Jump to content

Talk:Zionist Occupation Government conspiracy theory

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

Requested move 3 July 2025

[edit]
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. No support from community for move (non-admin closure) Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 10:33, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zionist Occupation Government conspiracy theory → Zionist occupation government conspiracy theoryZionist occupation government conspiracy theory – The article, including the lead, are under the uncapitalised version. Either the title or the body needs to change. Both have valid arguments. Juwan (talk) 13:42, 3 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 09:18, 15 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 11:58, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Per MOS:CAPSand WP:NCCAPS. While this search of google scholar shows that it is commonly capitalised in source, we see that it is being used to introduce the initialism (ZOG) and that it is frequently seen enclosed in quote marks. While it is a style to cap to show the initials in the expanded form of an abbreviation, this is not our style (MOS:EXPABBR) and it does not indicate necessary capitalisation. Use of quote marks indicate that it is being used as term of art. While capitalisation is often used to denote a term of art, we don't do that per MOS:SIGNIFCAPS and again, it does not indicate necessary capitalisation. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:37, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Add The COMMONNAME is Zionist Occupation Government/Zionist occupation government.The capitalisation of this falls to WP:LOWERCASE at WP:AT, which inturn invokes WP:NCCAPS and consequently MOS:CAPS. The corpus for ngrams is a subset of google books. It does not draw on google scholar. A raw ngram search does not distinguish expected uses of title case such as headings or titles in sources. In this particular case, there are insufficient results in the ngram corpus to determine context [1] and a rewiew of google scholar (or similar) is to be preferred. Such a review does show that it is commonly used to introduce the acronym and that it is commonly enclosed in quote marks. Reviewing the first three pages of the GS search [2], where the term can be seen in snippets of English language sources, it is either lowercase, enclosed in quote marks or used to introduce the initialism in 18 out of 19 sources. This is a coined term and inherently a term of art. The lead of MOS:CAPS states: There are exceptions for specific cases discussed below, which include MOS:EXPABBR and MOS:SIGNIFCAPS. Capitalisation is not a substitute for hyphenation. (Largely in response to the comment by PARAKANYAA. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:18, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Add As an idea (per PARAKANYAA below), this would also fall to MOS:DOCTCAPS and consequently, should not be capitalised - eg Draconian constitution or evolution (for Darwin's theory) in prose and with sentence case for a title. Many things that would fall to DOCTCAPS can also be described as terms of art, since the name has a particular meaning in a particular context - eg evolution in the context of biology. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:03, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would refer to the "conspiracy theory" bit, which no one has suggested we capitalize, not "Zionist Occupied Government". The idea that is discussed is that "ZOG" is some sort of entity, which is what that portion of the title refers to, it is not any of what is enumerated in doctcaps at all. If we were suggesting to capitalize theory your argument would apply, but we aren't so it does not. DOCTCAPS doesn't mean that if there was a title like, idk, "United States of America conspiracy theory" we would have to write it "United states of america conspiracy theory" PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:25, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The military–industrial complex is an idea that describes some sort of entity. Just because something is given a name does not ipso facto mean it has a proper name. We do not see United States of America routinely enclosed in quote marks in sources as we do here. This is another false anaology/straw man argument. This false analogy also makes the argument one of reductio ad absurdum and an appeal to ridicule. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:05, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It does not inherently mean that, sure, but it does if the sources treat it as a proper name universally, as shown by ngrams, virtually all literary sources on this topic, and discuss it as one. The distinction between the use cases for military-industrial complex and this are clear when you have reviewed the literature about this topic and what it refers to and how it is referred to. It is primarily not used in quotes. I could cherry pick a few sources that enclose the United States of America in quotes, I'm sure. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:12, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Capitalisation does not necessarily mean it is being treated as a proper name if it is being used as a term of art or to introduce an acronym and that is what we see happening here. What I said in my first add was Such a review [of Google scholar] does show that it is commonly used to introduce the acronym and that it is commonly enclosed in quote marks. For a review of the first three pages of this search, here the term can be seen in snippets of relevant English language sources, quote marks are used in respect to the term or the acronym in 7 out of 18 source (where one source previously identified was not relevant). I also identified above why ngrams are not pertinent to resolving the issue. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:42, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a term of art, and that a minority of sources use quotation marks does not make it one. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:45, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Those who use the phrase believe it is a real thing, right? That makes it a proper noun. Similarly if a thing is real and I refuse to believe in it, it doesn't stop being a proper noun. We capitalize proper nouns. We should capitalize this supposed organization in the title and the text. SchreiberBike | ⌨  12:11, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many electrons have been spilled since I wrote the above. It is still true. The name of an organization is treated the same whether it is imaginary or real. It is a proper noun and should be capitalized in the title and the text. SchreiberBike | ⌨  13:16, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. As evidenced by an ngrams/google scholar search, [3] usage of the capitalized form is far, far, far higher in all sources, in scholarly and book sources. It is not capitalized because it is an acronym but because this is a specific name of a concept and a proper noun and therefore capitalized. It is regularly referred to not in quote marks. I will correct the article to use this version after this discussion. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:32, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative Zionist occupation government, which is already a redirect to this page. The present title is unnecessary WP:OVERPRECISION (see also WP:CONCISE). This resolves any issue of alleged ambiguity from taking the present title phase in isolation from prose that would provide context. The lead does not use the present title phrase at all. The lead defines the term and is presently in lowercase. Having defined the term and given context in prose, the potential ambiguity is removed. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:18, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would oppose this, if we're using Great Replacement conspiracy theory and Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory we should be doing this for consistency. Conspiracy theories are named conspiracy theories, though I would prefer we not for concision I have lost that battle. Also it still needs to be capitalized - virtually all sources capitalize it, it is a proper noun, I don't think I have ever seen the lowercase form in scholarly work. Lowercasing it is at odds with all sourcing. It also does not help with confusion - it implies that this is a general concept of a government occupied by zionists which is incorporated into many antisemitic theories and not the specific neo-Nazi concept.
    That the article is currently incorrect is not a reason to make the title incorrect. I will fix it once this is closed. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:24, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To: don't think I have ever seen the lowercase form in scholarly work, please see [4] and [5]. If it is being capitalised to introduce an initialism or to denote a term of art, that does not make it a proper name and (per MOS:CAPS) it is not something for which it is necessary to cap. To: It also does not help with confusion - it implies that this is a general concept of a government occupied by zionists which is incorporated into many antisemitic theories and not the specific neo-Nazi concept [emphasis added], such an argument clearly falls to the use of caps for emphasis, significance or distinction and clearly falls to SIGNIFCAPS. General v specific is a matter of articles/determiners used - eg a (general) v the (specific). Specificity is not a defining property of a proper name. A term of art is a common noun phrase that has a specialized meaning in a particular field or profession.[6] It is often denoted by capitalisation, quote marks, italics or a combination of these. Where sources use quote marks with capitalisation or capitalise in direct association with defining the initialism (ZOG), these are not useful in determining whether capitalisation is necessary. If we eliminate such uses from the sample pool (eg Google Scholar), we see mixed usage in sources.
    As to consistency, perusal of the navbox indicates a lot of article titles which don't include conspiracy theory - ie it isn't all that consistent. Furthermore, the COMMONNAME for Moon landing conspiracy theories would be Moon landing hoax (see [7]). We have a convention that appears to go against WP:CRITERIA. CONSISTENT is arguably the weakest CRITERIA. Supporting a dubious convention is a particularly poor argument. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:49, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You just demonstrated my point. The source you linked is not about the article subject! "Zionist occupation" is not equivalent to the subject of this article (the neo-Nazi conspiracy). The move you suggested will conflate them - you have further demonstrated why the capitalization is necessary, and why the conspiracy theory designation is necessary - to avoid conflation with the general idea of "zionist occupation", that you just did. If we eliminate confusion with Zionism (as you did), we see overwhelming usage of the capitalized form when referring to this concept in all sources.
    It is not a term of art, it is a proper noun (as an idea), we capitalize proper nouns. Additionally WP:COMMONNAME, virtually all sources about the subject (not the subject of Zionism) capitalize it. Using sources about Zionism to evidence that the article about this specific conspiracy is nonsensical, and as demonstrated by you is easily conflated with a variety of topics - zionist occupation spoken of in the I/P context, Zionism generally, any of a varity of Zionist conspiracies. It is not a term of art, as the concept is generally referred to. It is not in any way or form a "term of art" because it is not "specialized meaning in a particular field or profession" in any way. It is both the common name and necessary for avoiding confusion, as demonstrated here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:49, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I provided two sources. I acknowledge that the first was a different context (ie the Isralie-Palestine conflict) so I offer this [8] as a substitute. Per WP:TITLEDAB and WP:PRECISION/WP:OVERPRECISION, disambiguation/precision is required to resolve "ambiguity" between actual topics occupying article name space that might occupy the same title. As there is no other article that occupies the proposed name there is no ambiguity/conflation that requires resolution - the proposed name already directs to this article.
