Talk:List of editions of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

message: Yours truly, --Ludvikus 16:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk: The Protocols and World Revolution

message: The above notion is enlightening regarding the plagiarism, and subsequent hoax, of the career of the infamous and notorious antisemitic text known as the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. --Ludvikus 16:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Simulacrum]] (plural: simulacra) 

message: It seems I cannot Move the article to get rid of the period ".". Who can do it? --  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludvikus (talk • contribs) 19:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[The Protocols and World Revolution]] 

message: I'm not a scholar here, but I'd like to point out that FDR was not elected in 1934.  That Hitler became president of Germany in 1934 is misleading; he had already been chancellor.  The tone of this article is certainly not encyclopedic. 150.209.128.67 14:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect

message: I'll get to the rest of the 3 later! Ludvikus 20:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 3 more titles

message: I suspect that this Nazi organization was behind this entity - but I cannot find conclusive evidence for it. I've examined the ORIGINAL text of 1934. It has one clear indication that it was NOT a final AMERICAN product - the "INDEX," which is clearly a Table of Contents, is placed in the BACK of the book as un-numbered page 300, the LAST PAGE. In subsequent reprints of this text, not only was the slogan altered, from "UNITED WE FALL, DIVIDED WE STAND," the so-called "INDEX" has been placed as un-numbered page 3 (immediately after Title page 1). It is Europeans who would not place a Table of Contents up front, but in the back. And in particular, I believe that the German have this book-publishing custom. Ludvikus 14:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Friends of New Germany]]

message: :It is not clear who claims this artcle falls under this category. Accordingly, I have removed this TAG from the Article today. Yours truly,--Ludvikus 02:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[<nowiki>{{weasel}}</nowiki>]]

message: Wikipedia has "lists." This article stub is esentially such a list of the different editions & imprints of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
:Yours truly, --Ludvikus 21:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List 

message: This is Volume 4. We do not have an image of this volume (as vwe do of the other three.
:So we're looking for it - to post under the 3rd volume image.
:Yours truly, --Ludvikus 21:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Aspects of Jewish Power in the United States]] Looking for image of 4th volume 

message: According to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, this is the main article that is being summarized in the section titled Historical publications, usage, and investigations.  However, the current state of this article is that of a list of publications.  So my question is, what is the intent of this article?  If it is indeed intended as a simple stand-alone list, as defined by WP:SAL, then this article should be moved to List of versions of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion per naming conventions.  If instead, it is in fact intended to be a WP:SPLIT from the parent article, then most of the content of that section should be moved here, and then that section should be reduced to a brief summary of what can be found at this article.  I'm personally strongly in favor of this later concept, as it allows us to shorten the main article. -Verdatum (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've concluded that this is indeed a Stand-Alone list.  I don't know if it will remain in this form over the course of revamping the parent article.  However, I believe that it should be appropriately named in the meantime.  I propose moving this article to List of publications of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.  Barring counter-arguments, I think I'll move this in five days or so. -Verdatum (talk) 18:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intent? 

message: Propose merge. Wikipedia isn't a library catalogue. Some of the info in this article could be useful, if taken into the parent article. The early history of how the document was circulated in different countries is a key part of the story of the document. But that's quite a different matter from supplying full bibliographic details for each edition. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge discussion