Talk:Carlos Latuff

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Flag
Portal
 Carlos Latuff is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Brazil and Brazil-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
To-do list for Brazil:
Carlos Latuff is part of WikiProject Palestine - a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page where you can add your name to the list of members and contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Palestine articles.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
WikiProject Comics
comics
Portal
This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Help with current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project talk page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Please explain the rating here.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Unsourced statements

I find that I am unable to add a source for a statement on "Conflict of intrest", as it was first pointed out by a website that is blocked from Wikipedia.

[edit] Incorrect Early Childhood and Marriage Sections

I deleted the early childhood and marriage because Latuff himself stated that neither of them contain even remotely correct information about his own life. See his journal entry at http://latuff2.deviantart.com/journal/12537737/ . Besides Wikipedia policies state that "controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately." Dancewiththesky 17:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[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)
Wikipedia is against ORIGINAL RESEARCH, and having Latuff overlooking his wiki page is certainly a breach!!

Noble Jew

[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 {{Fact}} 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)

[edit] Carlos Latuff does not approve this article.

Latuff has stated himself that he thinks this Wikipedia article is a joke and should not be taken seriously. This can be read on his journal, titled Don't trust on Wikipedia.

Should this article be proposed for deletion? TheOneTheyCall 19:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

considering that latuff himself has reverted things he didn't like on this article (look it up on the history) and that he attended a holocaust denial propaganda display. i'm not sure latuff's own interpertations make his article on wiki less or more notable. his activity for the independant however, makes him a fairly notable character and therefore, I will not support an AfD proposal. Jaakobou 21:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
The journal entry is about false data (the BS about his family and mother), if you like to readd information, do so in a critisism subtitle and not in the main article. Peewack 06:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It appears it was added by User:Eternalsleeper[49]. It gave some links[50][51][52][53] that perhaps can be used to expand (and fix!) the article. // Liftarn

wait a second. a month ago, i try to insert some information from a ben heine interview with latuff where he put a link to it from his devArt journal and latuff supporters repeatedly removed the citation and link on the premisis that "it's a blog" here's the edit. this was then removed by you liftarn, on the premisis that "it's a blog"[54]... so now we follow blogs all of a sudden? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaakobou (talk • contribs) 08:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC).
Good point. It's still a blog, but now it's approved by the subject himself (as far as I can tell) so now we know (sortof) it's genuine. But you are right that generally blogs should not be used as sources. // Liftarn
Wikipedia should not generally be linking to blogs as sources of information. The policy is "Links normally to be avoided [include:...] Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority." (Although blogs can be a first point of call, which might cite more authoritative sources or give info that can be verified elsewhere.) However, blogs noted by Lifarn seem to me, on the whole, to dall in the "recognized authority" category. None of them are simply personal blogs of individuals with axes to grind, but are fairly serious websites. The [Ben Heine interview on his blog, which appears to be approved by Latuff, is a good source even though it is published on a blog. The Voice of the Republic interview is not on a blog and seems like a good source, unless Latuff or others claim it is not authentic. Iraq Slogger is technically a blog, but appears to be created by serious journalists and cites its sources pretty clearly. Palestine Chronicle doesn't look like a blog to me.
Personal information that Latuff disputes should not on any account be here, unless there is a strong reason to believe it is true and it is very clearly contextualized (e.g. something like "X alleges that... by this is denied by Latuff himself", with citations of sources of both allegations and rebuttals). The disputed info has now been removed, which seems right to me.
The section Published works seems to me to contain contentious material that ought to be in the Controversies section. I think I'll go and do that now. BobFromBrockley 10:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Latuff has personally told me is is gay but does not want this information revealed because he says it is irrelevant and should not matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul T. Evans (talk • contribs)
That would be original research, on http://latuff2.deviantart.com/journal/12537737/ he writes "If I had a gay relationship I would have no problem making it public"... // Liftarn

[edit] New Photo of Carlos Latuff

I don't know if I have editing privileges on this page. I would like to suggest that since the non-sourced photo of Latuff was removed, why not use this one from his web site? http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/19193141/ Photo by Zulmair Rocha reflects his interest in Palestine issue. Carol Moore 03:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

I see on April 21st the old photo was put back. I don't know how long it will last. Here is one that is actually by Latuff himself so maybe that will have less of a problem, though reading the type of copyright required, not sure. Yet other of his art has been allowed to be put up. http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/53023131/ The photo policy sure is complicated!!

Carol Moore 18:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Pick whatever photo you will find, all of them give off the same flamboyant impression! And he swears it's not true! [[User:Noble

Jew|Noble Jew]]

[edit] Gay art

Shall we post something about his gay art collection that is accessible on his page [55]? He has several pictures of gay pride from Rio de Janeiro, a picture of "thinking about being lesbian" and a couple others. What do ya'll think? eternalsleeper

It could go under the Themes section perhaps... Do you have some examples? // Liftarn
Yes, you can see his gay art [56] or [57] it appears he removed the drawings of 'girls who like girls' and a 'gay preacher.' eternalsleeper
So what we have is not cartoons, but two photos from a gay pride parade. Hardly worth mentioning unless we can get a WP:RS for it. // Liftarn
I still have his gay cartoons, not sure why he deleted them. If you want I can send them to you :)
eternalsleeper|eternalsleeper

Sorry, that's no good. // Liftarn

Why are you sorry? He removed the homosexual drawings from his websites. I am cynical as to why. But I have my own assumptions, most of which are obvious. No reason to be sorry. But I think we should add a picture of his gay photography to show that he is interested in other things then politics.eternalsleeper
Why should they be included? In what way are they notable? And why isn't it politics? // Liftarn
It's well know the gay people enjoy, ahem, little rights in Palestine or Iran and Iraq (as opposed to Israel). I guess eternalsleeper wanted to highlight the irony of the fact Latuff sympathises with the people who would opress him if he was born there and not in Brazil, while calling the world-leading in tolerance Israelis the "Nazis". --HanzoHattori 12:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Latuff obviously support opressed peoples, regardless if they are gays, Palestinians or native americans. // Liftarn
Latuff obviously supports those who pay him when he makes antisemetic hate art or nazi comparisment to any leader he doesn't like. if he were a ture supporter of oppressed people he'd go after lebanon, egypt, yemen, iraq, syria.. maybe to iran and sudan... not israel. Jaakobou 13:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Well there is no reason just to show his anti-Israel work, there should also be a section that shows his gay support. I wouldn't go as far to say he supports all oppressed people... there are millions of oppressed people in Islamic countries which he wouldn't dare to touch.... I have never seen his work on native Americans... eternalsleeper
Oh, there was this pic where a Native American said "I am Palestinian" for some reason. And I've seen one showing how the evil UN soldiers are opressing the people of Haiti or something (yes, I know the Haitians are black now). --84.234.60.154 14:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually most of his work is (of obvious reasons) about various South American issues. For instance about Chiapas[58]. As for oppressed people in Islamic countries there is the entire Tales of Iraq War series.[59] // Liftarn

Hmmm, has anyone considered WEB SITE GLITCHES? DeviantArt is not controlled by Latuff but evidently one of those free sites where what you do not PAY for is what you get. For example look at this incompletely loaded Latuff work I ran across!
Also, I just want to remind us all that gay and straight are not the only options. After all probably 50% of humanity would swing both ways if it weren't for all the taboos on bisexuality. Hey, maybe even 50% of the editors of wikipedia editors would swing both ways in a truly free world :-)

