Talk:Carlos Latuff

BLP and what that means

Carlos Latuff is a living person, which means the content of this article must comply with WP:BLP. This means that ll contentious material must be sourced to reliable third party sources. These edits are unacceptable in a BLP. To begin with, an editor is using Latuff's cartoons themselves as sources and providing his own unsourced commentary in its place. Next this is a blog, as is this (one that has no place anywhere on Wikipedia). Sandinistas, do not restore such material. BLP requires that you gain consensus for any material removed as a BLP violation. Please try to do so here. I am removing this material once more. nableezy - 13:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The material that has been restored does not comply with WP:BLP. Editors are not permitted to make their own opinions on what his cartoons "can be understood as expressing". All negative material on living persons must be cited to reliable secondary sources. I will be removing the material that introduces negative OR commentary sourced to the primary source (the actual cartoon). nableezy - 22:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Original Research

Huge segments of this article are interpretations of Latuff's art by editors (referenced to primary sources linking to Latuff's art). The interpretations are often negative and followed by labeling the cartoonist as "anti-American" or "antisemitic". This seems like a clear violation of both OR and BLP. I propose we remove these. Also the text contains a large volume claims of antisemitism by people who are not notable. Are these not against BLP and NOTE? Poyani (talk) 23:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You are correct. // Liftarn (talk)

Someone should correct it, tbh. When it comes to NPOV, this article is somewhat of a "joke". Dnm (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Pikolas (talk) 01:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Carloslatuff.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Carloslatuff.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

POV

Also, when it says he depicts characters like former brazilian president Lula as either a monster or a nazi, in the same level he depicts Bush or Blair - this is simply not true. His criticism about Lula is of a different nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.142.110.21 (talk) 22:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Guys, this article is not balanced at all. Reading it makes it seem like he is almost a self-professed Jew hater, which I don't think is quite accurate. Pikolas (talk) 19:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, you sound like an extremely naive ultra-leftist. This article is indeed biased, but for the opposite reason: it makes him seem like he is only anti-Israel, but the truth is that he is extremely anti-Semitic and advocates the genocide of Jews from the Land of Israel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.205.78.43 (talk) 05:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Latuff has never attacked the Jews as a people, nor has he advocated "genocide" or even reversal of Jewish settlement since 1948 outside of the current occupied territories. Inserting these erroneous views into an article is a violation of NPOV as well as BLP. I would agree with Pikolas that the article as it stands is barely acceptable on these grounds anyway. Nolan135 (talk) 06:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Pikolas. This article is not balanced at all, and you do not need to be a "naive ultra-leftist" to see that. The only requirement is that you are not a party to the dispute or a person with strong opinions regarding the issue at hand. For the articles development, outbursts like "naive ultra-leftist" should be avoided. However, I guess all can agree on that such a statement says more about the political bias of the "proclamer". Regards, Dnm (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about whether you guys are "extremely naive ultra-leftists" or not, but the guy is clearly a vicious antisemite whose cartoons wouldn't be out of place in the Der Sturmer. It might help if you guys read WP's articles on Antisemitism, New antisemitism, and Antisemitism in the anti-globalization movement. Cheers. 119.224.46.147 (talk) 08:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Not everyone criticizing Isreal is anti-semitic. Latuff is sometimes a bit over the top with his cartoons but nothing that would justify such a classification. --Denniss (talk) 08:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Image reinforcing bias

I know Latuff authored File:Ship to Gaza by Latuff.gif, however, the article is already very biased towards his accusations of antisemitism (in violation of WP:BLP), and that cartoon only reinforces that bias. In my opinion we should use a less controversial image, like File:Bombman.gif (which also serves to illustrate better his themes, i.e. the Palestinian conflict). Let's please reach some sort of consensus before engaging in fruitless edit wars. Pikolas (talk) 06:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, let's face it: a) it was a drawing by Latuff, b) Latuff IS controversial for drawings like these and c)he is more known for being anti-Israel than being pro-Palestine.

To give some evidence: when I search “Latuff Palestine” on Google, I get 225.000 results. However, if I search “Latuff Israel”, I get 413.000 results. Thus, your idea of Latuff as a non-controversial artist of Palestinian children is quite wrong. I’m afraid you are violating the WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT-rule this way. Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 07:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, my reasoning is not emotional on this topic, I am neither a Jew nor an Arab, so justdontlikeit (which is not a rule, but an essay) doesn't apply to my argument, which is essentially rational. Also, your third point is questionable. Where is he better known as anti-Israel? Anglophone media, for sure, as Portuguese media doesn't portray him as an antisemite at all. That's bias, uncompatible with an encyclopedia that purports to be universal. Google searching isn't exactly science either.

All in all, what I mean to say is that 1) hell yes, he's controversial 2) yes, he did draw up polemic cartoons 3) from an objetive perspective, the cartoon serves to illustrate his "controversialness". However, the article is already pretty biased, and on a subjective level, the image only reinforces that view on the reader. Pikolas (talk) 17:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Just like you, I’m not jewish or Arabic. However, I fail to see how the quality of someone’s opinion on this article needs to be based on ethnicity. Having said that, it is preferable to have a picture in an article that supports it. As you are saying above, the Gaza Boat –image reinforces the article. And that is what images should do in an encyclopedic article.

As for the google-search: whether you use the English “Palestine” or the Portugese “Palestina” in the search: the number of results stay the same. So much for being universal. If you find some reliable source which proves otherwise, I’ll be happy to read it.

Finally: if you think that the article is biased… well, nobody stops you from editing it in a way that you consider to be better. But then again, since we agree that he is controversial, I doubt my proposed image will be out of place. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 10:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

It is undisputed that the cartoon is drawn by Latuff, and that he is well known for such drawings. If the implications of those facts are unflattering to Latuff, then perhaps he should rethink what he draws, but it is not a blp violation to show latuff's work on latuff's article. Both images are appropriately licensed. Use them both, but there is certainly no policy based reason to exclude the ship image. (Consensus could certainly choose to exclude it, but thus far there does not seem to be such). Gaijin42 (talk) 14:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Context is important. If the article insinuates that he's antisemitic, then displaying images out of context could be used to reinforce these accusations. I'd rather see some kind of critical reception and sourced commentary on his work, rather than just throwing a bunch of controversial, politically incorrect images on the page and guiding readers to a certain viewpoint. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see a real problem with the image in question. It appears to be representative of the artist's work, and it doesn't look at all anti-Semitic—just anti-Israel. There's certainly no BLP violation involved. And personally, I'm not a fan of the Bombman.gif image. Maybe the broken English was intentional, but it doesn't reflect particularly well on him either way. --BDD (talk) 18:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The RfC is over for two weeks, and I think that the consensus is more on my side for reinserting the picture. Moreover, the article isn't edited in such a way that the boat-image would be out of place by now. I think it is safe to put the boat-picture back. Regards.Jeff5102 (talk) 20:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The octopus is a traditional symbol in anti-Semitic literature; see File:OctopusNAS1.jpg and File:2001 ed The International Jew by Henry Ford.jpg for a couple examples. The AP via The New York Daily News talks about the octopus's negative connotations even in contexts distant from the Jews.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I certainly don't disagree that the octopus has antisemetic overtones. Not sure what your argument was (include or don't include?) Certainly latuff has been acused of anti-semitism, and his use of traditional anti-semetic imagery is relevant to the sources that are discussing such allegations. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The Predictable and Tired Old "Alleged Anti-Semitism" Section

Anytime you read an article in Wikipedia about someone sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, there is always a 'Alleged Anti-Semitism' section, which repeats the same tired and generally false slanders against whoever the article is about. In this piece, as usual, it's just a propaganda technique by the pro-Israel side, with pretty thin evidence. I vote we just remove the whole section, or at least cut it down to a couple of pro-and anti-sentences, without a subhead. jackbrown (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• I agree wholeheartedly with your argument, but as you can see in this talk page, even raising concerns about the flagrant POV can lead to heated discussions. I would suggest expanding other sections to reduce the weight of the accusations against him, which are currently disproportionately large in the article. Pikolas (talk) 22:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

If you don't see how depicting Jews as inhuman monsters who drink the blood of Palestinian babies and wear Nazi uniforms is anti-semitic you are either in denial or have no idea what anti-semitism is.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 16:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter if the accusation is right or wrong The accusation (and counterarguments) have been discussed in many reliable sources and are certainly a notable part of Latuff's career and reputation. It falls very clearly under WP:WELLKNOWN Gaijin42 (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

And WP:BLP then? // Liftarn (talk)

So jackbrown has got a point in that the section in question further detracts from the already pretty low quality of this article. So I've just fucking got rid of it. If any of you wankers don't like it, then do a proper job of putting together a semi-coherent section that doesn't read like it's been blurted out by a spoilt prat in a hissy fit.

We have a detailed section on allegations of antisemitism, sourced to high quality sources (Stephen Roth Institute, Kotek, AKdH) . The lead should summarize the article, and include mention of this, with a statement the Latuff himself disputes the claim. There is no BLP issue here. All Rows4 (talk) 00:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

These are rotten activist sources, who generally find *anyone* critical of Israel "anti-semitic". At the same time, we know that A: the finances activist sources are often murky, B: Israel is actively supporting pro-Israeli "Hasbara" editing. Make you own conclusion. At the same time, independent Jewish sources, like the Forward, clearly states that Carlos Latuff is not anti-semitic: who do you place in the lead: rrrrrrrright, the "activist" sources. This is a clear WP:BLP-violation, and I´m talking it to that board, Huldra (talk) 21:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)