Category talk:Propaganda cartoons

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

What is a "propaganda cartoon"? These are just political cartoons. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see the definition of propaganda on the commons. Not all political cartoons are intended to highlight one side of a situation and to show one side or the other from a more biased perspective. Please mine and Liftarn's talk pages for more discussion, and for Liftarn's suggestion of this idea :) -- Avi (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
And there it says that propaganda is typically by governments and state agencies. These are just political cartoons. You labeling them as "propaganda" just means that you disagree with them. It says more about your political views than about these images. Please use your user page for that, not the category system. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
For the record I would like to point out that I said it was a bad idea as they don't fill the definition of propaganda and just is cheap name calling. // Liftarn (talk) 21:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, let's see. per propaganda:

Propaganda is a specific type of message presentation aimed at serving an agenda. Even if the message conveys true information, it may be partisan and fail to paint a complete and balanced picture. The primary use of the term is in political contexts, and generally refers to efforts sponsored by governments and political parties.
  1. Are Latuff's images aimed at serving an agenda? Yes
  2. Are Latuff's images true? Irrelevant because…
  3. Are Latuff's images partisan/paint an incomplete and unbalanced picture? Yes
  4. Does propaganda have to be government sponsored? No although it generally is.

That's 100% compliance to the commons definition; quod erat demonstratum. -- Avi (talk) 21:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

  1. Really?
  2. Concur.
  3. As do every political cartoon.
  4. It generally is.
  5. Did you add every other image that fits the description?

// Liftarn (talk) 21:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

  1. Yes
  2. Great
  3. No, not every political cartoon is intended to bias one side or the other. Many 18th century cartoons, IIRC, lampoon EVERYONE. Another example. How many of the images in Category:Anarchist cartoons are propaganda, although they are political?
  4. Generally <> Always in the English language
  5. Not yet, but it is something I am working on; please help me :)

-- Avi (talk) 21:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem with your wide definition of propaganda is that every political cartoon can be fitted into it if you just try a little. Anarchism is a political ideology so obviously they are political. // Liftarn (talk) 21:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly my point, Liftarn, that not all political cartoons are propaganda. Of COURSE the anarchist ones are political, that was not the question; but most of those are not serving an agenda by painting a biased picture of a dispute or event, so they are not propaganda - thus the need for separate categories. So we agree that the set of political cartoons contains elements that are NOT part of the set of Propaganda cartoons. Now the question is is the set of propaganda cartoons a subset of political cartoons? I do not think so, as there are propaganda cartoons that are not directly political (the free-use ones from wiki) so I believe that the there exists elements in EACH set that do not exist in the intersection, thus neither should be a subset of the other. -- Avi (talk) 21:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Ofcourse they are biased! Everything has a bias one way or another. Every cartoon (or photo for that matter), nor just the political ones, can be said to be propaganda in one way or another. It is just a matter of how hard you look. Without any solid qualifiers of what is propaganda and what isn't it's pointless. // Liftarn (talk) 21:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Then there is no such thing as propaganda according to you, which is reductio ad absurdum. There are cartoons where the purpose is to give a sketch of a person despite the leanings of the caricaturist, and then there are cartoons where the purpose is to specifically portray a one-sided depiction of an event or dispute specifically to further an agenda. The latter we call propaganda, the former not. Would you not agree that Hanau is INTENDING to show one side of a dispute to further an agenda? Would you say the same about this image File:Emma y bakunin.jpg? Both are cartoons, both are political, but one is overt propaganda and one is not. -- Avi (talk) 21:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, propaganda is from a state of a political party. Any sketch carries a certain bias since the artist choosed certain techniques, included certain features while not including others and so on. File:Emma y bakunin.jpg can be said to further the anarchistic agenda so then it would also be propaganda. // Liftarn (talk) 22:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I think most people would disagree with you there, Liftarn. You seem to have a much wider view of propaganda than either I do or the commons definition states; that may be why you feel comfortable combining the two whereas I do not. -- Avi (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. It is you who have a very wide and very flexible definition of propaganda. Without strict guidelines for inclusion this category becomes useless. // Liftarn (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion[edit]

  1. Is the image a cartoon or caricature?
  2. Does the image portray a dispute or event from a false or incomplete, partial, or biased perspective?
  3. Is the image intended to further a specific agenda?

If all three are yes, we have a win. -- Avi (talk) 22:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

  1. This should be quite easy to tell.
  2. This is entierly based on your own viewpoint and not a good inclusion criteria.
    Oh, please Liftarn. That Nazi images of Jews with fangs sucking blood from globes are false is subjective? Wow. -- Avi (talk) 15:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  3. Ditto.
    Oh, please Liftarn. That Nazi images of Jews with fangs sucking blood from globes are intended to foster hatred of Jews by Germans is subjective? Wow. -- Avi (talk) 15:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm quite sure the nazis thought them to be objective (I think that's what you mean). It depends on your viewpoint. However, the nazi images is propaganda since they are a) meant to influence and b) made by a political party and/or government. That's the difference between propaganda and an editorial. // Liftarn (talk) 16:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
As such the inclusion criteria boils down to a cartoon or drawing someone don't like. That is not a working definition. // Liftarn (talk) 11:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC):

Repeating your point does not make it more correct, Liftarn. I gave three clear criteria, you choose not to understand them. How do you justify Category:Propaganda, which has the same inclusion criteria as this, but includes all media types? -- Avi (talk) 16:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The difference is that Category:Propaganda obviously have not attracted people who makes an intentional effort to misunderstand the term. I agree with you that the inclusion criteria there should also be straightened out. // Liftarn (talk) 17:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, that sounds suspiciously like you are claiming I am making an intentional effort to misunderstand the term despite the clear criteria I listed. I'll put that down to a poor choice of words on your part. You do know you just basically implied, that according to you, once the inclusion criteria for the parent cat are cleared up there is nothing wrong with this one either. Your only concern is that there may some intentional attention from those misunderstandning the term. The answer to that is not deletion, but education, like expressing clear criteria, as I have. Once again, this sounds like "I don't like it, so let's delete it", but perhaps I am misunderstanding you. -- Avi (talk) 17:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying that many images that isn't propaganda by the way the word is used have been included in the category and a clearer inclusion criteria like requiring it to be published to further the goals of a specific government, country and/or political party. // Liftarn (talk) 17:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

So you are saying that there are images that are either:

  1. not cartoons/caricatures
  2. completely impartial and neutral as to how they represent their subject
  3. have no intended agenda in their publication outside of pure illustration

in that category? Can you provide some examples, please? -- Avi (talk) 18:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You forgot "published to further the goals of a specific government, country and/or political party". // Liftarn (talk) 18:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

That is not a requirement in the definition of propaganda. I understand English is not your native tongue, so I suggest you review the meaning of the word "generally". Here, I'll use a (flawed, I'm sure) machine translation for you: "Den primära användningen av begreppet i politiska sammanhang, och i allmänhet hänvisar till ansträngningarna sponsras av regeringar och politiska partier." Notice, it says "i allmänhet" and not "alltid". Of course, we know that machine translations can be flawed, and that the native language meaning is the decider, but as a way to help you understand, I hope this helps. -- Avi (talk) 18:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of that, but for the category it is best to use the stricter definition as that is the generally accepted meaning of the word. // Liftarn (talk) 18:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

That is your opinion only. The commons definition does not agree with you. So it seems that your issue here is not with any commons definitions or criteria, but your opinion that stricter definitions than what is used in the commons should be used. While you are more than entitled to your opinion, it remains true that one person's opinion does not decide for all the commons. So, again, outside of your not liking it, do you have a specific issue? -- Avi (talk) 18:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually Category:Propaganda says you should only include "materials which are deliberately intended to be works of propaganda". // Liftarn (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Which is a tautology. Propaganda should only include propaganda, I agree. Now, what is propaganda. For that, see steos 2 and 3 of the three-step process above, based on the commons definition. -- Avi (talk) 18:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Propaganda should only include "materials which are deliberately intended to be works of propaganda". If you can't prove that was the intent it fails the inclusion criteria. // Liftarn (talk) 18:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point, Liftarn. Firstly, check Latuff's website, he is trying to further the agenda of the Palestinians, and his cartoons are not impartial - if not outright false, so he is deliberately intending to be a work of propoganda (an impartial or false image intended to further an agenda). So you have just proved my point; thank you. -- Avi (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for that he deliberately tries to give a false image? If you can't then it's not OK to include them. // Liftarn (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Mistake, Liftarn. The "deliberate" refers to the intent. And yes, on his website he says his purpose is to be a non-mainstream method for spreading the plight of the Palestinians. The accuracy of the image is not the part subject to deliberation--as long as the image is not impartial and unbiased, it qualifies according to the commons definition. -- Avi (talk) 19:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he makes the cartoons intentionally. It's not something he does in his sleep or something. However they are not intentionally created as propaganda, but as information and (partially) entertainment. Sorry, it fails the criteria. // Liftarn (talk) 19:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes they are, unless you believe that the caricatures are not deliberately created in order to push an agenda, and are simultaneously imapartial. For you to think Latuff images are impartial speaks more to your inherent beliefs and biases than to reasonable artisitic comprehension and critique. Once again, may I remind you, your opinion doth not the commons rule. At least my edits have been in accord with the commons definition of propaganda and caricatures. -- Avi (talk) 19:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

May I remind you that your opinion is not an inclusion criteria either. I'm interested in seeing how you deal with things like this. // Liftarn (talk) 20:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, but propaganda is commons criteria :). Further, if you would have checked my contributions you would have seen I was addressing that about 10 minutes BEFORE your edit above. -- Avi (talk) 20:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

No, Category:Propaganda is. // Liftarn (talk) 21:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

message to Liftarn[edit]

If you're willing to include this category on the category page of bigoted hatemonger Carlos Latuff (Category:Carlos Latuff), then I'm perfectly satisfied to have your edits remain. Otherwise, however, your addition of this particular category to a number of image description pages would appear to be a continuation of your rather troubling pattern of adding negative categories to things that you personally dislike in order to stigmatize and label them on a rather purely subjective and personalistic basis (see File_talk:Gathering_of_eagles.jpg ad nauseam), and I will be reverting the inclusion of certain images into this category for that reason. AnonMoos (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that all images by Latuff are in this category. For example, look at his "Forgiveness" series. That is not propaganda, I believe. Individual images should be tagged so as not to incorrectly over-categorize and misrepresent. -- Avi (talk) 19:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
That's nice -- however, there's some long-standing resentment by some people who have participated in Wikimedia Commons that Liftarn has managed to "game the system" and use Commons as a platform for the promotion and promulgation of Latuff bigoted hatemongering -- and allowing the highly selective and tendentious tagging of certain images which are personally disliked by Liftarn to stand, while leaving Latuff untagged, is likely to roil the waters and create turbulence and friction without necessarily clarifying any issues or improving the categorization of images here. See already etc. AnonMoos (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
When your heart is filled with hate all you see is hate. // Liftarn (talk) 20:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Then maybe you should start looking in a mirror, Liftarn, since you seem to spend a lot of energy defending obviously bigoted images (like File:Cry-wolf.png, which very clearly expresses bigoted contempt for Judaism as a religion -- not mere "Zionism"[sic], but specifically Jewish practices), and you also seem to have limitless time to spare to go around to hundreds of images and tag them with meaningless smear and slur terms like "Racism" and "Islamophobia" solely and exclusive to express your purely subjective and personalistic hatreds of the things which the images represent. That's why I added "Category:Propaganda cartoons" only to the master category "Category:Carlos Latuff", and not to the individual Latuff cartoon image description pages -- because I really just don't have the limitless energy and unbounded patience which you draw on to unflaggingly express your multifarious and overflowing hatreds... AnonMoos (talk) 23:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
It is true that I have a deep dislike for racism so I have put in a bit of work in that area. // Liftarn (talk) 10:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
You certainly have a deep desire to tar with the broad brush of vague slur and smear terms like "racism" everything which you happen to personally disagree with -- which is why words such as "racism" in fact become rather meaningless the way you use them. I'm not particularly impressed with Latuff's or your supposed "anti-racist" credentials, since such so-called "anti-racism"[sic] has led you to upload dozens of cartoons by a bigoted hatemonger, while a prominent part of Carlos Latuff's supposed "anti-racism"[sic] appears to be a very intentional and deliberate effort to stigmatize Jews as Jews. AnonMoos (talk) 10:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I think there is a clear definition of racism as hate and/or discrimination based on skin colour and/or etnic/religious background. So yes, antisemitism is a form of racism and islamophobia is a form of racism. Legitimate criticism of some of the actions of Israel is not to "stigmatize Jews as Jews". It may hurt your national pride, but that's an entirely different matter. // Liftarn (talk) 12:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
AnonMoos, I think that the propaganda images of Latuff should be tagged, as I have done :) -- Avi (talk) 19:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Consider your willingness to tag everything as propaganda why exclude the forgiveness series? After all they are not an accurate depiction of reality and the advocate a two state solution and there are those who think that is a form of antisemitism as well. // Liftarn (talk) 20:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

False antecedents imply any consequent, Liftarn. As a software programmer, you should know that. :) Oh, and for the record, I do not see evidence of a false or biased/partial depiction of an event in those. -- Avi (talk) 20:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

They are obviously fictional events and thus false. And they promote peace. So it is a cartoon. They don't show an actual event. They serve an agenda (peace). They fulfil your inclusion criteria. // Liftarn (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

As is obvious, not every false image is propaganda, Liftarn. For example, are science-fiction book covers propaganda? -- Avi (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

If they served an agenda they would be according to your criteria. // Liftarn (talk) 21:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)