| Revision as of 16:53, 25 March 2021 editEngineer of Souls (talk | contribs)23 edits →Rebutting arguments of validity with an explanatory section← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 03:53, 21 December 2024 edit undoGrumpylawnchair (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers5,449 edits Restored revision 1264225712 by Jellyfish (talk): Disruptive editingTags: Twinkle Undo |
| (84 intermediate revisions by 42 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
| ⚫ |
{{Controversial}} |
|
|
{{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement|relatedcontent=yes}} |
|
{{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement|relatedcontent=yes}} |
|
⚫ |
{{Controversial}} |
|
⚫ |
{{Not a forum|small=yes}} |
|
⚫ |
{{FAQ}} |
|
{{Article history|action1=PR |
|
{{Article history|action1=PR |
|
|action1date=02:51, 27 September 2005 |
|
|action1date=02:51, 27 September 2005 |
| Line 24: |
Line 26: |
|
|currentstatus=FFA |
|
|currentstatus=FFA |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|1={{WikiProject Jewish history|class=B|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Jewish history|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Books|class=B}} |
|
{{WikiProject Books}} |
|
{{WikiProject Russia|class=B|importance=high|hist=yes|relig=yes|ethno=yes|lit=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Russia|importance=high|hist=yes|relig=yes|ethno=yes|lit=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Politics|class=B|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|class=|importance=}} |
|
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Skepticism|class=b|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=high}} |
|
|
}} |
|
{{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|class=B|category=Langlit}} |
|
|
|
{{Press |
|
|
|author = Ohad Merlin |
|
|
|title = Misplaced Pages in Arabic: A hotbed for bigotry, misinformation, and bias - investigative report |
|
|
|date = November 3, 2024 |
|
|
|org = ] |
|
|
|url = https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/article-827351 |
|
|
|lang = |
|
|
|quote = Thus reads the first paragraph of Arabic Misplaced Pages's entry of one of the most famous and vile blood libels of history, purposely leaving room for the thought that the forged work is, in fact, "leaked" and "real." For comparison, the first paragraph of the parallel English entry stresses that the Protocols are "a fabricated text"; the German version focuses on its antisemitic nature and the fact that it's based on fictional characters; the French entry calls it "a text invented from scratch" and a forgery; and the Persian entry deems it "a fake and anti-Semitic document." |
|
|
|archiveurl = |
|
|
|archivedate = <!-- do not wikilink --> |
|
|
|accessdate = November 4, 2024 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
| ⚫ |
{{Off topic warning|small=yes}} |
|
| ⚫ |
{{faq}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{Aan}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{Aan}} |
| Line 44: |
Line 56: |
|
{{Archive box|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|age=1||units=month|auto=yes|search=yes}} |
|
{{Archive box|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|age=1||units=month|auto=yes|search=yes}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Availability? == |
|
== Incorrect change == |
|
|
|
|
There is a line under the final heading, "contemporary conspiracy theories", that reads as follows: |
|
|
``The Protocols continue to be widely available around the world, particularly on the Internet, as well as in print in Japan, the Middle East, Asia, and South America.`` |
|
|
Isn't this misleading? The book is widely available worldwide. The phrasing of this sentence can lead the reader to infer that the book is not widely sold in North America or Africa; which either implies that North Americans and Africans are less open to believing that the protocols are genuine, or conversely, that for some reason not mentioned, the peoples of Asia, Europe, and South America are more inclined to bleieve that the screed is real; a statement that is not only unsupported by the sources listed, but unfair. |
|
|
] (]) 05:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The implication is that it is more popular in those countries. While that may be true, I would like to see a source that says that. ] (]) 06:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: I'm taking it out. I doubt if there is any way to make statements like that reliably. Incidentally, list it so why isn't the USA in the list? ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 13:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Rebutting arguments of validity with an explanatory section == |
|
|
|
|
|
Although the nature of the forgery is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt there are still subsantial numbers of people who believe in the validity of certain arguments presented within the Protocols, regardless of their authenticity, and so it may be desirable to introduce a section for addressing the key arguments found within the Protocols to show that even the arguments themselves, independent of the overall document, lack merit. |
|
|
|
|
|
This would go a long way to dispelling many of the ancilliary myths that have accumulated over the passage of a century. It would also flesh out the article more and provide a sound basis for further rebuttals. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 05:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
: However, rebuttal is not the purpose of this article. See ]. Anyway, the Protocols don't really contain anything that can be glorified as "arguments". ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 11:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: I am not quite sure what you mean by ‘rebuttal is not the purpose of this article’. There clearly are several sections that attempt to do so, for example the section on the Berne Trial features a possible interpretation and counter arguments on the implications of that trial. Perhaps you meant something else? ] (]) 17:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::: I'm not quite sure what you mean by "a possible interpretation and counter arguments". What language precisely constitutes a possible interpretation? ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 00:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{To|Ogress}} You created "Cesare G. De Michelis argues that it was manufactured in the months after the First Zionist Congress in September 1902" by modifying existing text. The First Zionist Congress was in 1897, not 1902, moreover De Michelis does not argue that. Per the citation at the end of the sentence, De Michelis is referring to a different "Pan-Russian Zionist Congress" held in that month. Though it is true that some other authors propose the document was written soon after the First Zionist Congress, that belongs to the theory that it was written in France, a theory now largely discredited. De Michelis and others who specialise on it believe it is a Russian production that contains internal evidence it was written no earlier than 1901. Falk's book claims that it was a production of the Russian Orthodox Church and published first in 1905, the first of which is a fringe claim and the second is objectively wrong. Falk also bizarrely claims that the work he says was published in 1905 was one of the causes of the ] that happened in 1903! We should discard that book as a source. Bronner's book also has glaring errors, see ] for examples. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 06:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
::: The purpose of Misplaced Pages is to present facts according to the best available sources and attributed opinions according to the most qualified commentators. If that serves to dispel non-facts, well and good, but it is not our task (and forbidden by ]) to construct our own arguments for or against anything. Not all articles follow this rule, but they are supposed to. In the case of the Protocols, their nature means it isn't even clear what a "rebuttal" would look like. Personally I think that few people, including some academics who have written about them, have actually read the Protocols. Let me open them at random and quote a typical paragraph. From Protocol No. 24: {{tq|"Certain members of the seed of David will prepare the kings and their heirs, selecting not by right of heritage but by eminent capacities, inducting them into the most secret mysteries of the political into schemes of government, but providing always that none may come to knowledge of the secrets. The object of this mode of action is that all may know that government cannot be entrusted to those who have not been inducted into the secret places of its art."}} It makes no sense to ask for a "rebuttal" of this, since it is just barely-comprehensible drivel that someone made up. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 02:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:{{to|Zero0000}} Ok! Make sure you edit the ] page; that is where I got the cites from! They're even in the intro there. ] 13:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Is the Dewey decimal actually 109? == |
|
:::: Since I am new to editing Misplaced Pages and you appear to be experienced I will take your word that is the standard practice. If that is the case then I believe the other sections should be edited to remove the appearances of attempted rebuttals. How should we go about that? ] (]) 15:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: Please tell us what you consider to be "appearances of attempted rebuttals". ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 18:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::: Sorry for the late reply, I had assumed I already replied. Just looking at the final paragraph of the Berne Trial Section: “ Evidence presented at the trial, which strongly influenced later accounts up to the present, was that the Protocols were originally written in French by agents of the Tzarist secret police (the Okhrana). However, this version has been questioned by several modern scholars. Michael Hagemeister discovered that the primary witness Alexandre du Chayla had previously written in support of the blood libel, had received four thousand Swiss francs for his testimony, and was secretly doubted even by the plaintiffs. Charles Ruud and Sergei Stepanov concluded that there is no substantial evidence of Okhrana involvement and strong circumstantial evidence against it.”] (]) 05:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::: We can report claims and rebuttals made by reliable sources. We can't make our own rebuttals. The difference is fundamental to Misplaced Pages policy. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 09:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::: Well of course, the section I am proposing will follow the style of the above. It certainly shouldn’t be a random essay slapped into the middle of the page. There are several existing sources touching on one aspect or another of the arguments presented in the Protocols that could be mentioned. It seems to me reasonable then since there is already a section featuring the claims and rebuttals of the Berne Trial and so on, to have a section likewise for the key arguments. ] (]) 16:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It seems like a troll edit based off the expelled from 109 countries inside joke thing. If it isn’t a coincidence, could we get a footnote? |
