The
contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the
Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must be logged-in and
extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for
making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to
make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!
The following additional restriction applies to this article to inhibit the addition of
WP:OR and
WP:SYNTHESIS material to this article in violation of the principles of Wikipedia:
No editor may add or readd any alleged instance of a conspiracy theory, unless such addition or readdition has been proposed on this talk page at least 48 hours in advance, and either
No objection was made to adding or readding the content; or
An uninvolved administrator determines that there is a consensus to add or readd the content.
No editor may remove content added in compliance with this restriction, unless the removal has been proposed and discussed in the same manner, and either there was no objection, or an uninvolved administrator determines that there's a consensus to remove the content.
Reverts of edits made in violation of this restriction are exempt from the general 1RR restriction; reverts that are exempt from the general 1RR restriction are also exempt from this restriction.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles
Israel-related animal conspiracy theories is within the scope of WikiProject Animals, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to
animals and
zoology. For more information, visit the
project page.AnimalsWikipedia:WikiProject AnimalsTemplate:WikiProject Animalsanimal articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the
discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
science,
pseudoscience,
pseudohistory and
skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
A fact from Israel-related animal conspiracy theories appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 16 January 2011 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
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.[1]
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."[1]
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)reply
"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.
ImTheIP (
talk)
17:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)reply
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.
ImTheIP (
talk)
20:14, 12 December 2020 (UTC)reply
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.
DreamFocus20:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)reply
The cited article reads
[1]: 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.
ImTheIP (
talk)
20:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)reply
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.
DreamFocus23:15, 12 December 2020 (UTC)reply
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.
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?
ImTheIP (
talk)
08:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)reply
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)reply
A page on the domain stopthewall.org 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.
ImTheIP (
talk)
15:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Yes All conspiracy theories are unsubstantiated allegations, its the same thing. You don't need those covering it to use the word "conspiracy".
DreamFocus18:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)reply
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.
Zerotalk08:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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.
ImTheIP (
talk)
16:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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.[1] 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)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.