Talk:The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search

Source[edit]

Information about this edition
Edition:
Source: http://ddickerson.igc.org/The_Protocols_of_the_Learned_Elders_of_Zion.pdf
Contributor(s): Sherurcij
Level of progress: Text complete 50%.svg
Notes:
Proofreaders:

I'm not including the Epilogue, which was the later addition of Nilus - just the Protocols themselves. λεμα σαβαχθανει (talk) (CRIMINALS ARE MADE, NOT BORN) 02:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


That's not accurate. Dickerson's PDF file cited above is not in fact what has been posted here, on Wikisource. --Ludvikus 00:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I undid the nowiki above to show the alleged source according to User:Sherurcij as he posted the above on 11/18/2006.
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 06:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Victor E. Marsden[edit]

How do we know who made this translation and when? --Ludvikus 06:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC) Cleanup. And Observation. Victor E. Marsden died on October 28, 1920.

Which imprint is being reproduced here? Yours truly, --Ludvikus 23:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion[edit]

The above is not sufficient to identify the imprint. --Ludvikus 15:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone identify exactly this imprint? --Ludvikus 23:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Here's truly the First Edition (American/USA) of 1920 (Small, Maynard & Co.): [1]. Ludvikus 23:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Why is the "First American translation" better than the "First British translation"? You're welcome to add your edition under The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion (SMC) or something similar if you'd like. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Richard Francis Burton 23:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Good question. I'm not saying it's better. I'm say that you do not really have the First British Edition. What you have is this guy's work. Someone called Dickerson. If you look carefully at his web page, you'll find that there are all kinds of alterations introduced solely by him.
I do not really know what edition this is. I don't know were Dickerson got his copy from.
If you want an article of Dickerson's imprint of The Protocols - do that. But don't mislead the public that you have The First British Edition when you do not. --Ludvikus 23:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

David M. Dickerson[edit]

You're too confident in this guy's work. He made substantial/subtle editing to the tract. Why don't you go to a major library, find the First British Edition, scan it, and put it up? Why do you trust this guy Dickerson? I wrote to him about a year ago, but he never answered me. I suspected he's well-intentioned. But he's not accurate or precise. I demand that. I want to know exactly which of the many imprints he claims to be producing, which now Wikipedia is reproducing. I think you yourself may have been fooled into believing that you've got bhere what Dickerson says he's giving you. But he's not. Again, can you please tell me exactly which imprint this is? --Ludvikus 23:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


Here's what I found out about the source of these alleged "Protocols":

    Copyright © 1995-2005 by David M. Dickerson.
                 All rights reserved.
         Presentation Last Updated: 25 December 2005

So the guy has noy updated his Web page in two years. Who knows something about him? What makes him an authority? --Ludvikus

Ifv you find what you claim you have (which now you do not) I will not object. But what you have now is not what it purports to be - I know that much. But unfortunately, no one has bothered to clearly identify this item. --Ludvikus 23:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Not Dickerson's PDF File[edit]

Now I notice that what exists here is not even Dickerson's rendition. It's a completely different imprint. --Ludvikus 00:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, your "not even Dickerson's rendition" means that all your points about "Dickerson is a fraud!!1!!" thusfar are in fact irrelevant. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Richard Francis Burton 01:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Here I have no idea what you mean. Ludvikus 02:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

True Source - Antisemitic Website[edit]

Here's the actual source (a current antisemitic website): Church of True Israel - [2].

--Ludvikus 00:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
That appears to be the same one we have, judging by the identical lines I searched, such as "In our day the power which has replaced that of the rulers who were liberal" which would otherwise be unlikely to be identical. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Richard Francis Burton 01:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, we're making some progress. Are you saying the imprint date in question is at leat 1963? Ludvikus 02:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
No...the Church Of True Israel says that they are hosting the Marsden translation, exactly as we are. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Richard Francis Burton 03:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's what WorldCat has:

World conquest through world government the protocols of the learned elders of Zion
by Sergi︠e︡ĭ Nilus; Victor E Marsden
Type: Internet Resource
Language: English
Publisher: [S.l. : s.n., 2004?]
OCLC: 55034556
Related Subjects: Antisemitism. | Jews -- Politics and government. | Communism.
Editions: 103 Editions
Web Resources: ftp.std.com
Citations: Cite this Item | Export to EndNote | Export to RefWorks
  • Material Type: Document, Internet resource
  • Document Type: Internet Resource, Computer File
  • Notes: Originally published in England in 1922 under the title: The Jewish peril. Title from title screen (viewed Apr. 2, 2004).
  • Other Titles: Protocols of the wise men of Zion.
Yoursv truly, --Ludvikus 00:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Another Web Source[edit]

Here's what we have:

WORLD CONQUEST THROUGH WORLD GOVERNMENT
PROTOCOLS of the LEARNED ELDERS of ZION
PREFACE
Translated by Victor E. Marsden)
The author of this translation of the famous Protocols was himself a victim of the Revolution. He had lived for many years in Russia and was married to a Russian lady. Among his other activities in Russia he had been for a number of years a Russian Correspondent of the MORNING POST, a position which he occupied when the Revolution broke out, and his vivid descriptions of events in Russia will still be in the recollection of many of the readers of that Journal. Naturally he was singled out for the anger of the Soviet. On the day that Captain Cromie was murdered by Jews, Victor Marsden was arrested and thrown into the Peter-Paul Prison, expecting every day to have his name called out for execution. This, however, he escaped, and eventually he was allowed to return to England very much of a wreck in bodily health. However, he recovered under treatment and the devoted care of his wife and friends. One of the first things he undertook, as soon as he was able, was this translation of the Protocols. Mr. Marsden was eminently well qualified for the work. His intimate acquaintance with Russia, Russian life and the Russian language on the one hand, and his mastery of a terse literary English style on the other, placed him in a position of advantage which few others could claim. The consequence is that we have in his version an eminently readable work, and though the subject-matter is somewhat formless, Mr. Marsden's literary touch reveals the thread running through the twenty-four Protocols.
It may be said with truth that this work was carried out at the cost of Mr. Marsden's own life's blood. He told the writer of this Preface that he could not stand more than an hour at a time of his work on it in the British Museum, as the diabolical spirit of the matter which he was obliged to turn into English made him positively ill.
Mr. Marsden's connection with the MORNING POST was not severed by his return to England, and he was well enough to accept the post of special correspondent of that journal in the suite of H.R.H., the Prince of Wales on his Empire tour. From this he returned with the Prince, apparently in much better health, but within a few days of his landing he was taken suddenly ill, and died after a very brief illness.
May this work be his crowning monument! In it he has performed an immense service to the English-speaking world, and there can be little doubt that it will take its place in the first rank of the English versions of "THE PROTOCOLS of the Meetings of the LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION."
INTRODUCTION
Of the Protocols themselves little need be said in the way of introduction. The book in which they are embodied was published by Sergyei Nilus in Russia in 1905. A copy of this is in the British Museum bearing the date of its reception, August 10, 1906. All copies that were known to exist in Russia were destroyed in the Kerensky regime, and under his successors the possession of a copy by anyone in Soviet land was a crime sufficient to ensure the owner's of being shot on sight. The fact is in itself sufficient proof of the genuineness of the Protocols. The Jewish journals, of course, say that they are a forgery, leaving it to be understood that Professor Nilus, who embodied them in a work of his own, had concocted them for his own purposes.
Mr. Henry Ford, in an interview published in the New York WORLD, February 17th, 1921, put the case for Nilus tersely and convincingly thus:
"The only statement I care to make about the PROTOCOLS is that they fit in with what is going on. They are sixteen years old, and they have fitted the world situation up to this time. THEY FIT IT NOW."
Indeed they do!
The word "Protocol" signifies a precis gummed on to the front of a document, a draft of a document, minutes of proceedings. In this instance, "Protocol" means minutes of the proceedings of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion. These Protocols give the substance of addresses delivered to the innermost circle of the Rulers of Zion. They reveal the converted plan of action of the Jewish Nation developed through the ages and edited by the Elders themselves up to date. Parts and summaries of the plan have been published from time to time during the centuries as the secrets of the Elders have leaked out. The claim of the Jews that the Protocols are forgeries is in itself an admission of their genuineness, for they NEVER ATTEMPT TO ANSWER THE FACTS corresponding to the THREATS which the Protocols contain, and, indeed, the correspondence between prophecy and fulfillment is too glaring to be set aside or obscured. This the Jews well know and therefore evade.
The presumption is strong that the Protocols were issued, or reissued, at the First Zionist Congress held at Basle in 1897 under the presidency of the Father of Modern Zionism, the late Theodore Herzl.
There has been recently published a volume of Herzl's "Diaries," a translation of some passages which appeared in the JEWISH CHRONICLE of July 14, 1922. Herzl gives an account of his first visit to England in 1895, and his conversation with Colonel Goldsmid, a Jew brought up as a Christian, an officer in the English Army, and at heart a Jew Nationalist all the time. Goldsmid suggested to Herzl that the best way of expropriating the English aristocracy, and so destroying their power to protect the people of England against Jew domination, was to put excessive taxes on the land. Herzl thought this an excellent idea, and it is now to be found definitely embodied in Protocol VI!
The above extract from Herzl's DIARY is an extremely significant bit of evidence bearing on the existence of the Jew World Plot and authenticity of the Protocols, but any reader of intelligence will be able from his own knowledge of recent history and from his own experience to confirm the genuineness of every line of them, and it is in the light of this LIVING comment that all readers are invited to study Mr. Marsden's translation of this terribly inhuman document.
And here is another very significant circumstance. The present successor of Herzl, as leader of the Zionist movement, Dr. Weizmann, quoted one of these sayings at the send-off banquet given to Chief Rabbi Hertz on October 6, 1920. The Chief Rabbi was on the point of leaving for HIS Empire tour of H.R.H., the Prince of Wales. And this is the "saying" of the Sages which Dr. Weizmann quoted: "A beneficent protection which God has instituted in the life of the Jew is that He has dispersed him all over the world." (JEWISH GUARDIAN, Oct. 8, 1920.)
Now compare this with the last clause of but one of Protocol XI.
"God has granted to us, His Chosen People, the gift of dispersion, and from this, which appears to all eyes to be our weakness, has come forth all our strength, which has now brought us to the threshold of sovereignty over all the world."
The remarkable correspondence between these passages proves several things. It proves that the Learned Elders exist. It proves that Dr. Weizmann knows all about them. It proves that the desire for a "National Home" in Palestine is only camouflage and an infinitesimal part of the Jew's real object. It proves that the Jews of the world have no intention of settling in Palestine or any separate country, and that their annual prayer that they may all meet "Next Year in Jerusalem" is merely a piece of their characteristic make-believe. It also demonstrates that the Jews are now a world menace, and that the Aryan races will have to domicile them permanently out of Europe..
WHO ARE THE ELDERS?
This is a secret which has not been revealed. They are the Hidden hand. They are not the "Board of Deputies" (the Jewish Parliament in England) or the "Universal Israelite Alliance" which sits in Paris. But the late Walter Rathenau of the Allgemeiner Electricitaets Gesellschaft has thrown a little light on the subject and doubtless he was in possession of their names, being, in all likelihood, one of the chief leaders himself. Writing in the WIENER FREIE PRESSE, December 24, 1912, he said:
"Three hundred men, each of whom knows all the others, govern the fate of the European continent, and they elect their successors from their entourage."
In the year 1844, on the eve of the Jewish Revolution of 1848, Benjamin Disraeli, whose real name was Israel, and who was a "damped," or baptized Jew, published his novel, CONINGSBY, in which occurs this ominous passage:
"The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes."
And he went on to show that these personages were all Jews.
Now that Providence has brought to the light of day these secret Protocols all men may clearly see the hidden personages specified by Disraeli at work "behind the scenes" of all the Governments. This revelation entails on all white peoples the grave responsibility of examining and revising AU FOND their attitude towards the Race and Nation which boasts of its survival over all Empires.
Notes I. - "Agentur" and "The Political."
There are two words in this translation which are unusual, the word "AGENTUR" and "political" used as a substantive, AGENTUR appears to be a word adopted from the original and it means the whole body of agents and agencies made use of by the Elders, whether members of the tribe or their Gentile tools.
By "the Political" Mr. Marsden means, not exactly the "body politic" but the entire machinery of politics.
Notes II - The Symbolic Snake of Judaism.
Protocol III opens with a reference to the Symbolic Snake of Judaism. In his Epilogue to the 1905 Edition of the Protocols, Nilus gives the following interesting account of this symbol:
"According to the records of secret Jewish Zionism, Solomon and other Jewish learned men already, in 929 B.C., thought out a scheme in theory for a peaceful conquest of the whole universe by Zion. As history developed, this scheme was worked out in detail and completed by men who were subsequently initiated in this question. These learned men decided by peaceful means to conquer the world for Zion with the slyness of the Symbolic Snake, whose head was to represent those who have been initiated into the plans of the Jewish administration, and the body of the Snake to represent the Jewish people - the administration was always kept secret, EVEN FROM THE JEWISH NATION ITSELF. As this Snake penetrated into the hearts of the nations which it encountered it undermined and devoured all the non-Jewish power of these States. It is foretold that the Snake has still to finish its work, strictly adhering to the designed plan, until the course which it has to run is closed by the return of its head to Zion and until, by this means, the Snake has completed its round of Europe and has encircled it - and until, by dint of enchaining Europe, it has encompassed the whole world. This it is to accomplish by using every endeavor to subdue the other countries by an ECONOMICAL CONQUEST. The return of the head of the Snake to Zion can only be accomplished after the power of all the Sovereign of Europe has been laid low, that is to say, when by means of economic crises and wholesale destruction effected everywhere, there shall have been brought about a spiritual demoralization and a moral corruption, chiefly with the assistance of Jewish women masquerading as French, Italians, etc.. These are the surest spreaders of licentiousness into the lives of the leading men at the heads of nations. A map of the course of the Symbolic Snake is shown as follows: - Its first stage in Europe was in 429 B.C. in Greece, where, about the time of Pericles, the Snake first started eating into the power of that country. The second stage was in Rome in the time of Augustus, about 69 B.C.. The third in Madrid in the time of Charles V, in A.D. 1552. The fourth in Paris about 1790, in the time of Louis XVI. The fifth in London from 1814 onwards (after the downfall of Napoleon). The sixth in Berlin in 1871 after the Franco-Prussian war. The seventh in St. Petersburg, over which is drawn the head of the Snake under the date of 1881. [This "Snake" is now being drawn through the Americas and in the United States of America, it is been partially identified as the "Counsel on Foreign Relations" (C.F.R.) and the "Tri-Lateral Commission"]. All these States which the Snake traversed have had the foundations of their constitutions shaken, Germany, with its apparent power, forming no exception to the rule. In economic conditions, England and Germany are spared, but only till the conquest of Russia is accomplished by the Snake, on which at present [i.e., 1905] all its efforts are concentrated. The further course of the Snake is not shown on this map, but arrows indicate its next movement towards Moscow, Kieft and Odessa. It is now well known to us to what extent the latter cities form the centuries of the militant Jewish race. Constantinople is shown as the last stage of the Snake's course before it reaches Jerusalem. (This map was drawn years before the occurrence of the "Young Turk" - i.e., Jewish - Revolution in Turkey). den.
Notes III. - The term "Goyim," meaning Gentile
or non-Jews, is used throughout the
Protocols and is retained by Mr. Mars.
PROTOCOLS OF THE MEETINGS OF THE LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION PROTOCOL No. 1
1. ....Putting aside fine phrases we shall speak of the significance of each thought: by comparisons and deductions we shall throw light upon surrounding facts.
2. What I am about to set forth, then, is our system from the two points of view, that of ourselves and that of the GOYIM [i.e., non- Jews].
3. It must be noted that men with bad instincts are more in number than the good, and therefore the best results in governing them are attained by violence and terrorisation, and not by academic discussions. Every man aims at power, everyone would like to become a dictator if only he could, and rare indeed are the men who would not be willing to sacrifice the welfare of all for the sake of securing their own welfare.
4. What has restrained the beasts of prey who are called men? What has served for their guidance hitherto?
5. In the beginnings of the structure of society, they were subjected to brutal and blind force; after words - to Law, which is the same force, only disguised. I draw the conclusion that by the law of nature right lies in force.
6. Political freedom is an idea but not a fact. This idea one must know how to apply whenever it appears necessary with this bait of an idea to attract the masses of the people to one's party for the purpose of crushing another who is in authority. This task is rendered easier of the opponent has himself been infected with the idea of freedom, SO-CALLED LIBERALISM, and, for the sake of an idea, is willing to yield some of his power. It is precisely here that the triumph of our theory appears; the slackened rei . . .
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 01:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Here's the link: [3]
--Ludvikus 01:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Earliest Edition in the USA - 1963[edit]

