The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them.
Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.
Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement only, and are not for engaging in discussion of off-topic matters not related to the main article. User talk pages are more appropriate for non-article-related discussion topics. Please do not use this page as a discussion forum for off-topic matters.See talk page guidelines.
Q: Why does the first sentence of the article say the Protocols is fraudulent? Aren't Wikipedia articles supposed to be neutral?
A: Wikipedia articles are absolutely required to maintain a neutral point of view. It has long been established that this work is fraudulent; its author(s) plagiarized a work of fiction, changing the original, Gentile characters into the secret leaders of a Jewish conspiracy. That plagiarized, fictional material is presented as though it were fact. That constitutes a literary fraud.
Q: So Wikipedia is saying that there was not a secret Jewish conspiracy to rule the world?
A: That is an entirely separate issue from the established fact that the Protocols is fraudulent.
Q: Why not let the reader decide for him- or herself whether the document is fraudulent or not? Doesn't drawing conclusions constitute WP:OR?
A: The article does not draw any conclusions; journalists drew the conclusion in 1921, and numerous scholars have reaffirmed it since then. It is not original research to state that the the Protocols is fraudulent; it is a well-established scholarly fact, as documented and sourced in the article. Numerous similar examples exist throughout Wikipedia; for example, the Hitler diaries are demonstrably fake, and the WP article says so—and sources it.
Q: But if the fraud is a well-established fact, why do some groups still assert that the Protocols is a genuine document?
A: It is difficult to answer why anyone still believes that the Protocols is a real document, other than to say that some people have beliefs that are simply immune to facts (Exhibit A: Holocaust deniers). To those whose minds are made up, it makes no difference that the Protocols have been debunked countless times—or that so much incriminating Holocaust evidence survives that a dozen museums can't hold it all.
Q: But you can't disprove the contention that a bunch of Jews got together sometime in the mid-19th century and plotted a conspiracy, can you?
A: As already stated, the conspiracy issue is not relevant to this article. But to answer your question, if I told you that the Moon is a giant ball of Gouda cheese covered with a foot-thick layer of dirt, you would most likely call that a ridiculous assertion. To which I could reply, "But you can't disprove it, can you?" Point: It is not up to me (or anyone else) to disprove any nebulous theories you wish to promote; it is your responsibility to prove them.
I'm unsure why this section is so brief, and misleading.
A translation made by an Arab Christian appeared in Cairo in 1927 or 1928, this time as a book. The first translation by an Arab Muslim was also published in Cairo, 'but only in 1951'.
First, why "... but only..."? This surely infers that it is not such a bad thing as it happened later? Of course, one could argue that it is worse, given the decaes preceding when it was repeatedly proven to be a hoax.
Secondly, why does this section not state that the "Protocols" have been adapted for a TV audience in the Arab world, primarily in the country where it was produced: Egypt? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 15:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps the Egyptian TV program is not in the article because no one who edited the article knoew about it? Do you have a reliable source to support that?
I think that "but only" implies (not "infers": I imply, you infer) that it was quite some time after the hoax was first unleashed on the world. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
At present, the article almost makes out that the Holocaust wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for the Protocols. However, the Protocols of Zion is more of a central theme in Russian and French anti-semitism in particular than it is in German. Hitler would still have been an anti-semite if the Protocols of Zion didn't exist and Nazi anti-semitism is more a product of Richard Wagner and other German influences, than it is of a relatively late Russian imported pamphlet. I would argue that the article should not be as heavily focused on just the Nazis in the introduction, but rather Russian, French and general international (including religious) anti-semitism. Claíomh Solais (talk) 12:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
I have to agree with this as well, not to mention that the Protocols are more international in scope rather than just confined to one or two countries. 2601:8C:4102:1210:A18D:47E7:4396:457 (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)