|
::::::: ] argued that although the document was a forgery, the narrative was factual. But unless there is a reliable source that analyzes the thesis presented by the ''Protocols'', we cannot present rebuttals. In any case, as the article ] says, "Conspiracy theories resist falsification and are reinforced by circular reasoning: both evidence against the conspiracy and an absence of evidence for it are re-interpreted as evidence of its truth, whereby the conspiracy becomes a matter of faith rather than something that can be proved or disproved." How does one disprove the claim that all political groups other than tsarists are working for the Jews? ] (]) 12:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
Edit: also could be a pun on “Jewy” “Jewry” “Jew-y” |
|
:::::::: Thanks for mentioning this author. It is indeed as you say, certain claims are unfalsifisble and therefore can’t be addressed in a satisfactory way. Perhaps even the large majority of claims are like that. Although I haven’t analyzed the entire document, it seems likely there are claims that are falsifiable and can be discussed. |
|
|
] (]) 16:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC) |
|
] (]) 17:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== The Secrets of Rabbi Simon ben Yohai == |
|
== Communist Manifesto == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was just reading the 'The Secrets of Rabbi Simon ben Yohai' (https://en.wikipedia.org/The_Secrets_of_Rabbi_Simon_ben_Yohai) and this document sounds a lot like the 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion'. In in, the jews lay out their plan to destroy "Edom" (Rome) though subversion. First, they would weaponize Ismael (Arabs) to attack Edom and then bringing in "Four Arms" (Chaturbhuja in Hindusim. Many Hindu deities are depicted with four arms) to finish the job after the Aabs weakened Edom. Some may argue that this is playing out today in the west. In the book 'Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World' (1977) by the historians Patricia Crone and Michael Cook they postulate that this document was the manuscript for Islam. Indeed, the leader of "Ismael" the Arabs is described as a redheaded warlord. I have read the claim that Allah and Muhammad were parodies of Attila the Hun and his uncle Ruglia waging war against Rome because the jews wanted the Arabs to wage war against Eastern Rome (Byzantine). My point here is that there are documents that outline a jewish conspiracy to destroy Edom even two thousand years ago, why is it unfathomable that the Protocols was simply an updated 'The Secrets of Rabbi Simon ben Yohai'? |
|
In the lead is {{tq|"The political scientist Stephen Bronner described it as 'probably the most influential work of antisemitism ever written ... what the Communist Manifesto is for Marxism, the fictitious Protocols is for antisemitism'."}} I propose to remove the part after the ellipsis, which is patently ridiculous. Comparing Marx and Engels to the anonymous Protocols author is just embarrassing. Of course my emotions are not a reliable source, but I'll point out that just because something appears in a "reliable source" doesn't mean we are obliged to quote it. I'll go further and question the reliability of the source anyway. On the same page of Bronner's book he writes {{tq|"It consists of the supposed minutes from twenty-four sessions of a congress held by representatives from the 'twelve tribes of Israel' and led by a Grand Rabbi, whose purpose was to plan the conquest of the world."}} Actually, the Protocols don't mention twelve tribes, any rabbis at all, or sessions of a congress. Those concepts do appear in the commentary of publishers and others like the Dearborn Independent, but not in the Protocols themselves. (I'm relying on the Marsden edition that is the main source of English versions.) ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 02:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:I agree that at least the post-ellipsis part should go. I'd be inclined to take out the whole sentence. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 02:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::The point of the sentence is perfectly clear, it's straightforward analogy about the centrality of each book to their specific ideology. There's no possible way to confuse it as saying that the Protocols is central to Communism. Let's not write down to our readers. ] (]) 03:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Who suggested any such confusion? ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 04:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:I think we should avoid conversational tone and direct quotes. The book is important to anti-Semitism. We don't need to attribute that intext to someone readers have probably not heard of and provide a comparison. ] (]) 03:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::agree that it's an odd - and potentially misleading - comparison. More generally, personally, dislike use of quotes in leads and would rather it was removed. ] (]) 12:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:I wouldn't necessarily call such a comparative analogy "patently ridiculous," nor "embarrassing;" BUT I am on board with removing it on other grounds. It's superfluous and unnecessary. I'd agree that the entire quote really does not belong in the lead. ] (]) 13:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC) |
|
view · edit Frequently asked questions
