Talk:The Left's Jewish Problem

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Judaism Low‑importance

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

The recent change

The recent change [1] don't follow the source it doesn't use the word "argue" or "he believes".Please read the source before making such changes.--Shrike (talk) 10:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some more reviews

Colin Schindler, Mosaic, I don't have time to add the material. Pincrete (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This book presents a very controversial POV regarding the left and antisemitism but you wouldn't know that by reading this article

The basic premise of this book is controversial on it's face but the description of the book give the reader the impression his POV is largely accepted when in fact significant debate still exists. When it says "Rich traces the origin of contemporary left-wing anti-Semitic anti-Israel rhetoric and of Antisemitism in the Labour Party to the early 1970s,..." that presents a POV not everyone agrees with. So called new antisemitism is a controversial concept as it's WP article explains and as such it should not presented in this article as uncontroversial as currently is done. What needs to happen is we need to present the contents of this book as the opinion of it's author and make clear that the basic concepts he argues are not accepted by everyone. As for the argument by Shrike that we leave out words like "argue" or "he believes" becuase the source doesn't use them, that violates WP's NPOV policy in this instance becuase the source in question biased in favor of his POV. The fact is he is indeed expressing a controversial opinion and thus the article needs to reflect that by using terms like "argues" or "he believes". Yes, we can present opinions of others who agree with him but we also have to present critical views of his book and/or the opinions it expresses. Even if lets say we have trouble finding more critical reviews of the book we can still point of the book presents a controversial POV since we have sources that back up that (see new antisemitism article). Notcharliechaplin (talk) 17:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]