejorative and used almost exclusively to refer to any fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning." This article is not about animals conspiring in secret, it is about various theories that Israel's government agencies have secretly used animals to attack targets in other countries. I hope someone can suggest a title that is more accurate and less pejorative. betsythedevine (talk) 05:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep --tomascastelazo (talk) 14:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (chuckling) - A concise argument if nothing else. This user's contrib history is a little curious. NickCT (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This user's contribution history reminds me of comets. --Neptune 123 (talk) 15:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure User:Mbz1's participation here and here is just coincidence. Or that User:tomascastelazo uploaded this obscure and unused photograph, which Mbz1 then comically captioned and uploaded to her personal image database. Also some pretty maddening coincidence. Oh, and did I forget to mention this: User_talk:Tomascastelazo. Interesting use of open proxies to edit. Bull dog123  19:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, well, well... to answer some of the critics of my eloquent "keep". enough has been said and the reasons for my opinion are already encapsulated in the discussion, so I feel it is pointless to be redundant. Whether I am a comet or not is irrelevant, for there are so many comets in so many discussions, and my vote as a wikiuser is just as legitimate as the diehards. Mbz1 and I are wikifriends from Commons and my support of her is well known in that community, we happen to share common interests and ideas, just like everyone else. She has a right to have friends, doesn´t she? And as to my obscured photograph, there is nothing obscure about it, nor my participation in many discussions about photography and other issues in Commons. What I find interesting is that the least representative participation was intentionally searched and found, for there is always one the falls into that category. To get there, a lot of others were passed over. And as far as my IP address, the issue was a technical one that I am sure lies somewhere deep in the wikifiles, and since Bull is such an astute detective, I am pretty sure he can find the reason why, and at the same time discover that it had nothing to do with any confrontation or behavior on my part. Regards. --tomascastelazo (talk) 02:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's nice. Wiki-friends. So you admit Mbz1 called you over to support her article at AfD? Or you just happen to stumble upon it at just the right time? Oh, and typically... open proxies are used to hide real IP addresses. Which was my point. Bull dog123  05:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * * Dear Bulldog, I never said she called me over, that is your assumption, and I can suppose one in bad faith. I would suggest that if you have a problem with Mbz1 you keep it there and not spill it over to other bystanders who happen to not agree with you. So substantiate your claims or shut up. Stick to the discussion at hand. --tomascastelazo (talk) 13:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep well sourced, notable and very interesting article for me. -- George Chernilevsky  talk 16:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Probably needs a new title. The actual incidents are for the most part ludicrous, but they seem to be covered. Peridon (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Israeli animal spy conspiracy theory? --Neptune 123 (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever. At present it suggests the animals are conspiring... Peridon (talk) 18:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable topic and useful encyclopedic article. The article content itself shows quite well that the topic became notable in the recent years, and it's not just a minor-viewpoint peculiarity. The article is very encyclopedic: it combines information from different sources and gives excellent overview with references. This is exactly what you see in encyclopedias, including traditional ones. Akinoame (talk) 18:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * — Akinoame (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . Looks like we're starting to get a comic amount of WP:DUCK sock/meatpuppets. Bull dog123  18:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Bulldog123, thanks for your "friendly" analysis. Not clear the reason: I tried to explain, not only to state opinion. I happen to have quite a lot of experience editing a 5000 page encyclopedia of sciences, so I thought I could contribute a bit to this discussion. Although I certainly understand your suspicion regarding SPA, I indeed made only a few mostly small contributions since the first one in 2006, only to the topics of: software, camera hardware, Nobel prize, music, computer algorithm, Chinese culture, and recently to Israeli towns. Akinoame (talk) 01:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I make it three SPAs so far - that's not bad compared with some. That was only a quick look, though. Peridon (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * On a topic as obscure and as unimportant as this one... that's pretty bad. You'd expect the SPAs to be delete-voters given the content. Bull dog123  19:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It happens sometimes that a confirmed sock has been advocating delete when all the others have !voted keep. I spend a fair amount of time in AfD, and I've found myself getting quite fond of some of the better socks. One can be fond of an adversary... Peridon (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (chuckling) Fond of the sock puppets? Just don't feed them or else they'll congregate. NickCT (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nick, I am not surprised by bulldog comments. I mean after that and after that ..., but you, nick, why don't you turn on your brain and do not ask yourself why anybody would want to use sock or meta puppets to make "keep" vote, if there are two times more keep votes versus delete votes anyway? bulldog made one more conspiracy theory out of the DR for the article about conspiracy theories. It would have been funny, if it was not so sad.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe because those SPAs understand the weakness of all the !keep arguments here (AKA: It's sourced, so keep it). Adding quantity to quality assures a "no consensus" close. Also because some of your cohorts aren't the sharpest tools in the shed (sadly). Or maybe it's just all coincidence that nearly every AfD you feel passionate about is overrun by SPAs and small-time I/P users who never engage in deletion debates. You want to tell me you honestly don't know who User:Two for the show is with a straight face? Bull dog123  23:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry Mbz1. You've lost me slightly.  I wasn't actually accusing anyone of socking.  Merely laughing a Peridon's comment. NickCT (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

(restarting indents and hopefully restarting discussion of the article in question) How about merging a cleaned up NPOV version to a subsection of Mossad, "Alleged use of animals"? betsythedevine (talk) 20:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess there is no harm in having "Alleged use of animals" section in Mossad article. It appears at this stage that article enjoyed a lot of attention lately, many editors contributed, it is definitely not a stub now. Naturally more work is needed, the article is not WP:FA quality yet, more review is needed. I guess what I'm trying to say is per WP:SUMMARIZE, we could have this article lede, to start up Mossad article section. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd support betsythedevine's suggestion. NickCT (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd also support that. Bull dog123  23:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This is really constructive of you, Nick. Currently Mossad is organized by geographical location of alleged operation, how should we approach this? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe in addition to the section organized by geographical location, it would be useful to have a section organized by types of operations, "Alleged methods used by Mossad." Then as sub-sections "Rescue operations", "Espionage", etc. and "Alleged use of animals" would be one of those sections? betsythedevine (talk) 21:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What an absurd suggestion! Not to say that rats and wild boars conspiracy theories have nothing to do with Mossad, (I mean nobody claimed those anti-Arab rats and anti-Arab boars were released by Mossad), but Mossad itself has nothing to do with any of those conspiracy theories at all. Adding any of this staff to Mossad article will only make those conspiracy theories look like they have at least some legitimacy in them.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Doesn't it strike you as POV to call the theories "conspiracy theories" and to insist that the article make the point they have no legitimacy? Maybe a title like "Stupid paranoid Arab fantasies about animals" would express your POV more clearly than trying to put these different events in context with actual secret activities that sovereign governments, not just Israel, do carry out against their enemies. The Bulgarian umbrella -- the Poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko with radioactive tea and the poisoning of Viktor Yushchenko with dioxin--any of these would sound like utter "conspiracy theory" and were denounced as sheer fantasy by those who actually carried them out. The fact is, the incidents grouped by this article don't have a natural connection to one another except in that all are unlikely-sounding stories about animals and Israel. Perhaps your rats and boars could go into a subsection of Israeli_settlement; Mossad was specifically mentioned in connection with the sharks and vulture. betsythedevine (talk) 23:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources call them conspiracy theories. So do most people who understand that a GPS bracelet on a vulture's leg or on a shark is not used to control the animal. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have any problem with "conspiracy theories" in the title. However, if that's a problem, it could be renamed Allegations of animals spying for Israel. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really, the thing is that from all animals that got their own subsections in the article only the vulture was accused in spying.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. There is no policy based argument for deletion. The article in question itself does have secondary sources indicating some measure of notability. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Last time I checked WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, WP:SYNTH, and WP:NOT all seem to be part of policy or guidelines. Bull dog123  02:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * bulldog, I wonder, if somebody ever told you that no matter how many times you will repeat false claims they will not become more truthful from this repetition? I would really like to recommend you to save some energy for the deletion request of my next article :-), and maybe better yet you could consider writing some articles on your own just to add something useful to the only stub you created for your 5 years with wikipedia--Mbz1 (talk) 03:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Use wikipedia as a vehicle for agenda-oriented propaganda vs help delete said propaganda. It's pretty obvious who's doing the greater service here... if you want to get into that. Your recent contributions to DYK and the reasons behind them are clear as day. Bull dog123  05:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am trying to re-read the talk to see where issues of WP:SYNTH in this article are described. Could anybody help me? I guess, the plan should be like this: (1) identify and list places where conclusion not explicitly stated in the sources is reached or implied; (2) change description so that only information from the sources is conveyed, not anything else. I guess, this will remove issue of WP:SYNTH, will it not? Akinoame (talk) 03:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So the article fails to report objectively the sources? (As per WP:NOT.) What sentences? Can we list and improve these places? Akinoame (talk) 03:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't think you've formally introduced yourself. Whose sock "friend" may you be? Bull dog123  05:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to file complaint if you believe in what you say. If you do not believe in what you say, you violate WP:BITE. Akinoame (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I would file a complaint, but I can't because I don't know who you are or might be, and because I have reasonable doubt. I do, however, have enough common sense to know that IRL people don't randomly pop in and support arcane POV-laden wikipedia articles so vehemently. I'll ask again... whose sock are you? If you didn't double-vote on here (which, out of WP:AGF, I expect you didn't) then there's no reason you shouldn't link to your main account. If, as you seem to be implying, you are sporadic niche-editor with a bizarrely strong interest in this one specific article you never edited... then I'll have to ask whose "friend" you are and who called you over to participate in this AfD? Let me guess: you know Mbz1 from wikipedia commons? Once those questions are answered, we can continue. Bull dog123  18:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * bulldog, just between the two of us, I am Wikipediholic with all the symptoms of the condition. "I even having conversations with my sock puppet on the talk pages " :-)--Mbz1 (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No offense, Mbz1, but I highly doubt you are crafty enough to maintain a sockpuppet. I doubt you personally ever sockpuppeted (could be wrong, but doubt it)... but you sure as hell know plenty of people who do... and as long as that adds another pseudo-supporter to sway consensus in your way, you're fine with it. Bull dog123  19:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (chuckling)-Come on Bull. That's mean.  Sure Mbz is crafty enough.  She's just to scrupulous to sock puppet. NickCT (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (1) I was not invited by anyone here; (2) I've never had a different account on Wikipedia; (3) the first time I met Mbz1 was reading this article. I happened to notice this topic in the news, came across the article and was impressed by the professionalism and coverage (unlike many stubs you see on Wikipedia). I learned a lot from this article (and not to support my political agenda - which is the default motivation for everyone, judging by your posts). Then I noticed it is going to be deleted, which seemed strange. That's how I came here. I feel strange explaining this to you: I understand you should have assumed something like this yourself -- instead of what you apparently assumed. I read in the policy that SPA is a valid concern when a user exhibits destructive behavior. Did I? (Or others you tagged with SPA?) Akinoame (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * About WP:SYNTH you may read the talk page of the article that explains why there's no WP:SYNTH. About WP:NOT in connection to the article there is really nothing to discuss.