Talk:Zionist Occupation Government/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1 Archive 2 →

Contents

Theory

This theory needs more space. Especially since it's true.  ;-D

If it were true, it wouldn't be a theory, dumbfuck. --TH not logged in
Yeah! Like the theory of evolution. --Joodoo 18:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
How did I know someone would say that? The term "theory" has a vastly different meaning in a scientific context than it does in general discourse. A scientific theory is an idea that is all but 100% proven. In general discourse, a theory is something that has little evidence to back it up, or no definitive evidence. In science, an unbacked claim with no definitive proof is called a hypothesis. But like I said, scientific theories do have definitive proof and are virtually undoubtable (evolution is a perfect example). Scientifically speaking, ZOG is a hypothesis (and a bad one at that).
I really doubt GW and Cheney are being controlled by Jewish people.
No, the US government is not controlled by Jewish people, per se. It is they controlled by corporate interests (oil) and Zionist money. See AIPAC and Christian right. --Joodoo 18:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

If a group of 5 million American Jews manage to control a country of 300 million people or a planet of 6 billion, doesn't that make everyone else pretty pathetic?

This page represent an extreme point of view and is not in accordance with wikipedia official policy
If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. The theory should be explained because people may want to know what the term means. But the theory should be presented as wrong and extremist.
see also Wikipedia:Flat earth problem--equitor 03:11, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Edits by 202.74.211.79

The quote is fictitious and even if it had been real, your claim would still have been unsourced. --Denis Diderot 13:50, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

World Domination? I've always wanted to dominate the world. Where can I sign up?

Ooooh. A Jewish world conspiracy. I'm Jewish, and I work full-time for minimum wage and study full-time too while my invalid mother lives on the unemployment benefit. Wow. Sucks that everyone else is in on this whole conspiracy thing but me, hey. Kitty 09:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

good for you Kitty. keep working hard and take good care of your mom. ---keltik31---

Don't lie to us, we know the truth. —This unsigned comment was added by 82.198.250.74 (talk • contribs) .

You really nailed it, Kitty. It would be funny if it werent so sad. BTW, does this mean that EggNOG is a world wide conspiracy of chickens trying to dominate the world through the Jews??? I think we should find a few friends and start the EggNOG Society. We could make up great names for ouselves like "Imperial Grand Dragon". Heck - we could even burn a giant Star of David on some poor, unsuspecting NAZI's front lawn. Then again, maybe not. After all. NAZI's aren't known for their appreciation of sarcasm orpheuse 12/28/05 12:01 AM

US-centric

First, this is not a "term" but rather an accusation. Second: this is a good example of a US-centric article. The same accusation was thrown at many other govts: Russian Federation, Ukraine, Poland, UK, etc. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Moving to talk: For others the term Zionist is used more traditionally to mean anyone who supports the idea of a Jewish state. This last meaning refers mostly to non-Jews, as American Zionists, in this sense, vastly outnumber American Jews. Please provide an example of such usage of thie expression. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

What's up with this?

"It was used by several extremist groups in various countries, such as neo-Nazis in the United States, Pamyat in the Russian Federation, right-wing groups in Poland (see Żydokomuna), and even neo-Nazis in Sweden."

What is so special with swedish nazis that it requires the word "even"?Slipzen 13:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

== what ? ==--72.92.115.58 00:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Check the article in wikipedia, encyclopedia britannica, take a history class in a university, etc.etc.etc. Zionism is a real word, used to describe the advocates and proponents of a Jewish homeland, particularly Israel. Theodore Herzl was not a conspiracy theorist, Israelis are not conspiracy theorists, college students are not conspiracy theorists (not all of them), professors are not conspiracy theorists (not all of them). Zionism is a real word, not a conspiracy theory. Where did you get your information or learn to write with such an ability to convey your ideas clearly? I reiterate Zionism is a REAL word accepted and widely used amongst the academic and other communities. Be careful about charging others of being CONSPIRACY THEORISTS. You sound like a mcarthyist or religious fanatic. The word Conspiracy theorist has become a word too conveniently used to detract attention from a persons message by attacking their credibility. In other words, dont listen to the conspiracy theorist or dont check the conspiracy theorist's facts. Conspiracy theorist unfortunately has become a replacement word for communist,anti-christ,militant,terrorist,criminal, and all other words in which timid and unintelligent people have used in persecuting and hindering those that may bear the truth. Listen to other people, check their facts, compare facts objectively with as little bias as can be done. This will lead you to a factual truth beneficial to all those that read your article. Most importantly, be careful of using the word conspiracy theorist as it appears you lack tolerance which if it is true is certainly disgusting and hence makes your article worth a continental. Maybe the documents released under FOIA ascertaining the truth about CIA involvement in Chile or Guatemala delivered justice to those that either requested them or stated their opinion that the CIA had involvement in those aforementioned countries before those documents were released. Just imagine, if you were writing an article about the coups in Guatemala and Chile before the releasing of FOIA documents showing CIA involvement, you might be calling anyone that believed that the CIA was involved CONSPIRACY THEORISTS! This has a bit of an ad hominem in it, however, improve your methodolgy in viewing historical topics because your cynicism and intolerance leaves room for major error in the future which isnt corrected will eventually come back to bite you in the butt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.41.9 (talk • contribs)