    The assertion (proof by assertion) that this is a proper name and not a term of art does not make it so. COMMONNAME applies to the title phrase but WP:LOWERCASE determines its capitalisation (per my first additional comment above). The argument that capitalisation is necessary to distinguish this particular [conspiracy] theory for other more general ideas that the phrase might refer to is ipso facto an argument falling to SIGNIFCAPS and MOS:DOCTCAPS (per my most recent addition above). We see sources (near equally) either using the term to introduce the initialism and/or enclosing the term in quote marks. The former does not indicate this to be a proper name. The latter indicates this is being used as a term of art. As an idea, it has a particular meaning in a particular context (herein). This inherently describes a term of art. The response would appear to demonstrate my point. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:24, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A single source does not outweigh the vast volume of scholarship on this topic. Per ngrams, per a search on google books and google scholar, this is overwhelmingly the form that is used, and one passing mention from a single professor does not evidence. The confusion this would obviously cause would corrupt the scope of this article - why would it not, under that capitalization, refer to the I/P context too? This would represent a massive change of scope.
    Per WP:LOWERCASE, the policy you linked, "words are not capitalized unless they would be so in running text." We would, and should, and do on every other page besides this one, capitalize this term in running text, because it is referring to an entity that neo-Nazis think exists. By not capitalizing it we lose that and it seems to refer to a more generalized concept. Why would this be a term of art? That the group/entity is fictional doesn't make it a term of art, e.g. Justice League not Justic league.
    That some sources refer to it while introducing the acronym doesn't mean we should lower case. Most sources say NASA but we don't write out the full title of NASA in lowercase as National aeronautics and space administration.
    It is not an initialism. You say it "zawg", not z-o-g, so it an acronym. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:39, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    MOS:ABBR covers the use of abbreviations—including acronyms and initialisms ... Splitting hairs over the distinction between an initialism or acronym makes no difference to my argument or the applicability of MOS:EXPABBR as referred to herein. That some sources refer to it while introducing the acronym doesn't mean we should lower case; however, when sources introduce an acronym with capitalisation, it does not evidence that capitalisation is necessary. We do not see National Aeronautics and Space Administration routinely enclosed in quote marks, indicating it would fall to DOCTCAPS or SIGNIFCAPS. NASA is not an idea. This is a false analogy/straw man argument. That the group/entity is fictional doesn't make it a term of art, e.g. Justice League not Justic league. Again, we don't routinely see Justice League routinely enclosed in quote marks - another false analogy. To be accurate, I provided two sources - only to address that you had never seen it lowercased. The scope of an article is defined by the lead. Changing casing of the title does not affect the scope of the article as defined by the lead - another straw man argument. Evolution (lowercased in prose) could refer to any process of gradual change or development but the lead therein defines the scope of that article as referring to the biological theory. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:37, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was simply correcting you on the acronym aspect as you had said that several times. You provided a single source that refers to this concept, the only source I have ever seen do so, and another source about a completely unrelated topic that shows the dangers of conflating - while searching again, it seems that most of the lowercase references to this concept actually appear in the I/P concept, where they don't refer to this conspiracy but actually a completely different topic. The full name of NASA is usually used after the acronym ro introduce it, so that is not any different than this.
    This concept is usally not referred to in quotations! [9] [10] [11][12] [13] [14] [15] From a search, by far the majority of usages are without quotations, overwhelmingly so. You could certainly cherrypick a few sources where the full name of NASA is used in quotes. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:12, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I provided three sources in total for lowercase, of which I acknowledged one was another context. I did not go cherry picking to find uses of quote marks - they were just sitting there on the first pages of the google scholar search. We also see it in this reference used in the article [16]. And this is different from NASA because one would be hard pressed to find examples where it is used with quote marks. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:25, 25 July 2025 (UTC) In this edit, I provided two sources of which one was another context. In this edit, I intended to add another but inadvertently chose the same as one in the first edit. Here is a third one. [17] Cinderella157 (talk) 02:23, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What's the third one you supplied? You supplied the I/P one and Michael as far as I can tell. Even if it was, there is no rule that a term being used in quotations in a minority of sources makes it a term of art. Why is this the evidence you're using? This is not a specialized term in use in only one academic field, it's not an academic term at all, much less a minority of sources. If I manage to find a single source for any three letter agency that refers to its name in quotes, does that make it a term of art, now? Also, the reason most of these sources do this isn't to define it, it's because the term is extremely racist and the authors want to make clear it's not them holding the opinion (as the news source is doing), which also doesn't make it a term of art. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:57, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose since reliable sources prefer capitalization Good day—RetroCosmos talk 23:05, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I note that this article has moved at least seven times in the last ten years and that there have been two further proposals recently (including this one). Hopefully this RM will lead to stability. Andrewa (talk) 09:47, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Parakanyaa. Also, we put conspiracy theory in the title to avoid endorsing it, common practice. Kowal2701 (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 14 July 2025

