Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/New antisemitism

Pages
New antisemitism navigation (t)
Main Case
Discussion (archive)
Opening Statements
Proposals

Images

Sources

Moving on

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

I think it is about time that we got this issue solved.
That there has been ample time for statements to be left.
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]