Talk:The Protocols of the Elders of Zion/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 → Archive 10

Reasons for POV tag

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prefaces, Introductions, etc., of "The Protocols"

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

False document

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

Jacques Crétineau-Joly

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

I've corrected the confusion between the two Joly's as follows:

In 1920-1921, the history of the concepts found in the Protocols was traced back to the works of Goedsche and Jacques Crétineau-Joly by Lucien Wolf (an English Jewish journalist), and published in London in August 1921. But a dramatic expose occurred in the series of articles in The Times by its Constantinople reporter, Philip Graves, who discovered the plagiarism from the work of Maurice Joly.

  • Some copyediting may still be needed - but at least I've made it clear that it was Graves, not Wolf, who first discovered Maurice Joly as a source of "The Protocols." Wolf only seems to have known of Jacques Crétineau-Joly as an alleged source. --Ludvikus (talk) 06:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Lucien Wolf's (1921) work is available online. I've just included it as an External Source. I'm also making it available here (for those who need a reference for the confusion of the two Joly's):

David M. Dickerson or David Dickerson

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

--Ludvikus (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Failing to identify, exactly, and precisely, which version he has published there has therefore, in my estimation, turned him into just another reproducer of this trash (although that was not what he wished). --Ludvikus (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The is a lawyer by that name identified on the Web, but I do not know if it's the same person: [1]

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

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

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

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

Unavailable CIA link

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

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

A Hoax of Hate - also unavailable

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

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

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

This seems to be mistitled

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

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

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

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

Validity of this text?

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

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


revision or citation needed

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

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


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

Redundancy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Authentication

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Do They Purport To Be

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

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

One can identify some common elements which characterize "what the Protocols purport to be" in all forms of publication. The Protocols most fundamentally are invoked as "proof" that all revolutionary social changes from at least the Middle Ages and up to the present are allegedly the result of one single all-binding conspiracy. Although not all conservatives have embraced the Protocols, those who have embraced them have quite consistently done so in a context where a conservative social opinion is being argued for. The Protocols were put together in the late 19th century when many socialist movements were blossoming in Europe, hence the Protocols were invoked to assert that socialism is a tool created by the Learned Elders. Similarly, the Protocols were invoked to argue against the concept of progressive taxation. The Protocols were invoked when charging that both the French and Russian revolutions were the accomplishment of a single conspiracy. All uses of the Protocols have consistently been aimed at associating a variety of Left-wing and/or liberal reformist ideas with an evil conspiracy. That is the single common point in all promotions of the Protocols. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.40 (talk) 22:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

A Fabricated "Historic" Document (1964)

  • Protocols of the Elders of Zion: A Fabricated "Historic" Document (1964)
by United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary (PDF at ushmm.org) Online Books Page [3]
This is a report on the official investigation and findings of the United States Senate.
Regarding the POV challenge, I'm posting this 1964 "External Link" here also. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The History of a Lie

  • The History of a Lie: "The Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion"
(New York: J. S. Ogilvie Pub. Co., c1921), by Herman Bernstein (at archive.org), The Online Books Page [4]
This is an early textual study.
  • Dear new IP Wikipedians,
I've pasted this reference for your convenience. You may, if you wish, Download and/or Print this 1921 scholarly study. Upon reading it, please join us in editing this page in an informed way. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Cleaning Up the Talk Page

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

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

But they also state:

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

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

You are the one who Tagged the Main page as Non-Neutral about half a dozen times in the last two days or so. But what you talk about above has nothing to do with your allegation that the Main page is Non-Neutral. I think the participants here know the purpose of his Talk page. It is not a place to bring up a non-sequitor. And that's what you're doing here know. Why don't you tell us what the reason was/is regarding your claim that the Main page is Non-Neutral (for which you've posted the Tag at least 6 times after different editors removed your Tag)? --Ludvikus (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I have never tagged the page as non-neutral.
This section of the talk page is to discuss trying to make this talk page more useful. Please keep this section on topic. If you wish to discuss things with the guy who keeps tagging the page as non-neutral, go up to the section of the talk page about non-neutrality and talk with him about it there. I am not him, and this topic is not that topic, so bringing it up here is a non-sequitor. 210.160.15.16 (talk) 23:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • What do you mean you "are not him"? Look here [5]! --Ludvikus (talk) 23:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • My apology. I see now that you really appear to be not him. Sorry. But why don't you register, and join us. You will then be able to choose your own pen name and be more easily recognized. Nevertheless, I still do not know what your "beef" is in the above. Good luck to you. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I see that you've been around since June of 2006 - that's 2 months longer than me. So you shold appreciate the usefulnes of a unique name. Why don't you do that so at least I can more easily tell who says what? --Ludvikus (talk) 00:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • No problem, I understand that IP addresses can be confusing. I'd like to register, but due to some quirks here, that isn't really possible. Kinda sucks.
  • My beef isn't a big one, it's just that I realized after my initial complaints about redundancy (which have pretty much been solved), that the issue had already been discussed before in the Talk page. (So, ironically, my whole comment about redundancy was redundant -- oops!) So I tried to read through the talk page to make sure I didn't go repeating something someone else had already said, and I found it really hard to read, not because there was a lot of contentious discussion, but because there was a lot of stuff that doesn't really qualify as "Talk Page" material (from people on both sides of the issue), and I figured that if the talk page were used more in line with the general objectives of Talk pages, it would be easier for folks like me to read through. I see you've put in a copy editing request below, so that's perfect, and exactly what I was after. Thanks. 210.160.15.16 (talk) 00:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for Copyediting Help in Paragraph below

