No one's responded to me about why NPOV shouldn't be followed in adding to
the caption the quote from the image's source (Zombie of
describes this poster as, "the most anti-Semitic
sign ever seen at any protest rally in the United States." I've just been
presented with straw man arguments. I've got no problem with the image but
what I do have a problem with is when an image is presented outside of
neutral point of view.
-Scott [[User:Netscott]]
On 8/24/06, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote:
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.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l