Talk:Zionist Occupation Government conspiracy theory/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Request for Comment

I've opened up this issue to Request for Comment. Not only have there been no responses in almost a week, I'd like to get some outside opinions.

I'll summarize the edit events and then show statements from the editors involved which state their opinion.

Edit Events

On 15 December, I removed the "Anti-Semitic Canard" category from the article, with the edit summary "rm canard cat -- this is clearly not a canard". It was reverted immediately with the edit summary "oh yes it is."[[1]] I attempted to revert it back with a lengthier reason, "A canard is a "Deliberately misleading story", as per the dictionary. Unless you can prove intent (i.e. that it's proven false AND it's deliberate), it's not a canard."[[2]] It was reverted as a minor edit by another editor without an informative edit summary (JS: Reverted edits by .V. to last version by Humus sapiens) [[3]]

I brought the issue to the talk page the next day. One of the editors (Humus Sapiens) against my opinion immediately tagged the article with a "troll warning"[[4]] as well as giving the response "DFTT" (Don't Feed the Trolls) to my post. This was a blatant and immediate violation of WP:AGF (How do you AGF while calling someone a troll?) This is in addition to later sarcastic responses to my comments: "I guess the ZOG blanked it" - User:Humus Sapiens, or "The Elders just called and they said it is a canard", from the same author. At this point, the lengthy discussion you see above began.

It should be noted at this point that a canard means a baseless, false story that's deliberately misleading. This definition comes from the American Heritage Dictionary.

Opinions

My issues raised with the topic are as follows:

OR Concerns

1. No sources provided claim that ZOG is a canard.
2. Even if it did say that ZOG was a canard, labeling the article as a canard transmogrifies opinion into fact. It would be like going to any article, citing a person who says that belief is false, and then tagging "false" into the categories.

NPOV Concerns

1. The NPOV policy states "We should, instead, write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible..." Calling something false is hardly presenting it as plausible.
2. Even if people who believe in ZOG are a tiny minority (akin to the Flat Earth people), they are still protected by the NPOV policy. The NPOV FAQ states: "Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers..." It says the facts should be outlined, but no stand should be given.
3. Calling something "false and baseless" is taking a stand.

Logical Concerns

1. There are many different groups alleging that ZOG exists. It would be illogical to assume that every single independent group is being deliberately misleading. If it were being assumed, it would be highly POV.
2. The use of the word "canard" implies absolute certainty in judgment of an ideology, when that is not the case. It's also not what Wikipedia is for.
3. You can't call a viewpoint false unless it's been absolutely and beyond a doubt proven to be false. Calling it a "canard" doesn't leave readers to form their own opinion, it gives them an opinion.

Here is an outline of key points. Surely there are more in the discussion, but I didn't want to do any injustice to anyone by quoting the wrong thing or paraphrasing.

I believe that any user wanting to understand the debate will find the first section of posts under the "Anti-Semitic Canard Cat" subsection on this page very enlightening.

Pro-Canard (User:Jayjg, User:Humus Sapiens, User:Dimitroff, User:GHCool, User:6SJ7)-

1. By removing the "Canard" category, proof (or a reliable source) is required that ZOG is true. ("Since you seem to support outlandish allegations, the burden of proof is upon you." -- User:Humus Sapiens) ("Can you being any reliable source which indicates that allegations of a shadowy Zionist cabal controlling various Western governments are actually true?" - User:Jayjg)

1. This quote constitutes proof of a source saying ZOG is a canard:

""Conceptualizations of class and state converge in the white supremacist discourse in the characterization of the United States government as the "Zionist Occupation Government" (ZOG)... As indicated by the ubiquitous reference to the state as "ZOG" ("Zionist" is equated with "Jewish") within these publications, the state is depicted as inherently "Jewish", a racial identity within the discourse. The government, as well as the corporate elite, is supposedly "occupied" and controlled by Jews." Daniels, Jesse. White Lies: Race, Class, Gender and Sexuality in White Supremacist Discourse, Routledge (UK), ISBN 041591289X, p. 45." -- User:Jayjg

Anti-Canard (User:.V.,User: Ishikawa Minoru,User: Ireneshusband) -

1. I need no proof of anything. My reasons for removing the category have no relation to whether ZOG is true or not. They are all NPOV or OR concerns. Just because you're against calling something "false and baseless" does not mean you support it.

1. Because the only reference to a lie in that quote is the title, it has no real bearing on the situation. No context is shown, nor is the word "canard" used. It does not directly address the material in the article, which a source is required to do. A canard is certainly different than a "white lie" -- all you need to do is check the dictionary. In addition, we can't display one author's comment as fact.

As I said before, the discussion is elucidated quite a bit by reading the first round of comments on the section above (where the original discussion took place).

Anyway, to any editor who lends comment, thanks for the consideration. .V. 21:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

1. So far as a canard is defined as a "deliberately false story", I can only believe it to be a huge leap of faith to assume all individuals who, for reasons ranging from paranoia to a plainer misinterpretation of historical facts, espouse a belief in this so called ZOG do so only to consciously mislead others and promote hatred. You'd have to interview all people who accept those ideas (and possibly make sure they give a truthful reply) in order to assess the true reasons behind their beliefs. --Ishikawa Minoru 18:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I fully understand why people should feel so offended by the idea of a ZOG. I personally believe such ideas to be both ignorant and cruel. I also consider them to be a waste of human effort that could have been channelled into a more nuanced and humane radicalism. However I also believe that no radicalism can be nuanced unless it is well-informed and is willing to look beyond slogans to understand, for instance, why controversies exist and why some people believe things that to us seem self-evidently stupid. Fortunately Wikipedia policies and guidelines generally support such a nuanced approach.

In particular Wikipedia:Five pillars, which is the very heart of Wikipedia, states, under "Neutral Point of View" that articles should provide "context for any given point of view, so that readers understand whose view the point represents".

This means that, while it is certainly permissible, and indeed encouraged, to give more weight to the "majority" or mainstream viewpoint in an article, all views must be properly ascribed using both footnotes and (within reason) reportative language (e.g. "so-and-so-academic says..."). This means that it is certainly permissible to say that the consensus postition is that such-and-such is not true, so long as there is a footnote to a source that specifically and reliably says that this is the consensus.

There are places where it is not possible to do this. One of them is in article titles. This is one good reason why Wikipedia:Naming conflict recommends:

Descriptive names

Choose a descriptive name for an article that does not carry POV implications.

For instance, what do we call the controversy over Qur'an handling at Guantanamo Bay? The article is located at Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005. Note that the title makes no statement about who is the (more) guilty party: it does not "give away" that conclusion; in fact the article itself draws no conclusion. Similarly, the article on the September 11, 2001 attacks does not assign responsibility for the attacks in the article name.

In other words article names should not prejudge content because the content should be allowed to speak for itself. If you are afraid that it will not then you are doing a disservice to the reader's intelligence. Clearly the same considerations should apply to categories as to article names for the same reason. You cannot annotate a category.

In any case, I fail to see what how the contents of a hypothetical category such as "Antisemitic beliefs" would differ substantially from what would be contained within "Antisemitic canard". Since the wording "antisemitic canard" by definition prejudges the content of the articles it categorises, and since there are plainly less judgemental terms available, the category "antisemitic canard" cannot be justified.

I would just like to add a personal thought because it may aid understanding, even though I should emphasise that it does not in itself carry much weight as far as Wikipedia policies and guidelines go:

Consider Timothy McVeigh. If we simply categorise him as a racist zealot then there is nothing more to learn. On the other hand if we allow ourselves to go beyond that and understand that his beliefs were actually quite complex and even, in their own way, nuanced, we find that new and intriguing questions arise, for instance

• Why did he feel so alienated from and mistrustful of the scale and complexity of modern government?
• While there are many people who deeply mistrust the government, why do people like McVeigh frame that mistrust in racist terms, when many other people do not?
• Once we look beneath the violently paranoid way in which he addressed his fears, was there a legitimate basis for McVeigh's mistrust of government? (Maybe there was. Maybe there wasn't.)

Other readers of course might feel inclined to ask completely different questions about the same thing. The important point is that a properly formulated Wikipedia article should offer readers the freedom to do this. Ireneshusband 23:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

.V., trolling didn't work, and elbowing your POV in won't work either. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

If you have nothing left to add to the discussion, then perhaps you'd like to have this mediated? Because all I can see here is that you provide no reasons for keeping it in, only accusations of POV. That's no reason for inclusion, especially when three users have each given detailed reasons for why it shouldn't be included. .V. (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

