Talk:The Protocols of the Elders of Zion/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3

Amazing Article

neo-nazis usually fill their mouths saying that the protocols of zion are real, yet... what proof they have that such a convenient piece of material is real?. To this day, several people belive fervently that theres an actual conspiracy out there of jewish bankers, sadly enough, this isnt the 19th century, secret societies dont really pull any weight on modern days, mainly because... they wouldnt be secret at all or they wouldbe put to stop by the fbi (like the KKK was once placed out of order). Some societies, religions, fraternities and at some degree masonry pulls "some" weight (favours for favours, some doors open), but they just dont have the same weight as they did 200 years ago, when they were rather necesary by the bourgeoisie at the time, as numerous wars were arrising on the horizon (they played a crucial role on all of the liberation of colonized America). If there is some kind of jewish conspiracy, ive just never seen it, and i dont think its because they "hide it too well", i think the most simple explanation is that it dont exist. There is something called true-believers syndrom, and it aplies to those who no matter what, believe in aliens, for example. We all know that why is possible that there would be any life out there, theres just not enough or any evidence that aliens exist. Yet, no matter how many times they are proven wrong, they still believe. Its just a very human thing.

Yes, for anyone's information - UFOs are the planet venus and disco lights reflected by swamp gas. Also, the media is completely free and open and fractional reserve banking promotes economic growth and prosperity. Oh yeah, and the federal reserve is both a federal agency and a reserve - it's even a bank!—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
for your information, unidentified flying objects are often the result of sightings of the planet venus, or other natural events. If you have any tangible artifact that came from an alien spacecraft, please bring it forward. Otherwise, Occam's Razor is the way to go


It would seem that given the vast amount of readers and believers in the document this article is about and the numerous amounts of people in the places noted in said article, some qualifications are appropriate. Using "many believe it was proved a hoax" rather than the authoritative "it was proved a hoax" takes into account the large minority or majority (given the ignorance by most of those in the industrialized countries paired with those in the Islamic world being saturated with the opposing viewpoint and the ratio of population differences). So one could argue in fact the idea that it was proved to be a hoax is true, but it would be just as true if not more so to say "many believe it". Many people do believe it was proved a hoax, and many (if not more) believe it was not proved a hoax. 04:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Consensus gentium is a fallacy. How many people believe that something was proved is utterly irrelevant to whether it was proved. If you want to provide evidence challenging the proof then do so, but your comment as it stands has no bearing on the issue. -- 11:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The difference is, this is about a fraud and not about people's beliefs. Would you insist that genocidal propaganda spread by Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines could be true simply because many people believe it? ←Humus sapiens←ну? 04:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
"Many people believe that the Apollo astronauts landed on the moon." No, no equal time for nonsense here. Fringe theories can be treated in their place, and that's not the place. And by the way, why did you try to hide your first edit under a misleading edit summary "wikify"? Trying to sneak in your little anti-semitic bit without us noticing? Antandrus (talk) 04:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I used a Flat earth example on User talk: This article does discuss, in detail, that many people have believed the document's claims. That doesn't change the fact that its author was not who he was pretending to be. We report people's beliefs, but we don't let widely-held errors to dictate content. Jkelly 04:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

In response to Humus sapiens, I would submit that fraud and proof are very relevant to what people believe as they occur within the context of a consensus (no matter the fashion; by elites in academia or commoners in a jury deliberation room)

In response to Antandrus, I think that is comparing apples and oranges given the difference in evidence that can be found and also the difference in the sheer amount of people who believe it (this isn't "fringe" by definition if more people believe it than do not believe it). Also I believe I was editing in good faith and would appreciate you to keep with Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks.

In response to Jkelly, I think it mostly corresponds to the answer I gave to Antandrus and on your talk page. Also to note that you say "widely held error" that is your opinion and many others have different opinions based on the evidence and other factors.

I am not, advocating changing it to "it was not proved to be true", I am saying there should be some qualification given the amount of differing opinion on the evidence. Thank you. 04:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Deceitful edit summary is a serious offense, so you already have below zero credibility here. The Protocols have been proved a hoax beyond any reasonable doubts, you'll have to live with it. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 05:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It was not a deceitful edit summary and continual attacks on my credibility only show a lack of ability to engage in proper discussion. 05:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

See [1]. Sorry, after this you are not qualified to sing an aria of a victim of a conspiracy. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 05:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

No one is singing an aria, especially one of conspiracy, I responded to your point above on the merits I suggest you do the same rather than trying to harp on a good faith edit. 05:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

On the merit, we properly report that the Protocols have been proved a hoax beyond any reasonable doubts. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 05:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand the point, but many if not most of those cognizant of the issue do not believe it has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt and many observers believe the opposite. I am not declaring them to be correct, but they are a formitable group that should be noted in the debate by qualifying a key statement. 06:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Since neither you nor anyone else has provided reason to think it was not proven to be a hoax, there is no "debate". That there are a large number of ignorant racists who are unaware of the proof is irrelevant -- as are those few who are aware of the proof but discount it because of their racism. None of these people's disbelief changes the fact that it has been proven a hoax. -- 11:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, this a serious encyclopedia not a blog. Our job is to reflect encyclopedic knowledge not what "many observers believe". I will consider your further unconstructive comments trolling. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 06:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Well I have not been convinced nor do I feel my concerns or points have been properly responded to, so I will continue the editing process in accordance with Wikipedia rules and procedures until such time as they have been addressed adequately. I do not believe the consideration of what may be the majority opinion (based on population) makes wikipedia not a "serious encyclopedia" in fact I think it will make it a better and more serious as it will not toe the line of mainstream thought but surpass it by including more viewpoints and knowledge.

Furthermore, Humus Sapiens, your continued belligerence towards me is not only unconstructive in solving the problem but making you look foolish. I have a serious point which I have illustrated repeatedly that does not make me a vandal or a troll, that means I have a different opinion on the orientation of the article than you. This has yet to be proven a crime. 15:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Alright I think this new qualification "called a hoax" is more in line with the feedback I have gotten here. 15:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, the style change is satisfactory :) 15:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding my 'proved' edit please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Improper_Admin_Behavior relative to User: Netscott 08:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is completely useless

the entire thing just claims The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a fake (which is POV btw). It dosen't spend any time describing what the protocols say...

WTF?--J7 08:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Facts aren't POV, and it is a fact that this book is a fake.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
Not surprisingly, J7 was blocked indefinitely for "Serious vandalism of multiple user pages with racist overtones" -- 11:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The article says that the PotEoZ are fake because they are. They are a forgery, all credible historians who have studied it agree. Only in extremist anti-semetic regions circles will you find anyone who believes that there is a secret society of Jews who are attempting to control the world in this fashion. Read the Protocols, and you will see major flaws in it. However, if you are upset with the lack of content in the article, write it yourself. Just restrict yourself from POV, to prevent us all a bit of headache. Avengerx 09:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
You may want to read the section called "Subject Matter" before claiming that the article "doesn't spend any time describing what the protocols say..." Flying Jazz 19:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
The important issue is that the article doesnt even let you know what the protocols are before the completely biased author tells you they are false. Its a vague interpretation of the book, and uses POV words. IT can all be solved by adding allegedly false, and certain groups still believe in the authenticity, not going into their political or religious backgrounds. Change the content of the article, reverse it completely, talk about the text first, and then right the hypothesis of people throughout history on its authenticity. At this point the article shows an unfair bias. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) .
It does let you know what they are -- they are an anti-semitic forgery. The "author", which is the WP community, is no "completely biased" other than in its respect for evidence. -- 11:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry the article doesn't comply with your high standards of a hoax. Actually, I think it is a good idea to describe the content in more details. But "reverse it completely"? Nah. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 23:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
If Encyclopedia Britannica describes it up-front as a fraud, so can we. Evidentally there are quite a few that come by here that "want" the Protocols to be true. You can't get an NPOV result from a biased viewpoint. -- Cecropia 15:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The Encyclodpedia Britannica is biased due to the fact that "The Protocols" is an authentic document. If Wikipedia wants to be what it purports to be, then it should take the most general viewpoint possible, and consider the possibility of POV bias that can and does work itself into the mainstream. The mainstream is NOT some magically objective entity that is immune to bias, as history provides ample proof of. I see a lot of lemmings here who think that their parrotting of the majority or consensus view of the West makes them somehow immune from criticism.

The Protocols are as authentic a document as 1+1=3. WP does not report that some people hold that 1+1=2 and some hold that 1+1=3, it reports that 1+1=2. People who insist, contrary to fact, that 1+1=3 or that the Protocols are an authentic document, are in no position to talk about "POV bias". It's not "the majority or consensus view of the West" that this article reflects, it is the facts. If you have some facts that indicate that the Protocols are an authentic document, bring them forth. -- 11:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Just because you can't see it, does not mean it does not exist. - User:Cyberman

Yes, obviously he's right, come on my fellow Jews who cares if this gentile knows of our plans, like they could really do anything about it! HAHAHAHA.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 14:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The cabbal agrees. The struggle of this one is in vain. We have fabricated too much evidence and research. Wikipedia has no choice but to state the Protocols are a fraud. --Chodorkovskiy 15:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. I read the references, and they are EVERY BIT as POV as this article. How can you use a POV source (ones that say the same thing, without evidence) as evidence? What are the names of these famous/notable historians, and where are their writing? The ONLY authors I see on it are Jewish-connected or Jews themselves, and that, combined with the choking amount of POV, make very poor sources to cite. If any historians had a NPOV while reviewing the protocals, then sure, use them as a reference. But I dislike using POV references, to try to prove that this article is correct and NPOV. Weak argument. - 03:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Swiss Appeals Court's decision on 1 November 1937

Someone who has a problem with the truth is consistently reversing my edit "However, the Swiss Court of Criminal Appeal reversed this decision on 1 November 1937." This is a well-documented fact and its exclusion is a blatant attempt to stifle the truth, which is that the notion that TPOTLEZ is a forgery is far from "proven."

This individual also has a problem with mentioning the FACT that the plaintiffs in this case were Jews. WHY?

My source:

"1937 November 1 The Swiss Court of Criminal Appeal quashes the judment of the lower court's verdict on the authenticity of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion in its entirety. (See May 14, 1935)"

Given that a google search provides only the single reference above (where it is used as evidence of creeping antisemitism at the time), plus 94 other references, all on antisemitic sites and all word for word identical (!!!!) using it as evidence that the protocols are true and that "Jewish propagandists, however, still declare that the Protocols have been "proved" a forgery", and no other reference, let alone primary source, I suggest that it be included only if a link to the URL provided above is provided for sourcing/reference/further research.
And feel free to include the "FACT that the plaintiffs in this case were Jews", along with your guess as to "WHY?" this "truth" would be "stifled". It can always be edited later should it prove to be less than encyclopedic, and it might prove entertaining. Or even educational, who knows, it could happen, I like to keep an open mind. Gzuckier 19:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
The fact that the plaintiffs were Jewish, is inconsequential. This Berne trial veredict reversion is probably a fabrication. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 21:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not inconsequential because it shows the self-serving nature of the Jewish ethnic group, and casts significant dounbt that this trial was a DISPASSIONATE, OPEN, HONEST, OBJECTIVE inquiry, and instead makes it seem like a PRESSURE CAMPAIGN conducted by SELF-SERVERS.

I have provided a source. The burden of proof is on you to provide a reason, or reasons, that the reversal is a lie.The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) .

I searched through books on both Amazon and Google and didn't find any trace of a successful appeal.
  • Target Switzerland: Swiss Armed Neutrality in World War II by Stephen P. Halbrook (p.35-36) describes the Berne trial, no info on appeal.
  • The Plot: The Secret Story of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion by Will Eisner (p.135) - no info on appeal.
  • The Lie That Wouldn't Die by Hadassa Ben-Itto (summary) - the book describes the trial in detail - no info on appeal.
  • Switzerland at Institute for Jewish Policy Research and American Jewish Committee would have some info - but doesn't.
I wonder what does "authenticity" exactly mean here: did they find the original in 1937? It seems that all of the web links come from the same source (I would assume a disreputable one because it is anonymous), this is how hoaxes usually work. Why don't we follow the principles innocent until proven guilty and Occam's razor. Oh, and to note that the plaintiffs were Jewish is to poison the well. So far I assume good faith on your side. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 10:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
According to this Russian-language article about the Hadassa Ben-Itto's book, since the court stated that the "Protocols" are "obscene literature", the verdict was indeed reversed because of too loose interpretation of the word "obscene" and also because of some procedural violations (don't know exactly what kind of them). It seems that there is no connection between this appeal and proof of falseness of the Protocols. Maybe who owns a copy of this Hadassa Ben-Itto's book should search it better. --Yms 13:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

On 10:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC), Humus sapiens said, "Oh, and to note that the plaintiffs were Jewish is to poison the well." It might be poisoning the well; but it is truth. And seeing as wikipedia is the ultimate compendium of truth, no matter how poisoning it may be, it must be included.


In what sense is this document a "forgery" as opposed to a political satire or tract, written in the first person? It is an amalgamation from many sources of strategies for social and political manipulation, and was first published under its better-known title in Russia at a time when "Jew" was a slur against Bolsheviks. Those later touting it in the US and other places were hardly under the misimpression that it was an actual document written by an actual member of a secret Jewish Cabal detailing the rules of the game, but rather drew parallels between the dirty tricks described within its pages, and stuff they thought they saw going on about them. You could change "Jew" to any other group, and republish it, and use it as an attack against pretty much any group you wished to allege was forming a "society within a society" and exerting untoward influence and power. "Forgery" tries to suggest that the people reading it are idiots, and anyone who identifies examples of its strategies does so because they have bought into what it states about its authorship. In reality, it could have been titled "The Protocols of the Learned Grey Aliens of Rigel," and it would still be an interesting read. "Forgery" is an attempt to suggest that the book contains all false information that is of no use to anyone, and yet, examples of its political strategies, such as the necessity of "controlling both sides of the debate," are to be found all around us, even if they rarely have anything to do with the Jews.

The techniques described in the Protocols transcend any particular ethnic and religious group, and could just as easily have been represented as the Plot by Communist Heathens to Undermine Everything We Hold Sacred in the 50's, or How the Teachers Union Gains Power and Control in the 80's. While I understand that Jews find this text personally offensive, knowing the contents of its pages will kill political naivete in a heatbeat. Changing the debate about the tract into one about whether it is a "forgery," something which has never been in doubt, is an attempt to mischaracterize the contents and keep people from reading it. I think we can probably just state in the opening that the document obviously wasn't actually written by its first person narrator, and not keep mentioning "forgery" every other paragraph throughout the remainder of the article. Also, it might be helpful to give examples from the tract, and not just make the article go on endlessly about "forgery" and how much the Jews hate it, which aren't really about the Protocols, but about peoples opinions on the Protocols.Hermitian 19:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Forgery may not be the best word. "Fraud" or "fictional" (my own preference) may be better. This has been discussed before, but the fact is that is was presented by Nilius, Rosenberg and others as authentic evidence of a Jewish plot - as the title strongly implies, and it still is in many parts of the Arab world. For this reason it was not "obvious" to readers that it was fiction. It's certainly not "satire", at least not in its final published form. Yes, it's true that by changing a few words any other group might be indicated as the master-plotters. There is very little in it that specifically applies to Jews, but that's how it was used. And it's worth pointing out that the published version of the text is suffused with Millenialist assumptions about the coming of the Antichrist, who is implicitly equated with the forthcoming "king of the Jews": and that places it within a well-established Christian anti-Semitic tradition. Paul B 11:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Fictional seems the best term. "Forgery" implies there is an original document somewhere one is attempting to duplicate, or an author one is attempting to impersonate. Neither of those things is true in this case. Hermitian 11:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Matrix and Harry Potter are fiction. I don't think it is a good category for the Protocols. I prefer hoax or fraud. The Times and others called it a "literary forgery" - I guess because it misrepresents a person/group (just like a forged signature on a check).
I don't think the text "along with the Donation of Constantine and Pseudo-Isidore, are one of the three most persuasive forgeries in the history of the West." belongs in the very beginning of the intro. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 12:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
There are problems with any one word. Ideally we should explore the range of terminology in the text, or use different words in different contexts. I agree that the stuff about the Donation etc is largely irrelevant.Paul B 12:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Syrian edition of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

(Same applies for article about Anti-Semitism) It says under a picture of a an Arabic book cover: 2005 Syrian edition of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion authorized by the Syrian Ministry of Information was featured at the Cairo International Book Fair

There are two reasons I'm against this: 1- It contains implicit criticism of the Syrian government (authorized by the Syrian MOI...). Wikipedia shouldn't pick and choose which details about a certain picture to include in the caption, especially if they're biased. 2- The title of the book does NOT say it is the 'Syrian edition of The PEZ'. The exact translation is: 'Lights on the the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (Complete Texts). An Historical and Contemporary Investigative Study.' by Raja Abdulhamid Orabi. Published by the Syrian publisher 'Dar al-Awael'. --Fjmustak 00:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

1. Why shouldn't the Syrian government be criticised if they deserve it? The captions of pictures in Wikipedia (and elsewhere) often contain explanatory comments, which are fine if they are accurate and relevant to the article. If its inaccurate, you have a fair point, but if it was authorised by the Syrian MOI, and "authorised" means more than just "allowed to be published", then I think the comment should stay, since it is relevant. 2. I'm sure you are right about the title, but it suggests to me that it consists of the "complete texts" of the 24 Protocols, plus some commentary by Orabi. If it contains the texts, then it's reasonable to call it an edition of the book. Paul B 02:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
If the text is accompanied by scholarly commentary, then it should at least be referred to as an "annotated edition" of the Protocols. I would think it would matter a lot whether the text was presented as some sort of canonical truth, versus being presented with accurate commentary about its origins. You can buy "Mein Kamph" in Germany, but it is a heavily annotated edition designed to educate, rather than to sell the Master Plan. The complete title of the Syrian version of the Protocols tends to suggest it is a scholarly work, which includes the complete texts of the Protocols, rather than just the Protocols themselves. So it's not unreasonable to suggest that the picture of the book fair with the accompanying caption might be misleading without further clarification.Hermitian 20:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes it seems that it is accompanied by "scholarly commentary": the type of "scholarship" that "proves" the truth of this evil conspiracy with instances of Jewish villainy - just the kind of scholarship that distinguished Der Sturmer. Paul B 00:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I am in no way defending the Syrian gov't. I'm just pointing out that the deliberate inclusion of "authorized by the Syrian Ministry of Information" seems to me like a POV, and Wikipedia articles are not forums for presenting one's opinion (even if it is a widely held one). I don't know the extent of the involvement of the Syrian government in the publication of this book. The "Featured at the Cairo International Book Fair" bit isn't that much better, as both statements are screaming "Arabs are bad". The caption to me sounds something like "Bad book (Protocols) published by bad Arabs (Syrians) and promoted by more bad Arabs (Egyptians)." I find this picture entirely out of place in this article (or at least at the top of it. If it is moved to the section about Arab World Editions, with the proper caption, then maybe). --Fjmustak 23:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd love to believe it and to give them a benefit of the doubt, but here is the evidence that proves otherwise. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
This site includes the scholarly writings of Professor Norman Finklestein, frequent debater of Alan Dershowitz in its list of horrible "anti-semitic" books. I get the impression that this site throws the label of anti-semitic at anything critical of Zionism or Israel, no matter how well supported or researched. Certainly an edition of the Protocols with Arab commentary will be critical of Zionist politics and Israeli and American foreign policy, and heavily focus on the plight of the Palestinians. These things do not, as the site alleges, equate to not stating that the protocols are a fictional work. If the book correctly points out the origins of the Protocols, and its fictional nature, it is certainly free to point out any seeming similarities between the Protocols and the behavior of the Israelis, just as US propaganda and Neoconservative books take liberties with analogies between modern Arab regimes and historical jackbooted thuggery. Can one even count the number of Saddam Hussein/Hitler comparisons?Hermitian 01:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh, for heaven's sake, what sophistry. Comparing Saddam to Hitler is just a rhetorical trope. George Bush, Ariel Sharon and any number of other people have been compared to Hitler. It just means they are believed to be behaving dictatorially. Making an analogy between Arab regimes and the Nazis is of the same order. Opponents of Neoconservatives can - and do - make exactly the same analogy about the US government. Whether or not these analogies are at all fair or meaningful is besides the point; we all recognise them to be political rhetoric. Comparing the actions of the gov't of Israel to the Protocols is not of the same order. It means only one thing: that the Protocols accurately portray a Jewish conspiracy that is exemplied in some way by events in the world around us. It is pretty clear that this edition of the Protocols makes those very claims. Paul B 09:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Saying the protocols are written by a Jew relating firsthand knowlege of a Jewish conspiracy is a lie. Saying Israel uses tricks described in the protocols is an opinion, just as saying Arab regimes act like the Nazis is an opinion. Opinions are protected, lies are not. Calling Norman Finklestein's scholarly criticism of the use of the Holocaust for political purposes "anti-Semitic" is a lie.Hermitian 16:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Hermitian, please discuss topics directly related to the subject, instead of sharing your political views: WP is not a soapbox. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I am stating facts, not political views. Those facts are that the current article is biased, because it says nothing about what is in the Protocols, and just goes on and on about how terrible the Jews think they are. A balanced article would contain both criticism and examples of the text, and not propaganda trying to suggest that they are an official publication of the Syrian government. Aside from the fact of their fictional authorship, the Protocols are an interesting read, and comparisons between the techniques described in them and the political shenanigans of any political group, including the Zionists, are certainly a legitimate topic for any political pundit or scholar wishing to write about such subjects, and are not a priori lies, forgeries, hate, or any of the many other labels you seem to want to attribute to them, for reasons which should be blatantly obvious.Hermitian 01:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
What facts? I couldn't find anything on that website about Norman Finklestein or any assertions about his "horrible anti-semitic books". Even if such a view were expressed, it's not a "lie", since it can't be factually proven or disproven; it's an opinion, which according to you is "protected". If you, or anyone else wants to add more to this page about the content of the Protocols, go ahead. I'm sure you've read all 24 and can given a detailed account of their rather repetitive contents. Bear in mind that it is a book that was written and compiled c.1900, a time when numerous books were being published that looked back at the 19th century and ahead to the 20th. Many of the ideas were in circulation at the time. Many are completely unfalsifiable because they encompass all possibilities (the conspirators will control the press, but will confuse people by expressing multiple contradictory opinions!). Often it's not clear when the Elders are describing what the "kingdom" will be like when they rule and when they are describing how they will bring about the collapse of Christian civilisation that will make this happen. The whole thing reads like the fantasies of frustrated authoritarians, projecting their own desires onto shadowy villains they would love to be. Paul B 01:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
The Israeli website cited as "evidence" of the allegations about Syria's association with the Protocols contains a section which reads "The following are some of the anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli books published by Dar Al-Awael, taken from its Internet site and from a list that appears at the end of The Protocols." One book featured is what appears to be a Arab translation of Norman Finklesteins 2003 book, "The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering," whose title translated from English to Arabic and back to English has been rendered as "How the Jews Created the Holocaust." Presumably, Holocaust here refers to the aforementioned modern for-profit "Holocaust Industry" and not to the World War II event with a similar name.Hermitian 02:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I must have somehow missed that. Still it's not a "lie" unless the authors are deliberately mistranslating the title. The website is clearly polemical, but it's hardly surprising given the well-publicised statements of senior middle-east politicians regarding the holocaust etc. Anyway, the caption has been modified to address legitimate queries. If you wish to add more on the content of the Protocols there is nothing stopping you beyond NPOV and other Wikipedia policies. Paul B 15:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I think Fjmustak has a point about the authorisation. Even the website cited by Humus sapiens provides no evidence of government support for the book beyond a tiny bit of text which appears to mean nothing more than that the book is authorised for publication. In a highly censored culture this may be significant, but it's pushing things to imply that this amounts to government approval or endorsement. Paul B 00:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I am not against reflecting the real title, but the idea that Syrian MOI puts the spotlight on the Protocols in order to debunk it needs serious proof. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
It's fairly clear that the edition is not intending to debunk the Protocols but to affirm them. The question is whether the "authorisation" means anything more than that the book has passed censorship regulations. Paul B 00:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
The Syrian MOI gave their "authorisation" (whatever that means). Unless this fact is in dispute, I don't see a problem reporting that. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
It is only stating fact and besides, the only countries where modern editions of the Protocols are Arab nations. Most Arab nations are also obviously and publicly anti-semitic or anti-zionist (Official statements, blatant cartoons/articles, and policies), so Syria should be proud to have its edition shown on wikipedia. Otherwise we could just choose another Arab nation's edition for a modern copy. Which would just lead to more protest. So let us leave it at that, Syrians haven't spoken up and are probably proud. --Exander 08:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Just Give Up, People

No one is going to ever successfully convince another person who has a completely different opinion on this. For those that claim the Protocols is true, you have a mountain of evidence to go against, which means that you bear the burden of proof, so you're not going to get anywhere or gain any converts here. For those that claim the Protocols is false, inevitably someone's going to say that it's all one big conspiracy and ignore the evidence, simply because pretty much everything is inherently unprovable (see solipsism). Of course, I'm a nihilist if you're wondering, so I'm pretty much neutral on this issue and everything else. I'd post my IP address as a signature here too, but DHCP makes that kinda pointless.

It's certainly seems "kinda pointless" for a nihilist to proselytize nihilism. And that's just one element of the confusion expressed here. For instance, asserting (correctly) that there's a mountain of evidence that the Protocols are fraudulent is not neutral. And if someone had reason to wonder, then your being a nihilist would not be "of course". And the view that "pretty much everything is inherently unprovable" is scepticism, not solipsism. If you're a solipsist, then there are no "people" for you to tell to give up. And if you're a sceptic, then you shouldn't expect us to believe a word you say -- nor for you to. I could go on but ... hey, who am I trying to convince? :-) -- 12:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


As a non-participant on this page, I would like to nominate this article for FA status. It is really thorough and well written, and would be a great FA. Are there any objections before I do that? --Goodoldpolonius2 02:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It went through Peer Review. I commented then that I didn't think that the referencing was up to standard, and it hasn't improved. Jkelly 03:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

::What material do you feel needs to be better referenced? It looks like there are 12 footnotes and about as many in-line citations. Sorry, read your peer review, it looks like a few more cites are helpful. Any other thoughts? --Goodoldpolonius2 03:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned above that the Japan-related statements really need referencing. We are making some pretty extraordinary claims in this article. Jkelly 03:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
It is extraordinary story but from what I know it's true. The text here isn't mine, but see Fugu Plan. I remember reading about it somewhere and also a documentary "Shanghai Ghetto" touches that topic a bit. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
The Japan thing is actually well known, if bizarre: Virulent anti-Semitism regained its momentum, however, in a vicious xenophobic form with the translation and dissemination of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion by Japanese army officers after World War I. The grotesque appeal of this book has never waned in Japan, and for the last ten years variations on its themes have topped Japanese best-seller lists. As Goodman and Miyazawa point out, early editions of The Protocols had a phenomenal effect on vast segments of Japan's intelligentsia: on the one hand, they stoked the paranoia of ultranationalist right-wingers; and, perhaps more ominously for the fate of pluralism and freedom of conscience in pre-World War II Japan, the book transformed many fervent Marxist activists and philo-Semitic Christian thinkers into rabid anti-Semites and added them to the ranks of the right-wingers. (From the First Things Review of "Jews and the Japanese Mind")
There is also a video of a panel discussion about the topic. And check out the anti-Semitism report I referenced from the Sassoon Center. --Goodoldpolonius2 03:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Wacky. I suggest that I won't be the last person to wonder about it, though. Jkelly 04:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I added more info. Are you okay with the article as an FAC now? --Goodoldpolonius2 05:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I made an attempt to address some problems pointed out by Daniel Case at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Thanks for the feedback. ←Humus sapiens ну? 12:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Minor quibbles

Two little details. The first is that the Egyptian-edition book cover "gallery" causes the text there to float very strangely on my screen. I'll try to play around with the images a little. I'm not sure that all four are necessary. The other detail is that the "See also" list contains cross-references already made in the article. Neither of these is likely to be a big issue at WP:FAC, but I thought I'd mention them. Jkelly 05:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please check my formatting edit? I don't want everyone's else screen to be full of blank space so that it looks right to me. Jkelly 05:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Looks good to me - I am going to nominate, lets see what happens. --Goodoldpolonius2 05:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Could you please check fmt. again: I did what WP image guide recommends. I also added an illustration from Nilus's 1912 book. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Floating problem remains fixed on this end. Jkelly 15:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Jkelly, care to vote on the FAC? --Goodoldpolonius2 02:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
There is a lot of activity right now. I'll give the article another read-through when things stabilize a bit. Jkelly 02:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty happy with the latest revision, except the 1st paragraph in the Literary analysis section contains weird text: "(There seems to be some confusion here, because the Jesuit plotters were in Sue's book The Wandering Jew, which was not in fact about Jews." - at least the paren. ")" needs to be closed or removed, but I find this comment confusing. Thoughts? ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
It's been there for a while. It was apparently added by someone who was querying the ascription of the material to The Mysteries of the People, implying that it comes from another novel called The Wandering Jew. I did a web search on this a while ago, but could not find anything to clarify the matter, so left it as it was, not having read either of Sue's works. The current passage is also not clear what "pamphlet" is being referred to in the last sentence ("In Sue's work, the plotters were Jesuits, and the Jews do not appear in the pamphlet."). Is this Joly's text, or Sue's novel? Paul B 01:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Is this an appropriate subject for a featured article?

A book about an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory? I don’t think that should be featured on the front page! There was something similar to this featured several days ago too, a controversial or racist viewpoint based publication or something along those lines. I can’t even get an article about the photosynthetic reaction centre featured! --Miller 17:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Signature george.PNG

Wikipedia's not censored. It doesn't matter if the topic is controversial or not, only if it is a very high quality article. A Clown in the Dark 20:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Well what is funny is while we know the Jewish Holocaust was Tragic, I read a text called "Pink Swastikas" written by two Jewish scholars, along with "The Hidden Hilter" that documented Hitlers involvement in the occult and that many on Hitlers staff were Jewish, including his own personal attorney, Franks, and occult followers and Hilter allowed many of the secular Jews to leave Germany for a bribe of course, before he started his slaughter of teh Relgious Jews and others, such as Poles, Roma, etc. So Hilter was a mad man, who pretended to be a Christian, a la Machiavellis recommendation, while he practiced occult arts. Howevever what has been LESS than forthcoming by the Jewish community is that Trotsky, Marx, Lenin, Stalin were all Jews, in fact Lenins father was a Rabbi, but they renounced or didnt practice their faith and seemed to have occult ties like Hilter. This is documented with NUMEROUS photos in Texe Marrs new book Codex Magica. And Marrs documented may of the Gulag Commisars were Jewish, and hand selected by Stalin as the Russian people would not slaughter their own people. So the the Jewish people, imo, have a lot to answer to Christians for, this great slaughter that occurred under Marxist communism. Just like German Lutherens and Christians whom went along with Hitler have a lot to answer for. I think the Jewish people have been at times, very, very intolerant of others, and look at how they treat the Palestinian people. While the actual author of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is not known, who cannot see all these world wars and sponsership of the federal reserve bank are destorying and corrupting the world and driving us towards a one world government. Indeed it was the Jewish Historian Rothbard, who blew the whistle on the corrupt nature of the federal reserve bank in his classic book "The Case Against the Fed". I dont trust any religous fanatics when they get to power, be it Islamic, or "Christians" or Jewish fanatics. Especially in light of the fact that the Marxist communists were virtually ALL Jews. This has be a terrible cover up in hisotry, imo. I think this protocols is being used as governing document to drive the world to a one world government by aligned groups, whom at the top may not be Christians or Jews or Muslims, but luciferians. Reading those four books, " The Hidden Hitler", "Pink Swastikas", "The Case Against the Fed", and "Codex Magica" really changed my perspective on who runs the world and what their goal are and how one obtains power. Most of the Protocols of Zion seem to be taken out of the works of Machiavelli, "the prince", "art of war" and discourse on states. And we know the neo-con movements founder strauss was a jews, and the jewish press, friedman, kristols and virtually all of jews in both parties in power, clinton, fienstein, liberman, support the bush administrations war and virtually his entire staff are jewish-neoconservatives. Indeed Marrs provides documentation that the bush family is Jewish. So why in light of the history Stalin, Lenin and Marx, and Trotsksy shouldnt Americans be scared to death of this current fanatical leadership in the usa. Although I believe Alex Jonews at, documented many of our leaders who proport to be Jews or Christians are "luciferian" and practice occult worship JUST LIKE HITLER AND LENIN. I think dimissing this Protocols of the elders of Zion without consideration that the neo-cons and their financial backers whom OWN the federal reserve bank could be using this as blueprint for a hidden global agenda is ridculous. Nimrod wanted to rule the world from Babylon and have global govt and religion. Ditto for Alexander, the Caesars, etc. Good government and transparenet govt is the exception in history not the rule. I think the American people ought to wake up to the special interests that run this country and that they may be using similiar tactics to what is outlined in the protocols to bring about a NWO. I mean Texe Marrs in his book Codex Magica documents the Bush Jewish background, and whom announced a New World Order but George Bush. This entire Wikipedia article appears to be censored and not allowing enough discussion on the background of Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky based upon historical analysis. I mean it is good we hae a holocaust museum to not forget the Nazi Holocaust, but where it the Museum for the Russian Christians, or the Rawandans, or the Cambodians, or the People slaughtered under Mao. The Jews are not the only people to suffer great trajic events under totalitarism. j. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Recent changes

