File talk:Ship to Gaza by Latuff.gif

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

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

Incomplete File Description

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

This is not a wikipedia article. The only relevant source on Commons is the source of the image and its license. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I have thus removed Latuff's comments. It so happens that they're not even correct - Latuff attributes the "up to 16 people" accusation to this source, which does not use the words 16 and sixteen. 79.183.13.133 07:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Category:Antisemitism

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

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

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

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

A ship is not the world. Latuff's visual language is more like File:Colossal octopus by Pierre Denys de Montfort.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see the relevance. The cartoon you link to is not depicting Jewish people as animals. It's a cartoon of a sea monster. It was not drawn as political satire at all! It's a cartoon of a legendary sea monster. You may want to read the English Wikipedia article about it. So I don't see any relevance. That it is possible to have an image of an octopus attacking a ship that is not political satire and that is not anti-semitic, is not in doubt.

Equally not in doubt is that this Latuff cartoon uses classic anti-semitic imagery dating back to Hilter to depict Jews as inhuman, and non-Jews as human. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Animals are common in cartoons. America can be a bald eagle, French can be frogs, peace activists can be doves. But anytime Israel is depicted in a critical cartoon as an animal, a bunch of people will try to deflect the criticism by shouting "antisemitism". In this case a ship was attacked. Drawing the attacker as a big sea animal (shark, whale, octopus) is not particularly creative or original, and one does not need Mein Kampf as a reference. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Pieter, this is precisely the point. He chose, as you correct identify, an image that is historically known. He didn't choose a bald eagle, even though the commandos came from the air (helicopter) because in the visual language of the cartoonist, the bald eagle is America. He didn't choose a Frog, that's the French. He specifically chose a well-known Nazi symbol for a reason. It doesn't take much creativity, for sure, to use classic antisemitic imagery, but the question is not at all whether the man came up with an original insult. He didn't have to do that - he just copied an old Nazi one. That's antisemitism, no two ways about it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Frogs don't attack (they get boiled). Latuff chose a giant octopus, because a ship was attacked. The image of en:Kraken is familiar in current drawings: [6], [7], [8], etcetera. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 02:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Ditto that. Also it's clearly the state of Israel that is being pictured so the claim of antisemitism is obviously void. When you have an hammer et.c. // Liftarn (talk) 21:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, Latuff's work is more anti the actions of the state of Israel usually then it is anti semitism (which relates more to the people, religion and culture). If anything it would fall under w:New antisemitism, but I myself consider that to be a somewhat incorrect denomination and i'm not really sure how widely accepted it is in the broader scientific world. I think i would prefer 'criticism of Israel' as a description of the content. TheDJ (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

TheDJ, "anti the actions of the state of Israel" is certainly true of much of Latuff's work, but in many cases he deliberately uses antisemitic imagery for greater emotional impact. It is possible argue (though, quite implausibly I think) that he is not himself antisemitic - that he uses this imagery for artist and satirical purposes. But the fact remains that the imagery chosen is chosen to resonate with those historical themes.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

How does this fit with your stance on libel of living people? Nobody would have said anything if North-Korea's sinking of ships were depicted with the octopus. Compare also these old octopus images. Or Playmobile./Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Your logic continues to escape me. I don't follow your argument at all. If someone did a political cartoon of me eating watermelon, it would not be racist, because I am white. If someone did a political cartoon of Obama eating watermelon, it would widely and quite properly be regarded as racist, because that is a classic move from racist political discourse. So you are precisely right that if North Korea's sinking of ships were depicted with the octopus, no one would say anything about it. But so what? The point is, this is a classic symbol from Nazi iconography. In this context, it is clearly antisemitic in intent and meaning.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

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

That is not an entirely bad idea actually... but we should make a careful consideration on that. 'criticism' is a very vague term, and since pictures are not articles, such quantifications can be problematic. pro's and cons ? TheDJ (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I support a category on anti-Israeli sentiment, as while it is a jewish state it is perfectly possible to disagree with its actions without being antisemitic in my view. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I certainly agree that there should be a category for Category:Criticism of Israel. And I also agree that criticism of Israel and antisemitism are not identical. This drawing is clearly both - it is criticism of Israel which makes use of classic antisemitic imagery and techniques. This is not an out-of-context work with a random image in it - this is the work of an artist who chooses imagery based on emotional impact and historical resonance.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)