Talk:The Protocols of the Elders of Zion/Archive 3

message: well... I think the additon of this part in the topic is a clear pro-israel propaganda...I am an arab...an egyptian....I don't know about the protocol of the elders of zion....and i don't care to know if this is a hoax or has some of truth in it...I know there has been a series that advocates for this in egypt too...it wasn't that much of a series that state information...the idea was vague and stupid..and had no details...but i know form experience that Israel is a loose cannon and very much "spoilt nation" by the west who can commit many documented war-crimes to "defend it self"....I have seen the book in Egypt "the protocol of the elders of zion"...the one they display its cover in the wikipedia topic about "the protocol of the elders of zion"....it is a very stupidly edited, poorly displayed, non-cited book, very brief (few pages)...more close to a poster than a book that's to speak of...I was never attracted to buy or read what is in there, although, I am a part of the struggle-and this is of an intrest to me....and i personally don't think that the jews are bent on world dominion...however zionism was bent on creation of a jewish nation over a land they may have thought that its inhabitants would not mind them creating it on their land or may be if they do, their complaint would not be of a great account for world powers.
:Yea, I think the article magnifies up the readership, paticularly regarding the middle east. --81.178.248.22 14:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The book in arabic

message: In this section, it says:
:A Russian translation of Joly's Dialogues in Hell appeared in 1872. After the assassination of Tsar Alexander II in 1881, an excerpt from the chapter "In the Jewish Cemetery in Prague," containing the alleged rabbinical plot against European civilization, began circulating in Russia as a pamphlet. 
Earlier, the article says the "Jewish Cemetary" chapter is from Hermann Goedsche's book, not Joly's, and that Jews are not mentioned by Joly. I assume this is a mistake?--Cúchullain t c 19:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It sure is. Paul B 21:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I think I fixed it. Can someone with more knowledge on the subject check it out?--Cúchullain t c 19:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Emergence in Russia

message: Is Bible a fake too? Nobody knows who wrote it and knobody knows if what it describes is true. 
What is important to remember is that if the Dialogues in Hell is an account of an actual doctrine,professed by Jews for argument's sake, and simply applied to another character to tell a story, and then if some other book retells the Dialogues' account, but applies it to the Jews, does it make the doctrine false, fake, plagiarism? 
Is Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ a fake too? Jews certainly don't believe in Jesus and New Testament.
When the word Fake is repeated so often, it creates an impression of denial of truth. Someone is trying a bit too hard. 
One may simply look around and see if what is happening is or is not true. Simply pay attention to last names of TV broadcasters, prominent financiers, lawyers, public figures, in short of those who are making the policies today. Pay attention and make your own conclusions. Look at the past state of affairs and at the present, and you will not need anybody to tell you what is the truth.
Do we know for example why is there a recently built Holocaust museum in Washington DC? America did not exterminate Jews. 6 Millon Jews died in Europe from the hands of German Nazis. Why then not build a museum for victims of Communism - tens of millions died in Russia alone. Why is Jewish Paul Wolfowitz, the current president of World Bank, its president? He has no Economics background, unlike the previous president, Jewish James Wolfensohn. 
Lets think and not listen to Truth Deniers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.12.194 (talk • contribs) 
:Yes, it is true. Also, at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History, right in the heart of Washington, D.C., paid for by our tax dollars, there is an entire exhibit dedicated solely to dinosaurs. How many brave, mammalian Americans spilled their warm blood for this country and its values so that we could be forced to put up with a monument to lizards - who weren't even Americans - right in the middle of our nation's capital? How did the federal government allow the creation of such a monstrosity? What is its meaning for American policy and for American values? And what must the American people do to regain control of the land their servants in Washington handed over to a foreign interest, and to establish an enterprise thereon, whether a museum or otherwise, informed by and conducted according to American principles and interests?  We were victorious in the struggle for natural selection, yet all you hear these days are lizards whining about how extinct they are.  I don't see any museum to the dodo, he's just as extinct.  How may strains of rainforest vegetation have vanished from the earth - yet has there been even one movie, let alone a sequel?  (Jurassic park was produced by the same man who gave us Schindler's List... coincidence?) Amoruso 00:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hahaha!  Nice!  Point and match. bladebot 12:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is Fake? 

