Talk:Carlos Latuff/Archive 1

just to make things clear, what word would you use to describe those cartoons? (i'll look up some citation from the JDL and others for you sometime later this week) Jaakobou 13:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

"critical" would be a neutral word, but it would be best to use a

reliable source. // Liftarn

(1) please explain to me what is exactly criticised in the cartoons on dispute... sharons' affection for hitler?? of maybe for loving to kill other people??

(2) i'd appreciate a proper citation for the terrorist claim on the JDL.

(3) don't you think that your doing a bit of POV pushing here?

Jaakobou 18:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

If you have a source which calls them "antilocution," we can say "The cartoons have been called "antilocution" by XYZ." We cannot call them "antilocution" in any definitive sense, because that's clearly an editorial comment on their content, which we can't make.

FCYTravis

20:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

you have a point, i will find a couple sources that say "hate speech" when i get a little extra time. Jaakobou 10:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

FBI calls

JDL "a violent extremist Jewish organization"here. Anyway, you still need a reliable source for your claims. // Liftarn

I believe you said Terrorist... i'm waiting for a reply on question number (1).. and (3). Jaakobou 10:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Those questions are irrelevent. // Liftarn

i think all your recent edits which relate to israel-palestinian matters are irrelivent POV pushing^(diff) and your use of the words "terrorist", "non-sense" and "critical" just further illustrate my point... honestly, do you have a desire to improve wikipedia material or delete anything that doen't work well with a possible/alleged(diff),(diff),(diff),(diff), - one of my favouritves: (diff) agenda? as a matter of fact, this article has seen an attack by Latuff himself and possibly a few of his frineds^{let's play the hide and seek game} (right after he was caught by an IP check) in an attempt to say that calling his "critical" cartoons by any other name is "unfair" (diff). in any event you don't have that much to "worry" about "BLP", since there's plenty of material about this fellow and it will be refrenced, eventually, where it belongs despite the attack on the page. Jaakobou 13:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly I don't care what you think. I find it rather telling that you define asking for sources as "irrelivent POV pushing". Can't you just get on and improve the article instead of going on a personal vendetta. // Liftarn

you're asking for sources and immediately delete (less than 24 hours after adding a {{

Fact}} tag) while dubbing the text as "non-senese" despite it's factuality. with regards to your style of editing on this article and israel related articles, i.e. disregarding opinions of other admins (who are not called "jaakobou") - i would definately think that this could very well be percieved as POV pushing... and yes, i will get material when i find some time... on a side note: i don't have a personal vendetta against you and i find it propostereous that you even imply such a thing. Jaakobou

14:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well you did some wikistalking. And as for removing unsourced, controversial material it is required per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. // Liftarn

flickr.com is not a reliable source. And you can't call the International Holocaust Cartoon Competition "Holocaust denial conference" without any source (the source you give talks about the International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust and that's an entierly different thing). // Liftarn

These are the forty eight external links which were in the article, in the order in which they are given here, when I first saw it today. The majority are embedded in the text of the article. Quite a few are duplicates and near-duplicates.

• [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48]

External links "should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article." (

Nothing—nothing—in Wikipedia:Reliable sources or any other Wikipedia policy or guideline supports such a monstrosity in an encyclopedia article. For an article this size, there should really be fewer than ten. Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided also merits particular attention. — Athænara ✉ 09:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Latuff has stated himself that he thinks this Wikipedia article is a joke and should not be taken seriously. This can be read on his journal, titled Don't trust on Wikipedia.

Should this article be proposed for deletion? TheOneTheyCall 19:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

considering that latuff himself has reverted things he didn't like on this article (look it up on the history) and that he attended a holocaust denial propaganda display. i'm not sure latuff's own interpertations make his article on wiki less or more notable. his activity for the independant however, makes him a fairly notable character and therefore, I will not support an AfD proposal. Jaakobou 21:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The journal entry is about false data (the BS about his family and mother), if you like to readd information, do so in a critisism subtitle and not in the main article. Peewack 06:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It appears it was added by User:Eternalsleeper[49]. It gave some links[50][51][52][53] that perhaps can be used to expand (and fix!) the article. // Liftarn

wait a second. a month ago, i try to insert some information from a ben heine interview with latuff where he put a link to it from his devArt journal and latuff supporters repeatedly removed the citation and link on the premisis that "it's a blog" here's the edit. this was then removed by you liftarn, on the premisis that "it's a blog"[54]... so now we follow blogs all of a sudden? —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by Jaakobou (talk • contribs

) 08:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

Good point. It's still a blog, but now it's approved by the subject himself (as far as I can tell) so now we know (sortof) it's genuine. But you are right that generally blogs should not be used as sources. // Liftarn

Wikipedia should not generally be linking to blogs as sources of information. The policy is "Links normally to be avoided [include:...] Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority." (Although blogs can be a first point of call, which might cite more authoritative sources or give info that can be verified elsewhere.) However, blogs noted by Lifarn seem to me, on the whole, to dall in the "recognized authority" category. None of them are simply personal blogs of individuals with axes to grind, but are fairly serious websites. The [Ben Heine interview on his blog, which appears to be approved by Latuff, is a good source even though it is published on a blog. The Voice of the Republic interview is not on a blog and seems like a good source, unless Latuff or others claim it is not authentic. Iraq Slogger is technically a blog, but appears to be created by serious journalists and cites its sources pretty clearly. Palestine Chronicle doesn't look like a blog to me.

Personal information that Latuff disputes should not on any account be here, unless there is a strong reason to believe it is true and it is very clearly contextualized (e.g. something like "X alleges that... by this is denied by Latuff himself", with citations of sources of both allegations and rebuttals). The disputed info has now been removed, which seems right to me.

The section Published works seems to me to contain contentious material that ought to be in the Controversies section. I think I'll go and do that now. BobFromBrockley 10:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Latuff has personally told me is is gay but does not want this information revealed because he says it is irrelevant and should not matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul T. Evans (talk • contribs)

That would be

original research, on http://latuff2.deviantart.com/journal/12537737/ he writes "If I had a gay relationship I would have no problem making it public"... // Liftarn

I don't know if I have editing privileges on this page. I would like to suggest that since the non-sourced photo of Latuff was removed, why not use this one from his web site? http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/19193141/ Photo by Zulmair Rocha reflects his interest in Palestine issue. Carol Moore 03:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

I see on April 21st the old photo was put back. I don't know how long it will last. Here is one that is actually by Latuff himself so maybe that will have less of a problem, though reading the type of copyright required, not sure. Yet other of his art has been allowed to be put up. http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/53023131/ The photo policy sure is complicated!!

