Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Zionist symbol

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.

Template:Zionist symbol

We should not start to create such disclaimers for ever law in non democratic countries. Then we would end up with nearly every file having a bunch of disclaimers stating that some laws in some countries restrict the usage. GPSLeo (talk) 12:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

 Comment Category:Chinese sensitive content was created for the similar law in China (another non democratic country). I support Israel and Palestine but there are countries that ban the usage of Israeli symbols. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 13:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I think {{Chinese sensitive content}} should also not exist. Commons:General disclaimer is already linked on every page. What do you think is the scope if these additional templates? GPSLeo (talk) 16:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I have the same thought, but in Vietnam. Template:SouthVietnam is also created with same reason. Kys5g (talk) 02:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

 Comment On second thought, I don't know why we need to create legal disclaimer templates for legal restrictions imposed solely by authoritarian regimes like China, Iran and Russia. --Minoa (talk) 20:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Why do we need to create legal disclaimer templates for legal restrictions imposed by free democratic countries. Trade (talk) 23:48, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

My concern is that if we create legal disclaimer templates for every legal restriction imposed solely by authoritarian regimes like China, Iran and Russia, it would create a slippery slope where there could be legal disclaimer templates for files that are perfectly harmless (for example, Russia under Putin doesn't tolerate anything that resembles the flag of Ukraine): therefore we need to be far more selective in such situations. It appears that {{Zionist symbol}} and {{Chinese sensitive content}} seem to refer to restrictions imposed solely by authoritarian regimes. I know about the heated controversy about the limits of free speech in free democratic countries, but that is irrelevant and different to countries that have a far worse reputation on freedom of expression and human rights. Regardless of the outcome of this discussion, I hope to see a refresh in the criteria for the creation of legal disclaimer templates. --Minoa (talk) 19:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

 Comment How about {{Non Falungong swastikas}} and {{Russian museum photo}}? Ox1997cow (talk) 15:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

And you forgot {{Teikoku symbol}}. 103.187.245.171 16:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

 Comment At first, I looked at this template and thought it was right to delete it because it was like creating a {{South Korean Symbol}} for North Korean users. However, unlike North Korea, where access to Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons is blocked, I think that access to Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons is not blocked in the countries mentioned in this template. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

 Keep No valid reason --Trade (talk) 19:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

concur with @Trade --Zenwort (talk) 21:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

 Keep Same too SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 22:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

 Keep per above Arianator with love (talk) 03:50, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

 Keep per Trade et al. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 12:01, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

 Keep Israel has reportedly confirmed that they will weaponize certain Jewish symbols for their gain. Source 175.176.84.196 16:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

 Delete, the text is too vague and may be misleading. Also delete the corresponding Category:Zionist symbols. No evidence has been presented to support the claimed illegality, and it is unclear which symbols are covered. A close parallel is {{Nazi symbol}}, but that cites the criminal codes of some of the countries concerned. No bans are mentioned in w:en:Flag of Israel. I found a recent news report on bans on Israeli and Palestinian symbols which does not mention these bans.[1]

The template has been applied to a range of symbols, with no clear rationale other than being a symbol of Zionism or of Israel. I removed it from File:Balfour declaration unmarked.jpg, but was re-reverted. It seems unlikely that an image of the w:en:Balfour Declaration would be banned by countries which traditionally see it evidence of a betrayal by the British Government. Verbcatcher (talk) 04:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I would like to report a relevant problem that {{Chinese sensitive content}} is being misused. I am from (mainland) China and I am somewhat familiar with which being sensitive in my country. I am sure that the portrait of Tsai Ing-wen (president of ROC, Taiwan) is not sensitive or forbidden, much less the flag of the Singaporean president. That means some users who added the template to pages are not even familiar with Chinese politics. And what about those other edits they've made (example)? If we are to keep those legal disclaimers, we have to make some people patrolling those templates, otherwise they would be a bunch of trash indicating something may be sensitive or as sensitive as a Singaporean flag in China. --魔琴 (talk) 10:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

This is the wrong place to report this, Commons:Village pump would be better. One approach would be to improve the documentation shown in Template:Chinese sensitive content. Verbcatcher (talk) 14:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I understand. But since the template is nominated for deletion I guess this issue could be put into consideration in this request. I'll wait for the result and if it is keep, I'll go to the village pump then. --魔琴 (talk) 09:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

 Comment This tag is being added to images of Stars of David that are not the same color as the Israeli flag, and are a representation of Judaism rather than of Israel or Zionism (example). I don't know what the laws of Iraq etc. say, but it's not a good look for every Star of David on Commons to be tagged with a badge of shame. —Mx. Granger (talk  · contribs) 14:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree Zanahary (talk) 03:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

 Delete This disclaimer is definitely sufficient. Commons does not have to interfere with this conflict which lasts more than 100 years. 35 of May (talk) 08:34, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

 Delete This template makes Commons into a website that spreads hate. Every moment that the template exists is a disgrace to Commons. דוד שי (talk) 10:17, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

 Delete As 35 of May wrote, the general disclaimer says enough: "Please note that the information found here may be in violation of the laws of the country or jurisdiction from where you are viewing this information. Wikimedia Commons does not encourage the violation of any laws," but acts under a "broad a protection of free speech". Thus, this template is redundant. -- Gabi S. (talk) 10:21, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

 Delete Right - This disclaimer is definitely sufficient. רדיומן (talk) 10:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

 Delete This template is based on a baseless assumption that the Star of David is a uniquely zionist symbol. Even if it was, this template and its' design are abhorrent. Oyoyoy (talk) 13:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

 Delete Star of David is no Zionist symbol. Lilijuros (talk) 14:22, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

 Delete per above. Neriah (talk) 17:52, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

 Delete We know what marking Jews (even through the code-word "Zionist") with derogatory labels leads to... Unfortunately, it seems that we didn't learn the lesson. Perhaps it is ironic, considering the date. MathKnight ✡ (Talk) 18:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

And there are anti-Zionist Jews who are still supporting Palestine. 103.187.245.171 07:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

 Delete Omri • Talk 18:52, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

 Delete. pre num. This template is not providing any assistance in matters related to copyright issues. And its opens a window for more nonsensical templates. It's not in Commons scope. Marking Jews with the Star of David reminds me the Yellow badge. Star of David is not a Zionist symbol. -- Geagea (talk) 00:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

 Delete the website have a general disclaimer, we don't need a special one for each country/ies. and if we decide to keep it, the name need to change because the symbol are not only Zionist or remove the template from Jewish symbol. Yona B. (t) 10:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

 Delete The template isn't even correct. The Star of David isn't a "Zionist symbol", as it has been used centuries before the Zionism movement emerged, and continues to be used all over the world by parties with no relation to Zionism, for example to signify a building is used as a Jewish synagogue. Moreover, this is a blatant anti-Semitic template, and there is no point in warning users that an image might be illegal in a certain countries "depending on context". Just like presenting the w:Shahada might be illegal in certain contexts (for example when displayed on a black background as part of the ISIS flag), but obviously we don't want to attach a template to every image of the Shahada warning users that it might be illegal "depending on context". מיכאל.צבאן (talk) 13:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: The burst of multiple contributions on one day from a similar viewpoint looks like the result of canvassing. This is not helpful in these discussions, see Commons:Canvassing and Wikipedia:Canvassing. I favour deletion of the template, for the reasons I gave above. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

  In Commons, it is written clearly: "It is not a Commons policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it".

  Wikipedia is not a valid policy for Commons. 35 of May (talk) 21:17, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