message: EDITIONS  OF  THE  PSM  in  Russian
[from The Non-Existent Manuscript by Cesare G. De Michelis]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1:
K	"Programa zavoevanija mira evrejami." In Znamja 1,
•	no. 190 (28 August [10 September]): 2; 2,
•	no. 191 (29 August [11 September]): 2; 3,
•	no. 192 (30 August [12 September]): 2; 4, 
•	no. 193 (31 August (13 September]): 1-2; 5,
•	no. 194 (1 [14] September): 1-2; 6,
•	no. 195 (2 [15] September): 1-2; 7,
•	no. 196 (3 [16] September): 2; 8,
•	no. 197 (4 [17] September): 2; 9,
•	no. 200 (7 [20] September): 2.	
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2:
L	Iudejskie  tajny.
In Ljutostanskij 1904. Vol. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3:
А 1 1905. "Vyderzki iz drevnix i sovremennyx protokolov Sionskix mudrecov Vsemirnogo obscestva
Fran-Masonov. "
In  Koren'  nasix  bedstvij.  St. Petersburg.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4:
А2 1905. Drevnie  i  sovremennуе  protokoly  sobraпij "Sionskix  Mudrecov."
Moscow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5:
N  1905.  Protokoly  sobranij  Sionskix  mudrecov.
In Ni1us 1905.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------6:
B Protokoly  izvlecennye  iz  tajnyx  xranilisc  Sionskoj  Glavnoj Kanceljarii.
In Butmi 1906а.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7:
ВЗ Idem. In Butmi 1906а (3-е izdanie, obrabotannoe).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------8:
D	Protokoly sionskix mudrecov.
In Demcenko 1906.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------9:
R1 Tajny politiki (Vyderгki iz recej...sionizma).
In Begunov 1996, 102-14.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------10:
R2 1905. "Tajny politiki  Rec' odnogo  iz  rukovoditelej...Sionizma)."
Mirnj  Trud  8.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------11:
R3 1906.  "Rec'  odnogo  iz  rukovoditelej...Sionizma."
Samoderzavie 1-5.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------12:
R4 1906. Evrejskaja  politika  i  ее  rezul 'taty. Kremencug.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------13:
I	1917. Izvlecenie  iz  protokolov  I-go Sionistskogo kongressa.
Moscow.  In Begunov 1996, 66-71.
-----------------
Ludvikus 22:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  EDITIONS  OF  THE  PSM  in  Russian 

message: Can we improve the first sentence: The PEZ come from a text which purports to expose a global domination conspiracy, most notably characterized by its accusations of exclusive Jewish complicity. - am I the only one who finds it cumbersome? I prefer the previous version of the first phrase: The PEZ is a text purporting to describe a plan to achieve global domination by Jews. I think it would be better to start with saying _what_ it is and continue with _where_ it comes from. Thoughts? ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the previous phrase is better. --Sangil 11:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree as well. Not clear.--Cberlet 13:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The first sentence is cumbersome  

message: Where are these? They're mentioned in the first sentence, and I think it would be better to list these ones as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.134.125 (talk • contribs) 
: I'm not asking about the whole article but did you see the table of contents? ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are referenced in the article, see the References list in the footnotes and also Further reading. --Yms 10:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I assumed good faith and made a first attempt to compile a list. It is incomplete yet, but (if we decide to keep it) should improve as we go on. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numerous independent investigations 

message: As some editors have suggested in the past, to me the word "demonstrated" seems to be more factually accurate than "proven" when referring to the hoax.  While I agree that the PEZ are a hoax, and most objective investigators would also come to this conclusion (either that or accept the textual duplications as amazing coincidences), I think proof is too strong a concept to apply here.  It can never be proven 100% (certainly not in the mathematical sense, and there is no cut-and-dried definition in the historical sense) - the most you can say is that it is highly likely a hoax.  Therefore, I suggest references to the "proven" hoax be replaced with references to the "demonstrated" hoax.  This term is almost as strong, removes any possibility of misinterpretation / bias / POV, is not over-authoritative while still being encyclapedic, while still making the likeliness of the hoax clear.  I think it makes a good compromise.  Can we have a vote or something? Straussian 12:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  absloutely not. it's proven without a doubt that this is a complete anti semitic hoax. in fact, I was surprised to see that it's not emphasised enough in the article, that this is simply material used for nazi and anti-semite propaganda, and one of the world's ugliest attempts at justifying genocide. Amoruso 12:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are four "proofs" in the reference. A secret Russian investigation with no source. Some newspaper articles. Two others, but the links don't work for me. How about something peer-reviewed? 24.64.165.176 05:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, there is no absolute proof that it is a hoax, its patchy, vaguely documented, with no specifics. I agree with the change to a "demonstrated hoax". Its patchy to say its a proven hoax, because the proof itself is hardly proven. But hey, most of the editors or contributors interested in this article are pro-semites, so i doubt they will accept others point of view.--81.178.248.22 22:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proven -> Demonstrated 

