Talk:The Protocols of the Elders of Zion/Archive 5

Although Wikipedia is not the place to express personal views, it is a place for discussions which may result in consensus. So, I've re-read all the writings above regarding the view that the PMS is "not" antisemitic, but rather "pro-semitic," and I think I understand what was said above. Here's my response:

• (1) The fact, or the allegation, that the PMS expresses nothing against the Jews does not support the argument that the PMS is "not" antisemitic. The fact is that this/these Wike editor(s) above do not use the term "antisemitism" according to it meaning.
• (2) Nothing in the meaning of "antisemitism" requires the expression of negative traits, attributes, or propertie that a thing, or a person, must have to be taken as antisemitic.
• (3) What the PMS does do - and maybe this is something no one has bothered stating explicitly - is describe Jews as being anti-non-Jews. In fact, that's what the so-called "Elders of Zion" are conspiring to do - how to do all these negative things against all the people of the world who are non-Jews.
• (4) But in fact, that is the big lie. A contrary argument can be made that the exact opposite is true: I only mention one great positive contribution here: the Jews have given the world
  Einstein
  - oops, it looks like I just did.
• (5) So since the PMS - falsely I might add - allege(s) that the Jews are doing all these negative things to non-Jews, it follows that the PMS is in fact antisemitic.
• (6) On the other hand,
  rational
  people in the world realize that it was the writing of just one - in fact Austrian - man, Adolf Hitler.
• (7) However, suppose someone came out with the theory, that a secret German organization really wrote that book. That Hitler was merely a stooge for the German Army and the
  Prussian "von's", the Junkers, who were the "real" Germans, not Austrians
  like Adolf Hitler was.
• (8) This, of course, is not true - only Adolf Hitler is responsible for the authorship of "Mein Kompf."
• (9) But if
  Mein Kompf
  were presented as the product of the True German Character, then it would be anti-German.

That should conclusively convince you that you are wrong in your position that the PMS is not anti-Semitic because it does not say anything negative against the Jews. --Ludvikus (talk) 08:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Just two clarification. Sorry for my english, look at Manichaeism. Second, I retract the expression "pro-semitic", as I intended it to be the opposite of antisemitism (and which I now understand is not the correct way to express such a thing), and as I have previously stated (I still think you misread posts Ludvikus) the concept of antisemitism is based on prejudice, not just being against the Jews. Sorry, I need a third clarification. No, I'm not asking to put aside the secondary sources in behalf of the secondary ones. All I'm asking is for the primary source not to be shadowed by the secondary ones. As of right now, the opposite of what you think I'm proposing is what is actually happening. Only the secondary sources are being considered and the primary source is being rejected itself. Having clarified those three points, I decline further answering to a discussion that is leading nowhere. As I mentioned before, there is consensus on the antisemitic "nature" of the article subject, and therefore I will refrain from editing this article to prevent a revert-war. All I ask (like I have always asked) is for editors to keep the BALANCE while editing. --Legion fi (talk) 05:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"the lack of Talmudic citations that would be expected in it, textual references to the "King of the Jews", the semi-messianic idea that carries strong connotations of Jesus". The Protocols of Zion clearly carries an Anti-Christian and Anti-Christ tone in similar fashion to that of the Babylonian Talmud. What exactly did the writer of the above cite from the protocols when mentioning the "semi-messianic" idea? Second of all, why would there be an "expectation" of Talmudic citations? I know many Jewish literature which does not cite the Talmud. Why is there an exception for the Protocols of Zion? It seems whoever added that sentence felt he/she needed to mold more points to dismiss the Protocols of Zion than necessary, with little or no ground. Many of the Anti-Christian content of the Protocols of Zion ties in very nice with some old Jewish literatures, and the continuation of some of the Talmud's points, which suggests a strong possibility that whoever originated the contents of the Protocols of Zion must have been a dedicated follower of the anti-Christian sentiment and directives mentioned in the Talmud. If there is text in this article to discredit the Protocols of Zion, there should also be an section which also states why the Protocols of Zion is credible, for there are many many points to support the latter. This will also help give this semi-biased article a more neutral tone; which is expected of encyclopedic content. It's also worth noting, the Protocols of Zion does not claim to be the voice of all Jewish people, but a group of Jews who share a common goal. This article tends to focus considerably on the Protocols of Zion being a world wide Jewish plot, somewhat contradictory to its founding and content. It is only natural to also state why many people believe the Protocols of Zion are legitimate (as seen in the archives of this article, the movie etc) the same way the article discredits the claims, otherwise we will end up with a one tailed article. Whoever wishes to assist me on this, please do so. I would suggest also the Jewish voice in here to also try to look on both sides for a more balanced article. Can anyone suggest a title for the subheading? --87.194.3.52 21:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I was the one who added that phrase. I will need to find out where did I get it from, but I don't see anything wrong about it, and I don't think it even requires a reference. You have lost me when you requested "an section which also states why the Protocols of Zion is credible". Good bye. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Humus, if you look at the archives here, and also to reflect the general opinion of people who have read the protocols, a surprisingly large number beleive the protocols reflect their world today, and also that the protocols have a legitimate origin. Their views are totally ignored in this article. It's a simple point. The article should reflect the whole view in regards to the Protocols of Zion, not a partial view which only emphasizes on falsifying the literature. Also, it is important that the phrase you wrote should have a basis and some referencing otherwise it will be your opinion that these are reflecting, especially you suggesting that Jewish literature needs to have Talmudic citations as this is not the case at all. It is also ironic that there is a strong link between the anti-Christian sentiment in the Talmud and the Protocols of Zion, subtly suggesting a Talmudic link? Please reference it, or rephrase them to show more validity. --87.194.3.52 01:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "surprisingly large number" of believers in conspiracy theories and hatemongers, it is a tragedy, but an encyclopedia is a wrong place to reflect their views. Please see

WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a soapbox. ←Humus sapiens ^ну?

10:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Humus, you don't need to get passionate and relate conspiracy believers to hate mongers, although a very few are. It can easily be argued some of your additions, and the extension of proving the literature as false is also original thought. It's also not good to write sentences and not cite them, especially with a reference list as long as the one in this article. There has been a few newspaper article's written in regards to why many believe the Protocols of Zion is a worthy piece of text as well as some historians and university professors speaking in a similar fashion. When Wikipedia restricts original thought, they mean individual opinions, thoughts directly being added, not something that is a shared view of many of the books readers as expressed in some of the media, the movie and other texts regarding this book. You can easily argue everything originates from original thoughts. The scholar who says the book feeds anti-semitism used his original thoughts to prepare the literature. When something is recognized amongst a faction, it is no longer an original thought. In this case, the belief that the book is legitimate and their reasons for this. Apart from that, not once has the article looked at the possibilities that the book is legitimate. If you seriously think reflecting the views of many who have read the Protocols of Zion and also looking at why the book could be legitimate, as original thought, then your uptake on the definition of original thought is wrong and it also hints you are openly trying to keep this article free from any challenges. Also remember one of this article's policy is neutrality, and not once has the article looked at the possibility of the literatures legitimacy, in fact the opposite has happened, where every penny is dropped to falsify the Protocols of Zion. It's also funny you have joined the CSB but your are not trying to understand my point. You might also want to read my reply in the above discussion. --87.194.3.52 12:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC) Also, the same way this article has regionally voiced some of the believers in the Protocols of Zion, one notable being what was written in the Hamas charter, is what I am trying to get at. A section, letting the believers of the Protocols of Zion's voice to also be expressed in regards to this article. You have two people groups here, Jewish scholars, scholars and general voice of the Jewish people claiming this book being a forgery, on the other hand you have many people, few scholars, celebrities, head of states insisting this book is real and its content is being fulfilled. Their voice needs to be portrayed here as equal as the voice that claims the book as false, in an equal tone and layout.

It might even be more suitable to create a new article "The Protocols of Zion Conspiracy" or similar, to reflect the conspiracy theory rather than spending a whole article trying to falsify the book. --87.194.3.52 12:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I assumed good faith and almost forgot that

WP:DFTT is the best strategy in these cases. ←Humus sapiens ^ну?

23:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:DFTT. Will you work on me with my points or should we bring a third party or try other avenues? --87.194.3.52

00:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll bite - what credible sources can you cite that support a claim that the Protocols is not a forgery? LeContexte 13:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

What credible source have you guys cited? Except Jewish scholars or newspapers? Anyway, im more interested in adding the views of the people who view the protocols legitimate, not trying to prove if its a forgery or not. Just like the documentary reflects the readers views, this article should do the same. But it seems you guys have a tough time understanding. --87.194.3.52 16:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, the Jewish thing blows their credibility. Totally. In your dreams. BillMasen 16:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Not good enough. The article refers to dozens of sources: academics and journalists; some Jewish, some not (as if it matters). Humus Sapiens was right, and I have been wasting my time. LeContexte 17:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

What's amusing here is that the first debunkers of the "Protocols" was not only non-Jewish, but was doing it for the benefit of a notorious Jew-hater, the Tsar. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

If the subject was non-Jewish, lets say about how the ecosystems works, you could use sources made by people from Mars I wouldn't care aslong as they are credible, but since the book questions Jewish dominance and purports Jewish plans and since it is a non-scientific subject, it would be somewhat biased to source Jewish scholars unless half of the sources were also non-Jewish (which they're not as I took the tedious task on of checking, infact most are Jewish, and some of the non-Jewish sources have cited Jewish sources rather than being original). LeContexte, thats why it matters if the sources are Jewish or non-Jewish, simply because of the nature of the article. It's like asking an elephant what he thinks of elephant hunters? Or asking cows what they think of being eaten? or Citing Hamas's charter and members of Hamas over other sources when writing an encyclopedic artcle about Hamas, how would the article turn out?. JpGordon, you are contradicting your self in relation to the article, if the book is anti-jewish, why would a Jew-hater prove it wrong? Is the book pro-jewish since an anti-jewish is proving it wrong? BillMasen, I did not mention anything about Jewish sources not being credible but their usage inducing bias in relation to the articles subject. Try reading my sentence above, "except" is a clue. Infact, my granddad is a Persian-Jew, I just happen to beleive that God also understands other languages than Hebrew. It doesn't make sense praying in Hebrew for me. I also happen to beleive God loves us all and not a particular religion. Anyway, I couldn't care less who wrote the book, but I strongly believe as well as in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, its important to also list the reasons as to why so many readers across the world still have faith in the contents (not the author) as legitimate even after being told that somehow it is claimed to be a forgery. I also praise you Jpgordon, for once using something different than the term anti-semite. Yes Humus is right, I am wasting your time and you guys are wasting mine, there's no way of reasoning with you guys even with a logical point. It's also funny how alot of the sources document the general ideals of the readers, but you still refuse to accept them in the article. So the sources are only good for one cause and not the other. You all know I have a perfectly valid point but letting your identities get in the way, that has always been the problem. Deep down I love you all, and always enjoy a good homous, our ideologies differ. yahweh.com. Kol tov. --87.194.3.52 00:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Anon, you don't have "a perfectly valid point". We do not separate "Jewish scholars" from others in WP: as long as the

Talk:Criticism of Holocaust denial. ←Humus sapiens ^ну?

03:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Humus, I just wanted to thank you for dealing with all the grief the crazies are giving you. You're not unappreciated, dude. I can't imagine someone questioning whether this document is fake or anti-semitic, but then, I can't imagine lots of horrible stuff. If anything, wikipedia is helpful at proving what kind of minds are out there. 75.13.86.109 (talk) 22:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I have corrected an imprecision about the first date of translation of Protocols, which is 1921 and not 1937, and added more datas concerning the italian edition. by Ialkarn

I thought this was interesting to bring up...an early Jewish world domination conspiracy text, one that suggests the basic jist found in the POTLEZ, is actually written by a Jew, with sarcasm: Has anyone heard of the brief, "The Reply of the Jews of Constantinople"? If so, that text might deserve some sort of mention in the article. I read about it in Warrant for Genocide: The Myth of the Jewish World-Conspiracy and the Protocols of the Elder of Zion.

Let's not omit the fact that in the original Russian versions, of

I have just acquired the above - published in 2006 by the Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism [2]. Though significantly incomplete, it's extremely useful and I highly recommend it to anyone interested in the subject. It cost me $8 and is shipped from Israel. It has no ISBN number, but can be ordered by email at: [email protected]

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 13:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It only costs $8 and is an excellent reference work - lists & annotates the standard, classic, and latest scholarly on the subject of the Protocols. I strongly recommend it - and so I've mage a Wiki page for it.

The Protocols of the Sages of Zion: A Selected Bibliography [3]

Best wishes,

--Ludvikus 10:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I've learned recently that one of the world's foremost living authorities on our

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 21:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I've created a "stub" on him. He, by the way, has given a talk in 2005 (in Israel, as I recollect) on two (2) of the witness/experts who presented evidence at the Berne Trial in 1935. --Ludvikus 13:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

An extremely useful facility for research on all Jewish subjects, including our "Protocols" is the above institution in Manhattan which I've personally used and benefited from. But there was no article on it. So I started a stub on it today. Now some editor wishes to delete it on the alleged grounds of lack of "notability." Can anyone help me out over there? Will someone please come over and oppose speedy deletion? Thank you. --Ludvikus 16:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Well, you can improve the article. The notice says, It is an article about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. So show why it's important -- show why the Center warrants more than, say, a mention in each of the articles of the constituent organizations. What does the consortium do, exactly? No need to answer here; just fill out the article. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I strongly recommend that Wiki editors who are interested in accurate Jewish history visit the article above.

It appears from reading that article, that this American

Jewish boycotts, etc. Yours truly, --Ludvikus

03:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's another expert on the Protocols in English in Great Britain in the 1920's.

Yours, etc., --Ludvikus 00:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This scholar is an important authority on the publishers and promoters of "The Protocols" in Great Britain and the English language. I've started a {{stub}} on her. I ask for assistance in developing the article on her. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 23:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This is the man who ran

There are several versions and numerous publication dates of various editions. There are several dates that would be appropriate. The first Russian, the first English, the first German, the first publication in the U.S. There is no one date.--Cberlet 01:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Only the first publication date is necessary. If the other language versions are merely translations, then this is a trivial thing. If someone translates the Protocols into Swahili in 2007, it wouldn't be appropriate to add it to the 2007 category. ^rossnixon 02:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the question of dates I think is significant. It helps our understand of the history and spread of antisemitism.

anonymously, include George Shanks, Boris Brasol, Natalie de Bogory, and Harris A. Houghton

.

Sorry - Yours truly, --Ludvikus 02:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

A revert has occurred yesterday as follows:

    Rossnixon (Talk | contribs) (83,602 bytes)
    (rv, It can't be a 1920 and 1905 book.
    And it apparently appeared in 1903 which makes both categories wrong, anyone know better?

In fact, the situation is as follows:

(1) The

Protocols of Zion

is not A BOOK. It's more like a Literary Event over time/years.

(a) In 1903 article(s) is/are published in Znamya (newspaper) - "related name" Pavel Krushevan in the Russian language.

(b) In

Velikoe v malom, and he adds an extra, final Chapter (not an Appendix as some inaccurately say); in fact, it's his Chapter XII (12); the material is to short for a regular hardbound book, although it can, and did, get subsequently published, with a preface and/or introduction, in pamphlet or booklet form; the whole book is in the Russian language

of course.

(c) In

newspapers, (ii) pamphlet/booklet, and (iii) hardcover

.

(2) Accordingly, this is not a neet, single book event. In fact, it's more like the Bible, which is a complex literary compilation over a spread of years. But unlike the bible, we do not much more precisely when the various literary events occurred. And certainly, all three years above are significant, and must be included. The editor, User:Rossnixon, who insists on picking the earliest date, 1903, is simply mistaken, and we must REVERT his REVERSION.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 13:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Since the text was published in newspapers in 1903 and 1919, I've not put these dates in as book publication categories.

Ludvikus 14:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

As an

The Protocols is complex I think is no excuse to simplify our presentation and omit these crucial facts. For example, there's no Standard Text. Although it is to be noted that scholar Cesare G. De Michelis has attempted to philologically

reconstruct such a text in his The Non-Existent Manuscript.

It may be some work, but our desire to simplify things for Wikipedia should not result in a distortion! Question: Is the true title of our text as follows:

Praemonitus Praemunitus

."

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 14:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Those of you who know about The Protocols know that when it/thy reached the West, like Rats from a sinking ship, used it through "appropriate" anonymous editorial commentary, to blame the Jews for Bolshevism. So I would imagine that you all would be interested in what's happening to the article above. I hope you guys and gals can come over there and contribute your valuable input and, hopefully, support, to the changes I've found it necesary to make.

