Commons:Deletion requests/File:No Israel.svg

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

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:No_Israel.svg[edit]

This image seems to exist for the sole or principal purpose of attacking or intimidating other users and is of a nature apparently intended to shock or give offense to some, and appears to have no encyclopedic or other Wikimedia related use. Attack images should be considered a form of vandalism. Thuresson 18:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a candidate for a {{speedydelete}}. Mutter Erde 18:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ‌I was thinking that it's the same of Image:Non aux religions.png, Image:No god.PNG, Image:No music.svg or Image:Anti-soccer.png, isn't it?--OsamaK 10:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have a large number of such images aimed at activities, ideologies and religions. --Simonxag 21:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have too many images that's unencyclopedic (e.g. Personal photos or above ones..)--OsamaK 13:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This picture is only in use by OsamaK [1] and I don't think, that you can use this picture in any Wikipedia-Article -- Ra'ike Diskussion 11:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
All these images (Image:Non aux religions.png, Image:No god.PNG, Image:No music.svg or Image:Anti-soccer.png) not in used but in users pages, I can't see the different--OsamaK 13:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any answer for my questions? Remember that "Polling is not a substitute for discussion"--OsamaK 18:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't this fall under "The file/page is not potentially usable by any current or future Wikimedia project" not necessarily suitable for a speedy, but the fact that other similar but not the same images haven't been deleted isn't any sort of explanation of why this one shouldn't be, right? Jessamyn 04:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about usera pages, aren't these one of Wikimedia's project pages? there are too many images that don't use but in a user page (e.g. Personal photos..).--OsamaK 10:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, if it will be deleted, I'll request all these images above (and othere) ;) (can't see the different).--OsamaK 10:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will tell you the difference. Flags/coats of arms/seals are symbols of countries. When you put a cross on a flag of a country, you are insulting that country's nation. No-one will be offended if you dislike, hate or even disrespect music or football which is not the case for flags. --Meno25 04:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Troll? Many users don't agree with that, you can see this link :).--OsamaK 11:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would be very useful to see this request too.--OsamaK 11:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let´s do 2 votes: One for these people, who want to install you as admin and the other for these who want to ban you. I´m very curious. Mutter Erde 11:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mutter Erde, please try to stay calm and civil. Calling people names in a discussion remotely connected to Israel is like smoking in a petrol station. Rama 11:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No reason to delete:
    • We do have numerous images which are not a direct encyclopedic nature. Remember that we feed images to all Wikimedia projects, like Wikinews for instance
    • That the image is not of an encyclopedic nature remains to be proved
    • We do host images for the benefit of users' pages
    • We do host images which are scarcely used, if at all.
Rama 11:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This image is an insult to Israel. Flags are symbols of countries. All flags should be treated with respect. Today someone puts a cross on Israeli flag, tomorrow someone will put a cross on the Saudi flag saying that Saudi are terrorists (because OsamaK is Saudi) then the American/Chinese/Russian etc flags. This will cause unnecessary site-wide drama. Remember that Commons is politically neutral as pointed out by Erik, a former member of the Board of trustees. Commons is not the place for solving the Arab Israeli conflict. --Meno25 04:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
{{ar|ما رأيك بصورة [[:Image:No god.PNG| كهذه[[ ألا تستطيع أن ترى فيها أسوأ أنواع الإهانة، احترام المعتقدات أهم بكثير من احترام أعلام الدول والشعارات، وبالمناسبة لست أهتم إذا قام أحد المستخدمين بوضع إشارة "خطأ" على علم السعودية، ويكيميديا كومنز هي مكتبة عامة؛ يوجد صور "أسوأ" بكثير من هذه، ستجدها في الأعلى. لست أبالي، لنحذف هذه الصورة، بشرط أن نعامل بقية الصور بنفس المنطلق. ويكيميديا ليست مؤسسة إلحادية إسرائيلة، ويكيميديا مؤسسة للجميع.}}

--OsamaK 08:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English: What do you think about this image can't be seen the worst kind of insult, respect for religions is much more important than respect for the states and logos, I do not care if a user has upload an image includes a "cross" to Saudi flag. Wikimedia Commons is a public library; there are many pictures "worse" much than this (see them above) I don't care to delete this image, but we must delete other images. Wikimedia is not Israelis and atheists foundation, Wikimedia Foundation is for all.

--OsamaK 09:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All theses images will be deleted, I guess!--OsamaK 09:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. ~ bayo or talk 12:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Altough the discussion is closed already, here my opinion:
  • A real use in Wikipedia or real life should be given. Commons should not be depository for selfmade symbols waiting to be used somewhere some day.
  • Not very no-sign is a problem. If you dont want icecream eaten by children in your library you have a sign. This ok.
  • A sign in a certain way calling for war against a state is not ok.
So far for now Simplicius 13:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted --Zirland 12:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the results of this DR were overturned by subsequent UDEL requests. Please see the image's talk page for details. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:No Israel.svg (September 2009)[edit]

Used solely for the purposes of hate by selected users. Unlike other anti-X files, this one is A) not a common graphic; B)aimed towards one country/culture; C) not used as a political statement against the government, but rather as a hate tool towards the people with an affinity towards that government. --TheXen (talk) 08:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We've agreed to keep this photo. I don't have so much time to lose there. Please re-read the old discussions.--OsamaK 11:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy kept. No, we're not going to do this again. See all the past discussions on File talk:No Israel.svg. Rocket000 (talk) 11:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I refuse to let you do that on the ground of a discussion that took place 3/4 of a year ago. It clearly missed the entire point that this image (As well as any flag with a big prohibitionary symbol, including File:Anti-Israel.jpg) are clearly meant to show hatred towards another race or culture. This is simply not the case with most of the other anti-whatever images, which are not used to preserve an age old quarrel between two cultures that can't give it a rest. This image is MEANT to portray hatred. Images, such as the anti-god image, are primarily used to show an affinity, and not as an attack on a single group or culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheXen (talk) 16:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From looking at the 6 userpages containing the image (User:Waraqa, User:Radwan.salhi, User:Abdelrhman_1990, User:Yamanam/My_Political_View, User:Aboalbiss, and User:OsamaK) It is quite clear this image is being used by users with a political agenda. I would be just as upset to see a bunch of Israeli users with a Palestine flag with a prohibitionary symbol, as I imagine these 6 users would be. Wiki is not the place to further these situations, especially when neither side is in the right in the first place. - TheXen (talk) 19:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't mean we should delete the file. It's another issue, where DR isn't the right place. Commons:Project scope/Pages, galleries and categories. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 20:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See Commons:Project_scope#Must_be_realistically_useful_for_an_educational_purpose, something this image clearly violates many points of. - TheXen (talk)
This was brought up in the previous DRs too. The end result of those debates were, pretty much, that this file was (still is) realistically useful for educational purposes, and fits our project scope. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 20:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I starting thinking about why things like this comes up again and again. Even when you have policies that make it as clear as possible, they still don't see it. It's not the we're disagreeing about anything really. No one's arguing that this isn't offensive to some people. No one's arguing that this isn't "hate propaganda". No one's arguing that hate is a bad thing. We might as well be talking about two completely different things.

One side is looking at the gun, they other side is looking at the person holding it. You know the saying, "guns don't kill people, people kill people". An image out of context is just an image. It's how it is used that makes it right or wrong, or rather, an instrument for right or wrong (and that's when personal beliefs come into play). Unlike guns where, good or bad, they have an obvious and intentional violent/destructive aspect (regardless of what you shoot at), images are a lot more flexible. This image is being used in the mainspace of at least one Wikipedia (there were more before). And it's being used in a legitimate way: to illustrate a real issue in the world. (Actually, guns can be used to teach people what a gun is too, but usually a picture works just fine.) Regardless, Commons is not the place to decide if it should be used in a certain article or not. The fact that it is or can be (not counting those very temporary situations, like vandalism). That's an editorial decision and should be made locally. If we started deleting whatever we didn't like, well, I know I wouldn't upload to Commons anymore if uploading locally meant I wouldn't have to worry about it getting deleted because some group of people over at Commons think they knew better and had the right/authority to remove things they don't approve of. Some sites have local uploads turned of so they don't even have this choice.

Using the word "hate" doesn't change the fact that it's still a POV. As long as there is more than one side, nothing is absolute. Claiming otherwise makes it impossible to compromise. Two different absolutes can not logically coexist. Why would you even consider trying to see things their way? That would be absurd if things weren't relative and you knew that... (I had a lot more typed out here before saving, but turning a deletion request into a debate on metaphysics isn't going to get us anywhere. lol.)

I personally dislike when users put anything to do with politics, race, religion, etc. on their userpage. Not only is it completely irrelevant, but injecting real-life drama into a multicultural environment like this only compounds the naturally-forming wikidrama and makes everything a lot less enjoyable for everyone. I would much rather talk about creating a userpage policy banning images like rather than banning it completely for both good and bad uses. Rocket000 (talk) 05:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I would be happier to see this image (And others used in a similar manner) forbidden in the userspace, for the sole reason that it creates unnecessary drama. - 99.227.74.32 14:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The fact of the matter, which you can observe from other deletion discussions, is that it is not this type of image that is the problem, but any image potentially harmful to the state of Israel. Deleting this image is not going to defuse controversy but rather give encouragement to those who want to censor the commons. --Simonxag (talk) 11:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with harm to the state of Israel, but rather advertising your hatred for the people of Israel because you have a problem with the state of Israel. Again, if the picture is keepable, its use on userpages is not. - 70.53.44.37 18:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DR isn't the place for that. I would say notifying the user(s) is the approach to go. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 20:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or write up a userpage policy on it and try getting consensus. (Note that it would only apply to Commons' userpages; we can't control other projects but they can have their own policies on the matter.) I personally don't have issues with people expressing their views so I wouldn't necessarily support it, but I wouldn't oppose either because this isn't MySpace/Facebook. All that crap is irrelevant and doesn't make Commons better. Actually, I would support if it meant we wouldn't have to keep wasting time on deletion requests like this.. yet, I know it won't stop them. People will always find things to get offended over. Some people are more interested in suppressing than expressing. That's why they're here. Rocket000 (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it is used. Those uses are debatable, but commons should not delete files if most (or even all) uses are debatable. If commons can't be trusted to keep files which are used and which have a "free" license, people may stop uploading to commons (the interpretations of "free" cause enough heat already). Erik Warmelink (talk) 19:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. Please stop being silly and find something useful you can do for Wikimedia projects or the free software movement. Commons community understands that the users are free to write their political opinions on their userpages. It understands that there is no 'promised land' in case of judging photos. It has so much work to be done other than stupid endless discussions. Commons is all about hosting photos, it's not about what's right and what's wrong in the Arab/Muslim-Israeli conflict. So I'm not really interested in repeating the old talks, they're still in the archive.--OsamaK 21:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can see how this image is made to provoke anger anywhere, within and outside the Arab–Israeli conflict participants, on either side of the fence. The image is born of hatred, mistrust and non-equality; and even if removed, will only be duplicated, since it gives a possible depiction of a disagreement, which is real and genuine, has been for decades, and will continue for some time -- and is thankfully covered by several fine articles in Wikipedia.

As Wikimedia does concern with topics which are real - I can see how this image is within the scope of any project. The fact that a user chooses, and is allowed, to express things he feels strongly about (be it due to hate, feelings of distress, or any other reason), is topic for discussion on user pages do's and don'ts, from Wikimedia's standpoint, and from the users'.

Any way, I don’t think that placing a symbol (be it pro or anti any given subject) on a user page serves anyone with an actual vehicle of propaganda. I am speculating here - but I can guess that most readers are probably either unaware of, or don't really mind, user pages.

On a personal note, as an Israeli I do find it offensive for people to use this specific image as a way of expressing their identity. But, if I were anti-gay, I would probably feel the same towards people using the Rainbow flag on their user pages. Perhaps this is why "not censored" is, in fact, relevant. 93.172.134.232 23:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep - I objected last time these images were up for deletion, and I haven't changed my mind. This image is not a call for a new holocaust, it is against the state of Israel (a subtle distinction from the jewish people, I grant you). Maybe the image is offensive, but so are a lot of our images, and we keep them. We do not delete images which are racist, sexist, ageist, etc, if they have a reasonable use, and their description/name is not offensive. The name here is "No israel", which is not offensive, unlike say "Israel should burn in hell". The description is to the point. Moreover, it is within scope because it is in use on other projects. We do not censor commons, nor should we try. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It should be restricted to articles only. It's use on userpages, while certainly possible to do in a non-hateful way, is now limited almost exclusively to a message of hate. That does not fall within the project scope. - Floydian (talk) 17:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. No valid argument presented. Commons is not wikipedia. Commons can not dictate file use within other project. Projects set its own image standards. Ar.wikipedia uses the file within Neturei Karta article . File is used in 4 wikis and commons. Tarawneh (talk) 00:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.


