Talk:Carlos Latuff/Archive 3

Carlos Latuff comment on his wikipedia article from twitter

 * Never trust on Wikipedia .My "Early life" completely false http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Latuff
 * It's useless. Article is often vandalized by Zionists.
 * I can't spend my life editing a Wikipedia entry. If you need to correct it all the time, it's because isn't trustable at all
 * Unfortunately I have little time to produce a self biography. The past text on Wikipedia was correct, but now it's vandalized
 * Pass the word. Wikipedia isn't trustable 'cause ppl who don't agree with your views can always post lies about you
 * From "Latuff was Born into a..." to "...as a young boy." is completely false
 * Instead spending time editing Wikipedia entries, I prefer to make cartoons for Arab uprisings
 * Wikipedia isn't trustable 'cause ppl who do not agree with your views can always post lies about you. All the time.
 * It's not about "reliable resource". This entry has been vandalized a number of times, usually by the same ppl: pro-Israel users.
 * If Wikipedia entries can be vandalized over 'n over, then it's not reliable. And I advice my followers not to trust on Wikipedia

Can fix this issue? -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 10:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not without locking the article. Wikipedia will probably always have problems with vandals. All we can do is revert as soon as we spot it. // Liftarn (talk)

Sentences on portrayal of Jews vs. Non-Jews by Latuff
Whilst the images may completely support the hypothesis, solely using the images would be a violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR which is forbidden even if true. Wikipedia, in general, should not be the place of origin for the publishing of original ideas. If any of the sources brought in the third sentence support the hypothesis/observation, then please remove the or tags. Otherwise, if verifiable supporting documentation in a reliable source cannot be found, we need to remove those sentences. As an aside, I combined the various pics into one reference each to make the article text more readable. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 17:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sure one could find some lobbying organization alleging this, but it is just not true. It is easy to find cartoons criticizing dictators like Saddam Hussein, etcetera. Latuff has a pathos for justice. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

BLP and what that means
Carlos Latuff is a living person, which means the content of this article must comply with WP:BLP. This means that ll contentious material must be sourced to reliable third party sources. These edits are unacceptable in a BLP. To begin with, an editor is using Latuff's cartoons themselves as sources and providing his own unsourced commentary in its place. Next this is a blog, as is this (one that has no place anywhere on Wikipedia). Sandinistas, do not restore such material. BLP requires that you gain consensus for any material removed as a BLP violation. Please try to do so here. I am removing this material once more.  nableezy  - 13:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The material that has been restored does not comply with WP:BLP. Editors are not permitted to make their own opinions on what his cartoons "can be understood as expressing". All negative material on living persons must be cited to reliable secondary sources. I will be removing the material that introduces negative OR commentary sourced to the primary source (the actual cartoon).  nableezy  - 22:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Original Research
Huge segments of this article are interpretations of Latuff's art by editors (referenced to primary sources linking to Latuff's art). The interpretations are often negative and followed by labeling the cartoonist as "anti-American" or "antisemitic". This seems like a clear violation of both OR and BLP. I propose we remove these. Also the text contains a large volume claims of antisemitism by people who are not notable. Are these not against BLP and NOTE? Poyani (talk) 23:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You are correct. // Liftarn (talk)
 * Someone should correct it, tbh. When it comes to NPOV, this article is somewhat of a "joke". Dnm (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Pikolas (talk) 01:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

POV
Also, when it says he depicts characters like former brazilian president Lula as either a monster or a nazi, in the same level he depicts Bush or Blair - this is simply not true. His criticism about Lula is of a different nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.142.110.21 (talk) 22:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Guys, this article is not balanced at all. Reading it makes it seem like he is almost a self-professed Jew hater, which I don't think is quite accurate. Pikolas (talk) 19:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, you sound like an extremely naive ultra-leftist. This article is indeed biased, but for the opposite reason: it makes him seem like he is only anti-Israel, but the truth is that he is extremely anti-Semitic and advocates the genocide of Jews from the Land of Israel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.205.78.43 (talk) 05:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Latuff has never attacked the Jews as a people, nor has he advocated "genocide" or even reversal of Jewish settlement since 1948 outside of the current occupied territories. Inserting these erroneous views into an article is a violation of NPOV as well as BLP. I would agree with Pikolas that the article as it stands is barely acceptable on these grounds anyway. Nolan135 (talk) 06:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with Pikolas. This article is not balanced at all, and you do not need to be a "naive ultra-leftist" to see that. The only requirement is that you are not a party to the dispute or a person with strong opinions regarding the issue at hand. For the articles development, outbursts like "naive ultra-leftist" should be avoided. However, I guess all can agree on that such a statement says more about the political bias of the "proclamer". Regards, Dnm (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know about whether you guys are "extremely naive ultra-leftists" or not, but the guy is clearly a vicious antisemite whose cartoons wouldn't be out of place in the Der Sturmer. It might help if you guys read WP's articles on Antisemitism, New antisemitism, and Antisemitism in the anti-globalization movement. Cheers. 119.224.46.147 (talk) 08:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Not everyone criticizing Isreal is anti-semitic. Latuff is sometimes a bit over the top with his cartoons but nothing that would justify such a classification. --Denniss (talk) 08:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Image reinforcing bias
I know Latuff authored File:Ship to Gaza by Latuff.gif, however, the article is already very biased towards his accusations of antisemitism (in violation of WP:BLP), and that cartoon only reinforces that bias. In my opinion we should use a less controversial image, like File:Bombman.gif (which also serves to illustrate better his themes, i.e. the Palestinian conflict). Let's please reach some sort of consensus before engaging in fruitless edit wars. Pikolas (talk) 06:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, let's face it: a) it was a drawing by Latuff, b) Latuff IS controversial for drawings like these and c)he is more known for being anti-Israel  than being pro-Palestine.
 * To give some evidence: when I search “Latuff Palestine” on Google, I get 225.000 results. However, if I search “Latuff Israel”, I get 413.000 results. Thus, your idea of Latuff as a non-controversial artist of Palestinian children is quite wrong. I’m afraid you are violating the WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT-rule this way. Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 07:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * To be clear, my reasoning is not emotional on this topic, I am neither a Jew nor an Arab, so justdontlikeit (which is not a rule, but an essay) doesn't apply to my argument, which is essentially rational. Also, your third point is questionable. Where is he better known as anti-Israel? Anglophone media, for sure, as Portuguese media doesn't portray him as an antisemite at all. That's bias, uncompatible with an encyclopedia that purports to be universal. Google searching isn't exactly science either.
 * All in all, what I mean to say is that 1) hell yes, he's controversial 2) yes, he did draw up polemic cartoons 3) from an objetive perspective, the cartoon serves to illustrate his "controversialness". However, the article is already pretty biased, and on a subjective level, the image only reinforces that view on the reader. Pikolas (talk) 17:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Just like you, I’m not jewish or Arabic. However, I fail to see how the quality of someone’s opinion on this article needs to be based on ethnicity. Having said that, it is preferable to have a picture in an article that supports it. As you are saying above, the Gaza Boat –image reinforces the article. And that is what images should do in an encyclopedic article.
 * As for the google-search: whether you use  the English “Palestine” or the Portugese “Palestina” in the search: the number of results stay the same. So much for being universal. If you find some reliable source which proves otherwise, I’ll be happy to read it.
 * Finally: if you think that the article is biased… well, nobody stops you from editing it in a way that you consider to be better. But then again, since we agree that he is controversial, I doubt my proposed image will be out of place. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 10:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

