Talk:The Protocols of the Elders of Zion/Archive 1

message: Are we top posting here or bottom posting?
Anyway, are the Protocols an 'It' or a 'They'? I'd be inclined to consider them a they, but most of the editing seems to think otherwise. ??
PS Sam Spade, nice edit, kept the point I was trying to make, in a NPOV type of way.
Gzuckier 19:19, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: minor questions of correct number for pronoun

message: This is the first time I got a good look at this article. Considering its importance in world politics, it was hardly adequate and an insult to the reader seeking knowledge to beat around the bush with a concept like "well lots of guys in the West think it's fake but most others think its real." -- Cecropia | Talk 15:47, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recast the opening at "Temp" 

message: One theory is that Lucien Wolf who claimed to have "discovered" the truth in 1920 was the author. He certainly seemed to know more about it than anyone else. Nazi ideologist Alfred Rosenberg is said to have brought a copy to the attention of Hitler and cohorts.
Did Wolf and Rosenberg know each other?
: Is there any substance at all to this "theory" apart from pure speculation?  Who proposed it?  I think it ought to be deleted from the article.  --Zero 14:13, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who Wrote it? 

message: Anon User:213.137.118.222 tagged this article POV without any explanation. Unless we see a good reason, I think it would be safe to remove the tag soon. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:27, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV? 

message: I seem to remember from other articles on the protocols that Joly took most of his material from the last chapter of "Les mysteres du peuple", another book by Eugene Sue. Umberto Eco wrote an article on the protocols in wich he says as much. I still have that article somewhere, as soon as i've found it I will get back to you
--Ceesos 20:41, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are y'all sure its "The Wandering Jew"? 

message: Could somebody please provide links to the source documents from which The Protocols were forged?
:I'm not sure they can be found on-line. Jayjg (talk) 15:37, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to sources? 

message: Article is grossly unfair, lacks balance.  Whether these documents' origin is that claimed or not has not been proven or disproven (and the mere confident claim they have been proven doesn't make that so), but that isn't the issue as the detractors know quite well.  The Protocols' message reflects a real set of troubling issues in world events that many are wising up to,  speaks for itself, and their resonance of truth is what has spread them so prolifically around the world.  
Written in the late 1890's it was stunningly prophetic about the most important events for the next 100 plus years, able to explain those future events like nothing else that even in hindsight could, and brilliantly written to boot.  Name just one document that even approaches that!  (I can't blame the opponents for trying to change the subject).  The Protocols do however appear to be real, as they are consistent with the Talmut, other Jewish texts spanning 20 centuries, many modern quotes from  informed Jews in moments of candor, as well as real world facts and events.  Even assuming for the sake of discussion that they were fiction, they would be good fiction, because good fiction often succeeds in describing reality much better than a simple listing of dry facts could.
And the Protocols seem to prove their value again in Wikipedia by eliciting just the type of censorship and manipulation rabid responses from some readers that the Protocols tell us about afflict us in society overall.  
I've NEVER seen a more unprofessional biased one-sided aggressive article not just in Wikipedia, but in even quite biased places.  But go ahead, don't change it, don't state both points of view fairly!  It's so biased as it is in Wikipedia that anyone with an objective mind that looks at it will instantly perceive it's bias, be turned off by it, and do a Google search on it or something.
Of course I can already sense the "anti-semitic" or "hater" namecalling coming my way for expressing myself, though I'm not those things, but again, if attacked with names like that it would only reinforce the Protocols' message.
71.142.208.68 13:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Go read Nostradamus. Jeremy Nimmo 03:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  the proof is in the pudding 

message: :Image:Protocols of the Elders of Zion Germany.gif 
This image looks like it was made with MSPaint, so it's probably not a genuine cover. I can even recognize the fonts. :-) bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 18:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's how we know it's a forgery. Gzuckier 18:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL! bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 18:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  My fault: I'm the one who found it on the net, believed it is genuine and uploaded it as a bookcover. Removing it from the article. Thanks, good catch. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 00:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cover made in MSPaint 

message: I have submitted this article for peer review as a prelude to nominate it as a Feature Article Candidate WP:FAC. ≈ jossi ≈ 22:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review -> FAC 

message: I have not read all other comments in this discussion so advance apologizes if this issue has been raised by others. I have just added a NPOV Tag.
The article as it stands presents itself in such a way that the reader is encouraged from the outset to believe that the protocols are false. The tone throughout the text reiterates this.
This article needs to be edited in order to develop an impartial viewpoint that reflects a neutral position. Included should be a discussion on the unprecedented and lasting level of contention that the issue of the authenticity of the Protocols has engendered across scholarly and other circles.
Sentences similar to the initial one that claim the Protocols are an unequivocal fraud need to be deleted and replaced with language that is either neutral or accurately reflects the controversies the text still elicits.
Thank you.
Cf1 16:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the issue has been raised before. The consensus is that the Protocols have been proven to be a forgery. There is overwhelming evidence for this. NPOV does not mean giving all points of view equal weight. We do not have an article on, say, George Bush beginning with assertion that some people consider him to be human but others think that he is an alien snake-being. The evidence for fraud could hardly be more complete or comprehensive. Paul B 16:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

text: (Edit conflict)Cf1, I appreciate that you've responded to Jossi and my requests to bring up your concerns with the article's neutrality here.  I don't know quite what to make of your statement that  "Sentences similar to the initial one that claim the Protocols is an unequivocal fraud need to be deleted and replaced with language that is either neutral or accurately reflects the controversies the text still elicits".  I've expressed some concern about this article myself, which I suppose could be a kind of agreement with you that "the controversies the text still elicits" sections need some improvement, but I imagine that these can be handled through proper citation and the removal of anything not verifiable.  As for its history of being accepted as a document authored by "The Elders of Zion", it seems to me that the article goes into great detail about this in its history section.  I suspect that your interpretation of NPOV is leading you to think that historical mistakes should feature more prominently, or be treated more sympathetically in the article, but, in fact, Wp policy makes clear that "neutrality" is not achieved by presenting fact and error as equally deserving of attention.  That would instead by a bias for erroneous claims by presenting them as equal to historical fact (and, in this case, that bias would be supporting an anti-Jewish agenda, which I am sure nobody wants).  I'd suggest reviewing WP:NPOV, which discusses this in some detail.  Jkelly 16:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

text: If you were to consult the article, you will note within the first few paragraphs mentioning of court cases, academic forewords, and an image of a Times article documenting the books history and dismissing the claims of the author(s).  If anything, there is too much discussion of this issue.  If our Geography article spent a couple of paragraphs discussing how it really, really isn't true that one can fall of the edge of the world, readers might get the idea that there is a serious debate.  There is not (either with TPotEoZ or with the Earth being flat).  Jkelly 23:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

text: To repeat it once again: The Protocols are DEFINITELY a forgery. It has been scientifically proven several by numerous scientists (unless you do not consider history to be a science), of whom a great number were NOT of Jewish ancestry. If you state that the Protocols have an extremely high level of accuracy in predicting the future, please give examples now.
A user mentioned before that the Protocols are fraudulent as an original work but accurately depict the existing prejudices against Jewish individuals and that the author(s) used those prejudices as a basis for their ideology. Thus, the Protocols are in no way an "accurate" depiction of reality, but rather an accurate depiction of the negative reputation of the Jews.
At the risk of being somewhat blunt and posting off topic: I'm fed up with the constant "conspiracy" accusations. I am a Jew myself, and if you refer to the conspiracy theory of being a description of reality (which is implied if you say that the Protocols are authentic), then I'd damned well like to know when I'll get my piece of the take - so far no one of my fellow Jews has approached me and offered me money or something (OK, I'll stop the rant now) --Vargher 21:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An unacceptable level of bias towards the opinion that the Protocols are 'fraudulent'. 

message: I found this passage on http://www.sherryshriner.com/protocols.htm and I have a few questions concerning it.  Here is the passage: 
"The Zionists—the Jesuits are the Great Zionists. They control all of the historical High Zionists—Theodor Herzl, David Ben-Gurion, Golda Meir. Zionism is a Masonic term, coined by the Jesuits. They are the rulers; they are the Protocols; they are the Elders of Zion. So the Zionists are, indeed, evil and wicked; but they are controlled by Rome. The Jews are not all Zionists."
Who made this statement and what is the connection between the zionists and Rome, the Jesuits and the Freemasions?
Any help would be most appreciated--Moosh88 22:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sherry Shriner made the statement - a nutter with a website who believes she is beset by demons, that white people constitute the true Israel and that blacks and jews are the spawn of satan. Charming. Paul B 23:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

text: In other words: it seems real, therefore it must be true. Just as with visual effects in the movies, "You will see unless blind..." ←Humus sapiens←ну? 22:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I've read it and I'm not convinced. You (as anybody else) is welcome to seriously contribute to the Subject matter or any other section. So far you were engaged in pure demagoguery. You insist that the doc 'is real' despite it having been proven fraud independently by numerous investigations. Apply the Occam's Razor and provide proof, just as with The Matrix, for example. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 01:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Passage 

message: This stuff about Japan in the article sounds, well, hard to believe.  What is the source for it?  Jkelly 05:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any reason not to cut all of the Japan-related statements to this Talk page until it is verified?  Jkelly 18:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Japan

message: Do we really want to change the title? I think it should remain as it was, with the movie being referred to at the top in the standard way (for the movie Protocols of Zion...). This is what the movie title refers to after all. I also wonder whether 'document' is the best label. The term implies that some supposed original manuscript exists somewhere. I'd prefer 'book' or 'text'. Paul B 16:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree 100%. Calling it a "document" contributes to its legitimization. Please restore the title. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 21:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: title

message: This article needs some detailed editing in order to adhere to NPOV standards. Throughout the last century it was seen as evidence of Jewish RELIGION conspiracy, and only fueled already present anti-Semetic thought. What the contributors to this article DO NOT consider is how the Protocols seem to be explaining our current world situation, as absurd as this sounds. It should be noted that those who refuse to dismiss the Protocols (certainly not the contributors of this article) no longer claim it to be a "Jewish conspiracy" of Jews by Jews. Only in anti-semetic far-right circles and militant Islamic indoctrination are the Protocols held to be an absolute issue of ethnicity. Those who believe in the Protocols maintain that it involves a number of people and a few happen to be Jews or married into Jewish line (some English in nationality). However, I'm not surprised that your collective conclusion is extremely POV'd, judging by your sources. Jewish scholars who are so quick to write off the Protocols because it is a dangerous document if interpreted as it has been. Everybody is afraid to not discredit an anti-Semetic source, but the irony is the Protocols themselves are only anti-Semetic if we allow them to be. In fact, in the Protocols scenario, nobody wins - not even the Jews.
With this in mind, and adhering to Wikipedia's NPOV policy, the first paragraphs are far too subjective. There is absolutely no reason to quote the encyclopedia for crying out loud. What do you think it is going to say, really? 
The whole reason Wikipedia exists is to deregulate the control of ideas. Objective reporting. The researcher may be compelled to find out more, but you cannot give such a strong slant as in this article to influence their view. I've scanned over the majority of conversations where similar review was encouraged. The arguments fellow dissenters have given far outway your "yeah, so what, it's fake and it's been proven to be" statements. All dissenters have been cold-shouldered on the premise that it has been proven a "forgery". A forgery of what? A half copied transcription of a French "comical parody"? Well, I'm not laughing, simply because there's too much going on that was mentioned in a text that was put together much to early to see such futuristic developments. I agree that the language is as vague as your daily horoscope in the newspaper and of course, there's always your Orson Wellesian fellow, but the uninformed READER needs to make up his or her mind. The article in its present state will prevent him from actually reading the Protocols simply because there is nothing to gain from such research because it is portrayed as 1) a ridiculous, obsolute lie and 2)used by anti-semetic groups. Who wants to read that? Our situation in 2005 really makes you scratch your head. And don't worry. Just because the Protocols experienced a surging popularity in the 20's based on world events doesn't mean the resurgence in its reading today would mean a second Holocaust. As I mentioned before, I think the Holocaust is reason enough to understand that any "conspiracy" does NOT involve an entire peoples, otherwise the situation in Europe would have been must different when Hitler began his discrimination and subsequent extermination. In conclusion, it never hurts to be a bit skeptical. I still remember not too long ago when everyone was running around yelling about WMD's and I was there shaking my head...
Wow, another posting by me. I really dislike this article until about "1905". It needs much more detail before that. Maybe it would be wise to have a short history section and then a linked "History of the Protocols..." ", starting a new page.  In the "the forger" section, it sounds as if Hermann Goedsche is the forger of the Protocols and there is far too much detail on a man who wrote a novel and only had basic ideas copied from it. Also, you're constant tagging of "anti-semite" is tiring. Was he a Jew hater? Or are you drawing this assumption from his book? If not, I apologize, but it is easy to see your slant in this article otherwise (and if I felt as sensitive about the issue, I probably would feel the same). But back then, everybody pretty much hated everybody and it seemed to me you are associating him with what came along with future developments.
---------------
:Please see WP:CITE, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV.  A careful reading of the applicable policies should answer your concerns.  To summarize, the fact that the text continues to fuel conspiracy-theory in the modern world is mentioned in the article with specific examples, we cannot accept any editor's analysis of the text and must rely entirely on reputable secondary sources, and NPOV states that fringe views should be mentioned, but identified as such.  It would be more productive to illustrate your concerns with specific sentences that could be improved rather than to use the NPOV tag and offer personal opinion on the talk page.  If you'd like to contribute to improving the article, the best way to do so would be to help with its referencing, as that tends to go a long ways to reducing POV problems.  Jkelly 19:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: I just thought of this, but can anyone here read Arabic? I would be curious to see how the "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" article is presented in the Arabic wikipedia section, since it must follow the same guidelines of the wiki community.--68.45.21.204 22:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've only studied Arabic for 1&1/2 years, but the article is only one line. It simply says that it was a forgery, that it was made in Paris, and something concerning Russia in 1905. Its a very short article. Avengerx 03:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Arabic anyone?

