Talk:Carlos Latuff/Archive 2

Zionist entity harassing Latuff
I have read that the Zionist entity has been harassing Mr. Latuff and has sent Mossad spies to Brazil to shut him up. Anyone else heard this?
 * Paul T. Evans --Paul T. Evans 05:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * First off you would have to define the "Zionist entity", since there is no such named body that has any authority over the Mossad. In fact, by using an incorrect and highly POV term, you are probably already bringing into question the validity of your claim. Second off, it is a rather absurd claim, as Latuff does not do anything nearly threatening enough to the national interests or national security of Israel to warrant dispatching one of the best intelligence and covert services of the world on him. He is a cartoon artist, not a former member of the German SS, or an arms dealer, or the head of a terrorist organization. He is a cartoon artist. --OuroborosCobra 05:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Latuff has expressed concerns to me personally that some posts within this wiki, and the talk section do seem to POV against him directly, and he has been contacted by individuals. Having been through something similar recently myself, I wonder whether or not the persons involved are even the zionists they claim to be, but rather individuals that may be hoping for a backlash against jews. Just remember that a NPOV is required in all things wiki. ---Wolfe 03:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * i don't understand your backlash claim... regardless, what really worries me is that for years his cartoons have been "free" for all israel haters but now that they were linked on wikipedia as evidence to antisemitic referencing (i did not say he was antisemitic), he made a complete all around effort to remove them from the net. Jaakobou 10:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * They are still there on deviantart.com, what are you talking about?---Wolfe 18:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Latuff has removed pictures from his Deviantart page, most notably, after the gay section was created about him and "Javier" he removed the pictures he took of the Brazilian gay parade and one of "thinking about being lesbian." I still have copies. I think he still has one gay pride picture on his page. Doesn't make a difference. I agree Latuff is anti-Semite, but make your own decision.
 * --Eternalsleeper 06:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I should own up to this. I confronted Latuff as he lay sleeping in his bed in Brazil. I honestly thought he would think it was as funny as I thought it to be. Apparently he didn't.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

3O summary

 * ''per the version differences in this diff -.

Statement by Jaakobou: Best I can see it, the conflict between me and User:Liftarn on this article revolvs around two issues.
 * 1) Cartoon descriptions - i.e.
 * 2) Adolf Hitler dressed as Uncle Sam vs. Uncle Sam looking like Adolf Hitler.
 * 3) Image shows two soldiers, one Israeli, the other Nazi - text arranged as Swastika says an "Israeli soldiers are just following orders". vs. "Nazis: Just following orders" by Carlos Latuff.
 * 4) Reference gallery - in the article, there are a few notes referenced to the 2 cartoons in the reference gallery, and the edit breaks the references.
 * Sample: US President George Bush, caricatured laughing over US casualties.(0) <- (0)

--  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  13:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Liftarn:
 * Unless you can find a reliable source saying something else the cartoons should state what they are called and not some original research of your own.
 * The gallery can not be used as a reference so that is a moot point. // Liftarn (talk)

Third Opinion (uninvolved editors): I'd like to leave an opinion here, but I'd rather hear what Liftarn has to say first. I will watch this page.

Cheers! - Revolving Bugbear  14:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * After giving this careful thought, I have reached the following ideas. Please bear in mind that these are simply my opinions, but I hope you will at least consider them.


 * Liftarn is correct in saying that the image captions should, in each case, give the name of the image. Regardless of what else is said, the name should be included. However, it may be desirable in some cases to explain an image, for example if it is referenced in the text or if it contains cultural references that are not easily accessible to some audiences. In these cases, the image should only be described in ways in which it has previously been described a) by the artist himself or b) by a reliable source on the artist or his cartoons. An example of this for the Hitler/Uncle Sam image would be "a figure with a face resembling that of Adolf Hitler, wearing clothes resembling those of Uncle Sam". This is clearly and undeniably true of the figure, but whether the "body" belongs to Uncle Sam or Hitler is anybody's guess. Again, in many cases such identification will not be necessary as the image will speak for itself. An example of where this may be necessary is that the flag in "Global Intifada" may not be immediately recognizable to some Western audiences as the Palestinian flag. In the case of the two soldiers, it is not clear to me that there is enough identifying information on the two subjects to definitively identify them by affiliation, but then again I'm largely ignorant of military costume. Some more information on that image would be appreciated.
 * References to the gallery are unnecessary -- it can be assumed that the reader will scroll down eventually and see the images. Besides, the code is messy and vulnerable to change if the image is moved. If you feel a reference is necessary in regards to something that is in the gallery, you can create a non-citing reference giving the necessary information about the image.
 * Unsolicited opinion: I personally feel that there is not enough text in the article to justify the number of images contained in the text. Until the article is fleshed out more, I would move some of the images currently in the article down to the gallery to keep the page aesthetically pleasing.


 * Those are my initial thoughts. I welcome feedback. - Revolving Bugbear  17:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Since latuff is mostly unknown in western media it would be impossible to find an article discussing his cartoons. I tend to agree that the reference gallery might not be the most encyclopedic solution, and I wonder how would you suggest we reference statements regarding some of his cartoons.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  13:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I would reccomend using reliable sources. // Liftarn (talk)
 * The problem being, that these cartoons, including "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" cartoon, are published on many indymedia websites.
 * p.s. your point was well noted, but it does not address our attempts to make sure that the encyclopedia presents a complete, neutral, educational and reliable story.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  14:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * They key to presenting a "complete, neutral, educational and reliable story" is to use reliable sources. If it's not sourced it don't go into the article. // Liftarn (talk)

note: as for the current status of discussions, I'd be interested in changing the caption for the Nazi soldiers per the title on the original. i.e. "Just following orders" per -.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  14:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "Just following orders"? // Liftarn (talk)
 * yup, that's the original title.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  15:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I see no problem with that. Perhaps we should remove all the "by Carlos Latuff". SHouldn't that be obvious? Well, perhaps not. // Liftarn (talk)

Liftarn,
 * "If it's not sourced it don't go into the article."

Everything in the article is sources - the problem is whether it's sources to a primal source or a secondary source - and sadly, for most input in the article, we are restricted to primary sources. It is helpful of us to give some basic explanation for the reading audience. If there is a contested claim made, then obviously, there is room to discuss the concerns - but a flat out rejection, does not serve the purpose of the encyclopedia. To the issue of content, I'd be interested in noting that the two soldiers represent an Israeli and a Nazi soldier, that the swastika shape is a Nazi insignia, and that the text within it says "israeli soldiers..." I would appreciate suggestions regarding neutrality if you have them or a reasoning on why you would consider that explanation unreliable.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  17:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we can let the reader look at the picture themselves. As we have the picture it is no point in describing it as well. // Liftarn (talk)
 * Liftarn: what is your objection to including a small but obviously true summary? - Revolving Bugbear  23:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If it's "obviously true" then it would be obvious to any observer. If it is not obvious then it's obviously not "obviously true". In either case it's not necessary and open the door to sneaking in WP:OR. // Liftarn (talk)
 * Not every person knows what an Israeli soldier, the palestinian flag, the nazi swastikka, uncle sam and others looks like. Are you saying that your objection to a 'clearly factual' description is only due to "sneaking OR" concerns?  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  13:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the images should be able to speak for themseleves. // Liftarn (talk)


 * Note to Liftarn: this edit was not "per talk" and is quite combative in my eyes. (Revolving Bugbear: "it may be desirable in some cases to explain an image...An example of this for the Hitler/Uncle Sam image...")   Jaakobou Chalk Talk  05:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought we agreed to not do original research about the pictures. // Liftarn (talk)
 * Since your edit somewhat stunned me, could you please quote the text that made you believe we agreed that you should remove caption text?  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  13:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "the image should only be described in ways in which it has previously been described a) by the artist himself or b) by a reliable source on the artist or his cartoons" // Liftarn (talk)

Ehm, I seem to have screwed up a little bit in my initial opinion. I was reading the article and commenting at the same time, and I edited my comment several times before I was satisfied with it ... and apparently I left out a sentence I meant to move.

What I meant to say -- and I truly apologize for this oversight -- was the following:


 * However, it may be desirable in some cases to explain an image, for example if it is referenced in the text or if it contains cultural references that are not easily accessible to some audiences. Some things are obviously true, but in other cases the content of an image will be open to interpretation. In these cases, the image should only be described in ways in which it has previously been described a) by the artist himself or b) by a reliable source on the artist or his cartoons.

I feel really silly for somehow slicing the italicized sentence from my comment. Bleh.

In any case, we do not require citations for every single sentence on Wikipedia, nor do we require citations for image descriptions which are obviously and undeniably true. See the article apple, for example, and look at the picture of the sliced apple -- we do not require a citation for the fact that those are seeds in the apple, since it's unquestionably obvious that they are. Someone who did not know what an apple is -- and trust me, there are such people in the world -- might not immediately recognize that that's a picture of a fruit, but clearly this is true.

There may be a large number of people who do not recognize the face of Adolf Hitler or people who do not understand the title because they are not familiar with Uncle Sam. So the question is, if there is a description which is obviously true and completely uncontroversial, why take it out? - Revolving Bugbear  20:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the apple article is quite uncontroversial, but here we have to keep creeping OR out. I have sen people put blatantly false statements in image captions while claiming they are obvious. So the question is what is the threshold of what is obvious? // Liftarn (talk)


 * If something is contested, the editors involved can discuss it. That is one of the purposes of this 3O, i.e to resolve the caption disputes.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  15:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This is unnecessary theorizing. Take it on a case-by-case basis. Do you agree that, without reasonable doubt, that the face resembles that of Adolf Hitler and the clothes resemble those of Uncle Sam? - Revolving Bugbear  17:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's been a little while, so I'm thinking Liftarn may have lost interest in the with/without caption discussion. I'll try to make a neutral edit and you let me know if there's anything that could be toned down from your perspective.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  15:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I noticed you once more inserted the unsubstantiated claim that Image:UncleSamwantsyouDEAD.jpg shows "a person with Adolf Hitler's features, dressed as Uncle Sam" rather than the obvious "Uncle Sam with Adolf Hitler's features". I've also added some tags for you to explain. // Liftarn (talk)


 * I go with Revolving Bugbear on this. Rather than saying this is Uncle Sam looking like Hitler or Hitler dressed as Uncle Sam, it is best to say that the image blends the iconography of both Hitler and Uncle Sam.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The title of the cartton clearly indicates that it is uncle Sam. // Liftarn (talk)

Arbitrary break per new edit

 * Issues coming from this edit - .

--  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  17:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Uncle Sam' vs. 'a person with' - what would be less OR, to say a person dressed as Uncle Sam representing the US - or to say it's Uncle Sam with Hitler's features. Liftarn, can you please explain what is unsubstantiated by the second version?
 * George Bush, caricatured laughing over US casualties. I'm afraid I don't understand what the OR is here.
 * Baby Killer Ziombies - how would you describe the creature, and the "ziombies" term then?


 * I see nothing right with that edit. Anyways, I'll wait to see Liftarn's reply before I go and edit. Eternalsleeper (talk) 17:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As I say above, the title of the cartoon makes it clear that it is uncle Sam.
 * Is he laughting over tha casualties, in general, over this victim, over all casualtir or just US casualties...?
 * I wouldn't since that would be WP:OR. // Liftarn (talk)

Starting with Uncle Sam - would the following phrasing be acceptable: " 'Uncle Sam wants you DEAD!'  by Carlos Latuff shows Uncle Sam (representing the U.S.A.) with Adolf Hitler's features and a Nazi swastika atop his top-hat." ?  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  08:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think very few don't know that uncle Sam represents USA, but OK. // Liftarn (talk)

moving on to George Bush Laughing cartoon - I believe that the OR claim here is undue. My counter example to this issue:
 * US President George Bush, caricatured laughing over US casualties.

Would be to claim OR on...
 * He has also made several cartoons which reject neo-Nazi support for the Palestinian cause.

What makes this one different in your eyes Liftarn that you believe the description to be more OR than the nazi rejection images? Maybe you can come up with a suggestion that would be acceptable? Also, is there an opinion by our mediating 3O on this issue?  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  03:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not "US President George W Bush laughing over a coffin."? // Liftarn (talk)
 * It's an improvement, I admit. However, this is clearly a funeral for a US soldier. Do you have a more accurate suggestion?  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  08:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably a US soldier yes. But it certainly is a flag draped coffin. // Liftarn (talk)
 * Since I see it definitely, as a dead US soldier, I don't quite see the problem behind "caricatured laughing over US casualties". Would you reconsider the OR tag here, or at least make a suggestion that might be acceptable to both of us without the tag?  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  10:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Where is the dead soldier? He may be laughing over the death of US democracy for all we know. // Liftarn (talk)

Jaakobou, I have to say, I'm not convinced by this one. There's an awful lot of inferring that has to happen to get from the coffin to "US casualties". What is the title of that cartoon? - Revolving Bugbear  20:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's simply called "Laughs" so it doesn't give much help. // Liftarn (talk)
 * Well, from what I understand, some civil agencies -- such as police and fire departments -- also use the practice of laying a flag over a member's coffin at a funeral. So, while a US soldier seems the most likely explanation, it is open to some interpretation. - Revolving Bugbear  17:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Latuff focuses on the US army and the Iraq war with images that suggest he's relishing in the deaths of US soldiers, who he presents as evil idiots. Samples:, , . George Bush is presented as a person who's supporting (enjoying) deaths for personal oil profits. Sample:.
 * Anyways, I'm willing to listen to alternatives to "laughing over US casualties" or suggestions for better refs to support this text.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  19:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but citing the other images as reasons for describing this one with that caption is definitely OR. It is, I think, important to point out that it's "US President George Bush" (which it obviously is), but do we need to say he's laughing? - Revolving Bugbear  19:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm open to hear the suggestions. I saw it as George Bush and fellow soldiers laughing at a US soldier burial. What suggestion are you making for Latuff caricatures on George Bush and the Iraq war then?  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  00:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That may well be what the artist had in mind, but without a source, we can't say that. How about "Laughs depicts US President George W. Bush at a funeral."? Simple, clear, and unequivocally true, with no OR. - Revolving Bugbear  02:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Could it be a "ceremonial funeral"? The flag and uniforms would surely justify that implication?~


 * Reminder, the cartoon is not presented in the article, but rather referenced to support the following text:
 * In his comic series by the name of Tales of Iraq War... US soldiers are portrayed as... sent by US President George Bush, caricatured laughing over US casualties.
 * Here's a new suggestion including a couple more of the related images:
 * "...US President George Bush, caricatured as a mad gunman and "the director" of the September 11 attacks; killing US soldiers for personal gain and laughing at US ceremonial burials."
 * Thoughts?  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  11:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:OR and WP:SYN. // Liftarn (talk)

(undent) How about "using US soldiers for personal gain" (he's not actually killing them himself) and "a US ceremonial burial" (leaves this a little more open)? - Revolving Bugbear  12:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

New suggested paragraph

 * Note: Includes the notes above by Revolving Bugbear.

In his comic series by the name of Tales of Iraq War (also translated into Arabic), Latuff attempts "to spread the point of view of the anti-imperialist resistance" as he features 'Juba, the Baghdad sniper' as a hero who "defends [his] home from foreigner invaders", gunning down Helicopters while being protected by Allah's words while US soldiers are portrayed as villains and suckers  sent by US President George Bush, caricatured as a mad gunman and "the director" of the September 11 attacks; using US soldiers for personal gain  while laughing at a US ceremonial burial.

--  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  12:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

comments: Tagged accordingly. // Liftarn (talk)
 * Okay, that sort of attitude isn't really constructive. Tagging things on the talk page? Come on. You've made your point. Now please comment constructively on Jaakobou's suggestion. - Revolving Bugbear  11:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Liftarn, please remove the changes made to my (signed) suggested version.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  14:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Nevermind (reverted), I'll just wait a lil longer for your response.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  23:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * My father died yesterday so sorry that I haven't had time for countering petty POV- pushing. You test is a mix of original research, synthesis and unfounded accusations. Do agian, do right. // Liftarn (talk)
 * Liftarn,
 * My condolances for your father.
 * Per WP:CIV & "petty POV- psuhing", please confine your responses to content, not percieved attitudes.
 * The content related argument "OR"+"SYN" seems, on it's face, as generic and inaccurate. It would be helpful to understand your perspective if you elaborate per each issue.
 * --  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  10:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought we had been over this already. If it's not in reliable sources it doesn't go into the article. Your own personal speculations does not belong in the article. // Liftarn (talk)
 * Yes, we have been through this already, and the 3rd opinion suggested that we should use a generic description that is not considered OR. I'm trying to write things down with as little speculation as possible and it doesn't help to notice the 'speculation' if you do not explain your perspective on why you believe a certain description is speculative.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  17:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, some points. Enough? // Liftarn (talk)
 * "'Juba, the Baghdad sniper' as a hero" has a source, but is it reliable?
 * "is protected by Islam" unsourced
 * "US soldiers are portrayed as villains" unsourced
 * "and suckers" unsoucred
 * "sent by US President George Bush" Obviously so this perhaps don't need a source
 * "caricatured as a mad gunman" unsourced
 * "and "the director" of the September 11 attacks" unsoucred
 * "using US soldiers for personal gain" unsourced
 * "while laughing at a US ceremonial burial" speculation


 * It feels like we're back to where we started. Liftarn, it doesn't help the conversation if you don't listen to what other uninvolved editors have to say.
 * Juba: we not only have a source, but we have the cartoons that support this. can you please explain why you believe this input to be false?
 * Protected by Islam: Juba is noted to have been "saved by the words of allah!", is there a different phrasing you would suggest?
 * villains: This is what the images (and the previous 'hero' ref) show. However, I'm open to other suggestions based on the cited cartoons.
 * suckers: Please explain why this cartoon is not a source.
 * mad gunman: Please explain why these cartoons, are not a sources.
 * director of 9.11: Please explain why this cartoon is not a source.
 * personal gain" The first cartoon shows bush holding a bag of money with US flagged caskets raining around him. The second one  shows bush saying "just keep the oil comin'". Please explain why these are not relevant sources.
 * laughing at ceremonial burial: that's what the cartoon shows him doing.
 * It's not helpful if you keep mentioning WP:V when the images are self descriptive, please accept previous input, and make concerns that don't ignore those points.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  21:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Juba: I ask again: Is the source reliable?
 * protected: "saved because he had a book/the koran in his pocket"?
 * villains: No suggestions. Find a source or don't put it in the article.
 * suckers: Who says "suckers"? Pure speculation.
 * mad gunman: The cartoon never call GWB a "mad gunman".
 * director: The cartoon never says that.
 * personal gain: pure speculation. Put in what the cartoons show if necessary.
 * It was the "while" I reacted to. Nothing says it's simultanously.
 * I kindly ask you to find reliable sources.
 * Let's illustrate it with an example "George W. Bush is a werevolf who likes to strangle press photographers and give lettuce to leprechauns He is also a firm believing Satanist.". // Liftarn (talk)
 * Liftarn: the SocialistWorkers Online citation is easily enough to establish that Latuff is portraying Juba as a hero, because Latuff himself said it. There is no reason on earth to believe that the interview was faked. The politics of the site are irrelevant -- it's a direct quote from Latuff.
 * Jaakobou: you're kind of putting words in my mouth. I didn't sign off on this version of the sentence, or any version of the sentence; I told you above what I thought were some things wrong with it. Cramming all of these images together in one sentence without supporting secondary sources to link them does have a serious synthesis concern. - Revolving Bugbear  21:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I apologize for extending my understanding of your comment to a slightly synthesized version. I'm open to constructive suggestions on how to present the cartoons/body of work with without synthesis.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  22:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If the source is reliable enough for that claim. Could it also be used for a source to say that "The accusations of antisemitism against Latuff are without merit as his work is part of an anti-imperialist and anti-racist tradition."? // Liftarn (talk)


 * Obviously not, since that's passing a judgment call, rather than simply repeating something that Latuff said. I refuse to believe that you don't understand the difference. - Revolving Bugbear  23:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Then we should use something like "he features 'Juba, the Baghdad sniper' who he sees as a type of hero that defends his home from foreigner invaders". // Liftarn (talk)
 * I have no problem with that. - Revolving Bugbear  17:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with something to that nature after the 'guns down helicopters' and 'protected by Islam' cartoons. But we're digressing from the main issue, which is finding a way to present the body of work despite a lack of secondary sources.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  23:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I have to admit, I would vastly prefer if there were secondary sources ... - Revolving Bugbear  23:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I would too. However, there's too much in the body of work to ignore it completely... or maybe we should strip down the article to only what secondary sources say? I guess that's a possibility. In the meantime, I changed the suggested paragraph to (hopfully) resolve/include both Liftarn's recent suggestion and the previous concern regarding 'the words of allah'.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  23:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Liftarn, would you fully support stripping down the article to only hold secondary source material? Think hard about this, since the communal descision needs to hold regardless of the sources we come up with in the future.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  00:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Honestly, since this is a BLP, that might be the best option at this point. - Revolving Bugbear  00:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Pardon for missing the part you're referring to.. what is BLP?  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  00:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * BLP stands for biography of living person. - Revolving Bugbear  00:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not being clear enough...
 * What are you refering to within the discussed material that is BLP?  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  00:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Is that a trick question? All of it. It's an article about a living person. - Revolving Bugbear  00:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry again, I got your intentions now. I'm just so used to references to the BLP because something stated is too hostile to the subject of the article. I'll wait on Liftarn's response before going to the article material.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  01:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not saying "this article is libelous" or anything like that. All I'm saying is, we need to tread lightly, for the sake of formal policy.
 * The hero bit, as we've discussed it, does seem to have a source. And we're able to agree on a couple of things, but not all of them. It would seem, then, that where we cannot agree and cannot find a source it might be best to let the images simply stand. - Revolving Bugbear  12:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understood. I'm waiting on Liftarn's input before making any edits.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  15:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

We have been over this so many thimes before: If it's unsourced it doesn't go into the article. // Liftarn (talk)

sources needed
As far as I can see, there are two points that are marked as needing citations. The first is the "sympathizing / critical" section, and the second is the Iraq War Cartoons.

The first seems like it should be easy to source. The second is what we are working on now.

Liftarn, is there something else you have a concern about? - Revolving Bugbear  20:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

New Gaza Cartoons
Maybe sone old ones too - but just fyi http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2008/03/03/brazilian_cartoonist_carlos_latuff_creat Carol Moore 05:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Claims about the CIA, jooooos, etc
If anyone has a link to an actual Carlos Latuff article or blog post on his blog claiming the CIA or the Mosjews are out to get him, that would be something we could add to the article. It will certainly make him look a lot more credible in the eyes of rational people. John Nevard (talk) 05:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have seen a few of his "the Mossad wants me dead!" posts because some kid at a Hebrew forum said "shouldn't we put a stop to this?" regarding a few of his "lovely" support the Jihad-on-Jews cartoons. Anyways, Latuff is not a reliable source about anything but himself, and even that is at question.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  10:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Mmm, exactly. There was an IP editor trying to add a Portuguese blog post before that supposedly linked to something of the sort, but the link didn't work. John Nevard (talk) 10:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Antisemitism cat
I'm not following the reasoning here. Clearly, it is a relevant category.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  18:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Now are these accusations against Latuff notable outside of any well-poisioning?--Severino (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * They were made by notable groups, and he took the trouble to respond to them, so, yes. Los Admiralos (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * He has made some disturbing antisemitic references in a number of his cartoons. There's no way aroud that even if you're a fan.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  08:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Severion, please read the description of the category. The category Anti-Semitic people was deleted years ago, this one is different. At the very least Latuff belongs in the category the same way the Anti Defamation League belongs, because his cartoons are the subject of discussions aout antisemitism. -- Avi (talk) 08:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This is not an article about antisemitism. It does not belong in category:Antisemitism. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously, his themes touch very closely to antisemitism. Why do you think he was awarded 2nd place at the holocaust denial show in Iran.. I hope you can see that holocause denial is considered antisemitism related. Yes?  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  14:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably because it is a good drawing with holocaust allusions. Latuff has criticized holocaust denial, see for example this drawing. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I have brought a source which accuses his work of being antisemitic. The category is appropriate. Furthermore, if Latuff himself has to respond to accusations of antisemitism, that is ipso facto proof that there is a discussion of antisemitism about his work, and so the category is eminently appropriate. quod erat demonstratum. -- Avi (talk) 15:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The attack by the Stephen Roth Institute that you link to is slander. It refers to a libelous falsification. See the manipulated drawing and the original here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect. It is not slander that his works have been compared to Nazi propagandist; that statement is true. You may disagree with it, however. Secondly, you may wish to review the definition of slander. Were your statement true (which it is not) it would be libel. Lastly, there was no image referred to in the source brought, so whatever link you have above is irrelevant. -- Avi (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, a different attack by the SRI, about a different image. Well, Latuff's caricatures of Sharon are similar to mainstream criticism of an Israeli politician. Compare Dave Brown in the Independent. You are giving undue weight to the sentence in the SRI report. Should be deleted according to WP:BLP. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant wiki-lawyering, Pieter. Per Category:Antisemitism, the category is properly placed in articles which discuss the phenomenon; this article does, and reputably so, so there is no BLP issue. Trying to perpetuate an unsupported political stance on English wikipedia is a classic violation of WP:SOAP, please stop. -- Avi (talk) 17:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Although I know you to be rather fluent in various wikimedias policies and guidelines from the commons, I will try and spell it out for you very clearly here, so that you no longer inappropriately use WP:BLP or WP:UNDUE and prvent yourself from being blocked for WP:DE. Please keep all of the above in mind. -- Avi (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Latuff's images have been the topic of discussion regarding their being anti-semitic or not. This alone makes the article subject to Category:Antisemitism, the same what the the Anti Defamation League is in that category as well.
 * 2) Latuff's images have elements of attacks against Israel and Jews; to say that Antisemitism is UNDUE for this article is as rediculos as saying that Palestine is UNDUE for this article.
 * 3) BLP requires that statements be properly sourced; this one is reliably and verifiably sourced. The fact that you personally do not like it is completely irrelevant.
 * 4) Removing information, properly sourced and cited and against wikipedia's categorization policy and the definition of said category, to further a personal opinion is classic soapboxing and disruptive editing for which disregard may result in a loss of editing privileges.


 * And you are talking about wikilawyering!
 * Latuff's cartoons are attacking many things, also actions of Israel. That does not make antisemitism a valid category.
 * The Stephen Roth Institute's comparison with Streicher is vulgar rethoric, the kind of comparison that I have also opposed here on Swedish wikipedia. I see that Finkelstein's opinion is mentioned in the article MEMRI, but should his comparison with Streicher be quoted verbatim? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear Pieter Kuiper,
 * "Latuff's cartoons are attacking many things, also actions of Israel. That does not make antisemitism a valid category."
 * I wouldn't call his cartoons "[attacking] actions of Israel" since he utilizes imagery deriving out of blind bigotry and lack of understanding (not to mention stupidity). In that respect, he was rightfully (what you called "vulgar rethoric") discussed in the context of antisemitsm. His participation in a holocaust denial display by Iran only goes to further note that the category is relevant. It doesn't matter if he says he doesn't like antisemites, btw, since it doesn't make him change his imagery and bigoted presentations as if the Israeli-Arab situation could be compared to a Nazi-Jewish sitaion with Israelis playing the role of Nazis in the dispute with the Arabs. That's just wrong on so many levels, esp. considering his stance on other issues. Anyways, you can't avoid the antisemitism category here and pointing out some case you think was unfair or innaccurate towards him is of little value since we're not using the category as a result of a single cartoon.
 * You really are stretching the boundaries of POV here by suggesting we're smearing him with a link to the category.
 * Warm regards,  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  23:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like to see him in categories Political Cartoons --> Propaganda since that is rightly what he is, a propagandist. I think that's a more appropriate  category than that of antisemitism, even if a case for it can be made. Merely labeling him an antisemite, hoping to dismiss him, to dismiss his message, is a mistake.  His message must be answered.  Latuff is really brilliant at what he does, getting his message out.  The medium is one that speaks to millions of the world's illiterates.  While to some of us he warps and lies about the world's realities as in this picture  -- for him and his fellows it is an exercise of his free speech rights in service to what he sees as a "just cause."  Would we had one or two fewer Jewish doctors and scientists and writers and lawyers and one or two more cartoonists .!  BTW, I just went back to take a look at this picture The Eternal Jew and the cartoon that graced that "book"  helped send millions of Jews to the concentration camps. What propaganda can do! And Latuff is no run of the mill antisemitic cartoonist, he is a propaganda force.  Stellarkid (talk) 04:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

