Talk:Israel and apartheid/Archive 26

message: I had a look at the article earlier today and was struck by how quotations are dealt with differently in the two halves of the article. Just scroll down the page quickly and it will be obvious where the "case for the defence" starts from the different visual style. There needs to be some attempt to create a uniform style so that it is not so obvious that two warring camps of editors have been working on the article.--Peter cohen 11:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Peter. I tried to do that. Any quote over three sentences long in the article was formatted in the  style. I hope that satisfies the concern for now. There are however, a lot of lengthy quotes in the criticism section - it seems to be a bit of a quote farm. Tiamat 13:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Tiamut. The divide is much less visually obvious now. User:Cerejota did tag the article as a whole as a quotefarm back in May. It needs an honest broker to try to work on things, but on an article like this it may be hard to fine someone who will be seen as such. I want a break from being accused of edit-warring for a while, and have some real work to do. SO I shan't put myself forward as honest broker now, but I may come back in a month to see how things are. --Peter cohen 15:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: So what? This is the debate. Just the title is misleading, but no one can do nothing about it. greg park avenue 16:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment re quotation formats 

message: * copied/pasted from here above
Dear Gentlemen,
I think what has happened on the article these last 24h can be considered as an "edit war".
I don't have any solution for the neutralisation of this article (starting by its title) that would be consensual among us but this remains an "edit war".
There should nevertheless be an agreement that there is a disagreement on the title (accuracy and/or neutrality) and the content (relation with the title and/or neutrality). And if there is no consensus to change/move this, there is no consensus to keep it neither.
For these reasons, I added the PoV flag. Alithien 10:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: POV is probably good idea. Now this article looks really like a piece a propaganda and justifies "allegations" title, but one which doesn't belong to Wikipedia. I'm totally confused about replacing statetements done by notable politicians by indoctrinization brought to us by the advocacy organizations as this one: StandWithUs, an anonymous propaganda outfit, operating out of the Post Office Box. All these recent edits seem to me like scavenging the article for just one reason - to discredit its content. Undo it all and keep the page protected until the dispute is resolved. See also StandWithUs with the only other reference which supposed to be an independent source (but IRS didn't publish it), and  as the only third hit on Google for the supposed legal name of the outfit - "Israel Emergency Alliance". greg park avenue 16:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PoV flag (initial motivation) 

message: :I agree with the spirit and almost every word of the outline. I would have added a "C" as per A&M, which is the separation of Zionist and anti-Zionist discourses: it is clear that some self-described Zionists, do speak of certain policies as apartheid policies. And of course, we got to be careful not to fall on WP:SYNTH.  This is pretty much the article I would like our readers to see, and one whose synthesis stems from secondary sources. I specially like that it allows an encyclopedic voice, instead of pro/con quote farming. 
I really think you provide the springboard to deal with content. I look forward to see if others are as encouraged. Thanks!--Cerejota 23:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Cerejota (of course, you deserve credit here too, as done implicitly via my link above). I think A&M's point on some Zionists' usage might be handled thru the second bullet of B. Political discourse. Depending on how fringe, such usage might mean revising B. to Political... against about Israeli.... Right? HG | Talk 12:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Good ideas. Please proceed. Alithien 06:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL no, Alithien, you proceed! ;--)  Seriously, let's see how many people want to discuss and help revise the outline. Then it would help to have a plan on how to edit this thing, in toto, without revert wars. Maybe through a subpage (though that's deprecated)? Or, provided there's some broad agreement, put the empty outline after the lede w/o deleting the remainder, and allow editors to gradually fill it in. Or maybe work on subtopic ledes etc on Talk first? Thanks for your positive attitude, Alithien. HG | Talk 12:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Certainly looks a big improvement on what we've got. Whatever the pros and cons of including the use of the term by Amin and the others in the other views section that has been yoyoing in and out of the article, they're much better integrated into the sort of structure you give as examples of the use of the rhetoric than left how they are. For example, if there is a proper source of Amin using the term apartheid whilst he was a dictator, it would be good evidence of the history of the rhetorical use.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter cohen (talk • contribs) 11:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Greg, thanks for your willingness to look into this matter. We're trying to fit into the current content of the article. I suppose we also are taking into account content that's been discussed in Talk. Perhaps you could look over the current headings. Do you like these headings? Can you offer a constructive criticism of your own regarding the article structure? I would take your input seriously. Thanks. HG | Talk 15:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: HG, I like these headings but they are subheadings. If you can manage to get consensus on either of them in the requested move contest, I would support that. I have supported similar ones in prior polls. So go ahead with your plan, request a move and you got my vote. The article structure is splendid, no criticism on this one. Only trolls will complain. greg park avenue 15:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If only ArbCom would do its job and ban the unrepentant trolls, we would move forward. Thanks!--Cerejota 21:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And just who are these "unrepentant trolls", Cerejota?  6SJ7 00:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feedback on proposed article outline 

message: Shouldn't the article say something about Israel's allegedly racist immigration policy? Ben Finn 13:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is beyond the topic of this article, some sources use it as "evidence" of apartheid, but that is not to be extensively discussed here. Try Human rights in Israel. Thanks!--Cerejota 21:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Immigration

message: I've been on Wikibreak and will remain so for another week or so. I note that the Crime of Apartheid material has been eviscerated from the article again. *sigh* It will be restored when I return. Andyvphil 02:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For any significant or controversial concerns you have with the article, please discuss your concerns here in Talk page, before or while you are making edits. Just as Andyvphil does above. This will help prevent edit warring (regardless of whether the restructuring stays or not). Thanks. HG | Talk 22:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Crime of Apartheid is just another UN creation, a resolution which as many others alike stays on paper only. For example US Department of Justice points out that apartheid is not a crime against humanity; denial of rights to vote or racial segregation policy is not a capital offense yet. So, please, don't thin this article by reintroducing this eccentricity back into this article, which is now under marvelous effort of restructuring it, by Brandon et al, in order to get rid of POV ballast. A very successful effort and magnificent work indeed. Just take notice no one is complaining at this time. greg park avenue 13:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the controversial issues here, perhaps BYT and others would be wise to briefly mention (and briefly justify?) here any major edits of the article, esp deleted items. Thanks. HG | Talk 00:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't succumb to paranoia, HG. If someone does right thing while editing Wikipedia, he doesn't have to explain every each step he makes, just like few editors, who deny the very existence of apartheid in Israel, suggest. Let me go back once more to the example of US Dept of Justice standpoint in this question, which I think is pretty neutral. No one in there denies that there is no apartheid in Israel, or that there is no human rights violation in Saudi Arabia. Still both these countries are considered friendly, and that means, there are no basic human rights violations observed to validate the change of this standpoint. The ethnic or religious minorities or women are treated as refugees, but their basic needs to survive or to live in relative dignity are conserved, just like refugees are treated elsewhere. It's just another culture (based Sharia or Talmud) which we Western people don't accept or support but must tolerate it. We don't have to pretend that the apartheid in Israel is alleged and explain each time that someone said - it was or it wasn't; we know there is a valid analogy to apartheid South Africa in Israel, just as it is a valid analogy to women's discrimination America (before they were allowed to vote) in Saudi Arabia. greg park avenue 15:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gee, color me succumbed. <smile> I'm fine with you registering your countervailing advice. Still, I feel that you downplay or even denigrate the degree of legitimate intellectual disagreement, among Users and beyond Wikipedia. E.g., you say: "we know there is a valid analogy to apartheid South Africa in Israel." This isn't a Forum to debate it, plus I'm not taking a side on it. But I believe such confidence in what "we know" is misplaced. Anyway, I'm not singling out BYT specifically, it's just that he's doing the most constructive editing lately. Given that anybody may find it difficult to recognize and respect both sides of this controversy, I'm just suggesting that he/we err on the side of Discussion. HG | Talk 15:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once someone advises to discuss the content of this article on its talk page before making any substantial changes; now you advise against it because it's not a forum. Of course it's not a forum. How can one discuss with the facts - "we know there is a valid analogy to apartheid South Africa in Israel."? And the facts are: about 3.5 million Palestinians in the territories of Israel don't carry Israeli citizenship while Jewish settlers residing in the very same territories do! But maybe I'm missing something? greg park avenue 15:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) Well, it's a balance. Keeping both ends of the scale in mind, I guess you and everyone else should exercise your best judgment. Since the entire article assumes that the analogy (or comparison etc) has the status of an allegation, I feel that discussing its validity is a bit too broad for much constructive discussion. Thanks. HG | Talk 15:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: What you're missing is that this is a dispute over which residents and land in the West BAnk fall under the jurisdiction of which country. This is NOT an issue of apartheid or political rights under one country, but rather a territorial and political dispute between two political entities, Israel and the Palestinian Authority. --Steve, Sm8900 15:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specific editing concerns 

message: ... I think the time has come for us to quantify precisely what, in the content of the article, is standing in the way of removing the POV tag. The article's title or existence is not a sufficient reason to tag the content of the article as biased. The article does not get to stay permanently tagged simply because people wish the deletion votes had come out differently.
Here's what I have so far. If nothing gets added to the list, I'm going to assume that this is the entire universe of problems:
# Absence of encyclopedic, neutral intros to various sections.
# Put empty-content allegations into footnotes.
# Many sections are currently balkanized POV units (like mini POV forks). 
# Quotes farms seem to try to hammer us w/the competing POVs, rather than inform us with synthesized descriptions. 
# Inappropriate use of words like "legitimate" and "mendacious" in non-quoted text. BYT 10:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Listing the POV issues is helpful. Numbered your good list for discussion (hope you don't mind). For #3, just wanted to point out that topical sections (e.g., land, security) often were set up based on the subject matter of cited quotes. Presumably, folks would first try to de-balkanize these, by adding countervailing information, before deleting the section. Thanks. HG | Talk 12:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "quote farm" problem exists because certain editors would tag anything critical of Israel and not a quote with an "original research" tag.  Quotes were inserted to resolve those tags.  I don't see how we can avoid a quote farm without returning to that problem.  --John Nagle 14:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, editors might try (a) introducing the subject prior to quotes, (b) summarizing the points in a quote or series of quotes, then using the sources and maybe even full quotes in a footnote, (c) asking neutral copy-editors to help out. I agree with what I gather is John's implication, that articles should not be written merely to satisfy the tenacious tagging tendencies of troubled editors. HG | Talk 14:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identify POV concerns 

message: There is a recent disagreement among editors about the lead paragraphs, especially the sentence dealing with "separate roads, infrastructure, legal rights, ...." Since some editing attempts have been reverted, I suggest moving the discussion from competing "edit summary" lines to a fuller explication here in Talk. Perhaps involved parties could explain their concerns here? (I'm wondering if we might resolve the issue merely by deleting the word 'separate' which may seem to presuppose one-side's conclusion. But maybe there's more at stake here.) Thanks. HG | Talk 17:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it seems like moving the content of the sentence into the 'access' part and removing the 'separate' bit would be the best option. Those who want the article to say separate as much as humanly possible may disagree. Nimmo 10:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: So how is it that you think you can swoop in and delete a section of the article without discussion, and when others reverse that you demand that they discuss that reversal first?  Do you practice at being a hypocrite, or does it come naturally? Tarc 13:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tarc, I agree that Zeq (and all of us) need to be respectful of the editing/discussion process here. Specifically, I think for this article we're past the WP:BRD stage for many edits.  However, would you please strikeout or delete your wording and rephrase in a way that doesn't escalate tensions? Thanks. HG | Talk 14:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I will not strike a thing, as sometimes the harsh truth is a necessary injection into these proceedings.  There is plenty of evidence in this person's history to warrant the suspension of WP:AGF.  Hell, he was banned from editing this particular page for a year, once) These were not good-faith edits. Tarc 15:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ia gree with HG. I also asked Tarc in several other places not to escalte issues. Tarc, please see your talk page. Zeq 15:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tarc, I see that you saw my polite request but you dleted it from yout ralk page and called me a troll:  - this would require an apology since I am NOT a troll. Zeq 15:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerns with lead paragraphs 

message: The lead presents some assertion as facts. These assertions are not accurate and incomplete. Enclopedia should be based on facts.
The facts are that few of the west bank roads are open only to cars with an Israeli plate (the owner of the car is either an israeli -could be a Palestiniaan or resident of e. Jerusalem) and to Palestinian public transposrt. Private cars with PA plate are not allowed for security reasons (drive by shootings). Other west bank roads are open to all tafic and many west bank roads are not open to Israelis. So there must be a way to present arguments as arguments and facts as facts... Zeq 14:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy 

message: detrmined same laws apply to both Israelis and Palestinians:  http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3458450,00.html Zeq 12:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  israel supreme court 

message: Here is the place to discuss concerns with the Adam & Moodley, etc., lead on the "Policy analyses" portion. Please stop reverting, cool down, and Talk. HG | Talk 14:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Zeq, a late arrival to the party here. I've been busy elsewhere and am unfamiliar with the dispute here. Forgive me for not distilling the details of the conflict from previous discussions. Can you please thumbnail it for me? BYT 09:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy analysis section -- lead 

message: I'd just like to point out that the following quote is used twice in the article:  once in the "Political rights, speech, voting and representation" section, then again later in the "The Israeli disengagement plan" section.  Perhaps I might recommend only using it once?
"More and more Palestinians are uninterested in a negotiated, two-state solution, because they want to change the essence of the conflict from an Algerian paradigm to a South African one. From a struggle against 'occupation,' in their parlance, to a struggle for one-man-one-vote. That is, of course, a much cleaner struggle, a much more popular struggle - and ultimately a much more powerful one. For us, it would mean the end of the Jewish state."[43]
Thanks for all the hard work, everyone. -Wikipedia Reader-  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.36.61.73 (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's my responsibility. In trying to reorganize the article, without yet rewriting, I found some quote that pertained to more than one topic. In general, as Zeq and others have noted, the article is too chock full of quotes. Hopefully, people can propose and discuss neutral, encyclopedic descriptions of the content (and of competing views) so as to gradually reduce the over-reliance on quotes. Thanks kind Reader! HG | Talk 15:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repetition of Quotation 

message: a) Problem as I see it is that "comparisons" and "analogy" and suchlike are no improvement whatsoever over "allegations" in article title here. 
b) In fact, they are more problematic, because
c) These proposals don't accommodate either:
:1) The by-now-obvious emergence of "Israeli apartheid" as a political epithet (no one would seriously propose an article entitled Nigger analogy) 
:2) The messiness of the dispute, clearly a defining element. Conflicting epistemologies are at play here, as this talk page clearly demonstrates.
d) What, if I may ask directly, is the problem with Israeli "apartheid" controversy? Other than the fact that I'm the person suggesting it? (I acknowledge openly here that that may well be a signficant hurdle for us). BYT 10:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Putting it in quotes is a bit weaselish, IMO. It has nothing to do with you personally.  The article is about this particularly loaded/explosive/controversial/charged accusation, how it is used, who uses it, and the associated criticisms of such usage.  You can't talk about something and not use the very name of what you're talking about; Israeli apartheid.  Trying to do so has become an enormous drain on time and energy. Tarc 15:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Tarc. Above, I asked you about "Israel and apartheid" as an alternative (which I gleaned from Tiamut). As an example, I noted that Christian antisemitism is now titled Christianity and antisemitism. While I am can appreciate that you'd prefer "Israeli apartheid" as your first choice, could you live with "Israel and apartheid" as a title? I mean, leaving aside the q of the negotiated compromise you've noted above, could you accept "Israel and apartheid" in terms of neutrality and adequate naming of the topic? Thanks for your consideration. HG | Talk 16:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kind of a broad analogy there.  Christianity encompasses a wide, wide array of beliefs and sects, from Mel Gibson's church to the Coptic Orthodox to Catholicism. I can see why assigning antisemitism to such a broad group would be a bit problematic, but here we already have a much narrower focus; one allegation/analogy applied to one nation. Tarc 16:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, ok Tarc, "Christian antisemitism" isn't quite analogous to "Israeli apartheid." Fair enough (i.e., there's only one Israel but many Christian entities). Still, even though you'd prefer the one cohesive phrase "Israeli apartheid" -- would you be willing to accept "Israel and apartheid" or the like?  To be sure, it wouldn't be your first choice and it isn't the same as what was negotiated, but would it satisfy neutrality and other principled concerns? Thanks, HG | Talk 16:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe the current title violates any neutrality guidelines of any sort, though.  That some here do not like it and see it as an epithet is glaringly obvious, but that has no relevance at all here.  There have been far worse suggestions in the past other than "Israel and apartheid" though, so it at least has that going for it. Tarc 23:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: For me the proposal won't work. Israel and apartheid implies there is a connection. The issue here is whether or not there really is a connection. Yahel Guhan 18:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Yahel, mind if I ask you to explore this a bit? I'm assuming that you'd prefer there to be no article at all, and no implied connection, but let's leave deletion out as an option for now, ok? Let's consider the term (sans 'allegations') "Israeli apartheid" -- you'd agree that this implies a very strong connection, right? Indeed, the phrase takes as a foregone conclusion that such a form of apartheid exists. With me on that? To be sure, when we add 'allegations of' we get a title that says that the foregone conclusion is not definitive, the jury is still out. But what connection is implied with "Israel and apartheid"? Logically, the conjunction may be bringing together two quite different items, like Bread and chocolate or, closer to home: Mormonism and Judaism, Israel and animal welfare, Homosexuality and Judaism, Israel and the European Union, Anarchism and Orthodox Judaism. Now, surely there are some connections to be read about in these articles, but does the title really tell the newcomer what those connections will be? Yahel, we've all gotten pretty absorbed in this Israeli apartheid debate here at Wikipedia. But, if we step back a moment, I think you'll find that whatever connection might be implied by Israel and apartheid is quite uncertain and unknown. At most, the reader might want to read more - but they won't assume that it's an (alleged) foregone conclusion. If the reader is curious to find more, hopefully they will find an even-handed and fair description of the alleged connection(s) and their merits, etc. Thanks. HG | Talk 20:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'd prefer no article, as obvious by my pro-israel bias. And I think "allegations" is better than "and." Allegations implies doubt as to whether or not the concept (or connection) is real, while "and" implies there is a connection. Allegations still isn't a good title, but I don't believe "and" is the way to go. Yahel Guhan 00:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yahel, if you don't mind my saying so, it's not obvious that a pro-Israel bias requires you or any editor to "prefer no article." To the contrary, I'd say that Israel would benefit more by confronting such allegations in an open and public way, putting the best facts and analysis on the table, and improving public knowledge on this topic. The truth will out. That's the premise of Wikipedia's strategy of encyclopedic knowledge. In particular, and I believe I can say this without my taking sides, the "Israeli apartheid" claim is a "minority view" to be edited in line with Wikipedia policies (e.g. no undue weight). However, it's awfully hard to ensure a knowledge-centered treatment of the topic when it's burdened by POV-warring and a yucky title. Like you say, "allegations still isn't a good title." So what would you consider a good encyclopedic title instead? Presumably, your ideal title would avoid the phrase "Israeli apartheid" -- however, without that phrase, can you suggest a title that will gain consensus here? As I listen to folks on both sides, it's my impression that "and" will be needed for  consensus on a better title. I'd very much welcome your good faith effort, since deletion is not a realistic option at this juncture, to help us come to an agreement on a good title. Yahel, let me know what you think. Thanks. HG | Talk 07:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Good point -- how does the title relate to the meaning of apartheid? This was discussed somewhat in the centralized Talk and the synthesis. There are two meanings of apartheid: (1st) The official self-described policy of South Africa. (2nd) Similar or analogous policies elsewhere (see Oxford Eng Dict). The title "Israeli apartheid" uses the 2nd meaning. This seems to favor the anti-Israel side. In the suggestion that started this thread -- "Comparisons between Israel and apartheid-era South Africa" the word 'apartheid' has the 1st meaning. This arguably favors the pro-Israel side. But "Israel and apartheid"?? Gee, one of the interesting things about "Israel and apartheid" is that the noun 'apartheid' is not modified (either by Israeli or SA). So here the meaning of 'apartheid' is ambiguous. If you don't mind my asking a follow-up question, Andyvphil, don't you think that ambiguity might add to the appeal of such a title? HG | Talk 16:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am aware that there is a dictionary definition that adopts the bad-faith usage of the term "apartheid" as apparently, in some sense, legitimate. I've already had a fairly extensive discussion of this, mostly with G-Dett, presumably now archived. English language dictionaries are ill-equipped and disinclined to be prescriptive, or to talk about semantic weight... Anyway, the two definitions are not equals. There is a reason the second definition is the second definition. The first definition is very much the primary definition and, as I said, the result is that Israel and apartheid seems to be talking about something other than the subject of this article. And that can't be a "good title". The current name isn't perfect, but at least the subject is reasonably clear, and I am uninterested in making it more "acceptable" at the price of greater ambiguity. Andyvphil 22:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi 6SJ7. As I recall (using archive 24), you think the article "is a POV fork and inherently POV." As you might imagine, my role wouldn't be to disagree w/you but merely to ask -- since the article is surviving AfDs -- how do we best present and contextualize what you regard as inherent POV? I noticed that later you said "Apartheid debate in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" or "Apartheid controversy..." are "better title than the current title... which, given my overall opinion of this article, isn't saying much." So, though you presumably prefer deletion, I see your willingness to improve the title. Since you also second Leifern below, who'd like a "proposal to resolve this issue" -- would renaming the title possibly be part of a way to resolve this issue? Thanks. HG | Talk 11:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not know whether it is possible to "resolve" this issue.  I am certainly willing to consider "improvements" which fall short of a real "resolution", in fact if you look at Archive page 25 you will see that when there was a formal move request (to "Apartheid controversy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict"), I "voted" in favor.  (I also added my usual comments about how it wasn't my first choice.)  However, this proposal did not achieve a consensus (it looks like it was tied, 8-8).  The next two proposals I did not vote for, but it wouldn't have made a difference, since those proposals were even further from a consensus.  So I think I have answered your question by my past actions.   6SJ7 18:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: a), b), c), 1), 2), d)