Talk:The Protocols of the Elders of Zion
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 19, 2006. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
Jewish history Unassessed | ||||||||||
|
Books FA‑class | |||||||
|
This page is not a forum for general discussion about The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about The Protocols of the Elders of Zion at the Reference desk. |
Archives |
---|
Connotations of Jesus
This sentence is self-implicting: "the lack of Talmudic citations that would be expected in it, textual references to the "King of the Jews", the semi-messianic idea that carries strong connotations of Jesus", the babylonian Talmud clearly carries strong connotations of Jesus, as well as being anti-Christ, a memorable part which mentions "Jesus is in hell for all eternity, wallowing in boiling hot excrement!". So how can the Protocols of Zion be criticized for the strong connotations and not the Talmud? Second of all, why would there be an "expectation" of Talmudic citations? I know many Jewish literature which does not cite the Talmud. Why is there an exception for the Protocols of Zion? It seems whoever added that sentence felt he/she needed to fabricate or mold more points to dismiss the Protocols of Zion than necessary. Many of the Anti-Christian content of the Protocols of Zion ties in very nice with some old Jewish literatures, the Talmud for example, which suggests a strong possibility that whoever originated the contents of the Protocols of Zion must have been a dedicated follower of the Talmud. If there is text in this article to discredit the Protocols of Zion, there should also be an section which also states why the Protocols of Zion is credible, for there are many many points to support the latter. This will also help give this semi-biased article a more neutral tone; which is expected of encyclopedic content. --87.194.3.52 21:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
pamphlet, book, or text
I've replaced the first with the third. Sometimes it has appeared as a "book." So it's more accurate to call it a "text," rather than a "pamphlet." --151.202.87.159 19:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Maurice Joly: diabolical plotters in hell
Who contributed this phrase: "using the device of diabolical plotters in Hell as stand-ins for Napoleon's views"
What device are you alluding to here? The device Joly uses is as the title suggests a dialogue, but it is not a dialogue among plotters, quite contrary. Machiavelli simply presents his ideas to the humanist Montesquieu. Machiavelli clearly represents Napoleon III. And that was well understood, otherwise he wouldn't have been sent to jail. Montesquieu functions as a foil, the non-plotter, to whom the ideas are presented. He is not important for Joly, that why he is underrepresented compared to Machiavelli. He is definitely no plotter. This makes me really furious. Had Joly made a plotter out of Montesquieu this would have seriously hurt his design.
Please! who wrote this? If blotters is meant to allude to both Machiavelli and Montesquieu, I suggest you take a look the Montesquieu page. This is a highly irritating passage for everyone who read Joly. LeaNder 18:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- I made an attempt to fix it. Please see if this is better, feel free to correct, criticize, suggest improvements, etc. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I feel we met before? Humus_sapience was it around Brook talk? Ok, I'll try something. I read it very, very fast and it admittedly is not completely fresh, on my mind and not around here, but the outlines, I think I can handle.80.135.192.99 18:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
completely wrong qualifications of this book
It says: "...is an ANTISEMITIC text that purports to describe a Jewish plot to achieve world domination".
The book is NOT ANTI-SEMITIC at all because it does not CONTAIN any bad opinion on Jews. On the contrary, the book speaks with great enthusiasm about the Jews missions in the planet.
I am very much astonished about the fact that someone can write an obviously wrong idea in so-called "featured article" about such well-known text. It would be the same if one would say that Hitler's "Mein Kampf" is anti-German, which obviously is not.
However an author of this extremely biased text could argue that INTENTIONS or PURPOSE of the "Elders of Zion" have been anti-Semitic by his opinion and the opinions expressed in his references. That would be a fact. Also the fact would be that there are a lot of people who has different opinions on this subject and also have a lot of references to support their contradictory opinion on this particular subject. The absence of these opinions in this moment does not mean they will not show up and speak for themselves and expose the contrary opinion on this subject.
That's why the original author is very wrong when saying that the book "is a literary forgery", because that is (still) not the proven fact and seriously challenged by so many authors. In the meantime if this "encyclopedia" really wants to be an Encyclopedia I would recommend the author to keep to the facts. Please. Slavne 07:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Please start new discussions at the bottom. We do not strive to represent all the range of popular opinions here, see WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS. More than enough notable scholars call the text antisemitic. All this has been talked to death in talk archives. Please review them. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I really did not want to spoil any concepts you or some other responsible people would have when arranging and editing Wikipedia. My reaction is about something I consider very obvious and contradictory to elementary logic, as follows.
Mr Humus said: "We do not strive to represent all the range of popular opinions here".
- Dear Sir, this what you said would be quite understandable if we would have 60 different opinions on this subject; but in this case we have only TWO: either pro or against. Even in common daily reporing news there is a basic rule for objective reporting: hear the other side. This encyclopedia should be even more then short reporting.
Mr. Humus said: "More than enough notable scholars call the text anti-Semitic."
- There has been times when more then enough scholars argued that the Sun rotates around the Earth as well. If this encyclopedia purports to be such, then objectivism is banned from it. Why so? Simply because one accepted article in Wikipedia itself says this: "Anti-Semitism (alternatively spelled anti-Semitism or anti-Semitism) is 'discrimination, hostility or prejudice' directed at Jews." Now it is the question: "Are you going to accept 'more then enough scholars opinion' or are you going to accept your own definition in Wikipedia?" Because I have just recently read "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" but nowhere in it I simply cannot find any single discrimination or hostility against Jews in that book. On the contrary, I find only praise for them! Perhaps I have some other edition? Or something is very wrong with Wikipedia definition of anti-Semitism? Or something is very wrong with the article "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion"?
And what's more. I am really not interested to discussing the intricacies of this book, or to participate in the long discussion. If you want that, then I recommend you to see the old archive that you mentioned. What I would ask the original author is just to use a little bit common logic before he writes any such highly biased text. I am really sorry, but I do not have time to provide anybody for a (very) long list of "enough notable scholars" who have had the exactly opposite opinion then presented in the article. If the original authors of the so called "featured article" don't even bother to know that list by themselves, that is the additional reason for me to back off.
Anyway thank you for your time. Slavne 08:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- This is not about Mr Humus. Reputable scholarly sources overwhelmingly agree that the Protocols is an epitome of antisemitic hostility, prejudice and conspiracy theories. No original research please. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- Old requests for peer review
- Unassessed Jewish history-related articles
- Unknown-importance Jewish history-related articles
- WikiProject Jewish history articles
- FA-Class Book articles
- WikiProject Books articles