--- Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
So we don't say "AIDS is gods punishment for gays" we say "Jerry Fallwell has stated that AIDS is gods punishment for gays [1]". We avoid making the judgement call, and we use text that people from many different perspectives can agree is true.
OK. I agree with that.
By putting the image on [[New anti-Semitism]] we are implicitly making the claim that the subject of the photo is an example of New anti-Semitism.
Ah. I see. But have you got something better? This argument seems to be abstractable to the point that any image could be criticised for its POV.
To do so is original research and is rejected by several generally reasonable folks.
No, its representative of one particular aspect of the debate. I would be more in favor of using the cover of Chesler's book though, because that instead depicts a statement in the debate and hence represents the debate. I would still keep the image though as an example of the rhetoric and imagery about which X claims Y.
Who is X, though? Its certainly not just that web which claims that image is a representative example thereof... I agree that the image is problematic in that it depicts (according to the source) "anti-Semitism" and not "new anti-Semitism," because its usage represents a failure to distinguish between the two - according to its own distinctions! But that problem is indemic to the entire concept, and not with the usage of the image. (!)
Instead we can say "source X argues this is an example of.." and everyone sane can agree that it's true (although we might not agree that it's good editorial judgement to use that image at the top).
Alright. I can go along with that. At worst, a different image will be picked, or the caption would say 'several POV sites claim X is representative of Y...'
SV
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com