| Revision as of 18:31, 17 May 2019 editJayjg (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators134,922 edits Has nothing to do with this← 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 |
| (154 intermediate revisions by 59 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}} |
|
|
|
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
== 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 |
|
|
<div style="border: thin solid gray; background-color:#ffffe0 ; padding: 1.5em; margin-left:2emem”> |
|
|
:<small><em><b>Note:</b> Box border added for clarity around material copied here by User:Chas. Caltrop from ].</em> <small>] (]) 01:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)</small></small> |
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
|
</div> |
|
|
;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) |
|
|
|
|
|
;A reply to Smeat75 |
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
Let me know, perhaps we can correspond, the way the lads cannot. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Incorrect change == |
|
;Regards, |
|
|
] (]) 15:49, 12 November 2018 (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) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{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) |
|
== school textbook == |
|
|
|
:{{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? == |
|
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) |
|
|
::::That is indeed a much better source. Meanwhile I found that it appeared as a claim without a source in Norman Cohn's 1967 book (which more recent historians have a poor opinion of). ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 00:04, 13 November 2018 (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? |
|
== Exposure of the forgery should be prominent == |
|
|
|
Edit: also could be a pun on “Jewy” “Jewry” “Jew-y” |
|
|
] (]) 17:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== The Secrets of Rabbi Simon ben Yohai == |
|
Since the status of this document as a forgery is "controversial" (in the way that most conspiracy theories are "controversial"), the lead should summarize how the forgery was discovered, with multiple RS references. Right in the lead. As it stands, the lede only states that it's a forgery, and the facts about its discovery are buried waaaaay down in the article's body. This creates the impression that the forgery status is being dubiously claimed by brute force and repetition, and not via reliable sources. I'm sure a lot of people, like myself, come to this article looking for that information — "how do we know it's a forgery?" — and not, for example, what the document actually says or who was purported to have written it. ] </small>]] 01:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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'? |
|
:{{re|Jordgette}} It may be important, but the very nature of the ] is that it is an introductory summary of information to be found in the body of the article, including material waaaaaay down in the article body. I certainly agree that it would be out of the question if the lead did ''not'' say it was a forgery. But it does. It says so in no uncertain terms, and more than once, calling it: ''fabricated text'', a ''hoax'', taught ''as if factual'', and ''having been exposed as fraudulent''. That seems like plenty of insistence about the fact it's a forgery; I don't know how many more times you could insist on this point in the lead. |
|
|
:I have no idea where you get the impression that {{xt|the forgery status is being dubiously claimed by brute force and repetition, and not via reliable sources,}} as I certainly did not get that impression. Can you indicate what, precisely, led you to that view? The lead is not required to duplicate footnotes in the body which already support the lead summary; but it is also not forbidden, either; and it would probably be okay to duplicate some of the body references in the lead, unless someone objects for some reason. |
|
|
:As to, "how do we know it's a forgery?" please see the section, ] which gives an overview of the answer to that question, indicating in addition that an entire book has been devoted to the subject. The section ] goes into lengthy detail about the plagiarism, with line-by-line comparisons. These two sections seems easily enough space to devote to the answer to your how-do-we-know question, and may already be too much, per ]. |
|
|
:If this still isn't enough detail to answer your question, perhaps a new article, dedicated to talking only about the question of evidence would be warranted. How to do this is covered under the ] guideline. For some examples of a topic that does this, see for example ] or ], each of which has several sub-articles in summary style, describing specific aspects of the topic. You could do this with ''The Protocols'' if you find the current level of detail insufficient, by creating the new article yourself. But I think that adding a lot more detail about forgery evidence in ''this'' article would shade into the area of ], but that's exactly the kind of thing that summary style sub-articles were designed for. HTH, ] (]) 05:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::The Shroud of Turin article is a great example. In the lead, we have: "In 1988, three radiocarbon dating tests dated a corner piece of the shroud from the Middle Ages, between the years 1260 and 1390." That's a quick, lead-appropriate explanation of how we're pretty sure it's not authentic, with a source, right in the lead. Also you wrote, "That seems like plenty of insistence about the fact it's a forgery; I don't know how many more times you could insist on this point in the lead." That's precisely my point: The lead ''merely insisting'' that it's a forgery is unconvincing. ''Merely saying it in no uncertain terms'' is not informative. Since the non-authenticity of this document is central to the article, the reader should be able to scan the lead and immediately find a source. I suggest inserting one or more references, in the first sentence immediately after "antisemitic fabricated text." Don't you think this would improve credibility? ] </small>]] 19:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I do not personally think it would improve credibility for the reasons I've stated about the lead having to be verifiable as a summary by footnotes already present in the body. However, citations are not prohibited in the lead either, and if you feel that footnotes would improve credibility, nothing is stopping you from adding them. ] (]) 22:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Thanks — I added the Graves source and mentioned that it was plagiarized from non-antisemitic sources. I feel this makes it easy for someone who only reads the lead to take away an understanding of how the document was fabricated as well as how we know it was fabricated. ] </small>]] 00:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: {{re|User:Jordgette}} The Graves-1921 sources redirects to the home page when I tried it, and there's nothing there about the topic. Can you provide a better source that that one? ] (]) 10:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Sorry, I didn't follow the link. The full text is here , but I'm not sure how to create this reference or even if it's an acceptable source, being a Wikimedia project. Help please? ] </small>]] 19:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::There is ] on this situation. I think it is ok for the citation to name the original source, but to give the URL of the copy. There is an obligation, however, to check that the copy agrees with the original---I can do that if nobody else does it first. I note that clicking on the numbers in the left margin brings up scans of the original. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 02:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC) |
|
view · edit Frequently asked questions
