Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:17, 7 March 2010

Israeli art student scam

Israeli art student scam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article seems to be a collection of rumours building up to a claim that bogus art students were somehow connected with 9/11, with all the linkings being WP:Original research and innuendo. It has also been aggravated by an editor on the other side of the IP-battleground adding anti-Palestinian allegations. Peter cohen (talk) 13:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I note that the 9/11 stuff has now gone. I still think there is coatracking going on. Most of the article is about the spying allegations and not the scam. Although the text does admit in places that a lot of this stuff is doubtful, you get sentences such as "Rather than selling art, these Israelis were working in kiosks in shopping centres across America selling toys. The FBI was investigating the kiosks as a front operation for espionage activities." in the text. If it doesn't involve selling art, why is it even mentioned in the article?

The Forward article contains material from Chip Berlet dissecting the rumours and makes it clear that the Canadian business could no way be regarded as anything to do with spying. However, evenjust covering it in the spy allegation gives space to WP:FRINGE theory and per WP:DUE this whole lot is unbalancing the article.And most of the material all seems to go back to the one report by a DEA official which has received a certain amount of rubbishing. Of course, allies do spy on each other, but the amount of space in an article supposedly covering a fraud ring given to what are the theories of one disgruntled individual who does not work for an intelligence agency but rather for a drugs one is WP:COATRACKing.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Delete as per Peter cohen.AMuseo (talk) 15:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

See previous deletion discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Israeli_art_students AMuseo (talk) 15:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. The page appears to cover two disparate subjects: (a) people posing as Israeli art students selling bogus art; (b) people posing as Israeli art students doing scary things connected to 9/11. The second appears to be squarely in fringe theory, but may be a notable fringe topic; the first appears to be notable by the sources (1–4) given in this article. Ucucha 15:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I have now removed the 9/11 stuff from the article. Ucucha 16:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
    • ...effectively crippling the article and making further discussion here meaningless. GregorB (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Also, that is a misleading assertion. You have removed everything that is spying-related, not just 9/11. I am reverting. GregorB (talk) 17:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Well, you know have a hodge podge of different stuff ... I fail to see the non-SYNTH connection between the alleged spying and the alleged art scam.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
        • • • Really? Have you read the sources cited in the article, like this one from Haaretz: Spies, or students?: Were the Israelis just trying to sell their paintings, or agents in a massive espionage ring? How is it SYNTH to report that the art scam was alleged spying ring when it is done by the reliable sources cited in the article? Why are some editors ignoring what the sources actually say? Is it an innocent oversight? Or does this have to do more with WP:IDONTLIKEIT, citing SYNTH, OR, COATRACK, or nothing at all to try to get rid of an article that raises issues they don't want to acknowledge? Tiamut 14:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per Peter. Breein1007 (talk) 16:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't think this is a "collection of rumours", as the article is quite factual and draws on several reliable sources. I could not detect POV problems, since all explanations are presented (spying/fraud/urban myth) and I see no attempts at WP:OR in the process. The article does not say whether disparate reports are somehow connected or not. The "building up to a claim" assertion is simply false. WP:GNG is met. The previous deletion discussion has little or no bearing, because that nomination concentrated on flaws of the previous article that don't seem to be repeated here. GregorB (talk) 16:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. —Avi (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Avi (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
• Keep I've not looked at the spying bits, but there are plenty of reliable sources covering the art fraud cases in four countries and two continents. Consequently, while I don't have an opinion on the spying bits, it seems to me that the art fraud itself is notable. Note that the decision at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Israeli art students really isn't relevant here, since the entire discussion was on the spying stuff. Nyttend (talk) 17:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:COATRACK (or merge to 9/11 conspiracy theory article) -- the purely economic scam thing might possibly be notable (though only marginally so with respect to having a separate article of its own), but the article seems to have been created for the main purpose of including a lot conspiracy theory nonsense (as clearly seen in GregorB's actions above), and it apparently will be impossible to keep such garbage out the article on a continuing basis. Therefore delete the article, and possibly move conspiracy theory material to a relevant article (if useful in that context). AnonMoos (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • On the contrary: the spying thing by itself is more notable than the scam thing. For example, I don't think there exists a six-page article on the "scam thing", but there is a six-page article on the "spying thing": this one, by Salon. One cannot simply dismiss such sources as "garbage" and "conspiracy theory nonsense". Also, I don't quite understand what can or can not be seen from my actions, and I'd like to have it explained to me with respect to WP:AGF. GregorB (talk) 18:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
    • If anybody was in doubt as to whether the intended purpose of this article is to gather together propaganda and conspiracy theories, then you would seem to have removed most reasonable cause for doubt... AnonMoos (talk) 07:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
    • My main problem is actually that the article's two subjects appear to be hardly related. Why not give them separate articles? Ucucha 18:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Because the other one (scam thing) is barely notable. I can't say really; if I wrote the article, I'd probably write it in a different way - but I didn't. GregorB (talk) 18:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
• CommentThere's not even a category, so on what basis is this article legitimate? The article is evidently mainly a fork for the conspiracy theory that art students were involved in 9/11. But, if more sources can be brought to show that this scam is really a phenomenon, involving only Israelis, and not just something that happened a few times, then it might be okay. As long as the spy stuff is given UNDUE, Delete. Me thinks that though that even after removing the spy stuff, this 'scam' is not really encyclopedic. --Shuki (talk) 18:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
• Who says these con men are Israeli? The title of the article is "Israeli Art Student Scam", but if you actually read the articles, a different picture emerges. The Seattle article calls them people "claiming to be Israeli art students." the Australia article says "people posing as Israeli art students" and the canada article describes "a con artist, who claimed to be an art student from Israel." No actual Israelis are identified in any of these articles. Certainly, none was arrested. Now, art scams are a very popular activity. Certainly, there is a scam going on in which the scammers claim to be Israeli and claimm to be art students. and claim to be selling art that was created by Israeli artists. But there is no evidence that there are actual Israelis involved. Unless there is proof that the con men are actually Israelis, the article is defamatory.AMuseo (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I have cmoved the title to Alleged Art Scam by unidentified, self-described Israeli art students for the sake of accuracy, since this is all that the sources support.AMuseo (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Your article move is a clear disruption, please don't do that again. Read the Salon article (above link) - many of these people were Israelis, were not art students, and were subsequently deported. GregorB (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• One article from Salon? That's your proof? what about this article from the Seattle Times that calls the whole thing untrue? ] or this one this entire article is defamatory and based on a web of conspiracy theories. This is merely using Misplaced Pages for purposes of ethnic defamation.AMuseo (talk) 19:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I used Salon as "proof" of the spying affair theory being notable and backed by RS, not of being true. The viewpoint of the sources you provide should also be presented in the article, and in fact it already is, in no less than two sections: one for Canada, one for the US. GregorB (talk) 19:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