DFTT ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Don't f$$$$$ talk trash? Lol. --72.92.115.58 00:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

in the clinon administration, over 50% jewish

here is a list of clinton cabinter members. all jewish.

Madeleine Albright Secretary of State

Robert Rubin Secretary of Treasury

William Cohen Secretary of Defense

Dan Glickman Secretary of Agriculture

George Tenet CIA Chief

Samuel Berger Head National Security Council

Evelyn Lieberman Deputy Chief of Staff

Stuart Eizenstat Under Secretary of State

Charlene Barshefsky U.S. Trade Representative

Susan Thomases Aide to First Lady

Janet Reno Attorney General

Joel Klein Assistant Attorney General

Gene Sperling National Economic Council

Ira Magaziner National Health Care

Peter Tarnoff Deputy Secretary of State


Alice Rivlin Ecomomic Advisory

Janet Yellen Chairwoman, National Economic Council

Rahm Emanuel Policy Advisor

Doug Sosnik Counsel to President

Jim Steinberg Deputy to National Security Chief

Jay Footlik Special Liason to the Jewish Community (no other group has a special liason)

Robert Nash Personal Chief

Jane Sherburne President's Lawyer

Mark Penn Asia Expert to NEC

Sandy Kristoff Health Care Chief

Robert Boorstin Communications Aide

Keith Boykin Communications Aide

Jeff Eller Special Assistant to Clinton

Tom Epstein Health Care Adviser

Judith Feder National Security Council

Richard Feinberg Assistant Secretary Veterans

Hershel Gober Food and Drug Administration

Steve Kessler White House Counsel

Ron Klein Assistant Secretary Education

Madeleine Kunin Communications Aide

David Kusnet Dept. AIDS Program

Margaret Hamburg Dir. Press Conferences

Many Grunwald Liason to Jewish Leaders

Karen Adler Dir. State Dept. Policy

Samuel Lewis National Security Council

Stanley Ross National Security Council

Dan Schifter Director Peace Corps.

Eli Segal Deputy Chief of Staff

Alan Greenspan Chairman of Federal Reserve Bank

Robert Weiner Drug Policy Coordinator

Jack Lew Deputy Director Management and Budget

James P. Rubin Under Secretary of State

David Lipton Under Secretary of The Treasury

Lanny P. Breuer Special Counsel to The President

Richard Holbrooke Special Representative to NATO

Kenneth Apfel Chief of Social Security

Joel Klein Deputy Whlte Honse Counsel

Sidney Blumenthal Speclal Advisor to First Lady

David Kessler Chief of Food & Drug Adininistration

Seth Waxman Acting Solicitor General

Mark Penn Presidential Pollster

Dennis Ross Special Middle East Representative

Howard Shapiro - General Counsel for the FBI

Lanny Davis White House Special Counsel

Sally Katzen Secretary of Management and Budget

Kathleen Koch Heads FBI Equal Opportunity Office

John Podesta Deputy Chief of Staff

Alan Blinder Vice Chairman of Federal Reserve

Janet Yellen Heads Council of Economic Advisors —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Keltik31 (talk • contribs) 23:57, October 4, 2006.


SO???? You stupid moron. I love how everyone hates Jews because they are succesful and do something with their lives. Sorry if the Jews don't want to be bums like the rest of you and want to make a decent living. All you stupid frickin anti-semites are the stupidest scum of the earth

"stupid moron" is a little repedative and redundant dont you agree? nobody said anything about hating jews for being successful. but bill clinton said that he believed the the presidents cabinet should "look like america" and then he appoionts more jews than any other group to be in his cabinet. its considered anti-semetic if you claim that the us govt is under jewis control, and then when you prove it its even worse. Keltik31 18:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Potential references

  • Gene Fadness. "Editorial; Will lessons have been learned from long Randy Weaver saga?", Idaho Falls Post Register, 1993-07-11. Retrieved on 2006-11-04.  - "Perhaps, though doubtful, the Weavers of the world will realize that the Zionist occupation government isn't so bad after all. While it made disastrous miscalculations, that same system allowed a full, fair and self-critical hearing to determine that Harris, who fired the bullet that killed Degan, should be set free with Weaver not far behind."
  • "Exploring the Faces of Hate", The Sunday Oregonian, 1995-07-23. Retrieved on 2006-11-04.  - "Macdonald, whose real name is William Pierce, offers a blueprint for the overthrow of the Zionist Occupation Government and the establishment of the Aryan state."
  • Neil Modie. "Weaver's Beliefs at Issue", Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 1993-04-20. Retrieved on 2006-11-04.  - "Fadeley, in his testimony, alluded to what prosecutors say was Weaver's belief in an Armageddon in which he would do battle with agents of the federal government, which the defendant called the Zionist Occupation Government."
  • Terry Greene. "The Lost Boy; Jimmy Miller never had much, until he met the skinheads", Phoenix New Times, 1990-10-10. Retrieved on 2006-11-04.  - "Jimmy says he was "taught" that Jews control the United States government, which he calls "ZOG," for "Zionist Occupation Government." Says Jimmy, "I've been taught that Jews privately own the Federal Reserve. I've seen paperwork on it." He won't say where he got the paperwork, but thoughts like that are contained in Tom Metzger's White Aryan Resistance newspaper, widely distributed in Arizona."

"zionist" & external link deletion

tried to sort out real & immagined zionists. occurs to me now a simple {for|...} might be more appropriate/less potentialy controvestional. someone else's problem. external link i removed (see below) wasn't about 'zog', but (alleged or otherwise) 'jewish'/'israeli' lobbies, an altogether different can of worms.

ps: for the sake of yr own sanity, don't look for sources → bsnowball 17:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Semetic Canard Cat

Canard: "a false or baseless, usually derogatory story, report, or rumor" or "an unfounded or false, deliberately misleading story."

Is anyone denying that a Zionist Occupied Government exists? I'm pretty sure the Israeli government is Zionist. So it's not false or baseless. You might say that in its accusation it's false or baseless, but this isn't talking about specific accusations, just the idea as a whole. It's also not deliberately misleading, even if its origin comes from a forgery. In that case, only the forgery would be deliberately misleading.

So what are the reasons for keeping this cat? All I saw as a response the first time was "Oh yes it is" and for the second time, "reverted to last version"... not any sort of seriousness. So give an -actual- reason or change it back. .V. 02:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you read the article? Do you know what it is about? Jayjg (talk) 03:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
User:.V., please review and follow WP:NOR. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
It's an "accusation made by antisemitic conspiracy theorists that a certain government is controlled by Jews." Will anyone say WHY this is a canard or not? .V. 12:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Here's a few points that you can directly respond to if that would get me a straight answer.

Definition of a Canard: "a false or baseless, usually derogatory story, report, or rumor" or "an unfounded or false, deliberately misleading story." from Dictionary.com

  1. How can an allegation be a canard? This allegation is alleged by several different groups. How can you say that -all- these groups are being deliberately misleading? You can't, because it's POV. You also can't say that -all- the opinions of these groups are wrong (which is what canard means) for POV reasons.
  2. "We should, instead, write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible..." WP:NPOV How does calling a particular viewpoint "false" follow this? You can't be using this "at least plausable" tone while calling the position false.
  3. 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.

