---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Yoni Weiden yonidebest@gmail.com Date: 5 Dec 2007 11:50 Subject: [Foundation-l] Racism in Commons To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Dear Wikimedia Foundation people,
The page http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ariel_Sharon in commons includes racist cartoons against a representative of the Jewish nation, and thus, against the Jewish people themselves. I seems like Commons does not have a NPOV policy and thus the pictures will be there until they manage to create one. I do not agree that such pictures be presented in Ariel Sharon's page and I think you should interfere (as commons community clearly don't have the policies to deal with this case) and correct this serious offence before it is released to the press in Israel.
Thanks, Yoni Weiden aka Yonidebest@hewiki _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
David Gerard wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Yoni Weiden yonidebest@gmail.com
[...]
I seems like Commons does not have a NPOV policy and thus the pictures will be there until they manage to create one.
NPOV is not easily applicable to images - a requirement to host only "neutral" images would be very harmful, we would for example no longer be able to host example of propaganda: this would all have to go http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Propaganda. And a lot more, I suppose.
So, I do not think we can or should require individual images to be NPOV - but commons as a whole, and also pages on commons, should be - if POV/offensive/derogatory material is shown, it should be commented, and it could be moved to a sub-page. Categories are a problem though, since there, all images appear unsorted and uncommented. This is a technical limitation.
I do not agree that such pictures be presented in Ariel Sharon's page and I think you should interfere (as commons community clearly don't have the policies to deal with this case) and correct this serious offence before it is released to the press in Israel.
I do believe that if *relevant* (and free) propaganda or satire against/about someone or something exist, it should be available (and findable!) on commons - but, as I sad, presented in a neutral, educational fashion.
After a quick brainstorming on IRC, relevance/notability seems to be a decent criterion for the inclusion of POV/offensive/derogatory material: *documenting* such things *is* in the scope of commons, while *pedaling* it is certainly not.
So, lets try to apply some taste and common sense in the face of hate and stupidity. Should commons tolerate racism? no. Should we document racism? yes. Is racist material necessary to do so? yes.
Regards, Daniel
Estoy totalmente en contra de la eliminación de la sección «Cartoons» del artículo de Ariel Sharon. Calificar esas viñetas de racistas es tergiversar. ¿Acaso no se se puede criticar a un político israelí? ¿Si en vez de Sharon fuera Sarkozy, Zapatero o Bush alguien hablaría de racismo?
Lo sucedido en este caso es simplemente una censura absolutamente contraria al NPOV.
Este cambio http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ariel_Sharon&diff=8840593... parece muy desafortunado
La versión http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ariel_Sharon&oldid=884058... recuperarse
Sanbec
2007/12/5, Daniel Kinzler daniel@brightbyte.de:
David Gerard wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Yoni Weiden yonidebest@gmail.com
[...]
I seems like Commons does not have a NPOV policy and thus the pictures will be there until they manage to
create
one.
NPOV is not easily applicable to images - a requirement to host only "neutral" images would be very harmful, we would for example no longer be able to host example of propaganda: this would all have to go http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Propaganda. And a lot more, I suppose.
So, I do not think we can or should require individual images to be NPOV - but commons as a whole, and also pages on commons, should be - if POV/offensive/derogatory material is shown, it should be commented, and it could be moved to a sub-page. Categories are a problem though, since there, all images appear unsorted and uncommented. This is a technical limitation.
I do not agree that such pictures be presented in Ariel Sharon's page and I think you should interfere (as commons community clearly don't
have
the policies to deal with this case) and correct this serious offence
before
it is released to the press in Israel.
I do believe that if *relevant* (and free) propaganda or satire against/about someone or something exist, it should be available (and findable!) on commons - but, as I sad, presented in a neutral, educational fashion.
After a quick brainstorming on IRC, relevance/notability seems to be a decent criterion for the inclusion of POV/offensive/derogatory material: *documenting* such things *is* in the scope of commons, while *pedaling* it is certainly not.
So, lets try to apply some taste and common sense in the face of hate and stupidity. Should commons tolerate racism? no. Should we document racism? yes. Is racist material necessary to do so? yes.
Regards, Daniel
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On Dec 5, 2007 9:41 AM, Santiago Becerra Carrillo sanbec@gmail.com wrote:
Estoy totalmente en contra de la eliminación de la sección «Cartoons» del artículo de Ariel Sharon. Calificar esas viñetas de racistas es tergiversar. ¿Acaso no se se puede criticar a un político israelí? ¿Si en vez de Sharon fuera Sarkozy, Zapatero o Bush alguien hablaría de racismo?
Lo sucedido en este caso es simplemente una censura absolutamente contraria al NPOV.
Este cambio http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ariel_Sharon&diff=8840593... me parece muy desafortunado
La versión http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ariel_Sharon&oldid=884058... debería recuperarse
Sanbec
De acuerdo. Commons no es una enciclopedia. Commons no tiene por pilar el principio de neutralidad. Los principios de Wikipedia aplican únicamente a Wikipedia. Sino ¿cómo justificar Wikiquote, donde todo es opinión? Commons tiene sus propios principios, y el punto de vista neutral no es aplicable
1) This is the Commons mailing list. I would be grateful if comments could be made in English.
2) I consider the cartoons to be disgraceful, and presenting them in the main page on Ariel Sharon is probably a danger for the Wiki*edia projects, in addition to being an offence to common sense. Anthere did well to remove them and I hope never to see these outside of their proper realm again.
3) Not all Jews are Israelis, and not all Israelis are Jewish. Neither all Israelis nor all Jews agree with the policies of Ariel Sharon. Criticism of a policy, however disgraceful it is, does not amount to racism. That there are groups determined to identify any criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism does not imply that such attacks should be tolerated on a mailing list unrelated to Middle East politics.
-- Rama
Hi!
I have a stupid question: what is principal difference with Leon Trotsky cartoon (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:WhiteArmyPropagandaPosterOfTrotsky.j...
Should we remove every political cartoon (including WW I/WW II propaganda posters) because these images could be viewed as examples of hate speech?
With best regards, Eugene.
On Dec 5, 2007 8:13 AM, Rama Rama ramaneko@gmail.com wrote:
- This is the Commons mailing list. I would be grateful if comments could
be made in English.
- I consider the cartoons to be disgraceful, and presenting them in the
main page on Ariel Sharon is probably a danger for the Wiki*edia projects, in addition to being an offence to common sense. Anthere did well to remove them and I hope never to see these outside of their proper realm again.
- Not all Jews are Israelis, and not all Israelis are Jewish. Neither all
Israelis nor all Jews agree with the policies of Ariel Sharon. Criticism of a policy, however disgraceful it is, does not amount to racism. That there are groups determined to identify any criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism does not imply that such attacks should be tolerated on a mailing list unrelated to Middle East politics.
-- Rama
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On Dec 5, 2007 10:13 AM, Rama Rama ramaneko@gmail.com wrote:
- This is the Commons mailing list. I would be grateful if comments could
be made in English.
Thank you. I thought, since the website is multilingual, and the irc channel is multilingual, I foolishly thought this would also be multilingual
On 05/12/2007, Rama Rama ramaneko@gmail.com wrote:
- Not all Jews are Israelis, and not all Israelis are Jewish. Neither all
Israelis nor all Jews agree with the policies of Ariel Sharon. Criticism of a policy, however disgraceful it is, does not amount to racism. That there are groups determined to identify any criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism does not imply that such attacks should be tolerated on a mailing list unrelated to Middle East politics.
People who equate Israelis to Jews, Jews to Israelis, and claim that the leader of Israel is the leader of the Jewish people are Zionists. Zionists are themselves racist (the very notion of a racial state (i.e. Israel) is racist) and there are many Jews who oppose Zionism. Zionists often accuse any opponent of Israel as being anti-Semites (a very powerful, emotive term). We shouldn't let the emotion of this term interfere with rational discussion about political cartoons.
On Dec 5, 2007 12:41 PM, Santiago Becerra Carrillo sanbec@gmail.com wrote:
Estoy totalmente en contra de la eliminación de la sección «Cartoons» del artículo de Ariel Sharon. Calificar esas viñetas de racistas es tergiversar. ¿Acaso no se se puede criticar a un político israelí? ¿Si en vez de Sharon fuera Sarkozy, Zapatero o Bush alguien hablaría de racismo?
Lo sucedido en este caso es simplemente una censura absolutamente contraria al NPOV.
Este cambio http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ariel_Sharon&diff=8840593... me parece muy desafortunado
La versión http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ariel_Sharon&oldid=884058... recuperarse
Sanbec
No puedo dejar de estar de acuerdo con Sanbec, esta paranoia persecutoria y la manía que tiene la fundación de querer quedar bien con todo el mundo ya se va tornando irrisoria.
Las historietas son lo que son, historietas. ¿Desde cuándo se pide que éstas sean políticamente correctas? (siempre creí que la sola idea era lo contrario).
Creo que las imágenes deberían dejarse junto a un comentario como "historietas/imágenes anti-Sharon" o "que representan a Sharon negativamente".
Rama: Pedro have already said it, Commons is multilingual, "the place where all wikis collide". This is not en.wiki mailing list.
Oldak, this is the mailing list of Commons. This is not a political mailing list. Beside the fact that you views of Zionism are simplistic and wrong, it is not the emotions of Zionists that we want to keep out of here, but the emotions of *all* politically-driven people. Be they tenants of the Israeli right-wing and far-right-wing, or their opponents.
Pedro and Gizmo, this is a *mailing list*, not a private channel; and it is the mailing list of Wikimedia Commons, which is, indeed, multi-lingual. Meaning that people from all language interact here. If you are speaking to everybody, it is common sense and courtesy to use a lingua franca that everybody understands. If you are not speaking to everybody, it is common sense and courtesy to bring the discussion to some private place where it belongs.
-- Rama
On 06/12/2007, Rama Rama ramaneko@gmail.com wrote:
Oldak, this is the mailing list of Commons. This is not a political mailing list. Beside the fact that you views of Zionism are simplistic and wrong, it is not the emotions of Zionists that we want to keep out of here, but the emotions of *all* politically-driven people. Be they tenants of the Israeli right-wing and far-right-wing, or their opponents.
I suggested we avoid emotive terms such as "anti-Semite" which would just confuse this discussion. The term is lightly thrown around in some discussions - I don't see how anything I said was over-simplistic or wrong.
Zionism is racist (any hope or ideology based around a racial state is racist) and confusing the distinction between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism is a common tactic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism_and_racism_allegations). I only bring up these points, because they are relevant to the discussion.
No, they are irrelevant. Regardless of my views on the images at hand (and no, I don't think they should be deleted altogether), nobody cares if you think Zionism = racism and it has nothing to do with whether we should or shouldn't keep these images.
On Dec 6, 2007 2:32 PM, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/12/2007, Rama Rama ramaneko@gmail.com wrote:
Oldak, this is the mailing list of Commons. This is not a political
mailing
list. Beside the fact that you views of Zionism are simplistic and
wrong, it
is not the emotions of Zionists that we want to keep out of here, but
the
emotions of *all* politically-driven people. Be they tenants of the
Israeli
right-wing and far-right-wing, or their opponents.
I suggested we avoid emotive terms such as "anti-Semite" which would just confuse this discussion. The term is lightly thrown around in some discussions - I don't see how anything I said was over-simplistic or wrong.
Zionism is racist (any hope or ideology based around a racial state is racist) and confusing the distinction between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism is a common tactic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism_and_racism_allegations). I only bring up these points, because they are relevant to the discussion.
-- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 06/12/2007, Yonatan Horan yonatanh@gmail.com wrote:
No, they are irrelevant. Regardless of my views on the images at hand (and no, I don't think they should be deleted altogether), nobody cares if you think Zionism = racism and it has nothing to do with whether we should or shouldn't keep these images.
The original poster opened with "The page http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ariel_Sharon in commons includes racist cartoons against a representative of the Jewish nation, and thus, against the Jewish people themselves."
To state that cartoons against the representatives of "the Jewish nation" is "against the Jewish people themselves" is a statement of racism. I wouldn't make the point that Zionism=racism if it weren't relevant to the discussion. The point really isn't that Zionism=racism, the point is that these comments in particular are racist.
I didn't state that we should keep/delete the photos because Zionism=racism, I suggested we shouldn't allow the racism of those comments to influence this discussion or our decision.
I agree there is a logical fallacy in the original argument. That, however, is no reason to bring up an irrelevant debate about a hotly disputed topic. I certainly didn't get the suggestion we should disregard the original argument due to it allegedly being racist out of what you said, and I doubt many people did. Either way, I'm sure commons community members will not vote based on racist comments.
On Dec 6, 2007 2:55 PM, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/12/2007, Yonatan Horan yonatanh@gmail.com wrote:
No, they are irrelevant. Regardless of my views on the images at hand
(and
no, I don't think they should be deleted altogether), nobody cares if
you
think Zionism = racism and it has nothing to do with whether we should
or
shouldn't keep these images.
The original poster opened with "The page http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ariel_Sharon in commons includes racist cartoons against a representative of the Jewish nation, and thus, against the Jewish people themselves."
To state that cartoons against the representatives of "the Jewish nation" is "against the Jewish people themselves" is a statement of racism. I wouldn't make the point that Zionism=racism if it weren't relevant to the discussion. The point really isn't that Zionism=racism, the point is that these comments in particular are racist.
I didn't state that we should keep/delete the photos because Zionism=racism, I suggested we shouldn't allow the racism of those comments to influence this discussion or our decision.
-- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Rama Rama wrote:
Oldak, this is the mailing list of Commons. This is not a political mailing list. Beside the fact that you views of Zionism are simplistic and wrong, it is not the emotions of Zionists that we want to keep out of here, but the emotions of *all* politically-driven people. Be they tenants of the Israeli right-wing and far-right-wing, or their opponents.
Pedro and Gizmo, this is a *mailing list*, not a private channel; and it is the mailing list of Wikimedia Commons, which is, indeed, multi-lingual. Meaning that people from all language interact here. If you are speaking to everybody, it is common sense and courtesy to use a lingua franca that everybody understands. If you are not speaking to everybody, it is common sense and courtesy to bring the discussion to some private place where it belongs.
-- Rama
Again. I disagree. Commons is a multilingual project. As such, the list is also multilingual. It is up to them to consider that very few can read what they write. They can also consider adding a warning in the topic line so that people do not bother opening the message.
But if a project is multilingual, then multilingualism should be okay.
Ant
Rama Rama wrote:
Pedro and Gizmo, this is a *mailing list*, not a private channel; and it is the mailing list of Wikimedia Commons, which is, indeed, multi-lingual. Meaning that people from all language interact here. If you are speaking to everybody, it is common sense and courtesy to use a lingua franca that everybody understands. If you are not speaking to everybody, it is common sense and courtesy to bring the discussion to some private place where it belongs.
-- Rama
Again. I disagree. Commons is a multilingual project. As such, the list is also multilingual. It is up to them to consider that very few can read what they write. They can also consider adding a warning in the topic line so that people do not bother opening the message.
But if a project is multilingual, then multilingualism should be okay.
Minusta ei oikein voi sanoa samalla kertaa, että projekti on monikielinen ja jokainen voi käyttää omaa kieltään, ja että jos ei tule ymmärretyksi omalla kielellään, se on oma vika.
Translated: I don't quite think you can, at the same time, say that a project is multilingual and you can use your own language, and that if you are not understood, it's your own fault.
On 07/12/2007, samuli@samulilintula.net samuli@samulilintula.net wrote:
Translated: I don't quite think you can, at the same time, say that a project is multilingual and you can use your own language, and that if you are not understood, it's your own fault.
