Talk:Israel and apartheid/Archive 17

message: I cant believe someone wrote the many Israelis are survivors of the Collective punishment when meaning the Holocaust! Oh see because the roadblocks are the collective punishment first the Jew suffering the collective punishment now they do to Palestinians. That make sense. !!! and Holocaust punishment for what?Opiner 20:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point the source was attempting to make was that as descendants of collective victims of ethnic discrimation, most of today's Israeli Jews would not be expected to be perpetrators of ethnic discrimation themselves. Are you trying to say the long history of pogroms, culminating in the Holocaust (though certainly continuing in Russia to a later date), wasn't punishment, or that no one ever blamed Jews for anything? I think you'll find in fact the Jews were blamed for just about everything you could imagine over the course of European history. -- Kendrick7talk 22:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Genocide is of course worse than apartheid, but they are, arguably, both fruit born of the same tree. I personally think that the view that the victims of one are less likely to perpetrate the other is naive and ignores the basic human condition. However, such a history makes any such allegations more notable, at least in a "man bites dog" sensibility. That may not be what the source is getting at; my gloss of what they wrote may be inaccurate. I thought it was an interesting point, the source itself calls it out as an important point ("Above all...") so I included it here. --- Kendrick7talk 01:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Holocaust = Collective Punishment?

message: For some reason I cannot fathom, Kiyosaki has re-organized that article so that the explanation of how the term is used has been placed below the laundry list of people who have actually used it, and he has denigrated perhaps the only experts in the area who have commented on this. I've restored the original consensus order of the article, pending a new consensus that is should be re-ordered in this new way, which, on the fact of it, appears to make no sense whatsoever. Jayjg (talk) 15:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am very much in support of defining the term first.  Elizmr 16:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those who have read my other recent comments on this talk page will not be surprised to learn that I regard any debate over the ordering of sections in this article as being analagous to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.  However, on the theory that even a sinking (or sunken) ship could benefit from a bit of feng shui, I endorse Jay's approach to organizing this article.  6SJ7 23:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: As explained before, being a member of a South African anti-apartheid group does not in any way make you an expert on the situation in Israel. Let's favor the experts who've actually studied this academically, and are able to provide some intellectual rigor to the discussion. Also, please try to respect consensus, and try to make more intelligent arguments (rather than repetitive and often illogical assertions) in the future; otherwise people will mistake your contributions for trolling. Jayjg (talk) 04:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: P.S. Neither of the academics mentioned are "US academics", but rather "Canadian academics". It would be helpful if you actually read the article itself before editing. Jayjg (talk) 04:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorg 

message: Israeli Cabinet Minister Calls for Separation of Jews and Arabs:
:"The newest addition to the Israeli Cabinet has called for a near-total separation of Jews and Arabs in Israel and the Palestinian territories.  The statement sparked outrage, especially among Israel's Arab citizens, who accused the hawkish minister of promoting an "apartheid" policy."
Voice of America News is the international news agency of the US federal government.  --Deodar 03:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has also been picked up by the AP. this one, or this one etc. -- Kendrick7talk 00:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank God for Avigdor Lieberman. Arniep 01:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent [[Voice of America|VOA News]] article 

message: It is not acceptable to say it is a controversial analogy. It is acceptable to say that a person says it is a controversial analogy or a number of persons have said it is controversial but absolutely not to state an opinion on whether it is controversial. This is a fundemental principal of encyclopedias to record what has happened and what has been said by whom but absolutely never to make a commentary. Arniep 19:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that's exactly it. As SV says above, it's possible to summarise sources, as long as we're faithful. There can be doubt among reasonable people of whatever political persuasion that this issue is controversial. IronDuke 19:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you understand. To say "x is is controversial" is to make a judgement that the people who have said x is controversial are correct. If this is really an encyclopedia not some kind of blog then we must never state anything as the writer but merely report events and statements. Arniep 23:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not when it's obvious, c.f. "Paris is the capital of France." IronDuke 03:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think you are right.  It's clear that the theory is disputed.  The question is, is the theory controversial, or are it's critics being controversial?  The word is being used here to place the reader in a skeptical mindset.  In effect, the introduction is the beginning of a not-so-subtle argument against the "allegations", backed by a disproportionate amount of references to criticism.  Just the usual subversion of Wikipedia as a propaganda tool by the usual suspects.  Oh yeah..  This is made even more blatant by the fact that the word is made redundant by the use of the non-neutral template.Tarma 2002 00:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of controversial in the intro

message: Jayjg deleted info about Farid Esack because of potential copyright issues.  How long does this take to process through and reopen the article?  I'd like to contribute to building that article but cannot for over one week.  See:   .
:I didn't delete anything. Please try to get your facts straight; even one time would be helpful. Jayjg (talk) 04:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a tag to the top of the page. I deleted nothing. You should do proper research, before making allegations, and especially before editing articles. Jayjg (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Farid Esack]]

message: I'm not entirely averse to returning this section elsewhere in the article, but it does not belong under "criticism of the term".  Neither Tutu nor Phillips criticizes the term in the citation provided.  (Revised: The passage isn't about "Israeli apartheid at all.)
I'm giving 50/50 odds that it's already been restored, notwithstanding.  CJCurrie 04:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tutu/Phillips

message: Thank you CJCurrie for admitting it. Next time, don't bother to bring the argument "we are against Zionists, not the Jews". ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't know. Ask Tutu and your favorite WPian. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I didn't "deny and revise Tutu's remarks" but to answer your question: when I have the all-powerful lobby behind me, anything is possible. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we talking about a smoking or non-smoking lobby? -- Kendrick7talk 05:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  So it is not Israeli after all, simply Jewish 

message: I've looked up the Melanie Phillips article, and found this line:
Take, as an example, former Archbishop Desmond Tutu, given a platform in the Church Times and The Guardian. Not content with comparing Israel - where Arabs have the vote and are members of the Knesset and the Supreme Court - to apartheid South Africa, Tutu compared the 'very powerful Jewish lobby' in America to Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pinochet, Milosevic and Idi Amin, and called on the world to exercise an equivalent duty to make it 'bite the dust'. 
The current wording on the article page does not indicate that Phillips draws a connection between Tutu's use of the term "Jewish Lobby" and his use of the term "Israeli apartheid".  May I suggest that the wording be changed, to indicate that she does?
I suspect this tempest in a teapot may die down shortly.  CJCurrie 05:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It will die down if you stay out of it, but anything you involve yourself in seems to flare up. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Slim, why are you being so disruptive?  I've suggested a means of resolving the matter, and you've responded with an ad hominem attack.  CJCurrie 05:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm a fairly pro-Tutu POV type, and I think the quote from Baruma belongs in the article. Request fulfilled. Kla'quot 08:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: People can judge his credentials for themselves. You should have faith that many will come to the same conclusion you have. -- Kendrick7talk 05:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe Kiyosaki has a point.  We should only quote experts who have academic degrees in "Israeli Apartheid".  Oop!  There are none!  Could this mean the article is unencyclopedic?  --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 19:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Why is being knowledgeable of Asia mutually exclusive?  He is professor of Democracy, Human Rights & Journalism.  Perhaps you think apartheid is not about human rights.  If that is the case you are not taking the issue seriously and should stop wasting people's time. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 20:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Your bias and hostility is blinding you to the obvious which has already been shown to you repeatedly.  As for your invitation for me to "kindly feel free" etc, I'm actually not sensing much kindness or freedom behind those words.  And in fact your tone to editors in general is not very conducive to a productive and cooperative editing environment. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 03:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Before this gets completely out of control

message: I have politely asked User:Kiyosaki to fill out edit summaries (twice) and to use preview (once). By now I can only assume that he intentionally does a large number of small edits without WP:ES to evade scrutiny and WP:3RR. I am writing this here - since I see no change to the better - to draw attention of other editors to these tactics. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just asked him again myself. -- Kendrick7talk 06:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I've left a note on Kiyosaki's Talk page asking him not to make personal attacks such as the above. Kiyosaki, please use edit summaries. It's a courtesy to other editors. Kla'quot 07:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit summaries 

message: Kendrick, who agreed on that layout? SlimVirgin (talk) 06:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Was there some reason to merge those sections presented that I had not been made aware of? -- Kendrick7talk 06:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you've been made aware of it before. We have use of term/criticism of term. That makes it perfectly balanced. There's no need to unbalance it with an unnecessary header in favor of the use of the term, especially given that our first source says most commentators deplore its use. We must not present a minority position as though it's a majority one. See WP:NPOV. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Why do you keep reverting to create an unbalanced TOC? SlimVirgin (talk) 06:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The first section doesn't the favor the term. Using it to balance with the critism, by merging it with the sectio of people who have used the term doesn't make sense. -- Kendrick7talk 06:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Table of Contents. -- Kendrick7talk 06:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The article first discusses the term, then it discusses the arguments. In the section for the term, it discusses pro and con, and then in the section for the arguments, it discusses pro and con. That's a logical order. Jayjg (talk) 00:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Layout

message: Kendrick keeps reverting the TOC to include an extra header making the "pro" section appear longer. I feel we should stick to the balanced TOC where the first headers are:
1. The term
:1.1 Use of the term
:1.2 Criticism of the term
2. The issues
:2.2 Arguments for the term
:2.3 Arguments against the term
And then anything else that's relevant to follow. Other subheads within 1. or 2. should be written with ; in front, so as to create a bolded header that doesn't add to the TOC.  Would editors who agree with this please sign below?
Support
# SlimVirgin (talk) 06:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You still haven't explained what makes people like Tutu and Winnie Mandela any sort of expert on the situation in Israel. Jayjg (talk) 00:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Jayjg Elizmr 00:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with the above UKWiki 21:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree.  First of all, academic expertise is only one kind of authority, and Wikipedia articles do not in every instance privilege it.  Another compelling form of authority is moral authority, and on the topic of apartheid Tutu and Mandela not only have this form of authority but embody it.  Which brings me to my second point.  This page is about the comparison between apartheid South Africa and Israel's policies in the Palestinian territories.  Relevant "authorities" for this article include moral authorities as well as academic ones, and authorities (of both kinds) on the South African situation as well as the Israeli one.--G-Dett 02:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You are merely creating the illustion of balance where none exists. The proponents' section of the article was moved and rewritten not so long ago that I have forgotten, and is now section #3. -- Kendrick7talk 06:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Slim is also creating the illusion of consensus where none exists.  Perhaps we should simply assume that all of SlimVirgin's allies are in favour of SlimVirgin's proposal.  CJCurrie 00:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hard to see how it's an illusion, unless people you disagree with somehow don't exist for you. Come to think of it... IronDuke 01:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The table of contents 

message: I've moved the New anti-Semitism link into the text as per arguments here, I moved it to the end of the section before but someone reverted saying that I was "hiding" the link.  Amusingly the main objection to my proposal was the prominence of crime of apartheid which has now been merged into the text. --Coroebus 19:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moshe, I was reverting Kiyosaki there, not you. We had an edit conflict of some kind. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New ant-Semitism 

message: (moved from SV's talk page) Slim, why do you continue to edit war and revert me without engaging in any discussion? Please stop stalking WP:STALK, and make let us all make good faith edits. Thanks.Kiyosaki 21:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:STALK

message: The article states: "white supremacist David Duke,[8] Holocaust denier Paul Grubach of the Institute for Historical Review,[9] and anti-Semitic groups (like Jewwatch).  This could be consolidated into "anti-semetic groups".  Frankly, I have no idea why a non-RS like a holocaust denier is even appropriate in this article about Apartheid, unless it's a smear by association by whoever put it in there.  I though Wikipedia relies on reliable sources, and if Paul Grubach is going to be listed here, then do we put him everywhere that the WP:RS definition is met?  Thanks.Kiyosaki 21:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The question of who makes allegations of apartheid is very much germane to this topic. Nobody is saying that anti-semitic groups are reliable sources on anything except the question of what their own beliefs are. Kla'quot 07:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: We quote several sources in that section that we wouldn't normally regard as reliable; Winnie Mandela and the Syrian government, for example. The point of the section is "who has used the term." It was the people who wanted this article to exist that started the list, as I recall, so you can't complain when names are added that you happen not to like. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-Semitic Groups

message: Opiner, why are you being inconsistent with editing as regards to 'blockquoting' on this article?  Kindly respond and discuss, and we would be grateful if you didn't just revert without discussion.  Thanks.Kiyosaki 10:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate the other blockquotes also. They are making Wikipedia into the quote farm. Please remove these formats.Opiner 10:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Worst are those giant blue quotes that are bigger than the words themself. I hate those who are making these? Not on this article.Opiner 10:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Blockquoting

message: OK, I have been trying help build this article and I was hoping to slowly work on this over the next few weeks and get it up to better article status, but that won't be possible if every edit has to be discussed in advance with editors that hold only the Israeli POV.  Now I have been reverted, and edit warred, and reverted again by a few editors, who are keen on maintaining Heribert Adam and Kogila Moodley comments above those of Jimmy Carter, Desmond Tutu, other South African anti-apartheid leaders, etc. and then we find out that the article's lead sources are two obscure academics that are red links.  
Let's try to get this thing to a correctly vetted version, and highlighting those two guys isn't really covering the issue correctly or NPOV. Therefore, unless someone can explain why 2 POV red links should be the source here, I will begin to rework the sources to a proper write-up for an encyclopedia.  Also, if someone has a credible source that says the likes of Carter, Tutu, Mandela, Esack, etc ARE NOT NPOV, let's hear why.  I see no reason to question the motives of Tutu and Carter, after all they are not players in the conflict as are all Israelis and Palestinian Arabs.  Thanks.
PS Based on this reasoning I can see no reason to support the comment made above: "There's no need to unbalance it with an unnecessary header in favor of the use of the term, especially given that our first source says most commentators deplore its use" SlimVirgin (talk) 06:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heribert Adam is a well-known academic in this area, the only one I know of who has made a specific study of the allegation, and who has the background in South African politics to know how to view it. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The information you included encompassed far more than that, and your cherry-picked piece from Adam and Moodley completely misrepresented the thrust of their arguments. Jayjg (talk) 23:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead Sources are Red Links?

message: According to Wikipedia: "One-click rollback is only intended for vandalism, spam, etc.; if reverting over disputed content, it should be done manually with an appropriate edit summary."  Why is Crzrussian, an administrator, abusing admn powers without presenting any discussion?   Can someone please review?  thanks.Kiyosaki 21:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kiyosaki, given that you've been reverted on this article by 10 different editors in the past week alone, and during that period been blocked 3 times for 3RR here, perhaps you should examine the possibility that the problem lies with you. Since you appear to have a great deal of difficulty editing within policy, I would recommend proposing all changes on the Talk: page here first. Jayjg (talk) 23:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People have reverted 100 other editors on this article perhaps 250 times or more. You have been reverted multiple times, so has SlimVirgin.  You have been warned not to abuse admn. powers to edit war.  Kindly set a better example in the future.  Please also refrain from attacking me and kindly focus on the inappropriate use of the rollback by Crzrussian to revert an entire paragraph of reliably sourced NEW info. Focus on the issue of this subsection.  Regarding 3RR, Let me state that I do not intend to break that rule and never did intend to.  I am new here.  Thanks.   PS  Crzrussian also rollbacked the improved link to Jimmy Carter's book, among other things, without looking at it in detail. Kiyosaki 05:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are the only person who has been reverted by ten different editors in the past week. No-one else has been reverted by even two editors in the past week. You have been blocked for three 3RR violations on this article three times in the past two weeks. No-one else has been blocked for even one 3RR violation. Jayjg (talk) 01:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Please quit the personal attacks, Kiyosaki, and focus on improving your edits so that people don't keep reverting you. You could start by reviewing the content policies: WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit warring again

message: The lead is POV and could be better balanced.  I will edit to make the lead more fair, accurate, informative, and with RS. This has already been done, however this information was deleted without discussion.  Hopefully, we won't have that kind of editing in the future. Thanks. Kiyosaki 08:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The introductory paragraph's balance as it stands is in violation of WP:NPOV; that can change with the addition of a single sentence, in my opinion. In addition, following Carter's book, the term is now, while still obviously controversial and hardly-used in academic circles, getting to be about as 'legitimate', or at any rate recognisable, as, say, Islamofascism. Given that, I think we need to start considering at what point the article title switches back to "Israeli apartheid". Hornplease 10:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I've considered it, and the answer is "never," except of course when Israel actually engages in apartheid-like practices, which I hope will also be "never." Just because Carter doesn't think Jews should be allowed to defend themselves doesn't mean that he's right. --Leifern 11:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not an answer to my question. My question was about the term. Terms are used frequently as article titles when they are phrases that have entered the public vocabulary, even when many people, and a good number of editors, believe they may have little basis in fact and/or are defamatory. Islamofascism is one example. Great Satan, Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy and Intelligent Design are others, as is, to cite the most controversial one that I can think of offhand, Armenian genocide. At what point does this phrase, distasteful and inaccurate though we may think it is, have enough worldwide traction that we need to restore the original name to the article? Hornplease 11:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that the term begs the question. This is the problem with political rhetoric - the very terms are coined to hijack the premise for the debate. Anti-Israeli activists want the term to come into common usage so that it's no longer a question of whether Israel is an apartheid state, but rather just how apartheid it is. We could discuss the other terms as well, but I tend to avoid such phrases that play this rhetorical trick, and so should this encyclopedia. --Leifern 11:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A very sensible point. However, similar arguments can be made, as I said, for Islamofascism, and indeed were, at its AfD; and your concerns about hijacking were believed to be moot once the term gained considerable independent use. I repeat: when does this term satisfy the same criterion? Anyone else? Hornplease 11:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Nigger" also gained considerable independent use at some point - that didn't make it any less offensive. I think the term Islamofascism is highly problematic as well, though it's a slightly different issue once you parse it. The mere fact that an offensive term gains accepted use does not make it the right term in an encyclopedia. --Leifern 13:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It did. And it has an article. I think that the consensus on WP has been that if term such as this gains popular recognition as a term, it has an article, and the title of the article is the term itself. I understand now that you disagree with that. I solicit input now, therefore, from people who do agree with that, but think the principle is inapplicable here, or that this term has not yet reached that point of recognition. Why and when, respectively? Hornplease 13:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd like to point out that I am aware of the contentious history of this page title; I am merely pointing out that this is a term which is growing in popularity and all those who voted recently on the basis that this was a neologism should start considering - out loud, preferably - at what point it ceases to be one.  Hornplease 14:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you want to create an article about the term? Is that what you're suggesting? Jayjg (talk) 01:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At the very least. More appropriately, again: when do the similarities between this and, say, Islamofascism start to outweigh the differences, namely the shrinking degree to which the term is known outside WP? And, at that point, how can we justify the divergent approaches to the two articles? Hornplease 13:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Lead contains more Criticism than facts about the Subject topic

message: Jayjg, you are an Administrator, perhaps you could look into this as the administrator job description supposes one should. We look forward to your conclusion and fair appraisal.  Thanks.Kiyosaki 02:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Crzrussian and Humus Sapiens rollbacks

message: :Just to help me as a wikipedia editor, why don't you describe in detail what about my last comment was in violation of WP:Civility.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to Moshe (moved)

message: :Image:UK Royal Coat of Arms.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 21:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:UK Royal Coat of Arms.png

message: :Image:UK Royal Coat of Arms.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 16:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:UK Royal Coat of Arms.png

message: :Image:UK Royal Coat of Arms.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 02:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:UK Royal Coat of Arms.png