Talk:The Protocols of the Elders of Zion/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

Demotion from FA status

I think that this article, in its current state, is not at Featured Article quality. A quick skimming of the article revealed 3 separate places in need of a copyedit or a rephrasing, and the rest of the article is not of the highest quality. If the article isn't improved significantly and soon, it ought to be nominated for a Featured Article Review. Mario777Zelda (talk) 17:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest doing it now. The process seems likely to be able to considerably improve this article, which has been extensively edited with probably good information poorly presented. --jpgordon::==( o ) 05:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Support your position as just stated, User:Jpgordon. --Ludvikus (talk) 10:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I've started the Featured Article Review here. -Verdatum (talk) 16:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
What your unaware of, talk, is that I've done just what Jpgordon recommend - so the article now is much improved. But there still work to be done. I'm willing to do it. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I concluded the article was below Featured Article status independently of any of these comments. I'm fully aware you've been working on this article, but that has no bearing on whether or not it should be reviewed. If the current status of the article is below the featured article criteria, and this cannot be resolved with a few quick edits, then the article should no longer be listed as a featured article. It doesn't matter if you are quite certain you will improve it to WP:FA status and beyond. -Verdatum (talk) 22:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Don't misunderstand me. I have no vested interest in the article your concerned (unlike that other editor we both know of elsewhere. I just wanted you to know that the article has improved since Jp complained. You should know that I was away for 1 1/2 years, and came back only in September 2009, so I could not keep an eye on it ans stop it from degenerating. On a personal and positive point i would like to say that with you on board I'm of the belief that things are likely to go well. Like I said, I have confidence in your work. In addition, I do not know much about featured article status. Nor do I care to know much more about it. I'd rather focus on improving it. In addition, over the years, there was a great sense of community here. I just hope those dedicated editors are still around. I agre with you that the article needs improvement - especially below the lede. I hope, though, that you do not leaves at the time you've opened this debate. --Ludvikus (talk) 00:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, you keep making the article worse. You seem to have the idea that the most important thing about this book is the publication history, as opposed to the content or the use. The publication history deserves a small section in the main article; perhaps a side article about the publication history might be useful, but it's not what the reader is coming to the article to discover. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I understand you. However, I'm following the latest Secondary sources, whereas the previous versions relied on old Tertiary sources. Of fundamental importance as a Secondary source is the Non-Existent Manuscript" which came out in English in 2004. I'd like to accommodate you - but I find that most of the writing on this subject has been based on Primary sources and non Notable sources. For one thing, the scholarship shows that the idea of a single book book called "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" is at best an "Urban myth" at best. It's no accident I'm not getting any help from other - subject matter is very difficult to write about. It's controversial two. Also, books have what is called Front matter and back matter, and these are very important. It's this part of the particular imprint which makes the particular text adaptable to the situation in time and space. For example, in Nazi Germany it became a Warrant for Genocide. In 1920 in the United States Henry Ford turned it into the International Jew. In Great Britain, also in 1920, it became The Jewish Peril, as well as The Cause of World Unrest. So you see, Jpgordan, I appreciate your point, but I'm so far there has been only One editor who has taken on the task of improving this article. His name is User:Verdatum. As for myself, Jp, I only came on board in September 2009. Verdatum tells me that it generally take two weeks for issues to be responded to. So I'll listen to what he has to suggest. And of course all are welcome to participate. I do not wish to be the only one working on this article. But maybe I happe to be so only because the subject is extremely difficult. It can be easy if one picks a non-notable Primary source from one of the Neo-Nazi organizations on the Web and simply writes a book report on that. But I'm sure, Jp, that that's not what you want, though it would made the lede extremely simple and readable. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Actually, it could be improved dramatically simply by restoring the lede to the state it was in when it gained FA status. --jpgordon::==( o ) 17:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I considered exactly this solution myself. I decided against doing it (boldly!) because I didn't want to trample any decent information that should be contained in the article (whether in the lead or moved to an appropriate section), and I didn't want to have to parse the history to see how many people had altered the lead since that revision. Also, I haven't quite decided if I should jump in now, or wait until the FAR is completed to start proposing/enacting some serious changes to this article.
Rolling back the entire lead section to its FA revision may be the best way to go, but someone really should take inventory of what information would be removed/added in that case. -Verdatum (talk) 20:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  1. That sounds reasonable to me, Verdatum. I'm glad to see the need to conserve the information in the lede- that's one of my major concerns. The other is to pay close attentions to the scholarship of the last 2 or 3 decades - by which I mean Secondary sources, and to place the Tertiary sources behind - unfortunately that has not been done. But my second major concern is that the brief lead recognize clearly that there is no such thing as a Singular "book" that has been available. I know that we have good copy editors who participated in making this article readable. And I hope they still are around.
  2. That said, a very interesting thing has been accomplished by Italian scholar Cesare G. De Michelis in his 419 page tome, entitled The Non-Existent Manuscript. Following in the footsteps of Umberto Eco, whose work, Foucault's Pendulum, who treats therein the PSM as a work of fiction based on more sources than merely Maurice Joly, Michelis has taken it upon himself to restore the missing/lost hypothetical original manuscript. Half of Michelis's book of 420 pages is a restoration of what the PSM must have been at the time it was the final draft of the original plagiarism//foregery. So it seems that now we do have what one might call a "standard edition." It runs from page 183 through page 395. But it's so long because it is heavily annotated. However, although it is in the 2004 English language book, this restoration has NOT been translated and remains in in the Russian language in Russian characters.
  3. In conclusion, what I want to emphasize is that if one wishes to discuss the text of the actual Protocols, then the place to go is to Michelis's 2004 book. However, the Front matter and the Back matter which exists in each significant unique imprint is extremely important - it is that which gets the PSM do its work at different times and in different places. That's what the scholarship after Norman Cohn's book of 1967, Warrant for Genocide, establishes. So I think the lede must be written carefully not to omit the scholarship that been done in the last 42 years (1967-2009). --Ludvikus (talk) 22:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is article named for this loathsome book's subtitle?

According to the image of the book, the main title is The Jewish Peril. As offensive as this title is, shouldn't it be the name of this article? Or the beginning of the article's name followed by the subtitle, in normal Title: Subtitle form? Finell (Talk) 04:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

There have been many titles on different editions and none is standard. See the section "Title" of the article. The current name of the article is one by which the book is commonly known in English and I think that's about the best we can do. Zerotalk 05:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Dido to Zero. You expressed yourself as if you read my mind. I agree with you 100% (balance your Zero so to speak). --Ludvikus (talk) 10:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I also agree. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I followed a link from another image of the title page (on Jimbo's Talk), saw the title page image here, saw article's title, then commented here. I should have looked further into the article. I apologize. Congratulations on FA, by the way. Finell (Talk) 19:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The Beckwith Company

This is where I've just place the image of the Title page of Praemonitus Praemunitus = The Protocols.

  • I think it needs to be protected against Vandalism, believers in the Truth of the Protocols, and Cranks. - Please help as you see fit. Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The 1919 typescript(s)

I've acquired photocopies of the above a couple of years ago from the Hoover Institute. Looking forward to bring it appropriately to you all here shortly.

Included will be some pertinent facts about it. --Ludvikus (talk) 09:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources and references

  • This Topic & Article is extremely difficult to write about for several reasons, among which are these: (1) The subject is controversial; (2) the manuscript is non-existent; (3) there is no "standard edition" in the language of the country of its origin, the Russian language, (4) there is no standard edition in most of the major languages into which it was translated, (5) this a plurality of imprints in the majority of languages into which it was published, without one being able to identify the first edition, or as the notable edition; (6) there is a plurality on non-notable imprints easily available which purport to be, or mascarade as "the" Protocols.
But what we can, and must do, is identify the secondary sources in accordance with WP policy required by WP:References.
Listed below is a partial - list in chronological order - of the major secondary sources: . . .
  1. Philip Graves
  2. Lucien Wolf
  3. Herman Bernstein
  4. Vladimir Burtsev
  5. John S. Curtiss
  6. Norman Cohn
  7. Colin Holmes
  8. Robert Singerman
  9. Umberto Eco
  10. Pierre-André Taguieff
  11. Michael Hagemeister
  12. Cesare G. De Michelis
  • Non-notable sources:
  • Non-reputable sources:
      • to be continued ... --Ludvikus (talk) 13:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Praemonitus Praemunitus - The Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion - The Beckwith Company (1920).jpg File:Praemonitus Praemunitus - Contents - v. (1920).jpg File:Praemonitus Praemunitus - Contents - vi. (1920).jpg

I'm not quite sure I understand why these images were copied here, But I changed them from oversized thumbnails to links to the files to avoid crowding this talkpage. -Verdatum (talk) 11:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Cut & Paste - to be Sourced, Referenced,& Cleaned of Original research

Title page, USA (1920)

Structure and themes

In one version there are 24 Protocols listing policy to Jewish or Masonic elders, outlining how to dominate the world. The aim is to trick "gentile nations", whom they call "goyim", into doing their will. Their preferred methods include:

Protocol Theme
1 Alcoholism, Annihilation of the privileges of the non-Jewish aristocracy, among other topics.
2, 9, 12 The propagation of ideas, such as Darwinism, Marxism, Nietzsche-ism, Liberalism, Socialism, Communism, Anarchism, and Utopianism, with the task of undermining established forms of order.
4 Materialism
5 World government
7 World wars
10 Staging catastrophes against one's own people, then claiming a moral high ground for leverage (False flag)
11 Universal suffrage
11, 12, 17 Curtailment of civil liberties with the excuse of defeating the enemies of peace
13 Creating the impression of the existence of freedom of press, freedom of speech, human rights and democracy, all of which are subsequently undermined and become mere illusions or deceptive smokescreens behind which actual oppression lies
14 Distractions
14, 17 Pornographic literature
16 The destruction of Christianity, Islam and other religions and cultures, followed by a transitional stage of atheism, followed finally by the hegemony of Judaism
20 Brainwashing
21 Economic depressions
22 Undermining financial systems by foreign loans, creating national bankruptcy, destroying money markets and replacing them with government credit institutions
23 Justification of previous acts of evil and expectation of a great new society
24 Reduction of the manufacture of articles of luxury, destruction of large manufacturers, prohibition of alcohol and hashish, unleashing forces of violence under the mask of principles of freedom, only to have the 'King of the Jews' demolish those very forces to make him appear a saviour
25 Training of the king, direct heirs, irreproachability of exterior morality of the King of the Jews

Control of the media and finance would replace the traditional sources of social order with one based on mass manipulation and state engineered propaganda, where powerful elites and institutions conspire to conceal unpalatable truths from the masses. In these respects, the Protocols draws on long-standing criticisms of modernity, radicalism and capitalism, but presents them as part of an orchestrated plot, rather than as a product of impersonal historical processes.

The text assumes that the reader already believes that the Freemasons are a secret society with a hidden political agenda, and the Protocols purports to demonstrate that this hidden agenda is itself controlled or guided by the 'Elders', a sort of conspiracy theory within a conspiracy theory. In the Protocols, Freemasons and "liberal thinkers" are shown to be mere tools that the Elders will eventually replace with a Jewish theocracy. The Protocols describes a forthcoming "kingdom" and goes into great lengths about how it will be run. Yet even in this kingdom the Elders will avoid direct political control, preferring to assert themselves via usury and manipulation of money. Even the "King of the Jews" himself will be nothing more than a figurehead.

  • Comment: The above must be sourced & referenced. The two (2) American (USA) First editions - Praemonitus Praemunitus & The Protocols and World Revolution - are drastically and significantly different - but they derive from the Serge Nilus Fourth edition of 1917, which itself is drastically and significantly different from his 1905 edition (which first carried "The Protocols" as Chapter XII, for the first time by him). --Ludvikus (talk) 14:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

22 or 24 or 27 Protocols?

  • I'd like to respect the protection of the page, so I offer the above table as a proposed changed in order to remove the contradiction tag.
Thanks so much. Kjnelan (talk) 03:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • There is no contradiction. Different editions divide the text in different ways. Even the earliest known three editions had 22, 24 and 27 "protocols". Zerotalk 09:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Well... the article keeps referring to 24 protocols and never mentions the information you just provided, so yes it is currently a contradiction. You can't very well have an article continually claiming there are only 24 then have a table with 25 and then missing several numbers to boot. It appears incomplete and contradictory not to mention a contradiction tag has been placed in that section referring to the table.
  • Tag was added: 21:38, 23 February 2009 Livefastdieold (talk | contribs) (98,183 bytes) (→Structure and themes: Please note this is NOT vandalism. The table is erroneously numbered. See my note on the Talk page for more...) Located at: Talk:The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion#Contradiction_tagKjnelan (talk) 16:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • If three of the earliest versions contained 22, 24, and 27 protocols, someone needs to simply disambiguate this fact in the paragraph preceding the table. Additionally, considering that different versions contain different numbers of protocols and likely present them in different order or in a combined fashion, the table needs to either explicitly reference one specific version or perhaps do without the numbering altogether.SEWalk (talk) 03:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
  • My recollection is that only the successive editions of Serge Nilus are significant historically - and they all maintain 24 Protocols. For example, the imprints from that took root in the United States Great Britain derive from the Translation of Nilus's Russian imprint. In the United States they originated with Nilus's so-called Fourth which he published in 1917. On the other hand, the popular Victor E. Marsden edition - first published in 1923 - is said in its preface to be a translation of the 1905 edition held in the British Museum. Both have 24 editions. I'll try to be more specific about the 22 and 27 editions later - but these are trivial in that respect. --Ludvikus (talk) 09:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The 1903 newspaper serialized imprint (9 articles), according to Cesare G. De Michelis gives the imprecise count of 22 Protocols - according to him. --Ludvikus (talk) 10:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I own a photocopy of this Russian language newspaper clippings, and will see of I can make sense of this fact described by Michelis. --Ludvikus (talk) 10:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Contemporary imprints split

I see a proposal to split of the contemporary imprints section off. I didn't see a section to discuss this yet, so I'm creating this one. I think this proposal may be a good idea. Due to article size, WP:SPLIT is appropriate, and this is a large contiguous section that could be split off and replaced with a summary section. However, the proposed name doesn't quite meet with WP naming conventions. A better article title would be something phrase-based. I'd suggest, Contemporary imprints of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. -Verdatum (talk) 05:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

How about Protocols of the Elders of Zion (Endures), or "Thrives," "Survives," "Continues," ...? --Ludvikus (talk) 16:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
No. Words in parenthesis are for disambiguation. That means it should only be used when two topics have the same name. As an example, when you split out the section United States#History, you don't call it United States (history), you call it History of the United States. Further, even without the parenthesis, your suggested titles sound more like book chapter titles than encyclopedia article names. It wouldn't be clear by the name of the article what it would be about. -Verdatum (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


instead of the Original Research (analysis) - why not simply re-type the CONTENTS? --Ludvikus (talk) 10:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The Table of contents? It's auto-generated based on the section names. What are you talking about? What Original Research? -Verdatum (talk) 11:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I still don't know what you are referring to with "Original Research (analysis)", but now I understand that when you say contents, you mean the two images that were the table of contents from Praemonitus Praemunitus (which I recently removed from the article). If it's specific to that particular version, why not cover the contents on the section to which Praemonitus Praemunitus redirects (i.e. Protocols of the Elders of Zion (versions)#1920.2)? There was no context explaining why the table of contents was listed there, what it adds to the article. If you want to have the contents included in the article, then yes, you should transcribe it to text instead of including images of the pages; that's assuming the entire table of contents is appropriate for the article (I haven't given that question much thought one way or the other). -Verdatum (talk) 11:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Great, Ferdatum, or should I say, "Great Verdatum"? Now you got my drift. I was hoping someone else would do what I suggested. It looks like only you and I are working here at the moment. Too bad. But then again, it's really a very complex, controversial, and difficult task, writing on this this subject matter. I'm going to try OCR (optical character recognition) so maybe it will be less time-consuming. Also, I have a little gift for you, which I shall momentarily deliver to you (have you any idea what it is?) --Ludvikus (talk) 13:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep up the good work! Zerotalk 04:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, for the both of us. There's more to be done - but it will probably take at lease a month. Hope you can participate too. This is to complex a topic to handle without the help and support of other editors. --Ludvikus (talk) 12:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

{{The Protocols}}

The above is an extremely useful/important Navigational tool. It's better to have it First, instead of {{Antisemitism}}. --Ludvikus (talk) 10:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me. I made the swap. -Verdatum (talk) 11:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Verdatum! --Ludvikus (talk) 23:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

If it is just an "anti-semitic forgery", then why does it fit the situation up to now? Do Wikipedia administrators even bother to investigate the actual text of the document before peer reviewing an article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

1917 4th ed. of Serge Nilus

As everyone who's interested in this article and subject must know, the First American editionss of the tract were published as two distinct and diverse imprints, one in New York City, the other in Boston, by Boris Brazol and Harris A. Houghton. Careful scrutiny of the scholarship - as well as examining the Primary sources reveals that both were alleged to be translations of Nilus' 1917 Fourth edition, which Houghton translates from the Russian Cover/Title page as follows:

Fourth Edition of the Book,
"Near Is The Coming of Antichrist and the Kingdom of Satan on Earth."
Revised and Considerably Enlarged by Later Researches and Investigations.
  • I'm working on tracking down this Fourth edition since it's obviously extremely important. The British (English language) imprints, Jewish Peril (Shanks) and the Victor E. Marsden, are based on the First imprint of The Protocols published by Nilus in 1905. The crucial difference is in the Front matter and Back matter which does the "work" of "explaining" the "24 protocols," but in fact are the means of interpreting these to suit the particular circumstance in the country were they are printed and were Jews live. These facts are not easy to observe - unless one pays close attention to the latest scholarship, and takes the trouble of tracking down the original sources, the first editions in both Russian and English languages, which I've done. --Ludvikus (talk) 12:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

1905 2nd ed. of 1903 Velikoe v. malom by Serge Nilus

1905 ed., Translation of Title page in Praemonitus Praemunitus (1920) by Harris A. Houghton
  • Title page (1905)
  1. There's some confusion regarding the numbering of editions. The above Second edition (1905) is the first to contain Nilus's copy of "The Protocols." So it's his First edition of the latter ("Tthe Protocols"). He now, in 1905, appended a last chapter, number XII, and it is this/these which are the Protocols.
  2. To the left is Harris A. Houghton's translation of the Title page which he include in the Back matter of Praemonitus Praemunitus.
--Ludvikus (talk) 16:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm currently working on said 1905 Chapter XII as include by Harris A. Houghton in his 1920 imprint. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Ludvikus, please stop putting cleanup templates in the talkpage, they don't go here. They go in the article itself, and even then, the underconstruction templates should be used sparingly, since the entire article is always under constant construction. -Verdatum (talk) 18:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup tags

I'm going to remove most of the cleanup tags from the article. Pointing at every paragraph that needs work is of no benefit, especially since it should be obvious to most readers nearly every paragraph needs cleanup. A template:multipleissues banner at the top is probably more appropriate. -Verdatum (talk) 18:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

OK with me. I thought it was helpful to flag the exact parag. that needed work. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

  • However! Notice that the Tags tell you exactly what needs work on! Please read the Tag before deleting. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
All the comments within the cleanup tags were merely suggestions. They could either be done quickly or discussed here. I didn't find any of them terribly crucial or critical, and some of them I don't even think were terribly appropriate. Still, if anyone was depending on their contents, here is the diff where I removed them as an archive. -Verdatum (talk) 20:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Under the heading "Maurice Joly" these two paragraphs say the same thing.

Elements of the text in the Protocols were plagiarized from the 1864 book, Dialogue aux enfers entre Machiavel et Montesquieu (Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu), written by the French satirist Maurice Joly. Joly's work attacks the political ambitions of Napoleon III using Machiavelli as a diabolical plotter in Hell as a stand-in for Napoleon's views. Jews do not appear in either work. Since it was illegal to criticize the monarchy, Joly had the pamphlet printed in Belgium, then tried to smuggle it back into France. The police confiscated as many copies as they could, and it was banned. After it was traced to Joly, he was tried on April 25, 1865, and sentenced to 15 months in prison at Sainte-Pelagie. Joly committed suicide in 1878.
The original source of the plagiarism has been identified as an 1864 book by Maurice Joly titled The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu, a satirical attack against the ambitions and methods of French Emperor Napoleon III.[20] In the book, Machiavelli represented Napoleon III, and described a series of steps that he intended to take to become ruler of the world. The Joly book was in turn based on material borrowed from a popular novel of the time by Eugène Sue titled The Mysteries of the People, in which those plotting to rule the world were the Jesuits instead of Napoleon III. Neither the Joly book nor the Sue book mentioned either Jews or Masons.

Here is a contribution to cleaning that up.

Elements of the text in the Protocols were plagiarized from an 1864 book by the French satirist Maurice Joly, Dialogue aux enfers entre Machiavel et Montesquieu (The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu). It is a satirical attack against the ambitions and methods of French Emperor Napoleon III,[20] using Machiavelli as a diabolical plotter in Hell as a stand-in for the Emperor, and describing the steps that Machiavelli/Napoleon intended to take to become ruler of the world. Since it was illegal to criticize the monarchy, Joly had the pamphlet printed in Belgium, then tried to smuggle it back into France. The police confiscated as many copies as they could, and it was banned. After it was traced to Joly, he was tried on April 25, 1865, and sentenced to 15 months in prison at Sainte-Pelagie. Joly committed suicide in 1878.
The Joly book was in turn based on material borrowed from a popular novel of the time by Eugène Sue titled The Mysteries of the People, in which those plotting to rule the world were the Jesuits, rather than Napoleon III. Neither the Joly book nor the Sue book mentioned either Jews or Masons.

1897? - 1906

File:The Non-Existent Manuscript - Cesare G. De Michelis (2004) p. 6.jpg
Relation of the first Russian known imprints summerized by Cesare G. De Michelis (1998, 2004)
Is there a question? Why is this here? -Verdatum (talk) 15:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Verdatum. That's the latest Scholarship on the PSM - 2004, Warrant for Genocide, page 6. I wanted to discuss the use of this image on the Content page. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
And instead of doing what you yourself suggested, you simply deleted the image from the title page. So you should discuss here what you want done with this image - and maybe do it yourself. It's very easy to sit back, and simply delete, Verdatum, while I do the hard work of scanning and uploading the image. So, yes, Verdatum, there is a question. Why don't you do Constructive work on this image, instead of just Destructive work - deleting? --Ludvikus (talk) 15:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Removing content, in many cases, can be quite constructive. That is the most vital thing to be done for this article in order to restore it to WP:FA status. Your image is not deleted. It's still uploaded, it's still scanned. If it's appropriate, it's a trivial edit to restore it. You didn't ask a question above, you just linked an image and described it, which is the exact same information anyone could have gotten by looking at the diffs of the article. You didn't add the image in a manner appropriate to WP:MoS, centered images are rarely appropriate. The image is not defining. When one asks, "what are the protocols?" you wouldn't hold up that tree and say, "this is the protocols.", so why would you make it the top image in the article? The image provides very little information that could not be included in prose. The tree is a singular fork, compared to a diagram like, the timeline of Linux Distrobutions at File:Gldt.svg which conveys lots of information that would be too difficult to convey in prose. The tree can likewise be represented through a SVG type diagram, so a scan of the page is not appropriate. I suspect the image would be more appropriate at the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (versions) article (if anywhere), since discussion of the versions should probably only be done in a summary style at this main page. -Verdatum (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
All right, Verdun. You make good points. I don't disagree with any of them. My concern that the image is extremely useful information. I'm not say how it should be used. I'm saying it should be discarded as if it's irrelevant. It's the Image of Michelis. Also, there a lot of confusion - as you must know by now - what the PSM is, and how it originated. And you know that a picture is worth a thousand words. At the same time, I believe that Michelis surpassed Norman Cohn as being THE Authority on "The Protocols." So if he put the image in the Center of his book, on page 6, of his 2004 imprint, who are you to say it's trivial? And if you object to putting it in the Center, then put it somewhere else - on the side perhaps. Or maybe you could downloaded and make your own. But I think that my listening to Michelis of the Tree being significant has greater weight than your opinion that it's not, or that it's trivial. Regarding "Fork" remark, I have no idea what you're talking about. And for reasons that need not be explaimed, it's very important that you explain that to me. I'm extremely concerned about Wikipedia:Content forking, as you know I'm quite sure. So explain what you meab about "Fork." --Ludvikus (talk) 18:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
"Fork" in my sense above has nothing to do with content forking. A fork in a tree is where the tree splits into two branches. In the above image, "French Archetype" forks into "Russian Translation" and "Krusevan edition". Whereas, the tree I linked above splits in a hundred different places, so the diagram format is extremely beneficial. Not once did I say that the image was trivial. I have no judgment on the content. The only thing I described being "trivial" was the amount of effort needed to put the image back into the article (about 3 mouseclicks). The other comment I made was that the content could easily be represented as prose, which is not a judgment on the importance of the image, it's a judgment on the value of using an image instead of just describing what happened and when in the body of the article. It doesn't matter how Michelis used images to convey his information. He may be an authority on The Protocols, but that doesn't mean he's an authority on formatting information in a manner appropriate to wikipedia articles. Even if he was, it doesn't mean that he must have bothered to use such formatting when writing his book. He's not bound by any guidelines whatsoever; Wikipedia articles are. -Verdatum (talk) 19:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. And once more I wish to acknowledge that you are a gentleman - an exception, rather than a rule, at Wikipedia, unfortunately as far as I'm experiencing it. I think I needed comment further, except that this subject is so controversial, that the "tree/fork" image I think is extremely useful, and important, but I differ to your judgment as to its proper size and location within the article. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Chapter 12 of Velikoe v malom Title page

File:1905 Ch. 12 PSM Serge Nilus.jpg File:1905 Ch. 12 PSM Trans..jpg I've scanned this/these item(s) from the 1920 USA/Boston First edition of the PSM by Harris A. Houghton. It should be used in the Article. This is exactly what is effectively the First edition of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. (the 1903 remained obscure, and not translated; neither did the G. Butmi edition(s) become historically significant). --Ludvikus (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

  • PS1: The discussion here - if required - should be how to use these images. In my opinion, it's as if we were given an opportunity to study Hitler when he was a baby.
  • PS2: The image helps us understand that of Nilus the PSM was fundamentally tied to the coming of the Antichrist and Millenarianism.
  • PS3: The image also informs us about the Title of the text - which Harris H. Houghton translates in 1920 as the "Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion."
  • PS4: The image also shows us that Nilus dated the "Document" like so: "1901-1902" (appropriately at the beginning of the new millennium}.

