On 8/24/06, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Exactly. Nor do I care. Nor should those opinions be included to taint the caption with OR.
As you pointed out, it's clear that the intention of this poster is arguable... if somewhat obvious to most. The mere inclusion of it on the article without attribution to the claim of it's meaning is orignal research.
You are making a value judgement about the image by putting it on the article.
As Jkelly has explained, we don't need a secondary source claiming that a picture of a tree is a picture of tree before we can insert it in an article.
and we would likely not need a secondary source to place this image on an article about protest posters.
A picture of a tree (primary source material) on an article about trees would usually be straight forward enough to remain undisputed and not require a secondary source.
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.
And hopefully the claims in the article are sourced and are not original research.
Of course they are, with literally hundreds of high quality footnotes. Again, why would you comment about something that you had not actually looked into?
I had by that point, and I didn't claim there was a problem. My point was that we've cited the text to avoid it being orignal research. The image is no different.
But we *haven't* described the image as anti-Semitic, so how can it possibly be "Original research"? It is Netscott who keeps insisting it must be described as anti-Semitic, I'm arguing against that! What "claim" are you talking about? We make no claim that the picture is anti-Semitic.
Don't insult our intelligence Jay. 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.