Talk:The Protocols of the Elders of Zion/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Princess Radziwill's lecture

The source article by the NYT states that by Radziwill's account the draft for the protocols was created in 1884. --ארינמל (talk) 20:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Modern scholars do not give any credence to Radziwill's claims. Zero^talk 07:48, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

The why not put that in the article, along with her complete statement? --ארינמל (talk) 02:20, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Sure, and we'll also put it that it was written by Krampus on skin ripped from the back of naughty children. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Overstating the case of German usage

At present, the article almost makes out that the Holocaust wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for the Protocols. However, the Protocols of Zion is more of a central theme in Russian and French anti-semitism in particular than it is in German. Hitler would still have been an anti-semite if the Protocols of Zion didn't exist and Nazi anti-semitism is more a product of Richard Wagner and other German influences, than it is of a relatively late Russian imported pamphlet. I would argue that the article should not be as heavily focused on just the Nazis in the introduction, but rather Russian, French and general international (including religious) anti-semitism. Claíomh Solais (talk) 12:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree with this as well, not to mention that the Protocols are more international in scope rather than just confined to one or two countries. 2601:8C:4102:1210:A18D:47E7:4396:457 (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Stylistic tone and "antisemitic" label appear to deliberately imbue subject with suspicion

I would like to dispute the neutrality of this entry in its current form, on the grounds of the stylistic attitude employed in the opening summary. I offer the constructive critique that the text of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion does not "purport" to describe a conspiracy, rather it is simply "describing" a conspiracy. The word purport" is not needed grammatically, as the verb "describe" is equally valid in context no matter whether the texts support truthful or fallacious notions -- it is a description nonetheless. Moreover, I argue that the consecutive use of the words "fabricated" and "forgery" appear a deliberate attempt to bask the the subject in a tone of suspicion and unreliability -- again, who wrote the texts is quite frankly irrelevant, ultimately, to the accuracy of the patterns of ideas delineated within; the book can't be judged by its cover, so to speak. Finally, I put forth that the documented and unchallenged reality of secret societies originating in Europe such as the Club of Rome and Bilderberg Group, headed by a number individuals who are self-proclaimed Zionists, in the political sense, who don't necessarily refer to themselves as Jewish, in the ethnic and religious sense, such as the members of the Rothschild family whose genealogy is rooted in the kingdom of Khazaria (much of present-day Georgia) between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea, is a historical truth that is distorted when an elaborate straw man fallacy associates this complex of elite financial figures with Judiaism -- and hence the opposition to them with "antisemitism" -- when the real belief system underlying many of these figures' political Zionist undertakings are evidenced to be far more sinister than a basis in the Jewish religion would explain. Thus, I ask that effort be made towards minor adjustments to the summary of the entry lending a neutral overview of the subject without imbuing it with unneeded infamy or suspicion. Thank you. Someoneovahere (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Please refer to the talk page for an understanding of the requested disputation. Thank you. Someoneovahere (talk) 20:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was a hoax created by Antisemites as an excuse to persecute Jews. That's what every mainstream historian will tell you. Trying to whitewash the antisemitic aspect of it to justify further tinfoil haberdashery is unwarranted and only serves to empower antisemitic conspiracy theorists.

We're not budging on any of this, and if you don't like that, go to Metapedia. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:51, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The conspiracy did not exist. The entire thing was made up, as even many of its apologists concede. As a plagiarized fabrication, the document did not describe a real conspiracy, and any "patterns" it may reflect can be chalked up to pareidolia. Wikipedia will not say that this was legitimate, as all reliable sources agree that this was a hoax. Wikipedia is not interested in legitimizing hoaxes or fringe theories. There is no point in trying to pretend this isn't antisemitic, either, as Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, not original research. Grayfell (talk) 21:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

He's blocked. Doug Weller talk 21:29, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Litmus Test

Just a thought, Anyone who argues that the Protocols aren't a hoax or argues that the article shouldn't dismiss the Protocols outright for the malicious lies they are should be banned outright. Eunacis (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

See my similar comment -- and the quite correct responses -- in this thread on Talk:Fascism. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:19, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Edit semi-protected request, 15 June 2018

Please delete Category:Integrism from this article. There is no link between this topic and that category, other than perhaps a gentleman who translated it, though that statement is wholly unsourced. I am finding that almost all members of this category, having a derogatory and inflammatory name, have neither a cited source nor an assertion in the article that they belong to it. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 22:15, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

The term is used in the article. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

So what? As I pointed out already, the usage is (1) unsourced and (2) insufficient to bind the category to this topic. That is the sole usage in this article, unless you have found it elsewhere? 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 22:27, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not arguing your point, mearly stating it is used. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if it would matter if the category was added here seven years ago by a blocked sock, User:Jnast1, before the "supporting assertion" even existed in the article. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 22:35, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• Where is the term used in the article? I'm not finding it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Section heading "Political conspiracy background"; sentence: "In France it was translated by Monsignor Ernest Jouin in 1925, a proponent of Catholic intégrisme, who was also a supporter of the Protocols." 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 23:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah, the accent was preventing the search from working. That mention is irrelevant to the subject, so I will be removing it and the category. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:46, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:49, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much, good sir! 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 23:50, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Author unknown?

In the infobox, we say that the author of this document is unknown, but most credible sources say that it was authored by Matvei Golovinski of the Okhrana, since the opening of Russia's archives and the information becoming available to historical researchers. That is how the French Wikipedia (which tends to be of a higher intellectual quality than the English Wikipedia... just saying) has it. Claíomh Solais (talk) 16:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

That's nice; the assertion in fr:Les Protocoles des Sages de Sion is unsourced, so can you furnish a reliable secondary source (which are required on the English Wikipedia where we are all intellectually slumming.) 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 23:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

The Golovinski/Okhrana story was given in evidence by one person (du Chayla) at the Bern Trial in return for the payment of 4000 Swiss Francs (a large sum in those days). Du Chayla had an unsavory past, including writing in support of the Blood Libel. Du Chayla's evidence was widely accepted as definitive, but recent research by de Michelis, Hagameister and others has shown that there is no evidence in support of it. There is in fact no evidence of Okhrana involvement and some evidence against it. The true author of the Protocols is unknown, just like our article says. Zero^talk 13:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Removed additions made to article by editor blocked for being disruptive

