User talk:Ludvikus/Archive 7

Final solution

El_C! Here are 2 questions I have:

(1) Do we need the "The" in the opening of said Article? If so, why?

(2) Why capitalize the "s" in Final Solution? It seems to me to violate Wikipedia guidelines on Capitalization. If you think otherwise, please explain in sufficient detail for me to understand your view.

Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not El C, but I think I can answer those questions: (1) We should write grammatically correct sentences, so "The" seems necessary. Whether it should be bolded is another question; personally I wouldn't do so (the article itself is named "Final Solution", not "The Final Solution").

(2) The Final Solution is a very specific event - in effect, not a final solution, but the Final Solution. The most relevant section of the MOS seems to be the paragraph on military terms: "Accepted full names of wars, battles, [...], campaigns, [...], operations and so forth are capitalized". While the Final Solution wasn't what I'd call a military campaign, it definitely has an accepted name; so by analogy, it should be capitalized. Huon (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

1. Great. Except I really wanted to discuss the matter with El_C (for obvious reasons - at least to me). For now I only disagree with you strongly on the WP:Bold. Here's are example (5) of our WP practice: (1) French Connection, however (2) Dreyfus affair, (3) Damascus affair, (4) Palestinian territories, (5) Beilis trial or (6) Beilis affair.
2. I think what we have here is a Nazi usage. No historian, and certainly no Jew, does or will do that - except perhaps for dramatic effects. Why - insensitively - dignify such usage by capitalizing the "s" when - at least- it's un-necessary to do so?
3. Look at what the article itself says it's about: "This article is about about the final stage of The Holocaust, Nazi Germany's genocidal policy to exterminate the European Jews.". That's extremely relevant - but I'll leave that alone for now.
4. Ukraine. Can you please write me a grammatically correct sentence which begins with the name of this country?

--Ludvikus (talk) 15:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Capitalizing the Final Solution can't be a "Nazi usage". The Nazis spoke German, where every noun is capitalized. But it happens to be the usage of our sources: the Shoah Education Project, the House of the Wannsee Conference memorial (which also capitalizes "The"), the PDF file from Yad Vashem (page 12, line 3). Or have a look at the Jewish Virtual Library (which also capitalizes "The"). Do they all use "Nazi usage"? It's not a question of dignity, but of grammar. "Final Solution" is a name for a specific event; that's why it's capitalized. Similarly, the word "holocaust" has a more general meaning, but when referring to the genocide, it's capitalized.

Regarding your example: The Dreyfus affair seems to be ambiguous; the article starts with "The Dreyfus Affair...". The Beilis affair and the Beilis trial apparently are not proper nouns - it's just an affair/trial concerning someone named Beilis. The Damascus affair similarly seems to fall short. The Palestinian territories are just the "territories of the Palestinians" - if the Palestinians were to found a state and name it "Palestinian Territories", it would be capitalized. I'm not an expert on capitalization, and for some phrases capitalization might be difficult to decide, but here the sources we have should be sufficient. Are there any sources not capitalizing the Final Solution? Huon (talk) 16:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

1. I disagree on your analysis of my examples.
2. Your first example is the "daramtic effect" I described above. It's not a scholarly publication. It's a web site designed to dramatize the terrible horror of the holocaust. At best, it's a Neologism.
3. Your next example (also a web site) says this: "The Final Solution", the decision to deport the Jews of Europe to the East and to murder them.
4. I think that this too may be a WP:Forking (there's no reference to the Holocaust article as the {{Main}} one. The effect, I think, is to have Wikipedia say that the holocaust was not so bad - it was just the Final Solution that was really bad.
5. I don't have time at the moment for the rest. But I sincerely thank you for your rational discourse with me.

• PS: By "Nazi usage" I simply meant that the 2-word phrase itself was used by them (the Caps are irrelevant to that).

Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course the term "Final Solution" originates with the Nazis. But it has entered common usage. As examples, take this book review at Yad Vashem (which doesn't use quotation marks), or this article by the Jewish Press (again no quotation marks). Concerning "forking", the Holocaust is mentioned in the Final Solution article's first line. The Holocaust article itself is a lot more grisly than the Final Solution one, including pictures of the victims. But the Final Solution article is drastic enough: It mentions the million of victims killed before the Final Solution was adopted and contains phrases such as "industrialized mass slaughter of Jews began in earnest", "systematic extermination of the Jews" and so on. I don't understand how either article can be seen as saying that "the Holocaust was not so bad". The {{main}} template would be inappropriate. It is supposed to be used as you did here: When an article contains a short summary of another article. So if at all, the Final Solution section in the Holocaust article could carry a template linking to the Final Solution article, not the other way around. Huon (talk) 18:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• It's easiest to respond from the bottom up.

1. We agree - the {{Main}} Tag should be used. Perhaps I wasn't clear (I thought I was), The "Main" article should be the Holocause.
2. That may solve the problem - in the long run - that the "final solution" article is "milder" - which is weird, don't you agree?
3. The first reference you give - is just what I call "dramatic effect" - it's most appropriate to use the Nazi term - to sell the book better (that's one of the purposes of a book title - people do judge a book by its cover).
4. Your second example is from a book review in the Jewish Press by a Rabbi who appears to have academic credentials. I think it may support your view - but it may well be a Neologism created by Wikipedia. Maybe the distinguished rabbi had a slip of the pen. Again, it does give some weight to your agrument - but not as much as a scholarly article published in a peer-reviewed journal would. I do not at the moment have easy access to such journals - but hope to have it soon.
5. But I just found a very strong counterexample to yours - from a distinguished scholarly source. Give me a moment, please.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus (talk) 19:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• A technique I use - which I strongly recommend to all Wikipedians - is to go to the Index of books.
• In this case I'm on page 1138 of A History of the Jewish People (1969c, 1976c), ed. by H. H. Ben-Sasson. The usage there is "Final solution." I have not had a chance, however, to read the pages referred to.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus (talk) 19:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• I just look at the first page of said book. And it's amazing that it contradicts your other reference (I think you'll know which): page1027 has the title:

The Wannsee Conference and Systematic Extermination. (Hint: it doesn't say "& Final Solution")

• I wonder what you guess that inspires me to recommend here [1] ?

