Talk:The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

The sixth protocol of the elders of Zion is you do not talk about the sixth protocol of the elders of Zion?

The table included at the top of "Structures and themes" contains several omissions and numbering errors. For one, several of the "protocols" (numbers 3, 6, 8, 15, 18 and 19) do not appear at all, yet the non-existent Protocol 25 does (I think it's meant to refer to #24).

I'm not particularly familiar with the topic, so I'd prefer that someone else took the reins on cleaning all this up. It's an integral portion of the article, and its concise, info-rich summary of the book's themes has the potential to be a very useful resource. Any takers? -- livefastdieold (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

to clarify, the above comment was made after Livefastdieold had added contradiction tag to article. i couldn't find 'contradiction' on talk page so wondered why someone had added contradiction tag, Tom B (talk) 04:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

What is the article actually about?

If I were to look into an encyclopedia for information about Africa then the first information I would see would be its geographical location and its composition. This encyclopedic article doesn't tell me anything about the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion other than what it supposedly isn't. Why isn't there a precis to tell the reader the gist/purpose of the book before extolling the refution of all the lies/inaccuracies/conspiracies that it contains or was bred from. I saw the book referenced on a message board and came here to find out what 'exactly' they were on about. I'm sure there is plenty of good information in the article but it seems to have been written in the manner that everyone has read the book and is fully aware of its intracacies. So the articles authors constant refutions of any and all points is supposed to be taken as read. Which would be great if I actually knew what he was talking about. Would it not be helpful to have just a sliver of info to start out with before the article just starts to talk around the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.93.104 (talk) 21:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a whole section on content with a chapter by chapter guide. Isn't that enough?--As286 (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I think that this article would really benefit from a brief paragraph at the outset outlining exactly what The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I think the article leaps straight into issues that are more appropraite for the development of the topic, rather than the introduction. I would be good if someone could answer in three or four sentences what the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is and insert it at the beginning. This article presupposes too much prior knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.89.55 (talk) 13:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Proven to be a fraud and a hoax

What's the difference between a fraud and a hoax? I think they are used interchangeably here, and the inclusion of both terms is confusing. 66.244.80.7 (talk) 16:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

A fraud is a "intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right" while a hoax is "to trick into believing or accepting as genuine something false and often preposterous" (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Using those definitions you provided, hoax subsumes fraud. I still think the terms are used interchangeably in this article and use of both provides no edification. 66.244.80.7 (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The document is also referred to as the "forgery". This, too, is confusing because it implies there is another document floating about. That is, there is an original and there is a "forgery". The article would be a lot easier to understand if these value-loaded terms were simplified. Bushcutter (talk) 21:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

For an explanation, see Literary forgery. It works like this: If I produce a painting in the style of Picasso or a play in the style of Shakespeare, and claim that they were actually produced by them, those works are forgeries. This in no way implies that there is somewhere in the world a genuine version of that painting or play. Plain enough? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hardly. Do we have to post questions on the Talk Page to find out what is meant? Are you saying the work in question was intended to be seen as authored by a different, perhaps famous, author? Whose work was being mimicked? Who was the forger? Where's a sample of the forged work? Why was someone's style mimicked or forged for this purpose? Are the average readers here supposed to understand these cryptic, confused, and rambling insinuations without explanation? I don't think so. Bushcutter (talk) 07:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I am a little concerned about this statement of fact that the protocols are a "proven forgery" because I went through the links to support this argument and it seems that the origins are unknown. Is there not a paper written by a proper scholar to back this statement or at least present enough evidence that this was written to misinform? This article should be thorough as anti semites cling to the notion that the protocols are true. If this type of statement is not shown to be verified right off I think it should be taken out. This is sloppy and does not do a service to the idea that wiki is an encyclopedia.

I also dont like the use of forgery in this context. I think forgery is comonly used this way to imply fake but it is wrong. (just like commonality is used to indicate "in common" but means nothing of the sort).

A painting done in the style of monet and passed off as a monet is also not a forgery it is a fake.

I will take it out if no one replies. I will look for a more convincing proof. I am not sure how to solicit opinions on this site yet. --Cogvoid (talk) 15:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean when you say you "went through the links". The article is very well-sourced, including a number of books published by university presses. The reason it's called a forgery is that it purports to have been written by one group when it's been shown that it was not. The "Autobiography of Howard Hughes" was another literary forgery, written by someone who'd never met or talked to Hughes. This is similar. I recommend that you don't make any major deletoins from the article without more discusison.   Will Beback  talk  18:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

References 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 show no proof of resemblances between books mentioned in them and the Protocols of Zion. Eg. nowhere in the Protocols exists the excerpt 'A loan is an issue of Government paper which entails an obligation to pay interest amounting to a percentage of the total sum of the borrowed money. If a loan is at 5%, then in 20 years the Government would have unnecessarily paid out a sum equal to that of the loan in order to cover the percentage. In 40 years it will have paid twice; and in 60 thrice that amount, but the loan will still remain as an unpaid debt.' Neither does the text 'Our Government will resemble the Hindu god Vishnu. Each of our hundred hands will hold one spring of the social machinery of State.' appear in the Protocols. Therefore, plagiarism out of these books is inexistant. Secondly, the stance of the current Wikipedia article is that the Protocols stem from anti-zionist sources. There is no referenced proof that this is the case; no one openly anti-zionist can be indicated as the author or publisher of the Protocols. The attempt to do so, eg. in the first mentioned source of publication in the article, being 'Menshikov, A Conspiracy Against Mankind', is unreferenced to start with, and inexistant on the internet to end with. Controversy, court trials and criticism are warranted and verifyable, NOT an anti-zionist authorship for the book. DeltaT (talk) 22:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not for us to prove that the book is a forgery, a hoax, or plagiarism. We're just here to summarize what reliable sources say about the book. Sources say things like, "Although at first glance, the protocols seem legitimate and original, it has been proven that they are a mere forgery of a prior document and hold no concrete evidence of an original author."[1] "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a forgery made in Russia for the Okhrana (secret police), which blames the Jews for the country's ills...The Russians used big chunks of a Russian translation of Goedsche's novel, published it separately as the Protocols, and claimed they were authentic."[2] "The document known in English as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is, to many people, obviously a clumsy piece of false antisemitic propaganda."[3] and so on. If that's what sources say then that's what we should report (along with other significant points of view found in reliable sources).   Will Beback  talk  22:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Ive made some changes to the first two sections. The semantics and references remain as they were, but now rather than it being ABSOLUTE FACT that the document is a plagiarised forged hoax, it is held to be a matter of opinion by some that these adjectives are the case. Anyone can look at the "dialog" and "protocols" for themselves and determine for themselves wether or not there is plagiarism etc. Personally, I beleive there are a great many hisorical documents from which the protocols could have been claimed to have been plagiarised from (on the same basis that it is claimed to be plagiarised from "dialog"). I believe it to be an orginal work, definitely propagandous in nature (as opposed to instructional), but I have neglected to make my own opinion seem like absolute fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.246.206 (talk) 01:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Maurice Joly

