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

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 12:18, 18 October 2007 editIZAK (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers86,903 edits {{Unsigned\|Ikiroid}} http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/The_Protocols_of_Zion_%28imprints%29&diff=165295451&oldid=165285328← Previous edit		Revision as of 13:06, 18 October 2007 edit undoBrownHairedGirl (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers2,942,733 edits move Ludvius's contribution to the bottom of the articleNext edit →
Line 23:		Line 23:
	:*<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)
⚫	~~====~~ Counterargument ~~====~~
		⚫	----
		⚫	*'''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)
		⚫	*'''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><]/]]</b>></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.{{Unsigned\|Ikiroid}}
		⚫	*'''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 ]. --] 02:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
		⚫	*'''Merge all''' to ], except The International Jew, which should be kept. ] 03:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
		⚫	*'''Counterargument'''
	The series of articles proposed for deletion by the deletion nominator herein, (]), are		The series of articles proposed for deletion by the deletion nominator herein, (]), are
	#neither Repetitive;		#neither Repetitive;
Line 44:		Line 63:
	#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 ''']'''.		#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)		#To be continued ... --] 03:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
⚫	*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''' 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)
⚫	**'''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><]/]]</b>></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.{{Unsigned\|Ikiroid}}
⚫	*'''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 ]. --] 02:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
⚫	*'''Merge all''' to ], except The International Jew, which should be kept. ] 03:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:06, 18 October 2007

The Protocols of Zion (imprints)

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:

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

Delete and Merge to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and/or Move content/s to Wikisource and multiple images to Wikimedia Commons. Sincerely, IZAK 08:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 08:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

~~This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)~~

Please engage in a further discussion on this page's Talk page . --Ludvikus 15:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and redirect. Content forking makes it harder to make a good encyclopaedia. -- Olve 11:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
merge into one article Editions of the Protocols of the wise men of Zion. 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. Jon513 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.) --Redaktor 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? -- 192.250.34.161 17:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete and Merge to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion --YoavD 13:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and redirect this one. --JewBask 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 Editions of the Protocols of the wise men of Zion. 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
merge/split: The Protocols of the Elders of Zion 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: Versions of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion". (The quotes in the title are essential, indicating that this is a title, not "real" protocols, which do not exist. `'Míkka 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 Editions of the "Protocols of the wise men of Zion" article". However, a little research makes me think that this might be overhasty -- take a look at The International Jew, which contains information about Henry Ford'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. -- 192.250.34.161 17:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep The International Jew, its authorship by Henry Ford made it extremely notable, and it has been extensively discussed in reliable sources. No vote for everything else, but it looks deletion/merge -worthy. <eleland/talkedits> 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 Velikoe v malom i antikhrist is in Category:Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and Category:Protocols of the Elders of Zion is in another category such as Category:Antisemitic publications, that means Velikoe v malom i antikhrist should naturally be in Category:Antisemitic publications. This is unfortunately the exact opposite of the truth: Putting Velikoe v malom i antikhrist in a sub-category of Category:Antisemitic publications (which Category:Protocols of the Elders of Zion 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 The Protocols of the Elders of Zion which, as the main article of Category:Protocols of the Elders of Zion, should belong in all the same parent categories. -- 192.250.34.161 20:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep The International Jew, 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.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikiroid (talk • contribs)
Merge all to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and redirect. Edward321 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. Bfigura 01:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep The International Jew, Listify the others at The Protocols of the Elders of Zion or Editions of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion". — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 01:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep one The International Jew per comments above and Merge the rest into The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. --MPerel 02:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge all to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, except The International Jew, which should be kept. Crazysuit 03:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Counterargument

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

neither Repetitive;
nor Duplicative;
they do not violates Misplaced Pages:Content forking guidelines;
they do not violate What Misplaced Pages is not guidelines; and
they do not cumulatively border on No original research prohibitions.
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.
The articles here could not, and cannot now, be easily summarized.
Regarding so-called WP:LISTification, 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" 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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)

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)
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.
To be continued ... --Ludvikus 03:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Categories: