Jump to content

Talk:The Protocols of the Elders of Zion/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

minor questions of correct number for pronoun

Are we top posting here or bottom posting? Anyway, are the Protocols an 'It' or a 'They'? I'd be inclined to consider them a they, but most of the editing seems to think otherwise. ?? PS Sam Spade, nice edit, kept the point I was trying to make, in a NPOV type of way. Gzuckier 19:19, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

False Document

There is a link to 'false document' here, but the meaning of the false document article appears to relate to artistic creations, rather than to forgeries of this sort.

We could either:

  • remove the link
  • change the 'false document' article to reflect the fact that there are non-artistic forgeries
  • change the wording to 'forgery'

-- The Anome Perhaps a better approach would be to say the work is fictional rather than a forgery or false--203.202.186.210 05:18, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Precisely my point.

Also, is it actually agreed by all that it is false? Do there exist rabid anti-semites who believe it's true? If so, then we should say something to the effect that most historians and other sane :-) people believe it's false, but there are a small handful of anti-semites who believe it's true. That is important information, if true, and must be stated fairly if the article is to cohere with the neutral point of view. --LMS

Arab newspapers insist that the protocols are real. The reality of them are even taught in some high schools in the Arab world as "proof" of the evil nature of Jews". Many Japanese citizens believe that the Protocols are genuine. A small number of Japanese professors and other professionals have even written books about them in recent years, which have shot to the top of Japanese book best-seller lists. Most of these books are flatly anti-Semitic. However, and bizarrely, some of these books aren't anti-Semitic in any way that yoo are I would understand the term, because some of them teach that "The Jews use the protocols to try and conquer the world...but we Japanese can adopt these Jewish techniques so that we too can be as powerful as the Jews, or more so!" That is to say, some of these books are literally written as "Self-Help" books for businessmen, who seem to admire the "international Jewish conspiracy", and wish to emulate it. I have a detailed article on this that I can e-mail you if anyone is interested it. A good study of this fascinating and complex topic is "Jews in the Japanese Mind: The History and Uses of a Cultural Stereotype", by David G. Goodman and Masnori Miyazawa, The Free Press, 1995.
This is absolutely not correct. The significance of the Protocols is not in the genuineness of the work. It is clearly NOT written to be a factual account of anything. It is intended to illustrate the future, how power will be manipulated, and the reasons for that manipulation. By and large, the Protocols do not describe the world as it was in 1890. But surely, much of the book is incredibly similar to the world of 2000. Arabs are not stupid. They know the protocols are not historical fact, but when they are staring down the criminal state of Israel unable to understand why the supposed civilized world would support a state that is founded upon theft and deceit, explanations are necessary. Why can't Walmart sell this book? If this book is such an obvious fraud, we wouldn't have to deal with Jewish power groups in the media and elsewhere constantly attacking this work. This Wikipedia article reads like a joke. the protocols aren't even summarized, the entire article attacks the book as a forgery, even though it is nothing more than a story, a story from over a century ago which is strikingly accurate of today. I wouldn't be surprised if this very comment I am writing is deleted at some point. (unsigned by User:70.23.207.220)

RK, if you want to mail it to me I would be interested. My email address is sj_kissane at yahoo.com -- SJK

I would be interested in this article as well. TLB

The subject page is SO NOT neutral point of view. It is almost like it was written with the single purpose of discrediting these writings.

Absolutely true. This has to be one of the worst articles I have ever read on Wikipedia. (unsigned by User:70.23.207.220)

I agree we should state that they are believed by some to be true, but this being an encyclopedia, we can still say pretty flatly that they're false. The fact that they're believed to be true by some nutcases doesn't mean we need to make a disclaimer of "believed to be false by almost everyone sane," any more than we need to add disclaimers of "NASA claims, and most historians believe, that the US landed on the moon in 1969, but there are some who claim that the moon landing was fake" to articles on space exploration. -- Delirium

The TRUTH DOESN'T MATTER. Does anyone ask the Jews why they believe they are God's Chosen People? Does anyone ask them why they believe horrific ritual slaughter of animals is desirable? The bible and the Talmud are filled with sadistic nonsense that is obviously false. Who cares? The book is what it is. The truth of the work is largely irrelevant. This article should do nothing more than summarize the contents of the book, give a brief history, and perhaps discuss the relevance in the modern world. This book remains popular BECAUSE the world it describes is very similar to our own modern world, right down to usury being the foundation of world power, something that was not at all the case in 1890. The simple fact that this book describes that monumental change in human history, the adoption of usury as the foundation of the value of money, DECADES before it happened is brilliant in and of itself. If everything else in the book was completely baseless, that story alone would be worth reading.

Can someone add a brief summary about what kinds of accusations the document specifically makes? Maybe in a bullet list or something? user:J.J.

Delirium, I disagree with you - since your parallel between the belief that NASA moon landing was staged, and the belief that the Protocols are for real - is wrong.

In the Islamic world - roughly a quarter of the world's population - the belief that the Protocols are for real is not restricted to a very small minority of nuts. It is restricted to a small minority of nuts in the West, but the Wikipedia is supposed to represent the views of the entire world, not just of the West - the NPOV should not be Western.

In case of NASA sending people to the moon, a small minority of nuts worldwide believes this - so from NPOV view, it seems reasonable to view it as fact. -- Michael V.

In the first sentance it says the protocols are fraudulent. If it is fraudulent based on forgery, which is what one would assume is meant, doesn't that imply the existance of an original document to forge? If so, then this wording should be changed to avoid confusion.

No, forgery implies that it was signed with someone's name by someone who was other than the person the signature claims them to be. In this case, it means that the pamphlet was written by someone other than the Learned Elders of Zion which is, anyways, a nonexistent group, but evenso, the pamphlet makes claims regarding who these Learned Elders of Zion are, and was written by people who were not the non-existent people they claimed to be. As such, it is a forgery. Your statement makes a mockery of the meaning of the word "forgery" itself. If you steal my checkbook and issue checks with my forged name, according to your warped definition, there must be, floating around out there somewhere, legitimate checks to the people to whom you have issued forged checks, signed "fer real" by me. Wha?! Tomer TALK 08:29, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Are we putting everything up for a vote?

Michael V's comment suggests that if three billion people think something is true, then we can't say otherwise. That is nonsense. The book is demonstrably false, not to mention pernicious, and its is POV to say otherwise. Italo Svevo

You are missing my point. If three billion people think something is true, than the fact that they think it is true must be mentioned. On the other hand, there is a limit to how many minority opinions can be covered. For example, if there is a lone psychiatric patient somewhere who thinks that the Protocols were writen by the Evil Gummy Bears Who Live in His Brain, mentioning his views in this article would be pointless. There is an incredible number of very small minority opinions on every conceivable topic. Trying to mention as many of them as possible would be ridiculous. -- Michael V.
Then why don't you demonstrate it?

This is an excellent article, and admirably defends the concept of historical truth against attempts to deny that this concept has any meaning. The fact that ten people somewhere think the world is flat does not prevent us from laying that it is (almost) round. The Protocols are a forgery, and any self-respecting encyclopaedia needs to say so. Having said that, the last paragraph seems a little over-optimistic, and in fact contradicts the preceeding text. It is clear that in fact many people think the Protocols are genuine. Adam 03:13, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Good point on last paragraph. In addition, it has an editorial tone implying that open information (the underpinnings of this site) is to be feared and controlled rather than combatted on merit. It almost seems to mock the idea that anyone who reads something in a library should value his/her privacy. Anyone revising it might tweak the spin there. Chris Rodgers 00:18, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

"While few people currently believe the Protocols to be genuine, many people now have the opportunity to assuage their curiosity about the Protocols due to the Internet. This raises issues of whether the Internet as it stands is an unalloyed good. Previously, few people were willing to risk getting on government lists by loaning the book from the library, or ordering it through a book-shop through fear of being labelled anti-Semitic."
Is this to say that someone who favors the free flow of information is an anti-semite? That any topic that risks offending a Jewish person shouldn't be discussed? That Jewish lobby groups are more deserving of freedom of speech than anyone else? I never thought of myself as an anti-semite but the more I see statements like these, the more I'm starting to wonder...

It's interesting how every publication in the bibliography was either written by a Jewish author or published by a Jewish organization.

