Misplaced Pages

Talk:The Protocols of the Elders of Zion: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:48, 9 October 2019 editJpgordon (talk | contribs)Checkusers, Administrators82,338 edits →Merge from Mikhail Raslovlev: new 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 
(145 intermediate revisions by 58 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__
== 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> &nbsp; <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.

;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)

== Exposure of the forgery should be prominent ==

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)

:{{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)

== Incorrect Claim Per the Citation ==

This article incorrectly states that Henry Ford printed 500,000 copies of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The cited source actually states that he published his own compilation of newspaper articles entitled "The International Jew".

Specifically, the articles states under the "United States" sub-heading: "In the U.S., Henry Ford sponsored the printing of 500,000 copies (in reference to The Protocols), and, from 1920 to 1922, published a series of antisemitic articles titled 'The International Jew: The World's Foremost Problem', in The Dearborn Independent, a newspaper he owned."

For citation, you reference "Could Henry Ford Have Dreamed a Jew Would Run His Car Company?" at https://forward.com/news/198741/could-henry-ford-have-dreamed-a-jew-would-run-his/. According to this page, "Ford also distributed some 500,000 copies of “The International Jew” across America and, with more lethal effect, published it in Europe, as well." Therefore, it should not be stated that Ford printed any copies of The Protocols.


== Incorrect change ==
Regards,


{{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)
] (]) 20:14, 6 September 2019 (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? ==
:The Protocols were '''''part''''' of the series of articles which were published in book form as "The International Jew". See : <blockquote>The Protocols were publicized in America by Boris Brasol, a former Czarist prosecutor. Auto magnate Henry Ford was one of those who responded to Brasol’s conspiratorial fantasies. "The Dearborn Independent," owned by Ford, published an American version of the Protocols between May and September of 1920 in a series called ‘The International Jew: the World’s Foremost Problem." The articles were later republished in book form with half a million copies in circulation in the United States, and were translated into several foreign languages.</blockquote> ] (]) 03:47, 7 September 2019 (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?
:: That's a very poor source compared to what is available. What does "an American version of the Protocols" actually mean, anyway? You can find sources claiming that the Dearborn Independent serialised the Protocols, but it is not true. Nor does The International Jew contain the Protocols as a whole. If you have a strong stomach you can check for yourself at the Internet Archive. What you will find is original articles that include commentary on the Protocols with quotations from them. Only a fraction of the total is included. Here are more precise descriptions:
Edit: also could be a pun on “Jewy” “Jewry” “Jew-y”
::: "Beginning in 1920 and continuing for nearly two years, the Independent ran a series of ninety-one articles largely based on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, an authorless document purporting to lay out the Jewish plan for world domination." (article on DI in Antisemitism — A Historical Encyclopedia of Prejudice and Persecution, ed. ], p163).
] (]) 17:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
::: "Commencing on May 22, 1920, in Henry Ford’s Dearborn Independent, the widely-publicized articles fully exploited the Protocols, dwelling week after week on the clear and present danger posed to American institutions by international Jewry. Rather than merely reprinting the Protocols, William Cameron, the paper’s editor and the person generally believed to be the author of the anti-Jewish articles, elucidated upon them as 'the most comprehensive program for world subjugation that has ever come to public knowledge.'" (Robert Singerman, The American Career of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, American Jewish History; Sep 1, 1981; pp48–)
::: "Rather than printing all The Protocols in a single 'text,' these writers used shorter articles that mixed parts of the infamous forgery with local, national, and international news items." (M. Hasian, Understanding the power of conspiratorial rhetoric: A case study of the protocols of the elders of Zion, Communication Studies, 48:3, 195-214.)
:: ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 11:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
:: Neither an anonymous article on the ADL web site, nor an article in The Forward that doesn't mention the Protocols at all, is a suitable source for this page. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 13:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
::: If you don't think that the ADL is a reliable source, I suggest you open a discussion on RSN, where it has always been accepted as one. ] (]) 15:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
::: Why should I waste my time debating one source when we have others whose reliability is beyond question? ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 15:59, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


== The Secrets of Rabbi Simon ben Yohai ==
== Merge from ] ==


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'?
This person is of no interest other than his association with the Protocols; let's clean up another of one Ludvikus' messes. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 15:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 03:53, 21 December 2024

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:

  • You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
  • You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.

Further information
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
  1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
  2. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

  • Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
  • Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This page is not a forum for general discussion about The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about The Protocols of the Elders of Zion at the Reference desk.
? view · edit Frequently asked questions
Q: Why does the first sentence of the article say the Protocols is fraudulent? Aren't Misplaced Pages articles supposed to be neutral?
A: Misplaced Pages articles are absolutely required to maintain a neutral point of view. It has long been established that this work is fraudulent; its author(s) plagiarized a work of fiction, changing the original, Gentile characters into the secret leaders of a Jewish conspiracy. That plagiarized, fictional material is presented as though it were fact. That constitutes a literary fraud.
Q: So Misplaced Pages is saying that there was not a secret Jewish conspiracy to rule the world?
A: That is an entirely separate issue from the established fact that the Protocols is fraudulent.
Q: Why not let the reader decide for him- or herself whether the document is fraudulent or not? Doesn't drawing conclusions constitute WP:OR?
A: The article does not draw any conclusions; journalists drew the conclusion in 1921, and numerous scholars have reaffirmed it since then. It is not original research to state that the the Protocols is fraudulent; it is a well-established scholarly fact, as documented and sourced in the article. Numerous similar examples exist throughout Misplaced Pages; for example, the Hitler diaries are demonstrably fake, and the WP article says so—and sources it.
Q: But if the fraud is a well-established fact, why do some groups still assert that the Protocols is a genuine document?
A: It is difficult to answer why anyone still believes that the Protocols is a real document, other than to say that some people have beliefs that are simply immune to facts (Exhibit A: Holocaust deniers). To those whose minds are made up, it makes no difference that the Protocols have been debunked countless times—or that so much incriminating Holocaust evidence survives that a dozen museums can't hold it all.
Q: But you can't disprove the contention that a bunch of Jews got together sometime in the mid-19th century and plotted a conspiracy, can you?
A: As already stated, the conspiracy issue is not relevant to this article. But to answer your question, if one was told that the Moon is a giant ball of Gouda cheese covered with a foot-thick layer of dirt, it would be their responsibility to prove them.
Former featured articleThe Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 19, 2006.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 27, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
February 23, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
November 12, 2009Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconJewish history High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconBooks
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook
WikiProject iconRussia: Language & literature / History / Religion / Demographics & ethnography High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the language and literature of Russia task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the religion in Russia task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the demographics and ethnography of Russia task force.
WikiProject iconPolitics Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconAlternative views Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSkepticism High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by a media organization:
  • Ohad Merlin (November 3, 2024). "Misplaced Pages in Arabic: A hotbed for bigotry, misinformation, and bias - investigative report". The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved November 4, 2024. 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."


Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10


This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Incorrect change

To editor 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 Kishinev pogrom that happened in 1903! We should discard that book as a source. Bronner's book also has glaring errors, see a previous talk section for examples. Zero 06:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

To editor Zero0000: Ok! Make sure you edit the First Zionist Congress page; that is where I got the cites from! They're even in the intro there. Ogress 13:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Is the Dewey decimal actually 109?

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? Edit: also could be a pun on “Jewy” “Jewry” “Jew-y” 2A00:23C6:D603:8001:1425:6F4:83C:618F (talk) 17:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The Secrets of Rabbi Simon ben Yohai

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'?

Categories: