File talk:The chosen and the chased by Latuff2.jpg

Polls on categorization

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

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

---

•  Oppose since there is no trace of it anywhere in the picture. // Liftarn (talk)
•  Oppose any form of POV cartoon categorization: suggest to use "semitisme related cartoons" or "Zionisme related cartoons" --Foroa (talk) 08:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Starscream (talk) 14:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC) 100% Nonsens. I quote from en. Wikipedia: "My detractors say that the use of the Magen David in my Israel-related cartoons is irrefutable proof of antisemitism; however, it’s not my fault if Israel chose sacred religious motifs as national symbols, such as the Knesset Menorah or the Star of David in killing-machines like F-16 jets."
•  Oppose per Liftarn and Foroa. -84user (talk) 18:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Zionism

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

---

•  Oppose since it criticise racism, but not Israel as such. // Liftarn (talk)
  • Where on this picture is racism? Both characters are one race! --Starscream (talk) 18:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose any form of POV cartoon categorization: suggest to use "semitisme related cartoons" or "Zionisme related cartoons" --Foroa (talk) 08:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Zionism is criminal and this cartoon showing this very good. --Starscream (talk) 14:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Support -- Because the cartoon illustrates opposition to the policies or behaviour of the state of Israel ([1]) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Liftarn and Foroa. Although I cannot see any racism either. I do see different flags, implying different nationalities. -84user (talk) 18:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Racism

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

---

•  Support since racism (classifying people depending on their ethnicity) is a central theme. // Liftarn (talk)
•  Oppose Everybody on this cartoon are one race. The more nonsense than "antisemitism". --Starscream (talk) 14:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- Ridiculous, not a serious proposal. Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Confused: because I cannot see any racism. Any implied racism appears to require some extra knowledge not evident in the image. I am aware that the concepts of ethnicity and race are a minefield, and that also motivates me to ignore them both in Commons. File:Nonazis.gif is classified under Category:Racism and appears to show a man giving the finger to a man with a swastika together with the words "No Palestinian Haters" and "No Jew Haters". Equating "man with a swastika " with a form of racism I can understand it as expressing anti-racism. Unless an image makes it very explicit with words I canot see any non-controversial way of categorising these. -84user (talk) 18:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

•  Comment -- I fail to see how categorizing a picture with "Anti-semitism" or "Anti-zionism" is automatically a POV. Does this strange principle also apply to categorizing all other subjective subjects in Art, Philosphy, Ethics, etc., or only to contemporary Politics? Please remember that those concepts are addressed, in a more or less precise way, in the literature. Please check w:Antisemitism, w:Anti-Zionism and w:Anti-Americanism. Also note that categorizing a file is not a political action but a way to make its retrieval easier. Maybe Foroa and 84user want to explain better why they consider the application of those categories a POV -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I also fail to see why "Semitism related" or "Zionism related" wouldn't be a POV too. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Because it is in the eye of the beholder, cartoons, like most artwork, are often subject to personal interpretation. Anti-semitisme is a judgment, semitisme related is a qualification. Israel related or Jews related is even more npov. See Commons:Village_pump#Proposal. --Foroa (talk) 21:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
    • A judgement? And to what kind of media does this limitation apply? Only to Latuff's cartoons or to all pictures in the categories of Antisemitism and Anti-Zionism, for example, to this one and all similar nazi-produced propaganda? Or, to be totally coherent, should we get rid of these categories because its application is always a question of "personal interpretation"? On the same line of reasoning, should we also delete Semitism and Zionism? And what about Nazism and Anti- Nazism? Is the application of the first label a qualification and the second a judgement? Where, precisely, do you suggest to trace the diving line? I am well aware of Commons:Village_pump#Proposal. I started that discussion, which only applies to a specific picture. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

"Anti-zionism" is a very tricky label since it can be interpreted as anything from "Opposition to racism" to "I want a nuclear crater where Israel now is." and "Anti-semitism" is tricky since the use of the word has been hijacked and used as a way to smear anyone who is critical of any Israeli action. // Liftarn (talk)

• Maybe, "cartoons related to Israel" would be a more neutral poistion indeed. If you are so convinced that the definition of w:Antisemitism, w:Anti-Zionism and w:Anti-Americanism is so clear (in your eyes), why you have so little support for it ? And if a cartoon seems to be w:Antisemitism, some people might interprete it as w:Anti-Antisemitism, so should we create such a category ? We have indeed a tricky Category:Dictators. But anyway, cartoons are a special case and even more tricky than factual images or subcats. --Foroa (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, It is in a subcat of Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict cartoons so the idea of a "cartoons related to Israel" category is already implemented. // Liftarn (talk) 21:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Candid  Question -- Should this picture be also put in a neutral category, e.g. "Cartoons related to the Jews", or the principle only applies to Latuff's cartoons? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
      • I don't think it applies in obvious cases. It certainly applies in cases where people want to label valid political dissent as antisemitism. // Liftarn (talk)
        • Obvious for whom? I say again that categorizing an image is not a political act, as its only purpose is to facilitate retrieval. So, you don't consider anti-zionism (i.e., the opposition to Israel and its policies) a "valid political dissident"? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
          • Obvious to any sensible person. Also supported by reliable sources. The problem with the term "anti-zionism" is that it's a Rorschach test. It can be anything and nothing. As a term it's useless. // Liftarn (talk)