Talk:World domination (disambiguation)/Archive 2

Farsical article

The authors list various empires as 'World Dominators' yet excluded the only true global dominator [Britain] to date yet include the 'American Empire', what is an 'American Empire'? There is no such thing. I have edited the article to reflect that. To be honest I don't know why Nazi Germany has an entry, it may have WANTED world domination but it never achieved such, I think only the two Empires so far to actually HAVE been global dominator's deserve entries [Roman & British]82.8.176.38 (talk) 10:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

American Empire article has its own problems. But the question you raise I think is covered under the title imperialism. But though the aim may be related to the expression world domination, I do not believe any recognized scholar uses this expression. It's primarily used in relation to those who believe that the Protocols of Zion is a legitimate work. Also, WP has an article on empire. What the aims of empires are, in relation to the world, are discussed there (or should be). --Ludvikus (talk) 19:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Incas

The section on Incas really isn't sourced. The footnote gives us an explanation without any sources to back it up. Can anyone confirm what is said in the section? Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 13:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The question should be: "Was there an Inca Empire"? And if there was - so what? It does not justify the current article. Calling something an empire is sufficient. And the fact that "empires" are not alleged to seek "world domination" shows the latter to be an inappropriate expression in scholarly writings. And what made the Incas into an empire is covered in the article on "empires" (and if it isn't, it should be). --Ludvikus (talk) 19:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

British Empire

Shouldent the british Empire be added to this article? Afterall they Did conquer a Very large portion of the planet. 77.100.181.80 (talk) 15:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

But that's what empires do. Do we need an article like this one? If you want to know what empires do - read the article, empire. Why do we need this (world domination) article? --Ludvikus (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

pejorative

I think that this is substantially a pejorative usage aimed specifically at Jews; it's origin is the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. But no one has altered the disambiguation page for that - so I'll do that now. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

universal state

That's interesting. But it seems undeveloped. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Universal state (disambiguation)

We clearly need this DAB page to distinguish Toynbee's alleged usage - as cited in this article --Ludvikus (talk) 20:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Arnold Toynbee on Civilizations and Religions

This stuff is interesting - but it's not clear that world domination is related to Toynbee's concept of a universal state. It's really an instance of original research at WP. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. The two concepts are quite distinct. See A_Study_of_History#Universal_State for a very short summary of Tonybees thesis--Work permit (talk) 06:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

So let's delete this section. --Ludvikus (talk) 08:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed.--Work permit (talk) 01:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Empires and Imperialism

The section giving examples of empires makes no sense. There is an article on "empires." Also, the implication is that there's a connection between "empires" and "world domination." But no scholarly work makes such a connection. It's just more "original research" trying to link the two. There's also lots of stuff on imperialism, but again, I know no usage other than the conspiracy theory and pejorative on for the term "world domination." --Ludvikus (talk) 08:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Unless I hear objections, I'll edit out this section. There's no one yet shown a scholarly reference - even if "world domination" appear to imply "empires" and "imperialism." --Ludvikus (talk) 17:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Protocols of Zion & World domination (or aiming to "take over the world")

These are often linked in usage. Any expert on the former knows this - just do a Google search: [1].

This article is also about the aim to "take over the world." I did not create this link - or if I did, I don't remember it. Nevertheless, there's this equivalence alleged by the article. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for not reading and understanding properly -- without being familiar with that book the connection just looked like some sort of blatant attack on Jews, hence why I removed it. I don't agree at all it should be called the "origin" of world domination, but since it looks like this article is going to be destroyed, let's not argue. I'm sure we both have better things to do. I'll let it alone. • Anakin ^(talk) 18:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for being so "nice" - and about something which isn't. I maintain that the pejorative use of "world domination" is essentially just that - an attack on Jews. Unfortunately, this article attempts to find a legitimate usage for the expression (by "original research"). So I think you probably have useful contributions to make. Like I said (above?) this usage is just a two-word expression for four-word expression, take over the world. And it's only documented usage is in the attack on Jews embodied in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. So this exspression does not deserve a distinct WP article. Please help WP by making an appropriate contribution to the issues raised here. Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Examples of global empires

It seems clear and obvious to me that the presentation of three alleged "global empires" in this article, as "examples," is purely "original research." I now of no scholarly study which discusses "global empires" in relation to "world domination." And there's the trivial fact that "empires" - almost by definition - seek to "dominate," if you will, the "world." All these "examples" need to be deleted, pronto. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

take over the world

I think an editor is un-aware of the REDIRECT to this article. Essentially, World domination = take over the world. I think that's essentially true of this pejorative. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean me? I simply removed the link to the redirect that redirect's to this article. Such redirects are useless in the article it redirects too. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 21:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't sure what you did. But now your asking that the "article" be improved. This is about a pejorative. But because of that it has a tendency to invite conspiracy theory advocates. I've spent some time cleaning it up. I would therefore ask your assistance here. Can you please be more constructive? Do a google search on the web and you'll see what I mean. Right now I think your Tag may invite, among others, those who love to create WP:Neologisms and also do WP:Original research. So can you please use a more specific Tag - like WP:Wiki? --Ludvikus (talk) 21:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you remember?

Wikipedia used to have an article on this subject? Oh those were the days. • Anakin ^(talk) 21:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

That was an awesomely better article than the sad one we have now. We should not let perfect be the enemy of good, which is what we seem to have done here, resulting in a much poorer article. Ray^Talk 23:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

That article was horrible. For example, the horrible confusion of universal states with world domination. Have you read Toneybee and academic literature on his thesis? These edits are not a question of "the perfect being the enemy of the good", it's that "blinding ignorance does mislead". Do you have wp:rs that lumps Assyria, Persia, Britain, the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and the United States under one banner of "world domination"? If so, please share it.--Work permit (talk) 03:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

New direction?

The article will need a new direction. Perhaps we can take a clue from Stewie? A pop culture approach to the term?--Work permit (talk) 04:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I liked the pop culture segment too. However it had no secondary sources that discussed the topic "World domination in pop culture." Just examples of instances. It seems like someone must have written something on this sometime, a magazine article maybe? Steve Dufour (talk) 09:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be overlooking the existence of DAB pages. Isn't the pop-culture usage appropriate for: World domination (pop culture)? Look here: World domination (disambiguation)! --Ludvikus (talk) 23:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Why was this reverted

This was a really good article. Why was this reverted to a much smaller format, lets keep the old format or I will just revert the article to the old format myself. 98.227.104.65 19:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Who wants to know? (The above query is unsigned). --Ludvikus (talk) 00:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The article was only once reverted by me. I obey the 1R rule. If it's reverted again, I will not Revert. However, I have just Reverted the article, because it had evolved by consensus slowly, and the previous Reverting editor restored it, unilaterally, to its earlier state without any discussion here. --Ludvikus (talk) 05:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:Edit war

I'm not going to participate in an edit war. There have been two (2) reversions against the consensus. I have decided to follow the 1R rule. If no one wishes to put their input and support the consensus reached - I'm not going to continue. This article now is just WP:Original research. And a WP:Neologism. That's unfortunate. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• See here: World domination (disambiguation) for the other uses. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Neologism

According to Neologism, a neologism "is a newly coined word that may be in the process of entering common use, but has not yet been accepted into mainstream language." Please could editors who have found neologisms in the article list them below.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• OK.

1. The current version is essentially a list of empires. They are called "global empires" as if this is some special usage connected with "world domination." If one wants to know about empires - go there. Or go to list of largest empires, or even list of major empires. Somehow this justifies the article - but it doesn't.
2. As the current article now suggests, the listed empires somehow exemplify "world domination." But though each example has a footnote, there no showing that the footnote justifies the expression "world domination."
3. It's hard to show an example of neologism because it requires showing that something does not exist.
4. But here the article doesn't quote any scholarly usage in connection with the content of this article. Therefore, the presumption is that it's a neologism of the author of this article - namely, you.
5. It's now your burden to demonstrate that "world domination" is not a neologism by showing this usage in an appropriate source other than your own.

--Ludvikus (talk) 18:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

"World domination" is two words. Neither is newly coined.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. But they are used here as a special unique expression justifying this article. If you do not have a special meaning for the two words together - you have no basis for the article. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

If you believe this to be the case, you should also add {{neologism}} to the World domination (disambiguation) page. Perhaps you should also recommend both articles for deletion.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Not so. The list on the DAB pages go to articles with documented meanings. I agree with the DAB page - I even added to it myself. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

But you are correct, the first set should be deleted. But I'll wait. Thanks for telling me about it. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

PS: I just flagged the DAB page. Thanks for pointing that out to me. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• And the first footnote refers to A Study of History. What does that have to do with WD? --Ludvikus (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

World Domination is not a neologism because it has entered mainstream society. It is the central aspect of several hundred, if not several thousand works of literary, audio and/or visual artworks. The burden is for both of you to find a source that is reliable and defines the term and its inherent notability based on those usages, as well as the application of the term to our history. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

True. That's why we have all these articles: World domination (disambiguation)!!! --Ludvikus (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the term needs something slightly more descriptive, but still serving the purpose of, a disambiguation page. For example, in popular culture, may refer to: Pinky and the Brain, the cartoon series

The central concept of Pinky and the Brain is world domination, but the term World Domination does not inherently refer to Pinky and The Brain. These, as well as the concept of world domination should be explained, but overall the article should serve as a disambiguation page linking to works that use the concept, usages in pop culture, and empires that, in commonplace or controversial observations of our current and past history, have strived towards world domination as we consider it (Romans, Napolean, Germans in the World Wars/Hitler, USSR/The spread of communism, the British empire, Islam etc.). I'm sure there are plenty of books on each of those empires/regimes/ideologies that use the term world domination to describe the intent of them. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I remember your reference previously to Pinky and The Brain. So I've made an entry at World domination (disambiguation). Please check it out! It addresses your concern. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Outcomes

I would be happy with any of the following outcomes, which I have listed in order or preference:

• People be allowed to gradually build this to become a good article. Put tags on all uncited or dubious information. But allow people some leeway in building the article.
• Change article to redirect to World domination (disambiguation).
• Delete article.