Claíomh Solais was blocked today for disruptive editing, see [1]. Among the evidence presented that resulted in the block were diffs that show "a strong undercurrent of anti-semitism". Therefore I do not think it is right that the section Claíomh Solais re-wrote, "Political conspiracy background" should stay as he altered it. I have put it back to the version before that editor's edits began. If anyone feels there was valuable information there, they can restore it. ThanksSmeat75 (talk) 00:05, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you cannot take a general statement about the editor's contributions and act on it in specific cases unless you actually make the case that their edits degarded the article. In other words, please tell us specifically what in CS's changes did not improve the article, or were unsupported by sources, or violated OR or other policies. A general statement is not sufficient. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Why do you want to keep the additions made by an editor blocked partly for having ""a strong undercurrent of anti-semitism"" to the article on the most notorious anti-semitic forgery in history? This editor has been "blocked with an expiration time of indefinite" [2].Smeat75 (talk) 00:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I looked at the text and I think it could be useful after some careful review. At the moment the sourcing is not clear as some parts have no source and some are sourced to the nonexistent "Webman 2012". I believe it should be Webman's 2011 book "The Global Impact..." which does have relevant material on page 60. Zero^talk 01:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't know who is the blocked user, but his edits in this particular article seem appropriate and constructive, just like some of his additions in the article about antisemitism. Also bear in mind that the fact that a user was blocked for something doesn't necessarily mean we are supposed to revert all his contributions.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 01:53, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring

I've fully protected this article for 3 days. Please discuss your content disputes here on the talk page rather than edit-warring, which is unhelpful to all. Thanks. Fish+Karate 08:04, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Suggested Corrections to avoid false claims.

I'm not sure it's true to claim that the document is a forgery (copy), since it reproduces nothing, and seeks no profit from false attribution. It is either a fiction, propaganda, or hoax. For example, Crichton's Eaters of the Dead is a fictional account attributed to Ibn Fadlan - it is a fiction, but not propaganda. The Voynich Manuscript is a Hoax - but not propaganda or fiction. The Protocols are clearly a Hoax, and clearly Propaganda. So, as far as I know 'inflationary language' (misrepresenting it as a crime) is a form of deception just as pseudoscientific claims (not following the scientific method's warranty of due diligence), and pseudo-rational (sophistry) are a deception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:188:4100:1304:81A5:A7AD:18E3:DA3D (talk) 15:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

It is a forgery in the sense that it claims to have been written by Jews, and just because it doesn't seek a financial profit doesn't mean there's not a motive. Crichton would acknowledge that Eaters of the Dead is fiction, the author of the Protocols claimed that it was real. We're not playing the middle ground because that would just please the antisemites who insist that it's real. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Well you're just as bad as they are then. And I'll let my objection stand. It's absolutely positively not a copy (forgery). It MAY be a fraud (if for money) and it is certainly a hoax and propaganda. It's not a middle ground position - it's a falsehood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:188:4100:1304:81A5:A7AD:18E3:DA3D (talk) 15:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

We're not going to downplay the falsehood of the Protocols. The only people who want to are antisemitic trolls who want to pull a "fine people on both sides" argument. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:55, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - I am going to disagree with both sides here. First: In English 'forgery' does not exclusively mean "fake copies" of a thing, it can also be used to refer to fakes made "in imitation of" or "falsely claimed to be by" among other things. Also, as mentioned above, profit (financial or otherwise) is not a prerequisite of a 'forgery' (although the people who created this one did so with full intention to use it and benefit from it). However I can understand why a person might think in terms of a more limited definition of the term, especially if English is not their first language. Second: Disputing the most-correct terminology to describe the nature of this hoax is not proof of anti-semitism or bad faith. The commenter has agreed that this was a hoax (though even that would still be a fair question in an open debate, but one that is already reasonably well-answered with WP:Facts and WP:RS in the article). This is not about WP:GEVAL, it is a technical point about terminology. With respect, the editor is over-reacting here and failing to WP:AGF. 23.91.234.76 (talk) 09:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• The Protocols are not so much a forgery as they are a hoax. They are not what they are held out to be. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Forgery or Hoax. I undid the collapse, for which there is no rule-based justification. About the dispute, forgery or hoax, I have to say that it is one of the dumbest I've seen in the encyclopedia in recent years. An argument based on word meaning can only proceed on the basis of an interpretation of one or both words more narrow than their usual meanings. There is a difference though: a "forgery" is a thing, but a "hoax" can also be an idea, claim, event, etc.. A fake news story that says aliens have landed is a hoax, but a photoshopped NYT cover that appears to confirm it is a forgery. In general, a forgery is a hoax (supports a hoax, etc, choose your wording), but not necessarily vice versa.

All of this is beside the point, since it matters not a flea's fart what word we think is correct. Have you all forgotten WP:NOR? Check what the sources use and follow them! Well, I looked at every item in the Bibliography section of the article, except for two (Luthi and Pipes) that I can't immediately access. I tried to not count words used in quotation. In the cases of Cohn and De Michelis, I only have their books on paper and searched about 50 pages.

The results: Ben-Itto and David use both "hoax" and "forgery" repeatedly. Carroll, Chanes, Jacobs and Singerman use "hoax" once but "forgery" multiple times. Bernstein, Bronner, Cohn, Graves, Hagemeister, Kellogg and Webman strongly prefer "forgery". De Michelis doesn't care about labels but introduces the document as "fake". Klier only has one sentence, which uses "fabricated". I also checked 9 additional academic articles specifically on the Protocols that I happen to have on my computer. Levy uses both "hoax" and "forgery" repeatedly. Five extra articles by Hagemeister, and articles of Burtsev, Bytwerk and Hasian, strongly prefer "forgery".

From this is it clear that many sources have a preference for "forgery" over "hoax", and none have a preference for "hoax" over "forgery". So there is no rule-based case for us to prefer "hoax". Personally I like "a forgery and a plagiarism" that Richard Levy uses in his first sentence. Even though he is the only one with exactly that word combination, it encapsulates the overwhelming consensus of the sources that the work is a forgery which is based in large part on earlier writings. Zero^talk 05:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah.... if the debate is so "dumb", then why did you just spend four paragraphs and the time necessary to research them putting forward your point of view? If it was worth your time and effort, then it ain't so "dumb" after all. The fact of the matter is, both "forgery" and "hoax" are used, and we are not limited to using just one of them, we can used both, as the Protocols are both, depending on from what perspective you look at them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:47, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

It's not dumb to raise the issue, but it is dumb to edit-war over it. Zero^talk 01:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Point taken. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

school textbook

The following appears in the introduction without a source: "the Nazi Party's régime ... applied The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as a textbook for German schoolchildren." This is not mentioned in an academic article I have on the Nazi use of the Protocols, and frankly I doubt it is true. School kids would not be able to make head or tail of it. Where is this claim from? Zero^talk 11:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Here is the source [3] and this [4] --Shrike (talk) 12:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Those are pretty weak, though. The first indeed asserts "some schools used the Protocols to indoctrinate students", but it links to an article about indoctrination in general that does not mention the Protocols. The second is a sidebar comment "It was used in schools after the Nazi Party took power in the 1930s." I'd be a lot happier if there was a better source here. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 14:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Here is a scholarly source [5].--Shrike (talk) 14:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

That is indeed a much better source. Meanwhile I found that it appeared as a claim without a source in Norman Cohn's 1967 book (which more recent historians have a poor opinion of). Zero^talk 00:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposed rollback

I am proposing a rollback of the article to to version 867831438 of 08:15, November 8, 2018, to remove a series of two dozen edits in the last 24 hours that were either inconsequential sentence reordering or minor changes of words, or were detrimental to the clarity and flow of the prose in small ways, and that taken as a whole, have not improved the article and been disruptive of editors’ time. For more detail, please see User talk:Chas. Caltrop#The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Mathglot (talk) 05:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I have WP:BOLDly rolled back to the version in question. Coretheapple (talk) 05:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I endorse the rollback. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Agree. William Avery (talk) 09:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

A reply to the page owners

I have edited the article to remove the POV-pushing, which, curiously, always identifies the Jews as Jews, yet, for example, the American historian Daniel Pipes is NOT identified as a Christian historian. Please, identify specific factual faults with the content, not just opinions about how you just don't like it. Be specific, give examples of deleterious edits. I've copied your complaint from my personal page to this article Talk page, where it belongs; volume is not fact, just game-playing with the rules.

Regards,

Chas. Caltrop (talk) 10:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Transposed to the pertinent Article Talk Page

Note: Box border added for clarity around material copied here by User:Chas. Caltrop from their Talk page.   Mathglot (talk) 01:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Please stop your long series of edits which in no way improve the article The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. There are somewhere between fifteen and twenty-five recent edits of yours with edit summaries like, ‘’CE; full facts, narrative flow’’ (or similar) which make trivial changes of wording or sentence order, some of which are not harmful but neither are they an improvement, and others of which are detrimental.  What is your goal, here?  Are you trying to rack up a large number of edits or are you genuinely trying to improve the article, because I am at a loss to see any overall improvement to the article at all, after two dozen edits by you.  This is becoming disruptive of other editors’ time, who have to come in behind you and examine the changes, cleaning up where necessary.

Your editing at this article is starting to become disruptive.  In addition,

this diff spans 32 edits of yours in the last 24 hours (including a smattering by other editors attempting fixes), and I fail to see any overall improvement in the article in that span.  Can you give a good reason why the article should not be rolled back to version 867831438 of 08:15, November 8, 2018?  Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 05:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I’ve opened a section at Talk:The Protocols of the Elders of Zion#Proposed rollback concerning this to see if there is consensus for a rollback.  Mathglot (talk) 05:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

The edits in question are manifestly unnecessary and unhelpful and have been reverted to this diff. User Caltrop, if you don't care to discuss the edits that you have made, feel free to not do so but there is an apparent consensus that you are wasting time by making unnecessary edits to the article that do not improve it. Coretheapple (talk) 05:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

User Caltrop, I hope this puts an end to your disruption at this article.  If not, I call your attention to this AN/I discussion where you were apparently reported for exactly the same behavior.  Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 05:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

A reply

Be specific, give examples. Your opinion is your business, the facts remain to be presented. Disruptive editing must be demonstrated, with specific examples, not just opinions.

Regards,

Chas. Caltrop (talk) 10:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Talk pages are for gaining consensus about how to improve the article. Disruptive editing does not have to be “demonstrated” here; it’s sufficient that you have been reverted and that consensus appears not to be in your favor. Save your wikilawyering about facts and diffs for AN/I. But I’m sure you know that already; you’ve been there before for similar behavior. Let’s see how far other editors’ patience extends this time. Perhaps like a cat, you still have a few more lives left. Perhaps not. Sea lions can only swim so far.

Oh, and since we are still discussing improvements here, per WP:BRD would you kindly self-revert your edit version 868458619 until such time as you gain consensus for it while discussions are still underway? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 11:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Despite reverts from other editors, changes of dubious utility continue under such rubrics as "CE". William Avery (talk) 14:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Chas. Caltrop continues to engage in outrageous edit-warring, non-consensus editing, ignoring any and all requests to modify his behaviour. Something needs to be done to make this stop.Smeat75 (talk) 15:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

A reply to Smeat75

Your turn at rollback mentions no specific editorial mistakes or factual incorrectness. Why? Surely, not every edit I have made is factually incorrect, is it, Ma'am? I ask.

Let me know, perhaps we can correspond, the way the lads cannot.

Regards,

Chas. Caltrop (talk) 15:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• If necessary, I will bring Chas. Caltrop to WP:ANI once again, as I did here, to stop his POV-pushing edit-warring. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Exposure of the forgery should be prominent

Since the status of this document as a forgery is "controversial" (in the way that most conspiracy theories are "controversial"), the lead should summarize how the forgery was discovered, with multiple RS references. Right in the lead. As it stands, the lede only states that it's a forgery, and the facts about its discovery are buried waaaaay down in the article's body. This creates the impression that the forgery status is being dubiously claimed by brute force and repetition, and not via reliable sources. I'm sure a lot of people, like myself, come to this article looking for that information — "how do we know it's a forgery?" — and not, for example, what the document actually says or who was purported to have written it. -Jordgette [talk] 01:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jordgette: It may be important, but the very nature of the lead is that it is an introductory summary of information to be found in the body of the article, including material waaaaaay down in the article body. I certainly agree that it would be out of the question if the lead did not say it was a forgery. But it does. It says so in no uncertain terms, and more than once, calling it: fabricated text, a hoax, taught as if factual, and having been exposed as fraudulent. That seems like plenty of insistence about the fact it's a forgery; I don't know how many more times you could insist on this point in the lead.

I have no idea where you get the impression that the forgery status is being dubiously claimed by brute force and repetition, and not via reliable sources, as I certainly did not get that impression. Can you indicate what, precisely, led you to that view? The lead is not required to duplicate footnotes in the body which already support the lead summary; but it is also not forbidden, either; and it would probably be okay to duplicate some of the body references in the lead, unless someone objects for some reason.

As to, "how do we know it's a forgery?" please see the section, #The Times exposes a forgery, 1921 which gives an overview of the answer to that question, indicating in addition that an entire book has been devoted to the subject. The section #Maurice Joly goes into lengthy detail about the plagiarism, with line-by-line comparisons. These two sections seems easily enough space to devote to the answer to your how-do-we-know question, and may already be too much, per due weight.

