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

message: It would seem that given the vast amount of readers and believers in the document this article is about and the numerous amounts of people in the places noted in said article, some qualifications are appropriate. Using "many believe it was proved a hoax" rather than the authoritative "it was proved a hoax" takes into account the large minority or majority (given the ignorance by most of those in the industrialized countries paired with those in the Islamic world being saturated with the opposing viewpoint and the ratio of population differences). So one could argue in fact the idea that it was proved to be a hoax is true, but it would be just as true if not more so to say "many believe it". Many people do believe it was proved a hoax, and many (if not more) believe it was not proved a hoax. 69.248.237.88 04:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus gentium is a fallacy.  How many people believe that something was proved is utterly irrelevant to whether it was proved.  If you want to provide evidence challenging the proof then do so, but your comment as it stands has no bearing on the issue. -- 68.6.73.60 11:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The difference is, this is about a fraud and not about people's beliefs. Would you insist that genocidal propaganda spread by Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines could be true simply because many people believe it? ←Humus sapiens←ну? 04:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

text: "Many people believe that the Apollo astronauts landed on the moon."  No, no equal time for nonsense here.  Fringe theories can be treated in their place, and that's not the place.  And by the way, why did you try to hide your first edit under a misleading edit summary "wikify"?  Trying to sneak in your little anti-semitic bit without us noticing?  Antandrus  (talk) 04:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I used a Flat earth example on User talk:69.248.237.88.  This article does discuss, in detail, that many people have believed the document's claims.  That doesn't change the fact that its author was not who he was pretending to be.  We report people's beliefs, but we don't let widely-held errors to dictate content.  Jkelly 04:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

text: On the merit, we properly report that the Protocols have been proved a hoax beyond any reasonable doubts. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 05:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since neither you nor anyone else has provided reason to think it was not proven to be a hoax, there is no "debate".  That there are a large number of ignorant racists who are unaware of the proof is irrelevant -- as are those few who are aware of the proof but discount it because of their racism.  None of these people's disbelief changes the fact that it has been proven a hoax. -- 68.6.73.60 11:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, this a serious encyclopedia not a blog. Our job is to reflect encyclopedic knowledge not what "many observers believe". I will consider your further unconstructive comments trolling. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 06:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qualifications 

