Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/New antisemitism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New antisemitism navigation (t)
Pages
Main Case
Discussion (archive)
Opening Statements



Contents

[edit] Images

[edit] Images that are sourced as being New Antisemitism

As you may have guessed, i have found images which are stated as being specifically "New antisemitism" now although they are not quite as... colourful as the zombietime imgae, they are certainly sourced. The links to these images will be posted here in due course. Seddσn talk Editor Review 18:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Such images would likely be far more acceptable since we would have sources specifically identifying them as relevant to the page. But I still haven't seen any substantive argument about why an image is necessary at all. csloat (talk) 18:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I will give what is a plausible answer. I think its important in this instance to give examples of what people interpret New antisemitism is. I mean lets look at one definition given in the article.
“ New antisemitism is the concept that a new form of antisemitism is on the rise in the 21st century, emanating simultaneously from the left, the right, and fundamentalist Islam, and tending to manifest itself as opposition to Zionism and the State of Israel. ”
“ Proponents of the concept argue that anti-Zionism, anti-Americanism, anti-globalization, third worldism, and demonization of Israel or double standards applied to its conduct may be linked to antisemitism, or constitute disguised antisemitism ”
Now given that I can say that when i came to this case I had no idea what new antisemitism was. As has been described diagrams are often given for science articles, but those diagrams are not always about scientific fact and generally accepted theories some are from very small areas of the scientific community but they help the person visualize a concept. Something similar I believe should happen in the New Antisemitism article. We have examples of covers of books which discuss it, we have old images, and we have posters produced but I think its important to have an example of almost active "New antisemitism". New antisemitism from its almost grass roots. I'm sure I could word this in a better way but havnt had much time to think as im also revising at this moment in time but do you roughly understand where I am coming from. Seddσn talk Editor Review 15:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that there is a dispute about whether "new antisemitism" exists at all. Most of the images being suggested look like examples of "antisemitism," not "new antisemitism." The definition itself is vague because there is a very legitimate dispute about its very existence as an independent concept. Having a photo illustrate that concept is, in essence, having Wikipedia take a position, a POV, in this dispute. csloat (talk) 23:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
As you have said Wikipedia isn't here to take sides in. We are simply here to cover what other people have written or said. Now this goes for written text, images, sound. Surely any decision we take in omitting such information is then wikipedia taking the opposite point of view. If we have a photo and in the caption state that this is one interpretation of what new antisemitism and state where the photo is from in the caption then we are doing as we should be. So long as we include both sides of the argument then we remain neutral. Seddσn talk Editor Review 13:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Sure, as long as we have a reliable source indicating that the image is an example of "new antisemitism," I would be ok with such a compromise. csloat (talk) 15:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary break 2

In response to Jayjg's comments above i wish to deal with the image itself. This question is for all of you:

  • What about the placard represents New antisemitism?