I would be unhappy with any of the following outcomes:

• Article on a different subject, e.g. some book someone wrote.
• Redirect to an article on a different subject, e.g. some book someone wrote.

--Toddy1 (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Me too - except for your first proposal. This "garbage" article has been around since 2004. So five years to get a good article is enough, don't you agree? --Ludvikus (talk) 19:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Correction: It's been around since 2003 (six years). --Ludvikus (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

If you change the article to a redirect to World domination (disambiguation), I will not revert it.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

But how can I do it when it now has that list of empires? --Ludvikus (talk) 19:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It is your choice. If you think it should be a redirect, edit the article, delete all contents and substitute #REDIRECT [[World domination (disambiguation)]] --Toddy1 (talk) 20:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

(1) OK. I first deleted the list of empires. But now I want to see if we have anything left. I'm just going slowly. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

(2) #REDIRECT accomplished. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

*Support DAB page needs to move here. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment Save the Talk page. --!!!!

• Against Deletion - if you delete this page you lose the edit history of an article that was started on 10 July 2003. I think this edit history should be preserved.
  • I think a redirect is a good solution.
  • If you don't want a redirect, then simply copy the contents of the disambiguation page as the next edit to World domination, and turn the disambiguation page into a redirect to World domination.

--Toddy1 (talk) 07:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• I thought the Delete was temporary. I think you know what you're doing. Do the right thing. --Ludvikus (talk) 08:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Didn't think of it that way. My bad, but yeah, copy and paste the disambig page to this one and then csd G6 the other page - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 12:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Great. So we all agree. Isn't life wonderful sometime? --Ludvikus (talk) 12:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

There - I've moved the contents of the Disambig page over to the World domination page, and turned the original Disambig page into a redirect - I think it causes no harm to leave it as one. Ray^Talk 13:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You have not moved, you have copied the content. The history of the other article should be preserved for the same reason as the history of this article, and as a redirect does the job, there is no need to delete the content (there is justification for keeping it in Terms of Use, which appears on every Wikipedia page. See the sentence "Where such credit is commonly given through page histories (such as Wikimedia-internal copying), it is sufficient to give attribution in the edit summary, which is recorded in the page history, when importing the text." It is also mentioned in WP:Plagiarism#Copying within Wikipedia) . -- PBS (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

World domination, in politics - no such thing

I propose we delete this WP:Neologism, or WP:Original research. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• This should go to the trash can:

World domination, in politics, may refer to:

• Hegemony, predominant influence exercised by one nation over others.
• Hyperpower, a state that is militarily, economically and technologically dominant on the world stage.
• Superpower, a state with a leading position in the international system and the ability to influence events and its own interests and project power on a worldwide scale to protect those interests.

• Send the above to the trash can, where it belongs. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. These are articles on synonyms and associated concepts, and clearly belong on a disambiguation page. Ray^Talk 14:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Ray on this one. The two are similar concepts. Since this is now a disambiguation page, it should be designed with the purpose of the user in mind. If somebody searches up World Domination, we want them to find an article that tells them what they are looking to know. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

However, I've looked in Merriam-Websters online and there's no entry for "world domination." I didn'y (yet) look up the three (3) words to see if "world domination" is list. If it ain't, then it's not only original research, but a neologism also:.

• I can see a relation. But it's not enough to permit us to list these three there. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• You two above, make a majority. So I have no choice but to acknowledge the consensus. I can only ask you guys to think very carefully about the fact that no dictionary of the English language is of any use to you to deny my point that (1) it's a Neologism, and (2) Original research. Nice analysis - but Wikipedia policy does not allow you to do that. Every other usage has a source or reference. But this is based merely on what? Your intuition? What reference work can you find for your position? And now we have four (4) "political" terms. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

World Domination is not in the dictionary because it is a phrase, made of two words which you will easily locate in any dictionary. This phrase is used by a remarkable number of publications[2], and is a theme in stories. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand. But "phrases" are also include in dictionaries when they have special meanings. Otherwise we would need an article for every two-word phrases. Now we have articles for each "phrase" that has a special meaning. But you cannot list this phrase's special meaning as equivalent to any of the four (4) "political" meanings because you cannot prove it. It's also a "neologism." It seems to have recently entered our popular culture and it does have several new documented meanings for which we have articles. But all that just suggests that this "political" meaning you're trying to list is in fact a neologism, because (1) it's not in the dictionary for any of the four words, and (2) you cannot give and source or reference to support the listing. So you must not listed these four (4) words here. You may believe that there is a "political" meaning - but you cannot prove that your belief is due to your own creation: look up WP:Neologism, if you haven't already. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It's hardly a neologism. Take for example this google news search from the 1940's that shows it as a term of common usage. The fact that "world domination" as a phrase is not in a dictionary is simply irrelevant. Especially if one considers the following from dictionary.com

Hegemony ... 3. (esp. among smaller nations) aggression or expansionism by large nations in an effort to achieve world domination.

The whole point of a DAB is to be helpful. To state that we shouldn't link out to hegemony/others because "world domination" doesn't have its own entry in a dictionary is a pretty weak argument considering that the terms we'd be linking to are strongly related to world domination (as shown by the above quotation). --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Please examine WP:Neologism. If the usage is not yet in a dictionary, we should not create the usage by posting it here. It's easy to imagine everything possibly implied by the two-word expression. But if it's in fact a neologism it does not belong here. If we accept your "helpful" argument, the we should Redirect every possible mis-spelling of a word - to the appropriate article. Instead of educating the world, we would merely be compensating for mistakes. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you got the idea that a phrase must be in a dictionary to be used in a DAB. (Setting aside the fact that a phrase in use for over 60 years with the same meaning cannot, by definition, be a neologism). Nor do I understand the analogy you attempt to draw between using a DAB to link works related by their definitions (as above) to linking mis-spellings. Especially given that "world domination" does in fact appear under the definition of hegemony, despite your claim to the contrary earlier. At present, I'd suggest that there exists a reasonable consensus for keeping things as they presently stand. --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

List of conspiracy theories

I'm deleting the reference to list of conspiracy theories, not appropriate for a dag--Work permit (talk) 18:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• But both expressions are listed there. Isn't that appropriate for a DAB? Find what you want at WP? --Ludvikus (talk) 18:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• PS: Why not have: "See also List of conspiracy theories"?

Because New World Order (conspiracy theory) is a list of all consipracy theories having to do with world domination. List of conspiracy theories is a superset of that list, it includes thinkgs having nothing to do with world domination--Work permit (talk) 19:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. Both both articles (& expressions) are listed in the List of conspiracy theories. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, List of conspiracy theories is a superset. New World Order (conspiracy theory) is the article you want to go to if you're looking for world domination.--Work permit (talk) 19:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Would we violate a WP rule by including the "superset" in the DAB? If not, why not include it? --Ludvikus (talk) 20:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

There's no reason to include the parent article since it does not deal with world domination, it deals with conspiracy theories. However, if you wished to pull out the conspiracy theories not involving the new world order, and place them in the politics section, that would work. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not on the second option you're giving me. It's wrong to dignify a pejorative (conspiracy theory by treating it as a politics. By that standard, why not include racism as politics? Every single conspiracy is a pejorative - is it not? --Ludvikus (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Are there any conspiracy theories on world domination that are not in the new world order article?--Work permit (talk) 20:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

"World domination is a term that refers to the intent of a group or individual to control or regulate the entire world. It is a theme in several literary and media works, though the term is also"

Why do we need this piece of "original research"? Or "neologism"? And at the very top? Each listed item is sufficient. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems you are trying to challenge any and all items on this article. You should read the first paragraph, if not the entire article at WP:OR.

Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions.

The text you have picked above is not an opinion, an experience, nor an argument. It is not a conclusion, and it does not advance a position. The term is not a neologism, as it is well documented in secondary sources, including the book that you are so very eager to keep on this list. Moreover, there is nothing in that statement that you have picked that anyone would contest to. "This is what is means" (do you contest what the term "World domination" means?). The second could easily be backed up by an extensive list, such as this one. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a disambig page. The purpose is to direct people to the right article, so I'd say the less said the better--Work permit (talk) 22:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Certainly true, but disambiguation pages should have a short and concise definition. Most that are not related solely to artworks that share a name do have such a definition. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: Here is the style guide, which reads "A disambiguation page is not a list of dictionary definitions. A short description of the common general meaning of a word can be appropriate for helping the reader determine context. Otherwise, there are templates for linking the reader to Wiktionary" (Emphasis added). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. But that's precisely what's done next to each item in the list. The verbose line seems like a summary. We don't need that. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Those would be the uncommon meanings that are unique to those terms, not the common meaning behind the term "World domination". Can all involved editors please carefully read MOS:DAB (paying particular attention to the fact that this is a long disambiguation page), WP:DAB, and Wikipedia:Disambiguation_dos_and_don'ts. This may serve in stalling this edit warring. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not that long, but if you prefer section headings rather then simple bullets that's ok with me. If the short description you want to add requires a reference to back it up, and if another editor has issues with it, I'd say leave it out.--Work permit (talk) 22:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

How about "World domination refers to the purported intent of a group or individual to control or regulate the entire world." (leaving off the second sentence from the initial entry). Is that uncontroversial?--Work permit (talk) 23:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any "edit waring." I thought we were working together rather nicely. At the moment I agree with the trimmed version of work permit. So what's the consensus? --Ludvikus (talk) 23:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I always assume that outside opinion is harsh, and will see it as edit warring. I am happy with the current situation myself though, and definitely agree with that trimmed down version. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Empire

By deleting "or other powerful sovereign or government.", you are consciously removing the concepts of a soviet empire or american empire. Is that your intent?--Work permit (talk) 23:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

No, the intent is just to simplify the entry enough that its understandable, while leaving the explanation to the article itself. The entries should be a simple as possible. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Family Guy: Stewie's Guide to World Domination

Its a popular book, and the title is very much linked to the concept of world domination. It belongs here as much as empire does, perhaps even more so.--Work permit (talk) 23:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we should do away with the whole section. Its not that anything is more or less notable, but moreover that there would potentially be a list 1000 items long with several editors vying to add their favourite show or character to the list. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to deleting Khan Noonien Singh, Pinky and the Brain, or SPECTRE (though other editors may). However, there are very few notable books or films with "world conquest" or "global domination" in their title. A search for "global domination" brings you to this page, you have to specifically hit the "search" button to find Stewie's Guide to World Domination.--Work permit (talk) 00:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the title does indeed give it the edge there. I suggest we delete all the others though and only include titles containing 'world domination' or 'global domination'

Ethnology

The concept of Cultural imperialism is very much tied to world domination. --Work permit (talk) 23:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Another WP:neologism with much WP:original research. By all means put it together with the rest - for future delivery to the dumpster. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Check out assimilation, which is the domination of one culture upon another. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You're talking about the melting pot. The term has a different meaning when applied to golbal domination [3]

Alphabetize the list

I strongly object to the arbitrary alphabetical order of the items - putting "politics" at the top - did someone decide that it's most important? So an alphabetized is best. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The headers should be alphabetical, and the entries sorted into title, titles with paranthesis () and titles with commas, in that order. Multiple items of any of those should be alphabetical within those categories (See MoS:DAB#Order_of_entries). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

conspiracy theories

Conspiracy theories are not imho a form of political science, but a field in it's own right--Work permit (talk) 00:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Article much improved

Thanks everyone. This form of the article is much better than before. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. However, you obviously mean DAB, rather than "article." Pleasure to have worked with you. May need some cleanup though. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Whatever it is, it seems to be the right answer to the "World Domination" problem on WP. Even the wiki-cartoon (the best part of the article) is still here. :-)

"World domination refers to the purported intent of a group or individual to control or regulate the entire world"

Why do we need this WP:Neologism and Original research in the opening? --Ludvikus (talk)

You keep calling it a neologism. It's not a neologism. Neo means recent. The term "world domination" is old. Here's a NY times headline from 1915 that says NOTED GERMAN SUGGESTS EUROPEAN UNION; Prof. von Liszt, of the University of Berlin, Says the Suggestion of Germany's World Domination Is Imported and Is Treachery to German Spirit. Put simply, "World domination" means "to dominate the world". "Dominate" means to "to rule over; govern; control.". That's all it means.--Work permit (talk) 01:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, you agreed to those changes in the section above where you called the old lead original research / a neologism. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Nice find, Work Permit. But you have to do better than find these two words juxtaposed in a newspaper article. More interesting wold be to trace the work cited - of this German professor to see what he says in his scholarly research about Germany during WWI. Shall we both do that? Floydian, you must have misunderstood what I had agreed to - or I wasn't clear. Sorry. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

this is where you agreed. I'm not sure how you could have been confused or unclear, as it was a direct response to the comment above yours. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 13:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Franz von Liszt - about a European Union. Himmmmm! --Ludvikus (talk) 02:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Nice find (but who will do the research:

Works by Franz von Liszt

• The purpose of thought in criminal law, Berlin 1882/83
• The German Reich Criminal Law, Berlin, 1881
• Criminal law in the states of Europe, Berlin 1884
• Textbook of German criminal law, 22 A., Berlin, 1919
• International law. Systematically presented, 11 A., Berlin, 1918
• The essence of the international Association of States and the International Prize Court, in: Festschrift for law faculty of Berlin, Otto von Gierke doctorate 21st Anniversary August 1910, Vol 3, Wroclaw 1910 (ND Frankfurt 1969), p. 21 ff
• An association of central European states as the next target of German foreign policy, Leipzig, 1914
• Nibelungen, in: Österreichische Rundschau 42 (1915), p. 87 ff
• The Reconstruction of International Law, in: Pennsylvania Law Review 64 (1916), p. 765 ff
• Association of States for the international community. A contribution to the reorientation of the States policy and international law, Munich and Berlin, 1917
• Violence or Peace League. An exhortation in the last hour, in: NZZ No. 1428 v. 27 October 1918, p. 1

--Ludvikus (talk) 02:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it. Are you trying to change world domination from a DAG to a full fledged article?--Work permit (talk) 02:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hangon. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• I think you're confusing a simple definition of a term with a scholarly treatment of the term as a unifying concept. Don't forget, I SUPPORTED changing this article into a DAG because there is no scholarly theory of World Domination. But the term itself is valid, It simply means to dominate the world: dominate it politically, culturally, economically. That's all it means. And it's not a neologism, like for example, snooze.--Work permit (talk) 02:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• I thought we had a new User "Snooze." You got me there. Answering you - I'm just trying to understand your point of the 1915 article. I haven't proposed any change. I'm for trimming. You're the one with this "simple definition" idea. It's your discover - is it not - that because of it, we don't have a neologism? --Ludvikus (talk) 03:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• OK. And I'm saying if you insist on giving this definition, your doing "original research" or creating a "neologism." If it's so simply, you don't need to define it at Wikipedia. If it's a bit more complex, it's a neologism 'cause you can't find it in any dictionary. And if it's even more complex than that - then it deserves an entry with a source or reference. --Ludvikus (talk) 03:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• • PS: This lede is enough: "World domination may refer to:" --Ludvikus (talk) 03:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• I don't have a great amount of passion for a lede sentence that's basically a definition of the term "World" and "dominate". I'll leave it to other editors, I guess I'm ok either way. I do want to include all articles that fall into this concept of "world domination". The DAG as it stands is much much better then the "article" that preceded it, and I would hate to see it recreated because an editor thought some "concept" is left out.--Work permit (talk) 03:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• • OK. But Work permit! You did find something extremely interesting:

    "On that score, then, there is absolutely no difference of opinion.
    But there does appear to be considerable difference of opinion as to the conception of world politics.
    Under that name one may mean a policy directed toward world domination (Weltherrschaft.)
    For that kind of world politics the word "Imperialism," borrowed from the period of Roman world domination of the second century of the Christian era, fits precisely."

• I got that from Project Gutenberg on the Web (It's your article - but a better, digital edition. So "world domination" (Weltherrschaft) means imperialism of the Roman empire accord to your Franz von Liszt. --Ludvikus (talk) 03:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• You're going down the wrong path. I've done alot of searches and have a a lot of sources that will "define" world domination in a number of ways including political, cultural, economic. Going down this path will take us back to creating an article, rather then a DAG. I really did want to improve the previous article, but I found it leads to a Maze of twisty little passages

• I'll add that this DAG could be turned into cited prose, and would be a much much better article then the one we previously had. It would first require fixing the linked to articles.--Work permit (talk) 04:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Imperialism

Is a subsection of politics, probably redundant with empire. Strictly speaking, it could probably replace empire as an entry. Should not be confused with hegemony or the other entries.--Work permit (talk) 04:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Concur. I think it makes more sense this way too, since hyperpower/etc isn't necessarily a subset of imperialism. --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll accept the view of the consensus. However, I strongly disagree - the source/reference given by "Work permit" shows clearly that the narrower concept of Imperialism is appropriate. --Ludvikus (talk) 04:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It would require re-writing the Imperialism article to include the most recent concepts of superpower and hyperpower. Specifically to include the concepts of the soviet empire and American empire.--Work permit (talk) 04:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Protocols of Zion?

Why does it deserve it's own entry, since its covered in NWO article?--Work permit (talk) 04:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• The NWO is recent garbage. Whereas the Protocols of Zion is the Warrant for Genocide:The Myth of the Jewish World Conspiracy and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It's the most "important" antisemitic "work." It;s the source of the idea that Jew conspire to "take over the world." NWO is some garbage of very recent vintage. --Ludvikus (talk) 05:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• PS1: Hope you didn't miss that: "Myth of the Jewish World Conspiracy" --Ludvikus (talk) 05:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• PS2: I'm wasting my time here. If Flodian's going to Revert before I answer your question - I'm leaving. You two - work things out among yourself: [4]. I don't want to have anything to do with articles in which Reversions occur without discussion. --Ludvikus (talk) 05:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are you saying that there's "no world domination conspiracy theory like a good ole' fashioned Jewish world domination conspiracy theory"?--Work permit (talk) 08:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

No. I'm saying the one about the "Jews conspiring" is older and more important. Yet it was deleted. --Ludvikus (talk) 12:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, New world order (disambiguation) is a mess. It needs addressing too (see below). --Ludvikus (talk) 13:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Ludvikus, if you feel that you will not accomplish anything if this page does not turn out your way, then I'm afraid you should leave. I have come here entirely pushing the styles and policies of wikipedia. I have tried to work out a consensus, gotten agreements, and made the changes, only to have you come back and revert them, then make a comment on the talk page asking why we need that when you had just agreed to that change. Your insistence on inserting the Protocols is bordering on advocacy. New world order is a dab page. Protocols is an early example of that conspiracy theory, even if it was written before the conspiracy theory surfaced (although the whole Illuminati things has been a theory for a looooong time).

I gave this reason for its removal in the edit description. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 13:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I haven't reverted as you say. Furthermore, I follow the One Reversion Rule. And I have left this issue. Now I'm interested in the DAB page below. At the moment there's much confusion at Wikipedia over "NWO" because it means many things. Furthermore, you should look at the PSM page - where the lede is linked to WD. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

New world order (disambiguation)

New World Order may refer to: --Ludvikus (talk) 13:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

* New World Order (book), a book by Pat Robertson --Ludvikus (talk) 13:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

* New World Order (conspiracy theory), a conspiracy theory --Ludvikus (talk) 13:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

{{Stub}}

Your stub will never fly. You're much better off cleaning up the existing disambiguation rather than weaving a web. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 13:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not my "stub." I started one because I couldn't find the one above (can you figure out why I couldn't find it?). I'm an expert on The Protocols. I know practically nothing about the "NWO" except that it's of relatively recent vintage as conspiracy theories go. But you seem to know about it - so it would be nice if you did the cleanup. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I was just refering to it, no insults intended. I know nothing of it actually, just that its a group of conspiracy theories that entity X is going to or has taken over the world. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I noticed you just edited The Protocols, so you must be better informed now. That New world order is confused with New World Order. I wish you could help on that too. But the former is by far the more important conspiracy theory. And the latter appears to be of relatively recent Russian origin. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• PS: So can you please put back the Protocols of the Elders of Zion on the list - as I've proposed? --Ludvikus (talk) 14:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I just attempted a compromise so it is mentioned but not given undue weight. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I never read the article, just the delisting of an FA thing that claimed there were too many paragraphs in the lead, so I made 3 into 1. Purely grammatical. Anyways, the point is that we link to the conspiracy theory which already links to the protocols. It is just one of thousands of examples of literary works that have a central theme of world domination, and is not any more notable than the countless other examples. Perhaps you should find other pages that could use it more appropriately, but I do not believe that it fits in here. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• "The Protocols" article was featured. The NWO article is trash - primarily OR. Also, I see there was a "compromise." But I didn't know of it. So I edited the PSM line to reflect it's heavy weight I know it has. But if you - Floydian - insist, I'll restore it to your version and discuss it here until there's a new consensus. Just let me know your wish. I feel strongly about the matter. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I like it this way. Its "perfect" as is. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. --Ludvikus (talk) 06:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:MOS-DAB

I cleaned up the disambiguation page per the guidelines at the manual of style for disambiguation pages before I realized that there was an active dispute here, for which I apologize. It is fine to revert some of my changes (insofar as discussion appears to be required), but please realize that since this is one of the top-linked disambiguation pages at the moment, there will be many more eyes from the disambiguation corner of Wikipedia here soon, and they are likely to make the same changes based on the manual of style. In general, anything that is not referred to by the unqualified term "world domination" should not be added back to the page (disambiguation pages are navigational aids, not search tools); thus, a fictional character whose intention is to dominate the world doesn't really belong here, nor does a book which has the idea of world domination as its theme. If necessary, please ask for a review of my edits at WT:DAB. Thanks.... Dekimasuよ! 01:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I took the liberty of bold facing the above because it is so well put - and may help editors learn to create good quality DAB pages. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the reminder & reference above. Excellent points - I'll do my best to remember. I must confess an aversion to reading such manuals as the above - and was inclined to learn this stuff by trial and error. Will do my best to follow your directive above in the future. Thanks a million for your succinct presentation above! --Ludvikus (talk) 01:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• In accordance with your presentation here I've just deleted the whole Politics section - there was no explicit "world domination" phrase present in it. --

• Games gotta go too. But I'll wait a while to see how things go. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding things here. Politics does not need to have the title within it, as they are terms that may be referred to (individually, or as a whole) when one uses the term 'World Domination'. Its pop culture items that should have the exact title match. Dekimasu has made the page adhere to the Mos, and it really should be left as such. They are a sysop, and probably know the stuff much much more than you and I - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm extremely disappointed that you Reverted me without a clear consensus in your favor - and while discussion was still open. Let's see what others think. --Ludvikus (talk) 03:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The consensus would be Dekimasu, who made the change, and myself, who acknowledged that it was definitely the best look for the page. I believe that dekimasu knows better, as they are very involved in wikiproject disambiguation. To remove politics is to remove the topics that a user may have been intending to read when they clicked one of the many, many, many links to this dab.

I'm also wondering what the purpose of the dab cleanup banner is? Is the page not cleaned up at this point? What is left to do? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 04:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• I think the purpose of the banner is that there a now a bunch of articles that link to the DAB that could be linked to one of the topics on the DAB page directly, bypassing this page. However, on review of a handful, most of them just refer to world domination in general, so I'm not sure where they should be linked to. Oh, and I agree with Dekimasu and others about keeping politics and games. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
• I think the tag should be left up for a while and then taken down. Most of the discussion on this page is really about the fact that "world domination" is a vague concept with no clear single meaning. In many cases the links should go to this page, others can be changed of course with or without a tag. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
• No doubt the impulse to use a Dab page showed good faith, and was a move in the right direction (tho too far in that "direction").
  If the Dab-CU tag is removed, i will restore it, and become less cautious about the risk of upsetting the progress toward consensus on the Dab-irrelevant issues under discussion here. None of the four terms currently listed in the first line -- world (or global) domination (or conquest -- or dominance, which should be included but actually makes six, not four) -- nor any of the permutations of recasing them, is an appropriate title for an article related to the topics currently listed in the "Politics" section, nor can a dab include the language that appears after them, since that language is both too much and too little for the task of making immediately clear to the user exactly which among those seven articles addresses the sense of "world domination" that they had in mind when they came to the Dab page. (SD's remark that "'world domination' is a vague concept with no clear single meaning" is to the point, or halfway to it: not only are the boundaries among the seven similarly vague, but some users will be hoping for respective articles that concern states that are cases of several but not all of those seven.)
  A set-index article is not a Dab, and is a much more flexible form of page than a Dab, which is purely a navigational device and unsuited to ambiguity beyond the single kind that it exists to solve: cases that include Engelbert Humperdinck, which would be the perfect title for the bio of either of two musicians -- if only the other were not also a notable person.
  That section should become the initial text of an SIA with a title like List of forms of states with regional or global pre-eminence; that will free it from the constraints that every Dab must meet. (These start with being an appropriate candidate article to hold the title of the Dab -- as noted, not the case with "world domination" and its most obvious synonyms -- and continue with other limitations, e.g., exactly one blue link, and one red link only under very specific conditions.)
  The accompanying Dab, in case my point is not obvious, should have List of forms of states with regional or global pre-eminence or whatever SIA as at least a See-also entry; the 4 (6) titles from the top should each become either a Rdr to the same SIA, or a Dab that lks to the SIA (and also elsewhere, e.g. in the case of Global Domination to Global Domination (video game)), and the laundry list in the first line of the Dab page will not be needed.
  --Jerzy•t 23:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
  

I'm not sure exactly what you are saying or suggesting there (besides converting this to a set-index article), but before making any major changes, please keep in mind that nearly 500 articles link to this disambiguation, and that the premise of those 7 or whatever number of terms is identical. There is no (zero) difference between global dominance and world domination, or {insert permutation here}, aside from the tense/context of the usage. There is currently no single article which goes in depth into the concept of taking over the world, as it is for the most part a fictional concept, hence why it links to several articles which come very close to that concept. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There is no wp:rs from which one can construct an article about "world domination". The articles do not refer to a "form of state" and so I don't understand what a List of forms of states with regional or global pre-eminence would be. For the record I expanded the intro to include all four terms: World domination, world conquest, global conquest, or global domination. I expanded the list to include terms that had existing redirects to this article.--Work permit (talk) 02:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• Summary: I'm beginning to get the picture. And here's my summary: (1) 1848 Communist Manifesto ("workers of the world unite, you have nothing to loose but your chains"), Internationalism, Communism, the October Revolution (1917); (2) 1920 Antisemitic usage with the arrival in the West of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion - see the article recently revamped: The Beckwith Company, (3) New World Order (conspiracy theory) usage; (4) Popular culture usage (a) Politics, (b) Games, (c) Music.

• A problem exists also as follows: (a) involves WP:Neologisms. I think that the plurality is just - that diverse Neologisms. (b) and (c) are easy to list. But the hard part I think is knowing what to do with the Neologism usage. So I suspect we must clean up - maybe get rid of "politics" all together. As Dekimasuよ! said, a DAB is not a "research tool" - it's a "navigational guide" on Wikipedia. So even if the "politics" list does not give Neologisms, non of the serious items listed actually uses those terms. Maybe it would be useful, Dekimasuよ!, if you repeat that distinction here again. --Ludvikus (talk) 06:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

--Ludvikus (talk) 06:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

-- I just asked User talk:Bkonrad to explain for us the reasons for his version of the DAB page. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Changes: Is Protocols of the Elders of Zion a.k.a. Praemonitus Praemunitus to be DAB?

Please do not put the protocols of zion on the list, its been hampered out for a reason. Politics should be at the top, as it is the most common usage of the term. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 05:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Check out carefully the sources and references before you Revert: [5]. Click on The Beckwith Company article and you'll find "world domination" existing on the 1920 USA edition of the Protocols of Zion. Also, you're mistaken to call a conspiracy theory politics. --Ludvikus (talk) 06:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the use of world domination in that sense would be political. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 13:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. An Antisemitic usage is never political. Saying someone is inferior is never political. It may have been once, but it's no longer. Is racism political? Is slavery political? --Ludvikus (talk) 15:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The answers to your question are (1) yes, (2) yes and (3) yes.

The Protocols of Zion is a historic document. The people who wrote and published it, did so for political reasons.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)--Toddy1 (talk) 15:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention that world domination itself is political. The only non-political uses of the term are the titles of works. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Conclusion: I strongly disagree. However, as the Consensus at the moment is against me, I will not apply that point at the moment on the Article page, until I sway my colleagues in seeing that fact. Now see the discussion immediately above. --Ludvikus (talk) 06:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems that getting agreement to what belongs here is as impossible as a disambiguation page as when it was an article

It seems that getting agreement to what belongs here is as impossible as a disambiguation page as when it was an article.

• One POV appears to believe that it is all about a book written 100 years ago and that very few people born after 1945 have read.
• Another POV is that it is about politics, and so includes global hegemony, empires, world government, that kind of thing.
• Whether fiction should be included or not, is disputed.

Maybe it would be better if the warring factions accepted that the other side's POV was as acceptable as their own, even though they found the other factions' POV unpleasant.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think it's "waring." I think we need to change Policy. I've kept things by putting them in the "See also" category. I think the "See also" part should be the Research Guide - because so many people want it. There's a need for a Research guide. But to do that requires a Policy change. --Ludvikus (talk) 09:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
• Wikipedia Policy is that a DAB page is not a Research Guide. It's a Navigational tool like Google. But we need to change that. And for that, we should use the "See also" section.
• About the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion you're just mistaken. It's extremely popular from 1920 - 2009. The first editions were printed in the West in 1920. And as The Beckwith Company article now shows explicitly, world domination is explicitly there. And it accuses the Jews of seeking "world domination."

That's just a fact that scholars know about this Warrant for Genocide, which was published, not in 1945, but in 1967, 1996, 2001, ....

The complete title is: Warrant for Genocide, The Myth of the Jewish World Conspiracy and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion --Ludvikus (talk) 09:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

But surely if what is wanted is a research guide, that is what an article is for?--Toddy1 (talk) 09:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

No. We're talking about DAB pages which are currently, officially, only supposed to be "Navigation tools." But I think there's an overwhelming desire of Wikipedia's to use it as a "Research tool," meaning, in this instance of "World domination," that anything significantly related to the notion, should be listed. I think, maybe, we should our expert herein edit the Content page that's current, and see exactly why he did what he did. We can always ask him to Revert. And the hear Why? and Why not? from him (or her? I cannot tell the gender by the name which I imagine is Japanese?). By the "expert" I mean the person named Dekimasuよ, with the Hiragana-looking character at the end of this romanized name. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Apart, perhaps, from yourself, there is not an overwhelming desire of Wikipedia's to use it as a "Research tool,". The structure and format of disambiguation pages have been honed over the existence of Wikipedia to the point where they are now and there is virtually zero support for turning disambiguation pages into research tools. older ≠ wiser 13:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Please do not discuss my personal desires here, since you obviously don't know them. That said, (1) what's the purpose of the See also section on a DAB page - do you know? (2) examine carefully the Content page herein and tell me if it's true that it's being used as a Research guide as we speak at this moment. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• A rather harsh comment for someone who didn't discuss your personal desires, but merely echoed a statement that you made (essentially)).

1. The See Also section is for articles that aren't direct definitions of the DAB term, but are directly relevant. In this case, the list of empires that have controlled the largest areas of land is relevant, but not definitive of the term 'World domination', as the entries in politics are.
2. Perhaps, but that is probably subjective at this point. However, the protocols of Zion, once again, does not belong on the article. If you want an example of what original research is, the sentence: "For the most famous example see: Protocols of the Elders of Zion", is a good example. Nowhere on the books article or the NWO article does it mention that PotEoZ is the most famous example, and nothing in particular makes it more notable than, for example, the Illuminati, which it is also conspired are trying to achieve or have achieved world domination. The group of conspiracy theories that are grouped under 'New World Order' are all conspiracies dealing with world domination. None of them are more notable than others, and none of them need mention on this article, since they are already mentioned in detail at New World Order. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Ludvikus - there are 2 solutions to this question of whether disambiguation page should be research tool.

Find where in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) it supports what you want. If you can find this, I suggest you quote relevant sections here, and given wikilink to section of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages).

If you this Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) is wrong, then stop debate here, and move debate to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages), and propose what you think Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) should be. If you do this, please feel free to place notices on talk pages of editors who have dealt with you, as they may have useful experience to add to the discussion.

--Toddy1 (talk) 20:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks a million, Toddy1,. I find this extremely useful and constructive advice. I'll do exactly as you've just suggested!!! --Ludvikus (talk) 23:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• Dear User:Floydian: I've noticed you've just (effectively) Reverted (by deleting Protocols of the Elders of Zion) and stated in the WP:Edit summary that if your Reversion were Reverted you would take the matter to Conflict resolution. I do not wish even to suggest that there's an edit war here. I strongly disagree with your view. Therefore, I ask you to take this conflict to WP:Conflict resolution before there's any Reversion by anyone. I've never started the process - so I would appreciate it if you did so yourself. Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• When you agree to something, then go against that agreement by continually sneaking in essentially the same text, then yes there is a conflict to be resolved. Conflict resolution is exactly where it will go. The protocols of the elders of zion is not any more worthy of mention than any of the several dozen conspiracy theories listed at new world order that all have to do with world domination. The term 'World domination' on the cover page of TPotEoZ is merely a subtitle, and not the title of the book. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Point of information: I suspect that you've just made a Good faith error that it was I who restored the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to the DAB page. But it was not I. Please recheck the relevant Diff's and acknowledge that I did in fact keep my promise not to Revert your previous Deletions of this item. Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• You are correct sir. My mistake, it was Steve Dufour who added it back. I misread your initial comment as "I noticed you've just effectively reverted my edit", and so I apologize. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks a million!!!. It's extremely common to make such mistakes. I've made far too many of them in 2006, when I first started editing Wikipedia! And I still make them. No problem. Let's work together, not against each other. And because of your wonderful ability to admit a mistake, I'm going to award you an appropriate WP:Barnstar ASAP!!! Have a nice day. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Prove it

Please provide proof that the words "empire", imperialism, ets, are synonyms to "world domination". - Altenmann >t 20:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Excellent question: user talk:Altenmann, I think, at best, that it's a WP:Neologism of very recent vintage. So I predict there will not be proof forthcoming. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Why? They clearly aren't. However, they are clearly relevant (As has been agreed upon by several editors), and will remain. Please read MOS:DAB#Break_rules. It points out that while the style guidelines of WP:DAB and MOS:DAB should be generally followed to produce consistent dab pages, the rules and guidelines should be broken if doing so is more helpful to the reader. If you are prepared to go through the 450 pages that link here, and remove those links, then by all means do so, and THEN change this page to only show medial entries. At this point in time, a clear majority of articles linking here are linking to the concept of dominating the world.

Ludvikus, please understand the difference between a neologism, and a term which has widespread usage in plenty of first-party publications dating back for over 100 years.

What I was referring to as synonymous were the terms in the lead, World domination, world conquest, global conquest, or global domination may refer to:. If you need proof of this uncontested terminology, please read a thesaurus to verify. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment 1: Although I prefer the "lean" to the current one, I wish the Floydian version remain locked until a further discussion produces consensus. I strongly urge Altenmann that s/he argue his position before reversion since this DAB has been the subject of much discussion. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment 2: Dekimasu|よ!! Where are you? Why have you forsaken us? [6] --Ludvikus (talk) 22:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry (for the lack of explanation for my reversion after you put part of my comments in bold above, as well). I have been very busy of late and will probably continue to be so for some time. If you would like further input on standard formatting of disambiguation pages, I'd suggest asking for help at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. I am not totally comfortable with claims to expert knowledge, since my voice is just one of many. I'll try to help out more when I can. Dekimasuよ! 05:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

That's OK. Thanks for before. I noticed you particularly liked to work on DAB's & wondered if you just forgot about this one after your valuable input. Hope all goes well with your work. Didn't mean to rush you. I was expressing my own good impression of your informed opinion. Have a nice day - or night. --Ludvikus (talk) 11:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

OR tag

This disambig page arbitrarily adds a number of terms as disambiguation of "world domination", with the only argument WP:IAR so far. This argument cannot supersede the most basic rule of wikipedia: wikipedia:Verifiability. Please provide proofs that the term "world domination" may serve as a substitute for the term "empire" and other listed political terms, or they must be deleted. - Altenmann >t 22:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Strong support: For the reasons I've argued above, at the middle, or top of this Talk page - unless it has been Archived already. --Ludvikus (talk) 00:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Nothing here is unverifiable. Nothing here is cited. Its a dab page, and should help readers in finding the article they were looking for when they intended to find an article on world domination. I'll take this to rfc tonight, and we can get the opinions of some more editors.

However, for all purposes, it is NOT proper to place a tag, and then discuss it. Discuss it, wait more than 45 minutes (Try several days), and then act on the discussion. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I've just RVTD to [User:Altenmann]] - the Consensus is with him. And ought to have a Stronger reason to Remove & Tag than to delete Text from the Content. And maybe "RFC" is a good way to go. I've never experienced it. But it's certainly better than the possibility of an Edit war - in which I certainly will not participate. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The consensus is with nobody. Just because somebody posts something which you agree with does not immediately make it a consensus. The formal way for doing things is to comment, and then add a tag, not add a tag and then ask what everyone thinks. However, I'm not going to bother myself with such trivial matters. Opening an rfc now, please add your opinions to it so that they can be cleared up or verified by the rfc. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment: What should and shouldn't be on this dab page

• This is an rfc to find out what independent editors believe should be the content on this disambiguation page. The main issues at hand here are whether the page should solely link to titular matches (aka the games and music section, with only titles that match), or whether the politics section is relevant to the term "world domination". - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'd just like to add that this whole OR thing is utter nonsense. While I could understand (and disagree) with someone if they felt that the politics section didn't belong because it wasn't related, to claim it's OR is just plain silly. Surely the original person who labeled it as such isn't requesting that we justify the topics on the DAB with sources / cites on the DAB page. (If so, please find me where it says to do this in policy -- because I've never seen another DAB so formatted). --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Please watch your language. WP:V specifically says that "Verifiability" does not mean that every line must be supplied with citation. Verifiability is.. er... verifiability. In the case of a DAB page the usage of the term as a synonym must be verified in the corresponding article. For example, Crazy Legs DAB lists Elroy Hirsch, and article "Elroy Hirsch" must say that his nickname was Craszy Legs. The same here. The article "Empire" does not say it is synonymous with "world domination" and will not, I believe, and to claim otherwise is someone's very original opinion. - Altenmann >t 15:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't understand it, but apparently reverting that was going against the consensus of the minute. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 04:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Regarding "OR" here's why the claim isn't silly (displaying items in question first):

1. Empire, a group of nations or peoples ruled over by a powerful sovereignty or government
2. Hegemony, predominant influence exercised by one nation over others
3. Hyperpower, a state that is militarily, economically and technologically dominant on the world stage
4. Imperialism, the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies

• These terms, we all agree, belong to the political science vocabulary and are used in political discourse. However, no one has been able to produce a source where, for example, a professor of political science has written an article using the expression "world domination." Yet we all have a feeling that a connection exits. But using that feeling is insufficient, because one's feeling, unsupported by sources is precisely that, Original research. I'll put aside, for the moment, whether or not we also have here a Neologism: meaning a usage which has not yet entered the dictionaries. --Ludvikus (talk) 07:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Ludvikus, if you'll scroll up, you'll note that I've already mentioned sources that link the terms However, if you need more, in no particular order:

1. Over 700 journal articles that mention hegemony or hegemonic behavior in context with world domination. [7]
2. More for hyperpower [8]
3. Again for imperialism [9] (Note that ref 5 there dates to 1958).
4. For empire, I'm having more trouble turning up sources, so it may be that the term is too weakly linked, and shouldn't be DABed.

Now, it's mentioned above that the article needs to mention the term from the DAB page in order to justify it's presence on the DAB page. I still haven't seen where that's mentioned in policy. I think it's a reasonably commonsense application of IAR to state that definitions that are intrinsically linked can be present on DABs. However, if it turns out that's against policy or consensus, I'm not particularly attached to the section. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 16:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I cited the policy: WP:V. Since the disambig page is a very terse navigation page of specific format, the only place where the term may be verified is the corresponding article. - Altenmann >t 17:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Please explain the term "definitions that are intrinsically linked". - Altenmann >t 17:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It means that the two are linked. In other words, using common sense and not making sure that every minuscule detail follows policy/guideline. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment 1: Primary source: In 1920, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was published for the first time in the United States in book form, translated from the Russian language into the English language in two diverse impressions. The Library of Congress assigned a Uniform title to this tract based on one of these editions. Said title is "The Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion". This text also bears the slogan, or Latin saying, which is also its lead title, "Praemonitus Praemunitus." It is this particular American edition (first or second) which presents the fictional plot, "World Domination," explicitly on its title page as "Biblical Prophecy as to World Domination by the Chosen People." --Ludvikus (talk) 12:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(books)#Subtitles - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment 2: Secondary source: In 2002, Unholy Alliance: A History of Nazi Involvement with the Occult was published by Peter Levenda:

    ..."documentary" evidence that the Jews,
    operating through the lodge network and secret rituals of the Masonic Society,
    were putting the final touches on their program of world domination.
    As is well known by now, the Protocols are a forgery,
    an old satire using an imaginary conversation between Machiavelli and Montesquieu ...
    
    ... The plot as described in the Protocols involves a schedule for world domination that was believed to be well on its way to full implementation. ...

ibid., page 48. Accordingly, "world domination" is the name of the plot of the fiction known as the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion." Therefore, this item belongs on the DAB page. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I respect very much your Good faith efforts. I know, from experience, that you will admit a mistake when it's pointed out to you - therefore, I give particularly great weight to what you have to say. I just would like you to slow down a moment so I could develop my point. In fact, I owe you an apology. Because instead of dealing with your issue, which the proposed items listed above - to which you object, I've introduced my own concern regarding what should be on the DAB page. Therefore, I'll defer to you, if you wish, and consider first whether the four items above should be kept on the DAB list. So I'll just state my view now. I would love it very much if the See only section became a Research tool. But the rules say, "No way." It's my understanding that a DAB page is a Navigational tool only. As such, therefore, only where "world domination" actually occurs in Wikipedia space is the expression to be listed on the DAB page, somewhere. The other matter is the issue of what a Google search reveals. The Google search engine - even though it too is a Navigational tool, is often used as a Research tool by anyone. However, to tell whether an expression is or is not a neologism cann be established by find it in a dictionary - not by counting the number of hits by Google - the latter is OR. And if it's not in a dictionary, it's also a neologism. So the only vaguely "political" usage is in fact the Antisemitic usage - and for that I also have a Seconday source - on page 48, of the above book, where it's used twice - characterizing the fictional plot of the text - the (fabricated) desire of Jews for "world domination." Since your list above involves legitimate terms used by scholars - it follows that pedestrian neologism cannot be associated with these terms because no reputable scholar will stoop so low as to lecture about "world domination" - except in a discussion of the "Protocols of Zion." Therefore, this item belongs on the DAB page list of items to be disambiguated. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Does anybody actually dispute that there is a clear topical association from World domination to empire, hegemony, imperialism, NWO, and friends, or is this discussion only for bureaucracy's sake? • Anakin ^(talk) 19:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from insulting people. Disambig pages have a very narrow scope:the are navigation tools for pages which could have the same title. All associations belong to articles. Article Empire cannot potentially have title World domination. - Altenmann >t 20:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't attempting to insult anyone though I apologise if I have. I know that DAB pages have a very narrow scope, though that's the real point isn't it? -- This doesn't work as a pure DAB page. (These links could go in the see also section, which is the only way to have this in keeping with DAB format, but would make it harder to get to the stuff that people would expect to find when searching on world domination. It's sadly self-defeating.) However, I'd ask, why does it have to be pure DAB format? How about a brief paragraph or two on the topic and definition of World domination, followed by a DAB-style list of associated topics. That would solve the old article's problem of too much OR-ish duplication of empire and hegemony, allow us to cite references, and allow linking to everything important. In any case, the DAB guidelines exist to document what generally works best, for future use: any suggestion of removing important related topics merely because they don't start with the same letters as World domination is a case of instruction creep and seems to be counter-productive. • Anakin ^(talk) 21:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, DAB page has a very narrow scope, and the WikiProject Disambiguation strives hard to keep it in that way. If you want something else, this would be a regular article. If you want to cite references and link whatever important, then it will be a good article. <<Continued in a new thread, #New article>>. - Altenmann >t 23:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment 3: "world domination" occurs twice (2x) explicitly on page 3 of the the First American edition of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (1920), titled The Protocols and World Revolution, which is available on the Web: [10].

It's the name of the plot. --[[User:Ludvikus|Ludvikus] (talk) 00:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

New article

• <<Cut out of the #Request for comment: What should and shouldn't be on this dab page. - Altenmann >t 23:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC) >>

By the way, the term is widely used, and even linked in wikipedia in many places, so I was thinking about rewriting it myself. Why don't we start a workarea, World domination/New text, and start collecting good citations from books with definitions and historical examples? When the article becomes reasonable, it can be moved in place of the current one, which will be moved to World domination (disambiguation). By the way, I've just noticed that a good deal of this future article may be moved out of the New World Order (conspiracy theory) page, see my comments in Talk:New_World_Order_(conspiracy_theory)#OR tag.- Altenmann >t 22:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think that's right. This was already an article, but turned into a DAB page because the was no basis for an article. And look at the DAB now - there's nothing there of significance. What you propose now is a complete waste of time. Except for Brand names, there nothing but "The Protocols." Where do get the idea that there's the slightest possibility to turn this into a full fledged article? --Ludvikus (talk) 22:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• I thought I've already explained how to make a proper article: (1) read and then summarize the books (2) reuse the misplaced (in my opinion) material from NWO article. The problem with the previous text was that it was a chaotic original research. To do it properly, one has to start from scholar sources which directly explore to concept, rather than from one's own head. As for "slighthest possibility" issue, there is a slightest possibility that my suggestion will fail. Therefore I suggest to start it in a temporary page, rather than to start a new edit war in the article space. - Altenmann >t 23:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• But you're out of Consensus. Look at the Top. This is a discussion about what belongs on the DAB page. I find it improper not for you to discuss here effectively "the price of tea in China" (and I only mention China because it's so far away from where I am). --Ludvikus (talk) 23:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• At this point in time there is no consensus, which is what the point of the rfc is: to establish it. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that my talk went out of the context of the section. Thanks for pointing this out. I am separating the talk. Anyway, if we have a good general-purpose article, then there will be less need for the disputed entries, and it will be easies to reach consensus. - Altenmann >t 23:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• I've moved the temporary page to the Talk namespace as a subpage of this one. Since subpages do not work in the main namespace, it was inappropriately a full separate article. On the content side, it's a little too complex all over again, methinks. The DAB-like, list-like format works almost fine, and requires less OR-ish explanations. • Anakin ^(talk) 00:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• I took a first stab at expanding World domination/New text Please don't delete my entires, discuss on the talk page for that talk page. If you can find the talk page for World domination/New text, please tell me where it is--Work permit (talk) 05:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Unfortunately it seems there are no talk pages for talk pages, so I created a sub-subpage and I moved most of your first stab to Talk:World domination/New text/Talk, because I want this article to be restricted to political science, so I changed the intro accordingly. Once again, please let us first of all find the scholarly sources which discuss the concept in general, otherwise, as User:Work permit demonstrated, the article may easily turn into a something unexpected. - Altenmann >t 16:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Question 1: Are we talking about an Article, or a New DAB page? If the former, I OPPOSE, if the latter, I SUPPORT. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• World Domination (Kompressor album)
• World Domination (Naildown album)
• World Domination Enterprises, a UK independent rock band
• World Domination Recordings, a US record label

These above items are the most legitimate. They belong on the DAB page together with The Protocols. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Question 2: Speaking of Talk pages, Altenmann, why do you make it so difficult to reach yours? What with >t on your name? I want to ask you a question, but I cannot because of that ">t". Where are we to discuss the new article you propose? --Ludvikus (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • You have already said that you OPPOSE. Therefore there is nothing to discuss: there is no new article, only a project. And only people who want to contribute to its content are welcome. - Altenmann >t 19:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Put this page in your user area. Then it will have a proper talk page. If you wish to limit searches to scholarly sources, you need go no further then a search in google scholar and JSTOR for articles with the title "world domination". You are NOT going to find evidence that the term "world domination" is a term used in regular political science discourse to mean empire, hegemony, or what have you. For every obscure article you find that does hint at this meaning, I'll cite one that demonstrates that it doesn't.--Work permit (talk) 03:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Good work, User:Work permit. I learned from you about the wonders of Google scholar. Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 04:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• I don't have a problem with defining the DAB page narrowly (ie, to things that are named World Domination), although I think that would rule out including Elders of Zion. (While world domination may be one of the themes, it's hardly the primary definition of the subject, which of course would be antisemitic propaganda). Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 00:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Article sidn't work out. Deleted. - Altenmann >t 19:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• But User:Bfigura you cannot rule out Protocols of Zion. With all due respect, you seem not to appreciate the fact that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion = the Warrant for Genocide. You seem not to understand that there is no antisemitic work that's as vile as this antisemitic propaganda. It was used by Hitler in order to Exterminate the Jews. And if you want to know what the theme was, which Hitler accepted as true about the Jews, it was that they sought world domination. So you have no choice but to NOT exclude this item. In fact, almost every known use of this two-term expression is traceable to this central theme of the tract. This text is precisely about a meeting in which certain individuals gather secretly in order to plot "world domination." And it is this very reason which Hitler used in order to murder 6,000,000 of them. That's not my Original research, that's what the scholars tell us. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Ludvikus, I'm aware that's it's more or less the most famous piece of anti-semitic propaganda. That's what it's known as, and I would argue that's what most people would summarize it as (as you yourself just did). The first thing that springs to my mind is not "world domination". Antisemitic screed, sure; flimsy justification for genocide, maybe (I'm not sure how much Hitler needed an excuse, and anti-semitism has a long, bloody history that predates tEoZ)... but world domination wouldn't be at the top. It's certainly a related topic, but given that we decided to go with a more restrictive version of the DAB (ie,one that would limit it to articles with the title world domination), I don't see the logic at all. Just because the event was mind-numbingly terrible doesn't mean that we should try to shoehorn the Elders of Zion into the DAB. (And honestly, I don't think you can claim that this document was the direct cause of The Shoah, even the article doesn't make that claim -- it doesn't claim one single cause, nor have I heard anyone else suggest such a simple explanation). --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Title page, USA (1920)

• A picture is worth a thousand words, right? Look to your Right. What you see there is the 1920 Title page of the First Edition (there were two) of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Click on it - and the title should tell you that the Contents are about the alleged Biblical prophecy that Jews strive for "word domination." I don't know if even know the point will be made. --Ludvikus (talk) 04:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Let me try to make it as simple as possible. The "book" to the left, published in the USA in 1920, is about "world domination." --Ludvikus (talk) 04:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Now I quote from the Title (of the "book" to the right): "...possible fulfillment of Biblical prophecy as to world domination by the Chosen people." --Ludvikus (talk) 04:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• The person responsible for that was Harris A. Houghton, a military agent of the United States working in New York. --Ludvikus (talk) 04:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• This idea (from The Protocols) lives on - on the web: [11]. --Ludvikus (talk) 04:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Here the lead from this site:

"The Old and New Testaments, the Judeo-Christian bible, lay out a plan for World Domination by the "Chosen" People, a name the Jewish people give themselves. Christians believe that God spoke to the Jews and their Hebrew bible is therefore the Word of God. They believe that by siding with the Israeli people - descendents of its writers - they will be rewarded by God. That in part is why so-called Christian nations are helping Jewish Israel achieve their biblical "promised" land of present-day Palestine*. The war in Iraq is on the way toward that goal."

I'm quoting that Web page's lede. --Ludvikus (talk) 04:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• These are corruptions of the leadership of the world by the Jewish Messiah: [12]. --Ludvikus (talk) 04:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

That book is titled The Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion. The subtitle is not important as far as we are concerned on this article, and the book should not be included on that basis. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 06:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Why do you say "we", you are only one. The name of the theme, plot, story-line of this book is "world domination," and what you think is "important," is itself unimportant. We do not decide things here based on what you think is "important." The fact is, that the Anti-Semites claimed by all the different imprints of this "book," from 1903-2009, that "Jews' plan is for "world domination" and that's the excuse that Hitler used to murder the Jews in World War II. It's a secularization of Jewish Messianic message. When the [[Messiah] comes, a Jew of the House of David, he will rule the world. The Protocols is a convoluted, twisted, recycling of Biblical Prophesy. --Ludvikus (talk) 09:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I say we as in the collective of wikipedia as written in guidelines, policy, and essays. The fact is that you are being an advocate of this book. I doubt Hitler cared for nor needed an excuse, he was was not exactly a level headed man. This is a partial (sub)title match and should not be included on this particular DAB. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 12:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to your private beliefs, view, and doubts. But this is not the place for them. Nor are you permitted to analyze my psychological state of mind. You are provoking me to make my own observations about you - but I've learned to resist such Disruption from experience. The fact is that I give citations and, references, and sources, you merely give us your opinions and doubts. All my references, some of which I own, say that "world domination" is the plot of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Says Harris A. Houghton on page 5 of said book: "...these Protocols are nothing other than the strategic plans for the conquest of the world under the heel of Israel,"

