File talk:Ambulances by Latuff2.jpg

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

Categories[edit]

The image does not show ambulances. It shows caricatures of ambulances. That's why I believe the categories for ambulances should be removed. Besides like all latuff propaganda the image misses a very important truth, which is: hamas tries to use ambulances for their terror attacks not to mention that hamas hijacked whole UN humanitarian convoy for the same reason. The image has absolutely nothing to do with politics.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that it doesn't really seem appropriate to add this to the ambulance categories and so would agree with Mbz1's first point. Unfortunately, Mbz1 became distracted by completely irrelevant politics later in his comment. Whether Hamas use ambulances in attacks or not has absolutely nothing to do with how this image is categorised so please don't make such comments as it only serves to encourage others to become embroiled in pointless political debates rather than discuss Commons policies. Please refrain from doing this. I disagree however that this image hasn't got anything to do with politics. It doesn't seem too difficult to conclude that this image is concerned with the politics in the Middle East. Adambro (talk) 18:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to a dictionary the politics is:
a.The art or science of government or governing, especially the governing of a political entity, such as a nation,
and the administration and control of its internal and external affairs.
b. Political science.
Would you please explain to me how this image is concerned with the politics in the Middle East according to the
defenition I provided? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quite straightforward, this image seems to be a critical view of the politics of the region; the governing, administration, and control of the internal and external affairs of the Palestinian territories. Adambro (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's take a look at this example: Here's my image File:Landing egret in GGP.jpg and here what user:S23678 made out of my image File:Landing egret in GGP new.jpg to prove his point while opposing my FPC nomination. The question is where should the image made by user:S23678 go? Should it go to the categories of my images or to the categories of his images. Of course it should go to categories of his images because the image he made is not only close to the one I nominated, but even not close to my original. The same with latuff. Let's say he has an opinion about politics of Israel. Does it mean that the image should go to this category? I do not think so. We could create category latuff caricatures about Middle East politics.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I won't be drawn into your dispute with S23678 so will refrain from commenting on your example. So, skipping over this, you say that Latuff's images depicting his views of the politics of Israel shouldn't be in Category:Politics of Israel. This seems counter-intuitive. Images should surely be in relevant categories. I do wonder perhaps, based upon your previous comments if you are confusing with Politics of Israel with the country's policies. Just because something wouldn't be endorsed by Israel, it doesn't mean it isn't related to the politics of Israel. On your last point, I note that Pieter Kuiper has begun to populate some Carlos Latuff sub categories such as Category:Cartoons by Latuff about Sweden. This makes sense from a categorisation point of view because there are a larger number of images in the Carlos Latuff category and many, but I'm sure not all, can be divided into different areas. This would also seem to have what you may perceive to be an advantage of the images not showing up in the main category, Category:Politics of Sweden in this case. Perhaps doing this with the "Politics of..." categories that you are concerned about could be a compromise that you are prepared to accept. Adambro (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I brought the samples with the images not because I wanted you to be drawn in my dispute with S23678. There's no real dispute and you've done so much for me already (I really mean it). Please trust me on this. I simply believed it is a good example. Yes, I would accept a compromise that you offer. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) I don't think the ambulance categories are particularly relevant or needed. I do think the politics and casualty categories apply. Of course, political cartoons are bound to offend some people. But there are political cartoons with various perspectives on wikipedia and the commons. w:WP:NPOV requires us to show all major viewpoints without endorsing them.

I was bold and created a subcategory called Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict cartoons. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The dictionary definition is irrelevant here. The word "politics" per se has many meanings, and I suppose different dictionaries suggest different definitions. We are talking here about a category which contains pictures of political figures in Israel, or depicts situations of political nature which took place in Israel or in which Israelis were involved. Here we have a Brazilian cartoonist who decided to state his view about the situation in the Middle East in a graphic manner. It has nothing to do with the subject of the category "politics of Israel". The cartoonist is not Israeli nor does he live in Israel, his views about the Middle East are as good as his views about Papua New Guinea, and as good as the views of any other of the 7 milliard people in the world about the Middle East. Not every opinion about Israel or the Middle East has to do with "politics of Israel". BTW, Latuff's cartoons make up the overwhelming majority of the Commons' political cartoons. His political views are way over-represented in this non-political project. I fail to see why they should be pushed to so many pages and categories. An alien from outer space could think he is one of the leading politicians in the world. Drork (talk) 12:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS - Latuff's cartoons about Sweden has nothing to do with the category "politics of Sweden" for the same reasons I mentioned above. Drork (talk) 12:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Category:Posters. It is more fully developed than Category:Cartoons. I agree that "politics of Israel" may not be the best name for a parent category of Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict cartoons. But with the internet it is more and more difficult to make these kinds of distinctions. I am trying to think of better parent category names. I guess we could just leave it as a subcategory of Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That might work for now. Some "see also" links from the politics categories would work too.
I went ahead and removed the "politics of" categories from Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict cartoons. I added "see also" links from those 2 "politics of" categories:
Category:Politics of the Palestinian territories
Category:Politics of Israel --Timeshifter (talk) 13:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The categories are not named "politics inside" Israel and the Palestinian territories. The "politics of" categories may apply to cartoons from other parts of the world outside Israel and the Palestinian territories. It is a very real political issue in elections here in the United States where I live, and in political discussion and cartoons concerning casualties and the billions of dollars of yearly U.S. aid to Israel. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Casualty category[edit]

I noticed[1] that the category Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict casualties was removed. It seems like a very relevant category since it's a central theme in the image. I would like an explanation of this. // Liftarn (talk) 15:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see any REAL casualties in this image? Do you see any REAL situation related to the conflict's casualties? Drork (talk) 15:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you refering to something like en:The Treachery of Images? // Liftarn (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casualties are the point of the cartoon. As with some charts. Charts and cartoons are different ways of illustrating opinions and facts about casualties. See:
Category:2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict casualties
Category:Second Intifada casualties
Are opinions real? The subject of the category is casualties. One could argue about the accuracy of the numbers. Many people do. But w:WP:NPOV requires all major viewpoints.
Category:Second Intifada casualties is a more specific category for this image than Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict casualties. The casualty numbers come from the AFP according to what is written on the cartoon. The numbers sound right for around the time when the image was made in October 2004. See:
http://latuff2.deviantart.com/art/Ambulances-11407826 --Timeshifter (talk) 20:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Opinions are not real, and therefore they are not belong to the above-mentioned categories ("Second Intifada" included). Charts and tables should be based on some reliable source. Sources may conflict or disagree, that happens, and in this case all versions must be available, but in this case we are talking about expressing a political view, not about an attempt (whether successful or not) to reflect reality. Drork (talk) 05:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Category:Posters. The opinions expressed are real opinions. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I must ask this question once again - is there a reason why the Commons should promote a certain cartoonist? Is there a reason why two users do their best to push his works to every possible category, and place links to his personal site? This site is very cautious not advertise and to engage in personal or political promotion. Is there a reason why this cartoonist be different that I don't know of? Drork (talk) 05:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to upload more free cartoons with different opinions. Please see Category:Posters. Note that the posters represent a variety of political opinions. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To remove this from Category:Second Intifada casualties that Timeshifter put it in is just vandalism motivated by censorship. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pieter, if you want to make political statements you can open a blog. I'll be the last person to deprive you of the right to state your political views there. You are trying persistently to turn this site into a blog of yours, and this is unacceptable. Please give it a rest and let people who sincerely want to see this site developing to work. Drork (talk) 07:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see w:WP:CENSOR and w:WP:NPOV. The Commons like Wikipedia is not censored. All major viewpoints are allowed in political cartoons and posters. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can shout Censorship as much as you like, this is not censorship we're talking about. I know this trick too well - you tell a person that there are problems in the American economical system, and he asks you: would you prefer to live in North Korea? You are doing the same thing. I'm telling you there is a crucial problem of abusing the Commons for political motives, and you are crying "censorship". Drork (talk) 08:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Please see COM:PS#Censorship also. This has been explained to you previously in great detail. See: Commons:Deletion requests/Carlos Latuff. Therefore, please stop the personal attacks on Pieter. He is following normal categorization of images. The "crucial problem of abusing the Commons for political motives" occurs if only one side of political disputes is allowed to be expressed in political cartoons and posters on the commons. No one is stopping you or others from uploading other cartoons. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would be great if Drork could use his energy to obtain cartoons made for Israeli newspapers. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Pieter, you might have noticed that 1,000 new images from Israel were uploaded to the Commons thanks to a project initiated by Wikimedia Israel of which I am a board member. Why won't you help me categorize them instead of promoting strange cartoonists, and preaching your political opinions to the whole world? Why won't you help categorizing the loads of images from the German Federal Archive? My work on the Israel Free Image Collection Project made me realize that there are many neglected categories, and many mis-categorized image. Have you done anything productive to fix this issue, other than pushing strange cartoons to irrelevant categories? There are some people who'd look at this project burning to ashes while playing their violin and feeling very liberal. I am not one of them. I see this project as something that must be preserved cautiously, and be accessible to people outside Western Europe and North America. There are many people here who think this is an high-school exercise in pseudo-democracy. I hope they will grow up soon, before they manage to tear it down. Drork (talk) 14:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pieter, Drork, please do not stray from the subject of categorisation of this image. Adambro (talk) 17:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously Drork thought it was better to act than to talk.[2] // Liftarn (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drork. Please look at some of the posters in these categories:

For example; File:RussiaTruth.jpg. It's funny. Many people and many editors think that they have the "truth" on their side. What we all have is a point of view. Note that the poster is classified in many categories. We don't have a problem with this because there are posters from most nations in World War I. It is historical info too, and we have the perspective of time to deal with these viewpoints in context. So we respect the reader and viewer enough to make up their own mind.

There is no reason this can't happen over time with cartoons. We just need a larger variety of cartoons from more sides of the issues. Maybe some of those images from Israel are cartoons? --Timeshifter (talk) 02:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:Ambulances_by_Latuff2.jpg&oldid=18885671"