--Ludvikus (talk) 16:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

  • I think the images are more appropriate to Protocols of the Elders of Zion (versions). All the things of which they inform can be sufficiently described in text. Also, you should probably restrict the images to either be the front page or the chapter 12 page. Ideally, I'd like to only see a single image that is a dry scan of a page of a book, unless the page contains something unexpected, like backwards text, interesting illustrations, or other such things. The unfamiliar reader sees this page, his first reaction is, "why are there so many images of title pages that all say similar things in different languages". Not, "wow, that's neat, but I really wish the had bothered to show what chapter 12 looked like, I bet it's wicked!", nor, "Pssh, if they don't show me an image of the fourth plagiarism of the book, I'm just going to assume this whole article is a lie." -Verdatum (talk) 17:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I strongly disagree (on some of what you say or imply). This literary forgery and fraud is arguable the most successful in human history. And there is no such this as a Singular book here. The fraud repeats itself, over, and over, again, in different years, and centuries, and countries. Yet your inclination is to treat the subject like an ordinary book report. One cannot simplify the complex. You wouldn't ask me to write a simple article on the Grand Unified Theory. You seem not to appreciate the fact that here was - and continues to be - a conspiracy against the Jews. But the tone of your critique above suggests that a simple book report can easily be written on this subject. I disagree with that. And I respectfully urge you to pay close attention to the intricate details. You should also consider swindling, fraud, hoaxes, deception, magic, illusions, and confidence games, and realize that that's the subject of this article as manifested in "The Protocols." --Ludvikus (talk) 18:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
First, discussion threads don't require bullet points. Ease off on the reformatting.
Maybe you should read my comment again more slowly. You seem to be putting lots of words into my mouth. I didn't say anything about simplicity. It's not a very good word to use anyway, since it's confusing whether one means "simple versus complicated" or "simple versus detailed". I'm treating the article like an encyclopedia article, nothing more, nothing less. I'm all for Wikipedia containing as many verifiable facts as possible, but it must be done in an organized manner. There are many featured articles on many topics that are far more complicated than this one. Look at the organization of the articles on The Bible, for example. The Bible has a far more complicated history, and has had scores more texts discussing it that all had to be organized together by an extremely large community of WP editors. Nevertheless, one can read, understand, and navigate most of those articles quite quickly and easily. -Verdatum (talk) 19:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not talking about the words on the cover. You are welcome to say "Author X copied the text, but he named it AntisemeticFearMongeringTitleNumber5" and that's perfectly informative. But saying that in the text means that also including it as an image is redundant. Reading the images conveys information no faster than reading the text. On the contrary, the eyes must break from the text, and read the image, and then read the caption, to see what the image is, and why the image is so important that it was included in the article. And perhaps the image is hard to read, and perhaps the reader is blind, and is using a text-to-speech engine to read this article, that reader knows there is an image, but can't see it, and is left wondering what the image adds to the article. And no, the images do not tell anything about what Nilus believed. They merely tell what he had published. The only thing the image tells that the text wouldn't is details like, "wow, they went with that typeface? man, I was totally expecting Times New Roman, but then they busted out the Helvetica, and I was like daaayuum! And check out those margins! With margins that thick, you just know this author hates Jewish people!" I hope you understand my hyperbole. -Verdatum (talk) 19:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Verdatum, perhaps your un-aware of it - but if you click on the image you get the image to enlarge - and you get to read the Primary Source - you are the Reading exactly the Title which Nilus had given the book - you get it straight from the horse's mouth' so too speak]]. It's always better to read the primary source yourself, if possible. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
In-lined images are not meant to serve as proof in an article, they are meant to serve as detail and supplement. The all-text images are redundant to the text of the article. Perhaps they could be in the "versions" sub-article, perhaps they could be at Wikisource, but leaving them in the article is just another aspect that will hinder the article's chances to maintain or regain Featured Article status. -Verdatum (talk) 21:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
If you can assure me that the text will not be inconsistent with the facts given by the images, I'll defer to you judgment as to the aesthetic appearance of the article. But I'd like to make one final suggestion - what if we kept all images that are historically significant to the right, maybe make each image 100px or so. That should interfere with the appearance of the article. At the same time, readers would have an option to see each imprint Cover/Title page enlarged at the click of the mouse. Anyway, if you feel strongly about limiting the images, I'll just make sure the Version page has them. I ask you just to make sure the article is not inconsistent with the facts given in the images. That all said, I'll defer to your judgment regarding the aesthetic appearance of the article - assuming no third party appears on the scene and the Consensus changes. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I did some more checking. Here's what I recommend: As per WP:IG, the appropriate action is to have all the public domain images transferred to Wikimedia Commons. Mark each of the images with a common category. Then you use {{Commonscat}} at the bottom of the article to indicate to interested readers that there are more images to be found. Commons allows PD images of just about any type, and it doesn't crowd the article. -Verdatum (talk) 00:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • You do realize, I hope, that the image here is the actual First Edition by Nilus in 1905? Chapters 1 - 11 were only about the Antichrist - you know that? So you're discussing deleting the First edition Chapter 12 Title Page in an article about the "book"? --Ludvikus (talk) 23:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I realize it's a first edition. I realize chapters 1-11 are off-topic to this article. From this article, I understand that chapter 12 is effectively a copy-paste of the Protocols. -Verdatum (talk) 00:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • PS5: The 20th Century came and passed, but the Antichrist didn't come. Yet "The Protocols" endure in this 21st century anyway. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  • User:Verdatum, I see you've made reference to a useful resource - WP:Gallery - as exemplified in the particular instance: 1750-1795 in fashion - which gives an example of a good use of galleries (unfortunately our images must remain ugly by comparison. But it would be great to have such a gallery for the diverse, historically significant history of the "career" of "The Protocols" in the world. I thank you very much for an extremely constructive suggestion. It may be the best way to set up the "Versions" article as well. Thanks. --01:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
If you read the article I linked (WP:IG), you'll see that a gallery is explicitly not appropriate. Commonscat should be used instead. -Verdatum (talk) 01:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hoax? Plagiarism?

The intro to the article refers to authors that talk of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as a hoax. (Apparently proof for that is based on the hypothesis that the reports would be issued by secret agencies from France or Russia, with the intent to cast a bad light on the Jewish civilization. I suggest we add the Protocols as a conspiracy theory against the Jews in that case!) Alternatively, other authors, like Henry Ford, suggest that the' elders of Zion' are a name for the zionist meetings that started with Hovevei Zion in 1884 to culminate with the Zionist Congress in Basel, Switzerland (1897). Journalist Herman Bernstein wrote about that in the American Hebrew of June 25, 1920. This is also supported by Marsden (1920). I propose we also mention these sources to be added, as an opposite view to the references supporting a hoax. This in the light of Neutrality. This changes the regards to plagiarism, since the protocols are then not a literary work, but worknotes of political meetings possibly held in Germany and Switzerland. Indeed, these worknotes could contain many excerpts from literary books without ever being plagiary. Thodef (talk) 04:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Henry Ford purchased the Dearborn Independent and used it to publish The International Jew, substantial commentaries on The Protocols.
The American Hebrew (as you can see, appears not to exist), June 25, 1920, text that is quoted is just one of the innumerable items used by these cowards to attempt to convince the public of the authenticity of The Protocols.
A scrutiny of the reference will reveal ether its non-extence, or distortion out of context.

