Talk:The Protocols of the Elders of Zion/Archive 9

External link to English translation
An IP editor added a link in "External links" section to a translation. I think, in general, that is not a bad idea. But there are a couple of issues: (1) the exact translation (Marsden, etc) is not specified;  (2) I don't know if that site is reputable;  (3) is the translation accurate? Perhaps the best path forward here is for someone who knows of a reliable site with a validated translation could replace that new link with a more authoritative link? The book Dismantling the big lie: the Protocols of the elders of Zion, published by the Simon Wiesenthal Center, has a full translation in an appendix, but that book is not fully available online (fragments are on Google Books), to my knowledge. --Noleander (talk) 18:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * On a related note: what is the difference between the "External Links" section and its "Notable web resources" sub-section?   I propose to merge them into one "External Links" section.  --Noleander (talk) 00:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no idea why that section is divided up that way. It doesn't make sense to me, either. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I was able to find several pdfs etc in a short search - both wiki reliable sites and others. The Protoclos were also used in the early 1900s as an anti-Communist tract ( ie replace the word Jew with Commie and voila you have The Protocols of the Elders of Communism.) It has been added to and subtracted from for over a century. 159.105.80.220 (talk) 13:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC) The underlying text ( leave out Jew,Commie, etc ) shows how a plan for domination would/could/should/must be implemented. Whatever group was doing it could be inserted as the noun. It would be hard to conceive of domination without these steps or hard to not suspect someone who seemed intent on implementation of this plan - damn capitalists,Romans,... Is there an article about the Protocols of the Elders of Communism, or do they not care?159.105.80.220 (talk) 18:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

manifestation in the Casino of Berne?
"by the National Front during a political manifestation demonstration in the Casino of Berne" - I think the word demonstration is more common.Geo8rge (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutral point of view?
Given the actual content of the document in question, relative to the state of world events, then and now, the actual uncertainty of its ultimate origin (which really begs the question, "Who actually 'borrowed' from whom?), the similarity to other related historical documents, as well as the sheer number and degree of highly charged adjectives used to describe it, one can hardly make the claim that this article is indeed written with a neutral point of view.

Taking all of this into account, it gives the article, as written, the appearance of being more or less an intentional cover-up. Not saying that it is. Just saying that is how it appears. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.169.39 (talk) 04:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It's just saying what the RSs are saying. The only views that go against those sources are usually found in places like Stormfront and conspiracy theory sites. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree, although I think the article is really disorganized, and doesn't make the case as well as it could. It's on my list -- so many articles, so little time! DoctorJoeE (talk) 04:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Now that is something that needs to be fixed. It needs to be hammered home that the subject document is fake, and it needs to be done in a proper and organised manner. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the function of WP is to inform, rather than to persuade. Evidence that would lead the reader to conclude that it is a fake would certainly be appropriate and helpful... as would, hypothetically, any evidence to the contrary for that matter.  John2510 (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Certainly, if there were a reliable source that would testify to the contrary.--Galassi (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The biased appearance of this article is generally accepted here. Please make an effort to neutralize it. I am not good with editing and don't want to mess it up. But "fraudulent antisemetic" in the first line of introduction?? It reads like a desperate emotional attempt to discredit the subject rather than llowing the evidence to do so. 64.134.31.114 (talk) 01:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I just wanted to mention that even as a Jew myself I do feel that the writing is entirely too one sided and not unbiased. The writers voice should exhibit factual disinterest. For instance, in the beginning of the second paragraph, there is the line "studied in classrooms, as if real..." That is gratuitous. We already know it isn't real from the google search results and the first line of the article. Okay I've made my point. :::: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.204.85 (talk) 08:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Eh, pretty much the same thing (with proper weight it will crush it any way and follow the rules at the same time). It shouldn't read like a cover up if that is how some will view it. And yeah, I am not sure an RS can be found that says the opposite. At least not right now, maybe in a couple years. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 07:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

William Cooper in 'Behold A Pale Horse' devotes Chapter 15 to this subject. He advises to replace the words 'Jew' with 'Illuminati' and 'goyim'with 'cattle'. I think that paints a more accurate picture and it so scares the Illuminati that they have to smear this Wikipedia article with refutations and accusations of fakery and plagiarism. This is clearly not an educational page founded on unbiased recording of historical facts. It should be marked for revision by Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.40.158.50 (talk) 02:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Anything in this JPost piece that can help improve the article?
So I just found this article by a retired judge in Israel (I must be sexist, I assumed this person was male until I saw the bio at the end. I should have looked at her name more closely, lol. Ben is son, but the first name ending female) who has spent her golden years researching the Protocols. Their impact and importance, etc.

She has written a rather notable book on it, The Lie that wouldn't Die, and so this will probably be a neat summary of her views (I don't have time atm to read through, but this is preferable to citing pages in a lengthy book that no one might bother to check). I see at least one citation of her book in the refs section.

She is bringing it up because there's been a bit of anti-Jewish sentiment present in the Arab World Protests, and so she is giving her analysis of the book, etc.

Anyone else want to comb through this and see what can/should be put it? Remember though if you're going to pass judgement on whether to actually use a source, please do a careful reading of the whole thing. If my tone seems inconsistent btw, it's because I wasn't sure who the author was when I started writing and have had to edit a few times. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 11:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * After a protracted (nearly year-long) delay, I have finally received my copy of The Lie That Wouldn't Die. I'll need to read it through, of course, but it appears to be meticulously researched.  This article was once FA, you know -- it would be nice to get it re-promoted at least to GA status. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 21:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

wikipedia has no opinion, does it?
Why not let up to the reader decide by himself whether the document is fraudulent or not. We can even state: "... is generally considered fraudulent". or "a.b.z" consider this work fraudulent. But I don't think it is up to wikipedia to make such a statement of any work, whatever that is. And by the way, I don't support any of the views of the book. It is just a matter of methodology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.218.97.215 (talk) 22:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Because its fraudulence is a fact, not an opinion. Encyclopedias never say, "The Earth is generally considered to orbit the Sun," do they?  While neither you nor I have directly observed the Earth orbiting the Sun from a spaceship situated far enough away to make that observation, there's enough enduring evidence to safely conclude that it's a fact.  And there's enough evidence (spelled out in the article) to conclude that the Protocols are fraudulent as well.  There is ample precedent for that all through WP -- lots of articles draw a conclusion when there is enough incontrovertible evidence to support it. DoctorJoeE (talk) 00:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes. It is a matter of public record that the book is a slightly altered version of a different book published some years earlier that had nothing to do with Jews. Therefore it has been amply demonstrated and is a matter of public record, as well as being manifestly obvious that the book was not written at the time it is purported to have been written, by the people who are said to have written it, with original text it is said to have had. In other words, if someone in the 20th century took Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet and changed the names of the title characters to Fred and Ginger and left everything else the same but now claimed to have written it himself, you don't have to thereafter say on Wikipedia that the story of Fred and Ginger is "generally considered fraudulent" or "is considered by so-and-so to be fraudulent." No. It's a proven fact. The poster above needs to go and read up on Wikipedia policy and how it judges verifiability. You're right, it's not "up to Wikipedia to make such a statement of any work." Wikipedia does not allow original research. It is not original research to say the the Protocols are fraudulent. It is well-established scholarly fact. QuizzicalBee (talk) 00:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The majority of the reliable sources (or is it all?) say it is fraudulent. Why should Wikipedia say otherwise? As a side-note, I don't think anyone who actually thinks about this topic would ever think that we (Jews) would actually be stupid enough to publish such a document that everyone could read even if we did have the moronic goals expressed in it.... That is why you only have conspiracy sites and other less likable fellows saying otherwise. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 01:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know that we can really answer why anyone still believes that the Protocols is a real document, when common sense tells you (indeed, screams at you) that it is not; other than to say that some people have beliefs that are simply immune to facts. Exhibit A: Holocaust deniers. To a rabid anti-Semite it makes no difference that the Protocols have been debunked countless times, or that so much incriminating Holocaust artifacts still survive that a dozen huge museums can't hold them all.  Dwight Eisenhower understood this in 1945 -- he went to Ohrdruf personally, and ordered all his field generals to go with him, in order to be able to counter any future deniers with first-hand evidence.  (A direct quote to that effect is engraved on an outer wall of the US Holocaust Museum.)


 * I question whether anybody who believes in the Protocols or denies the Holocaust is in fact someone "who actually thinks about this topic." There's not much "actual thinking" going on at Klan meetings, or at the anti-Semitic web sites. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 22:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Having a link to a list of "conspiracy theories" at the bottom, some of which have proven true, does nothing to help build the case that the Protocols are a fraud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.220.100.149 (talk) 02:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see the link are you referring to, but (1) we have no need to "build the case" that the Protocols are a fraud -- that case was built in 1921 and has withstood almost a century of challenges; and (2) the idea that some other conspiracy theory may or may not have been "proven true" is completely irrelevant to the incontrovertible fact that the Protocols are fraudulent. DoctorJoeE (talk) 21:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Why The Jews Only
Nothing is a fact until you experience it yourself, but I can buy the idea that his book is most likely fake. But why is it almost always about the Jews that conspiracy theories are attached ?

Why was the need felt in the first place to come up with such documents or theories to breed hatred and anti-Semitism(as is claimed) in Russia, Germany, most of the Arab world? What is so different about Semitism or Jewish cultures that it attracts such attention or deserves such action? Is it that there is abundance of such racism, hatred towards other ethnic groups in the world but it is not advertised as well as events concerning the Jews? If that is the case, trying to create too much of what is called awareness about such events, will only attract more dislike, from neutral or sympathetic groups is only going to make them more skeptical about claims of unique or unequaled hatred? If it matters for this context I do not belong to an Abrahamic religion.

Another observation I have (on Wikipedia), it is very common with amazing consistency to highlight the Jewish ethnicity/religion of popular people, be it scientists, Org. Heads, Politicians...is it a coincidence? If it is conscious effort by the Jewish community, I have to question their motive..if it is awareness (which I hope it is), I doubt they are being successful. Putting it in the face of a reader will not much good out of it in the long-run.

Contrary to the purpose of this talk..my comments are not about the language of the article but the content, which might consider more important, hence I do not apologize. If it is in the name of free speech there is overwhelmingly one-sided media about Jewish issues, then the same right of free speech should allow people who have a dislike or disagreement with your ideas to speak out and be free to publish whatever media they want (of course not fraudulent, as is claimed in this case). Asking to be liked by everyone is setting the bar high, or of it is just being used as a reason to get to achieve your real motives..how long will such a strategy last?

115.242.166.32 (talk) 11:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This page is for discussing improvements to this article. Do you have anything specific in mind?--Charles (talk) 11:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ditto that, but the short answer to your first question is that rulers would use the Jews as scapegoats to distract the population from some other issue, usually one that was enriching the ruling class at the expense of the peasants. It's a purely political tactic that has been used for centuries by the King of Spain, Arab sheiks, the Czars of Russia, Adolf Hitler, and so on. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Hitler in lede
Does the paragraph about Hitler really belong in the lede or in the article at all? It is my understanding that the Nazi campaign against Jews and others was motivated be a desire to purify the Aryan race, not because of fear of Jewish hegemony. I know it's appealing to invoke Hitler in any discussion condemning contemptible behavior, but I don't think the facts support it in this case. Particularly objectionable is the sentence that begins, "In at least one scholar's opinion ...." I can probably find you dozens of "scholars" who opine that humans domesticated dinosaurs.Lahaun (talk) 01:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed, that is my understanding as well, that it was that reason they tried to purge Europe of all groups they considered undesirable. Putting the opinion of one scholar in the lede is kind of silly, especially when you don't even identify the guy in the text. If it was studied in Nazi Germany though, that bit should be left in as it is a notable case of it being treated as fact by a government. It should be moved into the body though I think, as should Prof. Cohn's hypothesis, which would be better phrased as something like "Historian Norman Cohn believed that . . .". Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 05:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * There were multiple rationales by Nazis regarding why they should kill all the Jews, and one was purification, and another was the fear that Jews controlled the world. It's not an either/or proposition. And those rationales were related&mdash;the Nazis made arguments about why Jews fouled up "purity", and part of those rationales was concerning the myth of Jewish power. It wasn't enough for them to say that Aryans were "better" than everyone else, they also had to explain why, when others succeeded against Aryans, that success was illegitimate. You need to read up more on the Holocaust. Why exactly do the facts not support mention of Hitler, given that The Protocols were an important component of Nazi propaganda against Jews? You contradict yourself and create a circular argument by simultaneously arguing that fear of Jewish power was unrelated to the Holocaust, and then taking the evidence that fear of  Jewish power was a key concern of Hitler's (the evidence being that the Protocols had an important place in his propaganda and numerous people were forced to read and study it) and saying it was unimportant regarding the Holocaust. It's also a specious argument to try to delegitimate a scholar's argument of the importance of Protocols to the Holocaust by comparing that scholars idea to the possibly that some people believe that humans domesticated dinosaurs. As is clear from Wikipedia's policies regarding how to identify reliable sources (which you should familiarize yourself with. See: Reliable_sources), you don't take the word of random people as adequate support for a given argument. But you DO use references to legitimate scholars who have standing in their community. And this particular scholar (Norman Cohn) has a respectable reputation and is a recognized academic. So no matter how many people you can think of who believe wacky ideas about dinosaurs, that has nothing to do with why Norman Cohn is a legitimate source according to Wikipedia and according to other scholars and experts in the field.  QuizzicalBee (talk) 20:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Usually best to do @User so it's clear who you are talking to. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 10:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The insetting is normally sufficient. However, QuizzicalBee seems to be replying to both posts at the same time, which is fine, but the use of the second person leads to confusion. I agree that Cohn should be named, but also agree with QB's argument. Nazi anti-semitism was not primarily motivated by "a desire to purify the Aryan race." Intermarriage was forbidden, of course, but it wasn't exactly approved of among believing Jews either. The main argument was the "enemy within" one, which was defined by Jewish separateness, not the possibility of their merging with 'Aryans'. Paul B (talk) 21:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the confusion regarding to whom I was responding. Indeed, most of my response was to Lahun, not to Flinders Petrie.QuizzicalBee (talk) 23:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The indenting can just make it look jumbly at times, so it's preferable to make it clear with @'s. I just think Cohn should be named and moved into the body of the article, or should it still be in the lede? In the current format it is unacceptable, regardless of where it is. Just saying in one person's opinion is silly. It should name him and give his qualification. @QB, yep I thought so, it's been a while, but I did do pretty extensive research on the Shoah (not so much on the rest of the Holocaust) as every good Jew should do (we all lost family after all). Come to think of it, everyone should research it so they know what can happen when you act out of desperation and don't do the one thing you should always do (question whoever is in authority). But I digress. Glad that was cleared up. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 14:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Looking for the author of a quotation about the "Protocols"
Was it Henry Ford who said : « I understand that the Protocols are a fake; bit now I would like to understand why so many things happen exactly like if they were true » ? I saw sometimes, though less often, the same quotation attributed to Charles Lindbergh. 212.198.147.141 (talk) 12:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The place to ask this question is WP:RD. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 79.197.100.200, 29 July 2011
Please change * Stauber, Roni; Webman, Esther (eds.): The Protocols of the Elders of Zion - The One-Hundred Year Myth and Its Impact, Tel Aviv 2008 (in print)

to

Webman, Esther (ed.): ''The Global Impact of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. A century-old myth'' (London and New York: Routledge, 2011).

The book has just been published.

79.197.100.200 (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — Bility (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Fraudulent Book ???
How is the book fraudulent ? No one can prove that some Jews met and devised the plan and no one can disprove the statement. What about the Bible ? That is certainly a fraudulent book that claims the Earth is 6000 years old and that vegetation was created before the Sun. Should I go in the Bible page and claim it is a fraudulent anti-semitic book since it also contains anti-semitic comments ???

Most things that have been described in the book HAS ALREADY HAPPENED. Even if it wasn't written on the account of a Jewish meeting, it still has predicted many events.

UnbiasedNeutral (talk) 03:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You've tried to disrupt Bible to make a point here, which doesn't help your argument. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for your views on religion.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * And on top of that you are dead wrong. The book has been exposed as a literary fraud fraught with plagiarism from another work that was not even about Jews. The article makes that perfectly clear. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

You don't know if it's a fraud or not. Let's assume there is some plagiarism. The plagiarism referred in the article is miniscule. Consider the following example: I write 10 equations and claim to be my work. If 9/10 are stolen equations, it doesn't mean all my work is fraudulent. I still have 1 original equation. But of course, you're using circular logic. You cant possibly understand... UnbiasedNeutral (talk) 05:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * These Protocols are a fake of course. We Jews wrote them to throw the goyim off our tracks while we wrote the real, much more evil Protocols of the Well-Learned Elders of Zion (whose cover is made of special blood matzot whose ingredients come from only the finest Christian children). These are now hidden deep underneath the Knesset and accessible only to select Jews (of which I am one, of course).


 * On a more serious note, do you have any actual improvements you would like to make to this article? The article talkpage is not the place to discuss the veracity of this work; only improvements to the article go here. If you wish to incorporate some of your thoughts that you have expressed here into the article please back them up with a reliable source and make sure your improvements follow the source. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 27 Elul 5771 05:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Stating that the book is fraudulent can be wrong, but the more important point is that it does not agree with NPOV policy. For the article to have NPOV, it must be stated that "There is controversy about the book being fraudulent." It's not about your opinion, but about the NPOV.IAtHere (talk) 15:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a fact that the Protocols are fake/fraudulent, and there is no POV of any kind in the description.--Galassi (talk) 15:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Exactly; there is no controversy on this issue, as documented in the article, and saying that there is would be (a) untrue, (b) a violation of NPOV, and (c) original research.  DoctorJoeE   talk to me!  15:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read the FAQ section at the top of this page, it was created specifically so we don't have to havethesame argument here month after month.Beeblebrox (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Does the word 'fraudulent' apply well in this case? It is used in a way that gives off a desire to label the idea as implausible. "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a fraudulent, antisemitic text purporting to describe a Jewish plan for achieving global domination." Should read for example: "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a text purporting to describe a Jewish plan for achieving global domination. It has possibly been put together from pre-existing sources and ideas." Those sources and ideas can then be elaborated on. The point is, the plausibility of the text and whether a plan like this exists, is for the reader to decide, because that is an opinion. Wikipedia isn't supposed to state opinions but provide facts and possibly claims for the readers evaluation, but not ready-made interpretations, obviously? As well, analytic discussion/representation about a Jewish conspiracy, or conspiracy by any other group whatsoever, is not antisemitism, defamation, nor intolerance. So, fear of being antisemitic or conversely a pro-Jewish attitude cannot coerce the inclusion of a forgery claim or any other statement of plausibility opinions. Conspiracies are such a heated subject that all rigor should be applied in articles concerning them. K.salo.85 (talk) 09:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Once again, we go with the sources. They say it's fraudulent, so we do, too. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 10:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I would still argue that it is misuse of a term. If I create a declaration of independence, borrowing from 10 previous ones and a dozen other places, and claiming its mine, the term is not 'forgery' nor 'fraudulent'. The correct thing would be to say that I have plagiarized from this and that source or that my work is plagiarized.

From another point of view, If someone in history attributes the declaration to my name, and plagiarism is pointed out, it still isn't 'forged' nor 'fraudulent' nor 'inauthentic'. It's 'plagiarism' or 'misattribution'.

In order for 'forgery' to be a proper term, there would have to be several different versions of the protocols, of which this one is proved not orginal.

So for example, if I manufacture a declaration of independence of the United States of America with changes, that IS 'forged', 'fraudulent' and 'inauthentic'.

If the sources are so poor as to make this mistake, they should not be used, or the language should be better in wikipedia. Otherwise, it is blatant intellectual dishonesty to misuse a term in order to plant such clear bias into the article, even if the sources commit the same mistake. I have no idea about the personal affiliation nor feelings of the author of this article, and I wont ask since there is no room for ad hominem here.K.salo.85 (talk) 09:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fortunately for Wikipedia and its readers, your original research carries no weight here. Your idiosyncratic definitions of "forgery" and "fraudulent" carry no significance. The Protocols are fake. They are not what they purport to be. This has been repeatedly proven by reliable sources. No reasonable, intelligent person disputes it. The article will continue to state this clearly. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 10:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Amen. DoctorJoeE   talk to me!  15:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I seem to have spoken before verifying stuff. The term forgery does seem to apply in this case, at least according to a definiton in encyclopedia britannica. However, I still recommend a more descriptive and neutral term and a better acticle structure in order to eliminate the obvious bias that so many have pointed out. I wont touch this article; I think it is the responsible authors' moral duty. I have a feeling there is a person or a group most responsible for the text. I can't see how bias is favorable to wikipedia readers, be it pro-jewish or antisemitic. I personally consider both concepts peculiar. K.salo.85 (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So, what bias is there? The article is factual and well-sourced. If there were - I fail to see any....--Galassi (talk) 19:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Since the sources indicate it is fraudulent I can't imagine any valid reason to water that down woth some softer term, which would be less accurate. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It is fraudulent in its attribution. It purports to be a work by Jews representing a purported Jewish plan and is purportedly written by Jews for Jews. It is actually a tract written to promote antisemitism. This is known and has been thoroughly researched. There is no reason to sit on the fence on this one. David Kessler (author) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.85.143 (talk) 15:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Additional Source for Verification
Here is an additional source of information regarding the Protocols: http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/proof.htm -- PiPhD (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC).
 * Anybody can post anything on the Internet: not a reliable source, except to document that Fraser is one of the more strident advocates of "authentication."  Acroterion   (talk)   18:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's better to introduce a more reliable source from neutral authors.IAtHere (talk) 15:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

time for a WP:FAQ?
Even semi-protecting the article isn't stopping the flow of ignorant edits from people who actually believe this document is genuine despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I've just added an edit notice than anyone attempting to edit the article will see, but maybe we should as a FAQ page as well since it keeps coming up and we have to have the same discussion again and again. So, how should we word it in order to make it clear to even the most thick-headed that there is no doubt that it is a fraud and no reputable historian believes otherwise? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think an FAQ might help where the genuinely naive are involved, but much of what I've seen here involves people with a specific agenda who aren't going to be deterred by an FAQ. The best we can hope for is to point out that the article is written in compliance with the MoS, with no cites in the lead, and that fact-tagging the lead of this or any other well-written WP article isn't accomplishing anything.  Acroterion   (talk)   18:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The word fraud is not accurate. Aren't there any other law professors here? You can not prove an intent to deceive, especially if the Protocols are an acknowledged work of fiction. An FAQ would serve to help point out specific actual facts about the reverse prejudice that is going on in the Protocols article. For example, white Jews are technically NOT semites hence the work is NOT anti-semitic. I think that an FAQ would at least help with a type of off-line additional reference source to facilitate an integral objective dialogue. -- PiPhD (talk) 18:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh. I'm certainly not a law professor. Luckily we are not in a court of law so the legal meaning of "fraud" is not the issue. It is a literary fraud plagiarizing a novel that was not even about Jews and presenting it as fact. Fussing about the exact definition of "anti-semitic" does not seem to be a productive use of our time, it has long been used as blanket term for anti-Jewish bigotry, whether that is accurate according to... whatever racial science theory it is you are citing is not really the point. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Of *course* you can prove "intent to deceive!" The Protocols were plagiarized from works of fiction and presented as fact; what could be more intentionally deceptive than that?  To argue that it is not fraudulent because it is an "acknowledged work of fiction" is incredibly twisted logic; its advocates, throughout history, have never acknowledged that.  If they had, or did now, there would be no issue at all!  The whole point is that it has been presented as fact, when it is not, by people who know or should have known that it is not.  That's the very definition of fraud. DoctorJoeE (talk) 20:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Getting back to the actual point of this thread, I have gone ahead and taken a stab at creating a FAQ page, now linked up at the top. Feedback welcome. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's fine, but I doubt it will make much difference. It certainly won't stop the trolls and POV pushers from doing what they do here. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I realize the effort is probably futile, but at least we can say we tried to give such persons ample guidance in the event of protection of the page or blocking of disruptive users, which we have had both of recently. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with both of you -- it won't help in most cases, but it couldn't hurt. Antisemites' minds are made up, they don't want to be distracted by facts; but for the occasional genuine inquiry, facts are a good thing.  I'll go through the archived discussions when I get time and add any oft-repeated arguments I find. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 10:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I have to say I agree, too. We'll still get the occasional loon and whack job wandering in here, but an FAQ will probably simplify the process of dealing with them. At least I hope it will. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 12:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Revisions
I recently stumbled on this article after hearing a reference to "Elders of Zion". Having otherwise no opinion about this document, it was my first instinct that some belligerent editor had vandalized the page. Before the article even explains what the subject is, it starts attacking it. The attack doesn't let up until the reader understands that this book may have been the catalyst behind the Holocaust. Then, after the reader is safely against the book, it begins to describe it.

I understand that this book is controversial, but frankly this article reads more like a college term paper than an encyclopedia. I'm sure that everything written is factual, but it presents the facts in such a way that reveals the bias of the author and focuses more on the feelings surrounding the text than the subject itself.

I propose that we take a step back and re-examine the article from a fresh pair of eyes:

Current: "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a fraudulent, antisemitic text purporting to describe a Jewish plan for achieving global domination. It was first published in Russia in 1903, translated into multiple languages, and disseminated internationally in the early part of the twentieth century. Henry Ford funded printing of 500,000 copies which were distributed throughout the United States in the 1920s."

Possible: "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a a text which purportedly describes a Jewish plan for achieving global domination. It was first published in Russia in 1903 and has disseminated internationally in the early part of the twentieth century, translated into multiple languages. Although it was written to be factual, it was revealed as fraudulent not long after its publication. The work is derived mostly from Maurice Joly's Dialogue in Hell, replacing the original anti-Napoleonic themes with anti-Semitic ones."

This is just the first paragraph and just an example, but I think it helps focus on the subject while still maintaining the fact that the book is fraudulent and ill-intentioned.

Please let me know your thoughts. Scoundr3l (talk) 16:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "it was written to be factual"? It was written as a deliberate act of fraud by the Czar's secret police. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the general idea is a good one, but the specific wording may need tweaking. It was presented as factual might be a better way of putting it. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, the sentence was thrown together, but that was the intended meaning. That should go without saying.Scoundr3l (talk) 23:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the proposed change to the first sentence. There is nothing wrong with the current first sentence. In the same way that the lead of an article should be capable of standing alone as a small article, we also tend to ensure that the first sentence provides all the key information and can stand alone. Some of our users rely on this feature. The fraudulent nature is key information that definitely belongs there. The other proposed changes seem to go in a good direction. Hans Adler 22:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am personally a big fan of leads which are concise, to-the-point, and contain all of the information necessary for the reader to understand the subject as a whole. However, I think it's impossible to expect this same burden to fall on the first sentence. The MOS similarly makes no such requirement, only to say that the first sentence should define the subject and put it into context for the reader. Although I could offer some similar examples, I think we can agree to disagree as long as you'll except my opinion that, as a neutral observer, the first sentence is entirely too belligerent. Scoundr3l (talk) 23:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you have both made good points. I agree with Hans that the first sentence is already "concise, to-the-point, and contains all of the information necessary to understand the subject as a whole."  And it is true.  Sometimes, admittedly, the truth is a bit belligerent -- but so be it.


 * However, I agree with Scoundr3l that the article as a whole "reads like a term paper" and needs a good rewrite. I've mentioned before that I plan to propose some significant (I hope) improvements, once I finish The Lie That Wouldn't Die (in all my spare time). Ultimately I would love to see this article returned to FA status -- but it's a long way from even GA in its present form.


 * Your last sentence, about the forgery "replacing the original anti-Napoleonic themes with antisemitic ones", is a good one, and suitable for the lead.


 * As an aside, let me repeat a terminology point made before -- that "antisemitic" is now preferred by most historians as a descriptor of prejudice against Jews, as opposed to "anti-Semitic", which implies prejudice against all of the Semitic peoples, Jewish or not. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 14:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Another case of the wrong term for the intended meaning. For that, and other reasons, I'll leave it to others to revise the article. As I've said, I don't know much about this subject (a great reason to end up on a Wikipedia page) but the tone of the article repelled me to seek information elsewhere. I hate to see that happen.


 * But one final note on the bias of history: we are, first and foremost, an encyclopedia. History has, by examining the unbiased facts, come to a negative conclusion about this subject and we should allow future readers to reach that same conclusion on their own. In the same way that we could start an article on Hitler, "Adolf Hitler was a fascist dictator responsible for the deaths of 17 million people," and still be factual; it's unprofessional, non-encyclopedic, and yet those facts still arise from reading the article. 70.162.166.178 (talk) 16:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoops, forgot to log in. Anyway, good luck with the article, guys. Scoundr3l (talk) 16:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * FWIW, the Hitler article's lead actually *does* say that Hitler was a fascist, and that "...his racially motivated policies resulted in the deaths of as many as 17 million people." So if you have a problem with that, you'll have to take it up over there.  Also, there's a fundamental and self-explanatory flaw in the argument that history has examined the evidence and drawn conclusions, so we should ignore all of that and require each reader to reinvent the wheel, rather than spelling out the evidence AND conclusions for them -- and summarizing all of that in the lead. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 16:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Doctor Joe, you came in a little late to the conversation but Hans and I were discussing the first sentence of the article, not the lead itself. Nobody is arguing that the information doesn't belong in the lead (as you can see, my original example lead included all of the relevant information) To that end, I'll refer you back to the mentioned article, where Hitler is introduced first and foremost as a politician, laying the context to later explain his fascist agenda and his role in the Holocaust. I think this reiterates how important it is to offer the facts before spelling out conclusions. 70.162.166.178 (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And, again, I forgot to sign in. But I hope you understand that my proposal was in good faith. Scoundr3l (talk) 22:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Point well taken (and nobody questions your good faith). My objection was to the "readers drawing their own conclusions" thing, which has been proposed before by deniers implying that there is some question of whether the Protocols are fraudulent.  But I completely understand your point; I will experiment with a better lead, keeping your suggestions in mind. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 17:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding the term-paperish aspect of the article, I agree completely. The balance of the article is completely wrong; way to much attention is paid to the publication history of the book. (This is largely due to the efforts of one now-banned editor.) I'd suggest summarizing the history, and perhaps extracting the detailed stuff into a seperate article. (Or just roll it back to when it was a featured article and start there.) --jpgordon:==( o ) 07:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Dang, why didn't I think of simply starting with the FA version? Excellent suggestion.  Might be a bit too drastic (I haven't yet looked at what it looked like back then), but doubt anyone will object, especially if I put up a construction tag.  Thanks.  DoctorJoeE (talk) 18:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Structure and Content
"Structure and Content" section: May be Apocalypse should be added next to Kingship in the table? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.216.244.205 (talk) 05:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Djfilms (talk) 02:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Value judgement. not encyclopedia
"The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a fraudulent, antisemitic text purporting to describe a Jewish plan for achieving global domination."

This sentence is a value judgement. Such a sentence is at variance with an allegedly impartial encyclopedia. A value-neutral sentence would be something like "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion purports to be....".

As it stands, this article, being derisory and biased, lends support to the theory that there is a systematic attempt to decry the book. I did not see a link to the text itself, so I cannot judge the veracity, or otherwise, of the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djfilms (talk • contribs) 02:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Please see FAQ above, as we've only been through this a few hundred times. DoctorJoeE   talk to me!  02:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

If "we've been through this a few hundred times", then perhaps, there is pause to consider that "a few hundred" people" have reason to question or suggest edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djfilms (talk • contribs) 02:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I did not mean that literally, but the answers remain the same no matter how many people ask them. Please see the FAQ, which should allay your concerns; and please sign your posts.  DoctorJoeE   talk to me!  03:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Djfilms (talk) 03:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC) I apologize for not seeming to sign my posts. This is my first post to WikiP. My first thought about your reply is that you are suspiciously prompt about any conceivable contrary view of the original subject.
 * It is a known fraudulent text. Whether are not conspiracy theorists are going to see this as further evidence of a conspiracy is less of our concern than to accurately describe the book to readers on this site. We don't for instance state "The Earth is a landmass which modern science purports to be round but which some contend is actually flat".AerobicFox (talk) 05:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, that's a new one -- I can't remember mere promptness ever arousing suspicion in the past, but I suppose there must be a first time for everything. I happened to be online when you asked, so I responded; nothing more sinister than that.