Carol Moore 16:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

It's only opression by the EVIL AMERICANS. In "the entire Tales of Iraq War series" Saddam Hussein, the tyrant who eventually had homosexuality a capital crime, is presented as a hero, directing Iraqi freedom fighters from heaven (I'm serious), and the "Iraqi resistance" is only killing the American occupiers (who in turn slaughter innocent Iraqis left and right, I guess all these mosque or marketplace truck bombs are driven by them too). It must be some sort of alternative-reality Iraq, like his fantasy versions of freedom-fighting Palestine and Nazi "Israhell". --84.234.60.154 14:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it is well past time to ban Liftarn from further editing of this article for his incessent POV violations and continuing vandalism. He has continually re-edited the accurate descriptions of the Iranian conference in which Latuff eagerly participated as a pro-Hitler pro-Nazi affair - which it WAS! It is therefore of interest in assessing Latuff's motivation for his willing collaboration. Liftarn's own page demonstrates his hard-core "anti-zionism" (which in his case MIGHT or MIGHT NOT be related to a deeper Jew-hatred) so he is obviously not neutral on this topic, and clearly wants to slant this entry in this way that most favorably reflects his idol's point of view. That is hardly the appropriate way to compose a neutral encyclopedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.68.166.9 (talk • contribs)

It wasn't pro-Hitler, it was pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli. Invoking Hitler is soooo Latuff (and Godwin's Law). --HanzoHattori 17:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It really humors me that you say he defends oppressed peoples in Islamic countries; I beg the differ. You do not see him draw any cartoons about Saudi Arabia - where people cannot choose what religion they are or their sexual orientation. Latuff is just an anti-Semite/anti-American nobody.

eternalsleeper

It appears obvious from latuffs work that he does not like Jewish people, Americans, or the Brazillian government. I find it funny this article is always locked. Israel is one of the most democratic countries in the world, and does it all under the threat of their existance each day. I know Palestinian Arabs who say life in Israel for them is better then any other Arab country, just like a Western country. Israel is rated as one of the best places in the world to live. Even Adolf Eichman received a fair trial despite being Hitlers henchman.
--Eternalsleeper 04:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV Reverts on Cartoon Competition

I'm not an experienced enough editor to know how to deal with these people who keep replacing a neutral paragraph that refers to WIKI articles with a negative and argumentative point of view paragraph with no sourcing or "original research." I'll leave it to someone else to revert, since I wrote new version. Also note I left the same link in to the cartoon that also is footnote 1, leaving it to a more experienced editor to decide which is the better way to let people see the Latuff cartoon and other winners of the contest.

NEUTRAL PARAGRAPH THAT HAS BEEN REPLACED BY POV PARAGRAPH TWICE: In 2006, Latuff entered, was placed second and won $4,000 in the International Holocaust Cartoon Competition sponsored by the Iranian government that was a response to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy meant to test Western tolerance for free speech. Latuff's image showed a Muslim Palestinian in a striped inmate's outfit next to the Israeli West Bank barrier, an obvious comparison to Jewish inmates of a Nazi concentration camp.[1]

Carol Moore 15:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Sorry, Carol, your paragraph is far from a "neutral" one; it simply reiterates the PR propoganda of the organizers themselves. They were not simply "testing Western tolerance for free speech" but aiming to insult and defame holocaust victims and survivors and thereby to whitewash nazi atrocities and genocide. This was made very clear by the statements of the Iranian president in advance and at the time of the conference. Your phrase "an obvious comparison" also makes clear your own POV agenda of legitimizing this racist/fascist affair.

If that is true, then the editor should provide credible, unbiased sources, not just personal opinions.
Carol Moore 20:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc
memri has a recording of the Iranian broadcast on the holocaust display. the main theme of that show is how the holocaust is a myth and "zionists/jews are evil"...(no mention of the muhammad cartoons). i havn't seen such a skewed and racist display on mainstream media in quite some time. i think that your insistance on the link shows you havn't payed much attention to Iranian media. drop by memri and look for "iran holocaust" see what bigoted and/or racist gems you come up with. Jaakobou 04:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
First, of course, we have no way of knowing if that is an accurate translation of what the woman commentator has to say in Iranian. Second, MEMRI of course is little better than a propaganda arm of the Israel government, so it's translation is not very credible. Third, there were dozens of mainstream articles in English by credible journalists done about this event. So the fact that you can't find ONE to agree with your contention is certainly suspicious. Fourth, mine was a minimalist interpretation using wiki sources, not an attempt to survey every commentator pro and con who ever wrote on it, reading in every language in which it originally was written. I'm not saying what I wrote is definitive, but at least it is not ripe with POV. Feel free to prove your point with mainstream credible sources that are NOT in service to a foreign state. I know I'm not in service to any dang state :-)
Carol Moore 01:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc
MEMRI is considered reliable source (WP:RS) for translations, they've been fetured on CNN and many other highly serious agencies who double check the translations of MEMRI. as for articles, you'll need to find some farsi one (or trasliteration) to counter this document. Jaakobou 03:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

HanzoHattori edits obviously are better. However re: the remaining sentence “Latuff has refused to state whether he agrees with the Iranian government's attempts at Holocaust denial.”

Question: What proof do you have he has not commented on this or even refused to? Do you have a source? I mean we could go through all the biographies of living people and find controversies where we could just make UNsourced comments that individuals have NOT commented on some controversy with which they were involved.

Please provide a source that he refuses to comment or I’ll change it to the more POV neutral:

In 2006, Latuff entered, was placed second and won $4,000 in the highly controversional International Holocaust Cartoon Competition, a competition and conference sponsored by the Iranian government. The competition has been lambasted as an example of Iranian government Holocaust denial. Latuff's image compared the Israeli West Bank barrier with the Nazi concentration camps.[2]

Carol Moore 16:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

I support Carol Moore's version as neutal and accurate. BobFromBrockley 11:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest this

In 2006, Latuff entered, was placed second and won $4,000 in the highly controversional International Holocaust Cartoon Competition, a competition and conference sponsored by the Iranian government. The competition has been lambasted as an example of Iranian government Holocaust denial. Latuff's image compared the Israeli West Bank barrier with the Nazi concentration camps.

If you want to know about the competition it's just a click away. // Liftarn

I think it would be good for the mention to give some indication that it was controversial - and that therefore Latuff has come under criticism for it. BobFromBrockley 16:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
i agree with User:Bobfrombrockley, as that this holocaust denial "display" was highly controvercial. Jaakobou 17:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Do you have a source fo that? // Liftarn
A reference? The cartoon competition is scarcely mentioned without the prefix "controversial". Here's a couple of examples "Controversial Holocaust Cartoon Exhibition Opens", "Iran Manipulates Cartoon Conflict, Germans Say", "...controversial contest" (News24). CAIR, who are hardly Zionists, condemned the exhibition. BobFromBrockley 11:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

A source for that Latuff has come under criticism for it. References about the competition goes into that article. // Liftarn

OK, per conversation above, I took out highly before controversial; also noted there is no reference to conference in WIKI article on competition so took that out. NOW READS:
In 2006, Latuff entered, was placed second and won $4,000 in the controversial International Holocaust Cartoon Competition sponsored by the Iranian government. The competition has been lambasted as an example of Iranian government Holocaust denial. Latuff's image compared the Israeli West Bank barrier with the Nazi concentration camps.[3]
Carol Moore 16:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc
That looks good to me. Yes, the conference and competition were completely unrelated, so mention of competition not at all relevant. BobFromBrockley 16:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it could be trimmed. // Liftarn

I disagree with the way you have trimmed it. It is vital that the competition is mentioned as controversial, as it is meaningless without signalling that there is a context. I think "lambasted", as quite an emotive word, could be replaced with "criticised", but I think that the reason it was controversial is important to state, otherwise it is unclear what the deal is, and why it merits mention in the Latuff article. BobFromBrockley 14:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Then find a source saying that Latuff have been criticized for it. Otherwise it belongs more under "Published works". // Liftarn
I have done so. BobFromBrockley 12:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so a business strategist is a reliable source for political cartoons? Well, his views ere published. Anyway, I trimmed some irrelevant fluff (again). // Liftarn

Boy, this entry keeps getting more messed up! The latest revision is grammatically incorrect, and the one it revised doesn't have needed short description of who Manfred Gerstenfeld is or More Importantly where he allegedly commented on Latuff. And of course doesn't it define Holocaust Inversion, who came up with the phrase and if it is widely used. Carol Moore 12:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Liftarn, can you explain why you think what you are removing is irrelevant fluff? It seems to me to be well sourced information stating that his work was considered controversial, which is neither "fluff" nor "irrelevant", and given that at least three people are reverting you, the community doesn't seem to understand what you are doing and why. Please explain. --OuroborosCobra 13:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
It is stuff about the competition (and that has it's own article) and is not directly relevant to Latuff's entry in the contest. Since the competition is well covered in it's own article it is pointless to repeat the same information in this article. // Liftarn
I thought it was important that something like the word "controversial" be there because it would not be clear why this is significant. Liftarn requested that for such a word to remain, there needed to be references, which I therefore added. Although most of these criticisms do not relate to Latuff himself, he was one of the most prominent competitors, and (I think) all of the cited articles mention his contribution. The "Holocaust inversion" criticism specifically singled out Latuff, whether or not this phrase is widely used. (745 google hits - neither particularly widely used, nor a completely obscure neologism.) I don't know anything about Manfred Gerstenfeld, but, as with the competition itself, readers can click the link to find out more.BobFromBrockley 10:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, "controversial" is in and Manfred Gerstenfeld is described correctly (without the appeal to authority he don't have). // Liftarn
I'm nearly happy with that, but am not sure he is just a "business strategist", although "scholar" certainly gave him an authority he didn't deserve. I will have a look at some of his writings before I do any editing. BobFromBrockley 12:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, by training he is a chemist and economist, he holds a Ph.D. in Environmental Studies and a high school teacher degree in Judaism. But his work has been as a business strategist. // Liftarn
Well, if that's right, he's a bit of a generalist, and his expertise in this does not come from his work as a business strategist. It's like discussing Chomsky's analysis of geo-politics but always calling him a "linguist". Not convinced. BobFromBrockley 13:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
He's far from as well known as Chomsky, but it might be a good idea to cut out the title entierly. // Liftarn

[edit] Sunni magazine

There is currently a paragraph in the crits section about a publication in an Iraqi Sunni magazine. I edited it a bit to make it factual and neutral. However, unless this has actually been criticised, e.g. by some source which can definitively link Al-Raed with the insurgency (I couldn't find any such link via google), I suggest this section is removed, perhaps to the published works section, perhaps altogether. BobFromBrockley 12:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know even if such magazine exists. Latuff claimed on his DeviantArt account they published his cartoon about Sunnis killing Americans soldiers (a kid and a man blowing up a Humvee with a RPG). I don't know if stuff like this is legal there (maybe in fact it is - freedom of speech and all that), but if not it's probably an underground paper. --HanzoHattori 11:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It was thi one: [60] (parody version) --HanzoHattori 11:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Since that is a parody version, and not actually made by Latuff, that obviously isn't "the one". --OuroborosCobra 16:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It's the one, just the text's obviously changed. I thought it was funny. --HanzoHattori 17:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not even think Latuf should have his own page. All he is is a "deviant art" user who attracts people who hate Americans and Jews. Latuff cannot even afford his own web site.
eternalsleeper
Do you have any citation to what he can and cannot afford? I can afford my own website, yet I do not have one, and post my art on deviantART instead, due to the community nature. As for the article, if you want it gone, nominate it for deletion, though given his involvement in the Iranian cartoons, he would seem to pass the notability test to me, which seems to be what you are suggesting he isn't meeting. --OuroborosCobra 22:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
To be honest I don't care about Latuff. It is my opinion that is he is simply a racist, anti-Jew, anti-American, etc. All he is is a DeviantART user who made his name known because he entered a Holocaust denial contest.
eternalsleeper
What you personally care about or believe is irrelevant. --OuroborosCobra 05:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thanks for letting me know captain Arabia.
eternalsleeper

[edit] Zionist entity harassing Latuff

I have read that the Zionist entity has been harassing Mr. Latuff and has sent Mossad spies to Brazil to shut him up. Anyone else heard this?

Paul T. Evans --Paul T. Evans 05:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
First off you would have to define the "Zionist entity", since there is no such named body that has any authority over the Mossad. In fact, by using an incorrect and highly POV term, you are probably already bringing into question the validity of your claim. Second off, it is a rather absurd claim, as Latuff does not do anything nearly threatening enough to the national interests or national security of Israel to warrant dispatching one of the best intelligence and covert services of the world on him. He is a cartoon artist, not a former member of the German SS, or an arms dealer, or the head of a terrorist organization. He is a cartoon artist. --OuroborosCobra 05:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Latuff has expressed concerns to me personally that some posts within this wiki, and the talk section do seem to POV against him directly, and he has been contacted by individuals. Having been through something similar recently myself, I wonder whether or not the persons involved are even the zionists they claim to be, but rather individuals that may be hoping for a backlash against jews. Just remember that a NPOV is required in all things wiki. ---Wolfe 03:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

i don't understand your backlash claim... regardless, what really worries me is that for years his cartoons have been "free" for all israel haters but now that they were linked on wikipedia as evidence to antisemitic referencing (i did not say he was antisemitic), he made a complete all around effort to remove them from the net. Jaakobou 10:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
They are still there on deviantart.com, what are you talking about?---Wolfe 18:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Latuff has removed pictures from his Deviantart page, most notably, after the gay section was created about him and "Javier" he removed the pictures he took of the Brazilian gay parade and one of "thinking about being lesbian." I still have copies. I think he still has one gay pride picture on his page. Doesn't make a difference. I agree Latuff is anti-Semite, but make your own decision.
--Eternalsleeper 06:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference to Kofi Annan should be made clearer

"The competition itself was controversial - it was criticised by Kofi Annan, Israel's Minister of Culture, Reporters Without Borders, the Anti-Defamation League and others." reads as if Annan was an Israeli minister. I suggest that the minister be named and that Annan be identified as the UN Secretary-General of the time.

I was going to change this myself, but the page is locked. Can someone who watches the page, please deal withit when the page is unlocked.--Peter cohen 11:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carlos is on Facebook

I have been friends with Carlos Latuff on Facebook.com now for nearly 3-months. I am just wondering because I've never seen this page, and I hope I don't offend anyone by saying this but Mr. Latuff is indeed, a homosexual and he is apparently married to a Jewish psychologist named Javier Latuff of Buenos Aires, Argentina and now Toronto Ontario. I do not see how this can be untrue because Javier is on the network of University of Toronto and for him to do this he required a genuine e-mail address there.

Basically, I just want to know why people were so offended that Carlos Latuff is a homosexual and he most likely is married, but on his facebook he says he's practically married. Why does this matter to you people? We are living in a free society, perhaps you aren't but why should you judge Latuff if he is gay. Latuff did the right thing and refused to answer if he was a homosexual or not because as he says, it should not matter. Sorry if I come across harsh, but I'm just been troubled by this homophobia that has been going on for the past while now at my school and now with Mr. Latuff.

THere is nothing wrong with being a homosexual, its not a disease and its certainly not your call to judge Mr. Latuff's private life.

