Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/New antisemitism

This Request for Mediation has been closed.

This case was closed at 15:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC).
The reason given for closure was: Final Proposal agreed apon by remaining active parties
Parties: If you wish to resume this mediation, please file a new request.

New antisemitism

view edit delete watch
Filed: 05:14, January 18 2008 (UTC)

Involved parties

Articles involved

New antisemitism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

Extensive discussion on the talk page has failed to reach a consensus, and, at times, has degenerated into heated argument. This is easily verifiable by skimming the page
The article is currently protected due to edit-warring over this issue.

Issues to be mediated

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.

What image (if any) should be used in the lead of the New antisemitism article? The two primary candidates are Image:AntiWarRallyFeb162003.jpg and Image:NewStatesmancover.jpg. From my rough count, each side has about a half dozen strong proponents.
Other suggested images are Image:Cry-wolf.png, Image:View.gif and Image:Hate speech by Latuff2.jpg

Additional issues to be mediated

Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there are more than two parties involved in this case.

What image caption should be used for the Zombietime image? Is image caption exempt from Wikipedia's requirements of reliable sources?
The same issues regarding this image on New antisemitism also apply to its use on Anti-globalization and antisemitism; the mediation should include its use on that article too, where it may also be inappropriate. csloat (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is the acceptable Wikipedia practice regarding images under dispute? When a image is under dispute by a significant number of people as this one is, I feel it should not be displayed until the dispute is resolved. Its current use on the page - in protected form no less - constitutes an implicit endorsement of its use and it effaces the fact that there is a substantive dispute. While this is normal in instances of disputes and edit warring, when the dispute enters mediation the image should be removed until the mediation has reached a conclusion. csloat (talk) 20:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is the article excluded from Wikipedias rules about WP:OR and WP:SYN?

Parties' agreement to mediate

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.

Agree. *** Crotalus *** 05:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 06:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. // Liftarn (talk) 12:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. <eleland/talkedits> 16:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Bondegezou (talk) 17:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Nagle (talk · contribs) --John Nagle (talk) 18:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. CJCurrie (talk) 19:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Yahel Guhan 07:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. G-Dett (talk) 23:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Lobojo (talk) 00:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. PR^talk 18:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. <<-armon->> (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. csloat (talk) 06:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section.

Accept. There has been only one holdout (AnonMoos) and his/her recent statement on Jayjg's talk page does not amount to outright objection to mediation, but rather a feeling that s/he is hardly involved with the article and wants to take a wait-and-see approach.

For the Mediation Committee, -- tariqabjotu 18:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parties' agreement to Seddon

Seddon (talk · contribs) has expressed an offer to take this case during his application to join the Mediation Committee, to assist the Committee both with our backlog and to assess his nomination. However, as Seddon is not a member of the Committee, it is a generally accepted practice that the parties must consent to a non-Committee member mediating a RfM. He has some very good experience from the mediation cabal, and has previously helped solve a number of disputes.

As such, can I ask that all parties to the mediation please list whether they "agree" or "disagree" to Seddon mediating below, in much the same format as the initial agreement above. Let me express my appologies for the length of time it has taken to find you a mediator.

For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 22:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree.Itsmejudith (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. --John Nagle (talk) 00:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. csloat (talk) 03:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 16:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. --G-Dett (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Yahel Guhan 03:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. <eleland/talkedits> 18:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. // Liftarn (talk) 20:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Bondegezou (talk) 21:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. CJCurrie (talk) 03:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. *** Crotalus *** 01:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]