Talk:The Protocols of the Elders of Zion/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Countries publishing this book

It does not make sense, nor is it necessary to list, and detail the countries publishing this book. If this is the case, perhaps we should also do the same for all the other books listed on Wikipedia to ensure articles regarding popular books are treated equally. What do you guys think? --Sina7 20:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Citing

"Scholars generally agree that the Okhrana, the secret police of the Russian Empire, fabricated the text in the late 1890s or early 1900s." - Can you please point out which scholars, study and research this is citing (If a newspaper article, please describe what study the article is citing)? Thank You --Sina7 19:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sina7 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

What is the truth?

On January 27, 2006, members of the Public Chamber of Russia and human rights activists proposed to establish a list of extremist literature whose dissemination should be formally banned for uses other than scientific research. - while a particular book, person or political movement can be considered anti-semitic by jewish people, is it justifyable for jews to demand that such a book or a person be banned, restricted or put to jail? If the subject of their concern is deemed anti-semitic in its expression, why not engage in public debate with him, present your arguments, evidence. Instead, it seems, the jews have increasingly begun to rely on censuring, banning and imprisonment. This only raises and confirms the suspicions of many. Is it because they have no arguments, and are fearful that evidence is not on their side? Is it may be because they feel so powerful, that they no longer need to prove anything, just ban it? Or is there some other reason? Why do jewish groups sponsor various "hate speech" ban legislation, deny public podium to anyone that may criticise them, and put various forms of pressure on anyone who dares to question them? --Marsur 01:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I do agree to some extent with Marsur. If it's untrue and propaganda, why try to ban it. I mean, for Gods sake, if someone wants to deny the holocaust, let them, why jail them? Its their personal view, even if it goes against that of the majorities. You would only take actions such as imprisonment, bans and silence if there is something you do not want others to hear due to concealment. If I want to deny that the 9/11 story is false, should I face imprisonment? Salman Rushdie's book (which was published with great applause) which defames and makes horrific accounts on Islam is far worse an attack on particular religion than the Protocols of Zion. All attacks on religions should be dealt with equally. A lot of people beleive Al Qaeda does not even exist, and that Osama Bin Laden is dead due to his popular kidney disorder which ties him to hospital visits and dialysis machines frequently. Should they be jailed for simply not accepting the beleif of Governments and the Media who state that Al Qaeda is well organised world threat lead by Bin Laden and that WTC attacks was by a number of Arabs of whom one of their passports (Atta) magically appeared on a New York street as it fell from the WTC after the buildings collapsed whilst everything else burnt, including the black box. Should people get jailed, banned or censured for having a skeptical view on Global events? No. And the Global events linked with religion regardless of the religion should be treated with the same respect. --Sina7 20:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

What's a lie?

Mansur should read No god but God. Poor Mansur - he seems to need a scapegoat to explain everything that's not right in his world - why not blame the Jews? Judging by his name, doesn't he have enough oil to pay for what he needs? And if he's a Shia does he want to kill his Sunni brother, or vice versa? How come Jews don't expose this fact, that his people in Iraq are at each others throats! And if it wasn't for the United States they would masacre each other. It really seems he can only live in an dictatorship under a Saddam. Poor President Bush, he really thinks that Masur is ready for democracy. I thought so too. Now I regret wasting the lives of American soldiers to save the lives of those whose culture is the only one today which produces terrorists. Poor Mansur - he needs the Jew to excuse the deep-rooted inferiority complex of his fello compatriots. The TRUTH - Mansur knows the truth. No, he needs to be protected from himself until he learns to live in the 21st century. There is no god but God and Mansur has a special relationship with Him to kill us (Christians, as well as Jews) i His name, right? --Ludvikus 03:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I think your reply is personal, irrelevant to the point Marsur made and anti-arab/semitic (if his from the Arab peninsula) "Judging by his name, doesn't he have enough oil". Would you like it the oil was replaced with diamond and directed at you? Please debate like Adults. Marsur is making a partially valid point, whereas your reply Ludvikus, is invalid and somewhat childish, which I didn't expect from you as you mention you are a philosopher. But yes, there is one God, and only one, he loves everyone and the road to him is in your self. Religions are there to keep some morality within communities and society, without it, immorality will depress the world. Unfortunately, every person tends to think his religion is the ultimate one, and the others are wrong. This is bad, people need to accept that all religions are roads that will eventually bring you to a point which inevitably will lead to enlightement where the One will be realized, from then on the individual will understand the purpose of different religions. Reincarnation results in the individuals going through different religions until he qualifies for the spiritual truth. Extremism which is seen in all religions including Judaism is detrimental. Ultimately we will all go to the same place, there is no chosen religion, but there are some races in the world that are spiritual more forward than others. Until man keeps identifying himself with one sect and not all, he will find it hard to see the holy road. --Sina7 20:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Ludvikus mate what on earth are you talking about? Why should his name be No God But God? I looked on the link whats the connection? Your comments do seem to be very personal and to say the least confusing. They seem to start by asuming Mansur is from the Gulf (even though he made no mention of being so) then go on to rant on about Shia and Sunnis killing each other in (I assume you are talking about) Iraq and asuming further that he wants to participate in murder. "Mansur is not ready for democracy" (again refering to Iraq) again what on earth are you talking about is this Mansur even from Iraq???

I think you realy need to think about what you write before you put it on wikipedia and as Sina above said please, debate like an adult.

While I generally agree that debate is preferable to censorship, I have to say Marsur is a bit anti-Semitic on this point. But Ludvikus, you are being inappropriately personal in this argument. Somebody Else's Problem^Cat_Dog(aka Alethiophile) 03:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hamas Charter = Compilation of "The Protocols"???

Has anyone heard? It's in the news - Hamas has retained some scholar to edit and re-write its charter and remove all portions that have been lifted from The Protocols.

As soon as I get the reference & link I'll post it here.

Now I'm inspired to include the current — unrevised — version as another title The Protocols.

Best wishes to you all, fellow Wikipedians, of whatever persuasion, --Ludvikus 15:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

1903 vs. 1905

Apparently, someone believes, erroneously, that the first edition was published in 1903. That year there was an alleged publication in the Russian newspaper, Znamya (newspaper). The First Edition--in Book form occurred in 1905.

Accordingly, I've made the correction.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 00:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The 1905 Imprint

The 1905 text, entitled Velikoe v malom i antikhrist, now has its own article. I've already specified that there is no "appendix" in this book. The Protocols, rather, constitute the 12th and final chapter. The book is available on Microfilm in the NYPL.

Also, no one has seen any edition of this work by Nilus prior to 1905. And there is no agreement whether it is a "second" or "third" edition. The is also confusion over the edition number of chaper 12, which is what constitutes "The Protocols." We get second here by counting the 1903 Znamya (newspaper)]] as first.

Yours truly,--Ludvikus 08:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Was the a 1901 and a 1903 edition of Nilus's Work on Antichrist

Jimbo Wales, refecting & supporting WP policy, does not approve of original research by Wikipedians encyclopedists. However, we are not informed by any policy I know of as to what to do when authorities conflict, or contract one another.

Norman Cohn, in 1967, says:

    ... the edition of the Protocols that appeared as part of a book called The Great in the
    Small: Antichrist considered as an imminent political  posibility, by a mystical writer,
    Sergey Nilus. The first two editions of this work, published in 1901 and 1903, did not
    contain the Protocols, but they were inserted in the third edition, published December
    1905 under the imprint of the local Red Cross at the imperial residence outside St
    Petersburg, Tsarskoe Selo.
        Warrant for Genocide, p.73

However, Stephen Eric Bronner, in 2000 & 2003, says:

    Sergei Nilus first included the text [of "The Protocols"] in 1905 as an appendix to the
    second edition of his 1903 book entitled The Great in the Small: The Coming of the
    Anti-Christ and the Rule of Satan on Earth, ...
         A Rumor about the Jews, p.76

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 09:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The 1905 Imprint - Image of Title Page on Microfilm at the NYPL

Image:1905 2fnl Velikoe v malom i antikhrist.jpg

Yours truly,Ludvikus 09:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Distribution by students

"It was withdrawn from sale in September 2004, as 'a business decision'. It is distributed in the United States by some Palestinian student groups on college campuses, and by Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam." Such as? I don't believe that for a moment. Deleted until specifics are provided. Thesobrietysrule 07:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Not in the US, but read here:[1] Kaisershatner 17:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's a NOI citation, not authoritative but seems legit:[2] Kaisershatner 17:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

See also [3], [4] Kaisershatner 17:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

If a student in college can't but it or read it then how are they supposed to know about it. Colleges seem intent on becoming bastions of stupidity.

PATRIOTIC PUBLISHING CO.

