Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thou shalt not give Hitler posthumous victories.


 * 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 of the debate was looks like a keeper. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Thou shalt not give Hitler posthumous victories.
Quoth, "Since World War II this has been a popular but unofficial addition to Jewish Talmudic Law." There is one hit for the phrase itself, and the minimal contents could very easily be merged into the Hitler article. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment This is a precipitous nomination that ignores my edit note: I have been having computer problems and need to reboot frequently. There are over 26,000 Google hits for the phrase as stated this way .  This is known by several terms including the 614th commandment, a representative sample of which will appear in the final draft.  The original title is a direct quote from Emil Fackenheim, the statement's original framer.  I request withdrawal of this nomination.  Three sources including National Public Radio are already cited within the article. Durova 01:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with 613 mitzvot Endomion 01:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * ABSOLUTELY DO NOT MERGE WITH MITZVOT. While this may or may not have merit, it does NOT belong there. JDoorjam 16:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. ABSOLUTELY DO NOT MERGE WITH MITZVOT. While this may or may not have merit, it does NOT belong there. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  18:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It is accually in clear violation of one of them, the one that goes some along the lines of "thou shall not add or remove". 220.233.48.200 23:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Do not merge this neologism with the 613 mitzvot. Fackenhein was not God. IZAK 04:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please at least wait for the article to be written before calling for a merge. Three of my recent new articles have been featured on "Did you know...?"  I'm less than halfway through a first draft. Durova 01:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * My only hassle with the article, Durova, is the long name -- no one would type that into the search box to find it. Here is my reasoning: There is an article titled The Eleventh Commandment but not one titled Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican Endomion 02:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * When it's completed it will have redirects from other formulations such as 614th commandment. People usually paraphrase the concept, which makes the title a challenge.  Please assume good faith in the meantime. Durova 02:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, there you go, start the 614th commandment article, copy all your content to there, and then redirect this article to the new one. Endomion 03:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * As you can see from a few responses, this evokes strong reactions among the people it concerns most. To address this important subject requires caution and taste. Durova 21:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely no such notion in Judaism as a "614 commandment". This was all purely an invention, a neologism, from the mind of Fackenheim, where it should be re-deposited. IZAK 04:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * STRONG Keep Let the guy finish writing his article, and stop pestering him. Wikipedia will not collapse if you give this guy a month to write his article. Travb 02:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * comment that's what the sandbox is for. --אריאל יהודה
 * Keep. Nice approach to obviously important subject. I wish the noms here would start following the wiki commandment- respect thy fellow editors. -- JJay 02:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Durova's comments. TerraFrost 02:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is an important and well-sourced subject. Carioca 03:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, but as noted, it's gonna need some redirects and serious linking for anyone to ever find it. I found "Jews are forbidden to hand Hitler posthumous victories", "the 614th commandment is: to survive", "Thou Shalt Not Give Hitler a Posthumous Victory", "Do not grant Hitler a posthumous victory", and the fuller piece of the original text (which would make a *really* bad article title) "...we are first commanded to survive as Jews, lest the Jewish people perish. We are commanded, second, to remember in our very guts and bones the martyrs of the Holocaust, lest their memory perish. We are forbidden, thirdly, to deny or despair of God, however much we may have to contend with Him or with belief in Him lest Judaism perish. We are forbidden, finally, to despair of the world as the place which is to become the kingdom of God, lest we make it a meaningless place in which God is dead or irrelevant and everything is permitted. To abandon any of these imperatives, in response to Hitler's victory at Auschwitz, would be to hand him yet other posthumous victories"..... etc. Ronabop 04:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * My user page links to the other articles I've created. A quick browse should allay your concerns.  One step at a time: these categories and links will come after I finish editing quotes from several rabbis, a Catholic professor of theology, and a Unitarian Universalist minister.  To invite readers prematurely - before the sections and quotes are balanced for NPOV - could give deep offense to people who lost family in the Holocaust. Durova 04:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable, verifiable, encyclopedic. Flyboy Will 04:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm sure the most proper title for this article will be figured out down the line, so I'm not really worried about that. Durova's clearly explained himself enough with regards to the legitimacy of the aritcle and his intention to title it as properly as possible. Some of you guys are simply too trigger-happy with your AfD nominations. - Liontamer 04:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable topic. Drmandrake 05:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keepper Liontamer. Let's give the article some time to develop. Movementarian 10:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment First draft done. Getting some rest before the tweaks and proofreading.  I welcome feedback now. Regards, Durova 10:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, article seems to be underway, keep as per Flyboy & others. Scoo 11:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, extremely well-written article so far, and a work in progress.--Aleron235 16:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, it can not be added to one of God's commandments. But throught the power of the Sunheadren, it could be added to the 7 Rabbincal commandments. I am willing to change my vote if this was change to reflect this. 220.233.48.200 19:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: this is one reason why the title is not 614th commandment although Rabbi Fackenheim did propose it by that name. The introduction explicitly states that this is unofficial.  If you can find a reference that adds it to the 7 Rabbinical commandments I'll add a mention to the article.  I welcome suggestions and contribution that would add to balance and NPOV.  Would you really delete this important subject over a technical objection? Durova 20:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: ripped from my reply on my talk page: You misunderstand me, I was saying this couldn't be added to the 613 (thou shall not add or remove). The only thing possible would be to the 7 (I do asume you know what the Sunheadren is). And that in itself is not that possible. It can't even be called unoffical, that is a clear violation of "thou shall not add or remove." This person you call Rabbi, has not got Smicha (Rabbincal Degree). Do you call some wacko on the street doctor, just because he calls himself a doctor and use him as a doctor? Do I hear a no? Why do people make weird exception for the title Rabbi? Don't give a person a title that needs a degree that they don't have. 220.233.48.200 22:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm mistaken, he was a Reform Rabbi as well as a professor of philosophy. I would gladly change any relevant reference if that proves to be false.  Your criticism appears thoughtful and I would like to include it in the article.  Please provide a reputable source that I can cite in the text.  Bear in mind that Wikipedia has articles on ideas that aren't true such as phrenology.  A good Wikipedia article doesn't endorse a controversial idea.  It just reports both sides fairly.  That's what I've aimed to do - literally overnight - and it's unrealistic to expect perfection so soon.  I hope you support this article and help to make it better. Durova 23:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I found four reputable sources that confirmed he was a rabbi. Please comment on article talk. Durova 00:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * He is just like that wacko on my street that calls himself a doctor, but hasn't got a doctor's degree. He has not got a valid Rabbincal degree. Please refer to Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, chapters 63 - "The Prohibition of Deceiving Others with Words and Misleading Others." And look up the laws of what Smicha is in the big Shulchan Aruch. 220.233.48.200 09:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per other keepers above. Logophile 01:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Let's review what we have for a moment - it's a phrase which sums up the thesis of someone's book. Wonderful. Give the author a page, the book a page, but the phrase doesn't deserve an entry. (Heck - it's an admitted neologism for crying out loud). Secondly, the page is filled with things which are blatantly false - Some Jews regard it as an addition to Jewish Talmudic Law. - some Jews also regard Elvis as still alive, but that's not how we do things on WP. There is absolutely no normative claim under which this can be considered an addition to talmudic law. (For those of you don't know, the Talmud was written between 200-550 CE, and as such, it's a little hard for any 20th century person to be able to claim an addition). The claim that it's another mitzvah is also nothing more than a misinformed joke. People frequently like to joke about the ""1th commandment" or the "614th mitzvah", but the truth is it's just that - a joke, or a phrase used to convey the importance of something with no real fact behind it. Take the worthwhile info and merge in Emil Fackenheim, but the rest of this page is poppycock. --אריאל יהודה 03:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - nomination is about the existance of concept which has been addressed. Title and content concerns can be addressed sepearately. novacatz 04:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * COMMENT About the new title Do not give Hitler posthumous victories please don't use copy-and-paste to perform moves (correct me if I'm wrong but it looked like that. Also, it's be better if the move waits for this AFD to be closed, so there wont be dangling pointers (and this debate can still be linked) -- ( drini's page &#x260E;  ) 06:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment, especially to admin I've done a move/redirect to a more NPOV title. Please double check to make sure I've done this in accordance with AfD policy.  To other editors: I've added a new section about terminology to include the passage from Deuteronomy that some editors believe Fackenheim violated and I've made other edits to address this unintentional POV issue.  POV is not grounds for deletion and I am responding to concerns. Durova 06:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well - I tried. Looks like someone didn't like the idea.  By the time I finished composing that comment there were two pages redirecting to each other.  I reverted to the last version under the old title, but as soon as this leaves AfD this will move to a new name.  Regards, Durova 07:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm justp pointing that I think it was a copy-and-paste move, not the proper way to preserve article history for gfdl compliance, so I undid it. I'm not opposing the move per se. And as it was stated above, this debate is about the content not the title. Again, I may have been wrong thinking it was a copy and paste move, if so I'll move it back. I'd just prefer to wait until the afd closes (which determines if the content is suitable or not) and then we can use a proper move to the new title. -- ( drini's page  &#x260E;  ) 07:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually I wasn't sure it was done correctly. The hasty AfD nomination has made an ambitious article harder.  No early draft on this topic can achieve the balance and good taste that the subject demands.  User:220.233.48.200 convinced me the title was POV in a way I hadn't anticipated. Durova 08:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable. I've heard of it before.  CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 11:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Emil Fackenheim in condensed form. It has not exactly started living its own life. The intro is quite POV, but that can be corrected. JFW | T@lk  16:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge per JFW. This is not an encyclopaedic topic, it's one man's opinion. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 16:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge per JFW. I have yet to see that this is any more than a proposed commandment. Until it is adopted by a wider body, it's better to be merged into an article discussing the person who proposed it. B.Wind 20:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong merge per JFW. Alternatively, if there is a wider issue to be addressed, should there be an article called (something like) "Judaism after the Holocaust"? This would be about reaction to the Holocaust by a culture/religion, rather than by Israel (which is already covered) or individual Jewish people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackyR (talk • contribs)
 * Keep. Both by importance and by length, this seems to be worthy of its own article. &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;ну? 02:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I could write a 90kb article about my cat, but that doesn't make her worthy of an article.--Sean|Bla ck 02:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Not funny. Unless notable, it will be properly put for deletion. OTOH, if a concept is important and the article describing it is sizable, why merge? Do we keep all articles describing concepts to the biographies of their authors? &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;ну? 03:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I wasn't trying to be funny, and you missed my point. The length of the article is not relevant, because, if you put effort into it, you can write a very long article about anything--Sean|Bla ck 00:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No, it was you who missed the point. The factor of importance was repeated several times, but you kept ignoring it and changing the subject. For shame. &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;ну? 08:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Huh? "The factor of importance"- the only one mentioning importance was you, and all you said was "it's important". It is, important not disputing that, but it's not important enough for it's own article. It's good information, but it's too detailed- that can be fixed, but once you are able to condense and NPOVify, this would be small enough to merge.--Sean|Bla ck  23:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge, per JFW.--Sean|Bla ck 02:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - As per all the others. Daykart 04:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Either Keep or Merge with Emil Fackenheim, but in either case condense and NPOV. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. I think this vote has been contaminated by being nominated before the article was even written. Later on, if someone wants to nominate it in its final form, that would be something else. (Just because I like the article doesn't mean it's a good one :-) )--SarekOfVulcan 04:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and don't merge. I'm the author and I'm finally voting to voice this: the phrase is known among people who cannot name its author.  As the citations and examples show, it's a concept that has achieved a currency separate from and beyond the original meanings he attributed to it.  Am I the only one who finds it distasteful to see a discussion of Hitler's legacy trivialized by comparison to a housepet? Durova 03:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * There's always a redirect. Most people who know this phrase do know about Fackenheim. JFW | T@lk  13:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Sigh... I was talking about the article, not it's subject.--Sean|Bla ck 23:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. Let him work some more, then worry about the name etc.  For me it's not an issue of trivialization or distaste, if it's notable then it's notable and deserves an article.  But, I think that a rename and merge are definitely in the article's future. --Easter Monkey 03:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Emil Fackenheim. IZAK 04:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - does not confrom with NPOV at all. Very anti-Semitic and not neutral whatsoever.  It can be included in Wikipedia but only if countered with information against the statement. &mdash;  M ATHWIZ 20 20  T ALK 01:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * POV is not a reason for deletion. If you get this impression then I welcome your contributions to make the article better.  The claim of anti-semitic bias is surprising.  Could you elaborate? Durova 05:54, 31 December 2005 (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.