IZAK just made many changes (all marked minor) to the article, and I was hoping we could discuss our preferences between the two version. My big issues are that he removed the references to the document being a "fake" and a "hoax" in the intro and instead called it a "disputed text" and similarly grouped it with Mein Kampf, which, while "notorious," is certainly not a fake document, and instead actually uses the Protocols as a source. I also found the eight one or two sentence sections that were created at the beginning of the article hard to read, and personally preferred the version that started out with the content of the document before explaining how it was used. I have a lot of respect for IZAK's work, so this preference might just be me, and I am happy to go back to IZAK's version if the other editors think that it works better stylistically. --Goodoldpolonius2 14:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry IZAK, with all due respect I have to agree with GOP2 on all points here. Main Kampf was not a hoax/fraud/forgery, so dispute there is of different nature. I would like to avoid micro-sections as well. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Lots and lots of improving going on. Jkelly 21:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I added The Protocols of the Elders of Zion#Recent findings section. I feel that it makes a better ending, but wouldn't object if you find it a better home. ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Gooldold: I have taken note of your comments, although I don't see the big deal. At any rate, I have now gone over the article again and, having completely avoided any reorganization/s, I merely edited and Wikified some very obvious points and words in need of help, clarification, and correction. Thanks for the feedback. IZAK 13:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! --Goodoldpolonius2 16:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The Protocols and Mein Kampf as Polemics

Humus: I did not say that Mein Kampf is a "hoax/fraud/forgery" (where did you get that idea from?) What I did say is: "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion together with Hitler's Mein Kampf (published 1925) are the most anti-Semitic polemics of the twentieth century and have retained their appeal and longevity in spite of their proven notoriety." Note the meaning of the word Polemic: "Polemic is the art or practice of inciting disputation or causing controversy, for example in religious, philosophical, or political matters. As such a polemic text on a topic is written specifically to dispute or refute a topic that is widely viewed to be a "sacred cow" or beyond reproach, in an effort to "stir up trouble"." (Wikipedia). Thus when calling something a "polemic" it is regardless of whether it is a "hoax" or "real" but rether it is a focus on the style, contents and objective of the text/book. Thus my edit, that "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion together with Hitler's Mein Kampf (published 1925) are the most anti-Semitic polemics of the twentieth century and have retained their appeal and longevity in spite of their proven notoriety", should go back into the article! IZAK 13:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It's impossible to make the judgement that these two books are the "most anti-semitic" polemics of the 20th century. Even Mein Kampf comes over as relatively mild in comparison to Der Sturmer, and I'm sure there are other texts as extreme and even more so. One of the odd things about the protocols is the fact that Judaism as such is barely mentioned, which is one reason why other conspirators have sometimes been proposed. It might be said to be the most influential anti-semitic text of the 20th century, but that might be disputed too. Paul B 14:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Paul: Der Sturmer was a newspaper so why are you mentioning that? The subject of this article is about The Protocols as a book and in that context it is on a par with Mein Kampf. Also, "...a polemic text on a topic is written specifically to dispute or refute a topic that is widely viewed to be a "sacred cow" or beyond reproach, in an effort to "stir up trouble"..." (Wikipedia). Can you come up with the name/s of any other book/s that exceeded The Protocols and Mein Kampf in their impact and durability over time and in their continuing evil influence upon all manner of anti-Semites? IZAK 11:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Where do these ratings come from? ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
IZAK, you've lost me. Since when was the word "polemic" restricted to books? I was commenting on the form of the sentence you placed at the topic of this section in bold. Also that Wikipedia definition of polemic is rather bad, I think. It's not usually required that an attack should be on something "beyond reproach", just that should be an attack. The OED defines polemic as "a controversial argument or discussion; argumentation against some opinion, doctrine, etc.; aggressive controversy; in pl. the practice of this, esp. as a method of conducting theological controversy: opposed to irenics [theological argument designed to emphasise unity rather than division]." Der Stuermer was undeniably polemical. Anyway my last sentence clearly stated that the PEZ could be described as the most influential of these texts, but that some would query that, and it's probably unprovable. Paul B 18:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


Hi, all. I moved up the paras about the Joly material. To me it makes the most sense to put it in chronologically so the reader can see from where the original material was taken. Kaisershatner 16:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

"sold in the West in the 1920s and 1930s" -- and today

"It was sold in the West in the 1920s and 1930s" - This makes it sound as if sales of the Protocols in the West are only a historical curiosity. In reality, checking various major online booksellers today, I see several recent editions for sale. - Feb 19th, 2006


Per repeated requests at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, I tried to move the small images into img gallery. I am not even sure if that would be my own preference, feel free to comment, revert, etc. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it looks tremendously better this way. Nice job! Kaisershatner 16:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

On sale in London?

"Reportedly, Arabic editions issued in the Middle East were found on sale as far as in London bookstores" (see "Middle East"): "reportedly" is a weasel term. Were they or were they not found on sale in London? Can someone verify this?

No, "reportedly" is not a weasel term when the report is provided. Instead of saying categorically that it is true, we provide a link to the report. I don't see anything wrong with that. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Tom and Jerry

I'm moving this section to Talk. It doesn't seem to have much to do with the protocols, nor does the Iranian lecturer seem to refer to the Protocols in the lecture as presented on the web, [2] instead he seems to be claiming that Jerry was created as a sympathetic character to counter antisemitic imagery (as if it were somehow anticipating An American Tail and Maus). It's ridiculous, but it doesn't seem to have much connection with the Protocols:

On February 19, 2006, the Iranian advisor to the Education Ministry and professor at Iran University, Dr. Hassan Bolkhari argues that his analysis proves that the classic Tom and Jerry cartoon was part of a vast Jewish conspiracy stemming from the Protocols. In his thesis, he states that the Jews of Europe were popularly referred to as "dirty mice" because of their "hoarding of wealth" and other anti-Semitic myths. Dr. Bolkhari continues that the American Jews of Disney [Tom and Jerry is not a Disney production] exported the children's cartoon in order to influence WWII era Europeans into attributing the acts of "dirty mice" with "cuteness".

Any thoughts? Paul B 01:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Look, I'm not defending this guy, but this paragraph is a distortion of what he says. His reference to the Protocols is very obscure and oblique. He says Hitler had "behind-the-scene connections with the Protocols". I'm not sure what this means, but my best guess is that he is saying that Hitler promoted the Protocols to give a negative image of Jews, while Tom and Jerry was created to give a positive image. Nowhere does he say that the latter was part of a "vast Jewish conspiracy" or that it was part of the plan as described in the Protocols. We cannot distort evidence in this way.
Here's the relevant passage:
"Read the history of the Jews in Europe. This ultimately led to Hitler's hatred and resentment. As it turns out, Hitler had behind-the-scene connections with the Protocols [of the Elders of Zion].
Tom and Jerry was made in order to display the exact opposite image." Paul B 02:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)'s POV tag

Dear anonymous. a great deal of work has been put into this article to conform to WP policy. Mere assertions about "half the world" do not justify the POV tag. I'm sure many people in the world believe that Jews form an international power-network, or are overly influential on US policy, or even directing it etc. etc. But unless you have specific evidence that people believe that the plot outlined in the Protocols is actually true, then your statement is unsupported. Even if any number of people believe this that still does not justify the tag. This belief can be noted in the article - as indeed it is - alongside the opinions of historians on the matter. Would you put a POV flag on an article about the 9/11 attacks if it did not give equal weight to both the theory that it was carried out by Islamists and the theory that it was a Jewish plot? The latter is no doubt widely believed by the very same people you claim believe in the Protocols. Paul B 12:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Added Robison

John Robison (Scotland) was mentioned already in his own article (which I have also improved). Norman Cohn's book also mentions Robison's influence. --GwydionM 21:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Gallery of images

Galleries of copyright-infringing images are really not okay. See Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Fair use. A gallery doesn't allow for even the slightest pretense for critical commentary on an image, and fails to keep copyright-infringing images to a minimum.

That said, some of the images I removed are from the '20s and early '30s. They may well be in the public domain per United States copyyright law. If that is the case we can use them without concern, and update their copyright templates to reflect that. Jkelly 19:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The use of book covers are considered under Wikipedia:Fair use. --Scaife (Talk) Flag of Austria.svg Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 20:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Book covers are a particularly safe claim of "fair use" in an article about that book... but a gallery of twelve of them with no commentary fails our own Wikipedia:Fair use policy. Jkelly 20:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 00:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Maybe a dozen is too many, but I think a couple more would adequately illustrate the article's text. I'll try to provide relevant and concise captions. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
You uploaded most of them. Do you have a source for them, or more information about their copyright holders? What is the deal with things published in 1920s Poland, for instance? Jkelly 21:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Sure, I can and will try to provide sources where they are missing. I feel that at this point it's a waste of time because fair use images not used anywhere will be removed from WP soon. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm suggesting that some of them may not be under an unfree copyright; the ones from the 20s and 30s may have expired copyrights. See this chart.Jkelly 21:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


The article contains references to 46 numbered endnotes, but there are only 5 such notes. What happened to the other citations? It seems incredible to me that an article with such sloppy documentation should be a featured article. I do not say that the article is in any way inacurate. It seems to be rather, a result of many, many, uncoordianated editing updates. Perhaps there should be an automatic process for checking consistency of references? Too Old 20:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The referencing was messed-up due to an unclosed markup tag. I reverted to restore it. I would like a knowledgable editor to restore any verifiable and relevent information lost in my revert (but watch out for those unclosed tags!). Jkelly 21:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and in the process you eliminated all my edits. I believe I am responsible for the problem with the markup, as all this html-ing is somewhat foreign to me. I'll give the article a close look before restoring the work which I cited. --Hohns3 04:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Structural weaknesses

I see some structural weaknesses in the article, which perhaps aren't readily apparent to people who are very familiar with the material, but were disconcerting for me.

