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.
: As the paragraph states, the priest in question (Barruel) did ''not'' attribute his conspiracy to the Jews. The only Jewish connection was a letter written ''to'' Barruel by "Simonini" (perhaps not a real name) complaining that Barruel did not include the Jews in his conspiracy. So it was Simonini and not Barruel who proposed a conspiracy by Jews and only in a private letter. Moreover, there is no evidence whatever of a connection between this affair and the "Protocols". So I believe this paragraph is of dubious value to the article. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 05:25, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
: As the paragraph states, the priest in question (Barruel) did ''not'' attribute his conspiracy to the Jews. The only Jewish connection was a letter written ''to'' Barruel by "Simonini" (perhaps not a real name) complaining that Barruel did not include the Jews in his conspiracy. So it was Simonini and not Barruel who proposed a conspiracy by Jews and only in a private letter. Moreover, there is no evidence whatever of a connection between this affair and the "Protocols". So I believe this paragraph is of dubious value to the article. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 05:25, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
::I've removed the passage unless there's any demonstrable value to reinstating it - even Cohn's quote supposedly tying the private letter to the Protocols is ''highly'' suspect, since the essential gist of what Cohn seems to be saying is, 'This is one of the earliest examples I can find of someone mentioning a Jewish conspiracy'. ] (]) 20:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
::I've removed the passage unless there's any demonstrable value to reinstating it - even Cohn's quote supposedly tying the private letter to the Protocols is ''highly'' suspect, since the essential gist of what Cohn seems to be saying is, 'This is one of the earliest examples I can find of someone mentioning a Jewish conspiracy'. ] (]) 20:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
:::In my view, the author seems to be referring to a myth that the Jewish conspiracy is by Jewish people from across the world for world-wide control, and not that across the world there are myths of Jewish conspiracy for localized control. ] (]) 19:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
== Textual evidence shows that it could not have been produced prior to 1901 ==
== Textual evidence shows that it could not have been produced prior to 1901 ==
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.
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
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:
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.
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.
If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!
The 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.
This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 19, 2006.
This 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
This 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
This 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
This 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
This 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
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.
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.
Strange passage here:
The passage beginning with According to Norman Cohn, the modern myth of a world-wide conspiracy by Jews has its earliest precursor in a work written by a Jesuit priest, is odd - all respect to Norman Cohn, but how can the modern Western myth of a worldwide Jewish conspiracy be rooted in the work of a Jesuit Priest who lived in 1800, when over 500 years earlier, Jews across Europe were accused of poisoning wells with the Black Death and slaughtered en-masse? (Dorsey Armstrong, The Black Death: The World's Most Devastating Plague)
I can understand an argument that this was not worldwide, but localized to Europe, but even the myth of a Jewish worldwide conspiracy is largely a Western conspiracy theory rooted predominantly in European/Western culture. All of this is to say; I don't think Cohn is correct, and the statement is a strange one to state so authoritatively. There is even a Misplaced Pages article about the mass-pogroms here, which spread across the Catholic world and were incited by a conspiracy theory surrounding Jews and the poisoning of the city wells. Mishmoo (talk) 23:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
As the paragraph states, the priest in question (Barruel) did not attribute his conspiracy to the Jews. The only Jewish connection was a letter written to Barruel by "Simonini" (perhaps not a real name) complaining that Barruel did not include the Jews in his conspiracy. So it was Simonini and not Barruel who proposed a conspiracy by Jews and only in a private letter. Moreover, there is no evidence whatever of a connection between this affair and the "Protocols". So I believe this paragraph is of dubious value to the article. Zero05:25, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
I've removed the passage unless there's any demonstrable value to reinstating it - even Cohn's quote supposedly tying the private letter to the Protocols is highly suspect, since the essential gist of what Cohn seems to be saying is, 'This is one of the earliest examples I can find of someone mentioning a Jewish conspiracy'. Mishmoo (talk) 20:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
In my view, the author seems to be referring to a myth that the Jewish conspiracy is by Jewish people from across the world for world-wide control, and not that across the world there are myths of Jewish conspiracy for localized control. ~Dr Victor Vasconcelos de Souza (talk) 19:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Textual evidence shows that it could not have been produced prior to 1901
This very specific claim, with a very specific date, is made with no citation at all. Further in the article there are sections comparing the text with earlier works, but nothing (so far as I can ascertain) about this 1901 date. Where does this come from, and what is the evidence for this as an earliest date? 109.176.90.215 (talk) 12:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
I added a source and did some rewording. It comes right out of De Michelis around the page which was cited for the following sentence. Zero15:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
view · edit Frequently asked questions