That is a common, and unfortunate, mistake, Stellar. Category:Anti-Semitic people was deleetd years ago. Category:Antisemitism, as it clearly states, relates to the discussion about Antisemitism. As I have said may times, the Anti Defamation League is also in that category, and anyone thinking the ADL is antisemitic is being ridiculous. Latuff may or may not be an anti-semite; that is a matter of opinion, but his images are in the center of a discussion about antisemitism, and so the category is appropriate. -- Avi (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Then you are technically correct. I am not too understanding of the category of categories.  I still believe that there should be a category of political cartoons, and a category of propaganda as well and he would fit into both (all three) of those categories.  Stellarkid (talk) 17:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're right about him being especially clever, btw. He was just lucky enough to be likened by an Independent "opinionist" and several million usual haters that are used to his style already from their own media.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  00:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Holocaust denial cat
I added the category per this: his cartoon listed on page 64 in appendix C ("Examples of Denial") of this report by the Simon Wiesenthal Center--Mbz1 (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not holocaust denial. I am removing the category. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * To say it is not Holocaust denial you should have some reasons to prove it. I am not interested, and cannot care less about your own opinion on the matter. I did provide the reliable source reason for adding the category. Please do not remove it again.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The pamphlet that you consider a "reliable source" does not even say that Latuff's cartoon is holocaust denial. Your placement of Carlos Latuff in category:Holocaust denial violates WP:BLP. It is a category without relevance for the subject. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Pamphlet?" Why are you characterizing it that way? In any case, it is a highly respectable org, and does indeed give the cartoon as an example of HD. Take another look. IronDuke  00:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The SWC is a lobbying organization, its publications are not neutral, and cannot be used as reliable sources to anything else as its own opinions. But the report does not even support a statement like: "The SWC considers Carlos Latuff to be a holocaust denier." They just filled up a dozen pages with cartoons from the contest. The only text was: "The Iranian competition utilized all the classic motifs and images of antisemitism to deny the Holocaust and vilify Israel and Jews everywhere." There is no connection with this drawing. The drawing does not any classic motif of antisemitism. It just criticizes Israel - vilify is just the choice of words of the SWC as a special-interest club. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well the SWC does fulfill a useful role, as the arguments of Holocaust deniers should be debunked. The only mention of Latuff in this report is the caption to his cartoon, which is comparing the plight of the Palestinian people to that of the Holocaust victims. While I can understand that may be offensive to some people, it is not denying the Holocaust, if anything it is asserting its existence. I agree with Peter that this source does not justify applying the (mendacious) label of "Holocaust denial" to Latuff. --NSH001 (talk) 09:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I’m afraid that’s simply wrong on all counts. The SWC is a respected organization. Does it concern itself with a special topic? Absolutely, but it’s perverse to suggest that the focus of the expertise of the SWC somehow makes it non-neutral. From the New York Times: “In November 1977, Mr. Wiesenthal lent his name to the Simon Wiesenthal Center, a Los Angeles-based institute for Holocaust remembrance. With an attached Museum of Tolerance and offices around the world, the center investigates and reports on anti-Semitism and bigotry worldwide.” No mention of a lack of neutrality (which would be irrelevant even if true). SWC is eminently quotable here, it’s just plain odd to say that it isn’t.

Your second point, that the SWC isn’t suggesting that the cartoon is holocaust denial, is also strange. They clearly are. I suppose it might be confusing, as NSH makes clear, without knowledge of the Holocaust or denial, one might well imagine that any depiction of events in that time and place would support the idea that “it happened.” Unfortunately, it does not. Comparisons between Jews and Nazis are, as well as being anti-Semitic, a form of denial (also called inversion here). From the JCPA: “The false accusation of Holocaust inversion-the portraying of Israel, Israelis, and Jews as Nazis-is a major distortion of history. This anti-Semitic concept claims that Israel behaves against the Palestinians as Germany did to the Jews in World War II. "The victims have become perpetrators," is one major slogan of the inverters. By shifting the moral responsibility for genocide, Holocaust inversion also contains elements of Holocaust denial.” One may disagree with this idea, but it’s definitely well-established. IronDuke 14:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, there are many points of comparison between the Nazis and Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, which is racist to the core: the theft of their land and property, deprivation of their livelihood, demolition of their homes, the ethnic cleansing, the general attempts at expulsion and elimination, entrenched discrimination in the legal and administrative systems, the killing, bombing, shelling and shooting (with the Palestinians suffering much higher deaths and other casualties than Israelis), harassment by the military and by settlers (many of the latter armed) and all the rest of the long list of atrocities, abuses and humiliations which have been going on for decades, and still are, year after year, month after month, day after day. For sure, it's not on the same level as the Holocaust, but it's bad enough for legitimate comparisons to be made — particularly in the context of cartoons, where exaggeration is de rigeur. If there is denial going on here, it is of what is happening to the Palestinians. Latuff's cartoons are a useful antidote to this denial.


 * Apart from this observation, I repeat that there is no way this source supports the claim that Latuff is a Holocaust denier, since he is not mentioned at all in the body of the report, for the simple reason that he is not denying the Holocaust—some of the other cartoons are indeed Holocaust denial, but not Latuff's.


 * --NSH001 (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Your comments are obscene and repulsive, of course; it is unfortunate that the prevailing attitude on WP does not allow for the removal or restriction of poeple who make them. Do you think you could at least remove the overtly WP:SOAPy bits, and rephrase? Thanks. IronDuke  23:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * NSH001, The Holocaust is the pain of all Jews not only Israelis. Comparison between the nazis and Israel is called antisemitism, people who draw such comparison are called anti-Semites. If I am not going to touch this article anymore, it is not because I agree with anything you are saying, but simply because, when I touch anything connected to latuff I have a strong urge to wash my hands. So, I'll leave kuiper and you to dig and smell that [....].--Mbz1 (talk) 00:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * ID, I'm sorry if what I said offended you, but no, I am certainly not going to withdraw or rephrase my comments, except to delete one word which is not essential to the argument. I speak the truth as I see it, and I wish more people were aware of it. I regard Israel's abhorrent treatment of the Palestinians, unfortunately, as probably the biggest agent in increasing today's level of antisemitism, and it needs to stop, not be denied.


 * Mbz1, You are right that the Holocaust is the pain of all Jews and not just of Israelis. It's an absolute obscenity that should never be forgotten, and it pains most Gentiles too, not only Jews. You will also find, if you look at my contribution record, that while I am very critical of Israel, I abhor and detest antisemitism. That is one reason, for example, that I wrote the article Holocaust Educational Trust (maybe you'd like to have a go at expanding and updating it?). But please, be careful not to confuse criticism of Israel with antisemitism.


 * It is late here (UTC), and I am going to bed now. Thanks for your replies, I appreciate them.


 * --NSH001 (talk) 00:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am glad that you appreciate our comments. I wish that you would take them more to heart though, and spare us your poorly conceived, poorly reasoned soapboxing that participates, robustly, in what many scholars would call a culture of holocaust denial, despite your entirely unconvincing protestations to the contrary. It is, literally, sickening to read it. I wish again, and out loud, for you to stop contributing to this area until you learn a bit more. I doubt very much that wish will be honored, and there is little that can be done to stop you, and people like you, from making such "contributions." Sleep well. IronDuke  01:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * ID, It looks like we will just have to agree to disagree here, since I could say much the same about you, except that I have no desire to silence your voice on Wikipedia. I will just note that since I first came to Wikipedia, I have taken the trouble to learn a lot more about Israel/Palestine, and as a result my attitude to Israel has hardened significantly. I will, however, take a look at some of the literature on Holocaust denial, as you request. You sleep well too. --NSH001 (talk) 08:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. Some good stuff from Jonathan Sacks on the radio at 6:05 this morning. It's available here (not sure if it's available outside the UK, though). --NSH001 (talk) 08:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You could "say much the same about" me? Well, I suppose you could say anything you like. I've never emitted the sort of filth you did up above regarding any race/color/creed/religion/sexual preference. I'm aware that your edits confrom to a radical pro-Palesitnian agenda; that doesn't bother me overmuch. What bothers me is when it crosses the line into what is generally regarded as antisemitism. We won't "agree to disagree" on that. IronDuke  15:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * NSH001, I could only repeat one more time that comparing Israeli policies to nazi as you did is antisemitism, and people, who draw such comparison are ant-Semites, and now I'll go to was my hands.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * While you are entitled to your (entirely unfounded) opinion it looks like you are accusing NSH001 of being an "ant-Semite" and it may be considered a personal attack. // Liftarn (talk) 18:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that it looked that way to you, as I can have no way of knowing what NSH's opinions about Jews may be, positive or negative. Perhaps if you reread--carefully--what I wrote, my actual position would become clearer. IronDuke  18:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * liftarn was talking to me, ID. In case you did not have a "pleasure" to meet liftarn, he uploaded more latuff to Commons than anybody else I guess. He's also the one, who is spreading the hate by latuff all over commons by adding inappropriate categories to that [....] while fighting hard removing proper categories. That's why liftarn should have known that my " (entirely unfounded) opinion" is not my opinion at all, but rather opinion of European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights expressed in its working definition for antisemitism, and now I guess we would be told few stories about Jewish lobbies.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for that. I missed your intervening edit. I have indeed experienced Liftarn's editing, for quite a while now. Thanks for the link, perhaps it will prove illuminating to NSH. IronDuke  19:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That someone put up what they think defines antisemitism on a website and you found it makes no difference to this article. First it's not a WP:RS. Second to apply it would be WP:SYN. // Liftarn (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you actually read the document in question? Do you know who authored it? “someone put up what they think defines antisemitism on a website?” That’s what you think this is? (Not a rhetorical question, please do answer.) You can also take a look at this.


 * I don’t necessarily expect you to know what is and is not antisemitic, but you could take some time to educate yourself. NSH has said he will do so, I’d invite you to do the same. You can also read Robert Wistrich’s piece here. Anyone who is familiar with modern antisemitism understand this concept. And anyone who is editing in IP areas had better be conversant with it, or run the risk of being lumped in with people you may not necessarily agree with.


 * Oh, and that an argument on a talk page would somehow itself violate WP:SYN… Well, I always appreciate a bit of levity injected into a serious discussion, and I confess you definitely had me going for a second. IronDuke  00:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If it was just written for the talkpage with no connection to the content of the article it would be soapboxing. // Liftarn (talk) 18:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Virtually all soapboxing has a connection to the content of the article in question. IronDuke  02:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I think the name-calling and bullying being engaged in here by IronDuke and Mbz1 is deplorable. NSH001 may have soapboxed but he is entitled to his opinion. Don't like it? Ignore it. Plese focus on discussing content and not contributors.  T i a m u t talk 21:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nobody is calling names, and nobody is bulling. Providing the links to European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights its working definition for antisemitism that BTW is adopted in wikipedia article New Antisemitism cannot be considered calling names.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, Tiamut, I’ve always thought your heart was in the right place, so here I can only find your ignorance deplorable. Maybe take some time to educate yourself on the subject, then have another go. And you might also take another look at WP:SOAP. (NSH—you see that even Tiamut cannot defend that aspect of your post). I am not obliged to ignore the soapboxing. Indeed, I am entitled to remove it. I’d like to not do that, as I think that would raise the temperature higher than it already is, and I’d prefer to have NSH learn from his mistake and delete the offending (and offensive) comments himself. IronDuke  00:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As you already said, a definition proposed by Jewish lobbying organizations. They got it as far as the draft stage. But that was years ago. Not adopted. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, good gravy, will those Joos never stop lobbying? It does try one's patience, does it not? But you may be interested in some of the links I just provided, and in getting to know the subject better. Or were you already somewhat expert? IronDuke  00:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is seriously being argued? The category is CLEARLY applicable... look at the sources provided. Man, the level of pettiness that I witness on Wikipedia never ceases to astound me. Breein1007 (talk) 03:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The question here, I think, is which categories are appropriate? The Holocaust denial category seems obviously appropriate. Even if there is an argument that Latuff is not a Holocaust denier, the controversies surrounding his work focus on this question. Those controversies, including a court case and the issue of the Iranian cartoon competition, are a notable aspect of Latuff. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP beats WP:SYN. // Liftarn (talk) 18:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

"Controversial"
Some editors here insist on making wikipedia describe Latuff as a controversial cartoonist. Of course, Latuff is not more controversial than the pope or the president of the US. Describing someone as controversial is dismissive, and not a neutral way of characterising the subject. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You would advocate, then, removing the word for anyone less notable than a major religious leader or head of government? IronDuke  02:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The word "controversial" is rarely used in the first line of biographical wikipedia articles to characterise a person. I have looked for other instances, but not even Kurt Westergaard gets this epithet. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Notability
This article should include the subject's most significant claims for notability in the lead. As the lead presently reads, he has no claims for notability. I'm not suggesting he isn't notable - just that we should edit the lead to make his notability clear. Rklawton (talk) 19:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Neo-Nazism cat?!
Sick, absolutely SICK!!!! --93.143.21.20 (talk) 14:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure if that cat is appropriate, so I removed it. Doesn't look like their are any/many folks in that category. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * What was sick about that category? Carlos Latuff is obviously a neo-Nazi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leftthird1 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have any reliable sources for that? // Liftarn (talk) 19:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyone who hates Jews for no good reason and loves Muslim terrorists is a neo-Nazi. He also likes using swastikas in his cartoons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Earthlived2 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll take that as a "No". // Liftarn (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That just shows that you are a mindless bureaucrat who can't think for himself and enjoys protecting malevolent and subhuman neo-Nazis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hndjwnkd (talk • contribs) 20:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you please avoid making personal attacks. // Liftarn (talk) 18:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Skinhead.gif should maybe be included in the article. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, Latuff's self-portrait should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hndjwnkd (talk • contribs) 22:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no indication it is intended as a self portrait. Looking at Latuff's views it seems very unlikely. // Liftarn (talk) 18:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

With an emphasis on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, much of Latuff's work is considered controversial.
Why it is so that if someone tries to criticize US/Israel, they are labeled as "Controversial" on the very beginning of article? Granted that many may have differences with his opinion, but a separate "Controversies" section is there (like for many other biographical articles). So emphasizing it in the very beginning is intellectual dishonest & biased act. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hdl verilog (talk • contribs) 09:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. It is an attempt to bias the reader at the very outset.Bill tzay (talk) 05:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

RfC: :Is Category:Antisemitism appropriate for this article?

 * Is Category:Antisemitism appropriate for this article?-- Avi (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Opinions
This is not a case of " I think it's also clear that articles about people should not be included in Category:Antisemitism just because they have been accused of having made an antisemitic remark". The cartoons themselves are compared to antisemitic propaganda. As this currently is the only article about Latuff's WORK, the cat is appropriate. If ever there is a fork, and we split "Carlos Latuff" from "Political cartoons of Carlos Latuff" then the cat belongs on the latter article of course. But since this article is ALSO the "Political cartoons of Carlos Latuff" (as that is his sole reason for notability) the category is appropriate and should remain. -- Avi (talk) 12:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It is still a violation of WP:BLPCAT as explained at Categories for discussion/Log/2010 August 12, "it's also clear that articles about people should not be included in Category:Antisemitism just because they have been accused of having made an antisemitic remark.". // Liftarn (talk)
 * That is not why the category is here. Latuff's cartoons are being described as antisemitic; this is the article on the cartoons. Therefore the category must remain here. Until such point as we have seperate articles on Latuff and his cartoons, this article serves for both and must have the category. AND as Latuff's notability is solely due to the cartoons, I don't see how we can fork the article. -- Avi (talk) 14:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we need an RfC on this. At the very least more than just you and I should be re-hashing this. -- Avi (talk) 14:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That some persons may see the cartoons as antisemitic makes no difference. // Liftarn (talk) 15:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That reliable sources discuss his work in the context of antisemitism does make a difference. -- Avi (talk) 16:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a valid category for a biographical article per WP:BLPCAT and Categories for discussion/Log/2010 August 12. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with moving to RfC. Rklawton (talk) 14:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Good idea. I've added it. The base question is if WP:BLPCAT prevent you from adding a living person to Category:Antisemitism if some of his work has been described as antisemitic by non-reliable sources? // Liftarn (talk) 16:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You have incorrectly specified the question, Liftarn. If this article was solely an article on the person "Latuff", I'd agree with you Liftarn. However, this article is also the article on Latuff's WORK, and so the cat is appropriate. -- Avi (talk) 16:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course it belongs to the category. Comparing between Jewish people and blood thirsty monsters is a clear sign of antisemitism. Broccoli (talk) 16:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That may be the case, but since Latuff don't do that it's a moot point. // Liftarn (talk) 16:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, Latuff's work has been described as antisemitic, there are quotes in the article as such. We are not stating Latuff is an antisemite, nor should we with the sources in the article now. But his work is in the discussion and this is the article on his work; thus the cat -- Avi (talk) 16:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, there has been some false light efforts, but that doesn't mean that we have to add innocent persons to the category every time someone cries wolf. // Liftarn (talk) 17:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It is interesting that Liftran, who vandalized Alan Dershowitz gallery on Commons today with a clear cut BLP violation of a decent, living person is crying wolf about adding "antisemetism" category to the article it clearly belongs to. Broccoli (talk) 17:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It is interesting that you call adding images to galleries are considered vandalism and I also notice you have a very odd definition of "decent". // Liftarn (talk) 17:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps; but the commonms and EnWiki are separate projects. The proper venue for raising that issue is commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems or Meta if you believe that there is a cross-wiki issue. -- Avi (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Avi, the Wikipedia article Alan Dershowitz is linked to Commons gallery. That's why adding the cartoon to the commons gallery is a BLP violation on English Wikipedia. About complaining on AN/U on commons, Liftran already did. Broccoli (talk) 17:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, It is interesting to notice that Dr. Kuiper complained about BLP violations on commons, with a living person, whose rights were violated being himself :) completely ignoring the real BLB violations that were introduced to Commons with cartoons by latuff. Broccoli (talk) 18:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You are not User:Broccoli. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am also not User:siafu, but like Broccoli, provide an unambiguous link to my user page. Please don't distract the discussion with canards like this. siafu (talk) 20:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

You may also want to read Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons for some background. // Liftarn (talk) 08:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Considering the rather controversial nature of equating anti-Israelism and anti-Zionism with antisemitism, and the general caution put upon us by BLP, I can't see that including this article in Category: Antisemitism is justified. Moreover, the contention that this article is strictly about the cartoons is misleading; the article title is Carlos Latuff, and it includes biographical information.  The fact that his claim to fame is these cartoons is true, but does not change the fact that we are very much dealing with BLP here.  Before arriving at this article through RfC, I was not familiar with Mr. Latuff or his work, but from the content in the article I see nothing that unequivocably makes him out to be antisemitic (i.e., rather than just anti-Zionist or anti-Israel).  No mention of cartoons that portray some sort of "typical Jew" in the vain of those published in Der Stuermer, or claiming that Israel and its citizens (which are apparently attacked) represent the entirety of the Jewish people; this connection is what is implied in labelling him as an antisemite, and would need to be clearly established before inclusion in the category, IMO.  Also, secondary sources calling the man antisemitic is not enough; because this is a biographical article, including it in the category is tantamount to saying that he simply IS antisemitic, not just that some people think he is. siafu (talk) 20:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment from an outside editor responding to RfC. Category: Antisemitism is not justified, as per wording of WP:BLPCAT. This is a BLP: it is clearly named and categorized as such. The cartoonist explicitly accepts an anti-Zionist position, while he explicitly rejects that he is anti-Jewish. Thus WP:BLPCAT applies. There is apparent consensus from both wiki and sources that his cartoons constitute propaganda. The argument in favour of the applying the AntiSemitism category states that you can't have anti-Zionist propaganda without playing on or employing tropes of anti-Semitic prejudice. Were this article not a BLP such an argument would carry more force. As it is, the living artist's explicit disavowal of anti-Semetic beliefs means, according to its own policy, the wiki cannot apply Category: Antisemitism. -- Whoosit (stalk) 17:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note I believe you are mistaken, Whoosit. The argument for Category:Antisemitism is that there are reliable and verifiable sources which describe Latuff's work as antisemitic. Wikipedians may not apply their judgement to imply someone is antisemitic or not; but we aren't. We are noting that his work has been discussed in the discussion about antisemitsm. -- Avi (talk) 15:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The category is NOT Category: People who have been accused by some people of antisemitism. siafu (talk) 17:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment also responding to the RfC. There definitely is no basis for placing this biography in the antisemitism category. The subject of this article is vociferously anti-Israel, but has not proclaimed an antisemitic intent, as I believe is required for such a categorization. Figureofnine (talk) 15:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note Same as above, Figureofnine. The argument for Category:Antisemitism is that there are reliable and verifiable sources which describe Latuff's work as antisemitic. Wikipedians may not apply their judgement to imply someone is antisemitic or not; but we aren't. We are noting that his work has been discussed in the discussion about antisemitsm. -- Avi (talk) 15:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * He has been accused of antisemitism, but he is quoted at some length emphatically denying antisemitic intent. Given that this is a BLP, and given his emphatic defense, I don't think the burden of proof has been met. Figureofnine (talk) 15:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please do not confuse the current category with the defunct and now deleted Category:Anti-Semitic people and Category:People accused of antisemitism. We have done away with those categories on purpose. The ADL and Abraham Foxman are both in Category:Antisemitsm, and Category:Dreyfus affair is a subcat of Category:Antisemitism in France which is a subcat of Category:Antisemitsm, and I hope no one things that Alfred Dreyfus or Emile Zola are being accused of antisemitsm even though they are in that category. -- Avi (talk) 15:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Placing an "antisemitism" category on this person, based on disputed accusations of antisemitism, carries with it a strong implication that this is an antisemitic person. Inherently there would be no such problem for major figures associated with the fight against antisemitism (Zola, Dreyfus, Foxman). We can't, and shouldn't, put this category on every bio in which antisemitism is accused. Figureofnine (talk) 16:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The word "innuendo" comes to mind. Figureofnine (talk) 16:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment We have had the same argument several times on Gilad Atzmon, where I have pointed out that the Category header states "This category contains articles that discuss or refer to the topic of antisemitism. It does not imply that the subjects of any articles in the category are antisemitic". Applying the same logic, although I reject any suggestion that Latuff or his cartoons are in the least antisemitic, it seems to me that the article, which does indeed discuss this baseless characterisation, should be in this category. As Avi notes, Abe Foxman is included in this category, as are the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, Rodrigo López and the Jewish Internet Defense Force. We may need a discussion elsewhere about the exact scope of the category; in the meantime, if it is applicable to those I mentioned, it is also applicable to Latuff. RolandR (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And by the way, the sub-category Category: Writers on antisemitism includes, for instance, Yehoshafat Harkabi, Efraim Karsh and Albert Memmi, non of whom has ever been accused of antisemitism. RolandR (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Writers on antisemitism" does not contain with it the implication that a person may be antisemtic. The reason Latuff is being considered for this is that he is accused of antisemitism, and yet "People accused of antisemitism" has been eliminated as a category. Figureofnine (talk) 17:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Which underscores the simplicity and elegance of this category. The question is simple: Has Carlos Latuff or his work been notably involved in a conversation with respect to antisemitism. The answer is a clear yes; thus the category. No accusations, no intimations, any such linkage is in the reader's mind based on the sources brought. The fact that your immediate reaction is that his work is being accused of instead of a defense of is due to the sources brought in the article. Either way, the category is agnostic and wikipedia takes no stand. To start denying that his work is in the conversation is, of course, a violation of NPOV. -- Avi (talk) 18:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm an agnostic myself, as I had never heard of Carlos Latuff until this article appeared on the RfC list. My immediate reaction was as I've stated. Figureofnine (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm just responding to the RfC. I agree that the tag antisemitism should not be used only for articles about verified antisemites. It should be a tag that identifies articles which are involved with the subject one way or another, either for or against, or in this case, embroiled in some controversy. I don't see why people oppose this unless they read "antisemitic" to mean "antisemite". The difference would be the same between the "racism" tag and a tag called "racist".. Other articles in the category include FAST – Fighting Antisemitism Together and All-Party Parliamentary Group against Anti-Semitism. I think the reason this is causing such a discussion is because even the word "antisemitic" has become so taboo, that even stating something like that can get you accused of antisemitism, lol. Vespine (talk) 00:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Question: Keeping in mind that this is a BLP and caution is required in the characterizations of living persons, how does inclusion of the category improve or diminish the quality of the article? -- Whoosit (stalk) 04:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * How does any category improve the quality of an article? Per Help:Category "Categories are a software feature of MediaWiki, which enables pages to be added to automatic listings. These help structure a project such as Wikipedia by grouping together pages on similar subjects." -- Avi (talk) 05:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Appropriate whether or not he is antisemitic is not our business to discuss here. but he is considered antisemitic by some so the category should stay because he is related to it. LibiBamizrach (talk) 04:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What some may think it not really that reliable. Some people also think W Bush is the antichrist. // Liftarn (talk)
 * There are even some who think he isn't! RolandR (talk) 16:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Compromise? WP:BLPCAT: "Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources". If we change the heading titled "Controversies" to "Accusations of Antisemitism," would it make a clear and neutral case for inclusion of the category? -- Whoosit (stalk) 04:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My problem is that "antisemitism" carries such a stigma that you risk branding somebody by using that category. It's just not necessary. Figureofnine (talk) 20:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting we remove Abraham Foxman and Alfred Dreyfus from the categories as well, Figureofnine? If the category is appropriate, it is appropriate. We trust our readers to have more than two brain cells and they can read the category notice, the article, and the sources and make up their own minds if either Latuff or Foxman are antisemitic. For categorization purposes, this articles belongs with others that discuss antisemitism. -- Avi (talk) 22:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you suggest adding the antisemitism category to George S. Patton? I've read books suggesting that he was antisemitic. That same book said that the U.S. Army was rife with antisemitism. Do we put that category tag on United States Army? For people accused of antisemitism (as contrasted with activists and victims like Foxman and Dreyfus) there needs to be restraint in adding this category. Figureofnine (talk) 22:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:UNDUE, Figureofnine. Latuff is notable solely for his cartoon work, and those cartoons are in the discussion of antisemitism. Dreyfus is notable pretty much solely for the Dreyfus affair, which is in the discussion of antisemitism. I'm not sure that allegations of Patton's antisemitism are a notable part of his biography, compared to Mel Gibson, Abraham Foxman, or Emile Zola, for example. -- Avi (talk) 22:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not defending Latuff. I find his statements detestable. Remember, I'm here in response to the RfC. I'm just concerned about overuse of the category. Figureofnine (talk) 22:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My apologies if I came across as attacking; I was using a form of reductio ad absurdum, using your previous statements and taking them to logical conclusions to try and justify my understanding/interpretations of the wikipedia policy/guidelines we are discussing. I certainly did not mean to accuse you personally of either defending or attacking either Latuff or antisemitism, and I am sorry if you were personally discomfited by our discussion. -- Avi (talk) 00:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not at all, I think you've been totally appropriate. I see your point too. Figureofnine (talk) 01:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

So in that spirit, can either of you suggest a compromise that would satisfy both? -- Whoosit (stalk) 03:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, over the years, the compromise has already been made. We have deleted Category:Anti-Semitic people years ago; we recently deleted Category:People accused of antisemitism (that may not be what the official name was; I forget). We do not classify people as antisemitic or semitophiles. We classify articles only, and in this case, the category means that the article is logically grouped with other articles that discuss the phenomenon of antisemitism, such as the Anti-Defamation League. How much more room is there to compromise without destroying the ability to classify articles? -- Avi (talk) 04:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Carlos Latuff is obviously anti-Semitic because he wants all Jews to be kicked out of their homeland of Israel because they displaced Palestinians, yet he is not advocating Brazilians to go back to Portugal and Africa and give Brazil back to the Native American tribes. If he were objective, he would also want Americans, Canadians, Chileans, and Argentinians to return to Europe to give the land back to Native Americans; the Australians to return to Europe to give the land back to the Aborigines; the Japanese to go back to Central Asia to give the land back to the Ainu; the English to return to Saxony and Scandinavia to give the land back to the Welsh; the Indians in Suriname and Fiji to go back to India; the upper-caste Indians in India to go back to Persia; the Arabs in North Africa to go back to the Middle East; the Turks to go back to Central Asia to give the land back to the Greeks; all the Bantu to go back to West Africa; etc. But, no, he focuses only on Jews, and he is not even Palestinian. This shows him to be anti-Semitic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hohum434243 (talk • contribs) 01:05, September 17, 2010
 * Whether that is true or not, it is irrelevant to this article. Moreover, it cannot be put in this article as it is your opinion, and that would be a WP:OR violation even if this were not a biography (see WP:BLP). What we are discussing here is whether or not the article is properly categorized and should be related to other articles on antisemitism—not whether Latuff is an antisemite or not. -- Avi (talk) 07:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Liftarn raised the initial objection to the appropriateness of the category. Liftarn, do you have any comment on my proposal for compromise? -- Whoosit (stalk) 16:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoosit, can you please respond to my comments to you above that compromises have already been implemented over the past few years, and at this point what is being suggested will destroy the ability for articles to be properly grouped? -- Avi (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand your concern. Can you clarify? My proposal is that changing this heading from "Controversies" to "Accusations of Antisemitism," of would make Category:Antisemitism unambiguously applicable. This is a minor change to the wording of the article that should satisfy both WP:BLPCAT and Category:Antisemitism. I'm not proposing we change existing consensus on category definitions. -- Whoosit (stalk) 21:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That would at least be an improvement. // Liftarn (talk) 22:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, Whoosit. I misunderstood you. At the moment, the only controversy listed in that section deals with antisemitsim, so your suggestion has merit. However, should other controversies arise, we would have to edit the headings. That should not be a big deal, though. I don't see an issue with that change now, though. -- Avi (talk) 00:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Has this issue been resolved? If so, it should be marked as such. My opinion has slid over to the "retain category" viewpoint, if that matters. Figureofnine (talk) 18:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it will ever be resolved, but at least it's acceptable. I still think the category is to binary to be used for cases when someone is accused of antisemitism by some fringe group. After all, we could include everyone on the Masada2000 list in the category if so. // Liftarn (talk)
 * I agree with you that the category has potential to be misused. My personal preference is that its use be restricted to only the narrowest of circumstances and clearest and most indisputable situations. Otherwise, you're right, it could be overused. Figureofnine (talk) 14:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Avraham is claiming there was consensus for the antisemitism category. I do not see that there was. Avi tries to reintroduce the category that was deleted per discussion at Categories for discussion/Log/2010 August 12. This categorization accuses and stigmatizes. It does not serve to make it easier to find readers looking for information about antisemitism. It violates policy at WP:BLPCAT. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems that there was a change to the category's application guidelines; I have reverted the edit. -- Avi (talk) 21:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)