Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/New antisemitism/Proposals

I first wish to apologise in the delay in making this proposal's page. The last week has not been the smoothest due to work, college, bank, finance for university next year and many other things. The aim of this is to cut down on the number of options we look at. The images here are all directly associated with New-antisemitsm through sourcing. The first thing i wish to point out is this. This is not a straw poll as i feel there are too many options. This is cut down the options even further so we can work towards a consensus. For each image could you please comment discussing the technical aspects of the image. This will help cut down the options.

=Proposal 1= The first proposal is having a single lede image that can be directly attributed with New antisemitism through a reliable source. This will be a one off arrangement and should not be applied to uses of the same or other images in this or any other article until discussion and community wide consensus can be found at the policy pages involved. This is the reason why the latuff images are not included here. Many people have said about not having a lede image but i do ask that that argument not be brought up here for the simple reason that it has been brought up time and time again and it hasn't been a solution so far so i think its safe to assume that it wont be our get out clause. Issues with sourcing should not be brought here as i am happy enough that they have been established. What im looking for here is technical issues with the images themselves and not how they relate to NAS.
 * Explain please why the latuff images are not here? I'm not disagreeing but it's not obvious from your comment.  Thanks. csloat (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as i was aware they weren't sourced as being NAS. Some images i havnt placed on this page because as well because i wanted to get this page live so we could talk about technical details with some of the more supported images. Sedd&sigma;n talk Editor Review 17:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

A New Anti-semitism Book Cover
Image Link:

Discussion:
 * OK but is the article better with this image in the lede than without it? I'm not sure. csloat (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Visually uninteresting, and doesn't actually illustrate any of the concepts of the article. Appropriate for an article about the book, but not for one about the topic. Jayjg (talk) 02:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Per Jayjg. Boring and not really relevant. Gatoclass (talk) 03:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Indicates the existence of an ongoing debate around the concept of a "new antisemitism". Avoids visual sensationalism.  Seems appropriate enough, though I'm not sure it adds anything to the article.  CJCurrie (talk) 01:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have some sympathy with Jayjg's position: it seems odd to me to illustrate an article with a book cover when the book does not have a hugely significant role in the new antisemitism discourse. However, I do rather like the image qua image and it works quite well at illustrating an idea of new antisemitism and the debate around the term. Given the new antisemitism article reflects a debate among academics and commentators, I wonder whether a way forward would be a montage of the seminal texts (books, journal articles) discussed in the new antisemitism article rather than seeking an image of some specific act where there is debate over whether to label it new antisemitism or not. Bondegezou (talk) 13:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

New Statesman
Image Link:

Discussion:
 * Of all the images here I think this one best illustrates what is going on in the article. Again the caption will be important of course. csloat (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Any suggestions for a caption, and also why does it illustrate what is going on in the article? Just trying to broaden a base for consensus. :) Sedd&sigma;n talk Editor Review 17:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I explained this in more ddetail on the talk page but in sum: this image is sourced by third parties and there is discussion specifically about why this image is "new antisemitism" (as well as other third party reliable sources who disagree).  The other images are only called NAS by the sources in which they appear, with no explanation of what is "new" about them, and there is no indication in those sources about where the images came from or whether there is any controversy about them being NAS.  Several quite compelling reasons, it appears, that have never been addressed by the other side of this dispute. csloat (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Not a particularly interesting image, and while better than the book covers, still doesn't really capture most of the issues covered in the article. Jayjg (talk) 02:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If we had to have an image in the lede, this one at least is abstract enough not to have the effect of poisoning the well. However, I have to say that the very abstractness of the image does little to illustrate the topic in question and arguably would only confuse readers, so I don't think this image is suitable either. Gatoclass (talk) 03:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This image was published by a prominent organization, was at the centre of a prominent debate surrounding the concept of a "new antisemitism", and isn't so sensationalistic as to skew the debate. It is entirely suitable for the lede.  As SlimVirgin once put it, "The cover has become iconic because it was widely accused of being an example of antisemitism, and in particular of the concept of new antisemitism."  Jayjg's assertion that it "doesn't really capture most of the issues" is based on an overly literalistic reading of the introductory sentence to the New antisemitism article (which is generally regarded as flawed in any case).  CJCurrie (talk) 01:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If used, it needs an appropriate caption to explain why there was a debate around this image (and the magazine article it was illustrating). With such, I think it works fairly well as an image for new antisemitism. So, to some degree, I would want to echo what csloat and CJCurrie have said. However, I am also sympathetic to Jayjg's position that the image does not capture many of the issues in the new antisemitism discourse. An improvement on the current situation, but not ideal. Bondegezou (talk) 13:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Which of the issues in the new antisemitism debate does this image not capture? csloat (talk) 15:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The suggested role of the left and of Islamists. Bondegezou (talk) 09:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Certainly "the left" is clearly part of the image, so that's not entirely accurate, but I think we run into the problem again that the article seems to explain NAS as a particular kind of antisemitism, whereas some editors seem to think NAS is simply plain old antisemitism but coming from Islamists or leftists.  I don't think it's useful to illustrate the latter with an image when the article clearly suggests a more nuanced concept. csloat (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the "left" is part of the image but only if you have sufficient background knowledge to interpret the image, so I don't see it as illustrating that very well. It's a better image if you're read the whole article, but that's perhaps not what one wants in the lead section. So, as I said before, an improvement on the current situation, but not ideal. I'd not oppose this as a compromise. Bondegezou (talk) 16:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Further Suggestions
Please leave any suggestions for montages below:
 * I suggest a montage focusing on key texts in the new antisemitism discourse (by the likes of Taguieff, Forster & Epstein, Wistrich, Klug, Lewis, Finkelstein, Bauer and Ali) rather than on any actual acts that may or may not be examples of new antisemitism. Every image suggested as an example of new antisemitism runs into the same debate as to whether new antisemitism is a useful label over and above antisemitism and is unlikely to generate a consensus. An image focusing on the discourse, by focusing on the texts, emphasises the ongoing debate around the term. That said, I recognise some may see this as a cop-out as it avoids the actual phenomena being discussed. Bondegezou (talk) 14:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

=Proposal 3= No image in the lede. Images may be added to other parts of the article with appropriate captions and references in the text of the article. Images should be integrated into the body of the article rather than randomly spread about. csloat (talk) 16:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion:


