Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Controversy of Zion


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was delete.  Glen  11:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The Controversy of Zion
A non-critical advertisement for a book promoting antisemitic conspiracy theories. If the subject is really worth a WP article, it should be rewritten from scratch. Also this is probably a copyvio. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions.   -- ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Hardly even worthy of appearing anywhere on the internet, let alone having its own encyclopedia article.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete junk - crz crztalk 09:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. oTHErONE (Contribs) 09:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Having an article about this is worthy, but it needs editing to make it look nicer and not copyvio --Nielswik(talk) 10:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete this unreferenced, unnotable, anti-semitic garbage. Vizjim 11:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  11:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unreadable article on a book which is probably also best left unread. Guy 12:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OR, WP:SOAPBOX, and WP:CB. There doesn't appear to be any connection between the opinions in this article and the book of the same name. I believe these opinions are unsourced and simply an expression of an editor's personal views. --Shirahadasha 13:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In particular the Amazon.com page on the book says that
 * In this dispassionate yet opinionated history, which sweeps from Theodore Herzl's Zionist dream to Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin's assassination in 1995, Wheatcroft condemns the 1975 United Nations resolution equating Zionism with racism as gravely malicious, a reflection of the Arab states' malignancy. While praising Israel as "a unique island of constitutional government in the Levant," he echoes the observation of U.S. journalist I.F. Stone that Zionism involved a psychological act of denial along with a physical act of displacement of Palestine's Arab population.
 * This article is clearly not that. In addition to a completely different POV from the way the book is described, the most obvious problem is that the article sweeps back much earlier than that, tracing things back to Talmudic times etc., something the book is reported not to do. It would be reasonable to infer that only the title, not the content, is taken from the book, that the use of the book as a source may be misleading and a misrepresentation of the article's source and reliability/credibility, and that this article appears to be, instead, completely unsourced personal polemic. See generally WP:CB. Delete . --Shirahadasha 13:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * CommentI edit conflicted. There's apparently two books, one by Wheatcroft (the one with the amazon entry), the other, first published in 1956 by Reed.  Dina 13:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Acknowledge there are two books, one by Reed and a later one by Wheatcroft. --Shirahadasha 14:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete It's difficult to go through the normal process with an article that summarizes the Holocaust as "In ratio to their numbers they didn’t suffer any more or any less than other people, but this was an example of the phenomenon, that everything must focus on Jews." but I shall try. It most likely violates WP:COPYVIO and either way, the book itself is not notable enough for this detailed a summary, so the article violates WP:OR.  The statements in the article are not presented as arguments from the book, but as fact, which violates WP:V. To say it violates WP:NPOV is almost unneccessary for an article that puts the word anti-semitism in quotes every time it uses it. Furthermore, there is apparently a different book called The Controversy of Zion amazon entry, which according to the reviews on the page appears to be a scholarly, even-handed account of the history of Zionism. (and therefore shouldn't even have to sit next to this book on a library shelf.)  Anyone read that book?  Let's replace this article with an article about that one!  Failing that, let's send this article into the dark pit of deletion. Dina 13:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to some forgotten page on another anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, something that even a 3-year-old would laugh at. --Wareq 07:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per User:Dina. The article seems like it has a bad case of Patent nonsense. IZAK 07:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per Humus and Dina. Jayjg (talk) 00:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.