::::: 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. '''''' [Talk|Email]