More evidence of ZOG as antisemitic canard

• "The National States Rights Party and the California Noontide Press distributed the Protocols during the 1970s and it still hailed by representatives of the right-wing militias: Norman Phillips, author of the neofascist bestseller The Turner Diaries, for example, identifies the American state as a "Zionist Occupation Government." (A Rumor About the Jews: Reflections on Antisemitism and "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" by Stephen Eric Bronner (2000) - Palgrave Macmillan. p.136)
• "With the racist and anti-Semitic theology of Christian Identity as their justification, they blame the Jewish Antichrist, or the Zionist Occupation Government (ZOG), which rules in Washington, taking its orders from internationalist Jews in Israel, the United Nations, and the Fortune 500. Attracting old-line hate groups like the Ku-Klux-Klan and inspiring newer ones like the Aryan Nation Alliance ..., the militias and Patriot movement have helped to legitimate racist and anti-Semitic hate groups..." (Encyclopedia of Fundamentalism by Brenda Brasher (2001) - Routledge. p.305)
• "... vivid philosophy of White supremacy, including the belief that the United States is manipulated by foreign Jewish interests collectively known as the Zionist Occupation Government (ZOG). With this conspiracy theory, the strain is "explained" (e.g., the Jews are behind multicultural curricula), and the solution is presented: hate crimes and race war." (Hate and Bias Crime by Barbara Perry (2003) - Routledge. p.325)
• "... the neo-Nazis have proclaimed themselves a white/aryan resistance movement fighting the Zionist Occupation Government (ZOG) and racial traitors." (Fascism and Neofascism: Critical Writings on the Radical Right in Europe (Studies in European Culture and History) (2004) - Palgrave Macmillan p.208)
• "The importance of Christian Identity (CI) in the context of bioterrorism is that it has been openly embraced by certain U.S. right-wing "militia" and terrorist cells whose members have expressed interest in acquiring or utilizing pathogens and toxic chemical agents ... as weapons against their opponents, including representatives of the "Zionist Occupation Government" (ZOG) that they feel is controlled by "satanic" Jews." (Encyclopedia of Bioterrorism Defense by Richard F. Pilch, Raymond A. Zilinskas (2005) - Wiley. p.114)
• "The Order, a faction of the Aryan Nations, seized national attention during the 1980s. The tightly organized racist and anti-Semitic group opposed the federal government, calling it the "ZOG," or Zionist Occupation Government." (Homeland Security by Mark Sauter and James Carafano (2005) - McGraw-Hill. p.122)

←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the word "canard" in there anywhere. These just seem to be quotes from people denouncing ZOG... .V. -- (^Talk_Email) 15:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the word "canard" needs to be there. The second through sixth examples are clearly about avowedly antisemitic groups that use the ZOG allegation as part of their propaganda. (The first one probably is also, it's just that I haven't heard of the group and there isn't quite enough information there for me to tell.) That's enough of a connection. 6SJ7 16:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

As per WP:CAT, it's not enough of a connection. As the policy states, "unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." It's not self-evident if there's not a single source that mentions the word in this context. This is all in addition to NPOV concerns. .V. -- (^Talk_Email) 16:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

ZOG is nothing but an anti-Semitic canard. Anyone with more than half a brain can see that. I'm not saying that .V. only has half a brain. What I am saying is that he is only using half of it, the emotional hemisphere (right brain) tells him that ZOG is perfectly legitimate and because, his right brain tells him, the Jews cannot be allowed a sovereign state. Meanwhile the logical hemisphere (left brain) tells him that the evidence for ZOG being an anti-Semitic canard is insurmountable. Fortunately for Wikipedia, the evidence trumps blind hatred. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GHcool (talk • contribs) 04:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC). EDIT: The brain science analogy is not 100% neuro-biologically accurate.  ;) --GHcool 05:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of how much a brain I have, I still have two eyes. And with those eyes, I see no actual discussion about the ZOG topic in your post other than a claim that it is a canard. In fact, all the "insurmountable" evidence presented consists of assertions and original research. Humus quoted several sources but none call ZOG an antisemitic canard. Quoting a bunch of negative sources does not give carte blanche to call the subject whatever you want. On Wikipedia, if something is in an article, it needs a source. The policies on original research can't be circumvented because "anyone with half a brain" thinks it should be.

Even if there was even one source that called ZOG an "antisemitic canard", it would still be unsuitable for inclusion as a category as per WP:CAT and WP:NPOV. I already discussed WP:CAT above (the self-evident requirement), and NPOV above that (further up the page; basically, canard makes several POV implications.) Is there any way at all that this category could be compliant with NPOV and WP:CAT? .V. -- (^Talk_Email) 05:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

As said above, the numerous above sources combined with the "self-evident" clause of WP:CAT should be enough reason for any honest Wikipedian to include this category for this article. Your only defense so far has roughly added to the phrase "No it isn't." I will not perform The Argument Skit with you any longer; "I'm afraid your five minutes is up. Thank you, good morning!" --GHcool 06:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You can try to dance around it all day, but the simple fact remains that not one source presented says "antisemitic canard." There's no refuting that; anyone can read the sources provided and say "Wow, this says nothing about antisemitic canards." And when something is put in an article that cannot be sourced, it's original research. Not to mention the fact that the "self-evident" portion of WP:CAT doesn't mean it's self-evident to you. It means that it needs to be part of the definition. Because "Canard" is such a loaded word, there's no NPOV way it can be included as a category. .V. -- (^Talk_Email) 06:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

If you surf the web, you may have encountered the claim that the Israeli spy agency Mossad warned 4,000 Jews who worked in the World Trade Centre to stay home on 11 September 2001; or that a handful of Jewish lobbyists control US foreign policy; or the world is run by the Zionist Occupation Government (ZOG). All these claims are patently false, yet they have devoted defenders. [5] Now, the only way this category could be considered "controversial" is if one insists that the claim of ZOG might, in fact, be true. Is that the grounds on which you claim it is controversial? Can you find a reliable source to back up this POV? If you can't, then the claim is, of course, uncontroversial. And by the way, Wikipedia editor .V. making a fuss on a Talk: page does not mean a category is controversial. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Whether this category is controversial or not is completely irrelevant. My issues are with NPOV, WP:CAT, and WP:OR. .V. -- (^Talk_Email) 21:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Clearly you think it's relevant, since you said above As per WP:CAT, it's not enough of a connection. As the policy states, "unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." As far as I can tell its inclusion in this category is self-evident, entirely uncontroversial, and properly sourced. Can you bring a reliable source which would disagree with this categorization? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Why exactly do you think it's properly sourced, when there's no source that says this? (Forgive me if I'm blind, but I see no mention of a "canard" in any of the sources provided.) .V. 05:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

"Patently false" = "canard". Now, on top of that, as stated above, its inclusion in this category is both self-evident and entirely uncontroversial, unless you have some reliable source which would lead us to disagree with this categorization. Do you have one? Jayjg ^(talk) 06:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

A canard doesn't just mean "false." It means a deliberately false, baseless story designed to mislead. Making the jump from "patently false" is original research (obviously, the extra information is coming from somewhere, and it's certainly not the sources.) The simple fact is that none of the sources provided talk about ZOG as a canard.

Anyway, let's just pretend for a moment that there was a source that called ZOG a canard. Even if there was, is it still right to place a category which makes a POV judgment on an article? Since a canard states whether it's true or not, wouldn't it run contrary to NPOV because Wikipedia would then be taking a stance on the subject? I can't think of any way to more clearly take a stance than to tag an article as "false". How do you think this category complies to the NPOV standard? .V. 15:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Answer my question please; I've asked it three times now, and each time you've avoided responding. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

That's because your question is tangential. If material is in Wikipedia, it needs to be sourced; it doesn't work the opposite way (add it and then find a contradictory source.) And even if it did work that way, you'd still need to contend with the NPOV issues I asked about in my previous post. .V. _[Talk|Email] 21:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

If you can't answer, then my point is proved; inclusion in this category is entirely uncontroversial. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

If you can't answer my question about NPOV, then my point is proved; inclusion of this category would be POV. :P .V. _[Talk|Email] 21:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

LOL! Nice try. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Eh? I'm using the same logic you used... .V. _[Talk|Email] 21:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'm just perplexed at why we can't actually talk about what this is about. I asked why it's properly sourced despite not having a single source which says "canard" and got no reply... I asked how having a POV judgment in a category could be compatible with NPOV and got no reply... instead, there's a discussion about it being "controversial", which doesn't relate to what I'm talking/asking about. Why must we run around in circles? .V. _[Talk|Email] 21:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you consider any of the articles currently included in the "Antisemitic canard" category to be there validly? If so, which, and why? If not, why not? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

That's yet another tangential question. I'm trying to talk about NPOV (see my post before this)... why can't we talk about that? .V. _[Talk|Email] 05:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not a tangential question at all; I'm trying to understand your specific issue, and the criteria you are using for inclusion. Please respond. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

My specific issue is NPOV. I have multiple issues which I described above, but for the sake of discussion, I'm going to select that one as my primary issue. Anyway, I think that it's a bad idea to have a category that lists an assertion as unequivocally false, as it violates the "no stance" section of the NPOV policy.

Anyway, if you want to talk about inclusion, I'd say that because "canard" is such a loaded word, it shouldn't be used at all. However, if we were to use the category of antisemitic canard, the elements of "canard" must be satisfied. It must be deliberately false or misleading. Now, if the material provided was physically verifiable, perhaps there'd be no POV issue (I'd have to analyze the specific case). ZOG is an intangible claim, though. The forgeries, though, would be acceptable; a forgery is, by nature, misleading. ZOG would not be included as a "canard" because there's no way to satisfy the requirements of "canard." We have several sources denouncing ZOG, but that doesn't mean it can be called "deliberately false or misleading." In that case, it would be a POV judgment. .V. _[Talk|Email] 05:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to make something absolutely clear, I do not endorse the "canard" category, because of its inherently loaded, judgmental and vague nature (what kind of encyclopedia goes around labeling things with such terms?). I would promote moving the forgeries and such into a category such as "Forgeries" (perhaps "Anti-semitic Forgeries".) The word "canard" really doesn't say what's being talked about; specific titles, like "forgery", do. ZOG would not be in that category however, but rather would maintain the current categories it has minus the canard category. .V. _[Talk|Email] 13:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

So what do you view ZOG as? An antisemitic lie? An antisemitic conspiracy theory? A plausible explanation for the actions of Western governments? In what category do you think it fits? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The label "conspiracy theory" fits it well; after all, conspiracy theories allege that a small group (Illuminati, Freemasons, whatever) controls a large government in secret. That seems to describe ZOG pretty well. I would be all for the replacement of the Canard cat by the Conspiracy Theory cat. .V. _[Talk|Email] 17:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It's already in the conspiracy theory cat. Perhaps we need an antisemitic conspiracy theory sub-cat. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It's already in the conspiracy theory category? Remind me to get my eyes checked. Anyway, the sub-cat idea would be alright but what other articles would we put in it? .V. _[Talk|Email] 01:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Protocols and World Revolution, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, The Jewish Peril, Jewish Bolshevism, Jewish lobby, Kosher tax, Holocaust Denial, New World Order, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, Judea Declares War on Germany, Radio Islam, Did Six Million Really Die?, Blood libel, Well poisoning, Rabbi Emmanuel Rabinovich. I'm sure there are more. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

While Blood libel, and Kosher tax are technically conspiracies, they don't fit the definition of conspiracy theory. A conspiracy theory seeks to explain a chain of major events through the use of some shadowy group. I'm not quite sure the "Rabbi" is a conspiracy theory either. However, the others seem fine. I'd be all for the creation of this category if the canard category was removed. .V. _[Talk|Email] 01:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing. I think Holocaust denial would be too broad a topic to place in the category, but that's debatable... .V. _[Talk|Email] 01:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

But what of articles like The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which is clearly both a conspiracy theory and a canard? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be better classified under forgery (or antisemitic forgery) for two main reasons. The first is that a canard category isn't really informative or useful. Secondly (and more importantly), canard is a loaded word. It implies a judgment in the definition. A forgery doesn't; a forgery is a forgery. .V. _[Talk|Email] 03:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is "canard" any more judgmental than "forgery" or "conspiracy theory"? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to mention, New World Order wouldn't be appropriate under an antisemitic conspiracy theory cat either. .V. _[Talk|Email] 16:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

From New World Order:

Neo-Nazi groups such as the National Alliance believe the Jews are behind the conspiracy. They assert the establishment of the New World Order is being engineered by Neo-Conservatives to provide support for Israel and they point out that many Neo-Conservative leaders are Jewish and some of them have worked as advisors to the government of Israel. It is claimed that the real reason the Iraq War was fought is that the Zionists thought that Saddam Hussein was a threat to Israel that needed to be removed. They also often asserted that part of the goal of the New World Order is to foster egalitarianism and enforce the integration of inherently inequal races to engender miscegenation and submerge the genetically greater intellects of some races into the genetically lesser intellects of others, in order to breed a one-world race with an intellect far below Jewish averages. It is stated that it is extremely difficult for most people to find out the truth about the conspiracy because, it is asserted, the mass media are overwhelmingly owned or indirectly controlled by the Jews or Zionists or those who support these groups. Many Neo-Nazi groups use their expressed opposition to the New World Order as a recruiting tool.

Why wouldn't that fit? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

One of the main criteria for inclusion of a category is whether the category is self-evident. While antisemitism could be (and in some cases, is) a motivation of the New World Order theory, it's not self-evident. It would be like putting the antisemitism category on the article about the Internet, because the Internet contains in some places antisemitism. .V. _[Talk|Email] 22:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, I think antisemitic conspiracy theories are a far more significant component of "New World Order" than they are of "Internet". Jayjg ^(talk) 00:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Eh, it's just an example. The important part is that it's not self-evident. New World Order does not require antisemitism, but it's a possibility. .V. _[Talk|Email] 01:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The impression I'm getting is that you want to remove the canard categories, then remove as many articles as possible from any related categories, like "antisemitic conspiracy theories". Jayjg ^(talk) 00:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you'd get that impression. I'm saying I'd be perfectly fine with the category of "antisemitic conspiracy theories". It's just that some, like Kosher Tax, aren't actually conspiracy theories. Want me to make a list? .V. _[Talk|Email] 00:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, which articles do you think would fit in which categories? Jayjg ^(talk) 06:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's how it would look with the articles currently existing in "Antisemitic canards." This is excluding the OR stub article on Antisemitic canards that was created on 30 January. Surely more articles than this would fit into the ACT category, but here's how it would look from just this category. This is all using the conspiracy theory definition from the first line of conspiracy theory: "A conspiracy theory attempts to explain the ultimate cause of an event or chain of events (usually political, social, or historical events) as a secret, and often deceptive, plot by a covert alliance of powerful or influential people or organizations."

Re-categorize as Antisemitic conspiracy theories: Red Jews, Zionist Occupied Government, Jewish Bolshevism, Dolchstosslegende, Żydokomuna, and El and Nephilim.

The only ones not included are the "Rabbi" and "Franklin Prophecy", but those would make better sense under Antisemitic forgeries anyway. Host desecration is also better suited for the Antisemitism category.

I think the optimal solution would be to rename the "Antisemitic Canards" category to "Antisemitic conspiracy theories" and then re categorize the few articles that don't fit that label (The rabbi, etc). After all, with those few exceptions, all the articles in this category are conspiracy theories anyway. .V. _[Talk|Email] 15:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

But there are many articles in the sub-categories as well! I wouldn't mind having Antisemitic conspiracy theories being a sub-category of Antisemitic canards. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The subcategories can be recategorized into Antisemitism. Don't you agree that "canard" implies a judgment in the definition? .V. _[Talk|Email] 22:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is "canard" any more a judgment that "antisemitic" or "conspiracy theory"? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

"Antisemitic" and "Conspiracy theory" both do not contain definitional judgments. A canard, by definition, is false. .V. _[Talk|Email] 22:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

"Antisemitic" means "based on hatred of Jews". "Conspiracy theory" means "positing the secretive actions of a small group of people deceptively acting against the greater good". Those aren't definitional judgments? `Jayjg ^(talk)

Neither of those definitions take a stance on whether the idea is true/false. Canard does. .V. _[Talk|Email] 22:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

So what? Why is one "definitional judgement" bad, but another fine? These claims are antisemitic, conspiracy theories, and false. All three apply. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

A right or wrong judgment is bad because it contradicts policy. Namely, WP:NPOV. The NPOV FAQ states that "we must not take a stand on [minority views] as encyclopedia writers." Labeling something as false is certainly taking a stand, is it not? .V. _[Talk|Email] 22:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Good encyclopedias reflect facts. User:.V. has failed to provide any evidence of his claims. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

My claim is that it violates NPOV to include this category. I noticed you haven't addressed my last post. Could you please? .V. _[Talk|Email] 21:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

User:.V., I suggest you stop your repeated attempts to give validity to antisemitic canards. The evidence overwhelmingly shows that ZOG is an antisemitic conspiracy theory. At this point you cannot claim ignorance and you are not a newcomer anymore. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If you believe I'm trying to "give validity to antisemitic canards", please keep it to yourself. Not only is it false, it's a borderline personal attack. It's also pretty much stopping any discussion on this topic, as well. Have you ever tried to discuss Wikipedia policy with someone who's responses consist only of personal allegations? It's difficult to discuss this when you consistently ignore the substance of my posts, instead implying that I'm trying to give credit to ZOG or whatever. At least devote one sentence to the actual discussion so that I can reply to it. I think that as a show of good faith you should agree to have this matter mediated. I'm perfectly willing to have a third party mediate this dispute.

So please, answer the question I posted to Jayjg. If you're going to reply with more allegations, please don't reply at all. .V. _[Talk|Email] 01:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

And by the way, I don't dispute that it's an antisemitic conspiracy theory. This is about the canard category. .V. _[Talk|Email] 01:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

ZOG is as antisemitic canard as any other in that category. You have tried to remove the category altogether - unsuccessfully - and now you are after the articles populating it. With no shred of evidence, you are trolling, weaseling and wikilawyering around the phrase "we must not take a stand on [minority views] as encyclopedia writers." So what's the next item on your agenda, after ZOG and Holocaust denial#Terminology: Holocaust denial or Holocaust revisionism? and Talk:Institute for Historical Review#revisionism is not denial: The Protocols of the Elders of Zion? Blood libel against Jews? Well poisoning? And what "minority view" are we talking about? WP:RS please. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that the post you've just made has nothing to do with the actual discussion here, and rather about my alleged "agenda". As I said before, if you have any personal comments about me as an editor, email it... don't insert it into this discussion. All I care about is encyclopedia building, and it's hard to do that when you're constantly alleging these things instead of actually discussing the issue. It's definitely an ad hominem type argument, and it's completely unproductive and distracting.

You seem to believe that removing the antisemitic canard category is an endorsement of the allegation of ZOG. It is not. The ZOG accusations stand on their own; readers can analyze the article and decide for themselves. Having a category that says "This is a lie and the people who say it are intentional liars" is not acceptable. We don't editorialize on Wikipedia. I'm not sure where the Wikilaywering comes in. I posed a question to Jayjg that perhaps you can answer. Is there any more obvious way to take a stand than to call something false and baseless? This is a textbook case of "taking a stand" as described in the NPOV guidelines. As I said before... perhaps agreeing to mediation would show that interested in resolving this dispute. Because from what I can see, your refusal to mediate combined with your constant conspiratorial accusations and personal attacks look to me like you're more interested in arguing than anything else. So please, keep a cool head, tone down the personal attacks, and let's take this to mediation if you won't talk about the issue any longer. .V. _[Talk|Email] 02:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I should also note that not one source has been provided that says the words "antisemitic canard." The only way that can be inferred is through editorializing. .V. _[Talk|Email] 02:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

No sources then? I thought so. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I have a question for you, and I don't mean this to sound offensive in any way, but... are you actually reading this discussion? You've insisted that I need "sources", but I'm not sure for what. I'm saying that it violates NPOV to take a stand, and calling something a deliberate lie is taking a stand. I don't know where sources come into this other than WP:NPOV. At the same time, I've asked for a source that explicitly says "antisemitic canard", but none has been provided... I guess I'm just confused as to your response. This is not a matter that involves sources.

