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

[Gregory Maxwell]

On 8/24/06, jayjg <jayjg99 at 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.

No orignal research Jay, I could care less what you and other random
spectators think of the image.

You are making a value judgement about the image by putting it on the article.

The source of the image
(http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_february_16_2003/) includes an
extensive analysis of the symbolism in the image to justify their
position that the image is anti-semitism.

Netscott would seem to be satisfied by attributing the claim and
linking to the source. What can your objection to that be?   To me it
would seem to best match NPOV.

> 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.

> Thus, again, as has been explained, the arguably ambiguous
> nature of the image is a perfect example of the topic of the article
> itself.

If it's explained, it's only explained through original research. To
resolve this problem we attribute the claim to it's source, who makes
a good effort to back it up.


> 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.

On the talk page of the image he quite clearly argues that he believes
our description of the image as Anti-Semitic is original research. I
am inclined to agree.  His editing history on the article has
attempted to attribute the claim to the source of the image, along
with a link to their argument. I am inclined to agree that doing so ls
likely the best resolution of this absolutely idiotic edit war.

>If there's any wikilawyering going
> on, it's Netscott's claim that something violated policy, but refusal
> to actually quote the policy.

It's inappropriate to respond to simple criticisms backed by easily
understandable arguments with a demand to cite chapter and verse of
the policy.