File:No_Israel.svg (May 2010)[edit]

This image is clearly discriminatory. Its use in user pages is a terrible violation of a Pillar of Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:EQ Ferbr1 (talk) 20:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep - per last DR, Commons is not wikipedia. Commons can not dictate file use within other project. Projects set its own image standards. We shouldn't delete this image when it is in legitimate use on other projects. I just want to get rid of it as a political statement from commons userpages. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope You can read this:

Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose.

This image is "realistically useful for an educational purpose"? I think that not: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:GlobalUsage/No_Israel.svg

In http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope#Examples you can read this:

Examples

Examples of files that are not realistically useful for an educational purpose:

  • Private image collections, e.g. private party photos, photos of yourself and your friends, your collection of holiday snaps and so on. There are plenty of other projects on the Internet you can use for such a purpose, such as Flickr. Such private image collections do not become educational even if displayed as a gallery on a user page on Commons or elsewhere.
  • Self-created artwork without obvious educational use.
  • Files apparently created and/or uploaded for the purpose of vandalism or attack. Preexisting designs and symbols that are or have been associated with nationalistic, religious or racist causes are not out of scope solely because they may cause offence. Provided they are legal to host and otherwise fall within Commons scope (e.g. if they could for example be used to illustrate a Wikipedia article on a hate group) they should be kept.
  • Advertising or self-promotion.
  • Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality.

