Talk:Art student scam

Again: Split?

Split this into an article, "Allegations of Israeli espionage operation 2000-2001" (working title), on the spy stuff; and another article, "Art student scam", on the painting sales ripoff. Wikilink the two where appropriate. I know the idea has been floated here and there but can we start on it now? I'll do a lot of the heavy lifting. RomaC ^TALK 07:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

This may not be such a bad idea, since most likely your proposal would result in a clear deletion outcome for the conspiracy article and this would make it easier to ensure due (lack of) weight in the present article. Hans Adler 11:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting I should write an article so that it can then be deleted? RomaC ^TALK 12:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I was about half serious. Creating an article on a non-notable topic and having it deleted can be a good strategy in general, but this doesn't seem to be a case where it makes sense. Hans Adler 16:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it will result in a deletion, as there is such strong, notable material from reliable sources, all about the topic. I support the split. Binksternet (talk) 14:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I support the split as well. There is more than enough sources about the spying to make it notable. Silverseren^C 16:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I also support the split, however with a short paragraph, heading and link to the new main article about the alleged Israeli spy ring included in this article. Kindzmarauli (talk) 18:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Basically, just a "Main article:" link template on the top of the section about North American art scams, right? Silverseren^C 19:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's it. Kindzmarauli (talk) 04:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Now more seriously: Even if we give the conspiracy theory undue weight, there is hardly enough material for one decent article, let alone two. The idea of splitting the article appears designed to take the spying stuff out of its natural context, which is a very widespread scam. (This already becomes abundantly clear if you read the original DEA report critically.) Explaining a conspiracy theory in detail and downplaying the non-conspiracy explanations is a big NONO. That's why I expect the inevitable AfD for the spin-out article to end in merge (or no consensus). There is also a small chance of an IAR deletion, but not enough to make it worthwhile to pursue this direction. Hans Adler 22:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not a conspiracy theory. Now, whether Israel was actually involved with the students and whether there were spying for them is up to debate, the fact remains that the students were detained and the government clearly thought that there ws some importance to the claims. The article does not try and present the spying allegations as proof of spying, but the government response to the allegations and the comments from various government officials are fact and, thus, do not make this a conspiracy theory, but a governmental response. Silverseren^C 22:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with a split. Both topics have enough RS to be notable. Now if only it can be done in a way that is not WP:NOT then the espionage stuff would not warrant deletion.Cptnono (talk) 23:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Your appeal to "various government officials" is not very convincing in the light of the following:

"An array of U.S. officials have dismissed reports that the U.S. government had broken up an Israeli espionage ring that consisted of young Israelis attempting to penetrate U.S. agencies by selling artwork in federal buildings.

'This seems to be an urban myth that has been circulating for months,' said Justice Department spokeswoman Susan Dryden on Tuesday.

'The department has no information at this time to substantiate these widespread reports about Israeli art students involved in espionage.'

Several officials said the allegations — first reported by a French online publication and later by other news organizations — of a massive U.S. probe of Israeli spies appear to have been circulated by a single employee of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) who is angry that his theories have not gained currency."

This take by the Seattle Times [1] is entirely consistent with the poor quality of the original DEA report, which reeks of confirmation bias.

Please list the government officials who confirmed this as taken seriously after 7 March 2002, the date of the Seattle Times report. Hans Adler 09:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Give me a few days to tap something out then I'll post sandbox links here. Cheers RomaC ^TALK 05:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Any updates RomaC? Kindzmarauli (talk) 18:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I found this and this while doing a search for his subpages. It looks like the /Spy one is the one that he will be turning into the Split, but it seems as if he hasn't done any work on it yet. He's probably busy with other things, I would assume. But we could help him out by working on that subpage too, i'm rather sure he won't mind. (I'm sorry if i'm wrong about him minding!) Silverseren^C 18:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

So how is that draft coming along? The no consensus close is alright with me but to improve the article I am about to start ripping the junk out.Cptnono (talk)