 * I did specifically not put this proposal here as i think it was safe to say that not having a lede image wasn't going to get 100% consensus as a compromise. Sedd&sigma;n talk Editor Review 17:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I think it's safe to say none of the montages will get 100% consensus either, and it doesn't appear that any of the single images will. Frankly, I think not having a lede image is probably the closest we will get to consensus, given that there is only one user expressing a strong objection to it, so I'm not sure why you favor only solutions that require images in the lede. csloat (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I feel that having a sourced nas image is the best way forward, I'm not ruling out having no lede image but it's half way between having no image and having an unsourced one and has been something that is bearable by everyone including Jayjg even if he feels its a misinterpretation of policy. My role as a mediator isn't to make the largest percentage of people completely happy, its to make everyone able to bear the outcome which is why this i havn't held a straw pole. Sedd&sigma;n talk Editor Review 19:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, this is probably the outcome that the most people are able to bear. It allows Jayjg to put the sourced images he wants in places where they would be more appropriate (and properly contextualized), so even he should be "able to bear" this outcome.  I'm not sure why you're bending over backwards to avoid this particular solution when it seems both the one most appropriate to the current consensus and most appropriate in terms of the arguments which have been offered on both sides. csloat (talk) 20:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Virtually all Featured Articles have an image in the lede (and please don't bother finding the 3 or 4 exceptions out of hundreds of Featured Articles, I'm sure they exist). Lead images improve articles, and if we're going to get this article improved, that will be part of the improvement. Jayjg (talk) 02:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If we want to improve the article, IMHO, the best way is to improve the content of the article, not to dress it up with an image (the phrase "lipstick on a pig" comes to mind). Images can be nice but images in the lede add nothing interesting to an article about a theoretical construct (particularly a disputed one such as this).  Nobody has been able to articulate what a lede image would add to this article in particular (and many have articulated why such an image detracts from the article).  Compare other articles about theoretical constructs such as postmodernism or post-structuralism.  Even the more accepted racism does just fine without an image in the lede.  The claim that "virtually all" featured articles have images in the lede, if true (and I've yet seen no reason to believe it is), does not in itself mean much in this context.  Good content will stand on its own, and there are already plenty of images in this article anyway.  (Again, IMHO). csloat (talk) 03:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you're going on about; the article itself is quite well written, and clearly superior to 90% of the articles one finds one Wikipedia. The writing is clear, the sources top notch, the presentation neutral. Your distaste for the subject is irrelevant to that, and, indeed, to this mediation. Jayjg (talk) 01:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Your comment that I have "distaste" for the subject is ludicrous, except in the sense that I (like you, I presume) am no fan of antisemitism. You're basically offering a non sequitur -- I'm glad you think this article is wonderful, but that wasn't the point of my comment at all.  If you read what I wrote above, my point was that if you want to improve the article, just improve the article, don't "dress it up" with shocking but unexplained images that influence the article's content.  Your comment about my "distaste" avoids the actual argument here and instead focuses on personally insulting me.  I'm really getting annoyed with your approach to the discussion, and I wish you would stop that. csloat (talk) 00:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Let both start assuming some WP:AGF Sedd&sigma;n talk Editor Review 00:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * While most featured articles do have lead images, it should be noted that nearly all featured articles are about concrete things (specific things, people, places, events etc.) for which images are straightforward. If you look at just the few featured articles for more abstract concepts, which are more akin to new antisemitism, then there are examples like free will and transhumanism that do not have lead images. So, really, I disagree with the notion that a lead image is essential and I am surprised that it shouldn't be considered a possible compromise solution. Bondegezou (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not strictly necessary to remove all images from the lede, but neither would it hurt the quality of the article. CJCurrie (talk) 02:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

=Proposal Four=


 * We could follow the example of the antisemitism article (and Racial antisemitism, Antisemitism in the Arab world, Christianity and antisemitism, Islam and antisemitism, Secondary antisemitism, Universities and antisemitism, and Antisemitism around the world), and simply have the antisemitism template as the lede image. Apart from having the advantage of consistency, this would avoid any questions of bias, well-poisoning and skewing of the debate, as the template's presence simply indicates that "new antisemitism" is a relevant topic in the larger issue of anti-Semitism.  (I have a few problems with the current text of the template itself, but that's a matter for another day).  CJCurrie (talk) 02:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would like views on this from others. Sedd&sigma;n talk Editor Review 14:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I could go with this and support the reasoning CJCurrie gives. Bondegezou (talk) 16:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is an interesting possibility. I am looking at the template and wondering, does this article have to be on the template if we put the template on the article?  Where would it go on the template? csloat (talk) 00:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that NAS is a disputed form of Antisemitism so really it should be in there if its going to be included in the article. Sedd&sigma;n talk Editor Review 00:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It is in fact included in the template. Sedd&sigma;n talk Editor Review 00:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the template identifies "new antisemitism" as a form of anti-Semitism. That's problematic, and we can address it in due course.  CJCurrie (talk) 04:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah what a mess - I'm looking through the various articles listed under "forms" ... there's a lot that doesn't make sense here. If some editors are to be believed, at least three of those categories are subsumed under NAS and shouldn't have separate articles.  And what is "anti-globalizational" antisemitism?  Does anyone even use that term?  And the very image that is disputed here, is prominently displayed on that article in the lede as well.  There is really a lot to clean up here.  I think at least temporarily we can put a bandaid on the problem by changing the heading of that category, but the conceptual problems seem to run deeper than that. csloat (talk) 07:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * New antisemitism is clearly part of a wider discourse on anti-Semitism, even if its nature is contested, so I don't see there being a problem with its inclusion on the template if the New antisemitism article is well-written and balanced. If it's not on the template, then I don't see the point in using the template as the lead image! Bondegezou (talk) 09:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It is on the template, listed (incorrectly, in my view) under "forms". CJCurrie (talk) 23:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)