Talk:Carlos Latuff

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Warning This talk page is for discussing improvements to the Carlos Latuff gallery. It is not a forum, so please do not use it for that purpose.


"Wikimedia does not to endorse any specific point of view. Wikimedia Commons is politically neutral."

Um, do we need this? We normally don't do disclaimers. It's talking about Wikimedia Commons like it's some kind of entity that thinks and believes in stuff, unless this is talking about the foundation. Anyway, the correct place for this would be Commons:General disclaimer. - Rocket000 16:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Eloquence was trying to cool down the polemics around these cartoons? I agree that our general disclaimer should be enough. We don't use these specific disclaimers on other projects, either. Patrícia msg 18:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, well if helps keep things mellow, then it makes sense. These images do seem to cause a lot of trouble. - Rocket000 04:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

"correct this serious offence before it is released to the press in Israel."

Peacfull Jew ;)... Btw. Cartoons are POV, please delete it. God Bless America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 04:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Will someone finally delete this hatemongering and disgusting cartoons? Comeone guys, don't tell me it's ok to have these here on Commons, becouse it's not. Maybe I should make a formal request to some administrator here on Commons. -- Jonesy22 14:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Please re-read our general disclaimer, thank you. Patrícia msg 18:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
This user should be PERMANENTLY banned. I don't care what the political positions of the user are, he is posting all kinds of intentionally vulgar images depicting feces, genitalia, and nudity for demeaning purposes. I would support raising a complaint like that of User:Jonesy22. If these vulgar images can't be removed as of now, I will ask for changes by Wikipedia administrators to remove this material. The images do not have any purpose outside of portraying controversy and creating vulgar content on Wikipedia.--R-41 (talk) 22:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
This is not only a user. This is somebody who has his own article on WP. He seems to be famous enough to have his work useful for the Wikimedia projects, at least in order to illustrate his work. If we delete such things, we may also delete the article about Adolf Hitler since he was a bad guy with awful ideas! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 22:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
First of all, this isn't Wikipedia. Admins can't delete things on projects where they are not admins (so don't go bugging any admins over there :) Regardless, admins here (myself included) aren't going to delete these because we would need a good reason and currently the only reason I see is to censor content, which of course goes against one of our fundamental policies of not being censored. My advice to those who don't like these images is to look at some images you do like and let people make up their own minds about such things. Rocket000 (talk) 03:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

What's the purpose of this gallery?[edit]

I have a very bad feeling about this gallery. Many of the pictures here endorse brutal violence or even homicide, e.g. the name "Israel" written with images of burning buses, an Israeli bus depicted as a coffin etc. Some pictures use Nazi symbols in a way that is considered illegal or immoral in many countries and communities. The Commons publish such images if they have documentary, historical or otherwise educational value. These images serve none of these purposes. They are here solely to promote the artist and his political view, and this is not the purpose of the Commons. Adding the problem of promoting violence and crimes, whether bluntly or tacitly, I see no reason to keep these images here, let alone have a special gallery to present them. Drork (talk) 05:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. I don't think that Wikipedia is a place for political propaganda. Caros Latuff has his websites with his cartoons, and they should remain there. Nomaed (talk) 12:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
"Galleries exist to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons. Usually, they are created to give a sample or overview of all the media on a given topic." (from Commons:Galleries). If you don't like it, don't look at it. // Liftarn (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


User:MathKnight is abusing categories in order to make commons say that Carlos Latuff is a racist, an antisemite and a fascist. That is not what the categorisation system is for. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Caricatures by Latuff are neither antisemitic, nor racist or fascist, so we shouldn't need to add such categories to the gallery.

  • Some of the cartoons are a criticism of the current "politics and actions" of the "state of Israel", and not "prejudice against or hostility toward Jews as a group". See en:Antisemitism to learn more about the term.
  • The caricatures cannot be labeled with racism ("inherent superiority of a particular race") as both depicted Palestinians and Jews are of the same race (as is Latuff himself). Palestinians are subject to oppression and aggression, but not to racism. See en:Racism to learn more about the term.
  • The caricatures cannot be labeled with fascism (a specific political ideology, "Fascist governments [...] prepare a nation for armed conflict with other nations, to defend itself or to expand its state to allow for the growth of a nation"), the state of Israel is actually a liberal democracy and cannot be labeled fascist, regardless of other appearances. See en:Fascism to learn more about the term.

I also suspect that some users may be editing/voting in a passionate state or in conflict of interest. If this is the case, they may probably want to concentrate on contributing to other topics. --5ko (talk) 19:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Cartoons who support suicide terrorism against Jews, demonize Jews and deny the Holocaust (Latuff took part in the Iranian Holocausr denial competiion) are clearly antisemitic. Therefore they must be categorize as such, if not to be deleted. WikiCommons should host free content, not Nazi propoganda created by the the Palestinians and their supporters. MathKnight Flag-of-Israel(boxed).png 12:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
It is just criticism of the behaviour of the state of Israel, of the government of the United States, of a Swedish government proposal, and of neonazi groups. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
A support in suicide terrorism against Jew is not a legitimate criticism, and niether demonizination of the Jews. Would you say the the Nazi cartoon of a long-nosed Jew hugging the globe is a legitimate criticism against Jewish control of the economy? MathKnight Flag-of-Israel(boxed).png 17:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Please read Commons:Categories. We categorize by subject here at Commons, the subject of this gallery is Carlos Latuff, not Antisemitism/racism/facism. Multichill (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I have one request, if I may, from Pieter Kuiper - you seem to be a fan of the caricaturist in question, and you rush to add his images in every place possible and to "protect" him. It seems to me that you take Wikimedia project as if they were here to promote this caricaturist's views and reputation. Well, they are not, and I think it is time you leave this subject and take care of other issues. Drork (talk) 05:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Drork, it's not clear who you're addressing. I don't see anyone who has been inappropriately promoting this artist's works or protecting related pages inappropriately either. Thanks for your clarification.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 12:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I am doing my best to assume good faith here, but it is very hard, almost impossible. It is quite clear to me that these images were not uploaded here in good faith. It is quite clear to me that Pieter Kuiper is doing his best to use the Commons and Wikipedia in order to promote this caricaturist and his view. It is quite clear that some people here cooperate with him, probably innocently, because they misunderstand the concept of censorship, and wrongly think that any kind of deletion is censorship. And on top of all that - these caricatures have clear antisemitic motives. Anyone who wants to make research about modern antisemitism would find interest in these images - that's perhaps the only educational value they have, as mentioned by some people who voted to keep these images. Why on earth do you object to categorize them properly? Drork (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Please stop kicking the player and start playing the ball. Multichill (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, you know antisemitic caricatures are the only hatred material that can be uploaded here, because Jewish people and Israelis won't send thousands of letters to the OTRS and won't make a fuss about hurting their feelings and possibly endangering their lives. Apparently there are too many people who take advantage of this endurance. Have you seen other people or ethnic groups being offended and even risked this way on the Commons? Do you think similar caricatures about French people, Canadians, African-Americans, Italians, not to mention Arabs or Muslims would stay on the Commons? Do you think similar caricatures about the Catholic church would stay on the Commons, not to mention caricatures about the Islamic establishment? Do you think a person like Pieter Kuiper would have remained a respectable member of this community had he dared to upload such caricatures about Muslims? Drork (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
We can and do have images offensive to wide ranges of people and we don't censor those ones either. Images of Mohammad are a particular case where we have a large number, and a outrageous number of emails (I know because I respond to them!) complaining about it - and we don't budge an inch. Echoing Multichill: If you cannot discuss the issue in a civil manner instead of attacking individual users, you will find your ability to do so removed.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Since the only example you have is about the images of Muhammad, let me tell you that these images were created by Muslim believers in the Middle Ages for religious purposes. They are by no means offensive to Islam, and I checked this issue with some knowledgeable Muslim friends (I also answer messages on the OTRS). I wouldn't like to imagine the reaction had really offensive images to Islam were uploaded to the Commons. Actually, and as I said earlier, no one would have dreamed of uploading offensive images against Islam or Muslim, but antisemitic images are considered freedom of speech. This is the most abusive use of the concept of freedom of speech. Your claims against censorship are like those claims that self defense is equal to the right to bear arms. The entire notability of this caricaturist results from his winning of the 2006 Iranian International Holocaust Cartoon Competition. A notable achievement indeed. Not many artists in the civilized world can be proud of such an achievement. Drork (talk) 05:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
