Talk:Freedom for Humanity

Jewish Chronicle: Jonathan Pollard opinion piece

A Jewish Chronicle opinion piece by Jonathan Pollard is not a great source for factually or neutrally reporting anything Kalen Ockerman amy have written or said [“Some of the older white Jewish folk in the local community had an issue with me portraying their beloved #Rothschild or #Warburg etc as the demons they are”]. Note that in the piece, Pollard's argument depends on the depicted characters being Jewish, but, as reported elsewhere, Ockerman stated that those represented were mainly non-Jewish bankers. As far as I can tell, the likely source of the quote was this Facebook post, which was not made by Ockkerman himself.     ←   ZScarpia   10:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

While an op-ed by Jonathan Pollard (former intelligence analyst, currently on parole after serving a life sentence) would perhaps be a wee-bit questionable, a column by Stephen Pollard, the editor of the Jewish Chronicle, is a pretty good source. However, I will note, we have an even better source for this factoid - Deborah E. Lipstadt - eminent antisemitism and Holocause denial scholar.[1] As for some of the figures not being Jewish (being loosely based on historical early 20th century bankers) - it would appear to be that the criticism here has been based on the tropes used in the mural and not the supposed identity of the those drawn. Icewhiz (talk) 12:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting out my mix up over names. However, contrary to your claim, an opinion piece by Stephen Pollard, who, to say the least, is very inclined to attack anybody who may be perceived as a threat to Israel [2], is a very poor source to use on its own as a neutral or reliable source for what Ockerman may have said or written.

Lipstadt, as a result of the David Irving libel case (where the defence built its case using other historians), is well known, but on what grounds are you calling her eminent? Is she in the front rank as a scholar or academic writer? Which sources related to her would you like to use? At least for me, the link given doesn't return any results relating to the mural.

The case for the mural being antisemitic was based on the argument that the figures shown seated round the table represented antisemitic stereotypes. The point is that Ockerman stated that they actually represented real people, most of whom are not Jewish, contradicting the basis of the argument for the mural being antisemitic. Pollard, bases his argument around a claim that Ockerman had written (no source is given) that local Jewish residents specifically objected to the representation of those Jewish bankers who appear in the mural. However, the validity of the argument that Pollard builds on what Ockerman supposedly wrote depends on the figures represented all, or mainly, being Jews, which, according to Ockerman, they are not. To fulfil the requirements of neutrality, the article should not be built solely on what hostile sources selectively claim about Ockerman.

    ←   ZScarpia   10:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Lipstadt, one of the leading scholars on antisemitism in our generation, wrote two pages (59-61) on the mural in her 2019 book (which includes the same quote of Ockerman that Pollard quoted). As for Ockerman - his stmts/claims matter little in relation to RSes.Icewhiz (talk) 12:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Granted that Lipstadt's book is a reliable source, though her statement that the "repulsive hook-nosed characters of the bankers resembled the imagery used by the anti-Semitic Der Stürmer newspaper" is beside the point if the hook-noses in question belong to a Morgan or Rockefeller. In Lipstadt's book, does she cover Ockerman's claim about whom the figures represent or does she just assume they're Jewish stereotypes? As the artist of the piece, Ockerman's statements are of reasonable significance. Obviously, if you are going to rely on non-neutral sources to outline what anyone has said or written you stand a strong risk of contravening the NPOV and BLP policies.     ←   ZScarpia   12:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Read what she wrote. The issue here is not the historical figures (some of whom are Jewish), but the use of very famous tropes with a very certain history.Icewhiz (talk) 14:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Obviously I'm asking you what she wrote because as far as I can figure out, there isn't a way of viewing the book's content from the link you gave. Presumably you do actually have access to the two pages in question?     ←   ZScarpia   11:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

According to this NY Times article: "Written as a series of letters to two composite characters, a “whip smart” Jewish college student and a well-meaning gentile law professor, Lipstadt’s book aims not to break new scholarly ground but to awaken her audience to the nature, persistence and scale of the threat, along with the insidious ways in which it seeks to disguise itself." If Lipstadt isn't writing in her own voice, I doubt that the book can be considered as a reliable source: it would not be herself making statements of fact, but some rhetorical construct.     ←   ZScarpia   12:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually reading the book, I see that it's in the form of letters written to fictional characters as the review says, but signed in Lipstadt's name, giving rise to the curious problem of whether what is written can be regarded as a statement of fact or not. In my view, the contents of the fictional letter in which the cited material appears, present a skewed and partial version of events. Perhaps the book can be cited as a source of Lipstadt's viewpoint, but it's only a viewpoint; a different version of "the facts" is given elsewhere. Lipstadt's view is part of the case for the prosecution; the case for the defence should also be given. Also, if Lipstadt's view is going to be presented, I think that not only her conclusions should be given, but also which "facts" those conclusions are based on.     ←   ZScarpia   10:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

ZScarpia, you may want to walk some of this back, Lipstadt and Pollard - editor of a well-regarded newspaper in a country with a lively free press (the U.K.,) are reliable sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

The article by Pollard is an opinion piece and is therefore not reliable for anything apart from Pollard's opinion. Personally, I find the content of the Jewish Chronicle a mixed bag, a lot of it excellent, but some of it pure propaganda (one area it messed up in recently was its claims that a letter by twenty-nine Orthodox rabbis which supported Jeremy Corbyn was a fake [3]). I think it's fair to say that Pollard is a fairly staunch defender of Zionism. In Wikipedia terms, that means that he is a good source for the Zionist point of view, but, in fulfilling the NPOV requirement, not great for statements of fact on controversial subjects. Lipstadt is notable, but to what degree she is considered an expert in her field, I'm not qualified (and I suspect you're not either) to say. What I would base an opinion on is to read an endorsement of her by somebody who is clarly one of the leading scholars, but I've never come across anything like that. Something that gives me pause for thought is that, in the Irving libel trial, she appears to have contributed little to her own defence; other historians were brought in to research and prepare the defence case, demolishing Irving's reputation. I read a piece of hers on Hannah Arendt which I thought was excellent; on the other hand, I read a piece of hers in a US newspaper or periodical on the Labour antisemitism controversy, which showed she had a shallow and specious knowledge of the British history she was writing about and should have been a source of shame to anyone professing to be a historian in its lack of fact checking.     ←   ZScarpia   10:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

BBC - OR

@Jontel: - please provide a supporting quote from the source for "even though many residents had shown enthusiasm for the mural, encouraged Ockerman during the painting and were opposed to its removal". If these are the words of an interviewee - e.g. Azmal Hussein - owner of the wall - we most certainly can not say this in our own voice, but should attribute this clearly. Icewhiz (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: - it was in the referenced Haaratz source. I hope that is OK, and sorry for not saying that in the summary Jontel (talk) 15:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

You should cite just the source supporting this. Reading Haaretz - it doesn't support " even though many residents " - it doesn't make a connection between many residents encouraging the painter when he was painting to the removal - it merely makes a random observation on the disposition of the local populace to the offensive mural. Icewhiz (talk) 15:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

OK, I don't know where Haaratz got this from so have taken it out Jontel (talk) 13:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Mural title: "False Profits", not "Freedom for Humanity"

Kalen Ockerman (Mear One) appears to have called the mural "False Profits", not "Freedom for Humanity". I would suggest that the article title is changed, with perhaps a redirect being added under the original title.[4][5][6][7]     ←   ZScarpia   11:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Does not matter (and it seems all your links there are YouTube). We use what RSes call it which is either "Freedom for Humanity" or the quite possibly more popular "antisemitic mural" - per WP:COMMONNAME.Icewhiz (talk) 11:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Mear One calls it "Freedom for Humanity" on his website http://mearone.com/projects/httpmearone-comwp-contentuploads201607freedom-for-humanity_small-jpg/ and his facebook page . "I painted my "Freedom for Humanity" mural in East London ". https://www.facebook.com/290156246477/videos/10155623221901478/ Perhaps False Profits is his name for the video of its creation. Jontel (talk) 12:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Confusion abounds. Which is the description and which the title? Have a look at the results returned by the Google search linked to in my comment below and see what you think. The title for the video of the mural's creation is "MEAR ONE - FALSE PROFITS (London, 2012)". That certainly implies to me that False Profits is the title of the mural, not the video. Mear One has produced prints with the same theme as the mural and also titled "False Profits". There are at least two different versions of the people sitting round the table, all looking more like proper portraits and all less big-nosed.[8][9]     ←   ZScarpia   13:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

