Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/New antisemitism/archive

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.

Pre-mediation discussion

So when does this mediation actually occur? It has been a while. I propose that the disputed image be removed from the page (and from the other page on which it appears where it is disputed) until the mediation has finished. Any objections? csloat (talk) 22:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I object. The image has been on the pages for a while (18 months, I'm guessing, maybe longer), and is policy compliant. The point of the mediation is to help us to decide how to proceed. You can't pre-empt it by imposing your changes against consensus. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, its compliance is not at all a given -- that's the reason we're in mediation; it is under dispute. I'm not pre-empting anything, and the recent consensus I observed in discussions was for removing that image. I think it's a bit uncivil to characterize my suggestion - which is on the main mediation page as well - as an attempt to "impose my changes." I'm simply suggesting that a heavily disputed image should not be displayed on the page while it is in mediation. At the very least a note that it is disputed should accompany it. In any case, when does the mediation actually occur? csloat (talk) 03:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no issue with its compliance with the image policies. What you are claiming, I believe, is that it's OR, but I think you'll have a hard time showing that. Still, as you say, that's for the mediator to help us with. There has already been a compromise by including two smaller images instead of just that larger one, so I feel it would be unfair to ask for yet another concession in the direction you want.

I'm assuming it starts when they have a mediator lined up for us. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You may believe that I will have a hard time showing it is OR, but I and several others have already shown it. You may think we are wrong, but that's why it is disputed -- you are talking about it as a given, which is incorrect. There has not been a compromise on the actual issues at hand, and I am not asking for any concessions. All I am saying is that the current state of the page presumes the dispute has been settled -- and, indeed, effaces any hint of the dispute -- and that is entirely inappropriate during mediation. I'm sure you see my point. csloat (talk) 06:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

I'm going to spending the next day or so setting up a subpage for the initial statements to occur on. I have read all 59 pages of previous discussion so i have a reasonable idea about whats going on but i want to ensure i fully understand your reasons and get some of the finer detail. Most of the discussion will occur on this page and sub pages related so you may wish to keep this page in your watchlist especially when we get fully moving along. I'll ensure that i describe each stage as thoroughly as possible what id like to see and i look forward to this dispute being resolved. For those that have been busy and unable to confirm their participation in the mediation, they are welcome to join the mediation at any stage.

I can be contacted in several ways in the event you need to. I am normally present on the wikipedia-en, wikipedia-medcab and wiki-hurricanes IRC channels at some point between 15:00 UTC and as late 02:00 UTC depending on college and real life commitments. To find these channels and instructions on how to access IRC go to WP:IRC. Throughout the day, even when i am in college, feel free to email me using the email tool or by emailing the email address on my user page. You can also leave a message on my talk page which again ill do my upmost to reply to as soon as i can.

Seddon69 (talk) 00:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Pages for reference

The first page you need to visit in this case is here. I will create a template for easy navigation for the case whilst waiting for the responses. Seddon69 (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Just so that you all know i just waiting for three more statements from the people who have confirmed thier continued participation in this case. I'm not expecting statements or participation from User:PalestineRemembered, User:Armon and User:Lobojo. Armon has only made one edit since the beginning of february and the other 2 havnt edited since the end of January but i will try and email them to find out thier status in regards to wikipedia. It would be better to have consensus formed with them involved if they intend to come back to wikipedia. In my opinion if they dont intend on coming back on wiki then it isn't so vital to get participation. Seddon69 (talk) 10:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Any word on whether these folks will be joining us? Once the ducks are in place we may find this moves along rather quickly; the basic issues at hand do not seem that difficult, IMHO. csloat (talk) 21:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I have had confirmation from 2 users that they will comment as soon as they can. I lke many of you dont want this mediation to go on longer than is absolutely necessary. I thank you all for you patience in this and hopefully we can bring this to a close as well and as quickly as possible. Seddon69 (talk) 13:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the main article

The lead image in the New antisemitism article has been changed part way through this mediation process in a manner that is controversial and, to some, even worse than the previous state of affairs. It seems counter to the point of a mediation process for people to be making further edits around the very issue we are discussing. Either the article should be left as it was, or the controversial image should be removed, until this mediation process has reached a conclusion. Seddon, as mediator, I ask you to take action on this point and revert these changes to the article, or remove all images in the lead. Bondegezou (talk) 10:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and I put the montage in. What we have now, after Jayjg (talk · contribs)'s edit to enlarge the montage and put it in the lead, is worse than before. I'd suggest going back. Maybe to here (the small montage, further down), maybe further back. Actually, I now think we should pull the Zombietime image for a while, lock the article, and discuss further from that state. This will prevent foot-dragging by the pro-Zombietime faction. --John Nagle (talk) 15:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Just so that you are aware, i intend to restoring the article to a state that was before the addition of the montage. It seems the fairest position. Seddσn ^{talk Editor Review} 18:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you also add a tag reading "The suitability of this image is disputed", per my previous suggestion? CJCurrie (talk) 23:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no need, with the general tag for the whole there is no need for additional templates. Seddσn ^{talk Editor Review} 01:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure there is. The image is disputed. The tag on the article is about the POV of the whole article. The image is not just disputed for POV reasons; its propriety and accuracy are also disputed. And I agree with Nagle that the best thing to do is remove it entirely until the dispute is settled. I understand why you didn't do so when I requested it originally but given recent events, it makes a lot of sense. csloat (talk) 02:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of removing the montage, as no-one else did so after almost three days. Feel free to make further adjustments if you wish. CJCurrie (talk) 23:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

CJCurrie is now edit-warring to remove all of the images, including ones that have been in the article for basically forever. If you don't like the montage, fine, put them in some alternative layout, but removing them completely is not acceptable. For the moment I've restored them to what they've basically been for the vast majority of the article's history. - Merzbow (talk) 03:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Merzbow is mistaken: I acted to remove the montage (twice), but I won't make any further edits now that the former status quo has mostly been restored. CJCurrie (talk) 03:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Seddon's three foundations

Thanks Seddon for agreeing to mediate this dispute. I'd like to comment on the three points you made above about figuring out the foundations of the dispute. My assessment so far of these issues: (1) "whether the picture can be confirmed to have been taken in the rally in San Fransisco" -- I don't think we can confirm this, though I don't see any particular reason to dispute it. But there certainly is no evidence from a reliable source that this photo is what it purports to be. I think the claim of those who want to keep the photo in the article is that verifiability doesn't matter for photos the same way it does for quotes or written information. (2) "come to an agreement on what new antisemitism is and then to decide what the image is depicting..." I don't foresee this happening any time soon. Even those who support the notion and believe in it have yet to explain it consistently and coherently. That is, of course, one of the main points of the article - that the term and the very existence of such a construct is disputed. As for what the image is depicting, that's yet another question unlikely to find easy resolution. It's clear the poster expresses antisemitic content; whether it is "new" antisemitism or just antisemitism is likely to be disputed. The other dispute is over whether the image accurately reflects the anti-war rally (or antiwar rallies in general, or the "left" in general, etc.) I don't see how anyone in their right mind could believe that it does represent something mainstream in the left or antiwar movement, but I will listen to whatever evidence the other side brings to bear. The results of the lexisnexis search I did, however, militate pretty clearly against such an interpretation. (3) "If we cant confirm the those then we need to find a viable alternative" -- I don't agree at all; is there some Wikipedia mandate to include an image in the lede of articles like this? I don't really see the need for an image at all. Anyway that's my 2 cents so far on this; thanks again for mediating. csloat (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I am unclear how we are meant to be using these pages: should we all just chime in? If I may do so... On the issue of whether we can "come to an agreement on what new antisemitism is", I am as skeptical as csloat. "New antisemitism" is used by different people to mean different things (I gave a citation for that in my opening remarks), even before one gets into the disputes about whether it is an accurate construct. I don't believe this low consensus means we shouldn't have an article on New Antisemitism and I feel the article as it stands does a reasonable job of covering the differing views, but I do think it is mistaken to imagine that this mediation process will be able to produce a consensus, and even if we here could agree, our agreement would not reflect the reality as to how the term is used in the real world! How that lack of consensus translates into a choice of lead image (or choice not to have a lead image) would seem to be the best target for this mediation process. Bondegezou (talk) 10:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that, bongezou, you are right the idea of this mediation should be to concentrate on the choice( or not having) in ragards to the image. At this moment in time the New Statesman couldn't be used as a lead image if it was put forward for a main page article due to it not being public domain. There certainly isnt an existing consensus for the zombietime image due to the mixed interpretations that it conveys to some people. Although this may be a long way off its a long term goal that might need to be thought about. There is the option which nearly all persons where willing to look at is and that is not to have a lead image. This would be a good short to medium term solution but in the event that this article ever got to Featured status which is a distinct possibility an image would need to be selected. One possibility is to contact the New statesman to see if they would be willing to release an edited version of the cover under the cc by sa license. There is an option which i don't think has been explored and that is to see if we could get someone to specifically create an image for this article. At this moment we are trying to find images to suit this article. But given a vague topic its going to be even more difficult to try and find an image that would fit it perfectly . Do you think the latter could be an option as a long term solution? ŠξÞÞøΛ 18:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