This article treats a debunked conspiracy theory as though it is plausible and reliably sourced. And it is a deliberate defamation of an ethnic group. Shall we also create articles on Gypsy horse thieves, Blacks who pretend to be collecting for charity scams, Palestinian West-Bank-based auto-theft rings and Martians who scam innocent Americans into believing in Martians? All of these could be supported by more and far more reliable evidence than the present article. All would reek of vile ethnic stereotyping and race-hatred. As this article does.AMuseo (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Claim of "deliberate defamation" is itself defamatory unless it's backed up by evidence. GregorB (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, Israelis are a nation, not a race or an ethnic group. GregorB (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Keep clearly notable as evidenced by the multiple reliable sources that have discussed it. AMuseo has pointed out that other articles discount the facts as presented in the article at the moment, if that's the case then they should edit it to make it clearer that other sources doubt the authenticity. Things don't have to be true to be included in Misplaced Pages, just notable. Smartse (talk) 22:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. There is no doubt that the scam part of the article is notable; you merely need to do a google search to find literally hundreds of complaints and official warnings from police departments not to buy these paintings. Factsontheground (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• As for the espionage section, far from being "innuendo" and "original research" the claims have been taken seriously and reported positively by Salon.com, The Sunday Herald and leading military publisher Jane's. Even the media that presents the espionage claimes in a less credible light such as Haaretz and Forward Magazine do not outright dismiss the possibility as "rumor" and "innuendo" but present both sides of the story and mention the _official reports_.
• Which brings me to my next point, if you read the article you'll be aware that the main primary sources that are being reported on by media sources are a leaked 60 page report from the Drug Enforcement Agency and an official warning from the US Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive. On what planet are such official documents "rumor" and "innuendo"?
• The September 11 allegations are more quesionable than the other espionage claims but they are still notable enough to be reported on by major world media such as Die Welt and Le Monde. I would be happy to have the small 9/11 parts removed if that is the main reason people are rejecting the rest of the article.
• I find it interesting that so many editors who oppose this article are resorting to disruptive edits and moves. It suggests that they are responging in an emotional rather than logical manner. Please stop it, okay?
• Claims that this article is defamatory or anti-Jewish are utterly undefendable unless you also believe that Haaretz and Forward Magazine, who have also provided similar coverage to these very same allegations, are anti-Semitic. Factsontheground (talk) 01:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The Washington Post and New York Times dismiss the rumors in the report you hold in such high regard as unfounded. Factsontheground does not mention these, but writes as though it was only Jewish newspapers that dismiss these rumors. As to the findings of the report that the Israelis allegedly under investigation had been in the military, I remind you that all Israelis serve in the military. And it is the custom for them to travel abroad after they get out and work as clerks in kiosks while they travel. I submit that if there was a shred of reliable evidence to these allegations, there would be a swarm of reporters covering it. Can you imagine? Israelis sending agents discuisesd as art students to penetrate American intelligence? What a story! It would be everywhere! There would be a United Nations investibgation! Ralph Nadar would issue a statement! Instead, after the smattering of coverage in Europe and on Salon.com, there is one story each in Haaretz The Forward and the Washington Post saying it didn't happen, the New York Times refusing to dignify it with an article because they investigated and found that it did not happen, and then nothing except several years of conspiracy theories on web sites. And this is what you want Misplaced Pages to have an article about?AMuseo (talk) 02:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide links to these articles please? Unomi (talk) 14:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Strong delete Just few more badly sourced anti-Israeli conspiracy theories .--Mbz1 (talk) 02:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Not a policy based argument for deletion. Tiamut 16:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Delete The major concern I see is this article covering two separate topics. There are sources for both so articles (or subsections in existing articles) might work. AS is, it needs to be one or the other. Add a disambiguation page if two articles are going to be created with super similar titles.Cptnono (talk) 03:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC) Follow-up: Delete. The article has not improved and such an article is too contentious and inappropriate without an overhaul. Maybe it can go into a user's sandbox until it is sorted out.Cptnono (talk) 23:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• Strong delete Not noteworthy at all--Cunextuesday (talk) 05:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Cunextuesday
  • Not a policy based argument for deletion. Tiamut 16:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• Strong delete The reasons are so clear they need no further explanation. --Gilabrand (talk) 05:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Not a policy based argument for deletion. Tiamut 16:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - Nothing more than a collection of WP:OR used to create anti-Israeli propaganda. --nsaum75 06:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Its not WP:OR when reliable sources make the connections outlined in the article, and they do, as outlined above and below. Speculating as to editor motivations in creating the article is also not an argument for deletion. Tiamut 16:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• Since much of the criticism in this AFD seems focused on the 9/11 section, I am going to go ahead and delete it if nobody has any objections since those allegations are neither central nor important to the rest of the article. Factsontheground (talk) 06:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Delete or reduce to art scam topic. As Peter Cohen rightly points out, the art scam (the nominal topic of the article) and the spying allegations appear to have nothing to do with each other; the article in its present form is thus a classic WP:COATRACK case. This goes not just for the 9/11 section, but all spying-related sections. I see no reliable source substantiating the claim that these and the art scam are in any way related; thus, even if each of them could be reliably sourced and shown to be notable, their treatment in the same article is illegitimate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand this objection -- the two issues are deeply connected to each other. Every article about the spying allegations makes it very clear that the perpetrators were claiming to be Israeli art students and were also engaged in the art scam. The "art students" tried to sell art to federal officials using the exact same modus operadi as the other reports of the art student scam that were being perpetrated for entirely economic reasons. For example the Salon.com article described the scam in detail:

The "art students" followed a predictable modus operandi. They generally worked in teams, typically consisting of a driver, who was the team leader, and three or four subordinates. The driver would drop the "salespeople" off at a given location and return to pick them up some hours later. The "salespeople" entered offices or approached agents in their offices or homes. Sometimes they pitched their artwork -- landscapes, abstract works, homemade pins and other items they carried about in portfolios. At other times, they simply attempted to engage agents in conversation. If asked about their studies, they generally said they were from the Bezalel Academy of Arts and Design in Jerusalem or the University of Jerusalem (which does not exist).Factsontheground (talk) 07:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

If I didn't see this section, it's hardly my fault, because your article didn't actually describe the connection. However, the sources seem quite ambiguous and heterogenous still. One of them talks of people not peddling artworks, but selling toys at kiosks. One of them says that "there may be two groups involved, One group has an apparently legitimate money- making goal while the second, perhaps a non-Israeli group, may have ties to a Middle Eastern Islamic fundamentalist group." I'm not seeing sources that explicitly link the spying-related reports to the scam-related reports (involving fake/overpriced art) mentioned in the first section. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, first you complained that the sources didn't connect the two subjects. Now that I have shown that at least one source makes the connection you want there to be an explicit mention of the connection in the article. That seems like a moving goalpost.

The NCIX report also explicitly makes the connection between the two:

If challenged, the individuals state that they are delivering artwork from a studio in Miami, Florida, called Universal Art, Inc, or that they are art students and are looking for opinions regarding their work. These individuals have been described as aggressive. They attempt to engage employees in conversation rather than giving a sales pitch...Other reporting indicates that there may be two groups involved, and they refer to themselves as "Israeli art students." One group has an apparently legitimate money- making goal while the second, perhaps a non-Israeli group, may have ties to a Middle Eastern Islamic fundamentalist group.

The Haaretz article also makes the connection. How many sources do you need? Factsontheground (talk) 08:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

No, the NCIX report is not making a connection between the alleged spies and those who were trying to fraudulently sell cheap mass-produced prints from China as their own allegedly original artwork. The NCIX report mentions they claimed to represent a Miami studio. That's a different pattern; no allegations of a "scam" of art fraud in this context. Your article also fails to represent the suggestion in the same source that there may be several entirely unrelated groups involved. Finally, the Haaretz article is entirely derivative, just rehashing sources that you have already cited, so it can't serve as additional confirmation of anything; besides, it isn't making the connection to the commercial scam either. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, what the Haaretz article adds is additional evidence of notability, rather than additional facts. And while I'm still mulling over the various arguments here, I don't think there can be any doubt about the link between the "art students" and the espionage allegations. The Haaretz article itself summarizes the story as follows:

According to reports of the scandal, around 120 young Israeli citizens, posing as art students and selling paintings door-to-door, have been arrested and deported from the United States. The door-to-door sale of art works, it is claimed, was a front for a sophisticated spy ring: the students would turn up at homes and offices - especially at buildings housing federal authorities and military bases, and even went to the homes of those employed in these offices. The students attempted to form friendships with federal employees, photograph their offices, tap their phone lines and infiltrate their databases. That seems pretty unequivocal to me. Gatoclass (talk) 12:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing anything in there that draws a connection between these door-to-door salespeople in the US, who were suspected of espionage, and those that were found to be selling fraudulent Chinese reproductions in Australia or Canada. The article is currently claiming that this all, including the spying activities, is one single scheme. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The article doesn't say they are "one single scheme", it just says they are "closely related". And certainly, the relationship has been noted by the sources. For example, the Forward magazine article states that:

Over the years, government officials from the United States, Israel and Canada have all officially dismissed speculation about the ring. In one instance, an American official described allegations of spying as “an urban myth.” Despite all the media attention, no evidence has ever been uncovered proving that the operation involves anything more than college-age students, recruited by handlers in Israel, to go door-to-door trying to persuade office managers and affluent housewives to pay up to several thousand dollars for $20 paintings hammered out in Far Eastern workshops. ... Reports of the scam and allegations that it might be a front for Israeli espionage first surfaced in the United States in 2000 ... Gatoclass (talk) 13:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• KeepThe article meets notability and reliable source thresholds. The content and prose could use a lot of work but there is value in the article.--Adam in MO Talk 08:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Keep I've thought about this for a bit... I'm going to say keep in this case. The article is surprisingly well-sourced and an interesting topic. I'm not sure if I detect some synthesis here or not, but I suspect issues could be resolved by renaming as the current title isn't very representative of what the article is actually about. The article does need quite a bit of cleanup and the attentions of other NPOV editors. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 09:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Strong delete This tabloid-level article says more about those who traffic in such theories than about any creditable set of events in the real world. Hertz1888 (talk) 10:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Not a policy based argument for deletion. Tiamut 16:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• Delete It's an unsubtle coatrack. The event may be newsworthy, but it is not encyclopedia-worthy. It is hard to escape the impression that the purpose of this article is rooted in bigotry. Peacock (talk) 11:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Keep The intention of the creator is no point for the decision. The LeMond and Spiegel articles document a international notability and even chapters of books (I know they are conspiracy fantasies but still they exist) are dedicated to theis topic.--Stone (talk) 11:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Delete as per Peter cohen. Or maybe Lets create articles called "Chinese Fake Rolex scam" or Turkish peddler carpet scam. --Hmbr (talk) 12:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup While the article may need to be edited for focus, there are a number of sources which establish notability, here is one from today: , and google news archives has a list of sources. The issues that have been brought up seem amenable to being resolved through editing. Unomi (talk) 14:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Strong delete Does not meet guidelines - just recycled nonsense --אחים ואחיות קדושים שלי (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)אחים ואחיות קדושים שלי
  • Which guidelines? This is not a policy based argument for deletion. Tiamut 16:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• Delete The argument that this article is merely a WP:COATRACK for political purposes is the strongest one made here. The article is not advancing the purpose of Misplaced Pages. Gnome de plume (talk) 16:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Keep topic is well sourced. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - Why delete? The article is not fictious! It meets the criteria. It may need some copy-editting and replacement of some expressions that seemed little biased. It may be even moved to a better title. Furthermore, it cites resources. No reason for deletion. I felt through the discussion that there is some "nationalism" (so to speak (so as not to say racism too)) around the article. As long as it cites resources, nothing is wrong I suppose. It also needs more inline cited resources and it will be all good. Mohamed Magdy, Thank You! (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Delete - Article is clearly a mashup of WP:OR for the purpose of a conspiracy theory WP:COATRACK. Chefallen (talk) 19:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - per Future Perfect, this is a coatrack, not encyclopedic, and becoming a focal point for WP:BATTLE. This is not why Misplaced Pages exists. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - Per WP:COATRACK. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertMel (talk • contribs) 20:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Delete – article is WP:COATRACK and talks about a minor conspiracy theory although it pretends to be about an "Israeli art student scam". Misplaced Pages is not a place to record every conspiracy theory, especially in articles that are inherent policy violations. —Ynhockey 20:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I am not really sure if those who use WP:COATRACK as an argument for deletion have actually read the essay in question. Note : An appropriate response to a coatrack article is to be bold and trim off excessive biased content while adding more balanced content cited from reliable sources. In extreme cases, when notability is borderline, and there is little chance the article can be salvaged, deletion of the entire article may be appropriate., I have not seen many who would argue that there are not sources which establish notability. Unomi (talk) 20:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - The main argument of those voting delete is WP:COATRACK (for those who bothered to even make one), but a close examination of the sources cited and their contents show that this simply does not hold up. And there are more sources than those cited: I just found another source for example from Insight on the News and a program was devoted to the subject in 2007 on Democracy Now. The Israeli art student spying scandal or Israeli art student scam are two possible descriptions for the same set of events. For those who deny it was a spy ring, it was just an art scam. But for those who think the art scam explanation doesn't explain the places these students chose to sell their art, and what they did while selling it, its a potential spy ring. The allegations were made, and never proven, so titling it "Israeli art student scam" is more NPOV than titling "Israeli art student spy ring". There are enough notable soruces covering his issue to warrant an article. It still needs a lot of work, but that's not a reason for deletion.
• Note to the closing admin: Per policy, votes by those who did not bother to make policy based arguments (or any argument at all) should be discounted. Tiamut 20:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The allegations were made, and never proven, so titling it "Israeli art student scam" is more NPOV than titling "Israeli art student spy ring".

No, since the allegations were never proven, a more NPOV title would be "Israeli art student conspiracy theory". However, that's not the point. Unlike you claim, none of the sources that you provided, or, as far as I can tell, the sources of the article, link the scam with the alleged spy ring. In fact, the article itself does not make such a connection. Therefore, the WP:COATRACK argument is fairly solid and should be the basis for deleting the article. Other arguments for deletion exist, but they are not important here in light of the fact that this is an article re-created from a deleted one, which deals with a conspiracy theory that is in no way related to what the article purports to be about (an Israeli art student scam). —Ynhockey 21:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

This reads like an argument for renaming the article, rather than for deleting it. If it's renamed to Israeli art student conspiracy theory, then it is precisely about what the title says, and all WP:COATRACK arguments become invalid. GregorB (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Contrary to what you saw Ynhockey, many of the articles cited make a connection between the art students, their selling of fake art and spy ring allegations. Take the article in The Telegraph for example. It states:

The leaked report was compiled by the Drug Enforcement Administration after some of its offices were allegedly targeted by Israelis posing as art students. "That these people are now travelling in the US selling art seems not to fit their background," the DEA report said.
On Oct 31, the FBI and Immigration and Naturalisation Service officers arrested about 60 young Israelis in San Diego, Kansas City, Cleveland, Houston and St Louis. All had been selling toys at kiosks in shopping centres across America and the FBI is reported to have been investigating this as a front operation for espionage activities.

So its patently false to say this connection is WP:OR or that the article is coatracking them into a subject that's unrelated. That the connection is not made sufficiently explicit in our article is an argument to improve the article's contents, not to delete it. Tiamut 21:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Tiamut, you just proved my point. Even the article you posted in The Telegraph makes no connection between the cases. It talks about a conspiracy theory where Israeli art students were involved. It says that they were selling art, which is what legitimate art students do. It has nothing to do with the scam. The connection you are making is pure original research. —Ynhockey 02:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Ynhockey, you seem not to reading very closely. The article clearly makes the connection between Israelis selling things at kiosks and the FBI investigating this as a front operation for espionage activities. It also says the DEA report find the activities of Israeli art students to be inconsistent wit the mere selling of art. This is an excerpt from just one article cited in our article. Others are even more explicit on the connection, as for example, the Insight on the News article, where the title alone outlines the connection : Intelligence agents or art students? The DEA and Justice Department believe there was something sinister behind unusual visits Israeli `art students' paid to employees of law-enforcement agencies. There are many more examples. Tiamut 12:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Tiamut, you have again precisely proven my point. Even if there were Israelis posing as art students who were spies (a wild conspiracy theory in itself), this has nothing to do with the scam, which talks about Israelis selling cheap art in the guise of valuable art. Please stop looking for conspiracy theories in everything, and stick to what the sources actually say. —Ynhockey 12:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Ynhockey, are you reading the links I am providing you? I'm not looking for conspiracy theories in everything. You are not reading correctly or are urposely misdirecting your fellow editors though. The Insight on the News article I linked to above states:

*The "Israeli art students" -- so dubbed because that's how they described themselves to various law-enforcement officials when confronted -- were both male and female and, as appropriate to their ages and required under Israeli law, served that nation's military
*Reports of Israeli art students calling on DEA employees began at least as early as January 2000 and continued through at least June 2001
* The stories offered by the Israeli art students "are remarkable in their consistency" insofar as they state they either are from the University of Jerusalem or the Bezalel Academy of Arts in Jerusalem."
*Despite the students' claims that they had themselves produced the artwork or paintings they were offering for sale, "information has been received which indicates the art is actually produced in China."
All this is contained in official DEA documents obtained by INSIght, including one produced in early June 2001. These represent an extraordinary compilation by DEA's Office of Security Programs chronicling not only contacts of DEA personnel at home or at their offices, but also similar incidents involving employees of other agencies and the military
"The nature of the individuals' conduct, combined with intelligence information and historical information regarding past incidents involving Israeli organized crime, leads IS to believe the incidents may well be an organized intelligence-gathering activity," a classified document euphemizes.
The documents do not clearly label the activities of the so-called art students as a government-sanctioned spying operation, as widely reported. But they do make clear there is a covert nature to the well-orchestrated activities. In one reference, DEA said telephone numbers obtained from one encounter with its agents in Orlando, Fla., "have been linked to several ongoing DEA MDMA investigations in Florida, California, Texas and New York now being closely coordinated by DEA headquarters" in Washington.

There is no synthesis in the article. The reliable sources cited state clearly that the self-identified "Israeli art students" are suspected to be operating an espionage ring. As I said earlier, its more NPOV to use the title "Israel art students scam" than it is to use "Israeli art student spy ring". While both refer to the same set of incidents, the allegation that there were spies is denied by the Israeli government among others. Its important that people here understand that the link between the art scam and the espionage ring is made by reliable sources, so it is not coatracking to include them under the current title. Tiamut 12:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. Specifically, per WP:SYNTH and WP:FRINGE, and more generally because it's not what an encyclopedia is all about.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

There's no synth, the sources cited make the connections made in our article. A quick look at the sources show there are mutliple RS's so its not fringe. We have notability guidelines, and they are met for this topic. Its not for you to decide based on personal prejudicies what is encyclopedic and what is not. Tiamut 21:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It really hurts my feelings when you personally critisize me like that. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I struck the comment because I'm sorry it hurt your feelings. Can you please answer GregorB's question below? Tiamut 21:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I feel much better now.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Please point to a single instance of synthesis in the article and I'm going to delete it straight away. GregorB (talk) 21:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The entire article consists of different rumors from different eras in different countries. The classic wp:synth.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

That's WP:SYNTH only if these "rumors" are used to construct a conclusion which does not appear in any of the sources. ("Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.") But which conclusion would that be? GregorB (talk) 22:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Keep, surprising myself. I looked at the sources expecting to find that some garden variety con men were being confused with spies. Unfortunately, the Forward, and Haaretz, and even the Washington Post are writing about just what the article is. They're treating it as a possible urban legend, but it looks like even if it is only that, it's a notable one. --GRuban (talk) 21:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, I think that's the point. The question is not about whether this was actually a spy ring or not, but whether there are sufficient reliable sources which reported on the story to make it notable. Gatoclass (talk) 06:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per Peter. Snopes covers urban legends quite nicely.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per Epeefleche et al. myth
• Keep Ample news coverage in the countries affected, and notable government agencies have commented on it. Dream Focus 09:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• Delete this novel synthesis. Guy (Help!) 09:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Again: if there is synthesis in the article, it has to be removed immediately. Please state a single example (i.e. an original claim or a conclusion - whether express or implied - that appears in the article, but it's absent from all its sources). GregorB (talk) 09:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - tagging espionage into it sealed the deal for me that this is a mashup WP:COATRACK for Israel-bashing. Jaakobou 11:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • But "tagging espionage into it" is done by multiple sources, not just by the article itself, therefore it doesn't qualify in this respect as either WP:COATRACK or WP:SYNTH. GregorB (talk) 11:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought the article was about a scam done for economic purposes. Now it's about an espionage ring? Seems pretty WP:COATRACK to me. —Ynhockey 12:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Given the extensive quotes I provided you from the Insight on the News article that detail the links between the art scam and the espionage allegations, I find this remark to be incredibly disingenuous. Tiamut 12:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, if you feel that the article name is misleading, that can be settled by simply renaming it. Surely this would not be a valid argument for deletion. (BTW, my proposal was Israeli art student fraud, which does not imply material gain as a motive.) GregorB (talk) 12:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Insight on the News? Sun Myung Moon's Insight on the News? From the family of the Washington Times and UPI? Why would anyone think they're dealing with a conspiracy theory? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Please don't make strawman arugments. There are many other sources who discuss it as well, including Haaretz, The Guardian, Salon.com, etc. Tiamut 16:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Keep the article is very well documented. If certain parts are disputed then only those parts should be modified, it doesn't justify deleting the whole article. JunCTionS 12:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• Delete looks like a pet conspiracy theory, unsupported by any mainstream source.  Grue  14:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

No mainstream sources?

• Haaretz: Spies, or students?: Were the Israelis just trying to sell their paintings, or agents in a massive espionage ring?
• The Guardian: Israeli student 'spy ring' revealed
• Salon.com: The Israeli "art student" mystery
• Jane's: Allies and Espionage
• The Telegraph: US arrests 200 young Israelis in spying investigation Tiamut 16:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Jane's doesn't even mention art students. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

They mention "Israeli students", and its clear from the context that they are discussing the self-same "Israeli art students". Tiamut 22:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

...and it refers to a March 5, 2002 Le Monde article which apparently does mention art students. GregorB (talk) 22:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The Guardian, Telegraph and Jane's are reporting about a leaked draft DEA report regarding a spy ring, not a "scam". According to the report, they were not trying to sell mass produced paintings for exhorbiant prices in the attempt to make money. They were trying to gain access to places to gain information. The "scam" article is an obvious COATRACK. I suspect some people know that an article consisting only of "once upon a time some guy at the DEA said Israeli art students were trying to gain access to buildings but the NYT concluded the report lacked a suitable factual base" would be problematic. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Keep as a notable conspiracy theory. Apparently, in 2001 the DEA became aware of the art student scam and suspected a possible espionage background. This was leaked in 2002. The scam has spread worldwide and is still going on today, as witnessed by numerous reports from 2009/2010. The continued existence of the scam does two things: (1) Makes it appear unlikely that the scam is related to espionage. (Any intelligence agency using this method would have had 8 years to find something less conspicuous.) (2) Keeps the conspiracy theory alive.

The best overview I have seen is the Haaretz article. This is a highly respected reliable source. Add the less comprehensive Guardian and Telegraph articles, and there can be no doubt that this is a notable topic. The connection between the 2001 DEA document leaked in 2002 and the ongoing scam is not original research, as it is made very explicitly by Haaretz.

The scam should have an article in the same way that Three-card Monte has an article. Due to the strong connection that is also the natural place for the conspiracy theory. Hans Adler 17:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Strong delete per nominator and Mbz1. Broccoli (talk) 18:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment—just to let the closing admin know, someone has posted this discussion on Reddit, advocating keeping it. Just letting everyone know. —Ynhockey 21:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, unfortunate that. Doesn't seem to have skewed the outcome though. I see that Grue, who voted delete here, was the first to comment there. Seems to have backfired. Tiamut 22:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• Delete "Urban myth." Why is this even a discussion? Never mind: don't answer that. Please just get rid of this "article." IronDuke 22:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Hmbr too. I commented earlier, but see that the article is the same so now taking a side for delete. coatrack, syn, etc... --Shuki (talk) 23:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Society topics)
• AfD debates