Commons talk:Deletion requests/Carlos Latuff
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
In Israel, there was an anti-Latuff page on a likudnik site. I found a translation and commentary here. (The original can be found via web.archive.org). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- How is this relevant to the discussion? Just imagine I am from Papua New Guinea. Does it make my argument any stronger or weaker? Why do I have a feeling that you try to soak this discussion with politics? Wiki-Commons is not a political forum and my arguments were not political. Would you please respect that? Drork (talk) 08:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- I took this to the talk page because it is not directly connected to the deletion, which is simply decided by the commons policy on censorship. But it gives interesting background information, and a more neutral description of what is in Latuff's drawings. As I understand Latuff, his stand is basically pacifist. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well, his caricatures don't look too pacifistic to me, but in fact that's not the issue here at all. Please read the policy on censorship carefully. Avoiding censorship is not an excuse to introduce files which are beyond the scope of the Commons. These caricatures have no documentary value nor do they serve any educational or illustrative purposes. I could live with flexing the Commons' scope a bit if these caricatures weren't offensive. In many democratic countries Latuff could be sued for inciting violence. The way he uses Nazi symbols is also considered illegal and/or a taboo in many Western countries. To sum it all up: Offensive but relevant - let them stay; irrelevant but not offensive - not advisable, but so be it, we have plenty of room; offensive and irrelevant - what are they doing here? I'm afraid Latuff's caricatures fall under the third category. Drork (talk) 10:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- I took this to the talk page because it is not directly connected to the deletion, which is simply decided by the commons policy on censorship. But it gives interesting background information, and a more neutral description of what is in Latuff's drawings. As I understand Latuff, his stand is basically pacifist. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- 1) Issue of scope - these images are being used on wikimedia projects, and this is work by a notable, published artist.
- 2) Legality - Latuff's drawings are anti-violence; it is difficult to see how he could be indicted for inciting violence.
- 3) I cannot see how Latuff's way of labeling perceived fascism with Nazi symbols would be taboo. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- The use of particular image by a project does not require its upload to the Commons, but never mind that, let it be on the Commons. I doubt, however, that so many of his caricatures are used on Wikimedia projects. Furthermore, there is no justification to open a special page or gallery to promote his works. This is absolutely redundant. I am sorry that you fail to see how this caricatures are offensive, and I do not intend to try and explain yet again how problematic they are. I believe my explanations above where quite clear. Drork (talk) 18:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- It is not up to the Commons community to decide for other communities which images will be used. We have many similar images - it is up to the authors of the encyclopedias, textbooks, etc on the other content projects to decide which images are used. That is simply not a consideration here.
- Yes, they are offensive. That has nothing to do with keeping them or not, since Commons is not censored. "I don't like it, therefore it falls outside COM:SCOPE" is really just "I don't like it" and is therefore a vacuous argument. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Let's bring the discussion back to the project page. Drork (talk) 21:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- The use of particular image by a project does not require its upload to the Commons, but never mind that, let it be on the Commons. I doubt, however, that so many of his caricatures are used on Wikimedia projects. Furthermore, there is no justification to open a special page or gallery to promote his works. This is absolutely redundant. I am sorry that you fail to see how this caricatures are offensive, and I do not intend to try and explain yet again how problematic they are. I believe my explanations above where quite clear. Drork (talk) 18:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)