one additional thing, everyone is welcome to comment here. ŠξÞÞøΛ 18:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Two comments: (1) Since there is currently no consensus for supporting the zombietime image, can it be removed until the dispute resolution process has been completed? If most folks are willing to entertain the idea of having no image at all we should probably do that for the time being rather than continue displaying an image that many people find patently offensive. This is something I have raised before since the beginning of this mediation but have not gotten much response to; I have considered simply deleting the image myself but I feel certain I would be reverted quickly if I did that unilaterally. (2) Why is it you believe that an image is eventually needed? In the unlikely event this does become a "featured article," is there a requirement that such articles need lead images? Why? The topic is vague and the concept's very existence is disputed; almost any image chosen as a lead will have the problem of "taking sides" on an issue that is clearly under dispute in the literature. So I'm not so sure we need to start with the assumption that some image will eventually be necessary. csloat (talk) 20:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

In response to your second comment i must apologise greatly as i was mistaken. Regarding lead images, they aren't mandatory even for the front cover, in the event that a copyrighted image like the new statesman is the lead image it simply isn't placed on the front page. So in this sense a lead image isn't necessary. I will admit that a picture in the long term may not be necessary but perhaps might be a goal to reach for the future. In regards to your first issue i will message all the users with the suggestion and wait for around 5 days (pretty much the standard waiting period for most things on wiki) any objections can be addressed. Although i will say that the image has remained there for the previous 5 months so as long as the discussion remains healthy and we can keep the discussion flowing for the time being the image as well remain. If there are no objections within the five days then i see no reason why it shoudn't be removed for the time being. ŠξÞÞøΛ 21:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I think 5 days is reasonable. I don't think it's reasonable to say "it might as well remain" just because it has been there for 5 months; the only reason it has been there this long is that one side of the dispute chose to withdraw for the sake of mediation from what otherwise was becoming a protracted edit war. I cant speak for others but I have wanted to remove that image this entire time but refrained in order to avoid continuing or escalating a fruitless edit war; nevertheless, I did and continue to find the use of the image on that page to be factually misleading, offensive, and destructive to the mission of Wikipedia. I don't mean to be a drama queen about it -- of course, everyone will go about their lives just fine if it stays up another week or whatever -- but I don't want to endorse the viewpoint that continuing to leave the image up there is doing no harm. csloat (talk) 21:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand. I didn't mean that just because its been there for 5 months that it should stay its just i felt it would be better to allow a consensus to form before changing something that has been stable even if it may not be seen as the best by editors. apologies if i wasn't clear enough :) ŠξÞÞøΛ 22:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

No worries; thanks for your work mediating this. csloat (talk) 22:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

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 [[1]] 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)

The irony I was pointing out was the fact that those who support the thesis of New antisemitism note that Israel is held to incredibly high standards not required of any other countries. So to, this image is being held to incredibly high standards not required of any other images. That was the sole and only parallel I was making, so you're quite right, the "insinuation" you falsely allege "does not deserve comment". And the next time something does not deserve comment, don't comment on it. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The obvious (and only, and necessary) inference any literate person could draw is that the double standards you allege are at work on this page are analogous to those said to be animating the "new antisemitism." "Ironies" of this kind are pretty explosive, and if you're not sufficiently in control of your own rhetoric to handle them responsibly and literately then you shouldn't dabble.

Your smear didn't deserve comment in the form of refutation.--G-Dett (talk) 02:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

A faulty inference on your part does not constitute a "smear" on my part, and you cannot "refute" an analogy that hasn't been made in the first place. Your implications that I am neither literate nor "in control of my own rhetoric" is yet another appalling uncivil comment, on top of your egregious bad faith. I have explained what I meant, and that is exactly what I meant; no more. And by "no more", I also mean no more of your insults and incivility, G-Dett. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:06, 12 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)

Moving on

I intend to move on with the mediation by Friday 9th May. This is for several reasons:

1. I think it is about time that we got this issue solved.
2. That there has been ample time for statements to be left.
3. That i will be available pretty much all day, everyday as i will be breaking up for my exams.

For those that have not left a statement due to a very busy real life then they are free to join us at anytime but i would request that if you intend to take part in the mediation that you leave a statement so that you start on the same foot everyone else did. Seddon69 (talk) 10:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Just as a footnote if anyone find thats they are going to unavailable at any point for a few days for whatever reason could you just leave a message letting people know just so that the parties know why there hasn't been a response to a question or comment. We all have very busy lives so this is just to ensure that we all know where on the map we are :) Seddon69 (talk) 10:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I think thats its time we got moving. A couple of the points have been raised before and felt they were the foundations to the dispute:

• Firstly whether the picture can be confirmed to have been taken in the rally in San Fransisco.
• Secondly to come to an agreement on what new antisemitism is and then to decide what the image is depicting and whether it purely illustrates New Antisemitism or whether it also addresses other issues which could be confused with new antisemitism by new readers.
• If we cant confirm the those then we need to find a viable alternative.

A point i would like to raise is that at some point a lead image might need to be found if this article got to FA. The image in question is not free and couldn't be put on the main page with this article as todays FA. Although not an immediate point a long term solution might wish to be found so that this article could feature on the main page with a viable alternative. Seddon69 (talk) 23:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realize the image was not free. That seems to me to be a deal-breaker independent of the argument about the merits. csloat (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have access to Lexis Nexis? it might help. Seddon69 (talk) 23:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I do - what do you need to search for? csloat (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Essentially any sources that could confirm whether the image is verifiable. I'm unsure whether a search on Lexis Nexis has been done before. Seddon (talk) 00:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I see 35 sources that mention "zombietime"; none of them have anything to do with this image or this protest. csloat (talk) 00:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok thank you :) would it be possible for you to do a search for the rally itself? and thank you very much for time in this. 16:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

75 hits mentioning the rally itself, or at least on the combination "san francisco and 2003 and war and rally and february." Some are false positives. The overwhelming majority of articles I found mentioned the rally in the context of similar actions around the globe. Canada's Globe and Mail had this sentence for example: "In San Francisco, police estimated that 100,000 demonstrators hit the streets, filling 12 blocks from the waterfront to city hall." (17 Feb 03 p. A6). I found one NYT piece (2/17/03) just on the SF rally; it does not mention zombietime or new antisemitism at all. In fact, not a single one of the 75 sources that come up on this rally mentions the words "zombietime," "semitism," "antisemitism," or "new antisemitism" at all. The closest I could find to anything like that was an article criticizing the group ANSWER for playing such a strong role in the rally (the group apparently has a reputation for being far left; again there were no specific charges of antisemitism there). All in all there was not a single article that I could find that even mentioned this poster, the ideas expressed on this poster, or really anything at all to do with the New antisemitism article. csloat (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I asked the above as a search on the network could uncover something not readily available on the internet. Reliable sources that use the image would be helpful. Do you reckon that there would anyway of finding third party images that might possibly contain the poster/placard? Also i would be grateful if images of other placards at that rally could be found to find whether this was a small minority at this rally or perhaps a larger group.

Whilst that is being done i wanted to find out on what the consensus view is on what New Antisemitism is? I have read the article and the previous discussion and attempted to get a proper understanding but i wanted to ensure that this was current. Seddon69 (talk) 16:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

PS any sources you find can you please post in the section at the top of this page. Seddon69 (talk) 16:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

Something i wanted to talk about whilst waiting for this. What is the difference between "New antisemitism and "Anti Zionism". I have done as much reading as i possibly could on the subjects but I don't proclaim to be an expert in any way so could you give me. ŠξÞÞøΛ 22:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, "new antisemitism" is vague but clearly derogatory term that can be used to criticize anti-Zionists (among others, such as leftists, black nationalists, arab nationalists, anyone who is pro-palestinian in any way, etc.) and to equate a political position with racism. Anti-zionism, on the other hand, is a descriptive (i.e. not necessarily derogatory) term used to describe a specific range of political positions critical of the policies of the Israeli state. I think people can probably generally agree on what anti-Zionism means but not on "new antisemitism." It is clear, though, that the latter term is a means of insult, whereas the former is more of a description (though it could probably be used in an insulting manner as well). csloat (talk) 23:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, many (but by no means all) who are strongly opposed to Israeli government policies would freely choose to call themselves "anti-Zionist". This includes some prominent diaspora Jews. Opposition to Israeli policies is found across the political spectrum, and within Israel there are opposition parties of different hues, but it is probably fair to say that those who adopt the "anti-Zionist" description are overwhelmingly on the political Left. They would all strongly reject any insinuation of antisemitism. Basically, only neo-Nazis would openly proclaim themselves to be "antisemitic".Itsmejudith (talk) 08:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

csloat's description of New Antisemitism as "vague but clearly derogatory" is one perspective within a wider and hotly-contested discourse. There will be many who strenuously disagree with that description. Most of the editing disputes in the New Antisemitism article, including this one, reflect that wider debate. I don't think that this mediation process can possibly hope to resolve the disputes around notions of New Antisemitism, anti-Zionism etc. What this mediation process needs to do is find a way forward in terms of creating an article that, in an unbiased manner, reflects the discourse. I have strong opinions myself on these terms, but I am trying to avoid getting into that debate here as I think it represents a cul-de-sac for the mediation process. Bondegezou (talk) 11:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Just an aside, I don't think it's worth arguing, but I doubt there's anyone on any side of this issue who believes that "new antisemitism" is not a derogatory phrase -- I certainly don't know of anyone (enlighten me if I'm wrong) who embraces the term or declares themselves a "new antisemite." So I don't think there'll be much disagreement on that point. The fact that the phrase is vague is also not that controversial -- or perhaps vague is the wrong word, but the very heated dispute that exists (both among the reliable sources discussing the issue and among editors on the talk page) about the term's meaning suggests that it does not have a clear, specific, definite referent. Even among supporters of the term in the talk page I have seen at least 4-5 different meanings suggested. I tried to steer away from actually defining the term above for precisely the reason Bondegezou outlines. But in either case I think he/she is correct that it is not necessary (or even desirable) for this mediation to settle on a definition of the term. csloat (talk) 16:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're right about "derogatory"; I was bothered about "vague". Sorry for being unclear. There is, I feel, a distinction between "vague" and "low consensus". "New Antisemitism" is often used in a very specific and non-vague way, but, indeed, different people have used it in different specific and non-vague ways! Bondegezou (talk) 21:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha - yes "vague" was definitely the wrong word. csloat (talk) 23:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