Did you consider my offer for mediation? .V. _[Talk|Email] 02:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Everything in an encyclopedia should be based on sources, and you failed to provide any. Since there is no sources, there is nothing to mediate - other than your activism, but MedCom is a wrong place for that. I suggest don't push it. And don't try to present this as a personal attack: this is not about your personality, but about what you do here. Speaking of pushing, any sane concept may be pushed beyond absurdity. Any category such as Category:Pseudoscience, Category:Conspiracy theories, Category:Hoaxes can be considered non-neutral and as "taking a stand". ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This is what prompted my question in the last post. I've said it before and I'll say it again; this is not a source issue. I'm not arguing for the inclusion of anything. Here's another question: What sources should I be giving you? It's a policy issue; the sources are policy. Besides, you say things should be based on sources yet there are no sources that say "antisemitic canard". As for the categories you mentioned, the first two don't have judgments of right or wrong or true or false in the definition. Hoax is different than canard because it does not imply that it's totally right or totally wrong. Additionally, hoaxes usually have a single or a few conspirators, when the antisemitic "ZOG" is alleged by several different independent groups. A canard and a hoax are certainly not the same thing at all. On top of all that, the use of the word "canard" is unencyclopedic editorializing.

And just for the record, it certainly is a personal attack. Even if it's veiled as a summary of my contribution log (an inaccurate summary, mind you -- I've written several articles and made the majority of my edits on topics that have nothing to do with ZOG/the holocaust/etc) it's still a personal attack. Please talk about the issue at hand, not about the editor. .V. _[Talk|Email] 04:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This category was proposed for deletion twice and twice failed. "Hoax is different than canard because it does not imply that it's totally right or totally wrong." - nonsense of course, but obviously a part of your wikilawyering strategy is to have the last word. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason that you keep ignoring the questions I ask you? .V. _[Talk|Email] 13:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Issue

I removed some POV sentences from the introduction, and added some encyclopaedic content. Please don't add these sentences back in without discussion first.

More notable, I changed the wording of the initial sentence to make clear that ZOG is not an 'accusation' but the 'name of a conspiracy theory'. This makes it more clear, and removes weasel words and POV - an accusation automatically implies pro and con arguments, an offended party, and a stance in a conflict, while merely stating that it's a name of something is a good way to begin an encyclopaedic article.

--User:Krator (t c) 23:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for improving the article, Krator. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Antisemitic Canards

I removed the category for the following reasons. I noticed there was some discussion above, but did not read all of it, because most of it was trolling or flaming. Please keep it civil.

• First and foremost, linguistics. A canard is a story or a rumour. ZOG is a name, without any backstory or reasoning. It might just be called an insult, but it definately is not a 'canard'. This is in line with my recent edit to the introduction, changing it from 'accusation' to 'name'.
• Category:Antisemitic Canards is a subcat of Category:Antisemitism. Don't add both subcats and categories to a page - otherwise every page would be in Category:Science.
• Antisemtism and Conspiracy Theories accurately describe the article already.
• To get rid of the discussion about something irrelevant to the reader (only to wikipedia editors) and start improving the article.

--User:Krator (t c) 15:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

From http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=canard&x=0&y=0, skipping Cookery and Aeronautics:

• 1. a false or baseless, usually derogatory story, report, or rumor. - Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
• 1. An unfounded or false, deliberately misleading story. - The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
• a deliberately misleading fabrication - WordNet® 2.1, © 2005 Princeton University

A deliberately misleading fabrication is not really "a story or a rumour" and is not simply a conspiracy theory. As many other antisemitic myths/hoaxes/fabrications/libels, it took a life of its own. And of course ZOG is not just "a name" or "an insult" - it is a hoax, a conspiracy theory and a deliberately misleading fabrication and a Neo-Nazi concept. Perhaps the lead should reflect that.

The category survived 2 attempts of deletion. If you want to deal with the cat. itself, this is a wrong place. Meanwhile I have restored cat:AS canard and removed cat:AS. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree, and this makes me question your rationality. However, I don't want to spend time on this, so I'll go and edit other articles. --User:Krator (t c) 22:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Very nice of you. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

This artcle has a neutrality tag. Why?

More to the point, why was the neutrality tag removed?! This article is very one sided and treats the subject with contempt. It doesn't explain WHY these groups consider there to be a "ZOG" and what "evidence" can be used to support the claim that there is indeed a "ZOG". I'm sticking the neutrality tag back on! Christopedia (talk) 01:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Turner Diaries

Not that I would read a book like the Turner Diaries, but I do know it shows up in there and that the order is founded largely on ideas espoused in that book. Is this not the origin of the ZOG term? Brazzbatch 21:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I read the book and IIRC did not remember the term 'ZOG'. They portrayed the Jews as evil geniuses, with "An alien mind" I think —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.219.150 (talk) 19:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

If it walks like a duck....

How come it can be said that there are "too many" Whites in government, etc... and that we need "diversity" - yet the plain and demonstrable truth is actually there are too many Jews in our government and media. This is especially puzzling when most of the Jews masquerade as "Whites." Yet they are not White because Israel is not a White homeland, but a Jew homeland. It doesn't add up. But it DOES explain why we give more money to Israel, a miniscule extremely WEALTHY country, than ANY OTHER COUNTRY in aid. The exception, currently, is Iraq but that invasion was FOR Israel as it was to no benefit of the US and only benefits Israel, so that cost can be billed to Israel, too. Now Israel wants the US to invade another one of ITS enemies, Iran. Sounds like ZOG to me. Quixo 18:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Take your "thoughts" else where please. ps. the cabal will be contacting you shortly :) --Tom 18:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Tom, If wikipedia is not a soapbox, then why is this article so slanted and so very far from neutral? It reads like it was written as a retort against the theory. when reading through this article it becomes blatantly obvious that this is an opinion piece, and that actual facts regarding the ratio of jews in our government to jews in our society are omitted. Americans are starting to comprehend that this ratio is morbidly disproportionate especially in the wake of accusations that there are too many whites in our government. This article is about as transparent as ghost paper. QUACK QUACK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.171.150.130 (talk) 13:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

the accusations of too many whites in the government are not being aired at wikipedia so why whine about it here?Zebulin (talk) 23:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Antisemitism is not ubiquitously espoused amongst ZOG believers. Quite the contrary.

Some people might want to note that many ZOG believers aren't anti-semitic. In fact there are many Orthodox Jewish organizations that also believe in the destructive force of Zionism (especially in regards to their religion and Jew-Palestinian relations).

In fact, one could say, that by siding alongside the united Jews Against Zionism (UJAZ) movement, many ZOG believers are discouraging antisemitism by confining it to only one group of self-proclaimed 'Jews' - the Zionist (whom fundamental Jews taint as not being Jewish).

Sources: http://www.nkusa.org/ http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/ Judaism versus Zionism video: http://opposingdigits.com/vlog/?p=541

You seem to be equating a belief that certain governments are controlled by Zionists, with anti-Zionism. Obviously they are not the same thing. I am sure there is a sizable minority of Orthodox Jews in the U.S. who believe Israel should not exist, because that is how they interpret Jewish law. However, I doubt that any significant number of those people believe that the U.S. government is controlled by Zionists who bend U.S. policy to their will. The "Zionist" in "ZOG" is really just a euphemism for "Jewish." 6SJ7 17:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

"The "Zionist" in "ZOG" is really just a euphemism for "Jewish." ... Uhm... Nope. "ZOG" is a euphemism for "Zionist." Also, the anti-zionist movement among orthodox jews is massive. - Huerequeque —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.171.150.130 (talk) 13:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Illogical

This article has nothing to do with anti-semitism, it's just guilt by association.

In fact, the introduction assumes that the root of the issue is from the forged Protocols, (as opposed to the AIPAC scandal or something similar) and links it to Jews by suggesting that the State of Israel is an intrinsically "Jewish" state which makes no more sense than having a Jewish table or a Jewish chair or a Jewish car. It would be like saying Nazi Germany is a "white state" so criticizing Nazism is anti-white. This article is loaded with bias. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SLCThunk (talk • contribs) 06:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

1) As the sources point out, the ZOG myth shares its concept with the Protocols and appeared before the AIPAC scandal; 2) See article nation state, 3) See WP:NOR. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

1) Sharing concepts is still guilt by association; one can argue that both Nazism and communism involve taking over the world (or a one-world government) but that doesn't mean they are the same thing or espouse the same ideas about Jews. It may have appeared before the AIPAC scandal but that only suggests that the word may come from an anti-Semite; its use is not inherently anti-Semitic. If it were used regarding AIPAC or the influence of Paul Wolfowitz on the country's foreign policy or something else related to Zionism, it would be quite different from using it to refer to an old anti-Semitic plot.

2) Zionism is still a concept, even though its nation shares a cultural identity. Criticizing it isn't inherently anti-Semitic, just like criticizing circumcision which is used in Jewish culture wouldn't be anti-Semitic or criticizing Native Americans' use of peyote wouldn't be intrinsically anti-Native American or criticizing the hejab wouldn't be intrinsically anti-Islamic. There is ultimately a difference between a nation/idea, and the people/race/cultural group that it claims to represent.