  • The "Origins and content" section stops before it has become clear how the work reached its present form. I think some material from the "Emergence in Russia" section should be moved back.
  • Philip Graves' Times article is referred to in the "Excerpts" section as if it has already been mentioned, but it hasn't.
  • The Excerpts section seems to be in the wrong place. As it relates to the plagiarism which created the final work it would be better to position it after it has been shown how that was uncovered, that is after the "The Times exposes a forgery, 1921" section. Consideration should also be given to renaming "Excerpts" to "Plagiarism"

Osomec 01:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Bad sentence

The following sentence is not very clear:

Matvei Golovinski worked together with Charles Joly (son of Maurice Joly) at Le Figaro in Paris and wrote articles at the direction of Pyotr Rachkovsky, Chief of the Russian secret service

Who was Matvei Golovinski? Did the articles appear in Le Figaro as I at first assumed, or was that merely his place of work, as seems more likely on second thoughts? What was the significance of the "essays"? Did they contain any new material? How did they relate to the final book form? What language were they in? Osomec 01:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Unverified inference

The phrase "The Protocols enjoyed another wave of popularity in Russia after 1905" needs to be backed up by evidence that the impact of the 1903 edition amounted to a "wave of popularity". Osomec 01:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, it was published in 1992-post-USSR Russia, as documented on an image beginning the article, so I assume that this illustrates the wretched pamphlet's influence in the aforementioned Federation. Эйрон Кинни (t) 01:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
An inference about 1903 needs to be backed up by information about 1903, not about post-1992. Was the 1903 edition a best seller? Was it praised by influential critics? That's the sort of information that is needed. Osomec 02:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't know about that. Best-seller seems to be far fetched, but it's possible in anti-Semitic Imperial Russia and Nazi Germany especially. Эйрон Кинни (t) 08:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, 1903 and 1905 were the years of the two Kishinev pogroms. - Jmabel | Talk 04:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Who are the Idiots who decided to make this a featured article?

I am an 83 year old, retired engineer who served with 100th Infantry Division in France and Germany in World War II. I am also Jewish and I am sick at heart that some idiot, anti-Semitic Wikipedians decided to make this a featured article!! When World War II ended, I walked through two of the concentration camps that took part in the murder of 6 million Jews, and I have never forgotten the horrible scenes that I witnessed in those camps. Those murders were committed by people who also believed in tripe like The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. You idiots who decided to feature this anti-Semetic tripe would have made good Nazi Stormtroopers in the Germany of the 1940's.

There are thousands of men worldwide who believe in fornicating with children. Do we next feature an article on that as well ... just because of the numbers of people who believe it isn't immoral?? -- mbeychok 01:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Your comments are factually incorrect. Those who decided to make it a featured article are neither idiots nor anti-semetic, nor did they decide to feature The Protocols of the Elders of Zion -- which is indeed anti-semetic tripe -- but rather they decided to feature a WP article about that document, and the article is not "anti-semetic tripe". Your comments appear to reflect a failure to appreciate the difference. -- 12:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Please calm down. It is hard to believe that anyone could really believe it is anti-Semites who made this the featured article. I can only assume you haven't read it. Osomec 01:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
That's not what makes an article featured. Indeed, it's the sources and the factual information that make an article the said, not how controversial or propaganda-laden it is. For the man who wrote first in this thread, I admire you, and I am sure many others do as well, you are appreciated. Эйрон Кинни (t) 01:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Don't patronize me and don't tell me to calm down. The article publicizes and thus furthers anti-semitism and is therefore anti-semetic tripe ... and those who decided to feature it because it had "sources and factual information" are either stupid idiots or anti-semetic idots. In either case, they are idiots! And Kinneyboy, if you are the 14-15 year old youngster pictured on your user page, grow up before you decide to lecture me! -- mbeychok 02:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Mbeychok, you've lived through things I haven't lived through, but please don't suppose that you speak for all Jews. I found this article to be fascinating and informative, and you just sound like a kooky (if well-intentioned) bucket of nerves. Even if you actually believe that things like the Protocols are still a real threat, surely you realize it's better for good information to be out there then half-truths and misinformation. You should be praising Wikipedia, not cursing it. 02:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
You really do need to calm down. Being 83 years old is no excuse for this kind of abusive behaviour, especially trying to intimidate a child. If Wikipedia hadn't made this a featured article, that wouldn't have stopped one Middle Eastern government promoting it as fact for one second, or reduced sales of the Protocols by one copy. On the other hand this article will be seen by many people from countries where the clear truth that they are a forgery is suppressed and will therefore make the propaganda less convincing to those people, who, as they can read English will tend to be among the better educated and more influential members of society. Osomec 02:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Osomec, I realize that you are trying to mediate and get the conversation back to safe trivia like footnotes and how long the article is, etc. But I will not calm down! The last time we Jews failed to protest, 6,000,000 of us were slaughtered. I do not consider my protesting this anti-semitic article to be abusive behavior - mbeychok 02:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Mbeychok, I sympathesize with your reaction, and you've lived and seen a lot that I can only attempt to relate to. But you have to understand that featuring the article does not constitute any affirmation of the truth of the Protocols.
As for the political consequences of featuring this article or any other on anti-semitic subjects: don't all of the Jewish groups commemorating the Holocaust continually tell us to "Never Forget"? To prevent another Holocaust, we have to keep aware of the root causes of antisemitism, not just its consequences (concentration camps and gas chambers). And if simply drawing attention to past antisemitic acts is itself antisemitism, than Schindler's List and the Wiesenthal Centre are also to blame.
At a time when the government of Iran is holding an international conference on the existence of the Holocaust, it's important that resources like Wikipedia exist to reiterate the truth: that the Protocols are a lie and fabrication. --Saforrest 04:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Don't you think it's important for people to know why you had those experiences, and the "rationales" behind those concentration camps to begin with? As has been noted in the article, Hitler himself cited this work in Mein Kampf, apparently using Protocols as justification for his "Final Solution." If you try to suppress any and all discussion of Protocols, disallowing others from learning about the hoax and how it has been used to coax otherwise rational human beings into committing acts of unspeakable violence, not only would you be using some of the same book-burning tactics of your old enemies but you'd also be condemning us to repeat history. Guppy313 04:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

As one of the people who worked hard on this during the featured article nomination, let me clarify. It doesn't mean we think the Protocols are something to celebrate. It just means we believe, and the community agreed, that this exemplified the best we could produce on the subject. Would you prefer it didn't go into the detail it does about why the Protocols are fabricated? Google on "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and you will see the need for a thorough treatment on the web. Daniel Case 02:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

This article clearly exposes the falsehood of the "Protocols." It also exposes the depth of antisemitism in the Arab world (and the Iranian government). It is a very important article and very well-written. I hope that when people who hear about the "Protocols" search for them on the Internet, they will come to this page rather than an uncritical translation. -- Mwalcoff 02:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I didn't lecture you. I just passively attempted to correct you. No harm intended. Эйрон Кинни (t) 02:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm the person who choose to feature this article for today (or, as Mbeychok put it, the 'idiot in question who would have made a good Nazi Stormtrooper') and I happen to think this is a good article. I also happen to strongly agree with Saforrest's point that every jewish group supports a "never forget" philosophy, so I find the comments that featuring-this-article-is-anti-sementic just mind-boggling. Raul654 08:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

You have no reason to believe otherwise, Raul, and your thoughts are perfectly justified. Эйрон Кинни (t) 10:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm astonished at the anti-semitist accusation. The article makes it quite clear that the publication is a polemic fiction aimed at falsely deriding Jews. I would see it as supportive of those wishing to expose anti-semitism. This was a topic I knew nothing about. It was an iformative article I wouldn't have read had it not been featured and it has spurred wone of the better talk page discussions. This is a feather in the cap of Wikipedia in my view. Epeeist smudge 10:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Just a casual observation. But I think for many people of older generations, this sort of attention gives it the topic more attention than it deserves. Can you imagine Britannica making Protocols a featured article? I know the arguments for: marketplace of ideas, need to counter all other Protocol treatments on web, etc - and I fall on the side that supports good info driving out bad. "Never forget" is something relatively new - read Maus and you'll see the generation which lived through it didn't necessarily want to relive it for education or entertainment. One must admit though, that these feature articles sometimes favor the sensational and freakish, and the younger educated male demographic that spends a disproportionate amount of time on them. Huangdi 13:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

To the degree that I can imagine Britannica having featured articles, I can certainly imagine it featuring this one, for the same reasons that it was -- wisely and properly -- featured here, as an example of a highly informative and well-presented article. I fail to see that you have provided any reason why Britannica would not feature it. Nor do I grasp how featuring an article that provides information about the nature of the Protocols, its history, and its currency among anti-semitic groups causes anyone to "relive" "it" -- certainly not for "entertainment". And what exactly is "it"? This isn't an article about the Holocaust -- although that, too, would be a proper subject for a featured article. As for "the younger educated male demographic" -- I don't think these are the sorts of articles that they spend "a disproportionate amount of time on".
Frankly, I think featuring this article was an unalloyed good, and the claims to the contrary are confused, mistaken, or in your case, pointless devil's advocacy. Many people who didn't know that the Protocols are fraudulent now do, and many people now know where there's a source for debunking anyone who claims otherwise, and that's a good thing. -- 13:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

This site has an overwhelming number of rednecks, muslims, and neo-nazis who obviously have a distaste for Jews and want to make this bullshit a "featured article" and their are enough of them to feature whatever the hell they please. This site is turning into an anti-semetic persons heaven. --GorillazFanAdam 17:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Please produce one scrap of evidence that the people who worked on this article and caused it to become featured are antisemites. Everything I have seen demonstrates the opposite. --Saforrest 21:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Alright, just wanted to apologize for jumping to conclusions earlier, I hadn't fully read the article. I take back what I said, no offense to any one, and no hard feelings. --GorillazFanAdam 00:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to chime in as another Jew (not as old as mbeychok says he is, but well more than halfway there) who thinks it is entirely appropriate to feature this article. Exposure of anti-Semitic libel is not anti-Semitism. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism thriving at Wikipedia

As a person of Jewish heritage I find it disturbing that Wikipedia not only features such nonsense as this, but has furthermore promoted it to the frontpage. This is the kind of writing that raised up an entire generation of concentration camp guards, and as such, has no place in a place billing itself as 'The Free Encyclopedia'. -- 01:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Ahem. The WP article is not "the kind of writing" that you refer to. Rather, writing about the Protocols appears here. The same is true of, for instance, the ADL website:

the Jewish Virtual Library website: the Nizkor Project website: and so on. SO your charge is absurd. -- 12:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

