| Revision as of 19:46, 31 January 2005 editMichael Voytinsky (talk | contribs)265 edits →Taught in schools in Arab countries?← 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 |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
==minor questions of correct number for pronoun== |
|
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
Are we top posting here or bottom posting? |
|
|
|
{{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement|relatedcontent=yes}} |
|
Anyway, are the Protocols an 'It' or a 'They'? I'd be inclined to consider them a they, but most of the editing seems to think otherwise. ?? |
|
|
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
PS Sam Spade, nice edit, kept the point I was trying to make, in a NPOV type of way. |
|
|
|
{{Not a forum|small=yes}} |
|
] 19:19, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{FAQ}} |
|
==False Document== |
|
|
|
{{Article history|action1=PR |
|
There is a link to 'false document' here, but the meaning of the ] article appears to relate to artistic creations, rather than to forgeries of this sort. |
|
|
|
|action1date=02:51, 27 September 2005 |
|
|
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/The Protocols of the Elders of Zion/archive1 |
|
|
|action1result=reviewed |
|
|
|action1oldid=24120022 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action2=FAC |
|
We could either: |
|
|
|
|action2date=11:29, 23 February 2006 |
|
* remove the link |
|
|
|
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/The Protocols of the Elders of Zion |
|
* change the 'false document' article to reflect the fact that there are non-artistic forgeries |
|
|
|
|action2result=promoted |
|
* change the wording to 'forgery' |
|
|
|
|action2oldid=40846064 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action3=FAR |
|
-- ] |
|
|
|
|action3date=19:53, 12 November 2009 |
|
---- |
|
|
|
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/The Protocols of the Elders of Zion/archive1 |
|
Precisely my point. |
|
|
|
|action3result=removed |
|
|
|action3oldid=325454729 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|maindate=March 19, 2006 |
|
Also, is it actually agreed by all that it is false? Do there exist rabid anti-semites who believe it's true? If so, then we should say something to the effect that most historians and other sane :-) people believe it's false, but there are a small handful of anti-semites who believe it's true. That is important information, if true, and must be stated fairly if the article is to cohere with the ]. --] |
|
|
|
|currentstatus=FFA |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Jewish history|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Books}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Russia|importance=high|hist=yes|relig=yes|ethno=yes|lit=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=high}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{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 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{Aan}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|
|counter = 10 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:The Protocols of the Elders of Zion/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Archive box|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|age=1||units=month|auto=yes|search=yes}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Incorrect change == |
|
: Arab newspapers insist that the protocols are real. The reality of them are even taught in some high schools in the Arab world as "proof" of the evil nature of Jews". Many Japanese citizens believe that the Protocols are genuine. A small number of Japanese professors and other professionals have even written books about them in recent years, which have shot to the top of Japanese book best-seller lists. Most of these books are flatly anti-Semitic. However, and bizarrely, some of these books aren't anti-Semitic in any way that yoo are I would understand the term, because some of them teach that "The Jews use the protocols to try and conquer the world...but we Japanese can adopt these Jewish techniques so that we too can be as powerful as the Jews, or more so!" That is to say, some of these books are literally written as "Self-Help" books for businessmen, who seem to <b>admire</b> the "international Jewish conspiracy", and wish to emulate it. I have a detailed article on this that I can e-mail you if anyone is interested it. A good study of this fascinating and complex topic is "Jews in the Japanese Mind: The History and Uses of a Cultural Stereotype", by David G. Goodman and Masnori Miyazawa, The Free Press, 1995. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{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) |
|
|
:{{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? == |
|
RK, if you want to mail it to me I would be interested. My email address is sj_kissane at yahoo.com -- ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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? |
|
I would be interested in this article as well. ] |
|
|
|
Edit: also could be a pun on “Jewy” “Jewry” “Jew-y” |
|
|