3) It's a logical error, what research do you need? Here: guilt by association

I say leave the article up and drop the anti-Semite tag. Maybe suggest that it is sometimes espoused by anti-Semites. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SLCThunk (talk • contribs) 08:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

Was it espoused by someone but antisemites? Please cite some reliable sources. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I for one don't hate Jews, but I don't deny that Zionism and Zionists like Wolfowitz and Perle and AIPAC have had a huge influence on America. Regardless, you don't need examples -- if the word isn't inherently anti-Semitic, then it doesn't matter if 100% of the people who believe in it hate Jews. It's still guilt by association. If 100% of all people who drink orange juice hated black people it wouldn't mean that orange juice was a racist concept. Anyways, no, I don't have any specific examples other than myself and maybe some bloggers but I don't think that's really what you're asking. No expert would use the term because of its falsely anti-Semitic connotation; the fact that we're pretending it is inherently anti-Semitic is just perpetuating that problem. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SLCThunk (talk • contribs) 02:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

"Zionists like Wolfowitz and Perle"? I think you mean "Jews like Wolfowitz and Perle", don't you? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth. They are both Zionists. I don't really care what ethnic group or religion they believe in. They're both high level policy makers. You're using the same moronic excuse -- Zionism is the same as Jews, therefore Zionists are Jews, therefore anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism. Your weak link is that Zionism isn't the same as the Jews. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SLCThunk (talk • contribs) 00:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

SLCThunk, please see What Wikipedia is not and stop the disruption. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

This issue needs to be addressed. According to the article you gave me, one of the things Wikipedia is not:

"Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views."

Throwing in anti-Semitism for no reason is a clear violation of this rule. In fact, the user above me just assumed out of thin air that I dislike Paul Wolfowitz or Richard Perle because they're Jews (which I'm not even sure is true for Perle. I have to look that up). It is clearly a show of bias. Nobody calls "anti-Islamism" when it is suggested that Islamic extremism is a growing international threat. The fact that this issue is treated differently violates neutrality.

Unless you have sources, please take your original research elsewhere: WP:NOT#FORUM and WP:NOT#BLOG. Your participation here amounts to disruption. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was trying to prove to you that this has nothing to do with research, but fine, here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIPAC_espionage_scandal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Israel_Lobby_and_U.S._Foreign_Policy

^^^If you need sources outside of wikipedia, just look at the citations. Those pages argue that AIPAC holds a significant amount of power over American policy, and AIPAC is a Zionist organization. Add to that my point that Zionism doesn't necessarily reflect on any racial group but rather it's a political ideology that is often associated (by its proponents) with a certain ethnic/racial group --

guilt by association

If you need anything else, just ask. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SLCThunk (talk • contribs) 23:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

Please reread the title of this article. The links you provided have no relation to it, other than in your head. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

They have everything to do with it. Zionists are occupying the government, according to Walt and Mearsheimer; in fact in that article they both distance themselves from anti-Semites like David Duke. That's even more evidence that the ZOG has nothing to do with anti-Semitism except in the heads of Zionists and anti-Semites. SLCThunk 08:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Unless you can show a serious source saying "Zionists are occupying the government" and using the expression "ZOG", go do your trolling someplace else. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Trivia Section?

If this page ever gets a trivia/cultural references section, it should be noted that John Zorn's Group Slan has a song called Z.O.G. as seen on the album "Live at the Knitting Factory Volume 3"

Also, in the film American History X, the fat character Set sings a song which includes the line "We're taking down the ZOG machine, Jew by Jew by Jew"

Like having the anti-Nazi league write the Nazism article

That anti-zionism = anti-semitism is the zionist perspective - and disputed by pretty much everyone who opposes Zionism. Having someone with that perspective write this article is like having the anti-Nazi League write the Nazism article (or vice-versa) and is NOT a neutral point of view.

Personally, I find the idea of "ZOG" an overstatement (with unfortunate comic-sounding overtones) of what is an immensely powerful lobby. But nothing gives the idea of an all-powerful Zionist lobby more mileage than that lobby's insistence, and enormous success, in ensuring wikipedia Israel-related articles are all written from their perspective, and any, usually quite reasonable, dissent is crushed.

Yeah, I thought that would happen - 'belief' is a neutral term but it has to be 'conspiracy theory'... I knew there was no point in making any other changes beyond the minor ones I made... takes far less time for someone to come along and press undo... all proves the point I was making though.

KBuck

Do you have any reliable sources which back up your claims? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

That reply is like the undo button - Perhaps I should follow you around posting this same worthless 'have you any reliable sources' record - (no I don't have time)

What claim specifically? Would YOU describe yourself as a Zionist Jayjg? And do you have any reliable sources to the effect that everyone who believes in "ZOG" is anti-semitic?

KBuck

Ah!!... now I understand Jayjg popping up here... from your talk page you've been warned by Mtiedemann to "to keep an eye on this user who has re-appeared recently. They seem to be trying the same guilt by association or innuendo technique.". (me, the user) Well THATS a REAL conspiracy theory because I'm not part of any 'they' at all...

This isn't an objective article - its written from a totally biased agenda - as with probably all Wikipedia Israel related pages. And the real loser in that is Wikipedia - that undermines the project as a whole.

KBuck —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.252.240.144 (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall seeing anything from Mtiedemann on my Talk: page, though I could be wrong. In any event, Wikipedia relies on information from reliable sources, and Talk: pages are for the purpose of discussing specific changes to article content. Which specific parts of this article do you think should be changed, exactly what should be changed in them, and what are the reliable sources that back up your suggestions? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

ZOG?

I always thought that ZOG stands for "Zionist Occupied Government", not "Zionist Occupation Government".... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kami888 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

what precisely makes a conspiracy theory "antisemetic"?

what precisely makes a conspiracy theory "antisemetic"?

• Generally the people who invent the antisemitic conspiracy theory. It's funny that way. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
• Also, the content of the theory itself. If it is a bizarrely contrived one that attempts to place teh 3vi1 j00 b@nk0rz at the head of a worldwide cabal, then it is most likely an antisemitic conspiracy theory. 24.47.154.230 (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you trying to say that it is impossible for 3vil j00 b@nk0rz to control certain governments? Most people would believe that it is possible however how unlikely. This does not make it antisemetic for someone to believe that the facts support this idea. If you are going to throw antisemetism around, we might as well just cut off thought entirely. This article should state specifically what the Zionist Occupation Government is and ANY personal perspective (such as antisemetism accusations) should be left out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.231.234 (talk) 03:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Not sure why this section was undeleted. Just because someone thinks their paranoid beliefs aren't antisemetic doesn't make it so. Sorry. Hairhorn (talk) 04:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

And just because someone says it is antisemitic doesn't make it so. Some non-Jews are also semites, and not all Zionists are Jews. The conspiracy is not inherently antisemitic. --71.190.14.145 (talk) 23:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Yawn. "antisemitism" means specifically "hatred of Jews", so it's irrelevant that "some non-Jews are also semites"; the word does not mean what its etymology suggests. And, yes, the "ZOG" idea is totally antisemitic. Or, if you prefer, totally Jew-hating. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy

The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy is an academic book about Zionist influence in American politics. Has this book ever been cited by proponents of the ZOG theory ? It would appear that the book merely says what some of the ZOG people have been talking about, but in a more intelligent and acceptable way. ADM (talk) 18:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes and no. Since they are focussed on Israel, their point is, as far as I know, that support for Israel is kept up against US interest, which is not necessarily the case. To which extent they are actually arguing of a conspiracy effectively controlling the government, I do not know. Some closeness in argument may be given, but the appropriation of their thesis for support of ZOG seems a bit far-fetched.

Also: as is to be expected, there are constant attempts at deleting references to the antisemitic and neo-nazi character of the ZOG-'theory'. Can anything be done about that, other than repeated reversions? Is this what WP-people call edit-war? 92.76.116.148 (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Nah. It's just vandalism, so we keep an eye on the article and fix it when someone messes it up. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

zog is not necessarily an antisemitic theory201.218.76.109 (talk) 00:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I would disagree. 78.48.177.208 (talk) 06:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

This is probably the most unbalanced article in this entire site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.84.234 (talk) 21:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, the entry about the Nazis is pretty unbalanced too. I mean, it even mentions that Hitler was a Nazi. I call Godwin's law! 24.47.154.230 (talk) 21:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

We could try to get some Jews mad at this article. In my experience, the best sign of a balanced article is drawing fire from both sides. --Kizor 16:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"zog is not necessarily an antisemitic theory".... erm, with all due respect, LOLLLLLL. Hairhorn (talk) 01:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually Zog is not necessarily an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. One can note the heavy influence the Zionist Movement has on Western Governments without hating Jews. In fact this article in it's 3rd paragraph: "As the conspiracy theorists chiefly name countries outside that area, the usage of Zionist in this context is misleading, and intended to portray Jews as conspirators who aim to control the world, " makes a big mistake in saying because the areas are outside [Israel] they don't mean Zionists they mean Jews. This is absolute nonsense as Zionists can exist out side of Israel and indeed most of them done. This article terrible and needs rewording to remove the imbalance. Vexorg (talk) 19:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, just need to keep it straight to avoid a revert war.--Львівське (talk) 20:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

