This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Regardless of the rest of the matter, I disagree with "the image could very easily be understood as advocating death to Jews"; the flag in question is very clearly that of the State of Israel, period. It is not a religious symbol. And many citizens of Israel are not jewish.
Also, in the context, I find "or the complete obliteration and extirpation of the state of Israel by means of force and violence" extremely ill-worded. "Complete obliteration and extirpation (...) by means of force and violence" is not something that I find more desirable for Poland, or any other country for that matters, than for Israel. Singling out Israel in this manner is indicative of a regrettable lack of critical distance. Rama (talk) 20:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, there's a long history of strong genocidal rhetoric against Israel (frequently originating from official sources or high government officials) -- continuing from Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinajad even today -- which makes it only too easy to understand this image in the sense I previously indicated. And while the Star of David is not strictly a religious symbol as such, it's been widely understood in Europe as symbolizing Jewish communities collectively since at least the early 19th century (in certain parts of Europe, even earlier). I am not the one who "singled out Israel"; the bigots and racists and wannabe-genocides did that long ago... AnonMoos (talk) 21:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many countries have their downfall predicted or called for, Israel is no exceptional in this. Similarly, "bigots and racists and wannabe-genocides" have plotted the destruction of Poland, for instance. So again, I find your selective outrage most displaced. Rama (talk) 21:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When you point out a head-of-state or official government spokesman who is currently threatening Poland with annihilation the way that Ahmadinajad is currently threatening Israel, then I will grant your Poland-Israel parallelism. AnonMoos (talk) 15:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is neither here or there. The long history of dismembering of Poland and enslaving of Slavec people cannot be disregarded, not any more than the "long history of strong genocidal rhetoric against Israel" which you mention. And again, Israel is not is any way the only country threatened with destruction now and then in the news.
It might be one of the countries on which threats are instrumentalised the most often and the most spectacularly to justify violent policies, such as the invasion of Iraq; but Commons is not commited to blinding itself to reality for the benefit of this sort of agendas, and particularly not when it comes down to belittling historical crimes against people who happened not to be belong to the good group of victims. Rama (talk) 21:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, many people who use such symbols do so in accordance with the long-lasting commitment to the policide of Israel which has been part of the official policies of a number of governments for many decades (supported by a multitude of free-lance bigots and extremists on the sidelines). AnonMoos (talk) 15:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Frankly, what people use it for is utterly irrelevant. It's in scope, obviously because it's apparently used by people, and so could be used by others for educational purposes regarding the first lot. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, being "apparently used by people" and hypothetically speculatively perhaps having some theoretical use is not enough to keep an image here if it has substantial concrete specific drawbacks in other areas -- such as being a "hate image without special historical value or current newsworthiness". But I would be curious for you to tell us what possible "educational" value the image has (i.e. what possibility of legitimate use on a Wikipedia article page, not just on a Wikipedia user page), because no one has claimed such "educational" value for such images before... AnonMoos (talk) 21:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Commons images do not need to be used on wikipedia to be within scope, or even on ANY wmf project. They just need to be POTENTIALLY useful. The situation I mentioned above is one potential usefulness. Seriously, it's a FLAG WITH A CROSS THROUGH IT. If it were an image saying "jews are filthy bastards who must all die" or something like that, it would be deleted. But it's not, it's a flag of a country with a cross through it. If you think that's racist or hateful then you are sorely mistaken. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being hypothetically speculatively theoretically "potentially useful" is enough for an image to be kept on Commons if the image has no associated negatives -- but it is most definitely and distinctly NOT enough to keep an image on Commons if a number of people think that there are meaningful substantive reasons to delete it. And I'm not mistaken about the fact that bigots and racists and wannabe "policides" have used very similar symbolic graphics in the past to express bigoted, racist, and/or policidal sentiments.
Furthermore, you said earlier that the image has "educational" value (i.e implying that it could be legitimately used on an actual Wikipedia article page, not just on a Wikipedia personal user page), and I'm very curious as to the specific details of this alleged educational value which you think that the image has... AnonMoos (talk) 21:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Reagrding this file alone, I'd say delete - but look at the "Anti" category, there's far more stuff that should be deleted if people now run amok here and shout "racism" or "antisemitism". This image alone is only against the state of Israel, which "by accident" bears the David's star. Aren't we a bit too sensitive? DeleteYet, poor quality and lack of necessity. So, regardless of the typical "ooooh racism boo" chaos, this file doesn't need to stay in Commons. • Lirion (Λιριων, Лирион, ليريون)wtf? • 21:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you read my argument on Anti_Poland.png, you might perhaps be able to understand. On the second, I voted for "keep" since all that racism debate makes me puke - yet on the SAME STEP I wrote that necessity of file might be something to really argue about. I was just answering the current trend. It might be inconsequent, but as long as silly arguments are brought forth you'll have to expect silly results. • Lirion (Λιριων, Лирион, ليريون)wtf? • 11:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in agreement with Lirion, and wary that this must entail assessment of the other files as well (to the point that I would be enclined to vote "keep" to the present file is others are kept). Rama (talk) 06:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep Obviously, given the result for "anti-Poland", the question is not "should we keep insulting and off-project images", but "should we enforce the 'holy land' status of Israel". And I happen to think not. Rama (talk) 07:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever -- I see no reason whatsoever why we at Wikimedia Commons are required by theoretical symmetry and abstract metaphysical parallelisms to blind ourselves to the actual concrete historical facts that the Star of David has been used in a major way as the hate-object of a number of real-world religiously bigoted and/or racist violent (wannabe-genocidal or actually genocidal or wannabe-policidal) movements. There's absolutely no reason why we at Commons are required to keep "hate images without special historical value or current newsworthiness". We can keep them if we collectively want to keep them, or delete them if we want to delete them, but there's nothing whatever which requires us to keep such "hate images without special historical value or current newsworthiness". And the precedent is that at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:No Israel.svg we already previously decided that we didn't want to keep this image. AnonMoos (talk) 14:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, nothing requires us to be fair, logical, or consistent. I just happen to think that it is better if we are. Rama (talk) 06:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reopened per request at COM:UNDEL, because the admin who decided this (Julo) was misusing his rights as he also is the contributor of this image and has contributed in this discussion. -- Cecil (talk) 01:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anti japan was incorrectly deleted, and was undeleted after a request on COM:UNDEL along with another anit-logo which was incorrectly deleted. Precisely the same reasoning presented there should be applied here; this should be re-closed as keep. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb02:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I still vote keep on this. It could conceivably be used, and the possibility of hatred is not relevant to commons. For that matter, the fact that this is the Israeli flag gets people uppity because it means potential antisemitism, and frankly everyone's still touchy over WW2. That and religion tends to get a free ride on this sort of thing. Put simply, there is no reason within policy to delete it. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as long as this image is unused and there is no rationale how this fits into the project scope. From the examples of material that is out of scope: Files apparently created and/or uploaded for the purpose of vandalism or attack. This does not mean than anything that could cause offence is out of scope. We need, however, a description that justifies why this image is assumed to be within our scope. It would be sufficient to tell which notable movement uses or used it such that we can see that it might be used in a future Wikipedia article even if it isn't now. This is currently missing. Instead this image has apparently just been created to illustrate a point at another debate. --AFBorchert (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This would be an excellent image to illustrate articles about anti-Israel sentiment. Whether the uploader intended it as an attack is irrelevant if we can find legitimate use for it - which we can, easily. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb15:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe You are saying this, Mike. It is hate-propaganda and while I doubt anyone would use it to illustrate 'anti-Israel sentiment', I believe it is not irrelevant what the uploaders intent was. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið(:> )=|16:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to be rude in pointing out a grammatical error which doesn't hinder intelligibility, especially when the user is no a native English speaker. Please try to be less so in the future. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb01:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And accusing other people of being "hysterical" isn't rude?? AnonMoos (talk)
I am not calling you hysterical, I call your stated alleged fight against antisemitism hysterical, because it leads you to denounce with utmost outrage things that do not have any connection to antisemitism. That would not happen if you were logical enough to distinguish between antisemitism and criticism of the State of Israel, and honest enough to admit that you are not willing to tolerate any criticism of the State of Israel. Rama (talk) 13:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please have the courtesy to refrain from informing me of alleged personal traits and characteristics which in reality I don't possess -- and concerning which you are not privy to sufficient valid information about me in order to be able to fairly judge whether I do or do not possess them in any case. It would have been nice if you had been able to play a positive and constructive role in this discussion (as opposed to what has actually been the case). AnonMoos (talk) 14:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice; however, you have no real valid evidence whatsoever to be able to serve as the basis of any kind of legitimate judgement that I am allegedly "not willing to tolerate any criticism of the State of Israel", so it would obviate further unpleasantness all around if you were to avoid such "hysterical" imputations in future. AnonMoos (talk) 12:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I do think that crying "policide" and "racism" over a national flag crossed over is indeed hysterical. When that hysteria becomes so selective and happens to have a 100% match with Right-wing pro-Israeli rhetoric, it becomes indeed hard not to think that it is motivated solely by preventing criticism of the State of Israel.
But again, that is all right, as long as it is coherent. For instance, openly stating that you do not tolerate criticism of the State of Israel is an opinion that I would respect; stating that the most minute suspicions of possible racism sicken you and offering to delete the Polish image as well would also be respectable; it is hypocrisy that I despise. Rama (talk) 13:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say anything for or against the anti-Polish image; I merely explained why the crossed-out Star of David image has special relevant historical factors which need to be considered. If you want a discussion of my general overall approach in such matters (what images I would delete and not delete, following my declared philosophy of "deleting hate images without special historical value or current newsworthiness, and keeping all other anti-logos"), then please go to Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2008Feb#Wikimedia_Commons_and_anti-logos (which I already linked to in my very first comment above, which was the very first comment added after the original deletion nomination). Otherwise, speculative and ill-informed imputations about my alleged personal political views are rather off-topic here (I'd like to know how I'm supposedly so extremely "Right wing" when I recently voted for Obama). If you feel general ideological frustrations which need catharsis, then please start beating up on a punching bag with George W. Bush's face on it, instead of taking it out on an uninvolved bystander like me. Frankly, someone looking at this page and examining the general emotional tone of my remarks here and your remarks here, would probably be more likely to conclude that you are the "hysterical" one (not me). AnonMoos (talk) 10:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obama has been courting right-wing pro-Israeli loobies like every other US politician in the past 20 years. Voting for him is no excuse to stamp "antisemitism" on unrelated images. Rama (talk) 12:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what a "loobie" is, but in the context of the United States, my politics would not be considered remotely "right wing", and therefore your invocation of alleged right-wing politics would appear to be merely a floating generalized ranting tirade without relevance to my personal political views (which you can know very little about), and without any particular relevance to why this image should be deleted or kept. AnonMoos (talk) 16:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However, you would seem to have chosen to ignore the possibility of the importance of special factors at work -- which is mainly what is under dispute on this page (which is not actually closed). AnonMoos (talk) 13:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was closed when I undeleted it. As for special factors, one is the flag with a cross through it, one is the flag with a red line through it. There are no special factors which would affect one but not the other. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If your point is that some people seem especially touchy about this image but not about the Polish one, and the tendency to wave big words like "antisemitism", I do not think that they are "special factors" that should have us delete the image. Commons is not a strident and overblown argument nursery, I see no reason to give incentives to uttering them. Rama (talk) 16:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's funny -- I've never used the word "antisemitism" at all in any of my previous remarks on this page, not one single time, and yet you're accusing me of "waving" it around. Please try to pay a little more attention in future... AnonMoos (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tasteless, stupid, likely to be used as a coded way of signifying antisemitic beliefs in the case of the Israeli flag, but also in scope. I don't like them, but Commons has lots of images I find offensive, tasteless, stupid or otherwise inappropriate, which are in scope. Angus McLellan(Talk)02:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However, many bigots in both the west and the middle-east aren't as precise as you are, and often don't bother making such distinctions -- and in fact, there's a whole long public history of people (including official government spokesmen) loudly and vocally not making such distinctions (which has been my main point in this whole discussion)... AnonMoos (talk) 14:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And your point is? We don't censor because of what people might do with something. I could take a photo of some car and use it to say that all americans are retarded or something, but that doesn't make the image of the car something we shouldn't host. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First off, this is not about "censorship", so please don't drag that red herring in. Secondly, many things could theoretically hypothetically be used in a bigoted way, but some things have a long history of actually being used in bigoted way -- and I see no reason why we're required to ignore the difference between these two situations... AnonMoos (talk) 12:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't. The scope of Wikimedia Commons is basically what is useful for Wikipedia articles, or to provide further relevant resources and background context to Wikipedia articles. We're perfectly free to decide not to host material which we've decided does not fall within that overall scope (as I've argued that "hate images without special historical value or current newsworthiness" do not fall within the scope of Commons), so there's absolutely no principle or policy which requires us to host such material. And the word censorship is mainly used in reference to government actions and public common carriers, and is less applicable here -- people who hate Israel and/or Jews still have numerous other outlets to express their views, if we decide not to allow Wikimedia/Wikipeda to be used as an outlet to express their hatreds in visual symbolic graphical image form. See further the comments by "User:AFBorchert" above... AnonMoos (talk) 10:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What two situations? The state of Israel exists since 1947, are you suggesting that this 60-year history has seen more tragedies than, say, that of Poland -- I mean suffering tragedies, not inflicting them? Rama (talk) 13:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Competitively comparing sufferings to see who has the right to say that they've out-suffered all other groups in passive martyrdom is a remarkably naïve and crude approach, which does absolutely nothing whatsoever to clarify or resolve any issues in the context of the current discussion. I was mainly alluding to the facts that: 1) Deformations and distortions of the Star of David for the purpose of expressing bigoted racist hatred against Jews go back a century or more. 2) Bigots in several regions of the world have been loud and vocal in consistently failing to distinguish between hatred of Israel and hatred against Jews generally for at least the past 50 years. 3) Israel is just about the only country in the world (unless you were to count South Korea, a very different case) which is commonly threatened with "policide" by official government spokesmen of other countries (including the actual president of Iran). AnonMoos (talk) 10:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing I ever said on this page has come remotely close to claiming that Jews have special rights because they've suffered more (and in fact I would regard both the protasis and the apodosis of this hypothetical proposition to be somewhat problematic). If all you've garnered from my remarks is something that I never said and never intended to say, then your reading comprehension skills would seem to require enhancement. AnonMoos (talk) 17:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its just an image of a flag with a cross on it. There are similar images that has been kept... How did AnonMoos get from this image to genocide is beyond me, yes it could be used for antisemetic purposes but it also could mean other things. I vote yes for freedom of speech, though the image itself has no value in my opinion. --Histolo2 (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, deleting an image after a successful COM:UNDEL request is unacceptable - a new DR should be opened if need be (though I would think the decision here would have bearing on other similar images). — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb19:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kept. Weighing several factors here, I closed as Keep. Mainly the argument that Commons does not censor image that could be of value to a project under some circumstance was a very strong point. The counter-point as to the perceived intent of the images fails in part because Commons' has a primary intent of hosting free content, not worrying about what people do with the free content. For instance, we host trademarked PD logos and images with personality rights, knowing that someone could use such an image for an illegitimate purpose, the same would apply to these such logos being used to propagate hate speech. MBisanztalk17:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This seems to be an attempt to get around the previous deletion decision in Commons:Deletion requests/Image:No Israel.svg, and the image could very easily be understood as advocating death to Jews, or the complete obliteration and extirpation of the state of Israel by means of force and violence. See Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2008Feb#Wikimedia_Commons_and_anti-logos for an explanation of my view on the general question (i.e. "deleting hate images without special historical value or current newsworthiness, and keeping all other anti-logos"). AnonMoos (talk) 20:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep - Frankly, what people use it for is utterly irrelevant. It's in scope, obviously because it's apparently used by people, and so could be used by others for educational purposes regarding the first lot. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment Reagrding this file alone, I'd say delete - but look at the "Anti" category, there's far more stuff that should be deleted if people now run amok here and shout "racism" or "antisemitism". This image alone is only against the state of Israel, which "by accident" bears the David's star. Aren't we a bit too sensitive?
Keep Obviously, given the result for "anti-Poland", the question is not "should we keep insulting and off-project images", but "should we enforce the 'holy land' status of Israel". And I happen to think not. Rama (talk) 07:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete as long as this image is unused and there is no rationale how this fits into the project scope. From the examples of material that is out of scope: Files apparently created and/or uploaded for the purpose of vandalism or attack. This does not mean than anything that could cause offence is out of scope. We need, however, a description that justifies why this image is assumed to be within our scope. It would be sufficient to tell which notable movement uses or used it such that we can see that it might be used in a future Wikipedia article even if it isn't now. This is currently missing. Instead this image has apparently just been created to illustrate a point at another debate. --AFBorchert (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
-- AnonMoos (talk) 10:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
