Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/New antisemitism

message: This Request for Mediation has been closed.
This case was closed at 15:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

message: Look, I can't pretend to be completely conversant with all the nuances of a debate that has been going on at the new antisemitism page for a very long time. However, I do have a few observations of my own I'd like to make.
Firstly, I want to say that I can't see why it should be so objectionable to include a few images of supposed "new antisemitism" at work. If the general idea is that new antisemitism is partly about, for instance, the political left adopting or regurgitating classic antisemitic attitudes as a corollary to its generally hostile attitude to Israel, then what is the big deal about including an image of a protestor at a leftwing or anti-Israel rally holding a poster which might readily be interpreted as containing some classic antisemitic motifs? Okay, I understand the argument that making such presumptions about an image might be interpreted as "original research", but - does it really, really matter that such presumptions might be interpreted as a technical breach of policy? Can't we make a small allowance occasionally for the fact that some editors for whom these issues carry a strong emotional charge, might understandably perceive the issue, and with it the interpretation of policy, a little differently?
So the first thing I'd like to say is that I personally have no strong objection to the inclusion of some images which are allegedly (though perhaps not unequivocally in policy terms) examples of "new antisemitism".  Which is to say, if the image is new, and if it can be seen as employing a classic antisemitic motif or two, is it really such a huge and unwarranted step to accept that it might readily be interpreted as an illustration of new antisemitism to someone who subscribes to the concept? As long as the image caption does not itself claim that the image is an example of new antisemitism, but just notes the antisemitic motifs, I don't see that this should be such a big deal. 
Having said that, there are however some limitations that I think would need to be employed regarding the use of such images. Firstly, they should not be used in the lede or next to the table of contents, as I consider that tantamount to well poisoning. Secondly, their placement has to be closely integrated with the corresponding content, not just scattered randomly about in the article. Also, if classic antisemitic images are to be used to illustrate the similarity (like the nazi poster from 1938), then I think they have to be used specifically for that purpose, otherwise those particular images have no place in the article. 
Finally, in regards to the zombietime image about which there has been so much debate, I too have an objection to this image, though not a particularly strong one, but my objection is based entirely upon the source of the image itself, not upon the image per se. So that is more or less my take on this dispute. Gatoclass (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Taking the image out of the lede but leaving it elsewhere in the article is one of the several compromises that has been offered by those of us who want to remove the image from the lede; however, those who want it there have steadfastly resisted any such suggestion (and in fact have refused to even acknowledge such compromise solutions).  So I don't think you'll find much disagreement from those of us who want the image removed from the lede.  Like you I would insist that such images should be clearly integrated with the corresponding content of the article -- in my opinion it would be best if the caption and the portion of the article near the image clearly explained the connection.  But I also agree with you about the zombietime image sourcing in particular, which makes it difficult to consider this image for other parts of the article either, though there are better sourced images available that accomplish the same purpose. csloat (talk) 03:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understood it, at least some of the arguments on the "anti-image" side have been along the lines that the images are completely inappropriate and an example of original research. But perhaps I was mistaken about that. Gatoclass (talk) 04:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the zombie image is completely inappropriate and OR, but nevertheless this discussion is about its presence in the lede, and when the discussion was taking place on the talk page of the article, I and others suggested several compromises including moving the image out of the lede, or replacing it with a different image.  I don't support the montage at all, but I could support seeing one of those images somewhere other than the lede as you suggested above. csloat (talk) 16:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary break 1

message: To move forward i have created a proposals page here. This is not a straw poll. The aim of this is to discuss the technical aspects of the images themselves and not how they relate to NAS nor is it a place to discuss sourcing. Lets see if we can get this over with. I would be grateful for all those involved in the editing of New antisemitism to take part in this discussion. For each image could you please comment discussing the technical aspects of the image. This will at least cut down our options so we can be more focused. Seddσn talk Editor Review 12:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/New antisemitism/Proposals|Proposals Page]]