Dear User:Humus sapiens

I OWN the original 1934 edition.
I also examined it at the NYPL.
There is NOTHING about this EDITION by ANYONE!!!
I suspect was a NAZI production - and another FRAUD against the JEWS.
But since this is merely speculation on my part at this time I cannot write that in the article.
But at least I can stick to the FACTS AS KNOWN:
- (1) The UNINCORPORATED called itself by these ALL CAPS
  - (2) It claimed to originate out of CHICAGO.
    - (3) It operated out of a P.O. Box!!!
Please do not REVERT without a discussion.
Thanks!--Ludvikus 16:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Imprint v. Edition

There is a tendency, inadvertently, to dignify these various re-issues or other annotated compilations of the Protocols by the publishing technical term of Edition.I recommend that we stick to the term employed by the Library of Congress. That way we will also be more accurate without getting involved in the difficult question of the NUMBER particular edition - 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. Yours truly,--Ludvikus 16:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

1927 Imprint Image Requires cleanup

    1927 ed. by Russian emigrants in Paris portrays the Bolshevik Revolution as a "Jewish plot"

Isn't this long-winded? I recommend the following:

    1927 imprint, Paris, cover image of Trotsky and comrades

Also, an accurate Transliteration and/or Translation of the Russian language title.

Yours truly,--Ludvikus 18:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Titles

User:Alex Bakharev has provided the following answers to my query:

The Title of the Red book is Sionskie protokoly = Zion's protocols or Protocols of Zion. The word Sionskie is the adjective formed from the word Sion=Zion. A similar adjective from the word Zionist Russian: Sionist is Sionistskie (Сионистские). It is quite possible that in the beginning of the 20th century Zion meant not only the place but the Zionism as well (see e.g. Hovevei Zion).
The title of the yellow book is the same but written in the pre-1918 orthography. On the top there is Publishing House of His Excellency Prince I.K. Gorchakov "Down with the Evil". The the title. Then a photograph captioned as Jewish Government in Moscow and names (some are unreadable because of low resolution). In the bottom there is Paris and a year 19?7 (I cannot read the third digit) ~~Alex Bakharev 00:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)~~

Yours truly,Ludvikus 00:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

1911 v.1912 Imprint / Edition of the Protocols of Zion

I have not been able to find any 1912 edition of The Protocols.

The is a 1911 edition, that's well documented in the bibliographies.
Norman Cohn only mentions the 1911 text as the closest to 1912.
It is my position that this is an error in ^{[citation needed]}, and I'm noting it in the article!
- Yours truly, --Ludvikus 17:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I have checked with the NYPL (and other Major libraries).

This exists as a frontispiece to a 1911 imprint.

APPEARS TO BE EXACT SAME IMAGE - EXCEPT THE DATE IS 1911.

Asking User:Humus sapiens to identify the source of the image to insure it is not spurious.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 19:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's the NYPL Record for the 1911 imprint:

  LC Control No.: 	     75554498
  Type of Material: 	Book (Print, Microform, Electronic, etc.)
  Personal Name: 	Nilus, Sergeĭ Aleksandrovich, 1862-1930. [from old catalog]
  Main Title: 	        Bliz gri︠a︡dushchīĭ Antikhrĭst.
  Published/Created: 	1911.
  Description: 	        168 p. illus. 23 cm.
  Notes: 	        Romanized.
  Subjects: 	        Russkai︠a︡ pravoslavnai︠a︡ t︠s︡erkovʹ--Doctrinal and controversial works.
                        Antichrist. [from old catalog]
  LC Classification: 	BT985 .N54
  CALL NUMBER: 	BT985 .N54
  
  NYPL CATNYP RECORD: [5]

Please curtail your excessive wikilinking; it seriously undermines your credibility. In this particular section, the following wikilinks are redundant and/or completely unnecessary:
1. Protocols of Zion (that's what this article is anyway)
2. 1912 the first time
3. The Protocols (just a redirect to this article)
4. 1911
5. Yours truly the first time
6. Frontispiece
7. 1911 the second time
8. 1911 the third time
9. Spurious
10. Yours truly the second time
11. 1911 the fourth time
12. NYPL the second time
13. "Record" boldfaced
Thank you. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear User:Jgordon, Thank you for your advice. And I believe it is sincere.

And I appreciate your concern with my credibility. Thank you.

Howeve, can you tellme if this/mu "wikilinking" in any way affects the resources of Wikipedia?

Otherwise, I am concerned with the ACCURACY of Wikipedia.

I am shocked that there is a reference in this STARRED Artcle to an 1912 imprint that cannot be found in any major library I've searched.

The use of the word "spurious" is not mine--but that of the NYPL/CATNYP.

Is there any reason why I cannot use--IN THE TALK PAGE--wikilinking for EMPHASIS and PRECISION--besides the reason you give--that it affects my CREDIBILITY?

What's wrong with BOLDFACING? Does that affect my credibility ONLY?

Also, I think we've discussed the matter before, but there are many WPedians who enjoy COPY-EDITING. So if if my style is not always Shakespearean English, at least the Content (sorry for the capitalization) is quite PRECISE & ACCURATE (do you mind my "all caps" here?)!

Still asuming that your criticism is in good faith, may I inform you that I've have many years of experience teach and lecturing on all levels. And I have found it necessary (for your sake I have not capitalized "necessary") to underscore words, and repeat statements, for them to sink in.

My experience, at Wikipedia for the past four (4 - sorry) months has been that there is not much direct communication - at least not with me. IT LIKE TALKING TO THE WALL, actually.

The way I know I'm doing OK is that my 250 more/or less articles I've written or heavily edited, have stuck--they are not being deleted!

It would be helpful--since I recognize you as an editor (or administrator?) with whom I've had early exchanges before, if you were to tell me how I'm doing otherwise!!

It's not that my EGO (OOPS) requires it, but that I think/believe you are an important member of the Wikipedia community--particularly as it pertains to ANTISEMITISM (NOTICE NO WIKILINK)--and it would be useful for me to know how I'm coming accross from your perspective as to CONTENT, rather than FORM???

Assuming Good Faith on your part, Best Wishes Ludvikus 21:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Above there are many typos which I am not going to correct -- will these affect my credibility?

But my real concern is with the dates 1911 and 1912.

Also, "frontispiece" is a technical word in the book publishing and printing industries.

I believe that User:Humus sapiens who calls it an "illustration" in the caption to the image of the cover of the alleged 1912 imprint. Since I have no idea as to the nature of this alleged 1912 imprint, I cannot correct it. And it is interesting, that this same image (but with the date of 1911) is discribed as "spurious" by the NYPL.

It's really these issues that I would like to hear about!!! Ludvikus 21:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that the image clearly says 1912 in the lower right corner. It may take me a little while to find out where I scanned it from. I can assure you that I did not make it up or doctor it. BTW, I am among those who find excessive formatting and linking annoying. All CAPS are commonly perceived as screaming. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is the full page Image:Nilus TheProtocols 1912 fullpg.jpg from my backup for your perusal. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

1911 Nilus Book (Antichrist & Protocols) Title Page

I've transcribed (my a bit illegible copy of) it as follows:

               C. Hилycъ,
  
           Близъ rpядyщiй
             Aнтиҳpicтъ
  
  Tипографiя Свято-Tроицкой Ceprieвoй Лавры.
   [Tip. Sviato-Troitskoi Sergievoi lavry]
  
            M О С К В А    1911.

Can someone who reads Russian correct it, and translate it? Thanks. --Ludvikus 17:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I corrected it. This is old Russian language (Bolsheviks reformed it and obsoleted a few letters, see Reforms of Russian orthography). Literally:

Line 1: S. Nilus

Line 2-3: Близъ = close, nearby; rpядyщiй = coming, approaching; Aнтиҳpicтъ = antichrist.

Line 4: Typography (printing press) of St. Troitse-Sergiyeva Lavra.

Line 6: Moscow, 1911. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The copy I have of this frontispiece, acquired from the NYPL, bears the year 1911.

But it is not a clean copy. If there was a 1912 imprint, it is exceedingly rare. So I want to know, very much, where this 1912 frintispiece came from. Do you know, User:Humus sapiens??? Ludvikus 04:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

As I wrote above, it may take me some time to remember where I got the image from. If you feel this justifies its removal, go ahead. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

No! I don't want to remove it! Its actually fascinating! The image is a very CLEAN image of what I've got from the WONDERFUL 42nd St. NYPL. But my dirty copy differs precisely in having the year of 1911. So I think we have an interesting story for OUR ENCYCLOPEDIA. As you can see, I already made changes on the CAPTION of your FRONTISPIECE. Now all we needed to do is to identify where you found/received the MYSTERIOUS 1912. I know that we are not supposed to be a Newspaper, or engage in so-called ORIGINAL RESEARCH! But here we have an exception! If we can authenticate the existence of a 1912 imprint - that belongs in WIKIPEDIA - even if Norman Cohn (or most other PEZ Scholars) didn't know of its existence! So please, please, do your best to find out where you got this 1912 FRONTISPIECE!

That's the second time I've discovered TIME TRAVEL regarding the Protocols! Remember how I pointed out that Victor E. Marsden died on October 28, 1920? So unless there was TIME TRAVEL he could NOT have written the things that occurred years later, as it appeared in that 1934 imprint (by THE PATRIOTIC PUBLISHING CO.)!!! Ludvikus 08:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

IN THE BEGINNING, How Many Editions of the PROTOCOLS Where there? A Dozen or a Score?

User:Humus sapiens said:

  There were many reprints, so I am not surprised of that.
  What is amazing to me is that it was printed by a Church & Red Cross printing press.
  BTW, did the French text help? My French is almost nil.
  ←Humus sapiens
  ^{ну
  ?} 09:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, we can easily Categorize them (the major known ones) by the years of publication:

1903 (1),

1905 (1),

1906 (1),

1907 (1),

1911 (1),

1912 (1??? Humus sapiens seem to have found one - according to his frontiupiece)

1917 (1??? an alleged title page is reproduced in the 1920 1st Am. Ed.)

1918 (1 White Russian army used imprint - exists in Israel, in a library)

1919 (only 1 Russian edition, but several, one each different European cities/countries)

1919 (manuscript/typescript/etc. circulate in the USA & WWI peace conference, among politicians

these are not formally "published" versions, in the usual sense of the word. But they are still in buried in various archives, so says the literature!!!

1919 There is an imprint, this year, by a Columbia University journalist (not then) who changed every occurrence of the word Jew with the word Bolshevik, or its equivalent!

1920 (this is the major year for a publication explosion. We definitely must break things up here by City and Country, for accurate identifivcation. Sticking to the USA & ENGLAND we have as follows:

1920 - England

(1) The Jewish Peril - Eyre & Spottiswoode Ltd. publisher, 1st English language edition/translation

(2) The Jewish Peril, 2nd. ed. - The Britons edition (Norman Cohn) fails to mention this edition in his bibliography on page 303 of Warrant for Genocide!

(3) Cause of World Unrest - this is not, strictly speaking, The Protocols, but what the Talmud is to the Torah, if you get my drift. Its a kind of expansion and commentary on the PEZ, if you will. So much for the "Devil's Bible" in England for this year of 1920!

1920 - USA

(1) World Conquest throught World Revolution - Small, Maynard & Company publisher.

(2) Praemonitus Praemunitus - The Beckwith Company, 2nd ed., another translation

(3) The International Jew in the Dearborn Independent weekly newspaper by good old Henry Ford, subtitled "The World's Problem."

(4)(November) The International Jew as Volume One (of 3 more to come), in pamphlet form, but no subtitled "The World's Foremost Problem".

(5) Cause of World Unrest, American edition

Notice that Victor E. Marsden's name does not occur yet. The Britons published another edition in 1921 (of their 1920 edition), but its not the Marsden one. I have not been able to find a 1921 edition with Marsden's name. The first actually new edition in England that I know exists is dated 1922 and is held by the British Museum in London. It is by the newly named, or re-named entity, the Britons Publishing Society. I suspect this is a forgery, so to speak, to the extent that it bears Marsden's name. Marsden, having died in 1920, these British fascists symply had the 1905 Nilus Chapter 12, in the British Museum translated, by an unknown person, and used Marsden as a front. But I cannot use this Sherlock Holmes hypothesis in the WP articles because ORIGINAL RESEARCH is inappropriate in Wikipedia. But its OK here!

By the way, George Shanks has been identified as the translator of the 1st English English language translation. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 15:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Freemasons in Israel

Link to Freemasons/Israel [6] Yours truly, (sorry, signature) --Ludvikus 23:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I have found, in a WEB article by the following individual, the information below:

  The Protocols of the Elders of Zion
  Anti-Masonry and Anti-Semitism
  Leon Zeldis, FPS, 33°
  PSGC, Supreme Council of the Scottish Rite for the State of Israel
  Honorary Adjunct Grand Master

He says as follows:

  In the diverse editions that followed (1911, 1912, 1917 and 1919, always in Russian),
  Nilus offers different explanations for how the manuscript of the Protocols
  had arrived at his hands, stressing that he only had made the translation into Russian.
  Other editions and translations, published by other people, related different stories
  on the origin of the document.

That's all interesting, especially since the 33° mason is a special target od these antisemites.

However, I still question the existence of the 1912 and 1917 editions.

Regarding the alleged 1917 edition, like I wrote elsewhere, there is a photocophy of the alleged title page, as a frontispiece, in the FIRST AMERICAN EDITION by Small, Maynard & Company. It is the edition produced by Boris Brasol. And it is hard to believe that this reputable company had been duped by Brasol into believing that such an edition existed. Anyway, if it did exist, it is exceedingly rare, as is the 1912 edition.

I am still looking forward to someone identifying for me any library in the world which holds any (especially Russian language) edition produced either in 1912 or 1917.

Yours truly, Ludvikus 23:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Please forgive my error in not placing comment at bottom.Ludvikus 23:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Protocols were used as a supposed reference in the article

I just deleted the Protocols as a reference in the article. Obviously naming a book does not require a reference, the only actual reference needed for that sentence is/was the second one (Daniel Pipes), though I wonder whether the inclusion of that entire sentence in that form might not be intended as an advertisement for the protocols (I found the same, identical sentence with both references under Jewish Bolshevism which is rather odd, particularly as the sentence does not seem to be integrated into the article).--Caranorn 00:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. It is a proper cite to an important publication spreading the hoax. Totally unacceptable anti-intellectual nonsense. I have restored the cite. How can we teach people about the nature of the hoax by engaging in cyber book-burning? The irony is monstrous.--Cberlet 03:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe this was my addition, I can scan a page from Pipes' book and post it as a proof. I strongly agree with Cberlet. Please improve the grammar, I am not a native speaker. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the reference to the Protocols as they were not actually cited. What was cited was Pipes' book which reference I obviously left in (no need to scan the page, thanks). The purpouse of a reference is to document a quote or just information, that sentence required a single reference, namely where the sentence came from. The origin of that sentence was indeed Pipes', accordingly that was the reference to retain. This is not about book burning, rather about proper referencing. So Cberlet could you explain why you put it back in?--Caranorn 12:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not a part of the quote. Pipes also has it as a note. I don't see a problem here. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 12:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Just one more note here. Considering this entire article is about the protocols I have no objection to including a reference to it in the article. On the other hand as already explained for that particular sentence a reference to that book is not needed. One possibility would be a simple inclusion as further reading (though I'd not recommend most untrained people simply read an unabridged and uncommented edition (in many countries it might even be illegal)). For further explanations see talk:Jewish Bolshevism.--Caranorn 13:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't follow your argument. The reference is specific to Rosenberg's book, which is not an "uncommentated edition", though of course the comments are from a major antisemite. I originally added the reference to Müller von Hausen and Rosenberg's editions as follows: "The first German translation was by Ludwig Müller von Hausen in 1920. It was followed in 1923 by Alfred Rosenberg's edition, Die Protokolle der Weisen von Zion und die judische Weltpolitik." It's since been expanded, and the full title of Rosenberg's edition has simply been moved from the text to a footnote. Paul B 23:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you are talking about the article itself (not a reference). I was talking about a single quote from Pipes in which the Rosenberg edition is mentioned, yet that quote has two references, one to Pipes (which is logical) the second to Rosenberg's edition.

Here is the quote/sentence in question.

Alfred Rosenberg's 1923 edition^[1] "gave a forgery a huge boost".^[2]

Note how none of the other editions or similar propaganda seem (I might have missed one skimming over the list) to be included in a reference unless they are being quoted from.--Caranorn 23:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course I know what you are talking about. Please try reading my comment again. I can't be bothered to explain it again. Paul B 00:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism, Forgery, and/or Fraud

As an encyclopedists, we have to be precise and accurate, not merely repeat what others have written, in this case about the Protocols. According, please note the following:

(1) The POZ (The Protocols) have been conclusively demonstrated (better word than proven to be a plagiarism - and there is no need for the qualification, in part; it suggests that the unplagiarized part is true; and it's a plagiarism even if ony a part is so.

(2) The forgery (the item which is inauthentic), strictly speaking, or from a legal perspective, was, or would have been, the original manuscript. I say would have been because if its advocates maintained - as in some versions of editorial commentary they have - that the manuscript was not the original record, than there is no forgery. However, the immediate qualification, that it was a hand-copy of an original record, made that hand-copy the forgery. But this forgery no longer exists. Perhaps, one day, now that the Soviet archives have been opened, and gradually are being made available to scholars, the forgery will show up. But it is not the forgery which floating around the world, it is the text of the forgery.

(3) How the POZ constitue a fraud, however, is difficult to maintain - in part because it is a legal term, and a whole people cannot be defrauded, to put it crudely. Fraud in most countries is a relatively well defined word. If the publication or circulation of the POZ constitute a fraud, how is it that this crime is not being inforced? We use the word fraud in another, loose, informal, sense, besides the legal one, and I do not think we should use it that way in the current opening sentence/paragraph, at least because it is misleading. --Ludvikus 08:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Dictionary on Fraud

fraud \frod\ noun [ME fraude, fr. MF, fr. L fraud-, fraus] (14c)

1 a : deceit, trickery; specif : intentional perversion of truth

in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right

b : an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : trick

2 a : a person who is not what he or she pretends to be : impostor;

also : one who defrauds : cheat

b : one that is not what it seems or is represented to be syn see deception, imposture

(C) 1996 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated --- We need to explain which use of the term we have in mind - and that it is not the 1st Yours truly, --Ludvikus 08:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC) --- In other words, fraud is used to (1) describe the deceiving person; or (2) it is the act of deception which occurs in the name of another. In our case it is the latter - the Russian Secret Service in Paris pretending to be the Elders of Zion at the graveyard of Prague at midnight.

So the fraud is not the text, the POZ, but the pretense that these Russian are Jews.

Russian impostors mascarading as Jews - that's the fraud, NOT THE PROTOCOLS THEMSELVES.

Not only is this analysis enlightening, but it leads to a new defense for Jews. As the fraud was perpetrated against Jews, a people, by an official police force as an agent of a state, the Russian State, it seems clear that this is more than merely a private fraud, but a public fraud, for which Russia is responsible, and for which it therefore ows a special duty to make amends.

I think there is a creative opportunity here.

Is it possible, perhaps, to commence an action in some legal forem, against the state or government of Russia for any antisemitic use of the Protocols against Jews?

The German's have paid dearly for their antisemitism of World War I - billions.

But it is often forgot that Hitler used the Protocols - which came from Russia!!! --Ludvikus 08:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

plagiarism, forgery, hoax, & fraud

WP Authors/Editors are not accurate or precise in the use of these terms to qualify the Protocols.

Where Freedom of the Press exists in the extreme, as in the USA, it is doubtful that the Protocols, or their publication and dissemination, constitute a fraud.
The forgery, if there was one, would have been a literary forgery - and that would apply to the original manuscript. But we know not enough about it, or if it still exists.
- If it was merely a write-up, for the printer, that it was mere that, and not an instance of fraud. It was allegedly presented as a transcription of some other record. If there was that other record, it would have been that that was the literary forgery. But have nothing there except an allegation that it existed. The fake we can only speculate about.
  - What we have, therefor, is s hoax - presenting something as true, when it is false.
    - Suppose the Russian government agents were creative, and did not rely on plagiarizing the writings of someone else. We would then merely have a malicious hoax, unless we were to discover, in the Russian archives, an original manuscript document which, on its face, or some accompanying evidence, purported to show, or claim, that it was actually written by a Jew, in attendance among the representatives of the "12 tribes", recording the "minuites" of the "meeting." Then that would be the forgery, assuming of course, that it was not what the antisemites would claim it is in fact. --Ludvikus 00:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism - from whom? Forgery - of what document? It appears to be an original piece of political writing. Hoax - similar to most political writing. Called a black op if the government does it maybe. Fraud - inventive but defrauding who - except the Zionists. Maybe it is just an opinion piece, a counter weight to all the Zionist activity that was going on in the late 1800s and early 1900s. You should read some of the Zionist opinion pieces if you want to hear plagiarism, forgery, hoax, fraud, etc.

-Just an opinion piece? A "counter-weight" to Zionist activity in 19th century Russia? Once again, its the Jews who are to blame for their own persecution, I take it. At least the above writer is good enough to show his true colors so clearly. He or she is right on one point though, the POZ is not a forgery, there is no original document to forge. It's a whole-cloth fabrication. ---Sean Kirby 02:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I know it is hard to believe but when you decide to take someone elses house they sometimes get mad - I know they are irrational about that particularly if good people are doing the stealing but that's the way it goes. Zionists were up to a lot in the late 1800s and after. Zionists and jews ( operating a communists - this may just be luck but it appears that the communists ( who I believe are/were on the right side of history ) in general were seeing hope that they could one day lope the czar's head off. I think the czar was thinking the same thing. Whether you are to blame is semantics - were the Indians to blame for Wounded Knee or the Pilgrims, if they had been developing the nuclear bomb they wouldn't have gotten into the mess they did. If you want to take Palestine over/back or kill the czar things happen but acting like "who me" is beneath rspect.159.105.80.141 19:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The Protocols at wikisource?!

I am all for freedom of information, but I am not comfortable when Wikisource may be used to spread antisemitism. IMHO the "source" should display a prominent tag, if not removed from Wikisource. Yes I know that the Protocols can be found on the net (so do shock sites), and yes I know WP:NOT#CENSORED, but given this text's history, I don't feel it is WP:CIVIL to give it undue legitimacy. I'd like to see what other editors think. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 12:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be discussed at wikisource? I also find this disturbing but ain't comfortable with the idea to simply remove it. The alternative would indeed be some form of tag (instead of the current sentence) that would be impossible to miss.--Caranorn 12:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sloppy copy of a Fake of a Fake

My point is that this is a sloppy copy by someone on the Internet.

It purports to be a 1921 translation by Victor E. Marsden who died in 1920.

It's probably a copy of a version produced by the Britons Publishing Society.

I'm for deletion, at least until and unless we get a True copy of the Fake,

and the Wiki Editor who puts it up can give a reasonable assurance that it is an accurate copy of one of the - exactly - four (4) English language translation produced. And if it is claimed to be a Victor E. Marsden translation, then particularly I want to know the (1) exact year of publication, (2) the precise name of the publishing entity, and the name of a major library which holds it in its collection. --Ludvikus 14:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC) --- For some reason it has become (or been made) difficult for me to edit the Wikisource.

Accordingly, until the so-called source is authenticated (as not a sloppy copy of what it purports to be) I am unilaterally deleting the link. --Ludvikus 15:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Unilateral deletion is not a proper solution.--Cberlet 15:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism & Hoax vs. Forgery & Fraud

It would be great if contributors learned the difference between the 2 above.

The original manuscript, if there was one to examine, or if we knew about it as presented to Serge Nilus, with claim that it in the hand of Jews, the Elders of Zion, when it was not, would have been a forgery. But Nilus said, among his other stories about it, that it was copied by somebody who gave it to him. So we have a lie here, but no forgery - maybe this copy itself is an original. But that's not a forgery, or it is in a very narrow sense. Anyway, if there was a forgery, it has disappeared - what is left is a plagiarism. Also, how can you forge a writing of a non-exitent organization: the Elders of Zion? Also, where is the fraud. These are concepts of criminality, and they do not hold up. That's way prosecutions have been so difficult!

And it's a Hoax.

But the fact that the item is a plagiarism is conclusive.

So please, lets not use the terms forgery and faud loosely, without an explanation.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 18:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It's more of an oldtime black op. Very disturbing propaganda because it comes so close to history - the meanest type of black op.

"World domination by Jews"

We know its a fake, a plagiarism, and a hoax.

Why interpret it - for the benefit of the antisemites - in the opening paragraph?

It is highly inappropriate to summarize the Protocols as being about world domination by Jews.

It's a piece of garbage, lousy, sloppy, Russian language, which has been translated into somewhat better English, and it is its editors and compilers who give it its meaning.

Why do the work for them?

Also, much depends on the subtle inferences made in the preface, introduction, and other matter, introduced by the often nameless editors and complilers - but this is not The Protocols!

--Ludvikus 18:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Protocols of Zion - Plagiarism, Hoax, Fake, Lie

I understand we are dedicated to keeping the POZ article in good style.

So let us please try to avoid using forgery and [[fraud] in the opening paragraph.

The original manuscript, whatever that is or was, is apparently lost.

It is this which was or may have been a forgery had it been presented (for example) as actually the recording by an official Jew (a secretary, lets say) who took down the minutes of the meeting of the so-called Elders of Zion. However, that's not the story we get.The story (one story) is that some agent copied it down. But the examination of the authenticity of that copy of a copy has not been possible, or made, because it vanished. So what we have is the content of an original that has disappeared. And that is not a forgery - but it is a plagiarism. We know very little about the physical object, and the claims made for it. Whatever was presented to the Tsar, as an authentic original document - that would, or might, have been a forgery, if presented as an original. But it has not been made available subsequently for forensic inspection.

Similarly, fraud has very specific implications. Who has been defrauded by the Protocols? Who can describe the specific crime of fraud in this context? --Ludvikus 19:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

<----------In published works the Protocols are called variously, Plagiarism, a Hoax, Fake, and a Lie, not to mention a "Warrant for Genocide" (Cohn). Please stop these opinionated lectures about your opinion on terminology, Ludvikus. They do nothing to help edit the article and violate WP:OR and WP:RS. Please stop the arbitrary deletions and rewrites. Try a more constructive and collaborative approach. Many editors of this page are serious scholars of the Protocols.--Cberlet 22:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear User:Cberlet, The fact is, the emphasis on Plagiarism, Hoax, Fake, Lie are mine. You seem to just want "Forgery" - that's what you reverted to. Furthermore, what you call "scholarship" I think means reading the content. I, on the other hand, prefer "forensics" and legal examination of the physical evidence. I own actual First Editions, and what original I don't own, I have inspected in the Lirary. So I do not give you OPINIONS, User:Cberlet, but FACTS. For practical reasons, I'm sorry to have offended you. I am not interested in doing a literary analysis of the text. But how you can REVERT the article to mere forgery - is beyond me!!! Ludvikus 05:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The issue is to ensure we are all following Wikipedia policy. The near-hyserical nature of your edits and discussion here is frankly disruptive. Please calm down. There are several serious scholars of the Protocols editing this page, and what you are doing contradicts the ban on Original Research WP:OR. The lead of this article needs to be concise and introduce the subject in a general way based on existing reputable published cites. The other undeniable aspects of the Protocols are covered in the body of the text. Your claims that this material is being deleted from the article are hyperbolic and false. Please do not imply that only you have original copies of the Protocols. I have numerous copies and some original print publications of it dating back to the 1930s. I also publish articles on the subject.[7], [8]. Any editor, however, no matter what their age, education, publishing history, or political views, can edit here. What matters is applying Wikipedia guidelines and struggling to edit collaboratively and constructively. You are doing neither, Ludvikus. Please consider a new path.--Cberlet 17:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Ludvikus here. This is your current alleged scholarly opening:

Protocol of the Elders of Zion ... is an antisemitic forgery that purports to describe a plan to achieve world domination by Jews through an alleged (but actually non-existent) secret council of elders.

Could you tell me where you get your "scholarly" view that it's a "forgery" rather than a [[plagiarism], hoax, lie, calumny, and even fraud?
Why are you so fixated on forgery? Do you know what forgery means?
Can you tell me where the actual forgery is "right" now?
Do you mean that the Okhrana, or its to boss (you know his name I'm sure)

did such a good job at forgery that he fooled the censors, the Tsar, the Tsarina, the government, that INNOCENT (I'm not hysterical- just emphasizing) Russian government printed The Protocols, not knowing the FAKE and SPURIOUS nature of the CALUMNY?

Why don't you give me an EXACT reference for your great "scholarship"?
How come you undervalue the strongest point - that in 1921 Philip Graves demonstrated it to be a plagiarism. Clearly your scholarship prefers its forgery status to its status as a plagiarism. Your just absolutely wrong.
- Now I ask you, what is the basis of your summary analysis and interpretation that it purports to describe a plan to achieve world domination by Jews through an alleged (but actually non-existent) secret council of elders? Is that your own interpretation, or did you get this from one of your "scholars" here who you do not name?
- I give you the benefit of my doubt - I think the antisemites have done a good job on you - they have brainwashed you.
- Rather then tell me that I'm engaging in Original Research - can you give me your exact reference? Or are you actually just an innocent antisemite without knowing it?
- You claim to have in you possession some Protocols. Can you please identify them for me.
  - Finally, if you had done some actual research, you would have discovered that Wikipedia's formost authority on the actual, physical, Protocols, is me, myself, and I. I leave to you the task of interpreting, analyzing, explainting, highlighting the main points, whether there were 24, or 27, protocols to be counted, etc. BUT NOT IN THE OPENING SENTENCE!!! --Ludvikus 22:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

<----------Please calm down. It is a forgery, because it is said to be the minutes of a meeting. Forged minutes of a non-existant group. The point here is not to claim that anyone here is the supreme global czar of research into the Protocols, but to help readers understand what they are, and why it matters. And we rely on reputable published scholarly research, not the claims of expertise of a single Wikipedia editor. You cannot cite yourself unless you have been published in a scholarly publication or major periodical.--Cberlet 22:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

This has been gone over a million times. There are two main problems with "forgery": one is that it implies that an orginal text - manuscript or publication - that is being faked in the same way as we speak of a forgery in art. The other is that its origins as the "minutes of a meeting" were always presented as a possible explantion for its origins, and several others have also been suggested by believers. I've always preferred the phrase "fictional document", but I accept that that to has its problems. Paul B 23:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Paul Barlow, you beat me to it - my PC had a clich - the mouce broke down.

Let me elaborate, Cberlet. You say, it is said to be the minutes of a meeting. Who says it? Whoever does say it is simply a lier, rather then a forger. Also, in police work, evidence is handled by police very carefully. Here we know very little about the hand-written manuscript (I assume you mean that - not the version you have in your home). Who's to say that what Nilus got in 1905 was not a transcription for his printer?

Why do you speculate about that? The scholarship is that it was produced by the Okhrana! There is NOTHING in the scholarship to say that besides plagiarism, the Ohrana went out of its way to forge a document to fool others into making them think that they had acquired an original paper actually recording some event. Why do you speculate about such forgery? I might as well speculate the opposite: that the Okhrana agent came up to Nilus and said that our spy managed to copy by hand (there were no copy machines yet - I only say that for emphasis) this text. Take it and print it together with your book! Do you undersand me? The existence of an actual forgery by you is sheer specuolation - original research on your part. The scholars (a word you like) say that the stories which Nilus, and subsequent editors, are inconsistent as to how the text had come to see the light of day!! So if you want to say something about a forgery involving the Protocols you cannot be as sloppy, vague, imprecise, as you are above.

You also use the words "minutes of a meeting". You are again sloppy here. Where did you get that expression? Can you name the "scholar"? If not a scholar, can you name the antisemite? And even if not that, can you precisely cite your source?

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 00:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I cannot imagine why we would think that the most descriptive single word to introduce this text to our readers would be "plagiarism". If "forgery" seems confusing, "hoax" may be a reasonable choice. Please discuss this further before making changes that are likely to confuse readers. Jkelly 01:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

21st Century Discovery of a Shakespearean Sonnet

Imagine that the New York Review of Books published a poem which is presented as a recently discovered sonnet by Shakespeare. And that it turns out to be a fake.

Now the Times, a reputable paper, probably would have taken precautions (although a friend of mine, a famous hoaxter, faked his own death, had the New York Times print his obituary, and then presented himself as having returned from the land of the dead - he used the Times as proof that he died).
The text in the times, would not be the forgery - the forgery would be the 'original manuscript (worth $$$millions if authentic) which fooled the Times into believing it was real!

Why make reference to a forgery (embodying the Protocols) - about which what do you know?

Don't confuse the text - which you easily get on the internet - with the original manuscript produced by Okhrana, which may not even have been a forgrey. Don't get excited. This just means that the Okharan didn't need to fool anybody - that they did not need to use any special ink and paper. Why? Because the Printers, the Government, the Black Hundred, Znamya, Nilus, G. Butmi, etc., they were all in on it.

I hope you don't misunderstand - this is not a superconspiracy theory. It's just an attempt to explain what is meant by forgery, and that we don't even know if a forgery existed.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 00:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Symbolic snake - encircles Europe

All you sloppy Wikipedia editors! Please pay attention, read carefully,

and please do not do the work of the antisemites with your errors/mistakes.

This world domination appears to come from the 3rd Protocol.

And there you have the metaphor of the encirclement of Europe.

It appears that the un-named antisemitic compilers/editors

have introduced the word/concept of World or Globe.

If you want to say "World domination" - at least be clear that it is not in the earliest original we have - that of Serge Nilus.

In other words, the attachment of World domination, at least in the English language imprints, is intoduced not in the actual Protocols that have come down to us, but by the compilers of the protocols, in places like the Preface, or the Introduction.

I can understand Antisemites wishing to find "World domination" in the Protocols, but I hope that the unintended sloppiness of Wikipedia editors will subside.

About Original Research - the only originality on my part here is learning a leason from a Philosophy Professor of mine at City College by the name of Hutchinson (I'm so sorry I may have forgotten the spelling of his Scotish name). He said: GO TO THE ORIGINAL SOURCES, READ THEM.

It appears to me that reading these actual (stupid I might add) so-called Protocols is considered (perhaps unintentionally) to be Original Research inconsistent with Wikipedia policy. --Ludvikus 01:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

<---------I think it would be kind and helpful at this point that I suggest, Ludvikus, that you take a break from Wikipedia for a few weeks and perhaps consider some professional help in finding some balance in your emotional life.--Cberlet 02:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

<---------------Seconded. Ludvikus, while your contributions are recognized, you do not "own" this article. I suggest you refrain from making any further edits to it for a few weeks and let the community do its job. Little Professor 14:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Witness for the Prosecution/The Witness for the Prosecution

I've just had the pleasure of watching on Channel Thirteen a classic film version (1957) of the above (wiki has 2 articles on it).

It is based on an Agatha Christie story of the same name.

In it Marlene Dietrich testifies against her beloved, Tyrone Powell.

He is on trial for murdering a woman.

What's relevant to the plot - as well as here - is an incriminating letter introduced by the defense. The letter reads that she (Marlene) potted to incriminate him.

As a result of this letter, he is found not guilty.

However, the letter was a lie, a complete fabrication, in brief, fiction.