"fault" or "responsibility"?
You can write in whatever language you like, but don't be surprised if not many readers understand you.
- d.
You can write in whatever language you like, but don't be surprised if not many readers understand you.
Which, in turns, involves mass-sending messages to people, knowing that most of them simply cannot be interested. Which comes very short to spamming them. Is it OK to use the Commons mailing list for things which are not of general interest ? I would have though not.
-- Rama
Cuando escribo en mi idioma es porque quiero que el que lea mi mensaje lo entienda perfectamente. Si lo escribo en inglés, idioma que no domino, corro el riesgo de que se me entienda mal, y en asuntos como este en que se ha hablado de racismo no estoy dispuesto a correr ningún riesgo.
An attempt to translate:
When I write in my language, It's I want the people reading my message undertand it right. If I write it in english, language tha I don't speak nor write fluently, it's possible you understand my bad. This (topic: racism) is a matter where I wan't that.
2007/12/7, Rama Rama ramaneko@gmail.com:
You can write in whatever language you like, but don't be surprised if
not many readers understand you.
Which, in turns, involves mass-sending messages to people, knowing that most of them simply cannot be interested. Which comes very short to spamming them. Is it OK to use the Commons mailing list for things which are not of general interest ? I would have though not.
-- Rama
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
I'm sorry if I come across as agressive and disagreable. I agree that Commons is a mutli-lingual and multi-cultural project, and this makes for a lot of the joy it procures me. Multi-lingual does not mean that people all speak several common languages. I means that they speak different, non-compatible languages. Having them understand each other is *more* of a problem, no less of it.
However, luckily, there's English, which is widely spoken and understood to at least basic levels. English allows me not only to save the tediousness of reading Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, German, and several other languages that I can understand partially with effort, but also to understand people whose language I do not understand at all, like Arabic, Russian, Chinese.
- on the Wiki, "Trotsky" is written "Троцкий". To me this is not a problem, because we have *redirects*. - on the IRC, people can speak several languages, because they frequently engage in person-to-person discussion. In this case, it makes sense to use the language that both people master the best - On the mailing list, on the other hand * there are no redirect or automated translation systems * messages are, per definition, addressed to everybody.
In this sense, in my opinion, it makes about as much sense to start using a language that few understand than it would to send encrypted messages for which one single person has the key.
Being cautious about exactitude when speaking of political matters is commendable, and I wish that this state of mind was more widespread. However, in this case, it strikes me as evident that non-Spanish speakers will either understand nothing to the message, or understand it with the gross approximations that Santiago Becerra Carrillo seems to keen to avoid.
-- Rama
On Dec 7, 2007 12:58 AM, samuli@samulilintula.net wrote:
Rama Rama wrote:
Pedro and Gizmo, this is a *mailing list*, not a private channel; and
it
is the mailing list of Wikimedia Commons, which is, indeed, multi-lingual. Meaning that people from all language interact here. If you are speaking to everybody, it is common sense and courtesy to use a lingua franca that everybody understands. If you are not speaking to everybody, it is common sense and courtesy to bring the discussion to some private place where it belongs.
-- Rama
Again. I disagree. Commons is a multilingual project. As such, the list is also multilingual. It is up to them to consider that very few can read what they write. They can also consider adding a warning in the topic line so that people do not bother opening the message.
But if a project is multilingual, then multilingualism should be okay.
Minusta ei oikein voi sanoa samalla kertaa, että projekti on monikielinen ja jokainen voi käyttää omaa kieltään, ja että jos ei tule ymmärretyksi omalla kielellään, se on oma vika.
Translated: I don't quite think you can, at the same time, say that a project is multilingual and you can use your own language, and that if you are not understood, it's your own fault.
I think the issue is more about being understood by very few people if you are writing in a language other than English on a mailinglist which by default happens to be conducted mainly in English. A mailing list is different from a wiki, and every e-mail gets sent to every person regardless of their primary language - unlike on the Commons website where there are different-language village pumps and options on templates, pages, etc. to view the information in other languages.
If you don't speak English or can understand it but not speak it well, I don't see why we should (or how it is right to) say "no you can't post here, English only". However if you do speak English remotely well, as common courtesy it is nice to write in English (or write in your mother tongue and translate into English, as Samuli did) in order to be understood by the widest number of people. Italians may not understand Russian, the French may not understand Danish, etc., but a huge percentage of people understand English on some level.
-- Ayelie (Editor at Large)
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Yoni Weiden yonidebest@gmail.com
Dear Wikimedia Foundation people,
The page http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ariel_Sharon in commons includes racist cartoons against a representative of the Jewish nation, and thus, against the Jewish people themselves. I seems like Commons does not have a NPOV policy and thus the pictures will be there until they manage to create one. I do not agree that such pictures be presented in Ariel Sharon's page and I think you should interfere (as commons community clearly don't have the policies to deal with this case) and correct this serious offence before it is released to the press in Israel.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:PS "Private image collections and the like are generally not wanted. Wikimedia Commons is not a web host for e.g. private party photos, self-created artwork without educational purpose and such. There are plenty of other projects in the Internet you can use for such a purpose, like Flickr and others."
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:PS "Private image collections and the like are generally not wanted. Wikimedia Commons is not a web host for e.g. private party photos,
Sorry, but I don't see how this applies to this specific case. Apart from the holocaust-denial connotation of these so called cartoons, the contest which they came out of was fairly well publicized in the media. So there is some encyclopedic relevance to it. And by the way I'd be the least worried that these images attack Ariel Sharon, its scope is much broader.
Please compare this with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Jyllands-Posten-pg3-article-in-Sept-30-20...
We sould apply the same standards to the holocaust-denial cartoons as we do to the mohammed cartoons. That means showing them as a fair use version, and thus due to licensing issues not on commons but on wikipedia, where they are used in an appropriate context accompanied by a critical discussion.
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, Daniel Schwen wrote:
We sould apply the same standards to the holocaust-denial cartoons as we do to the mohammed cartoons. That means showing them as a fair use version, and thus due to licensing issues not on commons but on wikipedia, where they are used in an appropriate context accompanied by a critical discussion.
I'm a little out of date with the fair use policy on en.wp (and don't know the policy on other wps), but as I understand it, if there is a Free version available (which if the image was on commons I presume their must be) then the view is that (Wikipedia/the Foundation) cannot claim fair use.
If I am correct in this, then if the images have encyclopaedic merit and projects want to inlcudem them, they need to be hosted on Commons.
In my opinion, we should not be censoring the Commons or applying double standards to any content by removing material that is offensive to one group of people and not removing content that is offensive to another group of people. Almost every image of a person stands a good chance of offending somebody somewhere, so we should either delete all the images depicting humans or drawings of humans and anything else that offends people or we should allow the inclusion of everything that meets the Commons' inclusion policy (basically, anything useful for a Wikimedia project that can be legally hosted by Commons).
Either directly or via the "disclaimers" or "About Wikimedia Commons" links at the bottom of every page, we should make it clear though that Commons is not censored and contains content that may offend. It should also make clear that we do not encourage or support racism, sexism, religious or any other form of discrimination, but that as such discriminations exist, Commons may contain images that depicts them.
Chris
On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 18:30:05 +0200, Daniel Schwen lists@schwen.de wrote:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:PS "Private image collections and the like are generally not wanted. Wikimedia Commons is not a web host for e.g. private party photos,
Sorry, but I don't see how this applies to this specific case. Apart from the holocaust-denial connotation of these so called cartoons, the contest which they came out of was fairly well publicized in the media. So there is some encyclopedic relevance to it.
If they have encyclopedic content and they are needed* for delivering an encyclopedic message, that's it then. (Naturally, the images must be free and they mustn't break any US laws.) COM:PS applies to every file on Commons.
*I added "are needed" to the criteria because I would like Wikimedia to support responsible corporate citizenship, not just to obey the law.