Talk:Konstantinos Plevris
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Citations from Plevris' Book
First of all, I want to clarify that I'm not "presenting facts from Plevris's point of view" as someone stated. I'm simply trying to ensure the article remains neutral. Nothing more. That said, there are some problems with the alleged citations from the book:
- Since this article is primarily about Plevris and not about "Jews: The Whole Truth" (or any of his other books), excerpts from his works should be kept to a minimum unless they demonstrate an important and relevant point. If we were to dedicate a paragraph of text for each one of his books, we'd have thousands of lines of texts. In this case, it seems that the alleged citations chosen are meant to make Plevris seem like a genocidal maniac more than anything else. The fact that one of the alleged citations is actually bolded, only reinforces this view.
- Plevris maintains that, "Of the 1,400 pages of my large book, the condemnation encompasses only several paragraphs, of which portions were extracted, with the result that another meaning was given to the words and truth is distorted due to the alteration of phrases".[1] This allegation, combined with the fact that Plevris has launched high-profile lawsuits for libel (and specifically for characterizations of him as a "Nazi" and "Fascist" and his book as "Nazistic and anti-Semitic"), means that we need to be careful when (alleged) excerpts are cited. For instance, one alleged excerpt reads that Plevris describes himself as a "nazi, fascist, racist, antidemocrat, antisemite". Considering that Plevris is suing individuals, newspapers, and organizations for exactly these characterizations against him, this casts serious doubts as to whether this was what he meant or what he even wrote. Common sense tells us that if Plevris is suing people because they call him a "Nazi" or "Fascist" that he would not write about himself in such a way.
Personally, I have not read "Jews: The Whole Truth" nor do I have the book is my possession to be able to consult it in order to verify the alleged excerpts or their context. If necessary, however, a copy can be easily found for such purposes. Until we are certain that these are indeed excerpts from the book, caution needs to be exercised for questionable "excerpts". As such, alleged excerpts that are in clear contradiction to facts should be removed or, at the very least, mention should be made that there is a dispute over whether or not these are actually Plevris' words. Critias 04:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- A lot of verbal contortionisms, only to reach the admission that you have not read the book in question. These are not "alleged" citations : not only have they been cited in a formal lawsuit (as well as a variety of other sources and media, spanning the whole political spectrum) but are they direct quotes from Plevris's book, replete with the corresponding pages. They are crucial to understanding the allegations pertinent to Plevris's indictment, so they very much belong in the article. The book is copyrighted, and we cannot scan the offending pages and place them in here without infringing copyright. By all means, feel free to purchase the book and see for yourself that the hate screeds quoted are very much factual, and not at all "alleged" (District Attorneys, mind you, do not indict persons based on book quotations they overheard in their local golfing clubs ; perhaps they do in Guadalajara). There is absolutely, positively no reason whatsoever to delete these quotes from the article. Porfyrios 22:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- If commonsense is a "verbal contortionism" to you, I don't know what to tell you. If the alleged quotes are legitimate, then there is no reason to get rid of them, of course. However, given that Plevris is suing Eleftherotypia and the other organizations on the grounds of libel, the "excerpts" are suspect. If somebody characterizes themselves as a "nazi, fascist, racist, antidemocrat, antisemite", that person doesn't launch lawsuits against people who call him those exact things -- especially when the person in question is a Supreme Court lawyer and knows the law well enough to recognize such a thing would be counterproductive and very costly to himself. It's great that you have trust in the Greek judicial system but the fact remains that sometimes District Attorneys make mistakes or are wrong (for a number of possible reasons); that's why they sometimes lose cases. Since Plevris' trial has not even begun yet, I feel it is a bit premature to find him guilty already. Instead of assuming the worst, it'd be more productive to exercise neutrality until the matter can be settled. In this regard, I'll find a copy of the book as soon as I can to verify or refute the alleged statements. Until then, it'd be best if there was mention of the fact that the alleged quotations are contested. Critias 23:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I own the book and have read it. Plevris maintains the following: He is not interested in Jewish people as a nation or race de facto. In fact he profiles a Greek Jew 2nd World War army commander as an example of a Greek Jewish hero who deserves the highest honors. (Major Frizis) His interest lies in the Zionist movement and its supporters (Jews or not)as well as in the elements that are found in traditional Jewish culture that encourage racism, domination, subversion, violence and aggression against non-Jews (numerous citations from Talmud encouraging aggression, murder, rape, theft and deceipt towards Christians). He supports that, by definition, he is anti-Nazi considering that he is a Greek Nationalist and Greece fought the Nazis and paid a steep price (500,000 killed, missing in action)during the 2nd World War. His resentment of Judea, according to the book, stems from the actions of organized Zionist Jewry throughout history, specifically in its influence in Greek and European history. Plevris sites historical references and statistics from the era of the Ottoman occupation of Greece that reflect a strong alignment of organized Jewry with the Ottoman occupier including support for the break up of the northern part of Greece and its transfer to Greece's norhern Slavic neighbours. He makes it clear that rounding up people in concentration camps is inhuman.
He encourages the reader to merely consider his arguments and facts with an austere critical attitude bound by facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.96.236.88 (talk) 05:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