[edit]
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Procedural close. As noted by others, this is not an appropriate means of challenging a recent move. Please follow the instructions at WP:Move review. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 03:22, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zionist occupation government conspiracy theory → Zionist Occupation Government conspiracy theory – The last discussion should not have been closed as move, there was precisely one support vote and one oppose vote and the support was based off an issue with the article that can be fixed. As evidenced by an ngrams/google scholar search, [18] usage of the proper noun form is far, far, far higher in all sources, in scholarly and book sources this is near universally used as a proper noun and therefore capitalized. The only argument for moving was that the article, incorrectly, uses the lowercase form. That can be quickly rectified and is no reason to more the page to a wrong title. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:14, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It's Zionist Occupied and not Zionist Occupation

[edit]

And not a minorcase o Zionist-occupied too.

https://www.adl.org/resources/hate-symbol/zog

https://www.ajc.org/translatehate/Zionist-Occupied-Government

https://www.conspiracy-myths.wjc.org/case-studies/zionist-occupied-government-zog

Also:

https://aussteigerprogramm-niedersachsen.de/rechtsextremismus-erkennen/abkuerzungen/zog-zionist-occupied-government/

https://www.conspiracywatch.info/en/brieffing_notes/zionist-occupied-government-zog/

https://www.freiheit.org/de/deutschland/zionismus-zionisten-zog

Now, https://www.splcenter.org/resources/reports/racist-skinhead-glossary/ does say Occupation but even then says of Occupied as an alternative (not some "-occupied", which was just completely made up by some Wikipedia user).

https://expo.se/lar-dig-mer/symbollexikon/zog/ is the only one I checked ("Zionist" and "ZOG" on Google) that says just Occupation.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.246.147.217 (talk) 16:47, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

94.246.147.217 (talk) 16:22, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cherrypicking individual sources does not outweigh ngrams. You could and again, these are not high quality. The reliable sources about this topic are largely not on Google search and there's no reason to limit ourselves to that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:49, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I couldn't and I didn't. As I said, I put just "ZOG" and Zionist" (https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Zionist%22+%22ZOG%22). And I didn't "find just as many that do the reverse". I found 2 talking about Occupation (with SPLC also talking of Occupied, and of course not "-occupied" which is not a real name contrary to the Wikipedia claim). 94.246.147.217 (talk) 17:01, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 August 2025

[edit]

Zionist Occupation Government conspiracy theory → Zionist Occupied Government conspiracy theory – Correct name (see the section above). 94.246.147.217 (talk) 16:26, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I personally think this sounds more normal, but this is, per ngrams, far, far less common than "occupation" [19]. We don't limit ourselves to those groups for determining this... nor should we, none of those sources are very good. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:29, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected my error. It should be Zionist Occupied Government. 94.246.147.217 (talk)
It is not the WP:COMMONNAME, though. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:33, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is. I never even heard the "Occupation" version. All 3 definition say Occupied and one also mentions a "sometimes" Occupational version. 94.246.147.217 (talk) 16:38, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These three definitions are not good sources and ones we shouldn't even be using. Why would these random sources go over the weight of other, more reliable scholarship? The majority of scholarly sources use "Occupation". See ngrams. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:39, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These arent "random sources" (Anti-Defamation League, American Jewish Congress, World Jewish Congress). I also added more. 94.246.147.217 (talk) 16:53, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They're advocacy orgs, not scholars, which are not considered "high quality". And per a book search and ngrams, the "Occupation" form is the common name; whether you personally have heard of something is of no relevance. Also please learn to indent your responses, and stop constantly deleting/reediting your responses, this is rather hard to follow. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:55, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing: it's always Occupied,"-occupied" is a Wikipedia hoax. 94.246.147.217 (talk) 16:58, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[20] [21] [22] [23] no, this is a used variation. You can't just assert things with no proof. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:01, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the first 2 you provided, and it's of course Occupied and not the hoax minorcase "occupied". The third had all minorcase including "zionist" somehow, and the fourth had also minorcase government. I'm talking about the Wikipedia specific claim "Zionist-occupied Government" with capital G and minorcase o.

Also what you look at is nothing "common", it's a bubble. Go and see https://x.com/search?q=%22zionist%20occupied%20government%22&src=typed_query&f=live and https://x.com/search?q=%22zionist%20occupation%20government%22&src=typed_query&f=live for what's actually common - 4 for Occupied within just last (1) hour, and the latest Occupation 6 hours ago (meanwhile 9 Occupied). This is how it is used in the real world, not in the academic bubble of papers citing papers. The Jewish orgs naming it Occupied reflects the actual common use. (I also had to scroll down back to July 30 to find any "Zionist-Occupied", instead of "Zionist Occupied" which is how people actually talk.). 94.246.147.217 (talk) 17:06, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

X isn’t a source we can use. Sorry if you don’t like academic sources but we have to follow our policies. Doug Weller talk 17:56, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is the proof for you here about what is really the "common name", which is reflected in how all the Jewish organisations ("random sources") use the actual common name.

Also, again, no one says "-occupied Government", it's just a Wikipedia hoax. 94.246.147.217 (talk) 17:46, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I wouldn’t call that a hoax. Doug Weller talk 18:00, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's also possible these academia sources are about the formerly common name from just niche Neo-Nazi literature before the mass use on the internet. But it's not the case now.

The form in the lead has been corrected to a capital O. But it's way more common without the dash, which is not even mentioned still. And yes, I know it's grammatically incorrect. 94.246.147.217 (talk) 18:10, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think led to the mass use of any variation of this term on the internet? Niche nazi literature. We don't go by social media use we go by what reliable sources use. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:26, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is the common use now. Millions of people know it as "Occupied" and they never read whatever obscure books or zines it came from.

The article actually identifies the entry point to the masses: In 1996, the Aryan Nations posted on its website an "Aryan Declaration of Independence" saying that "the history of the present Zionist Occupied Government.

94.246.147.217 (talk) 01:26, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't the most commonly used in reliable sources. As evidenced by ngrams. We don't care what social media uses. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:32, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How are the Jewish organisations (using the actual common name, the name used by most people) "unreliable"? Were the Aryan Nations "unreliable" too?

The article right here has Jew Watch in references and falsely claims it used the term "Zionist Occupation Governments". The actual reference is "Jewish Occupied Governments". Jew Watch. Archived from the original on 21 September 2012. Retrieved 9 January 2008.. 94.246.147.217 (talk) 01:41, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are less reliable (different than unreliable) than academics because they are advocacy orgs. They are not scholars. And you are cherry picking individual citations; I could do the same with the hundreds of books that use "occupation". PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:15, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What if you count the usage in the books from the 21st century only? Should reflect the actual common use on the internet (mass and global) instead of old niche American neo-Nazi literature.

