Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:33, 27 July 2010

This article was nominated for deletion on 4 March 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

A fact from Art student scam appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 18 March 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that the art student scam is a confidence trick in which scammers sell cheap paintings as original art by up-and-coming talents? A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2010/March.

[REDACTED]

Nationality

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) 19:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

If all of them claim to be Israeli or they claim that the paintings are done by Israeli students, then I think it's fair enough to call it the "Israeli art student scam", regardless of whether they really are Israeli. If it were called "Canadian art student scam", it would be too confusing, since none of these people claim to be Canadian art students. (Huey45 (talk) 13:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC))

The quoted Jewish Daily Forward article,Espionage Ruled Out in Case of Bad Art, seems to have no doubt about the nationality of the students. And, it seems to me that stating as a fact that the stories of spying were an urban myth based on an article saying that an unnamed official said so is stretching things a bit.     ←   ZScarpia   21:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Justin Raimondo names names. It seems that he and the DEA, at least, have no doubt about the nationality of those involved.     ←   ZScarpia   21:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

2001/2 events versus the rest

It seems to me that bringing together isolated reports of petty crime from random parts of the world, without a reliable source that argues they are related, is Original Research. I think those reports should be removed. Incidentally, what about Chinese art student scams or English art student scams? Zero 07:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The second is actually "Chinese English student scam", not "English art student scam". Hans Adler 14:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Democracy Now program

This program on Democracy Now in 2007 has a lot of information that may be of use to the article. Question though: why were the links made between this and 9/11 removed? They are made by high quality reliable sources like Alexander Cockburn in his book on anti-Semitism, and in this program by Christopher Ketcham, among others. Could that material be restored and expanded with careful attention to what the sources have to say? Tiamut 20:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe because the head of CounterPunch.org is anything but a reliable source. ----DanTD (talk) 13:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Rename?

In the AfD discussion, much has been made about the article content not corresponding to its title. The article covers a "scam thing" (apparently motivated by profit) and a "spy thing" (spying suspected, but not proven). These two cases have two things in common: 1) the people involved were Israelis, 2) they were impostors - they claimed to be art students, but they were not. So, maybe Israeli art student fraud is a better title - false impersonation is a kind of fraud, regardless of the motives, while "scam" implies motivation by material gain. GregorB (talk) 21:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it matters much once the article has been rewritten as it should be, i.e. reflecting the treatment in reliable sources. Then it will be about the scam, with a short section (plus a sentence in the lead) discussing the DEA document and the conspiracy theory. Hans Adler 13:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Point

No not wikipoint. What is the subject? What is the point? Is it schemers? Is it espionage? Based on the title, lets say it is about the scheemers. Two editors have tried to make the change recently. Others have tried to limit it as well. It has been reverted over and over again. So assuming this makes it out of AfD, one of the two and some renaming needs to happen ASAP.Cptnono (talk) 14:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I have run into this myself. You see lots of "mass produced" paintings around. I'm sure lots of people sell them door to door claiming to be art students. Maybe if more people went to community college and took classes in art fewer people would fall for it. BTW does WP have an article on "mass produced painting"? Wolfview (talk) 12:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

There is Velvet painting.Wolfview (talk) 12:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Forbidden City

I just mentioned in the article that the scam is carried out inside one (or possibly more) of the buildings in the Forbidden City. I didn't include a reference because I don't know how and it's my own experience anyway. The "artworks" were quite obviously mass-produced rather than individually painted by wannabe artists, since a lot of them were exactly the same, all of them had the same paint/ink etc and they looked too good to be done by kids from a rural high school. The place was set up as a salesroom rather than an exhibition anyway, with the "art" crowded all over the wall, from the ceiling to the floor. The prices were outrageously high as well, as you would expect. (Huey45 (talk) 13:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC))

There are many unreliable sources on the web that mention the Forbidden City, but not your specific detail. You can add {{cn}} behind your sentence. Then others see at a glance that there is a source missing, and perhaps provide one. Hans Adler 13:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This isn't an unreliable source; I saw it with my own eyes and I even went into their "exhibition". (Huey45 (talk) 00:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC))

See WP:SELFCITING: "This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Misplaced Pages, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing reliable sources." In my opinion the passage could have stayed in, marked as "citation needed". After all, there is no reason to doubt that it is true, and it seems likely the a source can be found.

Please do not describe other editors' actions as "vandalism" in the edit summary unless they really fall under the definition in WP:VAND. It's not acceptable and you can get in trouble for doing it. Hans Adler 00:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

@Huey45: Echoing what Hans Adler said, without a citation from a reliable source, the edit appears to be original research, which is not a valid basis for an addition to Misplaced Pages, as Markowitz correctly explained in his edit summary for this edit. Since Google turns up a number of mentions of the scam at the Forbidden City in blogs and such (and there is even a passing mention in one of the sources now cited in the article), it is certainly possible that a reliable source can be found for this, so I've marked it with the "citation needed" template. Please note, however, that this article has been the subject of extended discussion, and survives now mainly because of an outstanding revision by Hans Adler that scrupulously trimmed the article of improper tone and content. Accordingly, all the editors here are likely to be very sensitive to edits that don't comply with Misplaced Pages requirements, and if an acceptable source isn't identified in a reasonable time, deletion may be the result.--Arxiloxos (talk) 03:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Your obsession with original research is counter-productive and annoying. Nevertheless, I'll remove my contribution myself, despite it being completely correct, since I know you nerds will otherwise keep harassing me. I'm insulted by you suggesting that any random blog on the internet counts as a reliable source, but my eyewitness account doesn't.(Huey45 (talk) 04:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC))

It seems you don't really understand Misplaced Pages rules. Original research is strictly forbidden. The only person "harassing" here is you, by labeling other editors "nerds" and "vandalists". Marokwitz (talk) 14:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion you are both wrong. There is nothing wrong with unsourced statements in articles so long as it's clear they are true. That's why we have the tags that ask for sources. If every such bit had to be removed immediately we wouldn't need these tags. On the other hand, I think Huey overreacted a bit. Different people have different ideas of how this encyclopedia must self-evidently function. We all need a certain degree of tolerance for each other. Hans Adler 14:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Pretty sure this also exists in India

I'm pretty sure someone tried this with me in Udaipur. (Though my contact lens problems ruined the scam before it got going, because I could barely see his art.) I can't find a reliable source talking about this scam in India, but others might want to investigate. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I can not imagine a place where it doesn't exist. It is easy and cheap to mass produce art, many people can not tell the difference, if someone says he is an art student then he will get some sympathy. The only thing more common is to say it's folk art. Wolfview (talk) 01:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

user:Preciseaccuracy installing POV, and the original research

I removed the edits by user:Preciseaccuracy here The Fox news article the user used as a reference has never mentioned anything about students.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Why did you remove these quotations which clearly add to balance and extremely relevant information to the article?

In response to criticism that the idea of an israeli art spy ring was an "urban myth," a salon.com article stated "The Post's apparent debunking was far from convincing, even to the casual reader. Of course there was no proof that the art students were part of a spy ring: Intelligence Online and Le Monde had jumped the gun. However, the real possibility that they were part of a spy ring could not be dismissed -- any more than could any other theory one might advance to explain their unusual behavior. With that in mind, Justice spokeswoman Dryden's assertion that reports of an Israeli spy ring were an "urban myth" was an oddly overplayed denial."

Salon went on to say "To someone not familiar with the 60-page DEA memo, or to reporters who didn't bother to obtain it, the fact that a disgruntled employee leaked a memo he wrote himself might seem like decisive proof that the whole "art student" tale was a canard. In reality, the nature of the memo makes its authorship irrelevant. The memo is a compilation of field reports by dozens of named agents and officials from DEA offices across America. It contains the names, passport numbers, addresses, and in some cases the military ID numbers of the Israelis who were questioned by federal authorities. Pointing a finger at the author is like blaming a bank robbery on the desk sergeant who took down the names of the robbers."

In my view, the proposed additions are excessive. As Mbz points out the Fox source is irrelevant. The Salon article is a single article from 2002 that (as far I can see) got little traction thereafter outside the fringe. Per WP:WEIGHT, at most it might deserve a sentence and a footnote. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

(As far as you can see). Well read the other source articles on this site. At least two mentioned the salon.com article specifically meaning that it did indeed gain traction. Both Ha’aretz and the forward article mention the salon.com article. http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/spies-or-students-1.45243 http://www.forward.com/articles/5250/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Preciseaccuracy (talk • contribs) 05:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't call that "traction", exactly: the first mention was contemporaneous and the other, later one ("Espionage Ruled Out in Case of Bad Art") debunks the espionage claim. I still think this Salon.com reference should be cut down to a sentence at most, and it could be made clearer that no other reliable sources support the espionage conclusion, but I would like to hear other opinions.-Arxiloxos (talk) 15:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The title, "Espionage ruled out in case of bad art" refers to the specific suspected Canada operation in 2004 of Israeli art students in Canada spying in 2004 and not the suspected Israeli art student American operation of 2001."As late as last year, the respected Internet magazine Salon.com revived the spy ring allegations in a lengthy and detailed report recounting the charges and suggesting that the group may have been operating in as many as 40 American cities." Both the haaretz and forward article treat it as controversial. This claim is far from urban myth and calling it such is misleading. Not having absolute proof that the art students were spies shouldn't refute the evidence against the claim that this is an "urban myth." The fact is that this gained so much traction that Canadians were worried about it three years later. No source states that an "espionage conclusion" for the 2001 u.s. operation as 100 percent proved, but many sources demonstrate why it is highly suspect and not an "urban myth."

The Forward article alone refers to three specific sources that point to the credibility of the 2001 u.s. version. "Fox News, Salon.com", and "most extensively by the Atlanta-based alternative newspaper Creative Loafing." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.129.236 (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The article was 'fine', why stir up old issues? Reminds me of an editor who has since relaxed. --Shuki (talk) 20:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The salon argument is extremely rational. What is irrational is to believe that a lone dea agent wrote the sixty page dea document of reports all across the country with over a hundred names, passport numbers, addresses, of israelis and american agents as some sort of practical joke. The dea document is a "living breathing document" and to take as fact that israeli art students by coincidence just happened to wander into secure areas of government buildings all across the country, be found caught doing odd things around numerous military bases that in some cases weren't public knowledge definitely raises a lot of red flags. To label this as wild speculation is crazy. Without extremely concrete evidence that this was indeed a spy ring Carl Cameron and Brit Hume would not have done his four part series on the spy ring. As they said during the broadcast, "to accuse israel of spying is considered career suicide." One wouldn't risk their career over wild speculation. The risks to Cameron's career were indeed real as demonstrated by the Salon article also. Some advocates from pro israel groups even went so far as to suggest that Cameron might be a bigot because his dad was an archeologist for a few years in Iran. Thus, for those complaining about space, I could condense the two quotes above to

In response to criticism that the idea of an israeli art spy ring was an "urban myth," a salon.com article stated "The Post's apparent debunking was far from convincing, even to the casual reader."....."To someone not familiar with the 60-page DEA memo, or to reporters who didn't bother to obtain it, the fact that a disgruntled employee leaked a memo he wrote himself might seem like decisive proof that the whole "art student" tale was a canard. In reality, the nature of the memo makes its authorship irrelevant. The memo is a compilation of field reports by dozens of named agents and officials from DEA offices across America. It contains the names, passport numbers, addresses, and in some cases the military ID numbers of the Israelis who were questioned by federal authorities. Pointing a finger at the author is like blaming a bank robbery on the desk sergeant who took down the names of the robbers." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Preciseaccuracy (talk • contribs) 00:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Chinese version of the scam

I don't think that this is very noteworthy and seems to be a digression. What rational person would assume that they are getting original valuable art works from someone they randomly met on the street in china. A country where five dollar northface jackets and fake rolex's abound and where patents are extremely loosely enforced if at all. There are easily thousands of petty money making scams all around china. This should at the very most be a very minor sidenote, let alone being the introduction to the[REDACTED] article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Preciseaccuracy (talk • contribs) 09:36, 13 July

2010 (UTC) 

It's fine the way it is. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

If you want to keep the chinese art scam it should be in a separate sub-category under the section heading "Variants". The chinese art student hustle should be kept separate from the suspected israeli "art student" scam/spy ring for readability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Preciseaccuracy (talk • contribs) 22:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree it is fine as it is.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The priority of this article is not meant to be the fake Israeli thing; there are plenty of other people purporting to be art students in order to sell overpriced reproductions. You already tried to hijack the article with your stuff about the DEA; leave the rest alone. (Huey45 (talk) 01:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC))

I agree that the art scam is what this article is about as implied by its title. It was the aspect that there was clear consensus to keep at the time of the afd. As I recall, the conspiracy theory did not have clear consensus though this wasn't formally resolved because of the refocusing/renaming of the article.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Preciseaccuracy, I'm not trying to "gang up" on you; it's just that much of your addition to the article is not written from a neutral point of view and some of it is just the editor's opinion, such as the false analogy of the cop recording the names of the bank robbers.

I called it "the fake Israeli thing" because all of the previous sources (yes, you're not the first person to mention this) suggested that the salesmen weren't even Israeli, let alone art students. When people keep turning up to this article, saying "ZOMG GAIZ DERE'S A BIG CONSPIRACY HURR DURR", one has to start paying careful attention to the basis of the claims. (Huey45 (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC))

Its very odd how other users have a problem with the salon article but they don't seem to have a problem with any of the sources that were attached about chinese guys on the streets of china selling fake art that they say is real. These sources only very briefly mention chinese art students and at least two or three of the four sources about the chinese appear to be blogs. Thus, it is the chinese scam that is given undue weight. The sources attached to this[REDACTED] article about the chinese con appear for the most part to be near garbage. http://www.startbackpacking.com/travel/china-scam/ http://www.virtualtourist.com/travel/Asia/China/Beijing_Shi/Beijing-1024960/Tourist_Traps-Beijing-Art_Students-BR-1.html http://www.chinaprimer.com/china-travel-tips/china-tourism-scams.html http://books.google.com/books?id=1DqjMGlyY5QC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Preciseaccuracy (talk • contribs) 09:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC) Preciseaccuracy (talk) 09:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Will and work in their place?Cptnono (talk) 09:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

User Huey45 acting in "bad faith"

Huey45 says… “I called it "the fake Israeli thing" because all of the previous sources (yes, you're not the first person to mention this) suggested that the salesmen weren't even Israeli, let alone art students.”

In fact, all of these sources unequivocally state that they were Israelis, and mention art students. The fact is that Huey45 has been repeatedly lying with the purpose of mutilating the content of this article. I think that he should be banned from this article.

Sources:

• http://dir.salon.com/news/feature/2002/05/07/students/index.html
• http://web.archive.org/web/20020321021731/http://real-info.1accesshost.com/janes1.html
• http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/2002-03-20/fishwrapper.html
• http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/spies-or-students-1.45243
• http://www.forward.com/articles/5250/
• http://www.zeit.de/2002/41/Tuer_an_Tuer_mit_Mohammed_Atta -note: this article is in german, from die zeit, its easy to translate with google or yahoo
• http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20020307&slug=notspies07
• http://web.archive.org/web/20060423065411/
• http://ww1.sundayherald.com/37707

Preciseaccuracy (talk) 12:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I read the contributions by Preciseaccuracy here. The writing style doesn't appear to be suitable for an encyclopædia. If the information is poorly or incorrectly written, expressed and executed, editors will remove it. I did not read all the sources provided above, but some articles may contain the authors' views and opinions. I suggest taking the salmon.com article (and other articles) to the Reliable sources/Noticeboard to determine its reliability.  Davtra  14:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Fox news 4 part special

Please watch all 4 parts of this special. Parts 1 and 4 seem to deal the most directly with the suspected Israeli spy ring. Parts 2 and 3 seem to deal more with suspected spying by the corporations "Amdocs" and "Comverse Infosys." As this news special is a very substantial and important source, if you can't bother to take the 20 minutes to watch it, you should forfeit your editing say in this[REDACTED] article.

-After watching the four parts, directly state that you have watched parts 1,2,3, and 4. For example, "I have watched parts 1,2,3 and 4."

-Then state whether in your opinion it makes sense to classify the 2001 israeli "art student" spying on the United States in the categories of urban myths and wild conspiracy theories.

