Jump to content

Talk:Contemporary imprints of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

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

RfC

[edit]

Light bulb iconBAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is this article about?

[edit]

Only about half the content of this article fits the title. The rest is about miscellaneous mentions of the Protocols and even mentions of things allegedly similar to the Protocols. Overall it looks like a WP:COATRACK. I propose that material which is not actually about "Contemporary imprints of The Protocols" should be removed. Zerotalk 00:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing some of the worst. For example this is way UNDUE: "In February 2003, an Australian new age publication Hard Evidence presented the Protocols as factual and claimed that Jews were responsible for 2002 Bali bombing (ref: Confronting Reality: Antisemitism in Australia Today). I looked at this and it is an anonymous letter which suggests that Mossad did the Bali bombing because Muslims are too stupid to execute it so well. In the same issue, the Illuminati Conspiracy, UFOs attack a Soviet military base, and out-of-body experiences. Way, way, into FRINGE. Zerotalk 09:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some bits I removed:

  • "In the United Kingdom, The Protocols have been endorsed..." — This is nothing about contemporary imprints of the Protocols. Off topic.
  • "Copies of the book are held..." — This is nothing about contemporary imprints of the Protocols. It is also a severe violation of WP:NPOV since thousands of libraries, including the libraries of most major western universities and major public libraries, hold it. It is not true that it is usually held in "poison cabinets". Look at Yale's holdings (click "search"). The link is dead too.
  • "The PNA frequently..." — Palestine Media Watch is not a reliable source. It is an extreme-right advocacy organization. This is also not about contemporary imprints of the Protocols.

This is not an article where we can place anything we can like related to the Protocols. It is an article about contemporary imprints. If you want to change the article scope, you can start an WP:RFC. Zerotalk 23:42, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your thoughts on the matter. Let me address your changes one by one:
  • "In the United Kingdom, The Protocols have been endorsed..." — You have removed this content two times, with two distinct reasonings:
    1. uncited BLP violation diff — This was awkward. Richard_Williamson_(bishop)#Jews_and_Holocaust_denial contained some citations. The issue was reported widely there are many more reliable sources about this. For instance Independent source. See Williamson's profile at BBC, Guardian, NYTimes...
    2. This is nothing about contemporary imprints of the Protocols. Off topic. diff — Disagree, Williamson is contemporary and he is involved with and promoting the contemporary imprints, while saying the original document was "authentic". According to sources Williamson is among those who are fuelling revival of the book.
  • "Copies of the book are held..." — Agree on that. Let's remove this, no significant coverage.
  • "The PNA frequently..." — Basically the argument is that the source is not reliable. However the content is WP:V, there are additional sources, see the following books:
    1. Hypermedia Seduction for Terrorist Recruiting edited by Boaz Ganor, Katharina von Knop, Carlos A. M. Duarte, 2007, page 5
    2. The Paranoid Apocalypse: A Hundred-Year Retrospective on The Protocols of ... edited by Richard Landes, Steven T. Katz, 2012, pages 154-156
I will restore the ""In the United Kingdom... " and "The PNA ..." both enjoying a good coverage in reliable sources. This is a long standing content, please do not remove it again before gaining a wider consensus. I will leave "Copies of the book" and the Australian bit out. Thanks for your time and effort. Infinity Knight (talk) 07:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Williamson is not only off-topic but UNDUE for this page; he is a very minor figure who has his own page which covers his fringe opinions adequately. Also, if you want to add a new source to replace the unreliable source PMW, you have to remove the unreliable source and you have to replace any text not directly supported by the new source. You can't just leave the old stuff and add citations to it. Zerotalk 10:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the article needs a cleanup, a removal of text which is not about contemporary imprints. The other stuff belongs in the main article. Doug Weller talk 13:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Contemporary imprints of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ford's "The International Jew"

[edit]

I don't want to be picky, but I got a little confused while reading the article. In the "United States" section, it states that "...Henry Ford began publishing them under the title of The International Jew." This makes it sound like Ford reprinted the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion just with a different title. Would it be better to change this to "...Henry Ford began publishing them in The International Jew?" Would it be even better to say, "...Henry Ford expanded on them in The Dearborn Independent's column The International Jew?" I don't know enough about the topic to be bold, so I don't want to make edits without asking for comments first. Mvblair (talk) 15:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mvblair: You are quite correct. What happened was that The Deadborn Independent published multiple extracts from the Protocols with commentary, then many of those articles were published by Ford in the multi-volume series "The International Jew". As far as I am aware, neither publication ever presented the complete Protocols at once. Zerotalk 02:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Zero0000: Thanks for the clarification and edit. I made an additional edit based on what you said and what I've read. Being that Ford's publication appears to be the big US introduction to this bizarre book, I think it deserves as much, but if you disagree, I'll concede to you. Mvblair (talk) 13:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Contemporary_imprints_of_The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion&oldid=1206780487"