] (]) 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'? |
|
The subject page is SO NOT neutral point of view. It is almost like it was written with the single purpose of discrediting these writings. |
|
|
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
I agree we should state that they are believed by some to be true, but this being an encyclopedia, we can still say pretty flatly that they're false. The fact that they're believed to be true by some nutcases doesn't mean we need to make a disclaimer of "believed to be false by almost everyone sane," any more than we need to add disclaimers of "NASA claims, and most historians believe, that the US landed on the moon in 1969, but there are some who claim that the moon landing was fake" to articles on space exploration. -- ] |
|
|
|
|
|
-------------- |
|
|
|
|
|
Can someone add a brief summary about what kinds of accusations the document specifically makes? Maybe in a bullet list or something? ] |
|
|
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
Delirium, I disagree with you - since your parallel between the belief that NASA moon landing was staged, and the belief that the Protocols are for real - is wrong. |
|
|
|
|
|
In the Islamic world - roughly a quarter of the world's population - the belief that the Protocols are for real is not restricted to a very small minority of nuts. It is restricted to a small minority of nuts in the West, but the Misplaced Pages is supposed to represent the views of the entire world, not just of the West - the NPOV should not be Western. |
|
|
|
|
|
In case of NASA sending people to the moon, a small minority of nuts worldwide believes this - so from NPOV view, it seems reasonable to view it as fact. -- ] |
|
|
|
|
|
== Are we putting everything up for a vote? == |
|
|
|
|
|
Michael V's comment suggests that if three billion people think something is true, then we can't say otherwise. That is nonsense. The book is demonstrably false, not to mention pernicious, and its is POV to say otherwise. Italo Svevo |
|
|
|
|
|
:You are missing my point. If three billion people think something is true, than the fact that they think it is true must be mentioned. On the other hand, there is a limit to how many minority opinions can be covered. For example, if there is a lone psychiatric patient somewhere who thinks that the Protocols were writen by the Evil Gummy Bears Who Live in His Brain, mentioning his views in this article would be pointless. There is an incredible number of very small minority opinions on every conceivable topic. Trying to mention as many of them as possible would be ridiculous. -- ] |
|
|
|
|
|
::Then why don't you demonstrate it? |
|
|
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
This is an excellent article, and admirably defends the concept of historical truth against attempts to deny that this concept has any meaning. The fact that ten people somewhere think the world is flat does not prevent us from laying that it is (almost) round. The Protocols ''are'' a forgery, and any self-respecting encyclopaedia needs to say so. Having said that, the last paragraph seems a little over-optimistic, and in fact contradicts the preceeding text. It is clear that in fact ''many'' people think the Protocols are genuine. ] 03:13, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
Good point on last paragraph. In addition, it has an editorial tone implying that open information (the underpinnings of this site) is to be feared and controlled rather than combatted on merit. It almost seems to mock the idea that anyone who reads something in a library should value his/her privacy. Anyone revising it might tweak the spin there. ] 00:18, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
<I>"While few people currently believe the Protocols to be genuine, many people now have the opportunity to assuage their curiosity about the Protocols due to the Internet. This raises issues of whether the Internet as it stands is an unalloyed good. Previously, few people were willing to risk getting on government lists by loaning the book from the library, or ordering it through a book-shop through fear of being labelled anti-Semitic."</I><BR> |
|
|
Is this to say that someone who favors the free flow of information is an anti-semite? That any topic that risks offending a Jewish person shouldn't be discussed? That Jewish lobby groups are more deserving of freedom of speech than anyone else? I never thought of myself as an anti-semite but the more I see statements like these, the more I'm starting to wonder... |
|
|
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
It's interesting how every publication in the bibliography was either written by a Jewish author or published by a Jewish organization. |
|
|
|
|
|
:Yes. Jews are a lot more interested in Jews being slandered than are the non-Jews. Wow. This is such an incredible surprise. Must be part of The Conspiracy (TM). --] |
|
|
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
Three comments above question the last paragraph, though I don't necessarily agree with the reasons. I deleted it just because it is argumentative and has stuff like "government lists" that are meaningless without explanation. If there is a story about these "lists", then that would be a fine addition. --] 11:46, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
I noticed that this page is listed as a copyright violation. It would be a shame to lose all the edits since the alleged violation, so I did a little research. Apparently the text in question is much older than the URL given. The oldest instance I could find was back in 1993; see . Apparently the text was first posted to <code>alt.conspiracy</code> by Danny Keren, although it was originally written by Prof. Saul Wallach of Bar-Ilan University. Also see ] (without the "The") for more early edit history. ]] 17:01, 2004 Apr 21 (UTC) |
|
|
:Update: a more authoritative link: . ]] 18:40, 2004 Apr 21 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Tracking down copyrights can be as much of a problem as the contents of some of these articles. Although much of the repetion on the net leads back to Keren there is no assurance that his newsgroup posting is not itself a violation of copyright. There is a Saul Wallach who is Rabbi of a messianic congregation in Gig Harbor, WA, but I don't think that he is the same person. |
|
|
|
|
|
A question of transliteration from Hebrew comes up. And the name seems to be more correctly '''Shaul''' Wallach, and his e-mail address as recently as 2000 was <wallach@mail.biu.ac.il>. The site http://shamash.org/holocaust/denial/protocols.txt seems to take the text back to 1989. ] 20:06, 2004 Apr 21 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I emailed that address asking Prof. Wallach if he is the author, and if so if we may have permission to distribute his work under the terms of the GFDL. If we do not get permission, I don't think we really have much of a choice but to start rewriting from scratch. Especially given that a print edition of Misplaced Pages is planned, the perils of knowingly continuing to publish something that later may result in a copyright infringement claim are too great to simply ignore. --] 07:09, May 1, 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I am going to put a notice on ] that there is an effort to obtain permission and that the status will be revisited by the end of May. Please update the Copyright problems page as soon as you have a resolution. - ]]] 17:08, 3 May 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I have moved the text in the original article that does not appear to be disputed, as well as ]'s start of a rewrite, to ]. I added a link to the version of Prof. Wallach's essay that ] found. I think that will provide a decent basis for an article even if we delete the disputed text. ]] 19:15, 2004 May 20 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Recast the opening at "Temp" == |
|
|
|
|
|
This is the first time I got a good look at this article. Considering its importance in world politics, it was hardly adequate and an insult to the reader seeking knowledge to beat around the bush with a concept like "well lots of guys in the West think it's fake but most others think its real." -- ] | ] 15:47, 23 May 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I've replaced the original with the one that was at /Temp. ]] 09:59, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Who Wrote it? == |
|
|
|
|
|
One theory is that Lucien Wolf who claimed to have "discovered" the truth in 1920 was the author. He certainly seemed to know more about it than anyone else. Nazi ideologist Alfred Rosenberg is said to have brought a copy to the attention of Hitler and cohorts. |
|
|
|
|
|
Did Wolf and Rosenberg know each other? |
|
|
|
|
|
: Is there any substance at all to this "theory" apart from pure speculation? Who proposed it? I think it ought to be deleted from the article. --] 14:13, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== POV? == |
|
|
Anon ] tagged this article POV without any explanation. Unless we see a good reason, I think it would be safe to remove the tag soon. ]←]←] 09:27, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Are y'all sure its "The Wandering Jew"? == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I seem to remember from other articles on the protocols that Joly took most of his material from the last chapter of "Les mysteres du peuple", another book by Eugene Sue. Umberto Eco wrote an article on the protocols in wich he says as much. I still have that article somewhere, as soon as i've found it I will get back to you |
|
|
|
|
|
--] 20:41, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Links to sources? == |
|
|
|
|
|
Could somebody please provide links to the source documents from which The Protocols were forged? |
|
|
:I'm not sure they can be found on-line. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 15:37, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Taught in schools in Arab countries? == |
|
|
|
|
|
I have seen frequent statements that the Protocols are often taught in schools in Arab countries as fact. |
|
|
|
|
|
Can anyone provide specific references to this - other than some people merely asserting this. ] 19:46, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC) |
|
view · edit Frequently asked questions