message: (Same applies for article about Anti-Semitism)
It says under a picture of a an Arabic book cover:
2005 Syrian edition of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion authorized by the Syrian Ministry of Information was featured at the Cairo International Book Fair
There are two reasons I'm against this:
1- It contains implicit criticism of the Syrian government (authorized by the Syrian MOI...).  Wikipedia shouldn't pick and choose which details about a certain picture to include in the caption, especially if they're biased.
2- The title of the book does NOT say it is the 'Syrian edition of The PEZ'.  The exact translation is:
'Lights on the the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (Complete Texts).  An Historical and Contemporary Investigative Study.' by Raja Abdulhamid Orabi.  Published by the Syrian publisher 'Dar al-Awael'.
--Fjmustak 00:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1. Why shouldn't the Syrian government be criticised if they deserve it? The captions of pictures in Wikipedia (and elsewhere) often contain explanatory comments, which are fine if they are accurate and relevant to the article. If its inaccurate, you have a fair point, but if it was authorised by the Syrian MOI, and "authorised" means more than just "allowed to be published", then I think the comment should stay, since it is relevant. 2. I'm sure you are right about the title, but it suggests to me that it consists of the "complete texts" of the 24 Protocols, plus some commentary by Orabi. If it contains the texts, then it's reasonable to call it an edition of the book. Paul B 02:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the text is accompanied by scholarly commentary, then it should at least be referred to as an "annotated edition" of the Protocols.  I would think it would matter a lot whether the text was presented as some sort of canonical truth, versus being presented with accurate commentary about its origins.  You can buy "Mein Kamph" in Germany, but it is a heavily annotated edition designed to educate, rather than to sell the Master Plan.  The complete title of the Syrian version of the Protocols tends to suggest it is a scholarly work, which includes the complete texts of the Protocols, rather than just the Protocols themselves.  So it's not unreasonable to suggest that the picture of the book fair with the accompanying caption might be misleading without further clarification.Hermitian 20:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it seems that it is accompanied by "scholarly commentary": the type of "scholarship" that "proves" the truth of this evil conspiracy with instances of Jewish villainy - just the kind of scholarship that distinguished Der Sturmer. Paul B 00:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I am in no way defending the Syrian gov't.  I'm just pointing out that the deliberate inclusion of "authorized by the Syrian Ministry of Information" seems to me like a POV, and Wikipedia articles are not forums for presenting one's opinion (even if it is a widely held one).  I don't know the extent of the involvement of the Syrian government in the publication of this book.  The "Featured at the Cairo International Book Fair" bit isn't that much better, as both statements are screaming "Arabs are bad".  The caption to me sounds something like "Bad book (Protocols) published by bad Arabs (Syrians) and promoted by more bad Arabs (Egyptians)."  I find this picture entirely out of place in this article (or at least at the top of it.  If it is moved to the section about Arab World Editions, with the proper caption, then maybe). --Fjmustak 23:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd love to believe it and to give them a benefit of the doubt, but here is the evidence that proves otherwise. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This site includes the scholarly writings of Professor Norman Finklestein, frequent debater of Alan Dershowitz in its list of horrible "anti-semitic" books.  I get the impression that this site throws the label of anti-semitic at anything critical of Zionism or Israel, no matter how well supported or researched.  Certainly an edition of the Protocols with Arab commentary will be critical of Zionist politics and Israeli and American foreign policy, and heavily focus on the plight of the Palestinians.  These things do not, as the site alleges, equate to not stating that the protocols are a fictional work.  If the book correctly points out the origins of the Protocols, and its fictional nature, it is certainly free to point out any seeming similarities between the Protocols and the behavior of the Israelis, just as US propaganda and Neoconservative books take liberties with analogies between modern Arab regimes and historical jackbooted thuggery.  Can one even count the number of Saddam Hussein/Hitler comparisons?Hermitian 01:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, for heaven's sake, what sophistry. Comparing Saddam to Hitler is just a rhetorical trope. George Bush, Ariel Sharon and any number of other people have been compared to Hitler. It just means they are believed to be behaving dictatorially. Making an analogy between Arab regimes and the Nazis is of the same order. Opponents of Neoconservatives can - and do - make exactly the same analogy about the US government. Whether or not these analogies are at all fair or meaningful is besides the point; we all recognise them to be political rhetoric. Comparing the actions of the gov't of Israel to the Protocols is not of the same order. It means only one thing: that the Protocols accurately portray a Jewish conspiracy that is exemplied in some way by events in the world around us. It is pretty clear that this edition of the Protocols makes those very claims. Paul B 09:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Saying the protocols are written by a Jew relating firsthand knowlege of a Jewish conspiracy is a lie.  