Image talk:NewASAnti-Semiticposter.jpg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The problem here is that the line between anti-zionism/anti-israel and anti-semitism is being blurred. It looks like history is repeating itself, when the populist left become racist too. Thats what led to the Nazi's triumph, when they appealed to Germany with populism, equality for germans, and the abolishing of the social classes. And don't argue that this poster isnt anti-semitic, the swastika, devil costume, israeli flag, and dollar signs are a dead giveaway.--Exander 02:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems more anti-Zionist though. The main difference between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism is that anti-Zionism is Right and justified, while anti-semitism isn't. Max W. Gore 01:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been examining this image myself and it does look to be anti-Zionist and not anti-Semitic. There's text in the image that labels the primary figure as "capitalist whiteman" and the figure on the right side as "counterfeit Jew" (which would presumably be applicable for the left figure as well). At first glance what inclines one to view this as anti-Semitic though is the fact that the firgures representing Zionism have been demonized with sharp teeth and pointy ears, etc. (→Netscott) 14:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

That's why it's a good image to illustrate new anti-Semitism. Many will see the image as straightforwardly anti-Semitic; others believe it is anti-Zionist, and that there is a difference. That perfectly mirrors the debate. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I've researched the phrase "counterfeit jew" and found that Benjamin H. Freedman is known to have used it in his criticism of Zionism. (→Netscott) 15:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

And? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

If it is not stated who's saying that this is anti-Semitism in the article then it's a perfect example of "original research". (→Netscott) 14:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 copyright 2 {{PUIdisputed}} 3 {{blp}} question 4 Before deletion talk needs to follow

[edit] copyright

Who is the copyright holder who has givern permission?Geni 23:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Well there's a discussion over on WP:PUI about it right now. Because the photo consists principally of the work of another artist (the creator of the original poster) it's current license isn't valid. This was in fact demonstrated when this image was deleted by User:Jkelly from the Commons. (→Netscott) 23:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{PUIdisputed}}

I've restored this tag because the rationale includes text about the photo having been released under a Creative Commons license (something the photographer would have no right to do) but also because the fair use rationale on this image relative to the new anti-Semitism article falls afoul of Wikipedia:Fair_use#Counterexamples, specifically #4. (→Netscott) 09:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{blp}} question

As this image stands now in the article there is no text specifically indicating who is saying that this image is anti-Semitic but as the lead image on new anti-Semitism the implication is there that Wikipedia is saying that it is so ... This issue should be addressed as well. (→Netscott) 10:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Before deletion talk needs to follow

This talk page needs to go with the new duplicate here. (→Netscott) 00:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

This image has taken over your life. Do not move this talk page again. It won't be deleted just because the image is. Leave the cutline alone. Leave the licensing issue to others. Your obsession is getting out of hand. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Do refrain from personalizing the discussion here. Thanks. (→Netscott) 00:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)