-- Scott Stevenson <wikinetscott(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I see so the article's title is "new
anti-Semitism" and of course one would
expect to glance over and see an image demonstrative of such a concept but
no they see an image that a few Wikipedia editors are saying (without a
citation that is) is...
I agree that the apparent selectiveness in the application of CITE
policy is troubling, particularly when its those two.
all that I've required is that the image's
source "Zombie" from
"Zombietime.com" be cited as saying that the image was demonstrative
of anti-Semitism.
Seems reasonable, on its surface...
Essentially you are claiming that the source Zombie..whatever is the relevant
issue, rather than what the poster is spinning, and how that spin is spun.
But you are of course clever and understand that the picture's source is
Qdubiously POV and therefore cant be NPOV to use! Particularly upfront. Hence
you seem to be using CITE as a tool for exclusion, which is the essence of
the citenazi argument!
You wont find me a friend to anything nazi-like, and in this case,
(ironically enough) principle finds me in favor of SlimJay and their
argument that the image is sufficiently iconic of the debate. I may
change my mind if I see a better image, but I agree with them in this
particular case. Otherwise the image has to be removed, because it comes
from a POV source.
> That is normal when bias is ambiguous in articles.
But according to NPOV, bias is supposed to be ambiguous - otherwise it
would be obvious. (!)
- the hundreth monkey/sqrt
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com