Here's what WorldCat shows:

World conquest through world government : the protocols of the learned elders of Zion
by Sergi︠e︡ĭ Nilus
Type: Book
Language: English
Publisher: London : Britons Pub. Co., 1963.
OCLC: 6226341
Related Subjects: Antisemitism. | Jews -- Politics and government. | Communism.
Editions: 103 Editions
  • Document Type: Book
  • Notes: Includes index.
  • Description: 110 p., [2] pages of plates : ill. ; 19 cm.
  • Other Titles: Protocols of the wise men of Zion.
Accordingly, the earlier edition of this imprint in the United States in a research library is dated 1963.
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 02:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Image[edit]

The image gives 1921 (year) in relation to The Protocols - whatever the means --Ludvikus 02:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC):

The image Image:Learned_elders_1921_edition.gif cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

I don't see any error. It displays fine for me. Yann 10:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm finally un-blocked. Please be more careful next time - especially with a WikiSource novice like me.
Now to the point. The editor with the difficult name, who uploaded this image, and text, says it makes no difference that they are from different editions. On that I do not agree.
He might as well say that it matters not whose Old Testament we take - Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox. According to him (his argument that is) we can just suffle all four versions, and the mix is good enough for Wikipedia. I do not agree.
Once again, I ask what exactly is this version of The Protocols of Zion? Is it the version edited by the Church of True Israel? Who has? Are they notable? I think not. I never heard of them?
Furthermore, merely saying that bit's the Victor E. Marsden translation is also insufficient. Most common, or popular, versions of this tract in English claim to be translations by him.
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 00:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


I'll draw your attention to 'YOU claiming that we should use the ChurchOfTrueIsrael text until you found out that's what we are using, back when you were still claiming this was the "Dickerson fraud". see here. Please at least try to remain consistent. Also, you are not "finally" unblocked, as we both explained to you, it was an issue with your cache not being updated - not a problem on Wikisource's end. And your reference to the Old Testament is false, we are not mixing and matching texts, we are including an illustration from a separate edition. That is common, as I said, where we might be transcribing text from one edition of Treasure Island or The Raven (Poe), and using public-domain illustrations we found in another printing. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Christopher Marlowe 00:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Sidenote[edit]

If you don't stop moving this page (and the articlespace) to increasinly ridiculous namespaces - then I'm going to have to protect them - which would halt any editing. Obviously I don't think that's a good choice since we're trying to discuss the texts, but we can't have them moving around to crazy names and locations. Leave it at this location for now, argue your point on Proposed Deletions, and then await consensus. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Richard Francis Burton 02:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Last point first. It seems as if there's no one here but you and me. Where are we on the North Pole? Somewhere on that Iceberg to the left of us?
Now as to your 1st objection. It's Wikipolicy to be Bold. So I'm just being that. You also admitted to the work as being the same as the 1963 item Catalogued by WorldCat above. So I've actually tride a compropise to your Reversion.
You seem to dislike the Lead Title: "World Conquest Through World Government." Furthermore, if you abbreviate the full title, you should stick to the lead title.
You have no ground to object to the change in the name of the article. In fact, why do you insist on distorting the true title of the imprint that's posted here?
Nothing in Wikipedia rules allows an editor to change the actual imprints title, to one he prefers.
But how are you going to lock the article? Do you have some special privileges which I do not? --Ludvikus 03:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Others are watching but this is moving too fast, in strange tangents, for others to respond reasonably. Please slow down and lets figure this out properly! Until you are 100% about anything, please do not take action, but merely put forward idea's for others to consider. John Vandenberg 05:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Since the exact same pattern is now repeating itself a year later, I am protecting the text. Please feel free to start a thread of discussion on the Scriptorium or Proposed Deletions (I believe it's already happened, hasn't it?) -- but simply moving the text and removing parts you don't like doesn't feel appropriate, especially given your history with the text. Per illustrations, just like Alice in Wonderland or other works, we include Public Domain illustrations even if they were included in a different printing of the book than the one we're showing -- ideally we'd have complete copies of multiple printings, but failing that, illustrations stay with the text - not the printing

house. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Nikola Tesla‎. 22:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Links[edit]