Regarding the American Hebrew, there was such a magazine from 1879 to 1902, when it merged with the Jewish Messenger to form, surprise, "The American Hebrew & Jewish messenger" which lasted until 1922 and was often called the American Hebrew. I don't recall what this 1920 thing is about, but it isn't the absence of the magazine that disproves it. (Also see Michelis, p28.) And I guess "Marsden (1920)" is the 1921 edition of the Protocols that Michelis references (page 108). Zerotalk 09:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

So we can add the quote by Hermann Bernstein from the American Hebrew, as it is a valid source? So is citing from Victor Marsden, which refers to the first translation published in English, from 1923 actually, which gives a completely different account about the origins of the protocols than that being a secret police fabrication. ref, pp. 97 Thodef (talk) 10:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

In both cases we can use them if we can cite a reliable secondary source that uses them. If no judgement is required, we can also cite them directly but only if we look at them ourselves. We can't just copy what is in an intermediate source without naming that source. Btw, Michelis lists three 1920 English editions, so Marsden (1921 or 1923) wasn't the first. Zerotalk 11:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

File:1923 75p. Title p.- PSM - The Britons -Marsden.jpg

  1. Regarding The American Hebrew, I just wanted the citing Wiki editor to do some work. Many of the quotes used by the anonymous editors were rare, hard to find, and taken out of context. But today, it is possible to locate them. And not ONE does anything to turn a "work" of fiction into fact. Just for fun I'll track down this Jewish periodical. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  2. Victor E. Marsden died October 28, 1920, or October 29, 1920 (there's a slight discrepancy between the obituaries and funeral reports by the The Times (London). But Robert Singerman in his Singerman list informs us that the earliest edition associated with the name of Marsden was published in 1923 (the years after Marsden died). This edition is also anonymous. a careful reading of the "preface" shows a discussion of Marsden's death - so unless one believes that the dead can write prefaces, one must acknowledge that Marsden had nothing to do with this text except what the anonymous editor says he did - which is that Marsden was the translator. What were do know is who issued this imprint: it was the extremely antisemitic entity known as The Britons, and its President at the time was John Henry Clarke. This original 1923 imprint is extremely rare - but I was finally able to track down a photocopy of it (keeping its preservation secret for the time being). But it's important because it is currently popular in print, and on the wen, as perhaps THE "book" that's "The Protocols." But of course - there's no such thing. And what counts most are not the fictional protocols - which are nonsense, but what the cowardly secret editors write in the Back and the Front of "The Protocols." There's not enough text for this stuff to be printed as a book - only a pamphlet. To be able to have a book, one needs to 'pad' the protocols with Front matter and Back matter. And the ones who do that, and believe in The Protocols are NEVER scholars, only hateful antisemites - the whole lot of them - every single one, is just a cockroach that crawls into the sewer from which it came when disturbed. --Ludvikus (talk) 12:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
PS: This bootlegged edition - ref, pp. 97 - is extremely inauthentic. Since the 1923 so-called Victor E. Marsden imprint is in the public domain, anyone can publish it, change what was published in 1923, and make money on it. Just because something is printed and published doesn't tell you anything. Look carefully at the publisher of this slimy imprint - the publisher is not at all reputable notable. If byou want to know about this "Marsden" imprint - go find it in some library that archived it - if you can find a library that has the original 1923 imprint. But why bother with this garbage that's sold on the Web? --Ludvikus (talk) 13:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Apparently one 1963 Marsden edition claims to be a reprinting of a 1920 edition: "London : Britons, 1920, 1963 rev. printing". [1] Given what you say about Marsden's date of death, maybe it is true. Zerotalk 13:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Also Library of Congress claims to have an edition "London : Published by "The Britons," 62 Oxford Street, 1920.": [2] (the record does not say who the translator was). And here is a 1921 "Britons" edition in the British Library. Zerotalk 14:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Good detective/forensic work, User:Zero0000! Here's the clue that it (your 2nd link) is NOT Marsden (1923): Description: [2], vi, 96 p. ; 22 cm.. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • You've discovered the Second Edition (1920) of the Jewish Peril published for the First time by "The Britons." --Ludvikus (talk) 20:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Well done on finding that imprint, Ludvikus. The Marsden forword mentions another source of existence for the Protocols than that of a forgery. I therefore suggest rewriting the first paragraph of this article with attention to this source -- important as it is, since it was written by the first English translator of the Russian text. Thodef (talk) 20:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  1. Marsden was NOT the First translator of the Tract into English - he was the "Last" (1923).
  2. Marsden (1923) is extremely RARE.
  3. So what you are reading is a corruption of a corruption.
  4. Therefore, there is NOTHING to change. Do you understand me?
  5. There is NO Marsden "Foreward" - Marsden was dead by the time ANY Foreward had been published!!!
--Ludvikus (talk) 20:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • There is an extensive Marsden forword in the [3] Book Tree edition of 1998. Logically speaking, this extensive forword should be a reprint from the Britons publication. Could you find confirmation on that? Thanks. Thodef (talk) 21:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • This book is garbage. Notice that it's 299pp.
When you look inside you'll find excerpts and references to the Dearborn Independent.
Marsden (1923) is only 75p. This book you're trying to have us consider is a knock-off of a knock-off of a knock-off
of a book published in 1934, by the Patriotic Publishing Co., in Chicago, that had the weird Title/Slogan of United We Fall, Divided We Stand.
Why do you waist our time with this non-notable garbage? --Ludvikus (talk) 22:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

1934 "The Protocols" (299p.)

File:1934 299p. PSM - Patriotic Publishing Co..png

In fact, the 1934 edition reveals another source of existence for the Protocols than that of an extensive work of antisemitism by secret police forces (1934 Chicago : Patriotic Pub. Co., pp. 53). This is a valuable source which content should not be omitted from the article. Thodef (talk) 03:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This source for the Protocols (Okhrana secret agent Yuliana Glinka bought a copy from Joseph Horscht of the Mizraim lodge in Paris, France) is documented in the book Waters Flowing Eastward: The War Against the Kingship of Christ by L. Fry (Chapter 2.1. How the Protocols came to Russia). Imo this information about the document should be presented in the article. Thodef (talk) 05:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  1. You did NOT find the 1934 PSM edition. The true slogan (lede) of the 1934 edition is entitled "United We Fall, Divided We Stand." Also, even if you did the way you get 299 pages of Text is by fusing it "The International Jew" of Henry Ford's "Dearborn Independent." Look at page 7 [un-numbered] of the book at Project Gutenberg. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  2. You did NOT find the First Edition of L. Fry's imprint, "Waters Flowing Eastward." You have probably a an Internet version of the Seventh Edition by Denis Fahey. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Ludvikus, please read this link to the book. It is a valuable edition from 1934 with the subtitle you refer to, and the added Dearborn Independent articles from 1920-1922 mention another source (pp. 100) for the protocols, than that of the 'forgery by state agents'. Are you saying the correspondents from the Dearborn Independent are also into a large conspiracy, wherein they invent an elaborate story for the resurgence of the protocols? Thodef (talk) 22:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
That's absurd. Articles from the Dearborn Independent, as are excerpts from the 1934 Chicago : Patriotic Pub. Co., are admissible as references to this article. If you or anyone removes content referring to these sources from the article, you are prone to be judged for destructive editing. Thodef (talk) 11:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Are you kidding? The Dearborn Independent clearly fails the reliability test for anything related to Jews. Zerotalk 12:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
The 1934 Protocols of Zion incorporates excerpts from the two (2) 1920 items I've cited. talk, I'm beginning to suspect your Good faith. Also, you're not even using the Original 1934 imprint. Please pay careful attention to your sources. I also suggest you read our artcle, on The Patriotic Publishing Co.. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
PS: I own a copy of the Original 1934 imprint. It cost me $181 - I got it from a rare-book dealer. Here, to the left, it it's Cover. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
That's a great edition. It has the same content as the edition by the same publisher I referred to. I don't see what new it brings to the discussion. Why would its content not be admissible as a source to this article? Please state arguments with referral to non-empty Wikipedia articles or guidelines. Thodef (talk) 15:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Simple to do. Read WP:Primary source. But this is not even acceptable as a Primary source. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
It's a secondary source, therefore admissible. Thodef (talk) 17:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
You're mistaken. It's an "expanded" edition of The Protocols (therefore, a Primary source). It's merely not a First edition. It's therefore a Primary source. It's just a combination of the "The Protocols" with excerpts from the International Jew, another primary source. You don't get a secondary source by simply publishing two primary sources together as one book. Also, the "Preface" is from the 1923 edition of Victor E. Marsden. I hope you are aware that Marsden died in 1920 - and in 1923 was already dead in his grave. I hope you don't believe the dead can write prefaces to books three years after death? --Ludvikus (talk) 18:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
In case it's a primary source, you contradict your previous talk, and a reference in the article to this edition is just as valuable as any other. Thodef (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • But it's not even a Primary source. It's just Garbage that's nicely wrapped. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • To find out what it is you have to do Original research. But that's prohibited by WP:No original research. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The WP:Secondary source(s), on this 1934 299p. imprint - if they exist - are few if any. I'm actually looking into that. When I get it, I'll report it here. In the mean time, there's no way this item can be refernced here. In fact, I think the Internet Archive was sloppy in posting it, and they may remove it once they realize that it is not what it purports to be. I'm working on that too. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of photographs of international editions?