It is undisputed that the cartoon is drawn by Latuff, and that he is well known for such drawings. If the implications of those facts are unflattering to Latuff, then perhaps he should rethink what he draws, but it is not a blp violation to show latuff's work on latuff's article. Both images are appropriately licensed. Use them both, but there is certainly no policy based reason to exclude the ship image. (Consensus could certainly choose to exclude it, but thus far there does not seem to be such). Gaijin42 (talk) 14:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Context is important. If the article insinuates that he's antisemitic, then displaying images out of context could be used to reinforce these accusations.  I'd rather see some kind of critical reception and sourced commentary on his work, rather than just throwing a bunch of controversial, politically incorrect images on the page and guiding readers to a certain viewpoint. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't see a real problem with the image in question. It appears to be representative of the artist's work, and it doesn't look at all anti-Semitic—just anti-Israel. There's certainly no BLP violation involved. And personally, I'm not a fan of the Bombman.gif image. Maybe the broken English was intentional, but it doesn't reflect particularly well on him either way. --BDD (talk) 18:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The RfC is over for two weeks, and I think that the consensus is more on my side for reinserting the picture. Moreover, the article isn't edited in such a way that the boat-image would be out of place by now. I think it is safe to put the boat-picture back. Regards.Jeff5102 (talk) 20:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The octopus is a traditional symbol in anti-Semitic literature; see File:OctopusNAS1.jpg and File:2001 ed The International Jew by Henry Ford.jpg for a couple examples. The AP via The New York Daily News talks about the octopus's negative connotations even in contexts distant from the Jews.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't disagree that the octopus has antisemetic overtones. Not sure what your argument was (include or don't include?) Certainly latuff has been acused of anti-semitism, and his use of traditional anti-semetic imagery is relevant to the sources that are discussing such allegations. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The Predictable and Tired Old "Alleged Anti-Semitism" Section
Anytime you read an article in Wikipedia about someone sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, there is always a 'Alleged Anti-Semitism' section, which repeats the same tired and generally false slanders against whoever the article is about. In this piece, as usual, it's just a propaganda technique by the pro-Israel side, with pretty thin evidence. I vote we just remove the whole section, or at least cut it down to a couple of pro-and anti-sentences, without a subhead. jackbrown (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree wholeheartedly with your argument, but as you can see in this talk page, even raising concerns about the flagrant POV can lead to heated discussions. I would suggest expanding other sections to reduce the weight of the accusations against him, which are currently disproportionately large in the article. Pikolas (talk) 22:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If you don't see how depicting Jews as inhuman monsters who drink the blood of Palestinian babies and wear Nazi uniforms is anti-semitic you are either in denial or have no idea what anti-semitism is.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 16:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It really doesn't matter if the accusation is right or wrong The accusation (and counterarguments) have been discussed in many reliable sources and are certainly a notable part of Latuff's career and reputation. It falls very clearly under WP:WELLKNOWN Gaijin42 (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And WP:BLP then? // Liftarn (talk)


 * So jackbrown has got a point in that the section in question further detracts from the already pretty low quality of this article. So I've just fucking got rid of it. If any of you wankers don't like it, then do a proper job of putting together a semi-coherent section that doesn't read like it's been blurted out by a spoilt prat in a hissy fit.

We have a detailed section on allegations of antisemitism, sourced to high quality sources (Stephen Roth Institute, Kotek, AKdH). The lead should summarize the article, and include mention of this, with a statement the Latuff himself disputes the claim. There is no BLP issue here. All Rows4 (talk) 00:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * These are rotten activist sources, who generally find *anyone* critical of Israel "anti-semitic". At the same time, we know that A: the finances activist sources are often murky, B: Israel is actively supporting pro-Israeli "Hasbara"  editing. Make you own conclusion. At the same time, independent Jewish sources, like the Forward, clearly states that Carlos Latuff is not anti-semitic: who do you place in the lead: rrrrrrrright, the "activist" sources. This is a clear WP:BLP-violation, and I´m talking it to that board, Huldra (talk) 21:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, because socialist newspapers are always neutral on the question of Israel? This is what Latuff is known for. its not a BLP concern to repeat what is WIDELY reported in reliable sources, and the bias of those reliable sources is not an issue, straight from the policy. We WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "WIDELY reported in reliable sources", yet only purely activist sources like Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Aktion Kinder des Holocaust and Stephen Roth Institute are used in the article? And I would assume The Jewish Daily Forward would be as concerned about anti-semitism as anyone, after all, that is basically the definition of it: that it hits each and every Jew, not only those with certain opinions. Huldra (talk) 21:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you have the faintest idea what the Stephen Roth Institute is? Click on the article and read. If after reading you still think it is a "rotten activist source", then let me suggest you are not fit to be editing in this topic area. All Rows4 (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I´m basically interested in *one* thing here, and that is: who funds them? Wouldn´t that be convenient for those who rule in Israel, if all  who criticise Israel were called anti-semites? Huldra (talk) 22:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Let me repeat, since you apparently didn't bother to read what I wrote: Read the Stephen Roth Institute article. If, after reading it, you still think it is a "rotten activist source", then let me suggest you are not fit to be editing in this topic area, and I will probably take action to see to it that you don't. All Rows4 (talk) 23:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * On *this* issue is it. On other issues, it might be different. And  I´m soooooo sick of these threats "not fit to be editing in this topic area, and I will probably take action to see to it that you don't" etc.  Either report me, or just shut up. Huldra (talk) 23:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Expect to see yourself at AE in the upcoming weeks. Someone who thinks that an academic institution that is a research organ of one of the world's top 200 universities, which is focused on research of antisemitism is a "rotten activist source" on topics of antisemitism either does not understand wikipedia's policy on reliable sources well enough to be editing, period, or possibly worse, understands it well enough, but knowingly violates it when it comes to a specific topic because she wants to push a POV, in which case she should be topic banned. It will probably take me a few days to put together an AE case. Adios. All Rows4 (talk) 23:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The Stephen Roth Institute seems(*) wp:rs to me but what does it say about Latuff ? In the article we can find 2 links dated back from 2003 and this doesn't concern particularly controversial problems. If the Stephen Roth Institute didn't publish anything any more about Latuff, that would mean they abandonned their charges against him.
 * (*) Seems... Because it should be analysed what Barack Obama, a President of the United States in activity has to deal with academic researches on antisemitism...
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 03:17, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

The title of this section is extremely offensive. Allegations of anti-Semitism are serious allegations. I have changed it to allegations of Racism since anti-Semitism is a form of racism. It is hard to be civil in talking to racists and I expect them to be civil back.Telaviv1 (talk) 13:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Restored section title. Do you have anything constructive to write about or is this just an attempt to heat-up the discussion? --Denniss (talk) 13:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Dubious information
I live in Belgium and I never heard about this : whereas we have several organisations taking care of such problems. This would have "made the buzz". This source is not reliable and the information should be crossed by several other sources. Pluto2012 (talk) 03:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

There are several other sources, apparently the story was originally broken by the belgian magazine "Joods Actueel" apparently the sep 2013 issue. Here are other sources covering it tho
 * http://forward.com/news/breaking-news/184136/belgium-teachers-urged-to-compare-israel-to-nazi-g/
 * http://www.timesofisrael.com/belgian-education-ministry-website-publishes-vicious-cartoon/
 * http://www.jta.org/2013/09/18/news-opinion/israel-middle-east/israel-compared-to-nazi-germany-on-belgian-education-ministrys-website
 * and also pro-palestinian sources confirming the basic story (though obviously interpreting things differently) http://www.shoah.org.uk/2013/09/20/belgian-ministrys-fleeting-moments-of-truth-about-irahell/

The BCH published a letter in response to the incident, reprinted in english here http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3976/belgium-jew-hatred

I was unable to find the story on the joodsactueel site, but I don't speak the language, and their online archives apparently do not go back that far. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not in Belgium and my connexion to the internet is poor so I cannot check by myself but none of these sources complies with wp:rs and certainly not the magazine Joodsactueel which is totally unknown.
 * We have plenty of official newspapers in Belgium : fr:La Libre Belgique (fr), fr:Le Soir (fr), fr:Het Nieuwsblad (nl), fr:De Morgen (nl), (ans many many others). A few weeks ago we have had 6 weeks controversy about a 2 hours BDS manifestation. There are strong associations fighting antisemitism. I can tell you that if students should have analysed such a drawing the days of the commemoration of the Holocaust with such a roleplaying exercise, that would have made a scandal. There is 95% that all this is just the usual propaganda of some ill minds. Pluto2012 (talk) 03:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have just found 1 WP:RS about the story : from L'Avenir, and indeed the story is different.
 * This image was indeed published on a database website BeCement that gathers suggestions of lessons from the Flemish Goverment but also from anybody who wants to publish some. And this Cartoon was indeed posted by somebody unknown and had nothing to deal with the Official Flemish Government. the CCOJB Association complained about this officialy. It was removed immediately when the webmasters were informed. As usual, the important nuances are not reported in the Jewish and Israeli media. The attacks against the Flemish Government are not acceptable and the information is false.
 * This drawing and the information around this must be removed. Pluto2012 (talk) 04:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "As usual" "the Jewish and Israeli media" can be and often are RS, as in this case both the Times of Israel and the Forward. You on the other hand are not RS and what you tell us about Belgium and the truthfulness of information printed in RS has no weight whatsoever. Interesting that you want the image removed. Did Latuf not draw it? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:43, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that Latuf drew it is not the question.
 * L'Avenir is wp:rs on this topic and the accusations reported by the other sources given here above are just false.
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 07:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you meant there's a controversy and we need to report what all RS said in an NPOV manner? I like how you keep repeating the "just false" thing as if you have some kind of firsthand knowledge here, or like it would matter even if you did. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no controversy. The other sources LIE by omission. That is a perfect exemple of the fact that Jewish magazine and Israeli newspapers, even Times of Israel are NOT WP:RS and should be treated as such. Pluto2012 (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That kind of statement is a perfect example of something someone who shouldn't be editing this topic area would say. Too bad the admins here care nothing about the integrity of the encyclopedia. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Lots of RS have reported what turned out to be untrue. When that is established, then we don´t go on reporting those false stories. That 260 people were murdered in the Deir Yassin massacre is a good example: none of the "regulars" here would write that (even if there are hundreds of WP:RS which say so): we now know that number to be too high. I don´t read French, but I take Pluto´s word for the lavenir.net story, Huldra (talk) 17:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That's an awful comparison. It's not like historians dug into this case and came to a much supported conclusion. Pluto didn't like what he read in the "Jewish and Israeli media" and found something he likes more in a Belgian paper. Now he declares what's true and what's false. The only thing guiding him here is what he'd like to truth to be. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The thing is, (and I´m sorry to say this) but the Israeli press often makes a distorted picture about countries in Europe, and our apparent massive anti-semitism. (Yes, I live in Europe, too) Look at this discussion: Talk:Jens_Stoltenberg, to get an understanding on how some of that looks from outside Israel/US: "crazy", "vile and conspirator", etc, Huldra (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The thing is, (and I'm sorry to say this) but the European press often downplays the amount of anti-semitism in Europe. Tell me, have Jews been murdered recently in the country where you live, for being Jews (I can't remember in which Scandinavian country you live, but the odds are 3:1)? Do Jewish kindergartens need protection from violence in your city (if there even are any left)? Are there places where someone identifiable as a Jew can't walk without being molested near your house? You're the ones who don't understand how you look from the outside. And you glibly dismiss any concerns Jews might have about what's going on as "vile and conspirator". It's sad, really, but not surprising historically.
 * But none of this is relevant here. The "Jewish and Israeli" press is considered RS here, like it or not.
 * All that said, I just had a look and the caption on that image is not at all NPOV. It states as fact that it was used in primary education. It should say it was posted on a website used by the Belgian whatever, but they say it was in a user content generated area and was removed. Or something like that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The caption of the image is just traditionnial propaganda bullshiet and should be treated as such. The image can remain. It was drawn by Latuf. Pluto2012 (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The caption of the image is just traditionnial propaganda bullshiet and should be treated as such. The image can remain. It was drawn by Latuf. Pluto2012 (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * If you had read everything in the link above, you would have seen that it was actually the Jews of Norway who protested most strongly against what some Jerusalem-based people wrote about anti-semitism in Norway. And I have never, ever seen ms Anne Sender, the then elected leader of the Jewish community of Norway, as angry as when the Israeli ambassador to Norway played the role as a "spokesperson" for the Jews of Norway. The Jews of Scandinavia are *quite* capable of speaking for themselves, thank-you-very-much. What they say about anti-semitism in Scandinavia: now, *that* I will listen to, any day. What people in Jerusalem say about it: not so much.
 * Back to the cartoon: I agree, that the caption should be changed "to posted in a user content generated area and was removed" etc. The question then remains: is this notable? To me it sounds extremely trivial? Huldra (talk) 19:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * They said it was in a user content generated area. That's their POV. The newspapers say it was on the site in general. That's their POV. NPOV requires we show both. I don't think it's trivial that this kind of crap gets to be displayed on a resource for teachers in Belgium. I think it's also a good example of the kind of cartoons Latuf produces and the controversy they generate, including when used by others. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

With the additional information from the new articles on this topic, I think we should change the way the material is presented. It is probably no longer correct to say that it was "featured in curriculum", which is sort of a WP:BLP against the Belgian educators (although WP:BLPGROUP is probably big enough to have this not be an issue). However, the revised version of events is further support that some of Latuff's Cartoons are considered antisemetic by many (including in this case the Belgian educators/website, who removed it when notified of it) Gaijin42 (talk) 14:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It was indeed considered antisemitic but the idea that comparing Israel today to the Nazi regime would be antisemite is controversial and not shared by everybody. Pluto2012 (talk) 14:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Such discrepancy is handled by WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. In the current situation, both points of view exist so it is a matter of WP:WEIGHT. If the section is kept and/or developed and WP:CONSENUS considers WP:DUE WEIGHT is to keep all this, the picture could receive per WP:NPOV a caption such as : exemple of controversial cartoon by Latuff for which he is accused by some of antisemitism whereas other considers this accusation as part of the policy to attack for antisemitism virulent opponents to the policy of Israel (and as long as everything is sourced!). Pluto2012 (talk) 06:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with the first half of that caption, but what source would you propose for the second half (that is specifically in the context of that cartoon, because otherwise its WP:OR and WP:SYNTH)? Gaijin42 (talk) 14:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Gaijin42. I added at the end of my commentary : "as long as everything is sourced!"
 * But if you read French, everything can be found here. Around 10 scholars are given as reference to each of the point of view. Nevertheless it remains general and doesn't concner Latuff precisely. Pluto2012 (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Thats exactly my point. I think we can find sourcing specifically about this cartoon of people saying it is antisemitic. I agree that the POV you are describing for the second half exists and is notable in general, but there are not sources applying that logic to the cartoon in question (or even as you say, even applied to Latuff), so for us to do it in that context would be WP:OR. Latuff himself I believe made the argument, and we quote him in the response section, that may be as far as we can go on this particular issue. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I share your mind. The new section with the answer of Latuff to the accusations of antisemitism against him seems to me to solve the whole issue. (Nb: I have removed the anti-Flemish comments from the 1st caption.) Pluto2012 (talk) 02:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Even with proper sources it's too long for an image caption. There would be a section explaining everything better right by it.&#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 14:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Even with proper sources it's too long for an image caption. There would be a section explaining everything better right by it.&#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 14:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * "the idea that comparing Israel today to the Nazi regime would be antisemite is controversial and not shared by everybody." Of course it is  Antisemitism. It is another example for a criteria applied specifically against Israel (and indirectly against Jews) since it is not applied against the U.S. and NATO that bombed Serbia, against Russia with the brutal attack of Chechnya, or Sudan and south Sudan etc, although the situation there was much worst. Ykantor (talk) 17:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Pluto is usually very well-informed on the discourse of this area. He has for several years edited as someone strongly committed to Zionism, as my archives will show  ('right-wing pro-Israeli as I am for exemple' Archive 3 ). That doesn't stop him from calling a spade a spade as he sees things, case by case.  It is extremely commonplace for institutional bodies like the IDF  or other Jewish groups or individuals, even the state itself, to be dismissed as 'Nazis' by certain sectors of the settler movement. That kind of abuse of fellow Jews is normative in Hebron for example. I've read this dozens of times, duly reported in Israeli newspapers. Haredi attacks on ultra-orthodox soldiers use the same analogy. Yeshayahu Leibowitz, a highly distinguished rabbi and philosopher, made it three decades ago, perhaps popularizing the parallel (Shiri Tsur,'The Mengele squad: What is the connection between the occupation and references to the Holocaust in IDF slang?,'Haaretz 1 October, 2010) states that: 'it turns out that IDF soldiers have been drawing such comparisons for years. Quietly, for themselves.' One could document this usage, execrable, inappropriate, or whatever you will, as current. Anyone who follows the discourse knows this, and anyone who sees how the same analogy, only if used outside of Israel by non-Jews, stirs a huge polemic about anti-Semitism can see that both the analogy, and the accusation of anti-Semitism are both being, as sadly is  the case, abused by everyone. It is not intrinsically anti-Semitic because that would mean hundreds of highly respected Jews, who self-identify as Jews or Zionists or both, have employed it. It is only 'intrinsically antisemitic' in POV sources that wish to get the usage political leverage on everything regarding these identities, to forbid the liberty and irresponsibility of outsiders what is par for the course in infra-community discourse in Israel and the diaspora.  The same double values are present in this thread, pretending not to know what I've documented above.Nishidani (talk) 18:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That is a very long winded SOAPBOX with a conclusion along the lines of "why do only Black people get to call each other the N-word". Also, you sating Pluto is "strongly committed to Zionism" made me chuckle, although I suppose that from the vantage point of someone at your extreme end of anti-Zionism, someone who doesn't want the immediate destruction of the state of Israel might seem like a Zionist. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Predictable insults. Thanks for the reminder that defending anyone from liability to smearing is soapboxing.Nishidani (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course what you did there is SOAPBOXing. The only one you were "defending from liability to smearing" is yourself. I do understand why this issue is close to your heart though. Including this. The fact you thought it was true was amusing. The fact you compared it to a German leader's gesture towards victims of the Holocaust unsurprising, and related to this discussion. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Stop being puerile and illiterate, and personalizing everything. Let's ignore each other.Nishidani (talk) 21:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The algemeiner.com article quote gatestoneinstitute.org as a trusted source. I will therefore remove it. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Here and here are more reliable sources that give essentially the same information.&#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 20:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

arbitrary break
You added under the picture a caption stating that "It was offered as material for teachers training by the Education Ministry of the Flemish Region in Belgium", with this source. Please quote a sentence of this source stating that Carlos Latuff's cartoon "was offered as material for teachers training by the Education Ministry of the Flemish Region in Belgium". Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * First paragraph: "Belgian Education Ministry website offered an exercise for trainee teachers drawing comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany and featuring a vicious caricature.". Second paragraph: "The comparisons were available until recently on the KlasCement.be website, a major teaching resource offered to teachers in training by the Education Ministry of the Flemish Region". Do you find my rephrasing incorrect ? If anything I was concerned it's too close to the original. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 06:23, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No quote supporting the sentence, then? Understood, I delete the sentence. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Which part of the sentence, in your opinion, lacks support ?&#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 20:03, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The middle, "by the Education Ministry". Do you see a difference between "An antisemitic sentence was offered to Wikipedia readers by somebody" and "An antisemitic sentence was offered to Wikipedia readers by the Wikimedia Foundation"? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's pretty clear that it's the website which is offered by the Education Ministry. Or to use your (not great) example, "An antisemitic sentence was featured on wikipedia, a website offered by the Wikimedia Foundation". This is supported by the source. Feel free to suggest alternative wording, though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I made I change there that should remove the implication that the Education Ministry was directly responsible for publishing the cartoon, rather than it was published on their website. Adding that they said it was in a user-generated content area should be the next step per NPOV. I don't have time to deal with the French source atm, so someone else please feel free. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually the source says specifically "Belgian Education Ministry website offered an exercise", but I don't mind the change. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 20:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe my example was not obvious enough. Do you see a difference between "A wall of a building of the Israeli Ministry of Defense displayed a Nazi swastika" and "The Israeli Ministry of Defense displayed a Nazi swastika"? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a distinction, but a very minor one. I presume that Belgian Ministry of Education controls what appears on its website just as Israeli Ministry of Defence controls what appears on the walls of its building, so unless it is reported that the website or the wall was defaced, it's effectively the same. But if you're happier with 's correction, fine. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 21:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

there is a difference, in that it was user generated content, vs content created by the organization itself. The controversy is not that the data was uploaded there (any more than it would be for something inappropriate being uploaded to commons) This is a point that I must concede to my idealogical opponents here - some of the sources mistakenly (or perhaps intentionally) attributed the uplaodeding to the org. They did not, and they took it down as soon as they were notified. The value in this item is merely evidence that the cartoon was considered antisemetic (by both those who made the accusations/notice, and presumably by the organization, that removed it on those grounds). Gaijin42 (talk) 21:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As stated in L'Avenir, the analogy and the differences are even higher. The website doesn't belong to the Flemish Government. The website gathers data from the Flemish government as well as data from unknown participants.
 * The owners of the website never said the picture was antisemite. They just stated they had removed the content as soon as they had been informed. The reason could be that it was because they considered this as antisemite. But they may also have removed this just because it is controversial. They don't precise this. Anyway, there are many other sources that state the drawing is antisemite.
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 03:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This source doesn't say anything about the site containing user-generated content. I assume you are referring to some article in L'Avenir. We don't mention the user-generated content, but if needed I suppose KlassCement.be itself can be used as a reference: "KlasCement is a free platform where teachers help each other by sharing resources for students of all ages." Indeed, since it's the case the correction was very important. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 03:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ykantor about Pluto2012 : "However Pluto repeatedly deleted ( while breaching Wikipedia rules) the well supported text that the Arabs started the 1948 war. Could it be that he breached Wiki rules because of his personal opinions? Oh No, all people here are 100% neutral."
 * What is strange is that Ykantor reported and discussed this issue on numerous pages (WP:AE ; administrator noticeboard, several forums, several discussion pages) and each absoluly all the people were against him at 100 %.
 * I am a specialist on the '48 war and I am IRL a pro-Israeli but regarding historical articles, Mr Ykantor, we have to comply with the facts, not to build an history to make believe one side did that and the other side did this. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Pluto writes a lot around the point but does not refer to the main point. I repeat: Pluto "repeatedly deleted ( while breaching Wikipedia rules) the well supported text that the Arabs started the 1948 war. e.g. "The Palestinians launched a campaign of violence to frustrate partition and Palestine was engulfed by a civil war ...The Palestinian attack on the Jews provoked the civil war..." (Woods-Shlaim1996p219)"'' Ykantor (talk) 15:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * And the opposite view, sourced to Shlaim.I'd strike that out, Ykantor. This is not a forum for personal recriminations, disinterring feuds to score points etc. It is a page for resolving issues concerning Carlos Latuff. Take it up elsewhere, not on this page, where it is disruptive.Nishidani (talk) 16:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * - This source does not say the opposite. It does not refer to "who started the war".
 * - According to Wiki rules the views should be presented in the article according to their relative importance and support. So both opposing versions concerning who started the war should be presented, but Pluto repeatedly deleted one of the supported version. Guess which one? Ykantor (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

