-- Scott Stevenson wikinetscott@gmail.com wrote:
I see so the article's title is "new anti-Semitism" and of course one would expect to glance over and see an image demonstrative of such a concept but no they see an image that a few Wikipedia editors are saying (without a citation that is) is...
I agree that the apparent selectiveness in the application of CITE policy is troubling, particularly when its those two.
all that I've required is that the image's source "Zombie" from "Zombietime.com" be cited as saying that the image was demonstrative of anti-Semitism.
Seems reasonable, on its surface...
Essentially you are claiming that the source Zombie..whatever is the relevant issue, rather than what the poster is spinning, and how that spin is spun.
But you are of course clever and understand that the picture's source is Qdubiously POV and therefore cant be NPOV to use! Particularly upfront. Hence you seem to be using CITE as a tool for exclusion, which is the essence of the citenazi argument!
You wont find me a friend to anything nazi-like, and in this case, (ironically enough) principle finds me in favor of SlimJay and their argument that the image is sufficiently iconic of the debate. I may change my mind if I see a better image, but I agree with them in this particular case. Otherwise the image has to be removed, because it comes from a POV source.
That is normal when bias is ambiguous in articles.
But according to NPOV, bias is supposed to be ambiguous - otherwise it would be obvious. (!)
- the hundreth monkey/sqrt
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com