Thank you, Aaron —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.152.104 (talk) 03:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

What strikes me as most important in what was added and removed is that he is Jewish, that his estranged father went on aliyah and that he (as you say above) has a Jewish partner. Material tends to refer to him as Brazilian and there is often an implication that he is anti-Semitic - sites critical of him that I have linked from this article certainly give that impression. Setting things within the context of his personal life will allow readers to view things differently. If you can provided references, then things should be included again. Though, please avoid references to time that will soon be dated such as his being four months married etc. --Peter cohen 12:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
None of the material is referenced. Being ones "facebook friend" means that this is all original research, no actual evidence provided. There is nothing to tell us that this isn't all made up by one person. No real evidence that you even are his facebook friend (not that it would matter). --OuroborosCobra 21:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
We can see who his Facebook friends are[61], but you are right about the original research. // Liftarn (talk)

[edit] image conflicts

i'm not entirely following this edit conflict - [62] - where an image with samples of the ariel sharon antilocutious series was removed. the explanation, i.e. "Image issues.", could/should be expanded if the editor insists on this change. JaakobouChalk Talk 16:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Non free images should not be used where free images are available. // Liftarn
four out of the 5 (that you are removing) have already been found with copyright-free tags (working on the fifth one) so this is not a great reasoning for a POV oriented content replacement. JaakobouChalk Talk 12:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] topic - due/undue

latuff has about 4-5 cartoons about how he does not like nazis. in contrast, he has more than 50 cartoons in his Anti-America section on infoshop. not to mention the number of anti-US cartoons inside the war in iraq comic strip of his. therefore, i see this edit as WP:UNDUE POV pushing and reverted. JaakobouChalk Talk 11:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

comment - a drive-by revert [63] is not a replacement to the talk page. JaakobouChalk Talk 15:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Are the comics "anti-US"? Do you have a source for that? It seems you have been inserting quite a bit of unsourced statements in the article. // Liftarn (talk)

latuff's own gallery is titled "anti-america". it seems you are avoiding the issue, which is that his anti-nazi cartoons take up no volume in his body of work. JaakobouChalk Talk 21:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the image Image:Nonazis.gif is usefull since it shows his position on hate (against both antisemitism and hate against Palestinians) as well as it is a self portrait (I think). Your inclusion of Image:HeilIsrael.jpg is even more undue weight since very few of his works are photo montages. // Liftarn (talk)
actually, there's a good number of photo montages; regardless, i'm not going to soapbox about "his position on hate". you have not addressed why 4-5 images that say "palestine doesn't need nazis" is due to replace the large gallery he's made of anti-US toons and the pro-"resistance" toons [64]. JaakobouChalk Talk 23:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Do you have a reliable source for that? You seem to have added a lot of unsourced statements like "mainly attacking Israel and the United States" (you dind't like my change to "mainly criticizing" either). You also made an unsourced addition about "Juba, the Baghdad sniper" and removed the sourced part about the We are all Palestinians cartoon series. // Liftarn (talk)
i'd be happy to respond to all your qualms, but it's very clear that they are an attempt to duck the question, a second time i might add. to repeat myself, "you have not addressed why 4-5 images that say "palestine doesn't need nazis" is due to replace the large gallery he's made of anti-US toons and the pro-"resistance" toons [65]".JaakobouChalk Talk 07:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
a) the image is in the style of the artist b) it sums up his personal views (and I think it's a self portrait as well) c) source your statements. Speaking of undue weight, look at the section about Aktion Kinder des Holocaust. Isn't that a bit much weight for the views of a small, unknown group? // Liftarn (talk)
you're still pushing other directions. this image is clearly one out of 5 and you've placed it to replace an image representative of a full 50+ images of an anti-us section. JaakobouChalk Talk 09:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You are also pushing, but other directions (and often without providing sources). You wanted to include Uncle Sam wants you DEAD! that is the only(?) cartoon where Uncle Sam is compared to Hitler. It's all in how you slice it. // Liftarn (talk)

you know, if you're going to keep trying to protect your edits by referring to mine - and then make false statements about mine; we're going to have a hard time resolving our disputes. i suggest we apply the WP:DR next time around when the article gets re-opened. JaakobouChalk Talk 15:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
So you say I shouldn't assume good faith? // Liftarn (talk)
i'm suggesting that you should try to mend your ways. JaakobouChalk Talk 16:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
My ways? I would suggest you read up on WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:BLP first. // Liftarn (talk)
now you can't claim you've missed them when DR will start. JaakobouChalk Talk 19:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit

{{Editprotected}}

Please remove the comment "I still think this is undue - Jaakobou" from the Themes section. // Liftarn (talk)

Y Done. Sandstein (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. // Liftarn (talk)

[edit] Two Questions

So at least we can fight about something new.

  • First, I noticed that in another biography the word (photo) with a link immediately followed the persons name. Could that be done here to deal with the obvious hassles of getting a photo of him up? ie. (photo)
  • I noticed the "Category:Antisemitism" at bottom of page and that he is listed under that category. Geez, isn't that Wikipedia:Libel?? I mean how does wikipedia decide? I don't notice discussion on this above. I noticed a bunch of legitimate Israel critics NOT mentioned on those pages. Why is Latuff there? This article doesn't prove that point, just lists a couple accusations. I'd say remove it unless someone can produce some slur against Jews per se or their religion per se. Making fun of a STATE and its leaders and their crimes, whatever the religion, is not bigoted unless you can prove a hatred of the religion or the people. Just my humble opinion.

Carol Moore 23:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

there's a reason he's registered with the anti-semitism category. i can't speak on the person himself, but a good number of his cartoons are.
p.s. there's a big difference between a 'critique' and 'race oriented libel'. JaakobouChalk Talk 04:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
The only reason the article is listed in Category:Antisemitism is due to an interesting loophole in the inclusion criteria for the category. "This category indicates that the article in question discusses or refers to the topic of antisemitism. Adding this category to an article is in no way intended to imply that the subject of the article is antisemitic." Since Latuff has been accused of antisemitism as part of a smear campaign he gets included in the category. Ofcourse there is no sign of any antisemitism in either his statements nor his cartoons (well, some think that if you are critical of Israel's actions you are an antisemite, but let's be realistic here). // Liftarn (talk)
From [[WP:BLP}
Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Editors should also be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.
Isn't some of the material in the article in violation of this? And aren't claims in a talk page to the effect that someone is anti-Semitic, albeit with weasel words, also a violation of the policy?--Peter cohen (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

They should rename that category "ABOUT Antisemitism". Most people just seeing that at the bottom of an individual or group's article will assume the person or group is labeled antisemitic and not bother to go to the page, read the disclaimer or search the person/group's name and see all the non-antisemitic people/groups ALSO listed there. In the interim maybe someone should at least put this note in RED. This category indicates that the article in question discusses or refers to the topic of antisemitism. Adding this category to an article is in no way intended to imply that the subject of the article is antisemitic.

Also, what about adding that link to photo? Hearing no dispute, when they reopen article I will do so. Carol Moore 17:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

[edit] latest edit

per this edit - [66]. please elaborate why the inclusion of so much detail has merit. (see WP:UNDUE) JaakobouChalk Talk 10:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The quotes are a parts of the artwork, but OK, I have alsto trimemd the article of some other undue weight. // Liftarn (talk)

[edit] OR tags

pre this edit - [67] - i'd appreciate some explanation to what part of the description of the two cartoons is OR. some suggestions on how to rephrase the text would perhaps help resolve the dispute. JaakobouChalk Talk 21:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

"Image shows an "Israel monster" in soldier attire holding a Rifle marked with pacifiers, supposedly, for every baby killed" is clearly OR. It is even hinted in the sentence with a "supposedly". The same thing about the "laughing over US casualties" do you have a source for that? // Liftarn (talk)

[edit] A Few Nit Picks on the Article

Given all tlhe controversy I just won't go in and make changes. Relevant sections in italics:

In his comic series by the name of Tales of Iraq War (also translated into arabic), he features 'Juba, the Baghdad sniper' as a hero while US soldiers are portrayed as villains sent by US President George Bush, caricatured laughing over US casualties.(0)

Capitalize Arabic? Where is the reference that will take us to Juba? Not easily found, if there at all.

He has also made several cartoons which reject Nazi support for the Palestinian cause.(0)

Here the problem is just that Nazi is used in 3 different ways: Hitler's actual national socialists; Israelis compared to those National Socialists; and neo-Nazis who support Palestinians. There actually might be young people out there who would read it, not be very politically sophisticated, and would get confused. Any way to clarify those differences within the article itself? Carol Moore 02:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

I've addressed the easy points with a copy-edit. A ref required on Juba was removed a qusrter of an hour before your comment here. Can someone help with this?--Peter cohen (talk) 14:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

-- enjoy. JaakobouChalk Talk 21:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Those are not sources. // Liftarn (talk)
It might help if you were more specific as to why they aren't. I'm staring at the piece of art, that tends to mean it exists. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
It's a blog, under the name of the artist with links to other pages. The author's first language appears to be Portuguese and they are also interested in Brazilian railway history as well as the political stuff. There seems to be no grounds for disbelieving that the pages shows cartoons about Juba by Carlos Latuff. Obviously for opinions on whether the articles are executed well or poorly, you would need to go to a WP:RS that assesses the technical quality of art and comics. And for opinions on whether it is a good or bad thing to show American soldiers being killed by Juba, you would need to go to recognised commentators. But to question whether the material is by Latuff or that it shows someone using the name of Juba shooting Americans is ridiculous.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, other than as a source for that the cartoons exist they are pretty much usesless. You can't use them as sources for someting like "Latuff hates americans". That would be WP:OR. // Liftarn (talk)

The term for the believers in Nazism after Hitler shot his brain out, is Neo-Nazism. --HanzoHattori (talk) 15:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Superfluous fact tags and WP:POINT.

I have just removed a load of tags on images whose sourcing is explained in Wikimedia. I can't help feeling that the tagging was to make a WP:Point rather than expressing any genuine concern about referencing. Will people please provide a sensible explanation for why captions just giving the name of pictures without any interpretation needed such tags. If they get restored without any explanation it will be time to go and see the admins. And please look at WP:OR and see what is says about being allowed to describe primary sources. It's interpretation and evaluation that's the problem. Saying it shows a global figure wearing a keffiyeh and giving a v sign in front of a Palestinian flag is not OR and does not need a citation--Peter cohen (talk) 22:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

We've had the same nonsense regarding the Zombietime image on New antisemitism. Same editor. <<-armon->> (talk) 04:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
There are several reasons for those tags. Firstly information needs to be sourced. Thus you need to source "Caricature shows Adolf Hitler dressed as Uncle Sam, with the Nazi swastika atop his top-hat." All information requires reliable sources, no exceptions.
Secondly, who is to say that Latuff actually made those images. You need a reliable source for that as well.Bless sins (talk) 06:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
WP:OR says:
To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should: only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.
Describing the images is perfectly in line with this. I have, however, removed the word "caricature" as that has a judgmental tone to it. The images are on Wikimedia with their sources given there. This information can be seen by clicking on the images. If you doubt the accuracy of these descriptions, raise the issues in Wikimedia.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

To do your own interpretation of an image is a clear example of original research. An example is the image with the description "Adolf Hitler dressed as Uncle Sam, with the Nazi swastika atop his top-hat.". Well is it Adolf Hitler dressed as Uncle Sam or Uncle Sam looking like Hitler? // Liftarn (talk)

its the first. JaakobouChalk Talk 13:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Do you have a source for that claim? // Liftarn (talk)
Yes, right here, happens to be the image itself. It says it is Uncle Sam, I can see the top hat that is a swastika, and the Hitler mustache and face. This would be like saying an image of an apple needs a Harvard professor stating it is an apple before it would be considered "sourced", and not the least the intent of Wikipedia rules and regulations. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
It would seem it then is Uncle Sam looking like Hitler rather than the other way around. I'll fix that. // Liftarn (talk)
That seems the sensible way round. The point of the cartoon is to say "Hey! Isn't America acting like Nazi Germany?" not the other way round. So America (Uncle Sam) is the subject of the picture.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I still believe that the change is the actual WP:OR, but i'll allow it for the sake of consensus. JaakobouChalk Talk 14:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I can describe the image as following:

Adolf Hitler dressed in a blue coat, red bow-tie, white shirt (with two buttons) as Uncle Sam. He has a white hat with a red Nazi swatika on it. The hat also has a blue strip with three white stars. His hair has a white glistening and he appears to be looking up. The background is lime green, the word "DEAD!" is in red, whie the words "Uncle same wants you" is in white.

Many of you may object to the descriptions because you may says that I've included in non-notable details. But the question is: who gets to decide what part of the image is notable? The answer should be: a reliable source.Bless sins (talk) 22:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Wou could use only the title of the work and let the readers draw their own conclusions. Unless we have a RS ofcourse. // Liftarn (talk)

[edit] 3O summary

per the version differences in this diff - [69].

Statement by Jaakobou: Best I can see it, the conflict between me and User:Liftarn on this article revolvs around two issues.

  1. Cartoon descriptions - i.e.
    1. Adolf Hitler dressed as Uncle Sam vs. Uncle Sam looking like Adolf Hitler.
    2. Image shows two soldiers, one Israeli, the other Nazi - text arranged as Swastika says an "Israeli soldiers are just following orders". vs. "Nazis: Just following orders" by Carlos Latuff.
  2. Reference gallery - in the article, there are a few notes referenced to the 2 cartoons in the reference gallery, and the edit breaks the references.
  • Sample: US President George Bush, caricatured laughing over US casualties.(0) <- <sup>[[Carlos Latuff#Reference Gallery|(0)]]</sup>

-- JaakobouChalk Talk 13:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Liftarn:

  • Unless you can find a reliable source saying something else the cartoons should state what they are called and not some original research of your own.
  • The gallery can not be used as a reference so that is a moot point. // Liftarn (talk)

Third Opinion (uninvolved editors): I'd like to leave an opinion here, but I'd rather hear what Liftarn has to say first. I will watch this page.

Cheers! - Revolving Bugbear 14:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

After giving this careful thought, I have reached the following ideas. Please bear in mind that these are simply my opinions, but I hope you will at least consider them.
  • Liftarn is correct in saying that the image captions should, in each case, give the name of the image. Regardless of what else is said, the name should be included. However, it may be desirable in some cases to explain an image, for example if it is referenced in the text or if it contains cultural references that are not easily accessible to some audiences. In these cases, the image should only be described in ways in which it has previously been described a) by the artist himself or b) by a reliable source on the artist or his cartoons. An example of this for the Hitler/Uncle Sam image would be "a figure with a face resembling that of Adolf Hitler, wearing clothes resembling those of Uncle Sam". This is clearly and undeniably true of the figure, but whether the "body" belongs to Uncle Sam or Hitler is anybody's guess. Again, in many cases such identification will not be necessary as the image will speak for itself. An example of where this may be necessary is that the flag in "Global Intifada" may not be immediately recognizable to some Western audiences as the Palestinian flag. In the case of the two soldiers, it is not clear to me that there is enough identifying information on the two subjects to definitively identify them by affiliation, but then again I'm largely ignorant of military costume. Some more information on that image would be appreciated.
  • References to the gallery are unnecessary -- it can be assumed that the reader will scroll down eventually and see the images. Besides, the code is messy and vulnerable to change if the image is moved. If you feel a reference is necessary in regards to something that is in the gallery, you can create a non-citing reference giving the necessary information about the image.
  • Unsolicited opinion: I personally feel that there is not enough text in the article to justify the number of images contained in the text. Until the article is fleshed out more, I would move some of the images currently in the article down to the gallery to keep the page aesthetically pleasing.
Those are my initial thoughts. I welcome feedback. - Revolving Bugbear 17:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Since latuff is mostly unknown in western media it would be impossible to find an article discussing his cartoons. I tend to agree that the reference gallery might not be the most encyclopedic solution, and I wonder how would you suggest we reference statements regarding some of his cartoons. JaakobouChalk Talk 13:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I would reccomend using reliable sources. // Liftarn (talk)
The problem being, that these cartoons, including "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" cartoon, are published on many indymedia websites.
p.s. your point was well noted, but it does not address our attempts to make sure that the encyclopedia presents a complete, neutral, educational and reliable story. JaakobouChalk Talk 14:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
They key to presenting a "complete, neutral, educational and reliable story" is to use reliable sources. If it's not sourced it don't go into the article. // Liftarn (talk)

note: as for the current status of discussions, I'd be interested in changing the caption for the Nazi soldiers per the title on the original. i.e. "Just following orders" per - [70]. JaakobouChalk Talk 14:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • "Just following orders"? // Liftarn (talk)
    • yup, that's the original title. JaakobouChalk Talk 15:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I see no problem with that. Perhaps we should remove all the "by Carlos Latuff". SHouldn't that be obvious? Well, perhaps not. // Liftarn (talk)

Liftarn,

"If it's not sourced it don't go into the article."

Everything in the article is sources - the problem is whether it's sources to a primal source or a secondary source - and sadly, for most input in the article, we are restricted to primary sources. It is helpful of us to give some basic explanation for the reading audience. If there is a contested claim made, then obviously, there is room to discuss the concerns - but a flat out rejection, does not serve the purpose of the encyclopedia. To the issue of content, I'd be interested in noting that the two soldiers represent an Israeli and a Nazi soldier, that the swastika shape is a Nazi insignia, and that the text within it says "israeli soldiers..." I would appreciate suggestions regarding neutrality if you have them or a reasoning on why you would consider that explanation unreliable. JaakobouChalk Talk 17:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we can let the reader look at the picture themselves. As we have the picture it is no point in describing it as well. // Liftarn (talk)
Liftarn: what is your objection to including a small but obviously true summary? - Revolving Bugbear 23:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
If it's "obviously true" then it would be obvious to any observer. If it is not obvious then it's obviously not "obviously true". In either case it's not necessary and open the door to sneaking in WP:OR. // Liftarn (talk)
Not every person knows what an Israeli soldier, the palestinian flag, the nazi swastikka, uncle sam and others looks like. Are you saying that your objection to a 'clearly factual' description is only due to "sneaking OR" concerns? JaakobouChalk Talk 13:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the images should be able to speak for themseleves. // Liftarn (talk)
Note to Liftarn: this edit [71] was not "per talk" and is quite combative in my eyes. (Revolving Bugbear: "it may be desirable in some cases to explain an image...An example of this for the Hitler/Uncle Sam image..."[72]) JaakobouChalk Talk 05:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I thought we agreed to not do original research about the pictures. // Liftarn (talk)
Since your edit [73] somewhat stunned me, could you please quote the text that made you believe we agreed that you should remove caption text? JaakobouChalk Talk 13:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
"the image should only be described in ways in which it has previously been described a) by the artist himself or b) by a reliable source on the artist or his cartoons" // Liftarn (talk)

Ehm, I seem to have screwed up a little bit in my initial opinion. I was reading the article and commenting at the same time, and I edited my comment several times before I was satisfied with it ... and apparently I left out a sentence I meant to move.

What I meant to say -- and I truly apologize for this oversight -- was the following:

However, it may be desirable in some cases to explain an image, for example if it is referenced in the text or if it contains cultural references that are not easily accessible to some audiences. Some things are obviously true, but in other cases the content of an image will be open to interpretation. In these cases, the image should only be described in ways in which it has previously been described a) by the artist himself or b) by a reliable source on the artist or his cartoons.

I feel really silly for somehow slicing the italicized sentence from my comment. Bleh.

In any case, we do not require citations for every single sentence on Wikipedia, nor do we require citations for image descriptions which are obviously and undeniably true. See the article apple, for example, and look at the picture of the sliced apple -- we do not require a citation for the fact that those are seeds in the apple, since it's unquestionably obvious that they are. Someone who did not know what an apple is -- and trust me, there are such people in the world -- might not immediately recognize that that's a picture of a fruit, but clearly this is true.

There may be a large number of people who do not recognize the face of Adolf Hitler or people who do not understand the title because they are not familiar with Uncle Sam. So the question is, if there is a description which is obviously true and completely uncontroversial, why take it out? - Revolving Bugbear 20:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the apple article is quite uncontroversial, but here we have to keep creeping OR out. I have sen people put blatantly false statements in image captions while claiming they are obvious. So the question is what is the threshold of what is obvious? // Liftarn (talk)
If something is contested, the editors involved can discuss it. That is one of the purposes of this 3O, i.e to resolve the caption disputes. JaakobouChalk Talk 15:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This is unnecessary theorizing. Take it on a case-by-case basis. Do you agree that, without reasonable doubt, that the face resembles that of Adolf Hitler and the clothes resemble those of Uncle Sam? - Revolving Bugbear 17:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
It's been a little while, so I'm thinking Liftarn may have lost interest in the with/without caption discussion. I'll try to make a neutral edit and you let me know if there's anything that could be toned down from your perspective. JaakobouChalk Talk 15:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I noticed you once more inserted the unsubstantiated claim that Image:UncleSamwantsyouDEAD.jpg shows "a person with Adolf Hitler's features, dressed as Uncle Sam" rather than the obvious "Uncle Sam with Adolf Hitler's features". I've also added some tags for you to explain. // Liftarn (talk)
I go with Revolving Bugbear on this. Rather than saying this is Uncle Sam looking like Hitler or Hitler dressed as Uncle Sam, it is best to say that the image blends the iconography of both Hitler and Uncle Sam.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
The title of the cartton clearly indicates that it is uncle Sam. // Liftarn (talk)

[edit] Arbitrary break per new edit

Issues coming from this edit - [74].
  • 'Uncle Sam' vs. 'a person with' - what would be less OR, to say a person dressed as Uncle Sam representing the US - or to say it's Uncle Sam with Hitler's features. Liftarn, can you please explain what is unsubstantiated by the second version?
  • George Bush, caricatured laughing over US casualties. I'm afraid I don't understand what the OR is here.
  • Baby Killer Ziombies - how would you describe the creature, and the "ziombies" term then?

-- JaakobouChalk Talk 17:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing right with that edit. Anyways, I'll wait to see Liftarn's reply before I go and edit. Eternalsleeper (talk) 17:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • As I say above, the title of the cartoon makes it clear that it is uncle Sam.
  • Is he laughting over tha casualties, in general, over this victim, over all casualtir or just US casualties...?
  • I wouldn't since that would be WP:OR. // Liftarn (talk)

Starting with Uncle Sam - would the following phrasing be acceptable: " 'Uncle Sam wants you DEAD!' by Carlos Latuff shows Uncle Sam (representing the U.S.A.) with Adolf Hitler's features and a Nazi swastika atop his top-hat." ? JaakobouChalk Talk 08:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think very few don't know that uncle Sam represents USA, but OK. // Liftarn (talk)

moving on to George Bush Laughing cartoon - I believe that the OR claim here is undue. My counter example to this issue:

US President George Bush, caricatured laughing over US casualties.

Would be to claim OR on...

He has also made several cartoons which reject neo-Nazi support for the Palestinian cause.

What makes this one different in your eyes Liftarn that you believe the description to be more OR than the nazi rejection images? Maybe you can come up with a suggestion that would be acceptable?
Also, is there an opinion by our mediating 3O on this issue? JaakobouChalk Talk 03:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not "US President George W Bush laughing over a coffin."? // Liftarn (talk)
It's an improvement, I admit. However, this is clearly a funeral for a US soldier. Do you have a more accurate suggestion? JaakobouChalk Talk 08:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Probably a US soldier yes. But it certainly is a flag draped coffin. // Liftarn (talk)
Since I see it definitely, as a dead US soldier,[75] I don't quite see the problem behind "caricatured laughing over US casualties". Would you reconsider the OR tag here, or at least make a suggestion that might be acceptable to both of us without the tag? JaakobouChalk Talk 10:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Where is the dead soldier? He may be laughing over the death of US democracy for all we know. // Liftarn (talk)

Jaakobou, I have to say, I'm not convinced by this one. There's an awful lot of inferring that has to happen to get from the coffin to "US casualties". What is the title of that cartoon? - Revolving Bugbear 20:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It's simply called "Laughs" so it doesn't give much help. // Liftarn (talk)
Well, from what I understand, some civil agencies -- such as police and fire departments -- also use the practice of laying a flag over a member's coffin at a funeral. So, while a US soldier seems the most likely explanation, it is open to some interpretation. - Revolving Bugbear 17:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Latuff focuses on the US army and the Iraq war with images that suggest he's relishing in the deaths of US soldiers, who he presents as evil idiots. Samples: [76], [77], [78]. George Bush is presented as a person who's supporting (enjoying) deaths for personal oil profits. Sample: [79].
Anyways, I'm willing to listen to alternatives to "laughing over US casualties" or suggestions for better refs to support this text. JaakobouChalk Talk 19:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but citing the other images as reasons for describing this one with that caption is definitely OR. It is, I think, important to point out that it's "US President George Bush" (which it obviously is), but do we need to say he's laughing? - Revolving Bugbear 19:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm open to hear the suggestions. I saw it as George Bush and fellow soldiers laughing at a US soldier burial. What suggestion are you making for Latuff caricatures on George Bush and the Iraq war then? JaakobouChalk Talk 00:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
That may well be what the artist had in mind, but without a source, we can't say that. How about "Laughs depicts US President George W. Bush at a funeral."? Simple, clear, and unequivocally true, with no OR. - Revolving Bugbear 02:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Could it be a "ceremonial funeral"? The flag and uniforms would surely justify that implication?----~
Reminder, the cartoon is not presented in the article, but rather referenced to support the following text:
In his comic series by the name of Tales of Iraq War... US soldiers are portrayed as... sent by US President George Bush, caricatured laughing over US casualties.
Here's a new suggestion including a couple more of the related images:
"...US President George Bush, caricatured as a mad gunman[80] and "the director" of the September 11 attacks;[81] killing US soldiers for personal gain[82][83] and laughing at US ceremonial burials.[84]"
Thoughts? JaakobouChalk Talk 11:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:OR and WP:SYN. // Liftarn (talk)

(undent) How about "using US soldiers for personal gain" (he's not actually killing them himself) and "a US ceremonial burial" (leaves this a little more open)? - Revolving Bugbear 12:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New suggested paragraph

Note: Includes the notes above by Revolving Bugbear.

In his comic series by the name of Tales of Iraq War (also translated into Arabic), Latuff attempts "to spread the point of view of the anti-imperialist resistance" as he features 'Juba, the Baghdad sniper' as a hero who "defends [his] home from foreigner invaders",[4] gunning down Helicopters[5] while being protected by Allah's words[6] while US soldiers are portrayed as villains[7][8] and suckers[9][10] sent by US President George Bush, caricatured as a mad gunman[11] and "the director" of the September 11 attacks;[12] using US soldiers for personal gain[13][14] while laughing at a US ceremonial burial.[15]

-- JaakobouChalk Talk 12:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ winners of the Iranian Holocaust Cartoon Competition.
  2. ^ winners of the Iranian Holocaust Cartoon Competition.
  3. ^ winners of the Iranian Holocaust Cartoon Competition.
  4. ^ 'Carlos Latuff: a comic-strip take on Iraq rebellion' Socialist Worker (Britain)
  5. ^ 'Juba, the Baghdad sniper 3', An example episode of Juba the Baghdad sniper at Latuff's blog.
  6. ^ 'Juba, the Baghdad sniper 4', An example episode of Juba the Baghdad sniper at Latuff's blog.
  7. ^ 'US soldier' by Carlos Latuff (infoshop.org)
  8. ^ 'US Terror' by Carlos Latuff (infoshop.org)
  9. ^ 'RIPS' by Carlos Latuff (infoshop.org)
  10. ^ 'US soldiers Iraq' by Carlos Latuff (infoshop.org)
  11. ^ 'Sniper' by Carlos Latuff (infoshop.org)
  12. ^ "Titanic' by Carlos Latuff (infoshop.org)
  13. ^ ' Rain' by Carlos Latuff (infoshop.org)
  14. ^ 'UN' by Carlos Latuff (infoshop.org)
  15. ^ 'Laughs' by Carlos Latuff (infoshop.org)

comments:
Tagged accordingly. // Liftarn (talk)

Okay, that sort of attitude isn't really constructive. Tagging things on the talk page? Come on. You've made your point. Now please comment constructively on Jaakobou's suggestion. - Revolving Bugbear 11:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Liftarn, please remove the changes made to my (signed) suggested version. JaakobouChalk Talk 14:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind (reverted), I'll just wait a lil longer for your response. JaakobouChalk Talk 23:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
My father died yesterday so sorry that I haven't had time for countering petty POV- pushing. You test is a mix of original research, synthesis and unfounded accusations. Do agian, do right. // Liftarn (talk)
Liftarn,
  1. My condolances for your father.
  2. Per WP:CIV & "petty POV- psuhing", please confine your responses to content, not percieved attitudes.
  3. The content related argument "OR"+"SYN" seems, on it's face, as generic and inaccurate. It would be helpful to understand your perspective if you elaborate per each issue.
-- JaakobouChalk Talk 10:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought we had been over this already. If it's not in reliable sources it doesn't go into the article. Your own personal speculations does not belong in the article. // Liftarn (talk)

Yes, we have been through this already, and the 3rd opinion suggested that we should use a generic description that is not considered OR. I'm trying to write things down with as little speculation as possible and it doesn't help to notice the 'speculation' if you do not explain your perspective on why you believe a certain description is speculative. JaakobouChalk Talk 17:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, some points.

  • "'Juba, the Baghdad sniper' as a hero" has a source, but is it reliable?
  • "is protected by Islam" unsourced
  • "US soldiers are portrayed as villains" unsourced
  • "and suckers" unsoucred
  • "sent by US President George Bush" Obviously so this perhaps don't need a source
  • "caricatured as a mad gunman" unsourced
  • "and "the director" of the September 11 attacks" unsoucred
  • "using US soldiers for personal gain" unsourced
  • "while laughing at a US ceremonial burial" speculation

Enough? // Liftarn (talk)

It feels like we're back to where we started. Liftarn, it doesn't help the conversation if you don't listen to what other uninvolved editors have to say.
  • Juba: we not only have a source, but we have the cartoons that support this. can you please explain why you believe this input to be false?
  • Protected by Islam: Juba is noted to have been "saved by the words of allah!",[85] is there a different phrasing you would suggest?
  • villains: This is what the images (and the previous 'hero' ref) show. However, I'm open to other suggestions based on the cited cartoons.
  • suckers: Please explain why this cartoon [86] is not a source.
  • mad gunman: Please explain why these cartoons [87], [88] are not a sources.
  • director of 9.11: Please explain why this cartoon [89] is not a source.
  • personal gain" The first cartoon shows bush holding a bag of money with US flagged caskets raining around him. [90] The second one [91] shows bush saying "just keep the oil comin'". Please explain why these are not relevant sources.
  • laughing at ceremonial burial: that's what the cartoon shows him doing.
It's not helpful if you keep mentioning WP:V when the images are self descriptive, please accept previous input, and make concerns that don't ignore those points. JaakobouChalk Talk 21:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Juba: I ask again: Is the source reliable?
  • protected: "saved because he had a book/the koran in his pocket"?
  • villains: No suggestions. Find a source or don't put it in the article.
  • suckers: Who says "suckers"? Pure speculation.
  • mad gunman: The cartoon never call GWB a "mad gunman".
  • director: The cartoon never says that.
  • personal gain: pure speculation. Put in what the cartoons show if necessary.
  • It was the "while" I reacted to. Nothing says it's simultanously.
I kindly ask you to find reliable sources.
Let's illustrate it with an example "George W. Bush is a werevolf[92] who likes to strangle press photographers[93] and give lettuce to leprechauns[94] He is also a firm believing Satanist.[95]". // Liftarn (talk)
Liftarn: the SocialistWorkers Online citation is easily enough to establish that Latuff is portraying Juba as a hero, because Latuff himself said it. There is no reason on earth to believe that the interview was faked. The politics of the site are irrelevant -- it's a direct quote from Latuff.
Jaakobou: you're kind of putting words in my mouth. I didn't sign off on this version of the sentence, or any version of the sentence; I told you above what I thought were some things wrong with it. Cramming all of these images together in one sentence without supporting secondary sources to link them does have a serious synthesis concern. - Revolving Bugbear 21:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I apologize for extending my understanding of your comment to a slightly synthesized version. I'm open to constructive suggestions on how to present the cartoons/body of work with without synthesis. JaakobouChalk Talk 22:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
If the source is reliable enough for that claim. Could it also be used for a source to say that "The accusations of antisemitism against Latuff are without merit as his work is part of an anti-imperialist and anti-racist tradition."? // Liftarn (talk)
Obviously not, since that's passing a judgment call, rather than simply repeating something that Latuff said. I refuse to believe that you don't understand the difference. - Revolving Bugbear 23:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Then we should use something like "he features 'Juba, the Baghdad sniper' who he sees as a type of hero that defends his home from foreigner invaders". // Liftarn (talk)
I have no problem with that. - Revolving Bugbear 17:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem with something to that nature after the 'guns down helicopters' and 'protected by Islam' cartoons. But we're digressing from the main issue, which is finding a way to present the body of work despite a lack of secondary sources. JaakobouChalk Talk 23:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I have to admit, I would vastly prefer if there were secondary sources ... - Revolving Bugbear 23:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I would too. However, there's too much in the body of work to ignore it completely... or maybe we should strip down the article to only what secondary sources say? I guess that's a possibility. In the meantime, I changed the suggested paragraph to (hopfully) resolve/include both Liftarn's recent suggestion and the previous concern regarding 'the words of allah'. JaakobouChalk Talk 23:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Liftarn, would you fully support stripping down the article to only hold secondary source material? Think hard about this, since the communal descision needs to hold regardless of the sources we come up with in the future. JaakobouChalk Talk 00:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, since this is a BLP, that might be the best option at this point. - Revolving Bugbear 00:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Pardon for missing the part you're referring to.. what is BLP? JaakobouChalk Talk 00:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
BLP stands for biography of living person. - Revolving Bugbear 00:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for not being clear enough...
What are you refering to within the discussed material that is BLP? JaakobouChalk Talk 00:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Is that a trick question? All of it. It's an article about a living person. - Revolving Bugbear 00:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry again, I got your intentions now. I'm just so used to references to the BLP because something stated is too hostile to the subject of the article. I'll wait on Liftarn's response before going to the article material. JaakobouChalk Talk 01:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm not saying "this article is libelous" or anything like that. All I'm saying is, we need to tread lightly, for the sake of formal policy.
The hero bit, as we've discussed it, does seem to have a source. And we're able to agree on a couple of things, but not all of them. It would seem, then, that where we cannot agree and cannot find a source it might be best to let the images simply stand. - Revolving Bugbear 12:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I understood. I'm waiting on Liftarn's input before making any edits. JaakobouChalk Talk 15:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

We have been over this so many thimes before: If it's unsourced it doesn't go into the article. // Liftarn (talk)

[edit] sources needed

As far as I can see, there are two points that are marked as needing citations. The first is the "sympathizing / critical" section, and the second is the Iraq War Cartoons.

The first seems like it should be easy to source. The second is what we are working on now.

Liftarn, is there something else you have a concern about? - Revolving Bugbear 20:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External links

A link to the artist's website should be included. // Liftarn (talk)

Agree, of course. - Revolving Bugbear 17:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
He doesn't have a personal website. he posts on 50 separate blogs and indymedia sites. JaakobouChalk Talk 17:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Then add them! And by the way, I removed some links that wasn't really relavent for the article. // Liftarn (talk)
He doesn't even have a personal homepage? If that's the case, I would suggest picking a few of the most important, where he has an established profile or whatnot. - Revolving Bugbear 18:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
To paraphrase Liftarn: "That would be OR". JaakobouChalk Talk 18:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
... Please tell me you're kidding. 1) We're talking about external links, not text. 2) Liftarn himself suggested it. - Revolving Bugbear 18:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I can't speak for Liftarn's beliefs but we certainly have a problem here [96]. JaakobouChalk Talk 08:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
What is the problem? One link to a non-notable and biased site and one link that only make a passing mention of Latuff. // Liftarn (talk)
There's absolutely nothing wrong with the first link and the problem is that you're making a point of view violation on WP:EL. If you won't revert back, I am going to report this issue and find out what outside opinion thinks. JaakobouChalk Talk 09:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Revolving Bugbear, what is your 3O about the removed links? JaakobouChalk Talk 00:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


Rather than making oblique comments to the effect that "we certainly have a problem", please actually present what you think. Lefthanded comments about what other editors may or may not believe do not actually accomplish anything. - Revolving Bugbear 22:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd be willing to discuss what Latuff art sites might be worthy of inclusion. JaakobouChalk Talk 05:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Gaza Cartoons

Maybe sone old ones too - but just fyi http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2008/03/03/brazilian_cartoonist_carlos_latuff_creat Carol Moore 05:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

[edit] Claims about the CIA, jooooos, etc

If anyone has a link to an actual Carlos Latuff article or blog post on his blog claiming the CIA or the Mosjews are out to get him, that would be something we could add to the article. It will certainly make him look a lot more credible in the eyes of rational people. John Nevard (talk) 05:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I have seen a few of his "the Mossad wants me dead!" posts because some kid at a Hebrew forum said "shouldn't we put a stop to this?" regarding a few of his "lovely" support the Jihad-on-Jews cartoons. Anyways, Latuff is not a reliable source about anything but himself, and even that is at question. JaakobouChalk Talk 10:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Mmm, exactly. There was an IP editor trying to add a Portuguese blog post before that supposedly linked to something of the sort, but the link didn't work. John Nevard (talk) 10:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)