This case was closed at 15:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC). |
Seddon, which image-montage are we currently debating? I must be missing something; I see only the two Latuff images at the top of this page.
You ask if there's a wider image issue. Yes, I agree with Judith that there is. WP:NOR says thatBut it also says thatAny material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. "Original research" is material for which no reliable source can be found.
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 This is welcomed because images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy.
Jay interprets this to mean that WP:NOR never in any circumstance requires that the provenance and/or substantive relevance of images be reliably sourced. I and other editors disagree. We see a tension between the reference to "any material" in the first quoted passage and the broad exception cited in the second, note that this broad exception is described not as guaranteed and categorical but rather something customarily "enjoyed" by inoffensive material, and therefore conclude that when the relevance and provenance of an image are seriously challenged – as they were in the Zombietime case by some 50+ editors – then sources become necessary.
The example I gave on the article talk page many months ago was that while an unsourced but accurate diagram or photo of a Monarch butterfly used in the article on Monarch butterflies will always be fine, a photo taken by an environmental activist purporting to show a large swarm of Monarch butterflies off the coast of Carmel, used in an article about a hotly debated theory positing a worrying recent surge in butterfly populations on the West coast, would not enjoy the aforementioned "broad exception" from NOR. In that case it would indeed be appropriate for editors to request reliable sourcing for (a) the image's evidentiary provenance (is this really Carmel? when was the picture taken? are there any mainstream sources vouching for its authenticity, or do we have only the word of the COI-riddled activist?) and (b) its substantive relevance (is the pictured swarm unusually large for Monarchs in May? are there any reliable sources using this photo as evidence of the alleged surge?).
Jay believes that both this interpretation of WP:NOR regarding images in controversial articles and CJ's interpretation of WP:NPOV regarding images in controversial articles (to the effect that we need to be careful not to stack the deck and poison the well by frontloading images "illustrating" a phenomenon the very existence of which is in dispute) have been "specially invented" just for New antisemitism, because his opponents here (a) are prone to apply the sort of double-standards characteristic of the "new antisemitism" itself, and (b) are engaged in "furious efforts to suppress" anything that illustrates "the concepts outlined in the article." As onerous as it may be to peg this dispute to a larger one about meta-content in controversial articles, given the extraordinary level of policy confusion and WP:ABF plaguing the discussion on this page, we may need to do just that.-- G-Dett ( talk) 16:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The reemergence of worldwide anti-Semitism is a phenomenon of the past several years. It began during 1998-1999. Then in 2000, the worrisome trend exploded: major violent attacks on Jews more than doubled. The pattern has continued since then, as illustrated by the litany of violence cited above. Why is this happening now? That’s a question I’ll explore in the pages of this book…
In my lifetime I never expected to witness hatred reemerging so boldly from the darkness. There were reasons to believe that the world was changing, attaining a new level of understanding and tolerance with each passing generation. In particular, Europeans were beginning to seriously grasp and grapple with their responsibility for the past and, more important, for the future.
Now these positive trends are moving in reverse. I am convinced we currently face as great a threat to the safety and security of the Jewish people as the one we faced in the 1930s–if not a greater one. This may be a shocking claim. Perhaps I sound like an alarmist. I pray that I am wrong. But I speak advisedly, after long and careful study of the historical record, the world’s current political and social climate, and the frightening contours of what I call the new anti-Semitism. (pp. 3-4)
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) reply
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) reply
This case was closed at 15:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC). |
Seddon, which image-montage are we currently debating? I must be missing something; I see only the two Latuff images at the top of this page.
You ask if there's a wider image issue. Yes, I agree with Judith that there is. WP:NOR says thatBut it also says thatAny material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. "Original research" is material for which no reliable source can be found.
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.
Jay interprets this to mean that WP:NOR never in any circumstance requires that the provenance and/or substantive relevance of images be reliably sourced. I and other editors disagree. We see a tension between the reference to "any material" in the first quoted passage and the broad exception cited in the second, note that this broad exception is described not as guaranteed and categorical but rather something customarily "enjoyed" by inoffensive material, and therefore conclude that when the relevance and provenance of an image are seriously challenged – as they were in the Zombietime case by some 50+ editors – then sources become necessary.
The example I gave on the article talk page many months ago was that while an unsourced but accurate diagram or photo of a Monarch butterfly used in the article on Monarch butterflies will always be fine, a photo taken by an environmental activist purporting to show a large swarm of Monarch butterflies off the coast of Carmel, used in an article about a hotly debated theory positing a worrying recent surge in butterfly populations on the West coast, would not enjoy the aforementioned "broad exception" from NOR. In that case it would indeed be appropriate for editors to request reliable sourcing for (a) the image's evidentiary provenance (is this really Carmel? when was the picture taken? are there any mainstream sources vouching for its authenticity, or do we have only the word of the COI-riddled activist?) and (b) its substantive relevance (is the pictured swarm unusually large for Monarchs in May? are there any reliable sources using this photo as evidence of the alleged surge?).
Jay believes that both this interpretation of WP:NOR regarding images in controversial articles and CJ's interpretation of WP:NPOV regarding images in controversial articles (to the effect that we need to be careful not to stack the deck and poison the well by frontloading images "illustrating" a phenomenon the very existence of which is in dispute) have been "specially invented" just for New antisemitism, because his opponents here (a) are prone to apply the sort of double-standards characteristic of the "new antisemitism" itself, and (b) are engaged in "furious efforts to suppress" anything that illustrates "the concepts outlined in the article." As onerous as it may be to peg this dispute to a larger one about meta-content in controversial articles, given the extraordinary level of policy confusion and WP:ABF plaguing the discussion on this page, we may need to do just that.-- G-Dett ( talk) 16:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The reemergence of worldwide anti-Semitism is a phenomenon of the past several years. It began during 1998-1999. Then in 2000, the worrisome trend exploded: major violent attacks on Jews more than doubled. The pattern has continued since then, as illustrated by the litany of violence cited above. Why is this happening now? That’s a question I’ll explore in the pages of this book…
In my lifetime I never expected to witness hatred reemerging so boldly from the darkness. There were reasons to believe that the world was changing, attaining a new level of understanding and tolerance with each passing generation. In particular, Europeans were beginning to seriously grasp and grapple with their responsibility for the past and, more important, for the future.
Now these positive trends are moving in reverse. I am convinced we currently face as great a threat to the safety and security of the Jewish people as the one we faced in the 1930s–if not a greater one. This may be a shocking claim. Perhaps I sound like an alarmist. I pray that I am wrong. But I speak advisedly, after long and careful study of the historical record, the world’s current political and social climate, and the frightening contours of what I call the new anti-Semitism. (pp. 3-4)
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) reply
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) reply