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see, thanks. My questions are aimed to try to understand what Bullfrog123 is referring to, specifically. Akinoame (talk) 04:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, good luck with that :-) I personally gave up on trying to understand trolling--Mbz1 (talk) 04:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Bullfrog reporting in. Everything in Notability (events) (WP:INDEPTH, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, etc...) suggests "Israeli animal espionage" is not thorough enough (read: not thorough at all) to qualify for an independent article. Someone above suggested the shark story be merged into Mossad, which seems reasonable... since the topic of focus here is not the shark but Mossad's alleged use of a shark. The vulture is flat-out non-notable as an individual entity, and only used in the same sentence as the shark in tongue-in-cheek op-eds and "related story" blurbs... same with all the other accusations of "animal espionage." (squirrels, pelicans, what have you). The rat and boar stuff looks like complete WP:SYNTH. That we're merging all these stories into one... suggesting there actually is an animal-related conspiracy theory in discussion somewhere (when there is no evidence of that) is WP:SYNTH. Why that last part confuses anyone... I don't know. It's been hammered to death above me. Bull dog123  05:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've told you you need some rest. See, you even called yourself "Bullfrog" instead of "bulldog" :-)--Mbz1 (talk) 06:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If merging the shark story to Mossad doesn't support your agenda, what's wrong with merging to a bigger article about animal-related conspiracy theories? As pointed out, this phenomenon is not exclusive to Israel. Bull dog123  06:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there is such article about animal-related conspiracy theories? I do not see one.--Mbz1 (talk) 07:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, when stuff isn't on wikipedia yet, people write it. Are you suggesting you are incapable of writing an article that isn't somehow related to Israel anymore? Your first edits on here seemed to be about useful stuff... not just Israel-defense-team-related. Plus, you seem to be very adept at creating manufactured spontaneous editing partnerships. . Such an article shouldn't take longer than an hour to write. Certainly less time than we're all spending here. Another option is to add a new section to military animal about conspiracy theories involving animals or "animal spies." You could redirect Mossad shark or Zionist vulture to go to that section. But that would probably ruin the whole agenda-thing you got going here. Bull dog123  19:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear bulldog, I am capable of writing on many subjects. The question is, if you are capable of writing anything but trolling. Are you? About a new article you proposed. If I am to write it, you'll be the first one to scream out: WP:Synth because there are hardly any sources that link all animal conspiracy theories in the way they are linked in relation to Israel--Mbz1 (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Uh, no, it wouldn't be WP:SYNTH because a general topic is a general topic. Just like military animals is a general topic -- there doesn't need to be a source linking the rats from Wanted (film) with Russian carrier dogs. However, this article intentionally puts together all these alleged military animals - Mossad shark, zionist vulture, yarmulke hippo - like they're part of one general conspiracy widely believed by some Arab groups. You wrote it that way. Having it as a separate article suggests the existence of a broader conspiracy theory as well. Truth is, these are fleeting news blurbs that are not going to get WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. They're good laughs... just like Romanian witches forced to pay income tax. The reason these are so widespread is because its more ammunition for anti-Muslim sentiment -- (A.K.A. Look how stupid and paranoid they are, hahaha!). You keep linking to new articles, but that's just various agencies reporting the same thing in slightly different ways. It's not WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Most importantly, there's no WP:INDEPTH coverage about a broader Animal conspiracy theory involving Israel. Maybe there will be... but I doubt it. Your best bet right now is to merge somewhere. Bull dog123  19:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all, Bulldog123 - I apologize for calling you a wrong nickname. No harm implied -- just too late in the night :) Second, where does the article say or imply about a single animal-related conspiracy theory - which you mention to support WP:SYNTH? Re-reading the article, I see overview of multiple individual theories, related by the subject (accusing Israel of using animals in the Arab-Israeli conflict). Where does it imply connection, or any single unified conspiracy theory as you say? Again, re-reading rats and boars section, where is there any implication or statement of a new (not sourced) conclusion? I see several reports, all of them sourced and independent. That people may think and make their own conclusions (each person a different one), but where does the article do this? So far the sections you mention look like an honest combination of information, without any new conclusions stated or implied. I would be glad if you quote specifically if you disagree.  