File talk:Alan dershowitz by Latuff.jpg

 

It was not kept at that deletion request; it was deleted at that deletion request and undeleted at a Undeletion_request.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Prosfilaes, the {{Kept}} template was added by a script I since opened/closed the DR. The whole undeletiondiscussion can be found here Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=19428791#File:Alan_dershowitz_by_Latuff.jpg

- Finn Rindahl (talk) 09:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Categories

Unfortunately Drork (talk · contribs) is continuing to remove categories that I would consider to be appropriate. His justification for doing so was apparently that "There is no consensus about this image, so for the time being, a single category is enough" but this is nonsense. There is not "no consensus about this image", there is no consensus to delete the image and whilst that is the case it should be accepted that the community will expect it to be categorised properly. There is no way he can simply declare that "a single category is enough". The categories he has removed appear to be relevant and so I've reinstated them. I would invite him now to discuss this further before removing any more categories. Adambro (talk) 11:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that both sides should stop their edit war and start discussion about categories. --Dezidor (talk) 11:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

There is not much to discuss. Categorization is done for making images easier to find. But Drork does not want people to find Latuff's cartoons, and that is why he is systematically vandalizing their categorization. Aside from being destructive, his strategy is counterproductive: nobody has done more than Drork to call attention to these drawings. People from various points of view have tried to reason with Drork, but these discussions are a waste of time - he just continues. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there is not much to discuss. It is one thing to have this image on the Commons, it is another to place it in the Category:Allan Dershowitz as if it were a portrait of him. This is totally unacceptable, especially as there is no consensus on whether this image should stay here at all. I do wish certain users here stop their persecution against anything related to Israel. We've had quite enough of it already. Drork (talk) 12:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Drork, as long as there in no consensus to delete the image it stays here like any other image. Please do not remove valid categories. (I'm reverting&protecting now). Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 12:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I will remove irrelevant categories. This place has never been a political forum, let alone an anti-Israeli forum, and it won't turn into one just because some people think it ought to be one. Drork (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Trying to start from scratch here, the contested categories have been Carictaures, Alan Dershowitz and Male masturbation. Well, it is a caricature of Dershowitz masturbating, so in that sense all categories are relevant. Even if an image is concidered utterly distastefull, if we agree to host it it should also be tagged and described so that any user looking for this image (or images like it) shoudl find it. We can't hide somthing just because we dislike it.

Commons categories are used also as galleries however, when linked from the projects we serve through template:Comcat etc., and I understand the concern that an image like this is not what an user should be met with in Category:Alan D. (as one out of two images currently) if following a link saying "Commons has media related to Alan D." So what I want to do is to create category:Caricatures of Alan Dershowitz as sub of the two fist contested categories. (As for the masturbation category, I would say this image isn't much more relevant there than it would have been in Category:Toilet paper, but if there is a strong desire to keep it in that third contested category I'm not going to push that issue.) I will go ahead with the "Caricatures of Alan Dershowitz"-solution unless there is strong objections (with rational arguments) here. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 10:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I strongly object to the creation of Category:Caricatures of Alan Dershowitz because there is no organisational justification for doing so. It would leave us with both that new category with a single image and Category:Alan Dershowitz with a single image along with the subcategory. Clearly there is no real need to sort this one image into a subcategory and so it would appear that to do so would be to use (or maybe that should be abuse) the categorisation structure to benefit individuals who choose to be offended by certain content. I feel that if we were to do this when we'd just risk getting into further arguments about other controversial content as we attempt to determine whether it is offensive enough to justify special treatment. This wouldn't really benefit the project, it would just benefit a small minority who object to the content and fail to understand that the purpose of categories is to organise content not, as some suggest, to endorse a particular viewpoint. Unfortunately if we did treat some content differently then it could be suggested that by doing so we are acknowledging the objections as having merit and so we'd be giving a particularly viewpoint more weight. If we treat content consistently then any suggestions that we endorse what the content portrays can clearly be said to be incorrect. I wouldn't agree that the toilet paper category would have the same relevance as the masturbation category because whilst toilet paper is an element forming part of the image, masturbation can be said to be one of the central themes. Adambro (talk) 11:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Adambro. The purpose of categories is to make it easier to find images on the subject. What Finnrind is suggesting is to put in en extra category layer to make it more difficult to get an overview of what is in commons. Another argument is why should this be done in the case of Dershowitz, when there are no such layers for other public figures (unless there are heaps of images). Look for example at what is in Category:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, Adambro. Category:Caricatures of Charles Darwin, Category:Caricatures of Hitler, Category:Caricatures of William Jennings Bryan and many more categories for caricatures of specific individuals exist. There is organisational justification; I have not heard other such categories objected to. The only difference I see is that at present we only have one image for it, but I think our habit of not bothering to create subcategories for small numbers of images is more a labor saving device than any strict rule I am aware of. Category:Alan Dershowitz is similarly thinly populated, but exists. -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Caricatures of Alan Dershowitz by Carlos Latuff

I suggest we categorize this picture under Category:Caricatures of Alan Dershowitz by Carlos Latuff, as was done with Category:Caricatures of Ariel Sharon by Carlos Latuff. Otherwise, sane people looking for a normal image of Mr. Dershowitz may find this cartoon to be somewhat unrelated to his page. For instance, no ejaculating buddhas can be found at Category:Buddha. ליאור (talk) 16:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Have we some images of ejaculating buddhas? --Dezidor (talk) 16:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I strongly oppose the suggested re-categorisation because there is no real organisation justification. The situation here is different to that with Ariel Sharon because in that case it makes sense to split images into subcategories because there are a reasonable number of images. We cannot and should not start categorising images based upon to what degree this hypothetical "sane person" would be offended by. I would hope a "sane person" would have the ability to cope with seeing such an image anyway without us having to handle them with kid gloves. Adambro (talk) 17:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This was my proposal to begin with, I still stand by it (see above, with responses from Adambro and Liftarn) and think it is a reasonable way to both have relevant categories on this image and actually take into concideration that a lot of users are concerned enough about this image that it may be reason to treat it with gloves (maybe medical gloves is more accurate than kids gloves). Finn Rindahl (talk) 18:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It is not a precedent that I think we should be setting, that if enough people express dislike about an image that we'll misuse the categorisation structure for their benefit. Another potential problem is that it could be seen by some to be an acknowledgement by the Commons community that the content is offensive and this will only encourage people to nominate for deletion images which are reasonably within scope but they don't like. I think it is problematic to decide what content is offensive enough to merit special treatment and if we were to do so then I fear we'd be inviting any random fringe group to inundate Commons with complaints about content which they don't like and that would be disruptive to Commons. It is a lot easier to stick rigidly to the intended purpose of categories, to organise content, not to hide away content because to do so benefits a particular group of individuals. By taking this stance we avoid the risks of Commons been disrupted by endless debates about what is and what isn't offensive. Adambro (talk) 18:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

My interpretation of the previous deletion/undeletion discussions is that if anything there is a clear consensus that this image is offensive. There is also a (not so clear) consensus that also offensive material can be within Commons scope and therefor should be hosted, even if people are offended by it. I'm not worried about setting presedence, and my 2 cent is that in this situation common sense makes more sense than rigidly sticking to rules. Finn Rindahl (talk) 19:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Reopen of the deletion request

I had reopened the deletion request here. The reason is the Board resolution about Biographies of Living People. In the last deletion request a lot of people had agreed that the image is against what the board resolution had requested, but because at that time there was no board resolution about BLP technically the image should be kept. The situation had changed and thus I think a rejudgement should be made. I cannot put the Deletion Request Notice on the image so please do it for me. Thanks.--Wing (talk) 11:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

These wearying attempts making the image more and more popular. Is it goal or unwanted resault? --Dezidor (talk) 12:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Categories

The was a decision to keep this image, but there was no decision about the proper categories of this image. Currently this image is improperly categorized, and any attempt to correct that was aggressively reverted. Since this image is here to demonstrate the provocative nature of Latuff's works (as described in the deletion discussion), the only category relevant to it is "Carlos Latuff". In addition, no one should be forced to watch this image against his will when looking for innocent portraits of Alan Dershowitz, or when looking for real educational material about human sexuality. Drork (talk) 10:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

See discussions above. Category:Alan Dershowitz is supposed to give an overview of the holdings in commons that are related to Dershowitz. Dershowitz is the subject of this cartoon, he even discussed the cartoon in print. See COM:CAT. Latuff is just a source or creator category, and ideally a source categories should not be the only category. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

You are going to drag us into another endless discussion? There were a lot of users who strongly disagreed with you on this point, but you refuse to give this issue a rest until you have your way. The decision was indeed to keep this image, but there was also a request supported by many to change the categorization of this image. Drork (talk) 12:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Are there still any specific objections to "Category:Caricatures of Alan Dershowitz", which would be a subcategory of "Category:Alan Dershowitz" and "Category:Caricatures of writers"? I know we usually don't create new categories when we have only one relevent image, but I think that is mostly because it is considered needless effort. As there has been no shortage of effort repeatedly changing the categories with this image, I think that category would be appropriate. -- Infrogmation (talk) 13:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Support subcat. --GRuban (talk) 14:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Caricatures of Alan Dershowitz by Carlos Latuff was deleted because it only makes images more difficult to find. That is not what categories are for. @Drork: I created the page Alan Dershowitz and a redirect from Dershowitz, which had more practical effect. You and Mbz1, on the other hand, have only acted to increase the exposure of this image. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I object. Please be consistent with your arguments. If the educational value of this cartoon is to show the scathingness of Latuff's criticism, then the only relevant category is Latuff's. Whoever wants to find this cartoon will easily find it there. or in the special gallery dedicated to Latuff on the Commons. Drork (talk) 14:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, there is absolutely no need to dedicate a gallery to Alan Dershowitz. Drork (talk) 14:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The constant removal of categories which are completely valid and in accordance with COM:CAT is now effectively just simply vandalism. In the absence of consensus that this image should be deleted, it should be properly categorised like any other image, not removed from valid categories in a way which appears more to do with hiding away images some users don't like rather than any proper organisational justification. I note that Infrogmation has raised the issue of creating a sub category Category:Alan Dershowitz and I would again strongly oppose such suggestions because, as I've previously commented, it isn't justified by an real organisational need. The creation of any such sub category would simply be giving in to those users who wish to distort the categorisation structure for their own benefit and should be vehemently resisted. Since I note that there was actually no decision to remove the protection of this image, rather it was simply a consequence of it being deleted and then restored, I will be reinstating the protection such that users can seek a consensus on whether or not to change the categorisation, rather than enforce their own position by edit warring. Until such consensus exists, the categories should remain as they were. Adambro (talk) 13:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The generic cat Caricatures should be removed from this image as everything in the Latuff-cat is already caricatures and as this is inconsistent with other Latuff-caricatures, such as for example File:Latuff che.gif. --Túrelio (talk) 15:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've gone ahead and removed it from that category now. I'm sure anyone who objects to that will make that known. Adambro (talk) 16:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

All categories but "Latuff" should be removed immediately. This issue has been discussed. Adambro cannot use his admin privileges to override a legitimate discussion and to enforce his point of view. Drork (talk) 16:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

No, this image (like all other images in Commons) should be properly categorised. That some may disagree with the views expressed is no reason to hide it away. // Liftarn (talk) 18:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Liftarn, wasn't it you who uploaded most of Latuff's cartoons? Wasn't it you who assigned them with all kind of categories to make them as visible as possible? Don't you have a special interest here? Drork (talk) 19:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

And now you also try to add redundant categories to another of Latuff's cartoons: [1]. Drork (talk) 20:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It was User:Jaakobou who uploaded 27 Latuff cartoons, which is more than one half of his uploads. Liftern is a prolific uploader, his Latuff uploads are only a very small fraction. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

"You are going to drag us into another endless discussion?" (Drork)

Discussion should not be endless. Just read the arguments given above about categorising files. This image is actually a portrait of Dershowitz. When Commons have many photographies and caricatures of a person, we may group the photographic portraits in one subcategory and the drawn portraits in other. When a category contains very few objects, subcategorisation does not use to be necessary.--Javier ME (talk) 22:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

There was a long detailed discussion in which most participants argued that the image should not be deleted but the controversial categories should be removed. I don't think you were part of that discussion. There is an attempt here by some users to force a certain point of view despite the result of the above mentioned discussion. There is also an attempt to make certain images overly visible in order to push forward political opinions and personal attacks. Remove the irrelevant categories immediately. Drork (talk) 05:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

There are also people here who refuse to acknowledge that categorisation is for organisational purposes, not to push either POV or as a means hide images you find offensive. IMO the categories on the image should be [[Category:Caricatures of Alan Dershowitz]] and [[Category:Carlos Latuff]], the [[Category:Caricatures of Alan Dershowitz]] should be categorized as [[Category:Alan Dershowitz]] and [[Category:Caricatures]] (until there is a suitable subcat, since he is not a politician). If Latuff or any other caricaturist creates more images of Dershowitz and they are uploaded to Commons then it would probably be better to change the categories to represent the respective artist, i.e. [[Category:Caricatures of Alan Dershowitz by Latuff]]. Since that seems unlikely right now, a general caricature category is enough, even for one file. This is in line with most other charicatures, not just Latuff's. Cpt Helia (talk) 10:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Now, I must say I find it rather odd that an apparently new user would know about this discussion, let alone actually be in a position to understand Commons enough to be able to comment, but strange things do happen I suppose. I would suggest though that they are incorrect to say there are "people here who refuse to acknowledge that categorisation is for organisational purposes". To say this and then go on to suggest we create a sub category of Category:Alan Dershowitz for a single image is somewhat ironic. Where is the organisational justification for such a move? What is the purpose of creating such a category if it isn't simply to hide this image? Is Category:Alan Dershowitz desperately in need of resorting? Hardly, it only contains two images, both relevant to the category's topic. Please clarify actually exactly why you feel a sub category is necessary. Adambro (talk) 11:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Just because I have only got round to creating my SUL doesn't mean I haven't been reading commons or en.wiki for a long time to know how things work. I happened across the (re)deletion request last week and as a completely uninvolved editor I thought I would offer my opinion. I suggested creating a sub cat as a compromise to both sides and to end this drama, I don't actually have a problem with the existing categories, except perhaps the masturbation one, it is a single image and creating more granular categories might make it harder to find, but I doubt it. However, it is a caricature and it is of Alan Dershowitz. Drork is never going to accept the categorisation under Alan Dershowitz because it forces people to view the image he finds so offensive. Placing it in a caricature category as a subcat of Dershowitz doesn't exactly stop you finding it, the category would be listed first at the top of the Dershowitz page and I think most users would naturally click it to see other images. I assume Drork would find that acceptible since he hasn't objected to the way Ariel Sharon caricatures are handled (that I can see). Cpt Helia (talk) 12:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Since there are only two images in Category:Alan Dershowitz further subcats are not needed. Neither Category:Photos of Alan Dershowitz nor Category:Caricatures of Alan Dershowitz is needed. If we get so many images of Alan Dershowitz that the category becomes crowded then we may reopen the issue. // Liftarn (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

"There is also an attempt to make certain images overly visible in order to push forward political opinions and personal attacks." (Drork above)

Well, there is an attempt to make all images properly visible. To categorise portraits (even caricatures) under the category of the person depicted doesn't make them overly visible, just properly visible. If you consider the previous discussion on removing categories is necessary here, you might provide a link to it. --Javier ME (talk) 23:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

When you place a caricature defaming a person next to his real portrait, you imply, quite strongly, that you support this defamation. This is how our human society works, and this is how people usually perceive such things. When you put a defaming caricature under "male masturbation" you make this caricature overly visible, because this drawing doesn't really shows how a male human being masturbates, but its sole purpose to to attack a person. You simply force people to watch the caricature even when they are looking for other stuff altogether. Please note that categories are not just technical entities. Each category is also a gallery visible to all users. Drork (talk) 05:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

No, that's not the way everyone works, and many people can perceive things correctly. When I put this propaganda poster in this gallery I didn't mean I wanted anybody to join that regiment, and I expected people to understand it. In the same way, when I put caricatures in the category of the portrayed person, people don't necessaryly figure that I endorse the views of the authors. I expect you to understand I'm providing a means for you, for me and for other Commons users to find images related to Dershowitz (and this portrait obviously is). Once the users have found the images in the category, they can choose the one that fits better their purposes. If we can't use categories as technical entities, we'll have many problems in finding files. --Javier ME (talk) 08:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You chose to ignore the fact that the purpose of this drawing is to defame a living person. If you take this context into account, you'll find out that people tend to be more sensitive and interpret your categorization as endorsement.

Let me make it more clearer with a different example - if you place a cat in the category of dogs, people would regard it as an innocent mistake. If you place a a picture from Monaco in the category "France" people might think it is your particular way of categorizing European images. If you place an image from the Falkland Islands under "Argentina" it would be regarded as an endorsement of a political view. The same goes for this image.

The educational value of this image is to show the scathing nature of Latuff's works. It is not necessary here for other purposes. In this case, anyone who wants to learn about Latuff, will find the image either in the category dedicated to him, or in the parallel gallery. Both are very well arranged. Having this image in other categories is not only redundant but also damaging. Drork (talk) 10:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW, now you have another example of how categories can be tricky [2]. This person is known to be homosexual for quite a long time, but until now it wasn't relevant part of his biography. Now that he became a politician with (among other) an LGBT rights' agenda, the category became relevant and was added. Categories are not just a technical measure. They should be treated very carefully. Drork (talk) 10:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

From a purely pragmatic point of view, if putting this image in the category "Caricatures of Alan Dershowitz" will make Drork, a generally productive user, happy enough to let the rest of us also be productive, it's worth it, since it doesn't do any real damage in finding it. The cat can be a subcat of "Alan Dershowitz", so people who want caricatures of AD can find it, but the picture won't be "next to" photos of AD, so people won't think we think it's a representative image. "It's not needed" is not strong enough to justify making our productive users unhappy. Only "It's actively harmful" would justify that, and this isn't actively harmful. I think this is also basically Infrogmation's point of view. --GRuban (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I had said that I wouldn't comment further on this but as MichaelMaggs has suggested, me simply walking away from this issue might not be the best way forward. I would just like to respond to GRuban's comments above. I don't think it is entirely true to say that to create a Caricatures of Alan Dershowitz category wouldn't be harmful. It would set a precedence that Commons is prepared to alter its categorisation structure to suit users who don't like content. I think that would be harmful because it would effectively be an invitation to anyone to campaign that the content they find offensive should also receive special treatment. We should simply avoid this risk by dismissing any suggestions to change categorisation of our content for anything other than proper organisational reasons. OTRS has received thousands of emails about images of Muhammed on WMF projects. An online petition about the use of such an image on Wikipedia reached nearly half a million signatures, and the disruption continues. We do not want to set any precedents which could have the potential to invite Commons to be distracted from its role of providing freely licensed content by the inevitable constant arguments as to whether certain content is offensive enough to merit special treatment. We shouldn't, and don't need to, try to please everyone, and that includes both Drork and myself, and we all need to understand that. We shouldn't have to be having these constant discussions about these issues because those who are pushing for special treatment in this case should come to understand and respect that consensus hasn't emerged to support what they are proposing. The fact that apparently certain individuals are unable to do this does not mean we should compromise for an easy life. Adambro (talk) 15:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

@GRuban: I do not believe this would stop Drork. He would just take it as a precedent. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I agree only to the removal of all categories but the "Latuff" one. This image is here only to demonstrate the harsh nature of this drawing, nothing else. This was said explicitly in the deletion debate, and this is the reason given for keeping this image here. It is therefore belong only to the "Latuff" category. Anyone who wants to have an idea about how Latuff works, will find it in the proper category. Drork (talk) 09:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW, the current display of this image is harmful for the whole project. It is very productive to try and minimize the damage. Unfortunately I don't have much cooperation in that. Drork (talk) 09:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

"if you place a cat in the category of dogs, people would regard it as an innocent mistake" (Drork)

Aye. If I placed a photo of a dog in the category of dogs, it would be correct. If I placed a drawing of a dog in the category of dogs, it would be correct, too. Since we hace many drawings of dogs in Commons, subcategories were created. We have both photos and maps of the Falklands in the subcategories of Category:Falkland Islands. So it's normal we place drawings of persons in the categories devoted to those persons. This caricature of Dershowitz is about Dershowitz, not only about Latuff. It was already pointed (in a discussion in which Drork took part) that this image was commented by Dershowitz himself [3], so it's clearly a file related to Dershowitz, and should be categorised as such, unless / until Commons approves a rule to allow this kind of exceptions. People may be sensitive, but people usually can be sensible enough not to assume that linking portraits to the categories of the portrayed person implies any endorsement of the authors views. --Javier ME (talk) 22:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)