This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (talk | contribs) at 13:12, 17 September 2006 (→Stubbing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 13:12, 17 September 2006 by Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (talk | contribs) (→Stubbing)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Biography Unassessed | |||||||
|
from Vfd
On 17 Feb 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Latuff for a record of the discussion.
AKdH/NPOV
I feel the quote "According AKdH,"the cartoon stands for the extermination of the Jewish people and the state of Israel" is not a NPOV so I removed it. That is simply one groups interpretation of a cartoon.Unklelemmy 20:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
You're right. Although it is a shockingly racist cartoon - unless its meant to be ironic!
pov sentence deleted
Sentence deleted: " Latuff's drawings are inspired by a deep jew-hatred. As every genocidal antisemite, he likes to compare the Jews to the Nazis."
changed picture to more relative artwork
the picture in this is out of touch for the style and contents of latuff's work. so i updated it, (used with permission) -Wolfe 05:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Not just Israel
Shouldn't the article point out that he's not just anti-Israel, but also anti-America and anti-McDonalds?
Likud threatening Latuff
I deleted the sentence on a site linked to the likud threatening latuff, because it gives a misleading impresion. The site doesn't really threaten him in the way which is implied.
- I rephrased it a bit so that people can draw their own conclusions. // Liftarn
Stubbing
I have stubbed this article since beyond the first sentence it is entirely unencyclopedic and pov. The article was more akin to something one would find in a political pamplet rather than any kind of encyclopedia. I must say that I find it hard to believe that even a unabashed partisan could write such an article. I would re-write the article, but I must admit that I am only semi-familar with the this cartoonist but it is obvious that a stub is preferable to what was present before.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 13:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree, but why don't you tell us what is "unencyclopedic and pov". It looks to the point and is well sourced. // Liftarn
- Well sourced? I was unable to find even one reliable source on the page; can you point me to any that were reliable? Jayjg 03:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- Then you couldn't have bothered to look very hard, but why not use the {{fact}} instead of blanking almost the entire article? // Liftarn
- Because it isn't only about not being properly sourced, the entire article is unacceptably pov. Unless someone rewrites the article to better abide by the npov policy, it cannot stand.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
In what way is it "unacceptably pov". If you feel that way you should put in POV banner and state your objection on the talk page, not just blank the article. // Liftarn
- Your reasoning does not make very much sense. I'm sorry if you cannot honestly understand that there is anything pov in the article, but it would be clear to just about any person that this article needs a rewrite. If I only meekly stated my thougths on the talk page, nothing would happen and the article would stay in its sorry state. You obviously seem to want this so I suppose I can understand why you don't want someone to actually edit it, but that is not what wikipedia is about.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- Please assume some good faith here and state what your problems are. Just blanking the article will not help your case. // Liftarn
- I don't believe that I have done anything that shows a lack of good faith, there is a difference between stubbing an article and blanking the article. It is relativley common for editors and administrators to stub an article as an interim measure to remove pov or otherwise inappropriate material until one can rewrite the article to better conform with policy. If you want the article to be full and complete you will rewrite to address my concerns rather that simply reverting me and ignoring everything that I have written.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- So far you haven't written anything substantial that I can ignore. Please state the nature of your problems with the article. // Liftarn
- The tone of the article is completely pov, passages like "Latuff decided to support the Palestinian people, through his art, against the long-term Israeli occupation" do not even carry the pretense of neutrality, while the events which could be used to portray the alternant view of Latuff that one would expect to find in an encyclopedia article about someone or something as controversial as the wider subject, are all either one sentence descriptions as in- "In Israel a local branch of Indymedia websites was sued in 2003 for showing latuff's cartoon of Ariel Sharon kissing Adolf Hitler", or are sandwiched in between praise of Latuff that gives the impression that only crazy hate-filled right-wingers are opposed to his work. While the passage- "In September 2006, a website associated to Israeli right-wing party Likud", attempts to treate a mainstream political party that is actually rather moderate as if they were extremist reactionaries. The tone of the article is totally inappropriate, since I did not write the article I was hoping that those that did would be encouaged to rewrite it by stubbing it.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Let's break it down to analyse it. "Latuff decided to support the Palestinian people" Yes, the sources support that. "through his art" Well, obviously. "against the long-term Israeli occupation" Since 1967, i.e. almost 40 years. That can be described as "long-term". anyway, I have rewritten it a bit. The passage on the Likud site states what happend. It says nothing about "extremist reactionaries", altough it does say "right-wing" while they may more be centre-right. I've fixed that too. // Liftarn
- You are correct to say that it describes what happens, but it describes these events in a very pov and biased tone.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 13:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)