Talk:Zionist Occupation Government conspiracy theory/Archive 2

message: 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."[] 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."[] 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) []
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"[] 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
# No sources provided claim that ZOG is a canard.
# Even if it did say that ZOG was a canard, labeling the article as a canard transmogrifies opinion into fact. It would be like going to any article, citing a person who says that belief is false, and then tagging "false" into the categories.
NPOV Concerns
# 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.
# 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.
# Calling something "false and baseless" is taking a stand.
Logical Concerns
# 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.
# 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.
# 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)- 
# 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) 
# 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), , p. 45." -- User:Jayjg
Anti-Canard (User:.V.,User: Ishikawa Minoru,User: Ireneshusband) -
# 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.
# 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)
replies: text: .V., trolling didn't work, and elbowing your POV in won't work either. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Request for Comment 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thank you for improving the article, Krator. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Issue 

message: This artcle has a neutrality tag. Why?
More to the point, why was the neutrality tag removed?! This article is very one sided and treats the subject with contempt. It doesn't explain WHY these groups consider there to be a "ZOG" and what "evidence" can be used to support the claim that there is indeed a "ZOG". I'm sticking the neutrality tag back on! Christopedia (talk) 01:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: Not that I would read a book like the Turner Diaries, but I do know it shows up in there and that the order is founded largely on ideas espoused in that book.  Is this not the origin of the ZOG term?  Brazzbatch 21:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turner Diaries 

message: How come it can be said that there are "too many" Whites in government, etc... and that we need "diversity" - yet the plain and demonstrable truth is actually there are too many Jews in our government and media.   This is especially puzzling when most of the Jews masquerade as "Whites."   Yet they are not White because Israel is not a White homeland, but a Jew homeland.   It doesn't add up.   But it DOES explain why we give more money to Israel, a miniscule extremely WEALTHY country, than ANY OTHER COUNTRY in aid.   The exception, currently, is Iraq but that invasion was FOR Israel as it was to no benefit of the US and only benefits Israel, so that cost can be billed to Israel, too.   Now Israel wants the US to invade another one of ITS enemies, Iran.   Sounds like ZOG to me.  Quixo 18:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Take your "thoughts" else where please. ps. the cabal will be contacting you shortly :) --Tom 18:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: the accusations of too many whites in the government are not being aired at wikipedia so why whine about it here?Zebulin (talk) 23:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  If it walks like a duck.... 

message: Some people might want to note that many ZOG believers aren't anti-semitic. In fact there are many Orthodox Jewish organizations that also believe in the destructive force of Zionism (especially in regards to their religion and Jew-Palestinian relations).
In fact, one could say, that by siding alongside the united Jews Against Zionism (UJAZ) movement, many ZOG believers are discouraging antisemitism by confining it to only one group of self-proclaimed 'Jews' - the Zionist (whom fundamental Jews taint as not being Jewish). 
Sources:
http://www.nkusa.org/
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/
Judaism versus Zionism video:
http://opposingdigits.com/vlog/?p=541
:You seem to be equating a belief that certain governments are controlled by Zionists, with anti-Zionism.  Obviously they are not the same thing.  I am sure there is a sizable minority of Orthodox Jews in the U.S. who believe Israel should not exist, because that is how they interpret Jewish law.  However, I doubt that any significant number of those people believe that the U.S. government is controlled by Zionists who bend U.S. policy to their will.  The "Zionist" in "ZOG" is really just a euphemism for "Jewish."  6SJ7 17:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antisemitism is not ubiquitously espoused amongst ZOG believers. Quite the contrary. 

message: That anti-zionism = anti-semitism is the zionist perspective - and disputed by pretty much everyone who opposes Zionism. Having someone with that perspective write this article is like having the anti-Nazi League write the Nazism article (or vice-versa) and is NOT a neutral point of view.
Personally, I find the idea of "ZOG" an overstatement (with unfortunate comic-sounding overtones) of what is an immensely powerful lobby. But nothing gives the idea of an all-powerful Zionist lobby more mileage than that lobby's insistence, and enormous success, in ensuring wikipedia Israel-related articles are all written from their perspective, and any, usually quite reasonable, dissent is crushed.
*
Yeah, I thought that would happen - 'belief' is a neutral term but it has to be 'conspiracy theory'... I knew there was no point in making any other changes beyond the minor ones I made... takes far less time for someone to come along and press undo... all proves the point I was making though.
KBuck
:Do you have any reliable sources which back up your claims? Jayjg (talk) 20:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't recall seeing anything from Mtiedemann on my Talk: page, though I could be wrong. In any event, Wikipedia relies on information from reliable sources, and Talk: pages are for the purpose of discussing specific changes to article content. Which specific parts of this article do you think should be changed, exactly what should be changed in them, and what are the reliable sources that back up your suggestions? Jayjg (talk) 02:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Like having the anti-Nazi league write the Nazism article 

message: I always thought that ZOG stands for "Zionist Occupied Government", not "Zionist Occupation Government"....  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kami888 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ZOG? 

message: what precisely makes a conspiracy theory "antisemetic"?
*Generally the people who invent the antisemitic conspiracy theory. It's funny that way. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. Not sure why this section was undeleted. Just because someone thinks their paranoid beliefs aren't antisemetic doesn't make it so. Sorry. Hairhorn (talk) 04:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Yawn. "antisemitism" means specifically "hatred of Jews", so it's irrelevant that "some non-Jews are also semites"; the word does not mean what its etymology suggests. And, yes, the "ZOG" idea is totally antisemitic. Or, if you prefer, totally Jew-hating. --jpgordon::==( o ) 00:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  what precisely makes a conspiracy theory "antisemetic"? 

message: The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy is an academic book about Zionist influence in American politics. Has this book ever been cited by proponents of the ZOG theory ? It would appear that the book merely says what some of the ZOG people have been talking about, but in a more intelligent and acceptable way. ADM (talk) 18:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah. It's just vandalism, so we keep an eye on the article and fix it when someone messes it up. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Hey, the entry about the Nazis is pretty unbalanced too. I mean, it even mentions that Hitler was a Nazi. I call Godwin's law! 24.47.154.230 (talk) 21:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

text: We could try to get some Jews mad at this article. In my experience, the best sign of a balanced article is drawing fire from both sides. --Kizor 16:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually Zog is not necessarily an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. One can note the heavy influence the Zionist Movement has on Western Governments without hating Jews. In fact this article in it's 3rd paragraph: "As the conspiracy theorists chiefly name countries outside that area, the usage of Zionist in this context is misleading, and intended to portray Jews as conspirators who aim to control the world, " makes a big mistake in saying because the areas are outside [Israel] they don't mean Zionists they mean Jews. This is absolute nonsense as Zionists can exist out side of Israel and indeed most of them done. This article terrible and needs rewording to remove the imbalance. Vexorg (talk) 19:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, just need to keep it straight to avoid a revert war.--Львівське (talk) 20:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Who is identifying 'The Israel Lobby' with ZOG? That would be you. Since the article doesn't claim that the authors adhere to that theory, the book can hardly serve as a counterexample. Please read what the term actually refers to before claiming it is not antisemitic. 85.181.250.15 (talk) 18:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  the third paragraph of this article is misleading. It tries to turn 'Zionist' into 'Jew' without any source. Zionist Occupation Government means a theory that the Zionist Movement is running the the government, not 'Jews'. Not all Zionists are Jews and not all jews are Zionists.  The Israel Lobby is identified with ZOG by default. The Zionist Movement is an Israel Lobby. There is nothing racist about claiming a political movement like the Zionist Movement as having a domination on power in governments. Vexorg (talk) 04:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  In fact the 3rd paragraph turns 'Zionist controlled government' into 'Jews control the world'. It should be removed from the article. Vexorg (talk) 04:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

text:  Reference added. Thank you for pointing that out. 85.181.253.45 (talk) 12:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy 

