Talk:The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

How has this work been debunked?

Parts seem to be plagiarized but so what. Most of it is full of opinions. You can't use other opinions to debunk it. Explain in better detail what's been "proven wrong" in this work. 67.41.119.139 (talk) 22:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not what is claims to be. It claimed to be non-fiction, but it is fiction. It is in this sence that it has been "debunked". Lobojo (talk) 00:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that proves this is a work of fiction? 76.95.40.6 (talk) 07:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree that this article has unbalanced POV. If I read this article right, the only evidence that the protocols are fake are that the original scripts has not been found. The plagiarism statement does not prove o disprove the existence of a protocol. I wanted to find evidence where I can show people: look here: This is why the protocols are fake. Now when I read this article and within the first sentences I read POV stuff like "proven forgery and hoax", then no link or evidence or fact. I would really appreciate links and evidence to the statements in the article. Realshompa (talk) 19:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mexico low.jpg

Image:Mexico low.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Where does the Protocols of Zion mention hashish?

1. 24 states "prohibition of alcohol and hashish", but I have read a few translations to try to understand the reasoning behind this, and found no mention of hashish, marijuana, weed or any other psychoactive drugs! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.171.228.31 (talk) 08:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Zionism

Norman Cohn, in his Warrant for Genocide, on p. 77, informs us that,

    "the unknown Russian translator of the original French manuscript,
    as quoted by Krushevan and Butmi, explicitly states that the Elders
    are not to be confused with the representatives of the Zionist movement."

--Ludvikus (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Fake

I think it would be fairer to say something like widely regarded as a fake, we can't be 100% sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.67.41.128 (talk) 22:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oh? You have doubts? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• • I do ( I wasn't the anon IP post, but It bothered me the way you "cleverly" retaliated to its comment). As the anon IP mentioned, we, as OBJECTIVE contributors to an encyclopedia (yeah, it is online but it is still an encyclopedia) cannot 100% assert it as a fake. People tend to misread the WP:NPOV policy and ignore POV balance. This article clearly is unbalanced. But well. As I have mentioned before, all I can do is manifest myself in this talk page, as "general consensus" has established that this is 100% a forgery (balance violation) without even giving it reasonable doubt (which many editors have given). Before trying to be smart to some anon please read wikipedia policies. I also tend to be ruthless with them. But ALWAYS based in the policies. --Legion fi (talk) 06:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I suppose one could say that the protocols are widely regarded as fake in the same sense that the Moon landings are widely regarded as real. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Some more knowledge of logic may help enlighten the annonymous editor above. First, the article does not employ the expression "100%." But if it did, as implied in the above, that it implicitly does, it would have to employ a tautology because only the latter is "100%" certain. No empirical fact - or rather a statement thereof - is, or can be, "100%" certain, much less are we able to say that Napoleon truly exited. Be that as it may, the evidence in support of these so-called Protocols - stupedly wriiten I might add - are a fake, has been established beyond any sort of reasonable doubt. What they do demonstate, however, which I would like to take an opportunity here to express, is the stupidity of human beings in general. That they do quite well. But also, what is even more peculiar, is that even quite intelligent individuals]] - perhaps driven by their more powerful hatred, can believe in the reality of such incredible garbage. Generally, Jews, are not depicted as stupid by antisemites. Yet this stupid writing is attributed to them. What we ought to do, by the lesson of this human gullibility, is conclude that Man (or WoMan) are generally not rational - particularly where prejudice comes into play.

--Ludvikus (talk) 17:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Today

How can you call this a forgery? just take a look around you in America today. This "Forgery" is taking place before our vary eyes and you deny it? What are we doing in Iraq? The U.S. goes to war with any country that threatens Isreal. The Jews didnt evolve into the most hated people in the world by being "nice people". Isreal isnt enough, the Jews want the entire middle east for its oil, then the world....The only holocaust is the one taking place in Palestine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.76.121.20 (talk) 00:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Source it, or it didn't happened. I cannot look around and post about it in the Wikipedia as it would constitute Original Research. I don't care what YOU are doing at Irak as I'm not from the United States, and hence didn't take part in the elections of the responsables. I am aware of what is going on in Palestine, and I am aware of what happened at Auschwitz. But it doesn't matter. This is a talk page about the changes to be made to the article. Not your general conception of the world. As far as wikipedia concerns, please keep your opinions to yourself. --Legion fi (talk) 06:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You, Annonymous Editor, seem to confuse the concepts of forgery with true and false. Do you really want to say that this writing is not a forgery? Or do you want to say that this forged writing gives a true description of Jews in the world today? But if the latter, can you give just one scholarly writing supporting your position? Of course you cannot do that - correct? --Ludvikus (talk) 17:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

More particularly, on your points above:

• There are many wonderful Muslims, Arabs, Palestinians, etc. But what does this part of the world have to give the rest of the world but oil? USA should be in Iraq to protect its oil interests. What, you expect it to be cold in the winter? And how do you expect Americans to drive their cars - on water?
• Jews are "nice people" - and smart people - maybe because they had to live as a minority among the rest of the "nice people" of the world for 2,000 years.
• Why you think only the Jews want the entire Middle East for its oil is strange. The whole world is only interested in the only thing that part of that culture has to give today - just oil - and maybe Rushdie, no? No, there are some other good things too - but nothing as important as its oil! Otherwise, there would only be the Arabian deserts - if you know what I mean. Allah was kind - putting oil there, where there was nothing else.
• You say you are aware of Auschwitz, which ended only in 1945. But you seems not to understand that the 1948 so-called catastrophe happended only because the "nice" Europeans, and the rest of the Christians made it impossible for the Jews to live in any other part of the world. Here, of course, we have the interjection that the Jews are just not "nice people" by you. So there is no argument against you. Whatever happens, this argument just requires the Jews as a scape goat.
• You abuse the word "holocaust." The Jews/Israelis sent oil to Gaza and the 2 civilians get murdered for it. It seems to me that these people (Jews) are just too nice." You know what the Americans did to the Japanese in WWII? And that's not even called a "holocaust." The low-flight (no atom-bomb was used) bombing of Tokyo kill about 100,000 Japanese, including women and children. But that was not called a "holocaust."
• And where are all the "nice people" in the Middle East who could absorb the Palestinians as brothers and sister? How come only Jews are occupyers? Where do you want the Jews to go - to live on the Moon? Of course not. You just regret that that "nice man" Adolph didn't finish the job, right?
• And who are the "nice people" who invented suicide bombing? Who loves martyrdom? For these "nice people" - is it true that there are 72 virgins waiting in paradise? And what do these "nice people" have for women, besides the chodar?
• Hope this helps you make the above irrational argument a bit more clear for the rest of us.

--Ludvikus (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Mhhh... ok?... Could you please read carefully Ludvikus? I think you are confusing ME with the anon. I was the one that stated that I knew about Auschwitz, not the anon. I stated that trying to prove that I didn't care about what he knew about. It doesn't matter what one as a wikipedian knows. It is about what the sources say. But not, you had to go around answering the anon as if talk pages where made to discuss general matters about the subject. THEY ARE NOT. So please stick to the discussion about the article. Thanks.--Legion fi (talk) 05:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

My comments are for the benefit of the Anonymous Editor. That paaragrahp above is ridiculously unsouced and implies ignorance of Auschwits. It is extremely difficult to have discussions with generators of such rubbish. By rubbish I mean the thesis (if you can call it that) that Jews are responsible for everything bad in the world (whatever that means).

Nevertheless, that first paragraph above is what the subject embodied in The Protocols is about. So anyone who edits this page is bound to confront such writing as in the above. Regarding Auschwitz, what do you think M. Anonymous implies by the above? (S)he implies that the Jews got what they deserved. And that is, in fact, what is read into these Protocols of Zion. You, I think, are trying to say that we should stick to what the scholarly view is - as opposed to our personal belief. But that's not helpful. Everyone maintains that what he or she believes is the truth. So all we can do is press people for their sources. So I think you are not helpful by merely demanding that the person suppress his or her personal belief. Our task, as editors, is to point out that such views, as expressed in the above, are (1) unrelated to reality, and (2) our views are supported - not by merely looking at the world - but by showing consistency between our views and the views expressed by reputable and acknowledged scholars and scholarship. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This was Ford's & Hitler's view of The Protocols

It needs to be restated what is well known to the authorities on The Protocols. Both Ford and Hitler maintained that whether this text was authentic was irrelevant to them. What was important was the alleged fact that this writing described the actual malevolent behavior of the Jews. That kind of thinking (if you can call it that) is repeated as well by the anonymous editors of the Protocols of Zion. So, User:Legion fi, the fact is that our latest Anonymous observer above it not merely giving us his own private view. Accordingly, we have to deal with it - and that's what I've tried to do. It would be easier if this Wiki editor cited Ford and Hitler as the authority, but that was not done. Had it been done, the proper reply would have been a critic of Ford and Hitler as discreditted authorities. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, I still think you are misreading me. I urged the anon to "Source it, or it didn't happened", to abstract his personal beliefs, and not to use the talk page for general discussion. As it seems we are arguing against and in favor of the same things, I will not argue further. I agree in what you are saying and totally understand you apprehension about the anon comment --Legion fi (talk) 06:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm not "misreading" you - you were the first one to criticise the Anon. Ed. I just want to emphasize that the above kind of comment is to be expect - but it should not be ignored. Also, notice that after your & my criticism, the auther of that comment just vanished - and now only you and I are left. And we both agree that thes so-called Protocols of Zion are a fake, fraud, hox, plagiarism, etc. By the way, I haven't seen anyone using the notion of authentication regarding this so-called Jewish Peril. In particular, to the extent that the text is alleged to be non-fictional in character, allegedly being a record of a real event in the world - this writing is inauthentic. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

One thing I would like to mention, if the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are a hoax, then you would have to say the same about the Bible. I say this because there is no actualy proof that the events in the Bible happened, or the events in the Bible will happen. They are prophecies, just like The Prophecies of the Elders of Zion are. The article as it stands now IS biased and obviously people who are Jewish want to show that they feel that this document is a "hoax". If you call this a hoax, you might as well call the Torah a hoax. ( For reasons I have stated above.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrAdidaKing (talk • contribs) 22:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Yes, this is a forgery simply because it is "putting words into the mouth of others" when the fact is, nothing of this sort was ever written by a jew. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.117.105 (talk) 06:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Extremely one sided.

I am the one who tagged this article. I'm not disagreeing that the book is fake, and a jew-hating pile of crap. But this article tends to go a bit overboard, and it realks of opinion and not base facts. The base facts of this article are arranged in just the right way to make the opinion very clear. I'm not interested in rewriting this myself, however I am a huge fan of wikipedia's neutrality. So it has been tagged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.6.213 (talk) 22:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You are extremely unhelpful. There is no way for anyone to figure out where the lack of neutrality you claim is. You do not have to re-write the article yourself. But can you please give us an idea of the "other side"? I cannot figure out what the other side of a plagiarism, and fraud, created by the Tsar's secret police, sometime on, or before, 1903 is. Can you tell us what the "other side" of a writing falsely ascribed to Jews is? --Ludvikus (talk) 22:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

In particular, the sentence above by the Anonymous Wikipedia lover is clearly nonsense:

"The base facts of this article are arranged in just the right way to make the opinion very clear."

I challenge anyone to demonstrated that this sentence is not sheer nonsense. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not. It might be inaccurate, but the suggestion is that the you are selecting data to promote a particular point of view, if I'm understanding the complaint correctly. But I don't think the POV tag is appropriate here. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the POV tag is inappropriate, and I've warned the tagger. He's passed 3RR, but I'm reluctant to block someone just for tagging, absent a clear rationale for anything other than some copyediting. I do think the opening paragraphs go beyond making it clear that the Protocols are a hoax/lie/forgery and could benefit from a little pruning without changing the sense of the article. I've explained to the tagger that the POV tag doesn't suit the issue he appears to be trying to address. Acroterion _(talk) 19:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Provenance

I'd like to ad a bit to the article on the issue of the provenance of this text whose original manuscript is non-existent. But I think the above "213" editor who keeps reverting & trolling should be delt with first. Will someone else please respond to this outstanding neutrality challenge? --Ludvikus (talk) 02:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how there's much to respond to, Ludvikus. Like you, I cannot make head or tail of the IP's suggestion of POV problems with the article. Placing the POV tag on an article is meant to be a first step toward article improvements. Since the IP has not pointed to specific problems with the article, but only made vague statements about the way the facts are arranged, it's not possible to make any use of his comments or the POV tag. I think that the best thing for you to do is make your edits, and if the IP persists in re-adding the tag (his only edits to the article so far), deal with it in due course. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with you 100%, Steven J. Anderson, but what does IP stand for (I'm curious) beside Mr./Ms. "213"? --Ludvikus (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe that technically "IP" stands for "Internet Protocol". When someone edits without registering a user name (like the "213" editor you referred to), they're said to be editing from an IP. The result is that his IP address is recorded as the source of an edit instead of a user name. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

"one sided" is not an accurate characterization. The article reeks of opinion. it is almost comical. I certainly laughed. The first piece of information that you learn upon reading the article is that the text is fake, false, a hoax, etc, etc. You wouldn't even know if the text was a book, pamphlet, article, etc by reading the first sentence. here is an edit suggestion: - 1st sentence "the protocolls of zion is a text written in russia by so and so at about this time" (no bias whatsoever, completely matter of fact) 2nd sentence "the text is widely accepted as a hoax, literary forgery, and conspiracy theory" (accepted bias) 3rd sentence "the text is anti-semitic, etc etc etc" - that edit suggestion would remove any concerns about the opening of the article, and it would limit the amount of IMMEDIATE bias that this article has. i probably wouldnt laugh so hard at the author if that is similar to how the article begins--Gordonliu420 (talk) 02:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is a joke. Sadly it is so passionately contested, as is any Wikipedia critique of anything Jew - that it would be impossible to ever correct it. Perhaps most striking is that NEWSPAPER EDITORIALS an AIRC are primary sources of matter of fact information.

I'm ashamed to be a contributor to a compendium with such a hideously distinct political agenda.

Nobody has PROVEN enough to categorically say WHAT The Protocols really is. If contributors to this article won't reflect that, shame on them.Ourben (talk) 15:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

If I had five edits, two of them on talk pages, I would not call myself a contributor. Or are you maybe confessing to sock puppetry?--Caranorn (talk) 16:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

By my reading of Wikipedia alone I am a contributor. Not forgetting the fact I share Wikipedia with people I know. What qualifies you to make an assessment of my degree of separation to any 3rd person, and furthermore what gives you the right to weigh in on what quantifies a contribution? It is my opinion your commentary infers you a stature here on Wikipedia; need I remind you of the Code of Conduct? I'm not a sockpuppet for anybody, and this is my only Wikipedia username.Ourben (talk) 08:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

wikt:contribute is all I have to say.--Caranorn (talk) 15:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Originally this text was also explicitly anti-Masonic

The earliest known published edition of this text was in 1903 in the Russian newspaper, Znamya (newspaper). It was explicitly, besides anti-Semitic, also anti-Masonic. There is a tendency to omit this fact. See also: Black Hundred, Union of the Russian People, and Pavel Krushevan. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• For convenience, I quote and Copy & Paste the following 1903 title & headline facts here:

The paper carried the headline, in Russian, "The Jewish Programme to Conquer the World." But the paper purported that it was merely printing a document whose actual title, in Russian, was "The Protocols of the Sessions of the "World Alliance of Freemasons and of the Sages of Zion"."

--Ludvikus (talk) 14:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• In terms of provenance, since the alleged manuscript was never made available for direct scholarly research, we should give this apparently first edition great weight as to what "The Protocols" are, and are about. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• It should be noted that the best available material, evidence and witnesses, on the chain of custody regarding this text was presented at the Bern Trial in 1934 and 1935. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Antichrist and "The Protocols"

I have just added the following to the opening:

A second edition was published in 1905, as a final Chapter XII in a second edition of a book by Serge Nilus on the subject of the coming of the Antichrist. Accordingly, "The Protocols" are originally intertwined with this author's Russian Orthodox dogma.

• Current scholarship holds that the earliest published edition was in 1903 where the text was fundamentally anti-Semitic AND anti-Masonic.
• Furthermore, current scholarship also holds that the 1905 edition (of Serge Nilus) has been more influential - and the source of most subsequent translations and republications. Accordingly, it is encyclopedically significant to note that "The Protocols" were originally (1903-1905) fundamentally intertwined with the Russian Church's view of the coming of the Antichrist. This especially important because Serge Nilus's has become a much more respected theologian in Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union.
• It should be further noted that the text was subsequently used (before 1920) by Nilus and others as anti-Revolutionary and anti-Bolshevik, or anti-Communist and anti-Russian Revolution.

--Ludvikus (talk) 15:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Velikoe v malom i antikhrist

• An editor, named Alex, and I, worked hard on what is - historically - an extremely important book - no less important than Hitler's Mein Kompf. It was: Velikoe v malom i antikhrist, kak blizkaja politicheskaja vozmozhnost. Zapiski pravoslavnogo (The Great within the Small and Antichrist, an Imminent Political Possibility. Notes of an Orthodox Believer). It has since been deleted. This was unjustified - a very big mistake!
• Now, misleadingly, this book is just another title (a Russian language title) for the Protocols of Zion. This is obviously false. Nilus published a book in 1903 on the coming of the Antichrist. And in 1905 he published a second [expanded] edition in which he incorporated the Protocols of Zion as the final Chapter XII. That important historical even is now lost because of some zealous Wiki editor(s).
• I'm asking for corporation in restoring this Wikipedia article. It is my position that this 1905 book by Serge Nilus - in which The Protocols are published for the 2nd time in history as merely a final Chapter XII - be restored to Wikipedia. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• Wikipedia has an obligation to its reading public to present accurately the true history of the anti-Semitic Protocols of Zion. To deny a place - within Wikipedia - to the SECOND EDITION (arguably the more important edition than the FIRST Znamya (newspaper) EDITION - is to mislead Wikipedia's readership as to the true circumstances under which The notorious Protocols were born. The fact is that Russian culture and religion has intertwined the Jews and Antichrist - and that encyclopedic fact can best be presented by including a distinct Wiki article on this 1905 Russian language book (by the recently sanctified Serge Nilus) which has never been translated into English. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I can back you up on that, Ludvikus. To see how to get it restored, see WP:DRV. Be sure you mention that the book is not just an alternate title for The Protocols but a separate book that contained The Protocols as its final chapter in a later edition. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Reasons for POV tag

In the first two sentences the author of this article uses nine different words which express an obvious opinion.

plagiarism hoax fraud alleging antisemitic anti-Masonic diatribe anti-Zionist conspiracy theory

I'm not doubting that any of that is true, and I'm not debating any of the facts. However, it's obvious that the author purposely tried to shove as many adjectives as possible into the intro, and it looks cluttered and one sided. If the author is so determined to use large words, do so later in the article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gifttimes (talk • contribs) 20:08, 18 April 2008 It was then resigned by 74.93.6.213 (talk) 23:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not think an un-signed, un-dated, and un-timed remark like this "Reason for POV tag" deserves a response. Rather, this opinion that the terms above express an opinion should be errased. Unless its author signs it - that's what I'll do - unless someone else objects. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Tough.74.93.6.213 (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Are you the same person as:

(cur) (last) 20:08, 18 April 2008 Gifttimes (Talk | contribs) (82,371 bytes) (→Reasons for POV tag: new section) (undo)

??? --Ludvikus (talk) 23:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Are you editing under two(2) names: Gifttimes and 74.93.6.213? --Ludvikus (talk) 23:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• It's hard enough writing about a substantially fraudulent subject matter. There should not also be here the added distraction of a Wikipedian who apparently improperly masquerades under two names! --Ludvikus (talk) 23:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

---

• I see you've 74.93.6.213 again tagged the page as allegedly non-neutral, but you've made no specific claims as to where you find the article to be non-neutral.
• Also, you've not denied that you operate under two names (the other beeing Gifttimes).
• And you've been warned at least 3 times.
• Please explain exactly where you believe or hold the opinion that the article lacks neutrality before you get blocked. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

---

The now established Troller(s) above merey listed listed the following laundrey list as proof that the article is according to him or her non-neutral:

• plagiarism
• hoax
• fraud
• alleging
• antisemitic
• anti-Masonic
• diatribe
• anti-Zionist
• conspiracy theory

Contrary to this/these Troller(s)' allegation, each and every one of the distinct terms applies to "The Protocols".

The position expressed seems to be that, for example, it would be enough to just say that Hitler was a bad man, and that to describe the different ways in which he was bad would violate some principle of neutrality.

Can anyone defend this illogical argument? --Ludvikus (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

In particular, you object that these are all "big words." So let be explain the first: plagiarism. I suspect that you yourself have committed plagiarism here because you have signed the these Comments of Gifttimes as your own (assuming you are not also him or her). And if you are one and the same person then you are committing a hoax upon us. Similarly, all these terms have each distinct meaning.

Let me make the suggestion that you click on each of them, learn their unique meanings, and come back (if you can) and tell us which, if any, you are of the opinion, does not apply to the Protocols of the wise men of Zion, or the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Ludvikus, please... assume good faith. As much as I despise unsigned comments in talk pages myself, you have gone all out accusing the anon (or the probable new user) of plagiarism. I just want to state that I also sometimes post under an IP when the connection I'm at is shared. That doesn't mean I'm trying to hide behind an IP. Also, I URGE the anon poster and/or the registered user Gifttimes to clarify if they are indeed the same editor.--Legion fi (talk) 05:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Prefaces, Introductions, etc., of "The Protocols"

I'd like to take this opportunity to remind Wiki editors of the following established scholarly facts regarding this text. We should remember that the actual so called "Protocols" are very brief - making up too few pages to constitute a book. Accordingly, these were first (and repeatedly) published as newspaper articles and pamphlets. So what the (often anonymous) editors did was expand the text with additional wording of their own, consisting of commentary. And it was here where the text was interpreted to be whatever suited the particular historical need for a scapegoat. For example, the ultranationalists of the Black Hundreds and Union of the Russian People variety, within the Russian Empire felt threatened by Jews and Freemasons in 1903. Accordingly, their commentary made these Protocols reflect the alleged revealed conspiracy of the Jews and Masons. Serge Nilus, on the other hand, in 1905, subscribed to the old Christian classical - now discreditted - view that the Jews were agents of the Devil. So he expanded his 1903 book on the coming of the Antichrist by inserting a final chapter into it - chapter 12 - which he used as evidence that the Antichrist was already present in the world and working through the Jews as his agents. Later, when Zionism emerged as a significant movement (not in 1897, but on & after 1917, with the Balfour Declaration) these "Protocols" were re-published, in new editions, with new commentary, to demonstrated the alleged malevolence of Jews and Zionists. Similarly, when the Russian Revolution unfolded and Bolsheviks came into power, these "Protocols" were held to have useful propaganda value as a means of discrediting said revolution by alleging that the revolution was merely the unfolding of Jewish activity as announced and embodied in the "Protocols." In summary, I want to emphasize why the various versions and imprints are so important from the historical point of view - it is there where the "Protocols" are adopted by often un-named or anonymous editors to suit the particular historical event and to cast dispersions on the Jewish people; through these "Protocols" any alleged adverse event in history is made ascribable to the alleged malevolent minority - the Jews. That it why Norman Cohn - correctly - dubbed these "Protocols" a Warrant for Genocide. It ("The Potocols") is the effective tool by which the Jews are made the universal scape-goat: Something's wrong in the world? The Jews are responsible for it. That's how "The Protocols" get recycled. The formula is quite simple (the Tsar's secret police deserves an award on effectiveness in that regard): Demagogues, or tyrants, got a problem? Here's the solution: Just blame the Jews. How? Easy. (1) Get a copy of "The Protocols." (2) Get some anonymous writers/editors to delete the older Preface, Introduction, etc., and have them write new ones which link the Jews, through "The Protocols," to the current political, social, economic, or whatever, problem exists, to the situation at hand. That, in brief, is the history of the life of "The Protocols" to this day. I think we need to remind some of our readers that that's how Henry Ford used the text from 1920-1929, and that's how the Nazis used them before, during, and after their rise to power in 1933. In 1934, by the way, "The Protocols" were turned into a 300 page book by a secretive so-called The Patriotic Publishing Co. by synthesizing it/them with the International Jew which itself is essentially an expanded commentary on these same "Protocols." --Ludvikus (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

False document

It's rather surprising I think that no one discussed our text in relation to the (legal) concept of false document. Perhaps the most common false document in the United States are ID cards to establish one's age or identity. If presented to a police office in most jurisdictions, a crime is committed, often a felony. To the extent that our text was represented as being a real record taken from some Jewish organization, when in fact it was a fabrication of the Tsar's secret police certainly has that element of what is required for a false document. Furthermore, it was submitted to the Tsar's censors as a true record (or reproduction thereof). Similarly, we know that it was presented to various US military and other government officers (during the period of 1919-1920), such as diplomats, as true, with knowledge that it was (that's the wealest point) contrary to fact - actually we know that the smarter antisemites (like Ford and Hitler) just didn't care. So the essential elements of a crime appear to have exist then, when our text first arived in the West. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Jacques Crétineau-Joly

He is not to be confused with Maurice Joly. In the body of our article Lucien Wolf is credit in discovering "Joly" as a source of the "Protocols." This is misleading. It needs to be corrected so that the two (2) different Joly's are not confused with one another. --Ludvikus (talk) 05:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I've corrected the confusion between the two Joly's as follows:

    In 1920-1921, the history of the concepts found in the Protocols was traced back to the works of Goedsche and
    Jacques Crétineau-Joly by Lucien Wolf (an English Jewish journalist), and published in London in August 1921.
    But a dramatic expose occurred in the series of articles in The Times by its Constantinople reporter,
    Philip Graves, who discovered the plagiarism from the work of Maurice Joly.

• Some copyediting may still be needed - but at least I've made it clear that it was Graves, not Wolf, who first discovered Maurice Joly as a source of "The Protocols." Wolf only seems to have known of Jacques Crétineau-Joly as an alleged source. --Ludvikus (talk) 06:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
• Lucien Wolf's (1921) work is available online. I've just included it as an External Source. I'm also making it available here (for those who need a reference for the confusion of the two Joly's):

• The Myth of the Jewish Menace in World Affairs (1921) by Lucien Wolf --Ludvikus (talk) 06:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

David M. Dickerson or David Dickerson

We have an external link to this individuals Web site. However, I have not found anything about this person to indicate that he is notable by Wikipedia standards. What he has done is scanned a version of "The Protocols" and made it/them available on the internet. However, I have carefully examined his HTML digitized version and it seems that he has failed to identify precisely which edition, imprint, or version it is. Accordingly, I strongly recommend that our External Link to his cite be deleted. Should someone write an article about him for us (thereby establishing him as notable) we can consider restoration. But there still will be the problem that he has not been sufficiently accurate in identifying which edition he has reproduced. To the best of my recollections, I have written an email to him a couple of years ago about this issue, but he has never responded. Can anyone, please, tell us anything about him? --Ludvikus (talk) 16:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• His external link (as given on our page) is: *David Dickerson, 1995-2005

--Ludvikus (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• Failing to identify, exactly, and precisely, which version he has published there has therefore, in my estimation, turned him into just another reproducer of this trash (although that was not what he wished). --Ludvikus (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• The is a lawyer by that name identified on the Web, but I do not know if it's the same person: [1]

---

The was no object, so I've deleted the non-notable External Link, uncited (exactly) reproduction of "The Protocols" by this source: "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" ed. by David M. Dickerson, 1995-2005: --Ludvikus (talk) 14:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"Thousands, perhaps even tens of thousands, of Jews have died because of this infamous forgery."' Rabbi Joseph Teluskin, Jewish Literacy

As we can see, this reproduction of "The Protocols" has on its first Web (and opening page) a reference to a non-notable Rabbi, and periodical. This further justifies deletion. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

---

I've just had it confirmed that this is NOT the same person as the Attorney by the same name who is publicly listed:

    "No- not yhe same
    David Dickerson
    Law Offices of David M. Dickerson
    13006 E. Philadelphia St., Ste. 201
    Whittier, CA 90601
    Telephone: (562) 945-1236
    Fax: (562) 945-3339"

--Ludvikus (talk) 18:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The edition of the PSM (World conquest through World Government) the well-intentioned Dickerson has reproduced on his Web page alleges to be the "eighty-first impression" (sse his page 10). It also discusses the year 1957 and events of that year (see his page 19). --Ludvikus (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Unavailable CIA link

I have deleted the following link since it is not currently available:

• The Paris Operations of the Russian Imperial Police by Ben B. Fischer. History Staff Center for the Study of Intelligence, CIA (declassified). 1997

--Ludvikus (talk) 17:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

A Hoax of Hate - also unavailable

This External Link is also currently unavailable as given - so I've deleted it:

• A Hoax of Hate at Anti-Defamation League

--Ludvikus (talk) 17:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• • It has now become available, so I'm restoring it in this format:

• A Hoax of Hate by the Anti-Defamation League, 2002 [2]

--Ludvikus (talk) 13:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be mistitled

I just got here (and therefore am not going to alter the article), but this doesn't seem to be an article describing the book so much as a comparison between it and the "Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu" (listed as the source of a plagiarism in the article).

I'm looking for an overview of the history of the book, a summary of the content of the book, perhaps any opinions experts have on the book, and links to those opinions. Note that these are all in separate sections, not intermixed throughout the entire article.

--BobClown (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• First of all, welcome to Wikipedia.
• Second it's not a book in the substatial sense. It consists of roughly 24 paragraph - hardly enough for a book.
• It's both a substantial plagiarism of Maurice Joly's book of 1864 - so if you want to know the "true" meaning of this text, you should go to the source on that; for your information, the 1864 text is a satire upon Napoleon III.
• Another erroneous presumption of yours is in thinking that there is this one book - there are many different ones, and in different languages, and each one of these has its own incredible history. There is for example an edition popularised by "Hur" Adolf Hitler. Maybe I should start with the Russian language one in which 11 chapers are on the Antichrist, and Chapter 12 consists of the Protocols of Zion. There's also the story of Henry Ford's greatly expanded and elaborate 4-volume adaptation which was published as The International Jew.
• We also have the greatly expanded edition by Seymour Bathurst, 7th Earl Bathurst in The Morning Post (yes, a newspaper) of 1920 whch was subsequently published under the title of the Cause of World Unrest.
• And there is much more to the story - so please read on, and please look before you leap. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem quite attached to this - I didn't mean to trivialize or offend. What I came here looking for was general information on the "text(s)". This, in my opinion (which means diddly, but how about that and a grain of salt?), is usually something conveyed in the first paragraph (see introduction) of an article. If the entire existence of the book (excuse me, "text") is limited to a plagarism, then by all means introduce it as nothing but a plagarism. Seeing "it's a hoax" alliterated 20 times, however, usually sets off a red flag in my mind.

If nothing else, the third paragraph (with some editing) should open the introduction. The content isn't what's bothering me here, it's the structure of the article. --BobClown (talk) 20:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Validity of this text?

I would question the institutions stance on neutrality with reference to the jewish conspiracy theories? Wikipedia as the new age "historian" should inform but not persuade. However, what i read before me, in relation, to the jewish conspiracy theories is a one sided direct form. There is seemingly no area of discussion as wikipedia dictates an idyllic view that is neither popularist or generally assumed by others around the globe. Openly diminishing any opposition or question of the theories i find the article in reference a weakness in the instituions neutrality to provide fair and accurate information on a monumental range of subjects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.83.56.130 (talk) 11:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

(1) Your comments above - all sweeping useless generalizations - are also discribable as extremely incoherent, as it concerns reason. What are you talking about? What's your question, on "text validity?" Where do we find your "jewish conspiracy theories" besides the insides of the workings of your private mind - which is inaccessible to us? How are we to figure out what you're talking about? Coulldn't you have been more specific?

(2) Also, why is this article about Wikipedia in general? You seem to be criticising the whole world. Why is this article the place for you to do that?

(3) Can you give us a citation, just one authority which supports any of your many opinions "expressed" here?

(4) And by the way, a text is never valid - what is valid is an argument, none of which has been made by any of the words used above. In fact, the above paragraph - which unfortunately must go by the name of language can only give us some meaning by being psychoanalyzed. But we are not shrinks here. But you leave us no choice. My - amateur - psychological interpretation of the giberish expressed above tells me that you have some feelings regarding Jews and that you seem to read those feelings into "The Protocols", right? And that you are disappointed that those feelings of yours are not at all adequately reflected in our Wikipedia article, right? But as Wikipedians that's not our job here - nor is it yours. Wikipedia is not the place to discuss the private views of people who may have feelings that there is some "validity" to your view that "jews" - somewhere - are "conspiring" - to do what, by the way? --Ludvikus (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

revision or citation needed

in the section titled 'Comparison to the Dialogues' the bibliographical information for the text used is not listed. It simply says 'page 9 of this book is the same as page 7 of the other'. please include the information so that this can be checked otherwise i suggest we remove that section until propoer citation can be provided.--24.210.149.130 (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not responsible for this section. However, the comparison here is not Original research. It was first made by Philip Graves in 1920. Other subsequent scholars have made this textual analysis. So what you ask to do is easy (if it has not in fact been done here). Page references to Joly's book is easy - since his "Dialogue(s) in Hell ..." was first published in 1864, and for a long time, until very recently, was not available in any other imprint. By the way, there now exist no less than two (2) English language translations of it.

But references to "The Protocols" is somewhat problematic because there are so many different editions, imprints, and versions of it. The version I'm particularly interested in now is titled, World Conquest Through World Government. The only imprint of this title which is widely available (according to WorldCat, there are 405 scholarly libraries in the world which own a copy) appears to be a so-called 84th impression or printing which is dated 1963. By the way, to the best of my knowledge, it is this title which is associated with the translator, Victor E. Marsden. But he died on October 28, 1920. I hypothesize that the publishers of this notorious rendition of this PSM, namely The Britons, needed a name to tag on to their pamphlet - so they attached his name to it. I know all this by going to libraries and examining these various versions. But I'm limited in what I can write here because Original Research is prohibited by Wikipedia. Nevertheless, reading and citing actual original imprints of the PSM that one can get a hold of in some library does not constitute original research. Your demand for reference regarding the PSM has the interesting effect of making one realize not only that there is here a Non-Exitent Manuscript, but only no such thing as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I do see what you are saying. It would be hard to find exactly where it is as the dialogues piece is out of print, and just any edition of the Protocols would not work, as you said there is no definitive edition. That would be like someone saying 'on page 10 of the Bible.' well which edition of the bible? But since this section does clearly site page numbers, it would be nice to have the edition used. But i guess ytou cant have it all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.149.130 (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Redundancy

The lead paragraphs of the article contain a high degree of redundancy. Before the table of contents is even reached, it is stated that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a plagiarism, a hoax, a diatribe, a conspiracy theory, an inauthentic text (that has "failed to pass any scholarly standards of authentication as an alleged historical document or record", which is in itself a redundant explanation of "inauthentic text"), whose original manuscript "does not appear to exist anywhere in the world" (as if it might be possible that it exists somewhere out in space), a false document, a literary forgery, a hoax, and debunked.

All of this is, of course, true, but repetition to that extent browbeats the reader.

Particularly egregious is the sentence "In summary, it is an inauthentic text having failed to pass any scholarly standards of authentication as an alleged historical document or record.", which is the third sentence in the introduction. A summary is not needed for a mere two sentences.

Not to say, of course, that all that should be taken out. Some elements are discrete and separate. However, it would be reasonable to pare the list down to just: a plagiarism, a hoax, a diatribe, a conspiracy theory, and an inauthentic text. The fact that the original manuscript "does not appear to exist anywhere in the world" is understood from the fact that it is a hoax and inauthentic text. That it is a false document is likewise understood from the fact that it is a hoax and an inauthentic text. The fact that it is a hoax is understood from the fact that just a few sentences before, it is stated that it is a hoax. And the fact that it has been debunked is understood, again, from all the preceding.

My edit was reverted with the explanation that "'summary' is not repetition". I humbly propose that summarizing two medium-length sentences into a third medium-length sentence is precisely repetition. In summary, I think that summarizing two sentences with a third sentence is repetitive. 210.160.15.16 (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem to fail to understand several very subtle, but extremely important ponits.

• (1) You probably do not understand habeous corpus, or its related principles. How can you demonstrate a crime without the corpse, or the murder weapon? We even do not have, readily available at our disposal, the first editions of the diverse imprints of this hoax. That the manuscript exists nowhere in the world does not allow us today to examine the handwriting, ink, or paper upon which this text - which now lives in cyberspace was - created. I do not understand how you can trivialize the non-existence of the manuscript. All we now know for sure is that this text existed in 1903 because the is at least one library in the world which owns the Znamya (newspaper) articles emodying that text. The next time frame in which this text was printed is 1905 by Serge Nilus. The printed book containing our text exists now in the British Library. And the two versions are different. Furthermore, the scholarship on this matter alleges that the 1903 is an abbreviated form of the original (presumably an alleged monuscript which some have claimed was written in France in 1897. Now I am curious as to whether this text was not really in fact written about 1903, and the 1905 edition was an expanded edition, by Nilus or his friends and associates. But we will never know, will we, in part because we cannot submit the non-existent manuscript to forensic examination. I therefore reommend that we revert your suppression of these facts. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• (2) The phenomena which you incorrectly label as repetitous in fact employs different and distinct notions - all of which have their own pages on Wikipedia. If you think there is repetition here, that what you should do is merge all the terms into one page and call that page inauthentic because you maintain that all these terms mere repeat one notion. Ludvikus (talk) 19:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• (3) Since you claim that the manuscript cannot exists out in space somewhere, with which I agrree, and you imply that it exists somewhere on earth, could you please tell us at least the name of the country in which this manuscript is currently situated? I would certainly love to know that! And don't you think that a plagiarism is distinct from a forgery? --Ludvikus (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• (4) Your claim of redundancy suggests that the terms you cite above are all synonyms, but they are not! --Ludvikus (talk) 19:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• I've just replaced "In summary" with "Generally." That's an improvement which I hope pleases you. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.

• I think the word "generally" is a bit awkward, but it is an improvement. To pare it down further (while retaining meaning), the bridge word can be taken out completely, to be just "It is an inauthentic text..." Since an inauthentic text is one which hasn't/can't be authenticated, I still think it's redundant to say "it is an inauthentic text having failed to pass any scholarly standards of authentication". So that could be pared down to "it is a text having failed to pass any scholarly standards of authentication". Tighten the grammar up, and you get "It has failed to pass any scholarly standards of authentication as an alleged historical document or record." That contains all of the meaning of the original, while avoiding the awkwardness.
• I still think the phrase "does not appear to exist anywhere in the world" is odd. Unless you believe in people launching anti-Semitic screeds into space, it means the exact same thing as "does not appear to exist". Why not just use that phrase, and drop the nebulous "anywhere in the world" bit?
• The whole "false document" paragraph is really awkward. We've already established that it is a hoax. That means there is no original, no? The whole paragraph describing that the original has never been verified as existing seems, still, redundant. Is it even possible to have a "hoax" with a "verified original"? Still, if we're going to leave that in, something needs to be done about the sentence "Nevertheless, it has been shown that associated with the alleged original are the elements of a false document." Since we've established that it's a hoax, there's no need to tip-toe around it "having the elements of a false document". Why not just change that sentence to "It is an example of a false document" or "It is a false document"? Or, to combine it with the sentence described up above: "It is a false document which has failed to pass any scholarly standards of authentication as an alleged historical document or record." Two birds, one stone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.160.15.16 (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• I think you have excellent stylistic or copyediting suggestions now!
• What I do not agree on is your desire to suppress the vocabulary: "False document" is a precise technical term. Hoax also has a distinct meaning. For example, you can have a hoax which involves no document.
• By all means, go ahead and improve the writing style as you suggest - but please do not censor any of these different terms which mean different things - but which sound redundent to you.
• Finally, although you have shown us a way to improve the style of the writing, I cannot comprehend how you can trivialize the non-existence of an original manuscript. Consider this. Suppose you are a DA engaged in prosecuting an alleged counterfeiter. You then show the judge and jury a photocopy of the $100 bill. The defense objects demanding the original. But you respond that you do not have it, or lost it. Well, how do we know that it is not the case that there never was any countefeiting in the first place? It is certainly possible that the photocopy of yours is a false document. I cannot overstate the importance of the fact of the non-existence of the original manuscript. I hope I have made my point on that.
• So please improve the wording by rearranging the sentences as you suggest. But please keep all the (1) facts and (2) diverse concepts. --Ludvikus (talk) 03:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• You say some strange things. You imply above that an "inauthentic text" is a text which "hasn't been authenticated." That's simply false. How can you say such a thing? --Ludvikus (talk) 03:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• You must be confusing "inauthentic" with "unauthenticated." The latter means that a thing has merely not been (yet) established as genuine, whereas the former means the thing is a fake. --Ludvikus (talk) 03:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to try to act as an intermediary. I hope it will be welcome.

First, to the IP commenting here. It would be tremendously helpful if you would register a user name. I can assure you that it's entirely painless. IP's can sometimes change and, even if they don't, It's a lot easier to remember who said what if they sign with a recognizable name instead of a string of numbers

Second, to Ludvikus, if I understand the IP correctly, he agrees with you completely with regard to the facts but takes exception to your writing style. (Is this correct, IP?) If you agree with me about this, Ludvikus, I think it would be best to avoid the use of words like "your suppression of these facts" and "censor". They really aren't civil and don't assume good faith.

With regard to the matter regarding the "original manuscript," obviously this hoax was concocted at some particular time and place. The person who concocted it put it down on paper somewhere. The paper on which he (she? unlikely) originally put it would be the original manuscript. The fact that this manuscript seems not to exist is worth mentioning as Ludvikis says. However I don't think that the IP is implying that the manuscript actually exists only that the phrase "in this world" is stylistically infelicitous.

I'm about to take a look at the article to see if I can make any stylistic improvements and I'll watch this space to see if I can be of any help. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful contributions, Steven J. Anderson. I've noticed your constructive contributions in the writing already.

However, I think you are overlooking the disruptiveness of the repeated posting of that Neutrality tag. I urge you to do something about that IP whom you've warned already. Furthermore, I understand the policy of Good Faith at Wikipedia, but unfortunately, one cannot assume good faith in the context of bad faith - which this article attracts like a Magnet. Furthermore, I acknowledged already the need for stylistic changes, but I do not see any other way of understanding this claim of "repetitiousness" except by the expression above. I do not think that "calling a spade a spade" is inconsistent with Wiki Policy. There has been no "repetition" as claimed. So the only way to understand the above IP is in terms of "suppresion" and "censorship." "Assuming good faith" does not require closing one's eyes. Furthermore, that IP can clarify his or her position, and I can easily acknowledge my incorrect interpretation of that "repetition" charge. I do not see sufficient difference of my wording here from the IP's use of "repetition." --Ludvikus (talk) 05:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Ludvikus: I understand that you want to keep the phrase "false document". That's why I suggested using the phrase "It is a false document which has failed to pass any scholarly standards of authentication as an alleged historical document or record." If I were trying to suppress this fact or censor it, I wouldn't have suggested a sentence containing it.
• I didn't realize the difference between "inauthentic" and "unauthenticated". I apologize. However, if what "inauthentic" means is "the thing is a fake", then haven't we already covered that ground by saying it's a hoax? Steven J. Anderson edited this phrase out, and you don't seem to have a problem with that, so perhaps your opposition to my suggested removal was something personal ? (I admit I probably created too much friction with the drive-by edit, and I'm sorry. I'm used to making modifications to non-contentious pages, where edits can be made without discussion. I should have realized that I should have suggested changes for a topic as charged as this before making any actual changes. I can't really blame you if my initial edits put my further suggestions into a bad light)
• All that said, I have suggested changes that keep all the main concepts: the hoaxness, the anti-semitism, the conspiracy theoryness, the lack of authentication, the false document, the lack of existence of the original, etc. etc. etc. In fact, the only thing I've removed in my latest suggestions is the phrase "inauthentic text", since it's already been stated that it is a hoax, and a false document, and the original does not appear to exist. Given that I've left in every single thing that was in the original text besides one expression, which has already been expressed in different words (a hoax false document which does not appear to exist IS an inauthentic text), I admit my initial edits were drastic, but I think my recent suggestions are sound and retain all the information of the original. I fail to see how leaving everything would leave one with the conclusion that "the only way to understand the IP above is in terms of 'suppression' and 'censorship'". Especially since you're not seeing the exact same removal of the phrase "inauthentic text" by another user to be "suppression" or "censorship".
• Steven J. Anderson: Thanks. I really like your edits. As it is, I only see one more redundancy, which I'm going to put in the "Authentication" section immediately below this. Other than that, the intro is looking much, much better.

210.160.15.16 (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, one other thing: Steven J. Anderson, I think you're misinterpreting what Ludvicus is talking about when he is talking about the original not existing. We all agree that at some point someone wrote this down. This original is missing. What I think Ludvicus is talking about is that the publications of the Protocols purport to be reproductions of some secret minutes from a meeting of freemasons or Jews, and that that original has never existed. Basically, we're talking about two originals: the first does not and has never existed (there was never a meeting of Jewish freemasons planning to take over the world). The second was the original hoax document, which pretended it was a reproduction of some nonexistent original. This second original obviously did exist at some point, but has been lost. There is no debate by anyone (sane people or crazy neonazis) that the second original at some point existed. The issue is that some crazy folk insist that the first original (actual minutes from an actual conspiracy meeting) at one point existed, and cannot be found, while non-crazy folks point out that the whole thing is a hoax pastiche from other screeds, and there IS no "first original".

I tried to figure out a way to phrase that succinctly, but it's really difficult.

210.160.15.16 (talk) 13:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Authentication

That's an important technical process for which we have an extended article. I'm surprise that it's being trivialized by editing it out of the page. So I've restored that concept. There is no "repetition" by the use of this term even if we have already used the other terms such as plagiarism, forgery, fraud, etc. --Ludvikus (talk) 12:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ludvikus - It wasn't edited out of the page. It was moved up to the first paragraph:

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (Protocols of the wisemen of Zion, Library of Congress's Uniform Title; Russian: "Протоколы сионских мудрецов", or "Сионские протоколы"; see also other titles), is a plagiarism, literary forgery, and a hoax, alleging a Jewish and Masonic plot to achieve world domination. The writing has been revealed to be originally an antisemitic and anti-Masonic (and subsequently anti-Zionist) diatribe and conspiracy theory. It was first published in 1903 in Russian, in Znamya. The text has failed to pass any scholarly standards of authentication as an alleged historical document or record. A version of it was published in 1905, as a final Chapter XII in a second edition of a book by Serge Nilus on the subject of the coming of the Antichrist. Accordingly, "The Protocols" are originally intertwined with this author's Russian Orthodox dogma.[1]

As it is, we now have the introductory section of the article containing these two phrases:

• The text has failed to pass any scholarly standards of authentication as an alleged historical document or record.

• Although it has never been authenticated, the text is always published by those who subscribe to its authenticity as a revelation of the activities, practices, and policies of Jews.

So it isn't being edited out of the page, but moved to a more prominent position near the start of the page.

210.160.15.16 (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

What Do They Purport To Be

Something I just noticed on rereading the intro, and the article in general: It isn't until significantly far into the page that it's actually pointed out what the Protocols purport to be (supposed notes and instructions written at a meeting of Jewish freemasons).210.160.15.16 (talk) 14:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, you raise not a simple problem. Thes "Protocols" themselves are about two dozen in number, 24 (depending on which version you consider). And they themselves do not reveal what they are, except that they are in the first person singular. What they are is given by its diverse editors, of which there are many, and some are anonymous. These, or this text, have/has never been canonized, as our bible or the Koran has. So what "they purport to be" varies with which annotated imprint or impression you happen to read or stumble upon. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Ah, ok, that makes sense. Thanks.210.160.15.16 (talk) 15:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• I think I can offer some insight as someone who knows relatively little about the Protocols. I've read your other posts Ludivikus and they do make sense but reading the article, I do not get an understanding of what the Protocols actually are. The introduction should provide a concise and clear summary of the article but were I to read it on its own, I would be at a loss to explain to anyone else what the article is actually about. Yes, the Protocols do not appear to reveal what they are in themselves but that is why anonymous used the word 'purport'. This is adequate for the purposes of conveying the fact that the articles are faked documents which were published to 'expose' an alleged Jewish conspiracy. If you are not happy with this phrase then perhaps we could have 'widely purported by publishers'? Furthermore, I have to agree with what others have said as regards the rendundancy of some of the text in the introduction. I understand that all of the sentences and phrases are relevant and true but that does not mean that they all need to be included in the introduction. I could add in to the entry for Romeo and Juliet that 'Romeo and Juliet was originally written on paper by William Shakespeare. Shakespeare first thought of the play. The play was written using a quill pen and ink. The play has characters and is meant to be performed. Romeo and Juliet are the main characters. Romeo is a man and Juliet is a woman....' I know it's a silly demonstration but I urge you to find a sentence in there that is not true.Supernoodles (talk) 15:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• In a way, these liers and forgers force us to do their work for them by their very sloppiness. For example, are these protocols anti-Zionist, or anti-Bolshevik. It depends on how much credence you give the diffrent prefaces, introductions, appendices, etc. (often very brief). There's this irony here. We seem to elevate these often mysterious unknown "authorities" as the sources on what the "Protocols" are. Isn't that strange? --Ludvikus (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• In other words, there exists not only the bare PSM, but also the context of the text. Maybe semiotics is needed to account for how these messages or meanings are conveyed. We give too little weight, I think, to all the words, and workings, of all these editors and publishers (like The Britons). --Ludvikus (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

One can identify some common elements which characterize "what the Protocols purport to be" in all forms of publication. The Protocols most fundamentally are invoked as "proof" that all revolutionary social changes from at least the Middle Ages and up to the present are allegedly the result of one single all-binding conspiracy. Although not all conservatives have embraced the Protocols, those who have embraced them have quite consistently done so in a context where a conservative social opinion is being argued for. The Protocols were put together in the late 19th century when many socialist movements were blossoming in Europe, hence the Protocols were invoked to assert that socialism is a tool created by the Learned Elders. Similarly, the Protocols were invoked to argue against the concept of progressive taxation. The Protocols were invoked when charging that both the French and Russian revolutions were the accomplishment of a single conspiracy. All uses of the Protocols have consistently been aimed at associating a variety of Left-wing and/or liberal reformist ideas with an evil conspiracy. That is the single common point in all promotions of the Protocols. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.40 (talk) 22:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

A Fabricated "Historic" Document (1964)

• Protocols of the Elders of Zion: A Fabricated "Historic" Document (1964)

by United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary (PDF at ushmm.org) Online Books Page [3]

This is a report on the official investigation and findings of the United States Senate.

Regarding the POV challenge, I'm posting this 1964 "External Link" here also. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The History of a Lie

• The History of a Lie: "The Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion"

(New York: J. S. Ogilvie Pub. Co., c1921), by Herman Bernstein (at archive.org), The Online Books Page [4]

This is an early textual study.

• Dear new IP Wikipedians,

I've pasted this reference for your convenience. You may, if you wish, Download and/or Print this 1921 scholarly study. Upon reading it, please join us in editing this page in an informed way. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Cleaning Up the Talk Page

I've been working through this talk page trying to get a handle on some discussions that I realize have already happened. However, I think (but it's a bit hard to tell) that the talk page is partially being misused. The Wikipedia guidelines on using a talk page state:

• Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal.

But they also state:

• Share material: The talk page can be used to store material from the article which has been removed because it is not verified, so that time can be given for references to be found. New material can sometimes be prepared on the talk page until it is ready to be put into the article.

I see a lot of material on this page which is just links to additional references, people, books, etc. If these are being placed here in preparation for their later inclusion in the main page, that's fine, but it would be good to note that, and to request whatever help it is you need in placing the contents into the main page (that is, if you're adding information here in order to get verification, ask for people to help with verification. If you're putting it here in order to request copy writing or additional fleshing out, request copy writing or additional fleshing out). If you just have additional information that you think is interesting, if it's good enough to put in the article, put it there. If it isn't, don't put it anywhere. Otherwise you're using the Talk page for "talking about the article's subject", and not "discussing how to improve the article". 210.160.15.16 (talk) 20:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You are the one who Tagged the Main page as Non-Neutral about half a dozen times in the last two days or so. But what you talk about above has nothing to do with your allegation that the Main page is Non-Neutral. I think the participants here know the purpose of his Talk page. It is not a place to bring up a non-sequitor. And that's what you're doing here know. Why don't you tell us what the reason was/is regarding your claim that the Main page is Non-Neutral (for which you've posted the Tag at least 6 times after different editors removed your Tag)? --Ludvikus (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I have never tagged the page as non-neutral.

This section of the talk page is to discuss trying to make this talk page more useful. Please keep this section on topic. If you wish to discuss things with the guy who keeps tagging the page as non-neutral, go up to the section of the talk page about non-neutrality and talk with him about it there. I am not him, and this topic is not that topic, so bringing it up here is a non-sequitor. 210.160.15.16 (talk) 23:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• What do you mean you "are not him"? Look here [5]! --Ludvikus (talk) 23:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• My apology. I see now that you really appear to be not him. Sorry. But why don't you register, and join us. You will then be able to choose your own pen name and be more easily recognized. Nevertheless, I still do not know what your "beef" is in the above. Good luck to you. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• I see that you've been around since June of 2006 - that's 2 months longer than me. So you shold appreciate the usefulnes of a unique name. Why don't you do that so at least I can more easily tell who says what? --Ludvikus (talk) 00:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• No problem, I understand that IP addresses can be confusing. I'd like to register, but due to some quirks here, that isn't really possible. Kinda sucks.
• My beef isn't a big one, it's just that I realized after my initial complaints about redundancy (which have pretty much been solved), that the issue had already been discussed before in the Talk page. (So, ironically, my whole comment about redundancy was redundant -- oops!) So I tried to read through the talk page to make sure I didn't go repeating something someone else had already said, and I found it really hard to read, not because there was a lot of contentious discussion, but because there was a lot of stuff that doesn't really qualify as "Talk Page" material (from people on both sides of the issue), and I figured that if the talk page were used more in line with the general objectives of Talk pages, it would be easier for folks like me to read through. I see you've put in a copy editing request below, so that's perfect, and exactly what I was after. Thanks. 210.160.15.16 (talk) 00:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for Copyediting Help in Paragraph below

I'm sorry for the poor, repetiveness, copy. I would appreciate assistance & stylistic improvement - but the facts are established:

• The text was popularized by those opposed to the Russian revolution, and was first disseminated by the instigator of the Kishinev pogrom, Pavel Krushevan, its first editor, in 1903, and in opposition to the Russian Revolution of 1905, and the October Revolution (1917), the WWI peace negotiations which resulted in the Treaty of Versailles (1919), becoming known worldwide during the 1919-1920 period it was widely circulated in the West, and thereafter. It is known to have commenced such circulation in typescript form (translated from the Russian language) among the diplomats and officials involved in the negotiation and execution of the peace settlement in 1919 known as the Treaty of Versailles which brought a formal end to World War I. Curiously, it was first published (printed) in the English language in 1919 as two newspaper articles in the Philadelphia Public Ledger by the famous journalist and subsequent Columbia University professor and dean of the journalism department, Carl W. Ackerman - but all references to Jews were replaced (without explanation) by references to Bolsheviks and Bolshevism.

• Sorry: --Ludvikus (talk) 23:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Well, I've copyedited the above myself into the following:

• The text was popularized by those opposed to the Russian revolution, and was first disseminated by the instigator of the Kishinev pogrom, Pavel Krushevan, its first editor, in 1903. It was similarlly used in opposition to the Russian Revolution of 1905, the October Revolution (1917), and the peace negotiations at the end of World War I which resulted in the Treaty of Versailles (1919), becoming known worldwide during the 1919-1920 period when it was widely circulated in the West, and thereafter. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The rest of the para. I've turned into a new para. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

A sandwiched interjection

I've been copyediting the following: "External links of notable current Web resources" and checking these out as to Notability, and Availability. But in the meantime an unknown IP has interjected something - can someone please check that interjection as to propriety? (I'll be back in a moment with the IP address). --Ludvikus (talk) 01:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm back. Here's the interjection work which I cannot verify as to my agreement:

    "(cur) (last)  01:07, 25 April 2008 69.134.125.56 (Talk) (89,644 bytes) (undo)"

Can someone please check on what this IP has just done, please? --Ludvikus (talk) 01:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. I figured it out myself. The IP interjected an "e" replacing "Bern Trial" with "Berne Trial" (both are correct, but perhaps the latter is more common). --Ludvikus (talk) 04:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Jose De La Cruz or Jose Delacruz

• [http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/33d/projects/protzion/DelaCruzProtocolsMain.htm The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion: Plagiarism at its Best by Jos� Delacruz, November 2003]

It's a wonderful cite - but it's not notable. So I've just deleted it. What a shame! --Ludvikus (talk) 04:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Here is "Jose"'s resume (he says he was 19 when he composed the cite): [6]

--Ludvikus (talk) 04:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

All "external links" checked, verified, & copy-edited

I've completed that just now. --Ludvikus (talk) 05:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Michael Hagemeister, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion: Between History and Fiction, New German Critique (Spring 2008)

• I've just been informed, in the last few days, of the latest published writing (in English) by this German scholar regarding the question concerning the original authorship of the PSM. I have not yet had a chance to acquire a copy of this scholarly article. For those of you who are interested, here it is: [7].
• The exact reference is: New German Critique 103, Vol. 35, No. 1, Spring 2008

--Ludvikus (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Clyde J. Wright‎

He edited a Frebruary 1934 71pp. imprint of "The Protocols." --Ludvikus (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

References: Hadassa Ben-Itto

I would recommend not to refer to the book by Ben-Itto, since her book is not a scientific work and contains false statements, which is confirmed by professional historians (see e.g. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Protokolle_der_Weisen_von_Zion#Literatur:_Hadassa_Ben-Itto). --Max Shakhray (talk) 00:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not read German. Can you bee more specific please? She is a former Judge, and her book is praised by Judges in New Yor City. And she focused on the 1934-5 Berne Trial. So even if she made errors, she is some sort of an authority. And we do not not require "scientific" texts for these matters, we require scholarly sorces. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Here's an interview with here (By Jamie Glazov FrontPageMagazine.com 8/28/2006): [8] --Ludvikus (talk) 01:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, here's my mediocre translation:

"The author had the records of suitors against the Protocols from Bern and South Africa at her disposal (p. 37). But she neither uses citations, nor gives references, thus it is not verifiable which facts are new, which are authentically documented and which are her literary fantasy (here comes a citation from p. 72). She compiles an intricate international relationship network with the disadvantage that many conclusions have no evidence and some statements are simply wrong." The author of this review Dr. Rainer Erb works at the Centre for Anti-Semitism Research in Berlin (http://zfa.kgw.tu-berlin.de/mitarbeiter.htm). Moreover, I received a similar critical review of Ben-Itto's book from Michael Hagemeister: "Unfortunately, the book by Ben-Itto about the Bern Trial, which is translated into many languages, has no scientific value and is full of factual mistakes".

• I do read English, but could you be more specific about the interview? --Max Shakhray (talk) 02:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• I just posted the interview (you can click on it) as some proof of who she is. Her book was published. Whereas you just give us broad generalities - that is totally useless for WP. Give us, instead a review in a scholarly journal - that we could use. We must have References. But you give us none. --Ludvikus (talk) 03:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• I know who she is. And first I thought she gives correct facts. But the reality seems to be a bit different, unfortunately. I'm just about to ask Michael Hagemeister about references for the facts about the costs of both trials he gave me. He has mentioned that the best book on the topic is still Urs Lüthi: Der Mythos von der Weltverschwörung. Die Hetze der Schweizer Frontisten gegen Juden und Freimaurer - am Beispiel des Berner Prozesses um die 'Protokolle der Weisen von Zion'. Basel, Frankfurt a.M.: Helbing & Lichtenhahn, 1992. (sorry, it is in German and I do not know whether there's an English transaltion of it) --Max Shakhray (talk) 03:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Now you say something very interesting!!! Michael Hagemeister is a world-class scholar on the PSM and Serge Nilus. Unfortunately, his his work on this matter is not available in English. By the way, the standard work on the PSM was for a long time Norman Cohn's Warrant for Genocide (1967, 1996). There is only one work in English which rivals it - at least in textual analysis of the basic text: The Non-Existent Manuscript by Cesare G. De Michelis.
• Some Europeans have a strong sence of privacy, so what Prof./Dr. Michael Hagemeister tells you, or me, I would advise you to first seek his permission before you disclose it.
• But also, Wikipedia policy only allows us to use Published Sources. So it would be only useful if you told us what he says in his published works - particularly those in German. unfortunately, I have not yet been able to purchase his latest work that has just become available. But that deals with the so-called author of the protocols who has allegedly been uncovered by that Russian scholar who claims he had access to Soviet archives which only become available after the collape of the Soviet union. --Ludvikus (talk) 04:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Urs Lüthi: Der Mythos von der Weltverschwörung. Die Hetze der Schweizer Frontisten gegen Juden und Freimaurer - am Beispiel des Berner Prozesses um die 'Protokolle der Weisen von Zion'. (Basel, Frankfurt a.M.: Helbing & Lichtenhahn, 1992).

"(sorry, it is in German and I do not know whether there's an English transaltion of it)"

I will check this source immediately - since you say it has been given to you by Dr. Hagemeister!!! --Ludvikus (talk) 04:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• OK, the Library of Congress does not even own the German edition of this work, --Ludvikus (talk) 04:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• But there are 10 academic libraries in North America - 9 in the USA & 1 Toranto, Canad - own this text, according to WorldCat: [9] --Ludvikus (talk) 04:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• This book is neither available at amazon.de any more, so I will have to check the Dresden City Library :-( --Max Shakhray (talk) 06:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Michael Hagemeister

We do have an article of his on the PSM available on the Web, but it's in the German language:

• Sergej Nilus und die "Protokolle der Weisen von Zion" Überlegungen zur Forschungslage [10]

This is about The Protocols (in Geman, on a Web site maintained by Martin Blumentritt).

Anyone who reads German is certainly welcome to use it as a source. --Ludvikus (talk) 06:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Rainer Erb

He appears sufficiently important to deserve his own article. --Ludvikus (talk) 06:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

John S. Curtiss

This is the 1942 debunker of the Protocols of Zion. I've commenced an article on this notable Columbia University former professor, showing there his scholarly contribution which is often much overlooked in favor of Norman Cohn. I hope someone will use it usefully here - I think he's given insufficient credit for that contribution. Ludvikus (talk) 23:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The subscribing (1942) debunkers of the Protocols

• CARL L. BECKER, Professor of History in Cornell University and Former President of the American Historical Association

• E. MALCOLM CARROLL, Professor of History in Duke University

• SIDNEY B. FAY, Professor of History in Harvard University

• DIXON RYAN FOX, President of Union College

• WALTER P. HALL, Dodge Professor of History in Princeton University

• RALPH V. HARLOW, Professor of History in Syracuse University

• CARLTON J. H. HAYES, Seth Low Professor of History in Columbia University

• WILLIAM L. LANCER, Coolidge Professor of History in Harvard University

• DANA G. MUNRO, Director of School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University

• ALLAN NEVINS, Professor of History in Columbia University

• THAD W. RIKER, Professor of History in the University of Texas

• GEROID T. ROBINSON, Professor of Russian History in Columbia University

• BERNADOTTE E. SCHMITT, Professor of Modern History in the University of Chicago
  • Each one of these notable historians - and WWII (1942) debunkers of the PSM deserves an article about them (they all supported the appraisal by Curtiss as expressed in the Foreward to his book, writing regarding "his findings" that "they [the PSM] are rank and pernicious forgeries."). --Ludvikus (talk) 00:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Denis Fahey

• FYI: This individual published and disseminated the PSM under the title of Waters Flowing Eastward (1965, the 5th edition of L. Fry's imprint.[11] --Ludvikus (talk) 02:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The War Against the Kingship of Christ

That's Fahey's subtitle for said 1965 imprint. Yes, its yet another Title for The Protocols. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It's "wise men" not "wisemen"

After checking the latest anonymous IP, can someone fix the above? --Ludvikus (talk) 01:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Urs Luthi

The only scholary work, and in fact the standard work, on the Berne Trial, is the 1992 139 page monograph by Urs Luthi, a Swiss national, who published his work while, or about, the time he was a student at the University of Berne. --Ludvikus (talk) 12:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Malaysia

"In 2006, Masterpiece Publications issued a version of the Protocols under the title World Conquest Through World Jewish Government (ISBN 983-3710-28-X). Copies of the book are held at the Institute of Islamic Understanding Malaysia.Library of the Institute of Islamic Understanding Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur"

• I'm quoting (& Cut & Post here) the above from our page which appears to be vandalized. Ludvikus (talk) 00:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Ludvikus

He has been blocked for 2 years because of a content dispute with 3 editors at Holocaust denial and On the Jewish Question. 70.23.216.239 (talk) 09:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not for a content dispute, it's for a massive ongoing pattern of disruption. Interesting choice of a "first" contribution to Wikipedia, though, 70.23.216.239! Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 14:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ludvikus will not be helped by editing anonymously to circumvent his block. --jpgordon^{∇∆∇∆|Ludvikus} 18:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Is this better Jpgordon User:Ludvikus=70.23.238.22 (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• I don't know how to do this yet. Perhaps you can advise? "If someone uses alternative accounts, it is recommended that he or she provide links between the accounts in most cases to make it easy to determine that one individual shares them and to avoid any appearance or suspicion of sockpuppetry (see alternative account notification)." User:Ludvikus=70.23.238.22 (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• To all here: Please be advised that I'm using an alternative account, namely 70.23.238.22. My main account is currently Blocked. Please be further advised, that my intent is not to engage in WP:sockpuppetry. User Talk:Ludvikus=70.23.238.22 (talk) 20:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• The stop doing it. You may not edit when blocked, other than on your user page (and even there if you abuse the privilege.) Any more anonymous edits and you will be blocked permanently, and your user pages will be blanked and protected. I hope I'm clear on this. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

re protocols forgery

i am e new user of this site and will do my best to follow your protocol while browsing this site i noted an article claiming PROTOCOL IS A FORGERY in times magazine if it is a forgery a forgery then aforgery of WHAT ????? as far as iknow a forgery is taken from an original document, bank note etc so there MUST BE AN ORIGINAL !!!! 11:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC) ROBERT SCHMIDT

• Hm? See Forgery: Forgery is the process of making, adapting, or imitating objects or documents (see false document), with the intent to deceive. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 13:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC).

i wonder if there is futher comment?. Dwnndog (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• Why would there be? The question was based on an incorrect premise, which has been corrected. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

To the original questioner, the document is a Literary forgery rather than just a "forgery". In this respect it is a false document as what is relevant isn't the actual document itself but the contents. "Fabrication" would be a better word.

On its other descriptions, "hoax" is clearly valid (given any reasonable assessment of the intent of the author) but as a derivative work though with no clear claim to authorship the plagiarism claim is somewhat meaningless but enough sources use "plagiarism" for the claim to stick.

Plagiarism is when an author hopes to gain credit for work not their own but given that no one claims authorship for this document anyway plus the original copied work was first published in Geneva in 1864 so given these dates are prior to the Berne Convention (1886) this certainly predates the modern ideas of the original author asserting their moral rights (given they were put into prison for being the author one could argue they wouldn't want to assert their moral rights even if they could). The charge of plagiarism is moot but a useful vehicle to support the claims of being a hoax. Ttiotsw (talk) 14:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hm? The copyright status of a source has nothing to do with whether it can be plagiarized. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I never mentioned copyright per se but moral rights (which are very much a separate concept), though the two get conflated. What could the original author assert ? Who knows given the issues in France at the time (and it was illegal). Today you could easily license a text for derivative works and not assert a moral right demanding attribution so that anyone can copy that text and need not attribute the source. Is that then "plagiarised" ? No, it's a derivative work unless you were trying to pass-off the work in some way as the original author's work. That wasn't done. I thus find that the claim of "plagiarised" to be simply as a vehicle to support the claim that it is a hoax: the word "copied" or "derivative" is more accurate today but not as overloaded in sense. Are we using a correct term here or is the claim of "plagiarised" not really neutral but a partisan view ? Ttiotsw (talk) 16:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The Protocols purport to be the minutes of a groups of Jews nkown as the Elders of Zion. This has been definitively proven to be false, hence the document, is a forgery. Just as if I published a plan for world domination, and called it "Ttiotsw's plan for conquering the world", you would rightly protest that it is a forgery. It's not that complicated, and there is nothing "partisan" about it. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 16:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't questioning the "literary forgery" issue i.e. "hoax" but the claim that "plagiarism" isn't used here in the lead except as a partisan view when looking at the sources of the document. Given that the document was published well after the death of the source author (whom it is alleged borrowed from an earlier source anyway) your example isn't remotely relevant. The chain of authorship isn't as simplistic as your example. An alternative presentation of plagiarism is the Origin_of_the_Book_of_Mormon#Purported_plagiarism because of the intent of the author but oddly enough the Book_of_Mormon article doesn't mention "plagiarism" at all. Here it is the reverse with numerous use of wording for "plagiarism" and in the lead paragraphs but yet with no clear idea how the (mostly) anonymous authors would gain from the plagiarism i.e. gain from the reputation of Maurice Joly. The claim of "plagiarism" only works if there is an unearned increment to the plagiarizing author's reputation that is achieved through false claims of authorship. Now the problem for you is that Serge Nilus did plagiarise the protocols but the protocols themselves are not plagiarised but derivative. If no one claims authorship then where does that leave the claim of plagiarism ? . That's not clearly proven here so I'm suggesting that the word "plagiarism" is removed from the lead paragraph (though it can stay within the main text and elsewhere that the protocols are used in context of being derivative from the earlier work) as it unbalances the lead. "hoax" and "literary forgery" can obviously stay. Ttiotsw (talk) 18:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The Protocols are demonstrably both a literary forgery and a plagiarism. In the first instance they falsely claim to be the words of the purported authors (the "Elders"), in the second instance they are clearly plagiarized from Joly. Both terms apply. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 19:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Structure

The links and references in this article need to be put in standard format, if anyone's good at such things. Ludvikus inserted his own style into any article he touched. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

There are also too many of them (FR and EL, not refs). --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 21:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

While a Forgery, has it been used?

So according to this site, this document is a forgery. I, however, have always held the view that 1.)It WAS drafted as an anti-Semitic attempt to pin a diabolical conspiracy on the Jews and 2.) That this was a smokescreen to divert attention from the real culprits. Who are the real culprits? I would argue the economic and political elite, such as those currently exploiting the current financial situation in the US. It is class and not race that defines these individuals. They are the top 1% of our socio-economic system, overwhelmingly White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP) types, rather than person of Jewish descent. Long story short, I would like to know if it would behoove us to demonstrate how, while the original was a forgery, that it has been used as an instruction manual for world domination by these economic and political elite I mentioned. Have studies on this subject already been attempted? What were the results? Could we study such a subject without being automatically labeled "Anti-Semitic"? JJ4sad6 (talk) 00:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

My finger hovered over the revert key while I debated with myself whether to delete this as off-topic. Is there something attributable to a reliable source that you think should be included in the article? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not so much off topic as it is a question of why there is no scholarship on whether or not the items in the Protocols has come to pass. Instead, all of the scholarship only focuses on the fact that it is a "forgery" and "anti-Semitic". While I agree that it is the latter, and that in it's original contexts, it was a forgery (if not a diabolical and cynical satire), my argument is that a lot of the items in the text have come to pass. In other words, why has no scholarship asked if anyone has used this text in the intervening years as an instruction manual to taking over the world? In particular the chapters regarding control of media, the economy, and using people's ignorance against them. I have seen all of these items come to pass over the last century. But instead, to consider that maybe this text has been used as a cynical instruction manual for manipulating and controlling people and governments is automatically anti-Semitic, even if you approach the subject from the position that it is highly likely it is not the "International Jewry" or some diabolical conspiracy of high ranking and rich persons of Jewish descent who have used this text as a how-to book to achieve their ends. In other words, consider the Jules Verne books, and how they were 100% fiction at the time they were written, but since that time, his writings have provided the inspiration for scientists to develop rocket and submarine technology. JJ4sad6 (talk) 11:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

My finger is hovering over the revert button too; please explain what you mean by "a lot of the items in the text have come to pass" (as well as provide some notable sourcing for why we should consider whatever it is you are asking) so I can decide my finger's next move (note: no timely response=revert). Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 13:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Why are you reverting the talk page? This is where we are supposed to go to discuss these issues. I am using the following points to justify my posting here: Keep on Topic (my question/proposal surrounds the Protocols and their contemporary use), Stay Objective (if it has been used by more contemporary groups as a how-to manual, we should include it), and Make Proposals (while I do not have access to scholarly sources - I am no longer a student - perhaps someone else can find some study of the Protocols contemporary use). What I am asking is whether there has been any scholarly research beyond the fact that it was crafted as an anti-Semitic tract, and whether there has been scholarly research into it's contemporary application. Alas, I can find none. Perhaps someone else is familiar enough to know where to look or has access to their school's scholarship databases. But why revert the talk page? On what grounds would you justify a reversion of the talk page? I've been down this road before, and I know that the only things I will be able to find are "fringe" websites, because everyone else focuses on the anti-Semitic aspects... Because simply the fact that a book was written unfairly attacking the Jews, it is automatically completely and totally false and will never be used by anyone as a how to manual. Much like how the Turner Diaries was a completely fictional story and was never used by any individuals as a how to manual. After all, we all know that no one ever gets any ideas from books as to how to accomplish some objective or end. So again, what justification for reverting the talk page? I would agree with reverting something like this off of the main article page, but here is where we are supposed to discuss these issues. JJ4sad6 (talk) 13:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

JJ, relax, kiddo. No one has reverted or deleted anything you've written on this talk page. Second, the purpose of this page is to discuss improvements to the article. You appear to be engaged in blind speculation about the subject of the article. May I suggest to you that the reason you can't find any of the hypothetical scholarly research you allude to is because none exists? Why would you be so interested in trying to find something that there's no reason to believe exists or has ever existed? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, do not call me kiddo. Secondly, I realize that there is no "scholarly research" on this subject because anyone who attempts to study this matter outside of the pre-defined parameters of "it is fake" and "it is anti-Semitic" will find themselves the laughing stock of the scholarly community. I can find "fringe" references to the subject I address, but of course, fringe people are all lunatics and have no relevance to society. Worse, the only websites I can find that actually address this in a scholarly fashion are from Arabic sources, and thus rife with anti-Semitism even while focusing on aspects of the Protocols that have come to pass. What I would propose is that we could add to the article something akin to the following: "There has been no scholarly research on the subject of whether or not aspects of the Protocols have come to pass or whether certain groups have actually used this document as an instructional manual. The primary focus of scholarship on the Protocols to date is related to the 'fake' and 'Antisemitism' aspects of the document". I just feel it is worth noting that there has been zero scholarship or even major news sources that discuss the possibility that the Protocols have been used to further the aims of some group. Considering how the Protocols discuss the control of media and knowledge/scholarship, I find this lack of substantive and objective scholarship disappointing, yet not surprising. JJ4sad6 (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

First, now that we both agree that there's no scholarly research into the non-existent phenomena you describe (golly what a shock, scholars are not researching something that doesn't exist) I'm even more convinced that this thread is pure disruption and trolling. Second, the type of edit you're proposing would be a classic violation of WP:NOR. It could easily be used at the NOR page as a perfect example of what not to do. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

First, just because something is not being researched doesn't meant it doesn't exist. If that were the case, then the Coelecanth wouldn't exist right? Simply stating that no research = non existence is a blatant logical fallacy. Secondly, it is not NPOV for the fact that you yourself state that there is no research on this subject. I am fairly certain that we can create a consensus that there is no research on the subject I present, thus it is not original research, or a skewed point of view, but rather a demonstratable fact. Simply calling something a particular thing does not make it so. You keep making these blanket assumptions (no research = non existence, NPOV, NOR) and yet provide no backing to your claim. This demonstrates your bias on this subject. I merely want to present a view that there has been no research on this subject beyond "it's fake" and "it's Anti-Semitic". We both agree that this is a fact, I am fairly sure we could gather a consensus on the subject, and it would be less NPOV than the current article which merely focuses on the forgery and antisemitism aspects to the exclusion of its potential applicative aspects. Long story sort, since we have "proven" that "no research exists" as to whether the Protocols "have been used as a tool by X" since it's publication, we can safely present this finding on the main page much in the same way that other pages display things along the lines of "no connection has been found between X & Y" or "authorities have discounted the possibility of X" on various subjects. JJ4sad6 (talk) 12:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

1) you can't prove a negative, such as "no research exits" 2) the (very sound) no original research rule means that wikipedia's place is not to research that question, rather to compile the results of existing reliably sourced research. Gzuckier (talk) 15:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

We're not allowed to make "findings" nor are we allowed to come to conclusions. We may report published findings and conclusions of others. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to go over to the Winnie the Pooh article and ask why there is no scholarly research into whether that book is nonfiction. Gzuckier (talk) 14:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hideously POV

NB: I am not a racist, I have never read this work and know nothing about it. I do not know if it is real or not.

However, this article is about a book, not a potentially fake book, just a book. The introduction talks so much about the idea that it is a fake that I started to wonder what I was really reading about. OF COURSE this deserves a mention but it is NOT the main point of the article.

The article is confusing, badly organised, and also somehow defensive. It reads as though the reader had somehow offended the author by asserting that the book was non-fiction. I, personally, had never even heard of this work. Imagine going to the "Moon Landing" page and being confronted by huge block of text asserting that the events were genuine and not faked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.231.165 (talk) 18:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

As I am arguing in the above section, the entirety of "scholarly research" surrounds only the "fake" and "anti-Semitic" aspects of the text. There is no other research on any other aspects of the text whatsoever beyond the "fringe" networks and Arabic hate sites. Thus the only aspect of the text presented is the fact that it is a "fake and anti-Semitic" document. No one dare write/publish anything otherwise or examine the texts in its possible application over the last century. JJ4sad6 (talk) 12:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

well if no one dare, then i sure don't dare. if you dare, do so. Gzuckier (talk) 14:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, do so, but not in this article, as that would violate WP:NOR. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 15:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine, I will offer $500 US to anyone who can gather scholarly research into the question of whether the Protocols have been used by contemporary non-Jewish groups to accomplish the goals set forward in the document. Scholarly sources must be cited, it must be published in a scholarly journal, and then once it is published, provide me the citation and I will include it on this article. Sound fair enough?JJ4sad6 (talk) 22:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not trolling, I am seeking to expand scholarship. But unfortunately, it appears the God of this article is too closed minded and biased to alternative points of view beyond the "fake" and "anti-Semitic" aspects of the text. Are we to assume that it will/has NEVER been used by individuals or groups beyond these aspects? My offer stands, I will pay anyone you can craft a scholarly paper and publish it in a scholarly journal $500 US to present a view or a new insight into this document beyond what ALL other scholarship has covered ad naseaum. JJ4sad6 (talk) 12:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

that's fine, except that you don't seem to know what it costs just to publish in an academic journal, even if the researcher works for free. Gzuckier (talk) 15:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Another thing I don't understand about the God of this article (Steven) and his approach, I have seen plenty of talk pages on here that question why certain aspects of a subject are not discussed or whether there may be research out there covering alternative aspects. I have even participated in such discussions on other pages asking for more information or alternative views on a subject. This is the first page I have ever been on where seeking of alternative views are quashed. Why are we solely focused on just the two aspects of the Protocols and we ignore any other aspects. In fact, this article doesn't even discuss the structure of the document. Most other articles regarding books on Wikipedia at least discuss the structure of the text. This article merely glosses over the table of contents. Would I be able to receive permission from the God of this article to expand at least that section and cover the topics of the protocols more in depth (solely using and citing the text alone)? I would hope that this much would be agreeable?JJ4sad6 (talk) 12:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Seeking alternative views should not be "quashed", no. And yes it's OK to raise questions on talk pages about literature that may be useful. But you seem to be offering to fund original research into the rather vague topic of the supposed actual influence of the protocols on power seekers. It's difficult to see what the point of that is. Even if some group attempted to use the protocols as a model for power seeking, they would have to be part of a vast conspiracy, because the "system" outlined in the protocols only works if there is a conspiracy. As for things "predicted" in book actually coming to pass - remember that the book is simply presenting things that were already happening (secularisation, the spread of the media, etc) as if they were part of a masterplan of some sort. It's not a great trick to "predict" something that is obviously happening for everyone to see. If you find quoable literature on the influence of the protocols (that does not mean some nutcase's website) then it can be included. Paul B (talk) 14:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Jared Israel, Editor of Emperor's Clothes

Is he a valid source for citing? Why or why not? JJ4sad6 (talk) 13:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Which source of his, and as a source for what?