Talk:The Protocols of the Elders of Zion/Archive 4

message: It does not make sense, nor is it necessary to list, and detail the countries publishing this book. If this is the case, perhaps we should also do the same for all the other books listed on Wikipedia to ensure articles regarding popular books are treated equally. What do you guys think? --Sina7 20:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:   Countries publishing this book 

message: "Scholars generally agree that the Okhrana, the secret police of the Russian Empire, fabricated the text in the late 1890s or early 1900s." - Can you please point out which scholars, study and research this is citing (If a newspaper article, please describe what study the article is citing)? Thank You --Sina7 19:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing 

message: On January 27, 2006, members of the Public Chamber of Russia and human rights activists proposed to establish a list of extremist literature whose dissemination should be formally banned for uses other than scientific research. - while a particular book, person or political movement can be considered anti-semitic by jewish people, is it justifyable for jews to demand that such a book or a person be banned, restricted or put to jail? If the subject of their concern is deemed anti-semitic in its expression, why not engage in public debate with him, present your arguments, evidence. Instead, it seems, the jews have increasingly begun to rely on censuring, banning and imprisonment. This only raises and confirms the suspicions of many. Is it because they have no arguments, and are fearful that evidence is not on their side? Is it may be because they feel so powerful, that they no longer need to prove anything, just ban it? Or is there some other reason? Why do jewish groups sponsor various "hate speech" ban legislation, deny public podium to anyone that may criticise them, and put various forms of pressure on anyone who dares to question them? --Marsur 01:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do agree to some extent with Marsur. If it's untrue and propaganda, why try to ban it. I mean, for Gods sake, if someone wants to deny the holocaust, let them, why jail them? Its their personal view, even if it goes against that of the majorities. You would only take actions such as imprisonment, bans and silence if there is something you do not want others to hear due to concealment.  If I want to deny that the 9/11 story is false, should I face imprisonment? Salman Rushdie's book (which was published with great applause) which defames and makes horrific accounts on Islam is far worse an attack on particular religion than the Protocols of Zion. All attacks on religions should be dealt with equally. A lot of people beleive Al Qaeda does not even exist, and that Osama Bin Laden is dead due to his popular kidney disorder which ties him to hospital visits and dialysis machines frequently. Should they be jailed for simply not accepting the beleif of Governments and the Media who state that Al Qaeda is well organised world threat lead by Bin Laden and that WTC attacks was by a number of Arabs of whom one of their passports (Atta) magically appeared on a New York street as it fell from the WTC after the buildings collapsed whilst everything else burnt, including the black box. Should people get jailed, banned or censured for having a skeptical view on Global events? No. And the Global events linked with religion regardless  of the religion should be treated with the same respect. --Sina7 20:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think your reply is personal, irrelevant to the point Marsur made and anti-arab/semitic (if his from the Arab peninsula) "Judging by his name, doesn't he have enough oil". Would you like it the oil was replaced with diamond and directed at you? Please debate like Adults. Marsur is making a partially valid point, whereas your reply Ludvikus, is invalid and somewhat childish, which I didn't expect from you as you mention you are a philosopher. But yes, there is one God, and only  one, he loves everyone and the road to him is in your self. Religions are there to keep some morality within communities and society, without it, immorality will depress the world. Unfortunately, every person tends to think his religion is the ultimate one, and the others are wrong. This is bad, people need to accept that all religions are roads that will eventually bring you to a point which inevitably will lead to enlightement where the One will be realized, from then on the individual will understand the purpose of different religions. Reincarnation results in the individuals going through different religions until he qualifies for the spiritual truth. Extremism which is seen in all religions including Judaism is detrimental. Ultimately we will all go to the same place, there is no chosen religion, but there are some races in the world that are spiritual more forward than others. Until man keeps identifying himself with one sect and not all, he will find it hard to see the holy road. --Sina7 20:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the truth? 

message: Mansur should read No god but God. Poor Mansur - he seems to need a scapegoat to explain everything that's not right in his world - why not blame the Jews? Judging by his name, doesn't he have enough oil to pay for what he needs? And if he's a Shia does he want to kill his Sunni brother, or vice versa? How come Jews don't expose this fact, that his people in Iraq are at each others throats! And if it wasn't for the United States they would masacre each other. It really seems he can only live in an dictatorship under a Saddam. Poor President Bush, he really thinks that Masur is ready for democracy. I thought so too. Now I regret wasting the lives of American soldiers to save the lives of those whose culture is the only one today which produces terrorists. Poor Mansur - he needs the Jew to excuse the deep-rooted inferiority complex of his fello compatriots. The TRUTH - Mansur knows the truth. No, he needs to be protected from himself until he learns to live in the 21st century. There is no god but God and Mansur has a special relationship with Him to kill us (Christians, as well as Jews) i His name, right? --Ludvikus 03:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think your reply is personal, irrelevant to the point Marsur made and anti-arab/semitic (if his from the Arab peninsula) "Judging by his name, doesn't he have enough oil". Would you like it the oil was replaced with diamond and directed at you? Please debate like Adults. Marsur is making a partially valid point, whereas your reply Ludvikus, is invalid and somewhat childish, which I didn't expect from you as you mention you are a philosopher. But yes, there is one God, and only  one, he loves everyone and the road to him is in your self. Religions are there to keep some morality within communities and society, without it, immorality will depress the world. Unfortunately, every person tends to think his religion is the ultimate one, and the others are wrong. This is bad, people need to accept that all religions are roads that will eventually bring you to a point which inevitably will lead to enlightement where the One will be realized, from then on the individual will understand the purpose of different religions. Reincarnation results in the individuals going through different religions until he qualifies for the spiritual truth. Extremism which is seen in all religions including Judaism is detrimental. Ultimately we will all go to the same place, there is no chosen religion, but there are some races in the world that are spiritual more forward than others. Until man keeps identifying himself with one sect and not all, he will find it hard to see the holy road. --Sina7 20:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's a lie? 

message: Has anyone heard? It's in the news - Hamas has retained some scholar to edit and re-write its charter and remove all portions that have been lifted from The Protocols.
:As soon as I get the reference & link I'll post it here.
::Now I'm inspired to include the current — unrevised — version as another title The Protocols.
*Best wishes to you all, fellow Wikipedians, of whatever persuasion, --Ludvikus 15:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Hamas]] Charter = [[Compilation]] of "[[The Protocols]]"???

message: Apparently, someone believes, erroneously, that the first edition was published in 1903. That year there was an alleged publication in the Russian newspaper, Znamya (newspaper). The First Edition--in Book form occurred in 1905.
:Accordingly, I've made the correction.
::Yours truly, --Ludvikus 00:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[1903]] vs. [[1905]]

message: The 1905 text, entitled Velikoe v malom i antikhrist, now has its own article. I've already specified that there is no "appendix" in this book. The Protocols, rather, constitute the 12th and final chapter. The book is available on Microfilm in the NYPL.
:Also, no one has seen any edition of this work by Nilus prior to 1905. And there is no agreement whether it is a "second" or "third" edition. The is also confusion over the edition number of chaper 12, which is what constitutes "The Protocols." We get second here by counting the 1903 Znamya (newspaper)]] as first.
*Yours truly,--Ludvikus 08:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The [[1905]] Imprint

message: Jimbo Wales, refecting & supporting WP policy, does not approve of original research by Wikipedians encyclopedists. However, we are not informed by any policy I know of as to what to do when authorities conflict, or contract one another.
Norman Cohn, in 1967, says:
     ... the edition of the Protocols that appeared as part of a book called The Great in the
     Small: Antichrist considered as an imminent political  posibility, by a mystical writer,
     Sergey Nilus. The first two editions of this work, published in 1901 and 1903, did not
     contain the Protocols, but they were inserted in the third edition, published December
     1905 under the imprint of the local Red Cross at the imperial residence outside St
     Petersburg, Tsarskoe Selo.
         Warrant for Genocide, p.73
However, Stephen Eric Bronner, in 2000 & 2003, says:
     Sergei Nilus first included the text [of "The Protocols"] in 1905 as an appendix to the
     second edition of his 1903 book entitled The Great in the Small: The Coming of the
     Anti-Christ and the Rule of Satan on Earth, ...
          A Rumor about the Jews, p.76
:Yours truly, --Ludvikus 09:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Was the a [[1901]] and a [[1903]] edition of Nilus's Work on Antichrist

message: :Image:1905 2fnl Velikoe v malom i antikhrist.jpg
:Yours truly,Ludvikus 09:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The [[1905]] Imprint - Image of Title Page on Microfilm at the [[NYPL]]