- I agree that ZOG isn't *necessarily* Anti-semitic, i.e. the book "The Israel Lobby" can't reasonably be called racist, irrespective of whether or not one agrees with the thesis. The view that a small group within a population, holding emotional allegiance to a foreign government, and holding disproportionate power and influence seems to be referred to on the 'net as 'ZOG' when about Jews. I assume that Jewish people might be quicker to label this Anti-Semitic, but it seems plainly obvious, for example, that the 'neocons' were/are disproportionately right-wing Jews whose primary foreign policy focus was the relationship of the U.S. to a tiny country of 6 million people which, "The Israel Lobby" holds, is a strategic liability in the postcold war world. Celts such as myself and other non-Semites who don't have a 'dog in the fight,' even where viewing Israel favorably as a western democracy, might be concerned with such disproportionate power and influence as steering the ship of state as if Israel matters, frankly, more than it really does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.139.154.7 (talk) 02:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Who is identifying 'The Israel Lobby' with ZOG? That would be you. Since the article doesn't claim that the authors adhere to that theory, the book can hardly serve as a counterexample. Please read what the term actually refers to before claiming it is not antisemitic. 85.181.250.15 (talk) 18:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

the third paragraph of this article is misleading. It tries to turn 'Zionist' into 'Jew' without any source. Zionist Occupation Government means a theory that the Zionist Movement is running the the government, not 'Jews'. Not all Zionists are Jews and not all jews are Zionists. The Israel Lobby is identified with ZOG by default. The Zionist Movement is an Israel Lobby. There is nothing racist about claiming a political movement like the Zionist Movement as having a domination on power in governments. Vexorg (talk) 04:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

In fact the 3rd paragraph turns 'Zionist controlled government' into 'Jews control the world'. It should be removed from the article. Vexorg (talk) 04:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Reference added. Thank you for pointing that out. 85.181.253.45 (talk) 12:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Use by the far-left

Do you think we could add a section about how this type of theory is used by the far left? It appears in variations, most commonly the "AIPAC controls the Congress" canard, but it is not fundamentally different from the "Zionists control the government" libel. This article as it is mentions only its use by the far right, but I think it is just as commonly used by the far left. For evidence, see any Huffington Post article on Israel and read the comments thread. 168.122.153.204 (talk) 21:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

While I'm certain that there are people on the left which hatch some antisemitic, anti-zionist theories, I'd be reluctant to add that to this article, as it is about a certain term. So unless leftists used it (possible) and a reliable secondary source reported on it (not too probable) I don't think it should be added. Generally, this is better suited for Jewish Lobby. 87.166.100.223 (talk) 07:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't realize that there was a separate article for Jewish Lobby. I agree that, if a reliable source can be found, it is better suited to be there. Thank you. --168.122.153.235 (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The Huffington Post is "far left"? Sheesh. Hairhorn (talk) 00:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

REMOVE THE MENTION OF JEWS. NOT ALL THE JEWS ARE ZIONISTS!!!!--IrgoraJew (talk) 00:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This article adequately represents what reliable secondary sources write on the topic of this conspiracy theory. The point that ZOG ultimately is antisemitic and is a concealed reference to jews is supported by RS. Please refrain from unconstructive edits. 87.166.60.188 (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I just reviewed your recent edits to this article. They are unhelpful and, frankly, ridiculous. Taking your edits in other articles and user pages into account, I'd suggest you take your agenda elsewhere. 87.166.60.188 (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Not all jews are zionists, and also not all zionists are jews!Mirrormundo (talk) 03:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

hairhorn, you will cease your unexplained reversions

Anti-Zionist does NOT equal antisemite. Anti-Zionist does NOT equal "neo-nazi". This entire article needs to be rewritten from a NEUTRAL point of view! (which I will probably have to do personally when I have the time.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.157.218 (talk) 13:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Calm down. This article is not about anti-zionism, but about the antisemitic theory of ZOG. Please stop your unhelpful edits and accusations. 78.48.53.199 (talk) 08:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• agreed--Львівське (talk) 09:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

What the hell? Anti-Zionism has zero to do with ZOG. Try actually reading the article you're editing. As for not explaing my reversions, there is no requirement to explain edits that revert vandalism, which is how your edits look to me. I am far from being the only one reverting them.Hairhorn (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally I find some rather overt POV pushing in your and the more recent reverters edits. The fact that you have the gall to not want to discuss this, or explain yourself just makes matters worse.--Львівське (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Listen: this article is about the idea that western governments are controlled ("occupied") by zionists. This idea is mostly put forward by right-wing group and by now may have been taken up by the more ferociously antisemitic part of antizionists. It is antisemitic because it is in the tradition and takes its cues from older antisemitic libel such as the Protocols, and makes zionism generally replacable jewry. The article may indeed be improved and lacks detail, but to describe ZOG as anything else that what it is, would not be neutral at all. 78.49.80.209 (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, if you want to make edits that are against consensus and against common sense, it's just your tough luck that they keep being reverted. Hairhorn (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is this called a conspiracy theory? It is a fact that Israel has a HUGE hand in American government policies and laws. Calling it a conspiracy theory without refuting the facts that prove it is bias and harmful the spreading the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kittieslovecookies (talk • contribs) 08:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

If you can't tell the difference between Israeli influence in the US and ZOG you probably shouldn't edit the article. Hairhorn (talk) 21:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The theory of ZOG is about anti-zionism; that's where the Z stands for. For some it could mean also anti-semetic, but not necessarily. If someone denounces the supportive policies of one's government of the expansionist settlement policies of Israel, that does not make him/her anti-semitic!Mirrormundo (talk) 03:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. No one's debating whether you can be anti-Israel without being antisemetic, because that's not what this entry is about. Try reading it. Hairhorn (talk) 11:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The Opening paragraph is not objective

"Zionist Occupation Government or Zionist Occupied Government (abbreviated as ZOG) is an antisemitic conspiracy theory which holds that Jews secretly control a given country, while the formal government is a puppet regime."

The opening paragraph is not objective; these are someone's personal/subjective views. The words "antisemitic conspiracy" should be removed from this paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.165.180 (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

How do you figure? ClovisPt (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It is explained in my comment above - that the two terms are subjective. However, I will expand. First of all can I refer you to one of your own 'talk'/discussions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ClovisPt#Citing_opinions.

The claim that ZOG is "antisemitic" and is a "conspiracy" is an opinion. The opening paragraph should stick to facts that are not disputed and not attempt to contaminate the reader's mind - he/she should be given the courtesy make that up for themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.220.51 (talk) 13:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

We draw upon verifiable reliable sources; we contaminate the reader's mind with sourced, reliable material; there's no need to let hate speech stand on its own merits. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Readers should not be forced to read 'sanitised' material - especially when it is presented in biased form. They have a right to read and make their own judgments. Brain-washing is not particularly healthy, regardless of which viewpoint you are trying to convey.

This article is far from neutral. I, like millions of others, look to Wikipedia to provide objective and impartial information, not personal views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.220.164 (talk) 18:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not a "personal view"; as everything in Wikipedia is supposed to be, it's the general opinion of the vast majority of verifiable reliable sources (which probably doesn't include many of the Jew-haters who use the expression.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting it's not a conspiracy theory? Sorry, but LOL. Hairhorn (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

It isnt, and the paragraph isn't objective, nor scholarly. I'm more than willing to try to fix this article up, but not if its the sensible users vs. the Zionists; I'm sick of these word-games and I'm sick of ZOW (zionist occupied wikipedia).--Львівське (talk) 22:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Reverting fringe edits makes me a zionist? Good grief. I challenge you to find a zionist bent in my edit history, or any particular view on judaism at all.... on the other hand I would invite everyone to read, for example, your edit summaries here and here, which make your own view of the issues pretty clear. If you put yourself in the sensible camp, then I'm really not sure what "sensible" is supposed to mean. Hairhorn (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You'll find no "objective and impartial information" suggesting the "ZOG" is anything but an antisemitic conspiracy theory, as a cursory review of Google Scholar will confirm. (A hint: photocopied screeds picked up at a gun show aren't objective and/or impartial sources.) Fran Rogers❇ 18:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, "zionist occupied wikipedia" is just old-fashioned Jew-hating, and rather charming at that. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Please read the archives, it's been discussed plenty times. Neither "antisemitic" nor "conspiracy theory" are subjective (one wonders why you'd think they are, but doesn't really want to know), the article represents the reliable literature on the subject as best as it can (that is not to say that it cannot be improved in any way). Neutrality does not and cannot mean presenting fringe views as if they were widely held or factually true (all according to RS, once again). Since you likely use zionist as a negative term, may I suggest you stop attacking your fellow users and assume good faith? Thank you. 134.106.41.232 (talk) 08:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

ZOG=Antisemitism?

There is no source saying ZOG is antisemitism. This should be edited. Or what do you guys think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUCHERS22 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Please check reference 5. 134.106.41.232 (talk) 12:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

Evidence?

"Zionist Occupation Government or Zionist Occupied Government (abbreviated as ZOG) is an antisemitic conspiracy theory which holds that Jews secretly control a given country, while the formal government is a puppet regime." Evidence? None.

"The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a fraudulent antisemitic text purporting to describe a Jewish plan to achieve global domination. The text was fabricated in the Russian Empire, and was first published in 1903." Evidence? None.

It's sad to see that the most used internet source of information on the globe is already taken by the typical zionist arrogance and lies. I wonder what happened to impartiality.189.115.216.84 (talk) 18:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM. Spaceclerk (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

He was just asking for sources, no? ie. ?--Львівське (talk) 19:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

"Jewish World Conspiracy" redirect

Currently Jewish World Conspiracy redirects here. Given that the concept of a Jewish world conspiracy predates Israel (see, for example, Marvin Perry, Frederick M. Schweitzer, Antisemitism: myth and hate from antiquity to the present, p. 98ff on versions of the conspiracy theory embraced by Adolf Hitler and Henry Ford), I think we should either (my preference) separate the two terms, or alter the content of this page to accomodate the issues together (with ZOG as an example of the Jwc theory). Thoughts?--Carwil (talk) 01:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

You raise a good point. On the one hand, the earliest "Jewish world conspiracy" theories started at the same time as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion around 1903; and that pamphlet was published partly in response to the 1897 First Zionist Congress. In other words, even the earliest instances of the conspiracy theory were related to Zionism, so the word "Zionism" is appropriate in the context of this class of conspiracy theory. On the other hand, the phrase ZOG is a rather recent term (1970-ish) and so it is not a good choice for an article that includes pre-1970 conspiracy topics (e.g. the Protocols themselves). Perhaps the best thing to do is to (1) change the title of this article to "Jewish World Conspiracy"; (2) broaden the scope to encompass pre-1970 conspiracy sources; and (3) make ZOG a redirect to this? --Noleander (talk) 06:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

ZOG is a definate phrase, with its own independent history to the 'Jewish world conspiracy'. 'Jewish world conspiracy' should have its own page as it generally refers to the Far right term for the entire Zionist movement - and would be an excellent place to center the varied history of 20th century anti-semitism.77.101.91.203 (talk) 18:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

jews were already persecuted, and e.g. excluded from towns, practicing trades and holding offices, in several places in Europe in the middle-ages, which was perhaps associated with global jewish conspiracy theories (in the sense of that everywhere in the world where jews are they would somehow participate); I would not say that the time when the protocols came out necessarily is when jewish world conspiracy theories started at all

-188.105.142.24 (talk) 12:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Eurabia and Zionist Occupation Government

As requested by Jayjg, here is a source linking Eurabia and Zionist Occupation Government: "Stripped of its Islamic content, the broad contours of Ye’or’s preposterous thesis recall the anti-Semitic conspiracy theories of the first half of the twentieth century and contemporary notions of the ‘Zionist Occupation Government’ prevalent in far-right circles in the US." in Matt Carr, "You are now entering Eurabia", Race & Class, 2006-07, doi:10.1177/0306396806066636. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

So, one individual wrote an article six years ago claiming that the "broad contours" of Bat Ye'or's thesis, once "stripped of its Islamic content", "recall" notions of ZOG? That's really tenuous. ZOG is a conspiracy theory that claims Zionists/Jews secretly control Western governments. Eurabia is a theory that Muslims will eventually openly take over European societies primarily through demographics. With that broad a connection, one could equally easily add "See also" links to Democracy and Communism. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

«So, one individual wrote an article six years ago claiming that the "broad contours" of Bat Ye'or's thesis, once "stripped of its Islamic content", "recall" notions of ZOG?» (Jayjg) Yes. Have you read other parts of the article, especially the "The Eurabian conspiracy" section?

"That's really tenuous." (Jayjg) I would say "tenuous" rather than "really tenuous".

"ZOG is a conspiracy theory that claims Zionists/Jews secretly control Western governments." (Jayjg) Yes.

"Eurabia is a theory that Muslims will eventually openly take over European societies primarily through demographics." (Jayjg) Yes, but it does not restrict to this. The Eurabia theory, which has been called a conspiracy theory many time, is also claiming that sold-out-to-Muslims secretly control European governments. See for example "For 40 years Eurabia has built its networks, its finance, its hegemonous power, its totalitarian control over the media, the universities, the culture and the mind of people." in Bat Ye'or; "Eurabia’s destiny was sealed when it decided, willingly, to become a covert partner with the Arab global jihad against America and Israel." in Bat Ye'or; « At the center of her story is something called the Euro-Arab Dialogue (EAD), a joint initiative of the EU and Arab governments whose meetings are closed, proceedings unpublished, and activities thus "shielded from scrutiny and democratic control." » in Bruce Bawer; "the European Union has de facto surrendered the entire European continent to ongoing Islamic colonization" in Fjordman; "All over Europe multicultural elites are waging total war against their populations. Their goal is to continue the strategy of mass-immigration, which will ultimately result in an Islamic Europe" in Geert Wilders. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

You're posting the same material in two different places. Please decide where this discussion will take place, here or Talk:Eurabia. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

"Anti-Semite"

Anti-Zionist is not "Anti-Semite"!

Thye're two distinct different things.

What about Arab Semites that hate Zionism?

174.54.135.108 (talk) 18:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

This article isn't about Zionism or Anti-zionism. Give it a read. Hairhorn (talk) 18:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh really?!

Then why does it say "Zionist Occupation Government or Zionist Occupied Government (abbreviated as ZOG) is an antisemitic conspiracy theory which holds that Jews secretly control a given country, while the formal government is a puppet regime.[1]"?

I did read it, you did not. 174.54.135.108 (talk) 16:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Concerning Arabs and Antisemitism, please read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism#Usage, as well as the following section on antisemitism's etymology.

Also, please read the references used in the article, many of which are quoted there, for sourcing on ZOG being an antisemitic conspiracy theory. Seems the "Zionist" ploy works, considering how often we have heard this misconception here. SK (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Why?

Becuase they say so?

They are still Semites regardless of what is written there.

174.54.135.108 (talk) 16:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Which has nothing to do with anything. If you wish, mentally replace the word "Jew-hatred" every time you see "antisemitism", because that and only that is what the word means -- despite what it looks like it should mean. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Article needs to be re-written in Neutral POV

Does not meet neutral POV guidelines. Terming it as 'antisemitism' and as a 'conspiracy theory' - those are weasel words for something which is essentially not antisemitic, as it is against organizations and not people. Antisemitism must target individuals. Even with a loose interpretation of these two terms as 'acceptable', the article still needs to be re-written as it doesn't meet numerous guidelines and standards of Neutral POV, Notability, etc. Recommend full re-write. 75.70.221.14 (talk) 15:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

"Antisemitism must target individuals"? Is your dictionary broken? Hairhorn (talk) 15:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess he did not mean that it must target individuals in the sense of single persons, but that it must target them in an individual way (ad-hominem), for being jews, in the sense of that their jewish-ness is what it is about, and in the sense of degrading the person entirely because of that. Apart from that, I do support the point that assuming a zionist-occupeted government, or jewish conspiracy in-general, is not inherently anti-semitic, because it is not being against jews for being jews, but being against the alleged conspirators for their conspirative activity, while they coincidentally happen to be jews. Assuming such conspiracies is also not inherently associated (in the sense of existing only in its presence) with supporting e.g. an anti-semitic propagandistic postulate that jews would be usually doing such things. Calling the ZOG/jewish-conspiracy theories inherently anti-semitic is wrong. If someone would e.g. support the theory that there was a widespread conspiracy/covert political operations ('government occupation') by Mexicans, it would not make him anti-Mexican/such theory would not be reasonably called anti-Mexican.

(actually, the correct word for what is meant by anti-semitic is anti-jewish (semites != jews))

-188.105.142.24 (talk) 12:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

And you probably have WP:RS to back that up, right? SK (talk) 14:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

(same person) what sources would possibly be required for that?! This is just something that makes sense. Also, given you ignore the content of my post, I'd say you're trying to abuse formal complaints to justify general exclusion (in the sense of censorship) of the point I want to make here..

-91.47.7.124 (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on the statements of reliable secondary sources. It's not interested in the personal opinion of Wikipedia editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The thing is that this is no personal opinion, but objective truth. Calling the conspiracy theory anti-semitic (i.e. anti-jewish) is only correct if it's not advocated by people because they actually believe it, but for propagandistic (in the sense of deceptive) purpose in the context of being against jews in general. This is not inherent to the theory, and stating that it would be (as in "is an anti-semitic conspiracy theory") can only be reasonable for the purpose of discrediting everyone who supports it as jew-haters, which in turn could only be useful as a propagandistic measure in favor of such conspiracy. I do not mean to accuse Wiki people to follow such a purpose, or advocate ZOG/jewish-conspiracy theories, I just mean to point out that there is no rational objective sense to generally call ZOG/jewish-conspiracy theories anti-semitic (similar things are being done in many other places, in and beyond Wiki, and that is probably for a large part what makes people think that there is such a conspiracy).

-91.47.4.143 (talk) 17:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". What you believe to be "objective truth" is actually subjective opinion, and others will differ. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

What about what I stated do you deem subjective? Also, what is the criteria for verification? You verify it by whether "officially" renowned people/scientists say so? If they all/mostly said 1+1=3, would you prefer that? (forgive the extreme example, I just mean to point out the absurdity)

-91.47.31.52 (talk) 02:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, please review WP:V. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

You did not answer my question, and you are missing (ignoring?) the point. That verification criteria (which I do know about, and have read) makes sense, and is clearly meant, for 1) the notability of topics and 2) scientific theories about things which are un-certain, not for things which are absolutely certain. You would not require any such verification for things like 1+1=2, that the sky is blue, that books have pages, and that the first letter of Wikipedia is a "W", would you. And just such a thing is this. Again, what about the point I began this discussion with (not right to call ZOG theory categorically anti-semitic because it does not imply/is not inherently based-upon anti-semitism, i.e. general hatred towards jews (assuming a jewish conspiracy and hating jews are two diferrent things)) is subjective?

-91.47.2.214 (talk) 01:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I assume the change shall be applied thus? There is none of the verification criteria which is relevant to this, and it's not apparent what about it is meant as supposedly merely subjective. If it is meant that zog is mostly postulated in the context of generally denouncing jews, then it is to be written that way ('a conspiracy theory commonly held by anti-semites', not 'an anti-semitic conspiracy theory'). Approved?

--91.47.2.183 (talk) 16:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Have you actually reviewed WP:V and its related guideline WP:RS? On what reliable sources would you base your proposed edit? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Another broken dictionary; "antisemitism" is the correct word, despite the etymology. Hairhorn (talk) 15:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I meant this in the sense of favoring a word-sense-based definition. Of course common use is manely relevant for an encyclopedic definition, but the definition i proposed makes sense for clear understanding, and what word would you use to refer to actual anti-semitism then?