message: The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is not a manuscript for Jewish domination. It is a incorrect reference to the advisors of Tsar Alexander III who were Freemasons. There were six of them and they wielded alot of influence over, arguably, the most powerful Tsar who ever lived. These 6 guys, not all of whom were Jewish, were members of a secret sect of Freemasonry named with a specific reference to 'Sion' not Zion. Sion and Zion are not the same thing. Anti-semetic Russia capitalized on this and the book was born with an altered title.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.107.50.100 (talk • contribs) 
:If you have verifiable information from reliable sources that can be used to add information to this article, please point us to them.  Thanks.  Jkelly 18:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unplausible: the Russian word for Zion is  "Sion" and not  "Tsion". For the rest, read the article or better yet, a good book on the subject. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The real truth

message: I'm unsure why Cohn's comparison was cut.  It might not make sense as the first sentence of the section, but I don't know why it doesn't belong in the article.  Jkelly 00:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have Cohn's book handy, and not knowing much about The Reply of the Jews of Constantinople I clicked on it and found it awful enough to nominate it for AFD. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Update: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Reply of the Jews of Constantinople was speedy-deleted. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad for not looking at the linked article.  Jkelly 16:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cohn's comparison cut? 

message: Most good souls are aware that the Protocols of Zion was Hitlers "Warrant for Genocide." And we have accepted that the world "must never forget" what happened to the Jews under Hitler.
For this reason I believe a dispassionate study of the publication history of this notorious Plagiarism is essential.
Yet I am disappointed in the sloppy scholarship that persists around this difficult, and painful subject. Nevertheless, I refuse to give up my demand for accurate scholarship.
First of all, lets get rid of the "The" in the title variations, "The Protocols of...'. It--the title involving "Protocols" should always begin as the "Protocols of..".
I have made the corrections--but some Wikipedia editors have over-ruled me and restored the inaccuracy.
Now the uniform subject title used by both the Library of Congress and "WorldCat" is as follows:
     Protocols of the wise men of Zion
How can I participate in improving the scholarship on the notorious "Potocols of ..."?
We have now available, since 2004, the best--perhaps the latest standard work--on this infamous subject since Norman Cohn's 1970 classic, "Warrant for Genocide". I have in mind the 2004 edition of Cesare G. De Michelis's "The Non-Existent Manuscript." So lets gets to work and truly make an accurate study of this evil which continues to plague the world.
We are told--again and again--that the first, or major, published edition of this fraud occurred in 1903, in Russia, and in the Russian language, in a daily newspaper called Znamya, meaning the "Banner." But I cannot find this 1903 paper in any major scholarly or academic libary in the world whose Catalog is Online. Can anyone tell me ANYTHING about the Existence and/or Availability of this Newspaper? I would very much like to SEE it myself, publish it here, for our edification, and have it accurately translated into English so that the whole world would know exactly what happened, and how, under this "Warrant"?
Can anyone,in the whole world--to whom this wonderful English language Wikipedia is available--help improve the scholarship, and EXPOSE further the Plagiarism that continus to thrive under various titles, translations, and editions? Please respond to this quiry ASAP. Thank you. Oh, and can the unknown Wikipedia editors permit me to improve this article even more?
Yous truly, I am Ludvikus 01:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that User:Ludvikus already found article Znamya (newspaper) that has some links and began working on Editorial and Bibliographic History of the "Protocols of Zion" and/or Protocols of Zion. Where is the "sloppy scholarship" and how do we unslop it? ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dear M. User:Humus sapiens,
Please read carefully my bibliographic work-in-progess, Editorial and Bibliographic History of the "Protocols of Zion". For your information, I am substantially the author of Znamya (newspaper). Please, also, do not take personally my unhappiness with the quality of the article. I just expected much more, considering the power both of the Web, and now the incredible WP!!!
Notice, also, that I always send everyone to this article--for the content, analysis, and exposition  of the subject of the Protocols of Zion.
Yours truly, Ludvikus 05:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliographic Scholarship Required 