[EC] A Google search using the terms "False Profits" and "Mear One", which returns 2,730 results. How many of your (maybe not so) reliable sources actually give a title ror the mural?     ←   ZScarpia   12:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Looks like he made several similar, though not identical, murals. The one in London's East End is described as "Freedom for Humanity" on his website and Facebook page, the latter actually saying that that was what he painted in London. http://mearone.com/projects/httpmearone-comwp-contentuploads201607freedom-for-humanity_small-jpg/ and his facebook page . "I painted my "Freedom for Humanity" mural in East London ". https://www.facebook.com/290156246477/videos/10155623221901478/ Here is False Profts on its website, and it is very similar, though not identical. http://mearone.com/projects/false-profits/ I do not know why he used the wrong title on his video, or perhaps he changed his mind, perhaps more than once. So, I suggest we leave the name as it is.Jontel (talk) 13:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok, let's leave it. The impression I have is that he painted one mural, the one in Shoreditch, then produced a couple of posters or prints based on the same theme as the mural. I looked at copies of two of the prints, the portrayals in one looking like an improved version of the ones in the mural, but those in the other looking noticeably different.     ←   ZScarpia   11:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC) ... and there's a t-shirt too!

Problematic tags

One editor has been inserting (and reinserting after removal) a "left wing antisemitism" tag. This appears to be inappropriate and completely unjustified. None of the content in the article references the "left wing," and it seems the editor is simply using that tag to try to link leftist political views with antisemitism.

The other "antisemitism" tags are arguably problematic as well, as they could be taken to endorse the opinions of people who claim the mural is antisemitic. Although some people have complained that the mural is antisemitic, the mural is not in fact antisemitic in its content or intent---at least if the artist himself can be taken as a reliable source on the content and intent of his work, and I don't see any reason we should do otherwise. It seems clear from the artist's own statements, and by looking at the artists' body of work as a whole, that his art often has anti-capitalist themes. But there is no apparent pattern of antisemitism whatsoever. And the artist has unequivocally rejected comparisons of his work to---in his words---"vile Nazi, Third Reich anti-Semitic propaganda" (see the wikipedia page for the artist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mear_One). The quote by Lipstadt referring to "hook-nosed" characters is just plain silly, considering that none of the figures in the mural actually have hook noses. 130.182.24.154 (talk) 20:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The artist is intending to be critical of the 'elite banker cartel' of 100 years ago, some of whom were Jewish. As he was portraying the Jewish ones as Jewish, some local Jewish residents didn't like it. People might say they are crude images but he was painting a complex work in a couple of days in a public street - not easy - and it was not intended to be permanent. Six years later, it was used against the pro-Palestinian Corbyn. The remarks of Lipstadt and Pollock, who are fiercely anti-Corbyn, seem to me to be misleading and should be deleted, alomg with the antisemitism categories. You can look up Der Sturmer imagery online and it does not look like the images in this mural. An image of old men around a table is a common propandist theme used to portray opponents. Jontel (talk) 21:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Good points, Jontel. I would add that both Lipstadt and Pollock appear to have a history of conflating antisemitism with other views that aren't antisemitic (most notably, opposition to Israeli foreign policy). For instance, in the same book where Lipstadt inaccurately labels Freedom For Humanity as antisemitic, she suggests that boycotts of Israel on humanitarian grounds are antisemitic as well. Certainly the wikipedia article should mention the controversy surrounding the mural, but I wonder if quotes from incendiary opinion pieces by Lipstadt and Pollock on the topic are appropriate. In any case, the "left wing antisemitism" tag certainly should go, and perhaps some of the other tags as well. 130.182.24.154 (talk) 22:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Regarding categorisation, Wikipedia says in Wikipedia:Categorization#Categorizing_pages that Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate. Here, the artist and a commentator on art clearly dispute the interpretation. Jontel (talk) 05:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Wow. Based on that policy, it seems pretty clear that all of the "antisemitism" tags are inappropriate. This article is about a mural. The fact that some people have expressed an opinion (an opinion completely contradicted by the artist) that the mural was antisemitic doesn't justify the blatantly POV and controversial "antisemitism" tags. I'm removing them. 23.242.198.189 (talk) 06:58, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

They aren't tags. They are templates. It's nice that Jontel knows the artist's "true intention." But reliable sources have been unanimous in describing this work as anti-semitic. This user needs to understand that he's entitled to interpret any artistic piece he likes, but here we interpret sources, and the sources paint a clear picture. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

We don't need to rely on any wiki editor to tell use the artist's "true intention." We have the artist's own words. To say that "reliable sources have been unanimous in describing this work as anti-Semitic" is clearly based on an extremely biased definition of what constitutes a reliable source. It's not justifiable to suggest that the artist is not a reliable source about his own intentions, but that someone who isn't familiar with the artist's body of work and criticizes the mural's use of "hook noses"---which none of the figures in the mural actually have---somehow understands the artist's vision better than the artist himself.23.242.198.189 (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Considering, that a full third of the men are Jewish, and that the author specifically stated Rothschild is depicted because of an anti-Semitic quote falsely attributed to him years after his death, the author's words do not defend him as much as you think they do. 2603:8081:2603:E100:D93:A41A:D9D:A4B1 (talk) 03:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:NPOV

Regarding this group of edits, which contains a statement about the "apparent depiction of Jews with stereotypically enlarged noses", citations may have been given, but it's not neutral. Other sources dispute the "big nose" argument and point out that Ockerman claimed to have painted a group of real-life bankers, most of whom were non-Jewish. Enough time has passed that books have been published which discuss the subject, some of which make counter-accusations about a conconcted controversy. The edits include an American spelling ('fueled' rather than 'fuelled'). For consistency, a decision should be made about which spelling variant the article should use.
This edit re-adds an Antisemitism template, the edit comment stating: "The anti-semitic nature of the mural is NOT disputed, do not remove this template again." In actual fact, whether the mural was antisemitic or not IS disputed. The article uses both the hyphenated and non-hyphenated forms of spelling 'antisemitism' and 'antisemitic'. Discussions have taken place in the past elsewhere in Wikipedia about which version to adopt. I think that it would be a good idea to conform.
This group of edits, a bit inaccurately, states that Corbyn expressed support for preserving the mural. On Facebook, Corbyn wrote about how another muralist (Diego Rivera, I think) had one of his works destroyed. He then asked what the reason for the removal of the "Freedom of Humanity" one was. You could call that support for the artist, but he didn't actually "express support for the mural" as such. Sources may have been cited, but others will contradict what they say.
    ←   ZScarpia   15:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

The article is lacking from a neutral, matter-of-fact description of the artwork itself. There was a reasonable factual description around the time of this edit but that has since been ripped up and laced with WP:NPOV language. Without an objective description, the reader cannot find out what the work depicted and make up their own mind. The fact is, the mural depicts a number of figures, not all of whom are Jews: Rothschilds (Jews), the Rockefellers (Baptist Christians), and the Morgans (Episcopalian Christians). There is symbolism related to Freemasonry and the "New World Order" conspiracy theory, which has been linked to antisemitic propaganda, but this is a matter of interpretation.

This article should not shy away from describing the accusations of antisemitism, but they belong in the reactions section. Needs work. Cnbrb (talk)

My edit was reverted because it was tagged as point of view or opinion. The creator of the mural himself said it protrays "Jews and Anglos", are you going to ignore the creator's own description?Eframgoldberg (talk) 13:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Eframgoldberg Perhaps everyone's intentions are not clear to everyone. In general terms, what change would you like to see in the article now and why? Then we can discuss it. Jontel (talk) 14:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I would like the artist's own words describing the mural to be included again. Just a quick recap, the artist himself said the Mural included "Jews and Anglos" verbatim. When I included that information, it was removed for not being neutral or an opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eframgoldberg (talk • contribs) 20:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

A challenge!

On 23 January 2022, SeerOfJustice posted this image on Simon Maginn's Twitter feed. It represents the first attempt I, at least, have seen to match up images of the people Mear One claimed to have represented in the mural with the people shown in the mural itself and, it looks to me, makes a convincing case that the representations aren't just antisemitic Jewish stereotypes. It would be good to to track down where the image came from (maybe even from a reliable source!)     ←   ZScarpia   15:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

"Personal appeal" by Mear One to Corbyn.

I've just edited the article to remove the false, unsourced statement that Mear One, the mural's painter, sent a personal appeal to Jeremy Corbyn via Facebook (diff: [10]). For anyone intereested, Mear One's Facebook post can be found here.     ←   ZScarpia   15:41, 26 February 2023 (UTC)