File talk:WelcometoIsraHELL.gif

Categories

This image shows a version of the flag of Israel so it should be in Category:Flags of Israel. Simple as that. The category also contains other versions of the flag such as Image:Israel-stub-trans.png to mention one example. The category is clearlt not only for officially recognized versions of the flag. Compare for instancd Category:Flags of Italy that contains Image:Italian flag made of pencils.jpg. // Liftarn

Only items which are actual flags of Israel should be included in the category "Flags of Israel" -- not individualistic idiosyncratic personalistic hatemongering. This is not a flag of Israel, so it does not belong in the "Flags of Israel" category -- simple as that. With respect to U.S. flags, there's a special category Category:United States related Fictional Flags, and if there were an analogous category for Israeli flags, then this image could go in it... AnonMoos 13:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

As it isn't (yet) it goes into Category:Flags of Israel, but a Category:Photographs of flags of Israel seems to be more needed. // Liftarn

As it isn't actually a flag of Israel, it goes straight out of Category:Flags of Israel. AnonMoos 08:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It isn't an official flag of Israel, but it is obviously a version of it. I don't see you removing Image:Israelfilm.png or Image:KnessetDegel.png. // Liftarn

Those images include a flag of Israel (though in rather low-quality form in the second image); this one doesn't. AnonMoos 18:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It's because it's anti-semitic or something. It's a variation of the Israeli flag. Simple as that. No one can honestly deny that. Please leave your personal views out of it. - Rocket000 17:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Then if Liftarn wants to do something constructive, he could establish "Category:Variations on flags of Israel", in line with the most recent proposal at Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2008/03/Fictional Flags. However, it's a simple matter of objective verifiable fact that this image does not represent a flag of Israel -- the purpose for which "Category:Flags of Israel" was established. AnonMoos 18:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there really that many where a new sub-category is needed? It if was created I think it would be more of a point thing than something to improve our project. Is it really so hard to see past the racist/"hatemongering" side of things? Why are you so against it? It justs seems to me to create a lot of unnecessary drama. - Rocket000 19:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm far from the only one who wonders why Liftarn has attained such unqualified and complete success in turning Wikimedia Commons into a platform for the promulgation and promotion of bigoted hatemongering, but I've actually never monitored Liftarn's image uploads, or systematically gone through his images (which would be the way to "create a lot of unnecessary drama"). All images of his which I've encountered, I've come across semi-randomly (as an offshoot of doing other things), or because Liftarn himself has chosen to call attention to them in other places. Meanwhile, the indisputable fact remains that this image doesn't directly belong in "Category:Flags of Israel" any more than Image:Union of Soviet States of America.svg belongs directly in Category:Flags of the United States. AnonMoos 09:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the simple fact that the image was placed in the category in the first place and the fact that we're having this discussion shows that it's not as "indisputable" as you think. I would say that both you and Liftarn have a conflict of interest regarding this subject, although yours seems a little more pronounced. (I, myself, am biased when it comes to censorship, I can care less about the subject.) Everyone has POVs, it's not a bad thing. It's hard to make neutral choices when you feel so strongly about something. That's when it's time to get a third opinion from someone completely uninvolved. - Rocket000 16:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Image:Israeli Falafel Flag 2.svg is not in Category:Flags of Israel... AnonMoos 07:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. // Liftarn

Yes, I guess some extremists with no touch with reality may think it's anisemitic, but even if it was it still don't change the fact that it is a variant of the Israeli flag. // Liftarn

As for being out of "tough" with reality, your rather feeble defenses of the infamous religiously bigoted cartoon Image:Cry-wolf.png showed you to be completely out of "tough" with the religious and social meaning of Jewish religious side curls, and your argumentation on Image_talk:Gathering_of_eagles.jpg showied you to be out of "tough" with English dictionaries. With respect to "extremism", it's very noticeable that many of your broad categorical statements in the discussion at en:Talk:New antisemitism were not greeted with any enthusiasm even by most of those who share your basic political orientation -- you were really the "extreme" one there... AnonMoos 18:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

So you have strange views and then you come with personal remarks? In what way is that a convincing argument? // Liftarn

So you calling me an "extremist with no tough[sic] with reality" was not a personal remark?? Pot, meet kettle... AnonMoos 09:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Only if you do admit to having extremist views. // Liftarn

That is exactly the way to build a consensus. You two will have this issue solved in no time!  :) - Rocket000 16:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Deleted.

Did we know to was even nominated? The page wasn't tagged. And I can't say there was a consensus. Undeletion request? Not me. - Rocket000 19:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

What? Talk about sneak deletion. Filed in Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#Image:WelcometoIsraHELL.gif // Liftarn

{{editprotected}}

Please place a deletion notice on this image. The request should say "Outside project scope. There is no reason to host all free content, even by famous authors, just because it is free. This image is racist and promotes hatred. We already have enough works by Carlos Latuff. -Nard 23:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)". I previously nominated this for deletion but it was restored because the deletion notice was never put on the page because it was protected. -Nard 23:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. - Rocket000 23:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and don't forget to relist it. I would just hit nomination button again. Cheers, - Rocket000 23:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Category

When there are enough images for such a category this image wil go into Category:Israel related Fictional Flags pr Category:Variations on flags of Israel or wharever the category should be called (see Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2008/03/Fictional Flags), but until then it should be in Category:Flags of Israel since it's a variant of the Israeli flag. // Liftarn

It's certainly a consistent feature of your editing that instead of productively creating new categories like Category:Islamophobia or Category:Israel related Fictional flags you prefer to unproductively war over old categories... AnonMoos 11:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there are enough images for it to be a need for Category:Israel related Fictional flags, but feel free to do so yoursef. I also don't consider personal remarks a valid argument. // Liftarn

There. Happy now? // Liftarn

category flags

 InfoIsrael has no capital punishement. Only one person has been civilly executed in the history of the State of Israel - w:Adolf Eichmann, who was hanged in 1962 after he was convicted in 1961 of participation in w:Nazi w:war crimes relating to the w:Holocaust.
I hope Adambro does not mind hanging of w:Adolf Eichmann and would agree that to make the Flag of Israel look like this is an overdue to say the least. The image is nothing more than another hateful lie by latuff, that has not even zero EV, but negative EV. Any flags category is absolutely irrelevant.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Whether it is a "hateful lie by latuff" is pretty irrelevant, by hosting these images Commons is not suggesting what they portray is an accurate representation of the situation in Israel. The community have had the debates about whether these images should be kept or not and decided they should be so it would seem you're assertion that they have zero educational value is disagreed with. Whether you like the images or not, you cannot ignore the community's decision to keep them and so act disruptively against proper categorisation. You've demonstrated that you are unable to put your personal opinions aside when considering how these images should be categorised by, as I noted elsewhere recently, refusing to acknowledge that it might to appropriate to put them in categories other than Category:Carlos Latuff. As such you're participation in any discussions about categorisation is pretty pointless.

This image seems to be a perfect example of a variation on flags of Israel and so it should be in that category, whether you dislike the image or otherwise. Adambro (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

So, even, if I'm taking a part in a discussion, I am acting disruptively? Well, then you should know what to do with your special administrator button. Please do not hesitate to use it.I assure you I'm not going to protest. BTW I did not say that latuff caricatures have zero EV. I said they have negative EV.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I am saying this to all participants in this discussions: categories are meant to be used in good faith. They are not to be used as a tool for promoting political views. Placing such an image in a category dealing with Israeli flags is not legitimate - it is crossing a red line of using the Commons as a political tool. It is one thing to keep this image on the Commons, and it is another to place it in a certain category. The image is available to those who want to use it, according to the decision to keep it here. That decision said nothing about how to direct people to this image. The Commons don't promote hatred against any country or group of people, and the categories are not a bypass to this policy. I expect all users and especially the administrators to be aware of this and not to engage in endless discussions, assuming good faith where there is no good faith at all. Drork (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

One more thing to add: Wikipedia:Commons categories states:
Who? if the artist is well known, it makes sense to categorize by artist;
Our "artist" is surely well known, so lets's follow the Commons policies.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Mbz1's comments timestamped at 21:34, I have probably addressed most of this elsewhere, I have said that I do consider your behaviour to be disruptive. To Drork, I agree that categories shouldn't be used to promote political views and you've said the Israeli flags category is inappropriate but you've not actually, it appears, explained why. The community have demonstrated through numerous deletion requests that they want these images to stay. That doesn't just mean that we don't delete them, that infers that we should retain them and categorise them appropriately rather than compromising and not doing so because some wanted them to be deleted. I have commented elsewhere that assuming good faith has it limits and as such I am treating everyone's actions with equal suspicion. With regards to Mbz1's above comments, yes the policy does sate that. Where does it state that we only categorise images by artist as you suggest? It doesn't, if you look at exactly where you found that quote you will find a whole range of different criteria which are just some of what should be considered when categorising images. For example, "what? / whom?: what or whom does the file show? What is the subject?" Adambro (talk) 23:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be very difficult to argue that this isn't a variation on the flag of Israel. That Israel doesn't have capital punishment (I guess Mbz1 don't count targeted killings) is irrelevant. // Liftarn (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Last time I've checked the design of the Flag of Israel had no latuff signature anywhere in it.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You'll note it isn't being described as the Flag of Israel, rather a variation on that flag which it blatantly is. Adambro (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)