Talk:Desmond Tutu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Law Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field.
???	This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments

	Desmond Tutu is part of WikiProject Anglicanism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh) Too many redlinks, including links for his children? Badbilltucker 15:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
WikiProject Anglicanism To-do:

Desmond Tutu has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Desmond Tutu is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.

An event mentioned in this article is a September 7 selected anniversary.

---

Contents 1 Pop culture 2 Improvement drive 3 What tribe is Mr. Tutu? 4 Link Deleted. Why? 5 Umm, the photo 6 How do you report a vandal? 7 Bad Photo 8 "Neutrality" and "factual accuracy" of this article 9 Tutu on Israel 10 Explaining my most recent change 11 Questions on CJ's edits 12 More questions for CJ 13 More comments for CJ 14 Focus 15 Double Standard 16 Tutu's speech 17 My question for Elizmr 18 Structure of the Israel, Jews, etc section 19 Proposed merge of old and new sections 20 New proposed version 21 Sabeel 22 New Testament not anti-Semitic, Tutu can hardly be called a "Christian" 23 1988 Jewish Year book citation 24 Before anyone reverts 25 Context 26 Current state of the Israel material 27 Irony 28 removal of sourced relevant information by user Coroebus 29 Clean-up proposals for I/P section 30 Beit Hanoun 31 Is Archbishop Tutu a knight? 32 Not Nuetral 33 My God the same politics are here as well 34 Tutu is anti-Jewish?????? 35 Back and forward revert and re-revert where does it end? USE THE TALKPAGE! 35.1 Response to Shamir1 35.1.1 Quick question 36 Views on Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 37 Reasons for my reversion 38 Undue Weight to a section is a problem 39 shamir is it working out for you?

[edit] Pop culture

Should a section be added for things refrencing him in pop culture? Like in a Family Guy parody of Murphy Brown, Murphy Says something like "blah, blah, blah, Bishop Desmod Tutu." (In a parody of Murphy Brown's topical humor.) Calicore

• Since you were kind enough to ask: no. These references simply aren't encyclopedic (in my not so humble opinion); I mean, "gosh, one episode of one animated sitcom made a passing reference to this Nobel Prize laureate" -- who cares? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't be so presumptuous. It could easily be placed under a trivia section, and I don't see why not. It isn't your job to decide who does and does not care, because you cannot possibly know. --PalusSomni 11:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Improvement drive

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)

[edit] What tribe is Mr. Tutu?

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)

[edit] Link Deleted. Why?

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)

• Thanks so much for clarifying on this. It was driving me nuts! One doubt though - while the 'Wikipedia Reliable Sources' article makes it quite clear on why blogs are not to be considered reliable sources, isn't my blog post on Desmond Tutu not a 'source' per se? I mean, the blog post isn't being used as source to cite any point in the wikipedia article, but rather to provide more information on him not present in the article. The blog post also doesn't contain any personal comments but are all excerpts from his lecture (cited) to present an overview of his philosophy. I'd just like the passionate authors of the Desmond tutu article to judge the blogpost link fairly, without considering it automatically as spam, and just ask, 'Will the readers of this article find this external link useful and a natural extension of our article?" The internet is an extremely difficult medium for communicating as the lack of verbal and visual cues makes it easy for the reader to jump to the wrong conclusion about the intent of the poster. I am not trying to find any faults here either with your decision or wikipedia rules, just inquiring to get a better understanding.

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)

[edit] Umm, the photo

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)

[edit] How do you report a vandal?

User: Elizmr has been vandalizing political entries on Wikipedia for a while now. How would I go about reporting him to an administrator?

example of Elizmer's vandalism of this page--Kitrus 00:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey Kitrus, I was trying to remove the vandalism about tutu being a child abuser. I did not insert it. If you look at my edit history, I am not a vandalizer. Elizmr 01:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: Kitrus has refused to admit that I did not say that Tutu was a child abuser. Please note:

• Here is the diff AFTER my EDIT: [1]
• Here is the diff BEOFRE my EDIT: [2]
• Here is my edit summary: "rv unsourced material slanderous"
• And here is the history page showing my reversion of vandalism and who the vandalism was added by [3] Elizmr 01:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bad Photo

I noticed the photo of Desmond Tutu in the article was replaced by that of a singer.

Been fixed now apparently.

[edit] "Neutrality" and "factual accuracy" of this article

Did Marwan Barghouti write this? KazakhPol 21:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC) I dont know who the singer was

[edit] Tutu on Israel

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)

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)

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)

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)

Elizmr: Feel free to return information you think is appropriate, but don't blanket-revert my changes. CJCurrie 20:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

OK, now there is a version with EVERYTHING in it. I removed the well-poisiong characterizations of people:

"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.^{[1] [2]}

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Explaining my most recent change

(i) There is nothing in the ZOA quote to suggest that Tutu was referencing apartheid in his 1984 speech. It's possible that the full text copy would provide more illumination, but the only direct reference I can see in the available passage is to the narrative of the New Testament.

(ii) Tutu has also used the "Monopoly on God" line with reference to Christianity, as cited in the main body.

(iii) Tutu's "likening of the Temple of Jerusalem to apartheid" appears to be a ZOA extrapolation. I'm going to request that this line be withheld until the full context is provided.

OK, so you, CJ can remove a source if you don't like it? I don't get that. Elizmr 00:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I can remove a source if it's (i) not very important, (ii) a vague paraphrase, and (iii) appears to be defamatory. That being said, my objections could disappear in a heartbeat if the actual quote from the source text is relevant to the article. CJCurrie 00:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Constructive adjustments are welcome. Disingenuous reverts are not. CJCurrie 23:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe that you are the one who made a disinj revert--not me. I left an edit summary saying I was going to put stuff back. You ABF and didn't give me time Elizmr 00:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

That was after you blanket-reverted me before I had finished. Perhaps I was too hasty. Anyway, it's in the past. CJCurrie 00:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Further, there is no indication on the ZOA page that the "peculiar people" comment was made with reference to Israel. It could just as easily refer to the general idea of a "chosen people". Does anyone have the original source? CJCurrie 23:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

NO, but the heading is about Jews, Judiasm and Israel. It is fair. Elizmr 00:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I haven't removed it. CJCurrie 00:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I've now discovered the quote was made to a Jewish Theological Seminar audience, and I strongly suspect it was taken out of context by Tutu's enemies. I've also discovered that the initial citation was wrong. CJCurrie 23:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

"enemies"? Isn't that a bit hysterical? There's no need for paranoia here. Elizmr 00:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe those who regard Tutu as an anti-Semite are accurately described as "his enemies". CJCurrie 00:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course they're not. They might have a lot of respect for what he did in South Africa. They just don't agree with what he is saying about Israel and are calling him on it. There is a BIG difference. It is not name calling. Elizmr 01:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm finished for now. Constructive changes are of course welcome, although I have no doubt that the current edit is much improved from the cut-and-paste job on the ZOA's quote-cache.

BTW, I worked really hard on the wording of the original and feel it was well written, so I don't appreciate your snarky comment about cutting and pasting. Why do you have to be so insulting? Elizmr 00:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

To Jay: if you think the article is currently skewed too far toward Israel/Palestine and related issues, might I suggest adding more text to the apartheid section instead of deleting sourced and relevant info.

Cheers, CJCurrie 00:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I agree that no one should take stuff out of any article if it is sourced and relevant, but don't you find the following two passages a bit repettivie of each other: "Tutu used the analogy on a Christmas visit to Jerusalem on 25 December 1989 when he said in a Haaretz article that he is a "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."[11] In 2002 Tutu said that he was "very deeply distressed" by a visit to Israel, as "it reminded me so much of what happened to us black people in South Africa" Elizmr

This does seem to me like the sort of thing where one would typically say something like 'Tutu has on more than one occasion remarked on a resemblance...', then give one representative quote, and footnote to indicate that it is not an isolated instance. - Jmabel | Talk 04:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

That's the way the paragraph was originally written. Kiosaki (the banned sockpuppet) added the extra stuff, Jay removed it, and CJ added it back. I took some of it out, but didn't want to remove more becaause I don't want anyone to accuse me of bias. Elizmr 23:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, JMabel's suggestion has merit. I might be able to compress this further. CJCurrie 23:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questions on CJ's edits

Tutu has criticized religious exclusivity in both Judaism and Christianity. Referring to the narrative of the New Testament in a 1984 sermon, he said "the Jews thought they had a monopoly on God; Jesus was angry that they could shut out other human beings".^[3]

What does this have to do with anything?

In both cases, Tutu is criticizing a religion for believing itself to have a "monopoly on God". It's right there in the text, so I'm not certain why the point would be unclear. Mind you, I won't object if you choose to delete this section entirely -- it's not really that important to the article.

Actually, it is not right there in the text. It is completely unclear that he is referring to the NT or where in the NT. Elizmr 00:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The "Christians" section is necessary to indicate that Tutu wasn't singling out Judaism for criticism on this front, which is what the previous edit implied. CJCurrie 00:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Your edit makes no sense to me. Please describe his exact point or take it out of the article, ok? Elizmr 00:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Speaking to a Jewish Theological Seminary audience in 1984, Tutu said "whether Jews like it or not, they are a peculiar people. They can't ever hope to be judged by the same standards which are used for other people".^[4]

Why have you said he WASNT referring to IA? I did not say he WAS referring to IA. I don't understand your edit summary.

It's in a section on IA, so I assumed a connection was being implied. Do you have any objections to my actual edit, as opposed to the summary? CJCurrie 00:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

He has suggested that some Americans are reluctant to criticize Israeli policies because of the power of the "Jewish lobby".^[5]

Why have you paraphrased this?

Your version paraphrased the very same line. I could provide a more complete text citation, if you wish. CJCurrie 00:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll put in an exact quote. And I'll improve the article by adding a live link.Elizmr 00:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

BY THE WAY, both the guy you quote (saying that you have located the true ref) and the guy I quote are both reporting on a speech Tutu gave at Harvard. If you look at your cite, it is a series of quotes. So is mine. When I first wrote this, I spent a long time looking all over the Web for a transcript of the talk and I couldn't find it. If you want me to include both cites, fine, but please don't remove mine. Elizmr 01:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Others have defended Tutu against the charge of anti-Semitism. Within Israel, a October 2006 opinion piece in the right-wing Jerusalem Post newspaper described Tutu as "a friend, albeit a misguided one, of Israel and the Jewish people".^[6]

Why the editorial remark "right-wing" from you?

It seemed like the most accurate description of the JP's place in the Israel political spectrum. It's not particularly important, though ... if you object, feel free to remove it. CJCurrie 00:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

At best, it is OR; at worst, it is there to influence the reader. Elizmr 00:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, I put the thing about the holocaust center at the end so now I believe we are repeating it twice. Elizmr 00:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

If so, feel free to fix the situation. I thought it was only there once ... CJCurrie 00:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It would actually help if you read what I wrote a little more carefully before stepping all over it. Elizmr 00:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I should perhaps point out that the "dual references" first appear in this edit. CJCurrie 01:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone tried contacting either Harvard or Tutu to see if a transcript of the speech in question is available? Neither should be hard to reach. - Jmabel | Talk 04:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More questions for CJ

You removed this sentence: "Because of their long history as victims of discrimination, Tutu has said the Jews should be held to a different standard than other peoples". Do you feel that this does not adequately paraphrase this quote: "Have our Jewish sisters and brothers forgotten their humiliation? Have they forgotten the collective punishment, the home demolitions, in their own history so soon?,"[18] and "how it was possible that the Jews, who had suffered so much persecution, could oppress other people [19]

It was there as a transition sentence. I'm not sure why you deemed it necessary to take it out since you did not explain. Elizmr 00:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Response:

(i) Tutu's quote, "whether Jews like it or not, they are a peculiar people. They can't ever hope to be judged by the same standards which are used for other people" appeared immediately after your paraphrase, rendering the initial line somewhat superfluous.

(ii) The two quotes you've provided are from different sources, and the original "peculiar people" quote is from yet another. It seems to me as that your paraphrase was intended to bring three disparate quotes together, and I'm not certain that the resulting statement adequately summarizes DT's views. The "different standard" and "long history as victims" quotes are, after all, from entirely different occasions. CJCurrie 00:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point you were making. This article summarizes Tutu. It does not provide a summary of everything he has ever said on a chronological basis. I was bringing some comments together thematically. Is this really a problem?

Also, the first sentence doesn't repeat the second. The sentence with "peculair" etc in it is an example, but doesn't capture the whole sense of the whole paragraph which is what a first sentence of a paragraph should do. Elizmr 01:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

See below. Tutu is not saying that Jews should be held to a different standard than other peoples because of their national suffering.

In 1984, he made a remark about Jews being "judged by different standards" to what I assume was a friendly audience at a Jewish Theological Seminary. I don't know the context of his remarks, but there's nothing to indicate that he was referring to "national suffering" at all.

Similarly, when he does talk about national suffering, there's no indication that he's referring to "different standards".

Your introduction conflates two different quotes, and portrays Tutu in a highly questionable light. I plan to remove this as soon as possible. CJCurrie 03:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with CJC that this is an area in which we have to be careful about synthesizing quotations in anything like a syllogistic manner. Near-identical statements at different points in time can certainly be brought together to show a consistently held view, but taking several rather scattered statements and synthesizing "what he must think" about something is probably a bad idea. If he really thinks it, he's probably said it explicitly: Tutu is not one to beat about the bush. - Jmabel | Talk 04:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More comments for CJ

I believe that Tutu's comments on Israel and apartheid HAVE attracted widespread comment (google search on these terms has 134,000 hits [4]. 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)

ALSO, please don't remove this. I have cited it appropriately and it is relevant. "Tutu has also made statements about apartheid in Judaism before the establishment of the modern state of Israel, comparing the features of the ancient Holy Temple in Jerusalem to the features of the apartheid system in South Africa"[15]." Elizmr 01:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• I will remove this tomorrow (once I'm over the 3RR barrier), because it's misleading and potentially defamatory. I'm half-inclined to remove it now, under the provisions of BLP. "Comparing the features of the ancient Holy Temple in Jerusalem to the features of the apartheid system in South Africa" is not the same as making statements about "apartheid in Judaism". We don't know the full context yet, but I suspect Tutu was using the the outer and inner temples as a metaphor, not indicting Judaism as a religion grounded in apartheid-like practices. CJCurrie 03:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• I'm also going to remove this: Because of their long history as victims of discrimination, Tutu has said the Jews should be held to a different standard than other peoples. It conflates two different quotes to draw a highly novel (and probably inaccurate) summary of Tutu's opinions. CJCurrie 03:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, I'd be with CJC about avoiding inventing a syllogism and attributing it to Tutu. And on the Temple, again, I'd be very careful to stick very close to the text.

In particular, also, if we are going with someone else's extrapolation of Tutu's views, we need to make it extremely clear (overtly in the text, not just in a footnote) whose extrapolation it is. "Person X interprets Tutu as saying" is very diffrent from "Tutu said." - Jmabel | Talk 04:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I wrote that before I read closely; a close reading only adds to my compunctions. We say "have attracted widespread comment, including some accusations of antisemitism." The citations are (1) from IMRA, a group who just this week ran a defense of Jonathan Pollard and an attack on Amnesty International's condemnation of Israeli conduct in the recent Lebanon War and (2) two separate citations from the same spokesperson for the Zionist Organization of America. This is pretty thin gruel. Burying the nature of these sub-standard sources in footnotes is quite misleading. - Jmabel | Talk 05:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

May I add that I find the phrases "the struggle of the Palestinian people against occupation", and "the Palestinian struggle" to be at least somewhat unbalanced? If you can find a quote of his directly referring to the situation in those terms, fine. But right now it definitely seems we're taking sides. Biruitorul 07:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Focus

All in all, it is bizarre that this article expounds at length on Tutu's views about racial laws in Israel, and says little about his eloquent criticisms of apartheid in South Africa. What likely reader is this supposed to serve? Indeed, there are half a dozen other tangential matters that get more attention than the one for which he is famous. - Jmabel | Talk 04:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

For the record: I came to look at this article only because CJCurrie dropped me an email and said that I should have a look. - Jmabel | Talk 04:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it's bizarre that 30% of the article is about Jews and Israel, a topic about which he has generally made few statements, and on which he has had even less impact. As I said above, it's a sure sign of editors pushing their own agendas via Tutu. If the section isn't cut down to at most a paragraph, I'm going to start slashing out the nonsense, and it won't be pretty. CJCurrie, I recommend you cut it down to a reasonable size before I have to. Jayjg ^(talk) 10:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Could the Jews et al section not just begin "Tutu has spoken of the large role of Jews in supporting the anti-Apartheid struggle in South Africa, in support for Israel's security and against tactics of suicide bombing and hate incitement [8] but..." following on with some critical stuff? I'd cut it down even more but that'd be a start. The main body of the criticisms could easily be cut down by removing some of the repetition and cutting out quotations, it could then follow on with "...but Tutu has been criticised..." --Coroebus 18:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Jay's last edit was neither pretty nor especially fair, IMO. In any event, he'll be pleased to discover that I plan on removing some sections very shortly. CJCurrie 22:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I've now done so, and I believe the current edit conveys the views of both Tutu and his opponents in an accurate and non-sensationalistic manner (I realize his reference to historical tyrants is bound to offend some readers, although it bears mentioning that he wasn't drawing an explicit analogy with the Israeli government).

For the record, I regard the phrase "Jewish lobby" as an offensive term and an unfair generalization, and I consider it unfortunate that Tutu used the term instead of "Israeli lobby". As against which, I don't think his use of the term makes him an anti-Semite. Others may disagree. CJCurrie 23:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

By way an addendum, I should add that I don't consider three paragraphs on the subject to be especially verbose. CJCurrie 23:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Especially snice they are now all defending your point of view! See belowElizmr 23:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Double Standard

I'm curious about the line "Because of their long history as victims of discrimination, Tutu has said the Jews should be held to a different standard than other peoples". The link to Tutu in the Guardian dosn't support it, and the second link is to this, which is someone else claiming that Tutu says Jews should be held to a different standard. Now I can see why someone might think that from quotes like "how it was possible that the Jews, who had suffered so much persecution, could oppress other people" (although I think I disagree with the interpretation), but should we really be reporting it as fact, rather than as someone's opinion about Tutu? --Coroebus 18:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

So "held to a different standard" aren't Tutu's words? Then they certainly shouldn't be used as a paraphrase. - Jmabel | Talk 21:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't quite figure out what is being claimed here, but someone has removed the statement, I think CJCurrie and Elizmr both agree that "held to a different standard" is an accurate paraphrase of "how it was possible that the Jews, who had suffered so much persecution, could oppress other people" (and similar quotes), whereas I don't think that is a valid conclusion to draw (i.e. I read the latter quote as incredulity or surprise that Jews would oppress other people, rather than saying that Jews should be held to a different standard because of their history). --Coroebus 17:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you're correct. The original "held to a different standard" line was from a speech delivered by Tutu to the Jewish Theological Insititute. There's no indication he was referring to historical Jewish suffering; it's more likely he was addressing a theological point on the idea of the Jews as a chosen people.

The other quote is from a different context, and the presumption of a causal link between the statements is entirely inappropriate. CJCurrie 00:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Tutu used a phrase similar to "held to a different standard" in a speech before a Jewish theological group, several years before his "apartheid" quotes. There's nothing to suggest the quotes are in any way related. CJCurrie 22:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It is fine to cut out that sentence. I asked above if you felt it was a fair paraphrase of his specific remarks. I thought it was. Also, nothing there says that he is talking about apartheid when he says this. It doesn't matter. He is talking about the jews and their treatment of palestinians. Why does he have to specifically be talking about apartheid? It hink you are raising a false issue here. Elizmr 23:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Where is your evidence that he was talking about the Palestinians when he made the "different standards" quote? I can't see any, and it seems more likely from the context that he was referencing a theological point. CJCurrie 23:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Look, CJ, I took this out already. But he was of course talking about the palestinians. who else have the jews been accused of "opressing"? Elizmr 23:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't even know what you are talking about anyomre. You have made about 100 tiny edits and objected to everything in a confusing way. It is disruptive. Elizmr 02:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The "different standards" quote has nothing to do with anyone oppressing anyone else. CJCurrie 23:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tutu's speech

The relevant excerpt appears in The Guardian, 29 April 2002, p. 11. A longer version appears in an edition of Church Times from the same period. CJCurrie 22:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• 1)you might want to specify which speech of tutu's you are referring to. and
• 2)who is to say which excerpts are "relevant"? Elizmr 23:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

(i) The 2002 speech in Boston, and (ii) the excerpts are "relevant" in the sense that we were referencing them for this article. CJCurrie 23:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The Haaretz article has a different summary and different excerpts. YOu, again, have removed relevant sourced material, showing no respect for other editors or the guidelines of the project. The whole section reads now like a defense of Tutu's position on Israeli apartheid. Elizmr 23:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed the Ha'aretz quote to ensure brevity. It's still in the footnotes. CJCurrie 23:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps for the sake of collegiaity and giving the impression you don't think you own the artile, you could actully put it back and take something of yours out to "ensure brevity". Your edits have consistenty removed everything you don't agree with bit by bit so that it is very hard to follow what you have done. Simiar to Kiosaki's editing strategy. Please refer to WP:OWN for a good description of what you are achieving here Elizmr 02:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with your assessments of my editing style, but I have no strong objection to returning the Ha'aretz quote if you feel this strongly about it. CJCurrie 02:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, it's not just a "Ha'aretz quote" -- the Jerusalem Post quoted it too. CJCurrie 02:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the talks Tutu has given have been quoted in many places. That is why I said they have attracted "widespread comment". YOu took that out. Elizmr 22:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm ... I believe I was thinking of the 1989 Ha'aretz quote for my previous comments in this section. Apologies. In any event, the earlier edit did not actually quote Ha'aretz for the 2002 quote -- it referenced the ZOA's highly selective summary. I have no intention of returning this source, particularly given that there is nothing from Tutu's speech in the ZOA report that doesn't also appear in The Guardian. CJCurrie 03:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You are assuring brevity by taking out my stuff while your stuff multiplies and grows legs. If I put it back, will you let it stay? Elizmr 00:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you plan to return? CJCurrie 00:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My question for Elizmr

What aspects of the current edit do you consider POV? CJCurrie 03:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

I've already addressed your arguments. The previous version of the text was poorly sourced, poorly balanced, extremely speculative, and outright wrong in some particulars.

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

Please tell me what the point would be in engaging with you? Evidence above shows that whatever I do or say you will argue with and then take anything you don't like out of the article and write it completely to YOUR pov and feel very well defended about this. Elizmr 15:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Now, what aspects of the current edit do you consider POV? CJCurrie 01:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

On the subject of disruption, please note that I've limited myself to criticizing your actions and haven't made any accusations against you on a personal level. I'd appreciate some reciprocation on this point. CJCurrie 01:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

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

I'm reiterating my objection to the supposed "temple/apartheid" comparison. The most likely explanation here is that Tutu made an innocuous comment, using the inner and outer temple divisions as a metaphor for apartheid. Morton Klein evidently considers Tutu an anti-Semite, and did not provide the full context of the supposed comparison; his credibility as a reliable source is questionable at best. I say we leave it out until we're sure it's not being distorted. CJCurrie 07:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Could someone perhaps look up the original article in the Hartford Courant? CJCurrie 07:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

I never said we should reject Morton Klein's piece outright, but we need to approach it with extreme caution. Klein has always been considerably more right-wing than the mainstream American Zionist leadership, as demonstrated by his apparent defence of Irgun and Lehi actions at Deir Yassin. He is clearly not a neutral source, and I'm not inclined to accept his paraphrases at face value. CJCurrie 01:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Structure of the Israel, Jews, etc section

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)

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)

I didn't say it was on purpose. "AGF" is a two-way street. CJCurrie 02:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The texts are reproduced below. I find the structure of the new section to be problematic for a few reasons. I think the issues here are complex and breaking up by paragraphs as I did in the original section with some quotes from Tutu rather than a summary of his views gives the reader more of a flavor of his position. Secondly, the views of the critics are not really presented at all but there is a long section of quotes of Tutu's defense. I'd like to let the critics speak a bit as well. Thirdly, the second paragraph seems a bit disconnected and perhaps should go elsewhere.

Please note, that I am not talking about the exact text here or sources. I am talking about strutcutre. Comments? Elizmr 23:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

ORIGINAL TEXT: Tutu has spoken eloquently on the large role of Jews in supporting the anti-Apartheid struggle in South Africa, in support for Israel's security and against tactics of suicide bombing and hate incitement, "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. I have continued to feel strongly with the Jews. I am patron of a Holocaust centre in South Africa. I believe Israel has a right to secure borders...We condemn the violence of suicide bombers, and we condemn the corruption of young minds taught hatred[8].

Tutu is an active and prominent proponent of the campaign for divestment from Israel as a tool in the struggle of the Palestinian people against occupation [9]. He has identified strongly with the Palestinian struggle, and has likened the treatment of the Palestinians by the Jewish state of Israel to South African apartheid[10]. Tutu has also made statements about apartheid in Judaism before the establishment of the modern state of Israel, saying "the Jews thought they had a monopoly on God; Jesus was angry that they could shut out other human beings,” and compared the features of the ancient Holy Temple in Jerusalem to the features of the apartheid system in South Africa"[11].

Because of their long history as victims of discrimination, Tutu has said the Jews should be held to a different standard than other peoples. He has said that, "whether Jews like it or not, they are a peculiar people. They can't ever hope to be judged by the same standards which are used for other people [12], and has asked, "Have our Jewish sisters and brothers forgotten their humiliation? Have they forgotten the collective punishment, the home demolitions, in their own history so soon?,"[13] and "how it was possible that the Jews, who had suffered so much persecution, could oppress other people [14] ." He has also stated that Zionism has “very many parallels with racism.” [15].

His comparisons of the Israeli treament of the Palestinians to the White South African Government's treatment of Black South Africans and comparisons of Zionism to racism have attracted widespread comment, including accusations of antisemitism[16] [17] [18]. Tutu has replied to charges of antisemitism by saying that, "Critics of Israel are being smeared” and citing the powerfulness of the "Jewish Lobby.[19]"

CURRENT TEXT: Tutu has spoken of the significant role Jews played in the anti-Apartheid struggle in South Africa, and has voiced support for Israel's security needs and against tactics of suicide bombing and hate incitement.[8] Tutu is also an active and prominent proponent of the campaign for divestment from Israel, [9] and has likened Israel's treatment of Palestinians to the treatment of Black South Africans under apartheid.[8] [10]

In 2003, Tutu accepted the role as patron of Sabeel International, a faith-based organization which supports the concerns of the Palestinian Christian community. [2]

When discussing Israeli policy toward the Palestinians at a 2002 conference in Boston, Tutu stated "People are scared in this country [the US], to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful - very powerful. Well, so what? 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, Milosevic, and Idi Amin were all powerful, but in the end they bit the dust."[8] This statement, as well as some prior remarks,[11] have led some to accuse Tutu of antisemitism.[12] [13] [14] He has rejected this charge, saying that criticism of the Israeli government is "immediately dubbed anti-semitic" by some.[8] Others have also defended Tutu against this accusation. Within Israel, a 2006 opinion piece in the Jerusalem Post newspaper describes him as "a friend, albeit a misguided one, of Israel and the Jewish people".[15] Elizmr 23:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Elizmr appears to be ignoring the fact that the earlier version was based largely on conjecture, extrapolation, distortion and dubious evidence. It is not at all clear that Tutu made statements about "apartheid in Judaism before the establishment of the modern state of Israel", nor is there any evidence to suggest that Tutu believes Jews "should be held to a different standard than other peoples" because of "their long history as victims of discrimination". It also bears mentioning that Tutu has used the "monopoly on God" line with reference to Judaism and Christianity. The prior edit made it seem like he was singling out Judaism for criticism, which is both incorrect and potentially defamatory.

Once you take away the dubious parts, the remaining material is more than a bit repetitive. In light of JayJG's helpful suggestion that the material be compressed, I took the liberty of moving some of the Tutu's comments to the footnotes.

Having said all of that, I should also note that I'm willing to compromise with you on certain points. I'd be willing to return the "parallels to racism" line to the main text, for instance, but only in its complete form. I'm willing to entertain the possibility of other changes as well. CJCurrie 02:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Proposed merge of old and new sections

Tutu has spoken eloquently on the large role of Jews in supporting the anti-Apartheid struggle in South Africa, in support for Israel's security and against tactics of suicide bombing and hate incitement, "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. I have continued to feel strongly with the Jews. I am patron of a Holocaust centre in South Africa. I believe Israel has a right to secure borders...We condemn the violence of suicide bombers, and we condemn the corruption of young minds taught hatred[8].

Tutu is an active and prominent proponent of the campaign for divestment from Israel as a tool in the struggle of the Palestinian people against occupation (NOTE COMMENT ABOVE FELT THIS DESCRIPTION WAS BIASED) [9]. He has identified strongly with the Palestinian struggle, and has likened the treatment of the Palestinians by the Jewish state of Israel to South African apartheid[10]. Tutu has also made statements about apartheid in Judaism before the establishment of the modern state of Israel, saying "the Jews thought they had a monopoly on God; Jesus was angry that they could shut out other human beings,” (NOTE REMOVE PER CJ CURRIE) and compared the features of the ancient Holy Temple in Jerusalem to the features of the apartheid system in South Africa"[11] (NOTE: CJ CURRIE HAS PROTESTED, ELIZMR SUPPORTS INCLUSION: SUGGESTED COMPRIMISE: KEEP WITH A REFERNCE SAYING CITE NEEDS TO BE CONFIRMED AND CONTEXT MORE WELL DEFINED)

Because of their long history as victims of discrimination, Tutu has said the Jews should be held to a different standard than other peoples. (COMMENT: THIS WAS FELT TO BE EDITORIALIZING) (ALTERNATE VERSION SUGGESTED: Tutu has commented on the irony of the Jewish state of Israel's treatment of the Palestinian Arabs). , they are a peculiar people. They can't ever hope to be judged by the same standards which are used for other people [12], and (COMMENT: CJ CURRIE HAS PROTESTED THIS WAS OUT OF CONTEXT, remove) He has asked, "Have our Jewish sisters and brothers forgotten their humiliation? Have they forgotten the collective punishment, the home demolitions, in their own history so soon?,"[13] and "how it was possible that the Jews, who had suffered so much persecution, could oppress other people [14] ." He has also stated that Zionism has “very many parallels with racism.” [15] (NOTE: FEEL THIS SHOULD BE PUT BACK FROM REFERENCES SECTION)

Tutu's comparisons of the Israeli treament of the Palestinians to the White South African Government's treatment of Black South Africans and comparisons of Zionism to racism have attracted widespread comment (NOTE, I THINK THIS IS A FAIR THING TO SAY TO INTRODUCE THE COMMENTS THAT FOLLOW WITH THE SPECIFICS OF WHAT HE HAS SAID). The commentary have included some accusations of antisemitism[16] [17] [18]. Tutu has replied to charges of antisemitism by saying that, "Critics of Israel are being smeared” and that "of the Israeli government is "immediately dubbed anti-semitic" by some.[8] and citing the powerfulness of the "Jewish Lobby.[19]": "People are scared in this country [the US], to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful - very powerful. Well, so what? 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, Milosevic, and Idi Amin were all powerful, but in the end they bit the dust."[8] (NOTE: PERSONALLY I FIND IT A LITTLE CHILLLING TO HEAR ANYONE PUTTING ISRAEL IN THE SAME GROUP AS IDI AMIN AND HITLER AND STALIN, BUT OK...) This statement, as well as some prior remarks,[11] have led some to accuse Tutu of antisemitism.[12] [13] [14] (NOTE: STRIKE FOR THE MORE SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION ABOVE). He has rejected this charge, saying that criticism of the Israeli government is "immediately dubbed anti-semitic" by some.[8] (NOTE: THIS WAS ADDED ABOVE) Others have also defended Tutu against this accusation. Within Israel (NOTE: A BIT OF AN OVERGENERALIZING PHRASE--OPINIONS WITHIN ISRAEL ARE NOT MONOLITHIC), a 2006 opinion piece in the Jerusalem Post newspaper describes him as "a friend, albeit a misguided one, of Israel and the Jewish people".[15](NOTE: COULD WE SAY A LITTLE MORE HERE ABOUT WHAT THE EDITORIALIST IS ARGUING--IE, WHY IS HE A FRIEND OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE AND ISRAEL--MORE CONTENT??)

What do people think of this version? I feel this version is better because it quotes Tutu more directly and summarizes his positions less, because it gives a clearer discussion of his views on this complex set of topics, and because it integrates the contributions and comments of various editors on this page above. Comments? Elizmr 23:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• compared the features of the ancient Holy Temple in Jerusalem to the features of the apartheid system in South Africa"[11] (NOTE: CJ CURRIE HAS PROTESTED, ELIZMR SUPPORTS INCLUSION: SUGGESTED COMPRIMISE: KEEP WITH A REFERNCE SAYING CITE NEEDS TO BE CONFIRMED AND CONTEXT MORE WELL DEFINED)

CJCurrie suggests: leave it out until we're certain of what the source material says. CJCurrie 02:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• I disagree strongly and feel it would be fair to include the citation and the quote WITH A QUALIFICATION while awaiting more information. Elizmr 02:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I continue to disagree with you on this point. If Tutu's remarks were innocuous, then including the line would be prejudicial. Let's not do anything until we're sure. CJCurrie 02:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you please considering coming to more of a compromise with me on this? Elizmr 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't think we should include any reference to this until we're certain it isn't a distortion. CJCurrie 02:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there any alternate wording that you'd find acceptable? Elizmr 02:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should mention it at all. Full stop. CJCurrie 02:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

CJCURRIE, I feel that your tone is a bit dismissive here. Elizmr 03:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but we still shouldn't include it. CJCurrie 03:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• He has also stated that Zionism has “very many parallels with racism.” [15] (NOTE: FEEL THIS SHOULD BE PUT BACK FROM REFERENCES SECTION)

CJCurrie would approve of this line being returned, but only in its complete form. Tutu did not actually say "Zionism has very many parallels with racism". CJCurrie 02:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Agree completely with addition of whole quote with citation.Elizmr 02:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

For the same reason, the "comparisons of Zionism to racism" paraphrase should be removed. Alternately, it could be shorted to "comments about Zionism" or something similar. CJCurrie 02:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The whole quote is available, let's just include the whole thing. Elizmr 02:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood me. We should obviously include the entire quote, but my suggestion is that we change Tutu's comparisons of the Israeli treament of the Palestinians to the White South African Government's treatment of Black South Africans and comparisons of Zionism to racism have attracted widespread comment to Tutu's comparisons of the Israeli treament of the Palestinians to the White South African Government's treatment of Black South Africans and comments about Zionism have attracted widespread comment. CJCurrie 02:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

That's fine with me and an improvement. Elizmr 02:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Two other comments: (i) the 2002 quote should go before the accusations of anti-Semitism, (ii) your proposed version is a clear improvement over the former edit, but I wonder if length issues might still be a concern. CJCurrie 02:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you please suggest your exact version below to avoid confusion? Elizmr 02:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC) Also, lets get it RIGHT before worrying about length. Elizmr 02:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty simple: you could move the 2002 quote to end of the previous paragraph. CJCurrie 02:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you please suggest your proposed version here? Elizmr 02:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

How about this?

Tutu has noted the long history of discrimination against the Jewish people, and has commented on the irony (change to: apparent irony?) of the State of Israel's treatment of the Palestinian Arabs. He has asked, "Have our Jewish sisters and brothers forgotten their humiliation? Have they forgotten the collective punishment, the home demolitions, in their own history so soon?,"[13] and "how it was possible that the Jews, who had suffered so much persecution, could oppress other people [14] ." He has also stated that Zionism has “very many parallels with racism.” [15] (PROVIDE FULL QUOTE) During a 2002 speech, he said "People are scared in this country [the US], to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful - very powerful. Well, so what? 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, Milosevic, and Idi Amin were all powerful, but in the end they bit the dust."

Tutu's comparisons of the Israeli treament of the Palestinians to the White South African Government's treatment of Black South Africans and comments about Zionism have attracted widespread comment. This has included some accusations of antisemitism.[16] [17] [18] Tutu has replied to the charge by saying that critics of Israel "are being smeared" and that criticism of the Israeli government is "immediately dubbed anti-semitic" by some.[8] Others have defended Tutu against such accusations. A 2006 opinion piece in the Jerusalem Post newspaper describes him as "a friend, albeit a misguided one, of Israel and the Jewish people".[15]

Thoughts? CJCurrie 02:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I am confused. I think we need to mention that people have felt he has made antisemetic comments before we say how he responds to the charge of antisemitism. Elizmr 02:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Tutu's 2002 quote was not made in response to charges of anti-Semitism against himself. Rather the contrary, it subsequently brought about charges of anti-Semitism from some commentators. We should mention the quote before we mention the accusations, as such. CJCurrie 02:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your basic assumption above. By 2002, concerns had already been raised regarding Tutu's views. The xmas speech, for example, had already been made. Elizmr 03:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It makes more sense to mention the controversial statements first, and then move on to the criticism. And again: the 2002 quote was not a response to charges against himself. CJCurrie 03:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, how can you read Tutu's mind? Elizmr 03:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not reading his mind, I'm following his logic. He's talking about Americans, not himself. CJCurrie 03:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

CJCurrie, you seem to be deleting things almost randomly at this point, based on fluid notions of "reliable sources". I'm restoring what appear to be perfectly reliable sources, please work this out here. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Jay: the "apartheid in Judaism" quote is a paraphrase from a non-neutral source. We're currently discussing the matter, but I maintain that we shouldn't include it until we're certain it's not a distortion. CJCurrie 03:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You may feel that the source is not neutral, but it is pretty clear that it meets the criteria for a reliable source. If you can find another reliable source that contradicts it that is one thing, but removing referenced material because you think "it doesn't sound right", is something else entirely.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have a source you consider to be more "neutral", it's clear that others believe "The Toronto Star" to be less than neutral itself: [5] [6] [7] In addition, regardless of which version you consider to be accurate, the information is pretty much the same. As a sign of good faith, please return the information to the article now until this "bias" issue is worked out, as I'd hate to have to revert you. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that the Star's direct quote from Tutu is biased? Or that its inclusion in this article, without editorial comment, is inappropriate? This strikes me as rather improbable, and I have to wonder if Wikipedia:POINT isn't being abused here.

To return to the point at issue, Morton Klein's paraphrase does not include any direct quotations, and I have more than a few concerns about his objectivity. Until we're certain that Tutu's statements aren't being distorted, we should leave it out. CJCurrie 04:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, Moshe, I see that your reversion returned the shorter version of the quote. CJCurrie 04:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

CJCurrie, first, Morton Klein's article does indeed include a direct quote, and it's not particularly clear who is "paraphrasing" Tutu; the Klein and Barthos quotes differ in only minor ways, consistent with the differences between reports one would find in different newspapers. Saul Lieberman once made a famous statement about Kabbalah, and I've seen literally 9 different "direct quotes" of his statement on the matter. Second, if you believed one variation on the quote to be more reliable, why didn't you simply insert that one instead, rather than deleting it entirely? Third, the only reason why the issue can be brought up in the first place is precisely because Tutu has been accused of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish bias by Klein; Wikipedia editors cannot cherry-pick quotes out of various sources (including "The Toronto Star"), and then assert they are anti-Israel or anti-Jewish. Given this series of unjustifiable actions, I have to wonder if Wikipedia:POINT isn't being abused here. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Responses: (i) The Klein article includes several quotes, but not on the the particular matter we're discussing (ie. the supposed comparison between apartheid and the ancient temple), (ii) I *did* insert it into the article, so I'm not sure what you're talking about; it's currently in the footnotes, but my proposed compromise with Elizmr would see it return to the main text, (iii) the Toronto Star's quote is more detailed that Klein's, and there's no reason why it shouldn't be used, Warren Kinsella notwithstanding. (Btw, the complaints against the Star were from a particular time period and the Barthos article appeared much earlier.)

The point may be moot, however. If you're willing to accept my proposed compromise, we can probably move on. CJCurrie 05:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You keep removing one of the direct quotes of Klein, referring to stating that Zionism “looks like it has many parallels with racism”. You've done it again, not even substituting the Barthos version of the quote. In addition, in other places where you do reference the quote, you continue to quote only one source, Barthos, and selectively remove references to Klein. This is simply unacceptable. Try to find a wording that does not remove the references to Klein. Look very carefully at your edits while you do this. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Jay, look more closely. The quote appears twice in the current edit. I removed one of the references because it was superfluous, and added the full Barthos citation in the other location. It's the same quote, despite the differences in transcription.

I would request that you revert back to my version. I even made it easy for you, if you objected to my other change.

Moreover, there's no need to throw in another Klein citation when the same report is mentioned in other footnotes. I suppose this particular point doesn't matter, however ... you can include both sources if you want. CJCurrie 05:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope you will grant that my current edit resolves this particular matter. CJCurrie 08:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it did, but I've done something similar, and I hope you will grant that my current edit resolves this particular matter. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It's acceptable, although I suspect there may be some room for improvement. Why, for instance, does a reference to the recent phenomenon of divestment appear before the Zionism quote from 1988? Some chronological sequencing would be appropriate. CJCurrie 19:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

CJ, as I've outlined above the discussion is THEMATIC not CHRONOLOGIC. I've done a lot of reading now on his position and he has made the same points at various times, so a chronologic discussion would not make much sense. You've had plently of time to respond to the discussion of structure I made above; now is not them time to argue for chronologic sequencing. He's been calling for divestment for a long time, by the way, it is not something new. Elizmr 23:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New proposed version

Tutu has spoken eloquently on the large role of Jews in supporting the anti-Apartheid struggle in South Africa, in support for Israel's security and against tactics of suicide bombing and hate incitement, "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. I have continued to feel strongly with the Jews. I am patron of a Holocaust centre in South Africa. I believe Israel has a right to secure borders...We condemn the violence of suicide bombers, and we condemn the corruption of young minds taught hatred[8].

Tutu is an active and prominent proponent of the campaign for divestment from Israel as a tool in the struggle of the Palestinian people[9]. He has identified strongly with the Palestinian struggle, and has likened the treatment of the Palestinians by the Jewish state of Israel to South African apartheid[10]. (NOTE: DO PEOPLE WANT TO PUT SPECIFIC QUOTES IN HERE??? IF SO, PLESE ADD) Tutu has also compared some features of the ancient Holy Temple in Jerusalem to some features of the apartheid system in South Africa"[11] (NOTE: THIS REFERENCES BASED ON A SECONDARY SOURCE THAT AWAITS CONFIRMATION)

Because of their long history as victims of discrimination, Tutu has commented on the irony of the Jewish state of Israel's treatment of the Palestinian Arabs, saying, "Have our Jewish sisters and brothers forgotten their humiliation? Have they forgotten the collective punishment, the home demolitions, in their own history so soon?,"[13] and "how it was possible that the Jews, who had suffered so much persecution, could oppress other people [14] ." He has also stated that Zionism has “very many parallels with racism"--NOTE ADD REST OF QUOTE HERE

Tutu's comparisons of the Israeli treament of the Palestinians to the White South African Government's treatment of Black South Africans and remarks on Zionism have attracted widespread negative and positive comment, including some concerns that his views are antisemetic[16] [17] [18]. Tutu responds to charges of antisemitism by saying that, "Critics of Israel are being smeared” and that "of the Israeli government is "immediately dubbed anti-semitic" by some.[8] and citing the powerfulness of the "Jewish Lobby.[19]": "People are scared in this country [the US], to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful - very powerful. Well, so what? 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, Milosevic, and Idi Amin were all powerful, but in the end they bit the dust." Others have also defended Tutu against this accusation. A 2006 opinion piece in the Jerusalem Post newspaper describes him as "a friend, albeit a misguided one, of Israel and the Jewish people"Elizmr 16:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This still isn't quite right. If we have to mention the unconfirmed temple comparison, it should at least be in the footnotes -- not the main text (and I would request that you take into account my recent adjustments on this front). I also maintain that Tutu's 2002 quote was not made in response to accusations of anti-Semitism against himself, and that it is currently in the wrong place. CJCurrie 19:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

CJ, I believe you are stonewalling. You can't read his mind. Your position is also (sorry) a bit illogical. One doesn't go around responding to accusations of antisemitism before one is accused of antisemitism. The responses to criticism should go AFTER the criticisms not before them. You haven't said anything logial to support your point; you just keep making it again and again. Please work with me on this to explain your point or comropmise. Elizmr 23:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC) Just in case you don't believe me, here's Tutu in the NYTimes from the late 80s talking about Israel and Apartheid [8]Elizmr 23:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC) Here is the Jewish Year Book from 1988. Tutu already discusses "Apartheid" and Israel by that time [9] there is really no basis for going chronologically here. Elizmr 01:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC) Whoops, Tutu was comparing Apartheid to the Holocaust there. Sorry. wrong comparison.Elizmr 01:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not stonewalling. I'm simply stating that the 2002 quote was not a personal response to accusations of anti-Semitism. Tutu is clearly addressing the reluctance of Americans to criticize Israel, not rebuking accusations made against himself.

If we are going to mention the "Jewish lobby" quote (which I agree was unfortunate), we have to be careful to put it in the proper context. CJCurrie 05:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Look, you are just repeating yourself. Could you support your point with something more substantial? Elizmr 10:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Tutu's words are sufficient support. Do you disagree that he was talking about the reluctance of Americans to criticize Israel? CJCurrie 10:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Basically what Tutu was arguing here for was divestment. That was the whole point of the talk. I've changed the text to reflect that. Elizmr 10:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sabeel

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)

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)

Could you provide a link for the latter assertion? CJCurrie 10:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] New Testament not anti-Semitic, Tutu can hardly be called a "Christian"

69.95.154.131 01:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Oliveira says:

I defy anyone to show me anti-Semitic things in the New Testament towards Jews. You can't find a single one. I am a Christian myself in Bible College and would love to prove any "anti-Semitic" verses as incorrectly interpreted. and this Desmond Tutu definatley seems like not only a false believer based upon his attitude towards the Jews and the land of Israel which the "Palestinians" are occupying, but also someone more concerned with racial discrepencies then the very Bible and faith he "claims" to follow. I don't know any true Christian who is pro Palestinian and anti-Israeli. The Bible clearly declares the world will try to come against Israel in the last days and this so called believer is doing the same thing, right in league with the Un and the Muslims and the rest of the world.

Tutu is just another Jew hater in the world of Jew haters, from all faiths including Christian, if Tutu even is a Christian, which I doubt. The world is solely focused on Israel for evil reasons just like the New Testament prophecies.

[edit] 1988 Jewish Year book citation

"Tutu also considered Zionism to have "very many parallels with racism," since it "excludes people on ethnic or other groupnds over which they have no control." He told his interviewers..."in Israel you exclude people and treat those that are excluded as lesser humans." To recognize that Archibishop Tutu, in common with most black leaders, had imbibed the anti-Zionist stereotype was not however, to say that he was anti-Semetic. Nor had Tutu ever denied Israel's right to exist, as had some of the more extreme detractors of the Jewish state among the black leadership. Indeed, he said that he considered it unrealistic of the Arab world to pretent that Israel did not exist, and that while sympathizing with the PLO, he did not accept its methods. Some of Archbishop Tutu's comments aroused resentment in Jewish quarters and even insidious reumors that he had made baltantly anti-Semetic remarks, but these rumors were given short shrift by the South African Jewish board of Deputies itself.

Typcial of Tutu's acerbic rhetoric is the parallel he repeatedly drew between apartheid and the Holocaust perpertrated by the Nazis. He said, for example, that the South African government deliberately resettled children where there was no food, thereby condeming them to starvatins, adding, "You might even say that the gas chamers made for a neater death." Some Jews took exception, arguing that the evils of apartheid had never extended to systematic annihilation of the blacks and point out that no rabbi in Nazi Germany had been allowed the freedom the criticize the regime which Archbishop Tutu enjoyed. His response was to describe this "as a kind of Jewish arrogance." "Jews seem to thing that they ahve cornered the market on suffering, he complained to his interviewers"

[edit] Before anyone reverts

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)

:Yes, in general we should make every effort to present quotes in an apologestic manner. Elizmr 10:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC) uncalled for, sorry.

[edit] Context

"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)

So, is he really defending Tutu from charges of antiSemitism? no. It is just an Israeli saying something good about Tutu. Does it really belong here? Elizmr 11:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we can extrapolate that Steinitz doesn't consider Tutu an anti-Semite, but I won't push the point if you disagree with its inclusion. Perhaps it could go elsewhere in the article ... CJCurrie 11:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

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)remove personal remark and take it to talk page. Elizmr 11:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

OK to not returning it. Elizmr 11:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current state of the Israel material

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Irony

JayJG writes: Please give it a rest for once, and allow readable English to take precedence over whatever obscure point you're trying to make.

May I suggest that Jay review his recent edits carefully. CJCurrie 04:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

CJ, why so snarky? I think we should remove the "some have" by Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. Also, your edit summary explicitly states that you want to influence the reader with how this is introduced[10]. This is not in accordance with the WP:NPOV policy. We need to use NEUTRAL language. Could we end this particular edit war and leave it alone, or should we just ignore this policy? Elizmr 22:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood my comments. My point is that the passive voice in "has been accused" conveys a false sense of authority, and gives more credibility to the accusation than is perhaps warranted, particularly given that Sabeel has endorsed a two-state solution. "Some have", though imperfect, is more appropriate. Btw, the structure of Jay's sentence is also rather problematic: it almost appears to read as "a, and b, leading to c".

In any event, I have a new idea for the wording. CJCurrie 02:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

"Has been accused" does not convey any "false sense of authority", "some have" is weasel words, and the structure doesn't imply anything at all. I'm tired of you messing up readable English simply to make some obscure political point which only makes sense to you. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The passive voice conveys a false sense of authority, I'm no longer using "some have", and the structure strikes me as problematic even if you didn't intend it that way. I fail to see how my edit "messes up readable English", and my point is hardly obscure. I'm also a bit puzzled by your tone; this is hardly the most contentious dispute we've engaged in, but one could be forgiven for thinking otherwise from your edit summaries.

Btw, E., the "see notes below" reference is entirely inappropriate. There's already a footnote; we don't need to provide a second signpost. CJCurrie 03:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

In any case, I've changed my wording yet again. CJCurrie 03:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I would support changing the structure if you feel that that is necessary (I don't), but I argue strongly against the "some say" for the reasons noted several times above. Elizmr 00:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason to call my parenthetic remarks "inappropriate". Could you cite some policy on this or is it just your personal opinion? It was more inappropirate to remove relevant cited material to the notes section, but this is a bit of a comprimise. Elizmr 23:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• My point is that we're *already* informing readers of the other information, by way of a footnote. CJCurrie 01:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, but one doesn't usually hide information in notes in Wikipedia one usually cites refs. This is a bit unusual (altho I have seen in other articles you edit as well), so I think it is worth it to tell the reader that they are there. Since you are not allowing the material in the article proper, you might at least allow the note to look to where you did put the stuff. Elizmr 00:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

CJ, please stop reverting this just because you feel like it or bring the quotes into the text. Length is not a good artgument given other things you've inserted. Elizmr 23:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, please stop reverting. Usually, notes contain some extraneous information that would distract from the flow of the text if inserted into the body of the article. Here you're attempting to hide Tutu's direct speech, which is much more relevant than other people's comments on it. Beit Or 08:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Most of the footnoted quotes supplement information already in the main body of the article, and add little on their own. The exception is the 1984 ZOA reference, which doesn't belong in the article at all; I only included it in the footnotes as a temporary compromise, pending clarification. CJCurrie 20:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

No, what you're doing is accepting some of his quotes into the article, while removing other to footnotes in an entirely arbitrary manner. ZOA report belongs to this section, as it povides further details regarding Tutu's views on Jews, namely he can no longer hide behind this all-purpose shield "I'm only criticizing Israeli policies". Beit Or 20:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The ZOA report is extremely partisan, and many of its assertions are quite dubious. The 1984 "quote" is particularly sketchy: Morton Klein doesn't actually reference Tutu's words, nor does he indicate the context in which they were allegedly made. (As I've said before, it's possible that Tutu was simply using the outer and inner temples as some sort of visual metaphor.)

Including this reference in the main body of the text, without further clarification, would be potentially misleading and prejudicial. I'd prefer to leave it out altogether; I only agreed to include it in the footnotes as a compromise to prevent a revert war. CJCurrie 20:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like blackmailing: "Do as I say, or I will keep revert warring." Beit Or 21:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I've given my reasons for removing the ZOA "citation" from the article, and I stand by them. I'm prepared to take this dispute to mediation, if it comes to that. CJCurrie 21:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] removal of sourced relevant information by user Coroebus

I note that this section has returned to its previous clumsy and bloated form where we have to get in every quote from either side. This section needs radically cutting. A nice simple structure is needed, intro, criticism of israel (ref or two), criticism of tutu (ref or two) - we do not need to spell out every quote --Coroebus 22:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Coro--could you explain why you removed most of this section? Please see discussions about structure, etc above. We have reached what was there after a lot of work. I need to revert you.Elizmr 23:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, because you and CJCurrie are just trading quotes, each attempting to paint their side of the argument in a fractionally better light with each addition. This has made it an excessively long list of quotes, most of which are presented from primary sources (i.e. Tutu is an anti-semite because he said X (cite), rather than X said Tutu is an anti-semite (cite)). I cut it down to the basics, which is all we need to know, leaving in the references so people can follow up if they really want to know every single thing Tutu has said that is supposed to be bad - this is a bio of Tutu, not an extended discussion of Tutu's views on Israel and why they're good/bad. Sometimes the compromised middle ground between two warring points of view is actually the worst of both worlds, not the best. --Coroebus 09:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll obtain the article from the Hartford Courant, and post its contents here.--G-Dett 23:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

THANKS. I've found out that they have it at my nearby library, but I haven't gotten a chance to look at the microfiche there yet. Elizmr 23:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I've just done a little tidying and organizational editing of the disputed section. I should say right away I've removed nothing. It's just that the "article from the Guardian" is actually just a transcript from the Boston speech quoted in a previous paragraph. I've joined that material so that it's presented together. The way it was quoted before not only made it look like a separate "article from the Guardian" but also made it look like the "suffered so much" quotation came from the same source. We can't just synthesize materials willy-nilly; it needs to be clear where they're coming from. In its present form it may look like a bill of particulars, but that is exactly what it is.--G-Dett 23:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it could be pulled together a bit to read better as an article, but I guess this is too much to ask. THanks for not taking anything out.  :=) Elizmr 00:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it certainly could read a little better. The thing to aim for here is fluency without suggestiveness. I share the concerns of some editors that the context of these quotes is being, shall we say, massaged.

[edit] Clean-up proposals for I/P section

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)

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)

[edit] Beit Hanoun

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)

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)

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)

This section is a blatant example of recentism: an event is given undue weight in the article just because it has happened recently. Beit Or 08:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is Archbishop Tutu a knight?

The Britannica refers to him (as do some periodicals) as Sir Desmond Tutu, yet I cannot find references to either a UK or Dutch knighthood. Any information? 24.242.58.160 06:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to guess that Britannica are wrong, though it is hard to prove a negative, and I would almost never bet money against Britannica. - Jmabel | Talk 00:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Google has just 6 references, 4 of them to Britannica, plus a newsletter article, and a blog. I'd guess B. is wrong too. Mjwild 13:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Anglican clergy are members of the OBE, but they are not allowed to style themselves 'Sir' or 'Dame.' I bet that's where the confusion comes in. 132.161.187.62 00:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not Nuetral

Where is the critic of Tutu, many pan-Africanist have serious issues with his kiss the devil policy. the policy which mask economic apartheid. Please add some balance as tutu isnt seen as a saint by more than a few.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 14:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My God the same politics are here as well

I cannot believe to see the same old faces here deleting things tutu said. Well he said them, he has been saying them and he will go on saying them so why have this comments been removed when they are critical of Israel. Then some say there isnt a conflict of interest. across wiki we see this removal of any thing which injuries zionism.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 17:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Simple, because he is critical of israel and zionism. Yas121 14:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sure there is no greater sin on this planet.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 09:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid I disagree with you, I have seen no explicit evidence of bias, I do not think that everyone is engaging in a conspiracy to cover up criticism of Dr Tutu, and also, I am personally not that aware of the masses of criticism you seem to imply exists. As it would be dangerous to phrase topics in a manner seemingly supportive of Dr Tutu, it would further be dangerous to try and unbalance the article by weighing it down with masses of criticism. I suggest, that should you feel this article is biased, you comprise some criticisms you feel should be included, and then present them on this talk page for discussion. (AJMW 16:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC))

Tutu is a public figure he says all kinds of things we must have some bad things people say about him on the page. i have moved stuff around to have a critic section so i didnt have to add anything i just moved the critism around so people can access it. I didnt say a conspiracy just he aint no saint and if we wanna remove that tag just add some balance.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 17:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tutu is anti-Jewish??????

considering what desmond tutu is know for it is strange to see that more than half the ref refer to a minority interest opinion about him. wow. this is the prism the entire world is forced to look through. how selfish is that?--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 02:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Then change it! show the wider picture. Yas121 14:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry i am not allowed to change it, dont you understand wiki yet. Evey critic of Israel on wikipedia Galloway, Jackson et al. has this section added to their page. AND DONT U DARE START DELETING TAGS OR ELSE THE PAGE WILL BE LOCKED by admins as this is a living bio--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 14:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not true at all. I havent heard that about Tanya Reinhart, I havent heard it about Robert Fisk, I havent heard it about Women in Black... These people have their reasons to accuse. By just stating the allegation and not giving their reasons violates Wikipedia policy. Tutu made comments that were not just aimed at Israel's policies. Halaqah, this may be hard for you, but please learn to keep your own opinion out. Because YOU dont agree with the allegation is not a reason. Certainly his comments can be considered offensive, there is no point in painting someone perfect Halaqah. By hiding the reasons the allegers claim is not good form. --Shamir1 08:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

There not offensive to me, or to the billions of people on the planet. Do not give undue weight to the section.

[edit] Back and forward revert and re-revert where does it end? USE THE TALKPAGE!

on another note please do not revert CjCurrie, use the talk page for the debate. This uncivil reverting edit behaviour will get this page locked so make the smart choice and stop trying to inforce your localized political views on the talk page. If you revert him, i will revert it back, and he will revert you. I will revert it as you need to learn to use the talk page. I have seen the pattern of your edits and that is my main reason for realizing you are very commited to a cause which blinds objectivity. uSe the talk page when a dispute arises, do not revert the edits of Cjcurrie or what ever he is called.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 09:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

By you reverting yourself, why are you putting all the blame on me? Objectivity means you do NOT--I repeat: NOT--remove necessary and sourced material. Stop accusing me of any "cause", I have not explained any of such...you seem to be confusing me with yourself. And I like how all the blame is on me for reverting when cjcurrie is reverting...nice halaqah, nice. Enough irrelevance of seeing my "pattern of edits", do you want a prize for it? What does that have to do with anything? It would be a good idea to settle down and get wikipedic for once, rather than your own personal opinion. Stop talking about reverting when changes have already been made. That is WP:Vandalism. I am sure you love Tutu and Galloway as you have already said. GREAT! I am glad, but keep your pov out! There is no point in shying away from the facts. --Shamir1 07:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

i dont know mr cjcurrie but i know you are very unwilling to use talk pages and arrest your edit style which is i am right i a have no plan on making a comprimise. In light of this, less is best. So until u and currie sort it out, i am in favor of his edits as i also belive this section is too long, it is about d tutu and i have noticed most of his bio is being reduced to your pov which is very disturbing. facts in balance, he is 70+ years old, i think he has done many things limit the section. your worldview is very disturbing as it relates to critics of Israel, is that all tutu and galloway are?--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 09:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Shamiri I have noticed this is how you edit, you dont want to disuss you just think an edit war will give you victory. I will revert it back to curries version, so forcing you to use the talk page and learn the civil conduct needed to develop the article, p.s i am no fan of tutu, i added the critic section. but saying that i will not sit by and watch unfairness go on. edit war is a terrible thing, it is a failure to communicate comprimise and listen. it is uncivil.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 09:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Shamir1

(i) I would request that you review this discussion page in its entirety before reverting again. Most of the points that are currently under dispute have already been discussed.

(ii) "Tutu's statements regarding a "Jewish lobby" and his comparison of it to Hitler" is your extrapolation of one of Tutu's statements, and not one which I suspect most readers would share. Tutu got caught up in his rhetoric (as he often does) when he made the "Jewish lobby" statement, but he didn't actually compare the American pro-Israel lobby to Hitler.

By saying that they are powerful as Hitler was, and will fall as Hitler did, is in fact a comparison. Being caught up in rhetoric has nothing to do with anything. If you want we can write, that those who took offense saw it as a direct comparison to Hitler.

Tutu didn't make either of the statements you're currently attributing to him, and the disputed wording remains your extrapolation. CJCurrie 06:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Please go on Webster's Dictionary online and read what a comparison is. The adjustment as I suggested above can be made. --Shamir1 07:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

We've already indicated that Tutu's statement was subject to criticism. The adjustment you've suggested is belabouring the point (at best) or a BLP violation (at worst). CJCurrie 16:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh no.... the criticism is NOT written and certainly not in the fashion that they criticize him for. NPOV, honey, NPOV. --Shamir1 17:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

We've already said "this statement has led some to accuse Tutu of antisemitism". Surely, this conveys the point in a sufficient manner. CJCurrie 17:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

(iii) As of yet, no one has been able to reproduce the original 1984 Hartford Courant article in which Tutu allegedly compares the Temple in Jerusalem to South Africa's apartheid system. The only perspective that we have on the matter is from Morton Klein's Zionist Organization of America, which is an extremely biased source and should not be accepted at face value. For all we know, Tutu might have used the geography of the outer and inner temples for an innocuous visual metaphor.

As of now, it is reported in the Jerusalem Post. I do not see what is "extremely" biased about anything. You have to ask yourself: How would I expect to criticize such a statement? The Sierra Club? The Feminist Majority Foundation? Or perhaps, in ALL sense, the Zionist Organization. In either case, his quote has been recorded by the Jerusalem Post, and I believe the AJC Archives as well.

Which JP article are you talking about? I think you may be confusing this matter with something else.

No I am not. Please see here

It looks like the JP author cribbed his notes from the ZOA. In any event, we still don't have the context for the original quote. CJCurrie 16:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you are acting ridiculous. That is the context from a reliable source and that is all that is needed anyway. Enough excuses. They do not stand. That is the original quote and it is reported by a newspaper. --Shamir1 17:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

We're not obligated to reprint everything that appears in the newspapers, particularly when its relevance to the issue is suspect. CJCurrie 17:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That is your business with the Post, not here. Here, we need the source, we got the source. There is no rule on Wikipedia that says adding that quote with the citation is wrong, in fact, removing it KNOWING it is sourced compromises the integrity of the article, and as such is considered WP:vandalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shamir1 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

It's not vandalism to remove something of dubious relevance to the subject. "Attributability" isn't a sufficient condition for inclusion. CJCurrie 22:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

In response to your second point, may I ask if you're familiar with Morton Klein? If not, you should know that he's the exact opposite of a neutral source on matters relating to Israel and Palestine. CJCurrie 06:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You are confusing wikipedia policies. We are not using Morton Klein's words. It is the website that has published Tutu's words.

