File talk:Burned israeli flag - 27zapata.jpg

Antisemitism?

Nope, no evidence whatsoever. Anti-Israel, probably, but that's an entierly different thing. Kordas claim he can "see one Star of David burned, symbol of Judaism.", but I can't. Even if it was one it is still no evidence of any antisemitism since this is the flag os Israel and not a symbol of Judaism. // Liftarn (talk)

Of course you cannot see, because it's burned. It's what fire and hate usually does. For your information, Israel is one Jewish State, the only one, so the connnection Judaism = Israel is pretty clear. Sorry if you cannot understand that, it's very clear for me. Kordas (sínome!) 08:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

So you do admit there is no star of David in the picture? Criticism of the state of Israel is not the same thing as antisemitism. // Liftarn (talk) 10:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no star of David in the picture because it is burned, as you noticed. And we aren't talking about criticism of the state of Israel, but the burning of Jewish symbology. Israel uses Jewish symology in its flag and coat of arms. Star of David = Jewish symbology. Burned star of David = anti Jewish symbology. Easy for you. Kordas (sínome!) 10:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

We are actually talking about the bruning of Israeli symbology. It is clearly a flag of Israel that has been burned. I understand it is a problem that Israel uses Jewish symols, but we must apply some common sense here. // Liftarn (talk)

Again, Israeli symbology is Jewish symbology, why you can't understand that? And why is that a problem? It's the only Jewish State, so they use Jewish symbology. Your common sense don't have to be same than mine or others, as you can see here. And please, be serious. Don't revert me again until this talk ends. I uploaded the image with that cat, you removed it, and I don't agree with that. So don't remove it again or I'll search for a sysop to protect it. Thanks. Kordas (sínome!) 13:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see that two different things use the same symbols can be confusing. However since we here have a clear indication that it's the Israeli flag and not some flag for Judaism that have been burnt it is clear that it is the state, not the religion, that is refers to. Yes, asking for a third opinion might be a good idea. // Liftarn (talk) 21:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so now that you agree to search for a third opinion, let me put the things as you find in first place. The consensus you claim for must not be for adding the category as you believe, but for your removal. So don't distort the facts, don't editwarring again and wait for that opinion. Kordas (sínome!) 22:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Please don't readd controversial (and incorrect) categories until the issue is resolved. // Liftarn (talk)

Continued debate

Ok, since there is no evidence of any antisemitism in this picture the category is as invalid as adding Category:Three-wheeled motor vehicles as such a vehicle might have passed that place earlier. // Liftarn (talk)

Again, that's your opinion. Read the reference I gave you a while ago. And I don't understand the thre-wheeled analogy, sorry. Kordas (sínome!) 12:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and that is your opinion. That some random dude in Italy thinks it's antisemitism doesn't make it so. // Liftarn (talk)

Nope, that's not my opinion. That was the opinion of the Vatican, not some random dude's like you want to believe. Kordas (sínome!) 13:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually the only person mentioning antisemitism in the article is the chairman of the Italian Union of Jewish Communities (UCEI), Claudio Morpurgo who actually is a random dude. He is of course entitled to an opinion, but we should not base categories on what some random person thinks. // Liftarn (talk)

Read this. They don't use the word "Antisemitism" per se, but they are clearly refering to it. Kordas (sínome!) 13:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

So now you are mind reading again. They are talking about that it is offensive. And flag burnings may be offensive to extreme nationalists. After all that's the point of flag burnings. But to be offensive and antisemitic is two very different things. // Liftarn (talk)

Lol, no, I'm not. I'm only applying the definition of antisemitism, "hostility towards Jews", it's very easy. Now here you have another source: The Times. Is The Times biased too? Read where it says "had been accompanied by flag burning which was not only anti Israeli but anti Semitic". Still awaiting your source. Kordas (sínome!) 13:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually you are not. You switch from "offensive" to "hostility" in an unacceptable way. I have already given you a just as reliable source as you (several times now). Finding sources is no problem, I could for instance mention this where it says "I do NOT think there is anything either antisemitic or antizionistic about disagreeing with Israeli policy.". According to en:Flag desecration "such action is intended to make a political point against a country or its policies". Not that it says nothing about it being an expression of hate against the main ethnic group of that country (only a "symbolic insult to the people of that country"). // Liftarn (talk)

What a surprise, my switch is an unaceptable way for you... but for me is clearly rational and logic. And you bring me a blog as source, bravo. Again, the Israeli flag has Jewish elements, cause it's a Jewish State. So you cannot separate the "political point" from the ethnical point in this case. I'm not going to be tired for repeating this. Kordas (sínome!) 14:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, those element is not visible in this picture so it's a moot point. It is perfectly acceptable to make a difference between political criticism and racism. // Liftarn (talk)

They are not visible in this picture because they were burned. It's a Israeli flag (made with papers), and the star of David is burned. Read the description, if you didn't until now. Kordas (sínome!) 14:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The description says "palestina askatu! 007". Not very informative, but somehow you just know it was a star of David there and not, for instance, a falafel? So you do admit it is an Israeli flag, i.e. the flag of the state of Israel. Ok, case closed then. It's an attack on the state, not an ethnicity/religion. // Liftarn (talk) 14:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

In basque it says "Free Palestine!" Enough informative to know it's an Israeli flag. And usually Israeli flags hold a star of David in the half (you can see that there) And yes, it's an attack on the State, the Jewish State. So the ethnicity is a very important detail. So the case is not close, sorry for you. Kordas (sínome!) 14:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps that information should be added to the description. It is an attack on the state of Israel. Criticism of Israel is not antisemitsm. So yes, the case is closed. The main ethnicity of the state is a moot point. Burning a flag of France is not an indication that you hate people of French ethnicity. // Liftarn (talk)

Again, you're wrong. It's an attack on the Jewish State. And that's not critticism, but a burning flag. May be you can do a intelectual effort to understand that. So nope, the case is not closed. You can repeat that many times as you want, but is not true. Kordas (sínome!) 14:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's an attack on Israel. The state of Israel. Flag burnings is a form of criticism and (in most countries) a protected form of free speech. As it refers to the state ethnicity has nothing to do with it. People who promote the idea of ethnically cleansed states are universally known as racists. // Liftarn (talk)

Lucky for me, I don't support ethnically cleansed states, so I'm not racist. I only say what Israel says, it is a Jewish State. So the burning of the Jewish elements of its flag can be seen as antisemitism. I don't know if wherever you live the burning of flags is a national sport, or may be your family taught to you it was a funny thing to burn symbols from other people. But where I live it's seen like a very very ugly act, an offense and far from a free speech. Free speech is not burning flags, IMHO. Kordas (sínome!) 20:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The burning of part of the flag can be seen as antisemitism. It can also be seen as an objection to acts of the state of Israel. At Commons, we don't use Categories to resolve that dispute. Where I live, the learned Justice Brennan wrote Texas v. Johnson to explain why it's free speech, no matter how ugly. Justice Andrew Kennedy wrote a terser concurrence that doesn't go into the history of the case. Flag burning expresses an opinion and harms no one.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Alternatives

Ok then, you left no alternative way for me then. See you there. Kordas (sínome!) 11:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

At least I was nice enough to take it up at Commons:Disputes noticeboard#File:Burned_israeli flag - 27zapata.jpg instead. // Liftarn (talk)

Yeah, nice enough to advice me you did that step. Or for accusing me to do personal attacks that you must have dreamed. Kordas (sínome!) 11:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

"he don't have any interest in talk /../ I don't accept his attitude. He thinks he can laugh to me... he is wrong." // Liftarn (talk)

Then you don't know what a personal attack is. That's my opinion about your attitude, not about you. Little difference. Kordas (sínome!) 12:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

So it would be OK if I said that you act like a fanatic with no connection with reality? After all that would just be an opinion on your action, not about you. // Liftarn (talk)

No, because that you said don't have same level what I said. You used the word "fanatic", where I used something like that? Kordas (sínome!) 12:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I won't say it then. Could we get on with the discussion now? What about the compromise suggestion? // Liftarn (talk)

Categories

What about Category:Anti-Zionism? Multichill (talk) 11:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is probably more correct even if it would require mind reading abilities to be able to tell if the flag burning is against the existence of the state of Israel as such or just against some of it's actions. // Liftarn (talk)

It may be a good alternative. But see, I put one reference where they make flag burning equal to anti-semitism. What reference gave Liftarn to us? Nothing but only his opinion. Kordas (sínome!) 11:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could try to find an unbiased and reliable source before making far fetched assumptions. // Liftarn (talk)

Of course I must find one source you like. Meanwhile, you can read it, the Vatican part above all. Or to find one source where flag burning is not equal to anti-semitism. I'm waiting. Kordas (sínome!) 12:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

That I like it is not a requirement, just that it's unbiased and reliable. If just any source is good enough for you I can use [1] as a source, right? It's certainly just as reliable as the opinion of chairman of Claudio Morpurgo, the Italian Union of Jewish Communities (UCEI). // Liftarn (talk)

Yep, that's a biased source alright. Can we agree on Category:Anti-Zionism as a compromise? Yes or no please :-) Multichill (talk) 12:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm waiting the Liftarn's source before I could answer, thank you. Kordas (sínome!) 12:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think antizionism is correct either, but at least it has some connection to reality. // Liftarn (talk)

Again, I'm waiting his source, not his sentences about what reality is. Kordas (sínome!) 12:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I have already given you a source that is just as reliable as the one you provided. // Liftarn (talk)

Don't make me laugh. Do you know what a source is? Not your eyes or your mere opinion, for sure. Kordas (sínome!) 12:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It is just as reliable as your so called "source". It has already been deemed null and void by another editor[2] so just drop it. // Liftarn (talk)

Null and void? Haha. Don't invented adjetives. He said the source was biased, not that whatever it says where false or biased. The source mentions the Vatican. Is the Vatican biased? I hope not. Kordas (sínome!) 12:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The Vatican is clearly biased, but now it wasn't the Vatican that claimed flag burning is a form of antisemitism either. // Liftarn (talk)

(Move the talk here) How could the Vatican be "clearly biased"? Explain to me, please. And please, read where they said "To offend a flag means to offend the people for whom it is a symbol, and therefore in this case it was an offense to the entire Jewish people". Kordas (sínome!) 13:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Would you perhaps consider Ali Khamenei an unbiased source? That's about how unbiased the Vatican is. They are talking about that it is offensive. And flag burnings may be offensive to extreme nationalists. After all that's the point of flag burnings. But to be offensive and antisemitic is two very different things. // Liftarn (talk)

Amazing. Is Ali Khamenei a soverignty state? Is Ali Khamenei a permanent observer State at the United Nations? And take, another source: The Times. Is The Times biased too? Read where it says "had been accompanied by flag burning which was not only anti Israeli but anti Semitic". Like I said, still awaiting your source. Kordas (sínome!) 13:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

States are just a taxable area, they can do nothing on themselves. But replace him with Iran if it makes you feel better. Both Iran and the Vatican are extremist theocracies and as such not very reliable sources. But how many times must I give you a source? Check uo one of the many times I've already given it. // Liftarn (talk)

Iran is not a permanent observer State at the United Nations. The Vatican is not an extremist theocracy, such comparison is bullshit. And you don't give any decent source to me until now. Kordas (sínome!) 14:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I checked and the Vatican is not even a UN member (you must think of The Holy See). Actually the Vatican is a theocracy (formally monarchy with the pope as head of state) and it's not a democracy. It is also extremist. Well, you haven't provided any decent source either. Just some biased opinions and articles that says other than what you claim they do. // Liftarn (talk)

Nop, is not a minor point. You called the Vatican "extremist theocracy", is not. Vatican don't promove lapidation or burn people in fires, not anymore. And yes, I provided decent source, it's not my fault you can't appreciate The Times. And they says what they says. And your truly source? Still cannot see it. Kordas (sínome!) 14:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

That is a matter of opinion, not facts. We'll have to agree to disagree about that. As for your reading problems I'm afraid I can't help you there. // Liftarn (talk)

That are facts, not my fault you cannot assume them. And I have no reading problems. May be you have. Kordas (sínome!) 14:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so you just assume that your personal opinions are facts? That would explain why this debate is so difficult. Ok, since you have no reading problems you should have no problem finding the multiple sources I have given. // Liftarn (talk)

That are not my personal opinions. They are fact. Vatican is a theocracy, not a extremist theocracy. Iran does. And my problem finding your sources is that you didn't give us any decent until now. Still waiting.

And you know, I'm tired to talk with you right now. Now I want to listen the opinion of others, so excuse me, but I'm going to take the evening free and let they could comment. Hope you don't mind. Kordas (sínome!) 14:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I certainly thin the pope is quite an extremist and if you want I can probably find a link where some random person agrees with me. Well, you still haven't given any reliable source that says that flag burning is a form of racism. I have given you sources, that you don't like them is another issue. As for taking the evening off I would probably need the entire weekend so I can talk with people you can discuss with. // Liftarn (talk)

Your thoughts about the Pope are not interesting here; likewise, the Vatican is not only the Pope, who is chosen democratically by a conclave, but a whole estate. Less extremist than in Iran, as you can see. And yes, I gave sources, re-read the page, it's not difficult to find them. But I cannot find any of yours, weird. May be you didn't give yet. Kordas (sínome!) 20:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

They are both about as extremist. You never managed to give any reliable sources, just comments of some random dude of the street. Well, if you looked perhaps you would find them. // Liftarn (talk) 21:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Again your mere opinion. You need glasses, after all. But I looked, and there is no such of your sources. Only your hackneyed opinions. Kordas (sínome!) 16:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The dispute here revolves, to a large extent, around what is called New antisemitism, which holds that in recent decades antisemitic views are often concealed behind symbolic attacks on Isreal (such as burning the Israeli flag), as well as a lot of vicious verbal attacks on Israel (such as calling for the elimination - ie destruction - of the state of Israel. In such criticism Israel itself often disparagingly referred to as "the Zionist entity". There has been a lot of acrimonious discussion (and edit warring) over the WP article on New antisemitism. But there is no denying that there are real Jewish concerns, which concerns are supported by writers who are are notable experts on the subject of antisemitism, and with material that has published to support the concept in sources that meet the standards of WP:RS. -- Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

No, the issue revolves around the issue if burning the flag of a country can somehow be interpreted as hatred of a specific ethnicity. // Liftarn (talk) 21:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Frozen for a week

Protected for a week

Please use the time to discus this. Multichill (talk) 11:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems clear to me that Category:Antisemitism fits. If, theoretically, we had a Category:Burning of the Israeli flag (an intersection of two categories in which this image appears and which no one disputes), wouldn't Category:Antisemitism be a natural parent category? I believe it would, so the category is also appropriate here. Powers (talk) 13:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

No, criticizing Israel and/or it actions (even in the form of flag burning) is not a form of antisemitism. I know that many people wants to blur the line, but it is a clear difference. By your logic Category:Racism would be "a natural parent category" to Category:Flag burning. // Liftarn (talk)

We can not take the burning the flag of Israel to be, in and of itself, an anti-Semitic act. There certainly can be criticism of Israel that is not anti-Semetic, and I don't see why that can't escalate to flag burning. To add an Antisemitism category here is simply not a neutral act.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I was thinking of "new antisemitism", which Wikipedia treats as separate from "anti-Zionism". Powers (talk) 17:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Labeling something as "new antisemitism" is massively controversial, as the Wikipedia page proves. It's not the place of Commons categories to push one side of the controversy or another.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, obviously it's controversial or we wouldn't be having this discussion. It just seems difficult to reconcile the idea that burning the flag of the only Jewish state in the world is not somehow trying to send a message against Jewishness or Judaism. Powers (talk) 18:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Which is exactly why people don't like "new antisemitism"; it's okay to burn the US flag, but you burn the Israeli flag, that's antisemitism? You're trying to stop complaints about the country by claiming they're complaints about the religion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I would contrast it with File:Ship to Gaza by Latuff.gif, which I found interestingly is not in Category:Antisemitism. Criticism of Israel using classic anti-Semitic symbols and invoking the Nazis is clearly anti-Semitic; criticism of Israel as you would any other nation, is not clearly anti-Semitic. --Prosfilaes (talk) 19:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Tell it to Liftarn. He supports that nazi use of the Israeli flag, but dislikes the firewood use. Weird. Kordas (sínome!) 20:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Again with the personal remarks. Anyway, I fully support everybody's right to make comparissions between the actions of any given country and nazi Germany. It may be offensive and it may be incorrect, but it is in itself no evidence of any antisemitism as it's a comment on the country, not the ethnicity. // Liftarn (talk) 21:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

In the interest of accuracy, the name of the file should be moved to "Burned mock israeli flag". A close look at the image suggests to me that the blue stripes were hand painted on a large piece of paper (that appears to have been folded in quarters at some point). Probably whoever burned it was too cheap to buy a real flag. The symbolism of the act, of course, is unchanged. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

New Antisemitism

The dispute here revolves, to a large extent, around what is called New antisemitism, which holds that in recent decades antisemitic views are often concealed behind symbolic attacks on Isreal (such as burning the Israeli flag), as well as a lot of vicious verbal attacks on Israel (such as calling for the elimination - ie destruction - of the state of Israel. In such criticism Israel itself often disparagingly referred to as "the Zionist entity". There has been a lot of acrimonious discussion (and edit warring) over the WP article on New antisemitism. But there is no denying that there are real Jewish concerns, which concerns are supported by writers who are are notable experts on the subject of antisemitism, and with material that has published to support the concept in sources that meet the standards of WP:RS. -- Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that there aren't real concerns or reliable sources. I'm arguing that there are reliable sources arguing that the term "new antisemitism" is a fancy way to try and turn valid critique of Israel into racism. Commons categories are not for controversial tagging; it's for neutral agreed-upon characteristics of the media.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is the argument that Zionists use the accusation of "antisemitism" to protect Israel from all criticism, by saying that critics of Israel are antisemitic. The defect with that argument is that, by that account, virtually every Zionist in the world is antisemitic. I do not know a Zionist who is not critical Israel. No one (Zionist or not) could live in, or have visited Israel, without noticing that Israel is not Utopia. So there is, naturally, criticism from Zionists also. But Zionist critics of Israel seem to manage to state their criticisms without burning Israeli flags, or calling for the annihilation of the country. Do you understand my point? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

So now if you criticize Israel, you're either a Zionist or antisemitic? A's do x; A's do not do y; A's are not z; therefore if B's who do x do y, they are z? That's not a valid syllogism.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

No. Claiming that Zionists want to defend Israel from criticism is nonsense because Zionists frequently criticize Israel. Rather, the problem is antisemites trying to pretend that they are just criticizing Israel when they burn the Israeli flag and call for the annihilation of Israel. Refer to Fundamental Rights Agency official statement on antisemitism, for the EU. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to reply to this argument presented by Prosfilaes: Commons categories are not for controversial tagging; it's for neutral agreed-upon characteristics of the media. I quite agree. You will notice, if you look, that the subject of "New antisemitism" is widely discussed, and supported by many experts on the subject of antisemitism in published works that are WP:RS. Doing a google book search for New Antisemitism I get 711,000 results. You can take a look and see that among those results there are many scholars who support the concept as valid. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there are many scholars who support this concept as valid. There are many scholars who do not support this concept as valid. That's what it means to be controversial.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

If there are reputable scholars who support the concept it is WP:RS. Burning a nation's flag is never a rational criticism of that country, and in this case the antisemitism category is justified. Would you rather create a new category called "Irrational criticism of Israel"? If so, I might be willing to support that alternative. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Flag burnings can never be seen as a form of racism. It may be offensive to nationalists, but that is an entirely different matter. // Liftarn (talk) 19:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Leftarn, where did you read that, or is it your WP:OR? Anyhow, I rather suspect that if an Islamic flag were burned at a KKK rally, it would be regarded as a biased attack on Islam itself, a not just a criticism directed against some particular nation, or a particular group.

NB: antisemitism is not necessarily racism. The Wikipedia article on antisemitism hardly mentions race, and in the section of the article with definitions of antisemitism the word race is not found. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Right, if someone burned an Islamic flag, it would be an attack on Islam, not Arabs, just like burning an Israeli flag is an attack on Israel, not Jews.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

No. It would be a symbolic attack on Muslims, and by extension on Islam too. You may have noticed that I already explained that antisemitism is not necessarily racism. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

If someone burned the flag of Saudi Arabia it would not be an attack on all arabs, but an attack on Saudi Arabia. // Liftarn (talk) 21:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia is an Islamic state. It is certainly possible to criticize Saudi Arabia without criticizing Islam, but because of the nature of the Saudi flag it is not possible to burn it without that becoming a symbolic attack on Islam. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I would disagree, but now I was talking about ethnicity and not religion. Criticising religion is also valid free speech and not a form of racism. Of course antisemitism may be disguised as criticism of Judaism and islamophobia may be disguised as criticism of Islam, but that would be impossible to tell for just a burned flag and as I have stated earlier, flags are symbols of nations, not religions nor ethnicities. // Liftarn (talk) 22:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

In what way is flag burning criticism? Flag burning is an expression of irrational hate directed against whatever the flag stands for in the inflamed minds of those doing the burning. It is not rational, and if it is not rational it is not criticism.

For example, if Obama decides to criticize Iran he does not call in the press for a photo op, and then burn the Iranian flag in the Rose Garden. Instead he explains his objections to Iranian national behavior in a rational way, and he explains his goals for changed Iranian behavior; and he does that with plenty of room for negation and a willingness to listen to alternative solutions to problems that exist between the two countries.

Flag burning is not criticism, it does not explain anything, there is no desire for negotiation, and there is no openness to alternative solutions, because anger and hate desire only the annihilation of what it hates. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, that is a moot point anyway as the objection/criticism/hate/whatever is directed at a nation and not a religion or ethnicity. // Liftarn (talk) 12:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Quite the contrary. It is Antisemitism in the form of New-antisemitism, which is an academically recognized, and widely discussed, issue. Of course, the image should have Category:Flag burning. But that can not be the only category for this image. Category: antisemitism is obviously indicated, as I discussed above.

If Obama wants to criticize Iran, he calls in the press. If Joe Schmoe wants to criticize Iran, publically and loudly, he's unlikely to get five seconds on TV by speaking calmly and rationally; but burning the Iranian flag, he can grab the public spotlight for long enough to get his argument across. You don't have to open to alternative solutions to criticize; criticism is still criticism if it says this must stop now, no questions.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Break

Do you had a compromise solution that might satisfy everyone, and end this dispute? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no academic (or other) consensus what "new antisemitism" is and how it relates to actual antisemitism. I already accepted the compromise suggestion by Multichill to instead use Category:Anti-Zionism. // Liftarn (talk) 15:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Categories does not require "academic consensus", and in fact no such thing exists in the area of social, religious, and political issues. The purpose of categories is so that people searching the internet for a free image on a particular subject can find something useful to their purpose on Commons. You are attempting to restrict access to an image that some people would (in fact) find a useful illustration of an antisemitic act. It is not your job to censor access to images. That was not allowed even with porn images. What makes you think you have a right to be a censor for Commons images? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It is an fact not censorship, but to avoid obviously incorrect categories. If someone cats something blue as "Red objects" it is incorrect. Incorrect categories don't help people find objects, it hinders them. That some people may be colour-blind is not a reason to knowingly miss-tag images. What about the compromise suggestion above? // Liftarn (talk) 16:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

We are talking about a guy who does such things, with a clear agenda. Don't you understand? He has the right and the duty, after all. Kordas (sínome!) 16:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Coul you please add something constructive instead of continuing with the personal attacks? // Liftarn (talk) 16:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Again you prove you don't know what a personal attack is. I only give prooves of your atitude here, so the people could understand what are we talking about. And please, don't move with the subsection name. It's only your opinion, and is not accepted by two of us. Kordas (sínome!) 16:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I hope you are satisfied with the non-descriptive headings now? // Liftarn (talk) 17:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am. Thanks for stop to use your opinion like subsection names. Kordas (sínome!) 17:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Let me repeat this, Liftarn. Categories are so that people can find images suitable to their purpose. It is not our business as Commons editors to decide how a particular image is used. This image needs to be categorized as

1. Flag burning,
2. Anti-Zionism, and
3. Antisemitism.

The reason is because people will want to use this image for all three, and Commons editors have no business censoring how an image will be used. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

No, as I said before, there is no need to knowingly miss-categorise an image. If someone likes to think that flag burnings are a form of racism then there is perfectly valid flag burning category to look in. If is our work as Commons editors to make sure images are properly categorised. We can't just go around adding rendom categories. // Liftarn (talk) 17:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not a random category as you want to believe. It's a related category. To add related categories is an usual practice here. Kordas (sínome!) 17:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Distantly related by several (dubious) steps. Categories have to be directly related to the subject. As there is no antisemitism pictured it is simply wrong to categories it as such. // Liftarn (talk) 17:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, your hackneyed opinion. I prove to you long ago (with sources, not like you) that flag burning can be seen as antisemitism. So it's a related thing, so it's a perfectly valid as such category. Kordas (sínome!) 17:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you managed to provide a web page with a hackneyed opinion. I don't call that a source. Since calling flag burning a form of racism makes Commons suddenly call a lot of persons racists. That is simply not acceptable. // Liftarn (talk) 17:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC), with o

So, since there's reliable sources calling the Palestinian occupation genocide, and people will want to use pictures of it to illustrate genocide, you don't object to categorizing those pictures as genocide. It's not up to Commons to censor how an image should be used, after all.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Certainly. If it helps to people finding images that are useful to their purpose that is good....and as long as I can add the antisemitism category to the Carlos Latuff cartoons. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

So you are suggesting we can add categories with no regard for what actually is pictured if it just helpt people find them. That could become very interesting... // Liftarn (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• I have started a thread on the Village Pump to get wider input, with the hope of resolving the dispute [3]. -- Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought it was blindingly obviously antisemitic however it is categorised as such. Rightly IMO --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The imaged is locked at present, but edit warring over the antisemitism category will resume if that expires. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Then protection gets extended. Edit warring is counter productive (read daft), there are better things to do than this. I will happily protect it for a long period to ensure peace. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I object on principle to that; that's an implicit threat to edit war, and the response to something like that should not be to give in to the demand.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

As I specifically stated I was against edit warring (& always have been and always will be) you will have to clarify that comment if it is in response to me I'm afraid. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 06:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Prosfilaes interpreted Malcolm's statement "edit warring ... will resume" as a threat rather than as a simple statement of what is likely to happen given what was happening before the protection was applied. Powers (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

If you check the file edit history you will not find my name. All my participation has been on this talk page. Please do not accuse me of what I have not done. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Legal issues

Besides the issue of edit warring, I would like to stress that in many countries, public expression of antisemitism are punishable by law. When not specifically sourced, the term "antisemitism" can therefore constitute not only an insult, but downright defamation and libel. Uttering it gratuitously or lightly is a very disruptive behaviour. In this case, Kordas should reconsider his usage of the term to avoid other such incidents in the future. Rama (talk) 17:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

In a related matter User:Mbz1 of course did not miss the chance to label me an antisemite (again)[4]. // Liftarn (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Rama, how people use these images is their own responsibility. How does having a burned Israeli flag on the ground in Category:Antisemitism make a legal problem for the Wikimedia foundation? The job of categories is just to make it easier for people to find images that suite their particular need, and it is not for Commons editors to pre-decide what is the 'right' use for an image. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Because tagging it antisemitism implies that the burner is an antisemite, which quite likely could be libelous. --Prosfilaes (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not saying that the image does not depict an act of antisemitism -- neither that it does. I say that the term "antisemitism" has legal consequences, and because of that, we cannot rely merely on the opinion of such or such user to put that label. Just like we would be cautious before putting "Category:murder", "Category:thief", "Category:rapist", etc. Rama (talk) 20:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that the WMF servers are in the United States. Where is the problem? And, truth be told, if some fool who burned the Israeli flag got in trouble for breaking a law, that is his own problem. But categories are a convince for searching images, and are not a legal opinion on the image. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I see that Category:David Duke has categories Ku Klux Klan and Neo-Nazism. Should we change that too? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Please do not engage in WP:POINT. Rama (talk) 20:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Huh? I have no idea what you are trying to say. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Right, I'll assume you genially did not understand. Overt and public displays of antisemitism , while protected in the USA, are an offence in many other countries. Therefore, accusing somebody of being an antisemit, or of performing antisemit actions, litterally means that you are accusing them of an offence. Unless you can conclusively prove your point, that constitutes defamation and libel.

The case for Neo-Nazism is similar. For the Ku Klux Klan it might be a bit more delicate but it's essentially the same nature.

In the case of David Duke, the affiliation of David Duke with the Ku Klux Klan is beyond any doubt. Similarly, he used to wear Nazi uniforms in public, which conclusively suggests that at the very least he used to harbour sympathies for the Third Reich.

On the other hand, the file were an Israeli flag is being burnt does not feature any obvious differences with images of, say, US flags being burnt. It could very well be a display of purely political hostility to the State of Israel, rather than against Jews (may I remind that many Jews are not Israeli, and many Israelis are not Jewish).

So unless you have conclusive evidence that this particular image was a display of actual antisemitism, you cannot, by policy, put "category:Antisemitism". That would be equivalent to putting "category:murder" on the image of a soldier firing his weapon. Rama (talk) 20:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

@Rama, IMHO your rationale about defamation/libel is hardly applicable in this case as the "perpetrator" (who burnt this flag) is not identified; though that does not necessarily mean the act is/was antisemitism. --Túrelio (talk) 20:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Per Túrelio - the act is anti semitic, the perpetrator(s) are not identified so there is no issue. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 06:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually flag burnings are a protected form of free speech and criticising a country is not a form of racism (it may be motivated by it, but in the act itself isn't). Also if you go to the source at Flickr there are pictures of identifiable persons. // Liftarn (talk) 19:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Compromise solution

I already accepted the compromise suggestion by Multichill to instead use Category:Anti-Zionism. So what do you think? Is that acceptable to you? // Liftarn (talk)

Its ok to use category:antiZionism, but category :antisemitism should be there too. Categories are just a search convince. It implies only that the issue exists, not that it is true. Like with the Latuff cartoons also. Latuff himself has discussed in The Forward interview [5] that he has been accused of being antisemitic. If the antisemitism issue exists, the category only recognizes that. In the case of the burned Israeli flag, there are people who will consider it antisemitic, and would use the image that way in, for instance, blogs and sites. It is not our job to decide how the image is used. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Malcolm Schoscha. Both categories are perfectly useful. To drop one only because it doesn't like to a certain user is a biased solution, and Commons is not for that. Kordas (sínome!) 15:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so you two flat out reject the compromise. // Liftarn (talk) 17:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not actually a compromise. But it is certainly good to have the anti-Zionism category. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

As I have said already, what I want is that, when someone searches for antisemitic images, that file will come up. That is the point of categories. So people can find those images on Commons that might suite their purpose. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see why it should not have both categories. It is about folk finding images easily not us hiding stuff away. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually Category:Anti-Zionism was suggested as a compromise and you obviously reject that compromise. I just wanted to state it for the record. If all you want is to make the image come up when you search we could add every category on Commons to the image. However, I feel that we should only add categories that are correct or as Commons:Categories put it "Pages (including category pages) are categorized according to their subject /../ Generally files should only be in the most specific category that exists for certain topic.". // Liftarn (talk) 18:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It is a nice idea. It is not actually a compromise. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually is is a compromise between nothing and Category:Antisemitism. You may reject the comprise, but it don't change that it is a compromise. Anyway, it looks like the compromise failed. Ok, your turn to come up with an acceptable solution. // Liftarn (talk) 18:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Categories says: The category structure is the primary way to organize and find files on the Commons. It is essential that every file can be found by browsing the category structure. To allow this, each file must be put into a category directly. Each category should itself be in more general categories, forming a hierarchical structure. [6].

Wikipedia:Categorization says: Categories should be useful for readers to find and navigate sets of related articles. They should be the categories under which readers would most likely look if they were not sure of where to find an article on a given subject. [7].

In both cases the intention stated is that people who are looking for something are likely to find it where they are likely to look. A category is not a declaration of truth. It is just a search convince so that people can find what they are looking for. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

We both agree on that. However, since there is no antisemitism pictured it don't belong in that category. That some political extremists label every criticism of Israel as antisemitism don't change that fact. // Liftarn (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, you say so, again. Malcolm and I are tired of presenting you interpretations that asserts burning flags is a form of antisemitism. You negating that point is the problem, actually. Kordas (sínome!) 19:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

So you are saying I am a problem? // Liftarn (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Not you. Your impervious attitude is. See here. Kordas (sínome!) 19:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

So people who disagree with you are the problem. The simple fact is, your interpretations do not facts make, and are one side of a complex issue, and you act as if Commons has no reason to acknowledge the other sides.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you have some reading troubles? I said nobody is the problem here. Only their attitude. Do not put your words in my mouth. And I could say same than you said, your interpretations don't make facts. There is people who isn't in your side, if you only could understand about sides. So try to respect them. Kordas (sínome!) 00:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I would hope we are both on the same side. That is why I have been given several suggestions for a compromise so we can find a solution that is acceptable for all involved. // Liftarn (talk) 14:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Compromise two

Ok, here's another idea for a compromise. We simply delete this file. Problem solved. // Liftarn (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No, thanks. Deleting the file is not the solution of the issue. Shall we delete all the uncomfortable files from Commons? Don't think so. Kordas (sínome!) 19:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

AS you have shown yourselves incapable of compromise that might be only solution. If not perhaps it is your turn to come up with something constructive. // Liftarn (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually I did. I accept both categories, as I accepted those categories you put. You are who don't accept the other category. So you have the problem, not me. Kordas (sínome!) 19:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so you have no problems with adding categories? Well, I think we can reach a compromise then. I'll just add some other categories. Let's see... Yes, Category:Protests against human rights abuses would probably be a good start. And Category:Freedom of speech is also clearly related. // Liftarn (talk) 19:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have no problem to add directly related categories. Not all, of course. Do you want to add those categories you said to this image? Well, since they're not directly related, your proposal is not convincing to me. Sorry. Kordas (sínome!) 19:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

So your politics say that any burning of Israel's flag is antisemetic, so that's a directly related category, but politics you disagree with say it's a protest against human rights abuses, so that's not a directly related category?--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Please, don't distort me. Can you see any protest against human rights abuses in the picture? Not me. I only see a burned Israeli "flag", result of a hating attitude. Curious behavior for a protest in favor of human rights. Kordas (sínome!) 19:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that picture was taken at a protest against Israel's human rights abuses i Gaza so it is clearly related. Hating human rights abuse is perfectly normal. // Liftarn (talk) 20:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It's perfectly normal to hate Israel, Israeli and Jewish people in a demonstration in favor of Gaza and the human rights that of course are observed there. That's the reason of we can seeing a burned Israeli flag. Perfectly normal in your perfectly normal universe. But please, focus in the current issue, not in so-called Israel's human rights abuses. If only I could read that denunciations wrote in the image... but I only see a Israeli burned flag. Kordas (sínome!) 00:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Do I see hate in the picture? No, I see a burnt piece of paper. You want to twist into your schema, and make it out to be hatred, not only hatred, hatred against Jews. The fact that you can't conceive it as a noisy, offensive even, but normal part of political protest is your problem.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Hate already did its job in that image. And please, don't talk about what is noisy or offensive, since I could say same. Wanna swap who are the offended here? Try another thing. Kordas (sínome!) 00:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Flag burning is an irrational act, motivated by hate for whatever the flag symbolizes to the person(s) burning the flag. I do not think this the right place to debate if Palestinian antisemitism exists, and I think that issue is irrelevant here because the category only indicates that an issue with the subject exists. The category only says there is an issue. It does not judge truth. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

So you do agree to adding Category:Protests against human rights abuses and Category:Freedom of speech as they are are related to the issue? // Liftarn (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Flag burning is motivated by many things. As I said, it can be a way to bring attention to a protest. Your concession that it's "motivated by hate for whatever the flag symbolizes to the person(s) burning the flag" seems to blow your case out of the water, given that there's no way to know that that is Jews and not Israel. And you've never given us any evidence that your claim about what categories are used for is more than a political ruse, that would be an accepted reason to connect categories to things in ways that don't fit your politics.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

This [8] was not, in my view done to get attention, it was done as an act of hate. Its called hate too, rightly I think. Flag burning is an irrational act; and is directed, by the people doing the burning, at what they think the flag symbolizes. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

In the example you give it's the gay flag that is burned. That is directed at gays. If it was, say, the flag of San Francisco would you jump to the the conclusion that it was motivated by hate towards gays? // Liftarn (talk) 22:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Try not to sound stupid. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't try to sound stupid. I try to figure out how you are thinking. You didn't answer my question. // Liftarn (talk) 23:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Compromise suggestion 3

People looking for images to illustrate antisemitism would be best served if they were given images of actual antisemitism. Commons should not be used to push a certain political view (like in this case that criticism of Israe is the same thing as antisemitism). It's about as clever as adding Category:Terrorism to Category:Keffiyeh. If it is finding images you are worried about rather than a smear campaign it can easily be solved by in Category:Antisemitism writing something "If you are looking for files regarding opposition to the state of Israel see Category:Anti-Zionism" (and vice versa). // Liftarn (talk) 14:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I really do fail to see what the issue is with trying to reduce the categories for this image. I have seen nothing that makes me thing the current cats plus Anti-Zionism are anything but appropriate. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Because this isn't an image of antisemitism; it's an image of a burned Israeli flag. People looking for anti-Islamism aren't going to find pictures of the IDF, and if the same justifications here are used to add it, there's going to be more arguments. The only reasonable way to categorize is as neutrally and factually as possible, and the mere fact that there's arguments here shows that adding anti-semitism here is not neutral.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

How did you become so expert about what images of antisemitism took like?

In fact, to me the flag looks looks it was burned in a very controlled way, perhaps by applying a propane torch to burn out the star in the center (the symbol of Judaism and the Jewish people), and it was not burned by just throwing on a match. I have looked at the image carefully many times, and I see nothing that looks like a match, which would be there because it was clearly burned on the ground.

But, demonstrations with burning Israeli flags can be antisemitic anyhow. For instance, Richard Baehr wrote in The American Thinker: I have been to several of the left wing Israel hate fests. They are scary. There is real passion in the air. There is something about Israel that gets the juices going. Anti—Semitism is a part of it. [9]. Just because you do not think any thing that is done, or said, or supported by the New Left is antisemitic does not make it so. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

How did you become so expert in fire dynamics?

That last paragraph massively misrepresents my position, and I don't know how you got that from what I've written. I do not argue that these protests are never or even usually aren't, antisemetic; merely that one cannot assume that a burned flag is anything other anti-nation without further evidence.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

You disagree with the New Left position on Israel, but have been fighting over this category for days even though you think Israeli flag burning at anti_Israel rallies really is antisemitic. Well, that clarifies everything. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I say nothing on the New Left's position; I believe that some, but not all, flag burning at anti-Isreal rallies is antisemitic.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

To reply to your earlier question, the way I became, as you say, "so expert in fire dynamics" is that I was a potter for 20 years and worked with fire constantly. But the question is not really so much fire dynamics as visual effect. The image gives the impression of an intended visual effect, and that effect was to turn the star (the symbol of the Jewish people) into ashes. I have been involved in the visual arts all my life, and I think I know a planed visual effect when I see it.

But even leaving that aside, there is plenty to support antisemitism at Palestinian rallies, and in Palestinian thinking. I do not make this stuff up, there are sources. Matthias Küntzel, for example, discusses the subject extensively here [10], and in many essays. If antisemitism is an issue, that is quite enough to add the category. As I said, a category is not a Commons declaration of truth, it is just Commons acknowledging that an issue exists. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

What I'm looking for is a simple yes or no. Do you accept the compromise deal or do you reject it? It's not that hard to find a random person who posts something on or blog or whatever, so that is not very impressive. // Liftarn (talk) 10:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

What I see above, under "Compromise suggestion 3", is an argument supporting your position on categories for this file. What is the "compromise 3" you are suggesting? I have already explained that I do not agree with your argument. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The compromise deal is to have Category:Anti-Zionism and in the header of that category write something like "If you are looking for hatred of Jews and/or Judaism see Category:Antisemitism" (and vice versa). // Liftarn (talk) 11:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

What I think best is if people searching category:antisemitism will find this image. That way they can decide for themselves if it is antisemitic, instead of Commons editors deciding for them (negatively) and hiding the image so that their search will not find it. I do not see how your suggestion will result in people searching category:antisemitism actually finding the image. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion above solves the problem with finding images that aren't antisemitic by giving the user the opportunity to also look at images that are antizionistic instead. That way users will find the image as well as we avoid branding people who disagree with Israeli actions as antisemites. // Liftarn (talk) 14:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Someone searching category:antisemitism should be able to find this image, after which they can decide for themselves of it is antisemitic or not. There is no reason to think they will need (nor want) you to make that decision for them. The issue is there, they can decide the truth for themselves. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion makes sure users who look in the wrong category can still find the image. To knowingly put images in the wrong category because some users might look there don't sound like a good idea to me. Some users looking for ambulances might look in Category:Fire engines so let's put the images of amulances in that category... I don't think so. // Liftarn (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Your suggestion is a clumsy way to avoid that category to this image. And your continued use of the words "wrong category" refered to that category is nearly an arrogance of your part. Who do you believe you are to decide what is wrong or not? Stop treating us as blinded and save your wisdom to yourself. Kordas (sínome!) 18:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually I think it is a very elegant solution to the problem. Users looking for such images will be able to find it and Commons avoid labelling (or libelling) people. // Liftarn (talk) 18:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

There was no problem. It is a problem that you invented. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I understand some users have no problem throwing wild accusations around them, but we as a project should not do the same. // Liftarn (talk) 19:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Liftarn, if you do not stop making unsupported accusations against me, and other users you disagree with, there may soon be a thread about that problem on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I never said I referred to you. As far as I know I have never made any unfounded accusations against other users and rarely any at all. But you seem to be dodging the issue. Do you think it is a good idea to use Commons to slander people? // Liftarn (talk) 19:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Liftarn, you were replying to my comment, and "throwing wild accusations around" clearly refers to me. I would suggest that you not make that sort of accusation unless you can supply some current diffs to support your accusations. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Village Pump

NB: I have started a new thread on the Village Pump [11]. -- Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

A category is not a declaration of truth?

Kordas protested against Liftarn usage of wrong category as nearly an arrogance, but it's not. It's OK for a user to report a category as wrong in a case like this. Liftarn has explained several times that the burning of an official national or state flag is more likely to be a declaration against the state that uses that flag, and it is not necessarily an attack on the inhabitants of that state, on the ethnic majority people nor on the religion related to the people of that state. If we acknowledge the fact that Israel uses David's star (whiche as a Jewish symbol before the current Israeli state) on their flag , we can't assume that any burning of part of a Israeli flag is made as an attack to Jewish people. Let me provide another instance, the flag of Mozambique depicts an assaul rifle but we wouldn't tag images of burnt Mozambiquean flagas as "opposition to fire arm", in a similar manner as how we shouldn't tag any burning of a flag of the state of Israel as "anti-semitism". --Javier ME (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I hope it's now clearer why anti-semitism wasn't a good category for flag burning in protests against policies of the state of Israel. Now let's go with the argument on linking files to categorise that don't fit well in order to help users to find them. It's said that this picture could be used in contexts related to antisemitism. In a similar way a picture of a burger could be used to illustrate a text on obesity; a picture of a person drinking could illustrate a text on alcoholism, but we shouldn't categorise pictures of burgers in category:obesity nor pictures of people (who we don't know to be alcoholics) on alcoholism, even if it helps other users to finde these pictures. Following principles such as "A category is not a declaration of truth. It is just a search convince so that people can find what they are looking for..." [12] or "The category only says there is an issue. It does not judge truth." would be quite dangerous. If you categorise a picture of a young lady under prostitution, people might understand that as a declaration of truth. If you don't know if the person depicted is certainly a prostitute, don't categorise it as prostitution. If you can't read the mind of the one(s) who burnt a flag, and don't know if it's an attack on the state whiche the flag depicts, or on the whole people or a way to call atention towards an abuse made by that state, don't categorise it as racism nor anti-semitism. --Javier ME (talk) 21:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length. No need to restate what has been said already (above). You have a right to disagree if you choose, but you are wrong. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 09:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Not according to Commons:Categories. The question is if we should follow that or just follow your personal views. // Liftarn (talk)

According to Commons:Categories the purpose of categories is to help people find the kind of files they are looking for. It is not your business to pre-judge for people if the category is politically correct. If the issue of antisemitism exists, the category belongs on the file. The people searching for images can decide the rest for themselves. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is not judging if categories are politically correct. The problem is that you insist on keeping a category that is not correct (as long as it does not describe what the image shows, just what two people imagine about the intention of the people who burnt the flag). And, of course, deciding if categories linked form images are correct or not is our business as Commons users. --Javier ME (talk) 14:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Malcolm said I had a right to disagree. Of course he has a right to disagree as well, but not on the image description page. If someone wanted to attribute anti-semitism to this image on their own webs, it would not be Commons' business. But when a user mistags a Commons file description page, it is actually our business. --Javier ME (talk) 14:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Besides, it's no use on repeating that "the purpose of categories is to help people find the kind of files they are looking for" since it has already been refuted (both above and at the Village Pump). The argument for mistagging files because "The people searching for images can decide the rest for themselves" would lead us to tag any image of a young person with tight cloths under the prostitution category and then let the people searching for images decide the rest for themselves. If any users want to ilustrate a text with the image of a burnt flag, they must search it in the burning flags category, not in the category of the ideology suspected by the uploader (in the same way that if a user wants an image of a lynching in the USA, they must search in the category of lynching, and no in the category of the party that other user suspects that promoved the lynching). --Javier ME (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have the mistaken idea that disagreeing with something amounts to having "refuted" it. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. I understand that not all types of disagreeing comments are refutals, but your positions have actually been refuted and you keep repeating that others are wrong without providing convincing arguments. You should not claim antisemitism is an issue in this picture simply by ignoring the arguments and examples provided above. --Javier ME (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like you to explain why this particular perceived category problem is so important to you when there are so many other problems with categories. Your behavior is irrationally focused on removing a long standing category from this file.

For instance, in category:Islamophobia there is this file File:Flag of Eurabia.png, and in Islamic flags there is this file File:Flag of the Islamic Republic of Turkestan.svg. Why is the one with the blue background Islamophobic, and the one with the green ground the flag of the Islamic Republic of Turkestan? That makes no sense, but if someone thinks that a star and crescent on a blue background is Islamophobic then I am not going to waste hours trying to prove there is a mistake.

But you guys have hours to waste trying to remove a category. It is enough to cause one to suspect that there is a hidden issue. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

"Eurabia" is a concept strongly connected with islamopohbia just as "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" is connected with antisemitism. // Liftarn (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I am familiar with Eurabia. But what makes that flag Islamophobic? It is the Islamic star and crescent on a blue background. Neither the star and crescent, nor the color blue, is anti-Islam. Why the Islamopohbia category? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Because that flag symbolises the concept of Eurabia. If we would have a "flag of antisemitism" (well, we do have Flaggen Nazi-Deutschlands) then Category:Antisemitism would be vary much correct. But as far as I can tell you're not claiming that the flag of Israel is a symbol of antisemitism. // Liftarn (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Malcolm, many users spend a lot of time correcting the categorisation and description of images. What made us spend hours with this particular image was your persistance on keeping it miscategorised. I can't tell if the one who miscategorised it had any hidden issue, as you called it, but it's clearly absurd to suspect such a thing on the people who ask for correcting it. --Javier ME (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I am starting to suspect an unusual persistence concerning category:antisemitism. You have done nothing to explain that. As for this flag File:Flag of Eurabia.png I do not see anything to support your claim that it symbolizes Eurabia. A google image search shows a few different flags for "eurabia flag", but not that. Do you feel any need to remove category:Islamopohbia? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The designer of the flag stated it is "Flag of Eurabia" so that is quite certain, but you can open up a discussion about it on the talk page if you like. // Liftarn (talk) 21:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

If I edited the image of the flag of the Islamic Republic of Turkestan to say its an Islamopohbic image would you take me at my word, or would you take a look to see if there is any support for that? To see if the issue exists? That flag looks a lot like the so-called Islamopohbic flag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malcolm Schosha (talk • contribs)

en:WP:OSE. // Liftarn (talk) 14:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's not clear if the other existing stuff has the same problem as this file. If a flag was a accepted symbol of a islamophobic concept, it could be categorised as Islamophoby; if it was not such a symbol, but had other uses, we should categorise it according to what it depicts; if it was [Wikimedian]....created artwork without obvious educational use, we wouldn't need it at Commons. --Javier ME (talk) 15:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I am trying to figure out the value of this file: File:Motivator Eurabia.jpg. Just why is it in Commons? -- Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

May I recommend that you wonder about that on the talk page of that file instead. // Liftarn (talk) 16:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I have been hoping you will give a rational explanation of why you are so aggressive when it comes to issues of antisemitism, but you do not seem to give a flying rat's ass when it comes to these other problems. This long argument has left the unpleasant impression that there is an irrational factor motivating your aggressiveness in cases involving category:antisemitism. Perhaps such behavior might justify your being topic banned. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I see no problem with the categories of File:Motivator Eurabia.jpg so why should I go ballistic over that? And I don't like what you are hinting at. I simply don't like the idea of having freedom of speech gagged by bogus claims of antisemitism. // Liftarn (talk) 17:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

(Moved here) Well, they are not bogus, only seems like that to you through your particular prism. There is a legitimate concern and sources about burning flag as antisemitism, as you can read in this page; it has been explained over and over, and your reject is something worrying, you know. I agree with Malcolm when he said it seems you have a personal or an ideological concern about that category that don't make you the most suitable user to deal with. Kordas (sínome!) 18:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I would rather say that those who wants to label all criticism of Israel as antisemitism are those what have a problem. You are entitled to have that opinion, but I would appreciate if such personal political views are kept out of the categorisation process. // Liftarn (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Please avoid words like "paranoid delusions". You even could bother someone, thanks. Kordas (sínome!) 21:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have reformulated it. // Liftarn (talk) 21:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Kordas, the concern and sources about burning flag as antisemitism has been answered both above in this page and in the discussion Malcolm took to the English language Village Pump. It's been repeated that we should not categorise files on the ideologies you imagine, but on what the picture really shows. --Javier ME (talk) 20:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

And more important, Commons is not a place to air unfounded impressions or suspicions of other users' hidden issues, a personal or an ideological concern, irrational factor, aggressiveness, paranoia, etc. as I've read above. To insist on amending the categorisation of a file is not aggressive; it's (or should be) the normal behaviour of a Wikimedian. And the fact that the people that claimed for correcting this particular page have contributed only in part of the files, and don't fix all the other mistakes in Commons is not an excuse to launch those accusations. --Javier ME (talk) 20:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Javier ME, of course they were answered but not refuted. By whom? By two users from Commons? And it's not what I can imagine, but some sources said. The antisemitism behind that image is something that some authors agreed with. You cannot simply deny or avoid that, according WP:POV.

And more important indeed, Commons is not a place to use for such behavior you said. And I have no unfounded impressions, see. Kordas (sínome!) 21:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC) P.S.: You think the page has a mistake now. It hasn't. Kordas (sínome!) 21:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Show me one place where you'll add a category derogatory of Israel to a picture because some sources claim it should be. You're making up ways to categorize that I see no evidence you are willing to apply in an NPOV manner.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

That's the point. You think adding such category is acting in a derogatory way. It's not, it's only following WP:POV. For example, I could object the first category of this file same way you do, but I don't. By the way, in that file, see the svastica in the name "Israel". May I remind you your own words to put in that file the category Antisemitism? I'll do by myself, but seeing who is in its history, I'm still thinking about that. Kordas (sínome!) 09:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Download the rest of the image of this demonstration, and put them in a demonstration-category instead. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Adminstrators' noticeboard

See Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#File:Burned_israeli_flag_-_27zapata.jpg.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

External re-uses:

• https://www.algemeiner.com/2011/02/10/the-depth-of-antisemitism/
• https://stream.org/america-9-11-france-11-13-israel-24-7/
• https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Ihr-seid-das-Letzte-Ihr-benehmt-euch-wie-Tiere-3914979.html
• http://jewish.org.pl/wiadomosci/antysemityzm-w-mediach-4108/
• http://new.jewish.org.pl/aktualnosci/partia-qrazemq-kontra-qydzioryq-5528/
• https://attikanea.blogspot.de/2016/12/3.html