The letter is addressed to her lover (who doesn't exist) stating how happy she is that he (Tyrone) was arrested for murder, and that now she will be free to be with her (non-exitent) lover.

So, according to you, Cberlet, she is guilty of forgery. However, the charge against her, which is discussed in the scene, that of perjury.

Cberlet, do you understand now the difference?

Why don't you just go and consult an attorney at law? Ask him to explain to you what is a forgery, what it means?

Now your advice above, that I seek professional help, as you know, violates Wikipedia policy. It provokes one into saying something (unflattering) about your limited mental capacity, or lack of learning. But I refuse to be provoked by you, and ask that you maintain your civility consistent with Wikipedia policy, on which you purport to be an authority. --Ludvikus 04:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 04:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Encircling Europe v. World domination

The so-called PROTOCOL NO. 3 concerns the symbolic serpent, or symbolic snake (depending on which English language translation which is used), and the last, or third, sentence of the opening paragraph says as follows (I'm using the 300 page 1934 inprint by the Patriotic Publishing Co.):

    When this ring closes, all the States of Europe will be locked in its coil as in a powerful vice.

If editors wish to interpret this section of the Protocols for the reader, they should say so and be accurate. It is Europe, not the World, upon which the Jews are alleged to have their malevolent design of encirclement.

It was in the 1920's, and after, that Boris Brasol, as well as other editors who introduce the word World, and gave this twist. But the correct word is EUROPE, and not WORLD.

Isn't it amazing how the antisemites get you, well-intentioned Wikipedians, to do their work for them - of spreading anti-Jewish propaganda?

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 14:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Forgery of hoax?

user:Ludvikus claiming better knowledge of English than me repeatedly replaces the word forgery with hoax. I am neither an expert in English nor in "Protocols", so please answer this question:

Is it true or false that the authors of the Protocols attempt to present them as authentic documents of a "Jewish cabal"?

If true then IMO it falls under the definition of forgery (attempt to present a supposedly authentic object of some origin while in fact the object is manufactured by another origin with an intention to deceive). If false, then this must be explained in the aricle, because numerous sources define it as "forgery", "forged protocols", etc. IMO the colleague conflates two distinct aspects: the intention (which would be deception, hoax, fraud) and means of deception (which in our case is forgery). `'mikka 17:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

That's correct. "Forgery" is the right word. (One uses forged evidence to commit a hoax or a fraud.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've re-read carefully the texts of Ludvikus, and he seems to have a reasonable point: one can speak about a forgery when discusing an actualy presented document allegedly orfiginating from the "cabal". In our case the "Protocols" is a hearsay about supposedly existed documnts, i.e., 'not the physical documents as such. Further opinons? `'mikka 18:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  - It makes me extremely pleased that somebody was able to understand what forgery means. Thank you very much Mikkalai - I was beginning to loose hope in Wikipedia here. --Ludvikus 19:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that your train of thought is often opaque -- I am having a hard time following what you are suggesting on this page. Given that I do not think that I am alone in this, and you are commenting a lot, perhaps you might want to consider working on one thing at a time, and aiming for greater clarity in the comments. Jkelly 22:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Matvei Golovinski

If there was a forgery, current scholarship says that he was the compiler of the original manuscript of the Protocols. If we bring him into the opening paragraph, we are justified in using the word forgery. However, his work (if we can dignify it so) is unavailable to scholars, has not been made available, may be someplace in the Russian archives, and whatever we are told about it, is mostly by antisemitic sources, such as Serge Nilus.

Again, Matvei Golovinski, was the author and plagiarist - but was he also a forger? Did he also forge the manuscript to make it look like the actual records of the meetings of Jewish elders?

That is the question. Ludvikus 19:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

World domination

World domination is a notion intoduced by the antisemitic compiler(s)/translater(s) about 1920.

1) Please note that Serge Nilus introduces the notion of the encirclement of Europe by Jews in so-called Protocol 3 of Part XII of his book on Antichrist, in relation to which Christians have long maintained the Jews are to play a significant role.
2) That encirclement notion is presented metaphorically, as the symbolic snake, or symbolic serpent.

3) It is therefore inappropriate, and misinformation, to summarize the Protocols as purporting to assert "World domination" by the Jews - these are later views, of Ford and Hitler particularly; it is doing the work of the antisemites for them - it is, inadvertently at best, changing the original and textual meaning.

4) It is also inappropriate to use any other expression other than the one actually used, namely "Jewish" and "elders"; the expression "elders of Zion" is unknown to Jewish history - and it is a fabrication by the perpetrators of the hoax. Therefore, unless a sourced/referenced authority is cited and quoted, to interpret this expression is a personal opinion (even if correct).

I therefore ask that the expression "secret council" be deleted.

5) We know that the protocols is a fabrication, a fake, a likely literary forgery, etc. Why is it necessary to dignify it which paraphrasing?

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 22:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Plan of World Domination by a Secret Council?

In particular, what justify an WP editor to say it is/has a "Plan" by .... At least, one can say "Warrant for Genocide" by citing Norman Cohn - but it is necessary, at the very least, to cite the particular antisemite who calls it a plan. I ask, on exactly which page & edition is the word Plan used? The word actually used is PROTOCOLS. And that's at least in the title AND ACTUALLY USED BY NILUS. But "Plan" is what the anti-semites would like us to read into it! (Is it not too stupid to be a plan?) Same goes for the other two termsnot too stupid to be a plan?) Same goes for the other two terms/expressions.
World domination is not, literally, in the text.
The text does not contain the notion of a secret council.
- Why do WP writers and editors give meaning like this to an essentially meaningless text?

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 23:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Not World Domination, but Enciclement of Europe

Here are my sources against WD:

    PROTOCOL III
    3.1.
    Today I can assure you that we are only within a few strides of our goal.
    There remains only a short distance and the cycle of the Symbolic Serpent
    — that badge of our people — will be complete. When this circle is locked,
    all the States of Europe will be enclosed in it, as it were, by unbreakable chains.

The 1934 imprint, by THE PATRIOTIC PUBLISHING CO.,

derives from a different translation of the Russian text, and reads as follows:

    PROTOCOL NO. 3
    The Symbolic Snake and its significance.
    ... To-day I may tell you that our goal is now only a few steps off.
    There remains a small space to cross and the whole long path we have trodden
    is ready now to close its cycle of the Symbolic Snake, by which we symbolize our people.
    When this ring closes, all the States of Europe will
    be locked in its coil as in a powerful vice.

The above show no need for a Plan. It's all accomplished! We have here forcasting, fortune-telling, or prophesying (not new for Jews). And it's Europe sourrounded by the Sybolic Snake. But where's the Plan for World Domination?

So please, WP editors & writers, do not act as interpreters for the antisemites of this ridiculous text (which only demonstrates the stupidity of so many people). Yours truly, Ludvikus 23:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

& Ludvikus 23:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Ludvikus as you've been told many times, what you are doing is original research. If that's what you want to do, go write an article or book and look for a publisher. Once you've done that someone else may quote you in wikipedia articles. Though you may still be seen as not sufficiently reputable for such a source. Anyhow, this article is based on secondary and tertiary sources. The primary sources (various versions of the Protocols) should only be used in rare occasions if at all. Please read Wikipedia:No original research for more details.--Caranorn 12:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Caranorn: (1) What do you mean by "you've been told many times"? How many times, and by whom - by you? I notice you've only been a Wiki since September 2006. What's your source for the Protocols? Egyptian television, Hamas? Hitler? Henry Ford? Where to you get the Idea that going to the "original text(s) of The Protocols constitutes "original research" - from the fact that the word "original" occurs in both? You advice regarding my seeking a publisher is not correct - because people like you will not read the latest research. Have you read Cesare G. De Michelis's "The Non-Existent Manuscript" (2004)? I doubt it. Have you read Michael Hagemeister on latest research on Serge Nilus? I doubted. I suggest you do so before you lecture me on what I should do. Unfortunately, I do not yet know what adice to give to someone who has been BRAINWASHED by reading SECONDARY ANTISEMITIC COMMENTARY ON THE PROTOCOLS OF ZION and cannot distinguish that commentary from the actual text(s) of the Protocols.

Caranorn: (2) What's your source for alleging that there's a "Plan" in the Protocols? Norman Cohn, the standard authority on the subject of "The Protocols" suggests by his title that it was a "Warrant for Genocide"? How do you turn a "Warrant" against the Jews into a "Plan" by the Jews? I WANT TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT AUTHORITY, 1st, 2nd, or 3rd, you use! But of course you don't have any, because you source is (or is not) an actual A Rumor About The Jews". You've not read it, have you? It's by Stephen Eric Bronner, a year 2000 work.

Caranorn: (3) Can you give me an exact citation - with page number - where an authority says that this infamous plagiarism and hoax is about World domination? I doubt that you can - because your source is in fact an antisemitic one - but at least have the descency to cite that - your antisemitic source - you probably don't even know it - so I'll give you a hint - it's some translator whose name you probably never be able to get!!

Caranorn (please don't be arrogant) (4): Where do you get the expression "secret council" ... of "Jews"? Is that your original research? Is it your own intermretation of "Elders of Zion"? Why did you not say "Sages of Zion"? Is that not sufficiently original for your Wiki taste? Why didn't you say that Ahad Ha'am (Asher Ginsberg) is alleged to head this council? Isn't that also something claimed by the antisemites. Or how about the founder of modern Zionism, Herzl, why didn't you include him as the head of this "secret council"? Don't you realize that naming this "secret council" in the opening paragraph constitutes "original research" inconsistent with Wiki Policy?

Caranorn (5): Have you read (I doubt it) Hadassa Ben-Itto's latest work on the hoax, "The Lie That Wouldn't Die" (2005) which is based on her research of the Berne Trial of 1935?

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 14:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Ludvikus this time you should read Wikipedia:No personal attack. Above you have repeatedly accused me of either anti-semitism or to be a reader of anti-semitic material. I won't even comment on the stupidity of that accusation. What I expect is that you retract those accusations and appologise. Your behaviour is entirely unacceptable and violates numerous guidelines and policies of wikipedia.

As a note, I have no sources for any of the above as I'm not the author of any of the above. Another note, I'm not a scholar of the Protocols or pretend to be one, I studied History and Political Sciences with specialization on radicalism in the 19th and 20th centuries though I now do research in Medieval History. So my connection to the Protocols is limited to my college days, since then I've had very little to do with the Protocols (though I've obviously had to deal with anti-semitism and other forms of racism as an anti-fascist, though the phenomenon is quite rare in my country and region). Oddly enough I've never actually read the Protocols themselves though I like to do original research myself in many areas (though I obviously don't use that material here, as should be clear from my user page comment).--Caranorn 15:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Caranorn. If you read carefully what I've written to you above you will find that I did NOT accuse you of antisemitism. My issue with you was your insulting condescention. I appreciate your telling me something about yourself, and acknowledging your ignorance regarding the subject matter. Nevertheless, you antagonism to my contributions on the subject - on which as you can now acknowledge - I am quite knowledgible. Now regarding Wiki policy, I think it is proper for me to say that your support of the three expressions, "Plan," "Word domination," & "Secret council" is a reflection of the antisemitic viewpoint. Here we have a question of fact - just as you raise the question of fact whether my position violates the Wiki rule against "original research". So the question is rather weather you are (I believe inadvertantly) supporting the antisemitic point of view. From your response above I suspect you are merely uninformed on the matter - which you admit. However, I do not wish to insult you, or that you take offense. I presume you are a descent human being. Nevertheless, most people are brainwashed by the media on topics which they do not explore themselves. My attempt here is to reach your Mind - and that often means going by way of the Heart. And so I hope, with your interest in history, which susggests you are a potentially valuable resource for Wikipedia, that I have either provoked, or inspired you, to do some un-original reseach - which means reading the new research that has been very recently produced - in the 21st century. If you do that you will not merely mouth and repeat what other, often uninformed, editors repeat to themselves, and which, as a result, turns into an absurd mish-mash of inaccurate views on a Wiki page. So let's communicate on the subject, rather than on one another.

Wishing you the Best, Wikipedian Caranorn, I am --Ludvikus 16:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Plan vs. Plot

Please, Wiki editors & writers, pay more careful attention to the use and sutleties of language - else you'll pay inadvertent service to the antisemites who very much wish the masses of the people of world to take the protocols as fact rather than fiction.

Case in point: Scholar Cesare G. De Michelis, in his 2004 work, The Non-Existent Manuscript, discusses the alleged "Jewish Plot" (quotes are his) on page 1 of his Introduction to the English Edition of said work. Clearly, calling such a Plot a Plan is, at best, engaging in unintentional original research of the worst kind - it's doing the work of the anisemtites. Isn't it possible (a qustion on word-meaning) to plot a bank robbery without a plan? To do so would be foolish, of course, but there have been foolish bankrobberies. Hasn't the United States often been critisized, in its foreign policy, of not having a plan? Remember the accusations: "No Exit Plan"?

Plot is a distinctly different word - and my original un-original research here says that it should replace the word plan - the latter I believe is still favored by User:Humus sapiens.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 17:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You haven't heard? Freemasons Plot to Dominate the World!!!

I'm rather surprised at the negligence of my fellow Wikipedians in omitting the role of the masons in the conspiracy to take over the world!

As you see by this omission - the antisemites are doing their work in subtle ways.

How is it that these older victims of this imposture, fraud, literary forgeries, shame, fake, humbug, counterfeit, and calumny are omitted from the opening paragraph??

These Freemasons go back to 929 B.C.E. (I may be wrong on the final 2 digits) allegedly having had a hand in the building of Solomon's Temple.

Serge Nilus emphasized their role in his commentary on the apocrypha.

Accordingly, I have inserted them into our opening today!

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 19:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Why User:Jkelly wishes (effectively) to suppress the known fact that Freemasons were alleged to be the perpetrators of the Protocols, as well as the Jews, is beyond me. The effect of such suppression is to lend credibility to the hoxters!

Is there not the Scotish rite, and a mason of the 33rd degree alegedly involved?

Please explain yourself further, censor/revertor User:Jkelly. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 20:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. I give up. User:Beit Or also wishes to suppress the fact that the antisemites of the Protocols accused the Freemasons as well. What is your reason for isolating the Jews as the accused subjects of the Protocols? Is this a fact you do not agree with by some sources I do not know of? Why do you think the alleged complicity of the Freemasons, and their subsequent victimaztion thereby, should be omitted?

Do you not see that this accusation goes against the credibility of the Protocols?

Why do you think a Wikipedia reader should not be struck immediately with the anti-Masonic ccharacterization of the Protocols?

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 20:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Only because it's not the salient point in either the document's purpose or in its impact on the world. Trying to pack everything into the first sentence or the lead in general, can overwhelm or confuse a casual reader. Someone shouldn't look up this article, read the first sentence and come away thinking that the reason why this document is important has something to do with Freemasons.

If you find your contributions being undone by several different editors, it is substantially more likely that the editing is not an obvious improvement than that there is any kind of agenda involved. Jkelly 21:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your opinions. Regarding what's a salient point, or "its impact on the world" - that's your personal opinion, and nothing more. Your view as to what a reader, casual or otherwise, can take, is at best an underestimation of Wikipedia readers. The fact is that your opinion as to what is an important notion, that of "Jews," or "Freemasons," is absurd in the extreme - the Protocols constitute on attack on Freemasonry as well as an attack upon Jews - for you to censor this fact in the opening on the grounds that a "casual reader" would be overwhelmed by it sounds condescending in the extreme; And regarding a neglected democratic principle - a man's or woman's right to know - a deprivation of that right. Whether you are aware of it or not, you are thereby effectively doing the work of the antisemites. Are you unaware that antisemites prioritise their hatred of Jews? Don't you think that it's they who wish it to be about the Jews only? Or is it YOU who thinks the Jews are more dangerous to the world than Freemasons are?

I find that my contributions, 99% I would say, stick and are adopted by Wikipedia - they are NOT "undone by several different editors." And your phrase, "there is any kind of agenda involved" is incoherent. I can only imagine, the optimist that I am, that YOU do not have an Antisemtic agenda.

Therefore, I urge you to look to the facts: that Freemasons have been, and are, the victims of the Protocols as the Jews have been and still are. According, unless you can justify omitting this fact, other than the two (2) unconvincing reasons, I urge you to restrain your reversions that suppress this fact.

Wikipedia is open to the whole world, and the truth is not a matter of majority opinion. And even if three editors agree with you 100% (upon which you merely speculate) how do you know that you have not been brainwashed by your failure to examine the authorites, or check out the actual imprints of the Protocols which are available in the major libraries - as I have done?

Are you not familiar with the notions of advertising and propaganda? If you are, please demonstrate that your capable of supporting your position with a better set of arguments than those you have given above. Otherwise, I find you effectively to be doing the work of the advocates of the Protocols, at best because of having been brainwashed. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 03:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

On your point that 99% of your contributions have 'stuck' in Wikipedia. There seems to be a great deal of disagreement on this page at least. Plus at least one of your articles nominated for deletion. Plus your persistent disruptive activity on the Philosophy page, now locked down as a result. Plus your similar point on the Philosophy talk page that you do not accept the view that Wikipedia proceeds by consensus (holding out against at least three other editors). Some of the points you make are valid and interesting, and you could potentially make a good contribution. But you spoil them by your constant tirades, your abusive attitude to other editors. I don't appear to be alone in this view. Dbuckner 10:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Dbuckner is very bitter over my position(s) in the Philosophy article. He apparently is vindictive and wishes to discredit my views here because he's unhappy over my position there. Clearly, that's inappropriate from a logical point of view, as well as being inconsistent with Wikipedia policy. Anyway, regarding my credibility, anyone is free to examine my several hundred contribution I have made thus far throughout Wikipedia.

