Template talk:The Protocols

Quotes

After moving this a few times, although I dislike the " (quote) marks around the title, I think the rule should be:

as long as the 'parent' article "The Protocols" has quotes around it, then this template should too.

-- RHaworth 19:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cut & Paste Discussion from other talk page

The Protocols
[edit]

There's no Antisemitic "book" that's more important, as such, than the above. Yet it comes in so many different variations, editions, compilations, and even titles! Wikipedia's function is to educate, and the matter above is much more complex than people are aware. For example, there's no such thing as the Protocoles. That's why it's so important to list the different variations - which, by the way, are produced by anonymous editors. I think we should include as complete a list of these titles on the template. Besides violence, Antisemitism is the expression of views (like Conspiracy theories). And no other "work" embodies "better" theses views than what Norman Cohn called a Warrant for Genocide. So let's give our readers, at a flash an opportunity to examine this multiplicity. I'm for keeping all the titles - that's exactly what Antisemitism is: a spread, and recycling of a complex multiplicity as a single book. Best. --Ludvikus 06:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's a very important book — perhaps the most important book — with respect to antisemitism. But please read what I wrote on your talk page and what I wrote above. The purpose of a template such as this is not to list every article about antisemitism; that's impossible. The template can only highlight the most important articles. It already has two links to Protocols, each of which links to every one of your editions. There is no need for the template to also include direct links to each edition. If you think that every edition is so vitally important, create a new Template:Protocols of the Elders of Zion or Template:Antisemitic literature. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 07:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

First, it's not a SINGLE book, as I keep saying.

But you have a very good idea. Can you help me create such a Template? I've never created one from scrtch. I'll do the rest if you just create a Biler Plate Template? And if you won't or can't do that, can you point where I can learn it?

Best regards, --Ludvikus 07:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Template for which one? Protocols or Antisemitic literature? Which title do you prefer? Yahel Guhan 08:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent question!!! I'd like to see the Latter but with the Former imbedded within it. A picture is worth a 1000 words, so here's what I've got so far: Antisemitica (publications). --Ludvikus 13:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I've Pasted here the discussion on that other page. --Ludvikus 13:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's Pasted from the following: Template talk:Antisemitism. --Ludvikus 13:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More Paticularly, here [1].

,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Antisemitism&action=edit&section=18].

--Ludvikus 14:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Ludvikus 14:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Ludvikus 14:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

I'm still a novice at creating & editing Templates. So cleanup is badly needed. Also, I'd like a break between the two (2) images.

The Luther title should go under his image. But I can't do it since I still do not understand the Syntax - by which I do not mean a tax on sinning.

--Ludvikus 14:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template is a bit wide, if someone can fix that problem, it would be appreciated. Yahel Guhan 00:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Changed it to fontsize 3. --Ludvikus 03:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

v . d . e

The above needs editing - as it redirects to the previous template. --Ludvikus 04:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now it should work OK. M0RD00R 10:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need another fix - renamed, etc., so the problem came back. --Ludvikus 13:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. M0RD00R 16:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Protagonist list is long

Since the list is long - can someone adjust the Breaks between names appropriately? Thanks. --Ludvikus 14:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilinks

Do we really need all these wiki links to influence, anonymous, editors, item etc. in this template? I think we can easily get rid of them. M0RD00R 11:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. It turns out that this Antisemitic stuff is actually quite complex. So "influence" flags the fact than "Mein Kompf" was not even a "compilation of "The Protocols." "Anonymous" emphasises the lack of any named "editor," preface-writer, "introduction-writer," etc. Yes, a reference is sometimes made to the Russian, Serge Nilus who published the Tract in 1905 as chapter 12 of his book. But these on, or post 1920, items have no author/editor, given. And you bneed to call it an "item," as the authority calls them in his "Antisemitic Propaganda," simply "book" is misleading. We have here pamphlets, , newspaper articles, compilations, etc. So I think its good to emphasize that.
One reason I love Wikipedia is precisely because it has these wonderful side-benefits - I think it's a great tool in the battle against Ignorance and Hatred. It gives us a way of distroying Falsehoods, like Propaganda and Antisemitism, by attacking the subtle operation of these things. So I wish keep these terms because those he are less informed may think that here we have a Single Book written by One Man and later re-published. Do you know, for example, that Victor E. Marsden, who is reputed to have made one of the translations into English, and died on October 28, 1920, according to Robert Singerman, is associated with a 1923 imprint by The Britons, or the Britons Publishing Society, or the Britons Publishing Co.? He may not even have been the Translator? But that's not known.
I don't think we should shortchange our readers. Linking is one of the great advantages of Wikipedia and Cyberspace. It allows us non-hardcopy writers to be extremely precise - its like having every word loaded with a nanodictionary if you will. Do you get my point? I was a teacher for many years. So I think of myself as an expert on Misunderstanding, whereas modern philosophers have often written upon the faculty of Understanding.

Best to you, Dear Wikipedian. --Ludvikus 12:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually my point was rather technical one. By linking simple words like item and editor we are not creating much additional value to the template. Of cause it does not harm to have these links but usually only subject related definitions are linked in the templates. M0RD00R 12:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. But I think there's an exception. I would not do this for an ordinary scholarly article. But I believe its useful for articles which attract crackpots - like the Protocols of Zion. It's quite complicated for me to try to explain to you how crazy minds work. Let me just say that I think it's useful to be exact with most of the words we use in an article which deals with crazy stuff. I adopt a very different style where pure scholarship, rather than where psycho-pathology is involved. Thank you for your thoughts. I will see, though, if I can tone done that stuff without sacrificing the integrity or purpose of the Template. Maybe one idea may be of help to you at what I'm aiming at: there's no such thing as The Protocols of Zion; nevertheless, most writing about it is As If there were One Text. --Ludvikus 23:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Defenders against the protocols

Change to 'debunkers of the protocols' or similar? Could read better. 123.255.55.96 06:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea! I've been trying to think of a better word, I didn't like "exposers", but "Debunkers" is great. Thanks! — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 07:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose?

It appears the purpose of this template has shifted greatly from its initial creation. I now question its value. As I see it, sidebar navigation templates (I don't know if there's a agreed upon name for them, so go with me on this) appear to be used as portals, when a overlying topic branches off into many sections, each of which are wholly a subsection of the overlying topic. They generally don't go into elements that are merely related to the topic as this one currently does. The list of names of people involved doesn't really facilitate navigation for an encyclopedia. inline interwiki links in the various articles are sufficient for this purpose. Thus, the only links that clearly would belong in such a template are:

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion
Protocols of the Elders of Zion (versions)
The Cause of World Unrest which doesn't count, as it redirects to the "versions" article above

I hardly consider this sufficient to justify a template, especially not a large sidebar template that crowds an article that's already rather busy. Further, I raised an issue at talk:Protocols of the Elders of Zion (versions) where that article needs a clear scope and purpose, and needs to be renamed. -Verdatum (talk) 18:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CLN#Navigation templates. I think several of the disadvantages cited in the guideline fit this template (2, 4, 6, and 8), but I don't think the template has any of the advantages described there. Per the guideline, I think a category is more appropriate than a template. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link. I presumed it was discussed in a guideline somewhere, but didn't know which. -Verdatum (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]