message: "It was withdrawn from sale in September 2004, as 'a business decision'. It is distributed in the United States by some Palestinian student groups on college campuses, and by Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam." Such as? I don't believe that for a moment. Deleted until specifics are provided. Thesobrietysrule 07:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not in the US, but read here: Kaisershatner 17:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Here's a NOI citation, not authoritative but seems legit:  Kaisershatner 17:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See also ,  Kaisershatner 17:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Distribution by students

message: Dear User:Humus sapiens
*I OWN the original 1934 edition.
*I also examined it at the NYPL.
*There is NOTHING about this EDITION by ANYONE!!!
*I suspect was a NAZI production - and another FRAUD against the JEWS.
*But since this is merely speculation on my part at this time I cannot write that in the article.
*But at least I can stick to the FACTS AS KNOWN:
**(1) The UNINCORPORATED called itself by these ALL CAPS
***(2) It claimed to originate out of CHICAGO.
****(3) It operated out of a P.O. Box!!!
*Please do not REVERT without a discussion.
*Thanks!--Ludvikus 16:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PATRIOTIC PUBLISHING CO. 

message: There is a tendency, inadvertently, to dignify these various re-issues or other annotated compilations of the Protocols by the publishing technical term of Edition.I recommend that we stick to the term employed by the Library of Congress. That way we will also be more accurate without getting involved in the difficult question of the NUMBER particular edition - 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.
Yours truly,--Ludvikus 16:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Imprint]] v. [[Edition]] 

message: 1927 ed. by Russian emigrants in Paris portrays the Bolshevik Revolution as a "Jewish plot"
Isn't this long-winded? I recommend the following:
     1927 imprint, Paris, cover image of Trotsky and comrades
Also, an accurate Transliteration and/or Translation of the Russian language title.
Yours truly,--Ludvikus 18:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[1927]] Imprint Image Requires cleanup 

message: User:Alex Bakharev has provided the following answers to my query:
The Title of the Red book is Sionskie protokoly = Zion's protocols or Protocols of Zion. The word Sionskie is the adjective formed from the word Sion=Zion. A similar adjective from the word Zionist  is Sionistskie (Сионистские). It is quite possible that in the beginning of the 20th century Zion meant not only the place but the Zionism as well (see e.g. Hovevei Zion).
The title of the yellow book is the same but written in the pre-1918 orthography. On the top there is Publishing House of His Excellency Prince I.K. Gorchakov "Down with the Evil". The the title. Then a photograph captioned as Jewish Government in Moscow and names (some are unreadable because of low resolution). In the bottom there is Paris and a year 19?7 (I cannot read the third digit) Alex Bakharev 00:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titles 

message: WP Authors/Editors are not accurate or precise in the use of these terms to qualify  the Protocols.
* Where Freedom of the Press exists in the extreme, as in the USA, it is doubtful that the Protocols, or their publication and dissemination, constitute a fraud.
* The forgery, if there was one, would have been a literary forgery - and that would apply to the original manuscript. But we know not enough about it, or if it still exists.
** If it was merely a write-up, for the printer, that it was mere that, and not an instance of fraud. It was allegedly presented as a transcription of some other record. If there was that other record, it would have been that that was the literary forgery. But have nothing there except an allegation that it existed. The fake we can only speculate about.
***What we have, therefor, is s hoax - presenting something as true, when it is false.
****Suppose the Russian government agents were creative, and did not rely on plagiarizing the writings of someone else. We would then merely have a malicious hoax, unless we were to discover, in the Russian archives, an original manuscript document which, on its face, or some accompanying evidence, purported to show, or claim, that it was actually written by a Jew, in attendance among the representatives of the "12 tribes", recording the "minuites" of the "meeting." Then that would be the forgery, assuming of course, that it was not what the antisemites would claim it is in fact. --Ludvikus 00:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[plagiarism]], [[forgery]], [[hoax]], & [[fraud]] 

message: My point is that this is a sloppy copy by someone on the Internet.
:It purports to be a 1921 translation by Victor E. Marsden who died in 1920.
:It's probably a copy of a version produced by the Britons Publishing Society.
:I'm for deletion, at least until and unless we get a True copy of the Fake,
and the Wiki Editor who puts it up can give a reasonable assurance that it is an accurate copy of one of the - exactly - four (4) English language translation produced. And if it is claimed to be a Victor E. Marsden translation, then particularly I want to know the (1) exact year of publication, (2) the precise name of the publishing entity, and the name of a major library which holds it in its collection. --Ludvikus 14:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Accordingly, until the so-called source is authenticated (as not a sloppy copy of what it purports to be) I am unilaterally deleting the link. --Ludvikus 15:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Unilateral deletion is not a proper solution.--Cberlet 15:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sloppy copy of a [[Fake]] of a [[Fake]] 

message: It would be great if contributors learned the difference between the 2 above.
:The original manuscript, if there was one to examine, or if we knew about it as presented to Serge Nilus, with claim that it in the hand of Jews, the Elders of Zion, when it was not, would have been a forgery. But Nilus said, among his other stories about it, that it was copied by somebody who gave it to him. So we have a lie here, but no forgery - maybe this copy itself is an original. But that's not a forgery, or it is in a very narrow sense. Anyway, if there was a forgery, it has disappeared - what is left is a plagiarism. Also, how can you forge a writing of a non-exitent organization: the Elders of Zion? Also, where is the fraud. These are concepts of criminality, and they do not hold up. That's way prosecutions have been so difficult!
::And it's a Hoax.
::But the fact that the item is a plagiarism is conclusive.
::So please, lets not use the terms forgery and faud loosely, without an explanation.
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 18:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Plagiarism]] & [[Hoax]] vs. [[Forgery]] & [[Fraud]] 

message: We know its a fake, a plagiarism, and a hoax.
:Why interpret it - for the benefit of the antisemites - in the opening paragraph?
:It is highly inappropriate to summarize the Protocols as being about world domination by Jews.
:It's a piece of garbage, lousy, sloppy, Russian language, which has been translated into somewhat better English, and it is its editors and compilers who give it its meaning.
:Why do the work for them?
:Also, much depends on the subtle inferences made in the preface, introduction, and other matter, introduced by the often nameless editors and complilers - but this is not The Protocols!
::--Ludvikus 18:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "World domination by Jews"

message: Imagine that the New York Review of Books published a poem which is presented as a recently discovered sonnet by Shakespeare. And that it turns out to be a fake.
*Now the Times, a reputable paper, probably would have taken precautions (although a friend of mine, a famous hoaxter, faked his own death, had the New York Times print his obituary, and then presented himself as having returned from the land of the dead - he used the Times as proof that he died).
*The text in the times, would not be the forgery - the forgery would be the 'original manuscript (worth $$$millions if authentic) which fooled the Times into believing it was real!
:Why make reference to a forgery (embodying the Protocols) - about which what do you know?
:Don't confuse the text - which you easily get on the internet - with the original manuscript produced by Okhrana, which may not even have been a forgrey. Don't get excited. This just means that the Okharan didn't need to fool anybody - that they did not need to use any special ink and paper. Why? Because the Printers, the Government, the Black Hundred, Znamya, Nilus, G. Butmi, etc., they were all in on it.
:I hope you don't misunderstand - this is not a superconspiracy theory. It's just an attempt to explain what is meant by forgery, and that we don't even know if a forgery existed.
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 00:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  21st Century Discovery of a Shakespearean Sonnet 

message: I've just had the pleasure of watching on Channel Thirteen a classic film version (1957) of the above (wiki has 2 articles on it).
:It is based on an Agatha Christie story of the same name.
:In it Marlene Dietrich testifies against her beloved, Tyrone Powell.
:He is on trial for murdering a woman.
:What's relevant to the plot - as well as here - is an incriminating letter introduced by the defense. The letter reads that she (Marlene) potted to incriminate him.
:As a result of this letter, he is found not guilty.
:However, the letter was a lie, a complete fabrication, in brief, fiction.
:The letter is addressed to her lover (who doesn't exist) stating how happy she is that he (Tyrone) was arrested for murder, and that now she will be free to be with her (non-exitent) lover.
::So, according to you, Cberlet, she is guilty of forgery. However, the charge against her, which is discussed in the scene, that of perjury.
:Cberlet, do you understand now the difference?
:Why don't you just go and consult an attorney at law? Ask him to explain to you what is a forgery, what it means? 
:Now your advice above, that I seek professional help, as you know, violates Wikipedia policy. It provokes one into saying something (unflattering) about your limited mental capacity, or lack of learning. But I refuse to be provoked by you, and ask that you maintain your civility consistent with Wikipedia policy, on which you purport to be an authority. --Ludvikus 04:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yours truly, --Ludvikus 04:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Witness for the Prosecution]]/[[The Witness for the Prosecution]]

message: The so-called PROTOCOL NO. 3 concerns the symbolic serpent, or symbolic snake (depending on which English language translation which is used), and the last, or third, sentence of the opening paragraph says as follows (I'm using the 300 page 1934 inprint by the Patriotic Publishing Co.):
     When this ring closes, all the States of Europe will be locked in its coil as in a powerful vice.
If editors wish to interpret this section of the Protocols for the reader, they should say so and be accurate. It is Europe, not the World, upon which the Jews are alleged to have their malevolent design of encirclement.
:It was in the 1920's, and after, that Boris Brasol, as well as other editors who introduce the word World, and gave this twist. But the correct word is EUROPE, and not WORLD. 
:Isn't it amazing how the antisemites get you, well-intentioned Wikipedians, to do their work for them - of spreading anti-Jewish propaganda?
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 14:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Encircling Europe''' v. [[World domination]] 

message: user:Ludvikus claiming better knowledge of English than me repeatedly replaces the word forgery with hoax. I am neither an expert in English nor in "Protocols", so please answer this question: 
*Is it true or false that the authors of the Protocols attempt to present them as authentic documents of a "Jewish cabal"? 
If true then IMO it falls under the definition of forgery (attempt to present a supposedly authentic object of some origin while in fact the object is manufactured by another origin with an intention to deceive). If false, then this must be explained in the aricle, because numerous sources define it as "forgery", "forged protocols", etc. IMO the colleague conflates two distinct aspects: the intention (which would be deception, hoax, fraud) and means of deception (which in our case is forgery). `'mikka 17:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to suggest that your train of thought is often opaque -- I am having a hard time following what you are suggesting on this page.  Given that I do not think that I am alone in this, and you are commenting a lot, perhaps you might want to consider working on one thing at a time, and aiming for greater clarity in the comments.  Jkelly 22:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forgery of hoax? 

message: If there was a forgery, current scholarship says that he was the compiler of the original manuscript of the Protocols. If we bring him into the opening paragraph, we are justified in using the word forgery. However, his work (if we can dignify it so) is unavailable to scholars, has not been made available, may be someplace in the Russian archives, and whatever we are told about it, is mostly by antisemitic sources, such as Serge Nilus. 
*Again, Matvei Golovinski, was the author and plagiarist - but was he also a forger? Did he also forge the manuscript to make it look like the actual records of the meetings of Jewish elders?
:That is the question. Ludvikus 19:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Matvei Golovinski]] 

message: *In particular, what justify an WP editor to say it is/has a "Plan" by .... At least, one can say "Warrant for Genocide" by citing Norman Cohn - but it is necessary, at the very least, to cite the particular antisemite who calls it a plan. I ask, on exactly which page & edition is the word Plan used? The word actually used is PROTOCOLS. And that's at least in the title AND ACTUALLY USED BY NILUS. But "Plan" is what the anti-semites would like us to read into it! (Is it not too stupid to be a plan?) Same goes for the other two termsnot too stupid to be a plan?) Same goes for the other two terms/expressions.
*World domination is not, literally, in the text.
*The text does not contain the notion of a secret council.
**Why do WP writers and editors give meaning like this to an essentially meaningless text?
:Yours truly, --Ludvikus 23:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Plan'' of ''World Domination'' by a ''Secret Council''? 

