Talk:The Protocols of the Elders of Zion/FAQ


 * Q: Why does the first sentence of the article say the Protocols is fraudulent? Aren't Wikipedia articles supposed to be neutral?
 * A: Wikipedia articles are absolutely required to maintain a neutral point of view. 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 as though it were fact. That constitutes a literary fraud.


 * Q: So Wikipedia is saying that there was not a secret Jewish conspiracy to rule the world?
 * A: That is an entirely separate issue from the established fact that the Protocols is fraudulent.


 * Q: Why not let the reader decide for him- or herself whether the document is fraudulent or not? Doesn't drawing conclusions constitute WP:OR?
 * A: The article does not draw any conclusions; journalists drew the conclusion in 1921, and numerous scholars have reaffirmed it since then. It is not original research to state that the the Protocols is fraudulent; it is a well-established scholarly fact, as documented and sourced in the article.  Numerous similar examples exist throughout Wikipedia; for example, the Hitler diaries are demonstrably fake, and the WP article says so—and sources it.


 * Q: But if the fraud is a well-established fact, why do some groups still assert that the Protocols is a genuine document?
 * A: It is difficult to answer why anyone still believes that the Protocols is a real document, other than to say that some people have beliefs that are simply immune to facts (Exhibit A: Holocaust deniers). To those whose minds are made up, it makes no difference that the Protocols have been debunked countless times—or that so much incriminating Holocaust evidence survives that a dozen museums can't hold it all.


 * Q: But you can't disprove the contention that a bunch of Jews got together sometime in the mid-19th century and plotted a conspiracy, can you?
 * A: As already stated, the conspiracy issue is not relevant to this article. But to answer your question, if one was told that the Moon is a giant ball of Gouda cheese covered with a foot-thick layer of dirt, it would be their responsibility to prove them.