File talk:Lebanon print.png

Categories of the image

IMO the three categories listed below should be removed.
1. Category Politics of Lebanon . IMO this image has absolutely nothing to do with Politics of Lebanon . May I please ask you, if you have a different opinion, please explain to me how this image belongs to the above category?
2.Category Politics of Israel . IMO this image has absolutely nothing to do with Politics of Israel. The politics of Israel is to avoid civilian casualties in any way possible. Politics of Israel. is protecting her citizens (Jews and Arabs alike) from w:Hezbollah terrorists, who fire at Israeli towns indiscriminately from behind Arab kids backs.
3. Category 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict IMO this image that has not a single strike of the brush that shows the truth. It cannot belong to any serious Commons category. IMO category carlos latuff is enough and it says it all. --Mbz1 (talk) 14:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

1. This picture is an illustration to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict so it is relevant to the politics of Lebanon.

2. Ditto, this picture is an illustration to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict so it is relevant to the politics of Israel.

3. You are free to have your opinion, but please don't disrupt or vandalize to prove a point.

// Liftarn (talk) 22:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

This picture does not illustrate anything and besides

According to web definition Politics is: social relations involving intrigue to gain authority or power;

the study of government of states and other political units

the profession devoted to governing and to political affairs

the opinion you hold with respect to political questions

the activities and affairs involved in managing a state or a government.

Please tell me under what category this image could be considered politics?

You are free to upload the images that have neither educational nor informational content,but I do not think you could add the categories to these images as you wish.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC).

And one more point. Here you yourself said that "a cartoonist illustrates his political views". I cannot agree more with this statement of yours. Do you really suggest that the images that illustrate political views of somebody should be added to the categories that suppose to illustrate politics of the countries?--Mbz1 (talk) 01:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

"the activities and affairs involved in managing a state or a government" sounds quite fitting. Yes, the cartoons illustrate his views. Every image has a bias in some way regardless if it's a photo, painting or drawing. That doesn't mean the image should be put in relevant categories. // Liftarn (talk) 22:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

But Category:Politics of Israel is not a good category for this image, nor is "politics of Lebanon". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Since it's an illustration of Israeli politics why isn't Category:Politics of Israel a suitable category? But you may have a point that Category:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict may be enough so I changed the politics categories to flags since that is what is used in the image. // Liftarn (talk) 23:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your vandalism and removed the category Flags of Israel. Please do not put it back. I have a suggestion to make. If your goal is to continue spreading hate and lies created by latuff and uploaded by you all around Commons, why don't you create new categories with the names like for example these ones: "latuff view on the politics of Israel?" "latuff view on Holocaust", "latuff view on damage in Israel from the rockets" and so on? And, if latuff will publish a black square and names it a white square why don't you create a category latuff view on color. --Mbz1 (talk) 01:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Adding relevant categories is not vandalism. However to remove categories because you disagree with the views expressed in the image is. // Liftarn (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Flags

The flag of Israel do not pour gazoline over Arab kids.Sick imagination of latuff and yours does. Please stop spreading antisemetism, racism and hate all over Commons. Enough is enough.---Mbz1 (talk) 18:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Please remove valid categories and please stop verbally abusing other editors. // Liftarn (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:Flags of Israel and Category:Flags of Lebanon are not good categories for this cartoon. Latuff just uses the flags as labels, but the image is not about these flags. The categories are for locating images of these flags. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I was struggling to find some guidance about how to determine appropriate categories for images and it appears that there is only limited guidance. I initially agreed with you but Commons:Categories does help a little bit in making these decisions. It says in choosing categories, questions including "what or whom does the file show" should be answered. This image does show these two flags and so on that basis the categories do seem appropriate and having thought about this a little more, it could be helpful for people searching for images of, for example, flags of Israel, to be able to find images which show how the flag is used in different circumstances. Perhaps Category:Variations on flags of Israel might more appropriate than Category:Flags of Israel. There isn't an equivalent for Category:Flags of Lebanon though. Adambro (talk) 18:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

A quick look in Category:Flags of Israel results in images such as File:Israel Cat.jpg, File:Michael Lucas with Israeli flag on Fire Island.jpg and File:Teatro Massimo Vincenzo Bellini, Catania, Sicily - Italy 2008.JPG that also show flags in use rather than just the flag itself. // Liftarn (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed but that doesn't in any way mean this image should be in that category. Someone could quite easily conclude that this image shouldn't be in that category and nor should those you highlight. Adambro (talk) 18:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Cartoonists may put Stars & Stripes in a cartoon to indicate American nationality, but that does not mean that every such cartoon should be in a flag category. A photograph with a flag in it is a different case - it actually shows a flag. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it really matters if the flag is drawn, painted or photographed unless there are som many that we need to sort them. // Liftarn (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

If three persons have agreed that category flags are wrong one, may they be removed now please?--Mbz1 (talk) 00:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The categories are there to help people find images. // Liftarn (talk) 22:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The categories are there to help people find images that belong to these categories.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Good that we agree on that. I would have thought you opposed the categorisation of images you don't like. // Liftarn (talk) 15:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

Since the image is an illustration of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict I would think Category:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict would be relevant, but some[1] obviously disagree so I would like an explanation. // Liftarn (talk) 15:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It is not an illustration of that conflict. Had it been an illustration I would have to assume that Lebanon is populated by children, and that Israel is an oil exporter whose people have the habit of pouring fuel on children and burn them. As you can see the illustrative value of this image is quite poor. It is merely a political opinion expressed by a Brazilian citizen about that conflict. This Brazilian citizen already has a category full of images which express his interesting opinions, and the Commons' users can browse it at will. There is no need to place his images in categories to which they do not belong. Drork (talk) 06:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this belongs in Category:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. Drork is constantly removing images he does not like from appropriate categories. That is disruptive vandalism and censorship. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Pieter, give it a rest, the Commons are not a private site of yours. Drork (talk) 07:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

As I have said recently elsewhere, the fact that all Drork ever seems to do is remove categories seems to suggest he isn't really interested in organising these images properly but suppressing them because he doesn't like them. If he was actually making proper efforts to improve how these images are categorised he would, at least occasionally, actually add or change categories instead of just removing them. Adambro (talk) 10:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, first he tried to get them deleted and now when that didn't work he tries to bury them. // Liftarn (talk) 19:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Adambro, don't you think ignoring my explanations and accusing me of disruption is a bit rude? As I said, there are some people here who'd see this project burn to ashes and play their violin feeling very liberal. Are you one of them? Drork (talk) 00:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)