Talk:Carlos Latuff/Archive 4

.... Following is the entire RfC discussion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Should the statement that some of Latuff's cartoons have been called antisemetic be included in the lede? 15:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Survey

• include
  WP:WEIGHT. These are well sourced allegations, covered in detail in the body of the article. The lead should serve as a mini-article and cover all major controversies. Gaijin42 (talk
  ) 15:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
• don't include per
  talk
  ) 20:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
• don't include pr Pikolas, Huldra (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
• include The accusations of antisemitism against Latuff's cartoons are a major issue in this article. The
  WP:LEAD exists to summarize essential facts (including controversies).--Averysoda (talk
  ) 02:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
• don't include Per
  WP:BLP is more important from my point of view and should be predominant. Pluto2012 (talk
  ) 04:14, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
• Include per V and LEAD, his alleged antisemitism is widely reported and appears in this article. The lead should summarize the body. It should naturally follow BLP in how it's worded, but BLP doesn't mean "no criticism of a living person". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
• Do not include any form of one-sided/biased form of this allegation. I believe the variant before revert and protection presented both sides and was rather neutral, in this form I would support inclusion. --Denniss (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
• Do not include As per
  WP:LEAD and Pikolas' observations. LavaBaron (talk
  ) 07:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
• include. Latuff is well known for this. Flayer (talk) 10:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
• Include. It is well supported by sources that antisemitism is allegedly one of the main themes of his works, it is covered in the article and the lead should summarize it. “WarKosign” 06:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
• Include only if his repudiation of the charge is in the same sentence, i.e. 'Latuff's cartoons, which often use the analogy between the Holocaust and Palestinians, have been accused of/interpreted as/ anti-Semitism/antisemitic. Latuff has dismissed the charges as 'a strategy for discrediting' criticism of Israel.' I agree with
  WP:Lede summarizes the article, and the article has a section on the accusations and his repudiation of them.Nishidani (talk
  ) 09:52, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
• include - the lead must summarize the article, per
  WP:BLP, which states "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it" . All Rows4 (talk
  ) 16:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
• Include. It is supported by sources. Ykantor (talk) 19:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
• include due to the high quality of the sources. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• Include per Nishidani. In order to preserve neutrality, some balance should be struck in the lead, so leaving just a remark on anti-semitism would introduce undue bias, especially since many people stop reading after the lead. If you introduce a construction like that demonstrated by Nishidani, I think it would be fine. Then the reader is left to make the decision. Note: I came here via Legobot. -Pax Verbum 00:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
• Include. Many people share that belief and it should be stated as a quote from someone who claims it. StudiesWorld (talk) 05:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
• Include, using both a short statement describing the allegations, and Latuff's rejection of the charges. This complies with
  talk
  ) 16:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
• Include: The lead should summarize the article. Israel-Palestine is a major theme of Latuff's work. With such a large section on antisemitism, it would be silly to not include it in the lead. The section should be summarized fairly, with not only the criticism and Latuff's response, but also, for instance, the quote by Joel Kotek in The Forward, stating that his message is anti-Israel, rather than anti-Semitic. The current formulation in the lead, "Despite Latuff himself describes his work as controversial", should be eliminated. "Despite" is editorializing, "controversial" is weasel word, and anyway being controversial has nothing to do with being anti-Semitic. Kingsindian ♝♚ 16:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
• Include in LEAD (part before TOC) but NOT in LEDE (first sentence). It's fine in the fourth sentence where it is now.
  YO
  😜 03:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Per the fairly obvious consensus developing above, I am restoring the content, using Nishidani's proposed wording. The RFC remains open, and if consensus develops to the contrary we can remove then. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH perhaps. Gaijin42 (talk

) 17:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Per source Latuff himself recognized his work as controversial (it's not necessarily related to the accusations of antisemitism, which he denies).--Averysoda (talk) 17:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)