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

[Gregory Maxwell]

On 8/24/06, jkelly at fas.harvard.edu <jkelly at fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
[snip]
>   But this doesn't seem to be your concern.  Instead, you're arguing that the
> photograph being used is not an example of what it is supposed to be
> identifying.  Jayjg is actually referring you to the correct page -- we do make
> an exemption in our No Original Research rule for images.  If a Wikipedian takes
> a picture of tree, we don't ask that the assertion that it is a tree first be
> published in a reliable source.

This is incorrect by being incomplete. :)

For example, I could find a picture of something that looks small
shrub which is technically a tree.. And place it on [[tree]]... But
the image would be removed, and quite rightfully so, without a
citation.

Even with a solid citation provided, it would be a poor editorial
judgement to put an image of an atypical tree which many people would
initially is not a tree.

This is pretty much what I see here... An image is being placed on an
article about anti-semitism which some rational people believe is not
a clear example of anti-semitism (but is rather a rather insensitive
and tasteless jab at isral) without a citation.  A citation can easily
be provided because the source of the image made a pretty good
argument.

I still think it's a bad editorial judgement to use that image as the
lead, but it's not a violation of NPOV unless we fail to use the image
as a meta fact rather than a fact.

(I could throw into the fire that we still have the copyright tagging
wrong, but an angry letter from the copyright holder would actually be
useful... we'd get to find out what he intended :) )