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

[stevertigo]

--- jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/24/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> Then why on earth would you comment?
> 
> > Although it may be true that in practice we may apply a weaker NPOV
> > requirement to image, the idea that you must find some explicit
> > requirement in policy is ludicrous, and it is offensive to hear that
> > an arbcom member would make such a claim.
> 
> It is even more offensive for you to make such a claim without
> actually knowing what is going on.  I haven't argued for any "weaker
> NPOV requirement" for the image; rather, the image is perfectly NPOV
> as it stands, as it make *no* claims as to its true meaning.

I dislike Greg's usage of the term "offensive" here as well, particlarly
for a hypothetical. But then I also dislike Jay's apparent willingness to
pick up the same exact weapon and reuse it. Verbal terrorism has no winners.

On the actual issue, I agree with SlimJay that the image is rather emblematic
of that fine line between opposition to policy and bigotry. Its inclusion of
"fake Jews" might put it over the line, but that

But on the other hand, I'm all in favour of concise, descriptive, and eloquent 
captions (like the one I wrote for the God article, which Slim moved to the 
Names of God article: title=Names_of_God&diff=70792902&oldid=70204022 )

But then I disagree with using the caption as a place to characterise how the 
image is characterised, other than by a general reference to "which some claim."

Hey! A perfect example of how writing supercedes sourcing!

SV




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com