Talk:Carlos Latuff

BLP status of Latuff image of Dershowitz

Please see Talk:Carlos Latuff #File:Alan dershowitz by Latuff.jpg for initial discussions. -- Avi (talk) 16:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Unacceptable Wikipedia articles should not be used to deliberately induce ridicule of an individual. Writing about such things needs to be done with great care, if it is done at all. Parodies and caricatures that focus on a single individual should not be described. If they attain the such notoriety and significance with respect to the subject of the article that failing to include it would be seriously detrimental to the article's worth, then maybe a short description might be acceptable. I can't see any circumstances where posting the actual picture would serve any useful (as opposed to harmful) purpose. Ray^Talk 15:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Alan dershowitz by Latuff.jpg

File:Alan dershowitz by Latuff.jpg This image was removed because someone didn't like it. This image is satirical and would only be defamatory if people really would think this person acts like this. multichill (talk) 11:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Wikifan12345 (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll just wait for Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alan dershowitz by Latuff.jpg. If it's kept i'll restore the image, if it's deleted, nothing to restore. multichill (talk) 11:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Defamatory images are covered by WP:BLP and need to be removed. EnWiki is not Commons and we have BLP rules here. -- Avi (talk) 11:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't simply mention policies, please explain why they apply by referring to what they say. Adambro (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

From WP:BLP:

• The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment.
• Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one.
• This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages.

Also see Wikipedia:Coatrack and WP:RS as indymedia's status as a reliable source needs to be ascertained. -- Avi (talk) 14:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

This image is not legally defamatory according to Mike Godwin [1]. It was also previously published, which is easily verifiable, independent of the reliability of Indymedia - Dershowitz wrote in The Guardian about this episode in the Dershowitz–Finkelstein affair [2]. It has nothing to do with coatrack: the image illustrates a paragraph in the text of the article. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Legally defamatory != harmful. The WP:BLP policy specifically mentions "HARM" not defamation. EnWiki is not Commons, and we have a stricter policy here. -- Avi (talk) 15:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

What Avi has said seems to lack any real reasoning as to why this particular image has to be removed according to WP:BLP. The first point simply says we have to consider the impact on individuals, the second that we don't give undue weight to viewpoints which seems irrelevant here, and the final point simply confirms that we have to consider the impact on individuals when editing all articles, not just an article about them. Non of this clearly demonstrates why WP:BLP justifies the removal of this image. I won't reinstate the image whilst discussions are ongoing but if it is reinstated then I would ask Avi not to continue to remove it. BLP doesn't exempt individuals from engaging in discussions about disputes and permit them to enforce their views through disruptive edit wars. Adambro (talk) 15:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

EnWiki has a policy of acting to protect living people. Unlike Commons, we err on the side of protecting living people. If anything, I would request that the image NOT be reinstated until its BLP-ness is ascertained. Perhaps this should be moved to WT:BLP or someone should file an WP:RFCon the image? -- Avi (talk) 15:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't wish for the image to be reinstated whilst discussions are ongoing, just as I don't wish for it to be removed either. You have asserted that BLP justifies the removal but it seems you are yet to clarify exactly why. Adambro (talk) 15:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

On en:wp if two reasonable people make opposite assertions about a BLP matter, we err on the side of caution. Avi is a reasonable person. Therefore this image will stay out of the article until the BLP question clearly has been resolved. That's not debatable. ++Lar: t/c 19:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The image is obviously an attack on Alan Dershowitz, and the article is just as effective without the image, especially if we put a link to it (indymedia) in the reference section. That would allow anyone interested to find the image in question, yet follow WIKIPEDIA's policy of preventing harm to living people. I am happy to bring this to WT:BLP, and if consensus is that I was to vigilant and the image is acceptable, so be it. But discussion should be had. Someone's potential error a while ago uploading the image does not ipso facto give permission for it to remain. A discussion should be had by more than the three of us. -- Avi (talk) 15:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with all of the above. I believe that my views on this image are already known given the discussion at Commons... ++Lar: t/c 19:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

(<-)Although I think I am correct in my application of the BLP policy, I may be getting too close to the issue, and I will voluntarily be forbidding myself to edit the article for 24 hours. If anyone removes the semi-protection I have placed, I will not view that as wheel-warring, although I may question their judgement :) -I will restrict myself to comments here and on the appropriate Commons page. -- Avi (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

As a fan of Latuff's, I can still maintain enough objectivity to say that perhaps it is a "bit much" for a biographical article in an encyclopedia. Plus has BLP problems. (Just like long paragraphs of criticism of individuals as antisemites because they criticized Israel a couple times are problematic.)

On the other hand he does have a lot of outrageous material which can't big ignored, whether you love it or hate it. Maybe there should be a separate wikimedia page of "Latuff's most outrageous cartoons" and several of them could be listed and explicitly linked from the article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

BLP issues are not resolved by moving material around from one place to another, they are resolved by removing the material that is BLP violating. ++Lar: t/c 19:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The only mention of images in BLP says: "Relevant content that is inappropriate in text form remains inappropriate in image form." [3] So what would the text equivalent of this be? "Dershowitz is masturbating to, and getting his rocks off on, death and destruction in Lebanon."? I don't think that passes BLP re: Dershowitz. Nor do I see any need for this as an illustration of Latuff's work. This is the kind of thing that external links were made for. Msalt (talk) 23:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe a respectable encyclopedia is a place for it. Wikipedia main objective is to inform readers and taking advantage of the openess of this project to attack people is very low as an attitude. It is more a question of principles (i.e. ethics and morality) than a question of BLP. Interpretations of policies don't necessarily have to turn us into machines. There are tons of cartoons and the question is why picking one that is very controversial. Let's please respect our readers and get rid of our ego. The image can fit into a sensational and gossip tabloid. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Not censored is a very strong principle, but it is compatible with reason. It is absolutely inappropriate for Dershowitz, as it's just plain abuse, with no encyclopedic purpose. As for the cartoonist, I would not include it unless there were be worldwide comment about this particular cartoon, in which case the image would need to be kept. I would not omit even material like this if the material is notable. I do not really see such comment, as distinct from comments about his other work. DGG (talk) 07:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely and what I see is that there is no controversy or extra notability specific to this image in the real world. This is not about censorship as Wikipedia is still keeping the Mohammed Cartoons, the controversial Scorpions album's image, etc... When there is no notability or controversy specific to a thing then cherry-picking images would need more objective arguments such as the reason of omitting tens of other images by the same author and choosing a specific one —which is not a random act after all. If it is about its controversial nature then I must say that Wikipedia's job does not include originating controversies. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 09:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

(<-)Note. The image was just ruled inappropriate for Commons and deleted for the third time. See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alan dershowitz by Latuff.jpg. -- Avi (talk) 12:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

As you note, this image has now been deleted again. I consider this disappointing because it is my opinion that the image to be within scope even if the English Wikipedia community decided not to use it. It is unfortunate but the reality is that discussions about controversial issues like this tend to attract those with views at the extreme ends of the spectrum whilst more moderate individuals are discouraged from participating because they get attacked by both sides. This isn't just a problem on WMF projects though, it is reflected in the real world so it is very difficult to see how this might be avoided. I am unfortunate to have somehow found myself involved in the debates about Latuff's images and certainly didn't go out looking to do so. However, now I am, I recognise it benefits those with more extreme views than myself if they are allowed to take control of issues like this. My fear is that the relativity silent majority will eventually conclude that it would be beneficial to delete Latuff's images because of the ongoing hassle that those who want them deleted insist on causing. It is this concern which motivates me to continue to keep a careful eye on what goes on regarding this subject. Whether it is appropriate to use this particular image seem to have become a moot point. Adambro (talk) 13:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

We all tend to think we are moderate and others are extreme, but I think you are going to be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks I am extremist as far as images go. Yet even I recognise that this image is problematic and without lasting encyclopedic value. As has been explained to you multiple times, there are other images that sufficiently illustrate Latuff's approach to art, views, stylistic technique, etc, and the image is defamatory and not notable in its own right. The project would be better off without it, and that is not censorship, it is scope. ++Lar: t/c 15:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The extreme individuals I am referring to are those who simply want all Latuff images to be deleted and those that seem to wish to promote them. I consider you to fall into neither group and hope you don't consider me to either whilst I disagree with you that this image doesn't have any educational value. Adambro (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Note: The discussion here is independant of the discussion on the Commons. We have a BLP policy on EnWiki. We do not have a BLP policy on the Commons. -- Avi (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)

IMHO any satire, in a BLP or otherwise, is a violation of NPOV. Mad Magazine can get away with it, an encyclopedia can't. Phil_burnstein (talk) 09:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you are saying. Of course these caricatures portray one person's point of view but we don't write neutral articles by not including opinions, we write neutral articles by not giving them undue weight. In this case, it seem completely appropriate to include some of Latuff's work. This particular image is discussed in the article so it makes sense to include it. Adambro (talk) 11:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Adambro, it is one sentence, and the outright sexual degradation and attack on character and morals that the image portrays far and away makes it a living person violation. The image can be linked to in the footnotes for people who are interested in seeing it; Wikipedia is above that. -- Avi (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I was totally unaware of this dispute and dubiously added the picture after reading the paragraph on Dershowitz. Apologies! Wikifan12345 (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. If the protective image had not been deleted this would not have happened. I have restored the protective image and any further deletion debate about it should be handled on the proper XfD. -- Avi (talk) 14:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that the article should include not merely that the cartoon was "criticized by Dershowitz" but that it was criticized as "obscene" by Dershowitz. Stellarkid (talk) 16:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC) Creating defamation or polemics while writing this article is one thing, testifying on an alleged "defamation" and the polemics around it in the real world (outside the Wikipedia effects, and independent of them) is another. To understand Carlos Latuff's work and points of views, it is mandatory to talk about and show (and not mute and hide) what he was saying, wether one likes it or not. This is not about judging the appropriatedness of Latuff's thoughts, it is about testifying objectively and accurately what he has done in his life, and what were the reactions. Avi, you've been invocating the existence of local policies which nobody denies. However you haven't shown that the current case falls under one of those censuring rules. If an editor of Wikipedia use an article to invent calumny, you can refer to the internal policies. But, if you don't like the works of Latuff, you can't use Wikipedia to censor him. Pronoein (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Having the image on EnWiki is a BLP violation. We link DIRECTLY to the image in the footnotes. It is a sad commentary if one extra click outweighs BLP in various editors' eyes. -- Avi (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Original research

According to Wikipedia:No original research Wikipedia should not publish "any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position". And it it goes on to say that you should not publish "your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions". The problem with this image is that some editors think a reliable source is linking to a picture and then write about their own interpretation of the picture and that is original research. Unless the analysis of the picture is done by someone with expertise in the field and then published in a reliable source such conclusions are not usable in he article. // Liftarn (talk) 11:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Virtually all WP plot summaries are OR -- you'd have a lot of work to do to remove them all. Have you read the works in question? IronDuke 13:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have added a few OR tags to a few plot summaries as well when they go against what I read/saw. But in literature and movies we don't have WP:BLP issues to deal with and usually there is very little risk of WP:TE. // Liftarn (talk) 13:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for that. So have you actually read these works? IronDuke 13:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It's comics. It not that it's a major time investment. My own original reasearch is of little relavence to the article, but what about images like File:Mothers don't like wars...except Barbara Bush!.jpg? Is that a potrtait of a villain? // Liftarn (talk) 13:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

So you haven't read it? Sorry, you confused me. IronDuke 14:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Obviously I did as I have read it. Not that it matter since my opinion is not a reliable source anyway. // Liftarn (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay... and did you have any thoughts about the content, as in who might be being portrayed as heroic? And did it seem obvious, or not so much? IronDuke 16:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

That would be doing WP:OR and my point is that it shuld be avoided. Just give the facts and let the reader draw his own conclusions. // Liftarn (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

So it's fair to say you yourself were not able to come to a conclusion as to whether the hero might be obvious (which would, of course, not be OR)? I don't want to put words in your mouth, so please correct me if I'm wrong. IronDuke 18:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Would it be fair to say that you are trying to put words into my mouth? // Liftarn (talk) 14:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, since I just made it clear I wasn't doing that, I guess it's obvious I'm not. Strange you would say that. What also seems to be obvious is that you are not going to actually discuss this, which is too bad. IronDuke 21:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm perfectly willing to discuss the issue, but asking my opinion on artworks isn't helping. // Liftarn (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

No, you are perfectly willing to evade a simple question. That's not discussion, just stonewalling. IronDuke 21:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Since the question is irrelevant to the content of the article my answer is simply not needed. // Liftarn (talk) 17:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it's a highly relevant question, and an easy one to answer. Is it obvious who the hero is in the cartoon? If we can all agree it's obvious, we don't need to source it. If we can't, in theory a source would be necessary. IronDuke 14:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Liftarn,

You can't just continue doing this. Having consensus against you and then you return 1 year later and just edit war on the same issue. Basically, you've misunderstood the idea behind original research. Original research would be (for example) to claim Latuff is an Iranian-backed militant (just an example) because he got paid by Iran for his activity. To say that his cartoons are favorable of the oppositions to Israel and USA is common sense and you've lost this "Its OR" debate a number of times already. Non-the-less, I'm willing to keep an open mind to rephrase suggestions that will satisfy your OR concerns. Keep in mind that we do need some type of proper descriptive of the themes of his works.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I checked and there appeared to be no concensus reached. That Latuff i no USA supportier should be quite obvious and as such it should be no problem finding reliable sources saying so. As for the Tales of Iraq War the comics used are cherrypicked. As the above example shows the portrait of the soldiers is done showing different sides of the issue. Also strips such as File:Marines The few, the proud, the murderers.jpg shows human error rather than malice. // Liftarn (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You should double-check because there's a pretty clear one. Also note that I'm willing to keep an open mind on a rephrase for the themes. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I looked again at Talk:Carlos Latuff/Archive 1#A Few Nit Picks on the Article and find no trace of any consensus. Apart from the comment about neonazis the last comment it actually says "Yes, other than as a source for that the cartoons exist they are pretty much usesless. You can't use them as sources for someting like "Latuff hates americans". That would be WP:OR." // Liftarn (talk) 10:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Quoting your own comment doesn't change that there is a long term consensus against your perspective and that once a year you ignore this and edit-war needless tags into the article while others make comments against your activity. OR means something different than what you think it does. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That was the last comment so there appear to be no consensus if we should include your own interpretations or not. // Liftarn (talk) 14:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a clear difference here between interpretations and facts. The cartoons are quite clear in theme and your claim that this could be interpreted in another manner hasn't persuaded otherwise in any of the past attempts to swoop in once a year and edit war against the long standing consensus. Havin the last comment in each of the discussions doesn't mean that there's no consensus against you. It only means that people have no interest in feeding trollish activity. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

So... the word "murderers" would be neutral here? IronDuke 16:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you shouldn't focus too much on a single file name. As I pointed out the portrayal of the US soldiers is diverse. Examples include[4][5][6][7] // Liftarn (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

So it isn't neutral, then? IronDuke 18:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

My interpretation is that the US soldiers are shown as humans. Sometimes good, sometimes bad, sometimes just misguided or misinformed. // Liftarn (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, I hate to read in to what you're writing, but it's a bit opaque. Can you say whether the word "murderer" would be a neutral title in this case? IronDuke 01:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I say that it doesn't matter what I (or you) think about it. That would be original research since at least I am a layman and haven't published my opinions in any reliable source. // Liftarn (talk) 10:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, you are side-stepping the issue, essentially refusing to say what you yourself believe to be true (or not true). Hard to have a conversation that way. IronDuke 21:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I thought we was going to discuss improving the article, not having a debate about art. // Liftarn (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

When you write non sequiturs like that, you make discussion impossible. IronDuke 21:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It's you who try to bring in irrelevant subjects. Do you or do you not have sources for your claims? Do I relly need to bring this trivial matter up at WP:BLPN? // Liftarn (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I have provided a source for what is, essentially, a stunningly obvious fact. In the future, could you at least attempt a search for refs before tagging, if you feel an obvious point needs explicating? IronDuke 02:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

No, you have only provided a link to the image. That is not a source as what it says in the article is based on your own interpretation of the image. Not to mention that you have cherrypicked the images to give a certain impression. // Liftarn (talk) 17:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Would you please look at the new source I provided. IronDuke 14:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Good, you managed to find a source for the "hero" part. Now you only need to find one for the "villain" part. // Liftarn (talk) 21:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

And you managed to actually read the source I found, so we're both winning. Do you think it would be possible for you to undo the grammatically challenged sentence you keep reinserting? IronDuke 15:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

And now that you've accepted that Juba is a "superhero," would it be possible for you to speculate as to just who the hero's enemies, i.e. the villains, could possibly be? Fellow Iraqis? Americans? Poverty and world hunger? IronDuke 15:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

As a Wikipedia editor it is not my job to speculate. For Juba the antagonists certainly is US soldiers, but they're not necessarily villains and as the section is about the entire series (that includes other strips as well) the view of the US soldiers is (as noted above) mixed. // Liftarn (talk) 19:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. As a Wikipedia editor, though, do you think it's your job to accept the mind-rendingly obvious (e..g, that heroes need villains)? Or is it more appropriate to demand sources for axioms that, literally, a child can understand? Also, can you fix the grammatical errors you keep reverting to reinsert? IronDuke 02:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't heroes need villains and I donät think every character in a comic is either a hero or a villain. // Liftarn (talk) 21:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it doesn't matter much how you feel about this cartoon as there's a strong consensus against it. If you feel your perspective is the correct one and the consensus is incorrect, feel free to bring this issue up for further review via WP:RfC or another form of dispute resolution.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Mob rule doesnot mean we can ignore WP:OR and WP:BLP. // Liftarn (talk) 16:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You completely misunderstood the idea of these policies. You are free to invite other editors to inspect your perspective of these policies in relevance to this page though. I would suggest RfC, but you could also go to VillagePump or Mediation or possibly even ask for help on the Help-pages (see WP:DR).

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood it as you obviously try to enter "unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position". "Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions." // Liftarn (talk)

No. That one relates to actual analysis and unpublished opinions, not to common sense. Use the dispute resolution please if you are so certain that everybody else on this page is wrong while you are the lone righteous of soddom. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Antisemitism cat

I'm not following the reasoning here. Clearly, it is a relevant category. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Now are these accusations against Latuff notable outside of any well-poisioning?--Severino (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

They were made by notable groups, and he took the trouble to respond to them, so , yes. Los Admiralos (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

He has made some disturbing antisemitic references in a number of his cartoons. There's no way aroud that even if you're a fan. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Severion, please read the description of the category. The category Anti-Semitic people was deleted years ago, this one is different. At the very least Latuff belongs in the category the same way the Anti Defamation League belongs, because his cartoons are the subject of discussions aout antisemitism. -- Avi (talk) 08:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not an article about antisemitism. It does not belong in category:Antisemitism. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, his themes touch very closely to antisemitism. Why do you think he was awarded 2nd place at the holocaust denial show in Iran.. I hope you can see that holocause denial is considered antisemitism related. Yes? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably because it is a good drawing with holocaust allusions. Latuff has criticized holocaust denial, see for example this drawing. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I have brought a source which accuses his work of being antisemitic. The category is appropriate. Furthermore, if Latuff himself has to respond to accusations of antisemitism, that is ipso facto proof that there is a discussion of antisemitism about his work, and so the category is eminently appropriate. quod erat demonstratum. -- Avi (talk) 15:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The attack by the Stephen Roth Institute that you link to is slander. It refers to a libelous falsification. See the manipulated drawing and the original here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect. It is not slander that his works have been compared to Nazi propagandist; that statement is true. You may disagree with it, however. Secondly, you may wish to review the definition of slander. Were your statement true (which it is not) it would be libel. Lastly, there was no image referred to in the source brought, so whatever link you have above is irrelevant. -- Avi (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, a different attack by the SRI, about a different image. Well, Latuff's caricatures of Sharon are similar to mainstream criticism of an Israeli politician. Compare Dave Brown in the Independent. You are giving undue weight to the sentence in the SRI report. Should be deleted according to WP:BLP. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant wiki-lawyering, Pieter. Per Category:Antisemitism, the category is properly placed in articles which discuss the phenomenon; this article does, and reputably so, so there is no BLP issue. Trying to perpetuate an unsupported political stance on English wikipedia is a classic violation of WP:SOAP, please stop. -- Avi (talk) 17:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Although I know you to be rather fluent in various wikimedias policies and guidelines from the commons, I will try and spell it out for you very clearly here, so that you no longer inappropriately use WP:BLP or WP:UNDUE and prvent yourself from being blocked for WP:DE.

1. Latuff's images have been the topic of discussion regarding their being anti-semitic or not. This alone makes the article subject to Category:Antisemitism, the same what the the Anti Defamation League is in that category as well.
2. Latuff's images have elements of attacks against Israel and Jews; to say that Antisemitism is UNDUE for this article is as rediculos as saying that Palestine is UNDUE for this article.
3. BLP requires that statements be properly sourced; this one is reliably and verifiably sourced. The fact that you personally do not like it is completely irrelevant.
4. Removing information, properly sourced and cited and against wikipedia's categorization policy and the definition of said category, to further a personal opinion is classic soapboxing and disruptive editing for which disregard may result in a loss of editing privileges.

Please keep all of the above in mind. -- Avi (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

And you are talking about wikilawyering!

Latuff's cartoons are attacking many things, also actions of Israel. That does not make antisemitism a valid category.

The Stephen Roth Institute's comparison with Streicher is vulgar rethoric, the kind of comparison that I have also opposed here on Swedish wikipedia. I see that Finkelstein's opinion is mentioned in the article MEMRI, but should his comparison with Streicher be quoted verbatim? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Pieter Kuiper,

"Latuff's cartoons are attacking many things, also actions of Israel. That does not make antisemitism a valid category."

I wouldn't call his cartoons "[attacking] actions of Israel" since he utilizes imagery deriving out of blind bigotry and lack of understanding (not to mention stupidity). In that respect, he was rightfully (what you called "vulgar rethoric") discussed in the context of antisemitsm. His participation in a holocaust denial display by Iran only goes to further note that the category is relevant. It doesn't matter if he says he doesn't like antisemites, btw, since it doesn't make him change his imagery and bigoted presentations as if the Israeli-Arab situation could be compared to a Nazi-Jewish sitaion with Israelis playing the role of Nazis in the dispute with the Arabs. That's just wrong on so many levels, esp. considering his stance on other issues. Anyways, you can't avoid the antisemitism category here and pointing out some case you think was unfair or innaccurate towards him is of little value since we're not using the category as a result of a single cartoon.

You really are stretching the boundaries of POV here by suggesting we're smearing him with a link to the category.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to see him in categories Political Cartoons --> Propaganda since that is rightly what he is, a propagandist. I think that's a more appropriate category than that of antisemitism, even if a case for it can be made. Merely labeling him an antisemite, hoping to dismiss him, to dismiss his message, is a mistake. His message must be answered. Latuff is really brilliant at what he does, getting his message out. The medium is one that speaks to millions of the world's illiterates. While to some of us he warps and lies about the world's realities as in this picture -- for him and his fellows it is an exercise of his free speech rights in service to what he sees as a "just cause." Would we had one or two fewer Jewish doctors and scientists and writers and lawyers and one or two more cartoonists .! BTW, I just went back to take a look at this picture The Eternal Jew and the cartoon that graced that "book" helped send millions of Jews to the concentration camps. What propaganda can do! And Latuff is no run of the mill antisemitic cartoonist, he is a propaganda force. Stellarkid (talk) 04:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

That is a common, and unfortunate, mistake, Stellar. Category:Anti-Semitic people was deleetd years ago. Category:Antisemitism, as it clearly states, relates to the discussion about Antisemitism. As I have said may times, the Anti Defamation League is also in that category, and anyone thinking the ADL is antisemitic is being ridiculous. Latuff may or may not be an anti-semite; that is a matter of opinion, but his images are in the center of a discussion about antisemitism, and so the category is appropriate. -- Avi (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Then you are technically correct. I am not too understanding of the category of categories. I still believe that there should be a category of political cartoons, and a category of propaganda as well and he would fit into both (all three) of those categories. Stellarkid (talk) 17:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you're right about him being especially clever, btw. He was just lucky enough to be likened by an Independent "opinionist" and several million usual haters that are used to his style already from their own media. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Holocaust denial cat

I added the category per this: his cartoon listed on page 64 in appendix C ("Examples of Denial") of this report by the Simon Wiesenthal Center--Mbz1 (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not holocaust denial. I am removing the category. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

To say it is not Holocaust denial you should have some reasons to prove it. I am not interested, and cannot care less about your own opinion on the matter. I did provide the reliable source reason for adding the category. Please do not remove it again.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The pamphlet that you consider a "reliable source" does not even say that Latuff's cartoon is holocaust denial. Your placement of Carlos Latuff in category:Holocaust denial violates WP:BLP#Categories. It is a category without relevance for the subject. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

"Pamphlet?" Why are you characterizing it that way? In any case, it is a highly respectable org, and does indeed give the cartoon as an example of HD. Take another look. IronDuke 00:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The SWC is a lobbying organization, its publications are not neutral, and cannot be used as reliable sources to anything else as its own opinions. But the report does not even support a statement like: "The SWC considers Carlos Latuff to be a holocaust denier." They just filled up a dozen pages with cartoons from the contest. The only text was: "The Iranian competition utilized all the classic motifs and images of antisemitism to deny the Holocaust and vilify Israel and Jews everywhere." There is no connection with this drawing. The drawing does not any classic motif of antisemitism. It just criticizes Israel - vilify is just the choice of words of the SWC as a special-interest club. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Well the SWC does fulfill a useful role, as the arguments of Holocaust deniers should be debunked. The only mention of Latuff in this report is the caption to his cartoon, which is comparing the plight of the Palestinian people to that of the Holocaust victims. While I can understand that may be offensive to some people, it is not denying the Holocaust, if anything it is asserting its existence. I agree with Peter that this source does not justify applying the (mendacious) label of "Holocaust denial" to Latuff. --NSH001 (talk) 09:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I’m afraid that’s simply wrong on all counts. The SWC is a respected organization. Does it concern itself with a special topic? Absolutely, but it’s perverse to suggest that the focus of the expertise of the SWC somehow makes it non-neutral. From the New York Times: “In November 1977, Mr. Wiesenthal lent his name to the Simon Wiesenthal Center , a Los Angeles-based institute for Holocaust remembrance. With an attached Museum of Tolerance and offices around the world, the center investigates and reports on anti-Semitism and bigotry worldwide.” No mention of a lack of neutrality (which would be irrelevant even if true). SWC is eminently quotable here, it’s just plain odd to say that it isn’t.

Your second point, that the SWC isn’t suggesting that the cartoon is holocaust denial, is also strange. They clearly are. I suppose it might be confusing, as NSH makes clear, without knowledge of the Holocaust or denial, one might well imagine that any depiction of events in that time and place would support the idea that “it happened.” Unfortunately, it does not. Comparisons between Jews and Nazis are, as well as being anti-Semitic, a form of denial (also called inversion here). From the JCPA: “The false accusation of Holocaust inversion-the portraying of Israel , Israelis, and Jews as Nazis-is a major distortion of history. This anti-Semitic concept claims that Israel behaves against the Palestinians as Germany did to the Jews in World War II. "The victims have become perpetrators," is one major slogan of the inverters. By shifting the moral responsibility for genocide, Holocaust inversion also contains elements of Holocaust denial.” One may disagree with this idea, but it’s definitely well-established. IronDuke 14:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are many points of comparison between the Nazis and Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, which is racist to the core: the theft of their land and property, deprivation of their livelihood, demolition of their homes, the ethnic cleansing, the general attempts at expulsion and elimination, entrenched discrimination in the legal and administrative systems, the killing, bombing, shelling and shooting (with the Palestinians suffering much higher deaths and other casualties than Israelis), harassment by the military and by settlers (many of the latter armed) and all the rest of the long list of atrocities, abuses and humiliations which have been going on for decades, and still are, year after year, month after month, day after fucking day. For sure, it's not on the same level as the Holocaust, but it's bad enough for legitimate comparisons to be made — particularly in the context of cartoons, where exaggeration is de rigeur. If there is denial going on here, it is of what is happening to the Palestinians. Latuff's cartoons are a useful antidote to this denial.

Apart from this observation, I repeat that there is no way this source supports the claim that Latuff is a Holocaust denier, since he is not mentioned at all in the body of the report, for the simple reason that he is not denying the Holocaust—some of the other cartoons are indeed Holocaust denial, but not Latuff's.

--NSH001 (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)