Talk:Beckwith Company

Publisher of Praemonitus praemunitus
The above is the lead title of this notorious book. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 18:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

World Domination
It appears the appropriate article for the detail about World Domination is Protocols of the Elders of Zion (versions).
 * I don't think that title reflects the Wikipedia naming guidelines, but there's certainly no doubt that's an appropriate place to note anomalies between revisions. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 13:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I do not understand the issues you raise . --Ludvikus (talk) 15:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Now I got you and look foward to addressing you're concern. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I look forward to a proposal by you for an alternative title, and it appears I may agree with you on this point.
 * I don't understand what you mean by "anomalies between revisions."
 * --Ludvikus (talk) 17:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Repeating text
If there is a large jpg showing the title page of the book in question, there is no need to repeat phrases from it two or three times in the text.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Your not specific. This is a very delicate area. Please discuss each occurrence one at a time. A Caption is no substitute for the Content of an Article. So please discuss each occurrence separately before you Delete or Revert. --Ludvikus (talk)


 * This is in fact a description of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion". Do you understand my point? Look below:
 * --Ludvikus (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Look the introduction to the article has a jpg and some text. They both say the same thing. Why is there a need for both?--Toddy1 (talk) 20:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. I think the problem is that you probably are unaware that this book is The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It just is a publication by another publisher. And the title is different. So please go read very, very carefully, the . In the mean time please discuss things first before you Revert or Delete. In the mean time, please Revert your Reversion back to mine. I remember that you told me that you nothing about "The Protocols," right? Well I'm a major contributor to the Main article. So if you have questions about this subject, you should bring that up there, not here. Do you understand? --Ludvikus (talk) 20:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Toddy that repeating the text from the image is unnecessary; perhaps using the appropriate AltText= field (I think there is one, anyway) to include the text there, rather than displaying it separately in the article for those who don't have screen readers. However, I do think that the latin meaning of the title should appear.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Arthur, could you do this please.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have implented Arthur's idea.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose: You should discuss this on the   where this discussion belongs. And please, Todd1, discuss first, give time to answer (7 days), look for consensus, and then Revert accordingly. Notice, at the top, that this is an extremely    topic. Therefore, please proceed with extreme caution. Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The discussion on this article is on this page. This article is about The Beckwith Company.  There is another article about the book Protocols of the Elders of Zion.  Also please stop making baseless accusations of racism.--Toddy1 (talk) 03:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you may have overlooked the posting at the very top: - that's the place to discuss your possible WP:POV that the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" may be a true in what it says about Jews (those were not your exact words, but my summary of the pattern of your editing.
 * The Beckwith Company is only notable because it published the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
 * You seem to me to be mistaken about what book(s) is/are these "Protocols."
 * I never accused you of racism. That said, the fact is that anyone who believes in the truth, or even substantial possible truth of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion," which was/were Adolf Hitler's "Warrant for Genocide" is not only a racist, but also more specifically an antisemite as well.
 * So clearly, you've drawn the logical conclusion that you've been called a racist - but I'm not responsible for that deductive conclusion of yours - you are.
 * In fact, I've gone out of my way to state that you actually made a possibly WP:Good faith.
 * Therefore: Please acknowledge that in [[fact}} I have NOT called you a "racist," but stated that you may have made a good faith error.
 * --Ludvikus (talk) 04:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * To accuse someone of believing that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is true is accusing them of racism.
 * You did this 10 days ago, and then apologised and said you had confused me with someone else [|see IncidentArchive568].
 * Now you do it again see edit summary 00:12, 13 October 2009.
 * The only reason you do this is to bully.
 * Please stop it.--Toddy1 (talk) 04:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hangon.: I'm gonna check the diff so I could figure out exactly what we're talking about. --Ludvikus (talk) 05:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * PS1: I was just about to award you a Barnstar for your excellent technical editing on the Content page regarding the Library card entries. But now I won't do it - simply because I don't want you to possible jump to the conclusion that I'm simply bribing you. --Ludvikus (talk)
 * PS2: I apologized because I was was concerned for your feelings. It had nothing to do with my editing being 100% correct. So you cannot produce the single exact Diff to prove your point. I'm extremely careful not to engage in any Personal Attack at Wikipedia whatsoever.
 * PS3: That's why I would never say that "Editor X is feeling guilty so he imagines being called a 'Racist.'
 * PS4: Please give me the EXACT Diff(s) which prove that you are being accused of being a Racist. You won't be able to do that - because it's simply not true.
 * PS5: When you are done, let's   of this personal stuff between us because it really doesn't belong here.
 * --Ludvikus (talk) 06:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Repetition
(1) The disputed text is still in the article. But it has been moved from the introduction to the section on book in question.

(2) I am sorry you bad understand my English.

(3) The article contains the same sentences three times. (The Latin phrase five times.) This is not necessary. It is enough for the sentences to be there once. --Toddy1 (talk) 22:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Weasel words
The text contains a lot of weasel words such as "it is generally believed". Wikipedia has policies against weasel words. See: Avoid weasel words.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above. I have access to the references and sources to solve this problem. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Original research
The article contains statements that are not supported by citations. It also contains conclusions that may be original research. Please help wikipedia by showing that these are not original research by adding citations showing where these conclusions come from. The wikipedia policy against original research may be found at: No original research.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above. I have access to the references and sources to solve this problem. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)