Talk:Warrant for Genocide

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Jewish history

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history 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.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Books

	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.

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 13:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also section

Wikipedia articles follow a certain format. Please explain how the items in "see also" contribute to book description).

As for your revert, I have explained my edits in edit summary :rm "see also" : no additional info about the book". You did not explain why you disagree with my edit. You also reverted my other formatting edits. Why? - Altenmann >t 19:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't edit. You effectively Reverted by Deletion without discussion.

As to your challenge regarding the issue being

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

, I'll assume WP:Good faith on your part. The subject of this Article and Book is the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Does that prove to you that the topic is in fact Controversial? --Ludvikus (talk) 19:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not how wikipedia works. the tags are placed oinly real issues arise among wikipedians. Virtually all political topics are controversial. We tag only those which generate abnormally high level of contention among wikipedians. - Altenmann >t 20:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this particular case, the topic of the article is a scholarly book. I fail to see why this book is controversial. It does not matter that it writes about a controversial topic. Unless present any evidence of controversy regarding this particular wikipedia article, the tag will be removed. - Altenmann >t 20:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the explanations required is in the Template to the right

Hope you will be more cautious and consider restoring what you've Deleted or Reverted? --Ludvikus (talk) 19:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any answer to my edit summary. We are not to solve riddles here. Please explain your reasons in plain, short, and simple words. - Altenmann >t 20:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]