Yours truly, --Ludvikus (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

PS1: Why use the Nazi 2-word expression for it, when the Scholarly/Israeli/Jewish/Harvard university press expression - systematic extermination - is clearly better? Besides, the Nazis didn't succeed ("thank God," there was no "final solution" - Jews thrive in the the world), even after 6,000,000 - why even give the Nazis the benefit of coining the expression - when that's still a neologism?

Yours truly, --Ludvikus (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

PS2: Why pollute Google & the Web - un-necessarily - with such ugly Neologism? --Ludvikus (talk) 20:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the advantage of immediate access to a history library, but maybe Google Scholar helps. Have a look at these hits (I had to add "Holocaust" to the search so I didn't get swamped in articles on chemistry). For example, this book (which is cited by 12 other scholarly texts, according to Google): Not only does it contain "Final Solution" in its title, but the list of contributors (pages vii and viii) mentions several other scientific papers thus named, written by professors of history at various universities. This should serve as proof that the term is used by the scientific community (though not everywhere or by everyone, of course). I don't think there's a more common name for the Nazi campaign of extermination - for example, Google Scholar gives almost 20 times more hits for "Final Solution" and "Holocaust" than for "systematic extermination" and "Holocaust" (and associating Harvard University Press with "Israeli/Jewish", but not Yad Vashem, seems... strange). Probably the Nazi name is used because they named their attempt at genocide and no one else felt the need to invent another name for it ("systematic extermination" sounds like a description, not a name). Capitalization seems a little more ambiguous among the scientific community than among, say, the press, but note that the book I listed above capitalizes it in the entry on Christopher R. Browning, p. viii (and that instance is not title case). Anyway, it's not a neologism since the name has been around for more than 60 years - according to the neologism article, "genocide" itself has only been coined in 1943. Huon (talk) 21:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Your finds are interesting - and certainly relevancy - but so far many support my position (will use Library of Congress):

1. Book title: "Final solution: origins and implementation / edited by David Cesarani."
2. Book title: "Ordinary men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the final solution in Poland / Christopher R. Browning."
3. Analysis of Museum & quotes: "Remembering and forgetting the "Final Solution": a rhetorical pilgrimage through the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum"
4. A LOC counterexample: "Witness to the Holocaust. Final solution [videorecording] / National Jewish Resource Center ; director and producer, C. J. Pressma."
5. Look at the Library of Congress: [2] in contrast to: [3]

• PS: Now I'm off to a Dance/Dancing - so I will not coninue the analysis. Maybe later. But it's been a real pleasure working with you. Hope you feel likewise. Cheers. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• I begin to doubt the Library of Congress. Christopher Browning's faculty website capitalizes "Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland". See the book itself. That may be title case, so it's not conclusive either way. But for all I can tell using Amazon's "search inside" feature, both Browning's book and the one edited by Cesarani consistently use caps; I didn't check the others. So the LoC entries don't show the usage in scholarly sources, but solely the usage at the LoC itself, even when the books are capitalized diffetently. Huon (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Finished tasks but didn't yet leave - so 3 points.

1. The LOC uses similar principle we Wikipedians do - generally do not capitalize titles of books except such proper nouns or names as the :"American Revolution."
2. It/they obviously determined that "Final solution" is not a proper/common name.
3. Every book title will have "solution" capitalized - but that's just because it's part of the book title - general book title capitalization rule. I own the Chicago Manual of Style. When I get back, I'll get a ref. from it.

Hope I made my point. I'm really off now. Cheers. --Ludvikus (talk) 00:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to quote the Chicago Manual of Style; I'm aware of title case. But let's actually look inside the books (I use Amazon's "search inside" feature; maybe their page numbers are a little off). We see: Browning, on page 8: "... it was the latter chain of command that would be crucial for Order Police participation in the Final Solution. ..." Or Cesarini, on page 33: "... the German Jews - in full view and with the increasing approval and complicity of millions of Germans - the Final Solution would not have been possible. ..." So we have to believe either the Library of Congress or the historians who actually wrote the books. I prefer the historians over the catalog cards. Huon (talk) 11:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Huon, could you please supply me the 2 Diffs to these items/pages here? --Ludvikus (talk) 13:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

LOC Card (Cesarini book): [4] --Ludvikus (talk) 13:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

