File talk:Ship to Gaza by Latuff.gif

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Ship to Gaza by Latuff.gif[edit]

This cartoon is clearly politically biased as well as offensive to Jews, especially those who have been through the Holocaust. It should be removed according to the Wikipedia rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.188.145 (talk • contribs) 08:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't Wikipedia, but like Wikipedia, nothing gets removed because it is offensive as per the policy COM:CENSORSHIP; files "will not be deleted solely on the grounds that it may not be "child-friendly" or that it may cause offense to you or others, for moral, personal, religious, social, or other reasons". Also, per COM:NPOV, "files uploaded here do not necessarily need to comply with the Neutral point of view and No original research requirements imposed by many of the Wikipedia sites". Adambro (talk) 09:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete File Description[edit]

The scope of WikiCommons clearly covers Latuff's anti-Semitic cartoon, but its description is incomplete. Latuff's cartoon incorporates anti-Semitic zoomorphic motifs common in Nazi and Hamas propaganda.[1][2][3]. This is what reliable sources had to say about the demonic octopus motif, not my own opinion about Latuff's lack of creativity. I don't see why his non-factual comments on the flotilla raid are cited in the file description, while these sources aren't even linked. ליאור (talk) 20:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a wikipedia article. The only relevant source on Commons is the source of the image and its license. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have thus removed Latuff's comments. It so happens that they're not even correct - Latuff attributes the "up to 16 people" accusation to this source, which does not use the words 16 and sixteen. 79.183.13.133 07:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know what other sea creatures that are said to be able to attack ships. Looking at File:Denys de Montfort Poulpe Colossal.jpg it seem it refers to Kraken rather than some obscure cartoon. // Liftarn (talk)

Category:Antisemitism[edit]

I think there is an easy and strong case for adding this picture to the category Category:Antisemitism and/or, if it makes more sense, to Category:Antisemitic pictures. (I am unsure of the difference between the two.).

The image depicts Israel as an Octopus, and the people on the boat as humans. The dehumanization of Jews is classic antisemitism. And the octopus imagery as antisemitic has a long history tracing directly back to Hitler's Mein Kampf, as noted by many scholars. (See for example "The two other predominant anti-Semitic zoomorphic motifs are the blood-thirsty vampire and the octopus." [4], Dr. Joël Kotek, a political scientist at the Free University of Brussels.)

In 2007, the National Rifle Association was accused of anti-semitism for a magazine cover depicting Mayor Bloomberg of New York City as an Octopus: "The eight-armed sea animal has been used as the Nazi representation of Jewish conspiracy and control, and was referenced by Adolf Hitler in "Mein Kampf."[5].

Here is an example of a Nazi cartoon featured in English Wikipedia using this image: OctopusNAS1.jpg.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A ship is not the world. Latuff's visual language is more like File:Colossal octopus by Pierre Denys de Montfort.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see the relevance. The cartoon you link to is not depicting Jewish people as animals. It's a cartoon of a sea monster. It was not drawn as political satire at all! It's a cartoon of a legendary sea monster. You may want to read the English Wikipedia article about it. So I don't see any relevance. That it is possible to have an image of an octopus attacking a ship that is not political satire and that is not anti-semitic, is not in doubt.
Equally not in doubt is that this Latuff cartoon uses classic anti-semitic imagery dating back to Hilter to depict Jews as inhuman, and non-Jews as human. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Animals are common in cartoons. America can be a bald eagle, French can be frogs, peace activists can be doves. But anytime Israel is depicted in a critical cartoon as an animal, a bunch of people will try to deflect the criticism by shouting "antisemitism". In this case a ship was attacked. Drawing the attacker as a big sea animal (shark, whale, octopus) is not particularly creative or original, and one does not need Mein Kampf as a reference. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pieter, this is precisely the point. He chose, as you correct identify, an image that is historically known. He didn't choose a bald eagle, even though the commandos came from the air (helicopter) because in the visual language of the cartoonist, the bald eagle is America. He didn't choose a Frog, that's the French. He specifically chose a well-known Nazi symbol for a reason. It doesn't take much creativity, for sure, to use classic antisemitic imagery, but the question is not at all whether the man came up with an original insult. He didn't have to do that - he just copied an old Nazi one. That's antisemitism, no two ways about it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Frogs don't attack (they get boiled). Latuff chose a giant octopus, because a ship was attacked. The image of en:Kraken is familiar in current drawings: [6], [7], [8], etcetera. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 02:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto that. Also it's clearly the state of Israel that is being pictured so the claim of antisemitism is obviously void. When you have an hammer et.c. // Liftarn (talk) 21:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, Latuff's work is more anti the actions of the state of Israel usually then it is anti semitism (which relates more to the people, religion and culture). If anything it would fall under w:New antisemitism, but I myself consider that to be a somewhat incorrect denomination and i'm not really sure how widely accepted it is in the broader scientific world. I think i would prefer 'criticism of Israel' as a description of the content. TheDJ (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TheDJ, "anti the actions of the state of Israel" is certainly true of much of Latuff's work, but in many cases he deliberately uses antisemitic imagery for greater emotional impact. It is possible argue (though, quite implausibly I think) that he is not himself antisemitic - that he uses this imagery for artist and satirical purposes. But the fact remains that the imagery chosen is chosen to resonate with those historical themes.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How does this fit with your stance on libel of living people? Nobody would have said anything if North-Korea's sinking of ships were depicted with the octopus. Compare also these old octopus images. Or Playmobile./Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your logic continues to escape me. I don't follow your argument at all. If someone did a political cartoon of me eating watermelon, it would not be racist, because I am white. If someone did a political cartoon of Obama eating watermelon, it would widely and quite properly be regarded as racist, because that is a classic move from racist political discourse. So you are precisely right that if North Korea's sinking of ships were depicted with the octopus, no one would say anything about it. But so what? The point is, this is a classic symbol from Nazi iconography. In this context, it is clearly antisemitic in intent and meaning.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not as if Latuff only draws 'anti-semitic' or anti-israel material. He is also anti-globalism, anti-war, anti-establishment and simply very graphic in ALL of those themes. I really don't see the problem here. People are dying and this person draws cartoons to comment on that. Of course sides are going to be offended, but to immediately translate that as anti-semitism is unneeded in my opinion. Perhaps people should worry a bit more about why international support for the state of Israel is waning. Almost all symbols in his works seem to refer to the state of Israel (by flag or by politician) and not so much to its people. File:Cry-wolf.png applies a bit I would say. Using nazi symbolism is just his method of remembering Israel why they were founded in the first place. TheDJ (talk) 11:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since these discussions come up so regularly, perhaps we need a new category for such images such as Category:Criticism of Israel or similar since I think there would be no dispute that this image could be described in that way. Adambro (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not an entirely bad idea actually... but we should make a careful consideration on that. 'criticism' is a very vague term, and since pictures are not articles, such quantifications can be problematic. pro's and cons ? TheDJ (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I support a category on anti-Israeli sentiment, as while it is a jewish state it is perfectly possible to disagree with its actions without being antisemitic in my view. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly agree that there should be a category for Category:Criticism of Israel. And I also agree that criticism of Israel and antisemitism are not identical. This drawing is clearly both - it is criticism of Israel which makes use of classic antisemitic imagery and techniques. This is not an out-of-context work with a random image in it - this is the work of an artist who chooses imagery based on emotional impact and historical resonance.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorting images based on their views on various subjects rather than what it's in them sound like a bad idea. Would creating Category:Support of Israel sound like a good idea? I think not. As far as I know kraken is not a classic antisemitic image, but I could have missed it. Sorry, the link is too weak. // Liftarn (talk) 12:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the octopus with all its tentacles manipulating the globe is a bit of a classic antisemitic conspiracy theory about world Jewry. It is similar in spirit to File:Teheran US embassy propaganda grasp.jpg (see discussion). But that is not this drawing, where a sea creature grabs a ship. There is nothing to suggest that the octopus in Latuff's cartoon would depict world Jewry (there were several Jews on board), it just depicts Israel and its Navy. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having considered this a bit more, I do think Category:Antisemitism is probably appropriate in this case. I'm not convinced by the suggestion that the swastika "is just [Latuff's] method of remembering Israel why they were founded in the first place". As far as I'm concerned, he is clearly making a comparison between Israel and the Nazis. Since the Nazis were responsible of the deaths of so many Jews, such a comparison is likely to offend many Jews and be considered to be an attack on all Jews and therefore it would seem to follow that this carton can be described as antisemitic. I think this goes beyond simply criticism of Israel, which of course can be perfectly legitimate and shouldn't automatically be considered antisemitism. Adambro (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a non sequitur. That is might be offensive to Israeli nationalists is not the same thing as it being an example of antisemitism. Since the picture doesn't even show anything that can be identified as Jewish. // Liftarn (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reason it is an example of antisemitism is because Latuff would clearly know that it would offend Jews and be considered by them to be an attack. Per w:Antisemitism, antisemitism is "prejudice against or hostility towards Jews". Comparing Israel to the Nazis in this way is in my view an example of hostility towards Jews. I would note that I didn't suggest it "might be offensive to Israeli nationalists", rather it was Jews that I mentioned. Adambro (talk) 18:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In Latuff's visual language, swastikas are used as a label for what the radical left tends to call "fascist pigs". Often without a specific connection to Nazi crimes. Of course, those that choose to align themselves with the actions of the Israeli government do not agree. Those groups were also offended by Dave Brown. But that does not make it anti-semitism. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced it is simply a coincidence that the swastika is used, which has strong links to the Nazis, who were responsible for killing thousands of Jews, whilst the country involved, Israel, a predominantly Jewish state. I think there's enough credibility to the suggestions that this is an example of antisemitism to merit inclusion in that category. Adambro (talk) 19:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid we would need something more than your mind reading abilities ("because Latuff would clearly know") to label someone as an antisemite. May I also repeat that there is nothing in the image that may be offensive to a Jewish person just because they are Jewish. I'm glad you realise it's just your view ("in my view"). // Liftarn (talk) 21:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Any use of the octupus for Isreal or for Jews more broadly is a direct reference to Nazi propoganda. The fact that a Swastika is on the octupus makes the connection even more obvious. I'm all for protecting the right of people to criticize states, and for protecting the encyclopedia from censorship of uncomfortable images, but I'm also all for accuracy. Perhaps some of the objectors to this image often take the antisemitism accusations too far ... I really can't comment on that ... but those who are arguing against the antisemitism label in this particular case should not let that color their decision here. This image, this particular critique of Israeli actions, is antisemitic by virtue of its iconography. Had the cartoonist chosen a different way to depict the same thing it would not have been, but he did not do that. He chose the octapus. It was his choice to peddle in antisemitic iconography so now we label it as such.Griswaldo (talk) 13:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-Zionism[edit]

I have, one again, restored the category of Anti-Zionism to this cartoon. Here, the state of Israel is represented as an evil-looking octopuss atacking an innocent-looking white ship with unarmed civilians on board. If this is not a message against the policies of the state of Israel (if not against the state of Israel itself), then anti-zionism does not exist (as Kuiper tries to show). Intelectual honesty is needed here. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my edit comment, I had referred to what I had written in File talk:WekillforFUN.gif#What is "anti-zionism"?. Criticism of piracy on the high seas by Israel is not antizionism, if the word has a meaning. Octopuses are not antizionist either, please study the contents of Category:Octopuses in art. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I said earlier, criticism of a specific action by Israel is not anti-Zionism nor antisemitism. // Liftarn (talk)

Polls on categorization[edit]

I would like to propose two different polls to sound the opinion of people on the categorization of this image, in the light of COM:CAT. Categorizing Latuff's cartoons has been the source of countless dramas, and some victims, and it is time to reach a consensus and take a reasonable decision. With these polls I'm addressing two different categories: Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism. Please feel free to add others. The questions will be in the form: Do you think that Category: Xxx is adequate for classifying this image?. Please give your opinion using the  Support and  Oppose templates, and keep your comments short. Long comments belong to the discussion sections above. Pertinent sources to the three concepts are w:Anti-Semitism and w:Anti-Zionism Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Semitism[edit]

 Question -- Do you think that Category: Anti-Semitism is adequate for classifying this image?

Anti-Zionism[edit]

 Question -- Do you think that Category: Anti-Zionism is adequate for classifying this image?

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:Ship_to_Gaza_by_Latuff.gif&oldid=56419691"