-91.47.7.124 (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

English isn't a very logical language. We use actual English definitions, not those "proposed" by editors, in part because that's what "makes sense for clear understanding". Jayjg ^(talk) 00:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I did not even mean to propose to change the usage in Wiki, I just meant to point it out besides.

-91.47.4.143 (talk) 17:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Please review WP:NOTAFORUM. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll unindent here. We have good, reliable sources for ZOG being antisemitic, please review footnotes 1 and 2. If you want to challenge the presentation given, please give reliable sources. Etymology and antisemitism don't mix. Sorry, SK (talk) 21:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Zionism is a political ideal - held by christians and Jews. Being anti-zog is about being against the political movement. This article equates being anti-nazi to hating germans, or anti-mafia for hating italians. This article is obviously edited with a pro-zionism political slant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.179.238 (talk) 13:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

If you had actually read the article, you would have noticed ZOG has close to nothing to do with Zionism. SK (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I did notice that all the 'external links' were hostile, even though there's no shortage of racist stuff on the web. I further noticed that groups such as Hezbollah and The Weather Underground both have at least one positive or favorable external link. 141.114.230.115 (talk) 19:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC) Ryan

Hostile to what? Are you saying that Hezbollah is similar to those who promote the notion of a Zionist Occupation Government? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no WP:RS that contradicts 75.70.221.14 with any ARGUMENTS TO THE POINTS HE MADE. specificly, the one he just made. you litterly are WP:WL here. you seem more biased and not wanting to meet the arguments that whatever sources that ARE inside this article, is logically wrong based on his points and thus not deemed to be put in at all.

Thus, even if the first reliable sources was...well reliable, they do not fit wikipedias standard due to, well as he pointed out, it would make no SENSE if it was a MEXICAN government (or american government as american puppet government does exists and they sure arent called anti-american for that in the media now would they?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.225.103.167 (talk) 02:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree 100% with the OP....this article is obviously biased and a disgrace to wiki neutrality. LKingswood (talk) 18:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Anti-Zionism ≠ Anti-Semitism

Speaking from experience,

I am an anti-zionist conspiracy theorist, I can assure you I am not an anti-semite nor am I anti-Jewish.

This man is also an Anti-Zionist, and quite obviously not Anti-Jewish. He is also an Anti-Zionist conspiracy theorist - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxiwBpbGmoU -

Please amend the tone of this article.

There is no need to alter the tone, for the simple fact that this entry is not about Zionism. This seems to be a tough nut to crack for some people. Hairhorn (talk) 19:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

It concludes that anyone who considers Israel to be the victim of the Zionist Occupation Government is a conspiracy theorist, an anti-semite and is portraying Jews as conspirators in attempts to rule the world. This is ludicrous. Amend the tone of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Storris (talk • contribs) 14:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Since that's not what the article says at all, it's quite unnecessary, not to say impossible, to amend it in this regard. SK (talk) 15:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I have a hard time believing that the use of the term 'ZOG' or the opposition to its supposed existence is simply reducible to antisemitism. I would imagine there might be an antisemitic strain of people or groups of people that use the term 'ZOG' but the article raises a lot of suspicion to the reader when it bears the claim that it is objectively antisemitic. Perhaps the article could be reworded or expanded to clarify this. BakuninGoldmanKropotkin (talk) 00:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting there might be people who think that jews are secretly running things but aren't anti-semites? Hairhorn (talk) 01:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Not Jews, but people who are seeking the expansionism of the Jewish political state, which is what Israel is. BakuninGoldmanKropotkin (talk) 01:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

As stated in the article (perhaps it could be clearer), this is a conspiracy theory about countries outside of Israel, generally in the West, often the United States. The "Zionist occupation" is about the fictitious Jewish/Zionist occupation of these countries. Not to be confused with the actual Israeli occupation of Palestine, Sinai, etc. If this is unclear from the article, feel free to (appropriately) specify it a bit more.--Carwil (talk) 23:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

if you dont want to confuse actual Zionism with anti semitism then dont put both terms in the same article and try to pretend that being anti zionist is the same as being anti semitic. The article is literally called ZIONIST Occupation Government conspiracy theory. It didnt say Jewish Occupation Government conspiracy theory. Zionism is a movement, Jewish as a religious group and a race. Being against a movement and believing in the conspiracy theories of said movement is not the same as being against Jews as a race therefore the article is wrong to call it anti semitism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.130.132.2 (talk) 11:01, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

That's literally what the people who came up with the conspiracy theory called it - therefore that's what the article should be named. It makes no sense to change that when the subject is a very specific topic. I don't want to underestimate you, but it almost seems like you'd have to WORK to misinterpret things. 2601:87:4400:AF2:19C:A2B1:B4E3:43DB (talk) 02:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Article is insane. Does anyone seriously believe that Zionists do not occupy Israel? 47.137.189.77 (talk) 16:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

"...and various far-right groups, including some in Poland"

This is not true. Zydokomuna != ZOG. See thisarticle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%BBydokomuna — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.5.56.118 (talk) 10:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

the title

i think the title should be: "the Zionist Occupation Government Conspiracy", no? Tamarnet (talk) 10:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

More like "The Zionist Occupation Government Conspiracy theory". --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Not every conspiracy is a "theory". If something has been proven, do you still call it a "theory", in the same way we call evolution a "theory"? --2602:306:C4EF:2BA0:F4AC:DA32:4D67:289F (talk) 10:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The ZOG has not been proven true, it is a conspiracy theory, a theory about a conspiracy. There is no evidence supporting its existence, you give people who perpetuate the ZOG too much credit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PromethiumElemental (talk • contribs) 15:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

A theory is something based on an amassed basis of evidence. It is considered to be true. For instance, gravity is a theory. 47.137.189.77 (talk) 17:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Stieg Larsson

Larsson is indeed a novelist, best known for the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo trilogy, but this book is not a novel, but a collection of documentary articles by him, from his time as an investigative journalist. The 6th Floor (talk) 17:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

On bias

@Rockypedia: Your behavior here has essentially consisted of you plugging your ears and yelling. I've explained to you three times that the entire "History" section of this article is a catalog of notable uses of the term ZOG. The examples I added, and which you repeatedly remove without justification, are no different than the six or seven other examples given in that section. I'd argue that they're actually more notable than most of the other examples because Israel Shamir is a highly notable author and the quote from the Swedish group was included in an article by one of the most prominent researchers in this field.

I requested a third opinion in dispute resolution, and they (User:Biografer) agreed with me. You need to start behaving like an adult: listening to people's arguments and making counterarguments. I am making valid strong arguments for the move and for my additions, and several senior editors have agreed with my arguments, but you continually try to shut down discussions with rambling diatribes that call me an anti-semite.

Finally, I don't understand why you closed the move discussion when there clearly wasn't a consensus. Franzboas (talk) 19:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't take lectures on behavior from someone that makes anti-semitic edits behind the cloak of a sockpuppet account, so you can tell that malarkey to the tourists. I also don't appreciate you violating WP:NPA with your first sentence, which totally blows any credibility you think you have as far as "behaving like an adult." Due to your personal attack, I'm done responding to you after this comment.

Your opinion that you've offered "valid strong arguments for the move and for my additions" is noted; there's a grand total of 2 editors that agreed with you and about nine that disagreed. Calling that "clearly" not consensus is ridiculous. Lastly, I didn't close the discussion; work on your reading comprehension. Rockypedia (talk) 21:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

@Rockypedia: Three people agreed with me, and User:Biografer seems to have read it and agreed as well. That would bring it to 5 vs. 9. As two experienced editors pointed out, most of the people disagreeing weren't actually involved in the discussion and just dropped in with some snarky quip because they don't like this.

I'm requesting a full dispute resolution rather than just a third opinion. Franzboas (talk) 22:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

*Comment It's a flat-out lie that 3 editors plus Biografer agreed with you (there's only 2 "support" votes up there) Rockypedia (talk) 04:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@Rockypedia: There are two "Support" votes and one "Move" vote. I appreciate the additional false accusation, though.  ;) Franzboas (talk) 04:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I've been accused of false accusations by a sockpuppet account; that's some rich irony right there. When you ID your other accounts, then you can expect to be taken seriously. Until then, you have zero credibility. Rockypedia (talk) 21:08, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC? Doug Weller talk 05:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• Franzboas has been indeffed for violating WP:ADVOCACY. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Calling FranzBoas an anti-Semite violates WP:NPA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.137.189.77 (talk) 18:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Inside description by FBI informants

On Aug 19 2017, CNN's Declassified series, http://www.cnn.com/shows/declassified, aired a segment that contained agent of FBI detailed descriptions of early years. Would content from this transcript be properly sourced for inclusion into article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:87:4400:af2:19c:a2b1:b4e3:43db (talk • contribs) 02:49, November 11, 2018 (UTC)

The inquisition of the 1400s is irrelevant to ZOG conspiracy theories.

The information on the catholic inquisition has nothing to do with the 1900s neo-nazi Zionist Occupation Government Conspiracy Theories. It should be removed. Also the citations have nothing to do with the ZOG conspiracy theories and would be better placed in an wiki on the inquisition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.7.196.149 (talk) 14:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I removed the paragraph. It's possible that the newer conspiracy theories have roots in the ideas of the Inquisition but since any such claim hasn't been appropriately sourced, it's gone. And it's worth pointing out that this was a particularly insidious, disgusting bit of text. It connected the antisemitic conspiracy stuff this article is about to "views held by some Catholics since the times of the Inquisition" and sourced it to articles about Pope John Paul II apologizing for the Crusades, the Inquisition, and other unnamed transgressions. Why not "since the Renaissance?" RunnyAmiga (talk) 14:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)