Talk:Carlos Latuff/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

RFC : Should the antisemitism bit be mentioned in the lede

This RfC is now being closed because consensus has been reached. In RFC discussions, consensus is based upon the strength of policy-based arguments. However, it is worth noting the !vote-count here, regarding whether the allegation of antisemitism in some of Latuff's cartoons should be included in the lead: 14 to include, 5 to exclude. Some of the arguments to exclude from the lead or from the first paragraph of the lead are these: (1) the corresponding material in the article body is excessive, false, not reliable, or not connected to Latuff; and (2) any such material in the lead should also include the contrary view that the cartoons are not anti-Semitic, including Latuff’s own refutation of the charge, and/or the quote by Joel Kotek in The Forward stating that Latuff’s message is anti-Israel rather than anti-Semitic.

The pertinent section of the Wikipedia article is Section 4, titled "Alleged antisemitism". This Section 4 has an NPOV tag at its top, dated May 2014. It is odd that a large majority of editors would like to summarize Section 4 in the lead, but have not agreed as to how that section itself can be made neutral.

Currently, the latter half of the lead is devoted to this subject. I conclude that there is consensus to include in the lead (after the first paragraph) a statement that some of Latuff's cartoons have been called antisemitic, provided that it includes a refutation by Latuff, plus some information about third-party refutations (such as Kotek’s). And, please do one thing more in the lead's footnotes per WP:BLP: clean up, expand, include wikilinks, and include supporting quotations in those footnotes so that they more fully and clearly support what's in the lead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

.... Following is the entire RfC discussion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Should the statement that some of Latuff's cartoons have been called antisemetic be included in the lede? 15:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Survey

include WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY and WP:WEIGHT. These are well sourced allegations, covered in detail in the body of the article. The lead should serve as a mini-article and cover all major controversies. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
don't include per WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Pikolas (talk) 20:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
don't include pr Pikolas, Huldra (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
include The accusations of antisemitism against Latuff's cartoons are a major issue in this article. The WP:LEAD exists to summarize essential facts (including controversies).--Averysoda (talk) 02:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
don't include Per WP:LEAD it should be reported (as a controversy, not a fact) according to the material in the article. But the material in the article should before be challenged. Half can be immediately removed because it reports false information, is not from wp:rs or is not linked with Latuff's alleged's antisemitism. Then the attacks should be put in the context of the propaganda war in which any virulent opponent to Irael's policy, such as Latuff, is attacked for antisemitism. Given the huge controversy around this, compliance with WP:BLP is more important from my point of view and should be predominant. Pluto2012 (talk) 04:14, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Include per V and LEAD, his alleged antisemitism is widely reported and appears in this article. The lead should summarize the body. It should naturally follow BLP in how it's worded, but BLP doesn't mean "no criticism of a living person". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Do not include any form of one-sided/biased form of this allegation. I believe the variant before revert and protection presented both sides and was rather neutral, in this form I would support inclusion. --Denniss (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Do not include As per WP:LEAD and Pikolas' observations. LavaBaron (talk) 07:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
include. Latuff is well known for this. Flayer (talk) 10:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Include. It is well supported by sources that antisemitism is allegedly one of the main themes of his works, it is covered in the article and the lead should summarize it. “WarKosign ” 06:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Include only if his repudiation of the charge is in the same sentence, i.e. 'Latuff's cartoons, which often use the analogy between the Holocaust and Palestinians, have been accused of/interpreted as/ anti-Semitism/antisemitic. Latuff has dismissed the charges as 'a strategy for discrediting' criticism of Israel.' I agree with Denniss It's a matter of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. As No More Mr Nice Guy correctly states WP:Lede summarizes the article, and the article has a section on the accusations and his repudiation of them.Nishidani (talk) 09:52, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
include - the lead must summarize the article, per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. This article has a well sourced and lengthy section about the controversy (in fact, it is the largest section of the article, and arguably the source or the subject's notability.) Per WP:WEIGHT, a line in the lead that says "his cartoons have been described as anti-Semitic , a charge he rejects" is required, per policy, and does not violate WP:BLP, which states "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it" . All Rows4 (talk) 16:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Include. It is supported by sources. Ykantor (talk) 19:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
include due to the high quality of the sources. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Include per Nishidani. In order to preserve neutrality, some balance should be struck in the lead, so leaving just a remark on anti-semitism would introduce undue bias, especially since many people stop reading after the lead. If you introduce a construction like that demonstrated by Nishidani, I think it would be fine. Then the reader is left to make the decision. Note: I came here via Legobot. -Pax Verbum 00:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Include. Many people share that belief and it should be stated as a quote from someone who claims it. StudiesWorld (talk) 05:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Include, using both a short statement describing the allegations, and Latuff's rejection of the charges. This complies with WP:LEAD and WP:BLP. Brad Dyer (talk) 16:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Include: The lead should summarize the article. Israel-Palestine is a major theme of Latuff's work. With such a large section on antisemitism, it would be silly to not include it in the lead. The section should be summarized fairly, with not only the criticism and Latuff's response, but also, for instance, the quote by Joel Kotek in The Forward, stating that his message is anti-Israel, rather than anti-Semitic. The current formulation in the lead, "Despite Latuff himself describes his work as controversial", should be eliminated. "Despite" is editorializing, "controversial" is weasel word, and anyway being controversial has nothing to do with being anti-Semitic. Kingsindian ♝♚ 16:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Include in LEAD (part before TOC) but NOT in LEDE (first sentence). It's fine in the fourth sentence where it is now. —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Per the fairly obvious consensus developing above, I am restoring the content, using Nishidani's proposed wording. The RFC remains open, and if consensus develops to the contrary we can remove then. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Averysoda I deleted the "controversial" line in the lede, because I felt it was redundant to the more specific allegations of antisemitism. However, we could merge that sentence into Latuff's response, saying "Latuff says his cartoons are controvercial but..." but that runs into WP:SYNTH perhaps. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Per source Latuff himself recognized his work as controversial (it's not necessarily related to the accusations of antisemitism, which he denies).--Averysoda (talk) 17:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Implemented RfC on lead for anti-Semitism

I have implemented RfC. Included opposing viewpoints and named some of them. Removed of "Despite his work being controversial" (being controversial has nothing to do with being anti-Semitic) - this was added by a sockpuppet (Averysoda) anyway. Kingsindian ♝♚ 11:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

"Arab-Brazilian"

As far as I know, one needs a self-identification to use the term "Arab-Brazilian". Latuff's grandfather was Lebanese, but that is not enough. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 18:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Carlos Latuff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism section

The image formatting in this section is, to put it quite bluntly, crap. There are four images supposed to be of work others have interpreted as antisemitic, all with crap captions if captioned at all. It's an overdose of images. There is no inclusion of his work in which he he lambasts nazis and tells them that the Palestinian cause doesn't need their help '''tAD''' (talk) 03:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually it's two images others have interpreted as antisemitic and two where he says people cry antisemitism too much. That seems balanced. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with NMMNG. Pluto2012 (talk) 18:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Gallery Section

...needs a major revamp. There are many more images than on other political cartoonists' pages, and many of the captions are just straight descriptions rather than supplying context or background information.199.168.233.220 (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carlos Latuff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070313204150/http://www.irancartoon.com/120/holocaust/ to http://www.irancartoon.com/120/holocaust/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Carlos Latuff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)