 * Anyway, as we're trying to explain, we're talking facts, not opinions. If you have a genuine question about this, I'll refer you once again to the FAQs, and also to prior discussions in the above sections, which demonstrate why some of us felt obliged to write the FAQs in the first place.   DoctorJoeE   talk to me!  05:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Cf. Hitler diaries. They're fake. We say so. In the first sentence. It's not very complicated. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Good example! I'll add it to FAQ.  DoctorJoeE   talk to me!  10:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know anything about "systematic attempts to decry the book", but as I've said before, I also think this article suffers from value statements in place of encyclopedic writing. The article looks pretty much the same as when I first brought it up. Normally, I'd just fix it myself, but I can guess from these comments that any attempt to rewrite this article would result in a hasty revert and we'd be right back here in the discussions. I also agree with the IP that, if you have so many disputes that you've created an FAQ to handle them... there may not be a consensus on the current state of the article. Granted, you must combat the fringe theory that the book is factual, it appears the article is being a used as a tool in that end and not as a source of very valuable information.Scoundr3l (talk) 06:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I've already mentioned my intention to rewrite this article from the ground up, with the goals of (a) restoring it to FA status, and (b) settling the arguments as best I can related to authenticity or lack thereof. That may be too much to hope for; but nevertheless I am going to try.  Unfortunately, like every other editor I can only work on this project when I am not working to feed my family.  The research phase is in progress; as soon as I have gathered sufficient verifiable data I will post a construction tag and get to it.  Please be patient.  DoctorJoeE   talk to me!  14:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean to sound so indignant. My only concern was that the original poster had some valid points that may have been thrown out with the bad. Scoundr3l (talk) 00:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Is the incipit right?
Is it right to describe the text as antisemitic? Of course its purpose was anti-zionistic, but the text itself was supposed to be a description, written by Jews, of the plan for world domination. It should be written "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a fraudulent text, with an anti-Zionistic purpose..." or something like that. EDIT: forgot to sign--79.26.20.26 (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The fraud was perpetrated with the obvious intent to stir up hatred toward Jews. Not specific groups of Jews, all of them. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Correct. I love the rationalization that antisemitism is really anti-Zionism -- as in negroes are shiftless and lazy, but I'm not a racist, some of my best friends are negroes.  The Protocols were written well before Zionism became internationally known as a movement.  And the perpetrators hated Jews, not Zionists.  DoctorJoeE   talk to me!  06:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * If you (the IP OP) really think that the purpose of the Protocols was to oppose the creation of a Jewish state in then-Palestine (the definition of Zionism) you'll have to bring a reliable source that says so. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

A Hoax of Hate does not provide a reference to the 1921 discussion
In Literary Forgery, a reference is made to the 1921 review (in The Times?). Reference 7 provided at this point in time refers to A Hoax of Hate, which does not even mention the 1921 discussion, at least not as of today. Please excuse me for not suggesting a more appropriate reference; I presume you guys will know much better where one can be found than I do. Still, I feel the current reference should be replaced by a more relevant one. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.190.144.25 (talk) 12:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request
I would like to add a reference to Piotr Shabelsky-Bork bringing the Protocols to Muller Von Hausen who ten published them in German. (reference Michael Kellogg - (The Russian Roots of Nazism). John S Moore (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Be bold; feel free to make the edit yourself. If you need help citing your source, you can click here. --Scochran4 (talk) 14:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 February 2012
please correct the bibliographical data:

Landes, Richard; Katz, Steven (eds.): Paranoid Apocalypse: A Hundred-Year Retrospective on 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion'. (New York: New York University Press, 2012).

93.192.184.26 (talk) 10:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Done Thanks, Celestra (talk) 15:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Alleged Alternative Origin
Though the majority opinion is that the Protocols are a forgery as stated in the article; nevertheless, a very detailed case has been made that the document did actually originate from the Mizraim Masonic Lodge in Paris. However much one may disbelieve that argument, it ill behoves the neutrality of the article not to mention that such an origin has been mooted:

In brief it has been claimed that a book in which the Protocols are embodied was first privately published in 1897 in Russia by Philip Stepanov. The first time Nilus published them was in 1901 in a book called ‘The Great Within the Small’, reprinted in 1905. A copy of this work is reported by several sources to have been in the British Museum, bearing the date of its reception, August 10, 1906. However, the British Museum denies ever having received a copy of the Protocols.

Proponents of the Protocols having a Masonic origin claim that they originated at the Mizraim Masonic Lodge in Paris in the mid 19th Century and that in 1884 the daughter of a Russian general, Justine Glinka, was in Paris obtaining political information to be communicated back to Russia. It is claimed that Glinka obtained a copy from one Joseph Schorst, a member of the Mizraim Lodge on payment of 2,500 francs and that Schorst was later assassinated in Egypt.

Glinka allegedly forwarded the French original, accompanied by her Russian translation, to her immediate superior in Paris, General Orgeyevski, who sent them, in turn, to General Cherevin, Minister of the Interior, for transmission to the Imperial Court in St Petersburg, but it was filed away and not published by the authorities.

Glinka was eventually banished to her estate in Orel for an unrelated matter. It is claimed that she there gave a copy to Alexis Sukhotin, who showed the document to two friends, Stepanov and Nilus.

It has been widely suggested that the protocols plagiarized Maurice Joly's "Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu". (1864) (Dialogue aux enfers entre Machiavel et Montesquieu), which attacks the political ambitions of Napoleon III. However, those who propose a genuine origin for the Protocols believe that the Protocols actually predate Dialogue, that Joly borrowed from the Protocols rather than vice versa and that that the two documents are neither similar nor derivative, although they have some lines and words in common. They site the accusation that Joly was a notorious plagiarist and appears to have plagiarized seven pages or more from a popular novel by Eugene Sue, namely Les Mystères du peuple (1849-1856). It is certainly the case that Joly, who was Jewish (real name Joseph Levy), was a Freemason and member of the ’Lodge of Mizraim’. He was the protégé of Adolph Cremieux (Isaac Moise Cremieux 1796-1880), the head of the Lodge and celebrated campaigner for Jewish rights in 19th Century France. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.78.124 (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sources? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And Joly was not Jewish. French father, Italian mother. Check the article. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Steven Anderson, the explanation for the origins on the article is not cited and has no reliable source. Why is it that if something makes the jews look bad, it needs a mountain of evidence before wiki admins even consider putting it on the article - and yet pro-jewish counter arguements are never cited? Why is wikipedia so pro-jewish? 2.29.205.8 (talk) 11:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Because the world is run by a cabal of dirty Jews? (Note to editors: Yes, that was intended to be sarcastic.)JoelWhy (talk) 11:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Non-sarcastic reply: please review the FAQ at the top of this page. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Change "fraudulent text" to "false document" in lead text?
This was proposed in 2008 but never answered.

In the current lead text, the term "fraudulent" is used to describe the document. While this word is accurate, I think it may be more accurate to replace "fraudulent text" with "false document" to emphasize that the author knew the document was false and used literary techniques to create the impression that it is true. The first sentence of the revised lead text would read:

"The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is an antisemitic false document purporting to describe a Jewish plan for achieving global domination."

--Scochran4 (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * IMHO that change would not be an improvement. "Fraudulent" is a better descriptor of the purposeful presentation of fiction as fact than is "false."  DoctorJoeE   talk to me!  08:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input. While "fraudulent" is better than "false", I believe "false document" is better than "false" because a false document is fiction knowingly written in a way that will persuade the reader it is a factual document- the way the Protocols were written. We could say that the document is a fraudulent false document, where the adjective "fraudulent" describes the noun "false document". --Scochran4 (talk) 12:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That could be confusingly taken as being opposed to a 'genuine false document', how about 'fraudulent text and false document' or fraudulent text with the false document article linked thusly? Number36 (talk) 20:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Fraudulent text and false document" sounds good to me. That way it addresses the fraudulent nature of the text, and the fact that it was written to appear factual. --Scochran4 (talk) 18:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It sounds terrible to me, no casual reader will have a clue what it means. Zerotalk 02:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Citation needed for "factual evidence by antisemites"
The article says--Despite this widespread and extensive debunking, the Protocols continued to be regarded as important factual evidence by antisemites.[citation needed]. I've been looking and have found the following items--

I am listing these citations here to ask if they meet the standards of wikipedia. I think they might, but am not sure. So, before I include them on the page itself, I wanted to get an opinion. The texts of each page list the Protocols as central to the thinking of these anti-Semitic groups (IHR, for example). Let me know.TheKurgan (talk) 13:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about the first one. Information from the Anti-Defamation League is questionable because they aren't neutral, and they are definitely self-published, but they may be considered reliable. The third looks self-published and unreliable. I think we should wait for further opinion. --Scochran4 (talk) 00:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Wait a minute. The very fact that Henry Ford himself disseminated a half-million copies of the book should indicate that anti-Semites use the Protocols as a basis for their hate.  After all, in 1938 Ford was awarded Nazi Germany's Grand Cross of the German Eagle, a medal given to foreigners sympathetic to Nazism Henry Ford  Wallace, Max. The American Axix: Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh, and the Rise of the Third Reich. New York: St. Martin's PressTheKurgan (talk) 15:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That's a good point, with qualifications. Because Wikipedia can only state verifiable information and can't use original research we could only say that Henry Ford used the protocols, but not that all or many anti-semites use the protocols as a foundation for their anti-semitism. You're welcome to include that bit about Henry Ford in the article. Maybe something like "Henry Ford, an antisemite, disseminated half a million copies of the protocols in [year].
 * It's already included in the Protocols article.TheKurgan (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If you find more recent, published evidence, we can include that too. What we really need is a source that explicitly states that "many antisemites use the protocols are a foundation for their ideology". --Scochran4 (talk) 15:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * ISBN-10: 0837125952, ANTI-SEMITISM THROUGHOUT THE AGES Count Heinrich Coudenhove-Kalergi,conatins the following: "...No book and no event in the history of modern anti-Semitism has played such an important part as this plagiarism; it constitutes the piece de resistance, the choice morsel of after-war anti-Semitism." This is a 1935 translation of his earlier book, so not a "more recent" source.  It is, however, DIRECTLY on point.TheKurgan (talk) 17:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Perfect source. The Count seems to be neutral. Perhaps we should change the sentence from "Despite this widespread and extensive debunking, the Protocols continued to be regarded as important factual evidence by antisemites" to "No other book has been as important to antisemites as the Protocols". The latter statement seems to be closer to what the source is saying. --Scochran4 (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and do the edit, Scochran4. BE BOLD!  I haven't had time since my hands have been full with another article for the last month.TheKurgan (talk) 16:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Too bad it would be WP:OR to just link to the archives of this talk page, plenty of evidence there. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Modern Versions?
The popular YouTube videos, "Zeitgeist - The Movie: Federal Reserve" and "The Money Masters" seem to bear a similarity to the titular book. Perhaps this should be mentioned?--Timtak (talk) 11:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think these movies are overtly anti-Semitic. Overtly stupid, yes. But, not overtly anti-Semitic.JoelWhy (talk) 12:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The realtionship of the movies to The Protocols, maybe via antisemitic tropes and classic themes, is probably a point that would need to be made by reliable secondary sources. Tom Harrison Talk 13:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think you would have more luck finding such sources linking David Ike to the Protocols, but from what I've read of the man, when he says shape-shifting lizards, he doesn't mean Jews; he actually means shape-shifting lizards.JoelWhy (talk) 13:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hah, I actually looked a bit more at the Icke page, and there actually is a direct link between his nuttery and the Protocols. According to his Wiki entry: In The Robots' Rebellion (1994), Icke introduced the idea that the Global Elite's plan for world domination was laid out in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a hoax published in Russia in 1903, which supposedly presented a plan by the Jewish people to take over the world.[56] According to Mark Honigsbaum, Icke refers to it 25 times in the Robot's Rebellion, calling it the "Illuminati protocols."[57]JoelWhy (talk) 13:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Contents
Interestingly everything about this document is discussed except for its contents...85.245.87.67 (talk) 17:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The contents are discussed in the "Structure and content" section. Jayjg (talk) 02:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Antisemitism
I observed that on April 20 Jayjg reversed my placing Category:Antisemitism at the bottom of the page. I think the evidence supports the view that Protocols belong in that category. We should discuss the matter here.Iss246 (talk) 18:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This article is already in Category:Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which is a sub-category of Category:Antisemitic forgeries, which is a sub-category of Category:Antisemitic canards and Category:Antisemitic publications, which eventually (through a number of other "Antisemitic" categories) are part of Category:Antisemitism. We generally put items in the lowest level category, not their super-categories. Jayjg (talk) 02:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Aw, c'mon, I was all ready to have another stupid conversation about the nature of bigotry, and you ruined it by having a simple, logical explanation. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * :D Jayjg (talk) 02:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

POV
The most biased article on Wikiped presenting this factually as a "hoax". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.187.97 (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed. It's useless to try and make any meaningful alterations in search of more balance because you'll simply have your edits and any accompanying comments erased by the various Jewish-related-article gatekeepers. A sad situation but that's wiki for you. AnAimlessRoad (talk) 00:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing to do with being Jewish, I'm not Jewish, just another Wikipedian whith an interest in disseminating verifiable information. It is a well established fact that the Protocals, regardless of whether or not there is or was a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world, is a literary fraud. If you have relaible sources (hint: bigoted rants on nazi websites are not reliable sources) that say otherwise please present them and we'll be more than happy to consider them. Bithching about bias without presenting any evidence that what the article says is incorrect isn't going to be an effective way to challenge the content. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't feed the troll.JoelWhy (talk) 17:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it seems that many of the folks who comment here are not deliberately trolling, but rather are the ignorant victims of those who disseminate the protocols even now as though they wee genuine. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox, I never mentioned anything about Jewish people. I said "Jewish-related-article gatekeepers". This is the very kind of defensiveness and paranoia I'm talking about. Even the slightest attempt to seek more balance in any sensitive Jewish-related-article will lead to insinuations of anti-semitism or some kind of bigotry from these gatekeepers. You've already essentially labelled me a Nazi and anti-semite based on a comment that contained absolutely nothing that could lead to such conclusions.