I think it should be made clear in this article that Maurice Joly was a member of a Masonic Lodge and Jewish (thus opening up the possiblity that the Protocols were plagiarized from him). Not sure where to find a reliable source to substantiate this, but it seems highly unlikely that it's completely made up. See this page - http://www.henrymakow.com/maurice_joly_plagiarized_proto.html . I've emailed him to find out the source for Maurica Joly being a mason.

Perhaps we should post a link to that site on the article? --Sparkandstir (talk) 04:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You'd need a reliable source for such a controversial assertion. And yes, people are falsely accused of being Jewish and Masons all the time; I don't see why you'd think it's unlikely. Aunt Entropy (talk) 04:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I had a look around at that website you linked to, Sparkandstir, and, yes, you'd need to find something a lot more reliable than that. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

According to John Waggoner's 2003 edition of Joly's Dialogues "Joly was not of Jewish descent as was later asserted by Nazi apologists". The article on Joly places him in the category "French Jews". I am removing him. [4] Paul B (talk) 06:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Eugene Sue

Does anyone have any more specific information about the alleged parallels between Sue and Joly? I mean, something similar to the way that people have lined up lists of passages from the DIALOGUES and the PROTOCOLS and shown that clear parallels exist. Is there some similar work done showing a list of parallels from something which Sue wrote and Joly's play? i read through volume 3 of THE MYSTERIES OF A PEOPLE or THE HISTORY OF A PROLETARIAN FAMILY DOWN THROUGH THE AGES and nothing stood out immediately as parallel with the text in Joly's DIALOGUES. Does anyone have more specific information on what Joly is alleged to have copied from Sue and from which text by Sue? Simply citing THE MYSTERIES OF A PEOPLE isn't specific enough because that in itself is a huge 3-volume work, where each individual volume is itself pretty large. It's also been published in the format of about 21 separate smaller books. There is even a significantly smaller version published in 3 volumes under the title THE RIVAL RACES or THE SONS OF JOEL. That smaller version certainly does not have any passages which spring out as naturally parallel with Joly. I've read it completely. I've only read volume 3 of the full edition, because I assumed that the volume which had material relating to the French Revolution would be most likely to have been the one which Joly allegedly cribbed from. But I didn't notice any natural parallels in the text that could be made with the DIALOGUES. Sue has written other books. THE WANDERING JEW contained Jesuit conspiracies in a way which did remind me in a general sense of the PROTOCOLS, but with that book also I didn't find anything which stood out as parallel passages duplicated in the DIALOGUES. Does anyone really have specific information on which work of Sue's Joly is alleged to have cribbed from and what are the listings of passages which in each author's work that can be invoked to argue such? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.226.13 (talk) 01:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is a link. As far as I can tell it was Umberto Eco in Foucault's Pendulum that first made the connection, he even quotes a line from the book. I have read the entire series (I deserve a medal for doing it) and I did not find the quote. Now this could be because I read the English translation, but I don't think so. I wonder perhaps if the line is not from the Wandering Jew, in that Rodin, the evil Jesuit is more of a character there, but have not yet summoned up the courage to read that book. Now I could be wrong, but I haven't been able to find anything. Most of the quotes on the internet seem to be taken from people who originally referenced Eco. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.239.90.244 (talk) 23:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

A new proof that the protocols are a forgery

Here is the link: http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?documents/protocols/protocols.001 lior —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.68.170.47 (talk) 09:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

New legal verdict, but not new proof. The points in that article on the verdict in a Russian court simply recycled arguments which show that textually the Protocols are derived from other sources and do not constitute an authentic unaltered transcript of a genuine meeting held anywhere. The phrase "new proof" implies that some new form of evidence, possibly obtained from Russian archives going back to the Czarist era, has been provided. The article you cited gave no indication of such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.247.134.38 (talk) 12:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Featured article star

In an audit of current featured articles, I discovered that this article has been missing its featured article star since this edit over a month ago. I have re-added the star. Maralia (talk) 04:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

link to the xocument

I have added it in the past but now Boodlesthecat has removed it. As I see it it is only contained the copy of the book without any links to anti semitics website. It is contain some "preface" that say that the translation of this copy was himself victim of the conspiracy but I have notice that it is very popular "preface". The link in my opinion allow to people that want to learn about anti semitism and the protocol to do so. If this book contained links ot other anti semitic website then I agree it should be removed.Oren.tal (talk) 12:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

This is insupportable. Nose around on that site and you'll see it's a fringe site that looks like it's promoting the Protocols. Since we have other links to the text of the Protocols, there's no reason to link to this site. I'm re-deleting it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

There's something creepy about this discussion. The entire article seems to be a frantic rant about how outrageous the Protocols of the Elders is, yet there's no link to the actual document. No publishers are named. No library copies are documented. I came here to find out what it is, but there is no link to the text, nor even a reasonable précis. Is there even an agreed original on file anywhere? Why are links to the text, regardless of quality, being deleted? Steven J. Anderson says "we have other links to the text . . .", but they're obviously hidden from public view. So, tell us: where's the "other links" to the original text? Or is the entire article a hoax? Bushcutter (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Read the friggin article, genius. Look at the section called "External links" See the first link, the one that says "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion - The document itself."? Yep, that's it, the document itself. And there are a few more links to other versions of the document, none of them hosted on hate sites. Anything else I can help you with, just let me know. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Lovely. You've just got to love the respect shown by some Wikipedia authors to readers. That the editors here don't have a great deal of experience is evident, but that doesn't mean we readers have to read through reams of paranoia to find an anonymous link to an undocumented version of the work. Does it? With reference to the link to a supposed original text version, where is the antisemitism in the work? In the entire text, there is ONE reference to "us Jews". Only ONE. It reads more like an 1800's anti-Mason diatribe. There are no Jewish ideas or principles therein. It's simple conspiracy rubbish. The antisemitism escapes me (and probably most readers, too). Perhaps the antisemitic content could be explained to the readers? It's clear that you like to flame us readers, but please resist the temptation. We're trying to create useful reference articles. Bushcutter (talk) 09:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Extremely difficult to read article

For an article on an item which is one of the greatest causes of contemporary antisemitism, I find this Wikipedia article extremely difficult to read. It seems every second word is hyperlinked to some obscure literary concept yet what's missing, is a concise description of the book itself.

For example, "The original manuscript is not extant." - Huh?

And aren't you glad someone pointed out it is "Written in the first person singular, the text embodies generalizations, truisms and platitudes", in case you couldn't work that out for yourself.

Finally, "Its 105 year circulation and publishing history shows it to have been distributed substantially in four physical forms - manuscript (linked) or typescript (linked) form; periodical, (linked) both in a journal (linked) and a newspaper (linked) form; pamphlet (linked) or booklet (linked) or softcover form"

Is it really neccessary for virtually every word in the article to be hyperlinked elsewhere? If you really don't know what a newspaper is, you are probably too stupid to be reading Wikipedia in the first place.

When you get about halfway down the page, the article starts to make sense, but again, someone has attempted to show us how clever they are, rather than simply talking about the topic at hand. Either that, or it's a deliberate attempt to overwhelm and confuse, rather than simply say what the Protocols are.

The article really needs a clean up. 124.170.23.142 (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• You're correct. The problem is mostly due to one editor who, fortunately, has been blocked for two years; he seemed to have access to good information, but was incapable of working within Wikipedia's norms. Every article he touched ended up in a similar state. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

"disseminated the document during their 16 year fight"

This phrase is awkward. The author is jumping from what was probably meant as a reference to the Black Hundreds, formed out of the 1905 events, up to the end of the civil war in 1921. The White Army did not exist for 16 years, although there were some connections between the people became its leadership and the earlier monarchists. Such a phrase should be cleaned up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.42 (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Demotion from FA status

The article is ready to be nominated for demotion from Featured Article status if the page isn't cleaned up soon. Please note that the current lead section of the article is at a staggering 11 paragraphs, the guidelines clearly state it should not exceed more than 4 and FA guidelines explicitly calls for a "concise lead section." hateless 04:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Extreme point of view

The first part of the article is apparently a too much concerned attempt at trying to set an opinion to the reader on how false the document is. I really don't get it. Let's not even talk about the weasel words culmination of clearly identified, or other more subtle introductions, like far from being a "discovered" document as it was claimed to be, was in fact deliberately fabricated [...].

I don't know how this will be taken, especially for a featured article (although I hope with neutrality and objectivity), but I'm tagging it with {{POV}} tag. Comments are welcomed. --Kybalion from Wind (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Maybe a more helpful idea would be to help work on cleaning it up? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I have removed your tags as they cannot possibly be applied here. There is a mountain of evidence that it is false and not a shred of it to prove otherwise. Therefore the intro is more than justified. The words "clearly identified" and "deliberately fabricated" refer to mere facts. The document was "clearly identified" by scholarly research and by courts in at least two countries. If you have new evidence please present it.--As286 (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm also going to remove the tag, as the article is cited, and no legitimate dispute with the language in the article has been presented, nor contrary sources offered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.22.157 (talk) 03:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone added in a disputed tag again. No one so far has posted a reliable source saying that the protocols are anything but a hoax and forgery. The cites which we have clearly are reliable and identify it as a hoax and forgery. I'm removing it, again, since no one has raised a legitimate dispute.--70.112.22.157 (talk) 15:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Red Army vs White Army

The article states: "Once the Russian Revolution began in 1905 however, the use of the forgery changed. The same group, now part of the White Army, widely disseminated the document during their 16 year fight against the Red Army in an attempt to link the Red Army, which had a few Jews in its leadership, to the fictitious Jewish conspiracy."

Where does the information about the "16 year fight" of the White Army against the Red Army come from? Both armies were formed after 1917 Bolshevik Revolution and the civil war involving both armies lasted from about 1918 to 1923, which is under five years. (talk) 01:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I have requested for this to be reviewed about 5-6 times now and every time my cleanup messages got removed by someone, who seems to be intent on keeping the incorrect information in this article. Stokaji (talk) 00:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 118.208.143.195 (talk) 01:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, you contribution history shows that you've never edited this article or its talk page until today. Is that above comment from an IP yours. If you'll stick to editing while logged in it will make it much easier to follow discussions. I'll look into this and see if changes are warranted. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 13:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I changed the wording slightly. According to White movement, the political movement that eventually spawned the White army began in 1905 with the Russian Revolution of 1905. According to Russian Civil War, the last enclave of the White Army was defeated in 1923, so I make that 18 years. The usual ending date of the Russian Civil War given in the first sentence of the article, however, is 1921, so I suppose it could be considered a 16 year fight. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 14:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The White Movement didn't come into existence until the beginning of the Russian Civil War in 1917. Until then Bolsheviks were persecuted by the state, not by any White movement which didn't exist yet. Stokaji (talk) 21:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

ITC CSS Source

The sources cited for footnotes 56, 58, and 60 all come from the website for the ITC CSS--Israel's Intelligence and Terrorism Center. This source is, naturally, biased against the issues that they are cited for (i.e.: Arabic reactions to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion), and should be considered as such. Therefore, its use as a source is unreliable at best. There should be better sources to back up these facts, ones that are more impartial to the subject (e.g.: market records to prove its status as a Syrian bestseller). Otherwise, the statements that are supported by this website should be removed to maintain the integrity of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.210.0.211 (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to consider it as unreliable.I mean were are not going to dismiss the MI% or CIA as unreliable as well.This are the best source we may have.Oren.tal (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:DNFTT --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Summary of the document itself

The "Title" section previously claimed that the document was only a few dozen paragraphs long, but the version linked to as "The Document Itself" is over 300 paragraphs long, so I'm not sure where the original information came from. It seems like it would also be a good idea to take the table of contents from that document and put it in place of the current disjointed table that purports to summarize the content, but I evidently don't have the necessary editing skills to do that cleanly for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.221.197.21 (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Who is Golovinski?

In short history at the beginning of the article we get:

"In creating the Protocols, Golovinski took Joly's novel..."

This is the first mention of Golovinski, there is no link to Golovinski until much later in the article. Surely someone who is apparently a key player should be explained more fully within the article at the first mention as well as getting a link Cannonmc (talk) 09:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Untruthful content

References 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 show no proof of resemblances between books mentioned in them and the Protocols of Zion. Eg. nowhere in the Protocols exists the excerpt 'A loan is an issue of Government paper which entails an obligation to pay interest amounting to a percentage of the total sum of the borrowed money. If a loan is at 5%, then in 20 years the Government would have unnecessarily paid out a sum equal to that of the loan in order to cover the percentage. In 40 years it will have paid twice; and in 60 thrice that amount, but the loan will still remain as an unpaid debt.' Neither does the text 'Our Government will resemble the Hindu god Vishnu. Each of our hundred hands will hold one spring of the social machinery of State.' appear in the Protocols. Therefore, plagiarism out of these books is inexistant. The sentence

The Protocols has been proven to be a literary forgery and hoax as well as a clear case of plagiarism

should be omitted. DeltaT (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not for us to prove that the book is a forgery, a hoax, or plagiarism. We're just here to summarize what reliable sources say about the book. Sources say things like, "Although at first glance, the protocols seem legitimate and original, it has been proven that they are a mere forgery of a prior document and hold no concrete evidence of an original author."[5] "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a forgery made in Russia for the Okhrana (secret police), which blames the Jews for the country's ills...The Russians used big chunks of a Russian translation of Goedsche's novel, published it separately as the Protocols, and claimed they were authentic."[6] "The document known in English as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is, to many people, obviously a clumsy piece of false antisemitic propaganda."[7] and so on. If that's what sources say then that's what we should report (along with other significant points of view found in reliable sources).   Will Beback  talk  23:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You write "It's not for us to prove that the book is a forgery, a hoax, or plagiarism." I agree. Hence, the phrase

The Protocols has been proven to be a literary forgery and hoax as well as a clear case of plagiarism.

should be omitted from the article. Agreed? DeltaT (talk) 23:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't agree. We're reporting that the listed reliable sources say that the document is a forgery and a hoax. If you can show that the sources don't say that, or that they aren't reliable, then there'd be room for debate. But we can't decide, on our own, whether or not it's a hoax or a forgery.   Will Beback  talk  23:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You write "If you can show that the sources don't say that, or that they aren't reliable" -- yes, I can show that. Please take the effort to re-read my talk contribution of 23:08, 22 May 2009 here above, which you seem to have completely ignored. It goes to the text of the Protocols itself to show that [8] contains imaginary excerpts from the Protocols. I challenge you to find the therein mentioned excerpt in the book.

A loan is an issue of Government paper which entails an obligation to pay interest amounting to a percentage of the total sum of the borrowed money. If a loan is at 5%, then in 20 years the Government would have unnecessarily paid out a sum equal to that of the loan in order to cover the percentage. In 40 years it will have paid twice; and in 60 thrice that amount, but the loan will still remain as an unpaid debt.

referenced as (Protocols, p. 77). THIS TEXT DOES NOT APPEAR IN THE BOOK 'THE PROTOCOLS OF THE ELDERS OF ZION'. The book can be consulted here >Protocols . Neither does this excerpt mentioned in [9] appear in the book.

These newspapers, like the Indian god Vishnu, will be possessed of hundreds of hands, each of which will be feeling the pulse of varying public opinion.

referenced as (Protocols, p. 43). DeltaT (talk) 01:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm following your point. Are you saying that unless every single line is copied from another book then it isn't plagiarism or a forgery? Do you have sources to support your view?   Will Beback  talk  02:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I looked in the linked PDF and found this text:

• What also indeed is, in substance, a loan, especially a foreign loan? A loan is an issue of government bills of exchange containing a percentage obligation commensurate to the sum of the loan capital. If the loan bears a charge of 5 per cent, then in twenty years the State vainly pays away in interest a sum equal to the loan borrowed, in forty years it is paying a double sum, in sixty - treble, and all the while the debt remains an unpaid debt.

That's on page 47.

• All our newspapers will be of all possible complexions - aristocratic, republican, revolutionary, even anarchical - for so long, of course, as the constitution exists .... Like the Indian idol "Vishnu" they will have a hundred hands, and every one of them will have a finger on any one of the public opinions as required.

That's on page 30. Are those what you were looking for?   Will Beback  talk  04:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

These excerpts do appear in the book, my mistake. DeltaT (talk) 09:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Addendum to POV. DeltaT (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC): The stance in the Wikipedia article is that the Protocols are plagiarism from 'Dialogues in Hell' by Maurice Joly. The excerpts mentioned here above are the only ones appearing in both books. Investigate for yourself between the two books. There is no plagiarism between the two:

Dialogues in Hell

Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion

There is no proof of exact word-for-word copying between the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion and Dialogues in Hell, except in the one passage that we talked about. That's insufficient to talk of plagiarism. Furthermore, there is a lack of scholar/neutral references to support plagiarism claims.[[10]]

I think you're beating a dead horse. We have sources that call it plagiarism so that's what we report. If there are other relaible sources that say it isn't plagiarism then we cna report that viewpoint as well.   Will Beback  talk  21:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources for plagiarism, as proposed on [[11]]. Please comment. DeltaT (talk) 02:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• In 1921 the Times of London published convincing proof that The Protocols were largely plagiarized from books published decades earlier—primarily The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu, by Maurice Joly (1864) and Biarritz by Hermann Goedsche (1868).[12]
• The relationship between "Dialogues in Hell" and the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion is very close. The relationship between the two publications was first made public on August 16, 17, and 18 of 1921 by the London Times. The protocols plagiarized the work of Maurice Joly's "Dialogues in Hell." [13]
• In 1921, a reporter for the Times of London, Philip Graves, found that the Protocols had been plagiarized. As it turned out, there were two sources: Dialogue between Machiavelli and Montesquieu in Hell, an 1864 satire of the French ruler Napoleon III by Parisian lawyer Maurice Joly, and Biarritz, an 1868 novel by German anti-Semite Hermann Goedsche. Goedsche is credited with developing the whole “Jewish plan of world conquest” idea. Biarritz features a chapter, “In the Jewish Cemetery of Prague,” in which the princes of the twelve tribes of Israel gather at the cemetery to report the progress of their world takeover schemes. As Segel said in A Lie and a Libel, “The plot bore such a striking resemblance to the one developed in the Protocols that any reasonable person must conclude that either both were written by the same man or one was plagiarized from the other” [14]

Philip Graves writes that the two books are closely resemblant, yet provides no evidence for his assertions. It's a source which is in contradiction to the [Wikipedia:Reliable sources principle], which states that a source should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made. DeltaT (talk) 11:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• In 1921, the London Times presented conclusive proof that the Protocols was a "clumsy plagiarism." The Times confirmed that the Protocols had been copied in large part from a French political satire that never mentioned Jews -- Maurice Joly's Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu (1864). Other investigations revealed that one chapter of a Prussian novel, Hermann Goedsche's Biarritz (1868), also "inspired" the Protocols. [15]
• In 1921, The Times of London published three articles written by the newspaper's Constantinople (now Istanbul) correspondent, Philip Graves, which showed that the Protocols had been extensively plagiarized from a book by a French lawye r and writer named Maurice Joly. The book by Joly was called (in French) Dialogues in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu. It was published in Brussels (Belgium) in 1864 (with a Geneva imprint, although the edition I have seen is dated 1868 and has a Brussels imprint). Cohn notes (p 74-5): "In all, over 160 passages in the Protocols, totaling two-fifths of the entire text, are clearly based on passages in Joly; in nine of the chapters the borrowings amount to more than half the text, in some they amount to three-quarters, in one (Protocol VII) to almost the entire text. This should be enough to demonstrate that plagiarism occurred. [16]
• The Russians used big chunks of a Russian translation of Goedsche's novel, published it separately as the Protocols, and claimed they were authentic. Their purpose was political: to strengthen the czar Nicholas II's position by exposing his opponents as allies with those who were part of a massive conspiracy to take over the world. Thus, the Protocols are a forgery of a plagiarized fiction. [17]

There are many sources that say the book is plagiarized.   Will Beback  talk  04:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

One can find sources that say the Protocols are plagiarized. These sources do not provide evidence of plagiarism, unfortunately -- except for one passage which one can find by comparing the two books[18]&[19]). I invite everyone to read the Wikipedia article on plagiarism, and compare the two books to find proof of it.
As I have shown, but you have painfully ignored (that is not the issue in discussion, btw), the references presented in the article are of non-neutral, or non-scholar origin. Relinking to them, which you have done, will not abet that. Therefore, these references should be omitted. If you find references that prove that there is plagiarism (without resorting to a plot by the Russian secret police or a copied definition of what a loan is), then we can talk about plagiarism in this article. Alternatively, I propose that we can refer to claims of plagiarism as opinion pieces. Until then, please don't undo my edits, which present links to published bibliographical work. DeltaT (talk) 11:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The plagiarism has been proven in 1939 already by the French author Henri Rollin, in his book "L'apocalypse de notre temps", republished in 1991. The comparison made by Rollin between the text of Joly and the one of the protocals does not leave any doubt and clearly proves the plagiarism. Furthermore Rollin's book clearly shows that the protocols were a forgery created by the Okrana. I will proivde references to this book ASAP and, in between, any of your edits that would not have a consensus in the talk page will be reverted. --Lebob-BE (talk) 11:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You present totally new information, but again no proof of plagiarism. A reference to plagiarism should contain substantial, concrete and provable information, as stated in [[20]] Referencing quantity to the undue references underneath [[21]] is not relevant to the truthfulness of the subject. DeltaT (talk) 12:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that a book published in 1939 (even if it was written French) is totally new information on that topic. Furthermore, after having checked I noticed that Rollin's book contains no less that 50 pages where the content of "Dialogues in hell" and of the protocols are systematically compared on two columns. This excercise is so conclusive that there is no doubt left about the existence of plagiarism. By the way, the fact that this book has been prohibited and seized by the nazis after they had invaded France is not a coincidence. They did not want the true about the protocols, which was the master piece of their antisemitic propaganda, been revealed. Furthermore no reliable scholar source has put in doubt the plagiarism since decades. And the same goes for the Russian forgery. --Lebob-BE (talk) 10:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

More info about origins of Protocols

I have added a citation from The non-existent manuscript: a study of the Protocols of the sages of Zion By Cesare G. De Michelis to 5.1. Emergence_in_Russia. It improves the transition to 5.2., what do you think? DeltaT (talk) 13:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Bad references 2-9 to 'plagiarism'

This article writes that the Protocols are clearly plagiarism. However, there is no proof of plagiarism based on the references in the Wikipedia article:

- References 2, 5, suffer from bad scholarship source material. They come from a then-nineteen year old sophomore. On his webpage, he provides one excerpt which could be an indication for isolated plagiarism.
- Reference 3, claims that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a forgery made in Russia for the Okhrana (secret police). There is no verifyable source for this statement. Internal links referring to that assertion, eg., suffer from citation poverty Matvei Golovinski, Pyotr Rachkovsky#Role in the creation of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion
- Reference 6 equally provides no proof of plagiarism between The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu and the The Protocols except in this one excerpt:

A loan is an issue of Government paper which entails an obligation to pay interest amounting to a percentage of the total sum of the borrowed money. If a loan is at 5 per cent., then in 20 years the Government will have unnecessarily paid out a sum equal to that of the loan in order to cover the percentage. In 40 years it will have paid twice, and in 60 thrice that amount, but the loan will still remain an unpaid debt. – "Protocols," p. 77.