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

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

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

A sandwiched interjection

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

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

Jose De La Cruz or Jose Delacruz

It's a wonderful cite - but it's not notable. So I've just deleted it. What a shame! --Ludvikus (talk) 04:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Here is "Jose"'s resume (he says he was 19 when he composed the cite): [6]
--Ludvikus (talk) 04:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

All "external links" checked, verified, & copy-edited

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

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

  • I've just been informed, in the last few days, of the latest published writing (in English) by this German scholar regarding the question concerning the original authorship of the PSM. I have not yet had a chance to acquire a copy of this scholarly article. For those of you who are interested, here it is: [7].
  • The exact reference is: New German Critique 103, Vol. 35, No. 1, Spring 2008
--Ludvikus (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Clyde J. Wright‎

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

References: Hadassa Ben-Itto

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

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

Michael Hagemeister

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

  • Sergej Nilus und die "Protokolle der Weisen von Zion" Überlegungen zur Forschungslage [10]
This is about The Protocols (in Geman, on a Web site maintained by Martin Blumentritt).
Anyone who reads German is certainly welcome to use it as a source. --Ludvikus (talk) 06:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Rainer Erb

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

John S. Curtiss

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

The subscribing (1942) debunkers of the Protocols

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

Denis Fahey

The War Against the Kingship of Christ

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

It's "wise men" not "wisemen"

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

Urs Luthi

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

Malaysia

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

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

User:Ludvikus

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

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

re protocols forgery

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

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

i wonder if there is futher comment?. Dwnndog (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Why would there be? The question was based on an incorrect premise, which has been corrected. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
To the original questioner, the document is a Literary forgery rather than just a "forgery". In this respect it is a false document as what is relevant isn't the actual document itself but the contents. "Fabrication" would be a better word.
On its other descriptions, "hoax" is clearly valid (given any reasonable assessment of the intent of the author) but as a derivative work though with no clear claim to authorship the plagiarism claim is somewhat meaningless but enough sources use "plagiarism" for the claim to stick.
Plagiarism is when an author hopes to gain credit for work not their own but given that no one claims authorship for this document anyway plus the original copied work was first published in Geneva in 1864 so given these dates are prior to the Berne Convention (1886) this certainly predates the modern ideas of the original author asserting their moral rights (given they were put into prison for being the author one could argue they wouldn't want to assert their moral rights even if they could). The charge of plagiarism is moot but a useful vehicle to support the claims of being a hoax. Ttiotsw (talk) 14:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Hm? The copyright status of a source has nothing to do with whether it can be plagiarized. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I never mentioned copyright per se but moral rights (which are very much a separate concept), though the two get conflated. What could the original author assert ? Who knows given the issues in France at the time (and it was illegal). Today you could easily license a text for derivative works and not assert a moral right demanding attribution so that anyone can copy that text and need not attribute the source. Is that then "plagiarised" ? No, it's a derivative work unless you were trying to pass-off the work in some way as the original author's work. That wasn't done. I thus find that the claim of "plagiarised" to be simply as a vehicle to support the claim that it is a hoax: the word "copied" or "derivative" is more accurate today but not as overloaded in sense. Are we using a correct term here or is the claim of "plagiarised" not really neutral but a partisan view ? Ttiotsw (talk) 16:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
The Protocols purport to be the minutes of a groups of Jews nkown as the Elders of Zion. This has been definitively proven to be false, hence the document, is a forgery. Just as if I published a plan for world domination, and called it "Ttiotsw's plan for conquering the world", you would rightly protest that it is a forgery. It's not that complicated, and there is nothing "partisan" about it. Boodlesthecat Meow? 16:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't questioning the "literary forgery" issue i.e. "hoax" but the claim that "plagiarism" isn't used here in the lead except as a partisan view when looking at the sources of the document. Given that the document was published well after the death of the source author (whom it is alleged borrowed from an earlier source anyway) your example isn't remotely relevant. The chain of authorship isn't as simplistic as your example. An alternative presentation of plagiarism is the Origin_of_the_Book_of_Mormon#Purported_plagiarism because of the intent of the author but oddly enough the Book_of_Mormon article doesn't mention "plagiarism" at all. Here it is the reverse with numerous use of wording for "plagiarism" and in the lead paragraphs but yet with no clear idea how the (mostly) anonymous authors would gain from the plagiarism i.e. gain from the reputation of Maurice Joly. The claim of "plagiarism" only works if there is an unearned increment to the plagiarizing author's reputation that is achieved through false claims of authorship. Now the problem for you is that Serge Nilus did plagiarise the protocols but the protocols themselves are not plagiarised but derivative. If no one claims authorship then where does that leave the claim of plagiarism ? . That's not clearly proven here so I'm suggesting that the word "plagiarism" is removed from the lead paragraph (though it can stay within the main text and elsewhere that the protocols are used in context of being derivative from the earlier work) as it unbalances the lead. "hoax" and "literary forgery" can obviously stay. Ttiotsw (talk) 18:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
The Protocols are demonstrably both a literary forgery and a plagiarism. In the first instance they falsely claim to be the words of the purported authors (the "Elders"), in the second instance they are clearly plagiarized from Joly. Both terms apply. Boodlesthecat Meow? 19:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Structure

The links and references in this article need to be put in standard format, if anyone's good at such things. Ludvikus inserted his own style into any article he touched. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

There are also too many of them (FR and EL, not refs). --Adoniscik(t, c) 21:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ An Appraisal of the "Protocols of Zion", John S. Curtiss (New York: Columbia University Press, 1942).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion/Archive_6&oldid=967030033"