Talk:Zionist Occupation Government conspiracy theory

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There aren't any sources that actually prove this is an antisemitic conspiracy theory[edit]

The article cites the ADL, itself a powerful pro-Zionist organization. Not exactly an impartial judge. Wouldn't it be better to reference an unbiased study that's thoroughly examined the main claims of ZOG Theory? Why doesn't this Wikipedia article offer any counter-arguments as well? 2600:6C56:4AF0:9050:5F55:BD07:F342:CE4B (talk) 00:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any citations of "Jewish" sources needs to be avoided, given that these are not independent of the subject - one of WP's key rules. However, if this were to be enforced, there would be no article! 182.239.148.125 (talk) 08:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. See WP:BIASED. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While the ADL isn't a reliable source, your point fails to consider who the burden of proof lies with, one cannot disprove a conspiracy, only prove it. Thats like saying to the 911 conspiracies "Where are the sources disproving the government did it?". The burden of proof lies with the conspirators to prove their conspiracy, not other people to disprove it. ZOG will remain a conspiracy until there is any credible evidence for it. And there are ample sources for it being antisemitic mainly the people associated with its creation and it's underlying implications. 78.183.98.141 (talk) 10:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
where is the proof that it is antisemetic?
the burden of proof lies with the accuser.
I say I'm black, you say no you are not black. Who should give the proof here? Me obviously because I claimed something without proof, but I can just totally ignore your rebuttal by saying that it's a conspiracy theory. And now you have the burden of proof because "one cannot disprove a conspiracy, only prove it"?!! Mouhibay (talk) 08:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ADL aside, there's no shortage of peer-reviewed literature calling ZOG an antisemitic and/or neo-nazi conspiracy theory (e.g. [1], [2]) signed, Rosguill talk 12:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill I reverted the above edit earlier as it is not an edit request and is by a new editor (their 2nd edit in fact). They reverted me but both the edit and the revert were before I gave them an alert. On the other hand, there's the huge notice at the top of this talk page. Their only other edits are at Talk:Zionism but that was a legitimate and good edit request. Doug Weller talk 13:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I saw that and considered reinstating your edit Doug Weller. However, Mouhibay's comment here nominally steers clear of I/P as a topic, so I think this is better addressed by simply providing authoritative sources and putting the issue to bed. signed, Rosguill talk 13:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me. Hopefully the editor will read and abide by the alert if they do think of editing anything clearly in the area. Doug Weller talk 13:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Zionist Entity" Subsection - Relevance?[edit]

Why does an article about a white supremacist conspiracy theory have a subsection about how the Arab world refers to the state of "Israel?" This article even states that the usage of the term "Zionist" by conspiracy theorists is unrelated to actual anti Zionist politics, yet this section, which is just an excerpt from an unrelated article, does not seem remotely related to the ZOG conspiracy theory. For what reason is it part of this article beyond usage of the term "Zionist?" This comes off as an attempt to falsely equate Arab anticolonialism to western white supremacy. I recommend this section be deleted. 2601:602:8B80:7520:1913:EFDD:1C6A:CC6D (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is unrelated to the article topic and amounts to WP:COATRACK. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]