On 8/24/06, jkelly@fas.harvard.edu jkelly@fas.harvard.edu wrote: [snip]
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.
This is incorrect by being incomplete. :)
For example, I could find a picture of something that looks small shrub which is technically a tree.. And place it on [[tree]]... But the image would be removed, and quite rightfully so, without a citation.
Even with a solid citation provided, it would be a poor editorial judgement to put an image of an atypical tree which many people would initially is not a tree.
This is pretty much what I see here... An image is being placed on an article about anti-semitism which some rational people believe is not a clear example of anti-semitism (but is rather a rather insensitive and tasteless jab at isral) without a citation. A citation can easily be provided because the source of the image made a pretty good argument.
I still think it's a bad editorial judgement to use that image as the lead, but it's not a violation of NPOV unless we fail to use the image as a meta fact rather than a fact.
(I could throw into the fire that we still have the copyright tagging wrong, but an angry letter from the copyright holder would actually be useful... we'd get to find out what he intended :) )