Yes. Jews are a lot more interested in Jews being slandered than are the non-Jews. Wow. This is such an incredible surprise. Must be part of The Conspiracy (TM). --Michael V.

Three comments above question the last paragraph, though I don't necessarily agree with the reasons. I deleted it just because it is argumentative and has stuff like "government lists" that are meaningless without explanation. If there is a story about these "lists", then that would be a fine addition. --Zero 11:46, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I noticed that this page is listed as a copyright violation. It would be a shame to lose all the edits since the alleged violation, so I did a little research. Apparently the text in question is much older than the URL given. The oldest instance I could find was back in 1993; see [1]. Apparently the text was first posted to alt.conspiracy by Danny Keren, although it was originally written by Prof. Saul Wallach of Bar-Ilan University. Also see Talk:Protocols of the Elders of Zion (without the "The") for more early edit history. Wmahan. 17:01, 2004 Apr 21 (UTC)

Update: a more authoritative link: [2]. Wmahan. 18:40, 2004 Apr 21 (UTC)

Tracking down copyrights can be as much of a problem as the contents of some of these articles. Although much of the repetion on the net leads back to Keren there is no assurance that his newsgroup posting is not itself a violation of copyright. There is a Saul Wallach who is Rabbi of a messianic congregation in Gig Harbor, WA, but I don't think that he is the same person.

A question of transliteration from Hebrew comes up. And the name seems to be more correctly Shaul Wallach, and his e-mail address as recently as 2000 was <wallach@mail.biu.ac.il>. The site http://shamash.org/holocaust/denial/protocols.txt seems to take the text back to 1989. Eclecticology 20:06, 2004 Apr 21 (UTC)

I emailed that address asking Prof. Wallach if he is the author, and if so if we may have permission to distribute his work under the terms of the GFDL. If we do not get permission, I don't think we really have much of a choice but to start rewriting from scratch. Especially given that a print edition of Wikipedia is planned, the perils of knowingly continuing to publish something that later may result in a copyright infringement claim are too great to simply ignore. --Delirium 07:09, May 1, 2004 (UTC)
I am going to put a notice on Wikipedia:Copyright problems that there is an effort to obtain permission and that the status will be revisited by the end of May. Please update the Copyright problems page as soon as you have a resolution. - Tεxτurε 17:08, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

I have moved the text in the original article that does not appear to be disputed, as well as User:66.124.226.61's start of a rewrite, to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion/Temp. I added a link to the version of Prof. Wallach's essay that Eclecticology found. I think that will provide a decent basis for an article even if we delete the disputed text. Wmahan. 19:15, 2004 May 20 (UTC)

Recast the opening at "Temp"

This is the first time I got a good look at this article. Considering its importance in world politics, it was hardly adequate and an insult to the reader seeking knowledge to beat around the bush with a concept like "well lots of guys in the West think it's fake but most others think its real." -- Cecropia | Talk 15:47, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

I've replaced the original with the one that was at /Temp. Angela. 09:59, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Who Wrote it?

One theory is that Lucien Wolf who claimed to have "discovered" the truth in 1920 was the author. He certainly seemed to know more about it than anyone else. Nazi ideologist Alfred Rosenberg is said to have brought a copy to the attention of Hitler and cohorts.

Did Wolf and Rosenberg know each other?

Is there any substance at all to this "theory" apart from pure speculation? Who proposed it? I think it ought to be deleted from the article. --Zero 14:13, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

POV?

Anon User:213.137.118.222 tagged this article POV without any explanation. Unless we see a good reason, I think it would be safe to remove the tag soon. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:27, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Are y'all sure its "The Wandering Jew"?

I seem to remember from other articles on the protocols that Joly took most of his material from the last chapter of "Les mysteres du peuple", another book by Eugene Sue. Umberto Eco wrote an article on the protocols in wich he says as much. I still have that article somewhere, as soon as i've found it I will get back to you

--Ceesos 20:41, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I read Maurice Joly's work. From what I have read about Eugene Sue, he does not sounds as a likely source. But I would never dare to contradict Umberto Eco who definitely is a master on the this kind of literature.

So any chance you can give us the title of the article?

LeaNder

Could somebody please provide links to the source documents from which The Protocols were forged?

I'm not sure they can be found on-line. Jayjg (talk) 15:37, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

the proof is in the pudding

Article is grossly unfair, lacks balance. Whether these documents' origin is that claimed or not has not been proven or disproven (and the mere confident claim they have been proven doesn't make that so), but that isn't the issue as the detractors know quite well. The Protocols' message reflects a real set of troubling issues in world events that many are wising up to, speaks for itself, and their resonance of truth is what has spread them so prolifically around the world.

Written in the late 1890's it was stunningly prophetic about the most important events for the next 100 plus years, able to explain those future events like nothing else that even in hindsight could, and brilliantly written to boot. Name just one document that even approaches that! (I can't blame the opponents for trying to change the subject). The Protocols do however appear to be real, as they are consistent with the Talmut, other Jewish texts spanning 20 centuries, many modern quotes from informed Jews in moments of candor, as well as real world facts and events. Even assuming for the sake of discussion that they were fiction, they would be good fiction, because good fiction often succeeds in describing reality much better than a simple listing of dry facts could.

And the Protocols seem to prove their value again in Wikipedia by eliciting just the type of censorship and manipulation rabid responses from some readers that the Protocols tell us about afflict us in society overall.

I've NEVER seen a more unprofessional biased one-sided aggressive article not just in Wikipedia, but in even quite biased places. But go ahead, don't change it, don't state both points of view fairly! It's so biased as it is in Wikipedia that anyone with an objective mind that looks at it will instantly perceive it's bias, be turned off by it, and do a Google search on it or something.

Of course I can already sense the "anti-semitic" or "hater" namecalling coming my way for expressing myself, though I'm not those things, but again, if attacked with names like that it would only reinforce the Protocols' message.

71.142.208.68 13:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Go read Nostradamus. Jeremy Nimmo 03:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, it is very telling that the people who most vehemently deny the obvious authenticity of this document are loud-mouthed, self-serving Jews (sorry to be redundant).

Taught in schools in Arab countries?

I have seen frequent statements that the Protocols are often taught in schools in Arab countries as fact.

Can anyone provide specific references to this - other than some people merely asserting this. Michael Voytinsky 19:46, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please try [[3]]. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:42, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion
These are secret resolutions, most probably of the aforementioned Basel congress. They were discovered in the nineteenth century. The Jews tried to deny them, but there was ample evidence proving their authenticity and that they were issued by the elders of Zion. The Protocols can be summarized in the following points:
1. Upsetting the foundations of the world's present society and its systems, in order to enable Zionism to have a monopoly of world government.
2. Eliminating nationalities and religions, especially the Christian nations.
3. Striving to increase corruption among the present regimes in Europe, as Zionism believes in their corruption and [eventual] collapse.
4. Controlling the media of publication, propaganda and the press, using gold for stirring up disturbances, seducing people by means of lust and spreading wantonness.
The cogent proof of the authenticity of these resolutions, as well as of the hellish Jewish schemes included therein, is the [actual] carrying out of many of those schemes, intrigues and conspiracies that are found in them. Anyone who reads them - and they were published in the nineteenth century - grasps today to what extent much of what is found there has been realized (See: The Danger of World Jewry, by Abdullah al-Tall, pp. 140-141 [Arabic]).
from 'Hadith and Islamic Culture', Grade 10, (2001) pp. 103-104 [4] Bear in mind that Saudi Arabia is our great ally, a moderate Islamic Arabic nation. Gzuckier 19:15, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This Article Has Problems

This article starts off strong, and exactly how it should start out --

"The Protocols of the (Learned) Elders of Zion is a fraudulent document..."

And the text at the beginning is strong.

But it devolves into ridiculously opinionated political commentary that lacks proper context.

I.e.

/

An article in the Egyptian state-owned newspaper al-Akhbar on February 3, 2002 stated:

"All the evils that currently affect the world are the doings of Zionism. This is not surprising, because the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which were established by their wise men more than a century ago, are proceeding according to a meticulous and precise plan and time schedule, and they are proof that even though they are a minority, their goal is to rule the world and the entire human race."

/

At this point the article is clearly taking shots at Arab governments and newspapers, and would mislead someone to believe that the Protocols (or similar conspiracy) is universally taken on faith by, say, journalists in the Arab world -- which is complete nonsense.

Where is the link to this article? Was it an "article" or was it an editorial? Was it representative of the presentation of the rest of the paper? Is that paper representative of the rest of the papers in Egypt? Is Egypt representative of the Middle East? What alternative views are available in that region from intellectuals and scholars?

The goal of this Wikipedia entry should be to create an honest presentation, not to further crude stereotypes (UNBELIEVABLE IDIOCY!) One result of this will hopefully be that a certain degree of hatred can be dispelled. We are not trying to create new lies and new reasons for people to hate each other. Wikipedia is not MEMRI or MEF or some other such ultra-opinionated propaganda group.

The entire Contemporary use section is a piece of junk. It belongs in a political magazine, not in the Wikipedia. Unless/until the proper context and background can be provided, that section should be deleted.

There are valid points raised, but they are raised in a vacuum and for purposes of political propaganda rather than illumination.

--70.18.99.228 21:35, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, what is the "proper context and background" that would make these references more acceptable? Jayjg (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
The author has provided only examples that demonstrate that journalists are conspiracy theorists or buy into the Protocols. There are many intelligent journalists in the Middle East with a balanced perspective. This is propaganda because it leads people to believe that Arab governments force all journalists to repeat this swill. This is what propagandists repeat when they are trying to build support for overthrowing Arab governments. And it's totally unbalanced. (Does this perspective exist? Yes. But the common implication that it is the only perspective is flat out wrong.) --70.18.99.228 22:30, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
How do you know it's wrong? And if the view is commonly expressed, why shouldn't it be noted? Jayjg (talk) 16:52, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The biased point of view lies in listing only Arab media referencing the Protocols. It should be balanced with examples of all those other, nonArab media outlets that treat the Protocols as truth. Gzuckier 16:04, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Good point; feel free to add them. Jayjg (talk)

/

This article is clearly written from the view that the document is fradulent, but it should be written as a neutral view, giving arguements for both its authenticity and fruadulance. To blantantly state that it is false at the very beginning of the article is clearly not objective. I believe it should be discribed as a "document of disputed authenticity." (unsigned comment by User:Ryusacerdos)

The author of the comment above should be described as an editor of disputed credibility. The "document" has been proven fraud many times over. The link brought as proof is a typical hate crap. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 00:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

POV comment

I added the above comment, but let me say this too.

"The book is demonstrably false, not to mention pernicious, and its is POV to say otherwise."

However, it's impossible to escape POV completely. A 1900 Wikipedia article would have stated authoritatively that Indians are savages. An article from 1800 would have authoritatively stated that leeches are one of the better headache remedies. And while from a scientific perspective, the Protocols are bunk, there are reasons why many people find aspects to them that they can relate to (particularly in places like Palestine). Thus it's important not to simply dismiss these populations as raving lunatics. It's POV to suggest that because the Protocols is bunk, believing any part of them is absurd or makes someone a moron. This is a document with some cultural and historical importance. Henry Ford said that he didn't know for sure whether the document was true, but that it paralleled many of his own observations. THIS is why the document is significant. Even as a forgery, it was created to parallel ALREADY EXISTING beliefs about Jews in certain circles. It was a response to these very real beliefs, and so while it itself may be a forgery, its contents are still relevant to study objectively rather than to just dismiss as useless nonsense.

In case there's any confusion, I'm not suggesting there's a Jewish conspiracy. However, people would not embrace the document if they did not believe it matched some of their own life experiences. And certainly Jewish people have been disproportionately successful in certain sectors, like banking and entertainment -- and even federal government. Certainly the Israelis have the upper-hand over the Palestinians. And certainly the Jewish state was only a sparkle in the eyes of some Jewish people for about two millennia, at which point Zionists arrived and proceded to do some things that locals had not invited them to do. And while the Israelis are far from the only party responsible for unpleasantness in the Middle East, they are indeed responsible for (at the least) their share of unpleasantness.

There are INDEED Jewish people in the US government who are adamantly pro-Israel. Douglas Feith and Paul Wolfowitz are indeed pro-Israel hardliners, and prior to the Iraq war were two of the top three officials at the Pentagon and two of the most instrumental people pressing for an invasion of Iraq. Many of the original advocates for the war were Jewish, like Richard Perle and William Kristol. Kristol has said that "Paul [Wolfowitz] showed real courage in advancing this agenda that he thought was so important for the country. The truth is there weren't many of us. You know, this 'great powerful neo-conservative conspiracy.' There were about eight people. Half of them were not well-liked by the Bush administration, like me. It's a very impressive thing that he did."

(Elsewhere in that piece in the Jerusalem Post: "It was Wolfowitz who led a small group of neo-conservative thinkers in developing a rationale for the war..." Thomas Friedman, a Jewish writer for the New York Times, famously said, "I could give you the names of 25 people (all of whom are at this moment within a five-block radius of this office) who, if you had exiled them to a desert island a year and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened." Ari Shavit, writing for the Israeli daily Haaretz, wrote about "a small group of 25 or 30 neoconservatives, almost all of them Jewish, almost all of them intellectuals (a partial list: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, Eliot Abrams, Charles Krauthammer), people who are mutual friends and cultivate one another and are convinced that political ideas are a major driving force of history.")

These guys DID INDEED formulate much of their agenda at hard-line pro-Israel think tanks like the Project for the New American Century.

There IS INDEED an uncomfortable alliance between some of these advocates and a certain portion of the religious right in America, who believe that the presence of a Biblical Israel is necessary in order for the apocalypse to unfold properly (these are sometimes referred to as "Christian Zionists").

When we dismiss people who buy into a Jewish Conspiracy as raving idiots, it's important to provide the full backdrop.

This is a POV that is not at all well-represented in this article. And it is indeed highly relevant. The goal is not to make one POV look intelligent and all others look stupid. The goal is to provide enough information so that the reader can fully comprehend the topic at hand.

What does this have to do with the Protocols themselves? Jayjg (talk) 22:28, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Are you serious? The point is that there are reasons people believe certain conspiracy theories. They are not necessarily simply idiots. And that is highly relevant to a discussion of one of the most controversial and significant conspiracy theories in modern history. --70.18.99.228 22:33, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
A good point but it doesn't change the fact that it is a false document. --Tothebarricades.tk 02:25, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
Assuming the document is indeed of fradulent origin, the fact that it closely mirrors reality must simply be a coincidence.
The document has been proven fraudulent, it doesn't "closely mirror reality", and those who claim it does have a different agenda than NPOV. Jayjg (talk) 07:51, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
On a personal note, neutrality at the expense of ommitting fact seems decietful. I would expand, but I do not have the burden of doubt since I am not the one contributing to the body of an encyclopedia. Suffice to say, there should include both pro- and con- links to the validity of the documents, since it is still under dispute by however many or few people around the world. That would be the NPOV thing to do.
As long as you keep your moronic ideology to the TALK page, I don't care. Thanks for your time. Please, spew your idiocy out here and be done with it...just keep it out of the article. Thanks for your thyme. Tomer TALK 09:29, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
I do not appreciate being called an idiot. I was offering suggestions.
Hmmm... Was that you that was talking w/o signing in, and now talking w/o signing your post? That aside, were you talking to me? I don't recall calling anyone an idiot. (?) Tomer TALK 20:22, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
I am not required to sign in or sign my posts. "As long as you keep your moronic ideology to the TALK page, I don't care. Thanks for your time. Please, spew your idiocy out here and be done with it...just keep it out of the article. Thanks for your thyme. Tomer TALK 09:29, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)"

Can you explain 'fraudulent' for the benefit of readers

"The Protocols of the (Learned) Elders of Zion is a fraudulent document purporting to describe a plan to achieve Jewish global domination. Written by Mathieu Golovinski, a Russian operative of Tsar Nicholas II based on an early work by Maurice Joly linking Napoleon III to Machiavelli. Czar Nicholas was fearful of modernization and protective of his monarchy, ordered the Imperial Russia secret police, the Okhranka to publish it in order to blame the Jews for Russia's problems. The Encyclopædia Britannica describes the Protocols as a "fraudulent document that served as a pretext and rationale for anti-Semitism in the early 20th century.""

