Talk:Zionist Occupation Government conspiracy theory/Archive 3

Adding notes on Actual Israeli-Occupied Territories to the Article?
While there are of course an unfortunately large number of racist and far-right conspiracy theorists out there who believe in the nonsense that is indeed quite fairly described in this article - e.g. Aryan Nations, the Order, Frank Weltner, &c. - I think it would be very useful to not only distinguish these so-called "ZOGs" from actual and verifiable Zionism as an ideology - as in an ideology that is pro- Jew, Practicing Jew, Judaism or for the modern State of Israel or what have you - from the equally real and verifiable Israeli-occupied territories; that this has not been done seems innappropriate, given that it could cause confusion to readers not familiar with extreme right conspiracy theories and hate groups. I hope to see constructive collaboration with my fellow Wikipedians in this area, but if none is achieved, I will insert appropriate and verifiable material in this article to deal with this issue. 自教育 (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * This is another topic entirely, as the entry already tries to make clear in the last paragraph of the lead. Hairhorn (talk) 19:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * A Google search for zog palestine suggests that at this point in time the ZOG theory is more closely tied to anti-Zionism than it was three years ago. I think there should indeed be some reference to this, but I would like to hear a second opinion. ZackTheCardshark (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Verifiability and Original research
I'm starting this new section because my edit to the article had nothing to do with the proposal to rename it. Franzboas, I know you're a relatively new editor, but you really need to read WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research, two of Wikipedia's core policies. Your messages above refer to "common knowledge" and "speak[ing] from experience". On Wikipedia, reliable sources are all that matter. Your experience, my experience, what you think is common knowledge, what I think is common knowledge -- they don't matter at all. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 11:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand those policies. My point is that, in some cases, uses of a term like "ZOG" on alt-right and white nationalist websites are evidence of themselves. It's ideal to have a secondary source document how these sites use terms, but Wikipedia articles on things like neologisms, conspiracy theories, non-standard political terminology often refer to their use in such contexts when it's pervasive and easily observable.
 * That said, I'm not too concerned about the details here. I'm going to try to clean up this page a little and then move on. I'll add sections about a few specific concerns below. Franzboas (talk) 22:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * uses of a term like "ZOG" on alt-right and white nationalist websites are evidence of themselves -- no, they're evidence that the alt-right and white nationalists are paranoid conspiracy theorists. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Something to think about
I came across the below quote in Contemporary Voices of White Nationalism in America. I think it eloquently states one of my main points, and one of my primary motives for this account. The quoting author is a black woman, the quoted authors are both Jewish, and all are leftists, so fear not - this isn't from the far-right camp.

"An important observation on this matter is made by sociologists Jeffrey Kaplan and Leonard Weinberg. In their important book The Emergence of the Euro-American Radical Right, Kaplan and Weinberg suggest that our image of what is going on among the contemporary radical right may be distorted by the very groups that seek to keep us informed of what they are doing. Such watchdog agencies as Klanwatch, SOS Racisme, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, and the Anti-Defamation League, Kaplan and Weinberg explain, are uniformly hostile to the people and groups they monitor and have a tendency to portray them in the worst possible light. The goal of these watchdog agencies, they say, “is to have members of the public regard the racist and anti-Semitic right with the same affection they would the AIDS epidemic or the outbreak of the ebola fever.” While expressing some sympathy for this tactic, Kaplan and Weinberg conclude that ultimately it is harmful. “There is a price to be paid for reducing the groups and individuals involved to screen villains straight out of Central Casting,” they write. “The price is that these efforts distort the reality. The groups and individuals who make up the radical right movement may have embarked on a destructive path, but they are often more complicated, considerably more personable, and far more nuanced than is suggested by the caricatures."

Franzboas (talk) 03:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Where is ZOG mentioned anywhere in that passage? You're just soapboxing now. See WP:NOTAFORUM, and kindly take your rhetoric back to Stormfront, where you first read it. Rockypedia (talk) 03:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe you haven't been following the talk page discussions. Aside from addressing some contributors' excessive hostility, I shared this quote to point out that articles such as Zionist Occupation Government conspiracy theory spend too much ink cataloguing the countless flavors of 1980's and 1990's terroristic delusional white supremacy while completely excluding their subject's significance in contemporary far-right and alt-right politics.
 * And just because I can't help myself: I have never once read Stormfront. Franzboas (talk) 03:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I really don't care why you shared this quote, because it has nothing to do with the article subject. You, or anyone else, drawing conclusions from that quote you provided is just WP:OR, nothing more. It has no place on this talk page, really. Case closed. Rockypedia (talk) 04:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

On the "Zionism" paragraph
The article contains the following paragraph:

"The word 'Zionist' in 'Zionist Occupation Government' should not be confused with the ideology of Zionism, the movement for support of a Jewish state in the Land of Israel. Because the conspiracy theorists chiefly name countries outside that area, the usage of Zionist in this context is misleading, and it is intended to portray Jews as conspirators who aim to control the world,[4] as in the forged Protocols of the Elders of Zion.[12]"

Using the following source and quote:

"Daniels, Jessie, White Lies: Race, Class, Gender and Sexuality in White Supremacist Discourse, UK: Routledge, ISBN 0-415-91289-X, ': “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.”'"