If this still isn't enough detail to answer your question, perhaps a new article, dedicated to talking only about the question of evidence would be warranted. How to do this is covered under the Summary style guideline. For some examples of a topic that does this, see for example Shroud of Turin or Dreyfus Affair, each of which has several sub-articles in summary style, describing specific aspects of the topic. You could do this with The Protocols if you find the current level of detail insufficient, by creating the new article yourself. But I think that adding a lot more detail about forgery evidence in this article would shade into the area of undue weight, but that's exactly the kind of thing that summary style sub-articles were designed for. HTH, Mathglot (talk) 05:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The Shroud of Turin article is a great example. In the lead, we have: "In 1988, three radiocarbon dating tests dated a corner piece of the shroud from the Middle Ages,[5] between the years 1260 and 1390." That's a quick, lead-appropriate explanation of how we're pretty sure it's not authentic, with a source, right in the lead. Also you wrote, "That seems like plenty of insistence about the fact it's a forgery; I don't know how many more times you could insist on this point in the lead." That's precisely my point: The lead merely insisting that it's a forgery is unconvincing. Merely saying it in no uncertain terms is not informative. Since the non-authenticity of this document is central to the article, the reader should be able to scan the lead and immediately find a source. I suggest inserting one or more references, in the first sentence immediately after "antisemitic fabricated text." Don't you think this would improve credibility? -Jordgette [talk] 19:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I do not personally think it would improve credibility for the reasons I've stated about the lead having to be verifiable as a summary by footnotes already present in the body. However, citations are not prohibited in the lead either, and if you feel that footnotes would improve credibility, nothing is stopping you from adding them. Mathglot (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks — I added the Graves source and mentioned that it was plagiarized from non-antisemitic sources. I feel this makes it easy for someone who only reads the lead to take away an understanding of how the document was fabricated as well as how we know it was fabricated. -Jordgette [talk] 00:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jordgette: The Graves-1921 sources redirects to the home page when I tried it, and there's nothing there about the topic. Can you provide a better source that that one? Mathglot (talk) 10:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't follow the link. The full text is here [6], but I'm not sure how to create this reference or even if it's an acceptable source, being a Wikimedia project. Help please? -Jordgette [talk] 19:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

There is an essay on this situation. I think it is ok for the citation to name the original source, but to give the URL of the copy. There is an obligation, however, to check that the copy agrees with the original---I can do that if nobody else does it first. I note that clicking on the numbers in the left margin brings up scans of the original. Zero^talk 02:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect Claim Per the Citation

This article incorrectly states that Henry Ford printed 500,000 copies of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The cited source actually states that he published his own compilation of newspaper articles entitled "The International Jew".

Specifically, the articles states under the "United States" sub-heading: "In the U.S., Henry Ford sponsored the printing of 500,000 copies (in reference to The Protocols),[60] and, from 1920 to 1922, published a series of antisemitic articles titled 'The International Jew: The World's Foremost Problem', in The Dearborn Independent, a newspaper he owned."

For citation, you reference "Could Henry Ford Have Dreamed a Jew Would Run His Car Company?" at https://forward.com/news/198741/could-henry-ford-have-dreamed-a-jew-would-run-his/. According to this page, "Ford also distributed some 500,000 copies of “The International Jew” across America and, with more lethal effect, published it in Europe, as well." Therefore, it should not be stated that Ford printed any copies of The Protocols.

Regards,

Bervin75 (talk) 20:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

The Protocols were part of the series of articles which were published in book form as "The International Jew". See AD:

The Protocols were publicized in America by Boris Brasol, a former Czarist prosecutor. Auto magnate Henry Ford was one of those who responded to Brasol’s conspiratorial fantasies. "The Dearborn Independent," owned by Ford, published an American version of the Protocols between May and September of 1920 in a series called ‘The International Jew: the World’s Foremost Problem." The articles were later republished in book form with half a million copies in circulation in the United States, and were translated into several foreign languages.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

That's a very poor source compared to what is available. What does "an American version of the Protocols" actually mean, anyway? You can find sources claiming that the Dearborn Independent serialised the Protocols, but it is not true. Nor does The International Jew contain the Protocols as a whole. If you have a strong stomach you can check for yourself at the Internet Archive. What you will find is original articles that include commentary on the Protocols with quotations from them. Only a fraction of the total is included. Here are more precise descriptions:

"Beginning in 1920 and continuing for nearly two years, the Independent ran a series of ninety-one articles largely based on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, an authorless document purporting to lay out the Jewish plan for world domination." (article on DI in Antisemitism — A Historical Encyclopedia of Prejudice and Persecution, ed. Richard Levy, p163).

"Commencing on May 22, 1920, in Henry Ford’s Dearborn Independent, the widely-publicized articles fully exploited the Protocols, dwelling week after week on the clear and present danger posed to American institutions by international Jewry. Rather than merely reprinting the Protocols, William Cameron, the paper’s editor and the person generally believed to be the author of the anti-Jewish articles, elucidated upon them as 'the most comprehensive program for world subjugation that has ever come to public knowledge.'" (Robert Singerman, The American Career of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, American Jewish History; Sep 1, 1981; pp48–)

"Rather than printing all The Protocols in a single 'text,' these writers used shorter articles that mixed parts of the infamous forgery with local, national, and international news items." (M. Hasian, Understanding the power of conspiratorial rhetoric: A case study of the protocols of the elders of Zion, Communication Studies, 48:3, 195-214.)

Zero^talk 11:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Neither an anonymous article on the ADL web site, nor an article in The Forward that doesn't mention the Protocols at all, is a suitable source for this page. Zero^talk 13:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

If you don't think that the ADL is a reliable source, I suggest you open a discussion on RSN, where it has always been accepted as one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Why should I waste my time debating one source when we have others whose reliability is beyond question? Zero^talk 15:59, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Requests for clarification

1) Political conspiracy background, 2nd para : ‘Brafman claimed…that the qahal continued to exist in secret…’ I cannot find any reference to ‘the qahal’ being abolished. It is also not clear whether there was one qahal or whether the various local qahals were independent of each other.

2) Political conspiracy background, 3rd para ‘In 1928, Siegfried Passarge, a geographer active in the Third Reich, translated it into German.’ The Third Reich did not exist in 1928. What exactly is meant?

3) Political conspiracy background, 4th para ‘Millingen was a British subject…. served as an officer in the Ottoman Army, where he was born.’ Where was Millingen born?

Sweet6970 (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Misleading inf in infobox re plagiarisation

I came to this article knowing nothing about the Protocols except it was an antisemitic hoax. I was astonished, and somewhat shocked, to find that the document had originally been written by Alexander Dumas, who I knew mostly from The Three Musketeers. I had had no idea he was antisemitic. Of course, when I read the article, I found that the infobox was completely misleading: what had been plagiarised was a scene about ‘the affair of the diamond necklace’. I do not think it likely that I am the only person who was misled in this way. I do think it likely that many people never read beyond the infobox and the introduction. So, many people will leave this article thinking that the author of The Three Musketeers wrote The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

The purpose of Wikipedia is to inform its readers, not to mislead them. Sweet6970 (talk) 09:32, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you and support your change. Actually the main source, Joly, doesn't mention Jews at all. Zero^talk 11:44, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Merge from Mikhail Raslovlev

This person is of no interest other than his association with the Protocols; let's clean up another of one Ludvikus' messes. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 15:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Zero^talk 11:58, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

missing references

Michael Hagemeister, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Hagemeister Hanna Arendt, Origins of Totaliarism, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origins_of_Totalitarianism Bern Process original sources https://digifindingaids.cjh.org/?pID=477923#a23 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.55.66.147 (talk) 19:19, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Umberto Eco

It is weird that Eco's writings on this have been reduced not to The Prague Cemetery but to Foucault's Pendulum. In the latter, the Protocols are just a minor aspect in a vast construct of conspiracies. The former is about the Protocols, narrated by the person who faked them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:32, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I've restored some information from an earlier version of the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

part of the intro is not good

There is "According to the claims made by some of its publishers, the Protocols are the minutes of 24 sessions of a meeting of the "twelve tribes of Israel",[2] during which Jewish leaders discussed their goal..." There is no mention in the Protocols of "twelve tribes", though "our tribe" (singular) appears. The source attributes these claims to the Protocols, not to "some of its publishers", so it is wrong, and it is also wrong that the "congress" was "led by a Grand Rabbi" as no rabbi is mentioned in the Protocols at all. Some publisher may indeed have made these claims, but we don't have a source attributing them to a publisher. Zero^talk 06:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Zero, I don't have time to fix this at the moment. If the edits were misleading, feel free to revert and I might redo some other time. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2020

Please remove the portion that attributes part of the Elders of Protocol to Eugene Sue. Umberto Eco provided no documentation where in the Les Mystères du peuple the passage is located which, considering that the book is well over 2,000 pages), makes validating difficult. I can confirm that I have read the entire English translation and did not find the passage he mentioned. My fear is that Umberto Eco made this up and figured that no one would ever check (which, given the poor prose of this particular Sue work is easy to understand). I think he did it as a joke and due to his love of conspiracies. He probably thought it was innocent, I do not. If Sue can be falsified then antisemitics will say that Joly is invalid, and that is certainly not the case (having read Joly as well). Now I will admit maybe it is in the French original, but without a citation, this should be considered unproven. 2601:646:9600:74A0:29A4:CB9:54B1:3552 (talk) 00:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I have wondered about this. In The Holocaust Encyclopedia (p503), Michael Hademeister wrote, "Yet, as Umberto Eco has shown, Joly himself made use of the popular fiction of his age, adopting passages from Eugène Sue’s novel Les Mystères du Peuple (including the classic formula 'the end justifies the means') in his Dialogue aux Enfers." So at least one Protocols expert believes it. More than that I can't say, though I will change the weasel "Scholars" into "Emberto Eco". Zero^talk 01:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. There appears to be a discussion in this section about the merits of this change. Please note that edit requests should only be made once a consensus has been reached. Please continue this discussion in another section on this talk page and gain a consensus before reopening this request. Thanks. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 23:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Comparison in introduction

The introduction includes a comparison by Stephen Bronner. Is it really relevant to single out one opinion in the introduction, especially the rather random comparison? The intro already describes the significance of this document "It remains widely available in numerous languages, in print and on the Internet, and continues to be presented by neofascist, fundamentalist and antisemitic groups as a genuine document.", adding the quote of Bronner seems just arbitrary. Maybe keep the "probably the most influential work of antisemitism ever written"-quote, but at least the comparison to another book adds no information and just possible controversy to the intro. --2001:A62:41C:5901:3972:8B4:72C2:739F (talk) 14:35, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I took out a sentence cited to Bronner. I discussed it before on this page (see the section "part of the intro is not good"). Zero^talk 04:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Those 500,000 copies

Some myths just won't go away, largely because they appear in "reliable sources". An example is "Henry Ford funded printing of 500,000 copies that were distributed throughout the United States in the 1920s." Now we have a new source Boyle, Arc of Justice that says "Determined to explain moral decline, he latched onto The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, .... By the summer of 1921, the automaker had already mass-produced some half million copies." Wondering exactly what this means, and why Boyle doesn't mention the Dearborn Independent here, we turn to Boyle's source: Nevins and Hill, Ford, Expansion and Challenge, 1915–1933 (1957). There we find the origin of the 500,000 (p316): "The articles probably had little effect in stimulating the circulation of the Dearborn Independent. That circulation grew during 1922 to al­most 270,000 paid copies, and in the middle of 1923 stood at 472,500, but the growth was based on semi-compulsory buying by branches, agencies, and dealers." So the 500,000 is about the Dearborn Independent, not about a separate publication. This inaccuracy is connected to another: the claim that the Dearborn Independent serialised the Protocols. Actually, the DI (which I have read) published a long series of original articles that quote paragraphs from the Protocols in support, but it never published the Protocols as one text from start to finish, together or in sections. I gave fine sources in Archive 10 of this page. A missing part of the puzzle concerns The International Jew, which was a compilation of articles from the Dearborn Independent published as a booklet. Like the magazine, it wasn't a copy of the Protocols but an original rant peppered with quotations from the Protocols. What was its circulation? I believe that "half a million" is a mistake caused by confusion with the magazine. Zero^talk 04:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Seconded, strongly. It is essential for a page like this not to perpetuate inaccurate details and exaggerated numbers just because they've been promulgated for a long time. The publication history of these "protocols" is an essential part of their history. Forelyn (talk) 09:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2020

I would like to add a section under the Germany tab, discussing Nazi propaganda and the introduction to the Protocols found in the Nazi mass production of the Protocols. This is the section:

Hitler and the Nazis produced many pieces of propaganda in Nazi Germany in an attempt to convince people that their world view was correct, and that Jewish people did not belong in Germany. Many different stereotypes and lies about Jewish people that were perpetuated in the Protocols, such as Jewish people having a plan for world domination, were also found in the Nazi propaganda. While it is highly unlikely that Hitler believed that the Protocols was a real book, he used it to his advantage to promote his antisemitic agenda. At least 23 editions of the Protocols were created and distributed between 1919 and 1939, and were mass produced when the Nazis were in power. When Hitler was elected Chancellor in 1933, schools began to use the Protocols to indoctrinate the children in Germany, which caused them to have a large influence on how German citizens viewed Jewish people. Hitler and the Nazis knew that promoting the belief that an international Jewish organization was planning to take over the world further instilled an irrational fear of Jewish people, which would make it easier to push their antisemitic beliefs on Germans and carry out antisemitic legislation.

The Nazis produced a specific Nazi edition of the Protocols, Die Geheimnisse der Weisen von Zion, 22nd edition (Munich: Eher Verlag, 1938), in which they wrote an introduction to preface the actual Protocols. The introduction serves to give false credibility to the book, push clear antisemitic beliefs onto people, and set them up to begin carrying out legislation and persecution against the Jewish people in Germany. First, the introduction works to establish credibility to the book by saying that there is evidence that this work was created in Russia. They justified this claim and said that it was a logical thought because the “scholarly work must be conducted in the archives of a country in which Jewry has absolute control”. The introduction also claims that in addition to the agenda from the meetings that the Protocols referenced, they also had a desire to create propaganda and spread it with an end goal of the National Socialist Germany collapsing. In another attempt to establish credibility, the Nazis claimed that there is a lot of incriminating evidence in the Protocols, which suggests that the content in the book is true.

The introduction also serves to perpetuate antisemitic attitudes and beliefs that were already common among society to give the Protocols further credit and claim the existence of Jewish propaganda. In addition to the stereotype of the plan for world domination, the Nazi introduction also states that releasing the Protocols have made people aware of the “corrupting character of Jewish thought and action.” The introduction discussed the court case about whether or not the Protocols are forged or not, and the Nazis stated that even if they were forged, it is not up to the court to decide, and that there is still some truth in the concept of Jewish people seeking world domination. The fact that the Protocols were on trial in the first place is a part of Jewish propaganda, according to the introduction, but “its outcome not only reduced the suspicion that the Protocols was a forged and immoral document, but also made clear that the origin of the Protocols was not a matter to be determined by a court, but rather by historical scholarship.” Ultimately, it is clear to see that the Nazis’ logic was very flawed, and that they wanted people to believe that Jewish people were actually attempting to take over the world so that fear would be instilled in the German people. The goal of the Nazis in mass publishing the Protocols with their introduction at the beginning was so that they would be justified in discriminating towards the Jews in their law and policies and the German people would be accepting of these actions. Even though it was proven that the Protocols were completely forged by Russians, the introduction denounced the facts and blamed the corruption of Jewish people to say that the Protocols was a real book.

United States Holocaust Museum, Washington, DC, “Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” accessed December 6, 2020, https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/protocols-of-the-elders-of-zion.

Bytwerk, Randall. “Introduction to 1938 Nazi Edition of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” Introduction to the Nazi Edition of the Protocols of Zion, 2012. https://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/protocols.htm. Haylielackey (talk) 23:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

You'll need specific in-line references to back up each major assertion, not just broad references, for three substantial paragraphs of statements composed in Wikipedia's voice, and you'll need to show how they might fit into the existing article. Acroterion (talk) 00:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@Haylielackey: I've set this to answered for now, due to Acroterion's concerns above. Please address these before resubmitting your edit request. Seagull123 Φ 16:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, if you need any help with this, see Help:Referencing for beginners and/or Help:Referencing for beginners with citation templates. Seagull123 Φ 16:41, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Availability?

There is a line under the final heading, "contemporary conspiracy theories", that reads as follows: ``The Protocols continue to be widely available around the world, particularly on the Internet, as well as in print in Japan,[101] the Middle East, Asia, and South America.[102]`` Isn't this misleading? The book is widely available worldwide. The phrasing of this sentence can lead the reader to infer that the book is not widely sold in North America or Africa; which either implies that North Americans and Africans are less open to believing that the protocols are genuine, or conversely, that for some reason not mentioned, the peoples of Asia, Europe, and South America are more inclined to bleieve that the screed is real; a statement that is not only unsupported by the sources listed, but unfair. 2603:8000:342:3400:A1A2:3DA3:78:E1E0 (talk) 05:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

The implication is that it is more popular in those countries. While that may be true, I would like to see a source that says that. TFD (talk) 06:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm taking it out. I doubt if there is any way to make statements like that reliably. Incidentally, some major American book sellers list it so why isn't the USA in the list? Zero^talk 13:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Communist Manifesto

In the lead is "The political scientist Stephen Bronner described it as 'probably the most influential work of antisemitism ever written ... what the Communist Manifesto is for Marxism, the fictitious Protocols is for antisemitism'." I propose to remove the part after the ellipsis, which is patently ridiculous. Comparing Marx and Engels to the anonymous Protocols author is just embarrassing. Of course my emotions are not a reliable source, but I'll point out that just because something appears in a "reliable source" doesn't mean we are obliged to quote it. I'll go further and question the reliability of the source anyway. On the same page of Bronner's book he writes "It consists of the supposed minutes from twenty-four sessions of a congress held by representatives from the 'twelve tribes of Israel' and led by a Grand Rabbi, whose purpose was to plan the conquest of the world." Actually, the Protocols don't mention twelve tribes, any rabbis at all, or sessions of a congress. Those concepts do appear in the commentary of publishers and others like the Dearborn Independent, but not in the Protocols themselves. (I'm relying on the Marsden edition that is the main source of English versions.) Zero^talk 02:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree that at least the post-ellipsis part should go. I'd be inclined to take out the whole sentence. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 02:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

The point of the sentence is perfectly clear, it's straightforward analogy about the centrality of each book to their specific ideology. There's no possible way to confuse it as saying that the Protocols is central to Communism. Let's not write down to our readers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Who suggested any such confusion? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 04:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I think we should avoid conversational tone and direct quotes. The book is important to anti-Semitism. We don't need to attribute that intext to someone readers have probably not heard of and provide a comparison. TFD (talk) 03:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

agree that it's an odd - and potentially misleading - comparison. More generally, personally, dislike use of quotes in leads and would rather it was removed. Acousmana (talk) 12:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily call such a comparative analogy "patently ridiculous," nor "embarrassing;" BUT I am on board with removing it on other grounds. It's superfluous and unnecessary. I'd agree that the entire quote really does not belong in the lead. Butlerblog (talk) 13:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Rebutting arguments of validity with an explanatory section

Although the nature of the forgery is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt there are still subsantial numbers of people who believe in the validity of certain arguments presented within the Protocols, regardless of their authenticity, and so it may be desirable to introduce a section for addressing the key arguments found within the Protocols to show that even the arguments themselves, independent of the overall document, lack merit.

This would go a long way to dispelling many of the ancilliary myths that have accumulated over the passage of a century. It would also flesh out the article more and provide a sound basis for further rebuttals. Engineer of Souls (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Engineer of Souls (talk • contribs) 05:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

However, rebuttal is not the purpose of this article. See WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Anyway, the Protocols don't really contain anything that can be glorified as "arguments". Zero^talk 11:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I am not quite sure what you mean by ‘rebuttal is not the purpose of this article’. There clearly are several sections that attempt to do so, for example the section on the Berne Trial features a possible interpretation and counter arguments on the implications of that trial. Perhaps you meant something else? Engineer of Souls (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "a possible interpretation and counter arguments". What language precisely constitutes a possible interpretation? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 00:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts according to the best available sources and attributed opinions according to the most qualified commentators. If that serves to dispel non-facts, well and good, but it is not our task (and forbidden by policy) to construct our own arguments for or against anything. Not all articles follow this rule, but they are supposed to. In the case of the Protocols, their nature means it isn't even clear what a "rebuttal" would look like. Personally I think that few people, including some academics who have written about them, have actually read the Protocols. Let me open them at random and quote a typical paragraph. From Protocol No. 24: "Certain members of the seed of David will prepare the kings and their heirs, selecting not by right of heritage but by eminent capacities, inducting them into the most secret mysteries of the political into schemes of government, but providing always that none may come to knowledge of the secrets. The object of this mode of action is that all may know that government cannot be entrusted to those who have not been inducted into the secret places of its art." It makes no sense to ask for a "rebuttal" of this, since it is just barely-comprehensible drivel that someone made up. Zero^talk 02:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Since I am new to editing Wikipedia and you appear to be experienced I will take your word that is the standard practice. If that is the case then I believe the other sections should be edited to remove the appearances of attempted rebuttals. How should we go about that? Engineer of Souls (talk) 15:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Please tell us what you consider to be "appearances of attempted rebuttals". --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 18:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, I had assumed I already replied. Just looking at the final paragraph of the Berne Trial Section: “ Evidence presented at the trial, which strongly influenced later accounts up to the present, was that the Protocols were originally written in French by agents of the Tzarist secret police (the Okhrana).[43] However, this version has been questioned by several modern scholars.[43] Michael Hagemeister discovered that the primary witness Alexandre du Chayla had previously written in support of the blood libel, had received four thousand Swiss francs for his testimony, and was secretly doubted even by the plaintiffs.[42] Charles Ruud and Sergei Stepanov concluded that there is no substantial evidence of Okhrana involvement and strong circumstantial evidence against it.[76]”Engineer of Souls (talk) 05:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

We can report claims and rebuttals made by reliable sources. We can't make our own rebuttals. The difference is fundamental to Wikipedia policy. Zero^talk 09:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Well of course, the section I am proposing will follow the style of the above. It certainly shouldn’t be a random essay slapped into the middle of the page. There are several existing sources touching on one aspect or another of the arguments presented in the Protocols that could be mentioned. It seems to me reasonable then since there is already a section featuring the claims and rebuttals of the Berne Trial and so on, to have a section likewise for the key arguments. Engineer of Souls (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Stephen Knight (author) argued that although the document was a forgery, the narrative was factual. But unless there is a reliable source that analyzes the thesis presented by the Protocols, we cannot present rebuttals. In any case, as the article Conspiracy theory says, "Conspiracy theories resist falsification and are reinforced by circular reasoning: both evidence against the conspiracy and an absence of evidence for it are re-interpreted as evidence of its truth, whereby the conspiracy becomes a matter of faith rather than something that can be proved or disproved." How does one disprove the claim that all political groups other than tsarists are working for the Jews? TFD (talk) 12:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning this author. It is indeed as you say, certain claims are unfalsifisble and therefore can’t be addressed in a satisfactory way. Perhaps even the large majority of claims are like that. Although I haven’t analyzed the entire document, it seems likely there are claims that are falsifiable and can be discussed. Engineer of Souls (talk) 16:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Cannot find claim in Source ?!

Regarding this segment here:

“Identifiable phrases from Joly constitute 4% of the first half of the first edition, and 12% of the second half; later editions, including most translations, have longer quotes from Joly.”

Has Source #22, a google book entry. I read through it and explicitly searched as well but could not find this (neither 4% nor 12%, both numeral or in wording).

Someone please verify. If true, statement should be removed. Lstein83 (talk) 15:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Source is named: De Michelis 2004, p. 8. Lstein83 (talk) 15:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

The percentages are there. I don't find the part after the semicolon. Zero^talk 05:06, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Herzl and Zionism

"The text, which nowhere advocates for Zionism, resembles a parody of Herzl's ideas". It has to be one or the other; doesn't it? To parody ideas you usually have to present them, even if ironically. --Nngnna (talk) 14:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• TheTimes exposes TheProtocols as a forgery.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Fabrication not forgery

Suggestion that every instance of the word "forgery" on this page should be replaced by the word 'fabrication'. A forgery is a copy of an original, or at least in the style of an original, which in this case is false and tremendously pernicious. illywhacker; (talk) 09:04, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

It's been referred to as a "forgery" by reliable sources for over a century. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 13:54, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

The choice of word has been discussed a great deal, check the archives of this page. I don't agree that "forgery" implies there is an original. For example if I make a painting in the style of Rembrandt and try to pass it off as a genuine newly-discovered Rembrandt, that will be called art forgery by almost everyone. It doesn't have to be a copy of a real Rembrandt. The key aspect of forgery is to create something that is not what you say it is. Of course "fabrication" is also a true description, but we aren't going to change the word without another discussion and we have had several of those already. Zero^talk 14:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I did say "or at least in the style of". This document is a forgery 'in the style of' which genuine articles or creator? However, I do not have the time or the energy to enter into a discussion; so be it. illywhacker; (talk) 16:36, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

watch your tone, no need to be rude ZetaFive (talk) 01:27, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Forgery for over 100 years..now a fabrication...even though parts of it aren't

Fabrication implies 100% of the book is made-up, but the description, on the same page no less, literally says the opposite. 2601:140:8400:36C0:429:D241:4DFF:B9B1 (talk) 22:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Fake, fabrication, forgery, counterfeit, falsification, sham, fraud, hoax, phony, makey-uppy - whatever word you want to use, it's a vile antisemitic document that is not what it purports to be, and has been used by racists for much too long to create an inaccurate and inflammatory portrait of Jews and Judaism. It's unfortunate -- and depressing -- to think that some people still believe in it even today. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:57, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

New Book

I suggest to add the following book to Further Reading:

Hagemeister, Michael (2022): The Perennial Conspiracy Theory: Reflections on the History of “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, London, New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-03-206015-6.