message: Please, Wiki editors & writers, pay more careful attention to the use and sutleties of language - else you'll pay inadvertent service to the antisemites who very much wish the masses of the people of world to take the protocols as fact rather than fiction.
:Case in point: Scholar Cesare G. De Michelis, in his 2004 work, The Non-Existent Manuscript, discusses the alleged "Jewish Plot" (quotes are his) on page 1 of his Introduction to the English Edition of said work. Clearly, calling such a Plot a Plan is, at best, engaging in unintentional original research of the worst kind - it's doing the work of the anisemtites. Isn't it possible (a qustion on word-meaning) to plot a bank robbery without a plan? To do so would be foolish, of course, but there have been foolish bankrobberies. Hasn't the United States often been critisized, in its foreign policy, of not having a plan? Remember the accusations: "No Exit Plan"?
:Plot is a distinctly different word - and my original un-original research here says that it should replace the word plan - the latter I believe is still favored by User:Humus sapiens.
::Yours truly, --Ludvikus 17:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Plan]]  vs. [[Plot]] 

message: I'm afraid, the information from Los Angeles Times about the Moscow 1993 suit is not true. I found some Russian sources, including translation of Hadassah Ben-Itto book  , which say that Judge Belikova changed her decision in the last moment and issued a statement that the court "does not consider itself competent enough to make a decision on authenticity of the Protocols". --Yms 23:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the mention of 1993 lawsuit. ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1993 Pamyat libel suit 

message: I recommend that the following two sentences be combined, to form the second paragraph. Apparently, User:Mel Etitis thinks otherwise.
     Numerous independent investigations have repeatedly proven it to be a plagiarism and a hoax.[1]
     Scholars generally agree that the Okhrana, the secret police of the Russian Empire,
     fabricated the text in the late 1890s or early 1900s.
Will Administrator Mel Etitis kindly explain himself - the reason for his effective reversion? -Ludvikus 23:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No response from above editor to date. --Ludvikus 13:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Administrator User:Mel Etitis says: "(rv as per previous edit summary (and, indeed, as per Ludvikus' edit summary, somewhat bizarrely), plus other tidying)".
What, Mel Etitis have you found somewhat bizarrely? The editing, which you have now reverted for a second time merely combines into one paragraph the descriptions of plagiarism, hoax, and fabrication. What's bizarre? Your alleged edit summary merely shows your reversion! --Ludvikus 22:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: What is it, Mel, that I did not learn? You are too general. What precisely do you object in my style? Also, isn't the word "bizarre", as used by you, vague in the context? Assuming good faith on your part, I really have no idea what you are talking about? You used the word "bizarre." What did you find to be "bizarre"? --Ludvikus 16:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Mel Etitis and I find some of the statements and work of Ludvikus to be bizarre, aggressive, and POV. Not suitable for encyclopedia work or the collective editing style of Wikipedia. I do not understand why this is allowed to go on.--Cberlet 00:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor Point of Style 

message: Two things that need to be fixed;
(1) Some of the Protocol chapter headings in the article need to be changed because they are not relevant to the subject matter.
(2) Not all chapters of the "Protocols" are explained or defined. All chapters should be included. Jtpaladin 00:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two things that need to be improved 

message: A number of notes in the text are cited to "Lewis (1999)".  I believe this is "".  Most of the same information can be sourced to an earlier edition of the same book, "", however, there is at least one reference to something that happened after 1986 and clearly cannot be cited to the earlier edition.  I'm going to update the references as I can; hopefully later I will be able to get hold of the later edition and verify those not found in the first edition. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correction:  All references are actually verified by the first edition; the one that I thought was only covered by the 1999 edition was actually combining information from the main text and from the accompanying footnote. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lewis references 

message: Why is this article completely slanted toward disproving the legitimacy of the Protocols?  Where is the counter-argument?  I am sure there are valid arguments to be made by advocates of the Protocls.  
What I've never understood about Wikipedia is that its editors go to such great lengths to bolster all things Jewish and denigrate all things Islam.  You do yourselves a grave disservice because any truly discerning reader can see the adovacy as clear as they can watch a repulsive Metzitzah b'peh.
The only time my friends and I visit this place is for an occasional good laugh and to see the wanna-be spin doctors try their weak hands.  By no means should you people be calling yourselves researchers or anything of the like.
Shalom —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.88.85.60 (talk) 07:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you believe these "Protocols" have in fact anything to do with "things Jewish" and/or "things Islam"? Then probably you have a "counter-argument" yourself? --80.129.127.222 10:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: But damn!, all the Muslims have to do is give up terrorism and they would take over both Israel and most of Europe without a fight. Steve Dufour 01:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apologia? 

message: I am going to remove this. I don't see any special problem in the article. Steve Dufour 01:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:POINT. That tag is unnecessary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I could not have said it more eloquently, Cberlet. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: You are correct. Fixed, thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: World-wide view tag