I did not think that the link to goyim or the translation of the Latin could be objective enough for inclusion here. I made two edits to the page and removed them. I would be happy to expand on my reasoning - if req. No objection to restoration if my edit was unjustified (and assuming the page is not deleted). Cygnis insignis 19:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd be interested in the "expanded reasoning" for not allowing the reader to tell what the heck "Goyim" means (I had to look it up, the first time I heard it) - and especially why you think we shouldn't translate little-known Latin quotes that modern readers are unaware to be able to translate themselves - and is a direct reference to the Latin Vulgate of Proverbs 8:15? Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Christopher Marlowe 20:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of links that are subjective. The modern reader would be able to translate themselves, it is not a direct quote from that work 8:15 By me kings reign, and princes decree justice. I don't believe we shoud make editorial decision like that, the intent of the author is uncertain. Goyim has relative meaning, I would contend the meaning would depend on the author and the context are, again, an unknown. If anyone said 'other people', how would one determine who they meant. I hope no one is spending too much time imagining what that author intended, I don't think there is an answer. All IMhOCygnis insignis 07:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
As I said, it is a direct quote of the Latin vulgate - not of the English bible. But he is quoting in Latin, from the Latin bible. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Christopher Marlowe 15:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Good point, Cygnis. Let me ask the other editor this question: Suppose I do this kind of linking to Mein Kompf. Would you object? Furthermore, are you not in fact doing Original research under the cover of being a Wikisource editor (no insult intended by question)? What's the difference between doing this kind of stuff and being an Antisemite or a modern Nazi who publishes the stuff because he believes its true and the public should read it and absorb that alleged factual presentation? Wikisource, like Wikipedia, is not a place to present crackpot views and theories. And by touching up the unsourced text you (not you personally) are no different from those anonymous editors who have done exactly the same. In fact, we are all anonymous - our names are pseudonyms. So we should be extra careful what we do with proven "plagiarisms" and "hoaxes." I have no objection with posting this hoax here - buy why must we touch it up? Imagine the Department of the Treasury (USA) having a display, at its museum, of counterfit money. Would like like to see it as it is - or marked up in different ways, protecting us against re-circulation, or givingb us explanations, on the face of the bill? I only ask for the following:
  • Give us an exact, precise, and accurate copy of a specific imprint of The Protocols, telling us when and where it was published, and that it is a notable issue of the item; by this I mean, for example, The Briton who are a known and notorious British group who have entered history as Hitler has. But to give us a copy made by your next-door neighbor (assuming he or she is not famous) will simply not do.
  • Live it alone. Do not touch it up, or mark it up; let the reading public have the benefit of seeing the thing as it was. That's best done by scanning an item and turning it into a PDF file. I do not think we should re-type the item; let professionals do that.
    • As I said before, the First American Edition has been scanned and turned into a PDF file, by Librarians, and is available on the Internet. I have no objection importing that into Wikisource. However, no other reputable entity or person, as far as I know, has done the same to other editions, like the British imprints.
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 12:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Posting disputed items[edit]

I noticed that Adm Yann just posted this Wikisource Template (Protocols) on the Wikipedia page about the Protocols. Since it appears that this version here of the item in question is spurious at best, I urge Adm Yann to undo his action there until such time as this dispute is resolved. Or at least until the dispute consensus shifts to the other side. Thanks. --Ludvikus 16:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Eighty First Impression - w:Church of True Israel[edit]

The church of True Israel makes refernce to the 81st impression. That title is catalogued by the w:British Library as follows:

  • System number 002659964
Author - personal NILUS, Sergei Aleksandrovich.
Title World Conquest through World Government. The protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. Translated ... by Victor E. :Marsden, etc. (Eighty-first impression.).
Publisher/year Linkpp. 104. Britons Publishing Society: London, 1958.
Physical descr. 8º.
Added name MARSDEN, Victor Emile.
Holdings (All) Details
Shelfmark 4035.eee.4. Request
So it's a 1958 imprint - as more fully identified above. But can we trust our source? Is it what they say it is? --Ludvikus 06:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Amendments[edit]

I amended the note and removed the image. Cygnis insignis 06:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Again --- Cygnis insignis 14:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, your "note" is less helpful. Talking about "fringe media sources", and referring to "a secret world government" without mentioning the fact it is a "Jewish conspiracy", and referring to it as "inexplicable" (rather than just "presumed to be a forgery") are all very strange edits that confuse the reader and remove context. Reverted. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:William Gordon Stables 16:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for modifying your 'crap' remark, but I am more disturbed by the fact it is a "Jewish conspiracy". Anyway, you rereverted to yer own statement; it sounds like the blurb on a book jacket. It is editorial and sensationalist in tone, and any attempts at 'context' are bound to be highly subjective. Your removal of information, such as the prohibition of its publication, is without explanation. As was the detailed announcement of secret protocols. Presumed and forgery are inappropriate terms, it is obviously a pernicious hoax. I will not edit this pag again; I think it may be illegal for me to contribute to 'the protocols' distribution - it is certainly immoral. Cygnis insignis 05:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I've taken a stab at revising it. The notes field is not intended to be anything but a short excerpt, as we are not an encyclopedia - I agree that any description of this particular text is bound to be highly subjective. Details about the banning of the book will need to be documented (properly sourced and stable) on the Wikipedia article before we should mention it here. I dont like the word "forgery" and think that "hoax" is a better way to describe it, but the practise is to excerpt from Wikipedia, and Wikipedia says "forgery" so I have used that. John Vandenberg 06:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

related works[edit]

In order to better inform our readers, I think it is worthwhile to add other PD texts that show the linage of the text, and go into this topic in depth. The English translation, mentioned on w:The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu, gives no clue to the translator: the imprint details are those of the original french version. If we cant find a PD English version, a Wikisource translation might be possible.