 * I know very well that the Protocols are almost certainly a hoax, and that this is the consensus in the academic community. The issue is therefore one of wording. Take a look at the discussion archives. I'm not the first one to criticise the laughable opening paragraph, which attempts to force one particular viewpoint down the readers throats instead of allowing them to make up their own minds based upon the information and academic references provided. Frankly, the opening sentence comes on so strong that, if I didn't know better, I'd think the author was hiding something. AnAimlessRoad (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You're not making a lot of sense there. It's been well established that the document is a fraud/hoax/ whatever you want to call it. Therefore it is not forcing a viewpoint to state this established fact right out in the open in the first sentence. If you have any constructive suggestions for rewording the article, feel free to post them, but making vague accusations is not helpful. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * He's just trolling (as he does on the Holocaust denial page, the Gaza flotilla raid page, the USS Liberty incident, etc.)JoelWhy (talk) 19:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed: quite a bit of bias by openly declaring it a fraud right at the start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.212.67.164 (talk) 22:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * For the thousandth time, this is arguably the least biased article in WP; the fraud is an indisputable fact. Read the FAQs, please. DoctorJoeE   talk to me!  04:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Considering that the bulk of the POV claim in this section is by a now blocked user, I suggest that we stop feeding the trolls and refuse to reply to any more such claims.--Dmol (talk) 04:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * While I fully understand (and endorse) the Don't Feed the Trolls policy, my humble opinion is that this particular argument needs to be countered whenever it arises, to avoid any implication of tacit agreement. After all, a simple reference to the FAQs is all that is usually necessary. In this particular case, however, you're right; the discussion is over.  Cheers,  DoctorJoeE   talk to me!  13:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

re The Protocols in the West
There is a separate article on "eyre and spottiswoode" that mentions that that printing firm printed the Protocols in 1920. This could be added. I found mention of this fact in Christopher Hitchens' book god is not great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skipper2 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Why no mention in the lede that it was identified as a forgery by the Russian government in 1905?
I think that this important fact should be given an important place.93.96.148.42 (talk) 16:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, also it forgets to mention how owning a copy of the book was punishable by death in USSR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.95.6.156 (talk) 09:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Despite the order, or because of the "good cause", numerous reprints proliferated.[31]
This is not supported by the source given, and should be re sourced, or removed.93.96.148.42 (talk) 16:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

RfC
An RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

AKA “The Eternal Jew.”
This document is often (though not always) reffered to as “The Eternal Jew.” Some reflection of this should be included (with a notation that this same name was used for other purposes). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.5.230.102 (talk) 22:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 April 2013
Hello, I am doing a group project help edit wikipedia. I would like the add a part to the "Modern Era" section of this article. I found this information in the spanish wikipedia page for the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Here is my text contribution for the section, along with the reference page. I believe it is important to provide examples of other countries in the world who still promote anti-semitism.

On April 4, 2011, Cristina Gonzalez, a journalist for the Radio Nacional de Venezuela, made a reference in her program to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. She called them “interesting” and emphasized the part in the text referring to the plans of Jewish bankers to control world economies. The Confederación de Asociaciones Israelitas de Venezuela denounced the act in front of Venezuela’s Public Ministry and requested an investigation. The Anti-Defemation League has joined in with other organizations in accusing the Venezuelen government of not “keeping their word” to fight Venezuela’s anti-Semitism.

http://archive.adl.org/PresRele/ASInt_13/5061_13.htm

Please let me know what you think...thank you!

DVD2013 (talk) 00:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Propose denial of this request. WP:UNDUE. Journalist in question is not even notable enough for a wikipedia page.  This is noise. Zerotalk 06:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as this would add undue weight to this particular viewpoint. This is already mentioned with appropriate weight in the article Contemporary imprints of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 19:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Right. And you wouldn't want anyone to think badly of the jews now would you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.241.188 (talk) 18:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Islamism
Suggest the Introduction makes reference to the widespread present-day endorsement of the Protocols in the Islamic world. It's noted in the detail but IMHO is significant enough for a sentence in the Intro — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.99.81.206 (talk) 03:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Boston Bombing Links?
Is it worth adding information to this Wiki page regarding the bombing suspect's interest in the Protocols text?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323420604578649830782219440.html

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/slain-boston-bombing-suspect-sought-copy-of-protocols-of-the-elders-of-zion-1.517371


 * My vote would be no, based on the weakness of the link; to wit: "Mr. Tsarnaev also had a marked-up copy of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a long-discredited tract penned in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century. It describes an alleged plan by Jewish leaders to take over the world. Mr. Tsarnaev scrawled 22 words he translated from English to Russian on a back page, beginning with 'gentile' and ending with 'Mason.' " Unless someone comes up with a firmer documentation of his "interest", it seems pretty tenuous to me.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  13:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * (After edit conflict) I don't think that this info could be included on this article. Perhaps on the page for the bombers themselves. But including it here gives rise to original research as to the book's influence. (PS - please sign your edits). --Dmol (talk) 13:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

hoax??
cant see anything in this article that actually tells me that this is a forgery and proves it? Is there any evidence at all that it is a forgery, can you give me the links? I was expecting loads of proof, was surprised a lot!Honest-john (talk) 12:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Really? The way civilised society works any person or organisation that makes extravagant negative claims about a whole section of society is supposed to prove their case. This paranoid rot is completely unsubstantiated. Producing wild accusations then expecting the accused to prove them wrong is just witchhunting. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 14:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * calm down mate!! wasnt saying they were real! was saying I think there should be some details and sources in the article that prove they are forgeries. "Producing wild accusations then expecting the accused to prove them wrong is just witchhunting." this statement is wrong is so many ways. These are documents that have been studied by 1000s of people over hundreds of years, there is lots of prove they are forged, but its not in the article!!Honest-john (talk) 15:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no question that it IS a forgery. The authorship and sources are also proven.--Lute88 (talk) 15:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what information you expect. There is no original manuscript, but we know where much of the text comes from and that it it can't reasonably be considered a real document from a meeting of Jewish "elders". What evidence do you expect? Paul B (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I saw some links and details on rationalwiki, I will check them and put them here. If they are suitable you can add them? Also: There were more legal trials, scientific studies of the wording and paper used, names and dates that werent right in the documents, I remember reading/seeing all these, yet none are on here? They were in books most of them about 20 years ago, so probably not online, but I will check and get back to you. Please understand that not for one minute was I saying there were not forgeries, I should have written my point better. Honest-john (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Honest-john, thanks for bringing this up, but keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a forum.
 * If you, or anyone else for that matter, have doubts about whether the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" is forgery or not, and for some reason haven't found any "proof" to this question in the article itself, I welcome you to check out these useful sources I came across: . Regards, -Shalom11111 (talk) 11:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: article not moved Armbrust The Homunculus 18:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion → The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (book) – to let readers know in advance the article purpose: it is describing a book and not an article Ykantor (talk) 18:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose as unnecessary disambiguation. What about the title implies it's about an article? --BDD (talk) 19:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose While I appreciate that this is a sensitive issue, there is nothing in Wikipedia naming conventions which supports such a approach, and it opens a very large can of worms to adopt it. PatGallacher (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. It's true that a reader unfamiliar with the topic of this article will have to read all the way to the end of the first half of the first sentence in the lead to find out exactly what that topic is, but that's not any reason for premature disambiguation. This is by far the primary meaning of the phrase used in the article title. 172.9.22.150 (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Nitpicking, unnecessary, and slightly misleading as the protocols have been recycled in several forms. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. What? We don't disambiguate if we don't need to. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Utterly ridiculous idea. In any case the book is an "article". Paul B (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose What, are people going to confuse this with "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" ride at 6 Flags?    Joel Why? (talk) 13:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The Title case of the title indicates that it is a composition, whether a book or a film, etc.  If readers need extra pertinent information in the title, it would be achieved by The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (hoax).  Doing this might be OK in this case, but it is probably a dangerous road to head down.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Anti-Semetic Canard? Clarity Vs. Specificity
I'm not sure that the single hyperlink to the "anti-semetic canard" page -- via the description "anti-semetic hoax" -- is sufficient for a page on what for a page on one of the more notable historical examples of the concept available.

Though "anti-semetic hoax" is a clear and plain description, it is an informal one, more description than definition, and I think the Protocols, like any other subject, should be identified with the formal, technical term describing the class of things to which it belongs, even if that term is esoteric. Many readers may be unfamiliar with the term "canard," but perhaps clarity and accuracy can both be achieved by using it in apposition to an informal and commonplace rewording, something like "The Protocols...is an anit-semetic canard, a form of hoax orchestrated to incite anti-semitism."

An Encyclopedia entry must first inform the reader of what a thing is before it describes the specifics of that thing. I mean, if you want to teach somebody what a "golden retriever," is, a good place to start is telling them that you're talking about a dog.

Does Wiki have a guideline on this? Joeletaylor (talk) 21:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really matter what the link goes to, but the term "hoax" is correct and is long-standing. I just changed it back to hoax, but accidently entered before I put in the edit history.--Dmol (talk) 00:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not seeing any credible rationale here for PEZ not linking to antisemitic canard, which is an actual Wikipedia article. PEZ is not a hoax; it is scurrilous propaganda formulated with the intent of inciting pogroms. The Loch Ness Monster is a hoax.--Froglich (talk) 02:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * First of all, PEZ is a hoax (in addition to the other things you mention.) My problem with the term "canard" is simply that it is not a particularly recognizable term, and therefore does not belong in the lead. People reading the lead should instantly have a basic understanding of the topic. Delving deeper into the article, they could learn about antisemitic canards, etc. But, let's not miss the forest from the trees here -- we want readers giving this article a brief glance because they're not familiar with the topic to know it's a hoax from the get-go.    Joel Why? (talk) 14:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

In order for something to be considered a hoax, it needs to have been proven false. Since this isn't the case with the Protocols, it should not be labeled a hoax. Also, the word "hoax" raises the expectation in the mind of the reader that there will be evidence given proving that the case is false. Since the article doesn't provide that evidence, the reader is left confused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squareplate (talk • contribs) 04:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

If you need a single word to describe it, the best I can think of is "forgery". A forgery is of course a hoax, but a particular type of hoax that the Protocols were. I don't much like "canard" as usually it is applied to simpler allegations than elaborate conspiracy theories. Zerotalk 02:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The word we really ought to be using is "lie". I.e., a hoax generally denotes something harmless; and a forgery is a term usually affixed to something done done for lucrative gain (such as a faked Rembrandt) or false ID. The PEZ, otoh, was a grotesque smear intended to stoke murder (the usual result of Russian pogroms at the time). Some might argue "propaganda" would be a sufficient compromise; I don't, because the qualities of being propagandistic and being true are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Nothing in the PEZ is true.--Froglich (talk) 03:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I like both "forgery" and "canard" better than "hoax". "Forgery" is a more specific descriptor of the Protocols than "hoax", as Zero pointed out.  My concept of a "canard" is a false or baseless (usually derogatory or degrading)  story or rumor, which is even more specific in this context.  But as Joel says, it might not be a term that the average reader will be familiar with, and thus not particularly appropriate for the lede.  Its use is certainly appropriate in the body of the article, with a Wikilink.  My 2 cents.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  03:33, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't like forgery; that implies that there is a real PEZ out there, but the one people read is a fake version of this book. I don't associate "harmless" with "hoax". Yes, big foot's a hoax, but so was this account of Georgians being informed on the evening news that their leader had been murdered and their nation was being invaded by the Russians. Hardly what I would call harmless. But, if someone can come up with a better term (that the average reader will instantly recognize) I'm open to suggestions.
 * Agreed about forgery. In the case of the Georgian hoax, the link reads like it was a what-if show aired bereft of a disclaimer; in any event, none of the rest of the examples on that list are greatly at variance with the common perception of a hoax being (usually) a money-driven scam. Accusations of murder (of which the PEZ is repleat) are not generally labelled as hoaxes. As for what the "average (English-speaking) reader" is capable of recognizing, I would argue that he does not need to be coddled in the internet age when a right-click on any term brings up "Search Google for XYZ" on most browsers. Learning new things is why they're free-falling through Wikipedia in the first place.--Froglich (talk) 20:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm much more interested in providing straightforward and easy to understand information in the lead, than I am in having information pass over the heads of some people in order to help people 'learn new things'. In any case, here's an article on "A History of Religious Hoaxes". First item on the list: PEZ
 * Okay, I'll accept that "forgery" implies that there's a real one, so it's improper in this context. It's true that the Protocols is often characterized as a hoax -- possibly because no one can think of a better descriptor -- but to me it's still too mild, implying a harmless trick, joke, or prank.  How about "fraud", which connotes not only a deliberate act, but a malicious one as well?  Canard, again, would also be a good choice, but possibly not in the lede (although I'm starting to come around on that too).  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  16:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "Fraud" would be appropriate. Again, I don't think of "hoax" as necessarily benign, but if that's the impression you guys are getting, I'm fine with fraud (or, "fraudulent book" or something like that.) I definitely agree canard should be added to the body, but still feel it has no place in the lead.    Joel Why? (talk) 16:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I really don't agree that "forgery" implies there is a real one. The Protocols are very frequently referred to as a forgery, and similarly for the Hitler Diaries and countless fake archaeological artifacts.  The word only implies that something is presented as genuine when it isn't.  A fake copy of a known painting is a forgery, but so is a fake "previously unknown" painting of a famous artist.  All dictionaries that I consulted agree, e.g. Merriam-Webster refers to "making or copying".  But I won't argue about this further if nobody else agrees.  I can also go with "fraudulent book", which is more informative than "fraud" and not so soap-boxy as "lie". "Fraudulent document" would also be ok (it wasn't first published as a book.) Zerotalk 05:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I find it very dispiriting that a lie which are we are in agreement is a lie nevertheless ought not be labeled one. -- This is the way knowledge is destroyed: reflexive refusal to call a thing what it is.--Froglich (talk) 09:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The book is not a lie; the book contains lies. Labeling the book "a lie" would just be confusing, IMO.    Joel Why? (talk) 11:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * *sigh* That does not diminish the point that I made.--Froglich (talk) 19:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2014
The use of the word hoax is not substantiated therein so should be removed.

123.224.93.154 (talk) 02:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

❌ See discussion above. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 13:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * [EDITED] --- Sorry, I just decided to scrub my original comment. Thinking about it again I decided that what I had said made no sense. ---


 * Anyway this seems to be an excellent article and gives a lot of useful and interesting information, thanks. Lucien86 (talk) 15:00, 29 April 2014 (UTC) -Lucien86 (talk) 15:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Source documents
I would question the statement that "The Protocols uses the false document technique, which invents and inserts documents that appear to be factual. The reader, however, will know of the fictional origin of the work". The source documents are partly factual, and most readers are unlikely to "know of the fictional origins of the work" - presumable a reference to the Protocols, not the sources. The actual awareness or otherwise of readers as to the factual basis of the source documents does not alter the fact that the false document technique is used. Two separate issues seem to be confused here, and an assumption made as to the readers knowledge of the reliability of the source documents or protocol itself.Royalcourtier (talk) 01:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Those sentences need to go, since they don't make any sense and are not properly cited (citing a whole book without at least a page number is useless). The Protocols, afaik, doesn't cite documents at all but claims to be an original manuscript.  Of course people who promote or defend the Protocols might cite false documents, but that is not what the sentences say.  Alternatively, the sentences might be attempting to refer to the Protocols themselves as a false document, but that is adequately covered in the article without this obscure and ambiguous reference. Zerotalk 04:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Tax evader?
How being a tax evader (tax evader Kent Hovind.[74]) has anything to do with this man's opinion on the authenticity of the texts? Is being a tax evader a fact that makes us less confident about his correctness? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.12.23.200 (talk) 14:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's one of the (2) things that make him WP:Notable. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 19:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Henry Ford - needs a citation. Can't edit the main page to add a 'citation-needed' tag: maybe this PBS link would be a good citation for this: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/interview/henryford-antisemitism/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midijohnny (talk • contribs) 23:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion of the Cohn reference
,, , and , to get the ball rolling on this discussion, I've taken the liberty of making a talk page topic.

At issue is this sentence:

All right then, have at it. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 29 Shevat 5775 03:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This is undue weight for the lede. It is one historian, his view is unorthodox, and it doesn't appear to be supported by the cited source. Hitler believed Jews were genetically driven to be wicked; and he also believed in a global Jewish conspiracy. But his promotion of the Protocols was a symptom of, rather than the cause of, his genocidal antisemitism. Steeletrap (talk) 04:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC) On the other hand, the fact that Nazi Germany promoted the Protocols is certainly notable, and belongs in the lede. Steeletrap (talk) 04:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree with the latter, disagree with the former. It's not just one historian's opinion, although Cohn is probably its chief proponent. It absolutely is supported by the cited source -- it's the central premise of the book -- and there are other sources, which I will be happy to dig up as time permits, although I don't have the time or resources at this particular moment.  We are not saying (nor is Cohn) that Protocols was the "cause of [Hitler's] genocidal antisemitism" -- we are saying that he used it as his justification for initiating the Holocaust, and that's the exact wording of the sentence in the article.  By popularizing the Protocols, and insisting that it was true, he convinced enough people in Germany and Italy and elsewhere that the Jews were a sufficient threat to justify exterminating them.  I'm sure that you've heard people say, about the Protocols, "Yes, it's a forgery and a fraud, but so what?  What harm could it do?"  This is the harm it could do, and did, and that's why it needs to be in the article.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  04:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure that historians have proved that Hitler was fully aware that the Protocols are a forgery. I can't think of where I read that, though; maybe someone else can find it. Of course that would not refute the fact that the Protocols were a prominent feature of Nazi propaganda. As to Cohn's thesis, I don't think many modern historians would agree with him fully.  More common is this opinion (Roger Smith in Berger, Bearing Witness to the Holocaust, 1939-1989, p124): "The idea of a Jewish world-conspiracy may have been a precondition for the Holocaust, but Cohn, in my opinion, attaches undue importance to the Protocols, almost suggesting that without this forgery from Tsarist Russia, the Holocaust couid not have taken place (Warrant for Genocide, pp. 17-18). The question of what had to be present/absent for the Holocaust to occur is a difficult one; it does not lend itself to the precision that Cohn sometimes attempts to impart to it." Zerotalk 07:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * That, of course, is an opinion -- and as we all know, our opinions mean nothing here; what matters here are sources. Hitler's opinion on the authenticity of the Protocols is irrelevant; even if it could be shown that he personally believed it to be a forgery (and I know of no such documentation, but I will look), it is an indisputable fact that he represented it to German citizens and schoolchildren as genuine -- which would only make him a liar as well as a mass murderer.  Once you initiate a genocide, any additional sins pale by comparison.  The Holocaust might still have taken place if the Protocols did not exist (hypothetical conjecture), but Hitler clearly used it to win popular support for his "Final Solution"; otherwise, why distribute it widely and make it required reading in the schools?  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  14:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Errr, the opinion of a reliable source like the one I cited is definitely admissible. Zerotalk 01:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Similarly, "Eisner remains true to the historical influence of the Protocols by not over-emphasizing the Holocaust in The Plot. Though the Protocols was a convenient text for the Nazis, the history of the Holocaust likely would not have been significantly different without the book. Hitler is portrayed as interested in the Protocols only early in the 1920s.." (a review of a book by Eisner that I don't have). Zerotalk 02:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Is the assertion that the Protocols caused the Holocaust admissable to the article? Perhaps. But it should not be presented in the lede, unchallenged. Steeletrap (talk) 04:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I'm joining this discussion a bit late. I do not believe that that information should be included in the lede. It is undue weight, that the author does not prove. History is a consensus of opinions and proven facts. It's one thing to mention one author's claim, but another to imply that this is proven. I think there it would be fine to include a mention of the theory in the article, with a brief mention of the few historians who support it, and any that refute it also. I am not familiar with historians of this era. Is Cohn well respected in his field. Any word on what Antony Beevor (one of the few I have read), says about this theory. In summary, put nothing of this in the lede, but discuss in brief later in the article, maybe in the German publication history.--Dmol (talk) 07:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Norman Cohn's book is now quite old and his opinion is no longer accepted as far as I can tell. We can mention it, together with a contrary opinion, later in the article. It does not belong in the lead. Zerotalk 08:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The anti-Semitism going on in Germany (and most of Europe at the time) was far greater than just The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Calling it a part of the reason, or having influence is fair. Primary justification goes a bit far though, and this is a minority viewpoint not shared by most historians covering the holocaust. ― Padenton &#124;&#9993;  18:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Misleading Article
This article falsely describes the purpose and intent of the document. It is written in a way that deceives people into thinking the document was a hoax. Henry Ford admitted to know nothing of the documents authenticity, but still used it as a tool for teaching what he believed was happening. The wikipedia page states, "It was studied, as if factual, in German classrooms after the Nazis came to power in 1933". This is extremely misleading. People learn through stories. It was deliberately created to explain what was believed to be happening. People often learn better through storytelling or metaphors. In order to help teach about WW2 and the holacaust we read "The Diary of Anne Frank" and many other stories. Therefore, calling it a hoax and suggesting Germans were suppose to believe it as factual is a wrong way of describing the truth. It's a "Teaching Story Document" deliberately created as a vehicle for the transmission of wisdom. It was designed to explain a conspiracy to the layman

Are stories and folklore, that are designed to explain something, considered hoaxes? The document was designed to explain what was believed to be going on so that the layman would better understand the conspiracy. It is falsely being described as a hoax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mspartal (talk • contribs) 19:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * As carefully explained in the FAQs above, in the article itself, and in archived material on this talk page, it has long been established that this work is fraudulent; its author(s) plagiarized a work of fiction, changing the original, Gentile characters into the secret leaders of a Jewish conspiracy. That plagiarized, fictional material is presented in the publication as though it were fact. That constitutes a literary fraud and a hoax, and there is nothing misleading or deceptive about explaining it as such, nor in explaining that German schoolchildren were taught this material in the 1930s and '40s, and that it was misrepresented to them as factual. DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  20:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Mspartal, the key thing about this work that makes it a forgery rather than a mere polemic is that it claims to be written by the Jews themselves. It is always presented that way by its supporters and it is never presented as a book written by someone else to explain what the Jews were up to.  It is hardly ever presented as a metaphor, but only as a genuine document.  In contrast, Anne Frank really existed and really wrote the diaries. A similarity you can see in how the works are used in an "educational" way does not alter this huge distinction. Zerotalk 00:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As Zero says, the protocols claim to be the minutes of actual meetings. It's not just that people have called the work a hoax. It can only be either completely true or a hoax. A hoax is a deliberately fabricated falsehood designed to masquerade as the truth.  If the person who wrote it believed it to be factual, they would've needed to have been there taking the minutes of the meetings.  I will not deny that it is far from being the source of anti-semitism in Germany, Austria, or anywhere else in Europe, all of which was fairly anti-semitic to begin with. But it can't really be anything but a hoax based on its premise. &#8213;  Padenton &#124;&#9993;  02:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It has been almost a century since Henry Ford published his apology for arguing that the Protocols was authentic documentation of a Jewish conspiracy -- after first pretending that he "didn't know". And it’s been decades since the enlightened world relegated the Protocols to the category of hate propaganda, along with the blood libels and poisoned well accusations of the Middle Ages. And now, Hamas has resurrected this clumsy plagiarism, and passes it off as authentic to its children.  Do you really not see the difference between fomenting hatred and "teaching what you believe is happening"?  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  04:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Acceptance in the Middle East
I don't understand why this was deleted instead of sourced, which is simple. You start with the sources at Contemporary imprints of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Then there's and I confirmed the Bernard Lewis source for that, at least for Faisal. Not that that should be necessary, the ADL page itself is enough. I'm sure there's more. Dougweller (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Restored with citations. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Recent category removal
Is the removal of "Antisemitic forgeries", "Conspiracy theories involving Jews" and "Works of unknown authorship" and "Document forgeries", "20th-century hoaxes", "Religious hoaxes", "Political forgery" and "Literary hoaxes" on the basis that "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" is a subcategory of all of them in the best interests of our readers? Doug Weller (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * While reducing category overlap is generally nice, those categories are perhaps the main ones that should be applied to this article. Also, the Protocols category includes a number of articles that do not properly fit in those categories.  The works of Robert Singerman and Pierre-André Taguieff may include information about antisemitic forgeries, but their works are not antisemitic forgeries.  Moving the categories also reduces their visibility, intentional or not.  If those moves were made by a user who had a noted history of downplaying the abhorrent nature of the Protocols, I'd have to assume that was their intention.
 * I see that the Protocols category was made a subcategory of those categories by the person who removed this article from those categories because the Protocols category was already in them: User:Rupert Loup.
 * I've undone the category shuffle. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 17:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Is "hoax" too innocuous for use in the summary?
The term "hoax" conveys too light a sense for something as invidious as the Protocols -- the first definition the pops up when you search "hoax" in Google is "a humorous or malicious deception" and its first synonyms listed include "trick" and "practical joke." I suggest it be replaced with "canard," which is technically more accurate and conveys the calumnious, libelous nature of the work. Canard is an esoteric term, to be sure, yet "antisemitic hoax" already links to the "antisemitic canard" page which will inform readers unfamiliar with the word. In any case, "hoax" is too closely linked with playful and harmless "pranks" to be used in the summary and it may likely invoke in abecedarian readers a sense that the Protocols were a kind of joke, undercutting their nefarious intentions and consequences.Joeletaylor (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Google searches are not reliable sources for a reason. Most sources define a hoax as any attempt to deceive someone, whether or not there is humor: Merriam Webster, Cambridge, our own article on the history of the word.  The definition you've found appears to come from Oxford, but they note that it is "humorous or malicious."  That humorous was listed first means nothing.  Tricks can be malicious as well.  Thesaurus entries likewise are not the best sources because they often list entries that really only have a one-way relationship.
 * If we were to replace "hoax" with "canard" wherever the word is used to refer to a non-humorous trick, we'd have to rewrite the encyclopedia, all for some hypothetical user who only reads half of the first dictionary definition and one of the thesaurus suggestions (the sort of reader we can't fix anyway). Ian.thomson (talk) 18:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Ukrainian
The text "transcribed by a speaker of Ukrainian" that Galassi removed was not a "sneaky hoax". It comes from the book of de Michelis (p 8-9) who notes Ukrainianisms in one of the earliest Russian texts and from that, and other evidence, argues that that text is older than other known texts. I'm not reinserting it though, since this article has far worse problems. Zerotalk 03:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

"It was studied, as if factual, in German classrooms after the Nazis came to power in 1933"
That is stated twice in the article, but no source is given. Where is it from? Zerotalk 06:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The Segel/Levi book is cited in the "Germany" section; there are at least half a dozen other relevant citations that I'm aware of. DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  01:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I just noticed this reply to my question. However in fact the Segal/Levy book does not support the claim, at least not on the cited pages and I can't find it by searching. The closest, perhaps the origin of the citation, is that the Protocols "penetrated the universities" (p44).  That is likely to mean that there were academics who took it seriously, and doesn't imply anything about classrooms. In any case the source is here discussing the writings of someone (Segal) who died before Hitler came to power.  I'm tagging the text as needing a citation. Zerotalk 03:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll correct the cited page, and add at least one other source when I can get home to look it up. While it's true that Segel (not Segal) died in 1931, his translator and co-author Richard S. Levy is very much alive, and included the reference in his introduction, on page 30.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  13:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I see it now, though it says "distillations of the text", not the text itself. That should be fixed. Students wouldn't be able to make any sense of the original. Also, I wonder if you have a source that gives actual evidence for this claim. I looked in Cohen's Warrant, where one could expect it, but I don't see it. Another thing: Levy has changed his opinion about the importance of the Protocols for Nazi propaganda and now argues that it was very unimportant.  See his "Setting the Record Straight Regarding" (now footnote 72).  He writes of "the flawed foundation upon which modern treatments of the Protocols have been erected" and cites his own preface to his Segel translation as an example of places where errors were repeated. He doesn't say what those errors were, however. Zerotalk 09:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Levy's change of opinion is duly noted in the article -- and "distillations of the text" is quoted verbatim as well. I will add some other citations as I get time to assemble them.  This is obviously a sticky wicket, and I'm with you that we have to make it as accurate (and WP:NPOV) as possible.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  13:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

minutes of a late 19th-century meeting of Jewish leaders?
The third sentence reads "The Protocols purports to document the minutes of a late 19th-century meeting of Jewish leaders discussing their goal of global Jewish hegemony by subverting the morals of Gentiles, and by controlling the press and the world's economies." I don't believe the the first part is true. The different early publishers presented their own versions of the origins, with the 19th-century meeting only one of the choices. The text itself does not state where it originated. When checking, it is important to distinguish the Protocols text from the prefaces and commentary that publishers have added to the start. Zerotalk 00:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Plagiarism
Look at this: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_199. Zerotalk 11:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2015
My request - please remove the line: "In 2015, Poland’s appointed defence minister has been condemned for entertaining the possibility that The Protocols may be real.[82]" It is against what wikipedia is about. Also it's false, inconsistent with this wikipedia page containing verified proof that this accusation is 100% false: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoni_Macierewicz

Please note that "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable" yet this article has a false accusation based on poorly written article - if you see this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoni_Macierewicz wikipedia page it is clear that the minister is not antisemitic, not only having a jew assistant for a time but also clearly stating in many places that the protocols are false. This you have written on wikipedia page, together with accounts and quotes supporting it. There is inconsistency between the pages in favour of the other one.

Also, reffering to poorly written accustation written for political reasons is not something a real encyclopedia should do. Encyclopedias should not be about politics - this entry is a clear political statement easily recognised for someone with understanding political problems of Israel-Poland-Us relations.

Mbborzym (talk) 12:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * So, he had a "jew assistant" for a time? Really?
 * His original statement, as quoted in the cited source, was this: "He acknowledged there was debate about the pamphlet’s authenticity, but told a listener: 'Experience shows that there are such groups in Jewish circles'." There is no objective "debate" about the authenticity of the Protocols; and I wonder what "groups" he was referring to.  It does seem that he backpedalled vigorously after the outcry became deafening, so perhaps a sentence to that effect should be added to balance the existing content. But I, for one, would not favor removing all reference to his original statement, as if he never said it.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  15:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I am changing the answered parameter of this request to yes as it has been answered. OP is welcome to continue the discussion if they wish. --Stabila711 (talk) 05:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://archive.org/details/truthaboutthepro00londiala
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/focus/antisemitism/pdf/senate-protocols.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality
While I suspect "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" is an "antisemitic hoax", this is a strident conclusion, which appears to be disputed by a significant minority. The first sentence cites research by José Delacruz (in 2003), who describes himself as "a nineteen year old sophomore" who "currently attends University of California". This is hardly an authoritative endorsement of such a strong statement in the lede. http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/33d/projects/protzion/DelaCruzProtocolsMain.htm http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/33d/projects/protzion/DelaCruzLinksBib.htm

