Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/The Protocols of Zion (imprints): Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:49, 17 October 2007 editLudvikus (talk | contribs)21,211 editsm →Protocols of the Elders of Zion: ''← Previous edit Latest revision as of 23:12, 29 September 2023 edit undoJonesey95 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Mass message senders, Template editors370,518 editsm Fix Linter errors. More needed. Leaving obsolete tags for bots. 
(145 intermediate revisions by 37 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
===]===
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page. ''
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|S}}
{{Template:"The Protocols"}} <!--Template:Afd top

Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result was''' Merge''' information not already exisiting in ] has been merged in to this article, thus creating a list of the publication/imprints. All articles listed with the exception of ](consensus to Keep) are to be redirected to ''The Protocols of Zion (imprints)''. I acknowledge that the merge suggestion ] as a list, this provides the list without any significant impact on the featured article. ]] 13:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
===]===
:{{la|The Protocols of Zion (imprints)}} – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude> :{{la|The Protocols of Zion (imprints)}} – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude>

:<small>'''A note to closing admin:''' when counting plese keep in mind that user:ludvikus wrote "keep" in bold in at least three different places. ] 20:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)</small>
This series of repetitive and duplicate articles violates ]; ]; and cumulatively borders on ]. There has always been ''one'' very good featured article about the ], and the articles here could easily be summarized and even ]ified into it, but for some bizarre reason the creator of these "articles" ] seems to think that Misplaced Pages needs an article about every version of this abominable book that was ever thought of or written in any language. Most of the articles here are just bloated paragraphs with publication information. These "articles" should be combined and merged into the main article ] (minus the bulk of the "publication information" drivel) or transferred to ] (the multiple images of the texts should be transferred to ]). Then all the article names here should be redirected to the main ] article. This series of repetitive and duplicate articles violates ]; ]; and cumulatively borders on ]. There has always been ''one'' very good featured article about the ], and the articles here could easily be summarized and even ]ified into it, but for some bizarre reason the creator of these "articles" ] seems to think that Misplaced Pages needs an article about every version of this abominable book that was ever thought of or written in any language. Most of the articles here are just bloated paragraphs with publication information. These "articles" should be combined and merged into the main article ] (minus the bulk of the "publication information" drivel) or transferred to ] (the multiple images of the texts should be transferred to ]). Then all the article names here should be redirected to the main ] article.
The following related pages are included in this nomination for deletion for the above reasons: The following related pages are included in this nomination for deletion for the above reasons:
Line 17: Line 24:
:{{la|Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion}} :{{la|Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion}}
:{{la|"The Protocols"}} :{{la|"The Protocols"}}


Thank you, ] 08:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC) Thank you, ] 08:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

----
There is no such thing as a single book here. So to claim is to manifest ignorance - something these articles attempt to show. This '''Warrant for Genocide''' has been, and continues to be used, by antisemites to attack Jews & Israelis. After WWI it was believed that by many descent Jews that "if we just keep quiet about this, it will go away." It did not go away and 6,000,000 Jews paid the price for that. I believe that we should and must flood the world with the Truth behind that Lie to the point where no one will want to have anything to do with it. That is the only way to fight this nonesense and garbage. Let me repeat: '''there is no such thing as the ''Protocols of Zion'''''. There only are all the many different imprints of the same SHIT which too many people believe. That is why all these articles must be '''kept'''. If you want something ''deleted'' you should delete the following: ''']''' (which also is supported by the ''Warrant for Genocide''), as well as it's current version in Polish which is being put up by true believers in '''The Protocols'''. I'm sorry you find this distasteful. But you should think of my job on Misplaced Pages as a Doctor trying to cut out a ]. And since you cannot stand to handle it, you should let me do your dirty work for you.
:], --] 13:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
----
*'''Delete''' and '''Merge''' to ] '''and/or''' '''Move''' content/s to and multiple images to . Sincerely, ] 08:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC) *'''Delete''' and '''Merge''' to ] '''and/or''' '''Move''' content/s to and multiple images to . Sincerely, ] 08:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
*<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. </small><small>] 08:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)</small> *<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. </small><small>] 08:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)</small>
:*<s>This AfD nomination was ]. It is listed now. ] 09:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)</s> :*<s>This AfD nomination was ]. It is listed now. ] 09:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)</s>


*Please engage in a further discussion on this page's Talk page . --] 15:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Merge to ]''' and '''redirect'''. ] makes it harder to make a good encyclopaedia. -- ] 11:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC) *'''Merge to ]''' and '''redirect'''. ] makes it harder to make a good encyclopaedia. -- ] 11:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''merge''' into one article ]. The articles are not content forks, since the article limit themselves to the edition they are talking about. It is not OR, as they are well sourced. The problem is that is hard to find which article is the "real" article about all of the works. Merging them all in to one article should solve this problem. ] 12:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC) *'''merge''' into one article ]. The articles are not content forks, since the article limit themselves to the edition they are talking about. It is not OR, as they are well sourced. The problem is that is hard to find which article is the "real" article about all of the works. Merging them all in to one article should solve this problem. ] 12:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' and '''merge'''. Some of these articles are a mishmash of cross-references to each other and quote farms; they are also OR, notwithstanding quoting a collection of sources. (After all, OR also uses sources.) --] 13:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC) *'''Delete''' and '''merge'''. Some of these articles are a mishmash of cross-references to each other and quote farms; they are also OR, notwithstanding quoting a collection of sources. (After all, OR also uses sources.) --] 13:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
**'''Comment''': how so? I've seen a lot of people stretch the meaning of "original research" to cover merely assembling material; can you provide an example of the original research you see? -- ] 17:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' and '''Merge''' to ] --] 13:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Merge to ]''' and '''redirect''' this one. --] 14:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' all the imprint articles here to one "editions of" or "imprints of" annotated-list style article, such as JOn513's suggestion of ]. This book has been so deeply condemned for so long, from almost every quarter, that any publication of it is a significant event. It seems for now that the list, with descriptions, could add rather a lot of text to the main article. If, once the list has been completed, it looks small enough to add to the main article, then it can be merged, but amongst all the duplication and the bulky template, there appears to be some valuable info in the imprint articles, which should be preserved. --] <small>] • (])</small> 15:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''merge/split''': ] is quite long now and contains its own list of publications of ther Protocols. So as suggested above, create a new article about imprints, editions, translations, etc., old and modern: ]. (The quotes in the title are essential, indicating that this is a title, not "real" protocols, which do not exist. `'] 17:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': At first I thought that my judgement was going to be either "merge all nominated articles to the main ''Protocols'' article" or "merge all nominated articles to a single ] article". However, a little research makes me think that this might be overhasty -- take a look at ], which contains information about ]'s publication of the ''Protocols'' and his subsequent attempts to claim that it had been published in his newspaper without his knowledge. When I thought that merging would probably be the correct decision, it was with the expectation that there would be at most a sentence or two worth saying about any particular edition/printing -- "this edition omits everything after Section XII", for instance, or "this edition changes all references to 'X' to 'Y'", or the like. I think there's reason to doubt that expectation now. -- ] 17:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep ]''', its authorship by ] made it ''extremely'' notable, and it has been ''extensively'' discussed in reliable sources. '''No vote''' for everything else, but it looks deletion/merge -worthy. <tt>&lt;]/]]&gt;</tt> 19:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': One thing that ''definitely'' needs to be done is to clean up the redundant categories on all these individual-edition articles. It looks like Ludvikus mistakenly thought that if an article such as ] is in ], and ] is in another category such as ], that means ] should naturally be in ]. This is unfortunately the exact ''opposite'' of the truth: Putting ] in a ''sub-category'' of ] (which ] is) correctly categorizes the book as an antisemitic publication, without cluttering the parent category with it and every other version of the ''Protocols''. The only exception is ] which, as the main article of ], should belong in all the same parent categories. -- ] 20:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep ]''', this is a notable work, Henry Ford is infamous for his antisemitism, of which this is probably the zenith. '''Everything else can be merged''' into a single group, as mentioned above.<small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
*'''Merge''' all to ] and redirect. ] 23:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
* '''Keep one, merge rest''' Keep the International Jew as ref's and notability seem to be sufficient. Merge the rest into The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. ] <sup><small>(])</small></sup> 01:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' '']'', '''Listify''' the others at '']'' or ]. — ] (] | ]) 01:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' one ] per comments above and '''Merge''' the rest into ] or into a new article such as ] that subsumes the various editions. --] 02:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Merge all''' to ], except The International Jew, which should be kept. ] 03:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' into new article ], or into the existing '']'', or a similar name and '''Redirect''' them all, and '''split and move''' there all relevant info from '']'', except for '']'' which we should '''Keep'''. All per above arguments. There is no justification IMHO for so many seperate articles about the same thing.
:I have also read and strongly disagree with the CounterArgument below, which seems to me to be a bit of an ad hominem attack against the initiator of this VfD, disregarding most arguments by other users, whose views differ somewhat from his and whose opinions I have preferred to ]'s. ] 16:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Counterargument'''
The series of articles proposed for deletion by the deletion nominator herein, (]), are
#neither Repetitive;
#nor Duplicative;
#they do not violates ] guidelines;
#they do not violate ] guidelines; and
#they do not cumulatively border on ] prohibitions.
#The claim that "here has always been ''one'' very good featured article about the ]" is misleading at best. True, the article has been featured; but that it was "very good" is the mere uninformed opinion of this one editor.
#The articles here could not, and cannot now, be easily summarized.
#Regarding so-called ]ification, one of the articles does just that - but it too is in the list for deletion.
#The accusation that ''"for some bizarre reason the creator of these "articles" ] seems to think that Misplaced Pages needs an article about every version of this abominable '''book''' that was ever thought of or written in any language"'' comes from - at best - general '''ignorance''' of the subject matter herein.
#That "most of the articles here are just bloated paragraphs with publication information" is a conclusory POV. The editor who says this appears unable to digest the fact that there is no such thing as '''the book''' - so he disparages the most important facts to be stated - the ] events about this plurality of items.
#These "articles" cannot be combined and merged into the already bloated main article ], and accordingly, '''splitting''' unavoidable and necessary.
#The further disparaging remark regarding the '''drivel''' about deleting bulk of the "publication information" is again, at best, a manifestation of extreme '''ignorance''' as to the subject matter.
#What is asked regarding "transferred to ] (the multiple images of the texts should be transferred to ])" manifests another kind of ignorance at best - what constutes the several marticles themselves.
#Regarding the "article names", that these "should be redirected to the main ] article" would create a redundancy at best. The "article names" are the names of the most ]ly important imprints of the diverse books, spread over space and time, which fall under the unfortunate category of the so-called ]. Knowledge of these titles has already been acknowledged and absorbed into the main article.
:], --] 05:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
#'''Strong Keep''' Unfortunately ] and ] exist. These are terrible things. We have two theoretical choices regarding its products. Destroy, ignore, or hide them under the carpet, hoping that they disappear. Or we can bring them into the light of day, hoping that thereby the rays of sunlight will, through over-exposure, reveal the fraud that these embody. Unfortunately, the former way is either impossible, or unsuccessful. Many Jews in NYC city in and about 1920 believed that if they only worked hard, and kept quiet about the hateful literature which came out of Russia that year, that evil would eventually simply subside into oblivion. Unfortunately, those of us who know, know that that did not happen. In fact, quite the opposite happened resulting in a horrible tragedy for the ] people. As ] points out, this literature turned into the '''Warrant for Genocide'''. ], --] 01:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
#There is no such book as the '']''. This ] is the invention of ]s of ] on the "]" which is the subject of the articles now being considered for deletion here. In fact, all these articles are extremely important precisely because they relate to the ''']''', a manuscript, nonetheless, which formed the basis of the ''']'''.
#To be continued ... --] 03:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
* '''Keep.''' Obviously notable. • ] 16:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
*''In any case keep ] and ]''' --these two were publications containing more than the Protocols, though based upon it. ''']''' (]) 23:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
* '''Keep''' - I would have liked to ''Merge'', but that would have made the main ''Protocols'' article too long. ]] 00:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Strong Keep''' This is a book in its own right, is it not? I'm not an expert, but this book doesn't seem to be a part of the Zion Protocols. &mdash; <small><small>]|] 14:43 19 Oct, 2007 (UTC)</small></small>
*'''Merge''' per Jon513 et al. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 15:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
* '''Keep''' per RossNixon. ] 19:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': ''Will the real "]" please stand up?, or why '''Merge''' is not possible.''
#Not only is it the case that the hypothetical original French language ], ], and ] has not been preserved, but neither is it the case that there ''exists'' anywhere we know of the Russian language ''manuscript'' (again, see the recent, ], scholarly work, ]).
#And still further complicating our lives is the fact that there's no such thing as the ] under that (or any other) title. So there is no such thing as '''the book''' in this subject area.
#What does exist is a plurality of texts, imprints, editions, under various titles.
#Even the Form of publication varies: ] ], ], ], ], and even ], internet postings, and ].
#Further complicating our lives is the fact that these "Protocols" (for lack of a better name) are always published as a ] with distinct ] (Preface, Introduction, etc.), as well as ] (Conclusion, Appendices, etc.).
#And still another complication, is the fact that with each ] imprint there is most often, an ] editor, etc., whose names are only now beginning to come out as a result of scholarship.
#And ''all these facts'' are essentially true even if we restrict ourselves to productions in the ] alone.
#The WP requirement - that all these WP articles be '''merged''' would require ] - and that is not permitted by WP guidelines.
#However, what amounts to ] is allowed on WP. What I've done, regarding these articles is simply go to all these imprints and read and examine them each individually. That is certainly in keeping with WP policy. As I understand that, any WP editor is free to read any book or imprint and give a report on that. That kind of stuff does not require any original research.
#The current '''<nowiki>{{Main}}</nowiki>''' article is already quite long. I do not think it possible to cramp all these most important (though hateful & evil) imprints under one roof - which '''merging''' would require.
#'''Splitting''' (as I understand the WP term) is the only way to go. The model I have in mind is "]" which acts as the ''Main'' article for numerous subordinate articles.
*Accordingly, we have no choice but to '''keep''' all these distinct articles on this ] and ] ].
:::], --] 23:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per ]. ] 04:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' to either ] or possibly subarticle such as ]. Unless there are distinctions between the various editions substantive enough to warrant separate treatment, there is little point to having multiple articles. ] ≠ ] 15:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': But there are such substantive distinctions. And the main article here up for deletion is the one you are proposing ("imprints"). I've also tried, repeatedly, to inform editors that to accomplish the ''Merge'' requested would require original research. There has not been - ever - a collective study of the English language imprints of these ''Protocols''. And in fact, the study of this "literature" (for lack of a better word) in the Russian language has only been made available to the public in English in 2004: ]. I do not believe that the editors who are recommending the MERGE of these article are fully aware of the enormous task that requires - ''besides Original researc''. As I keep telling those editors who recommend Merge - that is not possible. At the same time, the different imprints are absolutely important for the following reasons:
#'''1903''' - Jews are blamed (with the PSM - acronym for the title in Russian) for conditions in Russia before the 1905 Revolution.
#'''1905-6''' - Jews are blamed for the 1905 Revolution in Russia.
#'''1920''' - Jews are blamed for ], the ], and the ].
#'''1920's-1930''' - Jew are blamed for WWI & WWII emerging conditions.
#'''1934''' 300 page compilation tome - Jews are blamed for everything.
:*There's too much stuff here to put into a single article. Each text version has a different (evil and antisemitic) history.
:*As I keep telling the editors who are asking for Merge, each of these imprints has different ] and ] (by different anonymous editors, and that really carries and does the antisemitic work. But you can only tell that by going to these, often extremely rare texts. I've done that. No one I know of has. And again, there is no scholarly study focusing on the English language imprints. At the same time, this stuff is extremely subtle, complex, seductive, and apparently persuave to the minds of antisemites.
:*For all these reasons, it is impossible to Merge the individual distinct and malevolently important imprints.
:], --] 17:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''strong delete'''. ]. Imagine we start writing articles about each and every edition of each and every book. ] 04:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
* '''Delete''' all, as being redundant and boosting the purported importance of the subject. Redirects after deletion would be fine, if they are likely search terms. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 13:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
* '''speedy keep''' no other book in the world has had so much impact each edition in its own merit and different way. so they are in essence totally difrent books, therefore merit different articles.--] 13:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
**Clearly this vote is an exhalted exaggerration. No doubt, ] or ] had more impact. ] 21:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
* '''Delete and redirect''' per Guy's suggestion ] 14:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' ] and ], as they are significantly more notable than the rest due to the Henry Ford connection. '''Merge''' the rest into one article entitled 'Editions of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion' (or 'Publications of...', or something similar). While I admire and appreciate the effort that's gone into each one of these articles, they cover substantially similar enough topics that Misplaced Pages doesn't need an article on every single one. This information would be much easier to read and make sense of if it were all on one page. ] 17:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' With all due respect, I do not think this User fully appreciates the difficulty which Merge entails. There has not been a comparative study of these various editions of this hateful antisemitic literature. And these original items are exceedingly rare. Accordingly, who, and, how would such a Merge be accomplished? Remember that the subject matter involves ], ], ], etc. So what one ordinarily might view as a triviality, may in fact be a significant ponit upon which the success of the Protocols Myth turns. So any kind of Merge is bound to involve Misplaced Pages editors in Original Research (prohibited at WP) on this difficult and controversial matter. So the only option we have is '''Keep all'''. Accordingly, I strongly urge our User to reconsider his/her recommendaqtion. ], --] 18:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
**Since them are "exceedingly rare", we don't have enough information from ] to make separate articles. An article that consisit only of a title and pointers to library records is not an ancyclopedia article. Since you agree that merge is an invalid solition, the only approach is to delete for lack of notability and verifiability. ] 20:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
***So let's delete the ] on that ground too, right? You should think of all this as "]" to coin a ]. It turns out, however, '''not to be a single book at all'''. ''All'' the editions are equally ''malevolently'' important. --] 20:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
****Please don't use false and deliberately provocative arguments. ] is considered important by reputable researchers independent of wikipedia and the artcle is based on wealth of sources. And "all editions" are not equally important, even "malevolently". And "malevolently" is not in vocabulary of wikipedia's notablity criteria. ] 20:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''comment''' After being dragged into this discussion I looked into the work of Ludvikus on this topic and I respect his dedication to the subject. I am nothing close to being expert or even somehow read in the subject, however it came to my attention that all these articles are very poorly referenced and footnoted. Since this is very rare topic, the wikipedia artices must be very thoroughly footnoted, otherwise they leave a very strong impresion of ''']'''. I marked all pages accordingly, since I am afraid that the overall decision is swayed towards "merge", and I would object to merging of unsourced information without proper tagging.. ] 21:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
*Ideal situation for a '''merge'''. There's no need for 13 articles on slightly different imprints of the same general publication, and on examination many of them appear to consist only of publishing information that is of little use to readers. While a case can be made that each edition differs from the others in some way, all of these are straightforward variations on a ] that can easily be described in either that article or in a new article ] (per Jon513). ]<small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small> 12:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Merge''', which is my instinct anyway (I am a "mergetarian" and am proud to have invented that ]). While I respect the creator's dedication to all this work, it needs to be trimmed down. This is, as has been noted above by several users, a perfect case to merge, not to delete. All of them should be placed into a single "imprints" or "editions" article, whatever it may be called. I don't think ]'s involvement in a particular edition(s) makes that especially notable, although I'm not an expert. ] 18:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': I think it stands as a testament to how poorly written these articles are that it took me until now to realize this, but it appears that some of these articles are not even about actual books -- they are about the ''titles'' of the books. Someone please take a look at ] and tell me if I'm wrong that this is an antire article devoted, not even to an edition or printing, but to ''a library label''. -- ] 20:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

*'''Do not delete'''. Reasonable '''merge''' arguments are made. Unfortunately, there is too much complexity for mergers to be mandated by a failed deletion debate. The information in the thirteen pages needs to be organized, but with care. Leave the details to be worked out by editors involved. --] 12:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>
*'''Keep''' but '''Delete''' the ''']'''. There is no such book called '''''The Protocols of the Elders of Zion'''''. To write as if there is - is to fall into an antisemitic trap created by the '''Warrant for Genocide'''. ], --] 13:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 23:12, 29 September 2023

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge information not already exisiting in The Protocols of Zion (imprints) has been merged in to this article, thus creating a list of the publication/imprints. All articles listed with the exception of The International Jew(consensus to Keep) are to be redirected to The Protocols of Zion (imprints). I acknowledge that the merge suggestion The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as a list, this provides the list without any significant impact on the featured article. Gnangarra 13:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The Protocols of Zion (imprints)

The Protocols of Zion (imprints) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
A note to closing admin: when counting plese keep in mind that user:ludvikus wrote "keep" in bold in at least three different places. Mukadderat 20:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This series of repetitive and duplicate articles violates Misplaced Pages:Content forking; WP:NOT#REPOSITORY; and cumulatively borders on WP:NOR. There has always been one very good featured article about the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and the articles here could easily be summarized and even WP:LISTified into it, but for some bizarre reason the creator of these "articles" User: Ludvikus seems to think that Misplaced Pages needs an article about every version of this abominable book that was ever thought of or written in any language. Most of the articles here are just bloated paragraphs with publication information. These "articles" should be combined and merged into the main article The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (minus the bulk of the "publication information" drivel) or transferred to Wikisource (the multiple images of the texts should be transferred to Misplaced Pages:Wikimedia Commons). Then all the article names here should be redirected to the main The Protocols of the Elders of Zion article. The following related pages are included in this nomination for deletion for the above reasons:

Protocols of the wise men of Zion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Velikoe v malom i antikhrist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vragi roda cheloviecheskago (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Cause of World Unrest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Jewish Peril (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
World Conquest Through World Government (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Protocols and World Revolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Praemonitus Praemunitus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The International Jew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
"The Protocols" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Thank you, IZAK 08:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I have also read and strongly disagree with the CounterArgument below, which seems to me to be a bit of an ad hominem attack against the initiator of this VfD, disregarding most arguments by other users, whose views differ somewhat from his and whose opinions I have preferred to User:IZAK's. Nahum 16:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Counterargument

The series of articles proposed for deletion by the deletion nominator herein, (User:IZAK), are

  1. neither Repetitive;
  2. nor Duplicative;
  3. they do not violates Misplaced Pages:Content forking guidelines;
  4. they do not violate What Misplaced Pages is not guidelines; and
  5. they do not cumulatively border on No original research prohibitions.
  6. The claim that "here has always been one very good featured article about the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" is misleading at best. True, the article has been featured; but that it was "very good" is the mere uninformed opinion of this one editor.
  7. The articles here could not, and cannot now, be easily summarized.
  8. Regarding so-called WP:LISTification, one of the articles does just that - but it too is in the list for deletion.
  9. The accusation that "for some bizarre reason the creator of these "articles" User: Ludvikus seems to think that Misplaced Pages needs an article about every version of this abominable book that was ever thought of or written in any language" comes from - at best - general ignorance of the subject matter herein.
  10. That "most of the articles here are just bloated paragraphs with publication information" is a conclusory POV. The editor who says this appears unable to digest the fact that there is no such thing as the book - so he disparages the most important facts to be stated - the publication events about this plurality of items.
  11. These "articles" cannot be combined and merged into the already bloated main article The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and accordingly, splitting unavoidable and necessary.
  12. The further disparaging remark regarding the drivel about deleting bulk of the "publication information" is again, at best, a manifestation of extreme ignorance as to the subject matter.
  13. What is asked regarding "transferred to Wikisource (the multiple images of the texts should be transferred to Misplaced Pages:Wikimedia Commons)" manifests another kind of ignorance at best - what constutes the several marticles themselves.
  14. Regarding the "article names", that these "should be redirected to the main The Protocols of the Elders of Zion article" would create a redundancy at best. The "article names" are the names of the most notoriously important imprints of the diverse books, spread over space and time, which fall under the unfortunate category of the so-called Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Knowledge of these titles has already been acknowledged and absorbed into the main article.
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 05:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  1. Strong Keep Unfortunately racism and antisemitism exist. These are terrible things. We have two theoretical choices regarding its products. Destroy, ignore, or hide them under the carpet, hoping that they disappear. Or we can bring them into the light of day, hoping that thereby the rays of sunlight will, through over-exposure, reveal the fraud that these embody. Unfortunately, the former way is either impossible, or unsuccessful. Many Jews in NYC city in and about 1920 believed that if they only worked hard, and kept quiet about the hateful literature which came out of Russia that year, that evil would eventually simply subside into oblivion. Unfortunately, those of us who know, know that that did not happen. In fact, quite the opposite happened resulting in a horrible tragedy for the Jewish people. As Norman Cohn points out, this literature turned into the Warrant for Genocide. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 01:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. There is no such book as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. This title is the invention of compilers of commentaries on the "literature" which is the subject of the articles now being considered for deletion here. In fact, all these articles are extremely important precisely because they relate to the The Non-Existent Manuscript, a manuscript, nonetheless, which formed the basis of the Warrant for Genocide.
