Talk:The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4
Featured article star The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 19, 2006.
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is part of WikiProject Jewish history, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardized and up-to-date resource for all articles related to Jewish history.

If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, also consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Jewish history articles.
Project Jewish history To-do:
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Books Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Peer review This Langlit article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement only, and are not for engaging in discussion of off-topic matters not related to the main article. User talk pages are more appropriate for non-article-related discussion topics. Please do not use this page as a discussion forum for off-topic matters. See talk page guidelines.
Archive
Archives
1, 2, 3, 4


Contents

[edit] pamphlet, book, or text

I've replaced the first with the third. Sometimes it has appeared as a "book." So it's more accurate to call it a "text," rather than a "pamphlet." --151.202.87.159 19:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maurice Joly: diabolical plotters in hell

Who contributed this phrase: "using the device of diabolical plotters in Hell as stand-ins for Napoleon's views"

What device are you alluding to here? The device Joly uses is as the title suggests a dialogue, but it is not a dialogue among plotters, quite contrary. Machiavelli simply presents his ideas to the humanist Montesquieu. Machiavelli clearly represents Napoleon III. And that was well understood, otherwise he wouldn't have been sent to jail. Montesquieu functions as a foil, the non-plotter, to whom the ideas are presented. He is not important for Joly, that why he is underrepresented compared to Machiavelli. He is definitely no plotter. This makes me really furious. Had Joly made a plotter out of Montesquieu this would have seriously hurt his design.

Please! who wrote this? If blotters is meant to allude to both Machiavelli and Montesquieu, I suggest you take a look the Montesquieu page. This is a highly irritating passage for everyone who read Joly. LeaNder 18:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I made an attempt to fix it. Please see if this is better, feel free to correct, criticize, suggest improvements, etc. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I feel we met before? Humus_sapience was it around Brook talk? Ok, I'll try something. I read it very, very fast and it admittedly is not completely fresh, on my mind and not around here, but the outlines, I think I can handle.80.135.192.99 18:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] completely wrong qualifications of this book

It says: "...is an ANTISEMITIC text that purports to describe a Jewish plot to achieve world domination".

The book is NOT ANTI-SEMITIC at all because it does not CONTAIN any bad opinion on Jews. On the contrary, the book speaks with great enthusiasm about the Jews missions in the planet.

I am very much astonished about the fact that someone can write an obviously wrong idea in so-called "featured article" about such well-known text. It would be the same if one would say that Hitler's "Mein Kampf" is anti-German, which obviously is not.

However an author of this extremely biased text could argue that INTENTIONS or PURPOSE of the "Elders of Zion" have been anti-Semitic by his opinion and the opinions expressed in his references. That would be a fact. Also the fact would be that there are a lot of people who has different opinions on this subject and also have a lot of references to support their contradictory opinion on this particular subject. The absence of these opinions in this moment does not mean they will not show up and speak for themselves and expose the contrary opinion on this subject.

That's why the original author is very wrong when saying that the book "is a literary forgery", because that is (still) not the proven fact and seriously challenged by so many authors. In the meantime if this "encyclopedia" really wants to be an Encyclopedia I would recommend the author to keep to the facts. Please. Slavne 07:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Please start new discussions at the bottom. We do not strive to represent all the range of popular opinions here, see WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS. More than enough notable scholars call the text antisemitic. All this has been talked to death in talk archives. Please review them. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


I really did not want to spoil any concepts you or some other responsible people would have when arranging and editing Wikipedia. My reaction is about something I consider very obvious and contradictory to elementary logic, as follows.

Mr Humus said: "We do not strive to represent all the range of popular opinions here".

Dear Sir, this what you said would be quite understandable if we would have 60 different opinions on this subject; but in this case we have only TWO: either pro or against. Even in common daily reporing news there is a basic rule for objective reporting: hear the other side. This encyclopedia should be even more then short reporting.

Mr. Humus said: "More than enough notable scholars call the text anti-Semitic."

There has been times when more then enough scholars argued that the Sun rotates around the Earth as well. If this encyclopedia purports to be such, then objectivism is banned from it. Why so? Simply because one accepted article in Wikipedia itself says this: "Anti-Semitism (alternatively spelled anti-Semitism or anti-Semitism) is 'discrimination, hostility or prejudice' directed at Jews." Now it is the question: "Are you going to accept 'more then enough scholars opinion' or are you going to accept your own definition in Wikipedia?" Because I have just recently read "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" but nowhere in it I simply cannot find any single discrimination or hostility against Jews in that book. On the contrary, I find only praise for them! Perhaps I have some other edition? Or something is very wrong with Wikipedia definition of anti-Semitism? Or something is very wrong with the article "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion"?

And what's more. I am really not interested to discussing the intricacies of this book, or to participate in the long discussion. If you want that, then I recommend you to see the old archive that you mentioned. What I would ask the original author is just to use a little bit common logic before he writes any such highly biased text. I am really sorry, but I do not have time to provide anybody for a (very) long list of "enough notable scholars" who have had the exactly opposite opinion then presented in the article. If the original authors of the so called "featured article" don't even bother to know that list by themselves, that is the additional reason for me to back off.

Anyway thank you for your time. Slavne 08:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not about Mr Humus. Reputable scholarly sources overwhelmingly agree that the Protocols is an epitome of antisemitic hostility, prejudice and conspiracy theories. No original research please. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

He has a valid point. The book is not anti-semitic. Whether it feeds anti-semitism or not is another question. And Slavne, those notable scholars DO NOT say the book is directly anti-semitic, but reflect on the idea that it can feed anti-semitism. This should be written in the article far more clearly. And most anti-semites are anti-semitic due to far wider reasons than a little pamphlet called the protocols of Zion. Many reasons including cultural clashes, in the case of Arabs, the creation of Israel and the violent nature of Islam; in case of the Americans and Europeans, the overwhelming number of Jewish people working within powerful areas and the media. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to read the credits of Friends, or a hollywood film to realize the industry has a disproportionate number of Jewish people. This in it self feeds jealousy, and jealousy feeds hatred, and hatred feeds the term anti-semitism. Are we going to call hollywood films and other factors that feed anti-semitism anti-semitic? No. And if you can't agree with what i've written, then your level of thinking is perhaps a few steps down. I do understand there are Jewish people here eagerly ruling out other ideas than their own in regards to this article, but you are forgetting that Jewish bias in it self also feeds anti-semitism. When someone reads the archives and the article and see's the heavily Jewish bias, it will feed their anti-semitic ideas, that Jews control the world. So think twice about the stance you take. --87.194.3.52 14:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I do agree that "Mein Kampf" is not anti-German, but that because it was written by someone who admired Germany. On the other hand, it is widely discussed that this book was written on purpose of feeding and stimulating anti-semitism. Therefor, unrelated to its content, it is anti-semitic, since spurring anti-semitism is its goal. "Mein Kamph" was not published as a anti-German text. "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" is currently being published (in Arab states for example) as a sort of "anti-semitic bible", and every one of its previous publications had similar purposes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.1.202.88 (talk) 22:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The Protocols text is obviously not Anti-semitic. On the contrary it is anti-"anyone who isn't Jewish(goyim)". This doesn't mean it hasn't been used by those who are anti-semtical of course. The other question is thay of it being a forgery/hoax. This needs proper citation in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vexorg (talk • contribs) 23:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

slavne: final notes ------------>>>

After one year of absence from this topic, I was surprised to find out that this comment of mine have spurred a considerable discussion. Even more, when rereading the article and the rest of discussions that came afterwards, I found out the current version of the article is even more biased then it was one year ago. Basically the article is still as highly biased as possible towards the “Opinion A”. The Opinion “A” states the “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” is a pamphlet, anti-Semitic and forgery. The Opinion B is more or less different then Opinion A, or have some REASONABLE doubts at least.

What again surprises me is the whole article is obviously utterly 100% devoted to the “Opinion A”. Even article's structure is completely out of objectivity supporting Opinion A: it starts with a conclusion of Opinion A! The article does not start with what the “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” talks about, what OBJECTIVELY IT IS, what it SAYS, but it starts with “The writing has been REVEALED to be ....”. It STARTS with an conclusive opinion! Happily with the Opinion A.

Not all, but most of paragraphs are actually has made me smile. Here is one just randomly chosen from the beginning: “The original manuscript (if there ever was one), is not extant. No submissions to direct forensic study have ever been made. Rather, scholars and researchers have been forced to rely primarily on textual analysis and reports from alleged witnesses”. What a shame, there is no “evidence”! Does the author of the article have ever heard about the Bible or Talmud? Where are the original manuscripts of those books? Maybe the merciful God hid them somewhere. What forensic study have been done on them, because they are also extensively analyzed? What “alleged witnesses” support Bible or Talmud? Should we search for them?

My point is not to compare religious scripts with “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” but to point out that OBJECTIVE article should deal with the non-disputable facts AS SUCH, and with disputable facts AS SUCH. No more, no less.

But the objective article correction is not done even after one year. The editors of Wikipedia in charge are proponents of Opinion A. The A proponents do not even recognize the PROPER EXISTENCE of Opinion B people. They found it even easier to write a VERY LONG ARTICLE commenting their CHOSEN critics of group B and quoting THEIR "A" sources. In the discussion part some of the A proponents are even calling the B group people bad names, as if they are some lunatics. What happened to you people?

I came to the final conclusion after one year. The main Wikipedia editors, the people who can decide what will stay in the article “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” and what will be deleted, are HIGHLY BIASED AND NON-OBJECTIVE people. I do not know who owns Wikipedia: who originally pays for the servers, for the software, for the electricity bills, for maintenance and so on. This could be theses for one of Wikipedia articles? What I do know is Wikipedia is unreliable and very suspicious place when serious questions arise. The Wikipedia editors state ONLY THEIR SOURCES WITH THEIR OPINIONS. What a delight choice! What is the PURPOSE of any source anyway? Does it happens to have a little bit of truth, a little bit of objectivity, a little bit of COMMON SENSE? No. The authors in charge are considering themselves as Gods with the rest of scholars and sources non-existing, they imply them to be non-valuable AND THEY DO NOT QUOTE THEM. Group A imply there are NO reputable sources for Opinion B, but even if that is true that does not make Group A sources reputable.

I invite everybody to just ignore Wikipedia. It seems chief editors here are not free people, they very probably belong to somebody/something else. I did not personally believed in “conspiracies” one year ago when I wrote my comment. After analyzing the article “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” now, when seeing how much biased the text is, I am really easy to start believing in “theories”. But not the way the article is meant to be. The article is MANIPULATION. Thank you again, people A. Whoever you are.

slavne --Slavne (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I agree: It is NOT Anti-Semitic!!

This book is NOT ANTI SEMITIC in the slightest, we should remove all the info sayin it is. terrasidius 9 January 2008 14:05 (GMT)

How do you figure that? It is a book forged to perpetuate the idea of a Jewish conspiracy. It's whole purpose is to promote anti-semitic ideas and thus is anti-semitic. 70.160.119.124 (talk) 10:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok people, please stop to think about a fact. The scholars have said that the book/text/pamphlet was written to be used for antisemitic purposes. The key word in that last sentence is "used". The book/text/pamphlet by itself is not antisemitic. The book is a pro-semitic forgery (lets assume it is a forgery, and not discuss that for the purposes of this discussion) that was and is used to originate anti-semitic outrage. But again, the contents of the book are not anti-semitic. One has to distinguish between the contents of the book and its purposes. --Legion fi (talk) 05:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The book is pure kookery. Calling it "pro-semitic" is like calling Fred Phelps "pro-christian". If Fred Phelps had never existed but his 'opinions' had been published by, say, an anti-Christian organization, in a context which implied that such views were endemic among Christians, nobody would claim that was not anti-Christian. So why are some people so eager to claim that the Protocols are not inspired by Jew hatred? They've been used to incite Jew hating thugs to murder plenty of times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.192.80 (talk) 05:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Stop misinterpreting words, and please sign your comments or my "I don't care about his opinions" alarm may set off. The content of the book is in no way antisemitic. I URGE anyone claiming the contrary to do a primary source check on that. I'm not "eager to claim that the Protocols are not inspired by Jew hatred", it has been proven to have indeed been written with anti-semitic purposes. And about citing other cases, it does not make your point. Trying to probe A by probing B which is similar to A is a logical fallacy. All we (and I say we because many editors have manifested so) are trying to say is that the Protocols as a book is not by itself antisemitic. If the CONTEXT (as you mentioned) is indeed antisemitic (as it has been researched to be) has nothing to do with the actual content of the book. Because there has been a POV-pushing war over this before, I refrain myself from editing this article. But I'm still monitoring as I believe some "be-bold" editors may blatantly turn this article into a POV in the blink of an edit.--Legion fi (talk) 06:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
It goes without saying that a lot of people who defend this book don't care about others' opinions, but I'm not sure that you warning people about it is relevant to the topic at hand. This book is anti-Semitic. It is, in sum, a huge lie, that Jews think the things in the book. It implies that all the bad stuff in the book is true about Jews. Cite any page in the book, which has conclusively been proven a forgery (with plenty of citations in the article), and you will see tons of views about Jewish dominance. Those views, which as I'm said are fabrications, taint Jews as though they hold these views. This book claims that Jews follow it, and therefore that Jews are world dominating racists, and therefore the book is insulting to Jews. Unless you think calling Jews world dominating racists is not obviously and patently anti-semitic, then you must admit that even under any guise, the claims in the book are evil and racist. This isn't complicated. And those who claim the article should clarify the point are similarly absurd. The truth: that the book pretends to be a way for Jews to dominate the world, is utterly clear, and the anti-semitic message of the author, that Jews are conspiring to dominate the world, is utterly clear. That the author is pretending to be a Jew, and pretending that he is part of a secret cabal of Jew Friendly world dominators, is also made quite clear. 75.13.86.109 (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
As we all know, this is not the place to discuss our own personal beliefs. If the Wikipedian above holds that the PMS (the acronym for the text based on the Russian title) is not antisemitic he should cite an authority. Be that as it may, consider the following as proof that this text is, in fact, anti-Semitic:
  • (1) Antisemitism means, inter alia, that Jews are fundamentally evil people.
  • (2) The PMS asserts, and implies, the conspiracy theory that the Jews always, and everywhere, engage in activities in order to dominate the world.
  • (3) Attempting and engaging in such activity is fundamentally evil.
  • (4) Therefore, the PMS implies that the Jews are evil people.
  • (5) Therefore, the PMS is Antisemitic.
Do you have a problem with the logic of this argument which proves conclusively that you are wrong? --Ludvikus (talk) 23:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I do. Your argument failed at "Antisemitism means that Jews are fundamentally evil people". Evil is a maniqueist term. In the article you referenced, it says that antisemitism is the expression of a prejudice against Jews, not only in the religious way (in which the term "evil" may apply) but also in an ethnic and racial way. Check WP:PSTS. I have previously urged editors to do a primary source check (primary sources CAN be used) and to tell me in what exact paragraph does the primary source says that "Jews are evil". As we have already mentioned Ludvikus, this is not about what WE can imply, is about what the sources say. Secondary sources have been cited and reverted because of WP:CONSENSUS, that is why I don't edit the article and that is why I stick to the primary source check. All I ask for is that editor keep in mind the balance discussed in WP:NPOV. About the IP comments. "This books claims that Jews follow it", no it doesn't, that sentence right there is a generalization fallacy. It says a group of Jews (claiming themselves to be high-ranked in jew society) use them and intend for other Jews to follow them. Just to clarify, I haven't asked for the article to "clarify the point". I repeat, all I ask is that editors keep WP:NPOV in mind while editing. One last time, as this is getting rather tedious, I'm not saying that the Protocols weren't written as antisemitic propaganda. I have no doubt it was written and originally published with Jew hatred. I don't put in doubt that the author faked to be Jew. All I (and some other editors) are saying is that the book is not anti-semitic in itself. Forget the context for a minute, read it and you will see. The article is thinly keeping the NPOV about this matter, but I've seen previous editors pushing the POV as far as not even mentioning it as a book but more as a complot.--Legion fi (talk) 06:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I have absolutely no understanding of your point of view. I first have to begin with your word "maniqueist." It's not in my Merriam-Webster dictionary. But I found 169 hits by googling it: [1] Be that as it may, let me respond by saying that we do not need the word evil (or any such religious term) to succeed in our argument. It is sufficient for our argument to maintain that "The Protocols" express prejudice against the Jews. Antisemitism is a particular form of prejudice, don't you agree on that? Furthermore, ALL the sources that are accepted by scholars, as opposed to such sources as holocaust deniars, find this text prejudicial against the Jews. Furthermore, I do not know that your distinction between "primary source" and "secondary source" is correctly applied by you in accordance with Wikipedia policy. By "primary source" I think you mean "The Protocols," no? In other words, you demand that we stick to "The Protocols" as you read them, and reject all the scholars in the world because they do not follow your reading of "The Protocols." Is that what your saying? --Ludvikus (talk) 07:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I am quite curious about your reasoning. Maybe the issue you have is related to the literal meaning of these words: "Anti-semitism" (which you take to mean as "being against the Jews," and your neologism, "Pro-semitism," by which you mean, like humpty-dumpty what you want that term to mean, to be "for the Jews." So, what you are saying can be put simply as follows: "The Protocols" express the self-interests of the Jews. Is that your point? --Ludvikus (talk) 07:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why "The Protocols" are Antisemitic & Why Mein Kompf is not anti-German

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

  • (1) The fact, or the allegation, that the PMS expresses nothing against the Jews does not support the argument that the PMS is "not" antisemitic. The fact is that this/these Wike editor(s) above do not use the term "antisemitism" according to it meaning.
  • (2) Nothing in the meaning of "antisemitism" requires the expression of negative traits, attributes, or propertie that a thing, or a person, must have to be taken as antisemitic.
  • (3) What the PMS does do - and maybe this is something no one has bothered stating explicitly - is describe Jews as being anti-non-Jews. In fact, that's what the so-called "Elders of Zion" are conspiring to do - how to do all these negative things against all the people of the world who are non-Jews.
  • (4) But in fact, that is the big lie. A contrary argument can be made that the exact opposite is true: I only mention one great positive contribution here: the Jews have given the world Jesus Christ. I'm not going to mention Einstein - oops, it looks like I just did.
  • (5) So since the PMS - falsely I might add - allege(s) that the Jews are doing all these negative things to non-Jews, it follows that the PMS is in fact antisemitic.
  • (6) On the other hand, Mein Kompf is not anti-German because all the rational people in the world realize that it was the writing of just one - in fact Austrian - man, Adolf Hitler.
  • (7) However, suppose someone came out with the theory, that a secret German organization really wrote that book. That Hitler was merely a stooge for the German Army and the Prussian "von's", the Junkers, who were the "real" Germans, not Austrians like Adolf Hitler was.
  • (8) This, of course, is not true - only Adolf Hitler is responsible for the authorship of "Mein Kompf."
  • (9) But if Mein Kompf were presented as the product of the True German Character, then it would be anti-German.
That should conclusively convince you that you are wrong in your position that the PMS is not anti-Semitic because it does not say anything negative against the Jews. --Ludvikus (talk) 08:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Just two clarification. Sorry for my english, look at Manichaeism. Second, I retract the expression "pro-semitic", as I intended it to be the opposite of antisemitism (and which I now understand is not the correct way to express such a thing), and as I have previously stated (I still think you misread posts Ludvikus) the concept of antisemitism is based on prejudice, not just being against the Jews. Sorry, I need a third clarification. No, I'm not asking to put aside the secondary sources in behalf of the secondary ones. All I'm asking is for the primary source not to be shadowed by the secondary ones. As of right now, the opposite of what you think I'm proposing is what is actually happening. Only the secondary sources are being considered and the primary source is being rejected itself. Having clarified those three points, I decline further answering to a discussion that is leading nowhere. As I mentioned before, there is consensus on the antisemitic "nature" of the article subject, and therefore I will refrain from editing this article to prevent a revert-war. All I ask (like I have always asked) is for editors to keep the BALANCE while editing. --Legion fi (talk) 05:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Connotations of Jesus and balancing the article

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

I think I was the one who added that phrase. I will need to find out where did I get it from, but I don't see anything wrong about it, and I don't think it even requires a reference. You have lost me when you requested "an section which also states why the Protocols of Zion is credible". Good bye. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Humus, if you look at the archives here, and also to reflect the general opinion of people who have read the protocols, a surprisingly large number beleive the protocols reflect their world today, and also that the protocols have a legitimate origin. Their views are totally ignored in this article. It's a simple point. The article should reflect the whole view in regards to the Protocols of Zion, not a partial view which only emphasizes on falsifying the literature. Also, it is important that the phrase you wrote should have a basis and some referencing otherwise it will be your opinion that these are reflecting, especially you suggesting that Jewish literature needs to have Talmudic citations as this is not the case at all. It is also ironic that there is a strong link between the anti-Christian sentiment in the Talmud and the Protocols of Zion, subtly suggesting a Talmudic link? Please reference it, or rephrase them to show more validity. --87.194.3.52 01:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Regarding "surprisingly large number" of believers in conspiracy theories and hatemongers, it is a tragedy, but an encyclopedia is a wrong place to reflect their views. Please see WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site, and WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a soapbox. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Humus, you don't need to get passionate and relate conspiracy believers to hate mongers, although a very few are. It can easily be argued some of your additions, and the extension of proving the literature as false is also original thought. It's also not good to write sentences and not cite them, especially with a reference list as long as the one in this article. There has been a few newspaper article's written in regards to why many believe the Protocols of Zion is a worthy piece of text as well as some historians and university professors speaking in a similar fashion. When Wikipedia restricts original thought, they mean individual opinions, thoughts directly being added, not something that is a shared view of many of the books readers as expressed in some of the media, the movie and other texts regarding this book. You can easily argue everything originates from original thoughts. The scholar who says the book feeds anti-semitism used his original thoughts to prepare the literature. When something is recognized amongst a faction, it is no longer an original thought. In this case, the belief that the book is legitimate and their reasons for this. Apart from that, not once has the article looked at the possibilities that the book is legitimate. If you seriously think reflecting the views of many who have read the Protocols of Zion and also looking at why the book could be legitimate, as original thought, then your uptake on the definition of original thought is wrong and it also hints you are openly trying to keep this article free from any challenges. Also remember one of this article's policy is neutrality, and not once has the article looked at the possibility of the literatures legitimacy, in fact the opposite has happened, where every penny is dropped to falsify the Protocols of Zion. It's also funny you have joined the CSB but your are not trying to understand my point. You might also want to read my reply in the above discussion. --87.194.3.52 12:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC) Also, the same way this article has regionally voiced some of the believers in the Protocols of Zion, one notable being what was written in the Hamas charter, is what I am trying to get at. A section, letting the believers of the Protocols of Zion's voice to also be expressed in regards to this article. You have two people groups here, Jewish scholars, scholars and general voice of the Jewish people claiming this book being a forgery, on the other hand you have many people, few scholars, celebrities, head of states insisting this book is real and its content is being fulfilled. Their voice needs to be portrayed here as equal as the voice that claims the book as false, in an equal tone and layout.
It might even be more suitable to create a new article "The Protocols of Zion Conspiracy" or similar, to reflect the conspiracy theory rather than spending a whole article trying to falsify the book. --87.194.3.52 12:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I assumed good faith and almost forgot that WP:DFTT is the best strategy in these cases. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
WP:DFTT is more to do with editing despite the points i raised above are unfit for WP:DFTT. Will you work on me with my points or should we bring a third party or try other avenues? --87.194.3.52 00:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll bite - what credible sources can you cite that support a claim that the Protocols is not a forgery? LeContexte 13:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
What credible source have you guys cited? Except Jewish scholars or newspapers? Anyway, im more interested in adding the views of the people who view the protocols legitimate, not trying to prove if its a forgery or not. Just like the documentary reflects the readers views, this article should do the same. But it seems you guys have a tough time understanding. --87.194.3.52 16:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh yeah, the Jewish thing blows their credibility. Totally. In your dreams. BillMasen 16:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Not good enough. The article refers to dozens of sources: academics and journalists; some Jewish, some not (as if it matters). Humus Sapiens was right, and I have been wasting my time. LeContexte 17:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
What's amusing here is that the first debunkers of the "Protocols" was not only non-Jewish, but was doing it for the benefit of a notorious Jew-hater, the Tsar. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
If the subject was non-Jewish, lets say about how the ecosystems works, you could use sources made by people from Mars I wouldn't care aslong as they are credible, but since the book questions Jewish dominance and purports Jewish plans and since it is a non-scientific subject, it would be somewhat biased to source Jewish scholars unless half of the sources were also non-Jewish (which they're not as I took the tedious task on of checking, infact most are Jewish, and some of the non-Jewish sources have cited Jewish sources rather than being original). LeContexte, thats why it matters if the sources are Jewish or non-Jewish, simply because of the nature of the article. It's like asking an elephant what he thinks of elephant hunters? Or asking cows what they think of being eaten? or Citing Hamas's charter and members of Hamas over other sources when writing an encyclopedic artcle about Hamas, how would the article turn out?. JpGordon, you are contradicting your self in relation to the article, if the book is anti-jewish, why would a Jew-hater prove it wrong? Is the book pro-jewish since an anti-jewish is proving it wrong? BillMasen, I did not mention anything about Jewish sources not being credible but their usage inducing bias in relation to the articles subject. Try reading my sentence above, "except" is a clue. Infact, my granddad is a Persian-Jew, I just happen to beleive that God also understands other languages than Hebrew. It doesn't make sense praying in Hebrew for me. I also happen to beleive God loves us all and not a particular religion. Anyway, I couldn't care less who wrote the book, but I strongly believe as well as in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, its important to also list the reasons as to why so many readers across the world still have faith in the contents (not the author) as legitimate even after being told that somehow it is claimed to be a forgery. I also praise you Jpgordon, for once using something different than the term anti-semite. Yes Humus is right, I am wasting your time and you guys are wasting mine, there's no way of reasoning with you guys even with a logical point. It's also funny how alot of the sources document the general ideals of the readers, but you still refuse to accept them in the article. So the sources are only good for one cause and not the other. You all know I have a perfectly valid point but letting your identities get in the way, that has always been the problem. Deep down I love you all, and always enjoy a good homous, our ideologies differ. yahweh.com. Kol tov. --87.194.3.52 00:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Anon, you don't have "a perfectly valid point". We do not separate "Jewish scholars" from others in WP: as long as the source is reliable it is acceptable. Nobody cares about your genealogy or ideology, and your alleged ancestry doesn't give any excuse for trolling here, or in Talk:Criticism of Holocaust denial. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Humus, I just wanted to thank you for dealing with all the grief the crazies are giving you. You're not unappreciated, dude. I can't imagine someone questioning whether this document is fake or anti-semitic, but then, I can't imagine lots of horrible stuff. If anything, wikipedia is helpful at proving what kind of minds are out there. 75.13.86.109 (talk) 22:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fascist Italy

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

[edit] Irony?

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

[edit] Judao-Masonic Plot

Let's not omit the fact that in the original Russian versions, of Pavel Krushevan, G. Butmi, and Sergei Nilus, the Jews are supposedly plotting together with Freemasons -- and Nilus (1905) text has the Protocols signed off by a Mason of the 33rd Degree of the Scotish right. --Ludvikus 04:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 13:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
It only costs $8 and is an excellent reference work - lists & annotates the standard, classic, and latest scholarly on the subject of the Protocols. I strongly recommend it - and so I've mage a Wiki page for it. The Protocols of the Sages of Zion: A Selected Bibliography [3]
Best wishes,
--Ludvikus 10:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Henryk Baran

I've learned recently that one of the world's foremost living authorities on our Protocols of Zion happens to be one Henryk Baran - about who we have no Wikipedia entries at all it seems.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 21:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I've created a "stub" on him. He, by the way, has given a talk in 2005 (in Israel, as I recollect) on two (2) of the witness/experts who presented evidence at the Berne Trial in 1935. --Ludvikus 13:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Center for Jewish History

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

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

[edit] German American Bund

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

It appears from reading that article, that this American Nazi organization was not antisemitic but a poor victim of Jewish boycotts, etc. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 03:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gisela C. Lebzelter

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

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

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

[edit] John Henry Clarke

This is the man who ran The Britons and the Britons Publishing Society - these are the British organizations which published and kept in print the English language Protocols of Zion editions that are now alive and well, and most popular, in print and on the internet. I urge interested editors to contribute to that article on this man who - until I visited the site, was mostly and merely presented as an important homeopath. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 23:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Publication Date

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

Only the first publication date is necessary. If the other language versions are merely translations, then this is a trivial thing. If someone translates the Protocols into Swahili in 2007, it wouldn't be appropriate to add it to the 2007 category. rossnixon 02:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the question of dates I think is significant. It helps our understand of the history and spread of antisemitism.
1920 is the year in which "The Protocols" appeared in pamphlet and book form in Western Europe, Great Britain, and the United states. The persons involved, working anonymously, include George Shanks, Boris Brasol, Natalie de Bogory, and Harris A. Houghton.
In the Russian Empire, the years are 1903, 1905, and 1906 - associated respectively with the names, respectively, of Pavel Krushevan, Sergei Nilus, and G. Butmi.
Sorry - Yours truly, --Ludvikus 02:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1903, 1905, & 1920

A revert has occurred yesterday as follows:

    Rossnixon (Talk | contribs) (83,602 bytes)
    (rv, It can't be a 1920 and 1905 book.
    And it apparently appeared in 1903 which makes both categories wrong, anyone know better?
In fact, the situation is as follows:
(1) The Protocols of Zion is not A BOOK. It's more like a Literary Event over time/years.
(a) In 1903 article(s) is/are published in Znamya (newspaper) - "related name" Pavel Krushevan in the Russian language.
(b) In 1905 Serge Nilus publishes a Second Edition of his book, Velikoe v malom, and he adds an extra, final Chapter (not an Appendix as some inaccurately say); in fact, it's his Chapter XII (12); the material is to short for a regular hardbound book, although it can, and did, get subsequently published, with a preface and/or introduction, in pamphlet or booklet form; the whole book is in the Russian language of course.
(c) In 1920 this matter gets translated in all the major languages of the world; and in the English language it takes at and by this time, all three forms: (i) journalistic/newspapers, (ii) pamphlet/booklet, and (iii) hardcover.
(2) Accordingly, this is not a neet, single book event. In fact, it's more like the Bible, which is a complex literary compilation over a spread of years. But unlike the bible, we do not much more precisely when the various literary events occurred. And certainly, all three years above are significant, and must be included. The editor, User:Rossnixon, who insists on picking the earliest date, 1903, is simply mistaken, and we must REVERT his REVERSION.
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 13:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Ludvikus 14:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Titles of the Protocols of Zion

As an Encyclopedia I believe the subject of the variability in the titles of this text should be accounted for. The fact that the history of The Protocols is complex I think is no excuse to simplify our presentation and omit these crucial facts. For example, there's no Standard Text. Although it is to be noted that scholar Cesare G. De Michelis has attempted to philologically reconstruct such a text in his The Non-Existent Manuscript.
It may be some work, but our desire to simplify things for Wikipedia should not result in a distortion! Question: Is the true title of our text as follows: The Protocols of the Elders of Zion? Answer: No. It's just the most popular title. And here's a partial account of the following title: "Protocols of the wise men of Zion." This is the Uniform Title adopted by the Library of Congress precisely because the text appears under many different titles. Here's a title few may recognize: "Praemonitus Praemunitus."
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 14:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Jewish Bolshevism by The Britons with a Forward by Alfred Rosenberg

Dear dedicated fellow Wikipedians,

Those of you who know about The Protocols know that when it/thy reached the West, like Rats from a sinking ship, used it through "appropriate" anonymous editorial commentary, to blame the Jews for Bolshevism. So I would imagine that you all would be interested in what's happening to the article above. I hope you guys and gals can come over there and contribute your valuable input and, hopefully, support, to the changes I've found it necesary to make.
Best regards, Ludvikus 18:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Religious persecution

Dear User:S. M. Sullivan

What distinguishes modern Antisemitism from what Jews experienced earlier is precisely that it is more than mere religious persecution. The latter merely required conversion. But the former is more than than - it is racist, meaning that Jews are said to be tainted in their blood, in their genes, so that conversion is ineffective in ending Antisemitism through conversion. Accordingly, your Category must be deleted. --Ludvikus 04:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Exception

Upon reconsideration, a reading of Serge Nilus's Velikoe v malom appears merely as religious persecution. It seems that Nilus was not a modern Antisemite - a racist. It appears a Jew converted to Orthodoxy would have satisfied and pleased him. So I'm not going to revert said category. --Ludvikus 04:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nilus vs. Pavel Krushevan & G. Butmi

I think editor Sullivan has given us an important distinction by which we can differentiate among the above three Antisemites: the question to be asked is whether conversion would have qualified a "former" Jew into the Christian community - and according to which, if any, of the above three that was possible and good. --Ludvikus 04:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Council of the People's Commissars & A Protocol of 1919

Antisemites used The Protocols in the context of the above. Since this was the highest ruling body in Bolshevik Russia, the fact, and number, of Jews which composed it was presented as evidence that The Protocols were true and that Bolshevism was fundamentally a JEWISH phenomena.

I ask for dedicated Wikipedians here to visit these new stubs and support them - that is, if you think they are accurate and meritorious proposed articles, against Reverters and Vandals.
Best, --Ludvikus 22:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Public Ledger (Philadelphia)

Dear fello Wikipedians,

This is the newspaper in which The Protocols were published first in the United States - in 1919!!!
The good news is that all references to "Jew(s)", or its cognates, were deleted & replaced, by Bolshevik(s), or its cognates.
May I ask that you guys & gals visit these Stubs and help in developing them into Articles?
As User:Hummus sapien says, "Cheers," --Ludvikus 23:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Serafimo-Diveevsky Monastery

The 1905 Serge Nilus book, as we know, only has The Protocols as last chapter 12. The other 11 chapters are autobiographical. And one of the subjects covered in it is the above. I and User:Alex Bakharev just completed the article. I thought it might be interesting and useful to post this notice about it here. Best. Ludvikus 12:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Singerman list & Robert Singerman

I'd like Wikipedia to peg at least its own antisemitic book articles with the appropriate Singerman number, based on his bibliographical work. Can anyone help me out in this effort? Or at least come to the defense of the stub which one editor wishes deleted?

Regards, --Ludvikus 21:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I've changed the name of the stub from Singerman to Singerman list. And I've already listed two Antisemitic works on it with their corresponding Singerman number. Can I get some more help in defense of the stub? I think we have an opportunity of listing at least some of the most important items there which Robert Singerman identified and analyzed. It a good way, I think, in having Wikipedia teach the workd what exactly what was the antisemitic literature before the invention of ISBN numbers. Ludvikus 00:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The alleged Wikisource of "The Protocols"

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singerman list The above is the place to go if you oppose deletion of the Singerman list. Robert Singerman, in his useful guide to the study of antisemitism, Antisemitic Propaganda, identified, by assigning a unique 4-digit number, all the important antisemitic tracts which had a significant impact on late modern Jewish history. In fact, practically every variation of "The Protocols" (not just 1st editions) is uniquely identified, and a paragraph-long anotation is given. So please give you support this important article on antisemitism. Ludvikus 04:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{Wikisource|The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion}}

Wikisource has original text related to this article:

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

This article may not meet the general notability guideline or one of the following specific guidelines for inclusion on Wikipedia: Biographies, Books, Companies, Fiction, Music, Neologisms, Numbers, Web content, or several proposals for new guidelines. If you are familiar with the subject matter, please expand or rewrite the article to establish its notability. The best way to address this concern is to reference published, third-party sources about the subject. If notability cannot be established, the article is more likely to be considered for redirection, merge or ultimately deletion, per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion.

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

Here is thev 1st American edition of the Protocols: [4]. --Ludvikus 15:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
The item has been reposted on Wikipedia by User:Yann. Since I removed it, I'll just recommen here that it be removed by someone else this time. --Ludvikus 16:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Church of True Israel

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

I have proposed (at Wikisource) that it be deleted on two grounds::
(1) Accuracy - that it's not what it purports to be, "The Protocols"; and
(2) Notability - that the edited version of the Church of True Israel is not sifficiently notable to be posted.
Please come over to Wikisource and support the position that this item be deleted. --Ludvikus 13:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carl W. Ackerman & the Public Ledger (Philadelphia)

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

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

[edit] World Conquest Through World Government

That's another distinct imprint of "The Protocols"

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

[edit] Victor E. Marsden

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

However, many translations bear his name - and he's considered by Singerman to have set the Standard English rendition of our tract. But we only know that he translated the text from the Russian because The Britons — the Antisemitic publishing entity — say(s) so. I think this fact should be reflected in our article here. --Ludvikus 15:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Notable or notorious antisemites

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

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

[edit] Category:Religious studies book stubs

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

[edit] "Political" or "religious" book

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

I suggest that you look at Protocols of the Elders of Zion and read: "The Protocols...takes the form of an instruction manual to a new member of the "elders," describing how they will run the world through control of the media and finance, and replace the traditional social order with one based on mass manipulation." Since world domination is a political theme, I tagged it as political. Since you didn't like that, and anti-semitism is by definition a religious issue, I changed it to religious. Just because it's a hoax doesn't mean it can't fall into either of these categories. Perhaps you have a problem with the non-fiction tag as well -- maybe the {{book-stub}} tag too. Perhaps it should only have the {{stub}} tag, since you are determined to have your way and revert any good faith attempts to sort these articles into a useful category. Many, many WP editors have compromised a little in order to cooperate with community efforts at creating this resource. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

As can be seen, I'm asked to "compromise" on The Protocols (the Warrant for Genocide) and permit it/them to be classified as "religious" or "political" texts. So I'm asking for Help here. My recommendation is that we create a new {{stub}} Category. Perhaps involving "controversial literature." Please Help!!! --Ludvikus 05:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

Editions of The Protocols

First publication of The Protocols
Programma zavoevaniya mira evreyami

Writers, editors, and publishers associated with The Protocols
Carl Ackerman · Boris Brasol
G. Butmi · Natalie de Bogory
Denis Fahey · Henry Ford · L. Fry
Howell Gwynne · Harris Houghton
Pavel Krushevan · Victor Marsden
Sergei Nilus · George Shanks
Fyodor Vinberg · Clyde J. Wright

Debunkers of The Protocols
Vladimir Burtsev · Norman Cohn
John S. Curtiss · Philip Graves
Michael Hagemeister
Pierre-André Taguieff · Lucien Wolf

Influenced by The Protocols
The International Jew
The Jewish Bolshevism · Mein Kampf
v • d • e


[edit] NPOV and Accusations of Trolling

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

What changes would you make to the article, and on the basis of what sources? LeContexte 16:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the issue here is whether the {{stub}} on a subcategory of the Protocols of Zion should be "religious-book-stub" or "political-book-stub." I've been arguing that neither is appropriate. --Ludvikus 16:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • PSM is neither a religious nor a political text. --Ludvikus 17:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Żydokomuna

We all know that when The Protocols left the Russian Empire / Soviet Union - like Rats from a sinking ship - they were used to claim that Bolshevism and Communism are Jewish. Now Wikipedia has two articles on the same subject: Jewish Bolshevism and Żydokomuna. Please lets keep the latter ethnic slur back in Poland, and among the Poles, or "Pollacks" all over the world.

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

[edit] Articles for deletion/The Protocols of Zion (imprints)

  • I am somewhat mystified at the relative silence on this Talk page, as well as the Article page.
  • I hope I've been successful, among other things, in showing that there is no such thing as the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion." This title is the invention of commentators on this subject, and has been adopted, and inadvertently, promoted by Wikipedia, as Wikipedia tends to dominate cyberspace.
  • I would like it if we could go back in time, to the turn of the 19th century, and we could destroy this hateful literature before its publication and circulation around the world.
  • But unfortunately no one has invented time machines.
  • Therefore, the alternative is to overpopulate the world with the truth about this literature concerning the Warrant for Genocide and the The Non-Existent Manuscript.
  • That's what I have tried to do on Wikipedia. I believe that what I've been doing here, at Wikipedia, is trying to innoculate the word against this disease. Innoculation involves taking the very deadly germ, weakening, and injecting it into the subject. It is thereby that a person becomes immune against the disease.
  • But no there is a view on Wikipedia that all my work on this subject on Wikipedia is bizarre. And the articles which I've started and developed are being considered for deletion.
  • Unfortunately, it appears to me that the editor who has made the proposal for deletion is quite ignorant of the subject, and I do not have much confidence in the knowledge which the editors who support him may have.
  • I therefore strongly urge that the editors who are much better informed step in and express their opinions.
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 02:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It's also a plagiarism

Says Stephen Eric Bronner in A Rumor About the Jews:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Names of the Swiss courts

The article makes reference to a "Cantonal Court of Bern" and to a "Swiss Court of Appeal". No such courts exist or have existed. I guess that the court of first instance was either a District Court (Kreisgericht) or a single judge (Gerichtspräsident), although they may have been called differently in 1934; or the Supreme Court of the Canton of Berne (Obergericht des Kantons Bern). The "Swiss Court of Appeal" is almost certainly the Swiss Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgericht). Can anyone verify this from the original sources? Sandstein (talk) 11:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How has this work been debunked?

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

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

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Mexico low.jpg

Image:Mexico low.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Where does the Protocols of Zion mention hashish?

  1. 24 states "prohibition of alcohol and hashish", but I have read a few translations to try to understand the reasoning behind this, and found no mention of hashish, marijuana, weed or any other psychoactive drugs! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.171.228.31 (talk) 08:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Zionism

Norman Cohn, in his Warrant for Genocide, on p. 77, informs us that,

    "the unknown Russian translator of the original French manuscript,
    as quoted by Krushevan and Butmi, explicitly states that the Elders
    are not to be confused with the representatives of the Zionist movement."
--Ludvikus (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fake

I think it would be fairer to say something like widely regarded as a fake, we can't be 100% sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.67.41.128 (talk) 22:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

    • I do ( I wasn't the anon IP post, but It bothered me the way you "cleverly" retaliated to its comment). As the anon IP mentioned, we, as OBJECTIVE contributors to an encyclopedia (yeah, it is online but it is still an encyclopedia) cannot 100% assert it as a fake. People tend to misread the WP:NPOV policy and ignore POV balance. This article clearly is unbalanced. But well. As I have mentioned before, all I can do is manifest myself in this talk page, as "general consensus" has established that this is 100% a forgery (balance violation) without even giving it reasonable doubt (which many editors have given). Before trying to be smart to some anon please read wikipedia policies. I also tend to be ruthless with them. But ALWAYS based in the policies. --Legion fi (talk) 06:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I suppose one could say that the protocols are widely regarded as fake in the same sense that the Moon landings are widely regarded as real. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Some more knowledge of logic may help enlighten the annonymous editor above. First, the article does not employ the expression "100%." But if it did, as implied in the above, that it implicitly does, it would have to employ a tautology because only the latter is "100%" certain. No empirical fact - or rather a statement thereof - is, or can be, "100%" certain, much less are we able to say that Napoleon truly exited. Be that as it may, the evidence in support of these so-called Protocols - stupedly wriiten I might add - are a fake, has been established beyond any sort of reasonable doubt. What they do demonstate, however, which I would like to take an opportunity here to express, is the stupidity of human beings in general. That they do quite well. But also, what is even more peculiar, is that even quite intelligent individuals]] - perhaps driven by their more powerful hatred, can believe in the reality of such incredible garbage. Generally, Jews, are not depicted as stupid by antisemites. Yet this stupid writing is attributed to them. What we ought to do, by the lesson of this human gullibility, is conclude that Man (or WoMan) are generally not rational - particularly where prejudice comes into play.
--Ludvikus (talk) 17:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Today

How can you call this a forgery? just take a look around you in America today. This "Forgery" is taking place before our vary eyes and you deny it? What are we doing in Iraq? The U.S. goes to war with any country that threatens Isreal. The Jews didnt evolve into the most hated people in the world by being "nice people". Isreal isnt enough, the Jews want the entire middle east for its oil, then the world....The only holocaust is the one taking place in Palestine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.76.121.20 (talk) 00:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Source it, or it didn't happened. I cannot look around and post about it in the Wikipedia as it would constitute Original Research. I don't care what YOU are doing at Irak as I'm not from the United States, and hence didn't take part in the elections of the responsables. I am aware of what is going on in Palestine, and I am aware of what happened at Auschwitz. But it doesn't matter. This is a talk page about the changes to be made to the article. Not your general conception of the world. As far as wikipedia concerns, please keep your opinions to yourself. --Legion fi (talk) 06:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
You, Annonymous Editor, seem to confuse the concepts of forgery with true and false. Do you really want to say that this writing is not a forgery? Or do you want to say that this forged writing gives a true description of Jews in the world today? But if the latter, can you give just one scholarly writing supporting your position? Of course you cannot do that - correct? --Ludvikus (talk) 17:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
More particularly, on your points above:
  • There are many wonderful Muslims, Arabs, Palestinians, etc. But what does this part of the world have to give the rest of the world but oil? USA should be in Iraq to protect its oil interests. What, you expect it to be cold in the winter? And how do you expect Americans to drive their cars - on water?
  • Jews are "nice people" - and smart people - maybe because they had to live as a minority among the rest of the "nice people" of the world for 2,000 years.
  • Why you think only the Jews want the entire Middle East for its oil is strange. The whole world is only interested in the only thing that part of that culture has to give today - just oil - and maybe Rushdie, no? No, there are some other good things too - but nothing as important as its oil! Otherwise, there would only be the Arabian deserts - if you know what I mean. Allah was kind - putting oil there, where there was nothing else.
  • You say you are aware of Auschwitz, which ended only in 1945. But you seems not to understand that the 1948 so-called catastrophe happended only because the "nice" Europeans, and the rest of the Christians made it impossible for the Jews to live in any other part of the world. Here, of course, we have the interjection that the Jews are just not "nice people" by you. So there is no argument against you. Whatever happens, this argument just requires the Jews as a scape goat.
  • You abuse the word "holocaust." The Jews/Israelis sent oil to Gaza and the 2 civilians get murdered for it. It seems to me that these people (Jews) are just too nice." You know what the Americans did to the Japanese in WWII? And that's not even called a "holocaust." The low-flight (no atom-bomb was used) bombing of Tokyo kill about 100,000 Japanese, including women and children. But that was not called a "holocaust."
  • And where are all the "nice people" in the Middle East who could absorb the Palestinians as brothers and sister? How come only Jews are occupyers? Where do you want the Jews to go - to live on the Moon? Of course not. You just regret that that "nice man" Adolph didn't finish the job, right?
  • And who are the "nice people" who invented suicide bombing? Who loves martyrdom? For these "nice people" - is it true that there are 72 virgins waiting in paradise? And what do these "nice people" have for women, besides the chodar?
  • Hope this helps you make the above irrational argument a bit more clear for the rest of us.
--Ludvikus (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Mhhh... ok?... Could you please read carefully Ludvikus? I think you are confusing ME with the anon. I was the one that stated that I knew about Auschwitz, not the anon. I stated that trying to prove that I didn't care about what he knew about. It doesn't matter what one as a wikipedian knows. It is about what the sources say. But not, you had to go around answering the anon as if talk pages where made to discuss general matters about the subject. THEY ARE NOT. So please stick to the discussion about the article. Thanks.--Legion fi (talk) 05:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
My comments are for the benefit of the Anonymous Editor. That paaragrahp above is ridiculously unsouced and implies ignorance of Auschwits. It is extremely difficult to have discussions with generators of such rubbish. By rubbish I mean the thesis (if you can call it that) that Jews are responsible for everything bad in the world (whatever that means).
Nevertheless, that first paragraph above is what the subject embodied in The Protocols is about. So anyone who edits this page is bound to confront such writing as in the above. Regarding Auschwitz, what do you think M. Anonymous implies by the above? (S)he implies that the Jews got what they deserved. And that is, in fact, what is read into these Protocols of Zion. You, I think, are trying to say that we should stick to what the scholarly view is - as opposed to our personal belief. But that's not helpful. Everyone maintains that what he or she believes is the truth. So all we can do is press people for their sources. So I think you are not helpful by merely demanding that the person suppress his or her personal belief. Our task, as editors, is to point out that such views, as expressed in the above, are (1) unrelated to reality, and (2) our views are supported - not by merely looking at the world - but by showing consistency between our views and the views expressed by reputable and acknowledged scholars and scholarship. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This was Ford's & Hitler's view of The Protocols

It needs to be restated what is well known to the authorities on The Protocols. Both Ford and Hitler maintained that whether this text was authentic was irrelevant to them. What was important was the alleged fact that this writing described the actual malevolent behavior of the Jews. That kind of thinking (if you can call it that) is repeated as well by the anonymous editors of the Protocols of Zion. So, User:Legion fi, the fact is that our latest Anonymous observer above it not merely giving us his own private view. Accordingly, we have to deal with it - and that's what I've tried to do. It would be easier if this Wiki editor cited Ford and Hitler as the authority, but that was not done. Had it been done, the proper reply would have been a critic of Ford and Hitler as discreditted authorities. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Ok, I still think you are misreading me. I urged the anon to "Source it, or it didn't happened", to abstract his personal beliefs, and not to use the talk page for general discussion. As it seems we are arguing against and in favor of the same things, I will not argue further. I agree in what you are saying and totally understand you apprehension about the anon comment --Legion fi (talk) 06:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry, I'm not "misreading" you - you were the first one to criticise the Anon. Ed. I just want to emphasize that the above kind of comment is to be expect - but it should not be ignored. Also, notice that after your & my criticism, the auther of that comment just vanished - and now only you and I are left. And we both agree that thes so-called Protocols of Zion are a fake, fraud, hox, plagiarism, etc. By the way, I haven't seen anyone using the notion of authentication regarding this so-called Jewish Peril. In particular, to the extent that the text is alleged to be non-fictional in character, allegedly being a record of a real event in the world - this writing is inauthentic. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


One thing I would like to mention, if the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are a hoax, then you would have to say the same about the Bible. I say this because there is no actualy proof that the events in the Bible happened, or the events in the Bible will happen. They are prophecies, just like The Prophecies of the Elders of Zion are. The article as it stands now IS biased and obviously people who are Jewish want to show that they feel that this document is a "hoax". If you call this a hoax, you might as well call the Torah a hoax. ( For reasons I have stated above.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrAdidaKing (talk • contribs) 22:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Extremely one sided.

I am the one who tagged this article. I'm not disagreeing that the book is fake, and a jew-hating pile of crap. But this article tends to go a bit overboard, and it realks of opinion and not base facts. The base facts of this article are arranged in just the right way to make the opinion very clear. I'm not interested in rewriting this myself, however I am a huge fan of wikipedia's neutrality. So it has been tagged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.6.213 (talk) 22:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You are extremely unhelpful. There is no way for anyone to figure out where the lack of neutrality you claim is. You do not have to re-write the article yourself. But can you please give us an idea of the "other side"? I cannot figure out what the other side of a plagiarism, and fraud, created by the Tsar's secret police, sometime on, or before, 1903 is. Can you tell us what the "other side" of a writing falsely ascribed to Jews is? --Ludvikus (talk) 22:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
In particular, the sentence above by the Anonymous Wikipedia lover is clearly nonsense:

"The base facts of this article are arranged in just the right way to make the opinion very clear."

I challenge anyone to demonstrated that this sentence is not sheer nonsense. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
It's not. It might be inaccurate, but the suggestion is that the you are selecting data to promote a particular point of view, if I'm understanding the complaint correctly. But I don't think the POV tag is appropriate here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the POV tag is inappropriate, and I've warned the tagger. He's passed 3RR, but I'm reluctant to block someone just for tagging, absent a clear rationale for anything other than some copyediting. I do think the opening paragraphs go beyond making it clear that the Protocols are a hoax/lie/forgery and could benefit from a little pruning without changing the sense of the article. I've explained to the tagger that the POV tag doesn't suit the issue he appears to be trying to address. Acroterion (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Provenance

I'd like to ad a bit to the article on the issue of the provenance of this text whose original manuscript is non-existent. But I think the above "213" editor who keeps reverting & trolling should be delt with first. Will someone else please respond to this outstanding neutrality challenge? --Ludvikus (talk) 02:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how there's much to respond to, Ludvikus. Like you, I cannot make head or tail of the IP's suggestion of POV problems with the article. Placing the POV tag on an article is meant to be a first step toward article improvements. Since the IP has not pointed to specific problems with the article, but only made vague statements about the way the facts are arranged, it's not possible to make any use of his comments or the POV tag. I think that the best thing for you to do is make your edits, and if the IP persists in re-adding the tag (his only edits to the article so far), deal with it in due course. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Agree with you 100%, Steven J. Anderson, but what does IP stand for (I'm curious) beside Mr./Ms. "213"? --Ludvikus (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe that technically "IP" stands for "Internet Protocol". When someone edits without registering a user name (like the "213" editor you referred to), they're said to be editing from an IP. The result is that his IP address is recorded as the source of an edit instead of a user name. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


"one sided" is not an accurate characterization. The article reeks of opinion. it is almost comical. I certainly laughed. The first piece of information that you learn upon reading the article is that the text is fake, false, a hoax, etc, etc. You wouldn't even know if the text was a book, pamphlet, article, etc by reading the first sentence. here is an edit suggestion: - 1st sentence "the protocolls of zion is a text written in russia by so and so at about this time" (no bias whatsoever, completely matter of fact) 2nd sentence "the text is widely accepted as a hoax, literary forgery, and conspiracy theory" (accepted bias) 3rd sentence "the text is anti-semitic, etc etc etc" - that edit suggestion would remove any concerns about the opening of the article, and it would limit the amount of IMMEDIATE bias that this article has. i probably wouldnt laugh so hard at the author if that is similar to how the article begins--Gordonliu420 (talk) 02:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Originally this text was also explicitly anti-Masonic

The earliest known published edition of this text was in 1903 in the Russian newspaper, Znamya (newspaper). It was explicitly, besides anti-Semitic, also anti-Masonic. There is a tendency to omit this fact. See also: Black Hundred, Union of the Russian People, and Pavel Krushevan. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

  • For convenience, I quote and Copy & Paste the following 1903 title & headline facts here:

The paper carried the headline, in Russian, "The Jewish Programme to Conquer the World." But the paper purported that it was merely printing a document whose actual title, in Russian, was "The Protocols of the Sessions of the "World Alliance of Freemasons and of the Sages of Zion"."

--Ludvikus (talk) 14:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • In terms of provenance, since the alleged manuscript was never made available for direct scholarly research, we should give this apparently first edition great weight as to what "The Protocols" are, and are about. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • It should be noted that the best available material, evidence and witnesses, on the chain of custody regarding this text was presented at the Bern Trial in 1934 and 1935. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Antichrist and "The Protocols"

I have just added the following to the opening:

A second edition was published in 1905, as a final Chapter XII in a second edition of a book by Serge Nilus on the subject of the coming of the Antichrist. Accordingly, "The Protocols" are originally intertwined with this author's Russian Orthodox dogma.

  • Current scholarship holds that the earliest published edition was in 1903 where the text was fundamentally anti-Semitic AND anti-Masonic.
  • Furthermore, current scholarship also holds that the 1905 edition (of Serge Nilus) has been more influential - and the source of most subsequent translations and republications. Accordingly, it is encyclopedically significant to note that "The Protocols" were originally (1903-1905) fundamentally intertwined with the Russian Church's view of the coming of the Antichrist. This especially important because Serge Nilus's has become a much more respected theologian in Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union.
  • It should be further noted that the text was subsequently used (before 1920) by Nilus and others as anti-Revolutionary and anti-Bolshevik, or anti-Communist and anti-Russian Revolution.
--Ludvikus (talk) 15:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Velikoe v malom i antikhrist

  • An editor, named Alex, and I, worked hard on what is - historically - an extremely important book - no less important than Hitler's Mein Kompf. It was: Velikoe v malom i antikhrist, kak blizkaja politicheskaja vozmozhnost. Zapiski pravoslavnogo (The Great within the Small and Antichrist, an Imminent Political Possibility. Notes of an Orthodox Believer). It has since been deleted. This was unjustified - a very big mistake!
  • Now, misleadingly, this book is just another title (a Russian language title) for the Protocols of Zion. This is obviously false. Nilus published a book in 1903 on the coming of the Antichrist. And in 1905 he published a second [expanded] edition in which he incorporated the Protocols of Zion as the final Chapter XII. That important historical even is now lost because of some zealous Wiki editor(s).
  • I'm asking for corporation in restoring this Wikipedia article. It is my position that this 1905 book by Serge Nilus - in which The Protocols are published for the 2nd time in history as merely a final Chapter XII - be restored to Wikipedia. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia has an obligation to its reading public to present accurately the true history of the anti-Semitic Protocols of Zion. To deny a place - within Wikipedia - to the SECOND EDITION (arguably the more important edition than the FIRST Znamya (newspaper) EDITION - is to mislead Wikipedia's readership as to the true circumstances under which The notorious Protocols were born. The fact is that Russian culture and religion has intertwined the Jews and Antichrist - and that encyclopedic fact can best be presented by including a distinct Wiki article on this 1905 Russian language book (by the recently sanctified Serge Nilus) which has never been translated into English. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I think I can back you up on that, Ludvikus. To see how to get it restored, see WP:DRV. Be sure you mention that the book is not just an alternate title for The Protocols but a separate book that contained The Protocols as its final chapter in a later edition. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons for POV tag

In the first two sentences the author of this article uses nine different words which express an obvious opinion.

plagiarism hoax fraud alleging antisemitic anti-Masonic diatribe anti-Zionist conspiracy theory

I'm not doubting that any of that is true, and I'm not debating any of the facts. However, it's obvious that the author purposely tried to shove as many adjectives as possible into the intro, and it looks cluttered and one sided. If the author is so determined to use large words, do so later in the article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gifttimes (talk • contribs) 20:08, 18 April 2008 It was then resigned by 74.93.6.213 (talk) 23:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not think an un-signed, un-dated, and un-timed remark like this "Reason for POV tag" deserves a response. Rather, this opinion that the terms above express an opinion should be errased. Unless its author signs it - that's what I'll do - unless someone else objects. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Tough.74.93.6.213 (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Are you the same person as:

(cur) (last) 20:08, 18 April 2008 Gifttimes (Talk | contribs) (82,371 bytes) (→Reasons for POV tag: new section) (undo)

??? --Ludvikus (talk) 23:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Are you editing under two(2) names: Gifttimes and 74.93.6.213? --Ludvikus (talk) 23:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • It's hard enough writing about a substantially fraudulent subject matter. There should not also be here the added distraction of a Wikipedian who apparently improperly masquerades under two names! --Ludvikus (talk) 23:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I see you've 74.93.6.213 again tagged the page as allegedly non-neutral, but you've made no specific claims as to where you find the article to be non-neutral.
  • Also, you've not denied that you operate under two names (the other beeing Gifttimes).
  • And you've been warned at least 3 times.
  • Please explain exactly where you believe or hold the opinion that the article lacks neutrality before you get blocked. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The now established Troller(s) above merey listed listed the following laundrey list as proof that the article is according to him or her non-neutral:

Contrary to this/these Troller(s)' allegation, each and every one of the distinct terms applies to "The Protocols".
The position expressed seems to be that, for example, it would be enough to just say that Hitler was a bad man, and that to describe the different ways in which he was bad would violate some principle of neutrality.
Can anyone defend this illogical argument? --Ludvikus (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
In particular, you object that these are all "big words." So let be explain the first: plagiarism. I suspect that you yourself have committed plagiarism here because you have signed the these Comments of Gifttimes as your own (assuming you are not also him or her). And if you are one and the same person then you are committing a hoax upon us. Similarly, all these terms have each distinct meaning.
Let me make the suggestion that you click on each of them, learn their unique meanings, and come back (if you can) and tell us which, if any, you are of the opinion, does not apply to the Protocols of the wise men of Zion, or the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Ludvikus, please... assume good faith. As much as I despise unsigned comments in talk pages myself, you have gone all out accusing the anon (or the probable new user) of plagiarism. I just want to state that I also sometimes post under an IP when the connection I'm at is shared. That doesn't mean I'm trying to hide behind an IP. Also, I URGE the anon poster and/or the registered user Gifttimes to clarify if they are indeed the same editor.--Legion fi (talk) 05:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prefaces, Introductions, etc., of "The Protocols"

I'd like to take this opportunity to remind Wiki editors of the following established scholarly facts regarding this text. We should remember that the actual so called "Protocols" are very brief - making up too few pages to constitute a book. Accordingly, these were first (and repeatedly) published as newspaper articles and pamphlets. So what the (often anonymous) editors did was expand the text with additional wording of their own, consisting of commentary. And it was here where the text was interpreted to be whatever suited the particular historical need for a scapegoat. For example, the ultranationalists of the Black Hundreds and Union of the Russian People variety, within the Russian Empire felt threatened by Jews and Freemasons in 1903. Accordingly, their commentary made these Protocols reflect the alleged revealed conspiracy of the Jews and Masons. Serge Nilus, on the other hand, in 1905, subscribed to the old Christian classical - now discreditted - view that the Jews were agents of the Devil. So he expanded his 1903 book on the coming of the Antichrist by inserting a final chapter into it - chapter 12 - which he used as evidence that the Antichrist was already present in the world and working through the Jews as his agents. Later, when Zionism emerged as a significant movement (not in 1897, but on & after 1917, with the Balfour Declaration) these "Protocols" were re-published, in new editions, with new commentary, to demonstrated the alleged malevolence of Jews and Zionists. Similarly, when the Russian Revolution unfolded and Bolsheviks came into power, these "Protocols" were held to have useful propaganda value as a means of discrediting said revolution by alleging that the revolution was merely the unfolding of Jewish activity as announced and embodied in the "Protocols." In summary, I want to emphasize why the various versions and imprints are so important from the historical point of view - it is there where the "Protocols" are adopted by often un-named or anonymous editors to suit the particular historical event and to cast dispersions on the Jewish people; through these "Protocols" any alleged adverse event in history is made ascribable to the alleged malevolent minority - the Jews. That it why Norman Cohn - correctly - dubbed these "Protocols" a Warrant for Genocide. It ("The Potocols") is the effective tool by which the Jews are made the universal scape-goat: Something's wrong in the world? The Jews are responsible for it. That's how "The Protocols" get recycled. The formula is quite simple (the Tsar's secret police deserves an award on effectiveness in that regard): Demagogues, or tyrants, got a problem? Here's the solution: Just blame the Jews. How? Easy. (1) Get a copy of "The Protocols." (2) Get some anonymous writers/editors to delete the older Preface, Introduction, etc., and have them write new ones which link the Jews, through "The Protocols," to the current political, social, economic, or whatever, problem exists, to the situation at hand. That, in brief, is the history of the life of "The Protocols" to this day. I think we need to remind some of our readers that that's how Henry Ford used the text from 1920-1929, and that's how the Nazis used them before, during, and after their rise to power in 1933. In 1934, by the way, "The Protocols" were turned into a 300 page book by a secretive so-called The Patriotic Publishing Co. by synthesizing it/them with the International Jew which itself is essentially an expanded commentary on these same "Protocols." --Ludvikus (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] False document

It's rather surprising I think that no one discussed our text in relation to the (legal) concept of false document. Perhaps the most common false document in the United States are ID cards to establish one's age or identity. If presented to a police office in most jurisdictions, a crime is committed, often a felony. To the extent that our text was represented as being a real record taken from some Jewish organization, when in fact it was a fabrication of the Tsar's secret police certainly has that element of what is required for a false document. Furthermore, it was submitted to the Tsar's censors as a true record (or reproduction thereof). Similarly, we know that it was presented to various US military and other government officers (during the period of 1919-1920), such as diplomats, as true, with knowledge that it was (that's the wealest point) contrary to fact - actually we know that the smarter antisemites (like Ford and Hitler) just didn't care. So the essential elements of a crime appear to have exist then, when our text first arived in the West. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jacques Crétineau-Joly

He is not to be confused with Maurice Joly. In the body of our article Lucien Wolf is credit in discovering "Joly" as a source of the "Protocols." This is misleading. It needs to be corrected so that the two (2) different Joly's are not confused with one another. --Ludvikus (talk) 05:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I've corrected the confusion between the two Joly's as follows:
    In 1920-1921, the history of the concepts found in the Protocols was traced back to the works of Goedsche and
    Jacques Crétineau-Joly by Lucien Wolf (an English Jewish journalist), and published in London in August 1921.
    But a dramatic expose occurred in the series of articles in The Times by its Constantinople reporter,
    Philip Graves, who discovered the plagiarism from the work of Maurice Joly.
  • Some copyediting may still be needed - but at least I've made it clear that it was Graves, not Wolf, who first discovered Maurice Joly as a source of "The Protocols." Wolf only seems to have known of Jacques Crétineau-Joly as an alleged source. --Ludvikus (talk) 06:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Lucien Wolf's (1921) work is available online. I've just included it as an External Source. I'm also making it available here (for those who need a reference for the confusion of the two Joly's):

[edit] David M. Dickerson or David Dickerson

We have an external link to this individuals Web site. However, I have not found anything about this person to indicate that he is notable by Wikipedia standards. What he has done is scanned a version of "The Protocols" and made it/them available on the internet. However, I have carefully examined his HTML digitized version and it seems that he has failed to identify precisely which edition, imprint, or version it is. Accordingly, I strongly recommend that our External Link to his cite be deleted. Should someone write an article about him for us (thereby establishing him as notable) we can consider restoration. But there still will be the problem that he has not been sufficiently accurate in identifying which edition he has reproduced. To the best of my recollections, I have written an email to him a couple of years ago about this issue, but he has never responded. Can anyone, please, tell us anything about him? --Ludvikus (talk) 16:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

--Ludvikus (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Failing to identify, exactly, and precisely, which version he has published there has therefore, in my estimation, turned him into just another reproducer of this trash (although that was not what he wished). --Ludvikus (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The is a lawyer by that name identified on the Web, but I do not know if it's the same person: [5]

The was no object, so I've deleted the non-notable External Link, uncited (exactly) reproduction of "The Protocols" by this source: "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" ed. by David M. Dickerson, 1995-2005: --Ludvikus (talk) 14:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"Thousands, perhaps even tens of thousands, of Jews have died because of this infamous forgery."' Rabbi Joseph Teluskin, Jewish Literacy
As we can see, this reproduction of "The Protocols" has on its first Web (and opening page) a reference to a non-notable Rabbi, and periodical. This further justifies deletion. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just had it confirmed that this is NOT the same person as the Attorney by the same name who is publicly listed:

    "No- not yhe same
    David Dickerson
    Law Offices of David M. Dickerson
    13006 E. Philadelphia St., Ste. 201
    Whittier, CA 90601
    Telephone: (562) 945-1236
    Fax: (562) 945-3339"
--Ludvikus (talk) 18:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The edition of the PSM (World conquest through World Government) the well-intentioned Dickerson has reproduced on his Web page alleges to be the "eighty-first impression" (sse his page 10). It also discusses the year 1957 and events of that year (see his page 19). --Ludvikus (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unavailable CIA link

I have deleted the following link since it is not currently available:

--Ludvikus (talk) 17:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Hoax of Hate - also unavailable

This External Link is also currently unavailable as given - so I've deleted it:

--Ludvikus (talk) 17:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

    • It has now become available, so I'm restoring it in this format:
--Ludvikus (talk) 13:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This seems to be mistitled

I just got here (and therefore am not going to alter the article), but this doesn't seem to be an article describing the book so much as a comparison between it and the "Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu" (listed as the source of a plagiarism in the article).

I'm looking for an overview of the history of the book, a summary of the content of the book, perhaps any opinions experts have on the book, and links to those opinions. Note that these are all in separate sections, not intermixed throughout the entire article.

--BobClown (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

  • First of all, welcome to Wikipedia.
  • Second it's not a book in the substatial sense. It consists of roughly 24 paragraph - hardly enough for a book.
  • It's both a substantial plagiarism of Maurice Joly's book of 1864 - so if you want to know the "true" meaning of this text, you should go to the source on that; for your information, the 1864 text is a satire upon Napoleon III.
  • Another erroneous presumption of yours is in thinking that there is this one book - there are many different ones, and in different languages, and each one of these has its own incredible history. There is for example an edition popularised by "Hur" Adolf Hitler. Maybe I should start with the Russian language one in which 11 chapers are on the Antichrist, and Chapter 12 consists of the Protocols of Zion. There's also the story of Henry Ford's greatly expanded and elaborate 4-volume adaptation which was published as The International Jew.
  • We also have the greatly expanded edition by Seymour Bathurst, 7th Earl Bathurst in The Morning Post (yes, a newspaper) of 1920 whch was subsequently published under the title of the Cause of World Unrest.
  • And there is much more to the story - so please read on, and please look before you leap. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
You seem quite attached to this - I didn't mean to trivialize or offend. What I came here looking for was general information on the "text(s)". This, in my opinion (which means diddly, but how about that and a grain of salt?), is usually something conveyed in the first paragraph (see introduction) of an article. If the entire existence of the book (excuse me, "text") is limited to a plagarism, then by all means introduce it as nothing but a plagarism. Seeing "it's a hoax" alliterated 20 times, however, usually sets off a red flag in my mind.
If nothing else, the third paragraph (with some editing) should open the introduction. The content isn't what's bothering me here, it's the structure of the article. --BobClown (talk) 20:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Validity of this text?

I would question the institutions stance on neutrality with reference to the jewish conspiracy theories? Wikipedia as the new age "historian" should inform but not persuade. However, what i read before me, in relation, to the jewish conspiracy theories is a one sided direct form. There is seemingly no area of discussion as wikipedia dictates an idyllic view that is neither popularist or generally assumed by others around the globe. Openly diminishing any opposition or question of the theories i find the article in reference a weakness in the instituions neutrality to provide fair and accurate information on a monumental range of subjects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.83.56.130 (talk) 11:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

(1) Your comments above - all sweeping useless generalizations - are also discribable as extremely incoherent, as it concerns reason. What are you talking about? What's your question, on "text validity?" Where do we find your "jewish conspiracy theories" besides the insides of the workings of your private mind - which is inaccessible to us? How are we to figure out what you're talking about? Coulldn't you have been more specific?
(2) Also, why is this article about Wikipedia in general? You seem to be criticising the whole world. Why is this article the place for you to do that?
(3) Can you give us a citation, just one authority which supports any of your many opinions "expressed" here?
(4) And by the way, a text is never valid - what is valid is an argument, none of which has been made by any of the words used above. In fact, the above paragraph - which unfortunately must go by the name of language can only give us some meaning by being psychoanalyzed. But we are not shrinks here. But you leave us no choice. My - amateur - psychological interpretation of the giberish expressed above tells me that you have some feelings regarding Jews and that you seem to read those feelings into "The Protocols", right? And that you are disappointed that those feelings of yours are not at all adequately reflected in our Wikipedia article, right? But as Wikipedians that's not our job here - nor is it yours. Wikipedia is not the place to discuss the private views of people who may have feelings that there is some "validity" to your view that "jews" - somewhere - are "conspiring" - to do what, by the way? --Ludvikus (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] revision or citation needed

in the section titled 'Comparison to the Dialogues' the bibliographical information for the text used is not listed. It simply says 'page 9 of this book is the same as page 7 of the other'. please include the information so that this can be checked otherwise i suggest we remove that section until propoer citation can be provided.--24.210.149.130 (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not responsible for this section. However, the comparison here is not Original research. It was first made by Philip Graves in 1920. Other subsequent scholars have made this textual analysis. So what you ask to do is easy (if it has not in fact been done here). Page references to Joly's book is easy - since his "Dialogue(s) in Hell ..." was first published in 1864, and for a long time, until very recently, was not available in any other imprint. By the way, there now exist no less than two (2) English language translations of it.
But references to "The Protocols" is somewhat problematic because there are so many different editions, imprints, and versions of it. The version I'm particularly interested in now is titled, World Conquest Through World Government. The only imprint of this title which is widely available (according to WorldCat, there are 405 scholarly libraries in the world which own a copy) appears to be a so-called 84th impression or printing which is dated 1963. By the way, to the best of my knowledge, it is this title which is associated with the translator, Victor E. Marsden. But he died on October 28, 1920. I hypothesize that the publishers of this notorious rendition of this PSM, namely The Britons, needed a name to tag on to their pamphlet - so they attached his name to it. I know all this by going to libraries and examining these various versions. But I'm limited in what I can write here because Original Research is prohibited by Wikipedia. Nevertheless, reading and citing actual original imprints of the PSM that one can get a hold of in some library does not constitute original research. Your demand for reference regarding the PSM has the interesting effect of making one realize not only that there is here a Non-Exitent Manuscript, but only no such thing as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


I do see what you are saying. It would be hard to find exactly where it is as the dialogues piece is out of print, and just any edition of the Protocols would not work, as you said there is no definitive edition. That would be like someone saying 'on page 10 of the Bible.' well which edition of the bible? But since this section does clearly site page numbers, it would be nice to have the edition used. But i guess ytou cant have it all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.149.130 (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Redundancy

The lead paragraphs of the article contain a high degree of redundancy. Before the table of contents is even reached, it is stated that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a plagiarism, a hoax, a diatribe, a conspiracy theory, an inauthentic text (that has "failed to pass any scholarly standards of authentication as an alleged historical document or record", which is in itself a redundant explanation of "inauthentic text"), whose original manuscript "does not appear to exist anywhere in the world" (as if it might be possible that it exists somewhere out in space), a false document, a literary forgery, a hoax, and debunked.

All of this is, of course, true, but repetition to that extent browbeats the reader.

Particularly egregious is the sentence "In summary, it is an inauthentic text having failed to pass any scholarly standards of authentication as an alleged historical document or record.", which is the third sentence in the introduction. A summary is not needed for a mere two sentences.

Not to say, of course, that all that should be taken out. Some elements are discrete and separate. However, it would be reasonable to pare the list down to just: a plagiarism, a hoax, a diatribe, a conspiracy theory, and an inauthentic text. The fact that the original manuscript "does not appear to exist anywhere in the world" is understood from the fact that it is a hoax and inauthentic text. That it is a false document is likewise understood from the fact that it is a hoax and an inauthentic text. The fact that it is a hoax is understood from the fact that just a few sentences before, it is stated that it is a hoax. And the fact that it has been debunked is understood, again, from all the preceding.

My edit was reverted with the explanation that "'summary' is not repetition". I humbly propose that summarizing two medium-length sentences into a third medium-length sentence is precisely repetition. In summary, I think that summarizing two sentences with a third sentence is repetitive. 210.160.15.16 (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem to fail to understand several very subtle, but extremely important ponits.
  • (1) You probably do not understand habeous corpus, or its related principles. How can you demonstrate a crime without the corpse, or the murder weapon? We even do not have, readily available at our disposal, the first editions of the diverse imprints of this hoax. That the manuscript exists nowhere in the world does not allow us today to examine the handwriting, ink, or paper upon which this text - which now lives in cyberspace was - created. I do not understand how you can trivialize the non-existence of the manuscript. All we now know for sure is that this text existed in 1903 because the is at least one library in the world which owns the Znamya (newspaper) articles emodying that text. The next time frame in which this text was printed is 1905 by Serge Nilus. The printed book containing our text exists now in the British Library. And the two versions are different. Furthermore, the scholarship on this matter alleges that the 1903 is an abbreviated form of the original (presumably an alleged monuscript which some have claimed was written in France in 1897. Now I am curious as to whether this text was not really in fact written about 1903, and the 1905 edition was an expanded edition, by Nilus or his friends and associates. But we will never know, will we, in part because we cannot submit the non-existent manuscript to forensic examination. I therefore reommend that we revert your suppression of these facts. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • (2) The phenomena which you incorrectly label as repetitous in fact employs different and distinct notions - all of which have their own pages on Wikipedia. If you think there is repetition here, that what you should do is merge all the terms into one page and call that page inauthentic because you maintain that all these terms mere repeat one notion. Ludvikus (talk) 19:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • (3) Since you claim that the manuscript cannot exists out in space somewhere, with which I agrree, and you imply that it exists somewhere on earth, could you please tell us at least the name of the country in which this manuscript is currently situated? I would certainly love to know that! And don't you think that a plagiarism is distinct from a forgery? --Ludvikus (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • (4) Your claim of redundancy suggests that the terms you cite above are all synonyms, but they are not! --Ludvikus (talk) 19:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I've just replaced "In summary" with "Generally." That's an improvement which I hope pleases you. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks.
  • I think the word "generally" is a bit awkward, but it is an improvement. To pare it down further (while retaining meaning), the bridge word can be taken out completely, to be just "It is an inauthentic text..." Since an inauthentic text is one which hasn't/can't be authenticated, I still think it's redundant to say "it is an inauthentic text having failed to pass any scholarly standards of authentication". So that could be pared down to "it is a text having failed to pass any scholarly standards of authentication". Tighten the grammar up, and you get "It has failed to pass any scholarly standards of authentication as an alleged historical document or record." That contains all of the meaning of the original, while avoiding the awkwardness.
  • I still think the phrase "does not appear to exist anywhere in the world" is odd. Unless you believe in people launching anti-Semitic screeds into space, it means the exact same thing as "does not appear to exist". Why not just use that phrase, and drop the nebulous "anywhere in the world" bit?
  • The whole "false document" paragraph is really awkward. We've already established that it is a hoax. That means there is no original, no? The whole paragraph describing that the original has never been verified as existing seems, still, redundant. Is it even possible to have a "hoax" with a "verified original"? Still, if we're going to leave that in, something needs to be done about the sentence "Nevertheless, it has been shown that associated with the alleged original are the elements of a false document." Since we've established that it's a hoax, there's no need to tip-toe around it "having the elements of a false document". Why not just change that sentence to "It is an example of a false document" or "It is a false document"? Or, to combine it with the sentence described up above: "It is a false document which has failed to pass any scholarly standards of authentication as an alleged historical document or record." Two birds, one stone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.160.15.16 (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I think you have excellent stylistic or copyediting suggestions now!
  • What I do not agree on is your desire to suppress the vocabulary: "False document" is a precise technical term. Hoax also has a distinct meaning. For example, you can have a hoax which involves no document.
  • By all means, go ahead and improve the writing style as you suggest - but please do not censor any of these different terms which mean different things - but which sound redundent to you.
  • Finally, although you have shown us a way to improve the style of the writing, I cannot comprehend how you can trivialize the non-existence of an original manuscript. Consider this. Suppose you are a DA engaged in prosecuting an alleged counterfeiter. You then show the judge and jury a photocopy of the $100 bill. The defense objects demanding the original. But you respond that you do not have it, or lost it. Well, how do we know that it is not the case that there never was any countefeiting in the first place? It is certainly possible that the photocopy of yours is a false document. I cannot overstate the importance of the fact of the non-existence of the original manuscript. I hope I have made my point on that.
  • So please improve the wording by rearranging the sentences as you suggest. But please keep all the (1) facts and (2) diverse concepts. --Ludvikus (talk) 03:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • You say some strange things. You imply above that an "inauthentic text" is a text which "hasn't been authenticated." That's simply false. How can you say such a thing? --Ludvikus (talk) 03:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to try to act as an intermediary. I hope it will be welcome.
First, to the IP commenting here. It would be tremendously helpful if you would register a user name. I can assure you that it's entirely painless. IP's can sometimes change and, even if they don't, It's a lot easier to remember who said what if they sign with a recognizable name instead of a string of numbers
Second, to Ludvikus, if I understand the IP correctly, he agrees with you completely with regard to the facts but takes exception to your writing style. (Is this correct, IP?) If you agree with me about this, Ludvikus, I think it would be best to avoid the use of words like "your suppression of these facts" and "censor". They really aren't civil and don't assume good faith.
With regard to the matter regarding the "original manuscript," obviously this hoax was concocted at some particular time and place. The person who concocted it put it down on paper somewhere. The paper on which he (she? unlikely) originally put it would be the original manuscript. The fact that this manuscript seems not to exist is worth mentioning as Ludvikis says. However I don't think that the IP is implying that the manuscript actually exists only that the phrase "in this world" is stylistically infelicitous.
I'm about to take a look at the article to see if I can make any stylistic improvements and I'll watch this space to see if I can be of any help. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your helpful contributions, Steven J. Anderson. I've noticed your constructive contributions in the writing already.
However, I think you are overlooking the disruptiveness of the repeated posting of that Neutrality tag. I urge you to do something about that IP whom you've warned already. Furthermore, I understand the policy of Good Faith at Wikipedia, but unfortunately, one cannot assume good faith in the context of bad faith - which this article attracts like a Magnet. Furthermore, I acknowledged already the need for stylistic changes, but I do not see any other way of understanding this claim of "repetitiousness" except by the expression above. I do not think that "calling a spade a spade" is inconsistent with Wiki Policy. There has been no "repetition" as claimed. So the only way to understand the above IP is in terms of "suppresion" and "censorship." "Assuming good faith" does not require closing one's eyes. Furthermore, that IP can clarify his or her position, and I can easily acknowledge my incorrect interpretation of that "repetition" charge. I do not see sufficient difference of my wording here from the IP's use of "repetition." --Ludvikus (talk) 05:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Ludvikus: I understand that you want to keep the phrase "false document". That's why I suggested using the phrase "It is a false document which has failed to pass any scholarly standards of authentication as an alleged historical document or record." If I were trying to suppress this fact or censor it, I wouldn't have suggested a sentence containing it.
  • I didn't realize the difference between "inauthentic" and "unauthenticated". I apologize. However, if what "inauthentic" means is "the thing is a fake", then haven't we already covered that ground by saying it's a hoax? Steven J. Anderson edited this phrase out, and you don't seem to have a problem with that, so perhaps your opposition to my suggested removal was something personal ? (I admit I probably created too much friction with the drive-by edit, and I'm sorry. I'm used to making modifications to non-contentious pages, where edits can be made without discussion. I should have realized that I should have suggested changes for a topic as charged as this before making any actual changes. I can't really blame you if my initial edits put my further suggestions into a bad light)
  • All that said, I have suggested changes that keep all the main concepts: the hoaxness, the anti-semitism, the conspiracy theoryness, the lack of authentication, the false document, the lack of existence of the original, etc. etc. etc. In fact, the only thing I've removed in my latest suggestions is the phrase "inauthentic text", since it's already been stated that it is a hoax, and a false document, and the original does not appear to exist. Given that I've left in every single thing that was in the original text besides one expression, which has already been expressed in different words (a hoax false document which does not appear to exist IS an inauthentic text), I admit my initial edits were drastic, but I think my recent suggestions are sound and retain all the information of the original. I fail to see how leaving everything would leave one with the conclusion that "the only way to understand the IP above is in terms of 'suppression' and 'censorship'". Especially since you're not seeing the exact same removal of the phrase "inauthentic text" by another user to be "suppression" or "censorship".
  • Steven J. Anderson: Thanks. I really like your edits. As it is, I only see one more redundancy, which I'm going to put in the "Authentication" section immediately below this. Other than that, the intro is looking much, much better.
210.160.15.16 (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, one other thing: Steven J. Anderson, I think you're misinterpreting what Ludvicus is talking about when he is talking about the original not existing. We all agree that at some point someone wrote this down. This original is missing. What I think Ludvicus is talking about is that the publications of the Protocols purport to be reproductions of some secret minutes from a meeting of freemasons or Jews, and that that original has never existed. Basically, we're talking about two originals: the first does not and has never existed (there was never a meeting of Jewish freemasons planning to take over the world). The second was the original hoax document, which pretended it was a reproduction of some nonexistent original. This second original obviously did exist at some point, but has been lost. There is no debate by anyone (sane people or crazy neonazis) that the second original at some point existed. The issue is that some crazy folk insist that the first original (actual minutes from an actual conspiracy meeting) at one point existed, and cannot be found, while non-crazy folks point out that the whole thing is a hoax pastiche from other screeds, and there IS no "first original".
I tried to figure out a way to phrase that succinctly, but it's really difficult.
210.160.15.16 (talk) 13:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Authentication

That's an important technical process for which we have an extended article. I'm surprise that it's being trivialized by editing it out of the page. So I've restored that concept. There is no "repetition" by the use of this term even if we have already used the other terms such as plagiarism, forgery, fraud, etc. --Ludvikus (talk) 12:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ludvikus - It wasn't edited out of the page. It was moved up to the first paragraph:

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (Protocols of the wisemen of Zion, Library of Congress's Uniform Title; Russian: "Протоколы сионских мудрецов", or "Сионские протоколы"; see also other titles), is a plagiarism, literary forgery, and a hoax, alleging a Jewish and Masonic plot to achieve world domination. The writing has been revealed to be originally an antisemitic and anti-Masonic (and subsequently anti-Zionist) diatribe and conspiracy theory. It was first published in 1903 in Russian, in Znamya. The text has failed to pass any scholarly standards of authentication as an alleged historical document or record. A version of it was published in 1905, as a final Chapter XII in a second edition of a book by Serge Nilus on the subject of the coming of the Antichrist. Accordingly, "The Protocols" are originally intertwined with this author's Russian Orthodox dogma.[1]

As it is, we now have the introductory section of the article containing these two phrases:

  • The text has failed to pass any scholarly standards of authentication as an alleged historical document or record.

  • Although it has never been authenticated, the text is always published by those who subscribe to its authenticity as a revelation of the activities, practices, and policies of Jews.

So it isn't being edited out of the page, but moved to a more prominent position near the start of the page.
210.160.15.16 (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What Do They Purport To Be

Something I just noticed on rereading the intro, and the article in general: It isn't until significantly far into the page that it's actually pointed out what the Protocols purport to be (supposed notes and instructions written at a meeting of Jewish freemasons).210.160.15.16 (talk) 14:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Unfortunately, you raise not a simple problem. Thes "Protocols" themselves are about two dozen in number, 24 (depending on which version you consider). And they themselves do not reveal what they are, except that they are in the first person singular. What they are is given by its diverse editors, of which there are many, and some are anonymous. These, or this text, have/has never been canonized, as our bible or the Koran has. So what "they purport to be" varies with which annotated imprint or impression you happen to read or stumble upon. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Ah, ok, that makes sense. Thanks.210.160.15.16 (talk) 15:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I think I can offer some insight as someone who knows relatively little about the Protocols. I've read your other posts Ludivikus and they do make sense but reading the article, I do not get an understanding of what the Protocols actually are. The introduction should provide a concise and clear summary of the article but were I to read it on its own, I would be at a loss to explain to anyone else what the article is actually about. Yes, the Protocols do not appear to reveal what they are in themselves but that is why anonymous used the word 'purport'. This is adequate for the purposes of conveying the fact that the articles are faked documents which were published to 'expose' an alleged Jewish conspiracy. If you are not happy with this phrase then perhaps we could have 'widely purported by publishers'? Furthermore, I have to agree with what others have said as regards the rendundancy of some of the text in the introduction. I understand that all of the sentences and phrases are relevant and true but that does not mean that they all need to be included in the introduction. I could add in to the entry for Romeo and Juliet that 'Romeo and Juliet was originally written on paper by William Shakespeare. Shakespeare first thought of the play. The play was written using a quill pen and ink. The play has characters and is meant to be performed. Romeo and Juliet are the main characters. Romeo is a man and Juliet is a woman....' I know it's a silly demonstration but I urge you to find a sentence in there that is not true.Supernoodles (talk) 15:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • In a way, these liers and forgers force us to do their work for them by their very sloppiness. For example, are these protocols anti-Zionist, or anti-Bolshevik. It depends on how much credence you give the diffrent prefaces, introductions, appendices, etc. (often very brief). There's this irony here. We seem to elevate these often mysterious unknown "authorities" as the sources on what the "Protocols" are. Isn't that strange? --Ludvikus (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • In other words, there exists not only the bare PSM, but also the context of the text. Maybe semiotics is needed to account for how these messages or meanings are conveyed. We give too little weight, I think, to all the words, and workings, of all these editors and publishers (like The Britons). --Ludvikus (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Fabricated "Historic" Document (1964)

  • Protocols of the Elders of Zion: A Fabricated "Historic" Document (1964)
by United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary (PDF at ushmm.org) Online Books Page [7]
This is a report on the official investigation and findings of the United States Senate.
Regarding the POV challenge, I'm posting this 1964 "External Link" here also. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The History of a Lie

  • The History of a Lie: "The Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion"
(New York: J. S. Ogilvie Pub. Co., c1921), by Herman Bernstein (at archive.org), The Online Books Page [8]
This is an early textual study.
  • Dear new IP Wikipedians,
I've pasted this reference for your convenience. You may, if you wish, Download and/or Print this 1921 scholarly study. Upon reading it, please join us in editing this page in an informed way. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleaning Up the Talk Page

I've been working through this talk page trying to get a handle on some discussions that I realize have already happened. However, I think (but it's a bit hard to tell) that the talk page is partially being misused. The Wikipedia guidelines on using a talk page state:

  • Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal.

But they also state:

  • Share material: The talk page can be used to store material from the article which has been removed because it is not verified, so that time can be given for references to be found. New material can sometimes be prepared on the talk page until it is ready to be put into the article.

I see a lot of material on this page which is just links to additional references, people, books, etc. If these are being placed here in preparation for their later inclusion in the main page, that's fine, but it would be good to note that, and to request whatever help it is you need in placing the contents into the main page (that is, if you're adding information here in order to get verification, ask for people to help with verification. If you're putting it here in order to request copy writing or additional fleshing out, request copy writing or additional fleshing out). If you just have additional information that you think is interesting, if it's good enough to put in the article, put it there. If it isn't, don't put it anywhere. Otherwise you're using the Talk page for "talking about the article's subject", and not "discussing how to improve the article". 210.160.15.16 (talk) 20:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You are the one who Tagged the Main page as Non-Neutral about half a dozen times in the last two days or so. But what you talk about above has nothing to do with your allegation that the Main page is Non-Neutral. I think the participants here know the purpose of his Talk page. It is not a place to bring up a non-sequitor. And that's what you're doing here know. Why don't you tell us what the reason was/is regarding your claim that the Main page is Non-Neutral (for which you've posted the Tag at least 6 times after different editors removed your Tag)? --Ludvikus (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I have never tagged the page as non-neutral.
This section of the talk page is to discuss trying to make this talk page more useful. Please keep this section on topic. If you wish to discuss things with the guy who keeps tagging the page as non-neutral, go up to the section of the talk page about non-neutrality and talk with him about it there. I am not him, and this topic is not that topic, so bringing it up here is a non-sequitor. 210.160.15.16 (talk) 23:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • What do you mean you "are not him"? Look here [9]! --Ludvikus (talk) 23:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • My apology. I see now that you really appear to be not him. Sorry. But why don't you register, and join us. You will then be able to choose your own pen name and be more easily recognized. Nevertheless, I still do not know what your "beef" is in the above. Good luck to you. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I see that you've been around since June of 2006 - that's 2 months longer than me. So you shold appreciate the usefulnes of a unique name. Why don't you do that so at least I can more easily tell who says what? --Ludvikus (talk) 00:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • No problem, I understand that IP addresses can be confusing. I'd like to register, but due to some quirks here, that isn't really possible. Kinda sucks.
  • My beef isn't a big one, it's just that I realized after my initial complaints about redundancy (which have pretty much been solved), that the issue had already been discussed before in the Talk page. (So, ironically, my whole comment about redundancy was redundant -- oops!) So I tried to read through the talk page to make sure I didn't go repeating something someone else had already said, and I found it really hard to read, not because there was a lot of contentious discussion, but because there was a lot of stuff that doesn't really qualify as "Talk Page" material (from people on both sides of the issue), and I figured that if the talk page were used more in line with the general objectives of Talk pages, it would be easier for folks like me to read through. I see you've put in a copy editing request below, so that's perfect, and exactly what I was after. Thanks. 210.160.15.16 (talk) 00:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Copyediting Help in Paragraph below

I'm sorry for the poor, repetiveness, copy. I would appreciate assistance & stylistic improvement - but the facts are established:

Well, I've copyedited the above myself into the following:

The rest of the para. I've turned into a new para. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A sandwiched interjection

I've been copyediting the following: "External links of notable current Web resources" and checking these out as to Notability, and Availability. But in the meantime an unknown IP has interjected something - can someone please check that interjection as to propriety? (I'll be back in a moment with the IP address). --Ludvikus (talk) 01:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm back. Here's the interjection work which I cannot verify as to my agreement:
    "(cur) (last)  01:07, 25 April 2008 69.134.125.56 (Talk) (89,644 bytes) (undo)"
Can someone please check on what this IP has just done, please? --Ludvikus (talk) 01:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
OK. I figured it out myself. The IP interjected an "e" replacing "Bern Trial" with "Berne Trial" (both are correct, but perhaps the latter is more common). --Ludvikus (talk) 04:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jose De La Cruz or Jose Delacruz

It's a wonderful cite - but it's not notable. So I've just deleted it. What a shame! --Ludvikus (talk) 04:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Here is "Jose"'s resume (he says he was 19 when he composed the cite): [10]
--Ludvikus (talk) 04:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] All "external links" checked, verified, & copy-edited

I've completed that just now. --Ludvikus (talk) 05:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Hagemeister, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion: Between History and Fiction, New German Critique (Spring 2008)

  • I've just been informed, in the last few days, of the latest published writing (in English) by this German scholar regarding the question concerning the original authorship of the PSM. I have not yet had a chance to acquire a copy of this scholarly article. For those of you who are interested, here it is: [11].
  • The exact reference is: New German Critique 103, Vol. 35, No. 1, Spring 2008
--Ludvikus (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clyde J. Wright‎

He edited a Frebruary 1934 71pp. imprint of "The Protocols." --Ludvikus (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References: Hadassa Ben-Itto

I would recommend not to refer to the book by Ben-Itto, since her book is not a scientific work and contains false statements, which is confirmed by professional historians (see e.g. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Protokolle_der_Weisen_von_Zion#Literatur:_Hadassa_Ben-Itto). --Max Shakhray (talk) 00:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not read German. Can you bee more specific please? She is a former Judge, and her book is praised by Judges in New Yor City. And she focused on the 1934-5 Berne Trial. So even if she made errors, she is some sort of an authority. And we do not not require "scientific" texts for these matters, we require scholarly sorces. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, here's my mediocre translation:
"The author had the records of suitors against the Protocols from Bern and South Africa at her disposal (p. 37). But she neither uses citations, nor gives references, thus it is not verifiable which facts are new, which are authentically documented and which are her literary fantasy (here comes a citation from p. 72). She compiles an intricate international relationship network with the disadvantage that many conclusions have no evidence and some statements are simply wrong." The author of this review Dr. Rainer Erb works at the Centre for Anti-Semitism Research in Berlin (http://zfa.kgw.tu-berlin.de/mitarbeiter.htm). Moreover, I received a similar critical review of Ben-Itto's book from Michael Hagemeister: "Unfortunately, the book by Ben-Itto about the Bern Trial, which is translated into many languages, has no scientific value and is full of factual mistakes".
  • I do read English, but could you be more specific about the interview? --Max Shakhray (talk) 02:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I just posted the interview (you can click on it) as some proof of who she is. Her book was published. Whereas you just give us broad generalities - that is totally useless for WP. Give us, instead a review in a scholarly journal - that we could use. We must have References. But you give us none. --Ludvikus (talk) 03:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I know who she is. And first I thought she gives correct facts. But the reality seems to be a bit different, unfortunately. I'm just about to ask Michael Hagemeister about references for the facts about the costs of both trials he gave me. He has mentioned that the best book on the topic is still Urs Lüthi: Der Mythos von der Weltverschwörung. Die Hetze der Schweizer Frontisten gegen Juden und Freimaurer - am Beispiel des Berner Prozesses um die 'Protokolle der Weisen von Zion'. Basel, Frankfurt a.M.: Helbing & Lichtenhahn, 1992. (sorry, it is in German and I do not know whether there's an English transaltion of it) --Max Shakhray (talk) 03:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Now you say something very interesting!!! Michael Hagemeister is a world-class scholar on the PSM and Serge Nilus. Unfortunately, his his work on this matter is not available in English. By the way, the standard work on the PSM was for a long time Norman Cohn's Warrant for Genocide (1967, 1996). There is only one work in English which rivals it - at least in textual analysis of the basic text: The Non-Existent Manuscript by Cesare G. De Michelis.
  • Some Europeans have a strong sence of privacy, so what Prof./Dr. Michael Hagemeister tells you, or me, I would advise you to first seek his permission before you disclose it.
  • But also, Wikipedia policy only allows us to use Published Sources. So it would be only useful if you told us what he says in his published works - particularly those in German. unfortunately, I have not yet been able to purchase his latest work that has just become available. But that deals with the so-called author of the protocols who has allegedly been uncovered by that Russian scholar who claims he had access to Soviet archives which only become available after the collape of the Soviet union. --Ludvikus (talk) 04:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Urs Lüthi: Der Mythos von der Weltverschwörung. Die Hetze der Schweizer Frontisten gegen Juden und Freimaurer - am Beispiel des Berner Prozesses um die 'Protokolle der Weisen von Zion'. (Basel, Frankfurt a.M.: Helbing & Lichtenhahn, 1992).
"(sorry, it is in German and I do not know whether there's an English transaltion of it)"
I will check this source immediately - since you say it has been given to you by Dr. Hagemeister!!! --Ludvikus (talk) 04:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • This book is neither available at amazon.de any more, so I will have to check the Dresden City Library :-( --Max Shakhray (talk) 06:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Hagemeister

We do have an article of his on the PSM available on the Web, but it's in the German language:

  • Sergej Nilus und die "Protokolle der Weisen von Zion" Überlegungen zur Forschungslage [14]
This is about The Protocols (in Geman, on a Web site maintained by Martin Blumentritt).
Anyone who reads German is certainly welcome to use it as a source. --Ludvikus (talk) 06:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Rainer Erb

He appears sufficiently important to deserve his own article. --Ludvikus (talk) 06:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John S. Curtiss

This is the 1942 debunker of the Protocols of Zion. I've commenced an article on this notable Columbia University former professor, showing there his scholarly contribution which is often much overlooked in favor of Norman Cohn. I hope someone will use it usefully here - I think he's given insufficient credit for that contribution. Ludvikus (talk) 23:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The subscribing (1942) debunkers of the Protocols

  • BERNADOTTE E. SCHMITT, Professor of Modern History in the University of Chicago
    • Each one of these notable historians - and WWII (1942) debunkers of the PSM deserves an article about them (they all supported the appraisal by Curtiss as expressed in the Foreward to his book, writing regarding "his findings" that "they [the PSM] are rank and pernicious forgeries."). --Ludvikus (talk) 00:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Denis Fahey

[edit] The War Against the Kingship of Christ

That's Fahey's subtitle for said 1965 imprint. Yes, its yet another Title for The Protocols. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] It's "wise men" not "wisemen"

After checking the latest anonymous IP, can someone fix the above? --Ludvikus (talk) 01:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Urs Luthi

The only scholary work, and in fact the standard work, on the Berne Trial, is the 1992 139 page monograph by Urs Luthi, a Swiss national, who published his work while, or about, the time he was a student at the University of Berne. --Ludvikus (talk) 12:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Malaysia

"In 2006, Masterpiece Publications issued a version of the Protocols under the title World Conquest Through World Jewish Government (ISBN 983-3710-28-X). Copies of the book are held at the Institute of Islamic Understanding Malaysia.Library of the Institute of Islamic Understanding Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur"

  • I'm quoting (& Cut & Post here) the above from our page which appears to be vandalized. Ludvikus (talk) 00:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ludvikus

He has been blocked for 2 years because of a content dispute with 3 editors at Holocaust denial and On the Jewish Question. 70.23.216.239 (talk) 09:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not for a content dispute, it's for a massive ongoing pattern of disruption. Interesting choice of a "first" contribution to Wikipedia, though, 70.23.216.239! Boodlesthecat Meow? 14:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Ludvikus will not be helped by editing anonymously to circumvent his block. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆|Ludvikus 18:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Is this better Jpgordon User:Ludvikus=70.23.238.22 (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't know how to do this yet. Perhaps you can advise? "If someone uses alternative accounts, it is recommended that he or she provide links between the accounts in most cases to make it easy to determine that one individual shares them and to avoid any appearance or suspicion of sockpuppetry (see alternative account notification)." User:Ludvikus=70.23.238.22 (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • To all here: Please be advised that I'm using an alternative account, namely 70.23.238.22. My main account is currently Blocked. Please be further advised, that my intent is not to engage in WP:sockpuppetry. User Talk:Ludvikus=70.23.238.22 (talk) 20:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The stop doing it. You may not edit when blocked, other than on your user page (and even there if you abuse the privilege.) Any more anonymous edits and you will be blocked permanently, and your user pages will be blanked and protected. I hope I'm clear on this. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re protocols forgery

i am e new user of this site and will do my best to follow your protocol while browsing this site i noted an article claiming PROTOCOL IS A FORGERY in times magazine if it is a forgery a forgery then aforgery of WHAT ????? as far as iknow a forgery is taken from an original document, bank note etc so there MUST BE AN ORIGINAL !!!! 11:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC) ROBERT SCHMIDT

  • Hm? See Forgery: Forgery is the process of making, adapting, or imitating objects or documents (see false document), with the intent to deceive. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 13:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC).