On 8/24/06, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/24/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
We have put the image at the very top of an article titled [[New anti-Semitism]]. If we aren't describing the image as an example of anti-semitism then it should be removed.
The image cutline shouldn't say anything beyond the basic description of where and when taken. It is very clearly a photograph of something that is *arguably* anti-Semitic,
Generally our articles do not have lead images of things which are merely 'arguably' related to the subject of the article.
but there are people who think it isn't. Similarly, we show anti-Semitic photographs taken by the Community Security Trust (part of the body that represents the Jewish community in England), and we show those without comment, saying only where and when taken. There is no need to labor the point, and sometimes it's important not to.
NPOV does not tell us to simply express views as truths without commentary. We achieve neutrality by buffering disputed points with attribution. This action converts a debatable matter ("the image demonstrates anti-semitism") into a universally agreed fact ("this page argues that the image is anti-semitic").
Were the image completely self explanatory and not under dispute, you could argue that the comment need not say anything. But that clearly isn't the case here.
Frankly, I think it's unfortunate to use an image so open to interpretation and debate as a lead image no matter what the caption says, but I don't have something better to replace it with.