message: Do you think we could add a section about how this type of theory is used by the far left? It appears in variations, most commonly the "AIPAC controls the Congress" canard, but it is not fundamentally different from the "Zionists control the government" libel. This article as it is mentions only its use by the far right, but I think it is just as commonly used by the far left. For evidence, see any Huffington Post article on Israel and read the comments thread. 168.122.153.204 (talk) 21:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: While I'm certain that there are people on the left which hatch some antisemitic, anti-zionist theories, I'd be reluctant to add that to this article, as it is about a certain term. So unless leftists used it (possible) and a reliable secondary source reported on it (not too probable) I don't think it should be added. Generally, this is better suited for Jewish Lobby. 87.166.100.223 (talk) 07:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, I didn't realize that there was a separate article for Jewish Lobby. I agree that, if a reliable source can be found, it is better suited to be there. Thank you. --168.122.153.235 (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

text: This article adequately represents what reliable secondary sources write on the topic of this conspiracy theory. The point that ZOG ultimately is antisemitic and is a concealed reference to jews is supported by RS. Please refrain from unconstructive edits. 87.166.60.188 (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

text: I just reviewed your recent edits to this article. They are unhelpful and, frankly, ridiculous. Taking your edits in other articles and user pages into account, I'd suggest you take your agenda elsewhere. 87.166.60.188 (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use by the far-left 

message: Anti-Zionist does NOT equal antisemite.  Anti-Zionist does NOT equal "neo-nazi".  This entire article needs to be rewritten from a NEUTRAL point of view! (which I will probably have to do personally when I have the time.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.157.218 (talk) 13:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Calm down. This article is not about anti-zionism, but about the antisemitic theory of ZOG. Please stop your unhelpful edits and accusations. 78.48.53.199 (talk) 08:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What the hell? Anti-Zionism has zero to do with ZOG. Try actually reading the article you're editing. As for not explaing my reversions, there is no requirement to explain edits that revert vandalism, which is how your edits look to me. I am far from being the only one reverting them.Hairhorn (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I find some rather overt POV pushing in your and the more recent reverters edits. The fact that you have the gall to not want to discuss this, or explain yourself just makes matters worse.--Львівське (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Listen: this article is about the idea that western governments are controlled ("occupied") by zionists. This idea is mostly put forward by right-wing group and by now may have been taken up by the more ferociously antisemitic part of antizionists. It is antisemitic because it is in the tradition and takes its cues from older antisemitic libel such as the Protocols, and makes zionism generally replacable jewry. The article may indeed be improved and lacks detail, but to describe ZOG as anything else that what it is, would not be neutral at all. 78.49.80.209 (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seriously, if you want to make edits that are against consensus and against common sense, it's just your tough luck that they keep being reverted. Hairhorn (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

text: If you can't tell the difference between Israeli influence in the US and ZOG you probably shouldn't edit the article. Hairhorn (talk) 21:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh. No one's debating whether you can be anti-Israel without being antisemetic, because that's not what this entry is about. Try reading it. Hairhorn (talk) 11:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  hairhorn, you will cease your unexplained reversions 

message: There is no source saying ZOG is antisemitism. This should be edited. Or what do you guys think?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUCHERS22 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please check reference 5. 134.106.41.232 (talk) 12:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  ZOG=Antisemitism? 

message: This article is one of a  number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue   are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.
The following request appears on that page:
Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes"  would be appreciated.
Please update the Queue page as appropriate.
Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially
Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pending changes 

message: "Zionist Occupation Government or Zionist Occupied Government (abbreviated as ZOG) is an antisemitic conspiracy theory which holds that Jews secretly control a given country, while the formal government is a puppet regime."
Evidence? None.
"The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a fraudulent antisemitic text purporting to describe a Jewish plan to achieve global domination. The text was fabricated in the Russian Empire, and was first published in 1903."
Evidence? None.
It's sad to see that the most used internet source of information on the globe is already taken by the typical zionist arrogance and lies. I wonder what happened to impartiality.189.115.216.84 (talk) 18:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOTAFORUM. Spaceclerk (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: He was just asking for sources, no? ie. ?--Львівське (talk) 19:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence? 

message: Speaking from experience,
I am an anti-zionist conspiracy theorist, I can assure you I am not an anti-semite nor am I anti-Jewish.
This man is also an Anti-Zionist, and quite obviously not Anti-Jewish.  He is also an Anti-Zionist conspiracy theorist - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxiwBpbGmoU - 
Please amend the tone of this article.
::There is no need to alter the tone, for the simple fact that this entry is not about Zionism. This seems to be a tough nut to crack for some people. Hairhorn (talk) 19:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It concludes that anyone who considers Israel to be the victim of the Zionist Occupation Government is a conspiracy theorist, an anti-semite and is portraying Jews as conspirators in attempts to rule the world.  This is ludicrous.  Amend the tone of the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Storris (talk • contribs) 14:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Since that's not what the article says at all, it's quite unnecessary, not to say impossible, to amend it in this regard. SK (talk) 15:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a hard time believing that the use of the term 'ZOG' or the opposition to its supposed existence is simply reducible to antisemitism. I would imagine there might be an antisemitic strain of people or groups of people that use the term 'ZOG' but  the article raises a lot of suspicion to the reader when it bears the claim that it is objectively antisemitic. Perhaps the article could be reworded or expanded to clarify this. BakuninGoldmanKropotkin (talk) 00:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you seriously suggesting there might be people who think that jews are secretly running things but aren't anti-semites? Hairhorn (talk) 01:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not Jews, but people who are seeking the expansionism of the Jewish political state, which is what Israel is. BakuninGoldmanKropotkin (talk) 01:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As stated in the article (perhaps it could be clearer), this is a conspiracy theory about countries outside of Israel, generally in the West, often the United States. The "Zionist occupation" is about the fictitious Jewish/Zionist occupation of these countries. Not to be confused with the actual Israeli occupation of Palestine, Sinai, etc. If this is unclear from the article, feel free to (appropriately) specify it a bit more.--Carwil (talk) 23:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  if you dont want to confuse actual Zionism with anti semitism then dont put both terms in the same article and try to pretend that being anti zionist is the same as being anti semitic. The article is literally called ZIONIST Occupation Government conspiracy theory. It didnt say Jewish Occupation Government conspiracy theory. Zionism is a movement, Jewish as a religious group and a race. Being against a movement and believing in the conspiracy theories of said movement is not the same as being against Jews as a race therefore the article is wrong to call it anti semitism  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.130.132.2 (talk) 11:01, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

text: Article is insane. Does anyone seriously believe that Zionists do not occupy Israel? 47.137.189.77 (talk) 16:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Zionism ≠ Anti-Semitism 

message: This is not true. Zydokomuna != ZOG. See thisarticle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%BBydokomuna  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.5.56.118 (talk) 10:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "...and various far-right groups, including some in Poland" 

message: i think the title should be: "the Zionist Occupation Government Conspiracy", no? Tamarnet (talk) 10:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: More like "The Zionist Occupation Government Conspiracy theory". --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not every conspiracy is a "theory". If something has been proven, do you still call it a "theory", in the same way we call evolution a "theory"? --2602:306:C4EF:2BA0:F4AC:DA32:4D67:289F (talk) 10:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The ZOG has not been proven true, it is a conspiracy theory, a theory about a conspiracy. There is no evidence supporting its existence, you give people who perpetuate the ZOG too much credit.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by PromethiumElemental (talk • contribs) 15:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

text: A theory is something based on an amassed basis of evidence. It is considered to be true. For instance, gravity is a theory. 47.137.189.77 (talk) 17:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  the title 

message: Larsson is indeed a novelist, best known for the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo trilogy, but this book is not a novel, but a collection of documentary articles by him, from his time as an investigative journalist. The 6th Floor (talk) 17:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Stieg Larsson

message: The information on the catholic inquisition has nothing to do with the 1900s neo-nazi Zionist Occupation Government Conspiracy Theories. It should be removed. Also the citations have nothing to do with the ZOG conspiracy theories and would be better placed in an wiki on the inquisition.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.7.196.149 (talk) 14:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the paragraph. It's possible that the newer conspiracy theories have roots in the ideas of the Inquisition but since any such claim hasn't been appropriately sourced, it's gone. And it's worth pointing out that this was a particularly insidious, disgusting bit of text. It connected the antisemitic conspiracy stuff this article is about to "views held by some Catholics since the times of the Inquisition" and sourced it to articles about Pope John Paul II apologizing for the Crusades, the Inquisition, and other unnamed transgressions. Why not "since the Renaissance?" RunnyAmiga (talk) 14:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The inquisition of the 1400s is irrelevant to ZOG conspiracy theories.