Why were the photographs of international editions removed (eg Japanese, Mexican, Malaysian)? They are useful illustrations, inter alia something especially helpful in long articles.--Goldsztajn (talk) 23:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't do it. But there's a proposal to split the article into two sections. There is a problem about cluttering the article. Also - we must distinguish between notable editions, and those that are not. --Ludvikus (talk) 00:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I removed them per recommendations at Wikipedia:Featured article review/The Protocols of the Elders of Zion/archive1. I'm afraid I don't know what is meant by "inter alia". -Verdatum (talk) 16:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see any clear reasons for the removal of those images (there are some identifications that licensing might be an issue, but that is different than removal, and can be sorted out easily enough). If the question is "notability" in a wiki sense, then, note WP:N: "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles" (my emphasis). On the other hand, I would consider it notable, per se, that editions exist in Japanese or are produced in Malaysia (and the images act to illustrate the spread of the Protocols). I also think it's notable that the Protocols are being sold in a major international airport in South-East Asia (which is why I took the photograph and loaded it on commons). P.S. Inter alia is Latin for "among other things". --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Goldsztajn. I agree that Notability is not content. While it is acceptable to mention countries and languages where editions have been released, I don't feel that including images of the covers of such editions significantly adds to the understanding of this fact. It feels like the images are merely being used as proof that the editions in fact exist. According to fair use guidelines, this is not an acceptable reason to include an image to a cover that is currently protected by copyright. I realize that the original protocols are public domain, but this does not carry over to original covers of subsequent editions or translations. Including copyrighted covers is only allowed by fair use when critically discussing the contents of the specific publication. Even if it can be argued that this is being done here, I still feel the article has too many images, which clutter the article and effectively lower the article's quality. It's better to have a few good images, and then link to additional free images using "commonscat". Further, there is a sub-article, "Protocols of the Elders of Zion (versions), which might be a more appropriate place to include such images. This main article should just be for an overview of the topic, and sub-articles may be used to go into greater details. -Verdatum (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with User:Verdatum to a great extent - but for different reasons. The main article should tell us how "The Protocols" emerged, and what they are. Just that is a very big story. I strongly support the current images which have to do with that very complex, and subtle, story. And even these Verdatum wishes to delete. I don't thing the story can be torld effectively without these images, because there is no Single Book. As a matter of fact the manuscript is non-existent (if it ever existed), as Cesare G. De Michelis tells us. So we should have a "current events" and/or post - WWII sub-article. But we do not have enough room for images as it is. Furthermore - it's the earliest editions that are most important - because these were the "seeds" out of which the "tree" grew. So we should find a way to include the other, more recent, and "notable" in whatever sense, can be include - but not in this cramped article. In fact, I'd like to keep all the hist6orically notable editions as a king of side-bar on the right-side. But Verdatum is opposed. So I hope to be able to persuade him otherwise. I'm very appreciative of the Good faith effort he's put in to improve this article. But there's still more work to be done - including the presentation of the apocryphal of the text as analyzed by Cesare G. De Michelis in English (2004). --Ludvikus (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Aside from the illustration of publication in the non-European world, the photo from KL airport was in fact the only image in the entire article illustrating the Protocols in the context of sale and distribution, another aspect making the image noteworthy, and I see no problem with fair use. If the article seems cluttered at the moment it is only because there are so many images that appear to look exactly the same. (The Jewish Peril 1920 edition appears twice and a 1905 Russian edition appears twice, although in different quality! If that's meant to be significant it's certainly not clear.) A gallery at the least would be in order to tidy things up. --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Btw, I'm still not clear where the Wikipedia:Featured article review/The Protocols of the Elders of Zion/archive1 recommends the removal of the images, it mentions licenses, but not removal. And funnily enough, checking back to the version which got promoted to featured article status there was a gallery at the bottom.--Goldsztajn (talk) 10:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I have a substantially different concern based on years of study of this matter. If you look carefully you'll find that there is no such thing like THE Protocols. 24 "protocols" is too little physical text for a "book." So our book(s) get packaged differently by adding front matter and back matter. Now here comes a different principle: in the book business, there is such a thing as a first edition. In our case there is a plurality of first editions - depending on the language, form (typescript, newspaper, pamphlet, book, compilation). Also, there's the different anonymous editors. And there's the fact that these earliest editions are not visually interesting, although they are the most important: it's like being able to look at Hitler while he was still a child, if you know what I mean. And regarding notability - it's possible for anyone to go to a place like Kinko's and produce an imprint with an extremely provocative Cover, stand at the airport, and hand it out. Would that justify including it here. So the issue of WP:Notability means picking the imprints that are most notable. And these are the ones that remind me of Cancer: catch at the earliest stage. In other words, the earliest editions are the most notable - but they are the least "attractive" visually. At the same time, these "ugly" images are most important because they help us understand, visually, how this non-single-book actually germinated. So I feel very strongly about how we use these images. I think we must, and should have something like a WP:Gallery, or a "sidebar" presenting every historically important imprint. But that may mean - because of space constraints - another, "companion," article. But I created one, namely: Protocols of the Elders of Zion (versions). I hope to be able to find your image, but use it only if we also get the exact image of the Cover, with knowledge of the imprint. I think an imprint must be historically significant to be used. The latest research, by Michael Hagemeister, indicates that in 1900 Serge Nilus was a handsome, not old, man. But the orange Cover of "The Protocols" currently sold on the Web by an obscure "publisher" has an image of an old man which may not even be accurate. --Ludvikus (talk) 11:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
You have not really responded to any of the points I made. I made the point that there are no longer any contemporary non-European depictions of the Protocols in the article (a huge absence given the need to illustrate the pervasive spread of this fiction), nor are there any illustrations of the sale and distribution of the book. Something the image from KL airport achieved (and intimating this is some "Kinkos hand-out edition" is a bad faith accusation). Which edition is depicted is not important in this case. Do you see the difference? I've deleted the repeated and redundant images and created a gallery for some of the early editions. Debate over the "real" book has got nothing to do with the issue under discussion here.--Goldsztajn (talk) 06:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Ludvikus has been blocked, see his talk page. I disagree with the decision but am powerless. Zerotalk 07:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Goldsztajn, I was referencing the comment made by DrKiernan on 14:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC) (which was since converted to an enumerated list), wherein the editor states, "What has the cover of the book got to do with its contents?" Again, this was originally in paragraph form (Ludvikus switched it) and thus I interpreted to be a general comment in reference to all of the images. The reason why I removed only those particular images is because Ludvikus indicated (on 17:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)) that he would have no problem with those images being removed, and there didn't appear to be anyone else with a strong opinion on the matter involved in discussion over here. I still plan to remove/move many of the redundant (looking) images, but I was waiting for concensus on that.
I do not believe the images of the book in the bookstore fulfills fair-use in this article. It is a new cover, and thus, the cover-image is potentially subject to copyright. In that case, policy states we can only use the image if the article discusses the specific work in a critical manner. I did not consider, as you've since pointed out, that the image adds to the article by demonstrating that the text is indeed sold in modern bookstores. However, I feel that is an invalid justification, as it is effectively a form of Original Research. A photographer went out, discovered that it is indeed sold, and captured and uploaded an image to prove it. I realize the rules for Original Research are relaxed for images, but this is due to licensing reasons, not for the sake of loopholes letting you claim facts in images & captions that can't be claimed in the main text, due to lack of a verifiable source.
I hope this helps. :) -Verdatum (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Um, I think you're tying yourself in knots with WP:WL. If the picture from KL airport is to be treated as WP:OR then this entire page on commons is evidence of a massage outbreak of WP:OR! Or every picture of a singer singing, or an actor acting....Or every picture of an infinitum. Even if there is copyright, section 13(2) of the Malaysian Copyright Act is good enough for me (NB fair dealing is the common law equivalent of fair who's getting all WP:LAWYER? bad). --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
As I tried (but probably failed) to detail in my previous comment, the images you described (singer singing, etc.) are all examples of acceptable Original Research with images. The specific policy is described in a subsection of WP:OR, found at WP:OI. Specifically, "Original images...are not, as a class, considered original research – as long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments" goes against your above statement that the image was "the only image in the entire article illustrating the Protocols in the context of sale and distribution, another aspect making the image noteworthy". Instead of using an original image as evidence of this fact, we should instead find a secondary source that discusses the availability of the text (specifically in brick-and-mortar establishments, if you like).
And while I agree that the image would constitute fair-use by the US definition, WP uses a stricter policy than fair-use. It is described at WP:NFC. This particular image is probably in a bit of a gray-area, and I'd probably be willing to concede on it, I'm more concerned about the OR issue.
Attempting to succinctly restate my argument: Depending largely on the caption being used, the image can be seen in one of two ways. It could be seen as a poor image of a book cover. In this case, the image could potentially be improved by cropping it to merely the book. Then, once it's cropped, it becomes yet-another book cover photo, which without context does more to crowd the article than to improve the reader's understanding of the topic. The cropped image also has increased non-free content concerns, since it can be argued that it can be substituted with the public-domain cover. Or, the image can be seen as a acceptably decent image of a copy of a book in a bookstore. In which case it's being used as evidence to support a claim, which shouldn't be done. -Verdatum (talk) 17:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Please explain, in your opinion, what is WP:OR about showing the sale and distribution of this text? What is the "claim" to which you are intimating? Are you stating that it is a "claim" that the photograph illustrates the sale and distribution of the Protocols? You've failed to reasonably explain why this kind of logic does not mean every other photograph on wiki is WP:OR. Is the photo here WP:OR (ie the illustration of the sale and distribution of a book)?--Goldsztajn (talk) 21:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(undent) The Harry Potter image is acceptable because the body of the text contains valid references expressing that Harry Potter releases resulted in lines down the block. The image isn't presented as proof of this fact, it is presented for further understanding of the condition by showing one of the aforementioned lines going down the block. Again, quoting you, the claim that the image could be making is "illustrating the Protocols in the context of sale and distribution", so in plain English, "Look, not only is the book still published, it's even sold in bookstores! Look here's proof, just check out this image of a copy of the book sitting right there on a bookshelf!" You can't photograph something and use it as proof of a claim. -Verdatum (talk) 13:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

PSM- "Between History and Fiction" by Michael Hagemeister

It's important to keep up with the latest scholarship. The article by the above world-class PSM scholar is available online and can be downloaded as a PDF file from this link: Hagemeister, Michael: "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion: PSM - Hagemeister 35 (1103)". Retrieved 2009-09-27.  It questions the novelty of the finding reported in the French press. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Here the lede of said 14-page Article by Hagemeister:
    In the autumn of 1999 a sensation swept through the international press:
    “Author of ‘Zion Protocols’ identified.”
    Finally — so tell us the French weeklies Le Figaro Magazine and L’express — Mikhail Lepekhin had discovered
    who was behind the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
    After five years of research
    in formerly inaccessible and secret Russian archives,
    he named Matvei Golovinskii,
    a reactionary journalist and writer,
    author of the notorious “document”
    that pretends to describe
    the secret plan of a Jewish conspiracy
    to achieve world domination.1
  • If you want to know what scholar Hagemeister has to say about this alleged journalistic scoop
involving Mikhail Lepekhin's alleged uncovering of Matvei Golovinskii as the alleged author of the PSM,
just read Hagemeister article linked above. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Featured article removal candidate

FYI, this article is now a candidate for removal from the list of Featured Articles. Editors may now post their opinion to keep or delist the article Over here. -Verdatum (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Update - The review is now closed. The article has been delisted. -Verdatum (talk) 16:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Ludvikus. --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Can't we just go back to a decent revision of this page? I feel bad for abandoning it, but I really don't want to mess with it in this state, Auntie E. 17:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I was kinda thinking the same thing. There's a lot of data here, but I've no sense of what's important and what isn't; Ludvikus is great at collecting raw information -- the issue all along was the presentation. --jpgordon::==( o ) 19:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
There was once an article whose appearance and structure seemed quite good. But it was not a good article with regard to content since it made lots of strident claims based on old scholarship and essentially ignored the recent overhaul of the scholarship exemplified by Hagemeister and de Michelis. Regardless of his faults as an editor, Ludvikus was trying to bring it up to date and the final result would have been a great article. But he was banned due to his supposed behavior in another article and now it is left in this precarious state. The best solution is to fix it, which is easier said than done. I read de Michelis' book and all of Hagemeister's papers to prepare for this task, but I don't have time in the near future. Zerotalk 00:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Protocols template

Concur.--Goldsztajn (talk) 21:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

In the Middle East

Hamas has cited this document in its 1988 charter (found here: , article 32) in its fight against Israel and Jews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jomital92 (talkcontribs) 21:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The content of the original text

While the forgery, hoax and anti-semitism of the is widely discussed in the article there is little mention of what the original actually says. When one enters an article such as this one expects some basic overview of the content and argument of the text but already in the introduction the focus is on the falsifications made by the author(s) instead of giving the reader an brief resume of text and the authors basic arguments. The information you get from reading this article is that it is an anti-semitic text (also used as an anti-bolshevic one) that plagiarise other texts and makes false claims of beeing stolen from some Jewish group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joakimm (talkcontribs) 21:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely. Anyone is welcome to adjust the article to first focus on describing the text, and thereafter have the details regarding the production background, imprints, debunking, etc. -Verdatum (talk) 22:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it would be desirable to have a section that summarises at least one version of the text, and says which version it is summarising. I recommend the Marsden translation, as it is available online from several pro-semitic sites. I do not think that the table the article used to have was a good summary. I think a good summary would probably have several sentences for each protocol. The Marsden version uses the term goyim to refer to non-jews. However the word familiar to most English people is gentile. Goyim is a transliteration from Yiddish/Hebrew. The relevant Wikipedia policies for transliteration support the use of normal English names where they exist instead of transliterations:

  • Hebrew: If there is a standard Anglicized name for a topic (Moses, Haifa, Gaza, bris, Torah, rabbi, rebbe, Netanyahu, Jerusalem, etc.), then that name should be used in the title and in in-line text, no matter how unlike the modern Hebrew that name is.
  • Russian: When possible, use a conventional English name (as defined below) instead of the default romanization.

--Toddy1 (talk) 06:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


"Following its first public publication in 1903 in the Russian Empire, numerous independent investigations have repeatedly proved the writing to be a hoax; notably, a series of articles printed in The Times in 1921 revealed that much of the material was directly plagiarized from earlier works of political satire unrelated to Jews."

I believe that this section of the article should be edited as several of the statements therein appear to be factually incorrect or misleading.

1. "numerous independent investigations have repeatedly proved the writing to be a hoax"

This appears to be incorrect as there has only been one documented "expose" of the hoax by the Times in 1921. If there are "numerous" as suggested in the article, surely these exposes shoud be described and sources cited.

2. "much of the material was directly plagiarized from earlier works of political satire unrelated to Jews"

This is also incorrect as Philip Graves the Times journalist who wrote the original article claimed that the Protocols were plagiarized from “Dialogue aux enfers entre Machiavel et Montesquieu)” written by Maurice Joly, who was a Jewish French satirist and lawyer. The writings of a Jewish satirist could hardly be considered "unrelated to Jews".

Furthermore Joly himself is accused of "borrowing" from the writings of another Jewish author,Jacob Venedy's who's work "Macchiavelli, Montesquieu, and Rousseau", published in 1850 contains similar passages.

Therefore, whilst clearly plagiarized, the material could in fact be considered closely related to Jews.

3. "investigations have repeatedly proved the writing to be a hoax" This is also factually incorrect as simply demonstrating that the text was copied or even "directly plagiarized" does not in itself prove that the document is a "hoax".

The original document contains no statements regarding the originality, veracity or accuracy of it's content fundamentally invalidating the claim that it is a hoax. The Wiki definition of a hoax is "a deliberate attempt to deceive or trick an audience" and without verification of the author's intention to deliberately trick or deceive and audience, the claim that the works are a hoax cannot be proven and therefore should not be repeated without adequate qualification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

This article should be featured, only as complete propaganda. It cites a NYT article that claims the Protocols are fake and were not written by Zionist Jews. Are we to believe the Jewish NYT? I don't think so. To state that the Protocols was a hoax would be irresponsible and possibly untrue. I find it odd that there is no edit option anywhere on the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

You say it has been 'proved conclusively' to be a hoax, but that is NPOV, and not substantiated by the article. A real encyclopaedia would include both sides of the issue, and not just assert one as unassailable, incontrovertible fact. If anything, such an extreme and uncompromising stance only enhances impressions of a conspiracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

And there you have your answer why this article is antisemiteprotected. (talk) 14:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

In response to comments by, if the article doesn't demonstrate that numerous independent investigations found conclusive evidence, then yes, this may be changed. I also agree that "prove" is a strong word, and potentially any sections talking about the text being proved to be one thing or another may potentially be softened to represent the expression of the conclusion reached by a particular source.

Concerning the concept of "unrelated to Jews" the intent was that the subject of the satire was not Jewish. The fact that the author was Jewish is separate. This may potentially be reworded to clarify what is intended by "unrelated".

Concerning the definition of hoax; I'd say it is a hoax on the part of anyone attempting to push this text as being genuinely penned by the "elders of zion" as a set of protocols. I'd say that any author or publisher failing to preface the text with an explanation of the the origin and intent (i.e. "The following is a work of fiction...") would be perpetuating that hoax.