  3. To be continued ... --Ludvikus 03:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  1. Not only is it the case that the hypothetical original French language plagiarism, literary forgery, and hoax has not been preserved, but neither is it the case that there exists anywhere we know of the Russian language manuscript (again, see the recent, 2004, scholarly work, The Non-Existent Manuscript).
  2. And still further complicating our lives is the fact that there's no such thing as the Standard work under that (or any other) title. So there is no such thing as the book in this subject area.
  3. What does exist is a plurality of texts, imprints, editions, under various titles.
  4. Even the Form of publication varies: newspaper articles, pamphlets, booklets, books, and even ebooks, internet postings, and films.
  5. Further complicating our lives is the fact that these "Protocols" (for lack of a better name) are always published as a compilation with distinct front matter (Preface, Introduction, etc.), as well as back matter (Conclusion, Appendices, etc.).
  6. And still another complication, is the fact that with each diverse imprint there is most often, an anonymous editor, etc., whose names are only now beginning to come out as a result of scholarship.
  7. And all these facts are essentially true even if we restrict ourselves to productions in the English language alone.
  8. The WP requirement - that all these WP articles be merged would require original research - and that is not permitted by WP guidelines.
  9. However, what amounts to book reports is allowed on WP. What I've done, regarding these articles is simply go to all these imprints and read and examine them each individually. That is certainly in keeping with WP policy. As I understand that, any WP editor is free to read any book or imprint and give a report on that. That kind of stuff does not require any original research.
  10. The current {{Main}} article is already quite long. I do not think it possible to cramp all these most important (though hateful & evil) imprints under one roof - which merging would require.
  11. Splitting (as I understand the WP term) is the only way to go. The model I have in mind is "Philosophy" which acts as the Main article for numerous subordinate articles.
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 23:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per User:Yidisheryid. Ostap 04:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to either The Protocols of the Elders of Zion or possibly subarticle such as Editions of the Protocols of the wise men of Zion. Unless there are distinctions between the various editions substantive enough to warrant separate treatment, there is little point to having multiple articles. older ≠ wiser 15:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: But there are such substantive distinctions. And the main article here up for deletion is the one you are proposing ("imprints"). I've also tried, repeatedly, to inform editors that to accomplish the Merge requested would require original research. There has not been - ever - a collective study of the English language imprints of these Protocols. And in fact, the study of this "literature" (for lack of a better word) in the Russian language has only been made available to the public in English in 2004: The Non-Existent Manuscript. I do not believe that the editors who are recommending the MERGE of these article are fully aware of the enormous task that requires - besides Original researc. As I keep telling those editors who recommend Merge - that is not possible. At the same time, the different imprints are absolutely important for the following reasons:
  1. 1903 - Jews are blamed (with the PSM - acronym for the title in Russian) for conditions in Russia before the 1905 Revolution.
  2. 1905-6 - Jews are blamed for the 1905 Revolution in Russia.
  3. 1920 - Jews are blamed for Bolshevism, the Russian Revolution, and the Russian Civil War.
  4. 1920's-1930 - Jew are blamed for WWI & WWII emerging conditions.
  5. 1934 300 page compilation tome - Jews are blamed for everything.
  • There's too much stuff here to put into a single article. Each text version has a different (evil and antisemitic) history.
  • As I keep telling the editors who are asking for Merge, each of these imprints has different front matter and back matter (by different anonymous editors, and that really carries and does the antisemitic work. But you can only tell that by going to these, often extremely rare texts. I've done that. No one I know of has. And again, there is no scholarly study focusing on the English language imprints. At the same time, this stuff is extremely subtle, complex, seductive, and apparently persuave to the minds of antisemites.
  • For all these reasons, it is impossible to Merge the individual distinct and malevolently important imprints.
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 17:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • strong delete. wikipedia is not a bibliographical catalog. Imagine we start writing articles about each and every edition of each and every book. Mukadderat 04:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all, as being redundant and boosting the purported importance of the subject. Redirects after deletion would be fine, if they are likely search terms. Guy (Help!) 13:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • speedy keep no other book in the world has had so much impact each edition in its own merit and different way. so they are in essence totally difrent books, therefore merit different articles.--יודל 13:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect per Guy's suggestion Avi 14:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The International Jew and The Cause of World Unrest, as they are significantly more notable than the rest due to the Henry Ford connection. Merge the rest into one article entitled 'Editions of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion' (or 'Publications of...', or something similar). While I admire and appreciate the effort that's gone into each one of these articles, they cover substantially similar enough topics that Misplaced Pages doesn't need an article on every single one. This information would be much easier to read and make sense of if it were all on one page. Terraxos 17:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment With all due respect, I do not think this User fully appreciates the difficulty which Merge entails. There has not been a comparative study of these various editions of this hateful antisemitic literature. And these original items are exceedingly rare. Accordingly, who, and, how would such a Merge be accomplished? Remember that the subject matter involves plagiarism, fraud, hoax, etc. So what one ordinarily might view as a triviality, may in fact be a significant ponit upon which the success of the Protocols Myth turns. So any kind of Merge is bound to involve Misplaced Pages editors in Original Research (prohibited at WP) on this difficult and controversial matter. So the only option we have is Keep all. Accordingly, I strongly urge our User to reconsider his/her recommendaqtion. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 18:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Since them are "exceedingly rare", we don't have enough information from reliable sources to make separate articles. An article that consisit only of a title and pointers to library records is not an ancyclopedia article. Since you agree that merge is an invalid solition, the only approach is to delete for lack of notability and verifiability. Mukadderat 20:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
      • So let's delete the Gutenberg Bible on that ground too, right? You should think of all this as "Satan's Bible" to coin a simile. It turns out, however, not to be a single book at all. All the editions are equally malevolently important. --Ludvikus 20:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Please don't use false and deliberately provocative arguments. Gutenberg Bible is considered important by reputable researchers independent of wikipedia and the artcle is based on wealth of sources. And "all editions" are not equally important, even "malevolently". And "malevolently" is not in vocabulary of wikipedia's notablity criteria. Mukadderat 20:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • comment After being dragged into this discussion I looked into the work of Ludvikus on this topic and I respect his dedication to the subject. I am nothing close to being expert or even somehow read in the subject, however it came to my attention that all these articles are very poorly referenced and footnoted. Since this is very rare topic, the wikipedia artices must be very thoroughly footnoted, otherwise they leave a very strong impresion of Original bibliophile research. I marked all pages accordingly, since I am afraid that the overall decision is swayed towards "merge", and I would object to merging of unsourced information without proper tagging.. Mukadderat 21:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Ideal situation for a merge. There's no need for 13 articles on slightly different imprints of the same general publication, and on examination many of them appear to consist only of publishing information that is of little use to readers. While a case can be made that each edition differs from the others in some way, all of these are straightforward variations on a central work that can easily be described in either that article or in a new article Editions of the Protocols of the wise men of Zion (per Jon513). Daniel/T+ 12:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge, which is my instinct anyway (I am a "mergetarian" and am proud to have invented that portmonteau). While I respect the creator's dedication to all this work, it needs to be trimmed down. This is, as has been noted above by several users, a perfect case to merge, not to delete. All of them should be placed into a single "imprints" or "editions" article, whatever it may be called. I don't think Henry Ford's involvement in a particular edition(s) makes that especially notable, although I'm not an expert. Bearian 18:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think it stands as a testament to how poorly written these articles are that it took me until now to realize this, but it appears that some of these articles are not even about actual books -- they are about the titles of the books. Someone please take a look at Protocols of the wise men of Zion and tell me if I'm wrong that this is an antire article devoted, not even to an edition or printing, but to a library label. -- 192.250.34.161 20:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Do not delete. Reasonable merge arguments are made. Unfortunately, there is too much complexity for mergers to be mandated by a failed deletion debate. The information in the thirteen pages needs to be organized, but with care. Leave the details to be worked out by editors involved. --SmokeyJoe 12:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.