Talk:Carlos Latuff

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
WikiProject Comics This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Edit the article attached to this page or discuss it at the project talk page. Help with current tasks, or visit the notice board.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. Please explain the rating here.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's importance scale.
This article has been automatically rated as Stub-Class by the Comics WikiProject because it uses a stub template.
  • If you agree with the assessment, please remove auto=yes from the {{Comicsproj}} template above.
  • If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class= parameter in the {{Comicsproj}} template above and removing the stub template from the article.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Contents

[edit] from Vfd

On 17 Feb 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Latuff for a record of the discussion.


[edit] AKdH/NPOV

I feel the quote "According AKdH,"the cartoon stands for the extermination of the Jewish people and the state of Israel" is not a NPOV so I removed it. That is simply one groups interpretation of a cartoon.Unklelemmy 20:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


You're right. Although it is a shockingly racist cartoon - unless its meant to be ironic!

[edit] pov sentence deleted

Sentence deleted: " Latuff's drawings are inspired by a deep jew-hatred. As every genocidal antisemite, he likes to compare the Jews to the Nazis."

[edit] changed picture to more relative artwork

the picture in this is out of touch for the style and contents of latuff's work. so i updated it, (used with permission) -Wolfe 05:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not just Israel

Shouldn't the article point out that he's not just anti-Israel, but also anti-America and anti-McDonalds?

[edit] Likud threatening Latuff

I deleted the sentence on a site linked to the likud threatening latuff, because it gives a misleading impresion. The site doesn't really threaten him in the way which is implied.

I rephrased it a bit so that people can draw their own conclusions. // Liftarn

I removed it because it appears to be a minor spat on some personal websites and blogs, none of them reliable sources, and only mentioned here for the purpose of POV-pushing. Jayjg (talk) 16:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stubbing

I have stubbed this article since beyond the first sentence it is entirely unencyclopedic and pov. The article was more akin to something one would find in a political pamplet rather than any kind of encyclopedia. I must say that I find it hard to believe that even a unabashed partisan could write such an article. I would re-write the article, but I must admit that I am only semi-familar with the this cartoonist but it is obvious that a stub is preferable to what was present before.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 13:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, but why don't you tell us what is "unencyclopedic and pov". It looks to the point and is well sourced. // Liftarn
Well sourced? I was unable to find even one reliable source on the page; can you point me to any that were reliable? Jayjg (talk) 03:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Then you couldn't have bothered to look very hard, but why not use the {{fact}} instead of blanking almost the entire article? // Liftarn
Actually, I looked quite hard, and I didn't blank any of the article. I didn't even edit it. I will now, though. Jayjg (talk) 16:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Is that a threat? // Liftarn
Huh? Jayjg (talk) 16:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Because it isn't only about not being properly sourced, the entire article is unacceptably pov. Unless someone rewrites the article to better abide by the npov policy, it cannot stand.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

In what way is it "unacceptably pov". If you feel that way you should put in POV banner and state your objection on the talk page, not just blank the article. // Liftarn

Your reasoning does not make very much sense. I'm sorry if you cannot honestly understand that there is anything pov in the article, but it would be clear to just about any person that this article needs a rewrite. If I only meekly stated my thougths on the talk page, nothing would happen and the article would stay in its sorry state. You obviously seem to want this so I suppose I can understand why you don't want someone to actually edit it, but that is not what wikipedia is about.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Please assume some good faith here and state what your problems are. Just blanking the article will not help your case. // Liftarn
I don't believe that I have done anything that shows a lack of good faith, there is a difference between stubbing an article and blanking the article. It is relativley common for editors and administrators to stub an article as an interim measure to remove pov or otherwise inappropriate material until one can rewrite the article to better conform with policy. If you want the article to be full and complete you will rewrite to address my concerns rather that simply reverting me and ignoring everything that I have written.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
So far you haven't written anything substantial that I can ignore. Please state the nature of your problems with the article. // Liftarn
The tone of the article is completely pov, passages like "Latuff decided to support the Palestinian people, through his art, against the long-term Israeli occupation" do not even carry the pretense of neutrality, while the events which could be used to portray the alternant view of Latuff that one would expect to find in an encyclopedia article about someone or something as controversial as the wider subject, are all either one sentence descriptions as in- "In Israel a local branch of Indymedia websites was sued in 2003 for showing latuff's cartoon of Ariel Sharon kissing Adolf Hitler", or are sandwiched in between praise of Latuff that gives the impression that only crazy hate-filled right-wingers are opposed to his work. While the passage- "In September 2006, a website associated to Israeli right-wing party Likud", attempts to treate a mainstream political party that is actually rather moderate as if they were extremist reactionaries. The tone of the article is totally inappropriate, since I did not write the article I was hoping that those that did would be encouaged to rewrite it by stubbing it.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's break it down to analyse it. "Latuff decided to support the Palestinian people" Yes, the sources support that. "through his art" Well, obviously. "against the long-term Israeli occupation" Since 1967, i.e. almost 40 years. That can be described as "long-term". anyway, I have rewritten it a bit. The passage on the Likud site states what happend. It says nothing about "extremist reactionaries", altough it does say "right-wing" while they may more be centre-right. I've fixed that too. // Liftarn

You are correct to say that it describes what happens, but it describes these events in a very pov and biased tone.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 13:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Since you are the only one to see it that way could you please explain what is POV and how you feel it should be changed. // Liftarn
Actually I'm not the only one to feel that way, in fact in the last day or so that I have been here there have been two people who have expressed or implied agreement with me while only one person with you. I have given a few specific examples of what I am talking about, but the easiest way to npov this article would be to simply rewrite everything as matter-of-fact as possible and give equal footing to different viewpoints.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 16:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Your examples have been fixed. Everything is written in a matter-of-fact style already. And what do you refer to when you write "give equal footing to different viewpoints"? Fine, dig up some anti-Latuff stuff and put it into the article. I have googled for a while, but haven't found anything yet. The article does include quotes from the Likud website and clearly represent a different viewpoint. // Liftarn
If thats your honest belief then I will do my own rewrite when I get the chance within the next couple of days.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I've given it a try. I think the article also has a better flow now. Before it was just a bunch of facts stacked on each other. // Liftarn

I've removed some of the worst of it, and asked for reliable sources for the rest. This is the biography of a living person, so we must be especially careful to use only top quality sources, and not include anything that could be seen as defamatory. Jayjg (talk) 16:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
By the way, what on earth gave you the notion that various blogs, or The Illuminati News website were reliable sources? Jayjg (talk) 17:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
They are reliable sources about themself and their own views. // Liftarn
A source like "The Illuminati News" would only be acceptable as a source on an article about "The Illuminati News", and even then only in a very limited way.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
As Moshe says. This is a Biography of a Living Person. If I see that material from blogs and "The Illuminati News" in there again, I'll simply revert from now on. If you add information that could be viewed as defamatory, or dangerous to Wikipedia, you will be blocked. Add only verifiable information from reliable sources. Take this seriously. Jayjg (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah, the double standard strike again. Please check Talk:Adnan Hajj photographs controversy#Blogs_as_sources where blogs are considered perfectly OK and Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#Blogs again where it seems to be a gray area. // Liftarn
There's no double standard; blogs are not reliable sources unless they're notable blogs. Jayjg (talk) 17:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
A blog is a blog. Making distinctions is impossible. // Liftarn
Nonsense. Some blogs are famous, like Boing Boing and Little Green Footballs. Some blogs are written by famous people, like Andrew Sullivan. And the rest (the vast majority), are non-notable. Jayjg (talk) 18:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
LGFB is perhaps infamous, but that hardly makes it mroe reliable. // Liftarn

Added two reliable sources in Portuguese language (a interview with Carlos Latuff made on 1999 and a news from one of the biggests Internet Service Provider on Brazil: Terra Networks). Lots of articles on English Wikipedia have sources in non-English languages. 555pt | msg | msg on w:pt 16:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Added another one, from a news agency of Partido Comunista do Brasil. 555pt | msg | msg on w:pt 16:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

I believe that the links section should be rewritten, and then the POV issues could be considered solved. 200.178.22.27 18:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] removed original research/POV adjective "racist" in intro

i removed the adjective "racist" from the first sentence, as this would constitute either original research or POV, depending on whether you consider it to be a factual type of description or an opinion.

If someone wants to, s/he could summarise NPOV content of the article and put in the introductory sentences, e.g. "has been accused by XXX to be racist in charges that were dropped by the judge" etc. (i'm not making a real summary here, just showing the NPOV style).

i put in "controversial" - since i think it's reasonably NPOV to say that someone who has been the subject of a court case and who, it seems, Likud would like to assassinate, is controversial.

Boud 22:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maariv?

the link claiming to be a source for him being printed in Maariv does not prove anything -- 790 20:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] edits by James Force

The controversy is already sufficiently covered in the article. The unsourced edits add nothing new but NPOV problems. Sources for these assertions would be helpful, but may not fully address POV issues. --Bhuston 17:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPA

I had to remove a couple of sections filled with personal attacks. May I suggest the participants get familiar with Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Further actions will have to be taken. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BLP

As it says on the top of the page "This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous.". Now some editors who should know better have repetedly inserted the unsourced comment that his cartoons are "antilocution cartoons that demonize". I've added a comment about it at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard to get some input. // Liftarn

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 to avoid original research. And by the way, I don't think a right-wing terrorist group can be consididered to be 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 frinedslet'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 [citation needed] 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

[edit] Disputed

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

[edit] Link farm

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.



External links "should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article." (WP:EL)   I have added {{cleanup}}, {{External links}} and {{NoMoreLinks}} to the article as a start.

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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/a/r/Talk%7ECarlos_Latuff_7473.html"