I came to this page to learn about the protocols and find a balanced view of the historical controversy regarding their provenance. At the very least would it not be better to state what the protocols purport to be without declaring them "antisemitic" in the first sentence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galerita (talk • contribs) 08:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * There is complete scholarly consensus that it is a semitic hoax, so that's why the article says so. According to WP:NPOV, we must not represent fringe views. So unless there is a considerable academic minority disputing the claim (and there's not), we don't add it. Jeppiz (talk) 08:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The first sentence was sourced to an undergraduate student project. That's an obvious violation of WP:RS. On the other hand, it is not necessary to have citations  for things in the lead provided they are cited in the body of the text. Zerotalk 09:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd say that to meet WP:NPOV we actually do have to state that it's an anti-semitic hoax upfront, ie in the first sentence. Doug Weller (talk) 10:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Just so. I don't know of any reasonable, unbiased "significant minority" -- which by definition does not include antisemitic groups and holocaust deniers -- that disputes a conclusion that has been established via hard evidence beyond reasonable doubt for almost a century now.  This issue has been addressed before, as one might suspect, and as a result it is discussed at some length in the FAQs at the top of this talk page.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  15:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In Archive 4 there is discussion about plagiarism vs hoax vs forgery vs fraud and maybe some others. It seems that no choice of words will please everyone, and many people get different impressions from the same words.  A fairly recent article by Richard Levy starts "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a forgery and a plagiarism" but frequently uses "hoax", "fraud" and "fabrication" too. Personally I prefer "forgery" to "hoax" since it states a fact without trying to mind-read the unknown people who produced it.  As to "antisemitic", as a general principle I am against labeling in lead sentences but there is no doubt that it is the scholarly consensus (and my opinion too). Zerotalk 22:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Levy is correct -- it is both a forgery (the creation of a false written document) and a plagiarism (passing someone else's work -- in this case, two works -- as the plagiarist's own). I believe I argued in favor of "forgery" over "hoax" as well, at the time.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  23:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Can we use both hoax and forgery? Doug Weller (talk) 09:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see why not! with the proviso that it is hoax first, and forgery second.--Galassi (talk) 13:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * We can justifiably use any combination of the four (hoax, forgery, plagiarism, fraud), since all are accurate and sourced -- although more than two might be a bit of piling on... DoctorJoeE review transgressions/ talk to me!  14:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * When all choices are sources from wp:rs it is not easy to chose. "Fabrication" is my 1st choice because there was some work and everybody didn't understand at the time it was totally false. "Hoax" is too modern and is less doubtfull concerning the fake nature of the content. "Forgery" is not bad either. It would be my second choice.
 * Good luck to whom will check for the consensus ;) He has my vote! Pluto2012 (talk) 21:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Another problem with the lead sentence is that it doesn't say that it is a text (rather than just a story). That's the fault of the general word "hoax".  I propose "antisemitic fabricated text".  The second sentence "It was first published..." can be changed to "The forgery was first published...".  I think that's enough negative words for the first two sentences.  Zerotalk 00:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds very good to me. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I think you're all wrong. First off, the "consensus" of anyone doesn't matter unless its the authors. Secondly, if you actually read the text, you'll notice that the point of the entire work is to send a message to the Tsar(and other leaders)telling them that they're running their empires poorly but that "its not their fault" while simultaneously giving them an excuse to change their behavior. This isn't so much a work of antiSemitism as it clearly distances itself from the common Jews and even suggests killing those who don't do what they're told.

If you read it again with this in mind, you'll notice that no amount of appointed professors can change the fact that this work is clearly one of political theory and constructive criticism coupled with appeals to the people. Since none of you will read it but likely instead just make strawmen, I'll point out the 3 main elements that make up the work

1)Criticism of the contemporary policies of European regimes, especially with regard to the adoption of classical liberal ideas(free speech, popular government, free press, etc), without getting in trouble or being stopped by censors.

2)Advice in the form of the narrator's explanation of "what they, as experts, would do". This is very obvious when you get to the parts talking about the press and financial policies. The veiled statements are that leaders should remain in control, degeneracy should be fought, taxes should be fairer, law should be enforced, and that religion should be respected

3)It gives the various kings, queens, and emperors a free pass by pointing the finger at a non-existant 3rd party. This is supported even more with comic book-tier statements intended to infuriate and/or scare readers while directing their efforts at preserving certain institutions and values but warning against attacks on the Jews and Masons by pointing out that such violence would be fruitless at best and, at worst, only swell the ranks of the "Kabal"

The text itself clearly isn't anti-Semitic at face value since it doesn't promote violence or oppression or even animosity towards the common Jew but instead describes how such vices would be used against the European nations/empires while, simultaneously, pointing out percieved social vulnerabilities that can be corrected without alienating anyone. Reading into it with common sense easily reveals that that "scholarly consensus" is at best wrong and, at worst, lying. 63.152.69.215 (talk) 14:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * While it's true that most of the material in the Protocols was plagiarized from earlier political satire that did not have an antisemitic theme, and was clearly not intended to be antisemitic, to argue that the Protocols itself is not antisemitic, or that it has not been continually used as an antisemitic propaganda tool since its appearance, is at very best naive. The text "isn't antisemitic at face value" because it was disguised as an instruction manual for a new member of the "elders", describing how they will run the world through control of the media and finance, replacing the traditional social order with one based on mass manipulation.  If you are suggesting that the article reflect the fringe view that all of the world's scholars and all of the world's antisemites are wrong in their assessment of the Protocols, you are unlikely to garner much support.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  18:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

"President Arif" needs to be removed
I'm going to make this short and sweet:

There were two "Presdient Arifs" in Iraq.

Neither of the sources listed state WHICH "President Arif" read the PotEoZ as historical truth.

A Google search also doesn't reveal WHICH "President Arif" read the PotEoZ as historical truth.

Therefore the entire reference to "President Arif" needs to be removed, as the sources themselves do not contain enough factual information to determine which one actually read them, which means in this regard the source itself is faulty. 169.0.148.95 (talk) 12:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Needs to be removed because you couldn't determine whether it was the father or the son, as if that's really crucial? It was the father - content amended and add'l cite added.   DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  14:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Polish defense minister
See this. Doug Weller talk 14:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Big surprise. 8 months old, so more appropriately added to his article, which I have done. DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  14:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2016
Please replace the dead link in the following reference (External links section):

Eco, Umberto (August 17, 2002), "The poisonous Protocols", The Guardian[dead link] with https://www.theguardian.com/books/2002/aug/17/society.umbertoeco (Accessed: 17 August 2016).

Konkant11 (talk) 08:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 08:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion
Somebody should add this: http://www.infotextmanuscripts.org/proto_biblio_1.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.110.129 (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Use by the Nazis
I recently made some changes to bring the Germany section more in line with the cited sources and was immediately reverted to a version that misrepresents sources, removes cited quotes seemingly for no reason other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT, adds weasel words to place doubt on the voracity of said sources without providing sources for such doubt, and is rife with editorializing/original research (Such as the unsourced preface to a quote from Mein Kampf: "while he does not pass judgment as to its authenticity, he claims that it is informative as to the nature of the Jews:" followed by a quote in which Hitler discusses "the best proof that they are authentic". Not only is the preface unsourced editorialing, it is directly contradicted by the quote it precedes.). I plan to re-institute the changes I made as the current version violates several policies, but I would like to give a chance for responses here. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 07:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Just based on referencing alone the changes you've made are a substantial improvement. The notion that Hitler did "not pass judgment as to its authenticity" is frankly bizarre. This kind of editorializing is totally inappropriate and should not be restored again. Grayfell (talk) 06:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Here we see why we are not supposed to make our own interpretations of primary sources such as Mein Kampf. The most detailed secondary source I can find on this question is   According to Bytwerk's analysis, "Both leaders [Hitler and Goebells] realized that The Protocols was a fake, but both thought it contained 'inner truth'." As Bytwerk summarises it, "Goebbels and Hitler thought The Protocols an accurate description of Jewish intentions, even if its truth was 'inner' rather than factual." That is not a contradictory position. Goebbels was explicit: "I believe that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a forgery." In contradiction to claims made in this article, Bytwerk writes:
 * "Perhaps curiously, Hitler did not refer to The Protocols in public speeches after the mention in Mein Kampf, nor did Goebbels refer to it publicly other than once, and that soon after the 1943 conversation with Hitler. It was never mentioned in the prestigious weekly Das Reich, which Goebbels founded in 1941, and for which he wrote a lead article each week. The Protocols had a limited role in Nazi mass propaganda."

Zerotalk 08:10, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That is a pretty good source, somewhat along the lines of the Levy citation, but it isn't quite as cut and dry as that early summary. Some various quotes to illustrate: "Goebbels... reflected: "I conclude from my reading [nonetheless] that we can put it to very good use. . . . If the Zionist Protocols is not genuine, it was produced by a brilliant contemporary critic.” Having talked it over with Hitler, the propaganda minister wrote in his diary: “The Führer’s standpoint is that the Zionist Protocols can claim absolute genuineness.[...]""Publication of The Protocols enjoyed the support of the Party. Der Schulungsbrief, the Party monthly for political education, with a circulation of 1,500,000, reviewed it in 1937: “He who knows The Protocols of the Elders of Zion understands why Jewry uses every lying method to dispute the genuineness of these protocols. Jewry’s ruthless drive for world domination was stopped only by National Socialism. The work is strongly recommended." "Der Stürmer carried at least nineteen lead stories featuring The Protocols between 1933 and 1941." "We have seen that Goebbels and Hitler thought The Protocols an accurate description of Jewish intentions, even if its truth was “inner” rather than factual." "Most references to The Protocols in mass propaganda, therefore, were “cultural truisms." References to the “Elders of Zion” conveyed meaning to many if not most Germans, but most of the latter would have had difficulty saying much about The Protocols other than that it had something to do with a conspiracy of “International Jewry” to rule the world. Nonetheless, this provided grounds for crediting Nazi antisemitic propaganda—and research suggests that even a bad reason can be persuasive simply by being a reason.[...] Just as leading Nazis realized The Protocols was fraudulent but found that fact irrelevant in determining its utility, so today some antisemites use it not to persuade themselves of an international Jewish conspiracy, but rather because they find it useful to illustrate a conspiracy in which they already believe." All in all not a bad source, but it is, at the very least, a complex source to pull a single line from, as it analyzes multiple levels of "use" and "authenticity". Furthermore, it does not really contradict any of the currently sourced statements being made in Wikipedia's voice, as none of the statements made in Wikipedia's voice indicate either way as to Hitler's belief in its literal authenticity or its centrality to Nazi propaganda, merely its presence. I would have no problem with an attributed statement from this source in the same manner as the other attributed statements from Levin and Levy, but I would not really consider it sufficient to reinstate the editorializing which my edits removed. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 09:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Summary
The article is rather uninformative without a summary. I haven't read the book and I don't intend to, but it'd be nice if someone would write a short paragraph explaining the alleged plan. Korosuke (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a summary in the Structure and Content section. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 13:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Ford's Involvement
I've been reading up on this subject recently, though I don't know many details. The introduction states that "Henry Ford funded printing of 500,000 copies that were distributed throughout the U.S. in the 1920s." Would it be more accurate to say that "Henry Ford funded printing of 500,000 excerpts and commentaries that were distributed..." From what I can gather, he did not print the book itself, but rather expanded on the book's falsehoods. Or is it the case that he printed 500,000 copies and printed his commentaries in the Dearborn Independent? Mvblair (talk) 16:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I found two good sources and changed the paragraph a little. Mvblair (talk) 14:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Arab World
I'm unsure why this section is so brief, and misleading.

"Arab world

A translation made by an Arab Christian appeared in Cairo in 1927 or 1928, this time as a book. The first translation by an Arab Muslim was also published in Cairo, 'but only in 1951'.[67]

First, why "... but only..."? This surely infers that it is not such a bad thing as it happened later? Of course, one could argue that it is worse, given the decaes preceding when it was repeatedly proven to be a hoax.

Secondly, why does this section not state that the "Protocols" have been adapted for a TV audience in the Arab world, primarily in the country where it was produced: Egypt? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.129.123.150 (talk) 15:08, 30 September 2017‎ (UTC)
 * Perhaps the Egyptian TV program is not in the article because no one who edited the article knoew about it? Do you have a reliable source to support that?I think that "but only" implies (not "infers": I imply, you infer) that it was quite some time after the hoax was first unleashed on the world. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)