On 8/24/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/24/06, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote:
As the article Talk: page has made quite clear,
some people look at
the image and think it is a clear example of anti-Semitism, others
look at it and think it's anti-Zionism.
No orignal research Jay, I could care less what you and other random
spectators think of the image.
Exactly. Nor do I care. Nor should those opinions be included to taint
the caption with OR.
You are making a value judgement about the image by
putting it on the article.
As Jkelly has explained, we don't need a secondary source claiming
that a picture of a tree is a picture of tree before we can insert it
in an article.
The article
discusses at
length the debate over whether some (or all) anti-Zionism is
anti-Semitism - indeed, to a degree, that is what the whole article is
about.
And hopefully the claims in the article are sourced and are not
original research.
Of course they are, with literally hundreds of high quality footnotes.
Again, why would you comment about something that you had not actually
looked into?
Thus, again,
as has been explained, the arguably ambiguous
nature of the image is a perfect example of the topic of the article
itself.
If it's explained, it's only explained through original research. To
resolve this problem we attribute the claim to it's source, who makes
a good effort to back it up.
See Jkelly's earlier e-mail in the thread, and the statement above.
Something about this image bothers Netscott, and
he has tried to
modify, explain, remove, etc. this image on various grounds. He keeps
claiming it violates policy; yet when asked to explain what policy he
thinks it violates, he keeps making vague (and changing) references to
various policies, but refuses to actually quote the specific section
of policy he thinks this violates.
On the talk page of the image he quite clearly argues that he believes
our description of the image as Anti-Semitic is original research. I
am inclined to agree.
But we *haven't* described the image as anti-Semitic, so how can it
possibly be "Original research"? It is Netscott who keeps insisting it
must be described as anti-Semitic, I'm arguing against that!
His editing history on the article has
attempted to attribute the claim to the source of the image, along
with a link to their argument. I am inclined to agree that doing so ls
likely the best resolution of this absolutely idiotic edit war.
What "claim" are you talking about? We make no claim that the picture
is anti-Semitic.
If there's
any wikilawyering going
on, it's Netscott's claim that something violated policy, but refusal
to actually quote the policy.
It's inappropriate to respond to simple criticisms backed by easily
understandable arguments with a demand to cite chapter and verse of
the policy.
However, baffling and constantly changing arguments, that appear to
have nothing whatever to do with policy, need some actual quotation of
policy so that people can pin down exactly what the person is talking
about.
Anyway, I'm done responding on this thread. If you want to talk about
this, take it to the Talk: page.
Jay.
