User talk:Crotalus horridus/Problems with Zombietime image
My statements
I've replaced your obvious misstatements with accurate summaries. Preferring a "relevant and striking image" is in no way preferring an image "because of its shock value". Today's picture of the day, for example, Image:07. Japanese Garden Pano, Cowra, NSW, 22.09.2006.jpg, is also a "relevant and striking" image in the Japanese garden article, but that in no way implies that it has been placed in that article "because of its shock value". Please don't misrepresent other editors words with inaccurate, POV, misleading "summaries" again. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 03:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- You and several others want this image retained because of its emotional impact. But that emotional impact violates WP:NPOV, in a way that is clearly not the case with other photographs like the one you mention above. Perhaps I should have been more specific, but either way the policy issue is the same. *** Crotalus *** 14:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, I want it retained because it is a striking, compelling, and obviously appropriate image. It was bad enough that your misrepresented my statements once, but particularly troubling that G-Dett has done so again, after I corrected the essay. Neither you nor G-Dett have the right to misrepresent my words with your own misleading and pejorative paraphrases. Please don't let it happen again. Jayjg (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- My edit restored the essayist's point, which was fair comment, and added that you want the want the image retained for its "emotive content," which is also – obviously – fair commment (as you put it, "good images invoke [sic] an emotional response; that's one of the main things that makes them good"). I also supplied your quote in full. You are welcome to revise your own posts, but don't misrepresent mine – on talk pages or anywhere else.--G-Dett (talk) 05:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- "Emotive content" are your words and your opinion; they are not what I said, nor what I meant, nor what I conveyed. Fair comment doesn't include misrepresenting what others have said; you are welcome to make up whatever you like, but make sure you attribute your inventions to you, not to me. Don't misrepresent me - on talk pages or anywhere else. Jayjg (talk) 03:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- If there is an important semantic distinction between preferring the image for "its emotive content" and preferring the image because it "invokes [sic] an emotional response," it is, shall we say, not self-evident. And if it exists my guess is you'd have explained it while acknowledging its wraithlike subtlety; the fact that you've done neither, and are throwing around heavy words like "misrepresent" and "mislead," confirms my sense that this is all huff and bluster.--G-Dett (talk) 03:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Invoke: to cause, call forth, or bring about. Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006. Jayjg (talk) 03:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Wow, Random House ain't what it used to be. Do you still have the receipt? You invoke the muses, your predecessors, the words of other men, memories, legal and historical precedents, etc. (etymologically you're basically channeling voices from without); you evoke moods and associations; you provoke a response.--G-Dett (talk) 04:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- I am not required to give your viewpoint equal time on my userspace essay. If this were in the main Wikipedia: namespace, then things would be different, but it's not. According to WP:USER: "it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing another's user page without their permission." And: "Other users may object and ask you not to edit their user pages, and it is probably sensible to respect their requests." I do not want you editing my user subpage any further. If you want to say your own piece in response, you can do so in several places: this talk page, your own userpage, WT:NAS, or the Zombietime image talk page. WT:NAS gets the most traffic.
- To look at this another way: Think of my user subpage as a long talk page comment. You can't edit people's talk page comments without their permission, and you can't edit this either. *** Crotalus *** 06:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not asking for my viewpoint to be in your essay; rather, I'm saying you don't have any right to deliberately misrepresent me, which is what you are doing. It is unabashedly dishonest. Jayjg (talk) 03:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- I believe that my paraphrase is an accurate reflection of your statement, from which you now wish to backpedal. Your exact words are quoted, and anyone reading can easily make up their own minds on the matter. It's obvious that you and I are not going to be able to come to an agreement on the underlying issue, so at this point I am concerned about determining a widespread consensus among Wikipedia as a whole. I think that the underlying issue (lead photo on New antisemitism) should go to mediation at this point. *** Crotalus *** 04:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've already explained that your paraphrase is not an accurate "reflection of [my] statement"; my words are chosen to mean what they mean, no more, and certainly not what you might have wished I had said. I stand by everything I have actually said; I have, of course, no need to "backpedal" from your strawman version of my statements. What is "obvious" is that you are not content to let my words stand on their own, but rather insist on putting your own pejorative, misleading, and inaccurate spin on them. This is highly unethical at best; whether you address this ethical lapse will have to remain with you. Jayjg (talk) 01:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have opened a request for mediation on the photo issue. You and anyone else involved in the discussion are welcome to participate. *** Crotalus *** 05:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- If you continue to include pejorative, inaccurate, and misleading "paraphrases" of my words on this "essay", without even attributing the "paraphrase" to its author - you - then it will be a clear indication you have little intention of mediating honorably and in good faith. Your actions will speak far louder than any words here or on the mediation page. Jayjg (talk) 01:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- I believe that my paraphrase is an accurate reflection of your statement, from which you now wish to backpedal. Your exact words are quoted, and anyone reading can easily make up their own minds on the matter. It's obvious that you and I are not going to be able to come to an agreement on the underlying issue, so at this point I am concerned about determining a widespread consensus among Wikipedia as a whole. I think that the underlying issue (lead photo on New antisemitism) should go to mediation at this point. *** Crotalus *** 04:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not asking for my viewpoint to be in your essay; rather, I'm saying you don't have any right to deliberately misrepresent me, which is what you are doing. It is unabashedly dishonest. Jayjg (talk) 03:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Invoke: to cause, call forth, or bring about. Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006. Jayjg (talk) 03:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- If there is an important semantic distinction between preferring the image for "its emotive content" and preferring the image because it "invokes [sic] an emotional response," it is, shall we say, not self-evident. And if it exists my guess is you'd have explained it while acknowledging its wraithlike subtlety; the fact that you've done neither, and are throwing around heavy words like "misrepresent" and "mislead," confirms my sense that this is all huff and bluster.--G-Dett (talk) 03:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- "Emotive content" are your words and your opinion; they are not what I said, nor what I meant, nor what I conveyed. Fair comment doesn't include misrepresenting what others have said; you are welcome to make up whatever you like, but make sure you attribute your inventions to you, not to me. Don't misrepresent me - on talk pages or anywhere else. Jayjg (talk) 03:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- My edit restored the essayist's point, which was fair comment, and added that you want the want the image retained for its "emotive content," which is also – obviously – fair commment (as you put it, "good images invoke [sic] an emotional response; that's one of the main things that makes them good"). I also supplied your quote in full. You are welcome to revise your own posts, but don't misrepresent mine – on talk pages or anywhere else.--G-Dett (talk) 05:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, I want it retained because it is a striking, compelling, and obviously appropriate image. It was bad enough that your misrepresented my statements once, but particularly troubling that G-Dett has done so again, after I corrected the essay. Neither you nor G-Dett have the right to misrepresent my words with your own misleading and pejorative paraphrases. Please don't let it happen again. Jayjg (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Jay, this is an essay. The views and paraphrases found in an essay are understood self-evidently to be those of their author. This essay, moreover, quotes the "paraphrased" comments in full, so the accusation of "misrepresentation" and "dishonesty" rings very hollow indeed. Those comments, again, were:
Obviously relevant and striking image - thus the multiple attempts to get rid of it. It strikes a bit close to home, as a good image should.
and
Good images invoke an emotional response; that's one of the main things that makes them good.
In your first post at the top of this talk page, you quoted yourself very selectively, leaving out precisely those parts of your comments that indicated your preference for shock value ("thus the multiple attempts to get rid of it," "It strikes a bit close to home, as a good image should") and emotive content ("Good images invoke an emotional response; that's one of the main things that makes them good"), so that you could then claim to have been misrepresented (!). The comparison with the photograph of the Japanese Gardens was absurd, unless you are saying the image of those gardens makes a good image because it "strikes close to home," and that the evidence of this capacity for emotional provocation is that dozens of editors are strenuously objecting to it, and that this furore is itself evidence of what a great choice of image it is, and so on. But you were saying none of these things about those gardens, of course. You were just misrepresenting your own statements, in order to create a bogus pretext to attack Crotalus and me. Your comments on this page strike me as fundamentally unserious, your attitude frankly shocking.--G-Dett (talk) 03:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Zombietime's bias
May I suggest that "unflattering Hillary Clinton photos" are far from the worst of it. Zombie's site contains several instances of outright undisguised anti-Arab racism. He repeatedly describes people wearing kefiyeh scarves or headbands with the shehada (Islamic credo) as dressed as "terrorists" or "suicide bombers." He refers to the kefiyeh as a "terrorist scarf." This is roughly equivalent to describing kippot as a "Zionist occupier cap," or claiming that a Japanese student wearing a good-luck hachimaki before exams is "dressing up as a kamikaze pilot." He characterizes a man holding a "Long Live Fallujah" sign as a "terrorist sympathizer." This is all from his "Hall of Shame" page; I imagine the smaller corners of the site are more in the same vein. To judge by his commentary, he's not just a right-winger, but an outright bigot who believes that all Arabs are terrorists and all Muslims are suicide bombers. <eleland/talkedits> 11:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, it looks like he has a whole kafiyeh page: "It's a symbol of terrorism sold to ignorant young airheads who know nothing of what they're promoting!" Charming. <eleland/talkedits> 11:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)