This issue was indirectly related to the article and problems with the image. What i have been looking at with the zombietime image is that the description of it on the article page is as follows anti-American, anti-Zionist, and anti-capitalist imagery[original research?] with classic antisemitic motifs. The reason i asked is connected towards the idea i posed further up regarding having an image created in the future to specifically show New Antisemitism. Now although that would be difficult to find someone the though came to me that obviously people have many different views on New antisemitism, what it is and so forth. Now obviously from what i have read in the article, the idea of new antisemitism has changed over the years. So any image would have great difficulty in representing each era and by therefore holding a neutral position. A current image would represent current views but not the greater historical views that the article contains. This is one difficulty amoung many. I would also guess that "New Anitisemitism" can be interpreted by in many different ways and depicted in many ways often in overlapping forms such as anti zionism or anti capitalism and that this is also one difficulty. Have i been correct so far in my understanding? I'm just trying to clear things up as obviously this is first time we have had direct communication and i want to ensure that i have a proper understanding. Reading the discussion before and the article and other articles have helped but it certainly doesn't help anywhere near as much. Just as an additional note. Feel free to contact me other way with points. I am on wikipedia a lot of the time but sometimes im unable to log or i am revising for exams and such stuff. You can use the email tool on wikipedia or you can email me at seddon69@hotmail.com. I'm also on IRC at #wikipedia-en or you can find me at #wikipedia-medcab. ŠξÞÞøΛ ^talk 12:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The original sources used on the image itself all confirmed that it was taken in San Francisco at that rally. Regarding removing the images until the mediation is concluded, that has been suggested before, and rejected as truly being a compromise, for the simple reason that most of the people involved in this mediation have been trying, literally for years, to get that image removed from the article lead, and preferably from Wikipedia entirely. That is the whole purpose of this mediation; they don't really care about any other images, whether in or out, or even about the article itself - it's all about getting that image removed. For that reason alone, it would hardly be a "compromise" to a priori accede to what they have so far been unable to do by IFD or brute force. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, most opponents of Zombietime's image have been working on this article for years, often seeking to remove strong biases against very difficult odds. For Jayjg to claim that we "don't really care about any other images ... or even about the article itself" is profoundly insulting, and entirely incorrect.

I might add that some editors have consistently refused any compromise that involves removing Zombietime from the lede, notwithstanding that a strong opposition to the image has been developing for some time. At the moment, I'm concerned that some of these editors might be tempted to drag out mediation indefinitely, or refuse any reasonable compromise that would shift Zombietime out of its current favoured position ... after all, there's no particular impetus to resolve a debate if the status quo is to your liking.

Given that we're now unlikely to attain unanimity on the question of removing the image during mediation, please allow me to suggest a compromise: add a tag to the Zombietime image which reads "the suitability of this image is disputed". This will allow readers to understand that there is currently no consensus on the matter, and will not prejudice the outcome one way or the other. (Btw, I truly hope no-one argues that this would somehow "deface" the image. Many of us believe having the image in the lede defaces the article.) CJCurrie (talk) 08:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

A mediation process, as much as any time on Wikipedia, should see the participants assume good faith about each others' intentions. As such, I am disappointed by Jayjg's accusations that others involved in this mediation do not care about the article or about other images or that they have sought to act through "brute force". I cannot speak for everyone involved in this mediation, but I do not feel Jayjg describes me or my motivations, and I have seen several of those involved here working hard to improve the New Antisemitism article in many different ways. Jayjg, I can understand your frustration at a slow and lengthy debate around this image, but let us try to have some faith in our fellow editors and each other, at least at the beginning of this mediation process! Bondegezou (talk) 08:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The image should be removed during mediation. Jayjg's reason for not doing so is that "that has been suggested before, and rejected as truly being a compromise, for the simple reason that most of the people involved in this mediation have been trying, literally for years, to get that image removed from the article lead, and preferably from Wikipedia entirely." Actually, it was only "rejected as truly being a compromise" by two users, Jayjg being one of them. The reason he gives is even more galling -- that people have been trying to get the image removed from the lede for a long time. That is exactly why it should be removed during mediation -- it is severely disputed by a number of users who have had long-standing problems with it. It is strange that he states this as if the image presumptively has a prominent place on Wikipedia even though it is not from a reliable source, there is no confirmation of its context and it has been heavily disputed by a significant number of users as inaccurate, argumentative, and offensive. This is simply not a good reason to keep the image in the lede and there are a host of good reasons not to. At least during mediation it should be removed; if the mediation leads to it being restored, it can be restored then. csloat (talk) 08:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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."[2], 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)

No, we don't have any source that says it an example of any kind of "Anti-Arabism". That's because we don't have any such policy regarding images, despite your best efforts to create a special one for the Zombietime image. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, fine, so don't use that image on the anti-arabism page or whatever. We return now to the image this dispute is actually about -- again, your blind assertion that this image meets various "themes" is simply not encyclopedic. csloat (talk) 02:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

...except for the fact that it's exactly what we do for all other images - and considering that this is an encyclopedia, that would, by definition, make the practise "encyclopedic". Jayjg ^(talk) 02:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

And in this case there are specific disputes and arguments countering these blind assertions, so yes, we need evidence and analysis backing up the assertion. Whereas in other cases, the assertions may not be challenged. As I said, if you have a problem with a particular image in a particular article, the appropriate avenue for redress is the talk page of that article. csloat (talk) 05:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

(Reset) Can we just chill out a little :) Now we have an alternative for the zombietime image for the lede. This comes in the form of the image linked above which you are both aware of. Now i would like to keep working towards a consensus. It is obvious that we have two views which are very very different and it is probably futile to try to argue against each other. We are close to a compromise that helps both sides of this dispute. I would like to concentrate on improving that compromise. Lets keep moving forward guys :) Seddσn ^{talk Editor Review} 08:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough; what do you suggest in terms of moving forward? In terms of the montage, I'm probably amenable to the image in the upper left, though I'd like to hear what others have to say first. The one in the upper right seems the most acceptable of the four. The lower left is clearly unacceptable; at least so far, we have plenty of evidence that it illustrates "antisemitism," but none at all that it illustrates "new antisemitism." The image in the lower right is apparently a cover illustration for the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, certainly not a "new" text; again, without specific evidence I'm not sure what makes this a depiction of "new antisemitism."

Let me ask this: what is gained by having a montage as opposed to having the New Statesman image? In particular, what is gained by having an image of an extremist poster carried by some unknown protester in some unknown protest (or, in the case of the zombietime image, carried by some unknown protester allegedly in a known protest)? In what way does such an image improve the article more than the image of the New Statesman cover, which has RSs citing it as an example of "new antisemitism"? One of my problems with all of this is a blurring of distinctions between "new antisemitism" and "antisemitism." If we want to show clarity about what "new antisemitism" is, photos of incidents of "antisemitism" don't help, and, in fact, they actively hurt the Wikipedia page. csloat (talk) 09:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I will post my answer above. Seddσn ^{talk Editor Review} 15:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

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.[3]

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.[4]

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)

Hmm, so critics of "Islamophobia" say the term is an invention used to label and stigmatize honest criticism of Islam, and critics of "New antisemitism" say the term is an invention used to label and stigmatize honest criticism of Israel, but you can't see the similarities? LOL! Jayjg ^(talk) 01:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, so "Islam" is a global religion that encompasses multiple cultures, geographical regions, and even faiths, while "Israel" is a specific country with a specific and identifiable set of foreign policies that people object to, but you can't see the differences? LOL! csloat (talk) 02:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, that was a neat trick: you insist that "New antisemitism" is actually just criticism of Israeli policy, and then insist that there are therefore no parallels between the concepts; it's probably a good time for you to review begging the question. Umm, yes, Islam is a religion, and Israel is a country, but we're not talking about them. Rather, we're talking about "Islamophobia" and "New antisemitism", allegations of specific types of discrimination, the first against Muslims, the second against Jews. And the criticism of both these concepts is almost identical. I'm not sure which possibility is more distasteful: that you're feigning not seeing the astonishingly strong parallels, or that you actually don't see them, but either way, it's rather unpleasant to watch. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not insisting that NAS is actually just criticism of Israeli policy; I am asking why it is different from that, and you keep insisting on blurring the two in your responses. csloat (talk) 05:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I'd urge you to avoid hysterics in responding to my argument. Your claim that I am pretending not to see the parallels is really troubling, and it's a red herring. What is problematic is not that I don't see the parallels - I have made clear that I do - but rather that you refuse to see or comment on the differences. Let's review -- the claims you are comparing are the claim that Islamophobia is a cover for criticism of Islam, and the claim that NAS is a cover for criticism of Israel. You claim these two claims are parallel. They are not. What is the difference? Islam is a religion (one that spans many cultures, languages, faiths, and geographical regions). Israel is a geographically fixed country, with a specific foreign policy, a specific history, a specific set of leaders, etc. So "criticism of Islam" is not parallel with "criticism of Israel." Does this help? csloat (talk) 05:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

And I'd urge you to avoid personal comments like "hysterics"; if you are unable to rebut the logic, just move on, don't get personal. As for the difference you are referring to, it's completely irrelevant to the point at hand - you might as well be saying they're different because there are 7 million Israelis but 1 billion Muslims, or they are different because the word "Israel" has 6 letters, but the word "Islam" only 5. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

But your comments were hysterical, as I pointed out -- nothing personal. And I did rebut the arguments -- if you are unable to respond, just concede or drop it, don't try to shift the locus of the debate to bogus complaints about my language. Finally, your claim is obviously and blatantly false. I am not just pulling out some random difference between the two terms. Please re-read the above (you can ignore the word "hysterics" if it bothers you). There is a big difference between criticizing a specific country's specific foreign policy and criticizing an entire religion that encompasses many countries, cultures, languages, and faiths. Get it? Thank you for your consideration. csloat (talk) 00:57, 14 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)

Islamophobia is as much a thesis as New antisemitism, it just happens to be better accepted, mostly for geopolitical and demographic reasons. As for the Islamophobia picture, it's just another nail in the coffin of this imaginary policy you have fought to create despite the fact that such a policy nowhere exists, neither in writing nor in practice. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not a nail in any coffin. If you have a problem with that image, go to the Islamophobia talk page and explain why you don't think it is Islamophobic (or whatever it is you think about it). I'm sure someone there will be happy to explain to you, or perhaps you will be successful in getting the image removed, if that is your goal. Islamophobia is not a thesis any more than antisemitism is a thesis. What is at issue here is "new antisemitism," which people quoted in the article claim is a distinct phenomenon separate from simple antisemitism. That distinction is not obvious in the photo the same way the antisemitism in the photo is obvious. So we would not need a RS, I think, to demonstrate that the zombietime image illustrates an incidence of antisemitism, but we would to claim that it illustrates "new antisemitism." Hope this helps. csloat (talk) 02:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Please read what i have said in the section above. Seddσn ^{talk Editor Review} 09:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Islamophobia is bigotry directed at Muslims and Arabs; antisemitism is bigotry directed at Jews. Neither is a "theory"; the fact that there are bigots who not only deny their bigotry but deny the existence of the sort of bigotry they subscribe to does not relegate that bigotry to the realm of the "theoretical." Those who deny the very existence of antisemitism, islamophobia, and other forms of racism and xenophobia more generally, are very few and marginal.

"New antisemitism" on the other hand is a second- or third-order concept postulating the interrelatedness of wide-ranging and discrete phenomena. The concept and its postulates are hotly contested. Those who propound it and those who dismiss it are equally partisan, and meanwhile the 'neutral' voice of mainstream publications does not employ the term and avoids assuming its truth; in other words, it treats it as a theory. By contrast, "Islamophobia" and "antisemitism" are used as ordinary terms (the latter is obviously of an older vintage). Unlike "New Antisemitism," both "Islamophobia" and "Antisemitism" have ordinary entries in the Oxford English Dictionary – the former is defined as "hatred or fear of Islam, esp. as a political force; hostility or prejudice towards Muslims," the latter as "theory, action, or practice directed against the Jews" – and neither definition gives any indication that the term designates a "theory."--G-Dett (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)