message: Okay. I am not as emotionally attached to the material, so perhaps it is easier for me to see how the strong feelings of several contributors have wormed their way into the article specifically through its wording. I plan to fix some of the parts I mentioned so the same information is presented a little differently. I am not going to repeat myself and waste my time, as such efforts will bring about another discussion war concerning personal convictions. As far as the article goes, I think it might be a good idea to consolidate the current nation by nation synopsis a bit and give more details about the content of the protocols. I'm  going to report, tone the article down a little and let you respond to my changes as you please. I'm not ready to engage in a debate when my cyber enemies have have not even seen the changes I plan to make. They involve the sentences I mentioned above, perhaps a few others if I happened to overlook them. Greater efforts need to be made to achieve as close to NPOV as possible, even in an article about something as controversial as the Protocols. This is how I plan to increase the value of the article. --68.45.21.204 22:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia editing is a collaborative, consensus process.  Please do not refer to those who disagree with you as your "cyber-enemies".  Also, please realize that unilateral action on controversial topics is bound to meet with resistance.  Why don't you propose a change or two here first? Jayjg (talk) 01:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please give me some time on this, as I will be busy for the rest of this week awhile. On a side note, I was refering only to certain unfriendly individuals - not all those who disagree with me. Humus' brash comments were particularly uncalled for. I think for a minute there he thought I was David Irving and he was taking his cue from Lipstadt.--68.45.21.204 02:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I admit I'm not her, but I do take misquotations seriously. As you can see from the history, this particular page is a magnet for trolls and conspiracy theorists. Let's put this incident behind us: if you are serious about contributing, I invite you to please register. Good neutral constructive editors are very welcome here. I promise that we'll get along just fine if we all stay within the WP:RULES and I personally will be happy to collaborate. Maybe I'll learn something. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 10:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. I've accumulated a number of resources related to the Protocols, so hopefully I'll be able to make some real contributions over the holiday. Cheers.--68.45.21.204 21:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A final word...for now

message: The POTLEOZ was written anonymously and has never been "proven" as this article says, to be forged.  Regardless of inquiries into it. Nothing has been "proven". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.70.95.203 (talk • contribs) .
:Please see WP:CITE.  Jkelly 18:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know why the anonymous authorship is relevant. Its fraudulent status has been proven beynd any reasonable doubt. Paul B 14:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autheticity