Best regards, Ludvikus 18:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear User:S. M. Sullivan

What distinguishes modern

genes, so that conversion is ineffective in ending Antisemitism through conversion. Accordingly, your Category must be deleted. --Ludvikus

04:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

From what I have been seeing as an impartial observer in this world, the Protocols are ringing truer than ever. 90% of the American media is controlled by five Zionist Jews. Our entire government (including Bush's Administration) is full of Zionist Jews. Zionist in this sense means "Israel Supporters." Anytime anyone speaks against Israel and our involvement with them, the Zionist media labels them an anti-Semite. Professors that speak out against Israel get fired. Even Bishop Tutu had his speaking at a college canceled because he spoke out against Israel's treatment of Palestine and has been labeled an anti-semite, despite the fact that Palestinians are semite and he has never expressed racism towards any race (even white folks, the race you'd most expect him to hate). Typical Jewish people are fine...it's the upper echelon, the elite...and it's not just Jews either. General term for it is "illuminati"--I assure you, Rockefeller is no Jew, but his one world government aims (p.405 of his memoirs) are all the same. 192.249.47.11 13:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Exception

Upon reconsideration, a reading of

An effort was made (poorly, I might add, with the above, to make the distinction between modern racist antisemitism, that the earlier Medieval religious antisemitism. Nilus seemed the least modern of the three. --Ludvikus 01:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Best, --Ludvikus 22:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear fello Wikipedians,

This is the newspaper in which The Protocols were published first in the United States - in 1919!!!

The good news is that all references to "Jew(s)", or its cognates, were deleted & replaced, by Bolshevik(s), or its cognates.

May I ask that you guys & gals visit these Stubs and help in developing them into Articles?

As User:Hummus sapien says, "Cheers," --Ludvikus 23:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The 1905

Regards, --Ludvikus 21:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the name of the stub from

Singerman number. Can I get some more help in defense of the stub? I think we have an opportunity of listing at least some of the most important items there which Robert Singerman identified and analyzed. It a good way, I think, in having Wikipedia teach the workd what exactly what was the antisemitic literature before the invention of ISBN numbers. Ludvikus

00:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singerman list The above is the place to go if you oppose deletion of the

Wikisource has original text related to this article:

The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion

It's not what it purports to be. It's a recent Web version of The International Jew. Aside from being antisemitic, it's not Noteworthy or notable

The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Please help to demonstrate the notability of the topic by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention. If notability cannot be shown, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted. Find sources: "Archive 5" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (Learn how and when to remove this message)

by Wiki standards. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 15:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is thev 1st American edition of the Protocols: [4]. --Ludvikus 15:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The item has been reposted on Wikipedia by User:Yann. Since I removed it, I'll just recommen here that it be removed by someone else this time. --Ludvikus 16:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Church of True Israel

The alleged imprint of the Protocols posted on Wikisource come down to us from this racial-supremist church. This entity/organization, as far as I know, is not notable. There's not even a Wikipedia article on it.

I have proposed (at Wikisource) that it be deleted on two grounds::

(1) Accuracy - that it's not what it purports to be, "The Protocols"; and

(2) Notability - that the edited version of the Church of True Israel is not sifficiently notable to be posted.

Please come over to Wikisource and support the position that this item be deleted. --Ludvikus 13:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he was the first to publish "The Protocols" in English. He cdid it on October 27-8, 1919. But he removed all references to Jews, and substituted references to

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 15:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

That's another distinct imprint of "The Protocols"

Best, --Ludvikus 15:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that we know very little about this person. He died on October 28, 1920. One source even says it was October 29, 1920 (that's an important difference to Astrologists, which I'm not, by the way).

However, many translations bear his name - and he's considered by

Antisemitic publishing entity — say(s) so. I think this fact should be reflected in our article here. --Ludvikus

15:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Please consider making your view(s) known with respect to this Category - which has currently been proposed for Deletion. Thank you. --Ludvikus 02:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not too late to give your support to Keep this new Category. Please do so at your earliest convenience. Thank you. --Ludvikus 23:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The various imprints of The Protocols are now being classified by WP editor(s) as Religious studies books. Can you believe it? The Protocols is/are fit for religious studies? --Ludvikus 23:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been disputing the classification/category nature of "The Protocols" with WP editor whose statement I'm Pasting here:

I suggest that you look at

Protocols of the Elders of Zion and read: "The Protocols...takes the form of an instruction manual to a new member of the "elders," describing how they will run the world through control of the media and finance, and replace the traditional social order with one based on mass manipulation." Since world domination is a political theme, I tagged it as political. Since you didn't like that, and anti-semitism is by definition a religious issue, I changed it to religious. Just because it's a hoax doesn't mean it can't fall into either of these categories. Perhaps you have a problem with the non-fiction tag as well -- maybe the {{book-stub}} tag too. Perhaps it should only have the {{stub}} tag, since you are determined to have your way and revert any good faith attempts to sort these articles into a useful category. Many, many WP editors have compromised a little in order to cooperate with community efforts at creating this resource. Her Pegship (tis herself)

04:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• Summary: Do we want WP to Catgeirize imprints of The Protocols (or other antisemitic texts) as religious or political books? If we do they may be cited as such (quoting WP). --Ludvikus 05:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• By analogy, Quackery should be classified as Medicine, and Astrology as Science. --Ludvikus 05:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • As most of us here know, "The Protocols" come in a plurality of titles. But I've been asked what I'm talking about. I'm talking about not this Main article,
    Protocols of the Elders of Zion, but of all the other subordinate articles regarding the various imprints in different times; so here's the Template for your convenience: --Ludvikus
    12:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The Protocols
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion Versions of The Protocols Contemporary imprints of The Protocols
First publication of The Protocols
Programma zavoevaniya mira evreyami
Writers, editors, and publishers associated with The Protocols
Carl Ackerman Boris Brasol G. Butmi Charles Coughlin Natalie de Bogory Denis Fahey Henry Ford L. Fry H. A. Gwynne Harris Houghton Pavel Krushevan Ernest G. Liebold Sergei Nilus George Shanks Fyodor Vinberg Clyde J. Wright
Debunkers of The Protocols
Vladimir Burtsev Herman Bernstein Norman Cohn John Shelton Curtiss Philip Graves Michael Hagemeister Pierre-André Taguieff Lucien Wolf
Commentaries on The Protocols
The International Jew Mein Kampf
v t e

NPOV and Accusations of Trolling

The contributor above made very logical and sound arguments contesting the content of this article. After reading throughi it, it was clear that NPOV isn't being adhered to in this article. I looked through the discussion page and I found only that one poster who was presenting an unbiased approach. And yet he was shut down. Clearly, writing of this article is indicative of its content. Biased jewish authors expressing their personal views with no regard for the veracity or accuracy of the article. A good historian knows how to weigh the value of his sources and factor in bias. Here, I see nothing but bias played out to maximum effect. 81.132.187.169 01:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

What changes would you make to the article, and on the basis of what sources? LeContexte 16:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• I think the issue here is whether the {{stub}} on a subcategory of the
  Protocols of Zion should be "religious-book-stub" or "political-book-stub." I've been arguing that neither is appropriate. --Ludvikus
  16:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
• PSM is neither a religious nor a political text. --Ludvikus 17:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

We all know that when The Protocols left the

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 16:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Protocols of Zion (imprints). Thank you, IZAK 09:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• I am somewhat mystified at the relative silence on this Talk page, as well as the Article page.
• I hope I've been successful, among other things, in showing that there is no such thing as the "
  Protocols of the Elders of Zion." This title is the invention of commentators on this subject, and has been adopted, and inadvertently, promoted by Wikipedia, as Wikipedia tends to dominate cyberspace
  .
• I would like it if we could go back in time, to the turn of the 19th century, and we could destroy this hateful literature before its publication and circulation around the world.
• But unfortunately no one has invented
  time machines
  .
• Therefore, the alternative is to overpopulate the world with the truth about this literature concerning the
  The Non-Existent Manuscript
  .
• That's what I have tried to do on Wikipedia. I believe that what I've been doing here, at Wikipedia, is trying to
  immune
  against the disease.
• But no there is a view on Wikipedia that all my work on this subject on Wikipedia is bizarre. And the articles which I've started and developed are being considered for deletion.
• Unfortunately, it appears to me that the editor who has made the proposal for deletion is quite ignorant of the subject, and I do not have much confidence in the knowledge which the editors who support him may have.
• I therefore strongly urge that the editors who are much better informed step in and express their opinions.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 02:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Says

Finally, also in 1921, Philip Graves learned from an informant named Raslovlev, who had seen the original manuscript, that the Protocols was a distorted plagiarism of A Dialogue in Hell by Maurice Joly.

