Talk:Elder of Ziyon

Notable...ness?
This is but a blogspot blog. Does it really warrant it's own Wikipedia page? XK5Nkxn (talk) 22:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Normally, I'd say no. But I saw on the lede of the article that it says "The blog has been widely cited by many news organizations, including James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal[8], Israel HaYom[9], the Washington Times [10], and Tablet Magazine." So it is a rather famous blog. I mean generally we should try not to make articles just for blogs or people on YouTube, but if they're noteworthy enough, which I feel this is, then I don't see why a bit of information can't hurt.  Just my own personal opinion, others may feel differently.
 * See here a List of Notable Blogs that have their own Wikipedia page. So yes, there are precedents for this type of stuff. No doubt this isn't on that level, but for people interested in the topic it may be noteworthy, and the blog does have a very high rating level on Technorati. -- Activism  1234  22:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It's ironic that an anonymously written webpage such as this has in its talk section a call to delete an anonymously written blog. I wonder if there should be a category for anonymously-written literature or lit written under a pseudonym. In fact, the blog is written under a pseudonym that makes a literary reference. MichelleInSanMarcos (talk) 13:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I vote to Delete this article. It is an anonymous blog, Wikipedia has no other single-author anonymous blogs with articles that I know of. It is anonymous because it is full of illegal Hate speech, Anti-Arabism, and Islamophobia. It is a very bad first choice for an anonymous blog to include in Wikipedia, Wikipedia is promoting illegal Hate speech with this article. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 13:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You might also want to delete this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_%28group%29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.20.96 (talk) 01:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point. The discussion is not about whether Wikipedia Users agree with the content of Elder of Ziyon but whether the blog is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Furthermore, if you argue that someone spreads "Hate Speech", "Anti-Arabism" or "Islamophobia", it would certainly improve any discussion if you would back it up with concrete examples. Otherwise, you're running the risk, that people might see this as baseless accusations to simply slander a platform with whose views you happen to disagree. jzeller (talk) 14:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There are Wikipedia articles on for example Mondoweiss and Electronic Intifada so no reason to obscure their main ‘competitor’. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:3149:9D00:2D25:3D82:DB53:6564 (talk) 15:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Structure for a notable blog entry
Other Highlights as a section title could be changed to Cited by Then include the individual reports here, rather than in a separate section, as was done for the Hitler advert report. MichelleInSanMarcos (talk) 13:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Garbage
This is garbage from "Elder of Ziyon". They mention "Rabbi Yitzchak Chelo", mentioned by Victor Guérin, talking about ancient Jewish pilgrimage to Halhul. Alas, that is the infamous Isaac Chelo travel itinerary; now commonly accepted to be a 19th century forgery by Eliakim Carmoly, Huldra (talk) 23:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)