For example: No, the Israeli "art student" spy ring does not fall under these categories. Instead, a more apt description would be Suspected Israeli "art student" spy ring. This is due to the serious coverage of both Brit Hume and Carl Cameron and the substantial amount of evidence presented by them. Also, because this gained enough traction to be asked about in the white house press corps and where "the questions were fielded like hot potatoes" by both Ari Fleischer and Colin Powel. This also gained serious coverage in the sources above. Also, "Justice spokeswoman Dryden's assertion that reports of an Israeli spy ring were an "urban myth" was an oddly overplayed denial. A response that fit the facts would have been something like "There have been numerous reports of suspicious behavior by Israelis claiming to be art students. We are looking into the allegations." There is clearly a serious credibility issue with the Washington post article when they claim to debunk an "urban myth" given that they didn't even bother to obtain the 60 pg. dea document that the other sources had on hand. However, the article still serves as another example of mainstream traction for the suspected spy ring.

Make sure to answer in the above format.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Preciseaccuracy (talk • contribs) 14:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

"Then state whether in your opinion it makes sense to classify the 2001 israeli "art student" spying on the United States in the categories of urban myths and wild conspiracy theories",

The youtube links to the fox news special about israel spying have been deleted from[REDACTED] because links to copyrighted material on youtube are not permitted on wikipedia. Preciseaccuracy (talk) 14:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

After you watched these videos, did you conclude and classify the 2001 Israeli "art student" ring as urban myths and wild conspiracy theories?  Davtra  14:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe that when you added the word "conclude" you may have unintentionally skewed the meaning of what I was asking for. I am not asking anyone to conclude whether or not the israeli art students were spies and make up an entire[REDACTED] article based on one source. It seems like other users here are acting in bad faith. They either haven't bothered to go through the sources or are making deliberately misleading statements like the "students were't even israelis" and denouncing this as an urban myth like reptiles in the sewer system or describing the israeli spying using the pejorative version of the phrase "conspiracy theory" as if this was only heresay on wing-nut websites as a reason to nominate this for deletion . I have read through all of the sources mentioned here and on the articles for deletion page in depth. Other editors won't even admit that the label "urban myth" for this is at the very least controversial. They rely on the sole quotation "urban myth" in a newspaper that didn't bother to obtain the 60 pg. dea report, that didn't bother to contact any of the numerous dea agents in the dea memo that were making reports of their numerous encouters across the country with israeli "art students" in restricted areas of government buildings, around military bases, strange ecounters in which it appeared to the agents that the art students were doing "inteligence work," and numerous other encounters. Sorry getting kind of tired writing all this down. I've described this in much more detail in my other posts. To any third party objective observer this is definitely not an urban myth. Questions about urban myths aren't "fielded like hot potatoes" by colin powell and ari fleischer. an urban myth doesn't have a sixty page dea memo with hundreds of names, drivers license numbers, passport numbers and israeli ids to back it up, just spend a few minutes at least watching the first part, do they appear to think that they're discussing some outlandish theory. cameron describes later on in the special how agents say that even accusing israel of spying is considered "career suicide" davtra watch the fox special, and then read the other users comments on here and on the articlesfordeletion board. the more you read in the sources and the more you read the discussion board, the clearer it will be that some users are deliberately trying to sabotage this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Preciseaccuracy (talk • contribs) 16:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Preciseaccuracy (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I actually did watch the first part at your request. The 30 seconds out of 9 minutes (or something like that) brushing on it was not strong enough to warrant such a lengthy explanation. Is it mentioned in detail in the other parts and if so can you provide the approximate times for quicker viewing?Cptnono (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: I am not trying to conclusively prove the israeli spying, I do however disagree with the dismissal of the spying as an "urban myth" or some wingnut conspiracy. The fox news story clearly helps to make the point that spying was at least suspected. Other users are not even agreeing that the labeling of the spying as "urban myth" is at the very least controversial which leads me to believe that they are acting in "bad faith." Evidence is clearly presented throughout the special, it would be doing a diservice to the objectivity of this article, not watching it in its entirety.

At the very least, watch all of part 1 and part 4 from 3:00-4:34, however you will still miss out on important evidence by not watching the entire four part special.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Split?

The original intent of this article was the Israeli espionage thing. It was rejected by many and was a POV coatracky mess. However, there is some coverage. Two sources admit that it didn't pick up steam while one of them contradicts itself and says that it was a big story. There is some coverage. Enough to be considered significant under GNG? I would lean towards yes. The other concern is the scandal mongering. Wikipeida is not about that. But if an article is created that makes it clear that the most recent and more significant sources dismiss it as an urban legend in the lead then that might be OK. Any thoughts on retrying the original intent of this piece in a separate article?Cptnono (talk) 02:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose That article has already got it day under the sun, when it was displayed at the main page as DYK. The deletion request on it was closed as "no consensus". Practically no main stream media has covered the subject. user: Preciseaccuracy claimed she decided to edit the article after she read about Russian spy rings. If one to compare the two's coverage, one could easy see the difference. IMO the article is fine as it is. Maybe it should be nominated for the deletion one more time, but "to split", no.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

How dare you oppose my proposal! No not really. I do want to say that any consideration of a split should not be impacted by Preciseaccuracy or Factsontheground not being the best editors. I see some coverage and think there is a possibility of it working if done the right way. If you say your oppose is not a reaction to other editors screwing up I will of course believe you but keep an eye on that just in case. I really could be completely wrong and do see good reasoning for this article to be killed so am not too worried about it either way.Cptnono (talk) 02:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, my oppose has absolutely nothing to do with any editor involved with the article. If I am not mistaking, I voted for it deletion, and my opinion about the article (that it would have been much better off deleted and forgotten) has not changed ever since. IMO the deletion of this article will make Misplaced Pages reputation a little bit better.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

"IMO the deletion of this article will make Misplaced Pages reputation a little bit better" LOL. Worded harshly but I hear you. Don't exactly agree but no worries.Cptnono (talk) 03:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

If the article were split, both parts would be too obscure to warrant an article. It should be left as it is. The Israeli spy ring is basically the same as the standard scam anyway, except that they weren't just looking for easy money, they were also trying to gather information (or at least that's how the story goes). (Huey45 (talk) 03:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC))

I actually agree with MbZ1, I don't think Misplaced Pages should give such articles even one minute of glory. --Gilisa (talk) 06:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the list of scams and confidence tricks at the bottom, this one is just as deserving of an article as most of the others. It's interesting and would save a lot of unsuspecting people from the scam. The article certainly shouldn't be deleted. (Huey45 (talk) 09:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC))

• Oppose I had liked how the article had developed from POV coatrack to generic article, not unlike the article for occupied territory. The section on the Israeli angle, personally don't think it should be included, but was also fine per UNDUE weight. The article was okay until recently an editor decided to open up the battle again and expand the section with nothing really new at all. I still don't see any reason to split to a separate article like Moon Hoax Theory. --Shuki (talk) 11:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Support the split. The topic about a guy in china whom you've just met on the street trying to sell fake art that he claims is real is completely unrelated to israelis posing as art students spying on the United States. This has to be one of the strangest mergers of two unrelated topics on wikipedia. These should definitely be separate articles. The israeli spying did receive a significant amount of coverage as demonstrated by the at least ten sources that have been posted. These sources also treated the suspected israel spying in a very serious manner. The only source that claimed to dismiss spying on the u.s. admitted that it didn't even obtain the sixty page page dea document which included names, drivers license numbers, passport numbers and in some cases the military id numbers of around 100 israelis in the u.s. posing as israeli art students all across the country. These students were found hanging around military bases, diagramming secured areas of government buildings and in another case described as engaging in what seemed to be intelligence gathering activity. The Salon journalist contacted at least 6 dea agents mentioned in the document from across the country who confirmed the encounters described in the document as accurate and not an "urban myth." The title of the new article should be ""Suspected Israeli "Art Student" Spying on the United States"".Preciseaccuracy (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Good luck with that title.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose because it just to stir mud. --Gilisa (talk) 16:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

or maybe the title "Israeli "art student" scam and suspected spying." The part about buying art from guys on the street in china that they say is real but is actually fake if deemed notable could be called "forbidden city art con," con though is an overstatement, who would actually believe they were buying original works of art from some guy they just met on the streets of china, a country known for numerous counterfeit goods.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Procedural oppose—without commenting on the merits of the proposal, I will oppose because one should generally not try to change the consensus of an AfD through a process other than AfD or DRV. —Ynhockey 21:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Support (Allegations of) espionage operations are not reasonably connected to tourist traps. If a fellow robs a bank while dressed as a clown, and that event is notable, the Wiki article should not then be loaded up with accounts of other improprieties committed by people dressed as clowns. We should have a "See also" link, that's the way to deal with this. RomaC 04:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Follow up It looks to me that this proposal was DOA. Just to clarify, it is my belief that the story has notability and hold very little opinion about the actual allegations except for some of them being clearly muckraking.Cptnono (talk) 06:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean doa, at least two users support the article splitting because the topic of a chinese "tourist trap" is completely unrelated to a suspected israeli espionage operation in the U.S.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 19:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Binksternet's version of the article

I came here from the Reliable Source Noticeboard where a question was asked about Christopher Ketcham's Salon.com piece. Ketcham is a very highly regarded freelance journalist, a veteran whose work has been carried by a number of magazines, and I judged the Salon.com piece to be extremely reliable and verifiable because of its author.

Here's the version of the article that I introduced:

The scam was operated by some Israelis in the United States and Canada beginning in summer 2000 or earlier. After it hit numerous facilities and private homes of staff members of the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), a DEA officer suspected an espionage program. Both the DEA and the Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive released reports about the suspicious behavior of supposed Israeli art students. The media initially reported on the military training of those involved, which is compulsory in Israel, and caused confusion. Several dozen Israelis in their 20s were deported for immigration offenses, and two of these were found to be Mossad operatives by an FBI counter-investigation. An internal DEA report, leaked in 2002 in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, shaped much of the reporting, including the idea that Israeli agents had been tracking the terrorists before the attacks. In March 2002, a Justice Department spokesperson described allegations of spying as an "urban myth", saying that they have "no information at this time to substantiate these widespread reports about Israeli art students involved in espionage." The Washington Post printed an article quoting denials from such federal officials, and described the DEA memo as the work of one disgruntled employee.
In response to criticism that the idea of an Israeli spy ring was an "urban myth", veteran journalist Christopher Ketcham wrote, "the Post's apparent debunking was far from convincing, even to the casual reader ... To someone not familiar with the 60-page DEA memo, or to reporters who didn't bother to obtain it, the fact that a disgruntled employee leaked a memo he wrote himself might seem like decisive proof that the whole "art student" tale was a canard. In reality, the nature of the memo makes its authorship irrelevant. The memo is a compilation of field reports by dozens of named agents and officials from DEA offices across America. It contains the names, passport numbers, addresses, and in some cases the military ID numbers of the Israelis who were questioned by federal authorities. Pointing a finger at the author is like blaming a bank robbery on the desk sergeant who took down the names of the robbers."

(I have removed the references for clarity.) What I did was look at the sources already in the section, to see what was being said, and I noticed that much of what appeared in those sources was not being brought to the article. Any information which made the art scam look like a spy ring was categorically not used. For instance, Seamus McGraw in Forward wrote that "a counter-intelligence investigation by the FBI concluded that at least two of them were in fact Mossad operatives." This was not being brought to the article. I retrieved some of these bits, identified which federal agency's official was saying "urban myth", and rearranged the section so that its story was clearer. What the story is, is that the art scam may have been operated as a spy ring, or it may not have. That story is what Misplaced Pages should tell, rather than trying to select one side. Binksternet (talk) 00:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You both need to stop edit warring. BRD does not mean post a discussion then revert. It means actually discuss with other editors. And discussion on the talk page is preferred over edit summaries while reverting.Cptnono (talk) 00:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, I agree. To stay on topic, what is your take on my assertion that the story we should tell is that the art scam may have been operated as a spy ring by young Israelis, or it may not have. Do you think we should instead say that all the spy ring allegations are bunk? I don't see the sources supporting that version; there are opposing counterclaims and inconclusive results of investigation. Binksternet (talk) 00:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was fine as it was. Other information can be added but then you run into weight concerns so that needs to be handled differently than continuously reverting. There may be multiple problems with your text (I really don't care since I lean towards this deserving an article if it can be done right) so the other editor needs to speak up here. And I personally don't respect the Salon piece since it reads like scandal mongering craziness to me but here are a few sources that broke it down pretty well and with a decent tone (see: .Cptnono (talk) 00:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Its very odd how other users have a problem with the salon article but they don't seem to have a problem with any of the sources that were attached about chinese guys on the streets of china selling fake art that they say is real. These sources only very briefly mention chinese art students and at least two or three of the four sources about the chinese appear to be blogs. Thus, it is the chinese scam that is given undue weight. The sources attached to this[REDACTED] article about the chinese con appear for the most part to be near garbage. http://www.startbackpacking.com/travel/china-scam/ http://www.virtualtourist.com/travel/Asia/China/Beijing_Shi/Beijing-1024960/Tourist_Traps-Beijing-Art_Students-BR-1.html http://www.chinaprimer.com/china-travel-tips/china-tourism-scams.html http://books.google.com/books?id=1DqjMGlyY5QC Preciseaccuracy (talk) 01:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

If one did not assume good faith it might seem that the Chinese content was only added to water down the article for political reasons. Because tourist traps have no real connection to (allegations of) espionage operations. I agree it is the Chinese content that is taking undue weight here. RomaC 02:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm reverting Noon's reversion because he has not participated here and there is obviously no consensus on this. It appears some people don't like it but the material is sourced. RomaC 02:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The quote really needs to be trimmed down since it recieves undue weight for this particular article now. And RomaC should have read the previous discussion and the RS noticeboard on this. Reverting does nothing but continue an edit war while discussion is taking place. Give the guy more than a couple hours to respond.Cptnono (talk) 02:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

And don't change the subject Preciseaccuracy. How about you start a separate section to discuss those sources so that this does not get bogged down?Cptnono (talk) 02:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

There are two problems with the edit. Layout and weight. Variants needs to have two subsections (Chinese and Israeli). If Cthe scope of this article needs to be changed, editors should see #Split?.

Weight wise, the Salon quote is given too much prominence. Haaretz did it right IMO.. I would limit it to: "The Washington Post printed an article quoting denials from such federal officials, and described the DEA memo as the work of one disgruntled employee. In response to criticism that the idea of an Israeli spy ring was an "urban myth"(remove scare quotes), veteran journalist (OR and might even be disputed even though he has one some praise "free lance writer and poet" would also work but don't think it is needed either) Christopher Ketcham wrote for Salon.com that the the nature of the memo makes its authorship irrelevant since the memo is a compilation of field reports by dozens of named agents and officials from DEA offices across America. Israel's response to the piece was: "Nonsense."

I think Haaretz's take on it "Anyone who believes the story says that everything is accurately documented and confirmed, and that only a conspiracy on the part of the U.S. administration - which is desperate to keep the affair quiet, partly out of shame and partly because of its warm relations with Israel - is keeping the affair out of the spotlight of public discussion. Those who repudiate the affair say it is baseless, just another unfounded urban legend that has taken on a life of its own on various marginal Internet sites." is the best but that might be too much for this article.Cptnono (talk) 03:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Preciseaccuracy is not helping the current discussion by changing the subject—by talking about the Chinese part of the article.

Yes, the Ketcham quote is flabby, and could use some trimming. Your version has some merit. I intend to hunt for some more pertinent bits from Ketcham to see if they are more apt, and less verbose—I would like to have a quote from him more than a paraphrase. Still, the point of the article is to say that there are two views as to whether the art scam was used as cover by an Israeli spy ring. I don't think our job is to select which version is more true.

When you wrote to RomaC to "give the guy more than a couple of hours to respond" do you mean User:Mbz1? If so, he responded immediately on his talk page, opting not to engage in discussion. An hour-and-a-half after I first changed this article, one hour and 19 minutes after this talk discussion was started, I left a message on his talk page asking about his edit summaries, about why he was citing "the consensus" when this article has established no consensus among its involved editors. Just one minute later, Mbz1 deleted my talk entry with the edit summary "not interested". I must assume that Mbz1 is "not interested" in taking part, so it does not appear as if waiting a couple of hours will help. Binksternet (talk) 03:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

My version is almost a direct quote and I feared adding anymore would overwhelm the article. Realistically, one Salon piece doesn't deserve more than a line or maybe two IMO. If the article was much longer than it might be different but it isn't.

I didn't realize MBZ1 was so dismissive. He (I think She actually, apologies for not remembering) probably didn't expect RomaC to hop in and you would be bound by previous consensus. Remember that anti-vandalism tools should not be used to undo good-faith changes in content disputes unless an appropriate edit summary is used so do not use the "One-click revert of vandalism from history browser" feature. Oh well. It is fixable at least and I just have a short fuse when editors revert too fast. Mbz1 is right that you should go through the deletion discussion and this talk page if you have not already. I personally think the fix to the weight problem would be a new article (which is different form my original position since a couple of Preciseaccuracy's sources were decent) but there is very little support up above and I don't think it is that necessary.Cptnono (talk) 03:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Only one official dismissed the spying allegations as an "urban myth" Susan Dryden. Christopher Ketchum contacted at least six dea agents from across the country that confirmed the validity of their encounters described in the dea document. The post also admitted that it didn't bother to obtain the 60 pg. dea document. This article, from Creative Loafing, that I am currently having checked for reliability along with the salon.com article also questions Dryden's claim of "urban myth." http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/2002-03-20/fishwrapper.html Preciseaccuracy (talk) 04:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

What does that have to do with Binksternet's version of the article? You are only going to derail the conversation if you keep up like this. Pop that message in a new talk page section. Cptnono (talk) 04:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The assertions made in the salon article are correlated with some of the assertions in the creative loafing article which gives the salon assertions more weight.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 04:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You said "The Washington Post printed an article quoting denials from such federal officials." My statement corrected your statement in that only one official dismissed the spying allegations as an "urban myth" Susan Dryden.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 04:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The Washington Post did print an article quoting details from such officials didn't it? Your the one who likes the Salon article so much "Reporters at the New York Times and the Washington Post hit up their go-to people inside Justice and FBI and CIA, but no one could seem to confirm the story, and indeed numerous officials laughed it off." And read the line before it in the article will ya? It isn't just DEA.

And the quote is still too long anyways even if you find a source seconding the Salon article. And other sources dispute its assertions so what about their weight? This is not going to be a mirror of the Salon article. You can write a blog or comment at Salon about it if that is all you are interested in. This article is not even soley based on the Israeli thing and even if it was the Salon piece is just one single source.

Do you have any other thoughts on my proposal? Please also keep in mind that the article no longer says it is an urban myth. Cptnono (talk) 04:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It is not one single source, are you forgetting about the four part fox news special about israel spying with brit hume and carl cameron. The other 9 or 10 sources above also treat the spying allegations in a serious manner.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 04:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

And again we are back to discussing it as a whole and not this particular edit. Cptnono (talk) 05:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Cutting down the salon.com quote may end up making the analogy made by ketchum less comprehensible than in its current form.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 05:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

As it should be. If you want to include the Fox news report feel free to start another talk section on it. You should be extatic that Salon is finally getting some mention at all not sidetracking it, FFS.Cptnono (talk) 05:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Or giving it too much weight. We aren't detailing the findings by numerous other sources are we? No. This is useless. I'm working on a new draft right now since you just don't seem to get it. Still. If your favored option is to include the whole Salon quote I fear you will be out of luck because enough editors here disagreed (regardless of RomaC's revert) and the guidelines suprt the disagreement. I still think you should be happy Salon is in at all considering the rprevious reactions to it.Cptnono (talk) 05:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Washington post article = 12 sentences and didn't bother to obtain 60 pg. dea document before "debunking" spying. Salon.com article=6 pages of in depth coverage. Which article should have more coverage?Preciseaccuracy (talk) 06:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

We should detail findings of the sources, another user described the "art student scam"[REDACTED] article as a stub. This[REDACTED] article is very short yet you seem determined to trim it down, even if trimming down the article makes it less comprehensible.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 06:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Stop repeating yourself over and over again. No, the Washington Post is more reputable and backed by other sources. Since you just keep on filibustering I have decided to create a new draft. It keeps Salon and the Forward and also introduces Fox News. Now it is all source wise and there really should be no more complaining. Did you realize that Fox never said it was the art spies that knew about 9/11? The fourth part minutes you gave weren't even accurate so go rewatch it. They were discussing the whole spy program in general. It looks like from the beginning you have really been adamant about that and the Salon report and the potential for Israel spying. How about you go work on articles related to the other three parts of the video?

"Another group of 140 Israeli individuals have been arrested and detained within this year in what government documents describe as an organized intelligence gathering operation designed to penetrate government facilities." This is referring to individuals described in the dea document and the salon article. From part 4 of the four part fox news special.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 06:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Fox doesn't make that distinction but they do focus (so it means it should get some weight) on the infiltration. Another source starts talking about Ecstasy and really I just am sick of connecting dots since we are not investigative journalists or bloggers here. And what do the 60 arrested selling toys at kiosks in the mall or laborers have to do with art? They are mentioned in several reports linking the spy ring to knowing about 9/11. Cptnono (talk) 06:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

See September 11 attacks advance-knowledge debate#Foreign government foreknowledge if you think it needs more play. This article's weight needs to be sorted out so now that the peice you have been pushing is in be happy that you had partial success.Cptnono (talk) 07:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The article is about israeli "art student" spying. Stop getting off topic. "140" is mentioned in both fox and salon.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 07:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

israeli "art students" are mentioned in the fox report.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 07:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I admit the salon quote might have needed some trimming, but you have done much more than that, not to mention the extra sentence from the post you didn't seem to mind adding.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 07:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

LOL... zing. Sorry for straying off topic. Well those reports also discuss movers and people selling toys at the mall. So fine if consensus says that "There is no evidence linking these arrests to the September 11 attacks although some intelligence commentators have pointed to allegations that Israel may have been shadowing Arab militants in America without sharing its knowledge with Washington." deserves mention then I could be wrong. I'm willing to go with with what other editors think on it. But really we should have had this discussion in a separate section.

And no, I added nothing from the Post. The only source added was Fox. I did some work on the Salon and Haaretz mention of the Post and NY Times.Cptnono (talk) 07:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh sorry, i didn't mean the post, the thing about the new york times not writing about the spying seems to be a new addition.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 07:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking that the post described the new york times as not writing about spying when it was haaretz.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 07:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It was from both Salon and Haaretz which were already used. I did just add the 9/11 bit to see if it works.Cptnono (talk) 07:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to remove POV, conspiracy theories, and bring the article back as it was before the first edit by Binksternet

Editors supporting the proposal

1. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. It is neither the news nor the place to spread stupid allegations, POV and conspiracy theories. Please stop beating a dead horse. --Mbz1 (talk) 14:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
2. Agree with Mbz1 and made my arguments here before. --Gilisa (talk) 14:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
3. Agree with Mbz1 as well. Broccoli (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
4. Support—article went through a lot before coming to that version, which was agreed on by the widen community. The article's essential structure and content shouldn't be fundamentally changed. —Ynhockey 17:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
5. Support I don't think[REDACTED] should be repository for whacked out conspiracy theories conjured up by bloggers with wild imaginations and axes to grind.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
   • I would agree with your statement about whacked out bloggers, etc. However, the well-researched article by Christopher Ketcham remains unaddressed in your rationale. Binksternet (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
6. Support making this article generic. --Shuki (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Editors opposing the proposal

• Oppose, of course. The current proposal is one that intends to establish the Misplaced Pages story as this: the art scam has been seen in the U.S. performed by Israelis, some DEA agents thought they were spies, but it was a mistake. That version cannot be supported by the references. The story we must tell is this: the art scam may have been used as a cover by Israeli agents, and it may not have. That is what the sources add up to. Binksternet (talk) 16:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, Now, even after the salon.com source has been determined to be reliable, the other editors still dismiss suspected spying as a crazy "conpiracy theory" that shouldn't be included in this article when it was at the very least "suspected." Once again, the users try to delete anything that even mildly suggests the possibility of Israel spying. They don't even bother to reason out in detail why they want it reverted because they have larger numbers. Once Binksternet leaves, they'll likely revert everything and continue to whitewash references to Israel out of the article along with diluting the article with more unrelated Chinese stuff from blogs. User:Gilisa claims to have made her arguments here before. The two other sentences she wrote on this page along with the two or three sentences she wrote on the articlesfordeletion page basically sum up to wp:idontlikeit. Her arguments made elsewhere were that salon and the other sources aren't reliable which clearly falls apart now that the salon.com article has been demonstrated to be reliable.Preciseaccuracy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC).
• Oppose I might have supported but don't think bringing the article to "as it was before the first edit by Binksternet" is a good solution. My propsal is at: #All changes to the article should wait until the consensus is reached.Cptnono (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments

I'm wanting a bitmore time to see hwo things go. I noticed that the ONCIX warnign was being used to support a position quite different from what it said. If distortions like this are maintained, then I would be for chopping it. If my clarification and similar content are kept, then I may be able to live with the section.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

All changes to the article should wait until the consensus is reached

Because as for right now more than 50% of the editors supporting the old, stable version, I am going to restore it until the vote is finished or until the consensus will be turning other way around. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Which is funny, because your section heading says "all changes". You yourself have just changed the article. I find that your changes violate the ArbCom decision found at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar#Removal_of_sourced_edits_made_in_a_neutral_narrative_is_disruptive, in which it was determined that "It is disruptive to remove statements that are sourced reliably, written in a neutral narrative, and pertain to the subject at hand." Binksternet (talk) 18:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you really believe that the section name "Alleged Israeli espionage" could be considered neutral? And what about this statement: "The scam was operated by some Israelis in the United States and Canada beginning in summer 2000 or earlier." There's no even word "alleged"--Mbz1 (talk) 19:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

One more example: You wrote: "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", then why not to name the section "Alleged Middle Eastern Islamic fundamentalist group espionage"? --Mbz1 (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

And where the link to Fox broadcast. The reference included by you now only links to the show itself, but not to specificprogram--Mbz1 (talk) 19:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Booooo! :) I thought the version I worked out to meet some of the needs of Preciseaccuacy were pretty decent for the most part. But I do agree that massive changes need some consensus. I just wanted to find a solution without straight reverting. So in an attempt to reach consensus:

Attempt to address the issues of those looking at this like a conspiracy theory

Does this version work? If not, are there any changes that would make it work?Cptnono (talk) 20:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

User Shuki Deleted my Comment

User Shuki deleted my comment questioning "Who is Jiujitsuguy and why is his first comment on this article a direct one sentence vote. http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Jiujitsuguy#Question_2 "

I went to User:Shuki's talk page about this and discovered that Shuki is “topic-banned until 23:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC) from articles about towns, cities, settlements, and other places or locations in Israel and neighbouring countries.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Shuki#Topic_ban_notification

Preciseaccuracy (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages Did you know articles