--Ludvikus (talk) 13:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

When you are advocating them, then yes this would be the place to discuss them, if not the administrators noticeboard. I am not analyzing your psychological state of mind, and such accusations are just as defamatory as the ones you claim I am committing. References are irrelevant. The point of this page is to guide people, and to point to exact title matches, not the subtitle or the text on page 5. The plot of the book does not matter, the title does. The subtitle also does not matter. I have pointed to the polices and manuals of style regarding this (And will gladly again for you) and you continue to ignore me and several others who have agreed with me, and reinsert this book over and over again. I will find an administrator to echo my statements if thats what it will take to get it through. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Floydian. Ludvikus, you appear to be the only one pushing for the inclusion here. While you've done a lot of good working on the tEoZ topic, there's no need to include it here: interested readers are unlikely to try and find the material through this particular DAB. At this point, I'd really suggest you stop pushing this agenda -- at this point, your behavior is beginning to come across as a bit tendencious. I would much rather that this matter be dropped so everyone can get back to constructive editing rather than have a repeat of what seems to have happened in the past [13]. --Bfigura ^(talk) 23:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree as well. We have consensus. Can we move on? We still have work to do. --Work permit (talk) 01:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Bfigura, you don't need to indulge in a Personal Attack. All you need do is establish what the consensus is. My understanding was that User:Work permit had put the item back un the list, and that it was only User:Floydian who was deleting it. I am perfectly capable of following the consensus. For you to do that to me - give me diff from my past, which has absolutely nothing to do with showing that a consensus existing, is Disruptive, and Disgusting to me personally. Where have you been all this time? I am outraged and insulted that you would stoop so low - as if I were a criminal. It is precisely editors like you who do this kind of absolutely un-necessary stuff that Provokes and Disrupts an editor like myself. It takes a tremendous of will power on my part not to say to you what i wish. But it would probably get me Blocked. So I shall remember you as one of the worst editors at Wikipedia I've come across. You've just succeeded in turning my experience at Wikipedia into a miserable one, making me question whether it is worth my while to have anything to do with characters like you. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I didn't put it back on the list.--Work permit (talk) 04:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Ludvikus, nobody is personally attacking you. We cannot personally attack you, as this is the internet. All we can do is draw our own personal conclusions of your behavior and your past history. When those conclusions are similar between several people, you should take that as feedback rather than an insult on your character. The reference to your past was only a reference to your past, and nothing more. It was not brought up as an argument against your current behavior. If you go around wikipedia gaining nothing from other editors, than you are not truely learning anything from your experiences here. Is that not what makes the wiki process enjoyable overall. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 04:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Back to New Article

Since the "new article" discussion has completely derailed into an argument about what belongs on a disambiguation page (for the record, Ludvikus's arguments are both self-contradictory and contrary to Wikipedia convention), I'm restarting the discussion about the creation of an article on this subject, with the partial name-matches in the Music section moved to World domination (disambiguation). It need not be an extensive article, but the inclusion of numerous thematically linked articles on the current not-really-a-disambiguation-page indicates that there is an actual topic here. The article could describe various forms that (attempted) world domination has taken in politics (which would provide an opportunity to mention the Protocols, as an example of how the threat (real or false) of world domination can be used to rally a population in opposition to an enemy), its use as a theme in fiction and games, etc. Basically use the current page as an outline. I came to this page as a casually curious would-be reader on the subject, not a writer about it, so I can't offer to create such an article myself, but this is what I would hope to see in one. I encourage you to continue in that direction. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the term has such widespread public usage, it has few to no reliable sources describing the concept. If we can find such a source, it would be more than acceptable to create the article. Unfortunately it seems that inclusion criteria now seems to include having a reliable source, not just indicating notability. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

What about the multiple sources identified shortly after the RFC? - Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I missed them, as I'm not sure which sources have been posted. Could you post them here? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

1. User:JasonAQuest, your sweeping, generalization about self-contradiction is worthless. You ought to specify the contradiction, or refrain from claiming one.
2. This used to be an article, but it's no longer so - after a consensus decided against it. Therefore, you need very strong grounds to revive this dead hourse.
3. Wikipedia is not a Dictionary. Just because an expression has some meaning, doesn't justify an Article about it.
4. There may be usages which are WP:Neologisms. An article about these are prohibited.
5. Even though the expression was born with the birth of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion when said Tract was translated into English about 1920, it's only a name of the plot whereby that Jews are said to be conspiring to "dominate the world." But what sort of nonsense is that? It's obviously meaningless, Antisemitic nonsense. We don't need a special article about a stupid idea that ultimately is incomprehensible. No scholar will use such a locution. The closest meaningful expression related to it is "imperialism."
6. One's tendency to adhere to such a metaphor is inversely proportional to one's education.
7. A DAB page for the expression is more than sufficient.

--Ludvikus (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

In response:

1. Not my ball game, I'll leave this one
2. The reason that article no longer exists is because it contained a lot of OR, and no reliable sources were found. There is no prejudice against recreation.
3. We are not seeking to only define the term. That is the scope of a dictionary. The expression has enough to it to justify more than just a description
4. A term is either a neologism or it is not. Terms do not have definitions that are neologisms. World domination clearly has widespread use, that is not the issue at hand. The issue is finding a reliable source describing the history and use of the term.
5. If that is so, then the proposed article should also document the fact that many people or groups have been accused of conspiring to take over the world, as well as the reprecussions. The term world domination appears in works dating back at least 40 years before the Protocols English translation, however. Why is imperialism the closest related term? How is it the closest related term? These are things that need to be explained to readers.
6. Unnecessary comment which I will not respond to
7. Clearly since it is still the point of significant debate, that may not be the case.

-- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reasoned analysis. I have no problem with it. I hope no Original Research returns to restore the article of the past.It's my opinion that ONLY such OR is available. I haven't tried to see if there is a Dictionary Definition to the phrase - I'll do that later. I don't think you'll find Reliable Sources for an article about this phrase - but you're welcome to try, if you have the time to waist Almost any two-terms juxtaposed will get you wide usage, unless they're juxtaposition is grammatically incorrect, and for that later cases we have exceptions. See: apple juice = applejuice, while beetle juice = beetlejuice. But world domination = world domination must remain a DAB]], or a "footnote" in "The Protocols" about which I've written enough. There's only the example of "Moon rock," or "moon rock," which differs from "Mars rock" or "Venus rock" perhaps because we haven't yet set foot on those planets. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Jason A. Quest's question from above, here is the AFD discussion. I participated in the discussion, and see no references that one can build a new article on (unless you want to include Dance Music's RuPaul: Poised for `World Domination' or Barbie's Secret Plan For World Domination)--Work permit (talk) 20:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps online, but I'm certain we can find some resource. I mean come-on, there's got to be a Guide to World Domination book out there or something similar that we can dig up. For example, a quick search on amazon for "World Domination" turned up these resources on the first page, one of them connecting World Domination and Empires in the title alone!

• [http://www.amazon.com/1000-Steps-World-Domination-Osborne/dp/1932051260/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256425894&sr=8-3 1000 Steps to World Domination]
• [http://www.amazon.com/Geeks-Guide-World-Domination-Beautiful/dp/B001UMCA28/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256425894&sr=8-5 The Geeks' Guide to World Domination]
• [http://www.amazon.com/How-Rule-World-Handbook-Aspiring/dp/1556525877/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256425894&sr=8-8 How to Rule the World: A Handbook for the Aspiring Dictator]
• [http://www.amazon.com/Empires-Domination-Ancient-United-States/dp/0745638724/ref=sr_1_16?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256425894&sr=8-16 Empires: The Logic of World Domination from Ancient Rome to the United States]

And these are the first 16 results out of 25000 (20K of those are books). Need I say more? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

You are making my point. Your first selection is a comic book. Take a look at the [http://www.amazon.com/Geeks-Guide-World-Domination-Beautiful/dp/0307450341/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256428129&sr=8-1#reader_0307450341 table of contents] in your second selection (by the way I happen to like how to ask for the restroom in 12 languages). For book selections, you might as well add in:

• Family Guy: Stewie's Guide to World Domination

Take a look at a google news search on the topic. Do you see what I mean?--Work permit (talk) 23:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll admit I didn't look closely at the books, just grabbed titles that stood out. I don't think the stewie guide would be good, like the comic book you pointed out, as we're not looking for titles to add to the DAB (Though I think we could add these titles if they or their authors have articles), but rather for books that could be used as a reliable resource with which to write an actual article. Looking at the Google News search, I don't think we'll have trouble finding usage of the term, just describing reliably what exactly it means (aside from the obvious, domination of the world), and where the term originated (which your news results shows results back to the turn of the 20th century) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like "world domination" means something. It means "to dominate the world." Right? How could you tell if someone did? My point is that it's meaningless, yet sounds meaningful. So it's popular, especially among those who do not think too deeply. So do you want to write about them in a Wiki article? --Ludvikus (talk) 01:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Popular terms have articles on wikipedia, as well as other portmanteaus. What should be written about is the hisotry of the term, its usage, and historical examples set out by a reliable source (The Empores book looks like it may possibly be good for this task). I'm not sure why you are implying that people must be stupid, or not think deep enough, to consider using the term. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

And so you wish to construct an article on Weltherrschaft (germans are so much better at portmanteaus). Interestingly enough, the first New York Times article with the words World Domination in it's title was titled "NOTED GERMAN SUGGESTS EUROPEAN UNION; Prof. von Liszt, of the University of Berlin, Says the Suggestion of Germany's World Domination Is Imported and Is Treachery to German Spirit." In the article, Liszt describes the policy of World domination as Weltherrschaft.. Going down a path of doing own research would make for a very interesting article, but not an appropriate one for wikipedia.--Work permit (talk) 04:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

For you editing pleasure, I have google translated the German article Weltherrschaft and placed it in my sandbox. The article is at User:Work_permit/sandbox/World_Domination. You can edit it, have discussions on the talk page, and see if it's possible to reach consensus on an article there. I suggest the talk page there be limited to discussions of specific additions, specific citations around the German article translation. We can keep the general question of the validity of a new article here.--Work permit (talk) 04:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)