.V. 13:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

DFTT. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps that link would be better in this case if the acronym "DFTT" was actually on it. Maybe you should explain it. .V. 05:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Someone removed it, now it's back. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
You can't just dismiss my concerns above as trolling. It's clearly not trolling because they are valid concerns. If they were not valid, then I'd probably have a reply to them by now... preferably by you, because you were the one that reverted my edit in the first place. *sigh* I guess I can assume at this point that I'm not going to get an actual reply to my points above or a good faith response from you, so does anyone else want to address my three concerns above? If nobody does within a reasonable time frame (maybe a week or so), I see no reason to keep the category. .V. 06:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Since you seem to support outlandish allegations, the burden of proof is upon you. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
What, you mean the burden to prove it's not a canard? Because I'm pretty sure that the three points above do that. You know, when you revert someone's edit, you're probably going to be expected to say why. This is one of those times. I've already made it easy and given you three reasons in bullet point, so make your response. .V. 14:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
First you tried and failed to delete the entire category. Your "points" do not deserve a response other than DFTT. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I really don't want to have to go through arbitration for this. So as I said, I'm giving this a week before removing it again. Please take the time until then to formulate a rebuttal, or get another wikipedian to do it for you. .V. 22:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
"The idea that the American public and US policy makers dance to a tune played by an all-powerful "Israel Lobby" is an old canard. Neo-Nazis like Duke have long described Capitol Hill as part of the ZOG, or Zionist Occupation Government."[1] "ZOG" is a canard used to refer to alleged Jewish control of the American government, not the actual Jewish state of Israel. Please don't remove this again, thanks. Jayjg (talk) 02:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I hope you realize the irony of saying "ZOG is a canard because this columnist says it's a canard." Namely because this columnist obviously has a POV that you can see even in the URL of the link. I also hope you realize that including what a POV columnist says into an article as fact undermines the NPOV status of the article. To give an example, what if someone quoted a person who believed in ZOG? Could it then be described as true? You can see the problem here, so please address my three points directly. Jeez, why's it so hard to get a straight response on this topic? .V. 03:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is my last attempt to assume good faith with you, .V.:

  • How can an allegation be a canard? - by definition.
  • This allegation is alleged by several different groups. How can you say that -all- these groups are being deliberately misleading? You can't, because it's POV. - what's your recipe: KKK + JewWatch + David Duke = NPOV?
  • You also can't say that -all- the opinions of these groups are wrong (which is what canard means) for POV reasons. - Nobody says that. You are setting a strawman argument.
  • You can't be using this "at least plausable" tone while calling the position false. - show us a reliable source that maintain the ZOG charge.
  • The use of the word "canard" implies absolute certainty in judgment of an ideology, when that is not the case. - see Wikipedia:Verifiability. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Finally! Now, as for point one, who is defining it? You? A POV source? Secondly, I'm not saying those guys are NPOV. I'm just saying, we can't say they're all being deliberately misleading. Many actually believe this. Thirdly, the definition of canard is "false". If you say that ZOG is an anti-semitic canard, you're saying ZOG is false... and therefore everyone who believes in it is wrong. You can't believe something that's not true and be anything but wrong. It's not a strawman argument. Fourth, you don't need a reliable source for that. Keep in mind that on Wikipedia, we're not here to prove ideologies false or not. We're here to catalogue them if they are notable, and this is notable. Thus, a reliable source in this case would be a source that believes it, and there's plenty of those. That's like saying "No sources I consider reliable? Time to push in the POV!" So we need to follow NPOV as closely as possible. Lastly, as I said before... I don't care if there's "reliable" sources for the opposition, you still can't make such a sweeping judgment on a nearly-unprovable belief. It's like going to an article about God and saying "there's no verifiable fact in proof for God, so we're going to call it false." You just can't do that with beliefs. .V. 03:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for that stream of POV. Your opinion - just as mine - does not matter. Please provide reliable verifiable sources to support your proposed changes. And make sure you don't give WP:NPOV#Undue weight to a fringe. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Um. I'm simply showing that the word "canard", by its dictionary definition, cannot be applied to this article under the NPOV rules. If you want it simplified into the briefest possible sentence... canard means that it's a false story, and because of NPOV, this belief cannot be tagged as false. It's hasn't been proven to be false. I don't see how this is POV. .V. 04:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Empty insistence that ZOG is not false won't help. Evidence please. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
That's the thing. Think about it... if ZOG is true, it would be a massive cover-up. If ZOG is false, well, there's nothing there. That's why this is, for the most part, a belief. It's an allegation made with varying levels of fact in its sources, but the problem is, like many alternate theories... it's unprovable. It may not be a correct belief, and it's certainly not a well-sourced belief, but it's a prominent belief nonetheless (depending on where you go). Imagine, if you will, the article on God. To say God exists in allegation. Nobody's conclusively proved it to exist, and nobody's conclusively proved it false. It's up in the air, just like ZOG. To start categorizing it as false would be just as absurd as marking the article about God as a "canard."
I guess what I'm trying to say here is that, like many other allegations, it can't just be dismissed as false. Unless it's conclusively proven either way, we can't say that it's a canard. If the sources lack on the affirmative side, we still can't say it's canard, because it would violate NPOV. Keep in mind, "We should, instead, write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible..." Now, this ZOG is a far-out idea, and I know the first reaction to it is, "this idea is bullshit, obviously." But that's not the distinction for us to make.
As Wikipedia editors, we provide the facts and what both sides say. We don't make judgments, and we don't call an ideology false unless there's damn good evidence it's false (For example, Flat Earth.) In that case, we can actually observe the Earth and tell it's false, but in this case, we don't have that ability. So we're bound by NPOV to simply present what the issues are, not to pass our own judgments. Because the word "canard" means "a false story", that is a judgment that we just cannot include. Take, for example, the Hitler reference in NPOV. We don't have to say he's evil, his actions will speak for it. If ZOG is so obviously wrong, then it will speak for itself. .V. 04:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Pls. review WP:SOAPBOX. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Can you please limit your responses to just a logical reply to my arguments? This whole tap dancing around the issue thing is getting annoying. .V. 05:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
All you need to do is support your claims with evidence. No need for tap dancing. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
...what claims? My only claim here is that it's POV to call a viewpoint false unless it's been conclusively proven to be absolutely false. That's right there in the NPOV article. .V. 06:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
No, it is you who seem to claim that allegations of ZOG are true. Proof? ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Where have I said that? Copy/paste for me exactly where I said ZOG was true. In fact, I've said it was a "far out idea" and that it's not well-sourced and probably incorrect. I'm simply following the NPOV guidelines of being balanced. I'm not here to prove ZOG to be true. As I said before, you can't call a viewpoint false unless it's been conclusively proven to be false. So we can't call this a canard, it's as simple as that. I think you might do well to read over the NPOV guidelines, because I'm not quite sure why you're so hostile to them.
"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions." - WP:NPOV
By that quotation you can see that you can't go around calling viewpoints false. It's clearly right there, and I really have a hard time understanding why you can't or are refusing to follow this. .V. 17:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

So you do not dispute that ZOG is a dupery? There is no dispute then. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Either you're intentionally misrepresenting what I say, or you really don't understand. What I think about whether ZOG is real or not is irrelevant. It hasn't proven to be real or false, so we can't call it false. That's what it means by being neutral. .V. 21:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Who asserts that ZOG does exist? WP:RS please. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
What exactly are you asking for? Are you claiming that people don't allege ZOG? .V. 22:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Sources please. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Please clarify your question. Are you claiming that people don't allege ZOG or what? .V. 22:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Please clarify your point; why shouldn't we call a canard a canard? Are you alleging that a Zionist conspiracy actually does control the American government? Jayjg (talk) 22:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I am almost speechless. Is there any concern for neutrality at all? Wanting an article to conform to NPOV (specially, the "at least plausable" section) doesn't mean I'm for the idea. Ever hear the quote "I don't like what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"? I think that applies here. It's clearly POV to call a viewpoint a canard, and the fact that some editors don't think so is disturbing to say the least. Do you think it's at all neutral to go to an ideology and put the label on it that it's false? You might believe it's false, and the people promoting it may not be the world-recognized leaders in (insert field here), but that doesn't mean you can judge it... and saying something isn't true is a judgment. .V. 23:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
So it is not you who asserts it, and you don't have reliable sources. See WP:TROLL. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Sadly, that seems to be the case. Jayjg (talk) 23:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
My source is WP:NPOV. .V. 23:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Do you have any reliable sources which assert that a shadowy cabal of Zionists control the American government? Aside from The Protocols of the Elders of Zion? Jayjg (talk) 23:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Let me get this right... you're saying that, unless you find reliable sources (which seems to mean "mainstream sources" in this context), you have free license to call a particular viewpoint false? .V. 23:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Do you have any reliable sources which assert that a shadowy cabal of Zionists control the American government? Aside from The Protocols of the Elders of Zion? Jayjg (talk) 23:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Let me get this right... you're saying that, unless you find reliable sources (which seems to mean "mainstream sources" in this context), you have free license to call a particular viewpoint false? (PS I can see why this talk page says it might contain trolling.) .V. 23:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
So, is anyone here going to reply to this, or should I just remove the cat? .V. 17:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Did you find something to support your claims, or you think that your original research gets more convincing after staying on the page for a while? ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I know it's easy to dismiss this as "original research", but no matter how many times you insist it is, it doesn't make it true. The fact of the matter is, I'm not proposing any changes to the actual article, just the categorization of the article. My issue is the POV of the cat on the article. Canard requires intention, which is impossible to assume in a belief that spans multiple groups. This hasn't been shown anywhere (not even in any of the "reliable sources" posed in the article.) Additionally, canard requires it to be false. I'm not saying it's true, but labeling an accusation as false without providing adequate evidence to say that in every case it's false is POV. If you think that looking up a definition in a dictionary is "original research", there's a big problem here. .V. 02:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The Elders just called and they said it is a canard. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Not a reliable source. .V. 05:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. WP:RS applies to everyone, including you. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
That doesn't address what I said before at all. .V. 02:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
What you said matters very little because you failed to bring sources. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
...sources for what? Did you even read what I said above? If anything, anyone defending this cat on this article needs to provide sources that each and every group that believes it has an intent to be willfully deceptive. .V. 03:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I guess the ZOG blanked it. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I guess I'm not going to get an actual response from you. If you're not going to respond to my post, then please don't fill the talk page with useless material. I get tired of reading it. .V. 04:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
You seem to keep asserting that simple fact, especially as regards antisemitic canards or Holocaust denial, are suddenly not facts any more. This is troubling. Can you being any reliable source which indicates that allegations of a shadowy Zionist cabal controlling various Western governments are actually true? Jayjg (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't have to provide any sources. If material is in Wikipedia, it should be defendable. The way it usually goes is that someone finds a source and adds information. The way you want it to go is that someone adds information, then anyone who criticizes it needs to prove it wrong. But this is a strawman argument: I don't seek to prove it wrong, I'm stating that it's original research. Let me quote WP:OR:
The only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic
Where are the reliable sources that state explicitly that ZOG is a canard? I don't see anything that directly relates to the topic of a canard other than the category placed upon the article. If you're assuming it's a canard because you have sources that are against it, it's original research if it doesn't contain specific an on-topic discussion of the canard nature of ZOG.
Additionally, there's been a sentiment expressed that, because ZOG is a claimed-to-be minority viewpoint, we would give it undue weight by removing the category. However, if you go to [Wikipedia NPOV FAQ regarding undue weight and equal validity] you can see that it clearly says: 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 in the "undue weight" section that we "must not take a stand" on these issues. Saying an accusation is false and baseless seems like taking a stand to me, especially when there's only original research to back up this assertion. .V. 01:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's a reference for you:

"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.

Now, what was it you were claiming again; that ZOG is not a canard? Either you think it is a canard or not, state your opinion one way or the other. Jayjg (talk) 20:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

That reference says nothing about a canard. I read it a couple times over and I didn't see the word "canard" in there anywhere. Even if we got 500 opinions regarding ZOG, if none of them say "canard", it doesn't follow the direct citing rules of WP:OR. After all, if we're going to say something in an article, there better be a source that explicitly says it's so.
Anyway, I'm not claiming that ZOG is not a canard. This is a very important point that I've tried to emphasize several times. On this matter, I have no opinion either way -- only that to call it a canard would violate several wikipedia policies (WP:OR and WP:NPOV, namely.)
The WP:OR concern was stated in my previous post, and was not addressed by your quote (I fail to see why that quote shows that ZOG is a canard.) 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. It's just not right to do, unless it's something that can easily be proved false (for example, saying there's 20 continents on Earth is something which can easily be proved false.)
The WP:NPOV concern is that calling an allegation "false and baseless" violates the standard that says we are not supposed to take a stand on issues. Even if it's a tiny minority or an insignificant minority, you cannot say it's false, as per the NPOV FAQ I cited above. I myself do not think it's that small a minority, and rather that it would vary depending on where you go in the world. Irregardless, my point is, if the people alleging that ZOG-claimers are a tiny minority are correct, it would still be protected by that NPOV standard.
My personal opinion on this subject is that I don't know if ZOG is true or not. Sure, it's an outlandish belief. I, though, don't have enough data to make a conclusion, so I won't take a stand on it. I tend not to take stands on things unless I know with reasonable certainty that my particular position is correct. My issue in this case is that the inclusion of the canard category on this article seems to be directly opposed to several very clear Wikipedia policies. I believe an important thing to keep in mind here is the old saying "I may not like what you say, but I'll defend to your death the right to say it." Sure, people may not like the ZOG accusations, but that doesn't mean we need to violate Wikipedia policy. If you think ZOG is absurd, let the article show it. It's like that "Hitler" example in NPOV... you don't need to say Hitler is bad, just list what he did. We don't need to call ZOG false, just describe ZOG. Obviously, not all readers will come to the conclusion that ZOG is false, but at least we're not editorializing. .V. 21:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The name of the book is "White Lies". Lie=Canard. How do you feel about the Holocaust? Do you have enough information to judge if it happened or not? Jayjg (talk) 04:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

This quote does not meet the desired level of specificity for several reasons. Firstly, according to the Lie article on Wikipedia, a "White Lie" is a harmless lie. A canard means a lot more than a "harmless lie"... not just is it not the same thing, but the connotative meaning is quite different. For example, a "White Lie" is often one given out of necessity or some other rather insignificant reason. The example of "white lie" given in the Wikipedia article on the subject is "you look marvelous" when it's not really the case. ZOG is hardly comparable to that. If you say that this is not what the author intended, see the next few sentences. Secondly, the reference to "canard" should be explicit. Sure, the word "Lies" is in the title, but that's not enough to show context. In your example, it's claimed that because the title contains "Lies", this equates to "canard." However, are we to call ZOG a "harmless lie" because the title of the book it is contained in is "White Lies", and therefore if the title clarifies the position, it must be true? Quite clearly not, even though in the example I just presented, I expanded the inference to both words in the main title instead of your singling-out of one word. Basically, not enough context is shown for a label of "canard" to be thrown on the article.
Another issue is that, in the jump from "white lie" to "canard", material is added -- both in the definition and in connotation (canard is much more serious than "white lie".) If the difference of material does not come from the source (which does not mention canard), then it can only come from the editor -- and that's original research.
The third major issue, which you haven't addressed yet, is the issue of NPOV. Even though it says we don't have to give undue weight to a particular group if they are a minority, we still can't take a stand. Even if you have a source taking a stand, that stand cannot be turned from opinion to fact for the sake of the article (or else we'd be taking a stand on it...) That's why WP:NPOV asks to be as specific about the nature of the sources as possible in the article. (Favoring, say, "Institute X says that all people believe Y..." instead of "all people believe Y.")
Anyway, to sum it up into a few quick bullet points:
Regarding the Quote Provided
* A harmless lie is not a canard, and thus this quote does not seem to be properly referencing the material it claims to.
* The quote does not explain the context of the word "canard", and we cannot rely on simply an inference from a title to make such a claim.
* Making the jump from "white lie" to "canard" adds both connotative and definitional meaning, and as it's not from the source, would be considered original research.
NPOV concerns
* We cannot take a stand on these kind of issues, even if the viewpoint is a tiny minority. This is clearly stated in the NPOV FAQ, and calling something "false and baseless" is taking a stand.
* Even if a source -did- say it was a canard, labeling the article as a canard would be turning an expert's opinion into fact. This would be a problem for any article -- taking what one person or what several people assert and calling it true would be enforcing that expert's POV.
I don't really see why the Holocaust factors into this, but given the large quantity of primary-source testimony and independent research, it did happen with as much certainty as I can provide (I believe as a matter of principle that someone cannot know 100% exactly what happened in any case, but based on what I know...) There might be specific issues which are contestable, but they're usually things of little actual importance (things like which gas was actually used, so on and so forth. No examples currently stand out in my head, but then again, it's late.)
So yeah, there's my case thus far. .V. 06:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)