Talk:The Protocols of the Elders of Zion
Add topicLatest comment: 2 months ago by Mellk in topic Edit request
 | Contemporary imprints of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was merged into this article. The discussion was closed on 7 August 2026 with a consensus to merge. The original page is now a redirect to this article. Its history now serves to provide attribution for the content in this article, and it must not be deleted as long as this article exists. |
| 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 subject of the article. |
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  |
 | You are an administrator, so you may disregard the message below You are seeing this because of the limitations of {{If extended confirmed}} and {{If admin}}
You can hide this message box by adding the following to a new line of your common.css page: .ECR-edit-request-warning {
display: none;
}
Stop: Parts of this page are restricted Parts of this article are related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is subject to the extended-confirmed restriction. You are not an extended-confirmed user, so you must not edit or discuss this topic anywhere on Wikipedia except to make an edit request. (Additional details are in the message box just below this one.) |
| Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict.The following restrictions apply to everyone editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. If it is unclear which parts of the page are covered, 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. |
Q: Why does the first sentence of the article say the Protocols is fraudulent? Aren't Wikipedia articles supposed to be neutral?
A: Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia; 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, and this person promoted this claim, it would be their responsibility to prove that it is true. |
 | 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 Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 19, 2006. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
| Current status: Former featured article | ||||||||||||||||
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=icon}
 | This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
Edit request 10 February 2026
[edit] | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Description of suggested change: Genre is black propaganda, subject is antisemitism.
Diff:
| − | + | black |
~2026-91967-1 (talk) 21:38, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
Partly done. Neither of those were genres; I have removed them both. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:07, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
early conspiracy theory
[edit]To editor AndreJustAndre: "The forgery is an early example of conspiracy theory literature." For sure it is an example of conspiracy theory literature, but what is "early" about it? I didn't find that in the source, and conspiracy theories have been around for many centuries. Incidentally the source is awful and doesn't even match its own sources. Du Chayla did not say that Nilus was the author, etc etc. Zerotalk 10:20, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
More added nonsense
[edit]Notions derived from the Protocols frequently reappear in modern conspiratorial narratives[113], including claims that the "Jews" depicted in the Protocols are a cover for groups such as the Illuminati,[36] Freemasons[114], the Priory of Sion[115] or, according to David Icke, "extra-dimensional entities".
However the Protocols don't mention a single one of those things, so how can they be derived from the Protocols? Michael Hagemeister, who is probably the preeminent Protocols expert alive today, likes to lament that many writers including some serious academics who write about the Protocols seem to have never actually read them. He has a point. And why should we give a fuck what the crackpot David Icke thinks about anything? Just naming him here devalues this article. Zerotalk 12:43, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Zero0000 I believe that they are derived by those who wish to embrace conspiracy without being called bigots. I believe it is good to inform about David Ickes views because of his influence on modern conspiracy culture Parrot in search of knowledge (talk) 07:09, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- Zero has a point. It should say that *it has been argued* that some latter-day conspiracy theories which are not formally antisemitic are inspired by the Protocols.
- Of course, I don't see how this makes them inherently antisemitic, as the main text which the Protocols itself derived from, The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu, is not antisemitic. The same goes for anti-Masonic theories, which also predate the Protocols. Also, the work of the main person who argued that, Chip Berlet, was not peer reviewed. GPRamirez5 (talk) 12:47, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- While we prefer peer reviewed sources, loads of other sources here aren't peer reviewed. Berlet was one of the most highly regarded investigators and analysts of conspiracy thinking and antisemitism of the last decades. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:32, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
- Additionally, regarding Icke, potential libel of living persons is to be avoided at all costs, as per Wikipedia policy. I've removed most references to him.GPRamirez5 (talk) 13:04, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- If somebody is riffing off the Protocols then that is antisemitic. Changing the word "Jews" to some other codephrase is mere obfuscation. I think Zero0000 misunderstood what the paragraph was saying. Anyway, if Reliable Sources have covered nonsense derived from the Protocols then that makes it reasonable to include it here. Icke is a particularly notable example. The article would be deficient if it didn't mention him. I think the removed content was due so I have restored it. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:56, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- I agree, it can be relevant. Andre🚐 15:20, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- I agree with Daniel. He is a very notable contemporary conspiracy theorist, and if RSs give him as an example of someone adapting the Protocols it's noteworthy here. I'm not sure it matters whether it's antisemitic or not. There is nothing remotely libellous about accurately quoting someone's published words via published scholarly work about them. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:29, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
- If somebody is riffing off the Protocols then that is antisemitic. Changing the word "Jews" to some other codephrase is mere obfuscation. I think Zero0000 misunderstood what the paragraph was saying. Anyway, if Reliable Sources have covered nonsense derived from the Protocols then that makes it reasonable to include it here. Icke is a particularly notable example. The article would be deficient if it didn't mention him. I think the removed content was due so I have restored it. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:56, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Of course, I don't see how this makes them inherently antisemitic, as the main text which the Protocols itself derived from, The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu, is not antisemitic. The same goes for anti-Masonic theories, which also predate the Protocols. Also, the work of the main person who argued that, Chip Berlet, was not peer reviewed. GPRamirez5 (talk) 12:47, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
"Riffing" is subjective, especially when these "reliable sources" aren't directly quoting Icke, but quoting book reviews that paraphrase him (a poor excuse for scholarship that's actually below Wikipedia standards). If someone finds something valuable in the Protocols while disavowing antisemitism that may well be because they recognize something valuable in Maurice Joly's theory, the Protocols non-antisemiitc source material.GPRamirez5 (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oh come on. Valuable in the protocols? Icke is the guy who thinks there are reptilian aliens. Andre🚐 16:59, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- And speculating about what someone finds valuable beyond what they and reliable sources say is beyond OR. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:29, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
As per Biographies of Living Persons any contentious material must be removed immediately, not wait for Talk Page resolution. GPRamirez5 (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- WP:PUBLICFIGURE. it's not controversial. Andre🚐 16:57, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Also, WP:ONEWAY. The topic is relatively serious although being about a fringe idea, and what people think who are even more fringe than that, such as Icke, do not belong here. It does belong in the Icke article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:06, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- Fringe ideas that sources relate to the protocols are fair game for inclusion, but it has to be done properly. The source given for "Illuminati" mentions them once (as the final word in the article), and Illuminati are already mentioned in the article (it should be noted that the Protocols mention Jews only a few times, opening the possibility for other claims). The source given for Freemasons is a review that doesn't mention either the Protocols, or the Jews or the Freemasons. The source given for Priory of Sion is a dead link, but seems to another book review. In the latter two cases the citations look like the book authors are being given but they aren't. As for Icke, I remain firmly of the the opinion that we should not give air time to idiots. Zerotalk 13:44, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- These are very valid points about the sources, which could be stronger. With a little literature review work it's obvious to me that the sources are in fact plentiful so I'll strengthen. The literature also refers to Icke quite a bit, so I would support keeping him, although I understand the concern about giving him airspace. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:54, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
- I think there is scope to say that the Illumaniti myth, which predates the Protocols, was blurred with it, and that the two together provided the structure of modern conspiracy theory. That is the implication of the passage from the BBC which I've added (quoting author Michael Taylor) and of this passage from the historian Michael Berkowitz:
far more significant than the actual, inconsequential history of this small organisation is the afterlife it has assumed in a number of conspiracy theories, which have been frequently used as justification for violence. Writing in the New York Review of Books (1995), Jacob Heilbrunn identified the “Illuminati” as one of the antisemitic “sources” used by the right-wing TV evangelist, Pat Robertson. The English pseudo-historian of the 1920s, Nesta H. Webster, uses it in her notorious World Revolution: The Plot Against Civilization and Secret Societies and Subversive Movements. It is also to be found in the poisonous diatribe of the American conservative, Eustace Mullins, who in 1952 deployed the term in his Secrets of the Federal Reserve. Common to all these works is the allegation that the “Illuminati” infiltrated the ranks of European Jewish bankers in the nineteenth century. Following the lines of the notorious forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, these books assert that the bankers/Jews/Illuminati were behind the Bolshevik Revolution—as well as the creation of the Federal Reserve system in the United States.
- - BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
- Also om Webster fusing the Illumaniti/Masonic myth with the Protocols:
By the early 1920s, a number of texts had come to light across Europe elaborating on the theory of a “Judeo-Masonic” plot cooked up by the Jacobins and their direct descendants, the “Judeo-Bolsheviks.” However, it was Nesta Helen Webster (1876–1960) who was the first to promote the idea that the Illuminati were an intrinsic part of the conspiracy. Webster was the granddaughter of an Anglican bishop, married to a superintendent in the British police force, and had a keen interest in the influence of Masonic lodges in the revolutions of 1789, 1848, and 1917. Her own writing echoes many of the claims put forward in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion
- - BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:03, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
Edit request
[edit]Typo.
| − | fake | + | fake |
Justin.Reeves.0722 (talk) 00:12, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
Done. I verified the source. Mellk (talk) 00:16, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
Categories:
- Wikipedia former featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- Old requests for peer review
- C-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in Arts
- C-Class vital articles in Arts
- C-Class Jewish history-related articles
- High-importance Jewish history-related articles
- WikiProject Jewish history articles
- C-Class Book articles
- WikiProject Books articles
- C-Class Russia articles
- High-importance Russia articles
- High-importance C-Class Russia articles
- C-Class Russia (language and literature) articles
- Language and literature of Russia task force articles
- C-Class Russia (history) articles
- History of Russia task force articles
- C-Class Russia (religion) articles
- Religion in Russia task force articles
- C-Class Russia (demographics and ethnography) articles
- Demographics and ethnography of Russia task force articles
- WikiProject Russia articles
- C-Class politics articles
- Low-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- C-Class Alternative views articles
- Mid-importance Alternative views articles
- WikiProject Alternative views articles
- C-Class Skepticism articles
- High-importance Skepticism articles
- WikiProject Skepticism articles