File talk:Stopfundingterror.gif

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Categories

[edit]

Here Drork (talk · contribs) removed the categories Category:Terrorism and Category:Ariel Sharon and George W. Bush. Both are relevant. Category:Terrorism because it's the subject of the cartoon and Category:Ariel Sharon and George W. Bush because they are the main characters or the cartoon. // Liftarn (talk) 16:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This caricature does not depict a terror event or an event related to terror. Anyone can draw an image, write terror on it and claim it is about terror. It doesn't make the image related to terror. The category: George Bush and Ariel Sharon is redundant. It is not a picture of the two in a meeting. It is merely a caricature of them, and we already have categories for caricatures of each of them. Drork (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another episode in Drork's silly war on Category:Terrorism? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So it would seem. Both categories appear to be relevant. Adambro (talk) 18:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How come I see the three of you together whenever there is a debate about this kind of caricatures? Am I missing something? Drork (talk) 18:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be paranoid - it is called "recent changes" "my watchlist". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently these are the only changes that interest you. Drork (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well no, not really, I've been busy recategorising images of Golfers but take a look at my watchlist every so often. Since there are three in favour of these categories and one against, can we go ahead and add them back again? Adambro (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adambro, the three of you are gaming the system and blame the rest of the world. Stop that! Drork (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Drork, your actions are a rather annoying distraction. Look at my contributions and at my uploads. But censorship has to be fought, to defend liberty. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to comment about your remarks anymore. Sorry, but I don't trust you act in good faith. Drork (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you are not prepared to discuss these issues then don't act against consensus. Whether you like it or not, when three people agree that these categories should be included and one person says they shouldn't, there would seem to be consensus that they should be included. Do not remove them again. Adambro (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not mock me, and do not try to drag me into edit wars. Stop this behavior immediately! Drork (talk) 19:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Peaceful little Drork is the only one putting his finger in the wall against the flood of terrorism? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem that Rocket000 (talk · contribs) also supports the inclusion of these categories. Adambro (talk) 19:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I support common sense. Rocket000(talk) 21:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think the two categories are relevent to this cartoon. Would you think of adding these images to Categry: M4? or Category: C4? Or perhaps Category: Israeli flags / USA flags? or maybe Category: Taxes or Category: Business? I think not. Yonidebest Ω Talk 20:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-Zionism?

[edit]

In what way is any form of anti-Zionism shown in this picture? // Liftarn (talk)

I do no see any relevance. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the category was added for the same reason Anti-American was added, I also support removing it. I'm not that familiar with Anti-Zionism, but as an American who recently (and currently) had a controversial leader, I fully understand the difference between opposing a certain political figure or even your government at large and opposing your country. Two completely different things. Rocket000 (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. How long should we wait for someone to object before removing the category? // Liftarn (talk)
A few days, say 3, would be a reasonable length of time to allow anyone time to spot the discussion and object. Where anyone does raise concerns then you really need to work to resolve the disagreement. If there isn't clear consensus to make a change then the categorisation should remain as it stands. Adambro (talk) 12:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment -- I repeat here the general comments I made recently in my talk page:
  1. For me categorizing an image is not, and should not be, a political action. In some cases it is easy and objective, as when one categorizes a biological species. In many others it is subjective because there are several opinions, most of them respectable, on how things should be classified. That happens in social sciences, politics, arts, etc. In those cases we should deal with the images the way diccionaries deal with words: when a word has various meanings, all of them are listed and explained, not only the most common. Categorizatiom aims at facilitating the search, nothing more.
  2. In the present case, there is no doubt that the concept of Anti-zionism (as well as Anti-americanism and others) exists and is used in various contetxts ([1]), to designate the opposition to the state of Israel and his policies, as represented by its agents: military, polititians, etc.. Clearly, some (if not most) of Latuff's cartoons addresing the Israeli/Palestinian conflict are within this context.
  • The bottom line is: I do not agree that the category of Anti-zionism is removed from Latuff's cartoons until a solid rationale, gathering a broad consensus, is presented for removing them. Until then, I consider that the basic principles presented above should prevail. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I find it interesting that you invent your own way of categorising images to get your wish instead of just following COM:CAT (in this case COM:CAT#People applies). Just as thinking W Bush was a bad president is not anti-Americanism, anti-Zionism is not related to this picture. // Liftarn (talk)
It may be helpful Liftarn if you expand on your argument that COM:CAT should be followed. What specifically is wrong with Alvesgaspar's argument with regards to COM:CAT? Adambro (talk) 14:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is that really so difficult to understand? Alvesgaspar's idea that any drawing by Carlos Latuff whatever its subject should be labeled "anti-zionism" is absurd. Images should be labeled by content, according to COM:CAT. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with Pieter that not all Latuff's image should be categorised under anti-zionism but it isn't clear to me that Alvesgaspar has actually suggested we do so. Adambro (talk) 14:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see that suggestion clearly above at 13:34. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not inventing my own way. As an impartial newcomer to this specific subject, I'm just using common sense and try to prosecute the main objective of categorization, as stated in COM:CAT, which is to organize and find files in Commons. In this case, it is obvious that it is not just the two presidents who are being critized but the policies of their states, which they formally represent. Not very difficult to understand, is it? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Newcomer, yes. I agree that the respective leaders are criticized, but to go from that to hating the entire countries is very big leap. // Liftarn (talk) 14:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me say again in case it is forgotten: w:Anti-Zionism and w:Anti-Americanism also refer to the opposition or hostility against the policies of Israel and USA. That is a common meaning which cannot be ignored in categorization. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the issue of w:Anti-Zionism, I would note that the Wikipedia article says "opposition to the policies of the Israeli government, advocacy of an Israeli withdrawal from the Israeli-occupied territories etc., are not necessarily synonymous with anti-Zionism". Adambro (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) No, that is not what anti-Americanism is, and it certainly not what anti-zionism is. Anti-americanism is mainly that the Americans should go home, and not interfere in an imperialist way with the rest of the world. Anti-zionism is that Israel should not exist. That is a bit of a difference. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info -- From w:Anti-Zionism: Anti-Zionism can be opposition to various ideologies within Zionism, opposition to the Jewish state of Israel founded on that concept. Sometimes the term Anti-Zionism used to describe opposition to specific Israeli government policies. The term has been used both historically and in current debates to describe various religious, moral and political points of view in opposition to these, but their diversity of motivation and expression is sufficiently different that "anti-Zionism" cannot be seen as having a single ideology or source. [...]
  • From w:Anti-Americanism: The term Anti-Americanism, or anti-American sentiment, refers to broad opposition or hostility to the people, policies, or government of the United States[...]
  • It shouldn't be necessary to make these quotes if people did their homework properly (to stay mellow). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But, since Zio0nism has been described as a form of racism I guess we also can put Category:Zionism under Category:Racism and Category:Anti-Zionism under Category:Anti-racism... // Liftarn (talk) 15:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And even if this image would express anti-amaricanism, that does not make such a wide label an appropriate category. This cartoon is about Bush and the policies of his administration. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want to have a shouting match? COM:CAT says: "Narrow your search down to subcategories until you find the most specific category that fits the file you uploaded." The most specific category is Category:Caricatures of George W. Bush by Carlos Latuff. That will do. Commons is not Flickr, no need to add anti-americanism as a tag. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That only works if Category:Caricatures of George W. Bush by Carlos Latuff was a subcategory of anti-Americanism. I've looked and it doesn't seem to be. Are you suggesting the Caricatures of George W. Bush by Carlos Latuff category should be added to the anti-Americanism category? Adambro (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That may actually be a better idea than adding it to individual images. A quick look at the other images in that category suggests it might be appropriate. Adambro (talk) 16:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lol... I disagree, because a search on Anti-americanism would not retrieve these cartoons -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Broad categories like that you can add to Category:Caricatures of the United States. Which does not make much sense, because many of those are by Americans, from American newspapers. But also this image here could be in an American publication - why not? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alvesgaspar, that's just how subcategories are meant to work. We don't add every photo of a Ford car to Category:Car, we find a more appropriate subcategory or create one if there are a lot of images in Category:Car which have share a common characteristic, e.g manufacturer. Or have I missed something here? In response to Pieter, I wouldn't assume that all Caricatures of the United States are anti-American but it might be true that all Caricatures of George W. Bush by Carlos Latuff are. Adambro (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many other cartoons of the US would be equally anti-American. But one could add Latuff to Category:Antifascists. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've already got enough on our hands just considering two categories at the moment, anti-Americanism and anti-Zionism. I am sure that many of the other Caricatures of the United States are anti-American but probably not all and it is harder to judge due to all the subcategories than the smaller Caricatures of George W. Bush by Carlos Latuff category. Adambro (talk) 16:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment @Adambro – I fully agree with the principle of sub categorization. But, in this case, we would be mixing different worlds in a single category: the one of people (George Bush), the one of cartoons and cartoonists (Latuff’s works) and the one of political ideas (anti-Americanism). I really don’t think this is a sound categorization approach. Furthermore, assuming that all caricatures of Bush made by Latuff are anti-American is formally abusive. My laugh comes from the naïve attempt of Pieter Kuiper to make the anti-American category magically disappear, which was exposed by your next suggestion (which I considered a joke). @Kuiper – Please try to raise the intellectual level of your comments, people are not stupid here. Until now, you have not presented a single argument against my proposed methodology, as well as to the fact that this particular cartoon opposes America, its leader or its policies and, for this reason, should be included in the category Anti-Americanism. I hope this is not a tactics of yours to make people give up the discussion. Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Goodbye Alves "lol" gaspar. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-Americanism

[edit]

Since anti-Americanism refers to "refers to broad opposition" (my emphasis) I don't think it applies here since this is very narrow criticism. // Liftarn (talk) 18:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polls on categorization

[edit]

I would like to propose three 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 three different categories: Anti-Semitism, Anti-Zionism and Anti-Americanism. 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, w:Anti-Zionism and w:Anti-Americanism. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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?

Anti-Americanism

[edit]

 Question -- Do you think that Category: Anti-Americanism is adequate for classifying this image?

Use neutral categories

[edit]

Do not use categories starting with "anti-". Instead, use neutral terms such as "Cartoons concerning Judaism", "Cartoons concerning the United States" and "Cartoons concerning Zionism".

A try at understanding

[edit]

This comment is mainly addressed to Starscream (but others that share his view are welcomed to reply too), and for the sake of keeping discussions and votes separate I'm putting it down here.

Honest question: Is George W. Bush or Ariel Sharon (as terrorists) supposed to represent Zionism in this cartoon? If so, how? I thought Zionism was about the existence of the Jewish state. I think both the "anti-Americanism" and "anti-Zionism" categories and their application to this image can be treated similarly (correct me if I'm wrong), so I'm going to switch to the American side of it because I am more familiar with that and have not such a great understanding of the full complexity of (anti-)Zionism. I know a lot of people (myself included) who oppose certain things the US government does, however, I am definitely not anti-American. If someone called Bush a terrorist, I would not say that's anti-Americanism. If someone said Americans are terrorists, then that label may apply (although arguments can be made that they're simply stating a fact, or that terrorism isn't a negative thing as I'm sure some terrorists believe). I think most people make a distinction between government and country, so if you will, please help me understand the logic behind your assessment of this image. Also, what do you mean by "Ziosnism is criminal ideology"? Is it 1984 somewhere in the world where belief and ideas are crimes? Rocket000 (talk) 21:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the appropriate place for a typical debate. Generally, from the perspective of the native population of Palestine, Zionism is very criminal. Some kind of chauvinism. I will not say more because prohibited by Commons rules. You must know the history of Palestine from other sources than just the mass media and Hollywood. Two dudes in this cartoon have hurt many innocent people. From the perspective of innocent people, these two guys are horrible bandits. Greetings. --Starscream (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
:( I openly and honestly asked for help with understanding your views and you reply with that unhelpful bullshit. Throwing the "ignorant American" stereotype at me was a nice touch. Conversation over. Rocket000 (talk) 23:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:Stopfundingterror.gif&oldid=45274363"