Saying Israel uses tricks described in the protocols is an opinion, just as saying Arab regimes act like the Nazis is an opinion.  Opinions are protected, lies are not.  Calling Norman Finklestein's scholarly criticism of the use of the Holocaust for political purposes "anti-Semitic" is a lie.Hermitian 16:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hermitian, please discuss topics directly related to the subject, instead of sharing your political views: WP is not a soapbox. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am stating facts, not political views.  Those facts are that the current article is biased, because it says nothing about what is in the Protocols, and just goes on and on about how terrible the Jews think they are.  A balanced article would contain both criticism and examples of the text, and not propaganda trying to suggest that they are an official publication of the Syrian government.  Aside from the fact of their fictional authorship, the Protocols are an interesting read, and comparisons between the techniques described in them and the political shenanigans of any political group, including the Zionists, are certainly a legitimate topic for any political pundit or scholar wishing to write about such subjects, and are not a priori lies, forgeries, hate, or any of the many other labels you seem to want to attribute to them, for reasons which should be blatantly obvious.Hermitian 01:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What facts? I couldn't find anything on that website about Norman Finklestein or any assertions about his "horrible anti-semitic books". Even if such a view were expressed, it's not a "lie", since it can't be factually proven or disproven; it's an opinion, which according to you is "protected". If you, or anyone else wants to add more to this page about the content of the Protocols, go ahead. I'm sure you've read all 24 and can given a detailed account of their rather repetitive contents. Bear in mind that it is a book that was written and compiled c.1900, a time when numerous books were being published that looked back at the 19th century and ahead to the 20th. Many of the ideas were in circulation at the time. Many are completely unfalsifiable because they encompass all possibilities (the conspirators will control the press, but will confuse people by expressing multiple contradictory opinions!). Often it's not clear when the Elders are describing what the "kingdom" will be like when they rule and when they are describing how they will bring about the collapse of Christian civilisation that will make this happen. The whole thing reads like the fantasies of frustrated authoritarians, projecting their own desires onto shadowy villains they would love to be. Paul B 01:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Israeli website cited as "evidence" of the allegations about Syria's association with the Protocols contains a section which reads "The following are some of the anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli books published by Dar Al-Awael, taken from its Internet site and from a list that appears at the end of The Protocols."  One book featured is what appears to be a Arab translation of Norman Finklesteins 2003 book, "The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering," whose title translated from English to Arabic and back to English has been rendered as "How the Jews Created the Holocaust." Presumably, Holocaust here refers to the aforementioned modern for-profit "Holocaust Industry" and not to the World War II event with a similar name.Hermitian 02:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I must have somehow missed that. Still it's not a "lie" unless the authors are deliberately mistranslating the title. The website is clearly polemical, but it's hardly surprising given the well-publicised statements of senior middle-east politicians regarding the holocaust etc. Anyway, the caption has been modified to address legitimate queries. If you wish to add more on the content of the Protocols there is nothing stopping you beyond NPOV and other Wikipedia policies. Paul B 15:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I think Fjmustak has a point about the authorisation. Even the website cited by Humus sapiens provides no evidence of government support for the book beyond a tiny bit of text which appears to mean nothing more than that the book is authorised for publication. In a highly censored culture this may be significant, but it's pushing things to imply that this amounts to government approval or endorsement.  Paul B 00:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not against reflecting the real title, but the idea that Syrian MOI puts the spotlight on the Protocols in order to debunk it needs serious proof. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fairly clear that the edition is not intending to debunk the Protocols but to affirm them. The question is whether the "authorisation" means anything more than that the book has passed censorship regulations.  Paul B 00:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Syrian MOI gave their "authorisation" (whatever that means). Unless this fact is in dispute, I don't see a problem reporting that. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is only stating fact and besides, the only countries where modern editions of the Protocols are Arab nations. Most Arab nations are also obviously and publicly anti-semitic or anti-zionist (Official statements, blatant cartoons/articles, and policies), so Syria should be proud to have its edition shown on wikipedia.  Otherwise we could just choose another Arab nation's edition for a modern copy.  Which would just lead to more protest.  So let us leave it at that, Syrians haven't spoken up and are probably proud. --Exander 08:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Syrian edition of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion 

message: No one is going to ever successfully convince another person who has a completely different opinion on this. For those that claim the Protocols is true, you have a mountain of evidence to go against, which means that you bear the burden of proof, so you're not going to get anywhere or gain any converts here. For those that claim the Protocols is false, inevitably someone's going to say that it's all one big conspiracy and ignore the evidence, simply because pretty much everything is inherently unprovable (see solipsism). Of course, I'm a nihilist if you're wondering, so I'm pretty much neutral on this issue and everything else. I'd post my IP address as a signature here too, but DHCP makes that kinda pointless.
:It's certainly seems "kinda pointless" for a nihilist to proselytize nihilism.  And that's just one element of the confusion expressed here.  For instance, asserting (correctly) that there's a mountain of evidence that the Protocols are fraudulent is not neutral.  And if someone had reason to wonder, then your being a nihilist would not be "of course".  And the view that "pretty much everything is inherently unprovable" is scepticism, not solipsism.  If you're a solipsist, then there are no "people" for you to tell to give up.  And if you're a sceptic, then you shouldn't expect us to believe a word you say -- nor for you to.  I could go on but ... hey, who am I trying to convince? :-) -- 68.6.73.60 12:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just Give Up, People 

message: Two little details.  The first is that the Egyptian-edition book cover "gallery" causes the text there to float very strangely on my screen.  I'll try to play around with the images a little.  I'm not sure that all four are necessary.  The other detail is that the "See also" list contains cross-references already made in the article.  Neither of these is likely to be a big issue at WP:FAC, but I thought I'd mention them.  Jkelly 05:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can someone please check my formatting edit?  I don't want everyone's else screen to be full of blank space so that it looks right to me.  Jkelly 05:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me - I am going to nominate, lets see what happens. --Goodoldpolonius2 05:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Could you please check fmt. again: I did what WP image guide recommends. I also added an illustration from Nilus's 1912 book. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Floating problem remains fixed on this end.  Jkelly 15:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jkelly, care to vote on the FAC? --Goodoldpolonius2 02:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a lot of activity right now.  I'll give the article another read-through when things stabilize a bit.  Jkelly 02:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm pretty happy with the latest revision, except the 1st paragraph in the Literary analysis section contains weird text: "(There seems to be some confusion here, because the Jesuit plotters were in Sue's book The Wandering Jew, which was not in fact about Jews." - at least the paren. ")" needs to be closed or removed, but I find this comment confusing. Thoughts? ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been there for a while. It was apparently added by someone who was querying the ascription of the material to The Mysteries of the People, implying that it comes from another novel called The Wandering Jew. I did a web search on this a while ago, but could not find anything to clarify the matter, so left it as it was, not having read either of Sue's works. The current passage is also not clear what "pamphlet" is being referred to in the last sentence ("In Sue's work, the plotters were Jesuits, and the Jews do not appear in the pamphlet."). Is this Joly's text, or Sue's novel? Paul B 01:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor quibbles

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

message: IZAK just made many changes (all marked minor) to the article, and I was hoping we could discuss our preferences between the two version. My big issues are that he removed the references to the document being a "fake" and a "hoax" in the intro and instead called it a "disputed text" and similarly grouped it with Mein Kampf, which, while "notorious," is certainly not a fake document, and instead actually uses the Protocols as a source. I also found the eight one or two sentence sections that were created at the beginning of the article hard to read, and personally preferred the version that started out with the content of the document before explaining how it was used.  I have a lot of respect for IZAK's work, so this preference might just be me, and I am happy to go back to IZAK's version if the other editors think that it works better stylistically. --Goodoldpolonius2 14:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry IZAK, with all due respect I have to agree with GOP2 on all points here. Main Kampf was not a hoax/fraud/forgery, so dispute there is of different nature. I would like to avoid micro-sections as well. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Lots and lots of improving going on.  Jkelly 21:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I added The Protocols of the Elders of Zion#Recent findings section. I feel that it makes a better ending, but wouldn't object if you find it a better home. ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

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

text: It's impossible to make the judgement that these two books are the "most anti-semitic" polemics of the 20th century. Even Mein Kampf comes over as relatively mild in comparison to Der Sturmer, and I'm sure there are other texts as extreme and even more so. One of the odd things about the protocols is the fact that Judaism as such is barely mentioned, which is one reason why other conspirators have sometimes been proposed. It might be said to be the most influential anti-semitic text of the 20th century, but that might be disputed too. Paul B 14:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Paul: Der Sturmer was a newspaper so why are you mentioning that? The subject of this article is about The Protocols as a book and in that context it is on a par with Mein Kampf. Also, "...a polemic text on a topic is written specifically to dispute or refute a topic that is widely viewed to be a "sacred cow" or beyond reproach, in an effort to "stir up trouble"..." (Wikipedia). Can you come up with the name/s of any other book/s that exceeded The Protocols and Mein Kampf in their impact and durability over time and in their continuing evil influence upon all manner of anti-Semites? IZAK 11:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Where do these ratings come from? ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  IZAK, you've lost me. Since when was the word "polemic" restricted to books? I was commenting on the form of the sentence you placed at the topic of this section in bold. Also that Wikipedia definition of polemic is rather bad, I think. It's not usually required that an attack should be on something "beyond reproach", just that should be an attack. The OED defines polemic as "a controversial argument or discussion; argumentation against some opinion, doctrine, etc.; aggressive controversy; in pl. the practice of this, esp. as a method of conducting theological controversy: opposed to irenics [theological argument designed to emphasise unity rather than division]." Der Stuermer was undeniably polemical. Anyway my last sentence clearly stated that the PEZ could be described as the most influential of these texts, but that some would query that, and it's probably unprovable. Paul B 18:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent changes

message: Humus: I did not say that Mein Kampf is a "hoax/fraud/forgery" (where did you get that idea from?) What I did say is: "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion together with Hitler's Mein Kampf (published 1925) are the most anti-Semitic polemics of the twentieth century and have retained their appeal and longevity in spite of their proven notoriety." Note the meaning of the word Polemic: "Polemic is the art or practice of inciting disputation or causing controversy, for example in religious, philosophical, or political matters. As such a polemic text on a topic is written specifically to dispute or refute a topic that is widely viewed to be a "sacred cow" or beyond reproach, in an effort to "stir up trouble"." (Wikipedia). Thus when calling something a "polemic" it is regardless of whether it is a "hoax" or "real" but rether it is a focus on the style, contents and objective of the text/book. Thus my edit, that "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion together with Hitler's Mein Kampf (published 1925) are the most anti-Semitic polemics of the twentieth century and have retained their appeal and longevity in spite of their proven notoriety", should go back into the article! IZAK 13:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's impossible to make the judgement that these two books are the "most anti-semitic" polemics of the 20th century. Even Mein Kampf comes over as relatively mild in comparison to Der Sturmer, and I'm sure there are other texts as extreme and even more so. One of the odd things about the protocols is the fact that Judaism as such is barely mentioned, which is one reason why other conspirators have sometimes been proposed. It might be said to be the most influential anti-semitic text of the 20th century, but that might be disputed too. Paul B 14:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Paul: Der Sturmer was a newspaper so why are you mentioning that? The subject of this article is about The Protocols as a book and in that context it is on a par with Mein Kampf. Also, "...a polemic text on a topic is written specifically to dispute or refute a topic that is widely viewed to be a "sacred cow" or beyond reproach, in an effort to "stir up trouble"..." (Wikipedia). Can you come up with the name/s of any other book/s that exceeded The Protocols and Mein Kampf in their impact and durability over time and in their continuing evil influence upon all manner of anti-Semites? IZAK 11:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Where do these ratings come from? ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  IZAK, you've lost me. Since when was the word "polemic" restricted to books? I was commenting on the form of the sentence you placed at the topic of this section in bold. Also that Wikipedia definition of polemic is rather bad, I think. It's not usually required that an attack should be on something "beyond reproach", just that should be an attack. The OED defines polemic as "a controversial argument or discussion; argumentation against some opinion, doctrine, etc.; aggressive controversy; in pl. the practice of this, esp. as a method of conducting theological controversy: opposed to irenics [theological argument designed to emphasise unity rather than division]." Der Stuermer was undeniably polemical. Anyway my last sentence clearly stated that the PEZ could be described as the most influential of these texts, but that some would query that, and it's probably unprovable. Paul B 18:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ''The Protocols'' and ''Mein Kampf'' as [[Polemic]]s

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

message: Per repeated requests at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, I tried to move the small images into img gallery. I am not even sure if that would be my own preference, feel free to comment, revert, etc. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it looks tremendously better this way.  Nice job!  Kaisershatner 16:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gallery 

message: "Reportedly, Arabic editions issued in the Middle East were found on sale as far as in London bookstores" (see "Middle East"): "reportedly" is a weasel term. Were they or were they not found on sale in London? Can someone verify this?
: No, "reportedly" is not a weasel term when the report is provided. Instead of saying categorically that it is true, we provide a link to the report. I don't see anything wrong with that. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On sale in London? 

message: Dear anonymous. a great deal of work has been put into this article to conform to WP policy. Mere assertions about "half the world" do not justify the POV tag. I'm sure many people in the world believe that Jews form an international power-network, or are overly influential on US policy, or even directing it etc. etc. But unless you have specific evidence that people believe that the plot outlined in the Protocols is actually true, then your statement is unsupported. Even if any number of people believe this that still does not justify the tag. This belief can be noted in the article - as indeed it is - alongside the opinions of historians on the matter. Would you put a POV flag on an article about the 9/11 attacks if it did not give equal weight to both the theory that it was carried out by Islamists and the theory that it was a Jewish plot? The latter is no doubt widely believed by the very same people you claim believe in the Protocols. Paul B 12:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 80.5.212.85's POV tag

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

message: Galleries of copyright-infringing images are really not okay.  See Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Fair use.  A gallery doesn't allow for even the slightest pretense for critical commentary on an image, and fails to keep copyright-infringing images to a minimum.
That said, some of the images I removed are from the '20s and early '30s.  They may well be in the public domain per United States copyyright law.  If that is the case we can use them without concern, and update their copyright templates to reflect that.  Jkelly 19:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of book covers are considered under Wikipedia:Fair use. --Scaife (Talk)  Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 20:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Book covers are a particularly safe claim of "fair use" in an article about that book... but a gallery of twelve of them with no commentary fails our own Wikipedia:Fair use policy.  Jkelly 20:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 00:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe a dozen is too many, but I think a couple more would adequately illustrate the article's text. I'll try to provide relevant and concise captions. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: You uploaded most of them.  Do you have a source for them, or more information about their copyright holders?  What is the deal with things published in 1920s Poland, for instance? Jkelly 21:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure, I can and will try to provide sources where they are missing. I feel that at this point it's a waste of time because fair use images not used anywhere will be removed from WP soon. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm suggesting that some of them may not be under an unfree copyright; the ones from the 20s and 30s may have expired copyrights.  See this chart.Jkelly 21:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gallery of images 

message: The article contains references to 46 numbered endnotes, but there are only 5 such notes.  What happened to the other citations?  It seems incredible to me that an article with such sloppy documentation should be a featured article.  I do not say that the article is in any way inacurate.  It seems to be rather, a result of many, many, uncoordianated editing updates.  Perhaps there should be an automatic process for checking consistency of references? Too Old 20:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The referencing was messed-up due to an unclosed markup tag.  I reverted to restore it.  I would like a knowledgable editor to restore any verifiable and relevent information lost in my revert (but watch out for those unclosed tags!).  Jkelly 21:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and in the process you eliminated all my edits. I believe I am responsible for the problem with the markup, as all this html-ing is somewhat foreign to me. I'll give the article a close look before restoring the work which I cited. --Hohns3 04:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References? 

message: I see some structural weaknesses in the article, which perhaps aren't readily apparent to people who are very familiar with the material, but were disconcerting for me. 
*The "Origins and content" section stops before it has become clear how the work reached its present form. I think some material from the "Emergence in Russia" section should be moved back. 
*Philip Graves' Times article is referred to in the "Excerpts" section as if it has already been mentioned, but it hasn't. 
*The Excerpts section seems to be in the wrong place. As it relates to the plagiarism which created the final work it would be better to position it after it has been shown how that was uncovered, that is after the "The Times exposes a forgery, 1921" section. Consideration should also be given to renaming "Excerpts" to "Plagiarism"
Osomec 01:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Structural weaknesses

message: The following sentence is not very clear:
:Matvei Golovinski worked together with Charles Joly (son of Maurice Joly) at Le Figaro in Paris and wrote articles at the direction of Pyotr Rachkovsky, Chief of the Russian secret service
Who was Matvei Golovinski? Did the articles appear in Le Figaro as I at first assumed, or was that merely his place of work, as seems more likely on second thoughts? What was the significance of the "essays"? Did they contain any new material? How did they relate to the final book form? What language were they in? Osomec 01:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bad sentence

message: The phrase "The Protocols enjoyed another wave of popularity in Russia after 1905" needs to be backed up by evidence that the impact of the 1903 edition amounted to a "wave of popularity". Osomec 01:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it was published in 1992-post-USSR Russia, as documented on an image beginning the article, so I assume that this illustrates the wretched pamphlet's influence in the aforementioned Federation. Эйрон Кинни (t) 01:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An inference about 1903 needs to be backed up by information about 1903, not about post-1992. Was the 1903 edition a best seller? Was it praised by influential critics? That's the sort of information that is needed.  Osomec 02:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about that. Best-seller seems to be far fetched, but it's possible in anti-Semitic Imperial Russia and Nazi Germany especially. Эйрон Кинни (t) 08:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unverified inference

message: As a person of Jewish heritage I find this article informative and well done in every respect. I find the notion that this is "offensive" to be ludicrous. Thank you, Wikipedia, on behalf of Jews everywhere who are interested in quality information on a fascinating topic. 82.22.210.178 01:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it less than amusing that you are an anonymous user, your user page is completely blank, and your above comment is the one and only contribution you have ever made to Wikipedia.  What hole did you creep out of? - mbeychok 02:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop violating WP policies against personal attacks.   Your comments are subject to deletion per that policy. -- 68.6.73.60 12:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

text: First time users who make sincere and reasonable comments are very welcome. You owe him/her an apology. Osomec 02:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously, why are you accosting someone who is congratulating Wikipedia? The anon did not purport to be a long-standing contributor, in fact that the way they use Wikipedia in the third person probably indicates they are not. Please see WP:BITE. savidan(talk) (e@) 03:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It's just one person who has lost his temper. Hopefully he's gone away from his computer now. Osomec 02:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Kent Hovind is an anti-Semite? Where did you learn that? Anyway, the anonymous user is correct and is right in every respect. Эйрон Кинни (t) 02:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We are currently making the unreferenced claim in Kent Hovind that he sells the book, along with Fourth Reich for the Rich.  Jkelly 02:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was unaware of that. Эйрон Кинни (t) 02:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: I just removed the following from the article.  I've fussed with this section before, and I've been fussing with it today.
According to Moses Altsech, Associate Professor of Marketing at Edgewood College, the Protocols are easy to find in Greek bookstores. The Neo-Nazi group Hrisi Avgi ("Golden Dawn") consider the book to be an accurate document and distribute their edition to their members.(Anti-Semitism in Greece: Embedded in Society An Interview with Moses Altsech)
This is the only mention of Europe in the modern section.  I am concerned that we are singling out Greece for being in some way exceptional.  I am also concerned that Altsech is not really a reliable source, so far as Wikipedia defines it, for making a statement that The Protocols have an exceptional popularity in Greece, which seems to be what we're implying.  Thoughts?  Jkelly 05:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually thought about kicking it out earlier, but I saw you were tweaking it and I wanted to see the outcome. It seems a bit POV to me. --Scaife (Talk)  Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 06:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Greece as exceptional?

message: Making this a featured article is as dumb as the fanboy who tried to promote the Hollywood starlet a few months back. Justifiably her name escapes me now. Anyway wikipedia should not be alt.conspiracy.theory ...
You, my anonymous friend, did not RTFA.  
Joey 09:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know asking them to read the whole 57 kb article is a lot, but is it really too much to ask that they just read the first 2 paragraphs? Raul654 09:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Contrary to what you may think, there are actually only about a dozen trolls on the entire Internet.  So they don't have a lot of time at all to spend in any particular place before they need to head off elsewhere and continue the trolling.  This is why trolls often give the appearance of not being knowledgeable in the discussion at hand; in actuality, they are simply just very busy.  --Cyde Weys 09:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why IS THIS NOTEWORTHY???

message: lot of noise to make about a fake book.  lots of "axis of evil" countries seem to publish the book too.  i'm sure dubya will appreciate the effort...
:: This book is around for a century and has fed anti-semitism quite well. Being blunt and providing information on its "authenticity" before more people fall into its trap, is a very good idea. --Fs 09:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  hmm 

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

message: Is anyone else surprised that such a poorly organized article reached "featured" status?  The history of the subject is arbitrarily divided between "Origins and content" and "Historical publications, usage, and investigations," (two annoyingly wordy headings, actually all of the headings are pretty horrible).  What ever happened to simple "History" sections?  The "Contemporary usage" lists nations in a random order, with standard wikipedia parafrags, such as:
:To a great degree, the text is still accepted as truthful in large parts of South America and Asia, especially in Japan where variations on the Protocols have frequently made the bestseller lists.[41]
:In February 2003, Australian publication Hard Evidence presented the Protocols as factual and that Jews were responsible for 2002 Bali bombing.
These are not paragraphs.  How about this:
:In the United States, the Protocols were republished as fact in 1991 in William Milton Cooper's Behold a Pale Horse.
Introductory sentence, body, concluding sentence?  Fourth grade english?  This article is just a bunch of crappy sentences thrown in some half-assed sections.  If this is actually brilliant prose, then I should have won a fucking Nobel prize in literature by now.—This unsigned comment was added by 63.114.24.9 (talk • contribs) .
:As the editor who took some responsibility for the article's overall organization during the FA nom, I consider this a personal attack (Of course, it has been extensively edited since then, but you should have seen what it was like). Be civil and sign your posts, please. Daniel Case 22:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With respect, you're wrong. The above comment is directed squarely at the article, and not at you. Raul654 22:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  True, but it's still falls into the category of being a WP:DICK to criticise the article in such an unhelpful way. Pointing out weaknesses in articles is a healthy thing, but belittling and judgmental comments (like some of the anon's above) we can do without. — Matt Crypto 16:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  article organization 

message: At best some of the new material on this page is disrupting. At worst, it's pure provocation. Neither Muslims, Jews nor Aliens control Wikipedia, as evidenced by the overwhelming amount of on-going edit wars on disputed issues.
Featuring the article may or may not have been a good decision, but right now there may be a different problem: deliberatly inflamatory and controversial statements, directed, I suspect, at causing unrest in Wikipedia society (or just stirring up the pond around Jews, you pick what's worse). Already attempts are being made at circumventing Wikipedia policy. Is it okay to name-call in the headline? "Well, no... but what, you're gonna start an edit war on the talk page?.." No, I won't start an edit war.
I will, however, call on the visitors of this page to maintain their (and other people's) dignity. Sure, it's easy to be polite when talking about sheep. It's a tad harder when the subject is a sensitive one. I understand that. I also understand that discipline is doubly crucial under fire. Yes, it's hard, but that's when it counts. --Chodorkovskiy 19:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Troll alert 

message: i knew that the jewishes rule whole planet, but i didnt expect to rule wikipedia too..obviously/unfortunately wikipedia is a good means to promote jewish propaganda against EVERYONE --Feta 20:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jews rule the whole planet?  Name three Jewish heads of state. Superm401 - Talk 21:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Facts are irrelavant; it's the truthiness of the statement that makes all the difference. Raul654 21:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to be frank, but you're full of it. If the Jews ruled the world, do you think 6,000,000 of them would've been liquidated in the 1930s-40s? The Jews are downtrodden, degraded, persecuted, and even murdered, to say they rule the earth is a misinformed and incorrect disillusion.  Эйрон Кинни (t) 03:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Kinney, please retract your last comment. First, ad hom is never justified and second, I think you completely misunderstood Raul654 here. He's making fun of conspirator-wannabes. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Sorry Aaron, it seems I misunderstood your comment. I didn't realize you are addressing Feta and not Raul. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  for God sake.. 

message: I've started blocking users for outrageous violations of WP:CIVIL on these page.  Any baseless, inflammatory, or vulgar accusations of bias, either pro-Semitic or anti-Semitic, are not welcome here.  --Cyde Weys 21:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice justification for censorship. 65.97.17.55 23:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

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