Talk:Zionist Occupation Government/Archive 2

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 Archive 3 →

Contents

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. -- (TalkEmail) 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. -- (TalkEmail) 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. -- (TalkEmail) 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. -- (TalkEmail) 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. -- (TalkEmail) 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)