Akinoame (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Bulldog123, hi again. I am still missing your answer and quotes about WP:NOT - i.e. where specifically does not the article report its sources objectively? I believe your answer will help a lot for either improving the article or for the deletion decision. Akinoame (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment Just moved the article to Israeli animal spy conspiracy theories per this discussion. --Neptune 123 (talk) 04:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment Do any of the sources actuly call these conspiracis?Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes,here are only 2 examples: "Before the vulture, the latest such conspiracy theory surrounded a slew of shark attacks off Egypt's Red Sea coast last month. "; Conspiracy theories quickly began circulating in Saudi newspapers and on websites that the bird was involved in espionage.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * anything not called a Conspiracy theory by RS should not be here. Its not up to wiki edds to decide what is and is not a  Conspiracy theory. So in fact tehre are only 2 RS fpr this article. I think delete with the properly sourced materail moved to the approriate artciels.Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It is not only 2 RS. I provided example of only 2 RS. There are many more of the same even with the word "conspiracy" in titles "Conspiracy alert: Is Egypt's shark-attack crisis the work of Israel? "--Mbz1 (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not think a good solution is to remove the information. If the theories cannot be reliably sourced to be called "conspiracies", the article name should change. "Use of animals in Arab-Israeli conflict" (not sure it won't be POV by giving undue legitimation to the claims, but just suggesting). This could include both confirmed use of animals (e.g., dogs to find mines, etc.) and unconfirmed, like these ones. The the reader will decide whether believe these are conspiracies or not (I think article gives very good job in reporting the sources completely and objectively). Akinoame (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Note that this news article was just published on the subject by ABC yesterday. It refers to the Shark and Vulture stories as conspiracy theories, as well. Qrsdogg (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And a similar article treating them in more depth was just published today. Qrsdogg (talk) 17:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment' Just as many sovereign nations not just Israel have in the past used very weird-sounding methods to accomplish their goals, it is also true that many groups of people, not just Arabs, have blamed groups they saw as enemies for weird stuff. You and I might agree it's a "conspiracy theory" that AIDS was an anti-third-world plot; I would have been equally skeptical about the smallpox-on-Indian blankets legend, but that one turns out to have quite a solid basis. For that matter, I would have thought it unlikely that people are taught how to game Wikipedia articles to make them more pro-Israel but according to Haaretz that should not be pejoratively called a "conspiracy theory" since it is true. betsythedevine (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you've chosen a bad example: it is hardly a conspiracy at all. Nobody tries to hide it, because it's a legitimate goal for them. If you read into the article, Yesha Council encourages people with Zionist views to write on Wikipedia in order to remove leftist point-of-view bias (they believe exists). One example of the article they wanted to write is about Jewish family (as opposed to modern separation of people). The campaign itself is not legitimate according Wikipedia policies, but it's legitimate for them. There are also reports of similar campaigns from the other side: here is |en&u=http://www.emaratalyoum.com/politics/weekly-supplements/world-press/2010-09-04-1.287175 review of both, here is another |en&u=http://www.tellamrkhaled.com/pages/page_angry_4_gaza.html call to participate for anyone with Passion for Gaza. Akinoame (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You are right, the example I chose was a mistake, I was thinking of this story, which may have been distorted by the media. Of course I am not suggesting that it is illegitimate for people to want Wikipedia to reflect what they think is true,and I agree that anti-Israel people also try to influence articles. My point was simply that the expression "conspiracy theory" implies that a theory is false; when I first read that people were being told to game Wikipedia for their POV by complimenting 100 editors en route to gaining adminship--I could not believe that story could be true. But since "conspiracy theory" was already taken out of the article title, I will say no more about it except to thank the person who made the change. betsythedevine (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment Again to the question where the article belongs to. As discussed above, the article is not about Mossad or any other specific organization, so it does not belong there. I think, one topic it definitely belongs to, is Arab-Israeli relations. So a good thing would probably be a link or summary-type reference in a relevant article. An option would be to summarize+link in Arab-Israeli conflict, but would it not become