LOC Card (Browning book): [5] --Ludvikus (talk) 13:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what "diffs" you are talking about here. I agree that the Library of Congress uses strange rules of capitalization - for example, we can probably agree that either "final solution" or "Final Solution" is correct, but "Final solution" as in the LoC entry for the Cesarini book is just plain wrong. The books themselves seem to consistently use "Final Solution", as does almost every text I came about. By the way, I did look up the Chicago Manual of Style, and here is what it had to say on the matter: "Appellations of historical, quasi-historical, political, ecomenical, and cultural events, plans, and so forth are generally capitalized", though it does go on to list the XYZ affair and the Dreyfus affair as exceptions. Unfortunately the Final Solution is not among its examples, but I'd say if such "events, plans, and so forth" are generally capitalized, the onus of proof would be on him who favors not to capitalize it. And I don't consider the usage of the LoC, which is both inconsistent and different from the usage in the books themselves, as proof. Huon (talk) 17:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least you agree that it is not a simple, obvious, issue favoring what is currently the Wikipedia version. However, what you describe as "strange" rules I strongly disagree with. And even if you find it "strange," the LOC clearly does find The "American Revolution" to warrant 2 capitalizations, but not "final solution." Also, you are not responding to the scholarly version(s) which put it explicitly in quotes like so: ""Final Solution"" (I'm quoting the quotation). By my request for the Diffs, I'm asking you to post here the Diffs to the 2 pages in the 2 books which you found above through your Google search. PS: You know, Huon, until I came along the title of the article was the "Final Solution to the Jewish Question." What is your view on that? --Ludvikus (talk) 17:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

"final solution"

That's the usage in The Changing Face of Antisemitism (2006) by Walter Laqueur. Look at the "Index" under "Holocaust" where you'll find ""final solution"" (I'm quoting the expression which itself is in quotes). That's conclusive for me that the Wikipedia Article should be "Final solution". I doubt, Houn, you will find a more recent and scholarly authority than this. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Said index has, on page 221, under "Holocaust" the following subdivision with page numbers:

    "final solution," 118-24

That's conclusive for me that the "s" should not be capitalized in the second word, "solution." --Ludvikus (talk) 20:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The exact sentence introducing the expression (on page 118) is as follows:

    "A variety of steps were taken to prepare and facilitate a "final solution" of the Jewish question;
    the term was apparently first used by Reinhard Heydrich, Heinrich Himmler's deputy.

--Ludvikus (talk) 20:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Finding a source to your specifications was indeed pretty difficult, but I believe I have succeeded. Here it is: Harold James, The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy, Central European History (2007), vol. 40, p. 366-371, Cambridge University Press. According to the snippet I could get from Google Scholar, James writes: "Hence the authors of the Final Solution did not conceive of it as a ... " - and there the snippet ends. Unfortunately I currently don't have access to the journal, but I should be able to get a more complete quotation tomorrow. Why was finding such a source difficult? Because it had to be by a historian of excellent scholarship, preferably with a Wikipedia article, published by a respectable publisher, newer than 2006, findable via Google Scholar (the only search tool available to me right now) and published in a way that will allow me to read it in full. In the course of this search I came upon almost any combination of quotation marks and capital letters conceivable (with the exception of "neither"): the Final Solution, the "Final Solution", "the Final Solution", the "final solution", "the final solution", and the longer ones: the "Final Solution of the Jewish question" (or "... of the Jewish Problem") and, I believe, the "final solution of the Jewish question". One book I found even used different spellings on the same page: First it spoke about the Nazi's quest for a final solution, then explained that the Nazi leaders always used euphemisms like "Final Solution" (with quotation marks) and finally settled on speaking about the Final Solution. So apparently people use lots of different versions on the name. I tend to discount your example because it speaks of "a 'final solution'", not "the 'final solution'". In the face of this contradictory evidence I'd settle on what the Chicago Manual suggests - using capitals. I believe Wikipedia articles in general don't begin with quotation marks - most exceptions I could find were book titles, peoples' nicknames, redirects, or a combination (such as "D" Is for Deadbeat, "Dangerous" Danny Spivey or "Day of Affirmation" Address, respectively). For an analogous article, have a look at Great Leap Forward - also the name of a less-than-beneficial program (though the deaths during the Great Leap probably weren't intentional). Huon (talk) 23:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• You raise many complex issues here, so I'll try to address them one at a time.

1. You seem to give greater (or equal) weight to a scholar of German history, than you do to a scholar of Jewish history, particularly one who also is a specialist in antisemitism, namely Walter Laqueur. Why?
2. It is established that the Nazis coined the "term" (that's what Laqueur calls it - a "term").
3. Why should Wikipedia dignify a part of the Holocaust by turning this term to mean an event when such a renowned scholar explicitly tells us otherwise in 2004?
4. I think the situation here is similar to that which existed in the United States when negro was a proper term for what is now African American.
5. I think we should be sensitive to such fine distinctions considering the horrors of the Holocaust, and the experiential sufferings which the Jewish people continue to endure.
6. There is also the following horrible implication in the use & relation of the three metaphors: (1) Jewish question, (2) Final solution, and (3) Never again.
7. Clearly we have here metaphors for the issue of Jewish emancipation after the French Revolution.
8. The psychological implication obviously is the Extermination of the Jews.
9. That did not happen - the Jews in fact ("thank God") are thriving - doing very well - in at least certain parts of the world.
10. When there is no clear-cut obvious reference which prefers "Final Solution" to "Final solution", and both mean the "extermination" of the Jews, why not defer to a Jew like myself who was born to Holocaust survivors after World War II?
11. I wish it (the term) to remain merely a Nazi term for an even that didn't happen in relation to the events that did happen namely the holocaust, a.k.a Shoah, and the Wannsee Conference.
12. We also know that the Holocaust was gradual and subsequently "systematic" - and if the "systematic" phase is in the process of getting a name for itself, why should Wikipedia assist this Neologism get any greater hold hand it already has?
13. How is it that there's so much blind to the pejorative sense of "final solution"?
14. Doesn't its pejorative sense require us to proceed with particular caution?
15. Since there appears to be a tie between us two Wikipedians I can only hope that the consensus will swing in my favor.
16. Accordingly, the article should be named Final solution - indicating a term, rather than an event.

Cheers. --Ludvikus (talk) 00:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• PS (1): In fact, it just ocurred to me that we should consider the term more carefully in relation to Never again:

    NEVER AGAIN: Holocaust Memorial Day
    The Holocaust was the systematic,
    industrialised annihilation of six million Jews
    by the Nazi regime during World War 2.
    In 1933 approximately nine million ...
    www.gonshaw.net/Holocaust.htm

See [6] --Ludvikus (talk) 00:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• PS (2): So what do you think about - at least - doing something with respect to the fact that - quite suprisingly - Wikipedia has the Nazi usage - but not the Jewish usage of "Never again"? --Ludvikus (talk) 00:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• PS (3): I found the exact usage in A History of the Jewish People (1028) as follows:

    "As transpired from later activity,
    there was a basic guideline in
    the "Final Solution' plan
    - to break the spirit of the Jews
    before killing them
    by worsening conditions
    in the ghettos,
    by increasing terror
    and creating the illusion
    that those who submitted
    had a chance
    of saving themselves."

1. I think if we're going to drop the quotes (from 'Final Solution') we should preserve the meaning by de-capitalizing "Solution." --Ludvikus (talk) 02:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
2. It's clear (to me at least) that the purpose of the quotes is to imply the use of the Nazi expression/term - and explicitly not to adopt it as a valid historical label. To me, that's obvious - even if not explicitly so stated. We call such usage "scare quotes." --Ludvikus (talk) 02:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
3. So please - let us distance ourselves from the Nazi usage - as is the intent of "scare quotes." --Ludvikus (talk) 02:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
4. Here's the Chicago Manual of Style Online on Scare Quotes (used earlier in the Article on the same):

The Chicago Manual of Style (CMS), 15th edition acknowledges this type of use but cautions against overuse in section 7.58, "Quotation marks are often used to alert readers that a term is used in a nonstandard, ironic, or other special sense [...] They imply 'This is not my term' or 'This is not how the term is usually applied.' Like any such device, scare quotes lose their force and irritate readers if overused."

Yours truly, --Ludvikus (talk) 02:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't quite follow you. I give equal weight to a scholar of German history who is a specialist in Nazism and the crimes committed by Germans and a scholar of Jewish history who is a specialist in antisemitism because the subject at hand is part of both German and Jewish history. But if you prefer scholars with more "Jewish" credentials, I can of course give examples: Donald L. Niewyk, author of the Columbia Guide to the Holocaust and The Jews in Weimar Germany, reviews a book for Central European History (issue 40, vol. 2, p. 371) and uses Final Solution without quotation marks. I also recently read part of Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It? by Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman who say they're Jewish (though Shermer apparently isn't religious) and use Final Solution without scare quotes. Above I gave examples of a rabbi and Yad Vashem using capitals, but not scare quotes. Even the History of the Jewish People uses capitals, though it also uses scare quotes.

This is not a question of dignity, but of grammar. We should either capitalize both the "F" and the "S" or neither - talking about "the Final solution" is wrong either way (that's why I found the LoC's usage strange: One card used this obviously wrong capitalization). If we were to capitalize neither, the article will of course still be named "Final solution", but that's just because the first letters of article names are always capitalized. It's also not a neologism; the term has been in use for over 60 years and appears in hundreds of scholarly texts. It may have been a neologism in the 1940s, but it clearly isn't any more. If we invented a new name in order to avoid the one commonly used, that would be a neologism.

Neither Final Solution nor Never Again are metaphors for Jewish emancipation. I don't see what Never Again has to to with the matter at all; it's currently a disambiguation page which does mention Meir Kahane's use - it seems to be a political slogan and not the name of a program or an event, but apparently there's not much more to say about it. Especially I see no direct relation between the terms Final Solution and Never Again, except that they both are connected to the Holocaust.

Final solution also isn't pejorative - it's an euphemism. The term isn't meant to insult anybody, but to be a nice-sounding description for the Nazi program of extermination. The article should probably mention the Nazis' use of euphemisms such as Endlösung and Sonderaktion.

Finally, it's not just the two of us. The article actually was moved in 2006; the talk page still contains an archived discussion where five editors agreed that Final Solution is a proper noun and thus should be capitalized. You did propose to move it back, but another two users opposed the move. Including me, that would give a 8:1 ratio in favor of the current name. Personally I wouldn't mind the use of quotation marks in the article's first sentence, which might read:

The "Final Solution of the Jewish question" (German: Die Endlösung der Judenfrage) was Nazi Germany's plan and execution of its systematic genocide against European Jewry during World War II, resulting in the final, most deadly phase of the Holocaust (Shoah).

The rest of the article, including the title, should in my opinion omit scare quotes. Huon (talk) 12:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Listen. I'll go by the majority - if it's "8 to 1" so be it. However, the mere fact that a majority existed in the past, does not mean that a new majority may not emerge in the future. My intent - as new to the article - is to petition for "revision" (quotes & pun intended). In addition, I appreciate that you are willing to use the scare quotes in the opening. I find that to be a wonderful concession and I thank you for that. Regarding what I mean by Neologism in this case it is simply the trurning of a Nazi phrase (Heydrich's 1941 usage in particular), "final solution," and turning it into an event, namely, the "Final Solution." And how one can call that a euphemism is a surprise. I do not think a pejorative can be a euphemism - or do we have an anti-oxymoron here? And if it's a euphomism, what's it a euphomism for? It's for "exterminating the Jews." So in that sense you're technically correct. But the Nazis used such euphomisms all the time - probably the first major one was that of "sending Jews to the East." Why not use that euphomism (I'm not really serious about that). What I ideally ask for is that you choose what you yourself suggested - beging the article like so: Final solution .... I ask you to note that Ukraine actually legislated the "the" out of its name. And since the usage varies, then take the usage of Laqueuer, as opposed to the German specialist, since in German all nouns are capitalized. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• PS: As an afterthought, why not beging the article like so:
• "Final solution" was a euphemism believed to have been coined by Heydrich in 1941 and it means the systematic extermination of the Jews by the Nazis in World War II ..." --Ludvikus (talk) 14:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• And don't use this pejorative in the article again. Why would one want to - or need to - use it more than once? --Ludvikus (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Stop now or you will draw an indefinite ban, and your user and talk pages will be blanked. You are currently blocked; you may not use alternate accounts or anonymous accounts to edit. Thank you for your cooperation. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Loud & Clear. Understood & Will Obey. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Where is the case open, User:Boodlesthecat? Give me the Diff!