message: Ladies and Gentlemen, my Dear Fellow Wikipedians:
I believe that if our Wikipedian Scholarship is to accomplish its mission
regarding the Article on the Protocols of Zion
it is essential that we be Precise and Accurate,
especially since our Article concerns a Literary Plagiarism, Fraud, and Hoax.
Norman Cohn's book, "Warrant for Genocide"
is considered among Historians the Standard Work on our Infamous subject.
Accordingly, allow me to inform you that it was First Published in 1967,
and not in 1966--as is given in the References section.
::But I'm not able to access the Article to make the necessary correction.
Can someone do it--or grant me access to do it?
Yours truly, Wikipedian Ludvikus 13:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What do you mean by "grant me access": are you unable to edit? And please, do not make excessive links - see WP:MOS. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Norman Cohn 1967 Standard Edition

message: Could we have a source for these secret investigations that were not made public. Preferably a real source, according to WP Policy. Otherwise delete. 24.64.165.176 05:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Easy. Next? ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stolypin's fraud investigation, 1905 

message: *By analogy, we think here of opposites!
:Think of Satan as "uncreative." Whatever God does, the Devil does the opposite.
:So we have the "Non-Extent Manuscript" see Cesare G. De Michelis.
:Ironically, the true "author" or "Producer", of the Protocols, after 1933, when he comes to power, is the "greatest" anti-Semite of them all--Adolf Hitler himself!!!
: This "Book of Satan" (very boring) is first taken out of Russia and brought to Germany in 1919.
:Henry Ford effectively serializes it in The Dearborn Independent, turns this material into book form in The International Jew.
:By 1934 Zion becomes effectively Zionism.
:It really should be follolwed up by a joke:
     "The Protocols of the Stupid Elders of Anti-Semitism"
     by Henry Ford, Adolf Hitler, et al
:After all, neither of the former were exactly intellectual giants.
--Ludvikus 11:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does the [[Devil]] have a [[Torah]] and a [[Talmud]]? 

message: * A Book generally has an author.
* If not an author than an editor.
* The Koran is said to be "dictated" by an angel to Mohammed-as G-d uses intermediaries.
* Even the Bible, both the Old Testament, and the New Testament, are the Word of God, as transcribed by Moses.
* The Bible--or the Ten Commandments "that have come down to use"--are of a second imprint--Moses having smashed the first to the ground!!!
* May we say that the Protocols of Zion are by Satan? By the Devil?
* Or shall we say, by a "Committee" of the "Okhrana"--the Tsar's secret Police?
* Let us recall the First Commandment: God is One.
**So the Devil is Many?
***Even after the Pavel Krushevan 1903 publication in Znamya (newspaper)
:and after the Sergei Nilus  1905 publication as an appendix in his second or third :edition of "The Great within the Miniscule" (sounds better in the original Russian}
:the "Bad Book" lives on--somewhat as "The Good Book" does.
:To be continued ...
::Yours truly --- Ludvikus 10:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be continued?
     Oh please, no more of this verbal drooling.
     Paul B 13:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yours truly,   Ludvikus 04:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are clearly an extremely silly little person. And by the way, I have taught philosophy at university level, so don't think your naive utterances get anywhere near to being "over my head". Try to write clearly, coherently and to the point when contributing to Talk pages. And please clease your apparently pathological desire to wikify every word. Paul B 21:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I have no interest in the "Patriotic Publishing co", so why should I or anyone else write about it? There have been and still are lots of small far-right publishers out in the US, from which you can now get CDs of the "SS's Greatest Marching Songs", and other equally desirable products. We don't need to list them all. The puiblishing history of the Protocols is of interest but we don't want to swamp the article with unnecessarily pedantic detail about it. Paul B 17:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yours truly,  Ludvikus 11:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[History of "The Protocols of Zion"]] 

message: :I try again (article edit comment)
Tom, I can live with the alteration you've made. Peace. — Xiutwel (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to be clear, I botched my first attempt, mistakenly reverting your whole edit when I meant to remove only the last part of the sentence. So by 'trying again' I was referring to correcting my own edit, not yours. Thanks for understanding what I meant, rather than what I said. Tom Harrison Talk 23:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  agree 

message: :The protocols must have been written by Nostradamus. Gzuckier 14:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Nostradamus]] 

message: It is this [above] named person, a Russian emigre, who, according to Colin Holmes, in his 1978 article for Patterns of Prejudice, first translated the Protocols of Zion in Britain into English.
: See: http://har2.huji.ac.il:83/ALEPH/ENG/SAS/BAS/BAS/FULL/0110974
: Ludvikus 16:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[George Shanks]] 

message: :I think Wikipedia gives the world and humanity an opportunity to fight bigotry, racism, crackpots, paranoiacs, antisemites, etc., as it was never possible before.
:And this is not at all inconsistent with the--for lack of a better word--the "ojectivist" WPedians.
::In particular, it is possible to write, not only brief, accurate, precise, objective, articles, even on such "controversial" topics as the Protocols of Zion. By the way, "controversial" is the term the Library of Congress designates hateful, crackpot, racist, antisemitic, titles or literature--into which The Protocols fall.
:::So one of the things I wish to encourage my fellow Wikipedians to do is to engage in "original research," in a sense. By this I mean two things: (1) use Scholarly Journals, and (2) use [[Archival] material if possible.
::::And in particular expose the important minor, often crackpot, or relatively obscure protagonists in the tragic drama of the Warrant for Genocide. Case in point: Howell Gwynne--full name, Howell Arthur Keir Gwynne; clue: he played the role in the Morning Post which William Cameron and/or Ernest Liebold had played in the Dearborn Independent. I'm not, strictly speaking, a historian, but I'm rapidly becoming one on Wikipedia. I have access to Libraries and Archives all over the "Big Apple"--by antisemites the city having been contempuously called "Jewtown", no doubt because so many Russian Jews had fled to after the first pogroms that had been instigated by assassination of the Tsar Alexander II in 1881; see .
:::Anyway, lets expose, as many as possible, of the protagonists who have effectively become "Unindicted Co-conspirators Agains the Jews" (Imade this title up). I think there is too much time spent exposing "conspiracy theory." We should examine the concept of conspiracy. Then the question I like to pose--to my fellow Wikipedians, in what way is it, and in what way is it not (the text of "The Protocols"), evidence of a world-wide "Conspiracy Against the Jews." Can you guys, and gals of course, in Wikipedia Space imagine a book with this as its Main Title, followed by the "The Protocols of Zion"? May I remind you all, or bring to your attention, the lead title, in civilized England (don't get me wrong--I love the Brits, and all human beings, anyone who is a "Mensch" (I know I got my yiddish transliteration wrong on this one).
::Anyway, I hope I got accross a spontaneous glimse of my WP efforts in the Rod Sterling-like Fifth Dimension which is wonderful Wikipedialand. Not only can everyone now get their 15 minutes of fame, as Andy Warhol might put it, but everyone has the possibility of being the coiner of a word for a new concept not expressed before.
:But more significantly, Wikipedia itself is an incredible innovation--I believe that it is probably as significant as the Guttenberg press, the railroad railroad, the telegraph (the telephone's predecessor), the typewriter (a predecessor to the PC).
:So let us all use it with all its novelty potential, inter alia, in a war on bigotry; let's call a spade a spade; are we not "just interest" in conveying the mere cold facts? Is there not an effort here to enlighten the world at large to the malevolence of "The Protocols"? And if that it so, it will not do for us to merely paraphrase Norman Cohn's classic 1967 study, Warrant for Genocide.
:Yours truly, Ludvikus 15:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Dis-Honor Role" of [[Antisemites]]

message: *Can you WP experts on the "The Protocols" help me re-size the image below:
:Image:1920 The Jewish Peril - Eyre & Spottiswoode Ltd - 1st ed..jpg
In 1920 the firm experienced the dubious distinction of being the first to publish,
if not in the "King's English," at least in printed book form,
the subsequent notorious text,
under the title, The Jewish Peril:
Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.
**Also, do the same at the two (2) aricles above?
:Yours truly, Ludvikus 04:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[The Jewish Peril]] & [[Eyre & Spottiswoode Ltd.|Eyre & Spottiswoode Ltd]]