Gregory Maxwell's last edit on this article goes some way to at least establishing the relevance of the image to the article but still the source for the claim should be included in the caption as it is indeed arguable what the image shows.
-Scott [[User:Netscott]]
On 8/24/06, Scott Stevenson wikinetscott@gmail.com wrote:
That's not entirely correct Jkelly,
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOR#Original_images "Images that constitute original research in any other way are not allowed, such as a diagram of a hydrogen atom showing extra particles in the nucleus as theorized by the uploader. All uploaded pictures are subject to Wikipedia's other policies and guidelines, notably Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view." Therefore image do indeed need to abide by neutral point of view.
-Scott
On 8/24/06, jkelly@fas.harvard.edu jkelly@fas.harvard.edu wrote:
Hi,
Quoting Scott Stevenson wikinetscott@gmail.com:
Got a bit of a dispute going on over on [[New anti-Semitism]]... ... surrounding an image and neutral point of view.
I don't think that this is a very helpful way to think about this image usage. It is true that we've done very little thinking about the way in which images might give undue weight to minority or fringe positions. I'd go so far as to say that we seem to be comfortable taking a very naive position on what can be communicated through photography, and I think it would be interesting to have a thoughtful discussion about that.
But this doesn't seem to be your concern. Instead, you're arguing that the photograph being used is not an example of what it is supposed to be identifying. Jayjg is actually referring you to the correct page -- we do make an exemption in our No Original Research rule for images. If a Wikipedian takes a picture of tree, we don't ask that the assertion that it is a tree first be published in a reliable source.
Jkelly
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l