WP:SYNTH (as this would imply that this is part of the conflict)? Is there an article about relations in general and not about the conflict? Another thing, as mentioned by Bulldog123, is conspiracy theories involving animals, but there does not seem to be an article on this (does it exist?). Akinoame (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I noticed it's not Arab-Israeli relations, its more Muslim countries-Israeli (ref. Iran). Or even: any countries associating themselves with the Arab/Muslim side in the conflict (regardless of the current relations with Israel, some have peace treaties, some are still at war). It seems that attributing the article to a larger topic may be synthesis or original research on its own right (as sources do not claim it). Akinoame (talk) 17:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment Another possibility would be to add a new section to Military animals on alleged use of animals for spying. This was Bulldog's suggestion above, and I think it's a good one. The stories about pigs and rats would be in a different place, to which they are much more relevant, Israeli_settlement. As for the shark incident, that already has its own little solo article. Putting all these unrelated stories into one article is inappropriate for Wikipedia; the fact that several journalists have cobbled them together into opeds poking fun at stupid Muslim paranoia does not make it right for us to showcase the same POV in one of our articles. betsythedevine (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And in fact, I just added two animal-spy allegations to Military_animal, one of them the vulture, the other a "spy pigeon" from Pakistan caught in India. I would have added the Sudan pelican story too but I could not find any actual news story about it, just a bunch of commentators throwing it into the vulture story as makeweight. betsythedevine (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And the rats and boars are now also where they belong, in Israeli_settlement. betsythedevine (talk) 21:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I changed my !vote to reflect merge compromise. Bull dog123  20:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment - the discussion as to whether anyone would be interested in reading about an alleged use of a vulture (that fly as far as 150 kilometres (93 mi) from a nest site to find food) by Israel to spy on Saudi Arabia has now consumed over 11,500 characters, an equivalent of 27 A4 pages of text, i.e. 27 small articles not contributed to Wikipedia content. Koakhtzvigad (talk) 02:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How did you calculate that? That must be a very large font size! --Dweller (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge' Amen to User:Koakhtzvigad for one of the wisest remarks in this thread! I would like to see the stories based on WP:RS put into existing articles -- stories that allege Israel used animals under Military animals or Criticism of Israel; stories that allege settlers used animals under Israeli settlement. As for the cited "references" that are humor pieces or editorials denouncing the paranoid fantasies of Israel's enemies or some combination thereof, I would like links to them removed. So I guess that makes my !vote a Merge, and I'll change it above. betsythedevine (talk) 17:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep as reliable sources have noted the interjunction, it is a notable one. --Dweller (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge the content into existing articles as suggested above. And will someone please explain to me how how this is anti-Jewish/Israeli when the Saudis come out of it looking like paranoid nutcases. Arresting a bird. Really! So if I write an article about Mohammed Al Fayed's insistence that the Duke of Edinburgh arranged for Diana to be murdered by bad driving, that's anti-royalist? Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think anybody told it's anti-Israeli. People are concerned that these articles may be viewed as anti-Arab/Muslim. My feeling is that most people (at least not too much concerned with the conflict) will just laugh and have a good feeling ("finally something relaxing about this conflict, poor animals":)). The article cites responses from a Palestinian journalist and Saudi prince, so it's not Israel vs. Arab issue, it's even more Arab vs. Arab - internal issue. I think the author tried to release tensions (by covering a more human sentiment of the conflict, involving animals). It's a pity some people see it as an offense. Akinoame (talk) 00:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You are, mistaking, Akinoame, Here's only one example of claiming the article is "anti-Jew".--Mbz1 (talk) 00:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * @Akinoame, you'd think so, but someone just above described the whole thing as massively anti-jew. Now, I have no doubt that the reason these stories emerge is because of anti-israeli feeling, but the article itself does not have an anti-israeli slant, so it seemed very odd to use this as a reason for deletion. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Off2riorob's comment refers to the stories cited in the article, not to the Wikipedia article itself. Akinoame (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.