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.

• 
• 

So this issue isn't just one limited to this article it is one that is much wider? Seddσn ^{talk Editor Review} 12:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely, and it is even wider than images. Anything that is at the margin of an article is vulnerable to edit-warring, because it does not need to be sourced in the same ways as article space. I have in mind See also lists and categories, both of which are often used for POV-pushing. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Itsmejudith's reasoning but I would caution against tying this dispute to a larger one. There are two separate issues here -- one, what to do with this image. That's what this mediation is about. Two, developing criteria that apply to images across Wikipedia. This mediation should not get hung up on the latter, and the latter should be done with respect to images on Wikipedia more generally rather than growing out of a specific image dispute. csloat (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seddon, which image-montage are we currently debating? I must be missing something; I see only the two Latuff images at the top of this page.

You ask if there's a wider image issue. Yes, I agree with Judith that there is. WP:NOR says that

Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. "Original research" is material for which no reliable source can be found.

But it also says that

Pictures have enjoyed a broad exception from this policy, in that Wikipedia editors are encouraged to take photographs or draw pictures or diagrams and upload them, releasing them under the GFDL or another free license, to illustrate articles. This is welcomed because images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy.

Jay interprets this to mean that WP:NOR never in any circumstance requires that the provenance and/or substantive relevance of images be reliably sourced. I and other editors disagree. We see a tension between the reference to "any material" in the first quoted passage and the broad exception cited in the second, note that this broad exception is described not as guaranteed and categorical but rather something customarily "enjoyed" by inoffensive material, and therefore conclude that when the relevance and provenance of an image are seriously challenged – as they were in the Zombietime case by some 50+ editors – then sources become necessary.

The example I gave on the article talk page many months ago was that while an unsourced but accurate diagram or photo of a Monarch butterfly used in the article on Monarch butterflies will always be fine, a photo taken by an environmental activist purporting to show a large swarm of Monarch butterflies off the coast of Carmel, used in an article about a hotly debated theory positing a worrying recent surge in butterfly populations on the West coast, would not enjoy the aforementioned "broad exception" from NOR. In that case it would indeed be appropriate for editors to request reliable sourcing for (a) the image's evidentiary provenance (is this really Carmel? when was the picture taken? are there any mainstream sources vouching for its authenticity, or do we have only the word of the COI-riddled activist?) and (b) its substantive relevance (is the pictured swarm unusually large for Monarchs in May? are there any reliable sources using this photo as evidence of the alleged surge?).

Jay believes that both this interpretation of WP:NOR regarding images in controversial articles and CJ's interpretation of WP:NPOV regarding images in controversial articles (to the effect that we need to be careful not to stack the deck and poison the well by frontloading images "illustrating" a phenomenon the very existence of which is in dispute) have been "specially invented" just for New antisemitism, because his opponents here (a) are prone to apply the sort of double-standards characteristic of the "new antisemitism" itself, and (b) are engaged in "furious efforts to suppress" anything that illustrates "the concepts outlined in the article." As onerous as it may be to peg this dispute to a larger one about meta-content in controversial articles, given the extraordinary level of policy confusion and WP:ABF plaguing the discussion on this page, we may need to do just that.--G-Dett (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G-Dett, Wikipedia policy is ultimately what Wikipedians do in practice. And the practice when it comes to images is to not require the kind of sourcing being demanded here, nor to require the other onerous restrictions being insisted on for the images in this article. That is the case for "controversial articles" too, and I've provided plenty of examples, including the quite obvious one of some random guy holding a poster at a rally, being used to illustrate the Islamophobia article. There is no sourcing that it was held at a rally, no sourcing that it represents Islamophobia, and no indication that this wasn't some one-off crazy person that no-one noticed - all requirements placed on the Zombietime image. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the Islamophobia article parallels the antisemitism article, not the new antisemitism article. If there were a disputed concept such as new Islamophobia then your objection would make more sense. Second of all, this mediation focuses on the new antisemitism article. If you think an image on the Islamophobia article is inappropriate or inconsistent with the practices of Wikipedians everywhere, you should take a look at this page and make suggestions there. csloat (talk) 02:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Islamophobia article parallels New antisemitism, in that they are both recent phenomena, and have nearly identical objections to their validity, as amply shown earlier. As for other articles, as soon as we start discussing policy and "a wider image issue", then of course we also have to discuss what is done with images in other articles. This is basic common sense, I shouldn't have to explain it. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No; "islamophobia" is not disputed in the way "new antisemitism" is. What would "old Islamophobia" be in your estimation then? Are you saying there is nothing "new" about "new antisemitism" other than its "newness"? csloat (talk) 04:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Jayjg may be referring to the parallels in the actual ideas behind NAS and islamophobia rather than the idea that its "new". I think parallel may not be the the best term but perhaps parallel but in opposite directions. Meaning, with islamophobia, people associate a hatred of countries with the percieved mainstream religion in those countries where as here we have a hatred of a religion being asspciated with a country. Am i right in this clarification User:Jayjg. Seddσn ^{talk Editor Review} 13:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seddon, you're right that the 'newness' of NAS is neither here nor there. What matters is that it's a theoretical concept, whereas "Islamophobia" is an ordinary word with an ordinary dictionary definition. Jay brought two sources criticizing use of the word – one in a passing comment in the thirteenth paragraph of a group letter, the other in a full-length op-ed. In both cases the source thinks the charge of "Islamophobia" has become something of a promiscuous epithet. This is – not coincidentally – exactly the sort of criticism one finds regarding the charge of antisemitism. No one (except perhaps a few scattered and very marginal cranks) believes that Jew-hatred on the one hand or bigotry against Muslims and Arabs on the other simply doesn't exist. What you do have in each case are occasional voices saying hey, this charge is getting thrown around too much, or in rarer cases questioning something about the implications of the word itself (Hey, why can't I oppose Islam as a religion without hating Muslims themselves? or Hey, aren't Arabs themselves Semites?), but these criticisms do not turn Antisemitism or Islamophobia into theoretical "concepts." Bigotry against Jews and bigotry against Arabs and Muslims are accepted facts, real phenomena by overwhelming consensus; and the accepted dictionary word for them is "Antisemitism" and "Islamophobia," respectively.

"New antisemitism," by contrast, is a theory. It deals with accepted phenomena – opposition to Israeli occupation policies among Western liberals and academics, opposition to the very existence of Israel among various Islamist organizations and goverments, antisemitic violence and vandalism among immigrant youths in Europe, paranoid right-wing conspiracies about Jewish world-domination, etc. – and posits a theoretical connective tissue between them.

It's very easy to tell that NAS is a theory in a way that antisemitism and Islamophobia are not. Look at the first sentence of the lead; it's all about tendencies, emanations, etc., coming from different quarters and converging and rising and manifesting themselves as something else. Look at just about any reliable source on it, pro or con; they're all devoted to explaining – or refuting – these theoretical connections and alleged historical shifts. The sources themselves introduce the idea as a theoretical concept, an explanatory proposition. Here's an example from one major source, Never Again? The Threat of the New Antisemitism by Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League:

The reemergence of worldwide anti-Semitism is a phenomenon of the past several years. It began during 1998-1999. Then in 2000, the worrisome trend exploded: major violent attacks on Jews more than doubled. The pattern has continued since then, as illustrated by the litany of violence cited above. Why is this happening now? That’s a question I’ll explore in the pages of this book…

In my lifetime I never expected to witness hatred reemerging so boldly from the darkness. There were reasons to believe that the world was changing, attaining a new level of understanding and tolerance with each passing generation. In particular, Europeans were beginning to seriously grasp and grapple with their responsibility for the past and, more important, for the future.

Now these positive trends are moving in reverse. I am convinced we currently face as great a threat to the safety and security of the Jewish people as the one we faced in the 1930s–if not a greater one. This may be a shocking claim. Perhaps I sound like an alarmist. I pray that I am wrong. But I speak advisedly, after long and careful study of the historical record, the world’s current political and social climate, and the frightening contours of what I call the new anti-Semitism. (pp. 3-4)

NAS is in fact not only a theory but a fairly grand sort of theory, in that it purports to offer the interpretive key to a large, multifaceted historical situation encompassing everything from the safety of the Jewish people to the fate of Zionism to the direction of Western anticolonial activism to the rise of militant Islam to the state of Middle East studies in American universities. It is not yet in any dictionary I know of, and no mainstream news outlets use it in their neutral voice as an accepted term. The word "Islamophobia" by contrast – like good old-fashioned lower-case a "antisemitism" – doesn't itself imply any historical specificity, doesn't hold that anything is "rising," doesn't purport to explain a total situation, doesn't imply that anything is disguising itself or manifesting itself as something else. It just names a recognized form of bigotry, which people of good faith may agree or disagree is operative in this or that situation.

Anyway this is all pretty obvious and a bit of a red herring as well. Jay first invoked the picture in the Islamophobia article as an example of our double standards regarding sourcing – "Tsk Tsk," he wrote – but then when willingness to apply the same sourcing standard there is expressed, Jay turns on a dime and says the issue is not double standards, just that we're getting policy wrong. Very well, if we're getting policy wrong, then Jay's arguments should be rooted in ordinary examples that illuminate the good solid common sense of his policy interpretation. Focusing instead on images he doesn't even think should be in the encyclopedia may be a satisfying way of highlighting our supposed hypocrisy, but it does nothing to advance his interpretation of policy. If his interpretation allows for the inclusion of images he and I both find dubious and unencyclopedic, then why is he defending it?--G-Dett (talk) 21:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both Csloat and Jayjg here. Islamophobia is comparable to Antisemitism, not New antisemitism, as Csloat astutely observes. But I'm basically in agreement with Jay here that the photo he's referring to is probably questionable. I'll have to look more closely at the sourcing issues, Jay, but I'm ready to work with you to remove it if that's what you're thinking.--G-Dett (talk) 04:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the problem is that there is no policy on what to do in disputed articles like NAS and probably any other disputed topic. Having any unsourced image in this article wouldn't be proposing a new idea, im sure we all agree on that. NAS is something that some people believe exists. There is the possibility that prehaps a new interpretation may be a problem, not just with this article but any other. I think we should leave the topic of sourcing as we need to go in that direction to achieve a lede image. Following the end of this case I will bring up the discussion at the reliable sources notice board and the respective policy pages, this is gap in policy that needs to be addressed not just in regards to NAS but other images across the wiki. I have set up the proposals page to deal with the technical aspects of the images themselves. If you wish to continue what is most likely a futile discussion about NAS etc etc you may do so here so long as you all remain civil. I think its time we move forward and close this issue soon :) Seddσn ^{talk Editor Review} 12:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, as usual, you're disagreeing with me while feigning agreement. You pretend that my issue is with the image in the Islamophobia article, when, as is quite obvious, my point is that policy does not support the restrictions you and jgui and CJCurrie are attempting to place on the images in the New antisemitism article. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith in your interlocutors. It will be helpful for the mediation process. csloat (talk) 04:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply here is pretty graceless, Jay, even in the context of heightened emotions on this page; I encourage you to take a step back. If your point is about policy, then articulate it in terms of policy. The existence of a questionable image in another article does not establish (or even support) the radical policy interpretation you're putting forth here (to wit, that WP:NOR never in any circumstances applies to images). All it establishes is that there's a questionable image in the Islamophobia article that has some of the same problems as the Zombietime image (dubious provenance/activist photographer, possible well-poisoning) but not others (Islamophobia is not a theoretical concept, and the relevance of a protester with a "Islamophobic and Proud of It" sign to Islamophobia is self-announcing and indisputable). Given that every time you've invoked that example you've said something like "Tut tut," I thought your point was about our alleged double standards, and how we're not prepared to pursue the implications of our objections to the Zombietime image when it isn't ideologically convenient. My response was intended to underscore that I am absolutely prepared to pursue the implications wherever they lead, and that I see this as a question of quality as much as neutrality: amateur content is in the best tradition of Wikipedia, but the line between that and tabloidy activist well-poisoning is an important one and needs to be watched. I am not "feigning agreement" with you but rather inviting you to join me in articulating a single standard to the use of images in controversial articles – a standard backed by policy, common sense, and the best interests of the encyclopedia.--G-Dett (talk) 15:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wanna apologise that i have yet to get the proposal's page up, iv been burnt out in real life and as you can see from my contributions has serverely affected my time on wiki.

With regards to what you said G-Dett, firstly a montage has been discussed involving several images that are all sourced. These were orhpaned and so were deleted last week. I will be reuploading for the discussion on the various proposals we have. In regarding to the wider issues i think this is how we should deal with it. Firstly lets just get an agreement specific to this article that can last for a little while. Then once thats done we prehaps set up a discussion at the oppropriate policy pages to try and get this ambiguity fixed. A mediation case is no place for policy to made but i can at least oversee a discussion at the policy page in question. Following the decision made there any agreement made here would need to be adjusted on any community consensus made. Seddσn ^{talk Editor Review} 21:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't apologize – everyone knows you're dealing diligently with a complicated situation. (Well maybe the Zombie pic was a simple matter but the solution may set a complicated precedent.) Take care, --G-Dett (talk) 00:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 1[edit]

Look, I can't pretend to be completely conversant with all the nuances of a debate that has been going on at the new antisemitism page for a very long time. However, I do have a few observations of my own I'd like to make.

Firstly, I want to say that I can't see why it should be so objectionable to include a few images of supposed "new antisemitism" at work. If the general idea is that new antisemitism is partly about, for instance, the political left adopting or regurgitating classic antisemitic attitudes as a corollary to its generally hostile attitude to Israel, then what is the big deal about including an image of a protestor at a leftwing or anti-Israel rally holding a poster which might readily be interpreted as containing some classic antisemitic motifs? Okay, I understand the argument that making such presumptions about an image might be interpreted as "original research", but - does it really, really matter that such presumptions might be interpreted as a technical breach of policy? Can't we make a small allowance occasionally for the fact that some editors for whom these issues carry a strong emotional charge, might understandably perceive the issue, and with it the interpretation of policy, a little differently?

So the first thing I'd like to say is that I personally have no strong objection to the inclusion of some images which are allegedly (though perhaps not unequivocally in policy terms) examples of "new antisemitism". Which is to say, if the image is new, and if it can be seen as employing a classic antisemitic motif or two, is it really such a huge and unwarranted step to accept that it might readily be interpreted as an illustration of new antisemitism to someone who subscribes to the concept? As long as the image caption does not itself claim that the image is an example of new antisemitism, but just notes the antisemitic motifs, I don't see that this should be such a big deal.

Having said that, there are however some limitations that I think would need to be employed regarding the use of such images. Firstly, they should not be used in the lede or next to the table of contents, as I consider that tantamount to well poisoning. Secondly, their placement has to be closely integrated with the corresponding content, not just scattered randomly about in the article. Also, if classic antisemitic images are to be used to illustrate the similarity (like the nazi poster from 1938), then I think they have to be used specifically for that purpose, otherwise those particular images have no place in the article.

Finally, in regards to the zombietime image about which there has been so much debate, I too have an objection to this image, though not a particularly strong one, but my objection is based entirely upon the source of the image itself, not upon the image per se. So that is more or less my take on this dispute. Gatoclass (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taking the image out of the lede but leaving it elsewhere in the article is one of the several compromises that has been offered by those of us who want to remove the image from the lede; however, those who want it there have steadfastly resisted any such suggestion (and in fact have refused to even acknowledge such compromise solutions). So I don't think you'll find much disagreement from those of us who want the image removed from the lede. Like you I would insist that such images should be clearly integrated with the corresponding content of the article -- in my opinion it would be best if the caption and the portion of the article near the image clearly explained the connection. But I also agree with you about the zombietime image sourcing in particular, which makes it difficult to consider this image for other parts of the article either, though there are better sourced images available that accomplish the same purpose. csloat (talk) 03:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I understood it, at least some of the arguments on the "anti-image" side have been along the lines that the images are completely inappropriate and an example of original research. But perhaps I was mistaken about that. Gatoclass (talk) 04:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the zombie image is completely inappropriate and OR, but nevertheless this discussion is about its presence in the lede, and when the discussion was taking place on the talk page of the article, I and others suggested several compromises including moving the image out of the lede, or replacing it with a different image. I don't support the montage at all, but I could support seeing one of those images somewhere other than the lede as you suggested above. csloat (talk) 16:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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