According to Wikipedia's article for w:Eugène Sue, The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu is also a plagiarism, of Author:Eugène Sue's "Les Mysteres du Peuple". I have found a newspaper article reviewing two English translations:

  1. "Les Mysteres du Peuple", published by "New York Labor News Company", presumably around 1904 which makes OCLC 10741827all editions a likely match
  2. "The Rival Races; or, The Sons of Joel", published by Trübner & Co., with David Nutt, in 1863. OCLC 19460542all editions

Can anyone grab a copy of this to be added to Wikisource?

I have started on The truth about "The Protocols", a series on newspaper articles explaining the forgery. archive.org has another commentary here, but it looks like a lot more work to convert it to wikitext. John Vandenberg 10:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The New York Times/The Mysteries of the People names w:Daniel De Leon as the translator of the 1904 edition. John Vandenberg 11:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

They were originally printed over several years in "Daily People", and collated later. And here is one of the stories. Maybe more [4]. John Vandenberg 11:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Widely believed[edit]

I'm of the opinion it's better to say "Widely believed to be a forgery" rather than "proven", since there are still a number of people in the world who believe it's true. The Book of Mormon has probably been "proven" to be false, but it would be tactless to say that about a book that purports to impart secret esoteric knowledge to its reader - and I view this somewhat similarly. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Albert Schweitzer 16:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I would agree for the Book of Mormon, but, in this case, I don't think that the aim of the book is to bring "secret esoteric knowledge" to the reader. It is simply to disseminate antisemitic feelings, which is not a noble purpose. So I would prefer that the note says so. Yann (talk) 16:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Number of people doesn't matter. The are people that believe that the earth is flat, that doesn't mean were going to say it is believed that the Earth is round. There is NOT even one single reliable source that claim it is true. All reliable source claim it plagiarism and forgery. And there are reliable source with proof about it. Oren.tal (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
It depends on your view of "reliable", would Al Jazeera be counted as reliable in the United States? Would Fox News be counted as reliable in Oman? There are a number of Iranian, Russian and other "reliable sources" who have said it is legitimate; while 99.9% of American and European sources have said it's a forgery. Where we host our servers doesn't make a difference, the fact is that it's widely believed to be a forgery, but we shouldn't gloss over the fact that this characterization is disputed by many around the world. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Albert Schweitzer 22:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Al Jazeera English is enough reliable to me. There are wikipedia criteria for sources. I believe Al Jazeera English stand in then. I suggest that you will bring the source and then we can see if it is reliable or not. This characterization is NOT disputed by any authority. The fact that there are people that believe that the Earth is flat (and there are) doesn't mean that Wikipedia going to write "the Earth is believed to be round." Oren.tal (talk) 00:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to see several verifiable, reliable sources proving it's factuality (or infactuality, as the case may be), before having it as 'proven'. That is what proven means. Until then "widely believed by many to be a forgery" is a better, and much more neutral option. (Though we aren't Wikipedia.) Perhaps another alternative is to remove all mention of its factuality entirely. Jude (talk) 11:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
there are many source that proved it to as such.I give you partial list:
http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/33d/projects/protzion/DelaCruzProtocolsMain.htm
http://www.rense.com/general45/proto.htm
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060911-zion.html
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10007058
http://ddickerson.igc.org/protocols.html
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1797/whats-the-story-with-the-protocols-of-the-elders-of-zion
http://www.publiceye.org/tooclose/protocol.html
I would like to see one reliable source that claim it is disputed that this is forgery.So until then it will stay as proven.Oren.tal (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of its authenticity, we are providing the text, not a commentary on it. It's probably best to remove mention of it entirely. Jude (talk) 13:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
we should provide such minimal note about the text.Especially when the text was written for propaganda purpose.This is one sentence that just say what they are reading.This minimal information need to be said.Oren.tal (talk) 13:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

(unident)

The sentence is based on the text of the Wikipedia article, which has been extensively edited recently. "Plagiarism" and "fraud" are two terms recently added (since September 1.). Until as recently as March, the text initially read:

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (Russian: "Протоколы сионских мудрецов", or "Сионские протоколы", see also other titles) is a literary fraud alleging a Jewish and Masonic plot to achieve world domination. The writing has been revealed to be originally an antisemitic, and subsequently an anti-Zionist, plagiarism and hoax first published in 1903 in Russian, in Znamya.

I am personally quite happy with using this text; there is no 'proven' or 'proved', so there is nothing to quibble about on the meaning. It is clearly antisemitic and anti-Zionist, as well as being a hoax, and the Wikipedia article itself quite completely covers the topic of plagiarism. The wording is much more neutral, and more in line with Wikisource's general policy of presenting the text without interpretation or commentary. Jude (talk) 13:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

the term "Plagiarism" and "fraud" were mention before.You should check the full history of the wikipedia article.They were just removed and added again.And yes there is "proven because it has been proven.I have just shown you source that prove it and talk about it as a document that was proven as forgery.There was special times magazine about this.Moreover to say it is plagiarism is NOT POV because it is fact that this document is plagiarism and forgery.Oren.tal (talk) 14:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

World Conquest Through World Government 1958[edit]

This item - which is supposed to be the Protocols of the Elders of Zion - is really a OCR digitized copy of highly expanded 1958 [[imprint]]/[[edition]] which - by the way - is owned and catalogued by Harvard University as follows:

  • Locations/Orders :Locations/Orders : Availability
  • Location :Location : Widener Jud 805.5 Library Info
    • I think it should be replaced (1) replaced by the First (American) edition, or (2) accurately described for what it is - the 1958 "expanded edition" of 104 pages, with illustrations, etc.
    • Yours truly, --Ludvikus (talk) 18:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
      • I've just Uploaded this PDF file here: [5]. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Protocols and World Revolution 1920[edit]

Here is the First American Edition of the Protocols of the wise men of Zion: [6].

  • I strongly urge that we replace what we have now, with this true PDF copy - which, by the way, has not been OCRed or altered in any way. That cannot be said regarding what we have now. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • And here's the Library of Congress description of the true 1st American edition of this "Protocols of Zion":
  • LC Control No.: 83198259
  • Type of Material: Book (Print, Microform, Electronic, etc.)
  • Uniform Title: Protocols of the wise men of Zion. » More like this
  • Main Title: The Protocols and world revolution [microform] : including a translation and analysis of the Protocols of the meetings of the Zionist men of wisdom.
  • Published/Created: Boston : Small, Maynard & Co., c1920.
  • Related Names: Nilus, Sergi͡eĭ, 1862-1930. » More like this
  • Description: 149 p. ; 22 cm.
  • Notes: "Based on a work by Sergi͡eĭ Nilus published in 1905 at Tsarskoje Selo"--Introd.
  • Call number of original: DS145.P5 1920.
  • Master microform held by: DLC.
  • Additional Formats: Microfilm. Washington, D.C. : Library of Congress Photoduplication Service, 1983. 1 microfilm reel ; 35 mm.
  • LC Classification: Microfilm 83/612 (D)
So let's substitute this item for what we have now. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's an excerpt which shows that the item we have is taken from the 1958 (greatly expanded) imprint:

  • "THE PROTOCOLS OF THE LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION Page 10 of 109"

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

  • "The eighty-first impression of the Marsden translation was presented under the new title World Conquest through World Government because the publishers believed that the ultimate conquest foretold in this terrible plan is nearing its final stages."
    • Yours truly, --Ludvikus (talk) 19:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Which of the Four Translations into English should we use?[edit]

I think it's important to identify precisely which translation we're posting. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

David M. Dickerson[edit]

  • Who is this David M. Dickerson from whom we're allegedly getting a true & accurate digitized copy of the "Protocols of Zion"?
    Copyright © 1995-2005 by David M. Dickerson.
    All rights reserved.
    
    Presentation Last Updated: 25 December 2005
  • I do not recognize this name/person as a scholarly source. And it appears he's not been around at his cite since 2005. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


1921 image on 1958 imprint[edit]

I do not see the justification of posting an image that allegedly appeared on a 1921 imprint onto this source which purports to be the 81st impression - which was issed in 1958:

"The Jew-Bolshevic Emblem, surrounded by the Symbolic Serpent."

(1921 Britons edition)

    • Still no response? Look at the image of your own source: [[8]]. Now look at the alleged "1921" image you're supplying. Not only is there no correlation, but I doubt you can even identify precisely a "1921" imprint from which your image comes. Since I've waited more than a year for a response, I suggest you accept my editing, revert back to my reversion - until such time as you can justify or verify your contribution. Best regards --Ludvikus (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
By the way, your source - David M. Dickerson - is wrong also. It appears that he's engaged in some creative editing. According to my more scholarly - published source - "Dismantling the Big Lie" - his image is not from the 1958 imprint, but from a 1978 imprint. His image appears as the third image after the Preface in the book I'm referring to - by Jacobs & Weitzman, ISBN 0-88125-785-0. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
And what's with that word "Learned"? Where did you get that from, besides David M. Dickerson? You cannot just make up your own titles as you go along. Wikipedia use "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." Why isn't that good enough? Where does this "Learned" come from? I don't think you can find any edition of the PSM (Cesare G. De Michelis's acronym) - except "Dickerson" - who uses it. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)