It really hasn't been adequately expressed in the article what fraudulent means in this context. The document exists, it's 'out there', how it is a fraud ? If you mean it wasn't really written by Mathieu Golovinski on behalf of Tsar Nicholas II then that needs to be better expressed. How it currently reads is that the entire contents of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" is fraudulent, which is not quite the same thing.

What I sense with the introduction is that 'fradulent' is being used interchangeably with "opinion I don't agree with that may be deemed anti-Semitic or anti-Zionist and that I want to call invalid to help discredit or bury it" which is not the same thing at all.

You need to change the introduction and present it in a more objective way, otherwise the article starts off on completely the wrong footing. Currently, it just reads like you are trying to discredit and silence something before the reader even has an opportunity to grasp what it is about.

The entire contents are fraudulent, so it apparently means exactly what it is supposed to. Jayjg (talk) 5 July 2005 15:31 (UTC)
"Fraudulent" meaning intending to deceive, proposing a condition contrary to fact while meaning for it to be accepted as as factual. That's exactly what the document was and is. Fraudulent. The use of this word in the introduction is absolutely on-target. BrandonYusufToropov 5 July 2005 17:16 (UTC)

That is the modus operandi of Jayjg . He has a pro-Jewish and pro-Zionist bias that is rarely based on mutual discussion or debate. He has a history of reverts without fair discussion. 69.209.239.161 5 July 2005 15:40 (UTC)

I suggest that you take your anti-Semitic agenda elsewhere. And before you start teeing off on someone else's history, how about getting a username? BrandonYusufToropov 5 July 2005 17:16 (UTC)
"fraudulent: intended to deceive" WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University. As in a document which can be determined beyond any reasonable doubt to have been cobbled together from preexisting fictional writings, then publicized by government agencies as the discovery of an actual secret plan by a mysterious but hugely powerful and amoral cabal; in order to manipulate undereducated masses with a history of xenophobia and bigotry into shifting the focus of their blame and suspicions onto "The Other", and away from those who truly cause and profit from their miserable status. Hope that clears it up. Gzuckier 5 July 2005 15:58 (UTC)

Of course

The first thing that happens when you bring up a POV issue on a jewish page. You like throwing around 'anti-semetic' slurs around. Well I call you anti-Gentile, because you are dismissing a legitimate argument. There is controversy to whether or not that this is actually a hoax. Show sources and more sources. If you can't explain to me without a reasonable doubt that this is completely fraudulent, as you claim, I will mark it as POV. Wijiwang 09:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC);

Please keep your inflammatory grudges out of encyclopedia. Numerous investigations, scholars and courts in various countries exposed it and concluded it is a fraud. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
When you can find the original fictional stories from which the document was plagiarized, the "controversy" as to its hoaxicity takes on a bit of a different cast. Gzuckier 17:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Glad we've clarified where the burden of proof lies in matters of history. Do we have to prove that there aren't albino alligators prowling the sewers of New York City, too? BrandonYusufToropov 17:43, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Who was "throwing around 'anti-semetic' slurs"? Jayjg (talk) 18:50, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
To Wijiwang: do your research before coming here to provide an unsubstantiated "opinion" about this obvious fraud. Read the article for God's sake. If you find information that is not substatntiated by references, then come here and discuss. BTW, you need to capitalize Jewish, same as you do for Buddhist, Hindu or Christian). (Freudian slip on your antisemitic stance?) ≈ jossi ≈ 21:03, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

About the most fraudulent issue I'm aware of surrounding the 'Protocols' is the attempt in the mid thirties to have a Court rule them as 'fraudulent' et-al, the Court in question was/is in Switzerland and the Jewish (don't know if they where Zionists) Plaintiffs/Petitioners in collusion with what can only be described as a corrupt Judge obtained a Judgement after a long trial, not surprisingly the Judgement was quashed on appeal with that Court listing a long list of legal/procedural infractions in lower Court. for a more full account of this and more SUPPRESSION attempts the book/translation entitled WATERS FLOWING EASTWARD online at http://book-case.kroupnov.ru/pages/library/Waters/index.htm is informative

Cover made in MSPaint

Image:Protocols of the Elders of Zion Germany.gif This image looks like it was made with MSPaint, so it's probably not a genuine cover. I can even recognize the fonts. :-) bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 18:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

That's how we know it's a forgery. Gzuckier 18:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
LOL! bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 18:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
My fault: I'm the one who found it on the net, believed it is genuine and uploaded it as a bookcover. Removing it from the article. Thanks, good catch. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 00:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

RE:Vonnegut

Just to clarify the trivia bit about "'The Protocols of the Elders of Tralfamadore", In the book itself, the manifesto is published serially in a magazine. Hocus Pocus, itself is a novel. The wording was confusing though, I'll give you that. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:21, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

'Fraudulent' not yet resolved

As in a document which can be determined beyond any reasonable doubt to have been cobbled together from preexisting fictional writings

Does that make the tons of fantasy literature inspired by J.R.R Tokien a fraud ?

Or is it an opinion piece. Is Farenheit911 a 'fraud' ?

... then publicized by government agencies as the discovery of an actual secret plan

The dossier published by the UK goverment leading up to Iraq War comes to mind. Well many feel that was stretching the truth or spinning lies to fit a pre-arranged agenda, and it was indeed cobbled toggether out of opinion and pre-existing writings. I don't accept one could describe it as a fraud as such, in the sense of the way the word fraud is usually used.

A fraudulent document would be something like the Hitler Diaries.

Hope that clears it up. Gzuckier 5 July 2005 15:58 (UTC)

No, it hasn't cleared anything up. It is surprising the word fraudulent is still in the introduction.
(Unsigned comment by User:87.74.20.139. Please use (~~~~) in the future to auto sign & date your posts)
Why surprising? If you believe the protocols are real, is it a giant leap to believe they took over Wikipedia? ←Humus sapiens←ну? 03:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Farenheit911 is not a fraud, it is fraudulent, but that's something entirely different. The Protocols of the [Learned] Elders of Zion is a fraud specifically because it is written by someone other than the person it claims to have been written by...the motivation for that fraud is irrelevant. The Tolkein thing is a wonderful example (thanks...I'll be sure to remember to use it as such) of a false analogy. Tolkein never claims Gandalf or Frodo wrote The Hobbit, and even if he had, certainly would not have tried to pass off such a claim as truth. Tomer TALK 09:02, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Tolkien claimed that both The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings were based on the contents of a manuscript written by Bilbo Baggins known as "The Red Book of Westmarch". Tolkien merely translated the work into English. But yes, he never seriously believed that that where literally actually true. --86.135.87.145 23:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Peer review -> FAC

I have submitted this article for peer review as a prelude to nominate it as a Feature Article Candidate WP:FAC. ≈ jossi ≈ 22:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

An unacceptable level of bias towards the opinion that the Protocols are 'fraudulent'.

I have not read all other comments in this discussion so advance apologizes if this issue has been raised by others. I have just added a NPOV Tag.

The article as it stands presents itself in such a way that the reader is encouraged from the outset to believe that the protocols are false. The tone throughout the text reiterates this.

This article needs to be edited in order to develop an impartial viewpoint that reflects a neutral position. Included should be a discussion on the unprecedented and lasting level of contention that the issue of the authenticity of the Protocols has engendered across scholarly and other circles.

Sentences similar to the initial one that claim the Protocols are an unequivocal fraud need to be deleted and replaced with language that is either neutral or accurately reflects the controversies the text still elicits.

Thank you.