--Phi (talk) 13:34, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Henry Ford allegedly gave Hitler a copy of the Protocols while he was in prison and before writing Mein Kampf

I have read two Wikipedia articles on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Both are full of allegations, research and historical facts. But neither seems to delve into something I cam across recently that it was Henry Ford who allegedly got the Protocols into Hitlers hands while he was in prison and before he wrote Mein Kampf. If true, this would point to the Protocols as being the SOURCE of Hitlers ultimate plan to murder all Jews. i would like to see this information further researched and written up. 2601:1C0:CA01:9240:4DD7:9C90:1573:2C51 (talk) 17:06, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

You're going to need to provide a source for that.Ford's influence was more probably indirect, through other Germans who were influential with Hitler and who have acknowledged the influence of Ford's publications, such as The International Jew, which was published in German. Please read Henry Ford, The International Jew and The Dearborn Independent for context, as well as our article on Mein Kampf.. Acroterion (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

It's likely the best you'll find will be WP:SYNTHESIS of sources, which isn't going to fly. Was it influential? Probably. The source of his ultimate plan? That's conjecture. If you can find a reliable academic source that makes that assertion, the best you can probably do is to mention it with attribution to the source. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:20, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I think it's a conflation. Ford was already publishing The International Jew when L. Fry introduced him to the Protocols (this would be 1920 or so.) Hitler's time in jail was 1924, and he certainly was familiar with Ford's writings by then -- and that might be where the idea that Ford "got the Protocols into Hitler's hands". --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 19:55, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

According to Ullrich, Ford's pamphlet "The International Jew" was published in German in 1922, and Hitler "allegedly" told a reporter that he regarded Ford as "an inspiration". There is no mention in either Ullrich or Kershaw of Ford providing Hitler with either the pamphlet or the Protocols, which was published in German in 1919 and was widely disseminated in the German antisemitic community.(Kershaw, v.1, p.153) Hitler first mentions it in notes for a meeting and a speech in August 1921 (Ullrich, v.1, p.103). I agree that the claim that Ford provided Hitler with the Protocols is most likely a conflation for which there is no evidence; and certainly Hitler was aware of the Protocols before he was imprisoned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

There is also no support in Victoria Woeste's "Henry Ford's War on the Jews" for Ford providing the Protocols to Hitler. Leaving Ford aside, the idea that the Protocols gave Hitler the idea to kill all the Jews was the title thesis of Norman Cohn's "Warrant for Genocide" but modern historians like Richard Levy do not buy it. Zero^talk 05:53, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

2601:1C0:CA01:9240:4DD7:9C90:1573:2C51 This is settled, as per the above comments. What follows is a foruming closing note, not intended to open so much as closew the discussion. Psychologically, the fact that a major industrialist used his resources to promote the Protocol fantasy certainly would have influenced Hitler, who had Ford's photograph on his desk. But the idea that genocide was practicable, i.e, that countries could get away with it, and any controversy would blow over, was in the air in Hitler's youth, and later 'maturity', regardless of the Protocols. The Herero genocide that executed General Lothar von Trotta's 'extermination order' (Vernichtungsbefehl), itself imitating what Belgium's king Leopold carried out in the Congo, was covered euphemistically in the German press, as was the Armenian genocide. Several core people, including military officers and scientists experimenting on race (Mengele's teacher) in the Herero campaign later rose to important roles in the Third Reich. The Holodomor in the Ukraine iun the 30s only confirmed the principle at a time when, to get round the Versailles limitations on Germany's military, Germany and the Soviet Union had a secret pact enabling the former to train in that area, etc.etc. It's an old rule in history that what 'exceptionally' one can get away with by loosening civilized rules, eventually comes home to roost in the homeland: if we can get away with massive infrastructural devastation in Syria without widespread rage, why not also the Ukraine?Nishidani (talk) 10:02, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

New book

I suggest to add the following book to Further Reading: Hagemeister, Michael (2022): The Perennial Conspiracy Theory: Reflections on the History of “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, London, New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-03-206015-6. 2003:E4:AF0E:5F01:3C14:8034:6E0:5B33 (talk) 10:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Textual evidence shows that it could not have been produced prior to 1901

This very specific claim, with a very specific date, is made with no citation at all. Further in the article there are sections comparing the text with earlier works, but nothing (so far as I can ascertain) about this 1901 date. Where does this come from, and what is the evidence for this as an earliest date? 109.176.90.215 (talk) 12:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

The original insertion happened here in 2014. The editor has not been around since 2015. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 14:44, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I added a source and did some rewording. It comes right out of De Michelis around the page which was cited for the following sentence. Zero^talk 15:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

The 1934 USA "expanded edition"

This edition is 299 pages, not 300 pages as the article currently says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.98.105 (talk) 22:57, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

FBI-vault dossier

The FBI has historic documents pertaining to the Protocols and I think it merits inclusion in the external links section as per WP:EL. Take a look... Swiss romulus (talk) 05:09, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:55, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Strange passage here:

The passage beginning with According to Norman Cohn, the modern myth of a world-wide conspiracy by Jews has its earliest precursor in a work written by a Jesuit priest, is odd - all respect to Norman Cohn, but how can the modern Western myth of a worldwide Jewish conspiracy be rooted in the work of a Jesuit Priest who lived in 1800, when over 500 years earlier, Jews across Europe were accused of poisoning wells with the Black Death and slaughtered en-masse? (Dorsey Armstrong, The Black Death: The World's Most Devastating Plague)

I can understand an argument that this was not worldwide, but localized to Europe, but even the myth of a Jewish worldwide conspiracy is largely a Western conspiracy theory rooted predominantly in European/Western culture. All of this is to say; I don't think Cohn is correct, and the statement is a strange one to state so authoritatively. There is even a Wikipedia article about the mass-pogroms here, which spread across the Catholic world and were incited by a conspiracy theory surrounding Jews and the poisoning of the city wells. Mishmoo (talk) 23:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

As the paragraph states, the priest in question (Barruel) did not attribute his conspiracy to the Jews. The only Jewish connection was a letter written to Barruel by "Simonini" (perhaps not a real name) complaining that Barruel did not include the Jews in his conspiracy. So it was Simonini and not Barruel who proposed a conspiracy by Jews and only in a private letter. Moreover, there is no evidence whatever of a connection between this affair and the "Protocols". So I believe this paragraph is of dubious value to the article. Zero^talk 05:25, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the passage unless there's any demonstrable value to reinstating it - even Cohn's quote supposedly tying the private letter to the Protocols is highly suspect, since the essential gist of what Cohn seems to be saying is, 'This is one of the earliest examples I can find of someone mentioning a Jewish conspiracy'. Mishmoo (talk) 20:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

In my view, the author seems to be referring to a myth that the Jewish conspiracy is by Jewish people from across the world for world-wide control, and not that across the world there are myths of Jewish conspiracy for localized control. ~Dr Victor Vasconcelos de Souza (talk) 19:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)