File talk:West Bank Barrier cartoon by Latuff.png

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

Categorization[edit]

The subject of this cartoon is obviously the West Bank barrier. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not, and I don't think you have an objective point of view about it. Drork (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The artist cites these words: On Tuesday, August 12, I joined over 60 international peace workers and over 200 residents of the West Bank town of Qalqilia to protest Israel's construction of a 25 foot high concrete apartheid wall. In Qalqilia, the wall circles for 7 miles, completely sealing off the town. During the march from the civic center to the wall, children flew kites with ribbons the color of the Palestinian flag. Women's groups carried signs demanding the release of their husbands and sons being held as political prisoners. Young men carried signs with messages such as: "Learn from history: Welcome to the Qalqilia Concentration Camp."
It does not matter whether you agree with the point of view or not, but the subject of this cartoon is undeniably the West Bank barrier. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Mr. Pieter, you would do anything to promote Latuff's cartoon, and you now use this talk page in order to publish some more of his propaganda. Suppose your icon made a caricature of a crying lady and wrote in his blog that this was a mother mourning her son who had been killed by Jews in order to make Matzot from his blood, would you then upload that image here and categorize it under "Passover" or "Jewish customs"? Drork (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The comment from the artist very clearly confirms that the carton relates to the subject of the Israeli West Bank barrier and so I agree that it should be added to that category. Adambro (talk) 21:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this caricature does go to show the extent of Latuff's anti-semitism by using the age-old tactic of comparing Israel and Jews to those who slaughtered millions of them in the '30s and '40s. Latuff does mean this caricature as an anti-semitic political statement about the wall, so the category, at least in my opinion, is not outright incorrect. In my opinion, it does indicate the depths of people's hatred of Israel and Jews as to how far they will go, but we pretty much all know that about Latuff anyway. -- Avi (talk) 01:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It most certainly should not be in the catgory, and the only purpose is to throw it in the eyes of those who visit the category and doesn't expect to find such antisemitic and rude image, and to upset them. It is an abomination and disgrace, but I can expect no more than that from mister Kuiper. The relevant categories are Garbage, Latuuf Garbage and Antisemitic propaganda. It has nothing to do with the security fence of the west bank. Kooritza (talk) 02:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That anti-Semitic garbage by the anti-Semite latuff should be added to categories propaganda and antisemitic pictures, but I know how that discussion will end up. It will be some edit warring for a day or two, and than Adambro will protect the page once again with a wrong category. @Adambro, why do you think anti-Semite and Israeli hater kuiper decided to add a new category at that very time? The garbage was uploaded a year or more ago, so why now? The answer is to hurt and offend Jews and users from Israel, please do not help him in that task.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have the Latuff cartoons that reference Israel and Jews to Category:Political propaganda and Category:Anti-Zionism, where they belong as well. For better or for worse, Latuff's political leanings and propagandist caricatures are well known and established. Those predisposed to that kind of thinking will use it regardless, those not disposed to Latuff's thinking will just be further disgusted by the images, and those who were unaware of Latuff will be able to make up their own minds. Anyway, the best disinfectant is always sunlight. I'm still not certain why there are 40+ Latiff images considered "in scope". Per COM:PS#Must_be_realistically_useful_for_an_educational_purpose, we are not to have files that "…add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject." A good 10 or so Latuff images convey all the breadth and depth of this persons political commentary. If we have one comparing Jews to Nazis, one about his perceived dichotomy between Jews and Palestinians, etc. that is sufficient. We do not need 4 examples of each motif. However, that is a discussion for COm:Del, or more likely, the Commons:Village pump as it would cover a good 30 or so images. -- Avi (talk) 07:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Avi. That garbage is Antisemitic picture by working definition of antisemitism by European Union. All European Jews (not only Zionists) and most Jews around the world have family members killed in the Holocaust. Comparing Jews to Nazis is antisemitism in its worst, so I am going to change categoy Anti Zionism to category Antisemitic picture. If Commons is not censored to host highly offensive and racist cartoons, sure, it should not be censored to call the things with their real names.--Mbz1 (talk) 09:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That some Jews find broccoli disgusting don't mean that broccoli is antisemitic. And as they say, commons is not censored to please every political view. // Liftarn (talk) 12:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If some antisemites are to shy to admit who they are, it does not mean that they could upload antisemitic garbage, and do not let to add it to the right category.If Commons is not censored to host highly offensive and racist cartoons, sure, it should not be censored to call the things with their real names.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know when that happens. If we could keep the discussion about this image that by the way is in no way antsemitic except in the minds of some political extremists. Valid criticism of Israel is not antisemitism even if you may think so. // Liftarn (talk) 12:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
by WORKING DEFINITION OF ANTISEMITISM Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis is antisemitis. you have a quote from Anne Frank at your talk page. If she were alive today how in your opinion she would have treated that cartoon? Could you in any way compare her situation to the situation of Palestinians in West Bank?--Mbz1 (talk) 12:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your constant accusations that everybody who don't agree with you is an antisemite is getting rather tired. AS we can see from some recent events in Europe (Switzerland in particular) it seems the 1930s is repeating itself, but now with islamophobia rather than antisemitism. What have you learned from history? // Liftarn (talk) 13:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The title is "Nazi" so we could also add Category:National Socialism. Just because we COULD add a category does not mean that we should. In my view there is no right or wrong when categorizing images like this. --MGA73 (talk) 14:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I change the category to Category:Racism. That way it covers both interpretations (antisemitism and antiarabism). I hope this is acceptable for all. // Liftarn (talk) 14:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted your change because antisemitism is not necessarily racism. Since antisemitism is the issue, the category indicates that, without deciding the issue. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The connection with antisionism is vauge. It is probably more relavant to islamophobia and/or antiarabism. // Liftarn (talk) 15:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion vs editing[edit]

The categorisation of this image is clearly disputed. It has now been changed 14 times in 2 days. I would encourage everyone involved to participate in this discussion rather than going ahead and changing the categorisation according to their views when others clearly have different views. I don't want to have to protect this page because inevitably I'll protect the wrong version and more drama will results but it is getting very difficult to follow discussions when changes keep being made. Adambro (talk) 15:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images usually fall within multiple categories. The problem here is the removal of justified categories, not the adding of them. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is also with adding categories that are irrelevant to the image. For instance the connection with antisemitism is vauge and there is no antizionism pictured. // Liftarn (talk) 15:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interested in getting into what the particular problem is, like I've said elsewhere, I'm interested in whatever issues exist being discussed properly. Adambro (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was clear enough saying that this caricature has nothing to do with the West Bank Barrier. It's not a drawing or a depiction of the barrier, and it was never presented in relation to the barrier. I have noticed that some people assign irrelevant categories to this kind of polemic political caricatures in order to make them more visible, hence promote them. This is in violation of the most basic principles of the Wikimedia projects. I also believe this caricature is antisemitic, especially as it was presented by the author in an exhibition of caricatures that meant to mock the Jewish tragedy known as the Holocaust. Nevertheless, we could do without that category, it is not essential for this drawing. Drork (talk) 21:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can tell just by looking at it that the wall pictured is the West Bank barrier. Even if you was unable to identify it we have the artist saying it is. Adding relevant categories is very much in line with COM:CAT. Your personal belief the image is antisemitic is however irrelevant, but since it is a reference to the concentration camps it might be an idea to add something like Category:Concentration camps if you really want. // Liftarn (talk) 22:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my personal belief, other users think it is antisemitic, and in fact, the author presented it in a Holocaust denial competition. I can tell that the author tried to make a sketch of a camp encircled by a wall. This could be the Berlin Wall, the wall surrounding Ceuta and Melilla, the wall between the US and Mexico, or any other wall in the world. Furthermore, if this is a criticism of Islamophobia, as you suggest below, how can it be related to the barrier, or are you trying to use this site for lecturing your political views? Drork (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it was a competition for cartoons on the Holocaust, not for denying them. I'm trying to get this image listed in valid categories. What are you trying to do? // Liftarn (talk) 14:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I suggested I was considering, I've now fully protected this page for a week. There has been 26 changes to the categorisation in less than 3 days. Whilst this is being discussed on this page to a certain extent, those discussions are pretty pointless if people constantly change the categories. No doubt I have protected the wrong version. The next week until the protection expires gives everyone the opportunity to establish what the correct version should be so it can be implemented at that point. If similar edit warring continues elsewhere than page protection and blocks will be considered. The categorisation of all Latuff images is clearly controversial so discuss all changes, either on the talk page if it concerns a single image or elsewhere if it concerns a bigger group of images. Adambro (talk) 13:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are just rewarding Drork's obstinacy. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pieter Kuiper, you proposed this drawing as a featured image and caused a lot of mess. Liftarn suggested I try to promote terrorism because I object his attempt to defame Israeli and Zionist organizations. Don't you think you two have gone way too far? Drork (talk) 13:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Drork's antics marginally add to the notability of this image, and only prove that its FP nomination was justified. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Islamaphobia cat[edit]

Can the reasons pro or con be discussed clearly here? Last thing any of us wants is a cat lockdown. -- Avi (talk) 21:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you can tell from the image the man has a crescent on his clothes signifying he's a Muslim, i.e. islamophobia. // Liftarn (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So this caricature actually meant to criticize Islamophobia? Can you explain how? Maybe he criticizes the Red Crescent and this is why the man wears the symbol. Drork (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? He draws a parallel between antisemitism of the 1930s and modern day islamophobia. The yellow star (I assume you know the significance of that) is here replaced with a red crescent. // Liftarn (talk) 21:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So the category "west bank barrier" was indeed irrelevant. Why did you insist on it then? Then again, how do you know the crescent patch stands for the Yellow Star? Is this your own interpretation? And why was this caricature part of a Holocaust denial competition if it meant to relate 20th century antisemitism with islamophobia? Drork (talk) 22:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the cartoon obviously draws parallels between the modern day West Bank barrier and the concentration camps of WW2. You can put an image in more than one category you know. // Liftarn (talk) 22:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So now you offer us your own political interpretation on how this two issues relates. That seems more suitable for your blog than for this talk page or the Commons in general. BTW, I read your blog, you seem to write a lot about the Middle East conflict, and constantly criticize Israel with very harsh accusations. While you entitled of your freedom of speech like anyone else here, don't you think you let your political views affect your activities on Wikimedia Commons? Would it be exaggerated to ask you to draw the line between your blog and this site? Drork (talk) 22:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between what I write and what you write is that I base it on fact while you just invent things out of thin air. // Liftarn (talk) 11:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: At their most benign, some concentration camps were forced labor (ie slave labor)camps, although deaths due to malnutrition and disease was at such high rates that the bodies were incinerated when there was no further space to bury the dead. Others were extermination camps, in which the 'clients' were either killed as soon as they could no longer work 20+ hr days, or camps that had no work to be done because every Jew was killed on the day of arrival. Although the circumstances in the Palestinian territories is grim, and death due to outbreaks of fighting always a possibility, it is absurd to compare that to what happened to the Jews in WW2. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are entitled to your view, but the fact is that this image draws the parallel and we have a reliable source for that that was the intention. // Liftarn (talk) 11:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NB: Refer to the lede in Holocaust denial, which says that Holocaust denial is the claim that the Holocaust "did not occur at all, or that it did not happen in the manner or to the extent historically recognized." The lede also says "Holocaust denial is generally considered to be an antisemitic conspiracy theory." Since it is known that Latuff is a Holocaust denier, and since this cartoon in particular portrays the Holocaust as different than the "manner or to the extent historically recognized" (by making an invalid comparison to Nazi treatment of Jews and the treatment of Palestinians by Israelis), the Category:Antisemitism is logically justified and proven. Therefore removal of Category:Antisemitism from this image is unjustified. QED Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non sequitur. // Liftarn (talk) 16:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstract concepts as categories are a tricky thing (and rather bad idea in my opinion). The islamophobia category on this image is a highly subjective opinion (in this case of Latuff and Liftarn). It is an allegation more than a characterization of the image and basically says the West Bank Barrier was build because of islamophobia. I find this highly unlikely to put it mildly. Please do not abuse the category system to push a personal agenda. --Dschwen (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since Latuff is the artist I think he knows best what he intended to draw. // Liftarn (talk) 11:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is completely besides the point. --Dschwen (talk) 12:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is exactly the point. Since he drew it he should be the one who knows better what it is than some random person. // Liftarn (talk) 13:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, if I vomit on the carpet, take a picture of it, and upload it claiming it is "an abstract painting of the Eiffel Tower", should Category:Eiffel Tower be added to the image page? --Dschwen (talk) 16:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know when it happens. In this case we have the advantage that it is not an abstract picture as well as the artist explaining his intentions. // Liftarn (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be confused about our category system. It is not designed to cater to the artists distributional wishes, its purpose is to help the users of this site find media they are looking for. Ergo it lives in the real world, not in the crude little propaganda world of latuff. --Dschwen (talk) 16:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and that is exactly why this image should be properly categorised instead of hidden away. // Liftarn (talk) 23:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitism cat[edit]

In the edit comment here, Latuff is charged with antisemitism because he would be denying the holocaust. But this drawing evidently presupposes the historicity of the holocaust. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liftarn and Pieter Kuiper, the Wikimedia Commons site is not your blog. I know Liftarn already has a blog where he expresses his views quite eloquently. It is not acceptable that this project become an extension of this blog. It is also unacceptable that this project become Pieter Kuiper's workshop for learning Law and foreign languages. Let this project live. Drork (talk) 13:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The comment does not seem to relate to the image. This should be removed. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So now you try to censor an opinion which you dislike? Not the first time, I must say. Shame on you. Kooritza (talk) 13:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have explained my reasoning for restoring Category:Antisemitism to the image. See "NB" in the section above. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your "Since it is known that..." is just calumny - the image is proof that Latuff is no holocaust denier. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We are talking about the same image, do we not? Kooritza (talk) 13:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are quite mistaken. Holocaust denial is defined as claiming that the Holocaust "did not occur at all, or that it did not happen in the manner or to the extent historically recognized." Obviously the comparison to the conditions of Palestinians is caiming that the Holocaust happened differently that it is historically recognized. More over, Lattuf was "the second-prize winner of the International Holocaust Cartoon Competition organized by a Tehran-based Iranian daily." I assume that if he drew a prize winning Holocaust denying cartoon that he is a Holocaust denier. Any other conclusion would be saying that as a cartoonist he is just a gun for hire. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can draw parallels between things without saying they are exactly the same. That he entered the cartoon in a competition for images about the Holocaust (not denying it) only says the image is related to the Holocaust. // Liftarn (talk) 14:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I outlined in the thread above this one, the treatment of Jews by Nazis and the treatment of Palestinians by Jews is different in every respect. I stated facts, and drew logical conclusions. Your just saying you don't agree does not count for anything. Try not to sound like fool. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want yo give it a shot, and argue there is a valid comparison between the two, here is a link describing conditions in Nazi camps[1]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The competition asked for cartoons relating to the holocaust - nothing about holocaust denial. The drawing does not say anything about manner or extent. Latuff quotes a report: "Young men carried signs with messages such as: "Learn from history: Welcome to the Qalqilia Concentration Camp."" Neither those signs nor Latuff are denying the holocaust. The drawing is criticing construction of the West Bank barrier. It is about Israel forgetting (denying?) its history. No doubt many of the victims of the holocaust would have criticized the building of the wall. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong again. The WP article on Latuff contains this "On February 14, 2006, the editor in chief of Hamshahri commented in Persian that "the purpose of establishing such a competition is not to offend or ridicule anyone, but to do a discussion about the realities of the Holocaust." Obviously "discussion about the realities of the Holocaust" falls within the parameters of Holocaust denial. In fact the article lede says: "International Holocaust Cartoon Contest was a cartoon competition sponsored by the Iranian newspaper Hamshahri, to denounce what it called 'Western hypocrisy on freedom of speech'. The event was staged in response to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, and to challenge Western accounts of the Holocaust." Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't believe everything that wikipedia says. But if it was, Latuff's submission can be seen as an implicit criticism of such a purpose. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is interesting that you accuse me of being wrong and then directly present quotes that prove I am right. // Liftarn (talk) 15:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is any one supposed care about your unsupported challenge to facts? I have given information from WP articles that have WP:RS, and all you have said is that you do not agree. 14:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)Malcolm Schosha (talk)
No information, just innuendo and en:guilt by association. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I have supplied abundant support for my positions, while you have not. You have relied on unsupported statements, and I have cited support for everything. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you have stated your views, but the problem is that your views is inconsistent with the facts and I choose to believe the facts. // Liftarn (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the argument I made above: NB: Refer to the lede in Holocaust denial, which says that Holocaust denial is the claim that the Holocaust "did not occur at all, or that it did not happen in the manner or to the extent historically recognized." The lede also says "Holocaust denial is generally considered to be an antisemitic conspiracy theory." Since it is known that Latuff is a Holocaust denier, and since this cartoon in particular portrays the Holocaust as different than the "manner or to the extent historically recognized" (by making an invalid comparison to Nazi treatment of Jews and the treatment of Palestinians by Israelis), the Category:Antisemitism is logically justified and proven. Therefore removal of Category:Antisemitism from this image is unjustified. Instead of just claiming that my views are "inconsistent with the facts", show me what is inconstant. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, first you state what Holocaust denial is. Then, without any evidence to support that, you claim Latuff is an Holocaust denier and then you jump to the conclusion that this makes the image portray antisemitism. Sorry, that is like claiming a photo of Liam Neeson should be in the antisemitism category because he was in Schindler's List. You fail to give facts to support two very important things. a) that Latuff is an antisemite, b) that this image portrays antisemitism. // Liftarn (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
here is where I explain why the cartoon is antisemitic: this cartoon in particular portrays the Holocaust as different than the "manner or to the extent historically recognized" (by making an invalid comparison to Nazi treatment of Jews and the treatment of Palestinians by Israelis), the Category:Antisemitism is logically justified and proven. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malcolm Schosha (talk • contribs)
You fail on two counts. 1) that is far fetched and requires several leaps of faith, 2) the subject of the image is still not antisemitism. // Liftarn (talk) 18:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have not supplied a single counter argument, but just continue to rely on unsupported statements. As for "far fetched", you might want to take a look at the categories on Latuff's WP article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image does not portray antisemitism because there is no antisemitism portrayed in the image, hence it should not be included in the antisemitism category. The w:Burden of proof is on you to show any shred of evidence for why this image should be included in the antisemitism category. "Categories: 1968 births | Brazilian artists | Brazilian cartoonists | Living people | People from Rio de Janeiro (city)" Yes, and? Is this some thing you have against Brazilians? // Liftarn (talk) 19:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is flawed reasoning. Simple counterexample: Category:Taken_with_Canon_PowerShot_G3. Does any of this pictures show someone taking a picture with a Powershot G3? Is there such a camera visible in any of these pictures? Should the category be therefore removed? --Dschwen (talk) 20:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're just proving my point. Those images should clearly not be included in Category:Canon PowerShot G3. // Liftarn (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, everybody is just proving your points. Sure thing. Your time-binding discussion behaviour is clearly detrimental to this project. Not much would be missed if you were blocked. --Dschwen (talk) 20:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please, w:WP:NPA. // Liftarn (talk) 21:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How shockingly predictable, crying "personal attack" again. --Dschwen (talk) 21:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really? How do you figure that? In any case, since Latuff WP article has the antisemitism category, having it here should be no big deal. Having the category does not even define either him or his cartoons as antisemitic, it just indicates there is an antisemitism issue...which is true. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the Wikipedia article about Latuff don't have the antisemitism category (at least not when I checked). What is this antisemitism issue you are refering to? // Liftarn (talk) 21:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason you don't see it is because Pieter Kuiper just removed Categories antisemitism and racism. Check the edit history. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Yes, and I also saw that the one who added the antisemitism category to the article was an anon IP. Do we need an IP check? // Liftarn (talk) 23:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request a checkuser if you want. I did not edit the Latuff article, and in fact I have never edited it. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, my point is that we can't base categories on random acts of vandalism. // Liftarn (talk) 22:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liftarn and Kuiper, this tactic of reiterating "we are the truth and the rest of the world is biased" is not going to work. If it does, this whole project is in serious problem. Drork (talk) 17:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we base things on reality and available facts instead of baseless fantasies then I think it is not a problem. That is the only way to deal with people who try to bush a specific bias. // Liftarn (talk) 17:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Liftarn, I was talking seriously. Don't pretend to own truth or this site. I know your tactic of saying "I am right, everyone else is biased" endlessly, hoping that people will be convinced eventually. I also know you tactic of flooding any debate with tons of irrelevant arguments in order to tire people and let you have your way just to get some rest. Most people here are too intelligent to fall for that. Drork (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Drork, may I kindly ask you to stop coming with personal remarks. You know perfectly well that I have not said that. // Liftarn (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Israeli West Bank barrier[edit]

Category:Israeli West Bank barrier is very much relevant since that it what is pictured. // Liftarn (talk) 23:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Liftarn, you are the only one who holds this opinion. I would appreciate if you did not repeat such suggestions anymore. Drork (talk) 06:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, you Drork are the only one. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, I forgot the official legal council who is also expert on legal terms in Hebrew. Drork (talk) 11:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PLaid wheelchair! Pink machine parts. Can we now get back to something that makes sense? In what way isn't this picture relevant in Category:Israeli West Bank barrier? Please explain. // Liftarn (talk) 13:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was a story told about 6-days Arab-Israel war. Here's the story: One hundred Arabs run away from a single Israeli, who runs after them. UN observer stops Arabs and says: "Why are you running? There are a hundred of you and only one Israeli. He cannot run after all of you, he runs only after one." Arabs responded: "That's truth, he cannot run after all of us, he runs only after one of us, but we are not sure which one in particular." After that they continued to run. End of the story. The situation with West Bank security fence is kind of the same. Of course most Palestinians are good people, but there are quite of few terrorists between them. Israelis do not know who are the terrorists, so they built the security fence to prevent terrorists from entering Israel. Innocent people on both sides are suffering from that fence, but I am afraid Palestinians look in the wrong direction to find the ones responsible for their misfortunes. So, I hope I established the purpose of West Bank as a security fence - it was built to prevent terrorists from entering Israel. On the other hand the wires of concentration camps were built to prevent absolutely innocent victims of getting out. That's why that cartoon is not relevant to any category expect the one that has a name of its creator in it. BTW Wikipedia article on the subject has category "Holocaust denial", and it what it is Holocaust denial garbage.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And your point is? // Liftarn (talk) 17:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that the cartoon should be left in categories it is now. I would not mind category "Antisemitism" to be deleted, not because it is not Antisemitism, it is, but simply because I agree with Drork on all of those cartoons. All of them should be in the category with their creator name, and none of the others. On the other hand I know that it is probably all, but impossible to win that argument with you and kuiper. So, do as you wish, I will rely on the History to be the final judge on your POV. I would like to ask you, if you are willing to dispute with me Israeli-Palestinian conflict issues in a broader therms? If you do, we could use my talk page, or that board.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, we seems to be making some progress. Let's remove Category:Antisemitism as per above. Just listing the cartoons under the artist category (or a subcat thereof) is not acceptable according to COM:CAT so it should also be sorted according to what the image shows and the image is clearly of the Israeli West Bank barrier. Thank you for your invite, but have things to do and places to go so I'm not really interested in pointless political debates. // Liftarn (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{Editprotected}}

I support this request: remove category:Antisemitism, restore category:Israeli West Bank barrier. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose adding category:Israeli West Bank barrier. I know that my opinion will probably not be taken into account, but just for the record I would like to statee it.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Request to edit page noted but I'll leave it for now at least for various reasons. COM:CAT provides guidance on how content should be categorised. Any opposition to a particular category should explain how that would fit with COM:CAT. I would therefore appreciate it if anyone opposing this categorisation would explain why the category is inappropriate with reference to COM:CAT. Adambro (talk) 19:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have a time to upload over and over again anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli cartonns, but you have no time to dispute your action. Nothing new here I guess. It is exactly why Palestinian Israeli negotiating are going nowhere. Like you Palestinian negotiators take one point out of contest, and like you they have no time to prove their points in valid disputes. So as I said earlier let the History to be the judge. --Mbz1 (talk) 17:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate if you could stop calling everyone who disagrees with you an antisemite. // Liftarn (talk) 12:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've disabled the request to change the page. Not only has the protection now expired, but it would probably more useful to leave categorisation of these images for now whilst we try to discuss a solution to the wider problems. Adambro (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Description[edit]

I believe that the text "Download for free zip files containing high-resolution artworks (cartoons, photomontages, comics) produced by me from 2002 to March, 2008. All the artworks can be freely reproduced, without my formal permission. Once saved to your computer, share it with people. Upload it on different servers, make it available on websites and file sharing clients, save it to CD, make copies and distribute. Make these cartoons to reach people with no access to Internet." http://latuff2.deviantart.com" should be removed from the description of that cartoon, and any others, where it is present.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a statement of permission, not a description. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It could be trimmed to "All the artworks can be freely reproduced, without my formal permission." as a compromise. // Liftarn (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the text beyond "All the artworks can be freely reproduced, without my formal permission" is unnecessary, particular when we have the OTRS ticket confirming permission. Adambro (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"All the artworks can be freely reproduced, without my formal permission" is not necessary either. The license is "public domain", and it says it all.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Commons needs something to base that license on; that is why Latuff's permission statement is included; it has the advantage over the OTRS ticket that it is accessible for anybody. Or should all templates like {{By dcastor}} be pruned to the esssentials? By the way, for someone who said she could not stand Latuff's image close to your name on my talk page, all this fussing here seems kind of strange. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stop getting personal, kuiper or is it so much to ask for?--Mbz1 (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for categorizing in or under Holocaust denial[edit]

I propose to add this image to category:Holocaust denial on understanding that:

  • AMENDMENT: Inclusion in this category is solely due to the fact that there are allegations of Holocaust denial. This is to be achieved through the following measures:
    • This talkpage receives a permanent notice at the top justifying inclusion using the notable sources provided by Malcolm. by citing page 64 of this SWC report. It should probably also be mentioned (and sourced) that the contest that gave the image prominence was widely considered to be about Holocaust denial.
    • The page's file description contains text stating that there is a controversy on the question of whether the image constitutes Holocaust denial, and the artist's position. The description page receives analogous text, allowing for the difference in audience. I. e., the issue could be described and sourced on a subpage and linked from a note like "An explanation why this file is in category:Holocaust denial can be found here.".
    • When a better fitting subcategory is added to category:Holocaust denial, e. g. category:Holocaust denial controversies or category:International Holocaust Cartoon Competition, this file will be diffused there.

Yeas, nays and WTF?s[edit]

Proposal has been updated, update your votes, if necessary. Paradoctor (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal has been updated again, update your votes, if necessary. Paradoctor (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence for what? Paradoctor (talk) 22:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that adding the category would constitute a judgment that the image is about Holocaust denial? I'm asking, because I'm not sure how to interpret your question. Paradoctor (talk) 23:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The category is not applicable since there is not Holocaust denial in the picture. // Liftarn (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. What about category:Works claimed to contain Holocaust denial? I already indicated that category:Holocaust denial is intended to be temporary, but I'm fully ok with putting it into a proper subcategory from the get-go. Paradoctor (talk) 23:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the only one claiming it is Mbz1 I don't think so. // Liftarn (talk) 03:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you're following Adambro's argument that the SWC claim is not really a claim? Paradoctor (talk) 04:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They only mentions that some of the images in the competition was Holocaust denial so it gives no information about this specific picture. // Liftarn (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please quote rather than paraphrasing when you decribe a source's claims. On contested issues such as this any interpretation by us is not helpful: "the Iranian competition utilized all the classic motifs and images of antisemitism to deny the Holocaust" (page 62). This is followed by uncommented visual evidence. No qualification whatsoever. Please take into consideration that this report is an official publication of the SWC, and that false allegations of Holocaust denial are libel. That may be the reason why it was so difficult to dig up at least this one source, people are afraid of being sued, even if they may think that the cartoon is Holocaust denial. Paradoctor (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It speaks of "the Iranian competition", not the participating images, nor does it say that all images are Holocaust denial, i.e. the claim that this image constitutes Holocause denial is not to be found. // Liftarn (talk) 22:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that wraps it up. The way I see it, this proposal has failed and can be archived. Paradoctor (talk) 23:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think w:wp:snowball applies here, but that is of course just my personal opinion. Let's see how things develop. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a misunderstanding: The proposal is designed to make clear that the categorization is not an assertion that the image constitutes denial, or that Latuff is a denier. It is merely a practical way of reaching topics related to Holocaust denial, which the Latuff controvers clearly is. That's why I proposed the third item. That Latuff rejects accusations of Holocaust denial is irrelevant for this proposal, as we're not making any statement about that. Paradoctor (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So according to such reasoning, en:Deborah Lipstadt would fit in this category?? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You mean, like a portrait of her? Sure. She is relevant to the topic of Holocaust denial through her work. In this case, the appropriate subcategory would be, say category:Scholars who published on Holocaust denial. Paradoctor (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is one of the opinions in the controversy, yes. Please note that the categorization does not mean we're considering Latuff a Holocaust denier. (Sheesh, why do I argue with supporters?) Paradoctor (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, you can see from my statement in the next section that I don't believe that someone must necessarily be a perfect example of a thing to be in 'Category:Thing' (so Latuff is not being labeled anything here). That appears to be our policy (I say appears because I don't know policy at all, really, I just started here). Cousin Kevin (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vote by Adambro[edit]

  •  Oppose for now at least. I've scanned through all the above comments about Holocaust denial and am not convinced. This image seems to be comparing the situation in Gaza with the concentration camps of the Holocaust. I don't see how though that is suggesting either the Holocaust "did not occur at all, or that it did not happen in the manner or to the extent historically recognized". I'm assuming it isn't suggested that this image is saying the Holocaust didn't happen, so why is it saying it "did not happen in the manner or to the extent historically recognized"? Adambro (talk) 23:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope the amendment does it for you. Paradoctor (talk) 23:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What allegations of Holocaust denial are we talking about here? Adambro (talk) 23:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Serves me right for being sloppy. A medium-sized trout would've been appropriate here. Some siteseeing yielded finally a clear and verifiable claim by a notable organization, instead of the widespread implicit association. The image is listed on page 64 in appendix C ("Examples of Denial") of this report by the Simon Wiesenthal Center. Paradoctor (talk) 03:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So it isn't that we necessarily think this image is denying the Holocaust but that the Simon Wiesenthal Center has the image in their report about Holocaust denial so there is an association with allegations of Holocaust denial? I'm not sure the association between this image and holocaust denial is strong enough to merit inclusion in that category, particularly when the ADL page mentioned previously doesn't describe all the images as Holocaust denial. Some of the images in that competition certainly seem to deny the Holocaust but I don't think this one does. Adambro (talk) 13:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The ADL's opinion is irrelevant, we're discussing the existence of allegations, not whether the allegations are justified.
"I don't think this one does": So do I, still irrelevant, for the same reason.
The SWC report presents the image as an example of Holocaust denial. If you deny that, you'll have to show that the report is a fake, or has been disowned in the meantime. Failing that, it has to be considered encyclopedic fact that there is at least one allegation of Holocaust denial directed at the image by a notable organization. Paradoctor (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vote by Adambro break 1[edit]
  • @adambro, How you could be a judge to the image, if you do not even understand it pretends to depict West Bank and not Gaza. Adambro, here's The Holocaust File:VolarydeadJews.jpg and here's the Holocaust File:Buchenwald Slave Laborers Liberation.jpg and here's the Holocaust File:MarosVictims.jpg. Do you see any similarity between West Bank and the Holocaust, Adambro? Palestinians helped Fascists during World War II against Jews. To present them as victims of the Holocaust is despicable.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid that doesn't help me. Adambro (talk) 00:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    [2] Maybe this will?--Mbz1 (talk) 00:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that Mbz1. You need to stop trying to convince people with emotional arguments and start actually attempting to directly address their concerns. I think you are letting your emotional reaction to these images get in the way of normal categorisation and now seem to be trying to persuade others by showing them the horrors of the Holocaust, which I am already well aware. Adambro (talk) 09:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the links I posted were not to evoke emotional reactions. I assure you. I posted them only as a prove that the discussed [....] is the Holocaust Denial because it does not show the Holocaust " in the manner or to the extent historically recognized". See, the images I linked to, each and every one of them, show many dead and/or suffering people. The discussed [....] shows only one man, who is dressed up, as he is in nazi concentration camp. So, on one hand it pretending to show the Holocaust while on the other it does not show it " in the manner or to the extent historically recognized".--Mbz1 (talk) 14:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No single image can do the Holocaust justice. If you demanded that each and every image showed the entire extent of the horror, your images would have to be considered Holocaust denial, too. Even together, the three images show only ~120 victims, which is a "gross misrepresentation" of the Holocaust. There have been countless massacres around the globe on that scale, even though no single one even begins to describe the sheer enormity of the Holocaust. Paradoctor (talk) 18:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cartoon doesn't in my view claim to show the Holocaust, accurately or otherwise. It attempts to draw a comparison between the situation in the West Bank and that in the concentration camps of the Holocaust. That isn't denying that the Holocaust took place, nor to the extent that is historically recognised, only suggesting that there are some similarities between the situation in the West Bank the West Bank and the Holocaust. Adambro (talk) 14:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"doesn't in my view claim to show": Irrelevant. Categorization is not about judging controversial claims. Paradoctor (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My views are as relevant as anyone else's in discussing the categorisation of any content. I can choose to disagree with whatever sources anyone cites or how that source is interpreted. Adambro (talk) 20:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't peg you as the type to take things personal? What's irrelevant is the question of whether the cartoon is denial, which is what you were talking about. As for your opinion about whether the cartoon is denial, it is, just as mine, irrelevant, because we're not w:WP:RS.
"how that source is interpreted": Interpretation is not our job. That would be w:WP:OR, plain and simple.
Adambro, you seem to be one of the more level-headed contributors. Kindly presume that I have good reasons for what I say, ok? ;) Paradoctor (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interpretation is important because, as I've explained, I don't necessarily think that the SWC report makes it clear that it is their view that Latuff's cartoon should be described as Holocaust denial, whereas others see it differently. Of course it could be the case that they consider all of those in the competition results to be Holocaust denial, but since they simply copied the results verbatim it isn't obvious, particularly when the AWL source doesn't seem to suggest all are denying the Holocaust. You proposed this category on the basis that "Inclusion in this category is solely due to the fact that there are allegations of Holocaust denial." The point is that I don't see clear allegations of such, nor do I necessarily agree that any notable organisation making an allegation would merit inclusion in this category, so the question of whether I, or anyone else, considers this image to be Holocaust denial cannot be completely discounted even if you aren't proposing this category be added because you consider it to be so. Adambro (talk) 21:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"it could be the case that they consider all" ... "isn't obvious": Exactly my point. The only thing we know for sure is that they listed it as an example of denial. If they meant to, is contested, and can only be decided by evidence. Lacking any evidence to the contrary, the statement "The SWC considers the Latuff image to be an example of Holocaust denial." has to be regarded as fact. Not using evidence is the whole problem of this mess. You can argue with opinions, but not with evidence.
"do I necessarily agree that any notable organisation making an allegation would merit inclusion in this category": So what do you want? How many notable organizations have to agree? Let's not forget the countless non-notable claims. That's unreasonable, seriously.
"because you consider it": As I stated repeatedly: My opinion on the image is irrelevant. Paradoctor (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I find it easy to get drawn into trying to reply to comments instantly. Rather than do so, I'll take some time to consider all that has been said and review my position. Adambro (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the concern, really. But with all due respect, I'd rather get answers or counterarguments. Agreement would be fine also. ;) BTW, I think we should add Latuff to category:racists. Proof here. Paradoctor (talk) 00:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vote by Adambro break 2[edit]
  • Adambro, I hope we could agree about one thing at least, which is: that [....] shared the second prize in the International Holocaust Cartoon Competition 2006. If it were not about the Holocaust it would not have been considered at all because of the wrong subject. Now, you dismissed Simon Wiesenthal Center report. Do you really believe you are qualified more than them to be the judge what is, and what is not Holocaust denial? It is a rhetorical question. Please do not bother to respond it.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Adambro, to put Mbz1's edit into wiki-speak for you: The Simon Wiesenthal Center report is WP:RS and WP:V. Your personal views are not reliable sources, and inserting them in the way you want would amount to WP:OR. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    How very ridiculous. I've not suggested that what I've said is anything other than my personal view. My point is that the Simon Wiesenthal Center report doesn't seem to specifically say that this image is an example of holocaust denial, it simply presents all the images that in the competition and that isn't strong enough to overcome my own interpretation of the image. Regardless, whatever source anyone could find, nothing compels us to do anything on Commons, we discuss things and express our opinions. That is what I've done here, and what I'm entitled to do. Adambro (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"it simply presents all the images that in the competition": Please w:WP:PROVEIT. Lacking evidence to the contrary, there is no reason to believe that Latuff's image was included inadvertently. Paradoctor (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The report includes a straight copy of the competition's results page. The ADL don't suggest all are examples of Holocaust denial, nor does the SWC report make it clear that all are, particularly since they reproduced verbatim the competition results. Adambro (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All the more reason to believe that they didn't include the rest simply because they couldn't get the images. But that is irrelevant. The factual evidence is this: The image is included in a list of denial examples. If you want to argue against that, you need to take it to the SWC, because it is their claim, not mine or anybody else's. Paradoctor (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adambro, what you wrote, in your previous edit, is "The cartoon doesn't in my view claim to show the Holocaust, accurately or otherwise." But the ADL link I gave previously [3] says:

The Iranian cartoon contest served as a bullhorn for the regime to broadcast some of the ugliest anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial that exists in the Muslim world, and to give such expressions of bigotry a patina of legitimacy. Themes present in many of the submissions included Holocaust denial; accusations of Jews using the Holocaust for political gain; comparisons between Jews, Israel, and the Nazis; and Jewish conspiratorial control over the United Nations and the world.

It is not WP:OR to think that the prize winners in the contest are what the ADL is discussing in when this review of the Iranian event says "Themes present in many of the submissions included Holocaust denial; accusations of Jews using the Holocaust for political gain..." Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"the submissions included Holocaust denial" (my emphasis): That means you can't be sure whether this is applicable to the Latuff image or not. They would have had to say "all submissions". Paradoctor (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vote by Swift[edit]

  •  WTF If the holocaust had never taken place, then there wouldn't be anything to reference and this would just be a picture of a guy realising he hadn't changed out of his pajamas before going to the castle. The insistence of this lobby to be outraged is pitiful. --Swift (talk) 23:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See above regarding the ADL being in category:Antisemitism, please. -- Avi (talk) 01:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By Swift's logic, a picture drawn by a neo-Nazi like David Irving claiming that only 1,000-100,000 Jews died in the Holocaust, that that occurred mostly through disease such as lice, and that there was no order to destroy the entire Jews as such seen by Hitler= would not qualify as Holocaust denial because it admits that the Holocaust still exists.
Gross historical distortion and trivialization qualifies as holocaust denial, even if the advocates try to fudge things. Definitions of holocaust denial used by scholars such as Deborah Lipstadt state this. Cousin Kevin (talk) 04:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I am no way shape or form saying that Swift has sympathies for Latuff or his positions. (I didn't mean to word things so personally). But the essential point is that one can concede that the Holocaust happened whilst still being a denier. Cousin Kevin (talk) 05:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
to both of the comments above (and probably most that will follow)
*sigh* I appreciate your concerns but I understand all these arguments already. I simply disagree with them.
Is the situation of the Palestinians less dire than that of the Jews in the concentration camps? Yes. Is either the purpose or the effect of this cartoon that people will think that the mass murder of people in concentration camps didn't take place in the manner most historians agree on? No.
If you fail to see the comparisons in their plight and are really so fearful for a well founded and nearly universally accepted historical fact, then I can only pity you. --Swift (talk) 13:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Swift, this categorization is not about judging the image, and the proposal was designed to make that clear. It belongs in category:Holocaust denial because it has been accused as being involved in Holocaust denial. Please refer to Avi's comment, pretty much at the beginning. Paradoctor (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is either the purpose or the effect of this cartoon that people will think that the mass murder of people in concentration camps didn't take place in the manner most historians agree on? The answer to the question is a blatant "Yes". Just like Holocaust denier David Irving's statement that the same number of people died in anti-German post-WWII expulsions compared to the Holocaust, this picture states that Israeli's treatment of the Palestinians is the same as the Nazi treatment of the Jews-- which is false. Millions of people killed (deliberately) are not the same as thousands of people killed (as bystanders during wartime).
If you fail to see the comparisons in their plight... then I can only pity you I rather happy that I'm not so blind and ideology-mongering in my support for the Palestinian cause (and I do support them, generally, I did not support Op. Cast Lead) that I draw a specious and immoral equivalence. Cousin Kevin (talk) 19:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"purpose or the effect of this cartoon" ... 'blatant "Yes"': That's your opinion, this view is contested. Do you have w:WP:RS supporting this view? Paradoctor (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Sigh* Note that your opinion is just your opinion, and you should stop treating your word as inherent gospel.
The fact that the ADL and others hold that view of the Latuff cartoon has already been mentioned. Cousin Kevin (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"fact that the ADL and others hold that view": No such fact. The only one proven so far is the SWC report.
"gospel": I'm not sure I get your drift here. Paradoctor (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Just seems obvious per discussion above. I know it when I see it. Trivialization and distortion is a form of denial. Stellarkid (talk) 05:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support conditional upon "Inclusion in [the Holocaust Denial] category is solely due to the fact that there are allegations of Holocaust denial." or something similar, with the alleging sources, be added to the image description page, not just the talk page. Talk pages get archived. Inclusion in the HD category does not necessarily mean that this is an instance of it, just that it is highly relevant to the HD subject, which it seems to be, like Lipstadt. --GRuban (talk) 22:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Talk pages get archived.": That should be covered by "This talkpage receives a permanent notice". Sourcing on the description page sounds good, adding it. Paradoctor (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Israeli West Bank barrier in art[edit]

Well, well... Here Mbz1 (talk · contribs) removed Category:Israeli West Bank barrier in art despite that we already have the artist, several editors, the file name itself and so on saying it is indeed a drawing of the Israeli West Bank barrier. Got any comments on that? // Liftarn (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The file name is not a reliable source. ^_^ Paradoctor (talk) 22:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True, but since tha artist wrote "I joined over 60 international peace workers and over 200 residents of the West Bank town of Qalqilia to protest Israel's construction of a 25 foot high concrete apartheid wall." about the picture I think we can safley say it is indeed the West Bank barrier that is pictured even if we would be unable to tell from the obvious design features. // Liftarn (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not any new categories while the matter is being discussed.Just wait few more days.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment It is art, but is there anything directly representative of the IWB? It could as much be an artistic comment on the economic blockade in Gaza that has no wall. -- Avi (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are differences between birds and the west bank wall, and some of those differences are important in considerations of categories. One such important consideration is that birds have been in existence since before humans started to create art and have always been present in art. Birds have been of perennial importance to humans. On the other hand the wall in question has been in existence since after 2006 (when its construction was approved), and has since then (4 years) proved of little interest to most artist. In fact, the wall is a political not artistic subject, and the category is just a way of using Commons as a soapbox to push a political POV about the wall. As an artistic subject, the wall does not exist beyond a very few very minor artists. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Vote by Stellarkid[edit]

  •  Oppose The bird sculpture is art. Latuff is a political cartoonist. Political cartoons may be artistic, but they art of a specific type. Art lets you draw your own conclusions. Political cartoons try to draw them for you. This cartoon is not a mere artistic depiction of the Israeli barrier, but represents a particular political position. He is likening the wall to a concentration camp - and comparing Palestinians to Jews in Auschwitz or Treblinka. I believe it is a seriously simplistic interpretation to say that this is an artistic rendition of the West Bank barrier. At best one could characterize it as a political cartoon re Middle East. Stellarkid (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    comment Roughly 3% of the wall is actually concrete. Its purpose was not that of the walls of Auschwitz. It was not intended to keep a population walled in. It was intended as a defense. Jordan borders the West Bank. Palestinians (or Palestinian Muslims as the cartoon suggests) are quite free to go there, as far as I know. This cartoon represents a distortion with the intention of putting across a political message. It would be wrong to say that is simply artistic rendition of the West Bank barrier, even if Mr Latuff would like us to see it as such. If it were a bird, or a airplane, a landscape or a nude it would be different. Those are art "forms." This can only be classified under political cartooning, a subset of art-- and the category is the regional conflict. I don't know about anti-semitic. A case could probably be made, though I wouldn't. I find it technically very good, if apparently ignorant of its subject matter, and insensitive to Jews and other victims of the Holocaust. But that's just my opinion. Stellarkid (talk) 04:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the cartoon is false does not necessarily mean that it does not belong in a category. A cartoon that depicts President Bush as 'the worst President in history' or 'the worst human being in the world' or 'the same as Hitler' is objectively false (How many races of people did Bush try to exterminate?). But it would still go into Bush's category. Cousin Kevin (talk) 04:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an artistic rendition of the Israel barrier, it has much more to say than that. There are Holocaust themes in this, a direct comparison is made. It is certainly appropriate in the category of Holocaust or Holocaust denial cartoons. After all, Latuff did not submit it because it was about the Palestinian wall, but because it was about "Holocaust denial," by definition. It is also appropriate to categorize it as Palestinian cartoons, Latuff cartoons, middle east conflict cartoons. But to say that this is merely a statement about the badness of the West Bank barrier is just wrong. This is about much more, as any of the nay-sayers here are trying to tell you. This is a political cartoon, not simply an object depicted in art. You don't categorize a political cartoon by the concreteness of its depiction but by the abstract message it is trying to portray. If you had a political cartoon with a bird speaking anti-Bush opinion, would you categorize it under "birds"? Stellarkid (talk) 05:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you had a political cartoon with a bird speaking anti-Bush opinion, would you categorize it under "birds"?
Are you psychic? :-) Cousin Kevin (talk) 05:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OMG. "Birds in Art"?! I guess the answer to my question is "yes." Beam me up, Scotty, there's no intelligent life down here.... Stellarkid (talk) 05:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vote by MGA73[edit]

 Support If cartoons are art then I support this category. --MGA73 (talk) 13:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cartoons are a subset, a branch, of art, not art per se. Political cartoons are a subset of cartoons. I could support the categorization of "birds in political cartoons," but not "birds in art." Political cartoons should be characterized by the political subject being lampooned, by the "bigger (political) picture." It is a political cartoon and while it may be "artistic" in nature, it must be treated differently from fine art. Otherwise one would have to say that there is no difference between the depiction of the Jew in political cartoons such as this or this or this -- or the depiction of Jews in art such as this and this. Clearly one cannot treat these pictures identically! One can see the absurdity that is led to by not making this distinction. Stellarkid (talk) 16:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"a branch, of art, not art per se": Self-contradiction. If it's in a branch of art, it's art. Paradoctor (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
disagree. A tree is a tree, a branch is not a tree. An arm is not a human being. Stellarkid (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A branch is part of a tree. An arm is part of a human. Cartoons are part of the category of work called art. So, just as if we had one photo of someone's arm and no subcategories, we'd put it in Category:Humans. If we have a cartoon, and no subcategories, we put it in the art category. Whether we create subcategories does of course primarily depend on whether we need to separate out content to improve its organisation. Adambro (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Political cartoons are at the intersection of art and politics. It is not simply art, nor simply politics. Art --> Cartoons --> Political Cartoons. Or Politics --> Political art. Within this categorization you would find Latuff, and the subject matter would be not an artistic rendition of the fence, but a political cartoon about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There is nothing stopping us from creating a category called "Political Cartoons" is there? Agree with Malcolm Schosha below. Stellarkid (talk) 02:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Too late. They already did it. And guess which artist is in that category? ;) Paradoctor (talk) 04:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What we are discussing here is Category:Israeli West Bank barrier in art. In my view it is an empty set, created only to push a POV, and thereby violating WP:SOAP. The construction of the barrier was authorized only a few years ago, the only artists interested in it as a subject are political cartoonists with a political point to make. Moreover, very few of even those few cartoons that exist are available with commons licensing, making balance of political viewpoints impossible. The result is a gallery of political cartoons on a particular political subject, without any balance in viewpoints. That violates the Wikimedia Foundations most core principle [4] of WP:NPOV. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to stop trying to directly relate Wikipedia policies like WP:NPOV to Commons. Wikipedia primarily deals with articles, we primarily deal with images. There are many similarities with Wikipedia and the other projects but there are also many differences. It is ridiculous to suggest, as you seem to be doing, that we cannot categorise content unless we can balance out categories with images which have an opposing viewpoint. We're maintaining a neutral point of view if we don't treat content that we don't like differently. It is impossible for us to compel everyone who has ever created a cartoon on a subject to release it under a free licence so our categories are inevitably not going to represent all viewpoints. By categorising these images as per the established norms, we're being neutral because anyone who understands our categorisation structure will be able to appreciate that we're not supporting what they portray. On the other hand, if we do start categorising differently, then it would be reasonable to conclude that we're suppressing the content because we don't like or agree with it. That isn't being neutral. Adambro (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bro Adambro, NPOV is the core policy for the entire Wikimedia Foundation, as can be seen here [5], and is spelled out here [6]. What this policy means, is that a category with controversial political issues (such as this category we are discussing), there needs to be content on both sides of the issue for balance and NPOV. On the other hand, if the the content of the category is just the artwork of a single cartoonist, then that is not an issue of balance, as long as the files are presented in an objective way. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've already looked at those links. It doesn't mean "there needs to be content on both sides of the issue for balance and NPOV", that is your own interpretation, I've already explained why I consider that to be incorrect. Adambro (talk)
I presented the question here[7], to see if there might by some guidance on the issue from the Wikimedia Foundation. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are unlikely to get an official line from the WMF there, simply the opinions of others in the WMF community, so I'm not convinced of the value of raising it there. It would have probably been better to raise this centrally on Commons first. Adambro (talk) 20:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is just a notification that I have opened a discussion elsewhere. Not to do so would be unfair. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support The picture is intended to depict the west bank barrier. The fact that 97% of it doesn't look like that doesn't matter, that's what's called artistic license. We've got pictures of Martians with green skin, despite the fact that any Martians that exist are likely microscopic organisms, and no one has objected to that. --GRuban (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Like I pointed out before, even a cartoon of a talking bird-version of Brian Williams is under the 'Birds in art' category. Cousin Kevin (talk) 04:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Political cartoons are a special branch of cartoons, and are more political than art. They should not be categorized as simply "art." That is why cartoonist w:Charles M. Schulz can expect to die of natural causes, while w:Kurt Westergaard must live in fear of his life. Stellarkid (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And BTW[edit]

In case you have not looked at the votes at Village pump lately. We have 16 supports versus 11 opposes, which is a clear majority to leave all latuff in one category only. Just imagine, you log in to Commons, and there no more arguments about "the artist". Would't that be the best thing that could have happened to it?--Mbz1 (talk) 18:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great. But if we only add one category how are users supposed to find out that he made a cartoon of whatever the subject might be? I thought Commons was not censored. Leaving valid categories is not neutral.
I did not mean to start a new discussion here. I only meant to remind about Village Pump voting. If a clear majority (as it is now) supports leaving that [....] in a single category, so it be. If you'd like to discuss it, it might be better to do so on Village Pump to keep it in one place. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Just wanted to point out that whatever we chose there is upsides and downsides... --MGA73 (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"We have 16 supports versus 11 opposes, which is a clear majority": w:WP:NOTDEMOCRACY We have no police to suppress dissent, everyone has an edit button. That is why our decisions have to be based on w:WP:CONSENSUS. 60:40 is a pretty typical ratio in civil wars. And those votes represent only a very tiny minority of those supporting Commons policy, as in ☭:scope and ☭:cat Paradoctor (talk) 19:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that all the votes supports as well as opposes represent a tiny minority of the Commons users, which only proves yet another time how little interest that [....] evokes. Nobody is changing Commons policy in general, but every rule could have an exclusion or two. They will only support the rules, and not contradict them at all.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As pointed out before, there is no consensus on permitting an exception. Consensus is basic, because without it, it's either endless war, or the peace and quiet of a police state. (Yes, I'm exaggerating.) Policy is consensus about issues that have been controversial before, so defaulting to exceptions whenever something is controversial loses the entire meaning of our policies. Put differently, we can afford exception about just anything, except consensus. Paradoctor (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one has yet answered my question[edit]

Where is there any evidence that this is image is specifically referring to the West Bank barrier? File:TheBerlinWall20YearsLaterIsraelWall.png is clear; File:Suicide bomber climbing West Bank Barrier cartoon.jpg is clear. This one is not. The image could just as well be one decrying the economic and work related blockade of Gaza, which has no wall? -- Avi (talk) 00:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you see the wall in the drawing? With those cylindrical watchtowers? Anyway, the artist refers to the West Bank wall in this link, that was given several times. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The actual image of the wall in the image is irrelevant; it could as much be the Maginot line in artistic form. However, that link is sufficient, thank you. -- Avi (talk) 00:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Filename[edit]

I propose renaming the file to

IsraHell's concentration camp by Carlos Latuff - 2004.png

Judging from the image's official page, "IsraHell's concentration camp" seems to be the official name of the work. So we'd have a filename giving the work's title, the artist and the year of creation. I think it doesn't get any more neutral.

If you are offended by the title, please consider Judensau. Paradoctor (talk) 01:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that this image is not currently named pejoratively. Also, there is not centuries of history behind it, even if that history is overtly antisemitic. -- Avi (talk) 01:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The current name clearly misrepresents the artist. Paradoctor (talk) 04:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Political cartoons are seldom named, or are named later for the sake of computer files that require names. Political cartoons are supposed to speak for themselves. As I understand it, the file name is supposed to be just a neutral description of the image, and there is no need to allow the artist to use Commons as his soapbox through the naming of images. If Latuff thinks the cartoon does not convey his intent by itself, there is no need for Commons to correct for that deficiency by adding imaginative and colorful file names. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with Paradoctor that it would be better to name this file according to the name the artist gave to the work since one exists, so I would therefore support renaming to "IsraHell's concentration camp by Carlos Latuff - 2004.png". Adambro (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Show that it was the name given to the original cartoon, not just something dreamed up later to use Commons as a soap box. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just look at the source http://latuff2.deviantart.com/art/IsraHell-s-concentration-camp-6698766 // Liftarn (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there actually any evidence to suggest the name was "just something dreamed up later to use Commons as a soap box"? http://latuff2.deviantart.com/art/IsraHell-s-concentration-camp-6698766, http://beirut.indymedia.org/ar/2004/04/1130.shtml, and http://la.indymedia.org/news/2004/04/108316_comment.php all apparently date from 2004. Adambro (talk) 16:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming does not serve any useful purpose, and it destroys links. I just spent some time fixing the edits of CommonsDelinker on several wikipedias. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Antisemitic pictures[edit]

This image should be categorised under Category:Antisemitic pictures because it uses a Holocaust reference (Camp inmate) to insinuate the supposed similarity of Nazi to Israeli policy. The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights declared in its Working Definition of Antisemitism that it is considered Anti-semitic to "draw comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis". Chesdovi (talk) 12:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That nonsense was only in a draft policy, never adopted. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your use of the word "nonsense" prompted some research into the matter. Indeed, the 2005 EUMC definition has not been officially adopted. It also contains problematic clauses which have been latched on to (mainly?) by activists engaged in protesting Israeli policy. But the fact remains that this "defunct" definition (still accessible on the FRA website) was gleaned in corroboration with mainstream Jewish organisations and has been endorsed by the US State Department and has been cited in European courts. That there is no accepted universal definition of the term, and that there are people who do not view as anti-Semitic the equating of the "Jewish" state with the same entity that slaughtered millions of their own kind, should not preclude us from using this category here. There are enough people who do view images which belittle the Holocaust and the comparison of Jews to Nazis as anti-semtic manifestations. Chesdovi (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Chesdovi, I fully agree with your assessment. And I must warn you not to spend too much energy on discussions with Pieter. It will only aggravate and frustrate you. Trust me. --Dschwen (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The category for antisemitic pictures should only be used for pictures that are actually antisemitic. It is not a category for "pictures I don't like". // Liftarn (talk)

Anti-Semitism[edit]

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

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:West_Bank_Barrier_cartoon_by_Latuff.png&oldid=72475048"