MONTESQUIEU,-- "How are loans made? By the issue of bonds entailing on the Government the obligation to pay interest proportionate to the capital it has been paid. Thus, if a loan is at 5 per cent., the State, after 20 years, has paid out a sum equal to the borrowed capital. When 40 years have expired it has paid double, after 60 years triple: yet ir remains debtor for the entire capital sum." – "Geneva Dialogues," p. 256.

which merely shows that this definition of 'a loan' is adopted in the Protocols. It does not provide a sufficient basis to assert that the Protocols are a close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work. In fact, thanks to the sources I've cited, it's free for everyone to study these two books and search for indications of plagiarism. Personally, I find none.

- Reference 7 should not be accepted as a neutral source, considering its pro-Jewish origin.
- Reference 8 suffers from the same problem, author being a pro-Jewish rabbi.
- Reference 9 should not be referenced, given that its webmaster is an inexistant personCecil Adams.
In other words, I suggest we omit the assertion that the Protocols are plagiarism. The historic controversy of the Protocols should suffice to present a more neutral point-of-view in this article. DeltaT (talk) 15:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

How does "pro-Jewish" in your opinion equal "worthless source?" Aunt Entropy (talk) 15:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

-->Please do not put words in my mouth. I said 'not neutral', not 'worhtless'. DeltaT (talk) 07:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The United States Holocaust Museum (Reference 7) is a U.S. Govt institution. How does that make it "pro-Jewish"?

-->Please read the bios in the link I provided. link title I will post one excerpt out of these bios: Mr. Zeidman is former Chairman of the Board of Seitel, Inc. He serves on the Jewish National Fund’s Board of Directors and Executive Committee and chairs its audit committee. He is also National Board Member, Development Corporation for Israel; Texas State Chairman, Israel Bonds; Vice Chairman, Republican Jewish Coalition; and Vice Chair of The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston Development Board. He serves on the Executive Committees of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), and the Houston Ear Research Foundation. Imagine a neo-nazi (organization) writing a mainstream article about the trials at Nurnberg. It has the right to do that. But would you cite it as a reference to a Wikipedia article? DeltaT (talk) 07:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I see no evidence that the author of Reference 8 (David Dickerson) is a rabbi. A bigger problem with this source is that it appears to be just an annotated list of links. References should probably made to the actual links that state that the Protocols was plagerized. Sjscher (talk) 05:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The author of Reference 8 quotes a rabbi, as stated in the link. DeltaT (talk) 03:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Reference 8's description of its own webpage is: 'This educational presentation covers 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion', the notorious antisemitic hoax and forgery.' The series of link it provides all refer to subjective sources (eg. Anti-Defamation League, Shamash, Virtual Jewish Library). It is clearly a prejudged, therefore non-reliable source. DeltaT (talk) 03:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Reference 10 is the same source as 2-5 suffering from unreliable scholarship source material: it refers to the webpage of a then-nineteen year old sophomore. DeltaT (talk) 03:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Please don't re-write the article without achieving consensus. I've addressed your question about plagiarism above. There are plenty of reliable sources that say it was plagiarized.   Will Beback  talk  06:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Mister Beback, anyone is welcome to add information, cross-references, or citations, as long as they do so within Wikipedia's editing policies and to an appropriate standard -- as stated literally in Wikipedia:About I'm adding to the article what seems appropriate according to encyclopaedic standards. Please do not delete my edits again. DeltaT (talk) 11:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't try to discourage other editors from modifying or deleting your edits. Your concerns about the reliability of sources should be addressed. However, the "pro-Jewish" argument is bad, and you should not pursue it. If a Jewish scholar or organization has a reputation for reliability and fact checking, they can be used as a source in Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Talk 13:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, in line with NPOV, we should probably not use partisan sources, no matter how reputable they are. Geoff Plourde (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you show me the section of policy that says that? What sources here are you suggesting to be partisan? Jehochman ^Talk 20:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Reference Review

Reviewing the references de novo:

2. Poor

3. skepdic.com is a reliable terciary source for the bald fact that the protocols are a hoax. It has a history of accuracy and fact checking. It is non-partisan on this issue, and written by a reliable source on hoaxes and critical thinking. http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/bio.html . It is acceptable to use skepdic.com alone to state that something is a hoax or forgery.

4. Philip Graves, "The Truth about the Protocols: A Literary Forgery," The Times of London, Aug 16-18, 1921 is a reliable secondary source for the bald fact that the protocols are a hoax. It is a reliable primary source for the timeline of the initial revalation that the protocals are a hoax. The Times of London has a history of accuracy and fact checking. It is non-partisan on this issue, and written by a professional journalist.

5. Still poor, but the sources it links to were not reviewed by me and likley are all reliable sources.

6. Anti-Semitic "Protocols of Zion" Endure, Despite Debunking, Brian Handwerk for National Geographic News, September 11, 2006 is a reliable secondary source for the bald fact that the protocols are a hoax. National Geographic News has a history of accuracy and fact checking. It is non-partisan on this issue, and written by a professional journalist.

7. The United States Holocaust Memorial is a reliable terciary source for the bald fact that the protocols are a hoax. The United States Holocaust Memorial has a history of accuracy and fact checking. It is non-partisan on this issue.

8. I cannot speak to the reliablility of IGC.

9. The Straight Dope is not a reliable source per it's disclaimer ("Staff Reports are written by the Straight Dope Science Advisory Board, Cecil's online auxiliary. Though the SDSAB does its best, these columns are edited by Ed Zotti, not Cecil, so accuracywise you'd better keep your fingers crossed.")

Baring any disagreements, I will remove references 2, 5 and 9. Hipocrite (talk) 20:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I restored the Straight Dope ref - its disclaimer confirms that there is editorial control, as you cite above. If it were a ref to the SD Message Boards, that would be a different situation.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no author for the Straight Dope article, it's an anonymous opinion piece with no bibliography, signed 'David'. I suggest we remove it because of bad source citation. DeltaT (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Glad someone else reviewed references. Hipocrite, you write: reference 2 is poor, and you remove it. I agree. I therefore remove reference 8, which is the same as reference 2. DeltaT (talk) 16:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You better don't make any change to this article until a decision has been taken by the WP:AN. --Lebob-BE (talk) 17:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The AN is solely a forum for acquiring greater attention about the reference dispute. It does not make decisions. Geoff Plourde (talk) 04:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Me and editor Hipocrite are for the removal of reference 7.
I momentarily agree with the revisions by Dougweller as they present better references; albeit not perfect since Jewish authors can't be expected neutral towards books critical of Jews. DeltaT (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Woah, don't speak for me, please. Hipocrite (talk) 20:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Gentlemen, ladies and ducks please CALM DOWN

All parties engaging in this dispute have been reported to WP:AN. Gsmgm (talk) 12:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Be careful of moral equivalence. Some in this dispute are on the side of policy, and one appears to be bucking policy. Jehochman ^Talk 13:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. It's even fun to see how he first claims that certain passages were not plagiarised, and once someone showed him they were, he claimed these were the only two plagiarised statements. WP:RPA by Hipocrite (talk)78.48.145.193 (talk) 18:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Overzealous Blocking of Edits

I have made an edit to this page which was intended to remove the POV at the top two sections of the page. I have been accused of anti-semitism for altering the page to reflect that rather than it being "absolute fact" that the document is plagiarised, it is a matter of opinion. In no way do I suggest that the document is written by a genuine anti-european jew, in fact I agree the document is propagandous in nature, my edits (00:50, 2 June 2009 92.41.246.206) are clearly an attempt to improve the article. The wikipedia editors "georgewillianherbert" (who reversed the change) and "aunt entropy" who upgraded the protection of the document (same person?) clearly didnt read the edits, since how else could I be accused of being racist? Perhaps the community for this page could give a clear indication to these two about the nature of wikipedia, by haveing a look at the edits I have made and comparing them to the unreferenced "matter of factness" of their personal opinons.

With regard to my own opinions (which I easily managed to avoid showing in my edits) - the basis of the argument that the protocols are plagiarised from the document "dialog in hell", could be used as the same basis that trhe document is plagiarised from any number of historical documents. The shang yang for example. Since both "dialog" and "protocols" are linked within the document, any reader can go and look and determine for themselves wether or not there has been plagiarism. I am sure that most people who go to the effort of doing so will come to the same conclusion as I: that the subject matter and indeed the device of dissemination in both documents are similar, but plagiarism involves a little more than similarity.

I understand that the document itself has been exploited by racists in history, but to behave as this wikipedia editor has just done is a racist action in its own right, presuming as they have that anyone who wishes to contribute to this document and digresses from the opinions presented as facts must be racist against jews. I believe the editors in this case have been over zealous and I am sure that the editors who blocked this will find throughout this talk page that I am not the only person who holds the opinions that I do. I will be watching this talk page for a reply from the editors who blocked the edit, perhaps they can shed some light on the reasons for their behavior. —Preceding unsignedcomment added by 92.41.246.206 (talk) 01:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

There are numerous reliable sources which cite that the document is a forgery, that it's plagarized, etc.

Nobody has presented any reliable sources or references at all that suggest that they aren't forgeries.

Forgery/Hoax/Plagiarism

Your opinion on the document is not relevant - Wikipedia operates by reference to reliable sources. You haven't provided any that back up your opinion.

Editing hot button articles like this one, making a significant change in the basic facts presented, and not presenting any effort to document reliable sources for your information is a violation of Wikipedia policies.

If you would like to provide some references we can perhaps proceed with a reasonable discussion. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I can definitely take your point that it has been cited as being a forgery/hoax, and I have no problem with this as it stands that reliable sources say so. With regard to the matter of plagiarism, while reliable sources say that there is plagiarism, a look at the documents themselves would (surely the most reliable sources of all) would indicate not plagiarism, but merely similarity. ie Did JK Rowling plagiarise Harry Potter from the Discworld novels? I propose the documents themselves as being the reliable sources from which plagiarism can be determinned. Your right that my opinion doesnt matter to wikipedia readers, but at the same time, you would also have to accept that the opinion of the person who wrote that it is an uncontested fact that the document was plagiarised, is, like my own opinion, meaningless to wikipedia readers. If the BBC does the annual april fools story regarding the grass of the golf course at st andrews being painted blue for the day, when the visible facts are that it has not been painted blue, is it fair to quote the reliable source when examination of the facts does not lead to the conclusions arrived at.

My edit is clearly an attempt to improve the article and not some racist poke at jews as you have accused me of. No I didnt add any sources to the edits I made because the sources are already there, giving as clear backing to the way I have phrased the sections, as they do to the way the original article stood. However the original article gives no referrences to the way it is phrased.

All my edits do is make the document more open to the interpretation of the reader unabridged by the opinions of the person who wrote the original wikipedia content. Opinions that are inherent in the phrasing of the sections. Whereas the phrasing I propose is removing this POV, as opposed to being one: That is, I propose to remove the POV in the fisrt two sections, not create one.

With regards to your comments regarding my "anti-semitism" perhaps you ought to asses your own "pro-semitism". Its a very bad thing to hate someone because of their race, worse still to hate someone because they are not of your race. Your comments regarding my racism, lead me to beleive that either you are racist or that you just didnt read the edits I made before you came out with such an accusation. Your the admin, you should know better.

Do what you like with regards to my edits, but keep in mind your actions will reflect not only on you but on wikipedia, which currently, as far as I am aware, has a reputation for being open and free from the pramatisms of pro or anti racist ideologies.

I say that my edits are less opinionated than the ones which currently stand. I would sugggest you read them properly before making accusations of racism and blocking them, and then coming back to me and telling me that "my opinions dont matter" when you make out you clearly favour the more opionated version which currently exists. Perhaps though you just didnt bother to read the edits.

I would like comments from other editors with regards to the edits I made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.246.206 (talk • contribs)

You say "a look at the documents themselves would (surely the most reliable sources of all) would indicate not plagiarism, " but that is something that we as editors should not be trying to do - this would be original research, please read WP:OR. The lead, as a summary of the article, needs no references, and the references make clear that it is a hoax. Dougweller (talk) 08:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I am about to block the above IP for socking. This is an obvious sock of DeltaT (talk · contribs). Jehochman ^Talk 12:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Im just checking to see if there was any further comment on my post - I am the anonymous IP who started this thread. I am not deltaT and to be honest I dont even care how this article looks anymore. This whole article is full of paranoid people. Im accused of anti-semitism, then of being someone Im not and all I did was try to make the article look a little less opinionated. I use anonymous IP because frankly I cant be bnothered becoming a member, but I appreciate (up until now) wikipedias contribution to the world. I just thought this article would look less opinionated the way I phrased it, not because I hate jews or anything but because like many other articles that have nothing to do with jews, I thought my contribution would help to improve wikipedia. This article has been created by and is protected by paranoicaly deluded people. Is this the case with the whole anti-semitic sections of wikipedia or just this article. You really ought to take a good look at yourselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.19.234 (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You tell us you are the IP who started this thread but that you are not DeltaT, but you tell us you have been accused of antisemitism, while the only one who has been is actually DeltaT. So it is quite difficult to believe you're not DeltaT, in particular when you have exactly the same POV. No to definitely close this discussion: in his book, the French author Henry Rollin has compared the text of the protocols with the text of the dialog. This comparaison takes mote that 50 page. And does let no doubt that the protocols are indeed a plagiarism. End of discussion. --Lebob-BE (talk) 16:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

He might be referring to the comment to the temporary protection, as it does speak of antisemitism. Nevertheless, I agree that this is/was probably deltaT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.48.105.248 (talk) 16:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Reading through these comments, the previous unsigned poster is probably not DeltaT. The writing is different. He (as gender-neutral, could be a she) started this section, not the entire discussion thread. All similar POV do not necessarily come from the same source. If he read both sources and claims there was no evident plagiarism, that then should be troubling. Perhaps his definition of plagiarism is unclear, he did not read the sources, or indeed the original sources are similar but do not technically constitute plagiarism. While wikipedia policies are against primary research, this article can probably be improved by specifying the nature of the similarity (is it a direct translation at times?) and investigating the accuracy of Rollin's claims. I assume the later has been done already by someone here?

Origins

The article currently presents as fact, statements based on unreliable sources. Here is some text from the national holocaust museum. I think this is more authortitive than the sources used to support claims of authorship. "Although the exact origin of the Protocols is unknown, its intent was to portray Jews as conspirators against the state. In 24 chapters, or protocols, allegedly minutes from meetings of Jewish leaders, the Protocols "describes" the "secret plans" of Jews to rule the world by manipulating the economy, controlling the media, and fostering religious....

And from "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion: Between History and Fiction" by Michael Hagemeister —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC) "We still do not know by whom, when, and for what purpose the Proto- cols was fabricated. What we hear is a narrative—to be precise, a conspiracy narrative. The actors this time are not Jews, however, but cunning secret agents, fanatical anti-Semites, and sinister reactionaries. " http://ngc.dukejournals.org/cgi/reprint/35/1_103/83.pdf 93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: This IP user geolocates to the same region as the 92.x one above, and DeltaT, though on a different internet service provider. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a certain level of paranoia here. The article currently presents one authorship hypothesis as accepted fact, supported by dubious references.93.96.148.42 (talk) 05:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/groups/scr/kellogg.pdf. - "Historians do not know which author or authors wrote the Protocols, but it is certain that they were fabricated using earlier works such as Hermann Goedsche’s novel Biarritz and Maurice Joly’s Dialogue aux Enfers entre Montesquieu et Machiavel (Dialogue in Hell between Montesquieu and Machiavelli). The Protocols were most likely fabricated in 1897 or 1898 in Paris."93.96.148.42 (talk) 06:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Given these reliable sources, the following passages should be rewritten, as they are wrong, and use sources from the 1920's.

"Based on evidence repeatedly corroborated by British, German, Ukrainian, Polish and Russian sources over a 75 year period, The Protocols, far from being a "discovered" document as it was claimed to be, was in fact deliberately fabricated sometime between 1895 and 1902 by Russian journalist Matvei Golovinski. In a Swiss lawsuit in the late 1930s concerning circulation of the Protocols "Two of the Russian witnesses gave testimony pointing to the involvement of Pyotr Ivanovich Rachkovsky in the forgery".[9] Rachkovsky was head of the Paris branch of the Russian secret police.[10]

The source material for the forgery was a synthesis between Joly's book and a chapter from a work of fiction titled Biarritz, which was written in 1868 by antisemitic German novelist Hermann Goedsche and translated into Russian in 1872.[11] In creating the Protocols, Golovinski took Joly's novel and changed the plotters from Napoleon III to the Jews, just as Joly had changed the plotters from the Jesuits to Napoleon III in his version of the story. The current belief is the forgery was initiated and authorized by factions of the Russian aristocracy opposed to the political and social reforms initiated by the previous Tsar, (Alexander II). The fabricated document was meant to convince the antisemitic Tsar Nicholas II not to allow additional reforms, since all reforms would play into the hands of this just uncovered "secret Jewish plot". Once the Russian Revolution began in 1905, however, the use of the forgery changed. The same group, now part of the White movement, disseminated the document during their 18 year fight against the Bolsheviks in an attempt to link the Red Army, which had a few Jews in its leadership, to the fictitious conspiracy."93.96.148.42 (talk) 06:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The text says: "De Michelis attributes the origin of the Protocols to France: "According to current opinion, the PSM (Protocols of the Sages of Zion) is the Russian translation of a text that was originally written in French, handed down on one side in the "complete" and "corrected" editions published in 1905 by S. Nilus, and on the other in that abbreviated and "corrupted" version published first by P. Krushevan in 1903.", however De Michelis is here just summarising the conventional wisdom before he goes on to argue, over many pages, that the true origin was in Russia. I will correct this properly when I finish reading De Michelis' book. In general, anon 93.x.x.x is correct to the extent that academic skeptics of the standard origins theory should get more space in this article. McKay (talk) 14:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. May I suggest reading http://ngc.dukejournals.org/cgi/reprint/35/1_103/83.pdf - it is short, and well written.93.96.148.42 (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)