Cf1 16:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the issue has been raised before. The consensus is that the Protocols have been proven to be a forgery. There is overwhelming evidence for this. NPOV does not mean giving all points of view equal weight. We do not have an article on, say, George Bush beginning with assertion that some people consider him to be human but others think that he is an alien snake-being. The evidence for fraud could hardly be more complete or comprehensive. Paul B 16:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
(Edit conflict)Cf1, I appreciate that you've responded to Jossi and my requests to bring up your concerns with the article's neutrality here. I don't know quite what to make of your statement that "Sentences similar to the initial one that claim the Protocols is an unequivocal fraud need to be deleted and replaced with language that is either neutral or accurately reflects the controversies the text still elicits". I've expressed some concern about this article myself, which I suppose could be a kind of agreement with you that "the controversies the text still elicits" sections need some improvement, but I imagine that these can be handled through proper citation and the removal of anything not verifiable. As for its history of being accepted as a document authored by "The Elders of Zion", it seems to me that the article goes into great detail about this in its history section. I suspect that your interpretation of NPOV is leading you to think that historical mistakes should feature more prominently, or be treated more sympathetically in the article, but, in fact, Wp policy makes clear that "neutrality" is not achieved by presenting fact and error as equally deserving of attention. That would instead by a bias for erroneous claims by presenting them as equal to historical fact (and, in this case, that bias would be supporting an anti-Jewish agenda, which I am sure nobody wants). I'd suggest reviewing WP:NPOV, which discusses this in some detail. Jkelly 16:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately I am unable to continue dialogue with you both on this article at the moment however will endeavor to return and continue the discussion when I am able. If you wish to remove the NPOV tag then do so however anticipate it to be applied again in the future. Thank you. Cf1 11:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I would also like to know how the Protocols are fraudulent; based on what proof either supporting it or not. I have read through the talk page, and so far no one has given a source to back up their claims. I don't know much about the Protocols, but I'm hoping others do and can help me understand it better.--Moosh88 22:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

If you were to consult the article, you will note within the first few paragraphs mentioning of court cases, academic forewords, and an image of a Times article documenting the books history and dismissing the claims of the author(s). If anything, there is too much discussion of this issue. If our Geography article spent a couple of paragraphs discussing how it really, really isn't true that one can fall of the edge of the world, readers might get the idea that there is a serious debate. There is not (either with TPotEoZ or with the Earth being flat). Jkelly 23:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Jkelly, your attitude is one of "power determines truth." Just because "the mainstream" declares something to be true, does not mean that it must be true. If "The Protocols" are authentic (which the extremely high level of accuracy in predicting the future makes all but the brainwashed and the idiotic see as being the case), then of course the powers-that-be that wrote that document are going to, with ease, pull strings to make it the "mainstream consensus" that this document is a forgery. Duh.

To repeat it once again: The Protocols are DEFINITELY a forgery. It has been scientifically proven several by numerous scientists (unless you do not consider history to be a science), of whom a great number were NOT of Jewish ancestry. If you state that the Protocols have an extremely high level of accuracy in predicting the future, please give examples now.

A user mentioned before that the Protocols are fraudulent as an original work but accurately depict the existing prejudices against Jewish individuals and that the author(s) used those prejudices as a basis for their ideology. Thus, the Protocols are in no way an "accurate" depiction of reality, but rather an accurate depiction of the negative reputation of the Jews. At the risk of being somewhat blunt and posting off topic: I'm fed up with the constant "conspiracy" accusations. I am a Jew myself, and if you refer to the conspiracy theory of being a description of reality (which is implied if you say that the Protocols are authentic), then I'd damned well like to know when I'll get my piece of the take - so far no one of my fellow Jews has approached me and offered me money or something (OK, I'll stop the rant now) --Vargher 21:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Passage

I found this passage on http://www.sherryshriner.com/protocols.htm and I have a few questions concerning it. Here is the passage: "The Zionists—the Jesuits are the Great Zionists. They control all of the historical High Zionists—Theodor Herzl, David Ben-Gurion, Golda Meir. Zionism is a Masonic term, coined by the Jesuits. They are the rulers; they are the Protocols; they are the Elders of Zion. So the Zionists are, indeed, evil and wicked; but they are controlled by Rome. The Jews are not all Zionists."

Who made this statement and what is the connection between the zionists and Rome, the Jesuits and the Freemasions? Any help would be most appreciated--Moosh88 22:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Sherry Shriner made the statement - a nutter with a website who believes she is beset by demons, that white people constitute the true Israel and that blacks and jews are the spawn of satan. Charming. Paul B 23:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I had to see what wikipedia had to offer on this subject. It is clear that very few people have read the Protocols with an objective viewpoint. It is also clear that a good number of people who are so loud about the invalidilty of the protocols have not only not read them objectively, but have not read them at all. If the protocols are read without the loud shouting about how it relates to Jews then perhaps some light might be shown. Consider to yourself, can you even define a Jew? No need in spilling your rhetoric, your neo-nazi, anti-semitic, khazaar stuff, just re-read the protocols for yourself as though you were just a visitor from another world. Replace Jew with 'Vulcan' if you have to. You will see unless blind, that the Protocols have an uncanny similarity with the infrastructure of your society even though they were wrote more than a hundred years ago. Again, it is clear that very very few people have had the patience to read them, otherwise half the discussion and other nonsense wouldn't exist. As others have said on here, there is another half to the world than the Western. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jrey (talk • contribs) .

In other words: it seems real, therefore it must be true. Just as with visual effects in the movies, "You will see unless blind..." ←Humus sapiens←ну? 22:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

However in this case, 'seems real' isn't the case, 'is real' is the case. No need in childish discussion of the rhetoric 'real'. Which is exactly the absurdity of much of the discussion. It is clear few have read the Protocols else much of the discussion would be of different nature. No 'special effects' needed, just an open eye. Arguments can be conjured up infinitely if no advancement regarding the Protocols content is made a goal. Obviously, from the article on the Protocols here, controversy wouldn't exist unless there was something there that some would prefer others didn't know, and I suspect discussion will revolve forever heavily around the validity, or the splitting of hairs on rhetorical terms about how 'real' they might be, to prevent focus on the study and research of their contents. Without the extra noise from some wondering about their validity let us actually point the discussion to the contents, the argument that the Protocols make. Then arguments would be more in regard to the Protocols themselves and what they imply, rather than capitalizing upon anything random here to make an argument as this only muddies the truth by wasting space. Creating argument takes little skill, nor does continuing argument. Again, please read the Protocols and take a good look at what they say, then lets make the article and discussion revolve around that. For instance, the first line in the article would be changed from: "The Protocols of the (Learned) Elders of Zion is a fraudulent document purporting to describe a plan to achieve Jewish global domination." to: "The Protocols of the (Learned) Elders of Zion is a document which describes a plan to achieve domination of the human population by a hidden entity." Obviously, an objective discussion of the POZ would not start out with that line, the fraudulent part would be in a different section.

This was in not really a response to 'Humus_sapiens' but many, this splitting of hairs on 'real' is the classic start of arguments of fools 'just to make argument which is the argument, so as to shift focus away' and I just had to nip it. If you don't know 'truth' go find it and then come back, otherwise you just muddy up stuff. :)

Read the Protocols. I am done here and will make no more further comment. -jrey

I've read it and I'm not convinced. You (as anybody else) is welcome to seriously contribute to the Subject matter or any other section. So far you were engaged in pure demagoguery. You insist that the doc 'is real' despite it having been proven fraud independently by numerous investigations. Apply the Occam's Razor and provide proof, just as with The Matrix, for example. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 01:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Japan

This stuff about Japan in the article sounds, well, hard to believe. What is the source for it? Jkelly 05:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Is there any reason not to cut all of the Japan-related statements to this Talk page until it is verified? Jkelly 18:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

title

Do we really want to change the title? I think it should remain as it was, with the movie being referred to at the top in the standard way (for the movie Protocols of Zion...). This is what the movie title refers to after all. I also wonder whether 'document' is the best label. The term implies that some supposed original manuscript exists somewhere. I'd prefer 'book' or 'text'. Paul B 16:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Agree 100%. Calling it a "document" contributes to its legitimization. Please restore the title. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 21:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

This article needs some detailed editing in order to adhere to NPOV standards. Throughout the last century it was seen as evidence of Jewish RELIGION conspiracy, and only fueled already present anti-Semetic thought. What the contributors to this article DO NOT consider is how the Protocols seem to be explaining our current world situation, as absurd as this sounds. It should be noted that those who refuse to dismiss the Protocols (certainly not the contributors of this article) no longer claim it to be a "Jewish conspiracy" of Jews by Jews. Only in anti-semetic far-right circles and militant Islamic indoctrination are the Protocols held to be an absolute issue of ethnicity. Those who believe in the Protocols maintain that it involves a number of people and a few happen to be Jews or married into Jewish line (some English in nationality). However, I'm not surprised that your collective conclusion is extremely POV'd, judging by your sources. Jewish scholars who are so quick to write off the Protocols because it is a dangerous document if interpreted as it has been. Everybody is afraid to not discredit an anti-Semetic source, but the irony is the Protocols themselves are only anti-Semetic if we allow them to be. In fact, in the Protocols scenario, nobody wins - not even the Jews. With this in mind, and adhering to Wikipedia's NPOV policy, the first paragraphs are far too subjective. There is absolutely no reason to quote the encyclopedia for crying out loud. What do you think it is going to say, really?

The whole reason Wikipedia exists is to deregulate the control of ideas. Objective reporting. The researcher may be compelled to find out more, but you cannot give such a strong slant as in this article to influence their view. I've scanned over the majority of conversations where similar review was encouraged. The arguments fellow dissenters have given far outway your "yeah, so what, it's fake and it's been proven to be" statements. All dissenters have been cold-shouldered on the premise that it has been proven a "forgery". A forgery of what? A half copied transcription of a French "comical parody"? Well, I'm not laughing, simply because there's too much going on that was mentioned in a text that was put together much to early to see such futuristic developments. I agree that the language is as vague as your daily horoscope in the newspaper and of course, there's always your Orson Wellesian fellow, but the uninformed READER needs to make up his or her mind. The article in its present state will prevent him from actually reading the Protocols simply because there is nothing to gain from such research because it is portrayed as 1) a ridiculous, obsolute lie and 2)used by anti-semetic groups. Who wants to read that? Our situation in 2005 really makes you scratch your head. And don't worry. Just because the Protocols experienced a surging popularity in the 20's based on world events doesn't mean the resurgence in its reading today would mean a second Holocaust. As I mentioned before, I think the Holocaust is reason enough to understand that any "conspiracy" does NOT involve an entire peoples, otherwise the situation in Europe would have been must different when Hitler began his discrimination and subsequent extermination. In conclusion, it never hurts to be a bit skeptical. I still remember not too long ago when everyone was running around yelling about WMD's and I was there shaking my head...

Wow, another posting by me. I really dislike this article until about "1905". It needs much more detail before that. Maybe it would be wise to have a short history section and then a linked "History of the Protocols..." ", starting a new page. In the "the forger" section, it sounds as if Hermann Goedsche is the forger of the Protocols and there is far too much detail on a man who wrote a novel and only had basic ideas copied from it. Also, you're constant tagging of "anti-semite" is tiring. Was he a Jew hater? Or are you drawing this assumption from his book? If not, I apologize, but it is easy to see your slant in this article otherwise (and if I felt as sensitive about the issue, I probably would feel the same). But back then, everybody pretty much hated everybody and it seemed to me you are associating him with what came along with future developments.

Please see WP:CITE, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. A careful reading of the applicable policies should answer your concerns. To summarize, the fact that the text continues to fuel conspiracy-theory in the modern world is mentioned in the article with specific examples, we cannot accept any editor's analysis of the text and must rely entirely on reputable secondary sources, and NPOV states that fringe views should be mentioned, but identified as such. It would be more productive to illustrate your concerns with specific sentences that could be improved rather than to use the NPOV tag and offer personal opinion on the talk page. If you'd like to contribute to improving the article, the best way to do so would be to help with its referencing, as that tends to go a long ways to reducing POV problems. Jkelly 19:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I have a couple of questions for User:68.45.21.204 who posted the above. You say that there are others besides the "anti-semetic far-right circles and militant Islamic" that believe in the Protocols. Who are the people who believe them and who do they think is trying to implement the Protocols? Also could you please sign your posts. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 19:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello again. As I mentioned in my previous post, one only has to look to recent developments to see how an interest in the Protocols would be rejuvenated. The Bush administration, 911, the Iraq invasion, the elections, Bush's connection to the fascist state and the recreation that is being set in motion, there is so much going on that just doesn't make sense and only with 911, which has turned up its fair share of conspiracies because the pieces don't fit, is any of this possible. Strangely enough, the Protocols seem to be the only thing that remotely explain what heck is going on and why a police state is being formed. Coincidence? Vague language allows for all kinds of interpretation (the so-called "Bible Code" is a good example), but if you peruse the internet you will find some sites without an agenda (not a Jew protecting one or a site that specializes in racial hatred) that give the Protocols more time than you are willing to. [5]. This site panders to both points of view and shows both sides. [6]. Are you looking for a mass published article claiming the Protocols exist? Well, you aren't going to find it and its not too difficult to figure out why! Who would touch it given popular opinion BECAUSE of hard line stances taken such as on this wikipedia site. That being said, a simple reading of the Protocols and understanding of world events as they are unravelling is clear enough in my mind that one should refrain from completely dismissing any possibility of relevance in this article. To write a book on the matter would get you blacklisted and to claim that something should be cited is obviously a motivation to discredit such a view because outside of the internet, you will find nothing. There will be plenty, however, written about its history and background, books written with their own agenda in mind. This new school of thought attributes all the events of the last century to financial manipulation, including the rise of Adolf Hitler which is extremely unsettling if one looks into detail regarding his financing. | Nazi Funding, America Keep in mind that the Protocols specifically states how the Jews will be used as pawns with absolutely no regard for their lives although it appears their interests are represented, hence the Holocaust as a sick manipulation of control. Of the most obvious sources that is used as evidence of Hitler's early malicious intentions from the start is Mein Kampf. Yet his financiers are a wide array of personalities, including I.G. Farben and the Bush family. It is true that the dialogues written about Napoleon III were commenting on a totalitarian regime, but the point is one is being formed that involves world government. Most of Bush's opponents feel very strongly about this. Whether this is a natural progression is also another possibility, but I can't believe I have to go into this much detail just to get NPOV on this article.

It is difficult to announce who is behind this world movement, just as it is unfair to request what "type of person" other than an anti-Semite would give the Protocols any serious consideration. Of course, there are those who cite it because it fits their own agendas (Islamic militants, anti-Semites). There is a concern by those seeking to preserve America's democratic institution who will look at the formation of a fascist state as a conspiracy in and of itself. Shortly afterwards, they find the Protocols. You are talking in the hypothetical really, but that is specifically what the Protocols boast about time and again: how the perpetrators have become invisible. To dismiss it as only "anti-Semetic drivel" seems to be the natural, instinctive response. Yet the Protocols outline this is exactly what they expect, and hope, to happen. It is a document that is important because it may have been designed SPECIFICALLY TO TARGET THE JEWS AS A SCAPEGOAT, which it seems to have done fairly well, wouldn't you agree? With the United States the primarly world power, its movement towards totalitarianism with certain agendas of intermixing and undermining old establishments, is frightening. If there is such a conspiracy, these are the last steps...scan the list: they've all been accomplished. Please, as a reader earlier suggested, remove any reference to Jewry and detach yourself from yourself from your own strong feelings toward the subject and reread. Now all I am asking for is a more NPOV approach, not an acceptance of the Protocols at any level. This point of view does not need to be addressed, but I think because of its strong argument (obviously there are few sources outside the internet), a more passive approach should be taken. A key example of anti-Semetic literature I will mention is the article on Mein Kampf, because it is specifically that - rampant anti-Semetism. It has been rightfully treated in Wiki, as it has no useful foresight in contemporary society. The Protocols may or may not.

Also, I went over your sources, such as this [7], this [8], and this [9]. Certainly these sites have their own agendas, just as any site with an anti-Semetic agenda. This is fine for further investigation, but their tone should not carry over into this article's. You are in direct violation of the policy you urged me to reread. I will be happy to participate with this project, although at the moment I am extremely tied up - even though I had time to write this lengthy response. In the near future I will take on this assignment.--68.45.21.204 23:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)--68.45.21.204 23:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV issues

So the great protector of information reverted the page without a single explanation, but dismissed all I wrote as a complaint of "na-uh, its true". How childish of you. Here are a list of statements that are specifically POV.

  • "Most historians in the United States of America and Europe have long agreed that the text is fraudulent; this has also been stated in a number of court cases worldwide, e.g., as early as the 1930s in Bern, Switzerland..."

Prove this. If not, it should be "...long since argued" and the following sentence will show it was dismissed in the court ruling.

  • "The Protocols is accepted as factual in some parts of the world in which people hold negative opinions of Jews or Israel."

typecasting, and not acceptable in this form. Your language leads us to believe that only "those" types people, Jew-haters or those unsupportive of Israel are the only ones. Are you also assuming that the people who do not agree with Israel's conduct are supportive of the protocols? Again, vague manipulative language.

