On 8/24/06, Scott Stevenson wikinetscott@gmail.com wrote:
Greetings, Got a bit of a dispute going on over on [[New anti-Semitism]] that involves [[User:SlimVirgin]] and [[User:Jayjg]] surrounding an image and neutral point of view. The article is prominently displaying an image with a caption that does not establish the relevance of the image to the article. I have tried to include in the caption that the image's source believes it to be an example of Anti-Semitism but my edit have been reverted. Due to text in the image being small and difficult to read, at first glance the image does appear anti-Semitic but upon further analysis it is arguably sooner an example of anti-Zionism. My edits to establish what the image's source has said about the image (and thereby establish it's relevance to the article) were removed with the reasoning that we should, "let the reader decide". I've explained that in accord with NPOV, text saying that "Source X says Y about Z" needs to be added to the caption but Jayjg has Wikilawyerly asked me to show specific NPOV text that applies to images. I pointed out that WP:NOR states as much and yet I'm still rebuffed. Since, another editor has joined the discussion and agreed that the image should have a caption establishing it's relevance to the article but he too has been rebuffed. Some additional eyes on this would be very helpful. See this talk: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:NewASAnti-Semiticposter.jpg and this talk: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:New_anti-Semitism#Question_about_top_poste...
As the article Talk: page has made quite clear, some people look at the image and think it is a clear example of anti-Semitism, others look at it and think it's anti-Zionism. The article discusses at length the debate over whether some (or all) anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism - indeed, to a degree, that is what the whole article is about. Thus, again, as has been explained, the arguably ambiguous nature of the image is a perfect example of the topic of the article itself.
Something about this image bothers Netscott, and he has tried to modify, explain, remove, etc. this image on various grounds. He keeps claiming it violates policy; yet when asked to explain what policy he thinks it violates, he keeps making vague (and changing) references to various policies, but refuses to actually quote the specific section of policy he thinks this violates. If there's any wikilawyering going on, it's Netscott's claim that something violated policy, but refusal to actually quote the policy.
In addition, I find it tiresome that people bring their article content disputes to this list. This is the fourth place Netscott has insisted on having this discussion; on the article Talk: page, on my Talk: page, on WP:AN/I, and now here. If he wants to raise an article RfC let him do so.
Jay.