I am rather surprised that the discourse here is more civil than the discourse there. Clearly, Philosophy ought to be the colder subject than antisemitism.

My best regards to all the dedicated Wikipedians here - even those I disagree with on some details here and there!!!

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 04:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

1993 Pamyat libel suit

I'm afraid, the information from Los Angeles Times about the Moscow 1993 suit is not true. I found some Russian sources, including translation of Hadassah Ben-Itto book [9] [10], which say that Judge Belikova changed her decision in the last moment and issued a statement that the court "does not consider itself competent enough to make a decision on authenticity of the Protocols". --Yms 23:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the mention of 1993 lawsuit. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Minor Point of Style

I recommend that the following two sentences be combined, to form the second paragraph. Apparently, User:Mel Etitis thinks otherwise.

    Numerous independent investigations have repeatedly proven it to be a plagiarism and a hoax.[1]
    Scholars generally agree that the Okhrana, the secret police of the Russian Empire,
    fabricated the text in the late 1890s or early 1900s.

Will Administrator Mel Etitis kindly explain himself - the reason for his effective reversion? -Ludvikus 23:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

No response from above editor to date. --Ludvikus 13:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Try reading my edit summary, which explained my edit in sufficient detail. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Administrator User:Mel Etitis says: "(rv as per previous edit summary (and, indeed, as per Ludvikus' edit summary, somewhat bizarrely), plus other tidying)".

What, Mel Etitis have you found somewhat bizarrely? The editing, which you have now reverted for a second time merely combines into one paragraph the descriptions of plagiarism, hoax, and fabrication. What's bizarre? Your alleged edit summary merely shows your reversion! --Ludvikus 22:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a pity that you didn't use your long editing block to rethink the way that you discuss matters. I'll leave other editors to look at the diff I gave and compare it with what you say. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

What is it, Mel, that I did not learn? You are too general. What precisely do you object in my style? Also, isn't the word "bizarre", as used by you, vague in the context? Assuming good faith on your part, I really have no idea what you are talking about? You used the word "bizarre." What did you find to be "bizarre"? --Ludvikus 16:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mel Etitis and I find some of the statements and work of Ludvikus to be bizarre, aggressive, and POV. Not suitable for encyclopedia work or the collective editing style of Wikipedia. I do not understand why this is allowed to go on.--Cberlet 00:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Two things that need to be improved

Two things that need to be fixed;

(1) Some of the Protocol chapter headings in the article need to be changed because they are not relevant to the subject matter.

(2) Not all chapters of the "Protocols" are explained or defined. All chapters should be included. Jtpaladin 00:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

ADDED: Added to Theme #1: Annihilation of the privileges of the Goy-Aristocracy (i.e., non-Jew), among other topics. Source: http://ddickerson.igc.org/The_Protocols_of_the_Learned_Elders_of_Zion.pdf - Jtpaladin 17:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

EDITED & ADDED: Deleted incorrect Theme description and added correct info to Theme #21: Undermining financial systems by foreign loans, Creating national bankruptcy, Destruction of Money Markets replaced by government credit institutions. Source: http://ddickerson.igc.org/The_Protocols_of_the_Learned_Elders_of_Zion.pdf - Jtpaladin 17:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

DELETED & ADDED: Deleted incorrect Theme description and added correct info to Theme #22: Justification of previous acts of evil and expectation of a great new society. Source: http://ddickerson.igc.org/The_Protocols_of_the_Learned_Elders_of_Zion.pdf - Jtpaladin 17:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

ADDED: I added additional topics to Theme #23: Reduction of the manufacture of articles of luxury, Destruction of large manufacturers, Prohibition of alcohol. Source: http://ddickerson.igc.org/The_Protocols_of_the_Learned_Elders_of_Zion.pdf - Jtpaladin 18:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

ADDED: I added Theme #24: Training of the king, Direct heirs, Irreproachability of exterior morality of the King of the Jews. Source: http://ddickerson.igc.org/The_Protocols_of_the_Learned_Elders_of_Zion.pdf - Jtpaladin 18:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Lewis references

A number of notes in the text are cited to "Lewis (1999)". I believe this is "Lewis, Bernard (1999). Semites and Anti-Semites: An Inquiry into Conflict and Prejudice. W. W. Norton & Co. ISBN 0-393-31839-7.". Most of the same information can be sourced to an earlier edition of the same book, "Lewis, Bernard (1986). Semites and Anti-Semites: An Inquiry into Conflict and Prejudice (First edition ed.). W. W. Norton & Co. ISBN 0-393-02314-1. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)", however, there is at least one reference to something that happened after 1986 and clearly cannot be cited to the earlier edition. I'm going to update the references as I can; hopefully later I will be able to get hold of the later edition and verify those not found in the first edition. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Correction: All references are actually verified by the first edition; the one that I thought was only covered by the 1999 edition was actually combining information from the main text and from the accompanying footnote. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Apologia?

Why is this article completely slanted toward disproving the legitimacy of the Protocols? Where is the counter-argument? I am sure there are valid arguments to be made by advocates of the Protocls.

What I've never understood about Wikipedia is that its editors go to such great lengths to bolster all things Jewish and denigrate all things Islam. You do yourselves a grave disservice because any truly discerning reader can see the adovacy as clear as they can watch a repulsive Metzitzah b'peh.

The only time my friends and I visit this place is for an occasional good laugh and to see the wanna-be spin doctors try their weak hands. By no means should you people be calling yourselves researchers or anything of the like.

Shalom —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.88.85.60 (talk) 07:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

So you believe these "Protocols" have in fact anything to do with "things Jewish" and/or "things Islam"? Then probably you have a "counter-argument" yourself? --80.129.127.222 10:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

lol, its cuz everyone feels bad for the jews (see holocaust). i, ironically being jewish, actually feel bad for the Muslims. poor Iraq: gettin' lubed up by american oil-whores 151.196.129.67 19:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

But damn!, all the Muslims have to do is give up terrorism and they would take over both Israel and most of Europe without a fight. Steve Dufour 01:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused... this is an example of literary forgery... so it's not really antisemetic? That's what seems to be implied. Reading between the lines it would appear that there's a pamphlet, which is antisemetic, describing an identically-named piece of work, which is a forgery. This is not made clear in the slightest until the last paragraph of the section on the title. Further more the whole thing has the tone of evangelicalistic refutation - while I assume from the references and this talk page that the protocols are indeed fake (and it is this NPOV to state so) most of the surrounding context seems POV ("or because of the "good cause", " is a nice scathing turn of phrase, don't you think?) Being both unregistered and, frankly, uninformed about this subject I hesitate to make changes. However I feel the initial paragraph, at the very least, could use a more clear description of the subject of the article 129.215.141.101 14:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

World-wide view tag

I am going to remove this. I don't see any special problem in the article. Steve Dufour 01:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The article itself describes how much (or perhaps even most) of the world does not agree with the opinions presented in this article, yet you don't see any 'special problem' with it?

What is a 'special problem', and why does there need to be one for the worldwide tag to be in place in this article, (or would a 'problem' be enough without being 'special') which is precisely the context for which it seems it was designed to be used?

The tag is being replaced until sensible and logical reasons are given for its removal.

12th May 2007

See WP:POINT. That tag is unnecessary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Rather than posting an irrelevant link, do you have any sensible and logical reasons for its removal? Why is it unnecessary? What is the definition of necessary here? Is it not appropriate, and if not why not?

12th May 2007

You're the one putting up the tag. You get to justify its inclusion. By the way, sign your postings with ~~~~. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you not read what I wrote above?

"The article itself describes how much (or perhaps even most) of the world does not agree with the opinions presented in this article"

Now do you have any sensible and logical reasons for its removal, or is it that you are in fact one of the 'wanna-be spin doctors' made reference to by somebody a few paragraphs above?

12 May 2007

Encyclopedia articles are not based on polls or popularity, but reputable published sources. It is a shame that so many people believe the Protocols to be true, but that does not make them real. What is real is the historic use of demonization, scapegoating, and conspiracy theories to justify bigotry.--Cberlet 20:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I could not have said it more eloquently, Cberlet. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Um... The references need to be edited. It misspelles Foucault's Pendulum by Umberto Eco as Faucault's Pendulum

You are correct. Fixed, thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The Skeptic's Dictionary skepdic/* seems to have a definitive article on the Protocols - what author and novel they were plagerized from, what year, by whom, why, ... pretty good, hopefully accurate.159.105.80.141 19:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

^ Alfred Rosenberg: Die Protokolle der Weisen von Zion und die judische Weltpolitik (Munich: Deutsche Volksverlag, 1923).
^ Cite error: The named reference Pipes1997-p95 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1] Alfred Rosenberg: Die Protokolle der Weisen von Zion und die judische Weltpolitik (Munich: Deutsche Volksverlag, 1923).

[Pipes1997-p95-2] Cite error: The named reference Pipes1997-p95 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]

[2]