Talk:The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

Interestingly everything about this document is discussed except for its contents...85.245.87.67 (talk) 17:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Alleged Alternative Origin

Though the majority opinion is that the Protocols are a forgery as stated in the article; nevertheless, a very detailed case has been made that the document did actually originate from the Mizraim Masonic Lodge in Paris. However much one may disbelieve that argument, it ill behoves the neutrality of the article not to mention that such an origin has been mooted:

In brief it has been claimed that a book in which the Protocols are embodied was first privately published in 1897 in Russia by Philip Stepanov. The first time Nilus published them was in 1901 in a book called ‘The Great Within the Small’, reprinted in 1905. A copy of this work is reported by several sources to have been in the British Museum, bearing the date of its reception, August 10, 1906. However, the British Museum denies ever having received a copy of the Protocols.

Proponents of the Protocols having a Masonic origin claim that they originated at the Mizraim Masonic Lodge in Paris in the mid 19th Century and that in 1884 the daughter of a Russian general, Justine Glinka, was in Paris obtaining political information to be communicated back to Russia. It is claimed that Glinka obtained a copy from one Joseph Schorst, a member of the Mizraim Lodge on payment of 2,500 francs and that Schorst was later assassinated in Egypt.

Glinka allegedly forwarded the French original, accompanied by her Russian translation, to her immediate superior in Paris, General Orgeyevski, who sent them, in turn, to General Cherevin, Minister of the Interior, for transmission to the Imperial Court in St Petersburg, but it was filed away and not published by the authorities.

Glinka was eventually banished to her estate in Orel for an unrelated matter. It is claimed that she there gave a copy to Alexis Sukhotin, who showed the document to two friends, Stepanov and Nilus.

It has been widely suggested that the protocols plagiarized Maurice Joly's "Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu". (1864) (Dialogue aux enfers entre Machiavel et Montesquieu), which attacks the political ambitions of Napoleon III. However, those who propose a genuine origin for the Protocols believe that the Protocols actually predate Dialogue, that Joly borrowed from the Protocols rather than vice versa and that that the two documents are neither similar nor derivative, although they have some lines and words in common. They site the accusation that Joly was a notorious plagiarist and appears to have plagiarized seven pages or more from a popular novel by Eugene Sue, namely Les Mystères du peuple (1849-1856). It is certainly the case that Joly, who was Jewish (real name Joseph Levy), was a Freemason and member of the ’Lodge of Mizraim’. He was the protégé of Adolph Cremieux (Isaac Moise Cremieux 1796-1880), the head of the Lodge and celebrated campaigner for Jewish rights in 19th Century France. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.78.124 (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Sources? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

And Joly was not Jewish. French father, Italian mother. Check the article. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Steven Anderson, the explanation for the origins on the article is not cited and has no reliable source. Why is it that if something makes the jews look bad, it needs a mountain of evidence before wiki admins even consider putting it on the article - and yet pro-jewish counter arguements are never cited? Why is wikipedia so pro-jewish? 2.29.205.8 (talk) 11:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Because the world is run by a cabal of dirty Jews? (Note to editors: Yes, that was intended to be sarcastic.)JoelWhy (talk) 11:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Non-sarcastic reply: please review the FAQ at the top of this page. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Change "fraudulent text" to "false document" in lead text?

This was proposed in 2008 but never answered.

In the current lead text, the term "fraudulent" is used to describe the document. While this word is accurate, I think it may be more accurate to replace "fraudulent text" with "false document" to emphasize that the author knew the document was false and used literary techniques to create the impression that it is true. The first sentence of the revised lead text would read:

"The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is an antisemitic false document purporting to describe a Jewish plan for achieving global domination."

--Scochran4 (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

IMHO that change would not be an improvement. "Fraudulent" is a better descriptor of the purposeful presentation of fiction as fact than is "false." DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 08:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. While "fraudulent" is better than "false", I believe "false document" is better than "false" because a false document is fiction knowingly written in a way that will persuade the reader it is a factual document- the way the Protocols were written. We could say that the document is a fraudulent false document, where the adjective "fraudulent" describes the noun "false document". --Scochran4 (talk) 12:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

That could be confusingly taken as being opposed to a 'genuine false document', how about 'fraudulent text and false document' or fraudulent text with the false document article linked thusly? Number36 (talk) 20:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

"Fraudulent text and false document" sounds good to me. That way it addresses the fraudulent nature of the text, and the fact that it was written to appear factual. --Scochran4 (talk) 18:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

It sounds terrible to me, no casual reader will have a clue what it means. Zero^talk 02:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Citation needed for "factual evidence by antisemites"

The article says--Despite this widespread and extensive debunking, the Protocols continued to be regarded as important factual evidence by antisemites.[citation needed]. I've been looking and have found the following items--

"(How Not To Write) "The History of the Protocols of Zion"" (PDF). Anglo-Hebrew Publishing. Retrieved 17 March 2012.

"Extremism in America". AntiDefamation League. 2005. Retrieved 17 March 2012.

"Willis Carto and the IHR". The Nizkor Project. Retrieved 17 March 2012.

I am listing these citations here to ask if they meet the standards of wikipedia. I think they might, but am not sure. So, before I include them on the page itself, I wanted to get an opinion. The texts of each page list the Protocols as central to the thinking of these anti-Semitic groups (IHR, for example). Let me know.TheKurgan (talk) 13:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the first one. Information from the Anti-Defamation League is questionable because they aren't neutral, and they are definitely self-published, but they may be considered reliable. The third looks self-published and unreliable. I think we should wait for further opinion. --Scochran4 (talk) 00:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Wait a minute. The very fact that Henry Ford himself disseminated a half-million copies of the book should indicate that anti-Semites use the Protocols as a basis for their hate. After all, in 1938 Ford was awarded Nazi Germany's Grand Cross of the German Eagle, a medal given to foreigners sympathetic to Nazism Henry Ford Wallace, Max. The American Axix: Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh, and the Rise of the Third Reich. New York: St. Martin's PressTheKurgan (talk) 15:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point, with qualifications. Because Wikipedia can only state verifiable information and can't use original research we could only say that Henry Ford used the protocols, but not that all or many anti-semites use the protocols as a foundation for their anti-semitism. You're welcome to include that bit about Henry Ford in the article. Maybe something like "Henry Ford, an antisemite, disseminated half a million copies of the protocols in [year].

It's already included in the Protocols article.TheKurgan (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

If you find more recent, published evidence, we can include that too. What we really need is a source that explicitly states that "many antisemites use the protocols are a foundation for their ideology". --Scochran4 (talk) 15:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

ISBN-10: 0837125952, ANTI-SEMITISM THROUGHOUT THE AGES Count Heinrich Coudenhove-Kalergi,conatins the following: "...No book and no event in the history of modern anti-Semitism has played such an important part as this plagiarism; it constitutes the piece de resistance, the choice morsel of after-war anti-Semitism." This is a 1935 translation of his earlier book, so not a "more recent" source. It is, however, DIRECTLY on point.TheKurgan (talk) 17:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Perfect source. The Count seems to be neutral. Perhaps we should change the sentence from "Despite this widespread and extensive debunking, the Protocols continued to be regarded as important factual evidence by antisemites" to "No other book has been as important to antisemites as the Protocols". The latter statement seems to be closer to what the source is saying. --Scochran4 (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead and do the edit, Scochran4. BE BOLD! I haven't had time since my hands have been full with another article for the last month.TheKurgan (talk) 16:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Too bad it would be WP:OR to just link to the archives of this talk page, plenty of evidence there. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Modern Versions?

The popular YouTube videos, "Zeitgeist - The Movie: Federal Reserve" and "The Money Masters" seem to bear a similarity to the titular book. Perhaps this should be mentioned?--Timtak (talk) 11:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think these movies are overtly anti-Semitic. Overtly stupid, yes. But, not overtly anti-Semitic.JoelWhy (talk) 12:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The realtionship of the movies to The Protocols, maybe via antisemitic tropes and classic themes, is probably a point that would need to be made by reliable secondary sources. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think you would have more luck finding such sources linking David Ike to the Protocols, but from what I've read of the man, when he says shape-shifting lizards, he doesn't mean Jews; he actually means shape-shifting lizards.JoelWhy (talk) 13:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hah, I actually looked a bit more at the Icke page, and there actually is a direct link between his nuttery and the Protocols. According to his Wiki entry: In The Robots' Rebellion (1994), Icke introduced the idea that the Global Elite's plan for world domination was laid out in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a hoax published in Russia in 1903, which supposedly presented a plan by the Jewish people to take over the world.[56] According to Mark Honigsbaum, Icke refers to it 25 times in the Robot's Rebellion, calling it the "Illuminati protocols."[57]JoelWhy (talk) 13:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Antisemitism

I observed that on April 20 Jayjg reversed my placing Category:Antisemitism at the bottom of the page. I think the evidence supports the view that Protocols belong in that category. We should discuss the matter here.Iss246 (talk) 18:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

This article is already in Category:Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which is a sub-category of Category:Antisemitic forgeries, which is a sub-category of Category:Antisemitic canards and Category:Antisemitic publications, which eventually (through a number of other "Antisemitic" categories) are part of Category:Antisemitism. We generally put items in the lowest level category, not their super-categories. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Aw, c'mon, I was all ready to have another stupid conversation about the nature of bigotry, and you ruined it by having a simple, logical explanation. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

POV

The most biased article on Wikiped presenting this factually as a "hoax". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.187.97 (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. It's useless to try and make any meaningful alterations in search of more balance because you'll simply have your edits and any accompanying comments erased by the various Jewish-related-article gatekeepers. A sad situation but that's wiki for you. AnAimlessRoad (talk) 00:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Nothing to do with being Jewish, I'm not Jewish, just another Wikipedian whith an interest in disseminating verifiable information. It is a well established fact that the Protocals, regardless of whether or not there is or was a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world, is a literary fraud. If you have relaible sources (hint: bigoted rants on nazi websites are not reliable sources) that say otherwise please present them and we'll be more than happy to consider them. Bithching about bias without presenting any evidence that what the article says is incorrect isn't going to be an effective way to challenge the content. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Please don't feed the troll.JoelWhy (talk) 17:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it seems that many of the folks who comment here are not deliberately trolling, but rather are the ignorant victims of those who disseminate the protocols even now as though they wee genuine. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, I never mentioned anything about Jewish people. I said "Jewish-related-article gatekeepers". This is the very kind of defensiveness and paranoia I'm talking about. Even the slightest attempt to seek more balance in any sensitive Jewish-related-article topi will lead to insinuations of anti-semitism or some kind of bigotry from these gatekeepers. You've already essentially labelled me a Nazi and anti-semite based on a comment that contained absolutely nothing that could lead to such conclusions.

I know very well that the Protocols are almost certainly a hoax, and that this is the consensus in the academic community. The issue is therefore one of wording. Take a look at the discussion archives. I'm not the first one to criticise the laughable opening paragraph, which attempts to force one particular viewpoint down the readers throats instead of allowing them to make up their own minds based upon the information and academic references provided. Frankly, the opening sentence comes on so strong that, if I didn't know better, I'd think the author was hiding something. 77.99.63.125 (talk) 19:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)