Either Vandals, or uninformed editors regarding the meaning of the word plagiarism, appear to be Reverting the aricle so that the plagiarism aspect of the items here covered, are Deleted.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 16:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, you clearly like to maintain this article in true Jewish agenda style... Re-writing histroy so that the Jews look like saints... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.59.250 (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Several previous editors have made similar comments to you, and I've asked each of them to suggest any sources that contradict the claims in the article that the Protocols are a plagiarised forgery. None have responded. Can you do any better? LeContexte 17:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The sources you site don't amount to proof, simply one opinion, but we all know how the jews love to revise history in their own light. No surprise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.59.250 (talk) 11:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Go away, bigot. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 13:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

How is one person's unsubstantiated claim proof? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.59.250 (talk) 14:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Can whoever keeps changing the document so that the "hoax" part is seen as an absolute fact PLEASE STOP. The evidence to suggest that this document is a hoax is far from solid, in fact it is poor hearsay - far from the concrete appearance it is given by the author who keeps changing the text so that it appears to be 100% proven. Please stop trying to re-write history to suit yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.219.203.53 (talk) 10:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the article? Elements of the text have been conclusively established as plagarisations from an earlier book by Maurice Joly. This is not hearsay - you can hold both books in your hand (as Graves did in 1921) and make the comparison for yourself. The similarities make it quite implausible that the Protocols are genuine - the simplest explanation is that they were plagiarised from Joly's book (although I suppose it is also possible that both were plagiarised from an earlier work that has been lost). LeContexte 10:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not fair to accuse the Wise Elders of plagiarism, we have to consider that maybe they where not aware of Joly's work. Anyway, this article is missing the point, it should be separated in two, were one deals with the book and its autenticity, and the other is dedicated to the historical and political implications of the protocols.189.68.64.71 (talk) 17:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody, as far as I know, is accusing the Elders of plagiarism - the overwhelming evidence is that the document is a plagiarised forgery/hoax by antisemites. I am not sure what the benefits would be of splitting the article as you suggest. LeContexte (talk) 17:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I suppose if you tell the same LIE enough times, you start convincing yourself it is the truth, and begin to wonder why nobody else but you believe them. The VERY FIRST section of this talk page involves a rather lengthy argument about whether the book was "antisemitic". Despite VERY CLEAR logical arguments that according to wikipedia's OWN definition of "anti-semitism", it is NOT, the same GARBAGE description of the book as an "antisemitic blah, blah, blah" is STILL on the first paragraph. Yet, here you are on the end of the talk page blathering about how "none has responded". This is PRECISELY what the Protocols recommend to respond to "Goyim' by the "super-intellectuals", among whom you must certainly number your SILLY self in your stupid, irrelevant piece of crap dribble you style an "encyclopedia". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.114.141 (talk) 09:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The article makes reference to a "Cantonal Court of Bern" and to a "Swiss Court of Appeal". No such courts exist or have existed. I guess that the court of first instance was either a District Court (Kreisgericht) or a single judge (Gerichtspräsident), although they may have been called differently in 1934; or the Supreme Court of the

Parts seem to be plagiarized but so what. Most of it is full of opinions. You can't use other opinions to debunk it. Explain in better detail what's been "proven wrong" in this work. 67.41.119.139 (talk) 22:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not what is claims to be. It claimed to be non-fiction, but it is fiction. It is in this sence that it has been "debunked". Lobojo (talk) 00:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that proves this is a work of fiction? 76.95.40.6 (talk) 07:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree that this article has unbalanced POV. If I read this article right, the only evidence that the protocols are fake are that the original scripts has not been found. The plagiarism statement does not prove o disprove the existence of a protocol. I wanted to find evidence where I can show people: look here: This is why the protocols are fake. Now when I read this article and within the first sentences I read POV stuff like "proven forgery and hoax", then no link or evidence or fact. I would really appreciate links and evidence to the statements in the article. Realshompa (talk) 19:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

    "the unknown Russian translator of the original French manuscript,
    as quoted by 
Butmi
, explicitly states that the Elders
    are not to be confused with the representatives of the Zionist movement."