Jump to content

Commons:Village pump/Archive/2025/05

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Other news

Edited by User:Prototyperspective and User:RoyZuo.

Commons Gazette is a monthly newsletter of the latest important news about Wikimedia Commons, edited by volunteers. You can also help with editing!

--RoyZuo (talk) 05:57, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I have deleted the category and removed the files from it. As multiple users have pointed out, blood libel is a highly specific form of antisemitism that was not the subject of those files. Others are welcome to create neutrally-named categories as needed to sort files.

Chenspec, I would recommend you stay away from the subject of the war entirely. Consensus in this discussion is that your editing so far on the subject has not complied with the neutral point of view policy. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:32, 3 May 2025 (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.

I recently happened to notice the account Chenspec adding the category Blood libels during the Swords of Iron War. Intrigued, I decided to access the category, as I was unfamiliar with the term "blood libel". I ended up learning, through Wikipedia, that it refers to a false antisemitic accusation alleging that Jews use the blood of Christians in religious rituals. Such a notion is, of course, reprehensible.

However, in the category in question, which also includes "Antisemitism during the Israel–Hamas war", I find only ordinary individuals holding signs with messages such as "Stop killing children" [1], "Stop genocide" [2], "Stop war crimes" [3], and "Stop the slaughter of innocent children, women, elderly men, and babies" [4]. I see no one holding placards accusing Jews of using Christian blood in obscure rituals, nor anything that could reasonably be considered antisemitic, except through dishonest fallacies that completely distort the meaning of the term.

Furthermore, the categories Israeli apartheid and South Africa v. Israel (Genocide Convention) are listed as subcategories. I fail to understand how the concept of Israeli apartheid—treated as a matter of fact on Wikipedia—could bear any relation to "blood libel", nor how the South African government's accusation that Israel is committing genocide could be deemed antisemitic or interpreted as an allegation of using the blood of innocent children in macabre rituals.

Thus, I propose that the category be deleted and that the account Chenspec be monitored for possible attempts of POV-pushing. I open this thread here to give the matter greater visibility, as I believe I could simply empty the category myself, but then it would be just as easy for them to revert my edit. Thank you, RodRabelo7 (talk) 02:13, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

@GPSLeo, JWilz12345, Queen of Hearts, and Ratekreel: Would you like to give your opinion on the matter? RodRabelo7 (talk) 02:18, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
@A1Cafel and Kingofthedead: As the ones who uploaded the mentioned photos, would you also like to comment?

RodRabelo7 (talk) 02:24, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

@RodRabelo7: I strongly disagree with this categorization and in my opinion (all political biases aside) it's a clear violation of NPOV. The photos have messages like "Stop Israeli War Crimes," "Free Palestine," "Stop Genocide," "Stop Killing Children," etc. all things which reliable sources have documented. The phrasing "Swords of Iron War" too shows clear bias towards the Israeli perspective. Kingofthedead (talk) 03:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
@RodRabelo7 no comment on this matter, since this is not of my forte/sphere of wiki-interest. My apologies. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 05:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
What you wrote is not accurate - a blood libel is a false anti-Semitic accusation against Jews. The problem with them is that throughout history, blood libels have led to various pogroms, murders, and harassment against Jews. Although the libel about Jews murdering Christian babies and using their blood is a common blood libel, it is not the only one. In fact, this is one example of a particular case that belongs to a broader pattern. In today's context, false accusations of the Jewish state of genocide and apartheid are relevant examples that reflect the same pattern. Chenspec (talk) 05:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
"I see no one holding placards accusing Jews of using Christian blood in obscure rituals" - so you are clearly not accustomed or knowledgeable in this issue, since a blood libel is also referred throuout history as any false accusation against Jews including in Russia. W:Blood libel includes also other allegations, such as "versions of the blood libel accused Jews of ritually re-enacting the crucifixion" and more. So the narrow verbal interpretation of blood libel only as "Jews use Christians' blood" is mistaken. Ehud Amir (talk) 08:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Even so, see the comments below, especially the one by Josve05a. By the way, an average of 70 edits per year on Commons and just happened to stumble upon this topic? Curious. RodRabelo7 (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

The idea that anyone who has an even slightly critical opinion of the war in Gaza is antisemitic or committing blood libel is laughable at best. If anything, that kind of attitude about the war just increases antisemitism. More to the point, in this case it's just an attempt to use Commons to push a nationalistic political agenda with the category system, which we don't allow for. So the category should be deleted for the Category-related POV-pushing that it clearly is. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:11, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

A false accusation of genocide is not a "slightly critical opinion" Chenspec (talk) 06:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Good thing I didn't say it was. The important thing is that it's still not blood libel or antisemitic. That's even assuming it's not a genocide to begin with but even if it's not, the category is still nationalistic, political POV-pushing regardless. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:27, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
This shows this topic is to complex to fit into a category system. Therefore we should not try to fit it into the category system. Just delete all categories they label something in a political way unless there is no serious doubt about that label. Describing the topic and the discussions about is the task of Wikipedia not of Categories on Commons. GPSLeo (talk) 06:43, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
This sounds reasonable to me as long as this policy is included in all relevant cases, including the category Israeli apartheid. Chenspec (talk) 07:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
It doesn't seem fair to me. This topic was opened because you are associating people protesting and a sovereign country accusing another of genocide with blood libel, which according to the Wikipedia page refers to Jews using Christian blood in rituals. There's a false equivalence here, especially since the Israeli apartheid is controversial precisely mostly, if not only because its existence is denied by those who perpetrate it. See the article on the English Wikipedia, which as I mentioned treats it as a fact. RodRabelo7 (talk) 07:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
I'm not a huge fan of any political categories myself but at least images like this one show an accusation of Israeli apartheid, which is the point in the category. Whereas, this image is just of someone wearing a shirt with the word "Palestine" on it. A shirt with the name of a geographical location on it obviously isn't antisemitic or blood libel. Unless your going to argue the actual State of Palestine is antisemitic and it's mere existence is slander against Jews. Let alone that someone wearing a shirt in support of it is. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:43, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Maybe we should rename the category Category:Israeli apartheid to Category:Media related to Israeli apartheid discourse. The Category:Blood libels during the Swords of Iron War should be renamed to Category:References to Blood libel at Israel–Hamas war related protests and all files with no direct reference should be removed from the category. GPSLeo (talk) 08:24, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
I was thinking about something like that, but I'd still argue that someone wearing a Palestine shirt isn't a reference to blood libel or has anything to do with it. If we extend the definition of "blood libel" to any accusation towards Jews or the Jewish state then it's essentially meaningless at that point. Category:Blood libel is pretty clearly about the historical trope of falsely accusing Jews of kidnaping and murdered the children of Christians in order to use their blood as part of religious rituals. That's what the description for the category says, it's what the Wikidata item says, that's the definition of blood libel on Wikipedia and Google search. Blood libel has nothing to do with the state of Isreal either. Know one outside of extreme Jewish or Israeli nationalists would say it's blood libel to simply criticize a Jew or the Jewish state regardless of the accusation being made. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Yes there are no photos directly referencing blood libel in that category and only maybe 5-10 with possible indirect reference. GPSLeo (talk) 09:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Adamant1 - The photo you mentioned was not cataloged because of the caption on the shirt but because of the caption on the sign "Stop Genocide" Chenspec (talk) 10:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the importance of distinguishing between legitimate criticism of a state and blood libels. Things that I think go beyond legitimate criticism and fall under the definition of blood libels are false accusations of genocide, war crimes or apartheid. As well as false comparisons to the Nazi regime - which are actually more implicit accusations of genocide. To the best of my memory, all the images that are categorized there are associated with one or more of these options. If there is an image that is not clear why it is there or another type of blood libel that I have not mentioned here - you are welcome to ask and I will be happy to answer.

I also emphasize that blood libels include false accusations only. If the accusation is about an event that occurred in reality - that is a different issue. However, it is important to remember that Wikipedia is not a place for primary research, so the determination of the very existence of various events, or the way in which they should be interpreted, should come from official and reliable external sources that are relevant to the subject.

Regarding changing the names of the categories to some wording that would clarify that this is a discussion around a specific issue and not a determination of the nature of the case itself, I am also okay with it as long as it is applied to all relevant categories equally. Chenspec (talk) 10:25, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Commons is not a place for advancing political narratives (neither implicitly nor explicitly) through categorization. Per my reading of Commons:Categories, categories should reflect verifiable facts (my emphasis, not a direct quote), not interpretations or arguments. Terms like blood libel are deeply historically loaded and, per both w:Blood libel and d:Q498273, refer specifically to false allegations that Jews murder non-Jews (typically Christians) to use their blood in religious rituals. This is not a flexible metaphor; it's a precise concept. Broadening it to mean “any false accusation against a Jewish person or Israel” dilutes its meaning and injects WP:POV into Commons, which violates both COM:NPOV and COM:SCOPE. None of the images currently in Category:Blood libels during the Swords of Iron War include references to blood rituals, nor do they invoke Jewish identity in any direct way. Most of them are images of protests making general political or humanitarian statements like “Stop genocide.” That may be seen as unfair, hyperbolic, or offensive by some, but it is not blood libel. To include such media in this category is at best a misunderstanding, and at worst a clear case of POV-pushing. Commons categories are not the place for editors to make judgment calls on which political claims are true or false. That belongs to reliable sources and (where needed) Wikipedia articles that can weigh them with context and citations, not to Commons file categories. I therefore support deletion of these kind of categories in their current form, as it violates policy on neutrality and factual categorization. If there's a valid need to track visual documentation of such accusations (e.g., actual protest signs referring to blood libel tropes), a much narrower and carefully scoped category may be considered, but that is not what this is. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 11:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
I would suggest to just create categories like "Protest posters accusing Israel government committing war crimes", "Protest posters accusing Israel government committing genocide" or "Protest posters comparing Israel government with national socialism". Then the category makes a simple and verifiable statement what is visible. The photos can also be categorized in Categories like "Protests in support of Palestine" or "Protests in support of Hamas". But trying to guess the cultural background of a protest poster is nothing that should be done in Commons categories. GPSLeo (talk) 11:43, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
I also support deletion per Josve05a and others above.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
I'm also in favor of deleting the category and moving its contents to Category:Demonstrations and protests related to 2023 Israel–Hamas war in support of Palestine.
As much as I'm in favor of letting the conversation run its course before action is taken, I removed the "Blood Libel" categories from Category:Israeli apartheid and Category:South Africa v. Israel (Genocide Convention). I've also removed the category Category:Antisemitism during the Israel–Hamas war from Category:Demonstrations and protests related to 2023 Israel–Hamas war in support of Palestine, all of which were put there by Chenspec. Pro-Palestine protests are not inherently anti-semitic. Any images found to be anti-semitic in nature can be moved to the appropriate subcategories. This is a wholly inappropriate use of the category system. ReneeWrites (talk) 15:12, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
There has been an obvious hijacking of the category system to defend a specific POV, which is totally out of Commons scope. I second all others that defended deleting that category. The categories suggested @GPSLeo would allow people to find that specific content without falling into terms loaded with POV. Darwin Ahoy! 15:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Fully agreed that this is not "Blood libel" (medieval/modern accusations against Jews kidnapping and murdering children for secret rituals). The Gaza genocide is committed by the government of Israel, not "shadowy Jews" and not even by the general populace in Israel. It's also committed in the open, not in secret; and people aren't killed for dark rituals either. Just because 19th/20th-century antisemitic sentiment was entirely unfounded and racist, does that dark past not delegimitate todays Anti-War protests. (This would be different with stereotyped antisemitic posters.) Regarding this category,  Delete. (Edit: Someone in the discussion above also mentioned Category:Israeli apartheid. That is a long-standing BDS idea and seems POV too.) --Enyavar (talk) 15:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Support deletion. This exploits and dilutes the term "blood libel" to the point of making it meaningless. - Jmabel ! talk 17:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
  • I also support deletion. Blood libel has a specific meaning and this is not within the meaning of that. Abzeronow (talk) 18:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
I am thinking that the category is important, as mentioned above, a blood libel is a false anti-Semitic accusation against Jews, as it stated at the photos.Ovedc (talk) 05:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
As numerous other users have stated above, this is incorrect (or at least confusingly stated). "Blood libel" is a specific type of antisemitic accusation. It is not a blanket term for all forms of antisemitism, or for any negative statement about Israel. Omphalographer (talk) 06:26, 3 May 2025 (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.

Arrival 1946 in Israël picture

I have a picture of a bus arriving at jewish settlement, with on the backside the text:

Arrivé d'immigrants en Israël, le 19 mai 1946. It is likely to be zionist propaganda (very enthousiastic welcome)

There is the copyrigth notice of Tallandier. I havent been able tp find anything on this Tallandier. I dont know when the phofografer may have died.Smiley.toerist (talk) 22:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Hm. Are you sure that Tallandier is the photographer? This might be the French publishing company fr:Éditions Tallandier (est. 1901). If they own that picture, you'll have to wait just a few short years: it will already become public domain in 2042. --Enyavar (talk) 15:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Its fr:Éditions Tallandier. There is no mention of a photografer, only the copyrigth letter C and the name Tallandier. This is pre-Israël Palestine, so I suppose its a British license, or is the nationality of the organisation/photografer more important? In the EU, it is PD 70 years after publication for pseudo-anonymous photographs such as postcards, without a photografer or writer attribution. See newspaper articles without a writer attribution. The original Tallendier family members no longer had a role in the publishing house after 1933, so a Tallendier photographer can be excluded, certainly in a turbulent Palestine far from French soil. So this is work bough by the publishing house. Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

It is this picture is also on the Delcampe (postcard website): arrivee-d-immigrants-en-israel-le-19-mai-1946.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:19, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

May 02

Old Commons:Media by time?

Hello, should be Commons:Media by time updated to year 2025? I don't know how to do that at first glance :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 15:40, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done - Jmabel ! talk 16:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Jmabel ! talk 16:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

May 11

Category:2 men with other organisms; 1 boy with 4 women; 5 women with other people; etc

Please see Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/10/Category:2 men with other organisms regarding such categories.
Prototyperspective (talk) 11:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

@Prototyperspective: There are a lot of these categories. Check out Category:Adult humans in groups of 5 -> Category:Adult humans in 5 people -> Category:Clothed adult humans in 5 people -> Category:Clothed adult humans in 5 clothed people -> Category:Clothed men in 5 clothed people -> Category:2 clothed men in 5 clothed people -> Category:2 clothed men in 5 clothed adult humans -> Category:2 clothed men with 3 clothed women. Notice that none of them actually have any files except for the last one. Nosferattus (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
These are absurd. What next, "2 cats and a toaster"? - Jmabel ! talk 17:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Guess what, they have potential for expansion. Why should I take anything I read on this page seriously when in previous discussions, I read complaints about cats which are underpopulated and have little or no chance of expansion, all the while they continue to proliferate on the site and there's no evidence of the regulars here doing anything about it? I certainly don't have time to hang around here and constantly comment simply for the sake of commenting. It might help to look up "paper tiger". RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 18:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
no evidence of the regulars here doing anything about it? Not sure what you mean. a) This seems not relevant to the categories this particular thread is about and b) There's at least two ways people do things about underpopulated categories: there's many people categorizing files when they find them into such and there is Commons:Categorization requests where people can list such underpopulated cat if adding the note "This category is missing many files" (see examples) is not enough.
Guess what, they have potential for expansion The possibility of getting files added doesn't mean a category is useful / good to have. We also don't have Category:English-language PDF files containing the word example for example. (However, I don't really fully understand your comment.) Prototyperspective (talk) 19:52, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
One of the things that sucks about the category system is that it's impossible to keep people from creating categories and there's a lot of bureaucratic hurdles in the way of dealing with ones that end up being an issue. Some can create thousands of clearly problematic categories in a matter of minutes but then it takes months of back and forth in a CfD for them to be deleted. It's not a great system by any means. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Some can create thousands of clearly problematic categories in a matter of minutes I haven't seen any such cases. but then it takes months of back and forth in a CfD for them to be deleted if it's actually problematic it usually just takes a small number such as 1 user to support deletion and if there are no objections it will simply be deleted without much of back and forth. Relative to the total number of categories there is quite little bureaucratic cost for deletion. One way to get rid of lots of misleading and/or useless categories would be deleting all categories that have stayed empty for months and aren't maintenance categories but that didn't gain traction and other than that I haven't seen many cases of problematic categories and it doesn't seem to be a problem. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
I haven't seen any such cases. I was being slightly hyperbolic but it's certainly a lot easier and quicker to create categories a lot of the time then it is to get rid of them.
It doesn't seem to be a problem. It really depends on the situation and who created the category. It's usually not a problem to delete a single category that was created by someone who isn't a contributor anymore. That's not what this discussion is about though. It certainly takes a lot more time and effort to clean up category systems like this one then it does to create them. Anything beyond a couple of a categories that were created by a dead account is going to take some time, effort, and jumping through multiple bureaucratic hoops to deal with. Even then people just recreate previously deleted categories. Then it turns into edit wars, ignored talk page messages, baseless ANU complaints about harassment or some nonsense Etc. Etc. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
It is definitely my experience that the "splitters" have a great advantage over the "lumpers". Anyone can unilaterally create an overly narrow or utterly useless category in seconds, and populate it with Cat-a-Lot or similar tools in minutes; undoing that normally takes (1) noticing it, (2) writing up a CfD, (3) building up something of a consensus, and (4) even if that consensus is relatively easily built, doing at least as much work after that as it took to create and populate the category in the first place. Plus, in many cases, splitters have the advantage of always having on their side the argument, "you are removing information from the category portion" which unless the category is a strict intersection of preexisting categories will always be at least technically true, even if the category is (as I remarked above) "2 cats and a toaster" or "Angele Merkel on Tuesdays in the 1990s". - Jmabel ! talk 02:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
We do seem to have these sort of discussions quite often. Maybe it's time that we create a policy against useless over-specific categories. The only problem is how to define such a policy. How do we prohibit "2 cats and a toaster" in a way that everyone can agree on? Nosferattus (talk) 02:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
If I had my way the standard would be not having intersectional categories for more then two subjects. Otherwise it obtuse pretty quickly after that. So "2 cats and a toaster" would be out. As would all of these categories. I doubt there's any chance of something like that being approved though. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:42, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
I don't see any way to get away from this being a judgement call every time. It's just frustrating when some long-term users don't seem to be able to gauge consensus over time and/or willing to conform to it. - Jmabel ! talk 04:02, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
E.g. Category:Red fire hydrants in New Hampshire, presumably a perfectly good category, intersects an object type, a color, and a geographic location. - Jmabel ! talk 04:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
On the other hand, I've had to reluctantly accept the consensus in favor of Category:Female bass guitarists, which I find a pointless intersection: what does a female bass guitarist do any differently from a male bass guitarist? I get breaking the U.S. down to its states, breaking something down 50 ways can make for more tractable categories in many areas, but breaking it in two seems useless to me. And what about a non-binary bass guitarist? But clearly I am in the minority with this view. - Jmabel ! talk 04:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
I'd probably axe most of the gender based categories myself since it's not like we know how people identify in a good percentage of cases anyway. I much rather the categories not exist to begin with then having instances of people being misgendered. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
That cat is partly to include the files/categories in the Category:Female musicians branch. I think the cat is reasonable, maybe useful for some but not very useful. I think the problem rather is that due to COM:OVERCAT it can result in people moving files into by gender subcategories which are then missing at the top level and aren't categorized into far more useful categories such as about the setting or the instrument. Another example is Category:People exercising and its subcategories (esp. this) where people partly categorized by gender and age where it would be far more useful and reasonable to categorize by exercise / type of exercise. Secondly, improved ways to see files across many subcategories are also needed due to how subcategorization works. For example to see a well-sorted scrollable filterable wall of images of any kind of fire hydrants regardless of color and location.
Both of that I think means not the categorization itself is the problem that needs and can be well addressed, but such/potential issues relating to subcategorization. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Maybe a solution would be to make it so gender based categories can only be added to ones specifically for the people. Instead of there being a situation were images just get dumped in "by gender" categories and not put in better ones like it happens now. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:04, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
There is an unfortunately common tendency among some editors to split up large categories using criteria which often feel arbitrary, and which act as a barrier to more effective subcategorization - e.g. gender or nationality for categories of people, "by year" categories for photos of locations, etc. Which isn't to say that these properties should never be used for subcategories, but rather that they should be a last resort. Omphalographer (talk) 22:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2025/05&oldid=1031259609"