File talk:IsraeliPalestinianSides.gif

 

Categories

Removing this from Category:2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict and Category:Qassam rockets does not improve Commons. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It does if you dislike Latuff and don't want his images on Commons. Adambro (talk) 20:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

All latuff caricatures are nothing more than bunch of hateful lies and propaganda (and I can prove it). How any category could benefit from a lie? How readers of Commons would benefit from lies? I believe that all latuff images should go to category latuff and to category caricatures by latuff. They have no place in any normal Commons category.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Even if it were propaganda, it would be propaganda that fits in Category:2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict and Category:Qassam rockets. Commons is not censored, and that seems to be very hard to understand for some. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

"Censorship is the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful or sensitive, as determined by a censor." It says nothing about incorrect material. latuff caricatures are incorrect. they do not show the real situation. That's why I believe the less categories they would go to the better for the project. My opinion has nothing to do neither with censorship nor with my political beliefs--Mbz1 (talk) 21:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Censorship can be described as the suppression of information which others don't agree with. In this case you have said you consider Latuff's "caricatures are incorrect" and that "they do not show the real situation" and as such "believe the less categories they would go to the better for the project". This seems to support Pieter's reference to the fact that Commons is not censored because that is exactly what you have just said you desire; the Latuff images to be in fewer categories because of your opinions about them. This is perhaps another indication of why your participation in any discussions about the categorisation of Latuff's images is disruptive to the project. You simply cannot accept that there might be more categories than simply Category:Carlos Latuff that it would be appropriate to add these images to and so your comments are not helpful at all. Adambro (talk) 23:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I am absolutely against suppression of any information, but I am for supression of w:Deception, and I am for suppression of w:hate speech, which is against the low in many countries. --Mbz1 (talk) 23:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Please try to understand that the point of view expressed by Latuff in this drawing is held by very large groups of people. They are likely to regard these attempts by you to suppress this cartoon as attempts to suppress the truth, and your rhetoric as symptomatic of the distorted views of reality in Israel. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Please try to understand that the truth cannot be defined by the number of people, who believe that it is the truth. I'm not sure you read my post at administrator noticeboard to the end (it was a very long post), but let me repeat a small part here too:
remember that fairy tale w:The Emperor's New Clothes (Keiserens nye Klæder) by w:Hans Christian Andersen?
The Emperor in this tale was naked, but everybody around him collaboratively
"exclaimed: Indeed, the emperor's new suit is incomparable! What a long train he has! How well it fits him!"
Nobody wished to let others know he saw nothing, for then he would have been unfit for his office or too stupid.
Never emperor's clothes were more admired. "But he has nothing on at all," said a little child at last..."
The lie will not became the truth no matter how many people will think otherwise.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems Mbz1 is merely against suppression of information he agrees with. He has no problem seeking to suppress information which he consider to be inaccurate or hateful. Adambro (talk) 23:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear Adambro, I am sory to tire you more than I already did, but the thing is that I could prove that "information" in most latuff caricatures is inaccurate and/or hateful. It is not my opinion. It is the truth that I could prove.Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I find myself having to repeat what I've already said on a number of occasions. Whether or not what Latuff portrays in his illustrates is an accurate representation of the situation in the region is not relevant, either in whether these images should be kept which the community have already decided they should, or in deciding how these images are categorised. Is the Mona Lisa, for example, really an accurate representation of Lisa del Giocondo? Who knows. For an image to have educational value it is not necessary for its accuracy to be proven and nor does proving inaccuracies erase any educational value. Please don't persist with this argument that Latuff's images are inaccurate. It makes practically no difference to how they should be categorised but it does serve to distract us from actually discussing the things that do matter. If you do persist with this I might conclude that you're intention in doing so is to disrupt any discussions about how Latuff's images should be categorised. Adambro (talk) 11:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a constant effort by some users here to promote this Brazilian caricaturist's propaganda, using the Commons as a convenient platform. The main method is categorizing his works in every possible category, so users of the Commons wouldn't be able to avoid watching them. This is the equivalent of sticking political advertisements on every wall in town, which would be considered vandalism even in the most open and tolerant society, and is definitely not in line with the Commons' policy, as this site is not meant to be a platform for political debates. In this case, the drawing is merely an imaginary depiction of what he thinks happens in the Middle East. It cannot be associated with a category dedicated to real depictions and documentations of damage caused by war. Drork (talk) 05:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

PS - Adambro, we are not talking about accuracy here at all. This caricature is not an inaccurate documentation. It is not meant to show any real state of affairs. It meant to present a highly controversial political opinion. It cannot be categorized with images meant to give an account of what really happened, whether accurately or not. Drork (talk) 05:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a constant effort by some users here to delete or hide away views they disagree with. This is ofcourse a form of censorship even if they may not admit it. The media used for an image (photo or drawing) makes no difference in image categorisation. // Liftarn (talk) 11:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Liftarn, in case you havent't noticed, this is a Wikimedia project. Wikimedia projects are aimed at conveying information in a clear, accessible and neutral way. The Wikimedia Commons are no exception. If you are more interested about expressing political views and opinion, you might want consider contributing to another site (e.g. Indymedia) that specializes in views rather than in information. Drork (talk) 15:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm interested in that the information is presented in a clear and neutral way. I certainly hope that you share that view so that you work against people who try to obscure or misrepresent. // Liftarn (talk) 16:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Are any Qassam rockets detailed in the caricature? Being that it is a cartoon, is it reasonable to identify what kind of rockets are being depicted? Can we tell that it is not a Saria-2, a Kafah, or a al-Nasser for example? I think this category is not indicative of the caricature itself, but of an interpretation of the cartoon, and that maynot be so appropriate. Thoughts? -- Avi (talk) 16:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It is a rocket in the picture. The model may be difficult to tell, but since Qassam is the most famous one it's a reasonable guess. May I remind you that the cartton contains no depiction of political propaganda and/or Anti-Zionism. Yet you added those categories. Sounds like a bit of double standards here. // Liftarn (talk) 18:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe the difference is one of generality vs specificity, Liftarn. Latuff means his cartoons as propagandist commentary against the state of Israel and Jews, I'm uncertain how anyone can doubt that. However, I do not think that anyone can claim that Latuff was making a comment about Qassam rockets in specific. Do we have a Category:Rocket attacks? That may be appropriate--but unless we have some evidence that Latuff is making a specific statement about Qassams that may be a bit of artistic interpretation. I do not think there is any "artistic interpretation" necessary to indicate that Latuff is depicting a situation from a biased perspective (propaganda), and the bias is anti-Israel/Jews (anti-Zionism). Do you disagree with the logic? -- Avi (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I would disagree. Latuff uses cartoons to criticise some specific acts of Israel. they are clearly not against Israel as such and certainly not against any ethnic or religious group. Having a specific view is not the same as propaganda. Advocating an end to war crimes is not a form of antizionism. // Liftarn (talk) 21:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Liftarn, what you're doing here is presenting your opinion. This is not the right place for that. What you think of Israel and the author of this caricatures is quite clear, but it has nothing to do with the work on Wikimedia Commons. If you genuinely want to promote this project, you will have to put you political opinions about the Middle East aside. Drork (talk) 06:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It takes two to tango. The difference between us is that I don't celebrate terrorists while you do and that I have facts to back my views up while you make things up to further your agenda. // Liftarn (talk) 11:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

So now you accuse me of supporting terrorism? How low can you go? Drork (talk) 13:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I just say that you do try to whitewash terrorists. That is not the same thing as supporting terrorists. However, that is really irrelevant to the question of categorisation of this image. // Liftarn (talk) 13:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I hear you loudly and clearly. People here were blocked for much less. I expect your apology, otherwise I will bring this to the community's attention. Drork (talk) 14:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you please stay on topic instead of coming with vague threats. // Liftarn (talk) 14:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)