At the moment i don't want to go through the arguments against it just for the moment. I do not want people saying what it doesn't represent or what it really shows as i have a reasonable understanding of that. I'm looking for what about this picture does represent New antisemitism. Please keep all responses civil and impersonal and keep to the subject at hand. If you only feel parts of it represents New antisemitism then explain why you feel those parts do. We can then discuss these points when as and when they come up. ŠξÞÞøΛ talk 00:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It mixes what many would consider to be classic antisemitic imagery with anti-American and anti-Capitalist imagery, and quite literally demonizes Israel, under the logo "No war for Israel", held at a left-wing anti-war rally. Jayjg (talk) 01:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
This is a nice clear statement and advances the debate. My take on it is as follows: a) was it carried on the rally? We only have zombietime's word for that, not RS in my view. b) was it a left-wing rally? I don't think that can be assumed in the absence of an RS. c) does it have classic antisemitic imagery? Clearly yes. d) Does it have anti-American imagery? Not sure; this needs to be shown, also whether it is directed against Americans or against their government of the day. d) does it have anti-capitalist imagery? Yes, but this is an intrinsic part of the classic antisemitic stereotype that it portrays, i.e. it is old antisemitism, not to put too fine a point it is Nazi imagery. e) Does its mix of imagery prove that it is NAS? No. A closer analysis (spelt out on Talk a while ago by C. J Currie) shows that it comes from a lunatic fringe viewpoint that owes very little either to the Left or to Islamism. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Judith, I'm not sure why you say "we only have zombietime's word for that"; in fact, 6 sources stated it was carried at the rally. When the Santa Cruz Sentinel says "In addition to the Elders of Zion protocol published in New Jersey, war protesters at a recent San Francisco peace rally were photographed displaying pictures of the devil with a dollar sign over his head standing over a globe, surrounded by the words "Zionist Pigs" and "Stop the War Pigs."[1], it's clear they're talking about this image. Jayjg (talk) 03:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Which of those 6 sources actually confirm independently the carrying of this sign at the rally, and do any of them tell us anything about the context (e.g. is it only one person, is it the majority of the rally supporting this sign, what?) If the source's own source for "confirmation" was the zombietime website, as I suspect is true for most if not all of these, I don't think we can say it actually confirms the zombietime claim without entering wonderland. csloat (talk) 04:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
You seem to be applying an entirely new criteria to sourcing; not only must material be sourced to reliable sources, but we also have to independently verify the sources those sources used! An interesting idea, but not relevant to Wikipedia policy. Jayjg (talk) 23:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I think you're misunderstanding. The problem is that zombietime, a self-published website, is the only source for the assertion that the sign was carried at the rally, and that it tells us absolutely nothing about context (who carried the sign? how many supporters were there for the sign? did the sign represent any significant trend at the rally or a fringe view? etc.) You claim to have 6 sources that claim this particular sign was carried at the rally yet you can only produce one, and that one doesn't actually even have a picture of the placard. Do any of the six reliable sources actually show the placard? Do they simply refer to zombietime? If the latter, we really have nothing other than zombietime's word for it that this placard was even carried at the rally, and we certainly know nothing about its context. csloat (talk) 12:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I think you're misunderstanding. We have 6 sources that say the sign was carried at the rally, several did indeed show the sign, and the ones that describe it, describe it unmistakably. The Santa Cruz Sentinel and the rest are not zombietime. Jayjg (talk) 23:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
What are the six sources? The only one that meets WP:RS (barely) is the Santa Cruz paper, which does not show a photo of the image, so all we have is a Wikipedia editor's assertion that it describes it "unmistakably." And, again, the real issue, the one you are misunderstanding, is the connection between this image and the concept "new antisemitism." Where is that addressed in the Santa Cruz paper article? csloat (talk) 23:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
May I ask some supplementary questions? (My apologies if these have been answered before elsewhere, but I wasn't involved in the IFD debate or discussions elsewhere around this image.)
First, do we know anything about the individual(s) who created and/or carried this placard?
Secondly, when Jayjg describes the event as a "left-wing anti-war rally", what does that mean? In the UK, where I am, there have been many anti-war rallies organised by the left (or far left) but which have been explicitly open to those opposed to the war from across the political spectrum, and which have included centrists, Christian pacifists and conservative Muslims among others. Was this a rally by and for the left-wing only, or merely organised by left-wingers?
Thirdly, do we know whether this placard was typical of those at the rally, or a one-off? Did others at the rally object to it, support it, or just generally ignore it?
I'm not suggesting that any of the answers to these questions will provide "killer arguments" for or against the image, but I feel they would add some useful context to Seddon's questions. Bondegezou (talk) 09:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I might have to break some of these questions down into so that we don't simply have a mass heap of questions and a mass heap of answers but there are some really good questions being brought up and would like to go through them in detail. I may create a page that lists the various discussions and ill create a page where they are broken down so that we can keep this as organised as possible.
I know that something that got said a lot in previous discussion on the talk page was about whether this was a minority view at the rally or not. I think that we shouldn't be looking at whether the the rally was completely NAS or left wing or not. We are simply looking at this placard and what the imagery in the placard represents. If i create a placard that is racist towards welsh people or the welsh nation (i am welsh myself) it is anti-welsh whether im standing in a group of english football fans or scottish football fans or even if im standing amoung welsh people. The placard is anti-welsh whoever im standing amongst or how strong or weak or how widespread those views are. The same applies to this placard. Surely this placard carries the same imagery whether this person was standing in this rally or in a synagogue. We aren't using the whole rally as an example simply one placard that was present. Now if this placard does show what new antisemitism is then the make up of the rest of the rally doesn't effect the use of this placard. This is why i feel we need to have a better breakdown of what this image conveys as you have been doing above. ŠξÞÞøΛ talk 11:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
However, if you carried it at an antiwar rally and a Wikipedia editor placed the photo of you carrying the anti-Welsh placard on a page called "new anti-Welshianism" and the page described the concept as "a new phenomenon stemming from a coalition of leftists, vociferously opposed to the policies of Wales, and right-wing antiWelshites, committed to the destruction of Wales, [who] were joined by millions of Brits, including Scots ... who brought with them their hatred of Wales in particular and of Welshmen in general," or that defined any opposition to Welsh foreign policy as "new antiWelshianism," the implication would be that the photo represented this "coalition of leftists." If you had quotes from another Wikipedia editor on the page saying that traditional anti-Welsh bigots had "joined forces" with anti-war activists "in areas where they shared concerns, mainly civil liberties, opposition to U.S. military intervention overseas, and opposition to U.S. support for Wales," the implication again would be that this placard represented this coalition. If in fact, however, you were the only person carrying such a placard at the march, and the majority of protestors looked at your placard with contempt, and perhaps even asked you not to march with them, the representation would be entirely deceptive. So I do think that even the question of whether this photo is a mainstream representation of the rally is important, since the "new antisemitism" purports to be about the mainstreaming of antisemitic viewpoints within the left. I think this is one of the reasons many of us find the image not only inaccurate but offensive as well. csloat (talk) 15:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I thought Seddon's example helped clarify the issues that are disputed. This placard is indeed antisemitic, whatever way you look at it. If it was not carried on a demo then perhaps it is not a notable expression of antisemitism. I also don't believe it is an example of new antisemitism. We also have had long discussions on the talk page about the captioning of the photo. It would be great if we could consider the issue of the photo and its captioning separately. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
What elements would a placard or image or anything visual need to contain to show mainstream NAS? ŠξÞÞøΛ talk 16:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it would have to illustrate whatever it is that is "new" about "new antisemitism." This is part of the problem, is that there is substantial disagreement about whether such a thing exists; most of the examples people give, like this placard, are simply examples of "antisemitism." The problem is that even advocates of the concept "new antisemitism" have different opinions about what is actually "new" about it. csloat (talk) 16:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
We have a definition of the idea in this article, which is that NAS comes simultaneously from two or more of Left, Right, Islamism. If an image mixed Left and Islamist iconography and/or slogans as well as being antisemitic then perhaps it would qualify. But we are hardly going to invent such images if they don't exist. There is a notable individual whose comments might fall into this category but he doesn't practice in the visual arts and also BLP considerations apply. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
To what extent does the zombietime image mix Left, Right or Islamism? ŠξÞÞøΛ talk 15:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think those are actually the relevant criteria. New antisemitism is antisemitism coming from the Left, far Right, and Islamists - but it uses standard antisemitic tropes and imagery while applying them to "Zionists" or Israel. Jayjg (talk) 03:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
What's "new" about it then? Sounds like antisemitism to me. csloat (talk) 04:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Please see my comments above or below. Jayjg (talk) 23:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, ok, that's nice, see my comments "above and below" too. Now that we're done with that, let's come back to the comments here. What is "new" about antisemitism represented on this sign? I see nothing differentiating this sign from plain old "antisemitism." csloat (talk) 12:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Left-wing, anti-American, literal demonization of Israel, classic anti-Semitic imagery applied to Israel and "Zionists", creator insists his images are anti-Zionist not antisemitic. Jayjg (talk) 23:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, we still need an answer to Seddon's question - to what extent does this placard illustrate NAS? Even according to Jayjg's definition, there is no information whatsoever about the person carrying the placard - how do we know this person represents the "Left" (all of it?), the "far Right" (why not "far" left too?), and/or "Islamists" (all of them??) We really don't know anything about this placard except that a pseudonymous photographer claims to have taken it on a particular day at a rally and has self-published the photo on his web page. We are certainly in no position to make assumptions about the person carrying the placard, or his/her relationship to the event that the placard may have been carried at. csloat (talk) 17:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Left-wing, anti-American, literal demonization of Israel, classic anti-Semitic imagery applied to Israel and "Zionists", creator insists his images are anti-Zionist not antisemitic - that covers about as much of the concept as one image can. Jayjg (talk) 23:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
... but isn't that assesment really just OR on your behalf? Maybe you should find some RS claiming that this is an example of NAS? pertn (talk) 11:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent)