This seems like a rather fluffy, biased, fringe source from the questionable field of intersectional sociology. It also, to the best of my understanding, looks objectively wrong. Daniels seems to think that it's just a recoining or bald misuse of the term Zionist. However, from what I've read, the term ZOG usually implies that Western governments are co-opted to serve Zionist interests. For example, its proponents suggest that Zionists in the US promote Middle East interventionism to make the region safer for Israel, and promote multiculturalism and deracination of Western societies to reduce the gentile European identity that has led to so many pogroms. Disregarding the validity of these claims, they use the term "Zionist" in its original sense rather than repurposing or misunderstanding it.

I'll gather some other sources. Does anyone here think that Daniels' explanation is correct? Franzboas (talk) 22:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If you think a source by Routledge is fringe, you should not be editing. Wikipedia relies on professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, not alt-right and white nationalist websites, as you've suggested earlier.  Ian.thomson (talk) 23:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You either glanced at the previous conversation too quickly or are willfully misunderstanding. I suggested using alt-right and white nationalist websites as sources for what alt-right and white nationalist websites say, not for objective fact. Franzboas (talk) 23:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ian.thomson Routledge is not a fringe source. As for your point about alt right websites, using them in the manner you suggest would be an inappropriatr use of WP:PRIMARY to support WP:OR. You need a secondary source that will cite those primary sources and the content should be determined by the analysis in the secondary source, not your own analysis. Seraphim System ( talk ) 23:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I generally agree, but I think that mentioning specific uses of a term can be an exception. The current discussion is a charged case but, for example, people would likely consider it sound to cite the statement "the New York Times often uses term X in context Y" with five instances of the New York Times using term X in context Y. That isn't an ideal source, but in some cases it's all you have. If this weren't a far-right topic, I doubt anyone would bother applying strict interpretations of source rules, preferring instead to have an accurate and informative article. Franzboas (talk) 23:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The use of "ZOG" by right-wing groups is not in dispute, and it is sourced to secondary sources in the article. Introducing the idea that Americans who believe that American interests and Israeli interests are not always aligned consitutes believe in the ZOG theory, and that this a different form of the ZOG theory is your own WP:OR. You are trying to read it into this passage and others where it is not supported by WP:RS. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 00:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I consider this is an edge case, but my point was that these sites typically use the term ZOG passingly in reference of pro-Zionist behavior by Western governments, not in the context of grand conspiracy theories. That said, I see it as a grey area and don't feel like arguing about it.
 * Yes they do, but they use it in the context of an ideology that is based on racial supremacy. That is the distinction being made in the Routledge source. The wording in the article is a little confusing and there may be WP:SYNTH regarding the Protocols. I would have to look at it in more detail, but I am doing other things right now. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 01:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * How do you feel about the original topic of this section? Do you think that this use of the term Zionism "shouldn't be confused" with the common definition? Franzboas (talk) 00:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

One example of a contradicting source: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09546559608427334

"Identity theology is another doctrine whose itinerary has involved multiple cross-Atlantic journeys. From Randy Weaver at Ruby Ridge in Idaho to the adherents of the Vitt Ariskt Motstand (VAM) in Stockholm, supporters of this exotic religious view see the cities of North America and western Europe as increasingly  dominated  by  'dusky  hordes' of not fully human 'mud people' who have displaced their racial superiors in social and economic  life. Further, the displacement is hardly an accidental development. Instead, it  is the  product of ZOG (the all-pervasive Zionist Occupation Government, run from Tel Aviv and behind national governments in Sweden and the United States)." Franzboas (talk) 00:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC) I think there may be differences in the ideologies of different organizations regarding what ZOG means but that should be discussed in the context of the particular organization. Identity Christians believe that Jews are not fully human. So for them, it is also a racial ideology - it is not based on a political opposition to lobbyists or the State of Israel or anything like that. That seems to support the Routledge source, that most (if not all) the groups who use the term ZOG also have a racial dimension to their ideology. It's a fine point, but you have to be careful to not draw inferences that are not explicitly stated by the sources. Seraphim System ( talk ) 00:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment The tone of all of Franzboas's edits is decidely POV; in my view, he's looking to make the conspiracy theory look less like a conspiracy theory and make it appear as if it's grounded in fact. All of this stuff is WP:OR and he's pulling, stretching, and combining quotes from alt-right and white supremacist sources while mixing them with references that have nothing to do with the ZOG conspiracy theory in an attempt to make his edits appear legitimately grounded. They are not. I will continue to revert these edits per WP:CYCLE until I see some reliable secondary sources that deal directly with the ZOG conspiracy theory that say exactly what he's trying to add. Rockypedia (talk) 04:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * For those other than User:Rockypedia, see my response here: User_talk:Franzboas
 * I should add that, while you ask for "some reliable secondary sources that deal directly with the ZOG conspiracy theory that say exactly what [I'm] trying to add", the edit you keep reverting is not only from a reliable source and written by a widely respected liberal Jewish academic and an expert in this field, but is literally a direct quote of what he says the radical right defines ZOG as. Please actually look at the edit before you hit the rollback button. Franzboas (talk) 04:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a flat-out lie from this admitted sockpuppet account. I've examined that source and it says nothing that supports the changes you're attempting to make. Your changes are designed to link Zionism more closely with the ZOG conspiracy theory, the source you claim supports that assertion says nothing of the kind. Therefore, your edits are pure WP:OR.
 * I also want to know why it's relevant that piece was written by a "liberal Jewish academic", as you've said that multiple times now. Rockypedia (talk)
 * I think I've found the answer to my last question in your edit history. I count 28 edits to biography pages in which your sole purpose was to call attention to the fact that the subjects were Jewish. You appear to be obsessed by the topic. Rockypedia (talk) 04:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm neutral on making any changes, but I think the ship has sailed on linking the ZOG theory with Zionism. My reading of the Routledge sourceFranzboas posted above) is that the theory is not limited to Zionism, but all Jews - that is why it is linked with groups that have racial identity based ideologies. I don't think they make the distinction you are making between Zionists/Zionism and Jews. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 04:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not making that distinction, as this isn't the Zionism page nor the Jews page. I'm making a distinction between Zionism and the ZOG conspiracy theory, one that our anti-Semite sockpuppet editor seems determined to blur with his original research. Rockypedia (talk) 04:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The distinction seems pretty obvious to me - one is a noun, the other is an adjective. But I will reiterate, I think the meaning of the Routledge source was to make it clear that these groups do not limit their ideology to legitimate criticism of Israel, this term is associate with race based hatred. The source does not say that the theory is unrelated to Zionism or Israel, what it is getting at is that the ideology of the groups justifies judging "guilt" for perceived offenses on the basis of race or shared race. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 05:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This is the quote from one source in the article (also Routledge but different from the quote supplied above "'...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.'" (emphasis added) The sentence in the lead is clumsy and doesn't really make sense. It could use revision, but it should be based on sources and not WP:OR - the objection I have to Franzboas' version is that it suggests some scholars have said Zionism is the same as ZOG - the problem is really that the current version is WP:OR - none of the sources say anything about confusing Zionist with Zionism. The line should be removed under not a dictionary. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 05:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I see what you're saying. To clarify, I never believed or had any intention to imply that ZOG is limited to or defined by legitimate criticism of Zionist influence. Rather, my grammatical interpretation of the Daniels quote is that ZOG uses the term "Zionist" in a completely different sense. It seems obvious to me that ZOG is using "Zionist" in its original (and only) sense, whether or not the usage is fair or accurate.
 * Honestly, I find Daniels' suggestion so ridiculous that it's difficult to find a directly refuting source. For example, imagine that someone added a quote from an intersectional feminist professor to the Green Revolution article saying, "the term 'green' in 'Green Revolution' should not be confused with 'green', the color of growing plants." Will I be able to find an academic source directly and explicitly explaining something so obvious?
 * That said, this debate has become yet another vector for people (not you, but people) to harass me, and I don't find the distinction very important. Franzboas (talk) 14:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The thing about the Daniel's quote is that it doesn't say anything about Zionism. And Daniels may be wrong - not wrong exactly, but emphasizing the racial component of their ideology. That there is a racial component is not in dispute - you can most likely find sources that will say explicitly that ZOG includes corporations, banks, white politicians, etc. I think I saw one yesterday. But you need to find those sources and discuss them in the article, you can not just add this in unsourced. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 20:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

JOG (Jewish Occupation Government)
A few reliable academic sources say that the Church of the Creator prefers "JOG" (Jewish Occupation Government) to "ZOG".

The Church of the Creator Part II: Later Developments and the Sacralization of Race in Multicultural America

"Jeffrey Kaplan and Tore Bjorgo. Nation and Race: The Developing Euro-American Racist Subculture . (Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press, 1998), p. ix. Actually, the WCOTC used a close facsimile, ‘JOG’, which stands for Jewish Occupation  Government. Ben Klassen adamantly emphasized that his church attacked Jews qua Jews, not Jews qua Zionists, Communists, etc."

Encyclopedia of White Power: A Sourcebook on the Radical Racist Right

The context of American millenarian revolutionary theology: The case of the ‘identity Christian’ church of Israel

"Most striking among the  dispersed  sectarian  appeals  may  be Ben Klassen's unique Church of the Creator (COC). The COC centers on the  belief  that  the  nearly  universal  perception  that  Christianity  is built upon the foundation  of Judaism, and that Jesus himself was a Jew, is in fact correct. Thus, Christianity itself is Jewish and therefore  anathema  - as is the society which would embrace such a Jewish religion (styled JOG or Jewish  Occupation  Government  rather  than the more usual ZOG  or Zionist  Occupation  Government). In its place, the COC has erected a religion it calls Creativity, an odd blend of rewritten Christianity, health faddism,  and  histrionic  racism.  All  of  this  is presided  over  by  Klassen (styling himself Pontifex Maximus), the imprisoned Rudy Stanko as heir apparent,  and  a  'priesthood'  composed  of  anyone willing to  submit  an application and a check or money order."

Any objections to me adding a sentence or two about this? Franzboas (talk) 22:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think this may be better for the Creativity (religion) article, which doesn't have any mention of it. For this article, a See Also link to the main article would be enough - this article is about one theory that is invoked by many different groups, but traced back to a term used in the Turner Diaries. I don't see enough evidence in the quotes that it is related to ZOG theory beyond the similar names. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 23:57, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point - I've been thinking about the same general issue. This is mostly what I was trying to address with my previous edits, although it devolved into bickering: the term ZOG has almost completely diverged from the original Turner Diaries sense, but it's still a unique and complex iea (more like "cuckservative" than a simple euphemism or slur) that's definitely notable. I think where you and I differ is that I see the modern uses (including the academic descriptions of modern uses) as being fundamentally different from Pierce's elaborate conspiracy theory. That is, "JOG" as used above is identical in meaning to most uses of "ZOG", but greatly diverged from the Turner Diaries theory.


 * Here's an example from an academic source that describes ZOG from the perspective of media control. Does anyone oppose adding a reference to this?


 * Franzboas (talk) 01:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Am I missing something? I don't see the reliable source describing anything from the perspective of media control. I see a quote from a racist source with no comment. So yes, I object to just adding a racist quote. Even worse that it would be prominently displayed. Doug Weller  talk 10:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you guys be more cooperative and constructive? I obviously wasn't suggesting just dropping a racist quote into the article. I was suggesting referencing it in a sentence like "The Vitt Ariskt Motst!nd (White Aryan Resistance, VAM) in Sweden used the term in a statement to their members denouncing the country's mainstream media as controlled by Jews hostile to their cause, referring to it as 'Jewish media' and 'ZOG media'."
 * He is being cooperative and constructive, and it wasn't so obvious that that wasn't what you were suggesting. As for your latest suggestion, one mention by some non-notable white supremacist group in Sweden does not rise to the level of notability required to mention it on Wikipedia. This article isn't a forum for publicizing neo-nazi speeches. Start your own blog if you want to document those. Rockypedia (talk) 19:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The body of this article already consists mostly of references to and quotes of specific groups that have used the term publicly. I already clarified in my previous comment that I wasn't suggesting that we "publicize a neo-Nazi speech", but rather than we add a single sentence (which I included) that referenced the usage of the term "ZOG". Franzboas (talk) 20:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * When I boil down your doublespeak here, I find it says "I wasn't suggesting that we publicize a neo-Nazi speech, I just want to publicize a neo-Nazi speech." Rockypedia (talk) 02:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll boil it down more accurately for you: how the hell is the sentence I'm suggesting different from the last 60% of the current article body?
 * I'm going to take this to dispute resolution if you keep assuming the absolute worst of me, blockading everything I propose without considering it, and generally trolling me to prevent me from actually improving the article. Franzboas (talk) 03:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think this has been discussed long enough that you can take it to dispute resolution if you want. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 03:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If you think you'll find editors more sympathetic to your cause in dispute resolution, then by all means, take your campaign there. Rockypedia (talk) 06:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I looked at your link, and I should say that I don't understand the objection. The link is reliable because it comes from a peer reviewed journal Racist Violence in Europe. Ironically we don't have a page on it, but we do have other notable journals. And yes, I do sympathize your campaign. Wish you luck. You have my support at least. :)--Biografer (talk) 17:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 15 May 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved.Most of the arguments raised in this discussion seem to be grounded in own interpretations and rationales of the benefits and boons of the move--which seems quite good--barring a few.And these heavily favor an oppose of this move.Policy-wise, the arguments raised by are somewhat compelling but the counter raised seem equally good. (non-admin closure) Clarified and amended on request at 05:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)  Winged Blades Godric  09:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Zionist Occupation Government conspiracy theory → Zionist Occupation Government – I find the inclusion of "conspiracy theory" in the title here to be definite bias. There are certainly ZOG conspiracy theories that resemble the Illuminati or the Reptilians in their paranoid ridiculousness. However, this term seems to be more often used in far-right circles as a biting reference to the marked over-representation of Zionist interests in US foreign policy and of Jews in the mainstream media. These references are often made in a disrespectful or anti-semitic manner, but they address concerns that are grounded in statistical fact and discussed at length in reputable works such as The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. I think that this article should discuss ZOG conspiracy theories and far-right anti-Zionist rhetoric separately. Franzboas (talk) 01:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I also find the following paragraph (the third and final paragraph of the lead) biased and unreasonable:


 * "The word 'Zionist' in 'Zionist Occupation Government' should not be confused with the ideology of Zionism, the movement for support of a Jewish state in the Land of Israel. Because the conspiracy theorists chiefly name countries outside that area, the usage of Zionist in this context is misleading, and it is intended to portray Jews as conspirators who aim to control the world,[3] as in the forged Protocols of the Elders of Zion."


 * Many far-right complaints stem specifically from the accusation that developed countries' governments are being lobbied or coerced to support Zionism against the will and benefit of their own citizens. As I mentioned above, this is a contentious claim, but it has reasonable basis in fact and is widely considered a valid debate. Franzboas (talk) 02:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I removed most of the above-quoted paragraph because I'm confident that it's wrong. Franzboas (talk) 02:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Can you please keep this section about the move topic and stop trying to unilaterally rewrite the article. We don't change articles by moving them, the current article should be moved to it's more natural name. Other issues should be dealt with one at a time - either through consensus discussions on talk or if that fails RfC. Seraphim System ( talk ) 02:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Move Zionist Occupation Government conspiracy theory is not natural. The titles should be natural to make editing more efficient and linking easier. The article lead is clear that WP:RS consider a conspiracy theory, there is no need to torture editors by belaboring the point. I can not imagine any context in which this would be linked where it could possibly confused with the ideology of Zionism or the Israeli state as a belligerent occupier. We never write ARBPIA articles like "The Zionist Occupation Government has been accused of human rights violations." - if you can show me even one example where this might conceivably present confusion, I will take it into serious consideration. Hamas uses the phrase "Zionist entity" - the term "Zionist Occupation Government" is widely and exclusively in use regarding the subject matter of this article. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 02:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to unilaterally rewrite the article. I'm just making changes that are (to the best of my judgement) unquestionably correct. Please revert anything you find contentious. Franzboas (talk) 02:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose move No good reason for moving the article has been presented. An editor thinks the inclusion of the phrase "conspiracy theory" is definite bias"? Are we being too mean toward the poor little conspiracy theorists? Please read WP:NDESC and review the titles of the articles in Category:Conspiracy theories by subject and its subcategories. This is how Wikipedia labels most of its articles about conspiracy theories. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 03:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You're being aggressive and missing the point. It's not about whether we're "being mean to the conspiracy theorists", it's about the fact that this term is usually used to complain about Jewish/Zionist influence rather than to imply an actual conspiracy. Zionist influence in Western goverments, particularly the US's, is a well-established fact. Many people don't like this influence, some people complain about it, and some go so far as to use terms like "ZOG" to refer to it. This doesn't mean that they believe in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion nonsense. Considering that very few people believe that stuff, it's best that the title of this term's article doesn't misrepresent its most common use.
 * Also, you reverted my edits on the basis that they weren't cited while the content I replaced was. However, what I said was common knowledge, and the current statements about Zionism are cited with a vaguely related passage from a fringy and fluffy intersectional sociology book. The statements are also directly contradicted by the common knowledge that Zionists have powerful lobbies (e.g. AIPAC) throughout the West. Regardless, I'll look for some citations of my own. Franzboas (talk) 03:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Also note that this article's last paragraph makes the same point I've been making and includes two citations. I'll add some citations of my own tomorrow. Franzboas (talk) 04:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I added a source and also added a source for the "various right wing groups" phrase that remained unsourced - there was some back and forth here about whether Steve Bannon should be mentioned by name. It seems that it was decided to leave him out, so I have added the specific groups that are named in the source. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 04:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's correct to compare ZOG to legitimate criticism of AIPAC. ZOG originates from the Turner Diaries - I have not reviewed the sources in enough detail to see if the Protocols of Elder Zion metatheory is WP:OR. Generally this term is linked to the Turner Diaries and certain organizations (mostly based in the U.S.) - pushing the argument that the Protocols have enduring relevance and influence is fringe. The Aryan Nations included it in their declaration, that can be reliably sourced, but how important is it for the ideologies of the other groups? Seraphim System  ( talk ) 04:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Basically, I can speak from experience that ZOG is frequently used by popular non-conspiracy-theorizing figures on the far-right and alt-right to disparagingly refer to establishment government institutions with heavy Zionist and/or Jewish influence, especially in the context of Middle East interventionism. As far as I can tell, this is the primary use of the term these days. It's easily verifiable by searching popular far-right outlets:
 * https://www.google.com/#q=site:altright.com+%22ZOG%22
 * https://www.google.com/#q=site:therightstuff.biz+%22ZOG%22
 * I'll step away from this discussion for a little while because MShabazz seems fixing for a fight and I'd rather let it sit for a little. Franzboas (talk) 04:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a move discussion anyway, we have gotten way off track. After he cursed at me during a consensus discussion I have asked MShabazz to keep his distance from me. I have not interacted with him since, and I will not. Of course, commenting on a move discussion is open to all and does not require any interaction between us. I will not fight with him or even acknowledge him after he cursed at me for posting sources in response to a template that he posted. Given his recent outbursts of aggression, I will not be surprised if he eventually is blocked for his consistently uncivil tone. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 05:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * In an edit summary I am seeing a reference to a distinction between "genuine belief and disparaging usage". An entity, such as an individual or an organization, can profess that their belief is genuine but we don't have to incorporate that misunderstanding into our project in the form of a title that has the effect of legitimizing disparagement of a legitimate government. Until a variety of substantial sources characterize Israel as an Occupational Government, I don't see how we can title our article simply "Zionist Occupation Government". This is biased as it does not reflect the substantial characterization found in sources of the particular political entity under consideration. Bus stop (talk) 12:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose move I haven't seen any guideline or policy reason and the fact that it's used by people who believe in Jewish conspiracies/domination etc is more of a reason to keep the name than change it. The name "Zionist Occupation Government" also appears pov. Not surprisingly it's the title of articles at "Rightpedia" which says "Zionist Occupation Government (often abbreviated as ZOG) refers to the control of many countries by Zionist organizations, while the formal government is a puppet regime or bureaucracy." and Metapedia which says "Zionist Occupation Government (often abbreviated as ZOG) is an expression used to refer to the large Jewish influence. In politically correct sources the expression is argued to always refer to a secret conspiracy theory similar to The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. However, this is not necessarily how the term is used. For example, the term may be used to refer to the large influence of the Israel lobby on Western countries." The rightpedia article is much longer and much more disgusting, run mainly by a banned Metapedia editor. In fact, the Metapedia article on Rightpedia is interesting and I believe correct. Sorry for the diversion.  Doug Weller  talk 12:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I've given policy reasons, but I don't expect anyone to read the discussion before commenting so I will repeat myself (though it should be obvious without my saying it), the title is too long. How about ZOG conspiracy theory? Seraphim System  ( talk ) 19:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose move This is an easy call. There's no such thing as a "Zionist Occupation Government". There is such a thing as a "Zionist Occupation Government conspiracy theory". The sum total of Franzboas' arguments is classic WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As a side note: check Franzboas' contributions page. Shows up two weeks ago, immediately has a firm grasp on Wikipedia edits, protocol, and policies, immediately starts in with anti-Jewish edits on The Culture of Critique series, and then proposes this move? Certainly looks like an attempt to make the conspiracy theory look more legitimate to readers that don't know what it is going in. If that account isn't a sockpuppet, I'll eat my keyboard. Rockypedia (talk) 13:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:SOCK
 * If you want to be a WP:SOCK, you need to name the other account on your talk page. Also, for the record, there was no indication on your talk page that your account is a sock until AFTER I pointed out above that you are obviously a sock. You still haven't proven that you're a legit sock, you've only admitted (just now) that you are, in fact, a sock. Rockypedia (talk) 18:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, of course I don't have to name the other account if I'm legitimately using this one for privacy. That would defeat the entire purpose of using an alternate account for privacy, as WP:SOCK explains. Also, I don't know why you're still coming after me for this, because User:Bishonen has already discussed this with me on my talk page and seems satisfied that I am a legitimate alternate account. Franzboas (talk) 19:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Um, no—looking at the discussion on your talk page at this time, it does not, in fact, appear that User:Bishonen is satisfied with your legitimacy. ZackTheCardshark (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, I object to the suggestion that I'm making "anti-Jewish edits". I've been on Wikipedia for a long time (as have you), and I've found it consistently easier to get Wikipedians to discuss 9/11 hijackers or serial child rapists objectively than it is to get them to cede the tiniest obvious factual correction in articles that discuss the critique of Jewish influence in Western cultures. This place is an echo chamber to a frightening degree. Franzboas (talk) 15:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Only inside an echo chamber could a "critique of Jewish influence in Western cultures" be taken seriously. Outside the chamber, in the fresh air, it's no more fringe than it deserves to be. ZackTheCardshark (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This is exactly the sort of counterproductive hysterics I'm talking about. I'm only trying to keep things fair, neutral, and uncensored. I'm entirely happy to name crimes and conspiracy theories when and where it's encyclopedic to do so. See 11th Hour Remnant Messenger, written entirely by me, for an example. Franzboas (talk) 19:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you even hear yourself? The person worrying about the creeping influence of Jews accuses those not concerned about such a thing of hysterics. ZackTheCardshark (talk) 19:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I am accusing of hysterics the person who alluded to me gassing Jews because I questioned the neutrality of a Wikipedia article's title and tone.
 * On the topic more generally: it is a fact that Jews are extremely overrepresented by proportion in politics, media, lobbying, academia, and journalism, among other fields. There are some good reasons for this, but it can lead to Jewish interests (e.g. Zionism) getting coverage and support that the general public doesn't consider fair or neutral. This is not a conspiracy theory - it's a simple observation based in fact - but it does lead to conspiracy theories and hate. Distinguishing between reasonable and unreasonable critiques of Jewish influence (or Western influence, or WASP influence, or American influence, or Chinese influence...) demands level-headedness and dispassionate consideration of evidence, not gas chamber allusions. Franzboas (talk) 19:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No one mentioned gas chambers except you just now. Interesting insight into your thought processes, though. ZackTheCardshark (talk) 19:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You're going to argue that your "fresh air" clause wasn't a reference? Either way, I'm done with this discussion. Franzboas (talk) 19:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank Spaghetti Monster for small favors. Rockypedia (talk) 19:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope, that honestly never occurred to me. Just playing with the metaphor of the echo chamber (which you brought up), where sounds traveling through the atmosphere outside don't penetrate to the interior where a cacophony of echoes bounce back and forth at each other. I think you've got gas chambers on the brain, because it's not normal to leap to that idea from "fresh air."
 * Glad you're done, though. ZackTheCardshark (talk) 20:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose move A clear analogy: Chemtrail conspiracy theory. We don't dignify that with a move to Chemtrails because chemtrails don't exist. Same situation here, except more so because this conspiracy theory is often used as a justification for hate crimes. ZackTheCardshark (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose move as per concerns of Doug Weller and MShabazz. Also: Well, then... GABgab 23:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose move We are an encyclopedia, we are not an alt-right media outlet. We do not need to present conspiracy theories in a neutral matter. Facts are facts. Racist and hateful anti-Semitic conspiracy theories are racist and hateful anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. As Rockypedia says there's no such thing as a "Zionist Occupation Government". The nom is an undeclared and conflicted sock who is engaging in typical anti-Semitic slurs and rhetoric. AusLondonder (talk) 09:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose per ZackTheCardshark ForbiddenRocky (talk) 20:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per . The nominator's rationale gives no policy-based reasons for such a move. Since the topic of the article is a conspiracy theory, it would be lending undue credence to it by removing the words "conspiracy theory" from the title. It would be just the same as trying to re-title Free energy suppression conspiracy theory to "Free energy suppression", as if either "free energy" or its suppression were a reality. --RexxS (talk) 16:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. We should not, and usually do not, add "conspiracy theory" to titles simply because they are conspiracy theories. The vast majority of relevant titles, including the former FA Protocols of the Elders of Zion, nearly all other articles in Category:Conspiracy theories involving Jews, and many others such as Atlantis, Bigfoot, Grey alien, Philadelphia Experiment, Men in black, Black helicopter, and Ancient astronauts, do not do this. It is used in some cases like Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories where a descriptive title is necessary, but that's not the case here. This conspiracy theory is demonstrably known as "Zionist Occupation Government" more than "Zionist Occupation Government conspiracy theory".
 * The present title fails all the WP:CRITERIA of the WP:AT policy. It is not more recognizable, as the Google Books results show. It is not more natural, in that it's not a commonly used, natural title. It's more precise than necessary, and is obviously less concise. And it's not more consistent with similar articles, which typically do not add "conspiracy theory" to the end.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment This is such an obviously flawed comparison that I don't even know why I have to make this comment. Of course there's more results for the first three words alone then the those same three words as part of a longer string of five words - the results for the second search are all part of the results for the first one! We don't accept google page counts for obvious reasons even when there's a valid comparison to be made, but this one would get you an F for research in a fifth-grade classroom. Sheesh. Rockypedia (talk) 06:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment but we DO include "conspiracy theory" in the titles of articles when it's appropriate. See White genocide conspiracy theory, Black genocide conspiracy theory, GMO conspiracy theory, UFO conspiracy theory, New World Order (conspiracy theory), Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge conspiracy theory, Bible conspiracy theory, and very recently, Pizzagate conspiracy theory. That's just the first few I found in a five-second search. This article is certainly consistent with those I've listed and probably more. Rockypedia (talk) 06:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * [Post-close comments]: Commenting here after the close per discussion with the closer here, as Rockypedia's edits disrupted the formatting and caused confusion as to who was saying what. To be clear, I supported this move. My further comments on the matter responding to Rocky's claims may be found here.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Support per . I was about to close this as "not moved", but Cuchullain's argument above is actually highly persuasive. The proposed title satisfies all of the WP:CRITERIA, and is the WP:COMMONNAME, so really in terms of policy it's an open-and-shut case. The "oppose" votes above are really WP:IDONTLIKEIT than anything else. "Are we being too mean toward the poor little conspiracy theorists", "we are not an alt-right media outlet" and "lending undue credence to it by removing the words 'conspiracy theory'" are not policies or verifiable facts from reliable sources, they are opinions. We should call this what mainstream sources call it. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The point you're making is one of my two primary arguments for moving. The other is that most uses of the term today refer disparagingly to Zionist influence and Jewish overrepresentation rather than any proper conspiracy theory. (The factual claims of those people are, of course, often exaggerated or downright wrong, but it rarely qualifies as a conspiracy theory.) The source I just added to the end of the article provides further evidence of this. I'll have time to find more soon. Franzboas (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Your entire reason for changing the article title (a title that's been stable and accepted for years) is to make the topic seem less like a conspiracy theory and more like an actual thing that exists. The thing that actually exists is not the "Zionist Occupation Government"; the thing that exists is the "Zionist Occupation Government conspiracy theory." And before you go denying that, please explain this edit - you added a paragraph from a book written by an anti-Semitic Holocaust denier that plainly states his opinion that the ZOG is a real thing. What purpose did that serve? You know full well there's no way any reasonable editor could consider that a WP:RS, but you added it anyway (I removed it). This article doesn't exist to give anti-Semites a platform to explain their beliefs. You need to start your own website for that. If you continue to try to make this article a platform for your views, you can forget it. I'd also like to remind any editors reading Franzboas's tripe that he's an admitted sockpuppet, and only admitted this and stated it on his talk page after I presented evidence of that above. His whole agenda is very clear to me, and I don't know how we're entertaining his POV-pushing move attempt here after overwhelming consensus was against it, for very clear policy reasons. Rockypedia (talk) 06:06, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Buzzwords
The amount of buzzwords in this article is comical — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.66.131 (talk) 02:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons you might want to). --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 17:30, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Information.svg Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.

3rd paragraph
Zionism in the context of ZOG is not misleading, when people refer to countries as ZOG, they are saying that they have Zionist governments. In other words they support the state of Israel. US support of Israel, for example, has been evident in the past. 76.68.32.206 (talk) 21:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Zionism is Israeli nationalism.
 * ZOG is conspiracy theorist bullshit only believed by delusional racists.
 * Big difference. Don't try to whitewash it with ignorant misreadings and unsourced claims.  Ian.thomson (talk) 22:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Seething
 * And a lot of non-racists/anti-racists recognize Zionist influence in western governments. Tell me, how is it a "bullshit conspiracy" if it's objectively evident both in the past and today. It's only a "conspiracy" to you because the governments of ZOG states have labelled it as such to discredit it and you took the bait. 76.68.32.206 (talk) 21:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

What is a conspiracy theory?
Is there any question that the United States government supports the Zionist project and that this support has been largely (there is definitely some dispute on the fringes of the Democrat party) bipartisan for decades? Currently, the largest contributor to US federal elections is Zionist billionaire Sheldon Adelson and members of Congress cannot criticize the influence of AIPAC without massive outrage and being called upon to publicly grovel. What evidence would be sufficient to establish that Zionists are in control of the US government that does not already exist? 71.207.194.170 (talk) 18:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I think the theory of the government being literally occupied by zionists (quite an aggressive position) is less supported by facts, at least in the UK and other EU countries. Making assertions around israeli dual citizenship in the US are weak but do raise to fair point of how US allegience can be clearly discerned, there's also sourced points on this issue of making pledges to israeli interests before getting access to funding for political campaigns. (I think these last points on pledges can probably be sourced better, I'm certain I've come across other materials detailing this for other politicians in the US, but this is a clear example of Zionism being a prerequisite forced on candidates/filtering out candidates.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DragArse (talk • contribs) 00:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Collapse per WP:TPO and WP:NOTFORUM. You're welcome to add your suggestions about how to improve the article here, but not to expound on your personal theories about it. The Talk page is for discussion about how to concretely improve the article. If you would like to ask general questions about the topic, you can do so at the Reference Desk, or the Tea house. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)