File talk:Freud have an explanation.gif
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Categories[edit]
Here Drork removed the categories Category:Sigmund Freud (relevant because he's the one in the cartoon) and Category:Politics of the Palestinian territories (relevant because that is the subject of the cartton). I would like an explanation why these relevant categories was removed. // Liftarn (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- The Category "Sigmund Freud" shows only images of Freud himself, his family members, his manuscripts, and graphic illustrations of his theories. It does not include citations of Freud's image in drawings not directly related to his theories, and it definitely don't include political cartoons about the Middle East. As for "Politics of the Palestinian Territories" - this category is meant to include images of political figures and political situations in the Palestinian Territories. It is not meant to include interpretations of one Brazilian cartoonist about the situation in the Middle East. Drork (talk) 08:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- I would propose to collect the images by Latuff that have Palestine as their main subject together in a category like "Catoons by Latuff about Palestine". That category could then be included in Category:Politics of the Palestinian territories. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- We have the category Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict cartoons that should work for that, but the image should still be in Category:Sigmund Freud as he's the subject of the cartoon and it's an illustration to one of his theories. // Liftarn (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- I suppose I haven't looked at this cartoon close enough - is it a criticism about Freud's theory of Psychoanalysis? Please enlighten me. Drork (talk) 08:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- I haven't studies psychology, but I think it refers to en:Psychological repression. Anyway, it still pictures Sigmund Freud so it should be in that category. // Liftarn (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- I would agree that this image should be in Category:Sigmund Freud since Sigmund Freud forms one of the key subjects. I would note that Drorks reasoning for not being in that category is very weak; there aren't currently any cartoons in the category. This is hardly a reason not to add the first such image. If there had to be a similar image in a category before an image could be added then we'd just be sitting around with empty categories. Clearly this is nonsense. The Sigmund Freud category, just like any other, is for content relevant to Sigmund Freud. Unless Drork can come up with a more convincing reason against doing so, I would support adding this image to the Sigmund Freud category. Adambro (talk) 17:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Adambro, what you are suggesting is having bulk of vaguely related files in certain categories. You are actually suggesting "spamming" the categories, in a way. It is crucial that categories will be firmly delimited, otherwise they are of no use. Having browsed many categories today as part of a certain Commons' project I'm involved in, I saw many categories which were poorly defined, and therefore became useless. Furthermore, Liftarn's motives are not pure, and there is no reason to keep pretending he came here in good faith. Check this file [1] for example (I've already fixed the problematic description) to see what the problem is. Drork (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- It is hard to understand how a carton portrayal of Sigmund Freud is not relevant enough to Freud to merit inclusion in the category. I would accept that the description in the image Liftarn uploaded is very problematic but I would note that it is from the Flickr user, rather than something Liftarn has written. Adambro (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think I explained in all possible words why this image is irrelevant to the proposed category. I am becoming quite frustrated. And for Liftarn's apologia - is it my job to correct POVized description of images uploaded from Flickr and ask for renaming, or is it the responsibility of the user who uploaded the image? Would you accept such an upload had the license been wrong? Adjusting the description is equally important in order to keep the Commons' reputation. Drork (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- As I've already said, you're only explanation as to why the category is not appropriate is that there aren't similar images already in it. It certainly shouldn't fall to you to ensure that image descriptions are free of opinions, I've said on a number of occasions that Liftarn should have corrected this. I've never accepted the description is appropriate. Just as it isn't your job to have to inspect all of Liftarn's contributions, it isn't mine either. If I am not aware of something I cannot be said to endorse it. Adambro (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think I explained in all possible words why this image is irrelevant to the proposed category. I am becoming quite frustrated. And for Liftarn's apologia - is it my job to correct POVized description of images uploaded from Flickr and ask for renaming, or is it the responsibility of the user who uploaded the image? Would you accept such an upload had the license been wrong? Adjusting the description is equally important in order to keep the Commons' reputation. Drork (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Drork, I would appreciate if you could keep the discussion on topic and not resort to cheap personal remarks. As far as I can tell you still haven't explained why an image of Sigmund Freud shouldn't be listed in Category:Sigmund Freud. // Liftarn (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Shall I say it again? This is not an image of Freud, nor an image of one of his family members, nor a graphical illustration of his theories, nor anything of the kind. The person in the image don't even look like Freud (see his real images in the above-mentioned category). This is merely a political opinion of a Brazilian citizen, which happens to mention Freud. This Brazilian citizen already have a category on the Commons, and anyone can browse it at will and enjoy his wisdom. There is no need to confuse people who actually look for information about the real Siegmund Freud. BTW, Liftarn, since you say I engage in cheap personal attacks, I'd be happy to know why you did not change that image's description when you uploaded it. I'd be happy to know that it is an innocent mistake. Drork (talk) 06:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- It is a cartoon showinf Freud and even mentions him by name. Please leave your views outside commons. // Liftarn (talk) 11:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Shall I say it again? This is not an image of Freud, nor an image of one of his family members, nor a graphical illustration of his theories, nor anything of the kind. The person in the image don't even look like Freud (see his real images in the above-mentioned category). This is merely a political opinion of a Brazilian citizen, which happens to mention Freud. This Brazilian citizen already have a category on the Commons, and anyone can browse it at will and enjoy his wisdom. There is no need to confuse people who actually look for information about the real Siegmund Freud. BTW, Liftarn, since you say I engage in cheap personal attacks, I'd be happy to know why you did not change that image's description when you uploaded it. I'd be happy to know that it is an innocent mistake. Drork (talk) 06:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- It is hard to understand how a carton portrayal of Sigmund Freud is not relevant enough to Freud to merit inclusion in the category. I would accept that the description in the image Liftarn uploaded is very problematic but I would note that it is from the Flickr user, rather than something Liftarn has written. Adambro (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Adambro, what you are suggesting is having bulk of vaguely related files in certain categories. You are actually suggesting "spamming" the categories, in a way. It is crucial that categories will be firmly delimited, otherwise they are of no use. Having browsed many categories today as part of a certain Commons' project I'm involved in, I saw many categories which were poorly defined, and therefore became useless. Furthermore, Liftarn's motives are not pure, and there is no reason to keep pretending he came here in good faith. Check this file [1] for example (I've already fixed the problematic description) to see what the problem is. Drork (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- I would agree that this image should be in Category:Sigmund Freud since Sigmund Freud forms one of the key subjects. I would note that Drorks reasoning for not being in that category is very weak; there aren't currently any cartoons in the category. This is hardly a reason not to add the first such image. If there had to be a similar image in a category before an image could be added then we'd just be sitting around with empty categories. Clearly this is nonsense. The Sigmund Freud category, just like any other, is for content relevant to Sigmund Freud. Unless Drork can come up with a more convincing reason against doing so, I would support adding this image to the Sigmund Freud category. Adambro (talk) 17:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- I haven't studies psychology, but I think it refers to en:Psychological repression. Anyway, it still pictures Sigmund Freud so it should be in that category. // Liftarn (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- I suppose I haven't looked at this cartoon close enough - is it a criticism about Freud's theory of Psychoanalysis? Please enlighten me. Drork (talk) 08:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- We have the category Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict cartoons that should work for that, but the image should still be in Category:Sigmund Freud as he's the subject of the cartoon and it's an illustration to one of his theories. // Liftarn (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:BigArmySmallKids.jpg&oldid=3407593){kind=link}
If we could have the image What is on man's mind?, it should be in this category. So should Latuff's cartoon. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- It isn't there now, and it shouldn't be there according to the criteria we have now. Drork (talk) 08:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- What criteria? Adambro (talk) 10:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- *sigh* I am not going to repeat myself so many times. Read what I've written above. Drork (talk) 01:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- The categorization system is meant to be use with proper discernment. Not every drawing of person entitled "Freud" related to the category dedicated to Sigmund Freud. In this case I believe both of you are trying to promote controversial political views by assigning irrelevant categories to caricatures. I base it on your recent edits and edit wars, and the fact that one of you nominated such caricature as featured image. Drork (talk) 13:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- COM:CAT clearly mentions "what or whom does the file show? What is the subject?" and "Content depicting people can be put in categories and/or galleries which describe them" as a guide when categorising. As this image clearly shows Sigmund Freud (mentioned by name as well) it clearly belongs in Category:Sigmund Freud. I suspect your personal views cloud your judgement. // Liftarn (talk) 13:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Why are you playing innocent? This drawing is not about Freud or his theory, and it does not depict Sigmund Freud. It is merely a vague allusion to Freud for the sake of political propaganda. It is not enough to write "Freud" on a drawing in order to make it relevant to the category about Sigmund Freud. And again - judging by the fact that you constantly try to promote this kind of caricature and suggest that certain Zionist organizations are terrorist, and even blaming me of promoting terrorism, I am not sure you motives here are pure. Drork (talk) 13:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Ok then. You tell me what other Freud that came up with the return of the repressed. Oh and thry to cut back on the personal remarks and stay on subject, thank you. // Liftarn (talk) 14:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Had I uploaded a drawing of a man with a bubble coming out of his mouth saying: "Long live Israel" with the inscription "Freud" above it, would you consider it eligible to the Category:Sigmund Freud? You'd probably say "yes" in order to "win" this debate, but I doubt if you'd fight for such categorization the way you fight for a certain drawing maker from S America. Drork (talk) 17:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- If it was linked to one of the key concepts of Freud's work yes. May I inform you that w:The Treachery of Images still is not a valid reason for not including an image in the proper category. // Liftarn (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- You are the only person who actually sees here a reference to a key concept of Freud's work. Though Freud's followers used sofas in their treatments, a sofa is not a key concept in Freud's work. Drork (talk) 12:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- While the sofa is a cliché that indeed what introduced by Freud (notice that File:Freud Sofa.JPG is included in the cat) what I refer to the return of the repressed that Freud coined to explain the existence of neurotic symptoms in his w:The Interpretation of Dreams which is considered to be his most important contribution to psychology. // Liftarn (talk) 22:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that this caricature is an interpretation on Freud's theory? Am I suppose to put Carols Latuff in the list of scholars who commented on Psychoanalysis? Can you please avoid bringing this discussion to absurd? Drork (talk) 04:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't suggest that (just that is referenced it), but you are right. It does give an intepretation of Freud's theory and implements it on the Middle East situation. So we have established that 1) it is Freud pictured, 2) it is his sofa pictured, 3) it refers one of Freud's theories and 4) it interprets one of Freud's theories in a new context. I think we have a strong case for including it in the category. // Liftarn (talk) 09:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- So now you are suggesting to put "Carlos Latuff" under "Category: Psychologists"? You should consider writing in Uncyclopedia. Drork (talk) 03:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- No, you don't have to be a psychologists to draw a picture of one. // Liftarn (talk) 11:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- And yet, you suggest that we have here an interpretation of Freud's theory. That makes Latuff a Psychologist, just as it makes this caricature related to Freud. If we adopt your approach, we will have to assign Lattuf's category to the Category:Psychologists. Drork (talk) 12:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- No, you don't have to be a psychologists to draw a picture of one. // Liftarn (talk) 11:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- So now you are suggesting to put "Carlos Latuff" under "Category: Psychologists"? You should consider writing in Uncyclopedia. Drork (talk) 03:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't suggest that (just that is referenced it), but you are right. It does give an intepretation of Freud's theory and implements it on the Middle East situation. So we have established that 1) it is Freud pictured, 2) it is his sofa pictured, 3) it refers one of Freud's theories and 4) it interprets one of Freud's theories in a new context. I think we have a strong case for including it in the category. // Liftarn (talk) 09:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that this caricature is an interpretation on Freud's theory? Am I suppose to put Carols Latuff in the list of scholars who commented on Psychoanalysis? Can you please avoid bringing this discussion to absurd? Drork (talk) 04:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- While the sofa is a cliché that indeed what introduced by Freud (notice that File:Freud Sofa.JPG is included in the cat) what I refer to the return of the repressed that Freud coined to explain the existence of neurotic symptoms in his w:The Interpretation of Dreams which is considered to be his most important contribution to psychology. // Liftarn (talk) 22:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- You are the only person who actually sees here a reference to a key concept of Freud's work. Though Freud's followers used sofas in their treatments, a sofa is not a key concept in Freud's work. Drork (talk) 12:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- If it was linked to one of the key concepts of Freud's work yes. May I inform you that w:The Treachery of Images still is not a valid reason for not including an image in the proper category. // Liftarn (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Had I uploaded a drawing of a man with a bubble coming out of his mouth saying: "Long live Israel" with the inscription "Freud" above it, would you consider it eligible to the Category:Sigmund Freud? You'd probably say "yes" in order to "win" this debate, but I doubt if you'd fight for such categorization the way you fight for a certain drawing maker from S America. Drork (talk) 17:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Ok then. You tell me what other Freud that came up with the return of the repressed. Oh and thry to cut back on the personal remarks and stay on subject, thank you. // Liftarn (talk) 14:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Why are you playing innocent? This drawing is not about Freud or his theory, and it does not depict Sigmund Freud. It is merely a vague allusion to Freud for the sake of political propaganda. It is not enough to write "Freud" on a drawing in order to make it relevant to the category about Sigmund Freud. And again - judging by the fact that you constantly try to promote this kind of caricature and suggest that certain Zionist organizations are terrorist, and even blaming me of promoting terrorism, I am not sure you motives here are pure. Drork (talk) 13:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- COM:CAT clearly mentions "what or whom does the file show? What is the subject?" and "Content depicting people can be put in categories and/or galleries which describe them" as a guide when categorising. As this image clearly shows Sigmund Freud (mentioned by name as well) it clearly belongs in Category:Sigmund Freud. I suspect your personal views cloud your judgement. // Liftarn (talk) 13:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- The categorization system is meant to be use with proper discernment. Not every drawing of person entitled "Freud" related to the category dedicated to Sigmund Freud. In this case I believe both of you are trying to promote controversial political views by assigning irrelevant categories to caricatures. I base it on your recent edits and edit wars, and the fact that one of you nominated such caricature as featured image. Drork (talk) 13:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- *sigh* I am not going to repeat myself so many times. Read what I've written above. Drork (talk) 01:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- What criteria? Adambro (talk) 10:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) No, I write, but that don't make me a writer. I can use a hammer, but that don't make me a carpenter. I know what you want, but it is not in line with the guidelines of Commons like COM:CAT. Since this is a porttrait of Freud it should be in the relevant category. The only reason you oppose it it because you want to impose political censorship on Commons. // Liftarn (talk) 12:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- I know what YOU want. You want to use this site as a platform for promoting your political views. I admire your persistence, not your motives. Drork (talk) 15:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- You obviously have no idea what I want. However, that is irrelevant since we should discuss the categorisation of this image. Let me summarize:
- it is Freud pictured
- it is his sofa pictured
- it refers one of Freud's theories
- it interprets one of Freud's theories in a new context
And you still maintain that it does not belong in Category:Sigmund Freud because of something you never managed to state. Please tell me why it shouldn't be included. // Liftarn (talk) 17:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well put. Now, let's put this drawing under Category:Der Stürmer. (1) It shows a man which remarkably resembles the figures in the drawings published by Der Stürmer (BTW, is that a copyvio?) (2) It refers to theories published by Der Stürmer (3) It gives new interpretation to Der Stürmer's theories in a new context and even encourages them. Your last explanation was indeed enlightening. Drork (talk) 21:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- If you can provide a reliable source saying it has been published in Der Stürmer you may add that category. Do we have a deal? // Liftarn (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- You have no reliable source saying that this is Freud or an interpretation on Freud's theories. You are forcing your personal views, and try to tire other users in endless discussions in order to have your way. Drork (talk) 06:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- It says so right in the picture so we have a primary source. And again I ask you to refrain from personal remarks and keep on subject. // Liftarn (talk) 10:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- You have no reliable source saying that this is Freud or an interpretation on Freud's theories. You are forcing your personal views, and try to tire other users in endless discussions in order to have your way. Drork (talk) 06:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- If you can provide a reliable source saying it has been published in Der Stürmer you may add that category. Do we have a deal? // Liftarn (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well put. Now, let's put this drawing under Category:Der Stürmer. (1) It shows a man which remarkably resembles the figures in the drawings published by Der Stürmer (BTW, is that a copyvio?) (2) It refers to theories published by Der Stürmer (3) It gives new interpretation to Der Stürmer's theories in a new context and even encourages them. Your last explanation was indeed enlightening. Drork (talk) 21:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Polls on categorization[edit]
I would like to propose two different polls to sound the opinion of people on the categorization of this image, in the light of COM:CAT. Categorizing Latuff's cartoons has been the source of countless dramas, and some victims, and it is time to reach a consensus and take a reasonable decision. With these polls I'm addressing two different categories: Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism. Please feel free to add others. The questions will be in the form: Do you think that Category: Xxx is adequate for classifying this image?. Please give your opinion using the 
Support and 
Oppose templates, and keep your comments short. Long comments belong to the discussion sections above. Pertinent sources to the three concepts are w:Anti-Semitism and w:Anti-Zionism Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Anti-Semitism[edit]
Question -- Do you think that Category: Anti-Semitism is adequate for classifying this image?
- --
Anti-Zionism[edit]
Question -- Do you think that Category: Anti-Zionism is adequate for classifying this image?
- --
- Oppose as it objects to the illegal occupation and war crimes, not the state as such. // Liftarn (talk)
You mean the illegal occupation of Jewish land by Arabian colonists?
