Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:23, 5 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)

• 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)
• 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)
    • 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.
• 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)

• Strong delete Just few more badly sourced anti-Israeli conspiracy theories .--Mbz1 (talk) 02:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment 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)
• Strong delete Not noteworthy at all--Cunextuesday (talk) 05:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Cunextuesday
• Strong delete The reasons are so clear they need no further explanation. --Gilabrand (talk) 05:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Society topics)
• AfD debates