That other stuff do (or don't) exist is not a valid argument, but we do have several pictures that some may find objectionable, for instance File:Allcoonslookaliketome.jpg, File:1900sc Postcard-Give My Regards To Broadway.jpg and File:Freedman's bureau.jpg. If you are looking for islamophobic and/or anti-Arab images we have that as well. Examples are File:Vandalized grave.jpg, File:Hebrew graffiti in Hebron.jpg, File:Gas the arabs painted in Hebron.JPG, File:There goes the neighborhood.jpg, File:Manifesto della Lega Nord a Trento "No Moschee in Trentino" - August 2007.jpg and ofcourse the entire Category:Islamophobia. // Liftarn (talk) 13:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Once again, you are trying to prove your point with irrelevant examples. All the examples Liftman brought are documentation of real posters/graffiti/inscriptions that where published in public places, on external house walls, in public gardens, in city squares etc. Taking pictures of these elements and publishing them have a clear documentary value which goes beyond the offense which might be caused. Furthermore, the offended people often document such public offenses themselves in order to warn against them and prevent further offenses in the future. The caricatures in questions are not documentary. This is merely some self-made images which their creator, or his supporters, want to publish on the Commons in order to propagate their offensive views. There is no documentary or other value to these images. Furthermore, if you categorize offensive images to Islam under "Category:Islamophobia", why do you object to categorize these images under "Categoty:Antisemitism"? Drork (talk) 14:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Critizising Israel politics is not a form of antisemitism. Period. // Liftarn (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Once again, please read en:Antisemitism to learn about the term Antisemitism. Some of the cartoons are a criticism of the current "politics and actions" of the "governments of Israel", there is not one cartoon depicting or inciting to "prejudice against or hostility toward Jews as a group". See en:Antisemitism to learn what it is. I may disprove the actions of the US and the French governments, that doesn't mean I am Antiamerican or Antifrench. --5ko (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone here has a reading comprehension problem, and it is not I. Most of these cartoons have nothing to do with political criticism. BTW, the Commons are neither a newspaper, nor a blog nor a forum, and I doubt if it is the right place to promote a political debate, and yet this is not the case to begin with. Most of these caricatures contain antisemitic elements, most of them are directed at Jews and Israelis as such and call for violence against them. Some of them praise people who vowed to kill Israelis. And on top of all that, we are talking about an "artist" who's only notability is winning an Iranian provocative competition of "Holocaust caricatures". I am amazed that we are still having this discussion. Drork (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with you. I saw all pictures in the gallery, and I see neither antisemitic elements, nor calls for violence, hate or prejudice against Jews as a group. Some depict what happens when Palestinians are subject to oppression and violence, and are a clear call against oppression and violence. The Holocaust Competition picture by Latuff is not "denying" or antisemitic, it compares the oppression and violence that Jews were subject in the Holocaust, to the life of Palestinians today. (So is the winner picture, even though there were negationist cartoons in the competition.) And Latuff was already notable in 2002, 4 years before this competition -- read the article to learn more about Latuff. There is a good quote of the author there. Once again, disapproval of the official politics of a State is not automatically antisemitic, even if the State is Israel. --5ko (talk) 19:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
As I said, someone here have a reading comprehension problem, and it isn't I. Drork (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Reading your comments, looking at the definitions of the terms you (ab)use, someone might think it actually is. No worries, you could learn more by visiting the links I suggested earlier. --5ko (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Suppose it wasn't an Israeli soldier, but instead a picture of an African dark-skinned soldier pointing his gun at Mahatma Gandhi in reference to the violence in western Africa. Suppose it was an Arab Muslim soldier wearing a traditional Arab or Muslim head cover. How long would such an image stay on the Commons? How many of the people who so eagerly defend this South American caricaturist would protect images such as the ones I described above? I have my guess. Drork (talk) 09:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

We do have for instance File:Free Myanmar by Latuff2.jpg and File:Eldorado dos Carajas massacre by Latuff2.jpg that by a coincidence also are by Latuff. Killing innocent people is wrong regardless of the killer's ethnicity. Yes, that means it's wrong even if the killer is an Israeli. And have you condsidered how offensive File:Skinhead.gif is to neo-nazi skinheads? // Liftarn (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Also a soldier is often doing this because someone (superior, government) gives him orders, and not because of his ethnicity. The critics against orders (politics, government) are not a prejudice against an ethnicity. --5ko (talk) 02:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
If I may bring another point to this discussion, the Commons seem to become the homepage of that South American caricaturist. Are all of his drawings uploaded here by default? Most of his drawings, if not all, are in a very bad taste, including the anti-skinhead caricature. While I have nothing good whatsoever to say about skinheads and neo-Nazis, is drawing smelly excrement and people masturbating what makes this guy notable? Even when he draws something which seems to be for a good cause (which apparently he rarely does), he does it in a way that makes you want to vomit. I suppose freedom of speech is also the freedom to draw excrement and other smelly stuff, but is it really what the Commons are meant to serve? And should the Commons turn into someone's homepage? Drork (talk) 20:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Your arguments about this are becoming more and more frivolous. You'll find the answer to your question set out loud and clear on the number of deletion requests that you started to try to get Latuff's works deleted so please don't further disrupt discussions by raising this again. Adambro (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
By saying my arguments are frivolous you mean you cannot answer my question? Drork (talk) 21:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
No, I'm saying your question is ultimately whether these images should be on Commons and I'm saying you've asked this in the form of a number of deletion requests already. I would have expected that you'd understand the answer by now. Adambro (talk) 22:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Do you think a simple vote is enough to cancel the US constitution? In this case the vote is valid, but very problematic. There is a Jewish saying: it is kosher but doesn't smell good. Drork (talk) 08:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
As we are a private organization, we are not bound by the US Constitution regarding "free speech." There is no such thing as free speech on the Commons (or any project related to Wikimedia). The only rights you have is the right to leave, the right to vanish and the right to fork. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 10:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Some of these images clearly depict or caricaturize/satirize racism, etc. and so the categories are suitable. Godspeed — Adriaan90 (Bespreking • Bydraes) 21:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

I noted edit warring over the text on this page, so I've protected the page on The Wrong Version. Please figure out what "small amount of explanatory text" should appear on the page here. When there is consensus regarding this, I will edit the page to reflect that. Until then, the page remains protected and sysops should not edit the page. If consensus cannot be reached by the time the protection expires, I will extend it. This is ridiculous, and it will not continue.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 04:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You protected it on the right version! I really cannot understand what's wrong in adding this text: " Latuff is the second-prize winner of the International Holocaust Cartoon Competition organized by a Tehran-based Iranian daily." The text is correct, civil and polite. Commons has mach bigger selection of latuff caricatures than Wikipedia does. After all the "image" that won is also present in the gallery courtesy of latuff, Pieter Kuiper and Ahmadinejad. Why not to inform the readers about latuff biggest "achievement"? Just think about this: How many more antisemites will take a closer look at latuff's hate garbage after they will see such an introduction! Removal of the absolutely relevant text by some users looks like they are somehow ashamed of their "hero".Is that it?--Mbz1 (talk) 05:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, if you want to mention a specific image won a competition, perhaps move the mention towards the image in question. I personally feel that if we need to explain what the guy does, we should wikilink to his article (which we do). I feel the statement about his name, his birth yeah, and his location is plenty enough. And we should this for all of our galleries. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
This is so strange: Mbz1 insists on mentioning that Latuff won a prize in Tehran, but on enwp he and his buddy Drork are removing the prize winning image from the article en:International Holocaust Cartoon Competition. As is obvious from his comments here, Mbz1 is adding the text here to prejudice readers against Latuff. I agree with Zscout370: the additions should be removed. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I've tried radically pruning this text once after seeing a longer version constantly being reverted over and think I cut it down to "Carlos Latuff is a political cartoonist, born in November 30, 1968, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil". I think on balance this is still the best solution. It is obvious that Latuff is a controversial figure. I would suggest that to try to find consensus as to what we should say about him is going to be very difficult and is likely to distract us from the main purposes of this project. If users want to learn more about him they can follow the link to Wikipedia, let's us leave the debates about what to say about Latuff there and keep what we say to a more manageable minimum. It seems obvious that Mbz1's position is that he considers those who believe Latuff's images to be in scope to therefore be fans of this artist and so want to suppress any mention of the International Holocaust Cartoon Competition in a bizarre belief that opposing the deletion of these images would mean they are ashamed about Latuff's participation in the competition. I don't care one jot about Latuff's image and I suspect others feel the same. Let's keep it simple; "Carlos Latuff is a political cartoonist, born in November 30, 1968, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil" and let refer our users to Wikipedia for more information as we do currently. Mbz1 and his colleagues can take their constant attacks on Latuff there, I think most of the Commons community are probably pretty fed up of their disruptive campaign by now. Adambro (talk) 10:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah,Pieter Kuiper, if I wanted to prejudice readers against Latuff, I would have said that he won the first prize, but he was only second! I still did not hear a good reason why the text should be excluded. Once again I hope that everybody here agrees that his second prise was his biggest "achievement" so far.( Maybe later a homicide bomber would make his/her last video holding latuff hate in his/hers arms, but at least for now second prise in International Holocaust Cartoon Competition is his biggest "achievement" . Why not to mention this here? Are Commons out of space?--Mbz1 (talk) 11:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Since it is clear that Mbz1 is conducting a campaign against Latuff's works, his desire to expand the description to include more than a brief description of the gallery's subject has to be viewed with great supicion. Whether Latuff's participation in the International Holocaust Cartoon Competition is his most notable achievement is of course open to debate and I fear that Mbz1's desire to single this out is probably motivated by his campaign against Latuff based upon his opinion that the International Holocaust Cartoon Competition is considered controverisal. Rather than distract the project by discussions as to how we describe Latuff, I would suggest it would be more appropriate considering the controversial nature of the subject to keep it at the bare minium and refer users to Wikipedia for more information as per Commons:Galleries, "Commons is not an encyclopedia. We are not here to educate readers through text. If they want to read more about a subject, there is another project that exists solely for that purpose." Adambro (talk) 15:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Adambro, may I please ask you to give me a single good reason why this info should be removed? The reason it should be removed because Mbz1 wants it in, is not good enough. But whatever. There is a saying "Do not move garbage around (of course there was other word used). It will stink even more." So I guess, I'll leave you right here. I'm no longer interested to smell this garbage.Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I had hoped that the quote from Commons:Galleries would have summed up why it should be removed pretty nicely. Removing the information doesn't disadvantage our users, detailed information about Latuff is readily available on Wikipedia, but it does serve to reduce the disruption that I foresee constantly debating what should be mentioned about Latuff will cause and you seem to wish to prolong. Adambro (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
That it is this single piece of information rather than something more important that gets added shows that it is some kind of attampt at guilt by association. // Liftarn (talk) 17:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Liftman, can you please explain to me why you are so eager to upload images of this caricaturist? Why you spend so much energy in protecting him? Why you try to hide information about him? What kind of relations do you have with him? Drork (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
What information to be exact is it that you are accusing Liftarn of hiding? Adambro (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Drork, could you perhaps explain why you hate this cartoonist so much? // Liftarn (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. I am Israeli, and his images threaten me directly. For someone who doesn't live in the Middle East and never rode a bus fearing he wouldn't get to the last bus stop, or never hid in a sealed room because someone decided to launch rockets on him, or never watched a violent demonstration which errupted because some fanatic idiot sticked an offensive caricature on the wall, for people who have never experienced all that it might be hard to understand - but these things happen in the real world. Sure there are offensive or risky images that cannot be avoided - we are here to serve the public, not the terrorists. However, I didn't hear one single explanation why these images should stay on the Commons, and why we should put violent ideas into people minds, not to mention promoting hatred. When I show a Nazi caricature against Jews I teach people history, and for that end I am willing to take the risk, but why on earth should we publish here risky drawings which has no historical or other educational value? Are we doing it just for the sake of saying that the Commons are not censored? Has censorship become a bigger enemy than violence? Drork (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate Drork having taken the time to explain his dislike of Latuff's image but I would question its relevance to this discussion. It is unfortunate that any discussion relating to Latuff ends up with someone calling for the images to be deleted. We've had the deletion requests and it would appear consensus is currently for them to be kept. Let's not have these constant arguments for deletion please as they only serve to disrupt the project. Deletion discussions should be kept on deletion requests. If there are any new arguments then please start a new deletion request and we can discuss them properly, if not please don't constantly reiterate your opinions that they shouldn't be hosted on Commons because it isn't helpful.
I would suggest to those who wish for the images to be deleted that constantly repeating this view in a way which disrupts other discussions relating to Latuff's images is likely to do more harm than good. The community is rapidly going to grow tired of this and so if another deletion request is put forward, how ever good the arguments, it may ultimately fail because the community have become so irritated by the constant calls for deletion that they don't give the points put forward in the deletion request the attention and consideration they require.
We've heard the opinions that Latuff's images should be deleted now loud and clear, we don't need to hear them continuously and it is unlikely to be constructive to subject us to the constant repetition of these calls for deletion.
Drork seems to have his fingers firmly in his ears and continues to deny having heard "one single explanation why these images should stay on the Commons". Clearly Drork this isn't the case, have the courtesy at least to acknowledge the differing opinions of others even if you don't agree with them. Now can we get back to the subject of this section rather than simply being subjected to constant calls for these images to be deleted? Adambro (talk) 23:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for the off topic question, but I'm trying to understand the reason for this hate. I understand that since he's an Israeli he might not like cartoons that criticize some Israeli actions, but I find it hard to understand this hate just because a cartoonist illustrates his political views. // Liftarn (talk) 22:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Liftarn, it is not off topic question. It is a very, very good question, but I'm afraid you will never be able to understand why latuff hate is so offensive. To understand this one should first undersand what antisemitism is. For example Pieter Kuiper added category Antisemitic picture to this image File:Burning Jews.jpg. It is not an Antisemitic picture! latuff caricatures are. Yet neither you nor Pieter Kuiper are able to understand it, and I am afraid you've never will.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually I find the hate of Latuff somewhat offensive, but mostly puzzling. If you think the Latuff cartoons in any way is antisemitic then you are either a fanatic, out of touch with reality or use some very odd definition of what antisemitism is. // Liftarn (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Who told you I hate latuff? I despise him, but do not hate him. The hate is too strong of a feeling for this guy. I am not a fanatic and I am not out of touch with reality. You are out of touch with reality, Liftarn. If you cannot understand, how latuff comparison Jews to nazi is an open antisemetism, there's probably no use to talk about this any more. Still, if you like to continue this conversation, let's move it to my talk page. It will be a better place and I'll be happy to improve your understanding on the issue.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Nobody needs to tell me that. It is quite obvious. Ok, I see now. You're reasoniong is something like: Criticism os Israelia actions is criticism of Israel. Criticism of Israel is criticism of Jews. Criticism of Jews is antisemitism. // Liftarn (talk) 17:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I think there is no doubt that these images do not belong here at all. There are several people here who admire Latuff and would do anything to promote him and protect him. I stopped trying to understand their motives. I was extremely concerned of this precedence, but luckily most users of the Commons are responsible enough not to use this method of promoting people and political views, so the damage is still limited. There are cracks in every boat, and it would be futile to rock the boat - it would just turn the cracks into holes. So, as long as the damage is limited, let's leave this issue and bless our luck. Drork (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Categoris that are added to latuff caricatures[edit]

Quite a few of latuff images were given wrong categories. I've started discussion here, but the same applies to other images. As user:Liftarn said: "a cartoonist illustrates his political views." I would add that a cartoonist political views are false, misguided, offending, hateful, and have nothing to do with the reality. IMO Commons will look laughable, if latuff own political views will be allowed to stay in any other category, except the one with his name in it.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I won't comment on this particular image but will comment on the wider issues here. Whether the views of Latuff are right or wrong is irrelevant. Images should be in categories relevant to the subject and nature of the image. For example, Mbz1 has questioned the use of categories such as Politics of Israel because "The politics of Israel is to avoid civilian casualties in any way possible." He probably means policies of Israel but the point is that the way we categorise images doesn't have to, nor should it, reflect a country's official stance on issues. If Latuff publishes a carton related to the Politics of Israel then it should be in that category whether or not that carton is critical of Israel. Mbz1 has stated that he feels that the image he discusses, and presumably other Latuff images, "cannot belong to any serious Commons category". I think this clearly demonstrates that Mbz1 is letting his personal opinions about the content of these images and the creator get in the way of rationale categorisation. Adambro (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
"If Latuff publishes a carton related to the Politics of Israel then it should be in that category whether or not that carton is critical of Israel"? Really? And what, if latuff will publish a cartoon that will state that the Earth is flat, should this cartoon be added to corresponding Commons categories IYO, Adambro? His cartoons represent latuff's own views and that's why it is highly irrational to add any other categories to his images.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
"if latuff will publish a cartoon that will state that the Earth is flat, should this cartoon be added to corresponding Commons categories" - Yes, most definitely. Just because something is considered to be incorrect by some, it doesn't mean we don't add it to relevant categories. These cartoons do portray Latuff's own views yes, his views on a number of different topics. They should be added to categories relevant to those topics. Adambro (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I've nothing to add. You said it all, Adambro. Just one more question please. Do you yourself believe that the Earth is flat? I mean, if you do, than it is makes it easier to understand your opinions on the other issues.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I am clear with Adambro position now, but I do have a question for others. Maybe the example with flat Earth was a little bit too complicated for some. Here's a simple one. If latuff publishes a cartoon of a whale and names it "zebra" should it go to the category zebra? If yes, why yes? Is it yes because a whale is a zebra, or is it yes because latuff calls it a zebra?--Mbz1 (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Do I consider the Earth to be flat? No. How is whether I do or not relevant? It isn't. Should an image of a whale named "zebra" be in the zebra category? No, of course not but that doesn't mean we don't take into consideration how a photographer describes their work when deciding how to categorise it. Their description is just one of a number of different points that are taken into consideration when categorising an image but it isn't given undue weight. You seek the opinions of others but none seem to be forthcoming. I suspect others are perhaps more sensible than me and recognise your constant raising of issues with Latuff's images as frivolous, distracting, and with little real merit. I should probably not waste my time with this either. Consensus supports keeping this images on Commons and whilst that is the case they should be categorised properly, not according to whether you agree with what they portray which is what you seem to desire. Adambro (talk) 18:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm very glad that at least zebras and whales will be lucky enough to survive latuff's hate here on Commons! I cannot agree that my issues with latuff's images are "frivolous, distracting, and with little real merit". I was trying to improve Commons by removing the wrong categories. Anyway I see no use to continue this discussion. latuff images stink. I've done what I could to remove this stink from Commons, or at least to reduce it a bit. I failed because why too many people enjoy this stink.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't know where you got the idea that "many people enjoy this stink"... I've said I don't like what Latuff is communicating. Adambro has, just a few lines up. Many many other people have. You should probably get your facts straight. At some point, this stops being factual errors and simply becomes trolling. Please don't cross the line - do your homework.  — Mike.lifeguard 22:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I was not going to comment here any more, but your comment Mike.lifeguard made the difference. I've heard you are a trusted administrator. I've never called my fight with latuff images a factual errors.It was not and is not a factual error. I'm doing this in purpose. But now I do not fight his images any more (there's no use), I'm simply trying to improve Commons by asking to remove the wrong categories that were added to his images. What I hear in return is just an empty rhetoric. If you like to call this a trolling, so it be. It is the same like, when I removed category "flags of Israel" from osamk image you called it a "vandalism". Whatever, who cares?
Mike.lifeguard, may I please ask you to help me with my English? You wrote: "I've said I don't like what Latuff is communicating. Adambro has, just a few lines up." I read and reread everything Adambro said here and could not find anything of the kind. Am I missing something? Could you please point me to direct line? Thank you. --Mbz1 (talk) 22:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Proper license[edit]

I see that all of the Latuff images are using the "Copyrighted-free use" tag. However, I believe the OTRS ticket has Latuff saying that the images have no copyright, which means they are public domain. I am getting our other OTRS license people's opinions on this. -- Avi (talk) 04:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Skinhead.gif has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | Български | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 07:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


isn't it possible do fill in more pictures from Latuff???? There is another picture which I liked to put in: File:The new anti semitism.jpg. Peace for all (talk) 12:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It's because you are a newly registered user, and Latuff's page can only be edited by "established" users (this was done in order to avoid vandalism on his page). The image was added to the gallery as requested. Capmo (talk) 15:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Ah ok.Thank you very much for your help! --Peace for all (talk) 21:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)