  • For Tsar Nicholas II, who was fearful of modernization and protective of his monarchy, it would have been convenient to present the growing revolutionary movement as part of a powerful world conspiracy and blame the Jews for Russia's problems.

this is conjecture. Beyond that, this libelous statement is not accurate. There is no mention of such pre-rebellion views.

  • source: [10]. "Why did Nicholas II change his mind on civil rights for the Jews between 1905 and 1916? There is strong evidence that his attitude changed over time. First, he was never the rabid anti-Semite that many in Russia were at the time. He was certainly less so than most members of his family and he was castigated for this by them. There were two factors that changed Nicholas's mind toward the end of his reign. One of them was WWI. During the war Nicholas saw hundreds of thousands of his country men die - many more were wounded. They came from all class and religions. Jews were persecuted in the Army but WWI and the lack of men lead to a loosening of these restrictions. Among the troops was a Jewish soldier who had returned from America to fight for his country, who was severely wounded and made an invalid. After his recovery this man wanted to move to Moscow where he could hope to make a living, but this was not allowed because he was a Jew. This man's petition reached Nicholas and Alexandra who discussed the man's plight and the ridiculousness of the laws regarding the Jews and the Pale of Settlement. This incident created a change of heart in Nicholas in 1915. Personal experience with real-life stories like this one often lead to change."
      • I took the liberty of manipulating reformatting the above paragraph without content change. It is irrelevant anyway because WWI started in 1914, and the Revolution of 1905 occured in 1905. Humus sapiens 23:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The book is popular among those interested in conspiracy theories, although most of them consider it to be false. most of who? conspiracy theorists? huh?
I guess this means that it conspiracy theorists are interested in it, perhaps because of the way it describes conspiracies working, but that most accept the evidence that it is a concocted text. I don't know whether this is true or not. Citation would be desirable, but difficult. Perhaps 'most' should be changed to the less contentious 'many'. Paul B 00:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

other proposed changes:

  • I would propose expanding the subject matter section, possibly condensing something elsewhere if need be.
Yes, it could be expanded to explain in more detail the nature of the supposed conspiracy. Paul B 00:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Information on Hermann Goedsche is misleading, and this paragraph should be rewritten and condensed, as he is not as important to the protocols as suggested.
how is it "misleading"?
  • The section in the 20's and 30's is portrayed in an unacceptable, subversive view, charging that the forgery was "used" by anti-Semites and anti-Revolutionaries and later anti-Bolsheviks to further their own agendas. This is misleading, for if ever there was a moment when the Protocols were believed to be accurate it was during this period BECAUSE of the events transpiring. London dismissing it in 1920 contributed little to sway opinion. If you know anything about conspiracy theories, you would understand why. Only after the Holocaust did the forgery lose its legitimacy, and this reality is not portrayed in the article. Rather, it suggests that only a losely defined group of manipulators used the document to further their own agendas.
Are you sure you mean "subversive"? I don't quite get what you intend by this word. Yes, they were at the height of popularity at this time, for sure. It was an age of radical change with all sorts of groups plotting revolutions and constructing totalitarian tyrannies, so it's easy to understand why the PEZ would would be popular at such a time. That's not evidence of its truth. Of course it was "used by anti-Semites and anti-Revolutionaries and later anti-Bolsheviks to further their own agendas". That simply a fact, very well documented. An anti-semitic, anti-revolutionary, anti-Bolshevik text is used by people opposed to Jews, revolution and Bolshevism. Well it would be wouldn't it? I don't really know what you are trying to say, beyond the fact that it was popular because it provided a neat all-embracing explanation for the turbulent events of the era. Maybe the article should expand on that, but the point is already made in the passage about "long-standing conservative and Christian criticisms of modernity...etc". Paul B 00:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Notice, Jayg, I listed no reference to the truthfulness of the Protocols. Only instances where your viewpoint interferes with reporting the facts.--68.45.21.204 23:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

this is absurd. 30 seconds pass and the NPOV label is removed. I put it up again and 10 seconds later its gone. My how passionately you take to disinformation —preceding --68.45.21.204 23:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

User:68.45.21.204, if your concern is that the article presents unverified information (which it does), why are you using the NPOV-tag? Jkelly 23:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello Jkelly, nice to see someone taking a scholarly approach to conflicts and reverting. I used NPOV because, as the examples above illustrate, misleading verbiage and other issues show a clear slant has been taken. I ask for documentation to show that at least some of these instances are summarized verbatim and not pulled out of the air with an ideology to support in mind. --68.45.21.204 23:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

What disinformation? So far you have provided a barely intelligable ramble by way of explanation for the tag. You can alway claim that this or that event fits the conspiracy, just as most events in the world can equally fit the coming of the End Times as predicted in the Book of Revelation. In fact the bag-like inclusiveness of the "conspiracy", which includes pretty-much everything – both increasing liberality to increasing authoritarianism – is so adaptable that almost any events can by made to fit it.
On your three points above:
"prove it". The court cases prove it, as does the extensive discussion in this very article of the sources for the text. Even if there were a real conspiracy of Elders, it would not alter the fact that the text itself is a fraud. If I forge a letter from George Bush to Donald Rumsfeld saying they intend to invade Iraq to get cheap oil, then the letter is a fraud. Whether its contents are true or not is a totally different matter.
On countries with negative views of Jews - No, it's true. The Protocols are most widely accepted as true in Arab countries. There is a lot of evidence for this, and it is detailed in the article.
The passage you quote on Nicholas says it would have been convenient for him. It also says clearly in the article that Nicholas rejected the Protocols when he learned that they were a fraud. Your quote from a website simply states the NII was less antisemitic than other "rabid" members of his family. It does not say that he was not antisemitic at all. Wagner was less antisemitic than his wife. Did that make him a friend to Judaism? I don't think so. The passage also says that his views softened from 1905 to 1916 - that he "changed his mind before the end of his reign". Maybe, but that implies that he had the opposite view before this "change of mind" doesn't it? And that's the period covered in the article. Paul B 00:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Or perhaps we should avoid weasel terms altogether? Jkelly 00:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The "passion for disinformation" comment was a reflection on the silent, anti-intellectual reverter who didn't like what he thought I had to say. Had he actually read what I wrote, he would see that I am not claiming the Jews are behind some wild conspiracy. That comment was not about the article, although as I mentioned, it is a little misleading. I thought I was pretty clear in my statements anyway. Yes, we should avoid weasel terms! When shouldn't we? That is precisively why NPOV is not present and, in turn, you are answering your own question of why a tag is needed until these issues are fixed. This is the main issue I have been referencing the whole time, but I had to issue more than a blank statement!

To be honest, I think most of our issues can be cleared up with the a few rewritten sentences. I should note that Paul B's last statements are correct, its simply how these ideas are presented in wiki that is misleading. --68.45.21.204 07:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

To Paul B and Humus sapiens:

-Look at precisely how the Book of Revelations article you mention is written. A very different and neutral tone, albeit personal views. I believe the historical significance of the Protocols has led to the subjective writing I see, but in any case, some of the things I mentioned should be cleared up.

There is a big difference between the two books. One is a religious text. You may believe it to be a divine relevation or just someone's fantasies, but there is no evidence that it is a fraud. The question of belief or disbelief is of a different kind. Also, we have very little evidence about how the Book of Revelations came into being, but a lot more about the Protocols. However no-one is saying that this article cannot be improved. Of course it can. Some claims need more support. Yes, there could be more on the actual conspiracy as described in the book and on the reasons why it has enjoyed especial popularity at particular times. Paul B 12:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

-I was reflecting on the tone of the part about Nicholas II (which the article I found did not support). When you write that the article I referenced "does not say that he was not antisemitic at all", you show me your exact line of thinking, which also is present in the article: belief or distribution of protocols = anti-Semite until proven not to be. Do you think everyone who believed in the Protocols was manipulated by anti-Semites or believed in the revelations made in it only because of their preconcieved prejudices? If anything, I'd say the Protocols made people anti-Semites and only after the text gained credibility with the passing of time. The Great Depression, World War I and the rise of Communism are a few major events with explanations that gave the Protocols an audience. Were these people anti-Semites before the Protocols? The article takes on the point that Nicholas was and adapted them because he wanted to quell the rebellion and persecute the Jews, leaving the Protocols as only a manipulative tool. The article also suggests that anti-communists used the Jews as a scapegoat, though there is no mention about Jews in Marxism, and Jews in the Bolshevik ranks (even if Jews were naturally aligned with what was considered to be liberalism).

What is my exact line of thinking? I don't claim to have detailed knowledge about Nicholas II's shifting opinions about Jews. I do know that anti-Semitism was pervasive within the Russian aristocracy at the time and that Alexander III was particularly strongly associated with it. It would be astonishing, in such a culture, if Nicholas were a modern model of multiculturalism. Pogroms in Russia pre-dated the the distribution of the Protocols. Russian Jews were leaving in droves well before then. I am pretty well versed in late 19th century "race theory" and I can assure you that anti-Semitic ideas were pervasive long before the Protocols were published. Read Ripley's comments on east European Jewry in The Races of Europe (1899), the standard text of the time. You write "The article takes on the point that Nicholas was [an antisemite] and adapted them because he wanted to quell the rebellion and persecute the Jews, leaving the Protocols as only a manipulative tool." I do not read that anywhere in the article at all. It says he was shown the text, wrote some comments about how it fitted the facts as he saw them, and then changed his mind when he discovered them to be fraudulent. On the whole I'd say the article as it stands presents a pretty positive picture of Nicholas. Paul B 12:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
It is as wrong to discuss "Jews and Bolshevism" topic here as any other allegation: "Jews control finances/politics/Hollywood/..." or "Jews use the Protocols against the Arabs" or whatever. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 08:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Humus sapiens, the link certainly is relevant because the wiki article claims Nicholas "began a program of widely disseminating the Protocols as propaganda to support the wave of pogroms that swept Russia in 1903–1906". His view on Civil liberties changed during the last year of pogroms? That doesn't make sense. Of course his view changed in 1905, after Bloody Sunday and the monarchy pulled back on the reins ever more forcefully. Was what followed anti-semetic activity or counterrevolutionary action? He claimed more than three-quarters of those involved were Jews, and although may have been an overstatement, many Jews from intelligensia or campaigning for civil rights, were. Very funny on the "manipulating" note, by the way...I meant to write pre-rebellion instead of prewar, meaning his "anti-Semitic" behavior surfaced only after the 1905 incident. I fixed this just now. --68.45.21.204 07:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

(this section is way too long, I respond in the next one. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 08:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC))

Unraveling lies

Above, the anon wrote: "the wiki article claims Nicholas "began a program of widely disseminating the Protocols ..." -- But here is what the article says: "The reactionary "Union of the Russian People", known as the Black Hundreds, together with the Okhranka, the Tsarist secret police, blamed this liberalization on the "International Jewish conspiracy," and began a program of widely disseminating the..." -- Whether this was an intentional lie or the anon simply doesn't have a clue, doesn't matter to me. As if you'd had any credibility around here, sorry you just lost it. I'm not wasting my time on you. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 08:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Don't get so high and mighty just yet. The sentence you reference,
"The reactionary "Union of the Russian People", known as the Black Hundreds, together with the Okhranka, the Tsarist secret police, blamed this liberalization on the "International Jewish conspiracy," and began a program of widely disseminating the "Protocols" as a propaganda support for the wave of pogroms that swept Russia in 1903–1906 and a tool to deflect attention from social activism."
indicated, at least to me, that the Protocols were distributed "as a propaganda support for the waves of pogroms that swept Russia in 1903-1906", meaning during that time the Black Hundreds, etc. started distribution and the blame game. As I pointed out, Nicholas II been reluctant to persecute the Jews until the 1905/06 (as the article above stated) and the Union and other branches of enforcement under the czar were not created until 1905/06 as well. Since they are the left arm of Nicholas II, I just used the czar as a filler since they are not to act outside of his orders anyway. I did not misquote. Because the sentence is long and lumps together things happening at different time periods, I must have misinterpreted the sentence if it is meant to say the pogroms swept Russia in 1903-1906 and the Black Hundreds, Protocols etc. were part of the (implied) aftermath of this event. So my apologies, if this is what is supposed to be conveyed than it is fine as is, though it is long.
Now its my turn to call you out on misreading, since you seem to be gloating over your accomplishment for some odd reason. First, what are you talking about, "allegations"? You obviously know very little about the Protocols if you don't understand the events that made possible their popularity, especially with the supposed Jew/Communist connection. Don't put words in my mouth Humus, there were many, many Jews in the Bolshevik/SR sects, but I never said anything about it being a Jewish conspiracy. The important point is that most did see the events in the Soviet Union this way before the Second World War because of the numbers of Jews involved. Any standard text will back me up on that. Also, I never mentioned "Jews control finances/politics/Hollywood"...you made that up yourself, because labeling someone an anti-Semite when they strive for historical accuracy appears to be the easiest way for YOU to maintain YOUR legitimacy. No more discussion, I was trying to run my ideas by before I did anything but I can see this isn't working productively.. --68.45.21.204 11:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Unless you can come up with a coherent and brief statement of what you actually think is inaccurate or POV in the article, I'm afraid no-one will be able to evaluate your concerns. Jayjg (talk) 19:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Arabic anyone?

I just thought of this, but can anyone here read Arabic? I would be curious to see how the "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" article is presented in the Arabic wikipedia section, since it must follow the same guidelines of the wiki community.--68.45.21.204 22:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I've only studied Arabic for 1&1/2 years, but the article is only one line. It simply says that it was a forgery, that it was made in Paris, and something concerning Russia in 1905. Its a very short article. Avengerx 03:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

A final word...for now

Okay. I am not as emotionally attached to the material, so perhaps it is easier for me to see how the strong feelings of several contributors have wormed their way into the article specifically through its wording. I plan to fix some of the parts I mentioned so the same information is presented a little differently. I am not going to repeat myself and waste my time, as such efforts will bring about another discussion war concerning personal convictions. As far as the article goes, I think it might be a good idea to consolidate the current nation by nation synopsis a bit and give more details about the content of the protocols. I'm going to report, tone the article down a little and let you respond to my changes as you please. I'm not ready to engage in a debate when my cyber enemies have have not even seen the changes I plan to make. They involve the sentences I mentioned above, perhaps a few others if I happened to overlook them. Greater efforts need to be made to achieve as close to NPOV as possible, even in an article about something as controversial as the Protocols. This is how I plan to increase the value of the article. --68.45.21.204 22:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia editing is a collaborative, consensus process. Please do not refer to those who disagree with you as your "cyber-enemies". Also, please realize that unilateral action on controversial topics is bound to meet with resistance. Why don't you propose a change or two here first? Jayjg (talk) 01:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Please give me some time on this, as I will be busy for the rest of this week awhile. On a side note, I was refering only to certain unfriendly individuals - not all those who disagree with me. Humus' brash comments were particularly uncalled for. I think for a minute there he thought I was David Irving and he was taking his cue from Lipstadt.--68.45.21.204 02:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
I admit I'm not her, but I do take misquotations seriously. As you can see from the history, this particular page is a magnet for trolls and conspiracy theorists. Let's put this incident behind us: if you are serious about contributing, I invite you to please register. Good neutral constructive editors are very welcome here. I promise that we'll get along just fine if we all stay within the WP:RULES and I personally will be happy to collaborate. Maybe I'll learn something. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 10:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

On the 15 Nov User:68.45.21.204 readded the NPOV tag with this edit summary: "NEUTRALITY IS BEING DISPUTED -contribute or do nothing". Since then, s/he has contributed nothing. On the 17th s/he asked for "some time on this, as I will be busy for the rest of this week." That was 10 days ago. All of 68.45.21.204's criticisms have been addressed here. I can't see any continued justification for the NPOV tag. 68.45.21.204 has been given more that enough time to contibute. Any future contributions s/he does make can be assessed like any other additions. Paul B 14:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've accumulated a number of resources related to the Protocols, so hopefully I'll be able to make some real contributions over the holiday. Cheers.--68.45.21.204 21:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Autheticity

The POTLEOZ was written anonymously and has never been "proven" as this article says, to be forged. Regardless of inquiries into it. Nothing has been "proven". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.70.95.203 (talk • contribs) .

Please see WP:CITE. Jkelly 18:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't know why the anonymous authorship is relevant. Its fraudulent status has been proven beynd any reasonable doubt. Paul B 14:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion/Archive_1&oldid=1137240823"