In response to comments by, in attempting to discredit the NYT due to any Jewish connections, you are making an unsupported Ad hominem argument. The article itself gives genuine evidence to support it's conclusions. If you claim the evidence provided by the article is in any way deceptive or fabricated, you'll need to give stronger evidence than "Are we to believe the Jewish NYT?".

Concerning the inability to edit, you merely need to create an account, and you'll be edit the page in a matter of days after your first beneficial edits.

In response to, if you can find reliable sources that describe alternative viewpoints regarding the veracity of the Protocols, by all means, they should be included. The only requirement is that those viewpoints satisfy WP:FRINGE. If you link such viewpoints, I can help incorporate them into the article. -Verdatum (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

so i finally signed up to edit and the first one i try to make is semi-protected.  :P anyway, i was going to pipe the section about the reference to the Protocols in the Hamas charter - not exactly a sweeping change, but if someone wants to add it, sweet. SiriusBsns (talk) 03:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Hm, the "Hamas Charter" isn't actually mentioned as such in this article. Can you give us a little better idea how you want the article to read? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
oh, whoops! my mistake. it was in the Zionism article (which isn't protected). guess that's what happens when i get tab-happy. apologies! SiriusBsns (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Neutralism of article

Showing that this article is a part of Anti Semitism articles sort of destroys the neutralism of the article because it's not proven weather or not the book is a hoax or tells real information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dancing Raccoon (talkcontribs) 10:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yes it is. Read the article. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 11:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I can barely make out just what exactly the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" actually is from this article, less yet how it is a "hoax". This is one of the most poorly written articles I've come across. And it's "featured"! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

"Zionist Occupation Government or Zionist Occupied Government (abbreviated as ZOG) is an antisemitic conspiracy theory which holds that Jews secretly control a given country, while the formal government is a puppet regime." Evidence? None.

"The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a fraudulent antisemitic text purporting to describe a Jewish plan to achieve global domination. The text was fabricated in the Russian Empire, and was first published in 1903." Evidence? None.

It's sad to see that the most used internet source of information on the globe is already taken by the typical zionist arrogance and lies. I wonder what happened to impartiality. (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM. Spaceclerk (talk) 18:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Drat! Our evil plan to take over the world has been exposed! Seriously though, lol, you can just do a Google search of the Protocols and find multiple sources saying that they were a forgery. Of course there are only two reasons to forge such a thing. One is for the lulz and the other is for the purposes of making Jews look evil (which also accomplishes the first). Given the fact that it comes from turn-of-the-century Tsarist Russia, one should ere on the side of the of the second option. If one believes that Google and or Bing are part of a grand conspiracy, they can also probably find some impartial books on it. Of course if it is an answer you want to hear that you are looking for, rather than a correct answer, I'm afraid that cannot be helped. Someone should link a couple dozen sources about the forgery thing just to do away with any lingering questions. =p

Also, if I may, Wikipedia is a collection of articles written by tons of different people. The content you see in an article is not agreed upon by James Wales or w/e his name is, or any advisory board. Some people that edit it like myself are indeed ardent Zionists (I'm an ultra-Zionist Jew, I won't lie =p) while some are neutral and anti. I'm sure all of them have had a part in editting this article. There's probably some other wiki article relevant to what Wikipedia actually is, but I'm too lazy to find it. If you don't like what the source says, complain to the author. Hpelgrift (talk) 00:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Lord Alfred Douglas edition

In the article about Lord Alfred Douglas, it says:

"He published The Protocols of the Elders of Zion in 1919 [15], one of the first English language translations of the infamous anti-Semitic tract."

where [15] refers to the book: Douglas, Murray, Bosie: A Biography of Lord Alfred Douglas. But the section English language imprints: Great Britain states:

"The first British English language edition of the Protocols was published in 1920 in London."

I don't know where Douglas published it and if this is true, but as he returned from Naples to England in 1898, I assume he published it there. If so, this 1919 edition is early then the 1920 one (even if the article says "one of the first", not "the first"). Can anyone clarify it please? Thanks in advance. ZackTheJack (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Second Sentence Needs Rewriting to Comport With End Note

This is the language:

Following its first public publication in 1903 in the Russian Empire, numerous independent investigations have repeatedly proved the writing to be a hoax; notably, a series of articles printed in The Times in 1921 revealed that much of the material was directly plagiarized from earlier works of political satire unrelated to Jews. Nevertheless, some people continue to view it as factual, especially in parts of the world where antisemitism, anti-Judaism, or anti-Zionism are widespread.[1]

The end note only sources to one debunking book. I am going to rewrite it so that this is clear in the text.

This is what I'm replacing it with:

Following its first public publication in 1903 in the Russian Empire, a series of articles printed in The Times in 1921 revealed that much of the material was directly plagiarized from earlier works of political satire unrelated to Jews.[1] Nevertheless, some people continue to view it as factual, especially in parts of the world where antisemitism, anti-Judaism, or anti-Zionism are widespread. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onefinalstep (talkcontribs) 05:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Made a ton of more deletions given the fact that there are no citations Onefinalstep (talk) 13:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

In my view these mass deletions are destructive and a violation of correct process. You need to tag uncited text or else explain why it is better not being in the article. Zerotalk 13:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Protocols in the west - censored?

The current publication in the west section does not contain any of the following information. 500,000 copies is a huge edition.... In the United States, Henry Ford sponsored the printing of 500,000 copies, and, from 1920 to 1922, published a series of antisemitic articles titled "The International Jew: The World's Foremost Problem", in The Dearborn Independent, a newspaper he owned. In 1921, Ford cited evidence of a Jewish threat: "The only statement I care to make about the Protocols is that they fit in with what is going on. They are 16 years old, and they have fitted the world situation up to this time."[40] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Jayjg (talk) 22:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Asking permission to add a link to this semiprotected page


I would like to add an external link to this page to enable readers to consult some digitally prepared original documents on the Berne Trial and its expertises about the Protocols FoswikiFoswiki (talk) 23:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
What link would you like to add? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Article doesn't really contain any summary of the Protocols' contents.

See section title.Prezbo (talk) 04:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Historical categories

I don't get why Category:Historical revisionism (political) and Category:Pseudohistory are here. The Protocols aren't a work of history or pseudohistory. A document doesn't belong in history-related categories just because it's old.Prezbo (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

Why is this article a discussion under this title dominated by the fraudulent claims made against the publication and not a detail and examination of the content of the publication itself? Surely that claim of fraud should exist as a sub-text to the main detail? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasmuncher (talkcontribs) 02:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Needs summary of themes

This article should have an overview of the themes of the Protocols. Several reliable secondary sources outline the contents and themes, such as:

  • A rumor about the Jews: reflections on antisemitism and the Protocols of the learned elders of Zion by Stephen Eric Bronner
  • Dismantling the big lie: the Protocols of the elders of Zion, by Steven L. Jacobs, Mark Weitzman

There may be some concern that the themes differ between editions, but the two secondary sources above both use the Marsden translation and indicate that it is predominant in the English-speaking world. Any possible confusion could be ameliorated with a note explaining that the themes are based on the Marsden translation, as summarized by Jacobs and Bronner. --Noleander (talk) 19:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Ahhh, I see. It looks like the article had such a summary for a few years, but it was deleted 15 March 2009 here since it was not properly cited. I'll go ahead and research the sources, and restore it in an accurate manner, supported by citations. --Noleander (talk) 17:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I restored the "summary" section, and supplied citations (mostly from Jacobs) and ensured that the content was accurate. I also took the liberty of re-arranging a few sections to be in a more sensible sequence (the "history" sections were scattered; and the Germany and Russian sections (multiple for each country) were not adjacent). --Noleander (talk) 17:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


The article states in numerous places that the Protocols are a "forgery." They are certainly a fabrication, political fiction, a conspiracy theory, and a hoax -- but a forgery?

"Forgery" is usually understood to mean something that appears to be the genuine article, but which is in fact an inferior copy. Since there are no -genuine- "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" it is difficult to imagine what the Protocols are being purported to be a forgery -of-. You can have a forgery of the Mona Lisa, of an authentic Burgandy, or of the original Apple Computer, but since there are no genuine "Protocols" it is incorrect to refer to the Protocols as a "forgery". I propose that the references to "forgery" be omitted from the article, unless they can be justified with legitimate references to a "genuine" set of Protocols. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Your definition of 'forgery' isn't correct, the production of any spurious work that is claimed to be genuine is a forgery. Def 2 here. For instance if someone painted an entirely original painting in the style of Leonardo da Vinci and claimed it was a lost work by him, it would be a forgery even if it weren't a copy of an existing genuine painting. Likewise since the Protocols were fraudulently claimed to be a genuine document attributed to a specific group, then it falls within the definition of a forgery.Number36 (talk) 01:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)