This image is used for the most part in user's pages, with an aim of attack... Ferbr1 (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To quote your quote, Preexisting designs and symbols that are or have been associated with nationalistic, religious or racist causes are not out of scope solely because they may cause offence. Provided they are legal to host and otherwise fall within Commons scope (e.g. if they could for example be used to illustrate a Wikipedia article on a hate group) they should be kept. Could easily be used in an article on anti-Israeli sentiments. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral Killing it here isn't going to deal with the fact that it's used on many, many user pages, mostly on the Arabic Wikipedia. And we generally do host images that are in heavy use on other Wikimedia projects, even if only on user pages. On the other hand, killing it here may stop it from spreading. --Prosfilaes (talk) 00:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: If you knew why it was made & why is it used, you would want to remove it immediately. It provokes racism & hatred for no reason, when I'm sure that a similar flag for Saudi Arabian or other Pan-Arabist/Islamist country won't be tolerated by the ones who are using the picture in the templates in their pages. Delete it quickly, because it is unfair. Wikipedia is not a place for hate & discrimination. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 03:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC) While reviewing who is using it, I was shocked to see a user called Good Muslim using it! Can't a person be a good Muslim without being anti-Israeli! --Mahmudmasri (talk) 04:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mahmudmasri wrote -- "If you knew why it was made & why is it used..." -- Isn't the important point simply that images like this are made and do get used? Therefore, this picture exemplifies (and can educate people about) a real and notable genre of symbols. Just as Wikimedia Commons has pictures of flags being burned, which has nothing to do with whether or not we approve of flag-burning. It simply illustrates (and can educate people about) the reality that flag-burning happens. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 05:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Used by many people and in a Wikipedia article..--OsamaK 05:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Commons is a media server that has to contain a neutral picture of our world: the good and the bad things. If we remove it, it will pop up elsewhere anyway. --Foroa (talk) 06:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Deleting a file because it "insights hatred" is like shooting the messenger to make the problem go away. Anti-semitism and similar sentiments are a form of mental retardation that lives in the minds of the people who hate, not in the image that they use to express themselves. Besides, deleting the image is giving in to the fear that these people are trying to evoke.
    That aside, as has been pointed out earlier by others, an image without a context cannot rightfully be said to insight, invoke or call for anything — context determines full meaning. And Commons, being a storage facility, by definition lacks the context to make any image offensive. Simply put, if this image were to be banned from Commons for being offensive, then Commons can also not have any business storing Media:Nazi Swastika.svg. -- BenTels (talk) 12:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Sorry, I don't understand why this No-something file was requested for deletion in isolation. There are plenty of them on Commons. I think best solution is policy on No-something files, not isolated deletion requests which may be closed depending on view of particular person. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because this isn't the same. There are a lot of no symbols that have limited scope; no smoking generally means you can't smoke where the sign is displayed. This one even in a limited interpretation calls for the destruction of a nation, and ties into the destruction and subjugation of the ethnicity that calls that nation home. To lump this in with all no-something files is to over- and mis-categorize.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I'm pro information but against hate. Use of flags and insignias in this way only promotes hate and that is not something we should promote. Especially if users on some Wikipedias use this depiction on Commons as a reason for accepting hate propaganda. The same holds for all other such hate propaganda on Commons. It is claimed that deleting this kind of hate propaganda will also lead to deletion of Nazi Swastikas, but that is not correct. It will lead to deletion of no-Nazi -types of propaganda and will not have any effect on use of Nazi Swastikas at all. Organizations using a kind of no-Nazi insignia will anyhow pass as the sign is their insignia. So perhaps there is some organization that wants to use this no-Israel depiction as their insignia, so be it - use it - but don't keep it just because someone thinks Commons should be used as a hate propaganda store. Most likely this image will end in a keep, but I would anyhow say what I think about such material on Commons. Jeblad (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really mean "no-Nazi" propaganda (e.g. a crossed-out swastika as sometimes used by militant anti-fascists) or do you mean "neo-Nazi" propaganda? Deleting either sort of material would seem to go against the established Commons policy which says it is "not appropriate" to object to a flag being available in Commons on grounds that (for instance) it's used by terrorists.
Quote from Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view
Examples of subject matter disputes that are not appropriate here include... • Flags/emblems: “That is not the official version”, “the colors are not officially-approved”, “that design is used by a terrorist group”.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as hurt national pride is not a valid reason for deletion. // Liftarn (talk) 21:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I'd like to point out that Wikimedia is NOT a democracy and I hope the admins realize the motives of the people who voted "keep". This is so obvious it should be removed, I find this very discussion an insult to my intelligence. 79.180.63.73 18:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, how about you explain to us who are obviously at your level of mental enlightenment why exactly this should be deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I won't be dragged into a stupid argument, so I'll say this as simply as I can: This image is a hate propaganda. No amount of cleverly crafted arguments will change that obvious-to-everyone fact. 79.180.63.73 22:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's fine. All I wanted to know was why you wanted it deleted, as simply saying that it's obvious is obviously not obvious to the people who said keep (obviously). -mattbuck (Talk) 23:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I'm sorry if I come out as obnoxious. I don't care about national pride. I'm an Israeli and this image pretty much calls out for suicide bombers to kill me. If this image was used in a header of a list of terrorist groups it would be another story. But it's only used in Wikipedia to spread hate. How would you react in my place? 79.180.63.73 00:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment Here is an image search which shows (on the 1st page) three different versions of the crossed-out Israeli flag, being used (outside of the Wikipedias) to express opposition to Israel...

http://www.google.com.au/images?hl=en&safe=off&gbv=2&tbs=isch%3A1&sa=1&q=boycott+Israel A question for people who want to delete this graphic -- why doesn't it fall into the following category? ... "Preexisting designs and symbols that are or have been associated with nationalistic, religious or racist causes" which according to Commons policy "are not out of scope solely because they may cause offence." http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope#Examples Kalidasa 777 (talk) 06:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Because this picture's sole purpose on Wikimedia is to be used for nationalistic, religious or racist causes. It's not a "by the way, some people might be offended". ChaosFish (talk) 13:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's been almost three weeks since the last request, and more than a year and a half since the first request, and this image is still here. Disgraceful. Hello! Someone needs to wake up and smell the coffee. ChaosFish (talk) 07:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. no point in deleting the image, besides the same result could be still technically achieved with the image being deleted... so pointless DR. User:Esby/anti... Esby (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:No Israel.svg (October 2010)[edit]