• JpGordon - is it OK if I use {{collapse top}} on this section - so as not to have it distract from the Content discussion above? Boodles already Reverted it twice - and I do not wish to engage in an Edit War with him on that. What is Wikipedia policy on that? Also - I cannot find the discussion page to which Boodles refers to - where is that? --Ludvikus (talk) 14:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Ludvikus, you continue to claim that your block is the result of a "content dispute" and not, as it seems to be almost unanimously agreed, your disruptive behavior. Since you continue to claim that your behavior is not the cause, you should not remove warnings about serious violations of Wikipedia policies that you have engaged in (particularly coming after your block). Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 15:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't remove or hide warnings, especially if you're going to attempt to mislead readers about the reason for your block; it appears it will neither be overturned nor shortened. (The discussion was archived a couple days ago due to lack of activity.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand, Jpgordan. But what's the purpose of this unblocked page? What can I do, and not do here? --Ludvikus (talk) 16:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, all you really should be doing here is petitioning for an unblock. As long as you're not disruptive, you can carry on here all you want, as long as you understand that (a) you may not edit anywhere else on the site, in any way; and (b) nobody may edit on your behalf, in any way. "Not being disruptive" includes pretending that anyone else is at fault for your bad behavior. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

1. As you all can see, particularly Jpgordon, with a gentleman like Huon, it is easy for me to carry a logical conversation regarding Content disputes over Wikipedia articles.
2. I want also to say that the Diffs show that El_C - who is currently Blocking me for 2-years for alleged disruption - has also been a gentleman with me: he has - not even once - used one abusive word against me - and I wish to note that here on the record.
3. I do not agree with him that it was I who was disruptive (intentionally). Although El_C may have perceived me as such. My problem with him was - and continues to be now - his lack of specificity. He has never been able to produce a singe Diff - not one - showing a Disruption caused my me.
4. His lack of specificity made it impossible for me to conform to his demands for proper Wikipedia decorum. I would appreciate it very much if he acknowledged that there is unfairness towards me - and gives me another chance to show that I can get along with him.
5. I believe that the "number one" disruptive editor in this incident was - and continues to be - User:Boodlesthecat. I can assure you all that through my experience now - I believe I can be an excellent editor on all the articles which are related to this incident.
6. And I'm resisting very well the continuous provocations and disruption by editor Boodlesthecat.
7. I think one way I can avoid such alleged disruptions would be to watch very closely who the current active editors happen to be. That would give me a clearer idea of what the "consensus" happens to be on any particular article.
8. Also, I think I should also study and use (if given the chance) the Administrative notice board. I think that if I were to do that early on when I perceive a possible problem coming up, I would be able to dump the problem in its "lap " (so to speak) and thereby live by the determination there made (by the administrative community).
9. I think you all must agree that this incident is completely different from the one of January of 2007. My knowledge of Wikipedia has vastly increased. However, though my technical skills have improved, clearly the improvement in my Wikipedia interpersonal editor/administrator skills have not - otherwise I would not be in this predicament. Perhaps a simple note (especially by email) to an administrator I have confidence in (for advice) may do the trick. So I do not think that even a Mentor would be necessary now.

Cheers. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

PS: To El_C. You appear to have been answering me on your own talk page. But you never told me that you were doing that. So most (if not all) of whatever you tried to tell me - I was not informed of. I can only wish you had informed me that you were telling me things on your own talk page rather than mine. I was further mislead by the fact that when you had something very serious to say to me then you said it on my talk page. So your itemized listing above - consisting of what you were saying to me - does not support your grounds for Blocking me for 2 - years. I hope you consider that now. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Just got your message, Jpgordon. Now I understand. Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Last warning

I would like to advise Boodles that refraining from unproductive contact here will diffuse any possibility that this user would respond in an uncivil manner, unless Boodles is trying to bait him into digging himself into it. That would not be appropriate behavior. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you very much, CobaltBlueTony - that definitely restores some confidence in me, regarding the helpfulness of adminstrators at Wikipedia - and CobaltBlueTony - you are now teaching me how important it is (at Wikipedia) to overlook provocation no matter how great the temptation is to respond in kind - I assure that your intervention is a lesson I'm absorbing at this very moment deeply. And I thank you again. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• In addition, may I ask you to observe that a very civil - and productive - discussion is currently taking place above - between myself and User:Huon - particularly regarding the so-called Final solution. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Thank you very much, User:Philip Baird Shearer, regarding your latest observation(s) concerning Civility. Much appreciated. If it ever appeared to you that I was uncivil with you personally, let me say that I apologize to you. I can assure you that that was never my intent. Nevertheless, I seek your forgiveness for any pain that that might have caused you. Cheers. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: June 1, 2008

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday June 1st, Columbia University area Last: 3/16/2008

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, elect a board of directors, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

We'll also review our recent Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wiki Week bonanza, being planned with Columbia University students for September or October.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

Also, check out our regional US Wikimedia chapters blog Wiki Northeast (and we're open to guest posts).
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

"Revisionism" & "Negationism"

"Revisionism" (1) in Germany and Austria: The Evolution of a Doctrine by Brigitte Bailer-Galanda [7]

(Her curriculum vitae at the Vienna Wiesenthal Institute for Holocaust Studies (VWI)) [8]

--Ludvikus (talk) 03:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Revisionists

1917 and the revisionists – Sovietologists by Richard Pipes [9]

--Ludvikus (talk) 03:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Disruption and block

You asked me via email whether I thought your 2-year block appropriate. I described what I considered disruptive about your behaviour at the end of this section. While I certainly believe that you intend well, I also believe that you took WP:BOLD too much at face value without considering all the qualifiers: ... but be careful! What you did appeared as just the reckless editing mentioned in that paragraph. At the time of your block, that seemed to be about the only way to make you stop, so in my opinion a block was warranted. Whether it should really be a full two years is debatable; I personally believe that it need not be that long, but in the light of your past problems along more or less the same lines the admins decided differently. Huon (talk) 23:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you very much. I respect your opinion, and will give it deep thought. I also thank you for your well-researched discussions above - these also were very informative. Thanks, & have a nice day. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Thanks again, User:Huon. Here's a List of some of my Substantial contributions to Wikipedia. Clearly, I do not deserve a 2-year Block: [10].

Instead of canvassing admins by email to unblock you, perhaps a way you can participate in the AfD you mentioned is to post your comments here, on your user page, and ask an admin to copy it over for you.--Fabrictramp (talk) 14:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• OK, thanks. Hidden hand is a "stub" I posted. It is an "expression," a "term," of common quasi-technical usage particularly among conspiracy theory promoters. However, you will not find it defined in a Dictionary. It is an extremely important usage by advocates of the theory. For example, in 1926 it was used as a title of a book by the notorious racist Arthur Cherep-Spiridovich in the title to his infamous book - The secret world government : or, "The hidden hand" : the unrevealed in history : 100 historical "mysteries" explained - which is currently online (the original 1926 pamplet - green cover 206pp. edition.) in PDF format. It means, in this case, "secret world government."
• In the alternative, I would like to propose that the stub be turned into a List of "hidden hand" book titles.
• I hereby request that an administrator post my remarks in opposition to Deletion of Hidden hand.
• PS1: Also, please look at the Talk page for more titles as evidence of the importance of this Notion which you will not find in a dictionary: [11].
• PS2: Will an Administrator please copy-over the above - as I was advised by User:Fabrictramp? Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is a blocked user being encouraged to participate in an AfD discussion? His behavior in previous XfD discussions — such as this, this, and this — indicate that his participation is belligerent and disruptive. Isn't a block supposed to prevent disruption? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

1. Why do you bring up things that happened in 2007? I've learned my lessons since. The issue is May 2008. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
2. And things turn in my favor, anyway: Protocols of the Elders of Zion (versions). --Ludvikus (talk) 19:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's a good example of the problems you generate. That article is not even remotely encyclopedic; it's not even really an article, but a bibliography; it's original research (pretty good research, too, but original research nonetheless); it's not anywhere near in keeping with the bibliographic format of other articles that include bibliographies; it's really like you never looked at any other Wikipedia articles to get an idea of the form and structure we use around here. For it to be a proper Wikipedia article will take a considerable amount of work from other volunteers -- if the subject itself is even suitable for a Wikipedia article. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You say that 2007 is history, but during 2008 you're still causing the same types of disruptions that resulted in two long blocks last year. You've moved on from the countless variations of The Protocols (most of them non-notable bibliographic cut-and-pastes from the card catalog, which is why they were merged into that single article) to variations of revisionism, which you've tried to reorganize to fit the rational scheme you'd like to impose on them, moving the articles willy-nilly to suit your whims.

Since your disruptions during 2008 have resulted in yet another lengthy block, I would say that your editing during 2008 is very much like it was during 2007. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Jpgordon, I'm only answering you now (you Jp, I assume, know very well why). You may be right, Jp, about this Stub (the Stub Tag appears to have been removed when I was Blocked). But you know my work on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. There the scrutiny is extremely high. Yet my substantial edits there stuck - in fact it is you who patrols it often and defends it extremely well against Trolls & Vandals. So you know that my Content editing is generally of very high quality. If this "article" (Hidden hand) doesn't survive scrutiny - I'm perfectly willing & able to accept the consensus on that. But now I cannot edited it (improve it) at all since I am block - for 2 years. Why? It cannot be because I created this one article. I ask you, Jpjordon - why don't you just become my Mentor? The minute I have a problem - I'll just consult you. That way - there will be 100% assurance of no Disruption. I've learned my lesson regarding WP:Bold. I'm not going to take it too seriously any longer. I also now understand the importance of listening very carefully to who is an administrator - and not be distracted by any Provocations. I think I realize now that it just is counter-productive to fail to do that. But I really think that it would be best if you were my Mentor. Why don't we try that? The minute I sense a problem I'll just contact you - and follow your advice. I realize now how important that is. Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

PS: And look Jp when I created it Hidden hand (Ludvikus (talk) 22:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)):

    10:38, 30 August 2007 Ludvikus (Talk | contribs) (213 bytes) (stub)

• JP - I've learned alot since August of 2007. And, incidentally, notice that this item survived all that time! --Ludvikus (talk) 22:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• And why not judge my work on this "encyclopedic" article: Michael Hagemeister? I initiated it as a Stub - he is considered one of the world's foremost living authorities on Serge Nilus & the Protocols of Zion. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll let someone else look at it and comment, if they wish; further comments from me would simply be piling on. I've no interest in being anyone's mentor. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The Hagemeister article is pretty good; unfortunately Hagemeister seems to fall short of our notability guidelines, especially WP:PROF. Maybe that's just a shortage of sources; I'll try to find something someone has written about Hagemeister. Huon (talk) 23:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• The thing is, Huon, he's a German, and writes mostly in German. I suggest that you look in the German language Wikipedia. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• But he is an extremely important source in The Non-Existent Manuscript (2004) by Cesare G. De Michelis - a work which is the best scholarly work on the Protocols of Zion since Norman Cohn (1967). --Ludvikus (talk) 23:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

1. I think, Huon, you just missed something regarding Foucault's Pendulum by Umberto Eco: Conspiracy theories and literary ethics: Umberto Eco, Danilo Kis and The Protocols of Zion [12] --Ludvikus (talk) 00:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
2. Sample: Page 473, said Eco's book: "It seemed Nilus's preface to the Protocols. Sue also attributed to the Jesuits the motto (which will be found in the Protocols, attributed to the Jews), "The end justifies the means." --Ludvikus (talk) 00:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
3. Since I'm Blocked, Huon, I cannot oppose your move (Ludvikus (talk) 00:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)):

    (diff) (hist) . . Foucault's Pendulum‎; 22:40 . . (-24) . . Huon
    (Talk | contribs) (→See also:  remove Protocols of Zion:
     No significant connection, already mentioned in the appropriate place)

• More particularly, consider this quote (Ludvikus (talk) 00:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)):

    "I will look at the making of the "secret" Protocols,
    their ripple effect in contemporary culture,
    and at two recent literary works that engage with conspiracy theories and practices:
    Umberto Eco's novel Foucault's Pendulum ( 1988)
    and Danilo Kis's short story "The Book of Kings and Fools" (1983).
    Since the Protocols themselves were a misread work of fiction,
    returning them to the realm of literature
    will help to disclose some of their seductive and persuasive tactics."
         --[13]

Concerning Hagemeister, I did look in the German Wikipedia; they don't have an article. Concerning Foucault's Pendulum: The book mentions lots and lots of conspiracy theories, literary and other forgeries, real and imagined secret societies. When listing them, the article also mentions the Elders of Zion, including a link to the Protocols. Why should there be a "See also" link when the text already has a link in the proper place? Also, the Protocols aren't more important to the book than any of the other conspiracies mentioned. From page 11 of the tract you linked above: "Eco chooses not to play with the Protocols. To avoid replicating them, he decentralizes them. The issue of the Jewish conspiracy appears as a minor and irrelevant incident ..." Huon (talk) 08:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

1. Michael Hagemeister meets at least the first five (5) of the six (6) Criteria of Notability. Just look at his works and the references made to his work. As I said, he is the world's published authority on Serge Nilus who published The Protocols in their expanded form in 1905. And he is named ten (10) times in The Non-Existent Manuscript [14].
2. Foucault's Pendulum deals significantly and substantially with arguably the most important and famous of conspiracy theories, namely the Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion.[15]
3. Why are the above grounds to Block me for 2 years, Shabazz?
4. Would it be Disruptive if I were to oppose the two WP:Weasel words, "many" & "most," currently at Holocaust denial?

Signed, --Ludvikus (talk) 12:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. Did you read your own source? What part of "The issue of the Jewish conspiracy appears as a minor and irrelevant incident" suggests that Eco deals "significantly and substantially" with the Protocols? And even if it were so, why would we need a link in the "See also" section when we already have one in the appropriate part of the article proper? Concerning Hagemeister, the article doesn't have any sources except articles wrtitten by Hagemeister and his faculty website. So currently he is not shown to fulfill criteria 1 or 2, which require "independent sources" or "independent notable academics in the same field". These sources might exist, and if so we should add them. Concerning criteria 3 and 4, we have no sources to judge that any of his work, either individually or collectively, is significant and well-known. All we have is that one other work cites Hagemeister ten times, and even that is not mentioned the article. As an academic, it's his job to publish articles, and that some of his work gets cited is no surprise. But that alone doesn't distinguish him from any other academic and does not suffice to show notability. Concerning criterion 5, the article doesn't tell what his "important new concept, theory or idea" is, let alone give the multiple reliable sources the criterion asks for. The German Wikipedia doesn't have an article, German Google News has no mention of him, and Google itself seems to have little but what could be reasonably expected for any academic. Especially I didn't find anything anybody ever wrote about Hagemeister (except his faculty website, and that obviously doesn't count). If you know of any sources discussing Hagemeister and his work, please give them. Otherwise, I begin to see him as a candidate for deletion. Huon (talk) 14:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Regarding Eco, consider this quote from the New York Times, "A Conspiracy to Rule the World," [16] (--Ludvikus (talk) 15:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)):

    "In some of the European newspapers, Mr. Eco has also been called anti-Semitic,
    a charge that has been thrown around irresponsibly about many authors.
    The accusation probably stems from his resurrection here of the specious Protocols of the Elders of Zion,
    which naturally form part of the cosmic conspiracy.
    According to the computer Abulafia, Hitler didn't want to exterminate the Jews;
    he merely wanted to get at a cabalistic message in the possession of his eternal enemies.
    The striking thing about the genocide of the Jews, Belbo says, is the lengthiness of the procedures.
    First they're kept in camps and starved, then they're stripped naked,
    then the showers, then the scrupulous piling of the corpses,
    and the sorting and storing of clothes, the listing of personal effects. . . .
    None of this makes sense if it was just a question of killing them.
    It makes sense if it was a question of looking for something,
    for a message that one of those millions of people
    - the Jerusalemite representative of the Thirty-Six Invisibles
    - was hiding in the hem of a garment, or in his mouth, or had tattooed on his body."89

• PS: That(the immediate above) is from this exact source:

NYTimes

A CONSPIRACY TO RULE THE WORLD.

Date: October 15, 1989, Sunday, Late Edition - Final Section 7; Page 1, Column 2; Book Review Desk ...

www.nytimes.com/books/98/12/06/specials/eco-pendulum.html

--Ludvikus (talk) 16:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Regarding Michael Hagemeister see this "Book Review" from the American Historical Review (Ludvikus (talk) 15:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)):[17]

    "Relying on the pioneering research of German scholar Michael Hagemeister,
    Kellogg refutes some details of the version of the origin of the Protocols
    offered in Norman Cohn's Warrant for Genocide:
    The Myth of the Jewish World Conspiracy and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (1967),
    according to which the manuscript was originally written in French by operatives of the tsarist Okhrana.
    A compilation of fictional texts already published in Russian as early as 1903,
    the Protocols were brought to Germany by disgruntled Ukrainian monarchists in 1919.
    Their conspiratorial fantasies and rabid anti-Bolshevism merged
    with redemptive völkisch and Christian antisemitism to produce
    the specifically Nazi ideological brew.
    The advantage of a Jewish conspiracy thesis for the German radical right
    was that it could plausibly present communism as closely related to Western liberal capitalism,
    despite the fact that the victors of World War I
    stood in mortal antagonism to the Soviet system as well."

Regarding Eco, what's your point? Yes, the Protocols are mentiond in the book. We already have a link to the Protocols in the appropriate section of the article. So do you claim we need another link in the "See also" section, and if so, why? If not, why keep up the discussion? Concerning Hagemeister, that's not even a review of a Hagemeister book. It's a review mentioning Hagemeister in passing. It might support a claim that Kellogg is notable (though we don't have an article on him, and actually I don't think he is that notable), but it can't even serve as a reference for the Hagemeister article because there's practically no information about him. We're not even told what precisely Hagemeister wrote and what is Kellogg's own work. Huon (talk) 16:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

1. On Eco: "All you ever wanted to know about ... the Elders of Zion ... is here." --Ludvikus (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
2. On Hagemeister: "... the pioneering research of German scholar Michael Hagemeister, ...". --Ludvikus (talk) 17:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

PS: N. Cohn's book, Warrant for Genocide (1967), was - for a long time - the "standard work" on the PSM. What the review tells us is that Kellogg's book is founded on the "pioneering work" of Hagemeister - which establishes that Cohn was not justified in his hypothesis that the PSM was based on a French manuscript version (from which it was allegedly translated) because in 1903 there was enough material in the Russian Empire to concoct the hoax, plagiarism, fraud, ... , out of purely Russian sources. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Holocaust denial

I believe now that the reason for my current two (2) year Block has to do with the Extended discussion in the above - where the Section is currently Collapsed. If that is so I should be told exactly why it was determined that my discussion there has been found to be disruptive justifying this Block. Disruption certainly was not my intent. I cannot see why my discussions and WP:Bold actions shown there warranted a 2 year Block by Administrator User:El_C. I would appreciate it very much if an Administrator were to step forward and reduced my 2 year Block to Time Served. Thank you. -Ludvikus (talk) 13:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• The "Contents" of the Collapsed section is as follows (Ludvikus (talk) 13:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)):

1. 13 List of Historical revisionism (revisionists)

• 13.1 Notable Holocaust deniers (currently merely a subsection of our article)
• 13.2 Revisionist historians

1. 14 WHAT is being debated here and WHY?
2. 15 Requested move

• 15.1 Survey
• 15.2 Discussion

---

• Certainly Holocaust denial is an article which is likely to draw controversy. I believe that I've conducted myself in an exemplary civil manner on the Talk page there. Nevertheless, I expressed minority views (among 4 or so disputants), and took related WP:Bold moves. But that should not be the basis to Block me for two years - as I believe this is the reason for my current Block in fact.
• And that has nothing to do with what happened to me at Philosophy in January 2007 when I had not yet learned how to respond to Provocations. I challenge anyone to find a Single Diff. showing improper conduct on my part justifying a 2 year block. You will not find One. Furthermore, simply because I expressed views such as that all of Historical revisionism is substantially the same as Holocaust denial also does not warrant a two-year Block. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Revisionism of user talk pages

How are you? You were very wise to avoid Historical revisionism & Historical revisionism (negationism). Had I heeded your example I would not be in the mess I'm in now - I blocked for 2 years for alleged disruption. It appears, though, that one of the reasons posted *1* involves your editing and archiving my pages (User & Talk). Somehow, that got mis-interpreted as "disruption." I would appreciated it very much if you explained what happened on the bottom of my page. Basically, you just archived my pages as I requested. And of course, if you could find it in your heart to put in a kind word for me - without putting your neck on the line - I would certainly appreciate that! Cheers. -- Ludvikus by e-mail

I could find the *1* reasons posted, but I am happy to confirm that which the edit history shows anyway: I archived your user_talk page and your user page at your request. I did notice this amazing edit. But I would classify that as incompetence rather than disruption. Given that you have had two previous long blocks and do not seem to changed your ways, the present block is probably justified. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

1. I have no idea what that December 2006 Diff has to do with me, or with why I'm being Blocked now. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
2. And if you had the time to really look, I think you'd probably say that I have changed my ways - sufficiently so so that my current Block should be terminated on the basis of Time Served. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)