You should have stopped to think before making that slur. I think it is safe to assume that you didn't stop to read the article. Osomec 01:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Sir (or Madame), the article is written from a neutral viewpoint and features links to Jewish and Israeli sources. I am a Christian Zionist, and I believe the article to be written well, and the fact that it cites its sources and consistently states the publication is a hoax proves to me that neither this article nor the featuring of it on the frontpage has any Anti-Semitic basis. Эйрон Кинни (t) 01:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
What on earth are you on about? No one could possibly consider that this article in its featured form is Anti-Semitic. I've no doubt it will be repeatedly vandalised today with anti-Semitic additions, but the best answer to that is to watch and revert. Paul B 01:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I also strongly reject the title of this section and the comment in its beginning. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I find this article to be extremly offensive as well, their is enough anti-semetic propaganda all over the internet, no need for this site to contribute. --GorillazFanAdam 16:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you can say what about the article offends you. I hope that it's not its very existence, because anti-semitism and citing of The Protocols will exist with or without this article. By featuring it, hopefully some people may be educated that The Protocols are a hoax and the tactics relied on by anti-semites are fallacious and refutable. Ryanluck 17:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Do you see anyone featuring articles on Anti-Islamic propaganda? No, why then sould this garabge be a featured article? --GorillazFanAdam 17:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing about the article that can or should be considered 'garbage' and to say that is an insult to the people that worked hard to make it both encyclopedic and informative. This article is decidedly -not- anti-semitic. Is an article about the Holocaust anti-semitic simply because it exists? Because this is your argument for the Protocols article. If Wikipedia features an article about the Rwanda genocide, is it doing so out of political bias, or because the article is informative and well-written? Please re-examine your assumptions and next time, assume that people have good intentions before you comment. Joey 19:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

My post below was erased or reverted or something under the heading of "NPOV." I'm not quite certain how discussion on a Talk page can be squelched by citing NPOV. As such, I post it here. If somebody wants to keep erasing it, I'll keep posting it.

One thing that's bothered me about some Wikipedia articles about Jewish individuals is that their ethnicity is pointed out very early in the article. For example, J. Robert Oppenheimer mentions his Jewish ancestry in the first sentence. The ethnic heritages of Ludwig Boltzmann or Arthur Eddington, both non-Jewish physicists of equal fame to Oppenheimer, are not mentioned. Likewise, the John Paul Stevens and John Roberts articles don't mention any ethnic heritage; both the Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer articles do. This interest in who's Jewish is in no way limited to Wikipedia. Anybody want to take a stab (or direct me to something) explaining why it persists in our culture? Ryanluck 17:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Certainly for academics of Oppenheimer's generation, being Jewish was hugely significant. Universities at the time had Jewish quotas and Jews were banned from most college fraternities and many residences. As well, the fact that he was Jewish clearly is important to know when analyzing his decision to lead the Manhattan Project.
However, the issue is not whether or not it should be mentioned that he was Jewish, but how much importance should be attached to that fact. Offhand, it seems important enough to me to mention early on, but it's hard to tell whether this expectation is natural or acquired from precedent. --Saforrest 21:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Agreed w.r.t. Oppenheimer. The context of the person is clearly important. His article doesn't mention any context at all. I'll start a discussion thread on his page. Ryanluck 08:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism not thriving at Wikipedia

As a person of Jewish heritage I find this article informative and well done in every respect. I find the notion that this is "offensive" to be ludicrous. Thank you, Wikipedia, on behalf of Jews everywhere who are interested in quality information on a fascinating topic. 01:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I find it less than amusing that you are an anonymous user, your user page is completely blank, and your above comment is the one and only contribution you have ever made to Wikipedia. What hole did you creep out of? - mbeychok 02:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Please stop violating WP policies against personal attacks. Your comments are subject to deletion per that policy. -- 12:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
First time users who make sincere and reasonable comments are very welcome. You owe him/her an apology. Osomec 02:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Seriously, why are you accosting someone who is congratulating Wikipedia? The anon did not purport to be a long-standing contributor, in fact that the way they use Wikipedia in the third person probably indicates they are not. Please see WP:BITE. savidan(talk) (e@) 03:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

What is going on here? It seems very obvious to me that the article is not anti-semitic, but rather, does a good job of debunking the nature of the hoax. There are many people out there who still claim it is real (like Kent Hovind) — they are the anti-semites. --Cyde Weys 02:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It's just one person who has lost his temper. Hopefully he's gone away from his computer now. Osomec 02:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Kent Hovind is an anti-Semite? Where did you learn that? Anyway, the anonymous user is correct and is right in every respect. Эйрон Кинни (t) 02:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
We are currently making the unreferenced claim in Kent Hovind that he sells the book, along with Fourth Reich for the Rich. Jkelly 02:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I was unaware of that. Эйрон Кинни (t) 02:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I, too, don't find anything anti-Semitic about this as a featured article. Isn't there some maxim about sunlight being the best disinfectant? The wiki article clearly shows protocols to be a load of bollocks. Featuring the article servs to inform those that have vaguely heard about the protocols, but don't know anything about them.

Kent Hovind is an absolute loon. Part of his shtick is warning people of the impending takeoever by the New World Order of evolutionists. And I soooo wish I was making this shit up. He makes a lot of money preying on people's utterly irrational fears. --Cyde Weys 07:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

As an occasional contributor from a variety of IPs, I concur with the top poster in this section. Exposing the Protocols to the light of truth is exactly what we (Jews) and we (humans) ought to be doing. Pretending that anti-semitism or its literature doesn't exist is the surest way of leading the uninformed to believing in it.

I think that it is clear from this talk page that whatever anti-semitism is present among Wikipedia's contributors (and there is certain to be some; after all, it DOES exist) is easily overwhelmed by the dedication to the facts and the truth that define Wikipedia's mission. Congratulations, Wikipedians, on your courage and accuracy! <Signed> SMK

Mind you, Cyde, I am a Christian fundamentalist, but I had no ideas Hovind had any antipathy towards the Jewish nation or its beliefs. The last poster, I agree with wholeheartedly, especially about the misinformed's vulnerability. Эйрон Кинни (t) 08:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Kent Hovind is actually really radical. You won't see it when he's doing the staged TV interviews or debates, but when you see him in person in front of an accomodating audience, like when I saw him in a conservative Baptist church, the full extent of his views are really quite scary. He goes much beyond just anti-evolution ... he's anti-government, anti-"New World Order" (whatever that is), anti-science, anti-public schools, anti-personal freedom, and even anti-intellectual (as in, he has some data "proving" that the more schooling you get, like going to college, the more you become "liberal" and pull away from God, so schooling is evil and everyone should remain ignorant). --Cyde Weys 19:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Since this article isn't really about Kent Hovind I'll only make a brief comment -- I saw him speak at Virginia Tech, and I agree with you. As the evening drew on (over 4 hours) his anti-Catholic, anti-Mormon, anti-Muslim, anti-Semitic, and plenty of other anti-s became clear. He is an impressive speaker and has painstakingly prepared his presentation. Unfortunately, nearly all the information in them about evolution, cosmology, geology, etc. is incorrect, plus he relies on straw man, demagogy, and other logical fallacies. In my opinion making this article a featured article will help educate people -- in a small but important way -- how to counter the bigotry presented by people who will willingly distort the truth. Ryanluck 20:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

How long is the text?

I assumed it to be book length (at least 150 pages) until I saw the reference to it having been published as an appendix to a book, which suggests it is more essay length. Osomec 02:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

As far as I understand it, it is pamphlet sized. I bet a Google search would turn up a copy of it somewhere, but I definitely don't want to find a link for it. Joey 04:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty?

"The 1979 Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty demands the sides "to refrain from organizing, instigating, inciting, assisting or participating in acts or threats of belligerency, hostility, subversion or violence against the other Party."[1]"

Not sure what this has to do with the article. It should be removed. Joey 02:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. It seems some Egyptian sources make connotations between the Prot's & Israel and some officials deny that. Perhaps we should better explain the relevance. ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I find the statement to be politically biased. First of all, the Protocols aren't specifically referential to Israel, but to Jews in general. Secondly, the idea that an obscure government ministry charged with organization over a library could knowingly violate the treaty on behalf of the entire nation of Egypt because of a gaffe like the one described is, to my eyes, intentionally obtuse. I am certainly no anti-semite-apologist, but I think better examples of Egyptian violations could be found than this! Joey 08:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

What is "politically biased", the quote from the Peace Treaty? Also, what makes you think that this quote only relates to the last incident in that longish section?
The fact that "some Egyptian sources make connotations between the Prot's & Israel" (as I said) does not make them indeed "specifically referential to Israel" (as you said). Cheers. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I find the inclusion of the statement to be politically biased. In any case, it is not up to us, or ANY encyclopedia, to decide when nations have breached treaties or agreements, until such time as official recognition of such a breach has been outlined and/or official action against such a breach has been taken. I do not see any such evidence here. It seems to be purely POV - you, or whoever the original contributor was, seems to believe these things constitute a violation of the treaty, but that is as far as I can see it going. Where is the Israeli government source saying what the article says? Joey 09:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems that you read between the lines. As far as I can see, we do not mention any "breached treaties". If you dispute that some Egyptian sources make connotations between the Protocols and Israel, please reread the section and follow the refs. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

If you are not trying to imply a breach, why on earth would you mention the treaty at all in an article about the Protocols of Zion? Also, I already stated that I am aware of possible Egyptian infractions - however, inclusion of the information regarding specific portions of that treaty in an article about Egyptian uses of the Protocols of Zion (either intentionally or unintentionally) implies infraction of the terms of the treaty. Can you give another reason to include it in this section, if that is not your intention?Joey 09:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it necessarily "implies infraction of the terms of the treaty" but since you just admitted "possible Egyptian infractions" we both seem to agree that this line is relevant. FYI, I assume good faith on their side and hope that they try to avoid possible infractions. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

You are totally missing the point, -and- you just admitted to making a point you claimed you weren't making before. I'm getting more and more confused with your motivations here! The point is, I agree with you that perhaps these things might amount to infractions - but neither you nor I are experts on such a thing, and neither of us make policy decisions for the Israeli government. So for you to say 'since we both think it might be a violation we should imply that it is one without proper sourcing' offends my NPOV desires. I strongly think this should be eliminated from the text, as my opinion (and your opinion) on whether Egypt has breached the treaty is irrelevant to current international poltical fact. Not to mention how utterly off-topic it is in regards to the Protocol of Zion themselves. I've added a small line, as it's clear you're diametrically opposed to my opinion that this should be outright deleted. Please let me know if you find my addition acceptable. Joey 09:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

You already made it clear that you want to excise this quote. While you are entitled to your POV, I entitled to mine, which is, it is relevant. Try to search for "Egypt Israel "peace treaty" incitement anti-semitism protocols zion". Cheers. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The point is to reach a consensus, which I am attempting to do. As far as I understand it, your opinion does not count more than mine does - especially when you haven't given any reasons to equate this behaviour with violations of the treaty. If Israel thinks it is a violation, it should be pretty simple to stick a reference in if you are so very attached to this quote. As I noted before, I added to the line and want your opinion on that redition, which negates the (according to you unintentional) implication of violation. Joey 10:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Both Institute of the World Jewish Congress Policy/Historical Society of Jews From Egypt, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs specifically complain about possible treaty violations. I don't know how they are related to the Israeli govt., so I think your note is OK for now. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Three cheers for compromise. Joey 10:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Can we get those complaints into the article so that it doesn't look like we're the ones drawing the connection out of the blue? Jkelly 04:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The text currently says "it is not clear whether Israel itself considers ..." -- Israel itself, as opposed to whom? The only interpretation of the text as written that I can see is that WP is suggesting that the treaty was violated -- which is POV. To remove that implication, we need a sourced claim that so-and-so asserts that the treaty was violated. Without that, all we have is the fact that some treaty exists, without any (NPOV) basis for connecting it to Egyptian actions. So I'm deleting this as POV. But I encourage Humus sapiens ну? to add it back in NPOV form if/when he can provide sourced statements asserting that some or all (the text should make clear which) of these events in Egypt manifest a treaty violation. And, of course, if other parties have disputed the assertion of a violation, that too should be documented. [I've removed my previous comment about statement being irrelevant -- I now agree that it would be relevant, as a matter of the political ramifications of the document.] -- 07:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Greece as exceptional?

I just removed the following from the article. I've fussed with this section before, and I've been fussing with it today.

According to Moses Altsech, Associate Professor of Marketing at Edgewood College, the Protocols are easy to find in Greek bookstores. The Neo-Nazi group Hrisi Avgi ("Golden Dawn") consider the book to be an accurate document and distribute their edition to their members.(Anti-Semitism in Greece: Embedded in Society An Interview with Moses Altsech)

This is the only mention of Europe in the modern section. I am concerned that we are singling out Greece for being in some way exceptional. I am also concerned that Altsech is not really a reliable source, so far as Wikipedia defines it, for making a statement that The Protocols have an exceptional popularity in Greece, which seems to be what we're implying. Thoughts? Jkelly 05:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I actually thought about kicking it out earlier, but I saw you were tweaking it and I wanted to see the outcome. It seems a bit POV to me. --Scaife (Talk) Flag of Austria.svg Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 06:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Use of "Anti-Semitic"

Just before I make my minor, pedantic point, I am very indifferant to this piece and I am agnostic.

The term Anti-Semitic is incorrect in itself when used exclusively to jews, as arabs are also semetic. The text is most definitely "Anti-Zionist" and I do not understand some peoples kneejerk responses to the use of this term instead of anti-semetic, labelling it as a "strawman" for Anti-Semitism as we know as against Jewish people.

In my opinion it should be labelled a Anti Zionist text, but Im not going to change it, just something to think about people.


If you are going to make a pedantic point, it is best to first check your facts and strive for accuracy -- misspelling of "indifferent" and "semitic" does not reflect well on your credibility. On the substance -- you are incorrect; I suggest that you consult a dictionary. The meaning of "anti-semitic" cannot be obtained by juxtaposing the meanings of its parts; it refers specifically to anti-Jewish sentiment, and it originated with that meaning. And "anti-Zionist" is quite wrong; the Protocols were written before the Zionist movement got under way, and is directed against all Jews, not just Zionists (not all Jews are Zionists and, for that matter, not all Zionists are Jews). You should "think about" not dismissing the reasons that "people" have as "kneejerk responses". -- 13:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
User, I didn't really appreciate the insulting tone of your post. My point is that we are using "words of association" that have taken meanings by association. Gay is a good example, it meant happy, but through association it now refers to homosexuals. In my opinion Anti-Semitism is one of these words, it is in-itself incorrect (Arabs are semetic people too) so using it exclusively to Jews is incorrect, but however we have associated this term with Anti-Jewish sentiment for long enough it has taken on its new meaning. Getting back to my point, the "conspirators" or "elders" mentioned in the text are now what we associate with the Zionist movement, so In my opinion it should be labelled "Anti-Zionist", but then again I repeat Im not going to change it and its something to think about people. -- Lemonus
Once again -- you are mistaken; "anti-semiticism" refers specifically to Jews according to dictionaries, and "anti-Zionist" is the wrong term for the reasons I stated . I'm sorry if you feel insulted by my corrections to your erroneous statements, but restating them does not make them any less erroneous. Please check a dictionary for the meaning of the term "anti-semitic", as well as the WP article which someone cited below. Also please check this article for the scope of reference of the Protocols, which goes beyond the Zionist movement. There's a very significant difference between anti-semiticism, which is bigotry, and anti-Zionism, which is a political position. This was pointed out by another respondent below, you seem not to have taken that, or any other response, into consideration. Again, please do not insult everyone here by implying that they haven't already thought about these things, or that their responses are "kneejerk". If you found my tone insulting, you might want to consider whether it was crafted to highlight your very insulting tone -- in fact, I thought I had made that quite clear. -- 05:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, I enjoy this discussion. Yes I know all of the things you told me above, the dictionary definition of the word and what not, but often my anonymous internet friend words evolve in meaning and association a bit faster than our precious wikipedia. The conspiracy mentioned in the protocols is a part of many texts and ideas that modern revionists/anti-semites refer to as the "zionist conspiracy" do they not? So what is so vastly incorrect in calling it Anti Zionism? On the other note, the word "anti-semetic" is now solely associated with anti-jewish sentiment (its also in the dictionary under this definition, thank you for that zinger.) but yet at the same time, there are many semetic peoples not remotely jewish, is this word correct? Depending on who you asked you might get a differant answer, much like if you asked a anti-jewish revionist or a wikipedian the meaning of "Anti-Zionism". To sum things up, there is some "grey area" in the usage of the word Anti-Semetic, but that for the article, and following the dictionary and common terminology, we will stick with the term Anti-semetic. -- Lemonus
I agree with you and know this to be true, however you stated the best reason to leave it as is, and that is the fact that "anti-Semitism" is the most known term. "Anti-Zionist" sounds more political. --Scaife (Talk) Flag of Austria.svg Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 06:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
For terminology, see Anti-Semitism#Etymology and usage.
Zionism is a political movement/ideology concerning the return of Jews from diaspora to Zion (a metaphor for the Land of Israel) and their self-determination there. What does this have to do with PoEoZ? ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Zionism is also defined as supporting the state of Israel; regardless, it still isn't an appropiate term for this text --SeanMcG 07:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Zionism (in the most literal sense) is the movement for a jewish homeland (a new zion). It does not, per se, require support for the modern-day state of Israel. (Remember, some early Zionists wanted to form a homeland in modern day Kenya.) Raul654 08:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I would expect an encyclopedia article to be careful and accurate in its use of terminology. "Greay areas" and sloppy terminology should be avoided. "Anti-Semitic" is technically the wrong term to use here because it applies to to Arabs as well as Jews. It's true that many people don't know that, but the etymology of the word "Semitic" is quite clear. Not everybody that the "Protocols of Zion" would label as a Zionist is Jewish or even Semitic. Not all Jews and certainly not all Semites are "Zionist" either in reality or within the fantasy world of the "Protocols" document.

Etmology does not determine meaning. If it did, hysteria would be a name for a womb disease. The term anti-Semitic is used correctly. This pioint has been discussed exhaustively on other articles (Semitic; anti-Semitism etc). Paul B 12:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I concur completely with Paul's remark. The first sentence—"Etmology does not determine meaning"—is almost verbatim what I was about to say if he hadn't gotten there first! -- Jmabel | Talk 04:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


Making this a featured article is as dumb as the fanboy who tried to promote the Hollywood starlet a few months back. Justifiably her name escapes me now. Anyway wikipedia should not be alt.conspiracy.theory ...

You, my anonymous friend, did not RTFA.

Joey 09:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I know asking them to read the whole 57 kb article is a lot, but is it really too much to ask that they just read the first 2 paragraphs? Raul654 09:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Contrary to what you may think, there are actually only about a dozen trolls on the entire Internet. So they don't have a lot of time at all to spend in any particular place before they need to head off elsewhere and continue the trolling. This is why trolls often give the appearance of not being knowledgeable in the discussion at hand; in actuality, they are simply just very busy. --Cyde Weys 09:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


lot of noise to make about a fake book. lots of "axis of evil" countries seem to publish the book too. i'm sure dubya will appreciate the effort...

This book is around for a century and has fed anti-semitism quite well. Being blunt and providing information on its "authenticity" before more people fall into its trap, is a very good idea. --Fs 09:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

WTF Syrian goverment approved the book? BULLCRAP

on the book it says written by raja abdul-hamed, you are assuming in syria all books has to be authorised by the goverment, there is no proof of that, just stupis assumption, this must be removed because 1)inaccurate 2)political statement

First, please calm down. Hurling insults is not likely to help in negotiations. Second, there's no reference to Raja Abdul-Hamed in the article (did you mean it's in Arabic on the picture? What about it?) Third, there's an external source for that, not just an assumption. --Kizor 16:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
This issue was discussed above in the section entitled Syrian edition of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.From what I can gather, the edition was "authorised" only in the sense that it passed censorship regulations. I thought we had sorted out the caption, but Hummus (presumably) has slipped back in the claim about Syrian authorisation. I think this kind of exaggerated claim weakens our cklaim to fairmindedness. We should remove it (again).Paul B 17:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
What does it mean, "slipped"? I have restored a sourced and relevant fact. There was no response contesting the fact that the Syrian MOI gave its authorization (whatever it means). Unless there are objections, I think it is important to note in the text, if not in the caption. ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I have added this information into the text. It supported by a source that shows even scanned pages, including MOI stamp. What does the "authorization" exactly mean, I don't know but I don't see any reason not to report this fact. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


We assert this to be a hoax. From the rest of the article, it looks like many in large swathes of the Middle East would argue that it isn't a hoax. How are we NPOV, then? We're taking sides here, it seems. — Matt Crypto 16:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

We assert that investigations have proven it to be a hoax. That such investigations and proofs have been produced is a documented fact. If "many in large swathes of the Middle East would argue that it isn't a hoax", then any or all of them can post their argument here, and explain how it casts doubt on the those documented investigations -- but, of course, original research cannot be considered. The fact that large numbers of people believe the Protocols to be an authentic document simply doesn't address the empirical question of whether it has been proven to be a hoax, any more than the number of people who believe that the song "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" refers to a hallucinogen has any bearing on whether it really does. In that case, the article discusses popular beliefs, as this article does, but it still states the fact ("the Beatles did not name the song after LSD"), as this one does. -- 06:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
It's moot point. NPOV policy is rather ambiguous on the subject, since it not explicitly state what status should be given to authorities, and how their authority should be assessed. It's also unclear have we determine what are "majority" opinions. Paul B 17:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It's been proven, beyond reasonable doubt, that the text was plagiarised from other works, cobbled together, and tweaked out. Therefore, it is a hoax. Why is that so hard for people to understand?

The sources cited in this article prove the Protocols are a hoax. There is no real debate as to whether the Wolf-Graves debunking of the book is accurate. In the Arab world, people sell and promote the book, but do not talk about the Wolf-Graves exposure of the hoax. If there was any debate over the Joly-Protocols link, we would have to include it. But the only people who promote the Protocols as fact are those unaware of the Wolf-Graves debunking or those who deceitfully ignore it. -- Mwalcoff 17:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
There does not appear to be a reasonable other side to this. During the FA nom, I raised the possibility that we might at least accomodate potential edit wars with an NPOV article on "Claims for authenticity of Protocols of the Elders of Zion."
I went around and looked at websites that try to make that claim to see if they raised any superficially reasonable arguments (the most commonly-used ones being truthiness-based: "this reflects the reality of the world as we see it, so it might as well be true" and circular: "If it weren't true, why would the Jews try so hard to deny it was?"). The most the antisemites could come up with was saying that the London Times reporter never met the guy he got the Joly original from, therefore that could be a forgery too. A point, but a point made moot by the textual analysis which makes the copying clear.
There's also the claim, higher up on this page, of the 1937 Swiss appellate decision supposedly overturning the Berne trial verdict, the one no one seems to have found any record of. Even if it were, though, most people know that the fact that a court overturns a lower-court decision can be a purely procedural or technical matter and has no bearing on the lower court's finding of fact.
So I think we're OK with NPOV in not including any acknowledgement beyond what's already in there that some people believe the book to be authentic, because that opinion cannot be reasonably sustained. Daniel Case 18:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm getting annoyed by this constant misinterpretation of WP:NPOV. I like to think of it as "truth", i.e. tell the truth. When there is a reasonable concern about the truth of the matter you can cover both sides, but when it's clear what is true and what is just a bunch of screaming and shouting from hoaxsters, conspiracy theorists, and snake oil salesman, you know which way to do. Just because there is a "controversy" surrounding an issue (such as evolution) doesn't make it real. --Cyde Weys 19:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Get annoyed as much as you like, but it's not a misrepresentation. I think factual accuracy should be far more clearly stressed in the NPOV policy statement than it is, but the fact is that it isn't. Even then, it's still difficult to write a policy that clearly defines what is "truth" and what is "snake oil". Paul B 22:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I may be wrong, but I think there is a difference between the theory that there is an international Jewish conspiracy and this document being an authentic blueprint created by these conspirators to educate their members. This article is not disputing any such theory, people are free to believe in any Jewish conspiracy they wish. This article disputes that this particular document was the creation of these conspirators.
To use an analogy, you are free to argue that the moon landing was a hoax, and for an article to debunk that theory may be interpreted as POV, but if you were to produce a supposed NASA document outlining how the landing was faked, people would be free to expose it as fradulent without it being POV. Authenticity of a document is a factual matter, a person's belief in what is in the document is subjective. 21:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit that, despite the above, I'm still very uneasy about this. Lots of people in the world assert that it is not a hoax, yet we assert unequivocally that it is a hoax. NPOV means we cannot make judgments about whether people's arguments are reasonable, only whether they make them or not, and how significant a group they are. Cyde above misunderstands NPOV when he says it is to "tell the truth"; that's a fundamentally flawed understanding of the policy. — Matt Crypto 16:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

How about changing the lead paragraph to indicate that multiple independent investigations have "concluded" that the Protocols are a hoax, rather than that they have "proven" it? I, of course, believe the investigations rather than the Pakistani villagers and co. who are convinced the Protocols are legit, but I still think "concluded" is more NPOV. Babajobu 16:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I think we'd also need to tweak the The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion#The_Times_exposes_a_forgery.2C_1921 section slightly as well, but it wouldn't take much more than altering a word here or there to avoid taking sides. It would still convey exactly how uncredible this is outside of certain places the Middle East. — Matt Crypto 16:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
There are also a lot of crazies out there who say the Holocaust never happened. Does that mean it's a violation of NPOV to say it did? Of course not. -- Mwalcoff 01:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Depends what you mean by "lots". Holocaust denial is a pretty fringe viewpoint. It seems that this is less so, if it's taught in schools etc. — Matt Crypto 08:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
The number is probably comparable to people who believe the Protocol to be true. Remember when Iranian president denied the Holocaust? There are also probably a tons of peasants worldwide who still believe the world is flat, etc. Belief by itself does not truth make.Saltyseaweed 22:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
We're not aiming for truth, of course. If the number of people who believe the Protocol to be true is on the same order as Holocaust denial (i.e. very fringe), then it's probably OK as it stands. If it's significantly more, then we've adopted a POV against a minority position. — Matt Crypto 09:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
The article already contains an extensive discussion of the treatment of the Protocols as authentic by various parties. But there is no evidence that anyone teaches in schools that the investigations that show this to be a hoax are erroneous -- the investigations are simply not known of, or ignored. If there is a legitimate dispute about the investigations, then that should be commented on. But Daniel Case indicates above that investigation shows that there is no such legitimate dispute. Please read all the discussion here that has already addressed why your unease is not warranted, and in fact is a result of confusing two quite different issues -- whether the Protocols are believed to be authentic by some people, and whether the Protocols are authentic. An encyclopedia, which is a compendium of human knowledge, most certainly does aim for the truth -- as long as it can be verified. See Wikipedia:Check_your_facts and Wikipedia:Verifiability. And the verified truth is that the Protocols are believed authentic by some people, and that the Protocols are not authentic. If you want to weaken that claim here, then you had better also change Hoax, which lists the Protocols as a historically significant hoax. But there are no legitimate grounds for changing that. -- Jibal 03:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

article organization

Is anyone else surprised that such a poorly organized article reached "featured" status? The history of the subject is arbitrarily divided between "Origins and content" and "Historical publications, usage, and investigations," (two annoyingly wordy headings, actually all of the headings are pretty horrible). What ever happened to simple "History" sections? The "Contemporary usage" lists nations in a random order, with standard wikipedia parafrags, such as:

To a great degree, the text is still accepted as truthful in large parts of South America and Asia, especially in Japan where variations on the Protocols have frequently made the bestseller lists.[41]
In February 2003, Australian publication Hard Evidence presented the Protocols as factual and that Jews were responsible for 2002 Bali bombing.

These are not paragraphs. How about this:

In the United States, the Protocols were republished as fact in 1991 in William Milton Cooper's Behold a Pale Horse.

Introductory sentence, body, concluding sentence? Fourth grade english? This article is just a bunch of crappy sentences thrown in some half-assed sections. If this is actually brilliant prose, then I should have won a fucking Nobel prize in literature by now.—This unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

As the editor who took some responsibility for the article's overall organization during the FA nom, I consider this a personal attack (Of course, it has been extensively edited since then, but you should have seen what it was like). Be civil and sign your posts, please. Daniel Case 22:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
With respect, you're wrong. The above comment is directed squarely at the article, and not at you. Raul654 22:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
True, but it's still falls into the category of being a WP:DICK to criticise the article in such an unhelpful way. Pointing out weaknesses in articles is a healthy thing, but belittling and judgmental comments (like some of the anon's above) we can do without. — Matt Crypto 16:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Troll alert

At best some of the new material on this page is disrupting. At worst, it's pure provocation. Neither Muslims, Jews nor Aliens control Wikipedia, as evidenced by the overwhelming amount of on-going edit wars on disputed issues.

Featuring the article may or may not have been a good decision, but right now there may be a different problem: deliberatly inflamatory and controversial statements, directed, I suspect, at causing unrest in Wikipedia society (or just stirring up the pond around Jews, you pick what's worse). Already attempts are being made at circumventing Wikipedia policy. Is it okay to name-call in the headline? "Well, no... but what, you're gonna start an edit war on the talk page?.." No, I won't start an edit war.

I will, however, call on the visitors of this page to maintain their (and other people's) dignity. Sure, it's easy to be polite when talking about sheep. It's a tad harder when the subject is a sensitive one. I understand that. I also understand that discipline is doubly crucial under fire. Yes, it's hard, but that's when it counts. --Chodorkovskiy 19:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

for God sake..

i knew that the jewishes rule whole planet, but i didnt expect to rule wikipedia too..obviously/unfortunately wikipedia is a good means to promote jewish propaganda against EVERYONE --Feta 20:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Jews rule the whole planet? Name three Jewish heads of state. Superm401 - Talk 21:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Facts are irrelavant; it's the truthiness of the statement that makes all the difference. Raul654 21:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to be frank, but you're full of it. If the Jews ruled the world, do you think 6,000,000 of them would've been liquidated in the 1930s-40s? The Jews are downtrodden, degraded, persecuted, and even murdered, to say they rule the earth is a misinformed and incorrect disillusion. Эйрон Кинни (t) 03:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Kinney, please retract your last comment. First, ad hom is never justified and second, I think you completely misunderstood Raul654 here. He's making fun of conspirator-wannabes. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry Aaron, it seems I misunderstood your comment. I didn't realize you are addressing Feta and not Raul. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Fascinating. If we take seriously the various criticisms that are being thrown, the article is anti-Semitic Jewish propaganda. - Jmabel | Talk 04:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep it civil

I've started blocking users for outrageous violations of WP:CIVIL on these page. Any baseless, inflammatory, or vulgar accusations of bias, either pro-Semitic or anti-Semitic, are not welcome here. --Cyde Weys 21:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice justification for censorship. 23:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree that some of the comments above are well over the line, but I'm not sure this sort of ultimatum is particularly helpful. People may misinterpret you and think that you're threatening a block with any allegation of bias against the article. For example, simply stating "I believe this article to be biased" is, by definition, a baseless accusation of bias, but certainly not one warranting a block. --Saforrest 01:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
People should be able to interpet my statement appropriately and it's pretty obvious which specific kinds of comments I was referring to. --Cyde Weys 03:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
My POV is as follows: it's okay to say "I believe this article to be biased." What's not okay, is to say "the juus how control waikipidia make this articl." Kind of hard to slip, eh? --Chodorkovskiy 08:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Iranian section

In the section on the use of this publication in Iran the following is stated:

"... illustrated with a caricature of the Jewish snake swallowing the globe."

The use of the term 'the Jewish snake' sounds derogatory in my opinion and seems to be stating that such an image is an accepted and widley acknowledged representation of Jews and/or Judaism. I realise that such an image may be prevalent amongst those who are anti-Jewish, but doesn't its use here suggest that such an image is somehow accepted or acknowledged by those not subscribed to that hateful ideology? scotsboyuk

  1. ^ Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty Article III. Part 2.