Talk:Desmond Tutu/Archive 1

message: Black Consciousness Movement has been nominated to be improved on WP:IDRIVE. If you want to see it improved, vote for it here! --Fenice 11:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvement drive

message: I'm just curious, but Mr. Tutu is a Xhosa, correct?(unsigned comment by 4.159.32.27)
:His father was Xhosa and his mother was Tswana, but he was brought up in his father's tribe as a Xhosa. — Impi 21:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What tribe is Mr. Tutu? 

message: Why was an external link ( http://spiritize.blogspot.com/2005/12/desmond-tutu.html ) which replaced a previous (now dead) link ( www.squidoo.com/desmond-tutu/ ) deleted? Both the links point to similar content.
*We don't use blogs as sources. Period. See WP:RS#Reliability: personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts ... are not acceptable as sources. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jpgordon has outlined the groundrules on blogs.  I don't doubt that yours is worthy.  However, the guidelines on sources are pretty clear.  Why not add to the article (with appropriate citations) instead?  Sunray 07:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link Deleted. Why? 

message: The Photo at the top of the page has been replaced by that of a male silverback gorilla... I guess this is vandalism. Edwardando 08:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Umm, the photo

message: Did Marwan Barghouti write this? KazakhPol 21:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Neutrality" and "factual accuracy" of this article

message: I've removed some material that Kiyosaki inserted regarding Tutu's views on Israel etc. The quote "...black South African, and if I were to change the names, a description of what is happening in Gaza and the West Bank could describe events in South Africa etc..." has been unsourced for weeks, as Kiyosaki well knows. Also, Tutu never talks about the "Jewish lobby", and finally, Tutu is one of the most famous anti-Apartheid activists in the world, yet fully 1/4 of his biography was devoted to some offhand comments he has made about Israel - this violates WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. People shouldn't be using the Tutu biography to promote their own views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Jayjg (talk) 00:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which, of course, explains why the "Israeli apartheid" material was deleted and the material that makes him look like an anti-Semite was kept.  Btw, I've sourced the "change the names" quote.  CJCurrie 20:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Someone just removed a chunk of material from this article which was sourced and relevant saying the source was biased.  So is the guardian, actually.  It should all stay in in some form.  This is essentially an edit war from another page moved to this one.  Let;s be real and stop it.  Elizmr 19:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, it is entirely possible that he said some unfavorable stuff about jews.  He is a Christian cleric and there is a lot of antisemetic stuff in the New Testament.  It is not unheard of.  Just because he is a minority that doesn't mean he is immediately ok about other minorities.  Elizmr 20:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I wasn't trying to do that.  I was going to put your changes back in, and annoucned my intention in an edit summary, before you blanket reverted me and made that completely impossible.  The structure of the section is something I had worked on carefully and has been totally stepped on by your friend Kiosaki.  I wanted to restore that basic framework and put back in what everyone else (including you) wanted to add.  I am not the kind of editor who takes out stuff I don't agree with.  I had said that I was coming back to do that, but you weren't willing to give me the benefit of the doubt.  Thanks a lot.  Elizmr 20:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: "Tutu's comparisons of the Israeli treament of Palestinians to the White South African Government's treatment of Black South Africans and comparisons of Zionism to racism have attracted widespread comment, including an accusation of anti-Semitism from Morton Klein of the Zionist Organization of America.Tutu Compares Israel To Hitler, Blasts "Jewish Lobby"; ZOA Urges Tutu's Jewish Allies To Protest Slurs UPenn's Commencement Speaker is an Anti-Semitic Leftist by Morton A. Klein, Zionist Organization of America. 7 April 2003. (Frontpagemagazine.com) Accessed 19 August 2006  
I also removed this sentence from where it was:  "In our struggle against apartheid, the great supporters were Jewish people. They almost instinctively had to be on the side of the disenfranchised, of the voiceless ones, fighting injustice, oppression and evil"  If you look at the piece it came from (and I've READ EVERYTHING cited here CAREFULLY, he has this bit to introduce a piece about apartheid.  He does not use it to address antisemitism.  So please don't make it look like he did.  Elizmr 20:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I suppose he didn't explicitly say that he was addressing antisemitism, but the extrapolation is pretty obvious.  Anyway, the current version is an improvement over the old (slightly), but there's still far too much weight given to one complainant from the ZOA.  I'd like to see proof that these quotes are being presented propertly.  CJCurrie 20:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The extrapolation is WP:OR; that's obvious.  (although the "my best friend is ____" defense is always popular).  What I put in were the things he's directly said in reponsne to charges of antisemitism.  I left out the one where he said that his dentist had a jewish name because I didn't want to make him seem ridiculous.  Elizmr 21:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, fine, I won't move that particular quote again.  I still have serious concerns about how the other information is presented, though.  CJCurrie 22:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tutu on Israel 

message: I believe that Tutu's comments on Israel and apartheid HAVE attracted widespread comment (google search on these terms has 134,000 hits .  The sentence I wrote originally did NOT state that all the comments were negative or accused him of antisemitism.  Please read carefully.  I rewrote the sentence to make that more clear.  Please trust other editors to be editing in good faith.  Elizmr 01:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More comments for CJ

message: What aspects of the current edit do you consider POV?  CJCurrie 03:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read my comments above, which are plentiful.  If you want to edit the article in a collaborative way, I am willing to participate, but you have demonstrated that you are not.  You are being disruptive and wasting everyone's time.   Elizmr 17:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree with you completely.   Elizmr 15:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It doesn't prevent the POV that Tutu may have antisemetic views cogently anymore.  Everything is either removed or buried in the references where no one will see them.  Elizmr 15:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The older version was a series of out-of-context quotes and extrapolations, and portrayed Tutu in the worst light imaginable.  The current edit explains the accusation of anti-Semitism in an accurate and non-sensationalistic manner.  CJCurrie 20:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: And I'd appreciate some recriprocation on presenting various views cogently in this article.  Elizmr 15:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Believe me, I've tried.  It is not online but I have requested it from the publisher.  That is why I cited it the way I did, ie "cited in...".  I would argue that there is no reason to discredit Morton Klein.  That POV deserves to be aired along with the others.  His piece was very well referenced.  Just because he is a Zionist shouldn't disqualify him.  He has a POV.  We can present it neutrally.  Elizmr 22:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Please see my compromise suggestion below for treatment of this phrase.  Elizmr 02:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My question for Elizmr

message: The section I orignally wrote followed this structure:
*First paragraph:  support for Israel and role of SA Jews in SA struggle 
*Second paragraph: support for divestment movement and use of apartheid metaphor (including temple quote)
*Third paragraph: Tutu's points re: Jews: how can people who have been oppressed opress others?  comparison of Zionism to racism.
*Fourth paragraph: critics comments re: all of the above
The section that currently is in the article has the following structure:  
*First paragraph: summary of tutu's comments of support for israel, support for divestment, use of IA metaphor without quotations
*Second paragraph: leadership role with sabeel international described
*Third paragraph: defense against allegations of antisemitie, support from JP editorial
:I think you've left out an important aspect of the third paragraph.  CJCurrie 02:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I did it was not on purpose.  Please WP:AGF. I am trying to work with you productively.  Please consider doing the same instead of attacking my work.Elizmr 02:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say it was on purpose.  "AGF" is a two-way street.  CJCurrie 02:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: PLEASE, please, please PLEASE AGF and stop attacking the original version I wrote.  There is no reason for your attacks.   I have heard your criticisms and incorporated them into the version below and have already made some of the changes you mention above in the version below.   Please read it.  Elizmr 02:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not attacking you; I'm criticizing the content of the earlier edit.  "PLEASE AGF" works both ways.  I've responded to your suggestions, and await your reply.  CJCurrie 02:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but I wrote the earlier edit, and you are saying it was badly done, badly intentioned, etc.  That is a personal attack.  But let's drop this.   Elizmr 03:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Structure of the Israel, Jews, etc section

message: Is it accurate to describe Sabeel as anti-Zionist, given that they've apparently called for a two-state settlement?  CJCurrie 19:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds like their goal for a two state solution is unclear.  They've issued a report calling for one, but also advocate a one state solution.  Elizmr 10:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Could you provide a link for the latter assertion?  CJCurrie 10:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The one state two state thing is more a topic for the sabeel page than this one.  What is relevant to the topic of TUTU and this org under the subheading of TUTU and ISRAEL, Jews etc, is that the org lobbies for Divestment, as does Tutu, and that the org has been accused of being antiIsrael (as had Tutu).  One state vs two state is a matter of controversy.  We all know that what is on an Org's publicity page doens't necessary match their rhetoric.  This discussion is beyond the scope of the TUTU page.  OK?  Elizmr 23:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sabeel

message: 69.95.154.131 01:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Testament not anti-Semitic, Tutu can hardly be called a "Christian"

message: Please note that I haven't removed the "parallels with racism" quote from the article.  I've simply taken it to a more appropriate section.  
The second sentence in the first paragraph has to do with Tutu's general approach to the Israel-Palestine conflict.  There is no useful purpose in adding an isolated 1988 statement to this sentence, particularly as Tutu does not appear to have repeated such the sentiments expressed in the statement since that time.
In general, we should make an effort to avoid presenting quotes in a sensationalistic manner.  CJCurrie 08:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, in general we should make every effort to present quotes in an apologestic manner.  Elizmr 10:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Before anyone reverts

message: "Likud MKs praised Sharansky and joked about whether he had more fun and better conditions in the Knesset or prison."
"Former foreign minister Silvan Shalom called Sharansky an Israeli hero, who "bridged the gaps" between immigrants and veterans and the religious and secular. He questioned why Sharansky received greater respect abroad than in Israel and predicted that he would one day return to public life."
""The twentieth century will be remembered for three freedom fighters: Mahatma Gandhi, Desmond Tutu and Natan Sharansky," MK Yuval Steinitz said. "Sharansky caused the end of the evil empire. He is one of the greatest leaders the Jewish nation has ever known.""
(Knesset celebrates Sharansky's lifetime achievements as he says goodbye, SHEERA CLAIRE FRENKEL, GIL HOFFMAN, and NOGA MARTIN, Ariel Jerozolimski/The Jerusalem Post)
CJCurrie 10:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: how can you possibly extrapolate that?  He says he will be remembered as one of the three freedom fighers of his century.  That doesn't say anything about his views toward Jews.  Please excuse this personal remark, but it puzzles me that you are upset when such an extrapolation is made in one direction, while assuming it is true when making it in the opposite direction.  Elizmr 11:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we can reasonably assume Steinitz wouldn't have honoured someone he considered an anti-Semite, and particularly not in Knesset debate.  However, as I already said, I'm not going to return the line to its previous position.  CJCurrie 11:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Context

message: I think that the current state of the Israel material is not bad. In particular, I think it is appropriate that the somewhat inflammatory rhetoric from the ZOA be confined to a footnote. I think that as it stands it is a little hard on Tutu, but not beyond the pale; those who are concerned for Tutu's image might do better to work on the rest of the article than to lean heavily on the small changes still likely to be made in this section.
That said, I think two things could improve this: If Tutu has criticized specific Israeli laws, regulations, constitutional provisions, etc. rather than just saying that the system looks to him a lot like apartheid, it would be good to say with citation what specific laws etc. he has criticized. Also, if some prominent Jewish organization or publication has been as forthright in saying that he is not an antisemite as ZOA has been in saying that he is one, that should be noted and footnoted similarly to the ZOA material. - Jmabel | Talk 22:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be helpful to know more about what Tutu's specific knowledge of Israel is. I can't find any evidence that he's said much about Israel beyond the broad rhetorical point that it looks like SA to him.   Elizmr 00:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree completely that the ZOA stuff shouldn't be there.  Tutu has been a very strong and vocal critic of Israel, and in what is quoted in the article he draws parallels between Israel's actions and those of Hitler, STalin etc.  This is unbelievably strong stuff.  We have evidence that he didn't really make the distinction between "Israel" and "Jews" until recently.  It is not completely suprising that he would say the things the ZOA quotes publications quoting him as saying, but when we get the cites we'll see.  Elizmr 00:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Current state of the Israel material

message: :I have not removed anything, out of respect, because I'm new to this page and can see it's contentious.  That doesn't mean I think all that is there is satisfactory.  I think the subheading is wordy and tendentious.  To speak of his "views" of "the Jewish people" is only pseudo-neutral language; in common parlance, anyone with views on Jews is an antisemite.  At any rate I don't think the rhetorical statements about historical Jewish suffering merit this suggestive subheading.  Many (if not most) figures who address Israel-Palestine invoke Jewish historical suffering; we do not set aside sections in articles on Thomas Friedman, Hillary Clinton, Barney Frank, and so on for their "views on the Jewish people."  My suggestion for a more appropriate heading would be "Views on Israel-Palestine; Charges of Antisemitism."  Or something like that.
:I will get to the library and check the ZOA quote against the Hartford Courant article.  At this point I'll say that I'm extremely skeptical.  The ZOA link also quotes Tutu as saying in his 2002 Boston speech that "Israel is like Hitler and apartheid."  That quote is nowhere to be found in any of the various available transcripts of that speech.  I was present at the Boston speech, and Tutu did not say that.  Even setting aside its incendiary offensiveness, the phrase is childishly clumsy, and not at all of a piece with what we know of Tutu's speech and his rhetorical style.  Now let's think about this: it is attributed to an article in Haaretz, dated April 29 2002.  Haaretz is one of the world's great newspapers and incontestibly a RS, but I would bet good money that if you go and consult the citation, it will turn out not to have been a piece "reporting" the Tutu speech, as the ZOA piece would have it, but to have been, rather, an op-ed.   Of course I could be wrong – but I don't think so.  An opinion columnist will have "summarized" Tutu's speech; and the ridiculous phrase "Israel is like Hitler and apartheid" will have been the pundit's funhouse-mirror version of this passage from the Boston speech: "For goodness sake, this is God’s world! We live in a moral universe. The apartheid government was very powerful, but today it no longer exists. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pinochet, Milosovic, and Idi Amin were all powerful, but in the end they bit the dust."  It is very clear what Tutu is doing here rhetorically: he's rapidly widening the moral radius and putting things in perspective, saying Look, why be afraid of standing up for what's right in Israel-Palestine?  Look around you, look at history.  There have been far worse systems of oppression, and it is in the nature of these things to come to an end.  The op-ed writer (if I'm right that that's what it was) knew he was mangling and betraying Tutu's meaning when he summarized this as Israel is like Hitler.  To compound the insult the bad-faith paraphrase is then reported as a verbatim quotation in the ZOA piece, thereby managing to misrepresent both Tutu's speech and the Haaretz article.  These sorts of reflections make me very wary indeed about the ZOA text, and the likelihood that this has happened with the Haaretz reference makes me wonder about the one from the Hartford Courant.--G-Dett 16:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tutu did not say "Israel is like Hitler and apartheid".  Ha'aretz used the line as a sub-heading in their article (rather to their shame, I might add).  CJCurrie 21:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean-up proposals for I/P section 

message: Tutu was named to investigate the IDF killing, there are plenty of sources to review.  Please do not remove this due to POV.Rockette 07:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been noted in a section above for awhile now, but if you want to mention it twice go ahead.   Elizmr 23:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: this section is written in a biased manner. Say and be what you like but it now rightfully is tagged biased. Please cleanup Beit Hanoun section before removing in accords to WP:BIAS. FrummerThanThou 18:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Beit Hanoun