I think you're having trouble understanding my point. How do we know anything about the person carrying the sign? And what criteria are we using to distinguish "new" antisemitism from "antisemitism" here? The fact that it is anti-Zionist? Anti-Zionism seems to have existed as long as Zionism -- what makes this instantiation of it "new"? The "classic anti-Semitic imagery" certainly is antisemitism, not "new" antisemitism. You say "the creator insists his images are antizionist not antisemitic" -- do we have that quotation? Why isn't it in the photo caption? And how does that make it "new"? You appear to be asserting that the image represents NAS without actually explaining the reasoning that connects the image to a specific understanding of NAS. And, again, the fact that the very concept is disputed makes your argument tenuous at best. csloat (talk) 12:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Please look at the image, and then review the themes that I have stated are in it. By the way, how do we know that this image is an example of Anti-Arabism? Jayjg (talk) 23:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe it is, naybe it isn't, but is it an example of "new anti-arabism"? If so, we would need a reliable source showing that. Same case here. Your blind assertion, that you keep repeating, without a shred of evidence, that this image meets various "themes" that you have identified as "new antisemitism" is simply not encyclopedic. csloat (talk) 23:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary break 3

We're trying here to "come to an agreement on what new antisemitism is and then to decide what the image is depicting...". But for us to do so here is original research. If this image is considered to represent "new antisemitism", we have to find a reliable source which explicitly uses the phrase "new antisemitism" about that image. Has anyone found such a reference? If not, the image has to go. --John Nagle (talk) 02:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NOR#Original_images: "Pictures have enjoyed a broad exception from this policy, in that Wikipedia editors are encouraged to take photographs or draw pictures or diagrams and upload them, releasing them under the GFDL or another free license, to illustrate articles. This is welcomed because images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy." The image is not proposing the idea of New antisemitism, it merely illustrates it. Jayjg (talk) 03:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
The OR is not the taking of the picture itself, which this part of Wikipedia policy encourages, but the link between the picture and the topic of the article -- we don't actually have a WP:RS that makes that link. That link is only being made through original research. Your claim that the image "merely illustrates" new antisemitism presumes that the debate over whether such a thing exists is already settled. That presumption is not appropriate for Wikipedia. csloat (talk) 04:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Which part of policy requires that linkage? I certainly don't see it in other articles. The image quite obviously illustrates the issues discussed in the article. As for the presumption that it exists, there is no debate that the phenomenon exists - the primary question is over whether or not it is antisemitism. Jayjg (talk) 23:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Clearly many articles on Wikipedia are illustrated with user-generated material. That seems reasonable to me when the image self-evidently illustrates the topic. When that is not the case, it seems appropriate to bear in mind original research concerns. Here, it does not seem self-evident to me that the image does represent New Antisemitism: for example, I am unconvinced that the image depicts a placard made by somebody from the left-wing. The homophobia article was given previously as a good model of how to provide reliable support to an image that might be contested. Given the Zombietime image clearly is contested, can the image be justified in the same way the homophobia image is? Bondegezou (talk) 11:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
How about this image in the Anti-Arabism article? How about this image in the Anti-Polish sentiment article? This image in the Anti-Japanese sentiment article? This image in the Anti-Catholicism article? Here's a good example, this man holding a sign in the Anti-Iranian sentiment and Racism in the United States articles. Where's the reliable source indicating that the sign is really an example of anti-Iranian or racist sentiment? I've looked through thousands of articles on Wikipedia, and never seen any that have required reliable sources to prove they depict what they claim to be depicting. It seems, in fact, that there's only one image in all of Wikipedia that needs to meet that requirement. This special treatment is quite ironic, given the subject of the article. Jayjg (talk) 04:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Jayjg the problem is that your argument boils down to this -- "The image quite obviously illustrates the issues discussed in the article." That seems "quite obvious" only to you, and you have been so far unable to offer an argument in support of that claim other than its alleged "obviousness." Additionally, your claim that "there is no debate that the phenomenon exists - the primary question is over whether or not it is antisemitism" -- you are splitting hairs. If it isn't "antisemitism," then it isn't "new antisemitism." In the case of the placard I would agree with you that it is antisemitism but the debate there is whether it is "new." But in the case of either debate -- and we have a lot of reliable sources on the page showing that the debate exists -- it is clear that there are many who dispute the concept of a "new antisemitism." You can reframe the debate if you like but the dispute is still there. csloat (talk) 12:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, it obviously represents the issues discussed to me and to everyone else who has argued for its inclusion - that's quite a few people. And whether or not it is antisemitism isn't "splitting hairs", it's the very root of the debate. The people who dispute New antisemitism don't dispute "the concept", they dispute that the things described as New antisemitism actually constitute antisemitism. Jayjg (talk) 23:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
That's just not true, Jayjg, as a perusal of the article would show. Some of the people who dispute new antisemitism look at some of the phenomena labeled "new antisemitism" and question whether there's anything "new" about it; they say that it's the same antisemitism we've seen for centuries. In other circumstances, some question whether there is antisemitism at all, or whether "new antisemitism" is just a means of tarring legitimate critics of Israel as antisemites. The concept of "new antisemitism" is so broad that it includes growing anti-Jewish violence in Europe (genuine antisemitism by any yardstick) and criticism of Israel (which may or may not be antisemitic, as even some who question the phrase acknowledge; e.g., Michael Lerner). — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Malik, how can you say "that's just not true" and then proceed to agree with what I say? When you say some question whether there is antisemitism at all, or whether "new antisemitism" is just a means of tarring legitimate critics of Israel as antisemites you are agreeing with me, that the debate is about whether or not it really is antisemitism. And no-one disputes the actual phenomena underlying the concept, e.g. the unending ritualized denunciations of Israel in public fora such as the U.N. and public demonstrations, the unique calls for academic boycotts, the extraordinary scrutiny and press afforded Israel's actions - they just disagree that that reflects (or is a kind of) antisemitism. Jayjg (talk) 04:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Your sentence makes it sound like people who dispute the existence of "new antisemitism" have their heads in the sand. That isn't the case: they can, and do, identify antisemitism, such as increased anti-Jewish violence in Europe, anti-Jewish conspiracy theories on the left and in the Arab world, etc., but they disagree that there is anything "new" about this. Your statement says that they don't see anything antisemitic about it, and that's not the case. I think there is only one area — whether, and to what extent, criticism of Israel is antisemitic — where those who reject NAS don't see antisemitism (speaking in broad generalizations, because there are exceptions as noted above). — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
It's not easy to know why people dispute the existence of New antisemitism; I'm sure there are several reasons. But since when were antisemitic conspiracy theories common on the left? Those used to be almost exclusively a feature of the far-right. Jayjg (talk) 05:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Do you really think that's true? Take a course in modern Jewish history or the history of Russia or the Communist movement. Is that the totality of what makes this "new" -- the presence of antisemitic conspiracy theories on the left? If so, it is easily dispensed with. Odd too that if "antisemitic conspiracy theories on the left" is what this article is about, we have few actual examples of these things in the article itself. But perhaps you are equating "criticism of Israel's government" with "antisemitic conspiracy theories"? csloat (talk) 07:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
You beat me to the punch. There have been anti-Jewish conspiracy theories and other antisemitism on the left for at least 175 years (Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and Mikhail Bakunin are two examples of early antisemitic leftists that come to mind). The Doctors' plot is an example from the post-war era, when opposition to antisemitism was widespread on the left. No part of the political spectrum has ever had a monopoly on antisemitism, including anti-Jewish conspiracy theories.
PS: I don't think that anybody — except maybe the radical right — believes that "antisemitic conspiracy theories [are] common on the left". — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I feel as if we are going around in circles. Seddon: how should this mediation process proceed? Should we just keep discussing the issues in this manner? Have we answered the various questions you have posed? Bondegezou (talk) 11:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for not having been able to respond in the last 24 hours, this flurry of activity caught me off guard as has events in RL. But i am here now. I wanna go back to the discussion that we were having regarding the image, now i realise that this raises other questions but we must start from somewhere so i would prefer if we could stick to the topic we were discussing and move on to the next one once we have agree on one point. Atm there are several discussions all going on and getting no where in any of them. I would like to go back to the question i raised earlier regarding left/right/islamist origins. Now Jayjg mentions that new antisemitism is anti semitism coming from the left or right or from islamists. Now before moving on to other point are you all happy with this understanding, or should it in fact be that its new antisemitism mixing left... etc views. ŠξÞÞøΛ talk 16:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
For me, "new antisemitism" is a term that different people have used to mean different things around how anti-Semitism has changed, or has been perceived to change, in recent times, i.e. since the creation of Israel. That has included, but is not limited to, discussion around how feelings towards Israel and support for the Palestinian cause among the left-wing have interacted with traditional forms of anti-Semitism. It can also include how anti-Semitism among Arab or Muslim people has adopted older tropes of anti-Semitism. Actually, I think the article does a reasonable job of describing the different strands of New Anti-Semitism. My key point would be that it isn't one thing, but is a term used in a discourse with different intended meanings and a fair amount of controversy. Bondegezou (talk) 20:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Let's just quote the article:

New antisemitism is the concept that a new form of antisemitism is on the rise in the 21st century, emanating simultaneously from the left, the right, and fundamentalist Islam, and tending to manifest itself as opposition to Zionism and the State of Israel. Proponents of the concept argue that anti-Zionism, anti-Americanism, anti-globalization, third worldism, and demonization of Israel or double standards applied to its conduct may be linked to antisemitism, or constitute disguised antisemitism.

Any other questions? Jayjg (talk) 23:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I just don't understand this at all, sorry. If "new antisemitism" is antisemitism coming from the "left," the "right," or "islamists," then what is "antisemitism"?? Isn't it all "new" according to that definition? Is the term only meant to designate that the source of the antisemitic message comes from the "left, right, or islamists" as opposed to, I don't know, drunk drivers or badminton champions? And if that is really what it is, why is there any debate about this image at all? We can't even see the person holding the placard, much less make any assumptions about what their political and religious background is. csloat (talk) 04:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Proponents of the concept argue that anti-Zionism, anti-Americanism, anti-globalization, third worldism, and demonization of Israel or double standards applied to its conduct may be linked to antisemitism, or constitute disguised antisemitism. Jayjg (talk) 05:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Response to Jayjg: as I've said elsewhere, the current introduction to New antisemitism was the result of a flawed compromise, and is regarded by many as incomplete and/or inaccurate. There have been on-and-off talks to improve the introduction in recent times, although they seem to be stalled at present.
Wikipedia is in any event not considered a reliable source, and I'm a bit surprised that Jay is putting so much stock into what ultimately amounts to a circular argument: that Zombietime's image is appropriate for a Wikipedia article because it (supposedly) matches a definition currently found in that same Wikipedia article.
A more important question (although assuredly not the only one that we need to address in this discussion) is whether or not any reliable sources identify Zombietime's image as a manifestation of "new antisemitism". To this end, Jayjg's oft-repeated mantra of "six sources" is an utter red herring: one of these is a dead link to a non-notable blog entry once hosted by the Jerusalam Post, another is to the decidedly unreliable FrontPageMag, a third is to a non-notable blog entry associated with the even less reliable HonestReporting, a fourth is to an online essay by Richard "Pallywood" Landes, and a fifth is to something called "Watch". The only thing these "sources" prove is that a handful of extremely partisan figures have chosen to highlight this poster in their public musings, to the tune of exactly one (1) article apiece. Given that the image is now five years old, this would seem to be a rather meager demonstration of its notability, to say nothing of its encyclopedic merit.
The only reliable source that makes even a passing reference to Zombietime's pic is the Santa Cruz Sentinel, a small local paper that isn't exactly on the cutting edge of definitional issues regarding anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. In other words, reliable sources don't justify the inclusion of this image. That point alone should disqualify it from the lede, leaving aside the fact that there are several other reasons.
I could add that Jayjg's argument regarding Wikipedia's images for anti-Arab and anti-Polish bigotry is rather beside the point. No one, to my knowledge, disputes the fact that Zombietime's photo is of an anti-Semitic image ... but the important question is whether or not it captures the debate over "new anti-Semitism". Given that there are differing viewpoints of what the term "new anti-Semitism" refers to, I'm skeptical as to whether any image would be appropriate to this end. I'm quite certain, however, that a non-notable, sensationalistic and (many have argued) misleading image is the wrong way to go. CJCurrie (talk) 05:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
We went through this on the talk page a few weeks back. I wrote: Each generation seems to re-invent "New Antisemitism". Maybe we need version numbers. What was called "New Antisemitism" in the 1975 book with that title is far from what's being given that label now. In practice, "New Antisemitism" seems to just be a label that's put on writings about current issues. We have different definitions of the term for different decades. In each cited case the author was writing about contemporary issues. That's why we can't pull a consistent definition together. --John Nagle (talk) 05:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the many cogent and insightful posts here, there is one absolutely key distinction that seems to have been overlooked: unlike Antisemitism and Anti-Arabism and Anti-Japanese sentiment and Racism in the United States, this article is not about an accepted phenomenon but rather about a controversial thesis. Whether this photo exemplifies "new antisemitism" as it is described and diagnosed by proponents of the thesis – I think it doesn't, for the simple reason that whereas the Judeophobic imagery here is over-the-top, NAS is supposed to be insidiously subtle – is beside the point. In the lede of an article about a controversial thesis, the appropriate rôle of a picture is to illustrate the thesis and/or the controversy surrounding it, not to adduce photographic 'evidence' in support of the thesis.

