Talk:Judeo-Masonic conspiracy theory

message: Translating from :es:Conspiración Judeo-Masónico-Comunista-Internacional. Any help welcome ---- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 (Talk: here- commons- es) 11:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From memory, Luis Carrero Blanco had published on the conspiracy even in the 1970s. If you can confirm, it can be added as evidence of the persistence of the theory even in late Francoism. --Error (talk) 22:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: translating

message: Just curious, do you know off hand which wikipolicy allows you to write:
:The International-Communist-Judaeo-Masonic Conspiracy, sometimes called the international-marxist-judaeo-masonic conspiracy, or simply the judaeo-masonic conspiracy
I assume you have at least one or two wp:reliable sources for each alternate use? Just wondering. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Jewish lobby" and "Israel lobby" are not synonyms, as has been explained to you over a week ago on the WP:NOR/N board. Jayjg (talk) 04:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, it is curious that communist/marxist element of conspiracy is missing in the title of the article.DonaldDuck (talk) 04:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Gosh, what a coincidence Jayjg should be editing on this page. So I guess Jayjg is saying that "International-Communist-Judaeo-Masonic Conspiracy", sometimes called the "international-marxist-judaeo-masonic conspiracy", or simply the "judaeo-masonic conspiracy" are NOT synonymous - or I should say he's saying that you have to have reliable sources saying that the first two are "also called" "judaeo-masonic conspiracy"? Guess I'll have to look at the sources for that when I get a chance. According to Jayjg's rules, you will have to delete them without a reliable source. Even if you find 700 mainstream WP:RS articles that USE them interchangeably.  Hey, I could spend the rest of my time on wikipedia deleting such nonreferenced synonyms in leads. CarolMooreDC (talk) 06:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipolicy on synonyms in lead??

message: The link http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ASInt_13/5374_13.htm  you have provided is hearsay as it doesn't prove where exactly such article exists. Please try to show the proof itself. I tried to google http://www.pravda.ru but got no relevant results.
The same goes with http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/v14n1p-4_Weber.html, where Max-Who-Weber tells something about private opinion of one scandalous person. That's not a proof also.
http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2007/belarus.html -- Republic of Belarus is independent from Russia since 1991, not sure why its problem attribute to Russia. Also Klimov is U.S.citizen.
The page http://www.nationalka.ru/2006-3-5-93-95-/v.v.-kozhinov-tsarj-iudeyskiy.html doesn't mention conspiracy or blood at all. Why have you put it here?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Volodymir k (talk • contribs) 15:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  RE edit war with DonaldDuck on alleged "Russia renewal" 

message: I'm not so sure if this article does a good enough job in explaining how masons specifically are tied into all of this. It seems more like just flat-out jewish conspiracy theories.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.62.189 (talk) 19:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  masons 

message: To me, some of this has frightening similarities with the line pushed by the Alex Jones nuts, - the global Communist-Zionist-Bankers-Liberal-Illuminati-NWO-Masons-Mexican Immigrants-Environmentalist-UN conspiracy-Vaccins-etc-etc to kill our grandmas and take away our freedom and enslave us to the NWO etc. Or more moderately the Rush Limbaugh line which sticks to the Communist-UN-Bankers-Liberal-Environmentalist conspiracy to take away all that we work for and kill our grandmas. It would be of interest if there is any source talking about the current right-wing conspiracy theorizing rage movement in the United States and the similar kind of rhetoric that was used by Franco and the Nazis and so on.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.247.85.103 (talk) 05:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similarities with Alex Jones etc? 

message: This article gives almost no information about the actual theory, and instead just seems like a long effort to discredit and mock the anyone who considers or considered it, and tries its very best to conflate it with "anti-semitism" (which presumably means anti-jewish, even those jews and semites are not identical terms).  Poor article.--82.43.47.6 (talk) 23:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor Article 

message: Thanks for the laugh.  This article is so funny.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.226.104.225 (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Laugh 

message: This is worth the square root of bugger all as reference, it's a poorly constructed parody piece that needs a big flashing ORIGINAL RESEARCH sign at the top if not outright deleted.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.253.102 (talk) 20:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pull the article 

message: I've removed the sentence that said that many Royalists were Freemasons, among them the Count of Artois, later King Charles X. The reason I removed it is because the source does not say many Royalists were Freemasons. To the contrary, it says that it was "remarkable" that Artois became a Freemason because of his conservatism, noting masonry's radical reputation. It also says, on the following page, that "Artois was not the only reactionary Freemason", also mentioning de Maistre - the clear implication being that conservatives and royalists were not likely to be Freemasons. I also think the sentence is of dubious relation to the subject. It doesn't really deal with the issue of the conspiracy theory. Mamalujo (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence re Count of Artois and many Masons being royalists 

message: I've never seen so much rubbish on Wikipedia. Hardly any of the sources are reliable and the whole piece seems a fabricated work intended to push some silly agenda. Vexorg (talk) 03:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Having looked at it, it is simply poor treatment of an important topic.  You have hit on the point, though, which is that it pushes a "silly agenda".  Said silly agenda has led to several dictatorships and multiple millions of deaths.  The agenda may be silly, but the results are not.  I have cleaned some of this article up, as it meanders far too often, but it does need a lot of work and may need to be stripped down further and rebuilt. MSJapan (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Where is the source for a Judeo-Masonic conspiracy theory? The only real sourced stuff I see is about anti-Semitism, which should be included in the Anti-Semitism article. Where is this alleged "Judeo-Masonic conspiracy theory" responsible for "several dictatorships and multiple millions of deaths" ? anti-Semitism yes, but not a Judeo-Masonic conspiracy theory. Anything of any substance and notability in this article should be put in the more appropriate article and this article deleted. Vexorg (talk) 04:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  MSJapan (talk) said: "Said silly agenda has led to several dictatorships and multiple millions of deaths. " - what nonsense. You cannot even come close to providing evidence for that absurd claim. Vexorg (talk) 02:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If you believe that the article should be deleted, then the appropriate thing to do is to propose its deletion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.  That would be a good place for you to explain your objections to the article.  If you are going to propose that the article should be deleted, I suggest that you propose that it be redirected to the article on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.  My impression is that the Protocols is the major source for belief in a Judeo-Masonic conspiracy.--Toddy1 (talk) 04:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article should be deleted 

message: What about the guidelines regarding reliable sources? Vexorg (talk) 06:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, you didn't give me a diff, but a revision, so I don't know what it is you're talking about, but how exactly does whatever source it is you're taking about not meet reliability? MSJapan (talk) 19:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  See the wikipedia guidelines for what constitutes a reliable source. Vexorg (talk) 01:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, it's a revision, not a diff, so every source is present.  Which source are you talking about? MSJapan (talk) 07:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable source 

message: This is not a reliable source. Vexorg (talk) 02:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the section "Extension to Zionism" because it is contentious and unsourced. Per WP:V "Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed." The first paragraph in the section was sourced to a blog called sweetliberty. Self-published blogs are not reliable sources per WP:BLOGS. The second paragraph is completely unsourced. Please discuss here before restoring this material.  Thank you. Brmull (talk) 06:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable source [2] 

message: ::re: Toddy1's comment that "a reliable source calls this Judmas"... Actually, I have to question whether the term "Jumas" comes from a reliable source.  Unless I am missing something, it was coined by an adherent of the theory (Admiral Domvile)... and that single adherent seems to be the only person who uses the term.  There is no indication that it was picked up and used by other adherents to the theory (much less scholars studying the phenomenon of the theory) or that anyone else uses the term.  At best, the term needs to be presented with in text attribution and mentioned later in the text (ie moved out of the lede sentence).  It's a question of WP:Undue weight.  Unless the term is commonly used by other adherents of the theory, I don't think it should be mentioned as an alternative name for the theory (and especially not in the lede sentence). Blueboar (talk) 13:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Judmas

message: The real term should be "Judeo-Masonic-Bolshevism". That is the term used by Fr. Coughlin and others. It is in Catholic texts. Masonry and Bolshevism or International Socialism have the same goals "To build a One World". That is the goal of both. That is why the adjective "international" is in front of the term "socialism" for. Bolshevism is Jewish ideology and Masonry was instigated by the Jews. Scottish Rite Masonry has many references from the Kabbala. One World is a necessary ingredient for the Messianic Age to occur. In order for the Jews to have their Messiah, they must have the Messianic Age. Here is a talk by an orthodox Rabbi: The Messiah It means that World Peace has to be established, and for the supposedly Unity of Man to be restored. And so it is up to the Jews to create this "Messianic Age". 
Masonry and Communism/Marxism/International Socialism/Bolshevism, are about establishing this World Peace and Unity of Man. This is why it is a conspiracy. The Unity of Man is an evil. The Tower of Babel. Later I will gather and post the pertinent links for the people creating this article. But the real term is "Judeo-Masonic-Bolshevism" for both Masonry and Communism had Jewish origins or influence and both accomplish for the Jews their goal of a One World and World Peace. WHEELER (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: The real term

message: "Anti-Semitism is widespread within Britain’s Muslim community. Polls have shown that 46 percent of British Muslims think that the Jewish community is “in league with Freemasons to control the media and politics.”"Britain’s Anti-Semitic Turn"
This text is sourced to FrontPage Magazine which is not a reliable source, and is know for an "anti-islamist" POV.  It does not even say what polls they are referring to.  We need a reliable secondary source to comment on polls.  What is the likelihood that 46% of British Muslims have even heard of freemasons?
Therefore I will remove the edit.
TFD (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Muslims

message: Surely this is a highly relevant source. A hugely influential mainstream politician claiming elements within Judaism were behind the French Revolution. And he never retracted it. I would suggest reference to this belongs in the lead.46.233.116.225 (talk) 13:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Except ledes aren't meant to be that detailed.  Donald Trump claimed Obama was a Muslim and didn't retract it, either. The existence of the statement doesn't mean it means something.  Politicians say a lot of things.  Having read the article (which I had to find, and it's the Illustrated Daily Herald in 1920), it's only one line out of a much larger piece that says a lot of different things about Jews.  Lastly, I'm not sure David Irving's website is a "reliable, non-neutral" source, considering his history. MSJapan (talk) 17:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  if not in the lead then surely in the article. Churchill's article is about different kinds of jews and is by perhaps the most preeminent western politician of modern times and a nobel prize winner for both peace and literature. Also who meantioned david irving? i didn't. Are you using this to try and discredit? I drink beer. irving drinks beer therefore i should be judged as somehow akin to irving?.. good grief... furthermore i don't realy think what you have written has much merit in this discussion. Trumps utterances, whilst relevant on a page about Trump Obama interactions are not on the same level as Churchill's published essays. I move we think about ways to include Churchill's opinion.81.153.115.134 (talk) 18:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suggest we move for consensus to add this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.115.134 (talk) 23:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you're going to get it. I don't think it belongs in the article and can't find it mentioned in any scholarly works. I don't think he discusses the topic of this article in any case. Doug Weller (talk) 14:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think consensus to change this page will be possible either. Even primary evidence by perhaps the most famous politician of the C20 is no match for the people who seem to be protecting this page. Perhaps we should ask the JIDF?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.15.128.174 (talk) 12:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

text:  Yes, many, but I'll start with this one. If criticising the Jews in any way automatically invalidates ones opinion and renders one an antisemite, does that make it impossible for them as a group to do anything wrong?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.63.250 (talk) 13:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not the point. The question is the validity of the source, which Churchill clearly states to be Webster, an antisemitic fantasist. There's a difference between criticism and unjustified slander. This tissue of lies isn't criticism. The question of why Churchill wrote it is admittedly fascinating, and needs addressed if this material is going to be included. Now we can look back at Churchill as a great Prime Minister, and a prize winning historian. When he wrote the article, he was still the idiot who screwed up Gallipoli, staking his place on the political ladder. Might be better in Winston Churchill as historian. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

text: Criticizing "the Jews" invalidates one's opinion because it presupposes they act with a common purpose and have collective responsibility.  TFD (talk) 00:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously? Does this standard apply to news agencies who say "Washington said" or "Beijing announced"? TimothyforGod (talk) 22:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Every non-idiot knows that those are placeholders for "the government located in that city". --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, so why do you think such doesn't apply to the Jews? I agree with your statement on common responsibility, but there needs to be neutrality. Your statement doesn't refute my point. TimothyforGod (talk) 12:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: My opinion about the reason for the fact that "the Jews" is not a common wording for some government does not matter. It is still a fact. And I did not mention common responsibility. Please remember that this page is for improving the article. It is not a chatroom. --Hob Gadling (talk)
*We have to remember that this article is not about every conspiracy theory involving Jews … it is about a specific sub-theory that states Jews and Freemasons are conspiring. Given that Churchill was himself a Freemason, I doubt his comments included the anti-Masonic element that would make them relevant for inclusion in this article. Blueboar (talk) 14:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Churchill Article on International Jews in the International Daily Herald 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Judeo-Masonic conspiracy theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120111153423/http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2007/belarus.html to http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2007/belarus.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140729103854/http://ddickerson.igc.org/The_Protocols_of_the_Learned_Elders_of_Zion.pdf to http://ddickerson.igc.org/The_Protocols_of_the_Learned_Elders_of_Zion.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There's a mistake in the legend of the first picture, from the Augustin-Joseph Jacquet's book, it's not an "Aryan" it's a Gaul.  
The character has the symbolic equipment, typical of Gauls, in representations.  
The book should be quoted "in a book" is not a reference. It's not encyclopedic, sources must be mentioned, not vague "a book".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.91.51.235 (talk) 07:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a mistake, if the illustrator felt that Gauls were “Aryan”. Blueboar (talk) 12:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too vague for a source 

message: The description of the Caran Dache.gif could be improved: it describes a banker, a Freemason and a Jew sitting on the peasant's shoulders, but the banker and the Jew are obviously both the same person, the one on top. The bottom guy, with the striped trousers, may be the military. The source is not accessible to me. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm… I would agree that the bottom figure is military (besides the stripe on the trousers, he has a sword, and his coat is of military cut with a sash around the waist)… however, given that this was drawn during the Dreifus affair (when lots of people were concerned about supposed Jewish influence in the French military), I still think that figure is supposed to be “the Jew”. Or… Perhaps they are ALL supposed to be Jews. My take anyway. I also don’t have access to the source. Blueboar (talk) 17:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banker, Freemason and Jew