Talk:The Left's Jewish Problem

The recent change
The recent change 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)

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

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)