[WikiEN-l] [[New anti-Semitism]] and violations of NPOV re: top image

[jayjg]

On 8/24/06, Scott Stevenson <wikinetscott at 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_poster_image

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.