arbitrary break 2
speaking of crossing a concentration camp style fence and being shot as an existential threat to Israel while picking Gundelia from his family's former land on the other side, The Times of Israel  reported the murder of the child thus:'The soldiers “called on [the suspects] to distance themselves” from the fence before firing warning shots, “and after all efforts were exhausted,” fired toward the lower extremities of the suspect attempting to cut the fence and hit him, the IDF spokesperson said in a statement, adding that the suspect was evacuated to an Israeli hospital and died of his wounds.' Unfortunately for them, the Algeimeiner and dozens of other newspapers, a video exists, denying all of the reportorial hype. That is how reliable those kinds of sources are.Nishidani (talk) 21:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "those kinds of sources"? No More Mr Nice Guy

(talk) 21:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Monocular tabloids, like those cited, of course.Nishidani (talk) 09:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice sidestep. Do you include Ma'an in that category? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I asked about this at RS/N. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * - The Nazis planned to kill 20 to 30 million Slavic people in order to colonize their territories with German settlers. (see Generalplan Ost). Hitler said that this slaughter won't be remembered, in similarity with the fate of the Armenian Genocide. To my knowledge, even the worst enemies of Israel does not claim that Israel has or had similar plans. The term "Nazi" is used against Israel (and indirectly against Jews) in order to illegitimate it. It is a very offending term.
 * - In my opinion, Israelis who curse other people using this term, should be punished severely. Unfortunately, The law enforcement and police here are weak and those extremist settlers are prospering, extracting the tax payer money who mostly does not want to finance them. We, all Israelis, Arabs and Jews, suffer because of the lack of law enforcement. e.g Some peaceful Arab villages close to Tel Aviv became a heaven for Mafia and criminals, with occasional shooting in mid day.
 * - "Pluto ... has for several years edited as someone strongly committed to Zionism." If he is a Zionist, than why he repeatedly deleted ( while breaching Wikipedia rules) the well supported text that the Arabs started the 1948 war. e.g. "The Palestinians launched a campaign of violence to frustrate partition and Palestine was engulfed by a civil war ...The Palestinian attack on the Jews provoked the civil war..." (Woods-Shlaim1996p219) Ykantor (talk) 17:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Pluto is not a Zionist and people like Nishidani know exactly why the comparison is wrong. That's why they use it so much. The purpose is to hurt and insult people, not to draw a legitimate comparison between two events. You really shouldn't waste your time. Remember the Bullshit Asymmetry Law: The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It is indeed a waste of time arguing if Pluto is an anti-Zionist or if Nishidani is a POV-pusher. None of this matters, because what editors here think or do is irrelevant. Only Wikipedia policy and what reliable sources say are relevant. So what does matter,, is that you participate in the above survey, and voice your opinion, because that is crucial for forming the consensus on what the article should say. All Rows4 (talk) 16:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Whether the comparison is right or wrong is wholly irrelevant. As editors we are not supposed to be judging the truth of these statements. It's not our job. In any case, one final word.
 * As I have noted on Ykantor's page, Israeli political rhetoric is full of this abuse of the Nazi+them analogy, most recently with Iran, but often with Palestinians. I don't think it a persuasive argument to assert that (A) can make a negative analogy of the type X = Y, but if a cartoonist makes a caricature implying Y=A, he is a deadly enemy of A.
 * Let me illustrate. The Palestinian =Nazi equation/analogy is diffuse, and bruited about insistently.
 * To use your own words, that is bullshit logic, conceding a right to an analogy to some while denying the use of that analogy to others.
 * Moshe Zuckerman, analyzing this mindset (Begin cornering Arafat in his Beirut bunker thought of him as like Hitler, etc)
 * "'To the degree that the Palestinians figure as concrete evil and, in metaphorical comparison nor in the sense of a 'real' historical succession of evil in itself, to the degree that this evil is tied to the Nazis or the Holocaust, 'Palestinians' and 'Nazis' are accorded a virtually interchangeable states and the categories of perpetrator and victim as so thoroughly mixed that, even in one's own historical guilt, one mat see oneself as victim."
 * In layman's words, the Palestinian=Nazi analogy worries no one. If a cartoonist, familiar with that, reminds those who see nothing obnoxious in that analogy that it can be turned on its head, rage erupts.
 * This in any case is not the place to judge the rights and wrongs of Latuff's analogy: we should simply state he makes it, that he is attacked for it as anti-Semitic, and repudiates the accusation. It's a very simple NPOV call.Nishidani (talk) 18:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "Why do Black people call each other the N-word but when I do I'm called a racist?" No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Learn to read. It's important if you wish to edit.Nishidani (talk) 21:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh I'm sorry. "Why can Black people call non-Black people the N-word but when I do I'm called a racist?". Better? As if that makes your underlying point any more decent. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * - Yours:"It is indeed a waste of time arguing if Pluto is an anti-Zionist ... Only Wikipedia policy and what reliable sources say are relevant." You are definitely right. In my opinion there should not be any problem in co-existance of Zionists and Anti-Zionist here in Wikipedia. However Pluto repeatedly deleted ( while breaching Wikipedia rules) the well supported text that the Arabs started the 1948 war. Could it be that he breached Wiki rules because of his personal opinions? Oh No, all people here are 100% neutral. Smiley.svg Face-smile.svg


 * - Yours: "As I have noted on Ykantor's page, Israeli political rhetoric is full of this abuse of the Nazi+them analogy, most recently with Iran, but often with Palestinians". Unfortunately your claim is correct. The Palestinians are not Nazis, and as I recall, this infamous comparison was made during the 80's. The  Iranians are not Nazis, although Ahmadinejad's call for "Wiped off the map" come close. (see Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel ).  I believe that most of the Israelis do not think so, although the people are really worried of possible Iranian usage of a nuclear bomb against Israel. The Iranian leadership is rather clever but they have to obey the religious leaders, and already persecute the Bahá'ís religious minority, including killing some of their leaders.  (see Persecution of Bahá'ís). The Bahá'ís are accused also of being Zionist agents!!  Khamenei: "Israeli regime is doomed to failure, annihilation". "Zionist officials cannot be called humans, they are like animals, ." This is very worrying. Ykantor (talk) 19:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

relevance
What is the relevance of the sentence "It was offered as material for teachers training on a website run by the Education Ministry of the Flemish Region in Belgium" in this article about Carlos Latuff? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It has none and even the event has none. Each time somebody (here anonymous) uses a drawing of Latuff should we report this ? Do we report on the article about Einstein each time his support to Zionism was reported by someone ? Or do we report on the article of Arafat each time a terrorist attack was made at his name ?
 * The fact that somebody uses material of Latuff is not the matter of Latuff but potentialy the matter of another article. But more, here, nothing is relevant : why reporting the fact somebody vandalized a (semi-)official website and that this vandalism was removed when the administrators were informed.
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 07:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * We report stuff that appears in RS. The relevance is obvious, I find it hard to believe neither of you understands it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There are RS telling that Ulan Bator is the capital of (Outer) Mongolia. Do you want this fact being reported in the Wikipedia article about Carlos Latuff? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's the story in the Jerusalem Post. Can't wait to hear why it's not RS. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Given the report is false because they didn't care to check the neo-Zionist belgian magazine it proves JP was not a Reliable Source for this story. And I explained why somewhere else: too happy they were from this proof the world was against Israel.
 * This being said, NMMNG, you are part of the problem, not the solution. Pluto2012 (talk) 18:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You are not the arbiter of what is true or false. JP is a reliable source, like it or not. And if you think I'll take the opinion of someone who thinks Jews are responsible for antisemitism against them seriously, well, CIVIL doesn't allow me to say exactly what I think about you and problems/solutions, but I'm sure you can guess. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It is funny because you perfectly know that what JP reports if false but your motivation is just to fight for your cause and you totally don't care wikipedia.
 * I add that you bitterness is impressive. Note by the way that I didn't say that Jews are responsible of antisemitism against them. I said that the behaviour of Ykantor (with the other of others) is responsible of the rise of antisemitism. But if it can help you to justify your own behaviour, feel free.
 * By the way, your threaths do not impress me. Pluto2012 (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know what threats you're talking about, nor are you doing a good job reading my mind re JP.
 * Ykantor is responsible for the rise of antisemitism? Are you fucking serious? You should be ashamed of yourself. Find another excuse for your hate. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ykantor is responsible for the rise of antisemitism? Are you fucking serious? You should be ashamed of yourself. Find another excuse for your hate. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * - When Pluto is reminded that he is breaking Wiki rules, he is not referring to the issue but write a lot around the point, possibly for re-focusing the discussion toward a different issue. But this is the first time he use the extreme accusation of myself being a source of Antisemitism. I guess I'll have to get used to this kind of hits below the belt. Ykantor (talk) 20:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't need to, but Wikipedia tolerates this kind of shit. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I was reported here for something much less serious than this. Double standard? Accusing another editor of causing antisemitism should have painful consequences for those involved in the accusation. Maybe we could ask for an administrator's opinion.--Averysoda (talk) 02:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This jpost.com article quote gatestoneinstitute.org as a trusted source.
 * Worse than that, there is no mention of Carlos Latuff in this article. There is nothing, rien, nada.
 * Please explain if and why the sentence "It was offered as material for teachers training on a website run by the Education Ministry of the Flemish Region in Belgium" is relevant in the Wikipedia article about Carlos Latuff. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

It illustrates something called out, in both the lead and the section this cartoon appears in - that his cartoons have been described as antisemitism. The story in the Jerusalem Post quotes the Belgian Education Ministry responding thus, explaining the removal of the cartoon: "We will not support any Israel-hatred or Jews-hatred lesson practices" - do you still not see the relevance? Brad Dyer (talk) 19:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no mention of trustworthiness of Gatestone Institute. It is used only for translation of the exercise. Do you have a reason to suspect the translation is inaccurate ? D
 * Latuff's caricature is featured prominently at the top of the article, and then it is described in the body of the article.
 * This sentence shows how Latuff's allegedly anti-Semitic material was featured prominently on a site affiliated with Belgium government. It establishes noteworthiness of the subject. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 20:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but I fail to see how the sentence "It was offered as material for teachers training on a website run by the Education Ministry of the Flemish Region in Belgium" "illustrates [...] that [Carlos Latuff's] cartoons have been described as antisemitism". Please explain. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "The story in the Jerusalem Post quotes the Belgian Education Ministry responding thus, explaining the removal of the cartoon" →‎ This is out of scope in this sub-section. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * How is that out of scope for a section that describes how his cartoons have been called anti-Semitic? if you want to rephrase the caption to something "This cartoon, posted on a website run by the Education Ministry of the Flemish Region in Belgium was removed by the ministry, who said "We will not support any Israel-hatred or Jews-hatred lesson practices", or something similar, I won't object. Brad Dyer (talk) 20:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "How is that out of scope for a section that describes how his cartoons have been called anti-Semitic?" →‎ I did not wrote "out of scope in this section". I wrote "out of scope in this sub-section". Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't follow. What subsection are you talking about? There is a section titled 'Alleged antisemitism' - and that is where the cartoon is shown. Brad Dyer (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I am talking about the "relevance" sub-section in the "Talk:Carlos Latuff" page of the english-language Wikipedia. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I am talking about the "relevance" sub-section in the "Talk:Carlos Latuff" page of the english-language Wikipedia. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

false story
What do you mean by "It was proven the story is false"? Do you think that the sentence "It was offered as material for teachers training on a website run by the Education Ministry of the Flemish Region in Belgium" is false? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If you continue to remove the amended text (which you agreed to) I will have to restore the longstanding consensus text that said the Belgian government offered this caricature. Stop edit warring. You can open an RfC or whatever. By the way, if you think 24 hours + 13 minutes is not a 1RR violation, we can test that at an appropriate board as well. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Averysoda again
My edit could have been tweaked an improved, certainly. Your edit has screwed up the passage. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carlos_Latuff&diff=668492674&oldid=668476963 Not supported by source, such an interpretation is WP:OR. Lapid never said that. He said: "The photo of an elderly Palestinian woman searching through rubble reminded me of my grandmother who died in Auschwitz." Lapid makes no mention of "IDF actions]

This elided my words in the following way: Holocaust survivors in Israel like Tommy Lapid have drawn an analogy between the Jews in the Holocaust and suffering at the hands of the IDF among Palestinians: cartoonists work by such metaphors.
 * Point 1. Your edit created a nonsensical sentence, leaving this garbage, which is not in the source (i.e. elimninating what you said was WP:OR you introduced the same by the back door. Namely,
 * "He said that cartoonists work by metaphors and analogies between the Jews in the Holocaust and suffering at the hands of the IDF among Palestinians."
 * To use your words, that is not in the source. It is nonsense to say that ‘cartoonists’ base their work on that analogy. The worlds cartoonists do not pass their lives thinking exclusively of this connection- Walt Disney and Hanna Barbara studios don’t. This has notably deteriorated the quality of the text by an idiotic statement you attribute to Latuff by a thoughtless adjustment.
 * Latuff said exactly the opposite. He said what a cartoonist does is no different from what people the world over do, make comparisons. You have neatly manipulated things to make out that IDF/Nazi analogies are something only cartoonists do.
 * Point 2.Second we are mentioning what Latuff quotes Lapid as saying: not what Lapid actually said. You checked for Lapid's statement, compared it with what Latuff said, and judged that Latuff misrepresented the Israeli politician. This is WP:OR
 * All you need have done is to attribute to Latuff the words regarding what he thought Lapid said.
 * For the record Lapid was reported by the BBC as follows:
 * "In an interview with Israel Defence Forces radio, Mr Lapid revealed that the army was considering demolishing another 2,000 homes in Rafah to widen the so-called Philadelphi road on the border with Egypt. Referring to the TV picture, Mr Lapid said he was 'talking about an old woman crouching on all fours, searching for her medicines in the ruins of her house and that she made me think of my grandmother'. 'I said that if we carry on like this, we will be expelled from the United Nations and those responsible will stand trial at The Hague,' Mr Lapid told Israel radio, describing his argument in cabinet."
 * The BBC introduces this by introducing the reproduction of his remarks with the comment:
 * "The Israeli justice minister has infuriated cabinet colleagues by saying the army offensive in Gaza reminded him of his family's woes in World War II."
 * Lapid hastened to backtrack of course, but both the BBC and Latuff make that point. Lapid's statement's context was an IDF plan to reduce another 2,000 houses in Rafah to rubble. An image of an old woman foraging among the rubble of her home brought back an image in his mind of his mother at Auschwitz.
 * Point 3. You asserted that the text I wrote, 'cartoonists work by such metaphors,' is WP:OR. It isn't. The source states:
 * "Metaphors are the key point to political cartooning"
 * And my paraphrase, to avoid plagiarism was perfectly acceptable.


 * Point 4. Latuff said in the interview:
 * "'Of course Israel isn’t building gas chambers in the West Bank, but surely we can find some similarities between the treatment given to Palestinians by the [Israel Defense Forces] and the Jews under Nazi rule. Inaccurate or not, it’s important to highlight that such comparisons have been made worldwide not only by cartoonists, but by people such as Yosef “Tommy” Lapid, Ariel Sharon’s former justice minister and a Holocaust survivor (deceased in June of 2008). He said in 2004, during an interview, that a photo of an elderly Palestinian woman searching through rubble reminded him of his grandmother who died in Auschwitz. For me, this is more painful than comparisons of how Palestinians live under Israeli occupation."
 * That is easily rewritten as
 * "Latuff stated that similarities can be found between the IDF treatment of Palestinians and what Jews experienced under the Nazis. Such comparisons are not created by cartoonists, but are made worldwide.He instanced the fact that a Holocaust survivor like Tommy Lapid reacted to the image of a Palestinian woman forsaging in the rubble by thinking of his mother in Auschwitz."
 * That's an improvement on both what I earlier wrote and the silly statement your removalism reduced the text to. It can be tweaked, but something like this must go back in, since not getting Latuff's position absolutely clear while pushing the anti-Semitism charge violates both WP:BLP and WP:NPOV.Nishidani (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Latuf said that Lapid said that a Palestinian woman searching through the rubble reminded him of his grandmother who died Auschwitz. That's it. You generalized that into Latuff said Lapid said the IDF is treating the Palestinians like the Nazis treated Jews. I'm sure even you can see the difference. Bringing a BBC article because you think that's what Latuff was referring to is SYNTH. Kindly stay true to what the sources actually say, not what you think they meant, and nobody will have to revert your edits. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "The Israeli justice minister has infuriated cabinet colleagues by saying the army offensive in Gaza reminded him of his family's woes in World War II."
 * That's the BBC, not me. Latuff made the same reading the BBC made, and that I made construing his remarks in context. If you want to play the schoolmam, take a look at Averysoda's 'stuff' as well. It might make your pronounced partisanship  look less obvious.Nishidani (talk) 21:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You're the last person to lecture anyone on partisanship, and what you're doing with the BBC source is OR. Maybe Latuff read it, maybe he didn't. We don't know and it's not relevant. He said that Lapid said a Palestinian woman in a certain situation reminded him of his grandmother. C'est tout. The rest is your OR. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I know it's pointless trying to reason with you because it appears to be a minor wiki mission of yours to contradict me and draw me out on the arguments that interest you, not on the facts that interest me. But I will note for the record that (a)Averysoda quoted an unidentified source for Lapid's original statement, and (b) I gave a link to the BBC source, so all could check. I explained that on the talk page. Clarifying an edit on a talk page is not WP:OR. The edit I suggested and which I have now entered to correct the stupid formulation Averysoda's removal created, is based on The Forward interview. If it is defective, suggest tweaks, remodulation. Do not persist in making personal attacks against me, of the kind that are now a signature mark of your interactions with me. If you cannot drop the habit, do as I suggest we both do, ignore each other. Thank you. Nishidani (talk) 16:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there a source connecting between Carlos Latuff and the statement attributed to Tommy Lapid, or is it your WP:SYNTH ? &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 16:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If you continue to SOAPBOX on talk pages, like you did above lamenting why most right-minded people find comparing Israel to the Nazis to be anti-semitic, I will certainly continue to point that out (including the lies and ridiculous arguments). If you continue to engage in OR, like you did here with the BBC (again, you have no way of knowing what Latuff read), I will continue to point that out as well.
 * As for suggesting tweaks, I have a suggestion - change where you wrote that it reminded Lapid of his mother to it reminded him of his grandmother, since that's what the source actually said (if I were you I'd probably feel the need to make a huge show of suggesting you learn how to read and nuance and here's a source that says Lapid and his mother were never in Auschwitz, etc, etc, ad nauseum). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, for the tip re mother/grandmother. As for the rest. Yawn. I will continue to analyse edit issues as I think fit, and ignore your predictable responses, except the one percent as here, which makes a useful and usable point.Nishidani (talk) 17:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This is getting silly. All any editor need do is check The Forward interview, which has been on the page for yonks:
 * Carlos Latuff: As a cartoonist, I feel comfortable enough to make any comparison I think necessary that expresses my point. Metaphors are the key point to political cartooning. Of course Israel isn’t building gas chambers in the West Bank, but surely we can find some similarities between the treatment given to Palestinians by the Israel Defense Forces and the Jews under Nazi rule. Inaccurate or not, it’s important to highlight that such comparisons have been made worldwide not only by cartoonists, but by people such as Yosef “Tommy” Lapid, Ariel Sharon’s former justice minister and a Holocaust survivor (deceased in June of 2008). He said in 2004, during an interview, that a photo of an elderly Palestinian woman searching through rubble reminded him of his grandmother who died in Auschwitz. For me, this is more painful than comparisons of how Palestinians live under Israeli occupation. Latuff: Cartoonist in Conversation The Forward 18 December, 2008.
 * I paraphrased this as:
 * "Latuff stated that similarities can be found between the IDF treatment of Palestinians and what Jews experienced under the Nazis. Such comparisons are not created by cartoonists, but are made worldwide.He instanced the fact that a Holocaust survivor like Tommy Lapid reacted to the image of a Palestinian woman foraging in the rubble by thinking of his mother grandmother in Auschwitz."
 * Any editor is perfectly welcome to measure my edit against this source and suggest possible improvements. No editor is entitled to erase the fact that in our source, Latuff cites Lapid's remark, that the edit faithfully paraphrases Latuff's use of this remark.   What's the problem?Nishidani (talk) 17:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If anyone has a problem with the paraphrase, they are quite at liberty to simply exchange it for the complete quote.Nishidani (talk) 17:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Neither Lapid's original quote nor Latuff's retelling of it connects the old woman in Gaza with Auschwitz. Lapid didn't mention Auschwitz at all and only said that the old woman in the rubble reminded him of his grandmother. Latuff said - correctly - that the grandmother died in Auschwitz, probably quoting one of the articles that commented on Lapid's quote, yet Latuff didn't claim that Lapid connected the old woman to Auschwitz, so we can't say that Lapid was "thinking of his grandmother in Auschwitz".&#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 18:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect, because in English (see below), the lack of a comma means the two are connected. Secondly, what Latuff said, connecting the two, is repeated by other reputable sources, whatever the truth of the matter. I.e.,
 * "In May 2004,  for example, then Israeli justice Minister Yosef “Tommy” Lapid .went on record saying that a picture of an elderly Palestinian  woman searching through the rubble of her house, destroyed by the Israeli military, reminded him of his grandmother who was murdered in Auschwitz.' Amir Eshel, Futurity: Contemporary Literature and the Quest for the Past, University of Chicago Press, 2013 p.144"
 * Only if there were a comma after his grandmother could one construe that as not making a connection between Palestinian woman and both his grandmother and Auschwitz. Nishidani (talk) 19:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That is immaterial. We are paraphrasing what Latuff says, not the truth, whatever that is.
 * "Yosef “Tommy” Lapid, . . said in 2004, during an interview, that a photo of an elderly Palestinian woman searching through rubble reminded him of his grandmother who died in Auschwitz. Nishidani (talk) 18:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)"
 * Actually WK has a valid point. Latuff didn't say that it reminded Lapid of his grandmother's situation in Auschwitz, only that she died in Auschwitz. Kindly correct this. I can't because 1RR. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The Forward article does not have a comma after his grandmother, and therefore your suggestion would be WP:OR. Let me illustrate:
 * "He said in 2004, during an interview, that a photo of an elderly Palestinian woman searching through rubble reminded him of his grandmother who died in Auschwitz."
 * This implies that the image reminded him of two things, the grandmother and of Auschwitz.
 * Had The Forward punctuated it as you suggest
 * "He said in 2004, during an interview, that a photo of an elderly Palestinian woman searching through rubble reminded him of his grandmother,(nota bene) who died in Auschwitz."
 * This would mean that Latuff restricted his memory of what Lapid said to his grandmother, and the 'who died in Auschwitz' would syntactically be Latuff's gloss.
 * Since The Forward does not insert the comma, which would make the difference you propose, one cannot intrude that comma per WP:OR, because it is making a construal for which there is no textual warrant. This petty kerfuffle can be fixed by simply, as I suggested, copypasting the whole passage into the article. Nishidani (talk) 19:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice refutation of a need for a comma nobody suggested was necessary. Just put "who died" before "in Auschwitz" forchrissakes. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I apologize for not noting this. I was working on replying to WarKoSign and missed it.Nishidani (talk) 21:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You are trying to interpret what Latuff meant, and it is WP:OR. It doesn't matter where the journalist who typed the interview with Latuff decide to put the comma. We do know that he said that the woman reminded Lapid of his grandmother, and that Lapid's grandmother died in Auschwitz. Maybe Latuff meant that it reminded Lapid of his grandmother's situation and/or death in Auschwitz, maybe he didn't - we can't know, so we can't add this interpretation into the article. We need a more straightforward paraphrasing or a direct quotation to avoid this issue. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 19:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope. This is a very basic rule of English prose composition. To detach grandmother from Auschwitz, it is syntactically imperative to have a comma after grandmother. Since the source lacks that comma, any attempt to not include the whole phrase but rather break it up is WP:OR. Ask any wikipedian who has a repute for being a precisian on these matters, or consult any book on punctuation.
 * If you can't understand this basic rule, how punctuation affects semantic implications, and haven't a cogent answer to the crux, then join me in suggesting we simply cite the 'ipsissima verba :
 * "(Latuff added that) 'Yosef “Tommy” Lapid ... said in 2004,..that a photo of an elderly Palestinian woman searching through rubble reminded him of his grandmother who died in Auschwitz.'"
 * Any attempt to elide Auschwitz here is willful tampering with the source. The simplest solution is to do as I suggest, quote the whole text without comment.Nishidani (talk) 19:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact you removed the "who died" in front of "in Auschwitz" like the source has is willful tampering with the source. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Neatly ignoring the fact that in the edit above yours I advised writing:'reminded him of his grandmother who died in Auschwitz.' Make malice one's vocation and one ignores the obvious. I have spent so much time dealing with donkey arguments on this page, that, under 1R I don't check the text often. As you see above, I have been asking you all, only to be met with silence, for some time to agree to the inclusion of the whole sentence verbatim. For the record, this wasn't the only time Lapid made a Palestinian/Nazi connection. He was prone to it:-
 * "Everything I do in my life has its source in the Holocaust experience," Lapid told Eric Silver in an interview in 2003 when he was on the brink of his election success.. . when footage was shown on Israeli TV in 2006 of a woman Jewish settler hissing "whore" at her Palestinian neighbour and settler children throwing stones at Arab houses, Lapid explicitly compared such intimidation to that which he had faced as a child from anti-Semites in the years that pre-dated the Holocaust. His remarks were forceful enough for Yad Vashem to make clear that they reflected Lapid's personal view and not that of its board chairman. 'Tommy Lapid: Champion of secularism in Israel,' The Independent 4 June 2008. The scene begins on 1:21 seconds into that picturesque video. This kind of thing worried Lapid, much to his credit, something that well, among editors here . . . .is just an image protection issue.Nishidani (talk) 20:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Neither Latuff nor Amir Eshel nor Lapid himself said that the woman reminded Lapid of his grandmother being in Auschwitz. Your paraphrasing did say so, which is misrepresentation of the source. It doesn't matter if on other occasions Lapid did make this connection; you are synthesising here what in your opinion Latuff meant to say about what he understood from some reporter describing what Lapid said. Latuff didn't say it and that's it. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 20:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Then you are having problems construing English for Latuff 's sentence is before your eyes and says what it says. I believe English is not your native language. As I said, if you doubt my analysis, ask a professional grammarian on wiki. As I have repeated for the third time, the simple solution to this weird quibbling is to quote the words Latuff uses:''reminded him of his grandmother who died in Auschwitz.'
 * At the moment, after an edit by an IP editor, the article says "...thinking of his grandmother who died in Auschwitz." Do you have any objection ?
 * I just consulted with someone who has an PhD in English literature and worked as an editor for a university. According to that person's educated opinion the sentence is ambiguous and doesn't necessarily mean what you are reading into it. It order to unambiguously convey the meaning you're referring to it would have to say something like "...reminded him of his grandmother death in Auschwitz".&#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 21:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course I have no objection to that edit, which was a slip by me, as I have repeatedly asked that Latuff's words be faithfully reproduced.
 * As to your consultant. Ask a wikipedian whose native language is English and whose expertise is in grammar. I happen to have written an extensive analysis of a poem simply regarding the implications of a difference of punctuation in two distinct manuscripts, and know the technical literature on this. You are again misreading what I wrote. I am reading nothing into the sentence. I laid forth what it implies (that was the operative word, whose semantic valence you overlook). Implication is, by definition, nuanced with ambiguity. Sprachgefühl would almost invariably take it in the sense I said was implied. The words only assume the distinction you were arguing for if a comma is place afterwards, the comma being resolutive, in that it would automatically change the reading of the natural implication in Latuff's words, restricting Lapid's comment to grandmother, and associating died in Auschwitz with Latuff's added thought.  Nishidani (talk) 21:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It would be a courtesy if you answered this request. Wikipedia is not a forum for asking me to repeat myself a dozen times under unilateral interrogation by people who ignore every comment I make, and insist only their questions are relevant.Nishidani (talk) 20:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec)You write such walls of text, it's no surprise people miss some stuff. Your suggestion on the talk page notwithstanding, you made an edit that tampered with the source, making it seem that the Palestinian woman reminded Lapid of something that happened in Auschwitz when the source is at best unclear. Nobody edited after you so there was no 1RR issue, but instead of correcting the obvious tampering with the source, you preferred to argue with yourself about commas. That you keep posting stuff Lapid said elsewhere which has no bearing on this article doesn't help your argument, on the contrary it shows you probably know Lapid was never in Auschwitz and so could not be "reminded" by an image of what happened to his mother there. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not a court house. This is a place where one analyses a problem, and collegially resolves it. I spend a lot of time trying to lay out the issues, and get personal attacks or adventitious opinions and insinuations about bona fides. For the fourth time. I have requested that Latuff's own words be cited - that solves everyone's problems, because direct citation means no WP:OR, no editorial equivocation, no edit-warring. Yes or no? And if 'no', explain the policy reason for rejecting those words. Thank you.Nishidani (talk) 20:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should use Latuff's own words.
 * Please, insert these. Pluto2012 (talk) 10:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the whole Flemish title is an overkill. If it was indeed removed from that website as Pluto says, it is also misleading. At most, I would include the chain of events in the text. The other captions seems fine to me. It isn't really important what Latuff says about them but what other people see in them. D aniDi n 08:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Just for Info - Averysoda has been indeffed as sockpuppet. Let's all try to improve the article without Bias/PoV.--Denniss (talk) 22:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)