Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

An excellent article on this infamous hoax, that includes both a great history as well as in-depth discussion of the document's origins and uses. Lots of references, images, and good sectioning make it both easy to read and easily verifiable (it has also been through a peer review). I have already seen the Wikipedia article cited several times online as a good account of the history of the Protocols (for example: LA City Beat and Engage, etc) and it definitely deserves FAC status as one of the best overviews anywhere of this tragically important document. --Goodoldpolonius2 06:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

*Object. Good work, but shorten up the intro (if it weren't an FA candidate, I'd slap the {{intro length}} template on it. Also, two problems re the images (which I haven't even checked for licensing yet (Update: oops, they're book covers and can be used): 1)The Times exposé of the forgery should be down in that section of the text, and 2) is it really necessary to have all those images? At times I thought it should be retitled Gallery of images of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Daniel Case 15:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

:And can you give us a link to the peer review to see what issues were raised? Daniel Case 15:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Peer review linked. I should also clarify, I haven't worked on this article (except in the last day or so), user:humus sapiens, among others, deserves credit. --Goodoldpolonius2 15:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The intro is rewritten, are you happier now? --Goodoldpolonius2 18:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

::::It's a little bit better, but the last two grafs could be combined somehow. Maybe by taking out the sentence "The Protocols are widely considered the beginning of contemporary conspiracy theory literature, such as None Dare Call It Conspiracy and Conspirators Hierarchy: The Committee of 300" if it isn't properly sourced. Daniel Case 22:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, now that I have the chance to read the article in depth and make minor edits for clarity and style:

:::::"For further information, see INRI, Jewish Messiah, Jewish view of Jesus." Can that go in See Also? I see what you're trying to do, but we usually don't put that sort of thing in sections.

Fixed.←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

:::::Also, get rid of the year links unless they're necessary, as we've been trying to do everywhere.

"After the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, various warring factions used the Protocols to perpetrate hatred and violence against the Jews." Which warring factions? In Russia? Outside? It should be clearer.

Fixed.←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Mein Kampf citation be a footnote?

Fixed.←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

"He was brought to court, in what has come to be known as the Berne Trial, by Dr. J. Dreyfus-Brodsky, Dr. Marcus Cohen and Dr. Marcus Ehrenpreis." Are these the prosecutors? Judges? Is this referring to a book? If so, it should be named as a reference.

Fixed.←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I have also clarified that it was a civil suit now. Daniel Case 05:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

"Many Arab governments fund the publication of new printings of the Protocols, and teach them in their schools as historical fact." Which ones? We need sources; otherwise this will doubtless spark vicious edit wars.

The article mentions quite a few, and more dreadful examples can be easily sourced. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

"The Protocols have been accepted as fact by many Islamic extremist organizations, such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Al Qaeda." There's good evidence for the first two, we know, so it could use a citation. Is there anything extant that suggests that about al-Qaeda, however?

Fixed.←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, but I checked footnote 14 and the source is a summary of Horseman Without a Horse, which says nothing about whether the Arab leaders in question had made the attributed statements. It seems from the source text that you may have mixed up a reference? Daniel Case 05:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

This still needs to be fixed.

The refs were fixed long ago. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Then why do I still read "Past endorsements of The Protocols from Presidents Gamal Abdel Nasser and Anwar Sadat of Egypt, one of the President Arifs of Iraq, King Faisal of Saudi Arabia, and Colonel Moammar Qaddafi of Libya, among other political and intellectual leaders of the Arab world, are echoed by 21st Century endorsements from the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Hamas, and the education ministry of Saudi Arabia," without any sourcing or citations of the named individuals in the first half of the sentence? That's what I've been asking about. Take it out, soften it or do something with it. Daniel Case 05:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I misunderstood you there. It was not my passage but I think now I found a pertinent ref. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

"Translations of the Protocols are extremely popular in Iran." Source?

Fixed.←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Consistent dating and quote-mark style throughout the article (some use single, English-style; others use double American quotes)

Source: 'Hadith and Islamic Culture', Grade 10, (2001) pp. 103–104" This should be in the bottom footnotes.

Fixed.←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Are all the references to Palestinian use of the Protocols necessary? They're encylopedic and verifiable, but that section sort of reads like it was written by MEMRI or something. We get the point with just one or two.

What up with all the whitespace after "Egypt?"

"On February 20, 2005, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (appointed by Yasser Arafat)" Is that necessary? Some of these can really be put in other articles with links back here.

I do feel it is important. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, but why? Did someone ever confront Arafat over this? How did he react? That should be in there. 05:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Still would like something on this. Daniel Case 05:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Arafat is gone. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

How about some more material on their contemporary use and dissemination among neo-Nazis in Europe and North America?

Daniel Case 06:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess we've got what we're going to get. Daniel Case 05:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Glad to see what you fixed but some issues I have remain.

I added some stuff at the head of the Arab section to give it a little context I think it needed.

In the intro, it occurs to me, we should say more clearly that this revolutionized conspiracy theorizing by being the first popular CT to assert that a single group secretly controlled the world and/or was bent on doing so, it strikes me that this was also the beginning of purely secular antisemitism (in that the Protocols turned the supposed motivation for opposition to the Jews from "They killed Christ" to "they're running the banks" ... do the references support this? (And the intro is much improved, BTW)

Finally, what the whole article has a crying need for is a single section explaining in detail why the Protocols are a fabrication. As it is we have the evidence of plagiarism of earlier work which faulted other groups in one section, Nilus's changed story and contradiction of himself in another, and the use of terms Jews were not likely to use in yet another. Given the discussions on the talk page by various people who assert "bias," we need one section where it is made ringingly clear why all credible historians have concluded this document is a forgery.

We also learn, near the end, about Kerry Bolton and his book trying to refute that conclusion. It might be interesting to know what he would base such a refutation on and have something about it in the article (it would help avoid the claim made by some of the antisemites on the talk page that WE'RE PART OF THE PLOT because "we" sweep Mr. Bolton under the rug). Not that those people will really respond to rational argument anyway, but why help them out?

Or maybe this can all be taken care of in some hypothetical daughter article. We'll see. Daniel Case 05:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Daniel, it is difficult to imagine how we could express in more detail why they are a fabrication. If they were not the secret transcripts of a bunch of elderly Jews in a graveyard, then they are a fabrication, and the article explains where they actually came from. Can you give me a clearer idea of how you would want this explained differently? As for Bolton, there are lots of anti-Semites who say that the Protocols are true, the arguments basically are "the Jews/Zionists made up the story of the forgery" -- trying to answer these sorts of silly assertions point-by-point give fringe views much more room than is needed in a main article. If you want to create a new subarticle about this, I am happy to help. Any chance you can change your vote now? --Goodoldpolonius2 15:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say I wanted more detail, just that the detail you have should probably be centralized in some way. Maybe some bulleted list? (It's a shame the formatting doesn't allow for sidebars, which would be the perfect place for it)

I think if you get that done, then I can support this. Daniel Case 18:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

OK. I just went through it again myself, looked at Graves' article, and put some things in the article to clearly indicate why fact X shows the Protocols are fake.

I also like that you put the Islam and Anti-Semitism link at the head of the Middle East section. That gives it more context.

I'm getting a lot closer to supporting this. Let me look over the whole thing again tonight. There might be just a few more things to do (As for the daughter-article idea on the continuing claims for their authenticity, I think it's a great idea but it is not necessary for featured-article status, so that could be done later). Daniel Case 19:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I am now changing my vote to provisional support if, between now and whenever this goes on the Main Page, the remaining issues above are taken care of. Plus, the Nora Levin quote needs a footnote. Daniel Case 05:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't find her book. For now I added atertiary source that includes that quote. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Object the lead needs a substantial rewrite. (1) it is too long, (2) it needs to be a summary of the rest of the article (per WP:LEAD), (3) I don't think wikipedia should be using Britannica as a source, (4) having refs in the intro is very distracting (besides, some reference-able statements are refed, others are not). Also, "Subject matter" needs to be referenced; so do "The forger" and much of the rest of "History". Contains weasel: "Some scholars compare..." etc. Mikkerpikker ... 17:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay, to address (1) and (2) the lead is rewritten and now summarizes the content; I also removed the "some scholars compare" language. As for the other points, I have to disagree: (3) I moved the Britannica reference to a footnote, but there is no reason to eliminate other encyclopedias, we quote from the Jewish Encyclopedia and others all the time in Wikipedia; (4) references are critical in the introduction because (as you can see in the talk page) the factuality of the article is sometimes challenged, and the references are useful in discouraging this; and (5) I tried adding footnotes to the forger and history section, but exact footnotes aren't really needed here, since this is the commonly accepted history, and every book in the reference section states the same material, thus it doesn't really demand footnotes. --Goodoldpolonius2 18:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Good job on the lead! Big improvement... I relent on (1) (fixed), (2) (fixed), (3) (it's my personal taste so I'll let it be) and (4) (forgot for a moment how controversial this is, you're right refs are needed in the intro). However, my objection stands on the issue of references. WP:V states

Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible.

And, as WP:CITE points out "The main point [of refs] is to help the reader and other editors". That is why you still need to cite your sources in the "Subject matter" and "History" sections - even if the material is in most (or all) sources consulted, you need to say where in the those sources and which particular sources you're using so we can check it up for ourselves. Mikker ^... 16:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• • • • Fixed, I believe, I added a number of footnotes, and the restructuring addressed some of the other issues.

• Weak object, expect to support once this is addressed. "One example is the semi-messianic idea that constantly appears in the text, of establishing a 'King of the Jews'. This was never a Jewish term, and was referenced only on the cross of Jesus." At best, this last sentence is vague; can we cite for the origin of the term? - Jmabel | Talk 19:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay with it now? Otherwise, the sentence can be cut. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Support haven't re-read whole article, but as I said I was close to support already. Certainly the new wording is much improved on this point. Glad to be rid of the dubious claim that "this was never a Jewish term." - Jmabel | Talk 19:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Object ems 04:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I feel that the article has improved a lot today and the points above have been addressed. In order to improve further, please give comments/suggestions. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Any reason? --Goodoldpolonius2 17:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Object This is a very good article, however it does need more citations. Some of the claims border on OR. If this can be fixed I the it is an approve from me. --Scaife 14:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Can you say which claims need to be sourced? --Goodoldpolonius2 15:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Well... I guess when I read it the first time the Overview and the section immediately following it seemed like they were missing some citations. Like I said, though, this is a great article, and I may be in error. --Scaife 15:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Approve --Scaife 00:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Object - while the lead's length has been reduced, I still think it's a tad too long, but acceptable. However, the "Overview" section is not. It reads like it's from the lead. Finally, some formatting issues need to be addressed, especially the placement of the images. Perhaps cut down on the book covers? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Book covers trimmed a bit, the overview has been reorganized and reconfigured. --Goodoldpolonius2 17:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Great! Support. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Excellent Article. However, in the following section The Protocols of the Elders of Zion#Used by the Nazis, 1930s-1940s, these is a "blockquoted" section that is not footnoted. Is that a quote from Nora Levin or is that actual article text that should not be blockquoted? My other picayune remark is that under The Protocols of the Elders of Zion#Other contemporary appearances, the placement of the UK cover leads to a significant amount of dead space. Other than that, excellent work. -- Avi 16:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't find her book. For now I added atertiary source that includes that quote. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Object I am blanket objecting all nominations that fail to use the new cite format. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • While technically an "actionable" objection, since something could be done to fix it, "Uses the very latest in mediawiki formatting" isn't actually anything remotely close to an FA criteria. It has references, these references are linked inline, are in their own section... that's about what was required. Fieari 15:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Withdrawing my oppose, consider it a strongly worded suggestion. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support: An excellent factual account of this complex and controversial topic. Giano | talk 00:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Object: very interesting article, but not there yet IMHO.
  • The text has to be proofread against unnecessary rhetoric. Preferrably by an editor who has not seen the article recently; and who can do it calmly. (I myself feel very strongly about the subject and have to restrain myself so as not to use pretty strong words about the "protocols", so I'll pass :-) ) For an example look at the end of the lead: still has currency in the arsenal of contemporary anti-Semitism.)
  • Should be more detached (explicitly invoking the cited sources, as in "according to..."), rather than stating things matter-of-factly in some cases, e.g.: The text is generally accepted as truthful in large parts of South America and Asia, especially in Japan where variations on the Protocols have frequently made the bestseller lists. BTW, speaking of which, I believe I have read a different opinion once, perhaps in the earlier version of this very article, about the contemporary usage in Japan --- that they study it in schools etc. as an explicit example of a forgery? Sorry I'm lazy to look it up myself...)
  • Becomes too sketchy towards the end, feels a bit cut in the middle. (Some restructuring needed?) this one is probably more of a comment than an objection, as I don't have a suggestion what exactly to do.

--BACbKA 18:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Some change have been made, take a look again. And specific points of objections would be helpful. --Goodoldpolonius2 22:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Reluctantly have to oppose. No doubt, a notable topic, but a featured article must look and read good. As of today, the article looks ugly (personal impression). Lots of small sections with long titles, with text often not matching titles. Sectioning countrywide with a single sentence per section is pointless. Further, as with any historical work, naturally, there are statements about possible motivations of the actions of persons involved, which are, naturally again, someone's POVs. The article must put more effort to make sure that these POVs are not wikipedia's POVs, but of certain experts. mikka (t) 07:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • BTW, it is customary to put potential FAC to wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive. It seems to me that AID is hastely happening now. mikka (t) 07:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • P.S. I would also suggest to put all numerous book covers into a wikipedia:gallery and move some huge captions into article body or into image pages. mikka (t) 07:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. I've reworded a little and consolidated some of the smaller sections. The small images are now a gallery. Not that I love the section titles, but I don't see anything wrong with them. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Object - sorry, this is generally an excellent article on an important topic, but there are too many one-sentence paragraphs - even one sentence sections - and I don't think we need a gallery of 15 cover images, pretty though they are. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • But the sections really help the organization of the article, what else would you suggest? --Goodoldpolonius2 22:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the images are important to prove and illustrate the distribution of the phenomenon. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree. It is amazing to see the effort in spreading this text. HOwever I'd restricted one pic per country: 4 Egyptian is just too much. mikka (t)
      • We already removed a few images, I think the rest are important: not so long ago, the talk page was full of "believers". Regarding Egyptian editions, post-1972 were published in various periods after the Camp David where Egypt committed to stop antisemitic incitement and during the Peace Process. Look at the graphics. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Is there any statistics about Protocols: in how many countries printed, total circulation volume, etc.? mikka (t)
      • I didn't feel comfortable putting this into the article, but according to Radio Liberty [1], "In the last 100 years, the Protocols was published in tens of languages worldwide, and its cumulative print run most likely exceeded the works by Leo Tolstoy and Fyodor Dostoyevsky. The Protocols appear to be the largest contribution by Russia in the global so-called 'culture'." (The translation is mine) ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Why not add that, with citation? Regarding the images, I can understand the need to show some of the - rather striking - covers, but the number seems excesssive to me. The geographical spread is obvious from the text. Regarding short paragraphs/section, they should be expanded or consolidated. Much of section 3 ("Contemporary usage and popularity") consists of single-sentence paragraphs (the single sentence section, "Lebanon", has been expanded). -- ALoan (Talk) 11:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
          • It seems there is a consensus, so I have removed a few more unimpressive images. The RFERL citation essentially is a guess, it has no hard numbers. Also, I love Russian literature (my POV). ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
            • I'll take another look. The citation may be a guess, but is verifiable as someone else's guess, so can go in, suitably qualified and cited. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)