Misplaced Pages

Talk:Carlos Latuff

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Liftarn (talk | contribs) at 13:52, 9 September 2010 (→Opinions). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 13:52, 9 September 2010 by Liftarn (talk | contribs) (→Opinions)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Carlos Latuff article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconBiography
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Note icon
An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconBrazil Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brazil and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrazilWikipedia:WikiProject BrazilTemplate:WikiProject BrazilBrazil
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing an infobox.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPalestine Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconComics: Creators
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Misplaced Pages. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Comics creators work group.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Template:Pbneutral

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Carlos Latuff article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 3 months 

"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)

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

Please consider joining the feedback request service.
An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
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 Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 August 12#Category:People accused of antisemitism, "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 Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 August 12#Category:People accused of antisemitism. /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 Misplaced Pages article Alan Dershowitz is linked to Commons gallery. That's why adding the cartoon to the commons gallery is a BLP violation on English Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages talk:Biographies of living persons#Inconsistencies.2Fambiguities in categories about various forms of bigotry 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 17:36, 4 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
Categories: