Talk:The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

Author unknown?

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

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

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

Removed additions made to article by editor blocked for being disruptive

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

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

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

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

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

Edit warring

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

Suggested Corrections to avoid false claims.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed rollback

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

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

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

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

A reply to the page owners

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

Regards,

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

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

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

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

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

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

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

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