The article on the Israeli apartheid analogy provides an excellent parallel. For most of that article's life, it had no photo at all – in itself an indication of the thorny NPOV-issues involved in illustrating a disputed thesis. Finally, a photo of the separation barrier was added, with the following caption: "The West Bank Barrier, a structure that has been called an "apartheid wall" by critics of Israeli policy. Israeli officials have stated that the barrier is a defensive measure against Palestinian terrorists." Notice the stark contrasts between that use of a photo and the one that's occasioned this mediation:

  1. In that case, the photo was of something that has been described by reliable sources as germane to the topic.
  2. In that case, the photo was not sensationalist or incendiary; indeed, given the myriad photos of the wall to choose from, it seems to have been selected with an eye toward maximizing coolness and objectivity. Compare it, for example, to this one, or this one or this one, or even this one.
  3. In that case, the caption presented the photo as illustrating a component of the controversy – rather than offering it as evidence that the alleged phenomenon is real. The caption even-handedly sums up the RS-arguments on both sides regarding the subject of the photo. (Note that this wouldn't even be possible were it not for #1.)

Now imagine that the article on the Israeli apartheid analogy opened instead with a photo, taken by a wingnut pro-Palestinian media activist and completely ignored by the mainstream press, of a placard reading "Put the Arabs in Bantustans Where They Belong," which the wingnut photographer claims was held aloft at a well-attended demonstration in Tel Aviv. That is the situation we have here with the Zombietime photo.--G-Dett (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying it's something like including in the Islamophobia article this image, allegedly of a protester at the September 15, 2007 anti-war protest in Washington, D.C.? Islamophobia would be the "controversial thesis" that MANIFESTO: Together facing the new totalitarianism described as

a wretched concept that confuses criticism of Islam as a religion and stigmatisation of those who believe in it.[2]

and that Kenan Malik described as a "Myth", stating

The trouble with the idea is that it confuses hatred of, and discrimination against, Muslims on the one hand with criticism of Islam on the other. The charge of "Islamophobia" is all too often used not to highlight racism but to silence critics of Islam, or even Muslims fighting for reform of their communities.[3]

Gosh, that sounds a lot like the charges levelled against New antisemitism. And tsk, tsk, I just noticed, there's not a single reliable source attesting to that image's provenance or its meaning. Jayjg (talk) 03:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Gosh, these would be parallel if we were reading about "critics of Pakistan" (or Saudi Arabia or Indonesia) rather than "critics of Islam." But we're not, now are we? The charge raised against "new antisemitism" is that it is a cover for attacking critics of Israel, rather than that it is a cover for attacking critics of Jews, Judaism, or Jewishness. In any case, I'm not sure I would disagree with removing the photo you linked above. csloat (talk) 08:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Jay: "Islamophobia" is not a thesis, and it hasn't been denied or rebutted by reliable sources on anything like the scale of the "new antisemitism" thesis; the picture you're referring to was not to our knowledge taken by a pro-Palestinian wingnut activist; the picture is not used in the lead, but rather in a subsection; last but not least, the guy in the picture is holding a sign that says "Islamophobic and Proud of It." Those are stark differences in the context of the present discussion; that said, I do not think the Islamophobia picture is appropriate, because – like this NAS picture you've fought to include against policy and consensus and over massive objections from 50+ editors over two years – it makes evidentiary claims that are unsubstantiated. The broad RS-exception user-uploaded images enjoy is meant to allow amateur visual aids, like diagrams of butterflies and Bucky balls. It's not meant to lower the evidentiary standards for controversial content.--G-Dett (talk) 12:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Montage discussion

Prehaps what one alternative is this, many articles where no single image can truely convey what a topic is, create one image with multiple images. You could include images from the very beginning of when this term was created right the way through to the present day. Now as has been said if there are so many interpretations of what New Antisemitism is, so no single image can truely encapsulate what it is as a whole. This would provide a much wider range of possibilties and would broaden the various different views. Would this be the best route to go? You all have different interpretations not because one person is right or one person is wrong but because on this topic there are far too many possibilities of what New antisemitism could be. ŠξÞÞøΛ talk 13:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I like the montage idea. Bondegezou (talk) 13:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Not sure if this is a good idea or not, but as a concrete example, see this montage built with Wikipedia markup: User talk:Nagle/Montage test. Comments?--John Nagle (talk) 16:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Yer thats kinda what im after. We could tidy it up by merging into one image. Give it a black background etc. but we wouldn't be able to use the new statesmen image, due to copyright. ŠξÞÞøΛ talk 16:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
If we merge to one image, we create a "derived work", with sourcing and copyright problems. Individually, the "critical commentary" fair use case for images should apply. --John Nagle (talk) 16:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
As requested, tried a black background. That did not look good. Now trying a 1-pixel frame around each image. Looks a bit better, and is more consistent with Wikipedia style. This seems to solve the technical problems of a montage. The political objections still need to be heard from. --John Nagle (talk) 17:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
just with more technical aspects I just discussed with someone who is well versed in pictures and fair use on wikipedia about creating a derived work. What could be done is that if a montage is created then you could give a fair use rational for each image involved, and as a general fair use rational say that this image is being used to avoid undue weight and that no other free image would satisfy the needs of this article. After creating the image take it to the copyright notice board just to checked over. ŠeDDøΛ talk 17:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Since there is no agreement of what new antisemitism is or if it even exists it would be very hard to find a picture illustrating it. The best would perhaps be to have som user drawn diagrams illustration the various definitions of the term. // Liftarn (talk)

This was touched upon previously, atm i have proposed a solution to use various images that are already present on the page to create a montage to completely cover all historical incarnations of what has been considered to be New-antisemitism. I would like to keep the discussion on this for the time being. ŠeDDøΛ talk 19:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The problem is still that some editors try to sneak in images that have nothing to do with NAS. // Liftarn (talk)
I've never been happy with the Zombietime image, but as part of a montage of images associated with antisemitism generally, it's tolerable. This might be a compromise way out. I'd suggest putting the montage alongside the "history of the concept" paragraph, removing the individual images (which don't directly match the text near the image anyway), and reworking the formatting to avoid that ugly solid block of boxes at the top of the page. --John Nagle (talk) 22:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the solution to an inappropriate image from a non-reliable source that introduces original research into an article is to delete it, not to add it to a montage of other (likely equally inappropriate) images. I will happily look at a montage when someone produces one, but I think that is a separate issue from this mediation. The question we're looking at is the propriety of the zombietime image, not the propriety of a hypothetical montage. After the zombietime image is removed we can discuss the possibility of other images. csloat (talk) 07:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The montage is here User talk:Nagle/Montage test and it was created by User:Nagle. 12:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
There are two images there; one of them the one this mediation is about, and the other one does not at all seem to illustrate anything "new" about antisemitism. I would not be in favor of either image, and I don't see how putting the two together would make either one acceptable. csloat (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Just so that i know what is the other image? ŠeDDøΛ talk 17:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, now there are 6 images there, so I guess the user changed it; when I looked there was the zombietime image and the one of an octopus on the earth. Now there are 6; I'm not sure why we need any of them. But I certainly object to including the zombietime image in a montage. On another note, can we remove the image from the page during mediation? The five days have long passed, and only one user raised objections to this - objections that were quickly dispensed with in the ensuing discussion. csloat (talk) 18:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
For a while, there were only two images; a fair-use 'bot deleted some links. All six images are back, although they may disappear again. Try this history link if they do. They're just the six poster/book cover images from the article. I'm trying for a compromise here. --John Nagle (talk) 18:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to try the montage in the main article. The article will contain exactly the same images and text that it does now, but the six images will be moved to a single montage, just like the one here, and I'll adjust the layout to avoid that solid block of boxes at the fold. We can still argue over which images should go in the montage; it's easy to change. --John Nagle (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me but I don't see how this is a compromise -- this just proliferates problematic images. I think we need to see the arguments in favor of each image that you want to include in the montage. csloat (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the current use of images in the bulk of the article is OK and I don't see any advantage to moving what is currently there into a montage. In fact, I don't think that would look as nice and it would remove some of the images from their context in particular parts of the article. This mediation is specifically about the choice of lead image (or choice of no lead image). Seddon suggested that a montage might be a solution to the current impasse over the lead image. It's an interesting idea and, I suppose, the sort of fresh approach to a problem that can help a mediation process, but I don't think we should get too bogged down over one suggestion or distracted by discussion of using a montage elsewhere in the article. If anyone feels a montage elsewhere in the article would help, they can discuss that on the article's Talk page. Just my opinion... Bondegezou (talk) 19:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
OK. I'm not pushing the montage idea; others suggested it, and I made up a dummy page so we could see what one would look like and have something concrete to discuss. If there's a rough consensus, I'll put it in; if not, so be it. We really do need to do something about the article layout, though; it looks awful. --John Nagle (talk) 19:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
After testing, i felt that placing this optional montage in the lede simply isn't good for the layout of the page, and not just for this montage but just for any image used there. I created this in a my sandbox [[4]] and i went through the whole article improving the layout. What do you think? ŠeDDøΛ talk 20:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd suggest right alignment rather than left alignment. Some of the images in the montage still appear further down in the article. Also, some way needs to be found to make the "Contents" box and the "Antisemitism" box work properly with flowed text. --John Nagle (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I can't say I see any particular improvement with the sandbox version over the current article formatting (apart from the absence of any lead image, which is something I'd support). I don't feel the montage adds anything. Sorry to be so negative! Bondegezou (talk) 22:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
No, no, you're not being negative. This isn't something that's gonna be easy to agree upon, whether we go with this or something completely different or whatever happens. Compromises are never perfect; just make things as good as they can be, even if it's not perfect. ŠeDDøΛ talk 00:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
It's not a great solution. I created an example to see if it was something that might be marginally acceptable to all sides. It's perhaps better than what we have now. If it's as controversial as what we have now, though, we reject it and go back to arguing. --John Nagle (talk) 17:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The montage is a possible compromise. I'd get rid of the two images on the right, keep it to the four ones on the left, and make them larger. Also, I don't see why it couldn't go in the lead. Jayjg (talk) 03:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Tried something like that. Take a look and comment, please. --John Nagle (talk) 04:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
If you're talking about User talk:Nagle/Montage test, it still has 6 images in it. Jayjg (talk) 02:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Labelled the montage "Examples of modern (post-2000) antisemitic images", since the four remaining images are all post-2000. That gives a reasonably plausible rationale for their presence in the article. --John Nagle (talk) 04:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
That's an accurate description of the zombietime image but I'm not sure how it makes its presence in the article more rational, unless all antisemitism after 2000 is "new antisemitism." I also think it's inaccurate as a description of the New Statesman image. csloat (talk) 16:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
That's a point. How about "Examples of modern (post-2000) antisemitic/anti-Zionist images"? We're making progress here, if we're down to arguing over fine-tuning of the caption. --John Nagle (talk) 18:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
First, we are not down to arguing over fine-tuning the caption. As far as I can see, the consensus of those speaking up here still seems to be that this image does not belong in the article at all and definitely not in the lede. I have made strong arguments in that regard as have several others; so far I only see Jayjg arguing significantly for its inclusion (if I'm missing someone else I apologize). (That doesn't mean, of course, that the consensus of editors is one way or another; only those who have spoken up in this particular discussion in the past few weeks). So let us not presume that just because we can argue about a caption that the other arguments have been somehow resolved -- they have not, and I am still quite opposed to the image's inclusion in a montage or anything else.
Second, the big problem here, and a reason this debate has aroused so much passion, is that some people (mostly those who wish to include the image) are equating "anti-zionism" with "anti-semitism." Having images in a montage like this with the two concepts separated only by a backslash makes the confusion even worse. In addition, it equates criticism of Israeli policies with "anti-zionism" which is also problematic. So I don't think the caption is helping that much either. csloat (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Hard to see how it "equates criticism of Israeli policies with "anti-zionism", since none of the images are "criticism of Israeli policies" - unless you consider the phrase "Zionist pigs" to be a criticism of Israeli policy. Jayjg (talk) 02:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I was referring to the New Statesman image. csloat (talk) 02:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
That cover is about Britain's alleged "pro-Israeli lobby". Hard to see how that could be "criticism of Israeli policies", considering that its about Britons, not Israeli policy. Jayjg (talk) 03:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The point is about what makes the image "new antisemitism." Anyway, you ignored the rest of the argument and focused on the one tangential point I tried to make. If you are conceding that the image is inappropriate for the other reasons given, why are you bullying through this so-called "compromise"? csloat (talk) 08:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, changed caption to "antisemitic/anti-Zionist images", per above. That seems to be strictly correct, given the set of images we have. The montage is a compromise; it's a collection of political posters which which nobody is entirely happy, but there seem to be people on both sides who can live with it. I'd like to settle this issue and go on to something more interesting. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 03:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I've moved the image up a little, so that it now balances the Table of Contents perfectly, and made the images slightly larger, so they can actually be seen. Good work, everyone! Jayjg (talk) 04:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This is absurd, guys. If you were going to go ahead and put what you want on the main page without regard to the discussion here, why did you agree to enter mediation in the first place? For Jayjg in particular to be doing this after insisting dramatically that the image must stay as it is during mediation is hypocrisy of the highest order. csloat (talk) 08:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I only occasionally drop in to look at this article, and last time I did there was a debate in progress on the talk page about whether or not the zombietime image was appropriate. Now I come back to find not one but four images slapped together in a so-called montage at the top of the article, including the controversial zombietime one. In my opinion, this "montage" is not only unsightly, but it completely overwhelms the opening section and should be removed. Gatoclass (talk) 09:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Moving it up to the top of the article may have been overdoing it. It really belongs in the "1990-current" section. --John Nagle (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Moving it to "1990-current" would be an improvement, but on the whole I think this montage solution was wrongheaded to begin with. Gatoclass is right that it's unsightly and overwhelming; I would say even tabloid-esque. He's also right that a debate about the appropriateness of one image is not settled by the addition of three others. And Csloat is spot-on that having "the two concepts separated only by a backslash" conflates anti-Zionism and antisemitism. The very logic of this – both the montage and the caption – tacitly accepts and reinforces the premise of the controversial "new antisemitism" thesis.
Finally, with all due respect to Jay, I do not know that he has much 'bargaining' leverage in this discussion. The Zombietime image has attracted articulate opposition for years now, from somewhere around fifty experienced and unaligned editors. Jay's insinuation that this widespread rejection "is quite ironic, given the subject of the article" – i.e. that it reflects the antisemitism of Wikipedia editors – does not deserve comment. The image fails consensus, and fails it miserably.--G-Dett (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Can we just take a step back for a second please guys, somehow we have gone from discussing a hypothetical idea to something that suddenly happened and now is being shredded apart. Now this mediation isn't going to get anywhere unless we take our time and discuss things calmly and this goes for both sides of this discussion. We need to cover the points raised instead of shouting past each other and not getting anywhere. I apologize i haven't been present but i have had a rather busy 5 days due to exams. I hope we can resolve this but we need to just take our time.
We may as well continue where this discussion is. G-dett, what do you mean exactly when you say both the montage and the caption – tacitly accepts and reinforces the premise of the controversial "new antisemitism" thesis Seddσn talk Editor Review 21:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
A hypothetical idea for a montage was proposed, not by me. I set up a talk page to demo it, various people made comments, changes were made, and I thought I was implementing a compromise solution, which appears here. The controversial images are present, but not heavily emphasized. Then, in this edit, Jayjg (talk · contribs) moved the controversial images alongside the lead paragraph and made them bigger. At that point several editors didn't like the result. That's how we got here.
Personally, I'd delete the Zombietime image, but I'm willing to settle for de-emphasizing it. --John Nagle (talk) 21:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Lets not worry about what happened :) It was nothing its just that we have derailed from the nice smooth track we were on. Just wanna get back to it. Seddσn talk Editor Review 22:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Unfortunately, the montage is not a compromise at all. csloat (talk) 23:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I've not been taking part in this mediation because I feared it would be the same old back and forth, and I couldn't face going through it again. But I see that John Nagle has come up with a montage as a compromise, which I can definitely support. John, thank you for moving us forward. SlimVirgin talk|edits 22:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for joining us SlimVirgin. I hope you can continue to participate in any discussion we have. I am endeavoring to help this dispute and to ensure that we keep moving forward in discussion and i hope this will quell any doubts you might have had. Seddσn talk Editor Review 22:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I know you are, Seddon, and thank you. I feel I've been very rude in signing up for the mediation then not contributing, but every time I thought of posting, my heart sank at the idea of it. I'll try to find time to read through the page and catch up on the main arguments. My apologies for my absence. SlimVirgin talk|edits 21:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, Seddon – I thank you for your patience and constructive guidance here. I'm aware that the montage suggestion was yours, and I should have been clearer about my misgivings. If the main problem with the Zombietime picture – the problem that has occasioned tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of words of articulate policy-based objections from some 50+ editors – were that it didn't adequately cover the conceptual components of the New Antisemitism thesis, then building it into a montage would make great sense. But the main problems with the image lie elsewhere, and simply adding other photos doesn't resolve those problems. In fact, it compounds them.
When I wrote that both the montage and the caption tacitly accept and reinforce the premise of the controversial "new antisemitism" thesis, I meant simply that the rhetorical effect is that of a series of evidentiary exhibits. To return again to the Israeli apartheid analogy, imagine a four-part montage of images of (a) the separation barrier, (b) Palestinian farmers at an Israeli checkpoint, (c) Palestinians under curfew at Hebron while Jewish settlers walk the streets, and (d) a view of Palestinian shantytowns from inside the security fence of an Israeli settlement, with a swimming pool in the foreground.
The reason I've pushed for the New Statesman cover is that its relevance is well sourced and it draws the reader directly into the debate about the controversial "new antisemitism" thesis. It leads the reader to the claims made by NAS proponents (the cover was cited as evidence of a "new antisemitism" by several major RSs in this article), rather than quietly offering support of those claims.--G-Dett (talk) 02:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Would the four-image montage be acceptable if this image were included? I know this suggestion might be offensive to some editors taking part here (my apologies to them), but I'd like to explore whether an image representing essentially the opposite view from the NAS concept might make the disputed image more acceptable to those who oppose it. SlimVirgin talk|edits 21:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
No, Slim, it would not. The "Cry Wolf" image was dismissed as unsuitable for the article some time ago. Placing it in the lede (while also retaining Zombietime) is not a viable solution to our current impasse.
For all of their philosophical differences, Carlos Latuff and Zombietime have a number of things in common. Most notably, they've both produced a staggering amount of tabloidish visual material that, in an ideal world, wouldn't be allowed anywhere near a serious encyclopedic entry on a contentious subject (particularly if the aim is to avoid skewing the discussion before it can begin).
Btw, as long as you're here, could you please inform everyone of why you removed the name of the graphic artist who created the actual placard in Zombietime's picture, one day after you uploaded it? Thanks in advance. CJCurrie (talk) 23:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
In response the your second question i believe that the artist has requested that he not be named in the image. This wasnt in reference to wikipedia but where the image was in use on another site. Seddσn talk Editor Review 01:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
That may be so, but it wouldn't explain why SlimVirgin identified the artist when she first uploaded the image and then removed his name the following day. CJCurrie (talk) 02:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I would WP:AGF and assume that she wasn't aware of the artists wishes when originally uploading.Seddσn talk Editor Review
That's one possibility, but I'd prefer to hear Slim's full version of events. Btw, what's the other site that you're referring to? CJCurrie (talk) 17:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Its on one of the websites that is used to source the image. I am not sure which specific one. I would ask that any discussion about it, is done on user talk pages as it is a sideline discussion not strictly necessary for the mediation :) Seddσn talk Editor Review 21:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
If you mean that SlimVirgin's deletion of the artist's identity isn't relevant to mediation, I would beg to disagree.
There are still a number of unanswered questions as to the reliability of Zombietime's image, and some people have raised the possibility that copyright issues are involved. I don't know exactly why Slim chose to remove her reference to the artist, but it's possible that her rationale could have some bearing on the broader discussion.
I appreciate that you've brought forward a plausible explanation, but I'd like for SlimVirgin to explain her version of events. Thank you. CJCurrie (talk) 23:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I feel the choices that slimvirgin made or somewhat of a side issue. If you wish to discuss then then feel free to discuss them elsewhere. I would like to point out that I am aware of the artists name and recently i attempted to contact him so i can communicate with him personally.
In addition i think that the reason i see it as a side issue is not that it isn't important, its more that we have even more important issues at hand. I hope you understand my reasoning for wanting this to take a backburner. Seddσn talk Editor Review 22:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I understand your point, but I still think this could be relevant to mediation. CJCurrie (talk) 03:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The montage seems to me to be a fair comrpomise. YahelGuhan (talk) 06:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
It isn't a compromise at all, and it makes the page manifestly worse, as several of us have argued. Assertions to the contrary with no explanation or evidence are difficult to take seriously. csloat (talk) 06:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
We still have some issues we need to deal with. Now if those issues are dealt with then prehaps this is the best way forward prehaps not but we can come to that when the other issues are dealt with. Seddσn talk Editor Review 20:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zombietime image artist

So that you are all aware, im attempting to contact the artist who created the poster. I hope that it might help with certain aspects of the zombietime image, including the copyright of the image and confirmation of his participation in the rally. ŠeDDøΛ talk 19:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Other than the basic copyright information, I'm a little worried that anything you learn from this contact would only compound the original research problem. We cannot say this image is confirmed just because the person who self-published it on his own blog confirms it, or can we? csloat (talk) 21:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I presume, Seddon, that what you mean is that you are going to contact the person who created the image. I don't see how you can track down the person who made the original placard, nor should you have to talk to someone who is clearly a raving bigot! The person who created the image, however, can tell us little: it is the intent of the person who made the placard that positions it in the context of new antisemitism or 'just' old-fashioned antisemitism. I'd rather we were not in this situation and were able to find an image that reliable sources had described in terms of new antisemitism. Bondegezou (talk) 22:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Bondegezou -- but I'd also caution against the presumption that we must have an image here at all. Lots of articles don't have lede images; what harm would there be in having no image? csloat (talk) 05:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I know people would like to see the images in the lede kept somewhere in the article. Do you think that the zombietime image and the new statesman could prehaps move into the main body of the article? ŠeDDøΛ talk 09:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The New Statesman image, sure; that one at least more obviously has something to do with this article. So far I see no reason to use the zombietime image at all. Based on the discussion here, the consensus appears to be that it is inaccurate, that its connection to the article represents original research, and that the substantive issues surrounding it are unverifiable. I'm not sure that changes if we move it out of the lede. csloat (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I wanna apologise. I wont around for the next day or to, had my first shift at work today, had to wake up at 02:45 and iv just got in 13 hours later and i have revision for an exam on tuesday. Many apologies, hopefully ill be able to respond to comments with a less exhausted mind and not be concentrating on blistered feet tomorrow (Sunday) :P Hope this isnt too much of an inconvenience. ŠeDDøΛ talk 15:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
In my continued research, i have emailed the head of The Stephen Roth Institute. I just wanted to keep you up 2 date with my extended research. Seddσn talk Editor Review 01:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)