anti-semitic campaign which raises doubt the right of exitence of Israel, probably some jew hate. And another thing: files like "anti-islam got deleted and "anti-israel"-files have a supreme prerogative of existence? So how does that work? I think, Wikimedia is not a place to promote hate, even this file is used on arabic spoken articles ONLY!!! No, i won't support and accept that. Justice for all!!! Saviour1981 19:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep Wikimedia is not a place to promote hate, except against Arabic speakers? That was a bad place to put a comma splice, IMO. It's a freely licensed legal image that's used on over 100 pages on 4 wikis; I don't see that we should ever delete such an image, nor that deleting it would do any good but stir up further upset.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep: As offending this anti-Israel logo might be to many people, it is within COM:SCOPE as it is used by multiple Wikipedia articles. Take اطوري كارتا as an example which is about Neturei Karta, a Jewish group that opposes Zionism and the state of Israel. As you might see from this Fox News report, this logo is actually worn by members of this group (it is to be seen by the interviewed spokesman of the Neturei Karta movement in New York, Rabbi Yisroel Weiss, at 0:20) and also during demonstrations by this group (at 0:44). This group is currently to be found in 23 Wikipedia projects and surely notable. In consequence, it is just natural to have one of the logos used by that group at Wikimedia Commons. That does not mean that Wikimedia Commons or any other Wikimedia project endorses the views of this group or that logo, it just means that we need it in the context of these articles. (That this logo is also used on some user pages here and elsewhere is something I find highly inappropriate but this is a separate problem.) --AFBorchert (talk) 19:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment File:Anti-Islamism.svg and File:No Sharia.svg can both be considered anti-Islamic yet neither have even been nominated for deletion. That isn't to say I am in favour of such images being used on user pages but that does somewhat draw into question Saviour1981's that anti-Islamic images aren't allowed whilst anti-Israel images are. The situation is much more complicated than some want to imply is the main point to appreciate. Whilst I have expressed my concerns about the use of images like this, looking at the previous discussions it is difficult to see how, when the reason given for deletion is pretty much the same, the outcome would be any different. I therefore wonder if we really need to waste anymore time discussing this. Adambro (talk) 22:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy kept per Adambro - no new reason why this should be deleted, consensus from previous DRs seems clear. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:No_Israel.svg (September / October 2011)[edit]

Hate propaganda, used on arab user pages for hate speech or hostility explanations to Israel only. Wikimedia Commons really shouldn't be a place for racism, fascism, religious craze or other nationalistic propaganda --Saviour1981 (talk) 21:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many of those uses should be removed per the userpage policy present on most other wikimedia sites. "you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute, or which is likely to give widespread offense...Whether serious or trolling, "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" is usually interpreted as applying to user space as well as the encyclopedia...don't be inconsiderate. Extremely offensive material may be removed on sight by any editor."
But hey commons is just a suppository, er repository. - Floydian (talk) 00:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(comment bellow added by me after this deletion request been closed) Tm (talk) 19:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I know perfectly well what Wikimedia Commons scope is. This file shows what is anti-semitism, that is scope. I beg you, please stop saying that your arguments supplants all others peoples arguments and that theirs arguments are illegitimate. By making this statement you are potencially and unfairly insulting all the persons that made "keep" arguments or the fact that this file was kepted on 3 of its 4 previous deletion request and undeleted after the first one, basing its rationales on our policies.
  • But most important the policie you link says (emphasis made by me):

"File in use in another Wikimedia project A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose, as is a file in use for some operational reason such as within a template or the like. Such a file is not liable to deletion simply because it may be of poor quality: if it is in use, that is enough. An otherwise non-educational file does not acquire educational purpose solely because it is in use on a user page (the "User:" namespace) of another project, but by custom the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page of another project is allowed. It should be stressed that Commons does not exist to editorialise on other projects - that an image is in use on a non talk/user page is enough for it to be within scope.". This image is used in this this and this articles in the AR Wikipedia, and several userpages (more than 100) of several wikis. So this file is clearly in scope. Tm (talk) 19:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From the scope: "Provided they are legal to host and otherwise fall within Commons scope (e.g. if they could for example be used to illustrate a Wikipedia article on a hate group) they should be kept." This article in Ar.wiki is not about a "hate group" nor is this a symbol of said hate group. The image does not actually illustrate the article from what I have been told by Arabic speakers and looks not to be appropriate to the article in any manner. This is necessary under scope - you cannot just randomly add images to an article in hope to keep them. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept - still in use on ar.wp in an article, therefore not out of scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:No_Israel.svg&oldid=60926172"