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

[Fastfission]

On 8/24/06, Sarah <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> The photograph perfectly reflects the debate about new anti-Semitism.
> Some people look at it and instantly see a highly anti-Semitic image.
> Others see an anti-Zionist one. Others again see the latter but
> believe there's sometimes not a big difference between the two. So it
> is with new anti-Semitism, as the article describes. The cutline
> doesn't need commentary from someone who has done no research into the
> subject and who seems to be out to cause trouble only.

The current caption of it is "A poster seen at a February 16, 2003
anti-war rally in San Francisco. [3] Photograph by zombie of
zombietime.com".

If the picture is supposed to represent a debate, perhaps the caption
should say so? I don't think it would be ridiculous to have a caption
which says something to the effect of what you've written above, i.e.
"Some would claim that this poster is anti-Semitic, while others would
claim that it is only anti-Zionist; the distinction between the two is
a key point of debate in discussions of any 'new anti-Semitism.'"

Obviously one could write it better than that. But what bugs me about
the current discussion is that you are assuming that the reader will
do all of the intellectual work in piecing together the complicated
statement you are trying to make with the picture. I don't think we
should -- or need to -- assume that.

If the caption was made a little more descriptive of what the picture
was supposed to represent, I think it would be totally fine. As it is
it looks like the picture is supposed to just represent "the new
anti-Semitism" and I could see why that would be seen as endorsing
only one of those two POVs.

FF