| Revision as of 23:54, 12 November 2018 editBeyond My Ken (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers263,286 edits →Proposed rollback← 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 |
| (171 intermediate revisions by 64 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement|relatedcontent=yes}} |
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
{{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 23: |
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 = {{talkarchivenav}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{Aan}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|counter = 10 |
|
|counter = 10 |
| Line 41: |
Line 54: |
|
|archive = Talk:The Protocols of the Elders of Zion/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:The Protocols of the Elders of Zion/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Archive box|bot=MiszaBot I|age=1||units=month|auto=yes|search=yes}} |
|
{{Archive box|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|age=1||units=month|auto=yes|search=yes}} |
|
|
|
|
== 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 ] of the ], since the opening of Russia's archives and the information becoming available to historical researchers. That is how the French Misplaced Pages (which tends to be of a higher intellectual quality than the English Misplaced Pages... just saying) has it. ] (]) 16:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:That's nice; the assertion in ] is unsourced, so can you furnish a ] (which are required on the English Misplaced Pages where we are all intellectually slumming.) ] (]) 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. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 13:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Removed additions made to article by editor blocked for being disruptive == |
|
|
|
|
|
] was blocked today for disruptive editing, see . 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. Thanks] (]) 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. ] (]) 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" .] (]) 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. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 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.--] (]) 01:53, 26 June 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Edit warring == |
|
|
|
|
|
I've ] this article for 3 days. Please discuss your content disputes here on the talk page rather than ], which is unhelpful to all. Thanks. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em">]+]</u> 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. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
: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. ] because that would just please the antisemites who insist that it's real. ] (]) 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. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
: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. ] (]) 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 ] and ] in the article). This is not about ], it is a technical point about terminology. With respect, the editor is ''over-reacting'' here and failing to ]. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ]? 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. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 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. ] (]) 22:47, 15 August 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:: It's not dumb to raise the issue, but it is dumb to edit-war over it. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 01:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Point taken. ] (]) 01:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Proposed rollback == |
|
|
|
|
|
I am proposing a rollback of the article to to ] 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 ]. ] (]) 05:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I have ]ly rolled back to the version in question. ] (]) 05:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I endorse the rollback. ] (]) 08:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::Agree. ] (]) 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, |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 10:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
;Transposed to the pertinent Article Talk Page |
|
|
|
|
|
Please stop your long series of edits which in no way improve the article ]. 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 ]. In addition, |
|
|
|
|
|
] 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 ] of 08:15, November 8, 2018? Cordially, ] (]) 05:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: I’ve opened a section at ] concerning this to see if there is consensus for a rollback. ] (]) 05:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The edits in question are manifestly unnecessary and unhelpful and have been reverted to ]. 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. ] (]) 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 ] where you were apparently reported for exactly the same behavior. Cordially, ] (]) 05:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
;A reply |
|
|
|
|
|
Be specific, '''give examples'''. Your opinion is your business, the facts remain to be presented. Disruptive editing must be demonstrated, with specific examples, not just opinions. |
|
|
|
|
|
;Regards, |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 10:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
: Talk pages are for gaining ] about how to improve the article. Disruptive editing does not have to be “demonstrated” here; it’s sufficient that you have been reverted and that consensus appears not to be in your favor. Save your wikilawyering about facts and diffs for AN/I. But I’m sure you know that already; you’ve been there before for similar behavior. Let’s see how far other editors’ patience extends this time. Perhaps like a cat, you still have a few more lives left. Perhaps not. ] can only swim so far. |
|
|
: Oh, and since we are still discussing improvements here, per ] would you kindly self-revert your edit version ] until such time as you gain consensus for it while discussions are still underway? Thanks, ] (]) 11:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
: Despite reverts from other editors, changes of dubious utility continue under such rubrics as "CE". ] (]) 14:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::] continues to engage in outrageous edit-warring, non-consensus editing, ignoring any and all requests to modify his behaviour. Something needs to be done to make this stop.] (]) 15:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Incorrect change == |
|
;A reply to Smeat75 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{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) |
|
Your turn at rollback mentions no specific editorial mistakes or factual incorrectness. Why? Surely, not every edit I have made is factually incorrect, is it, Ma'am? I ask. |
|
|
|
:{{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? == |
|
Let me know, perhaps we can correspond, the way the lads cannot. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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? |
|
;Regards, |
|
|
|
Edit: also could be a pun on “Jewy” “Jewry” “Jew-y” |
|
] (]) 15:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
] (]) 17:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
*If necessary, I will bring Chas. Caltrop to ] once again, as I did , to stop his POV-pushing edit-warring. ] (]) 23:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== The Secrets of Rabbi Simon ben Yohai == |
|
== school textbook == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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'? |
|
The following appears in the introduction without a source: "the Nazi Party's régime ... applied The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as a textbook for German schoolchildren." This is not mentioned in an academic article I have on the Nazi use of the Protocols, and frankly I doubt it is true. School kids would not be able to make head or tail of it. Where is this claim from? ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 11:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:Here is the source and this --] (]) 12:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::Those are pretty weak, though. The first indeed asserts "some schools used the Protocols to indoctrinate students", but it links to an article about indoctrination in general that does not mention the Protocols. The second is a sidebar comment "It was used in schools after the Nazi Party took power in the 1930s." I'd be a lot happier if there was a better source here. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 14:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Here is a scholarly source .--] (]) 14:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC) |
|
view · edit Frequently asked questions