Well, since we essentially have a copy of the entire article in that subpage, you can go ahead and reduce the North American section to a Summary section. You might even want to go ahead and do a Main article link on the top of that section to "Allegations of Israeli espionage operation 2000-2001" (or a better name if someone thinks of one). Even if it stays red-linked for a couple of days, since we're in the process of making the separate article, it won't stay like that for very long, so I don't see any problem with having it red-linked in the article. Silverseren^C 20:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Coming along, thanks for your patience. It was "real world" stuff kept me off the job but have been looking for sources etc. maybe someone can help with an image for the art scam article? Something like this but free use.([2]) RomaC ^TALK 23:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Done, see this and this still needs work, anyway thanks for waiting. Still could use a pic see above. RomaC ^TALK 17:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The spy one has enough concerns that I would still consider voting for deletion based on NOT.(see the delete discussion). However, it is a good enough base and I assume most of the concerns could be easily addressed. Some other concerns are as undramatic as MoS and should not be considered as a reason to not go live considering it is certainly good enough in that department. I say get the ball rolling by putting them up live. We can discuss for weeks and months on how to fix it but getting it in the main space might be the carrot we need. It would also get the conversation on track and the question on what the scope actually is addressed. If editors disagree with the move they can say so now but it might be better to give it a few weeks and request an AfD if continuing discussion does not resolve any issues people might have. Alternatively, you could use the incubator (probably the less contentious and maybe even the best option), open up a subpage of his talk page for other editors to edit (will more than likely turn into edit warring on a subpage), or we can continue discussing here to see if any concerns can be addressed (which will presumably become bogged down). Cptnono (talk) 04:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I think both of these are very good, certainly better than the current mishmash. The spy version will likely always be a battleground for POV warriors, however this can best be contained by following NPOV, thorough referencing and watchlisting. I would also recommend including it under the general I/P Sanctions as this will keep it on the radar of more people/admins. Kindzmarauli (talk) 05:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

So do we do this? If so can somebody give me instructions on the best way to execute? RomaC ^TALK 15:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

There appears to be plenty of consensus here for the split. I would just create the new spy article, then try to incorporate any new changes to the standing article since you began your version itno your version, and finally replace the standing version with your rewrite. I do not see any reason that could not be done. Consensus has been reached. Kindzmarauli (talk) 06:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree there seems to have been consensus for a split and the two draft articles above have met no serious opposition in the last week. I have one request, can another editor please take the articles "live"? Thanks, RomaC ^TALK 09:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello RomaC, I have done this per consensus reached here. Kindzmarauli (talk) 05:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, maybe

While I will not generally contest consensus, as a result of what is discussed on the article discussion page, I also tend to edit articles without looking at that page first, as some of you are already aware. The time period of this article is generally more recent than my normal chronological period of editing, but I do note that several of the points which I edited prior to the split, and which were not challenged there, do not appear to have survived, and been incorporated in the split to a new article; this is of some concern for me, but it might take some time before I become engaged again and make these apparent, again. One of my main problems is that the other-than-North America references to the 'scam' side of this occurrence significantly post-date its original occurrence in NA. This appears to me a problem of recentism, from which many articles on this general subject suffer. As I stated, it may take some time, but do not be surprised if I edit here again. The dates of the various published articles are quite important in establishing the veracity of the subject, as well as how it has, and has not, developed elsewhere over time. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 15:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

AfD

The fork is now at AfD: WP:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli espionage operation 2000–2001. Hans Adler 19:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Summary

The topic of this article when it was created was the Israeli art student scam, which described the operation in the US of a number of Israeli groups who were accessing government sites and the homes of government employees while posing as students selling art. Eventually, more than 100 of the 'students' were detained (see "The Terror Enigma, 9/11 and the Israeli Connection" by Justin Raimondo for a treatment). The article topic was then converted to art student scams in general. this AFD was raised to request deletion of the current article when it still existed under its original title. After a new article was created under the title Allegations of Israeli espionage operation 2000–2001, this succesful AFD was raised to request its deletion.     ←   ZScarpia   14:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Spying under the guise of art-scams is obviously something none of those engaged in this discussion knows anything about so why not just stick to problems with the original article?

More important to the original article which actually affects millions of people and their dollars is that it is stated that "Most mass-produced prints and paintings originate in Asia." - Partially TRUE "These are essentially posters, sometimes referred to as "Hong Kong horrors," printed on rough paper, making the absence of brush strokes less apparent." - FALSE "Oil paintings cannot be mass-produced as they are hand made. There is a confusion between "mass-produced paintings" which are actually prints." - FALSE "These are being sold over the internet described as real oil paintings, taking advantage of the difficulty of spotting the scam behind the screen. Sometimes a few brush strokes are added to the prints to give them an oil painting look" - FALSE

This is simply inaccurate. While it is true that some paintings are mass produced using mechanical printing on "rough paper" there are far more sophisticated means to simulate brush strokes on fake paintings or prints mechanically produced but the technology for this is expensive and more typical in the U.S. and E.U. But the vast majority of "fake paintings" are oil paintings mass produced by hand. This is no little known fact and has been common knowledge for years to anyone who knows of or has visited the art village of Dafen in southern China. By fake I mean mass produced oil paintings that are copies of famous works as well as mass-produced oil paintings that are sold as original, one of a kind oil paintings that art students may produce and not prints or posters being passed off as hand painted. Many arts have been mass produced by hand in China and anything produced by the country of over a billion people is considered mass produced when done in big quantity even if by hand. The "village" of Dafen, a suburb of Shenzhen (pop 10,000,000) produced 60% of the cheap oil paintings in the world with a work force estimated at 8,000 - 10,0000 workers each of whom can produce up to 30 hand painted oil paintings per day each working on two, simultaneously, at the piecework wage of about 30 Yuan for each one and totaling 5,000,000 paintings per year which generated approximately $30,000,000 annually through 2008. This began in 1989 when self taught painter and Hong Kong errand boy, Huang Jiang, arrived in Dafen after learning to copy famous oil paintings with the goal of starting a workshop.

After 2008, things changed somewhat as US buyers still want to only pay 2008 prices for paintings that cost much more to produce given China's elevated economic position and I wont elaborate since all of this should be common knowledge but the Art Student Scam is not common knowledge and worthy of an article so I don't understand what all the conversation about nothing is: A spy conspiracy twinned with Art Student Scam (really? anyone who wrote anything on this actually claims to know anything about it?) Injecting a spy conspiracy into a worthy article when the entire premise of the original topic is flawed with the misinformation that hand painted oil paintings are not mass produced simply because they are painted by hand and that Asian paintings are really posters is ludicrous.

I say drop the art scam/spy notion (what next, a Nigerian email scam/spy?) and do not split it into a separate article but simply concentrate on improving the original Art Student Scam article with some accuracy.

- bernynhel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernynhel (talk • contribs) 17:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

putting this in the talk page....  :)

Hello

My name is Dina and i'm an israeli designer and artist. (have first degree in visual communications). i have been promoting and selling art door to door.

the fact that i'm from israel and selling art in a proper way: telling people that these are commercial paintings and not original art, giving the ability to return the paintings.

your page has damaged my work.

i am aware people in the past used to sell the paintings in awful ways by lying to people.

we are trying to do our best, be legitimate and sell the paintings as commercial ones.

not only that, galleries all over the world are selling those paintings as well.

this is exactly what i'm telling to people:

all of the paintings are coming from a studio and a warehouse in Waterford, uk, called IAS - international are suppliers. (we are buying the paintings from there). and they have been done abroad. the paintings are meant to sit in galleries, but we are taking the paintings from IAS, and promoting them through the doors in a different way. non of these paintings are mine.

these paintings have been done in a commercial way, which means non of the artists sat in front views, but the paintings are being done inside studios, and the artists are getting paid for their work. these paintings come as a collection which means there is more then one. the oils that are used are based on a synthetic resin which are cheaper oils and the canvas is a synthetic one as well. you are not supporting any artists, only me as a traveller and the company that i work with.

i leave my personal number and a website if people want to return the paintings, they may do that, and we have returned peoples money if they wished to.

the fact is that i am not lying to people saying it's original work. once people see the word "scam" it doesn't matter what has been told to them and i immediately falling into the character of a criminal, which i'm not.

i'm asking either to delete the page or change it in someway.

thank you, Dina. (86.3.196.138 (talk) 10:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC))

heres a link to my portfolio: http://dingld.tumblr.com/

here is a link to how the paintings are made: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2375270/Dafen-Oil-Painting-Village-thousands-artists-recreate-paintings-sale-overseas.html

you are missleading as well: these are not prints!! they are mass produced as paintings: the same artist paints the same concepts several times. they are all hand made!

The article you link never mentions how these works are sold. Leaving aside the fact that the daily mail is not a reliable source, the fact that some recreations are hand-made does not contradict anything in this article. This article never claims that every door-to-door art salesperson is a scammer, or that every work of art is a print. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The Dafen village thing is fairly well known, it's even basically the entire content of our Dafen Village article. However it's largely irrelevant to the content of this article. It's fairly unlikely many of the Dafen village art work are sold by such scammers, or even sold door to door. While that art work is cheap, it isn't that cheap. Scammers want to make the most profit, so choose the cheapest art work they can get away with, which will generally indeed be prints. Even if they did want to sell mass produced real painting, they probably won't be ugetting it from Dafen village or similar places, but instead from less known places with less capable artists. Nil Einne (talk) 16:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

A very interesting way to post your portfolio link where someone might actually end up reading it. :) --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Art student scam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100703045129/http://www.chinaprimer.com:80/china-travel-tips/china-tourism-scams.html to http://www.chinaprimer.com/china-travel-tips/china-tourism-scams.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Art student scam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080906025152/http://www.starnewsgroup.com.au/story/8437 to http://www.starnewsgroup.com.au/story/8437
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090909184329/http://www.newstalk980.com/story/20090904/21900 to http://www.newstalk980.com/story/20090904/21900

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

New article spread new light on the phenomenon

Hi, this peer-reviewed article published this year put some things here in order:

1. the paintings the Israeli dealers sell are original, just of Chinese origin. 2. there is an important connection to Israelis, although many details published here in the past are a conspiracy theory or at least exaggerated. 3. this article is important, but as Israelis here claimed, all the spies, scam etc. talk is not relevant.

I think this page needs a serious re-writing. Yet, my English isn't good enough.