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.

Please answer the following questions in order, in the sections provided for each user. Try to be as critical as possible remembering where possible to take into account wikipedia policies.

Question 1) Is a lead image necessary and why?

Question 2) What makes the Zombietime image suitable to be in the lead?

Question 3) What makes it unsuitable as a lead image?

Question 4) From the alternative suggestions for a lead image, please choose one which you feel has the most potential and give a reasoning why?

Question 5) Why do you feel other suggestions aren't suitable? (Images like the new statesmen or the cry wolf image etc...)

I have improved the wording of this question so that it was more easily understandable. Seddon69 (talk) 02:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. No. Since the concept and even the existence of New antisemitism is disputed, I'm not at all convinced a lead image is needed at all. I would note, by way of comparison, that there is no lead image on the Racism article, even though I doubt anyone would deny the existence of racism.
2. It isn't suitable, for the reasons I have outlined previously.
3. See WP:CH/PWZI for some details as to why this image is not suitable. In particular, its inclusion gives undue weight to a fringe theory and an equally fringe website operator. It is also designed to push a particular point of view; namely, that New Antisemitism exists, and that this image is an example of it. No reliable source has ever discussed this image in the context of new antisemitism, or, indeed, any other context. The fact that POV pushing takes place using images instead of text doesn't make it OK.
4. If there must be an image in the lead, I have proposed Image:NewStatesmancover.jpg as an alternative. Unlike the Zombietime photo, this cover was published by a mainstream magazine, and it was specifically discussed in third-party reliable sources as a potential example of new antisemitism. It illustrates the concept better than the Zombietime image, and in a less inflammatory and deck-stacking manner.
5. As stated before, I don't see why there has to be a lead image at all, but if there is, I haven't found anything better than the New Statesman cover.

The ADD version
1. No, but it can be a benefit.
2. It's colorful.
3. It violates WP:NPOV and WP:V, it doesn't aptly illustrate the concept of NAS, and it abuses in both spirit and letter Wikipedia's tradition of user-uploaded images.
4. The New Statesman image is a superb choice.
5. Using the cry-wolf image would present some (though not all) of the problems listed in #3.

The comprehensive response
1. Is a lead image necessary and why? A lead image is not necessary, and it's worth noting that few if any of this article's sister articles – by which I mean articles about controversial memes and concepts within the international war of words over Israel-Palestine, e.g. Islamophobia, Allegations of Israeli Apartheid, Israel lobby, Universities and antisemitism – have images in the lead. The reason why not is obvious: either the image purports to support the meme and therefore violates NPOV and/or "poisons the well" (for example pictures of Dick Cheney addressing AIPAC or this or that senator conferring with Abe Foxman in the lead of Israel lobby, or a photo of Israeli soldiers enforcing a daytime curfew against Palestinian civilians in Hebron while Israeli Jewish residents move freely about in Allegations of Israeli Apartheid); or the image is balanced and cognizant of controversy, but boring and unilluminating or overly "meta" (say, a picture of a protester with a sign saying "Stop Israeli apartheid" and a counter-protester with his sign saying "Stop defaming Israel").

2. What makes the Zombietime image suitable to be in the lead? It is colorful and eye-catching, and has something effervescently vulgar and sensational and foxily insinuating about it, which may draw Rupert Murdoch's approving attention, which in turn would be no bad thing if Jimbo should ever contemplate selling Wikipedia to that great worthy.

3. What makes it unsuitable as a lead image? Several things. First of all, the NPOV problem indicated in my response to #1. Secondly, the image's evidentiary claims, which are not reliably sourced. This image does not so much illustrate the concept as present itself as evidence of it. That is, it is not akin to a picture or diagram of a Monarch butterfly in the lead of Monarch butterfly; rather, it is akin to a photograph of what purports to be a swarm of Monarch butterflies on the coast of Carmel, in an article about a controversial theory positing an explosion in the population of Monarch butterflies on the West Coast. Yahel Guhan's response below to question #2 provides a very clear example of how this photograph will be understood by average readers – again, not as an illustration of a concept but rather as supposed evidence of a phenomenon.

Everyone agrees (I think) that Zombietime is not a reliable source, but proponents of this image have argued that since amateur user-uploaded images are allowed on Wikipedia, that therefore images are exempt from WP:V and WP:RS. This is false. WP:V is carefully worded, and specifies twice that "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." User-uploaded images are fine so long as they don't present material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. A amateur photograph of a frock coat will probably not be challenged, and a frivolous challenge would gain no support or momentum. A photograph of Israeli settlers attacking Palestinian shepherds, on the other hand, would probably be challenged, and if it were, WP:RS and WP:V would indeed become relevant: if the photo came from Reuters that would be one thing, if it came from the cell-phone camera of an ISM member that would be another.

Thirdly, even if we put the evidentiary problems aside, it is not clear that this image illustrates the concept of NAS at all. The theory of new antisemitism alleges something much more subtle and insidious than this. The idea is that the NAS is often "coded," that one has to have an ear for it, that it's a kind of dog-whistle bigotry that has seeped into "polite" academic and mainstream discourse. "The new anti-Semitism is a much quieter and more insidious force," says one of our sources. Another says, ""We're accustomed to associating hatred of Jews with the ridiculed Neanderthal Right of those in sheets and jackboots. But this new venom, at least in its Western form, is mostly a leftwing, and often an academic, enterprise. It's also far more insidious, given the left's moral pretensions and its influence in the prestigious media and universities..." This image doesn't even so much as allude to Israel's treatment of the Palestinians (which is at the heart of the NAS controversy); rather it shows Jews as devils gleefully incinerating the globe. Using this image is like illustrating an article on structural racism with a placard from a Klan rally saying "Go back to Africa."

This image was apparently sent out by Zombietime to a number of news organizations. FrontPageMagazine published it along with a brief comment. No legitimate news organization ever published it, and no reliable source writing about "new antisemitism" has ever discussed it. The dozens of Wikipedians who have been objecting to this image for years now (contrary to certain claims here, it has never enjoyed a consensus) are not alone, in other words, in finding this image non-notable, irrelevant to NAS, and of dubious provenance.

4. From the alternative suggestions for a lead image, please choose one which you feel has the most potential and give a reasoning why? The New Statesman would be excellent in the lead. As discussed in my reponse to #1, it is often difficult to find a suitable, compelling, and neutral image for a controversial article, but this one nails it because this image itself is part of the controversy. Several sources central to our article mentioned precisely this image as an example of the "new antisemitism" at work. The only objection that has been voiced to this image is Jay's that it is "relatively uncompelling," but the reliable sources definitively disagree with him; this cover was a controversy in its own right.

5. Why do you feel other suggestions aren't suitable? (Images like the new statesmen or the cry wolf image etc...) The cry-wolf image is problematic for mostly the same reasons as the Zombietime image. It doesn't present itself as evidence, so it's an improvement in that respect; but it does advance a particular view of the NAS controversy, violating NPOV like the Zombietime image. And it comes from Carlos Latuff, who is as partisan and fringey as Zombietime but from the other side. The tradition of user-uploaded images on Wikipedia is an excellent and time-honored one; it deserves to be defended against attempts to abuse it as a means of promoting and disseminating fringey propaganda rejected or ignored by reliable sources.--G-Dett (talk) 16:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1)

An image is not necessary. However, if we can find an image that effectively draws attention to the discussion around the term "new antisemitism" and does not skew the focus of the article, then I would support its inclusion. (I would add that this image would have to enjoy broad support among editors on the "New antisemitism" page to be kept in place. As a general rule, a lede image that meets with consistent opposition from a significant number of editors over a long period of time is probably inappropriate.)

2)

Nothing that I can see.

The Zombietime image is probably (note: probably) an accurate representation of someone from a fringe organization caught in the act of crashing a much larger anti-war protest. The nature of the sign implies that this fringe organization includes both far-left and far-right elements. To this end, the image might (emphasis: might) be suitable for a section of the article that addresses far-right infiltration of the anti-war movement, or a presumed "convergence" of far-right and far-left beliefs.

As a lede image, it is entirely unsuitable.

3)

I'm coming to this discussion a bit late, and I don't want to repeat the arguments that have already been raised by Crotalus horridus, G-Dett, Bondegezou, Malik Shabazz and Commodore Sloat (and others). Suffice it to say that I endorse these arguments raised, and I hope they will be taken seriously.

I would add the following:

• With the possible exception of a small local paper called the Santa Cruz Sentinel, no reliable source has identified Zombietime's image as an example of, or as representative of the debates surrounding, "new antisemitism". By comparison, the New Statesman image has been referenced by several sources. Our article lists the following: "Zuckerman, Mortimer B. "Graffiti on History's Walls", U.S. News and World Report. March 11, 2003, retrieved January 12, 2008; also see Harrison, Bernard. The Resurgence of Anti-Semitism: Jews, Israel, and Liberal Opinion. Rowman & Littlefield, 2006." I suspect this list is not exhaustive.

I believe it would make sense for us to keep the image that has been sourced as "representative of new antisemitism", and remove the image for which the "new antisemitism" association comes mostly from original research.

• Some editors who favour retention of the Zombietime image have argued that it covers all the main aspects of "new antisemitism" in a way that other images do not. These editors have generally cited Wikipedia's definition of "new antisemitism" to justify their position (see for instance [1], [2] and [3]). On a related note, I see that User:Jayjg opposes the New Statesman image on the grounds that it "doesn't cover all the themes of the article".

The general problem with this argument is that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. The specific problem is that Wikipedia's definition of "new antisemitism" has always been contentious, and the content of article has always been extremely controversial. The current lede came about as the result of an extremely difficult compromise, and is widely regarded as flawed; there is also widespread dissatisfaction with other aspects of the article.

I believe it would make sense for us to keep the image that reliable sources consider to be "representative of new antisemitism", and remove the image for which the "new antisemitism" association comes from Wikipedia's own contentious definition.

(In the event that this argument fails to convince supporters of the Zombietime image, I would add that the Zombietime poster does not mention radical Islam and hence does not cover all the themes of the article either.)

• On a separate point, I can't help but notice that Wikipedia's page for the Zombietime image makes no reference to the artist who actually created the poster. User:SlimVirgin cited the artist when she first uploaded the image, but removed it less than two days later.

I'm curious as to why this would be. Are copyright or fair use issues involved, perhaps, or is there some uncertainty as to the artist's identity?

4)

I initially favoured Dave Brown's cartoon of Ariel Sharon as "Saturn devouring one of his children", but I'm now convinced that the New Statesman cover is a better choice.

5)

Carlos Latuff is a fringe source, making "Cry Wolf" unsuitable. The New Statesman image is appropriate.

1. Images are generally a good idea, when a suitable image is available. In this case, there may be no suitable image to represent the concept of "New antisemitism." (NAS)
2. The Zombie image is purported to be suitable since it illustrates an alleged infusion of far-right, Nazi-like antisemitism into an ostensibly left-wing peace rally, and this is said to be the same as the phenomenon of NAS.
3. The image is unsuitable for two main reasons:
   1. It effectively "poisons the well" by implying that it represents an incidence of NAS; therefore NAS must exist, which is in fact a matter of controversy.
   2. There's no reliable source, and little objective evidence, supporting the claim that the Zombie image depicts NAS. The poster is actually being held aloft by radical black supremacists, probably from the Nation of Yahweh. That group is clasically antisemitic, not "new antisemitic." The image itself comes from a highly unreliable source, an anonymous fringe blogger who seems to believe that all Arabs are terorrists (he refers to the Arab keffiyeh headdress as a "terrorist scarf" and describes a sign reading "long live Fallujah" as "support for terror," etc.) I grant that the image itself is probably authentic, but I have absolutely no faith in Zombie's depiction of the context as being accurate. Extremists and eccentrics often "piggyback" on political demonstrations to push their own wacko ideology; ask Frank Chu.
   3. It's also worth mentioning that the image caption has been written in the most POV, inflammatory fashion possible, and ferociously reverted without consensus.
4. and 5. Frankly, I don't feel that any image is suitable. There's no way that I can think of to depict a highly disputed, controversial phenomenon of this sort that may or may not even exist. If an image were used, it would have to be open to interpretation, and not immediately suggesting the reality or unreality of NAS. By analogy, the article Israeli apartheid uses Image:Security Fence and settlement.jpg, but it would not be suitable to use a more clearly "apartheid-like" image of the wall, such as this one. I'm not sure that even that is ultimately acceptable.

1. Yes. Good articles have good lead photographs illustrating the concepts discussed in them.
2. It perfectly illustrates the themes of the article; anti-Zionism, anti-Americanism, anti-globalization, third worldism, and demonization of Israel, held up at a left-wing anti-war rally. Some people would view it as simply anti-Zionist, others as antisemitic. In addition, it's visually interesting.
3. Nothing in particular.
4. I suppose the New Statesman cover.
5. The New Statesman cover doesn't cover all the themes of the article, and isn't particularly interesting visually. The Latuff image is even worse in that regard.

This is why I haven't formally signed up for the mediation -- I feel strongly that the image has a place in the article, but I don't much care whether it's the first image on the page or not... AnonMoos (talk) 21:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) No. As the article makes clear, there is a vigorous debate about whether "new antisemitism" exists — specifically, whether it is new, and in some instances whether it is antisemitism at all. Including an image in the lede poisons the water by positing the existence of "new antisemitism" before the reader has a chance to read that the concept is disputed.

2) In my opinion, it's not suitable for the lede. For those who argue the existence of "new antisemitism", however, it must seem like manna from heaven: it portrays "counterfeit Jews" aligned with Satan to direct American foreign policy (the Iraq War in particular) and throws in an anti-Zionist slur for good measure.

3) I think there are two reasons why the image is inappropriate for the lede (or elsewhere in the article). First, as I wrote above, I think any image in the lede poisons the well. Second, the Zombietime image and its caption suggest that the message conveyed by the protester was typical of, or at least acceptable to, those who attended the anti-war rally or the anti-war movement in general. Based on what I have seen, this seems to be Zombietime's motivation in photographing demonstrators at anti-war rallies: to find the people with the freakiest, most far-out signs and try to tar the entire anti-war movement with their messages.

4) As I wrote above, I don't think the lede should be illustrated with any image. I think Image:Cry-wolf.png is a good image to illustrate the section of the article that describes those who argue that anti-Zionism and criticism of Israel are often labeled "new antisemitism". Frankly I don't see a lot of value in the other four images mentioned at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/New antisemitism#Issues to be mediated.

5) I'm not sure what other suggestions you're referring to.

My apologies for a belated appearance here; my Wiki-attention was elsewhere.

(1) Is a lead image necessary and why? While the good use of images is of great benefit to Wikipedia, lead images are clearly not necessary and many good articles do without them. I am all for a lead image if an appropriate one is available.

(2) What makes the Zombietime image suitable to be in the lead? The Zombietime image is a good picture: it is clear and striking. It probably (note: probably) represents an example of what can be (note: can be) called New Anti-Semitism, as others have laid out.

(3) What makes it unsuitable as a lead image? Where to start... For some time, I've been editing the article on New prog. I sometimes wish I'd never started with it because "new prog" is a tricky phrase. Sticking "new" in front of something else is so easy to do that one finds different people have come up with the term at different times to mean different things. I suspect all things beginning "new..." have similar problems. New Anti-Semitism is no exception, but is clearly a subject of much greater importance and much higher emotion. Unsurprisingly, the Talk page is filled with many heated disputes. That said, by and large, I think the article does an admirable job covering the subject and most of the editors in this dispute have worked hard achieving that outcome.

New Anti-Semitism is a phrase that different writers have used to mean a variety of (overlapping and related, but) different things, as discussed to some extent in Weinberg, Leonard "What's new?: A review essay on the 'new' anti-Semitism", Terrorism and Political Violence 19(4): 611-620, 2007. I feel some editors in approaching this article believe that there is a single definition for New Anti-Semitism and then, based on that, they argue as to whether the phenomenon does or does not exist. In contrast, I would favour an interpretivist approach to this issue: instead of saying that New Anti-Semitism is a thing that exists or doesn't exist, I would argue that modern sociological and anthropological approaches would instead say that New Anti-Semitism is a set of related perspectives, around which a discourse is then possible. Given the diversity of ways in which the phrase is used by reliable sources and given the disputes as to whether some of these perspectives are 'correct', I believe it is very difficult to pick any lead image. What one image can cover this multiplicity of views?

Zombietime (probably) illustrates one perspective on New Anti-Semitism. I'm not arguing that that perspective is wrong, but it is not the only perspective. There are other perspectives that are critical of concepts of New Anti-Semitism. There are other perspectives that support an idea of New Anti-Semitism, but have a different conception of it to the one (probably) illustrated by Zombietime. Ergo, by using Zomebietime as the lead image, we bias the article's carefully balanced approach by privileging one perspective. So, that's one problem I have with the image at a broad level, and the same line of reasoning would apply to many of the other images that have been suggested as replacements.

I then have a second objection specific to the Zombietime image. Other editors have argued that the Zombietime image illustrates New Anti-Semitism. Above, I argue that they are only considering one perspective on New Anti-Semitism, but I also believe the Zomebietime image is a poor choice to illustrate their particular perspective. They have presented a cogent and plausible analysis of the image and how it relates to (their perspective on) New Anti-Semitism. I think their analysis is probably correct as far as it goes. However, such an analysis, I suggest, constitutes original research. We know very little about who created this placard; there are no reliable sources analysing this image. Consider, for a moment, the lead image in the Homophobia article. That image is another user-submitted image, but note how citations are given to place the image in a context and demonstrate that the content of the image really is about homophobia - namely, the protestor is from a group identified by reliable sources as being homophobic. We don't have any reliable sources saying that the Zombietime placard is by a person or group identified with New Anti-Semitism. Looking at the image, that seems likely, but drawing such a conclusion seems to me to be original research and we would do better to find an image that reliable sources have discussed in the context of New Anti-Semitism.

(4) From the alternative suggestions for a lead image, please choose one which you feel has the most potential and give a reasoning why? For the reasons given above, I cannot think of any image that covers the multiplicity of ideas discussed under the label New Anti-Semitism.

(5) Why do you feel other suggestions aren't suitable? Some other images avoid my original research concerns around the Zombietime image, but none of them seem adequate for the reasons explained under (3) and (4) above as lead images. That said, by and large, they seem to have value as illustrations elsewhere in the article. Bondegezou (talk) 11:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Yes. A lead image would help demonstrate the concept. It would also provide a fair representation and example of the topic.
2. It is a good picture that best represents the concept. It demonstrates and proves that the concept actually exists. It is sourced, and it shows that this is a real issue. It is relevant, because it provides an example of antisemitism, anti-war, anti-US, anti-Israel, and anti-globalization.
3. In my opinion it is very appropiate. Those who argue it isn't seem to say it is "anti-zionist propaganda", or that is original research or a fringe theory. I disagree with both of the above.
4. I see nothing wrong with the inclusion of the zombitime image. I think a good alternative might be this, however this is not an option, as the image is not free.
5. There is not a large variety of "other suggestions" avaliable to choose from that I can find that qualify as free images under our image copyright policies.

1) No. If New antisemitism is a concept (I would say an "idea") then it is unlikely that it can be illustrated. More so if it is a controversial or highly debated concept.

2) The onus is on those who want to include the image to give the reason why. I haven't been convinced by the arguments that it is an illustration of New antisemitism. In fact it seems to represent a very fringe position indeed. C. J. Currie spelt this out on Talk.

Question 3) There is no evidence that it was ever carried on a rally. It may have been brought out and then the organisers asked for it to be taken away. This frequently happens on peace demonstrations.

Question 4) Either Cry Wolf or New Statesman. They would have to be discussed in the article as well.

Question 5) Either is suitable.

1) No, I don' think it's necessary and since the idea of exactly what the concept is seems hard to define it would be difficult to find a single picture all can agree on.

2) I's a good propaganda piece for those who want to twist and exploit the article for their own political goals.

3) I has never been described as an example of "new antisemitism". The use of the impage is pure original research as is much of the article.

4) Probably the New Statesman cover sicne that it the only illustration a reliable source has called "new antisemitism".

5) Possibly some of them don't look good in low resolutions.

1) Necessary, no; useful, yes.

2) Well, it's anti-Semitic, anti-war, anti-US, anti-Israel, and anti-globalization. Covers all the bases.

3) It's a fringe opinion, verging on nutty. (This becomes clearer if you visit the Zombietime site and look at other images from the same rally.) Using it as the lead image gives undue weight to a fringe position.

4) The National Review cover is probably the best alternative available right now.

5) What other options are available?

(1) Nope. There is a strong debate about whether "new antisemitism" exists at all -- we should not presume that debate has been settled by offering an image of a concept we are not even sure exists. There appear to be editors who would prefer that the article be used to take a position on whether the notion exists. This is unfortunate.

(2) It is not suitable for the lede at all -- it is an inaccurate and biased representation of a fringe perspective and appears to attempt to paint that fringe perspective as the norm. This is in direct conflict with the very definition the article offers of "new antisemitism."

(3) It is not suitable because (1) it inaccurately portrays a fringe group perspective as the mainstream of the antiwar movement; (2) it illustrates "antisemitism," but not "new antisemitism"; (3) it requires original research to make the connection from the photo to the concept of new antisemitism; there is no reliable source making that connection; (4) it appears to be inserted to make a point or to soapbox about another topic entirely -- it offers a preposterous caricature of the antiwar left in order to discredit the antiwar movement; Wikipedia articles should not be used for this purpose; (5) It fails WP:V -- it comes from a non-reliable source, and its description appears to even get the date of the protest wrong; (6) It violates WP:UNDUE as it takes a fringe perspective and portrays it as mainstream, as well as presumes the debate over whether "new antisemitism" exists has been settled; (7) if the picture actually illustrates "new antisemitism," then the article needs to be radically rewritten to say that new antisemitism is a fringe phenomenon associated with extremist groups rather than a more mainstream phenomenon associated with the antiwar left (as the article is written now, the photo does not illustrate the concept at all); (8) it presents offensive imagery and unnecessarily sensationalizes the concept.

(4) I don't see the need for a lede image at all, but the other suggested image (New Statesman) at least has the virtue of being consistent with the definition presented in the article.

(5) As I said above, I don't see the need for a lede image at all.

(6) On another note, the image should be removed while it is in mediation. Those supporting it have threatened to edit war if it is removed, but nobody has offered a realistic answer to this position. When there is this much dispute about an image, it should be removed until the dispute is settled. I hope the mediator will do so.