•  Delete obviously. The disclaimer covers this and this is being abusively applied to a wide range of Jewish symbolism. Zanahary (talk) 10:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  Comment: I'll add that all similar templates put Commons in the very silly and subjective position of interpreting often obscure laws about semantics and symbols with no editorial process. There's graphics of bagels with Jewish stars marked as potentially illegal Zionist symbols. What are we talking about here? Let the law against bagel pictures spread its own word. This is absurd. Zanahary (talk) 11:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• Shalom,
  1. Based on the current state of this template, it is purly anti-Semitic.
     A Jewish Star of David (✡) appears in it, and not the flag of Israel or the IDF symbol.
     What an unfortunate Freudian slip...
     • The anti-Semitism of the template remains the same even if later actions are taken or arguments are presented that try to cover up or justify the need for it.
       I can already think of some fictitious statements to try to cover this. So please know in advance, it is highly recommended that you spare us the rebuttable twists.
     • This indicates that this contemptible template teaches more about its own creation, than about any legal situation, and therefore it is better to already designate it only for the user namespace, so we will know to beware and who hold this views.
  2. The template does not at all contain exact references to the relevant provisions of the law. The reliability, matter-of-factness and seriousness levels are low and debatable.
     Even if referrals are presented, they must be considered subject to prior legal review by WMF legal teem. The WMF projects servers are not stored in (or subject to) anti-democratic or authoritarian countries and territories, while in the countries relevant to the servers (see also: COM:CENSOR), a template such as this is considered anti-Semitic, likely to spreading hate speech, and might rise to the point of and illegal content.
  3. Whataboutism arguments about (so-called) similar cases are not valid here. They only lead us down the slippery slope of eroding the COM:SCOPE and "warning"s spam, as demonstrated by those who use this template with their great eagerness...
  This is an embarrassing, controversial, irrelevant and anti-Semitic hatred template, and a stain we must not allow to cling to the Commons.
   Delete, · ^מקף Hyphen _෴ · 00:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
•  Info I opened a proposal on this topic to get a general guideline how to handle such templates: Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Require community consensus for new non-copyright restriction templates GPSLeo (talk) 09:33, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

   Comment see also COM:Village pump/Proposals#Proposal to prohibit political restriction templates, which includes this template. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

 Delete Mainly per Yona B. פעמי-עליון (talk) 11:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

---

Deleted: Clear consensus (more than 2 to 1) to delete. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Abzeronow, there was clearly some sort of canvassing on this deletion request. Out of nowhere fifteen users from Hebrew Wikipedia (!!!) appeared voting for the template's deletion in less than three days (!!!!!). They were probably warned on the Hebrew Wikipedia, if you check you may find it somewhere there. I have no access to the template anymore, so I'm not the best to say whether it should indeed be kept or not, but the canvassing is so crystal clear I would suggest opening a topic on Village pump, as pointed out by Verbcatcher. Anyway, if you delete a template, you should also remove it from the pages where it's transcluded. Regards, 2804:14D:5C32:4673:DC0D:32FC:D7B6:557E 03:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

"Please do not edit the talk page of deletion requests

"If you wish to contribute to the deletion discussion, please edit the actual page. The talk page is solely for discussion about the deletion request or process itself." 2804:14D:5C32:4673:DC0D:32FC:D7B6:557E 03:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes, Yann, Prototyperspective, Abzeronow, Donald Trung, Dronebogus, Ox1997cow, Enyavar, Glrx, Funplussmart, Adamant1, Stjn, Hide on Rosé, and Contributers2020: pinging. 2804:14D:5C32:4673:DC0D:32FC:D7B6:557E 03:35, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Note, I participated in Commons:Village_pump/Proposals/Archive/2024/02#h-Require_community_consensus_for_new_non-copyright_restriction_templates-20240203092200 but not here. Among other things I wrote "For that reason, files that outright show facist or authoritarian propaganda (especially without educative texts to explain the display) should get a disclaimer to show that Commons does not share the authoritarian views promoted in the picture itself." - But if templates like this one were indeed applied on random files that just showed the Star of David, then either the definition or the application of the template was way too broad, and it was the template that was used to support authoritarian (anti-jewish) propaganda.

That said in support of the deletion decision... Canvassing is a concern, and many of the deletion supporters didn't offer arguments and so they should be discounted. But there were valid arguments by many others, and the decision came ultimately a month later, so it was not exactly rushed. Best regards, --Enyavar (talk) 06:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi. It looks like I wasn't even involved in this to begin with. Maybe I participated in the Village Pump discussion though? Regardless, it does look there was some canvasing and the votes that were clearly a part of it should probably be ignored or at have less weight. That said, I think there were valid arguments by non-canvased users. So the outcome is probably fine regardless. This isn't a vote anyway and looking through the users who might have been canvased it looks like they are all editors here to begin with. So it would be wrong IMO to completely discount their opinions even if they had been notified about the discussion. Its different if they had zero edits to the project before participating in the conversation though. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)