Just Nick Fuentes, for example, has more followers and audience than any elderly/dead neo-Nazi has or ever had: "White supremacist who met with Donald Trump last year posts tweets about the US ‘Zionist Occupied Government,’ praises Hitler" https://www.timesofisrael.com/holocaust-denier-fuentes-reinstated-to-twitter-then-banned-again-within-24-hours/

94.246.147.217 (talk) 13:09, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We do not count social media usage at all in determining WP:COMMONNAME because we determine the name based on reliable sources. What people say on the internet is of no relevance! And yes, this term first appeared in the 20th century, so a survey of books in the 20th and 21st centuries is representative. We determine the name based on usage in "its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources". Nick Fuentes is not a reliable source, or even very significant in the development of this concept. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, who's been "very significant in the development of this concept" ever since 1996, when the Aryan Nations posted on its website an "Aryan Declaration of Independence" saying Zionist Occupied Government as the article notes?

The same article that still mentions "Zionist-Occupied Government" but no "Zionist Occupied Government" at all in the bolded out versions.

The article also states:

Since 1996, the term has spread in usage. It is now popular with many other antisemitic organizations. Swedish Neo-Nazis say that Jews—in what they call the Swedish Zionist occupied government—are importing immigrants to "dilute the blood of the white race".[22] The antisemitic website Jew Watch claims that the entire spectrum of Western nations and other countries are being ruled by "Zionist Occupation Governments".[23]

In this paragraph, Jew Watch's actual title "Jewish Occupied Governments" is still being falsified as "Zionist Occupation Governments" despite me having pointed out the Wikipedia falsification.

Nick Fuentes isn't the source, the source is The Times of Israel writing about him writing "Occupied". That's as opposed to Jew Watch being cited as primary source here above (the falsification aside).

An example about his "significance in the development of this concept": In April of 2024, [Fuentes collaborator Sam] Parker posted about the so-called “Zionist Occupied Media.” Tropes suggesting the presence of “Zionist occupied” industries invoke myths about Jewish power, and are employed frequently by antisemites and white supremacists, who often use the same phrase to describe the government. (https://www.adl.org/resources/article/far-right-influencers-x-promote-anti-zionism-hate-and-conspiracy-theories)

And unlike Jew Watch (which I will again remind is being strangely falsified here), Nick's use of specifically Occupied version of ZOG of is widely covered by various tertiary sources, for example:

Trying to pretend that only old and very niche literature (some of it also on the internet, and with "Occupied" in use on the Internet at least since 1996 as the Wikipedia article notes) is the only thing that matters, while "What people say on the internet is of no relevance!" (including aptly-named influencers to their audience of millions, and wide mass media coverage) is just not a serious approach at all.

94.246.147.217 (talk) 19:08, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are also not reliable sources for this topic. The most reliable sources are academic works. These are news sources, and specifically news that is questionable reliability wise in this topic (particularly the Jewish chronicle, which is "generally unreliable regarding Palestine/Israel topics, and requires caution regarding related topics"; Ynet is similar), the rest are quoting one specific person; if it's quoting him he is the source. This concept existed before Fuentes was alive (Randy Weaver? though, he actually said Zionist Organized Government, iirc) and has been promoted by a variety of neo-Nazis of which Fuentes is of little relevance.
Academic works and serious book works use "occupation" more often, as I have shown; it is not "very old and very niche literature" but the most reliable sources for this topic. Quoting individual cases of less reliable news articles does not make this the WP:COMMONNAME. Using the neo-Nazis themselves does not help its case for WP:COMMONNAME. Showing how occupation vs occupied are used in sentences differently also does not help.
To quote our policy on article titles, to determine the common name "it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies, and notable scientific journals." Not what modern racists use on Twitter, or quoting one specific person saying a single quote. Academics use "occupation". PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:16, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zionist_Occupation_Government_conspiracy_theory&oldid=1304571362"