Carol Moore 18:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Pick whatever photo you will find, all of them give off the same flamboyant impression! And he swears it's not true! [[User:Noble

Jew|Noble Jew]]

Gay art

Shall we post something about his gay art collection that is accessible on his page [55]? He has several pictures of gay pride from Rio de Janeiro, a picture of "thinking about being lesbian" and a couple others. What do ya'll think? eternalsleeper

It could go under the Themes section perhaps... Do you have some examples? // Liftarn

Yes, you can see his gay art [56] or [57] it appears he removed the drawings of 'girls who like girls' and a 'gay preacher.' eternalsleeper

So what we have is not cartoons, but two photos from a gay pride parade. Hardly worth mentioning unless we can get a

WP:RS for it. // Liftarn

I still have his gay cartoons, not sure why he deleted them. If you want I can send them to you :)

eternalsleeper|eternalsleeper

Sorry, that's no good. // Liftarn

Why are you sorry? He removed the homosexual drawings from his websites. I am cynical as to why. But I have my own assumptions, most of which are obvious. No reason to be sorry. But I think we should add a picture of his gay photography to show that he is interested in other things then politics.eternalsleeper

Why should they be included? In what way are they notable? And why isn't it politics? // Liftarn

It's well know the gay people enjoy, ahem, little rights in Palestine or Iran and Iraq (as opposed to Israel). I guess eternalsleeper wanted to highlight the irony of the fact Latuff sympathises with the people who would opress him if he was born there and not in Brazil, while calling the world-leading in tolerance Israelis the "Nazis". --HanzoHattori 12:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Latuff obviously support opressed peoples, regardless if they are gays, Palestinians or native americans. // Liftarn

Latuff obviously supports those who pay him when he makes antisemetic hate art or nazi comparisment to any leader he doesn't like. if he were a ture supporter of oppressed people he'd go after lebanon, egypt, yemen, iraq, syria.. maybe to iran and sudan... not israel. Jaakobou 13:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well there is no reason just to show his anti-Israel work, there should also be a section that shows his gay support. I wouldn't go as far to say he supports all oppressed people... there are millions of oppressed people in Islamic countries which he wouldn't dare to touch.... I have never seen his work on native Americans... eternalsleeper

Oh, there was this pic where a Native American said "I am Palestinian" for some reason. And I've seen one showing how the evil UN soldiers are opressing the people of Haiti or something (yes, I know the Haitians are black now). --84.234.60.154 14:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually most of his work is (of obvious reasons) about various South American issues. For instance about Chiapas[58]. As for oppressed people in Islamic countries there is the entire Tales of Iraq War series.[59] // Liftarn

Hmmm, has anyone considered WEB SITE GLITCHES? DeviantArt is not controlled by Latuff but evidently one of those free sites where what you do not PAY for is what you get. For example look at this incompletely loaded Latuff work I ran across!

Also, I just want to remind us all that gay and straight are not the only options. After all probably 50% of humanity would swing both ways if it weren't for all the taboos on bisexuality. Hey, maybe even 50% of the editors of wikipedia editors would swing both ways in a truly free world :-)

Carol Moore 16:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

It's only opression by the EVIL AMERICANS. In "the entire Tales of Iraq War series" Saddam Hussein, the tyrant who eventually had homosexuality a capital crime, is presented as a hero, directing Iraqi freedom fighters from heaven (I'm serious), and the "Iraqi resistance" is only killing the American occupiers (who in turn slaughter innocent Iraqis left and right, I guess all these mosque or marketplace truck bombs are driven by them too). It must be some sort of alternative-reality Iraq, like his fantasy versions of freedom-fighting Palestine and Nazi "Israhell". --84.234.60.154 14:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it is well past time to ban Liftarn from further editing of this article for his incessent POV violations and continuing vandalism. He has continually re-edited the accurate descriptions of the Iranian conference in which Latuff eagerly participated as a pro-Hitler pro-Nazi affair - which it WAS! It is therefore of interest in assessing Latuff's motivation for his willing collaboration. Liftarn's own page demonstrates his hard-core "anti-zionism" (which in his case MIGHT or MIGHT NOT be related to a deeper Jew-hatred) so he is obviously not neutral on this topic, and clearly wants to slant this entry in this way that most favorably reflects his idol's point of view. That is hardly the appropriate way to compose a neutral encyclopedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.68.166.9 (talk • contribs)

It wasn't pro-Hitler, it was pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli. Invoking Hitler is soooo Latuff (and

eternalsleeper

It appears obvious from latuffs work that he does not like Jewish people, Americans, or the Brazillian government. I find it funny this article is always locked. Israel is one of the most democratic countries in the world, and does it all under the threat of their existance each day. I know Palestinian Arabs who say life in Israel for them is better then any other Arab country, just like a Western country. Israel is rated as one of the best places in the world to live. Even Adolf Eichman received a fair trial despite being Hitlers henchman.

--Eternalsleeper 04:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an experienced enough editor to know how to deal with these people who keep replacing a neutral paragraph that refers to WIKI articles with a negative and argumentative point of view paragraph with no sourcing or "original research." I'll leave it to someone else to revert, since I wrote new version. Also note I left the same link in to the cartoon that also is footnote 1, leaving it to a more experienced editor to decide which is the better way to let people see the Latuff cartoon and other winners of the contest.

NEUTRAL PARAGRAPH THAT HAS BEEN REPLACED BY POV PARAGRAPH TWICE: In 2006, Latuff entered, was placed second and won $4,000 in the

Carol Moore 15:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Sorry, Carol, your paragraph is far from a "neutral" one; it simply reiterates the PR propoganda of the organizers themselves. They were not simply "testing Western tolerance for free speech" but aiming to insult and defame holocaust victims and survivors and thereby to whitewash nazi atrocities and genocide. This was made very clear by the statements of the Iranian president in advance and at the time of the conference. Your phrase "an obvious comparison" also makes clear your own POV agenda of legitimizing this racist/fascist affair.

If that is true, then the editor should provide credible, unbiased sources, not just personal opinions.

Carol Moore 20:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

memri has a recording of the Iranian broadcast on the holocaust display. the main theme of that show is how the holocaust is a myth and "zionists/jews are evil"...(no mention of the muhammad cartoons). i havn't seen such a skewed and racist display on mainstream media in quite some time. i think that your insistance on the link shows you havn't payed much attention to Iranian media. drop by memri and look for "iran holocaust" see what bigoted and/or racist gems you come up with. Jaakobou 04:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

First, of course, we have no way of knowing if that is an accurate translation of what the woman commentator has to say in Iranian. Second, MEMRI of course is little better than a propaganda arm of the Israel government, so it's translation is not very credible. Third, there were dozens of mainstream articles in English by credible journalists done about this event. So the fact that you can't find ONE to agree with your contention is certainly suspicious. Fourth, mine was a minimalist interpretation using wiki sources, not an attempt to survey every commentator pro and con who ever wrote on it, reading in every language in which it originally was written. I'm not saying what I wrote is definitive, but at least it is not ripe with POV. Feel free to prove your point with mainstream credible sources that are NOT in service to a foreign state. I know I'm not in service to any dang state :-)

Carol Moore 01:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

MEMRI is considered reliable source (WP:RS) for translations, they've been fetured on CNN and many other highly serious agencies who double check the translations of MEMRI. as for articles, you'll need to find some farsi one (or trasliteration) to counter this document. Jaakobou 03:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

HanzoHattori edits obviously are better. However re: the remaining sentence “Latuff has refused to state whether he agrees with the Iranian government's attempts at Holocaust denial.”

Question: What proof do you have he has not commented on this or even refused to? Do you have a source? I mean we could go through all the biographies of living people and find controversies where we could just make UNsourced comments that individuals have NOT commented on some controversy with which they were involved.

Please provide a source that he refuses to comment or I’ll change it to the more POV neutral:

In 2006, Latuff entered, was placed second and won $4,000 in the highly controversional

Carol Moore 16:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

I support Carol Moore's version as neutal and accurate. BobFromBrockley 11:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest this

In 2006, Latuff entered, was placed second and won $4,000 in the highly controversional

Nazi concentration camps

.

If you want to know about the competition it's just a click away. // Liftarn

I think it would be good for the mention to give some indication that it was controversial - and that therefore Latuff has come under criticism for it. BobFromBrockley 16:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

i agree with User:Bobfrombrockley, as that this holocaust denial "display" was highly controvercial. Jaakobou 17:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source fo that? // Liftarn

A reference? The cartoon competition is scarcely mentioned without the prefix "controversial". Here's a couple of examples "Controversial Holocaust Cartoon Exhibition Opens", "Iran Manipulates Cartoon Conflict, Germans Say", "...controversial contest" (News24). CAIR, who are hardly Zionists, condemned the exhibition. BobFromBrockley 11:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

A source for that Latuff has come under criticism for it. References about the competition goes into that article. // Liftarn

OK, per conversation above, I took out highly before controversial; also noted there is no reference to conference in WIKI article on competition so took that out. NOW READS:

In 2006, Latuff entered, was placed second and won $4,000 in the controversial

Nazi concentration camps.^[3]

Carol Moore 16:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

That looks good to me. Yes, the conference and competition were completely unrelated, so mention of competition not at all relevant. BobFromBrockley 16:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it could be trimmed. // Liftarn

I disagree with the way you have trimmed it. It is vital that the competition is mentioned as controversial, as it is meaningless without signalling that there is a context. I think "lambasted", as quite an emotive word, could be replaced with "criticised", but I think that the reason it was controversial is important to state, otherwise it is unclear what the deal is, and why it merits mention in the Latuff article. BobFromBrockley 14:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Then find a source saying that Latuff have been criticized for it. Otherwise it belongs more under "Published works". // Liftarn

I have done so. BobFromBrockley 12:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so a business strategist is a reliable source for political cartoons? Well, his views ere published. Anyway, I trimmed some irrelevant fluff (again). // Liftarn

Boy, this entry keeps getting more messed up! The latest revision is grammatically incorrect, and the one it revised doesn't have needed short description of who Manfred Gerstenfeld is or More Importantly where he allegedly commented on Latuff. And of course doesn't it define Holocaust Inversion, who came up with the phrase and if it is widely used. Carol Moore 12:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Liftarn, can you explain why you think what you are removing is irrelevant fluff? It seems to me to be well sourced information stating that his work was considered controversial, which is neither "fluff" nor "irrelevant", and given that at least three people are reverting you, the community doesn't seem to understand what you are doing and why. Please explain. --OuroborosCobra 13:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It is stuff about the competition (and that has it's own article) and is not directly relevant to Latuff's entry in the contest. Since the competition is well covered in it's own article it is pointless to repeat the same information in this article. // Liftarn

I thought it was important that something like the word "controversial" be there because it would not be clear why this is significant. Liftarn requested that for such a word to remain, there needed to be references, which I therefore added. Although most of these criticisms do not relate to Latuff himself, he was one of the most prominent competitors, and (I think) all of the cited articles mention his contribution. The "Holocaust inversion" criticism specifically singled out Latuff, whether or not this phrase is widely used. (745 google hits - neither particularly widely used, nor a completely obscure neologism.) I don't know anything about Manfred Gerstenfeld, but, as with the competition itself, readers can click the link to find out more.BobFromBrockley 10:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, "controversial" is in and Manfred Gerstenfeld is described correctly (without the

appeal to authority he don't have). // Liftarn

I'm nearly happy with that, but am not sure he is just a "business strategist", although "scholar" certainly gave him an authority he didn't deserve. I will have a look at some of his writings before I do any editing. BobFromBrockley 12:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, by training he is a chemist and economist, he holds a Ph.D. in Environmental Studies and a high school teacher degree in Judaism. But his work has been as a business strategist. // Liftarn

Well, if that's right, he's a bit of a generalist, and his expertise in this does not come from his work as a business strategist. It's like discussing Chomsky's analysis of geo-politics but always calling him a "linguist". Not convinced. BobFromBrockley 13:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

He's far from as well known as Chomsky, but it might be a good idea to cut out the title entierly. // Liftarn

There is currently a paragraph in the crits section about a publication in an Iraqi Sunni magazine. I edited it a bit to make it factual and neutral. However, unless this has actually been criticised, e.g. by some source which can definitively link Al-Raed with the insurgency (I couldn't find any such link via google), I suggest this section is removed, perhaps to the published works section, perhaps altogether. BobFromBrockley 12:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know even if such magazine exists. Latuff claimed on his DeviantArt account they published his cartoon about Sunnis killing Americans soldiers (a kid and a man blowing up a Humvee with a RPG). I don't know if stuff like this is legal there (maybe in fact it is - freedom of speech and all that), but if not it's probably an underground paper. --HanzoHattori 11:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It was thi one: [60] (parody version) --HanzoHattori 11:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Since that is a parody version, and not actually made by Latuff, that obviously isn't "the one". --OuroborosCobra 16:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It's the one, just the text's obviously changed. I thought it was funny. --HanzoHattori 17:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not even think Latuf should have his own page. All he is is a "deviant art" user who attracts people who hate Americans and Jews. Latuff cannot even afford his own web site.

eternalsleeper

Do you have any citation to what he can and cannot afford? I can afford my own website, yet I do not have one, and post my art on deviantART instead, due to the community nature. As for the article, if you want it gone, nominate it for deletion, though given his involvement in the Iranian cartoons, he would seem to pass the notability test to me, which seems to be what you are suggesting he isn't meeting. --OuroborosCobra 22:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

To be honest I don't care about Latuff. It is my opinion that is he is simply a racist, anti-Jew, anti-American, etc. All he is is a DeviantART user who made his name known because he entered a Holocaust denial contest.

eternalsleeper

What you personally care about or believe is irrelevant. --OuroborosCobra 05:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

thanks for letting me know captain Arabia.

eternalsleeper

"The competition itself was controversial - it was criticised by Kofi Annan, Israel's Minister of Culture, Reporters Without Borders, the Anti-Defamation League and others." reads as if Annan was an Israeli minister. I suggest that the minister be named and that Annan be identified as the UN Secretary-General of the time.

I was going to change this myself, but the page is locked. Can someone who watches the page, please deal withit when the page is unlocked.--Peter cohen 11:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I have been friends with Carlos Latuff on Facebook.com now for nearly 3-months. I am just wondering because I've never seen this page, and I hope I don't offend anyone by saying this but Mr. Latuff is indeed, a homosexual and he is apparently married to a Jewish psychologist named Javier Latuff of Buenos Aires, Argentina and now Toronto Ontario. I do not see how this can be untrue because Javier is on the network of University of Toronto and for him to do this he required a genuine e-mail address there.

Basically, I just want to know why people were so offended that Carlos Latuff is a homosexual and he most likely is married, but on his facebook he says he's practically married. Why does this matter to you people? We are living in a free society, perhaps you aren't but why should you judge Latuff if he is gay. Latuff did the right thing and refused to answer if he was a homosexual or not because as he says, it should not matter. Sorry if I come across harsh, but I'm just been troubled by this homophobia that has been going on for the past while now at my school and now with Mr. Latuff.

THere is nothing wrong with being a homosexual, its not a disease and its certainly not your call to judge Mr. Latuff's private life.

Thank you, Aaron —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.152.104 (talk) 03:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

What strikes me as most important in what was added and removed is that he is Jewish, that his estranged father went on aliyah and that he (as you say above) has a Jewish partner. Material tends to refer to him as Brazilian and there is often an implication that he is anti-Semitic - sites critical of him that I have linked from this article certainly give that impression. Setting things within the context of his personal life will allow readers to view things differently. If you can provided references, then things should be included again. Though, please avoid references to time that will soon be dated such as his being four months married etc. --Peter cohen 12:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

None of the material is referenced. Being ones "facebook friend" means that this is all original research, no actual evidence provided. There is nothing to tell us that this isn't all made up by one person. No real evidence that you even are his facebook friend (not that it would matter). --OuroborosCobra 21:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

We can see who his Facebook friends are[61], but you are right about the original research. // Liftarn (talk)

i'm not entirely following this edit conflict - [62] - where an image with samples of the ariel sharon antilocutious series was removed. the explanation, i.e. "Image issues.", could/should be expanded if the editor insists on this change. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Non free images should not be used where free images are available. // Liftarn

four out of the 5 (that you are removing) have already been found with copyright-free tags (working on the fifth one) so this is not a great reasoning for a POV oriented content replacement. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

latuff has about 4-5 cartoons about how he does not like nazis. in contrast, he has more than 50 cartoons in his Anti-America section on infoshop. not to mention the number of anti-US cartoons inside the war in iraq comic strip of his. therefore, i see this edit as

comment - a drive-by revert [63] is not a replacement to the talk page. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Are the comics "anti-US"? Do you have a source for that? It seems you have been inserting quite a bit of unsourced statements in the article. // Liftarn (talk)

latuff's own gallery is titled "anti-america". it seems you are avoiding the issue, which is that his anti-nazi cartoons take up no volume in his body of work. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the image Image:Nonazis.gif is usefull since it shows his position on hate (against both antisemitism and hate against Palestinians) as well as it is a self portrait (I think). Your inclusion of Image:HeilIsrael.jpg is even more undue weight since very few of his works are photo montages. // Liftarn (talk)

actually, there's a good number of photo montages; regardless, i'm not going to soapbox about "his position on hate". you have not addressed why 4-5 images that say "palestine doesn't need nazis" is due to replace the large gallery he's made of anti-US toons and the pro-"resistance" toons [64]. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for that? You seem to have added a lot of unsourced statements like "mainly attacking Israel and the United States" (you dind't like my change to "mainly criticizing" either). You also made an unsourced addition about "Juba, the Baghdad sniper" and removed the sourced part about the We are all Palestinians cartoon series. // Liftarn (talk)

i'd be happy to respond to all your qualms, but it's very clear that they are an attempt to duck the question, a second time i might add. to repeat myself, "you have not addressed why 4-5 images that say "palestine doesn't need nazis" is due to replace the large gallery he's made of anti-US toons and the pro-"resistance" toons [65]".Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

a) the image is in the style of the artist b) it sums up his personal views (and I think it's a self portrait as well) c) source your statements. Speaking of undue weight, look at the section about Aktion Kinder des Holocaust. Isn't that a bit much weight for the views of a small, unknown group? // Liftarn (talk)

you're still pushing other directions. this image is clearly one out of 5 and you've placed it to replace an image representative of a full 50+ images of an anti-us section. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You are also pushing, but other directions (and often without providing sources). You wanted to include Uncle Sam wants you DEAD! that is the only(?) cartoon where Uncle Sam is compared to Hitler. It's all in how you slice it. // Liftarn (talk)

you know, if you're going to keep trying to protect your edits by referring to mine - and then make false statements about mine; we're going to have a hard time resolving our disputes. i suggest we apply the

WP:DR next time around when the article gets re-opened. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk}

15:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

So you say I shouldn't assume good faith? // Liftarn (talk)

i'm suggesting that you should try to mend your ways. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

My ways? I would suggest you read up on

WP:BLP first. // Liftarn (talk

)

now you can't claim you've missed them when DR will start. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

{{

Please remove the comment "I still think this is undue - Jaakobou" from the Themes section. // Liftarn (talk)

Y Done. Sandstein (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. // Liftarn (talk)

So at least we can fight about something new.

• First, I noticed that in another biography the word (photo) with a link immediately followed the persons name. Could that be done here to deal with the obvious hassles of getting a photo of him up? ie. (photo)
• I noticed the "Category:Antisemitism" at bottom of page and that he is listed under that category. Geez, isn't that Wikipedia:Libel?? I mean how does wikipedia decide? I don't notice discussion on this above. I noticed a bunch of legitimate Israel critics NOT mentioned on those pages. Why is Latuff there? This article doesn't prove that point, just lists a couple accusations. I'd say remove it unless someone can produce some slur against Jews per se or their religion per se. Making fun of a STATE and its leaders and their crimes, whatever the religion, is not bigoted unless you can prove a hatred of the religion or the people. Just my humble opinion.

Carol Moore 23:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

there's a reason he's registered with the anti-semitism category. i can't speak on the person himself, but a good number of his cartoons are.

p.s. there's a big difference between a 'critique' and 'race oriented libel'. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The only reason the article is listed in Category:Antisemitism is due to an interesting loophole in the inclusion criteria for the category. "This category indicates that the article in question discusses or refers to the topic of antisemitism. Adding this category to an article is in no way intended to imply that the subject of the article is antisemitic." Since Latuff has been accused of antisemitism as part of a smear campaign he gets included in the category. Ofcourse there is no sign of any antisemitism in either his statements nor his cartoons (well, some think that if you are critical of Israel's actions you are an antisemite, but let's be realistic here). // Liftarn (talk)

From [[WP:BLP}

Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Editors should also be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

Isn't some of the material in the article in violation of this? And aren't claims in a talk page to the effect that someone is anti-Semitic, albeit with weasel words, also a violation of the policy?--

talk

) 12:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

They should rename that category "ABOUT Antisemitism". Most people just seeing that at the bottom of an individual or group's article will assume the person or group is labeled antisemitic and not bother to go to the page, read the disclaimer or search the person/group's name and see all the non-antisemitic people/groups ALSO listed there. In the interim maybe someone should at least put this note in RED. This category indicates that the article in question discusses or refers to the topic of antisemitism. Adding this category to an article is in no way intended to imply that the subject of the article is antisemitic.

Also, what about adding that link to photo? Hearing no dispute, when they reopen article I will do so. Carol Moore 17:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

per this edit - [66]. please elaborate why the inclusion of so much detail has merit. (see

The quotes are a parts of the artwork, but OK, I have alsto trimemd the article of some other undue weight. // Liftarn (talk)

pre this edit - [67] - i'd appreciate some explanation to what part of the description of the two cartoons is OR. some suggestions on how to rephrase the text would perhaps help resolve the dispute. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

"Image shows an "Israel monster" in soldier attire holding a Rifle marked with pacifiers, supposedly, for every baby killed" is clearly OR. It is even hinted in the sentence with a "supposedly". The same thing about the "laughing over US casualties" do you have a source for that? // Liftarn (talk)

Given all tlhe controversy I just won't go in and make changes. Relevant sections in italics:

In his comic series by the name of Tales of Iraq War (also translated into arabic), he features 'Juba, the Baghdad sniper' as a hero while US soldiers are portrayed as villains sent by US President George Bush, caricatured laughing over US casualties.(0)

Capitalize Arabic? Where is the reference that will take us to Juba? Not easily found, if there at all.

He has also made several cartoons which reject Nazi support for the Palestinian cause.(0)

Here the problem is just that Nazi is used in 3 different ways: Hitler's actual national socialists; Israelis compared to those National Socialists; and neo-Nazis who support Palestinians. There actually might be young people out there who would read it, not be very politically sophisticated, and would get confused. Any way to clarify those differences within the article itself? Carol Moore 02:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

I've addressed the easy points with a copy-edit. A ref required on Juba was removed a qusrter of an hour before your comment here. Can someone help with this?--

• Juba (sniper) refs:
  • english, arabic - both taken from here: [68].
  • english, arabic - source 1, source 2

-- enjoy. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Those are not sources. // Liftarn (talk)

It might help if you were more specific as to why they aren't. I'm staring at the piece of art, that tends to mean it exists. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a blog, under the name of the artist with links to other pages. The author's first language appears to be Portuguese and they are also interested in Brazilian railway history as well as the political stuff. There seems to be no grounds for disbelieving that the pages shows cartoons about Juba by Carlos Latuff. Obviously for opinions on whether the articles are executed well or poorly, you would need to go to a

talk

) 17:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, other than as a source for that the cartoons exist they are pretty much usesless. You can't use them as sources for someting like "Latuff hates americans". That would be

WP:OR. // Liftarn (talk

)

We've had the same nonsense regarding the Zombietime image on New antisemitism. Same editor. <<-armon->> (talk) 04:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

There are several reasons for those tags. Firstly information needs to be sourced. Thus you need to source "Caricature shows Adolf Hitler dressed as Uncle Sam, with the Nazi swastika atop his top-hat." All information requires reliable sources, no exceptions.

Secondly, who is to say that Latuff actually made those images. You need a reliable source for that as well.Bless sins (talk) 06:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR

says:

To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should: only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.

Describing the images is perfectly in line with this. I have, however, removed the word "caricature" as that has a judgmental tone to it. The images are on Wikimedia with their sources given there. This information can be seen by clicking on the images. If you doubt the accuracy of these descriptions, raise the issues in Wikimedia.--

talk

) 12:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

To do your own interpretation of an image is a clear example of original research. An example is the image with the description "Adolf Hitler dressed as Uncle Sam, with the Nazi swastika atop his top-hat.". Well is it Adolf Hitler dressed as Uncle Sam or Uncle Sam looking like Hitler? // Liftarn (talk)

its the first. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that claim? // Liftarn (talk)

Yes, right here, happens to be the image itself. It says it is Uncle Sam, I can see the top hat that is a swastika, and the Hitler mustache and face. This would be like saying an image of an apple needs a Harvard professor stating it is an apple before it would be considered "sourced", and not the least the intent of Wikipedia rules and regulations. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It would seem it then is Uncle Sam looking like Hitler rather than the other way around. I'll fix that. // Liftarn (talk)

That seems the sensible way round. The point of the cartoon is to say "Hey! Isn't America acting like Nazi Germany?" not the other way round. So America (Uncle Sam) is the subject of the picture.--

talk

) 13:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I still believe that the change is the actual

WP:OR, but i'll allow it for the sake of consensus. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk}

14:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Many of you may object to the descriptions because you may says that I've included in non-notable details. But the question is: who gets to decide what part of the image is notable? The answer should be: a reliable source.Bless sins (talk) 22:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Wou could use only the title of the work and let the readers draw their own conclusions. Unless we have a RS ofcourse. // Liftarn (talk)

Please see Talk:Carlos Latuff #File:Alan dershowitz by Latuff.jpg for initial discussions. -- Avi (talk) 16:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Unacceptable Wikipedia articles should not be used to deliberately induce ridicule of an individual. Writing about such things needs to be done with great care, if it is done at all. Parodies and caricatures that focus on a single individual should not be described. If they attain the such notoriety and significance with respect to the subject of the article that failing to include it would be seriously detrimental to the article's worth, then maybe a short description might be acceptable. I can't see any circumstances where posting the actual picture would serve any useful (as opposed to harmful) purpose. Ray^Talk 15:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Alan dershowitz by Latuff.jpg This image was removed because someone didn't like it. This image is satirical and would only be defamatory if people really would think this person acts like this. multichill (talk) 11:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Wikifan12345 (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll just wait for Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alan dershowitz by Latuff.jpg. If it's kept i'll restore the image, if it's deleted, nothing to restore. multichill (talk) 11:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Defamatory images are covered by

WP:BLP and need to be removed. EnWiki is not Commons and we have BLP rules here. -- Avi (talk

) 11:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't simply mention policies, please explain why they apply by referring to what they say. Adambro (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

From

• The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment.
• Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one.
• This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages.

Also see

This image is not legally defamatory according to Mike Godwin [69]. It was also previously published, which is easily verifiable, independent of the reliability of Indymedia - Dershowitz wrote in The Guardian about this episode in the Dershowitz–Finkelstein affair [70]. It has nothing to do with coatrack: the image illustrates a paragraph in the text of the article. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Legally defamatory != harmful. The

WP:BLP policy specifically mentions "HARM" not defamation. EnWiki is not Commons, and we have a stricter policy here. -- Avi (talk

) 15:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

What Avi has said seems to lack any real reasoning as to why this particular image has to be removed according to

WP:BLP justifies the removal of this image. I won't reinstate the image whilst discussions are ongoing but if it is reinstated then I would ask Avi not to continue to remove it. BLP doesn't exempt individuals from engaging in discussions about disputes and permit them to enforce their views through disruptive edit wars. Adambro (talk

) 15:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

EnWiki has a policy of acting to protect living people. Unlike Commons, we err on the side of protecting living people. If anything, I would request that the image NOT be reinstated until its BLP-ness is ascertained. Perhaps this should be moved to

WP:RFCon the image? -- Avi (talk

) 15:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't wish for the image to be reinstated whilst discussions are ongoing, just as I don't wish for it to be removed either. You have asserted that BLP justifies the removal but it seems you are yet to clarify exactly why. Adambro (talk) 15:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

On en:wp if two reasonable people make opposite assertions about a BLP matter, we err on the side of caution. Avi is a reasonable person. Therefore this image will stay out of the article until the BLP question clearly has been resolved. That's not debatable. ++Lar: t/c 19:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The image is obviously an attack on Alan Dershowitz, and the article is just as effective without the image, especially if we put a link to it (indymedia) in the reference section. That would allow anyone interested to find the image in question, yet follow WIKIPEDIA's policy of preventing harm to living people. I am happy to bring this to

WT:BLP, and if consensus is that I was to vigilant and the image is acceptable, so be it. But discussion should be had. Someone's potential error a while ago uploading the image does not ipso facto give permission for it to remain. A discussion should be had by more than the three of us. -- Avi (talk

) 15:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with all of the above. I believe that my views on this image are already known given the discussion at Commons... ++Lar: t/c 19:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

(<-)Although I think I am correct in my application of the BLP policy, I may be getting too close to the issue, and I will voluntarily be forbidding myself to edit the article for 24 hours. If anyone removes the semi-protection I have placed, I will not view that as wheel-warring, although I may question their judgement :) -I will restrict myself to comments here and on the appropriate Commons page. -- Avi (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

As a fan of Latuff's, I can still maintain enough objectivity to say that perhaps it is a "bit much" for a biographical article in an encyclopedia. Plus has BLP problems. (Just like long paragraphs of criticism of individuals as antisemites because they criticized Israel a couple times are problematic.)

On the other hand he does have a lot of outrageous material which can't big ignored, whether you love it or hate it. Maybe there should be a separate wikimedia page of "Latuff's most outrageous cartoons" and several of them could be listed and explicitly linked from the article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

BLP issues are not resolved by moving material around from one place to another, they are resolved by removing the material that is BLP violating. ++Lar: t/c 19:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The only mention of images in BLP says: "Relevant content that is inappropriate in text form remains inappropriate in image form." [71] So what would the text equivalent of this be? "Dershowitz is masturbating to, and getting his rocks off on, death and destruction in Lebanon."? I don't think that passes BLP re: Dershowitz. Nor do I see any need for this as an illustration of Latuff's work. This is the kind of thing that external links were made for. Msalt (talk) 23:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe a respectable encyclopedia is a place for it. Wikipedia main objective is to inform readers and taking advantage of the openess of this project to attack people is very low as an attitude. It is more a question of principles (i.e. ethics and morality) than a question of BLP. Interpretations of policies don't necessarily have to turn us into machines. There are tons of cartoons and the question is why picking one that is very controversial. Let's please respect our readers and get rid of our ego. The image can fit into a sensational and gossip tabloid. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Not censored is a very strong principle, but it is compatible with reason. It is absolutely inappropriate for Dershowitz, as it's just plain abuse, with no encyclopedic purpose. As for the cartoonist, I would not include it unless there were be worldwide comment about this particular cartoon, in which case the image would need to be kept. I would not omit even material like this if the material is notable. I do not really see such comment, as distinct from comments about his other work. DGG (talk) 07:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely and what I see is that there is no controversy or extra notability specific to this image in the real world. This is not about censorship as Wikipedia is still keeping the Mohammed Cartoons, the controversial Scorpions album's image, etc... When there is no notability or controversy specific to a thing then cherry-picking images would need more objective arguments such as the reason of omitting tens of other images by the same author and choosing a specific one —which is not a random act after all. If it is about its controversial nature then I must say that Wikipedia's job does not include originating controversies. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 09:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

(<-)Note. The image was just ruled inappropriate for Commons and deleted for the third time. See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alan dershowitz by Latuff.jpg. -- Avi (talk) 12:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

As you note, this image has now been deleted again. I consider this disappointing because it is my opinion that the image to be within scope even if the English Wikipedia community decided not to use it. It is unfortunate but the reality is that discussions about controversial issues like this tend to attract those with views at the extreme ends of the spectrum whilst more moderate individuals are discouraged from participating because they get attacked by both sides. This isn't just a problem on WMF projects though, it is reflected in the real world so it is very difficult to see how this might be avoided. I am unfortunate to have somehow found myself involved in the debates about Latuff's images and certainly didn't go out looking to do so. However, now I am, I recognise it benefits those with more extreme views than myself if they are allowed to take control of issues like this. My fear is that the relativity silent majority will eventually conclude that it would be beneficial to delete Latuff's images because of the ongoing hassle that those who want them deleted insist on causing. It is this concern which motivates me to continue to keep a careful eye on what goes on regarding this subject. Whether it is appropriate to use this particular image seem to have become a moot point. Adambro (talk) 13:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

We all tend to think we are moderate and others are extreme, but I think you are going to be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks I am extremist as far as images go. Yet even I recognise that this image is problematic and without lasting encyclopedic value. As has been explained to you multiple times, there are other images that sufficiently illustrate Latuff's approach to art, views, stylistic technique, etc, and the image is defamatory and not notable in its own right. The project would be better off without it, and that is not censorship, it is scope. ++Lar: t/c 15:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The extreme individuals I am referring to are those who simply want all Latuff images to be deleted and those that seem to wish to promote them. I consider you to fall into neither group and hope you don't consider me to either whilst I disagree with you that this image doesn't have any educational value. Adambro (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Note: The discussion here is independant of the discussion on the Commons. We have a BLP policy on EnWiki. We do not have a BLP policy on the Commons. -- Avi (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)

IMHO any satire, in a BLP or otherwise, is a violation of NPOV. Mad Magazine can get away with it, an encyclopedia can't.

talk

) 09:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you are saying. Of course these caricatures portray one person's point of view but we don't write neutral articles by not including opinions, we write neutral articles by not giving them undue weight. In this case, it seem completely appropriate to include some of Latuff's work. This particular image is discussed in the article so it makes sense to include it. Adambro (talk) 11:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Adambro, it is one sentence, and the outright sexual degradation and attack on character and morals that the image portrays far and away makes it a living person violation. The image can be linked to in the footnotes for people who are interested in seeing it; Wikipedia is above that. -- Avi (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I was totally unaware of this dispute and dubiously added the picture after reading the paragraph on Dershowitz. Apologies! Wikifan12345 (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. If the protective image had not been deleted this would not have happened. I have restored the protective image and any further deletion debate about it should be handled on the proper XfD. -- Avi (talk) 14:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that the article should include not merely that the cartoon was "criticized by Dershowitz" but that it was criticized as "obscene" by Dershowitz.

Having the image on EnWiki is a BLP violation. We link DIRECTLY to the image in the footnotes. It is a sad commentary if one extra click outweighs BLP in various editors' eyes. -- Avi (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Latuff apparently thinks its funny to make fun of the deaths of 22 Americans Hypocrite much? Can't believe that hasn't gone into controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.159.210.46 (talk) 02:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:No original research Wikipedia should not publish "any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position". And it it goes on to say that you should not publish "your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions". The problem with this image is that some editors think a reliable source is linking to a picture and then write about their own interpretation of the picture and that is original research. Unless the analysis of the picture is done by someone with expertise in the field and then published in a reliable source such conclusions are not usable in he article. // Liftarn (talk) 11:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Virtually all WP plot summaries are OR -- you'd have a lot of work to do to remove them all. Have you read the works in question?

IronDuke

13:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have added a few OR tags to a few plot summaries as well when they go against what I read/saw. But in literature and movies we don't have

WP:TE. // Liftarn (talk

) 13:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for that. So have you actually read these works?

IronDuke

13:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It's comics. It not that it's a major time investment. My own original reasearch is of little relavence to the article, but what about images like File:Mothers don't like wars...except Barbara Bush!.jpg? Is that a potrtait of a villain? // Liftarn (talk) 13:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

So you haven't read it? Sorry, you confused me.

IronDuke

14:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Obviously I did as I have read it. Not that it matter since my opinion is not a reliable source anyway. // Liftarn (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay... and did you have any thoughts about the content, as in who might be being portrayed as heroic? And did it seem obvious, or not so much?

IronDuke

16:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

That would be doing

WP:OR and my point is that it shuld be avoided. Just give the facts and let the reader draw his own conclusions. // Liftarn (talk

) 18:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

So it's fair to say you yourself were not able to come to a conclusion as to whether the hero might be obvious (which would, of course, not be OR)? I don't want to put words in your mouth, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

IronDuke

18:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Would it be fair to say that you are trying to put words into my mouth? // Liftarn (talk) 14:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, since I just made it clear I wasn't doing that, I guess it's obvious I'm not. Strange you would say that. What also seems to be obvious is that you are not going to actually discuss this, which is too bad.

IronDuke

21:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm perfectly willing to discuss the issue, but asking my opinion on artworks isn't helping. // Liftarn (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

No, you are perfectly willing to evade a simple question. That's not discussion, just stonewalling.

IronDuke

21:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Since the question is irrelevant to the content of the article my answer is simply not needed. // Liftarn (talk) 17:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it's a highly relevant question, and an easy one to answer. Is it obvious who the hero is in the cartoon? If we can all agree it's obvious, we don't need to source it. If we can't, in theory a source would be necessary.

IronDuke

14:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Liftarn,

You can't just continue doing this. Having consensus against you and then you return 1 year later and just edit war on the same issue. Basically, you've misunderstood the idea behind original research. Original research would be (for example) to claim Latuff is an Iranian-backed militant (just an example) because he got paid by Iran for his activity. To say that his cartoons are favorable of the oppositions to Israel and USA is

common sense

and you've lost this "Its OR" debate a number of times already. Non-the-less, I'm willing to keep an open mind to rephrase suggestions that will satisfy your OR concerns. Keep in mind that we do need some type of proper descriptive of the themes of his works.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I checked and there appeared to be no concensus reached. That Latuff i no USA supportier should be quite obvious and as such it should be no problem finding reliable sources saying so. As for the Tales of Iraq War the comics used are cherrypicked. As the above example shows the portrait of the soldiers is done showing different sides of the issue. Also strips such as File:Marines The few, the proud, the murderers.jpg shows human error rather than malice. // Liftarn (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You should double-check because there's a pretty clear one. Also note that I'm willing to keep an open mind on a rephrase for the themes. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I looked again at Talk:Carlos Latuff/Archive 1#A Few Nit Picks on the Article and find no trace of any consensus. Apart from the comment about neonazis the last comment it actually says "Yes, other than as a source for that the cartoons exist they are pretty much usesless. You can't use them as sources for someting like "Latuff hates americans". That would be WP:OR." // Liftarn (talk) 10:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Quoting your own comment doesn't change that there is a long term consensus against your perspective and that once a year you ignore this and edit-war needless tags into the article while others make comments against your activity. OR means something different than what you think it does. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That was the last comment so there appear to be no consensus if we should include your own interpretations or not. // Liftarn (talk) 14:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a clear difference here between interpretations and facts. The cartoons are quite clear in theme and your claim that this could be interpreted in another manner hasn't persuaded otherwise in any of the past attempts to swoop in once a year and edit war against the long standing consensus. Havin the last comment in each of the discussions doesn't mean that there's no consensus against you. It only means that people have no interest in feeding trollish activity. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

So... the word "murderers" would be neutral here?

IronDuke

16:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you shouldn't focus too much on a single file name. As I pointed out the portrayal of the US soldiers is diverse. Examples include[72][73][74][75] // Liftarn (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

So it isn't neutral, then?

IronDuke

18:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

My interpretation is that the US soldiers are shown as humans. Sometimes good, sometimes bad, sometimes just misguided or misinformed. // Liftarn (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, I hate to read in to what you're writing, but it's a bit opaque. Can you say whether the word "murderer" would be a neutral title in this case?

IronDuke

01:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I say that it doesn't matter what I (or you) think about it. That would be original research since at least I am a layman and haven't published my opinions in any reliable source. // Liftarn (talk) 10:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, you are side-stepping the issue, essentially refusing to say what you yourself believe to be true (or not true). Hard to have a conversation that way.

IronDuke

21:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I thought we was going to discuss improving the article, not having a debate about art. // Liftarn (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

When you write

IronDuke

21:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It's you who try to bring in irrelevant subjects. Do you or do you not have sources for your claims? Do I relly need to bring this trivial matter up at

WP:BLPN? // Liftarn (talk

) 18:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I have provided a source for what is, essentially, a stunningly obvious fact. In the future, could you at least attempt a search for refs before tagging, if you feel an obvious point needs explicating?

IronDuke

02:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

No, you have only provided a link to the image. That is not a source as what it says in the article is based on your own interpretation of the image. Not to mention that you have cherrypicked the images to give a certain impression. // Liftarn (talk) 17:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Would you please look at the new source I provided.

IronDuke

14:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Good, you managed to find a source for the "hero" part. Now you only need to find one for the "villain" part. // Liftarn (talk) 21:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

And you managed to actually read the source I found, so we're both winning. Do you think it would be possible for you to undo the grammatically challenged sentence you keep reinserting?

IronDuke

15:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

And now that you've accepted that Juba is a "superhero," would it be possible for you to speculate as to just who the hero's enemies, i.e. the villains, could possibly be? Fellow Iraqis? Americans? Poverty and world hunger?

IronDuke

15:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

As a Wikipedia editor it is not my job to

speculate. For Juba the antagonists certainly is US soldiers, but they're not necessarily villains and as the section is about the entire series (that includes other strips as well) the view of the US soldiers is (as noted above) mixed. // Liftarn (talk

) 19:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. As a Wikipedia editor, though, do you think it's your job to accept the mind-rendingly obvious (e..g, that heroes need villains)? Or is it more appropriate to demand sources for axioms that, literally, a child can understand? Also, can you fix the grammatical errors you keep reverting to reinsert?

IronDuke

02:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't heroes need villains and I donät think every character in a comic is either a hero or a villain. // Liftarn (talk) 21:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it doesn't matter much how you feel about this cartoon as there's a strong consensus against it. If you feel your perspective is the correct one and the consensus is incorrect, feel free to bring this issue up for further review via

WP:RfC

or another form of dispute resolution.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Mob rule doesnot mean we can ignore

WP:BLP. // Liftarn (talk

) 16:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You completely misunderstood the idea of these policies. You are free to invite other editors to inspect your perspective of these policies in relevance to this page though. I would suggest RfC, but you could also go to VillagePump or Mediation or possibly even ask for help on the Help-pages (see

WP:DR

).

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood it as you obviously try to enter "unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position". "Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions." // Liftarn (talk)

No. That one relates to actual analysis and unpublished opinions, not to common sense. Use the dispute resolution please if you are so certain that everybody else on this page is wrong while you are the lone righteous of soddom. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)