Using Morton Klein's highly selective quote cache is still an NPOV violation, even if the words were from Tutu. CJCurrie 16:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

If we have to mention this matter at all, it should be left in the footnotes.

(iv) "In conversations during the 1980s with the Israeli ambassador to South Africa, Eliahu Lankin, Tutu "refused to call Israel by its name, he kept referring to it as Palestine," Lankin recalled."

I don't have a strong objection to including this, but I question its relevance.

Well, it is about his views, so yes.

(v) "In 1988, he rejected the charge of antisemitism, saying that criticism of the Israeli government is "immediately dubbed anti-semitic as if the Palestinians were not Semitic" by some."

I don't have any objection to including the more complete quote, in this instance.

Okay.

(vi) "During his 1989 visit to Israel, Tutu “urged Israelis to forgive the Nazis for the Holocaust” (Jerusalem Post, Dec. 31, 1989), a statement which the Simon Wiesenthal Center called “a gratuitous insult to Jews and victims of Nazism everywhere.” In another instance regarding the Holocaust, Tutu said "You might even say that the gas chambers made for a neater death" than South Africa's resettlement policies. Some Jews objected the remark, arguing that the evils of apartheid had never extended to systematic annihilation of the blacks and pointing out that no rabbi in Nazi Germany was extended the freedom to criticize the regime as Archbishop Tutu had. Tutu's response was to describe this "as a kind of Jewish arrogance." "Jews seem to think that they have cornered the market on suffering," he said to interviewers."

There are a number of problems here:

• The conflation of these events is more than a tad leading.
• Tutu's 1989 message was one of universal forgiveness. I suppose it's allowable to include criticism, but (i) Tutu's own position should be clarified in a more balanced way, and (ii) the controversy shouldn't be included under "views on Israel and Palestine".
• Tutu's "Holocaust" comment could very easily have been taken out of context. (The gas chambers allowed the Nazis to inflict death upon their victims on a massive scale without literally "getting their hands dirty" in the process. This is hardly a point of controversy, and it's quite possible that this was what Tutu meant.)
• I notice that you included copious criticisms from the AJC's yearbook, but left out the part where they exonerated him of actual anti-semitism.

• Not particularly.
• Of course it was, but that was the headline. If you want to add more, be my guest. The reason why i is there is because of the interwined allegation
• Yes it could have been, but so could have the Pope's Islam statement. That does not make it irrelevant or not offensive.
• I never said they accused of antisemitism. Jewish organizations or anti-antisemitism organizations will almost never label someone an antisemite. His comparison of apartheid to the Holocaust (i believe there are other statements) were also taken offensively.

Responses: (i) and (ii) "the intertwined allegation" was made by an extremely biased source, and was obviously done for tendentious purposes [correction, see below] if we are to mention Tutu's 1989 speech at all, it should be in a different section, (iii) the Pope's statement on Islam attracted mass criticism on an international level; Tutu's comment didn't; (iv) if you're going to use the AJC as a source, you should include both the criticism and exoneration. CJCurrie 06:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Correction: I thought the "intertwined allegation" was taken from Morton Klein, but it seems that I was mistaken. Having looked over the sources, I cannot find any that conflate the two statements. CJCurrie 06:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You are not getting it. Are you going to tell me that Green Peace's statement regarding the recent tree-cutting is not relevant because it comes from an "extemely biased" source? A statement from an organization, that is the source, is the source. Period. If they cannot make a statement criticizing or approving on that matter, then who can? Do not mix up policies. --Shamir1 07:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd venture to argue that Greenpeace are more mainstream than the ZOA. My understanding is that groups like the ADL and AJC regard Klein as a fanatical upstart, and as the representative of fairly marginal views. (In any event, I don't believe Klein is directly relevant to this part of the discussion.) CJCurrie 16:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Mainstream in terms of what? Perhaps more mainstream in terms of protesting deforestation. These are statements from organizations. The ADL and AJC have simply quoted him--it's his own words, and its not your job to call them marginal or anything eles. --Shamir1 17:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you may have misread me. I said the ADL and AJC regard Klein as a fanatical upstart. CJCurrie 17:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

(vii) "In 2003, Archbishop Tutu received an International Advocate for Peace Award from the Cardozo School of Law, an affiliate of Yeshiva University, although there were some protests.^[7]

I suppose I don't have any strong objection to this. CJCurrie 09:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Right, i just thought it would be a thing to note that its not universal criticism. --Shamir1 01:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that point 1v shouldnt be in that section, the section is relevant but maybe another place, i like it because it shows the situation and tutu's message of forgiveness, i have personal reasons for liking it because i think it shows the mockery. while Africans are asked to turn the cheek no one else is willing to do it. and rightly so,--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 09:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

NOW Shamir wait for the reply before adding the content. y r so eager. wait for a reply, then when currie agrees add it in. and if this section gets any larger it will be undue weight--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 01:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, everything is explained. All sources are there. (And why are you so eager?) Please read the Jerusalem Post article if you wish. If the section gets longer it can 1) be divided, 2) simply have the title slightly changed. It's very simple, dont make excuses, dont make it difficult. --Shamir1 06:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

DO NOT MAKE ANY CHANGES UNTIL THE ISSUE IS 1ST RESOLVED HERE, VERY SIMPLE--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 08:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You can start by doing it yourself, very simple. Also, forgot to add that the ZOA has sourced their reports. Keep in mind that it matches up with the Jerusalem Post, the AJC Archives, and BBC.[11] --Shamir1 08:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

User Shamir why dont you tell us why you edit war? Have you got anything from it? r we that unreasonable that you need to do this? In addition i think the section is too long.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 08:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Halaqah, you really need a blog or somewhere to write down all of your personal opinions that have nothing to do with Wikipedia. And reverting does not help with an edit war, what you claim you are avoiding. --Shamir1 17:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

shamir argue the topic not the editor. But feel free to make suggestions of a good blog site maybe zionismisracism.com?? stick to the topic pls.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 20:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quick question

To CJCurie: Why do you want the Jerusalem Post cited information out of the article? Please answer in as few words as possible. --GHcool 00:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• We don't have the original Hartford Courant article. Tutu's original reference may have been innocuous, in which case it would be irrelevant to our article. Isarig previously agreed to leave the information out, until we were certain of the context. Attributability alone isn't a sufficient condition for inclusion. CJCurrie 01:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. But the reasons for te accusations of anti-Semitism should be given, right? --GHcool 01:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Two responses:

• I'm not certain that anyone (apart from Morton Klein) has actually accused Tutu of anti-Semitism with reference to this particular comment.
• We don't need to pad out the section. The reasons for the accusation have already been provided. For that matter, the Hartford Courant material is already included in a footnote. CJCurrie 01:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It is true that the allegations of antisemitism is pretty minimal. Nonetheless, his comments regarding a "Jewish lobby", "Jewish monopoly", and "Jewish arrogance" are controversial and to some, offensive. However, it is true that Tutu made those comments, and in accordance with Wikipedia policy, the Jerusalem Post article is sufficient. --Shamir1 21:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Truth has always been offensive to some. Tutu is globally seen as an honest Godly person, so let the user decide and include it.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 22:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Halaqah's proposal to allow the user to include the Jerusalem Post quotation and allow readers to decide whether or not the Tutu's statements were offensive. Its rather disheartening, however, that Halaqah felt it necessary qualify his his proposal with an anti-Semitic smack in the face (i.e. agreeing that Jews are arrogant) that no reasonable person would have included on a talk page. --GHcool 00:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Pls Cool u know you are going to far,Truth is offesensive to some, So i support Tutu and now i am anti-S. U should b careful because u r directing a personal attack and violating good faith. I dont think anyone would read it like u. Thus you r now saying Tutu is anti-S. i am sure the the debate is about "lobbying power" so keep playing games and reading what isnt written. Cant u see my font? I am semitic. 2 much power corrupts, u never realized when every min u use that term it eventually has no meaning.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 00:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I made no personal attack on Halaqah or on Desmond Tutu. I simply pointed out that in response to the possibility of people who take offense at Tutu's comments regarding a "Jewish lobby", "Jewish monopoly", and "Jewish arrogance" Halaqah's first reaction was "Truth has always been offensive to some," meaning that all of the above are unequivically true and that those who take offense at them are irrational or, in Halaqah's own words, corrupted by power. --GHcool 03:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

did u ever for once think that it was a general remark about truth? did nt u imply i was unreasonable. This is y we must assume Good faith. Does power corrupt, or r some people immune from corruption. Last time i checked we were all human.(save one reptilian admin). if anything it is bad timing. ge wiz, stop diluting the term and save it for the real devils.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 03:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Views on Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

I have placed an "unbalanced" tag on this section in place of the NPOV tag. I added another quotation from the 2002 Guardian article to help in this balancing effort. Your efforts would be appreciated in moving this section to more of a balance in order to ensure that it does not violate WP:NPOV.

Thanks much!

Larry --Lmcelhiney 14:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons for my reversion

[copied from Shamir1's talk page]

• The Hartford material could very easily have been taken completely out of context. It's not appropriate for us to present the quote without having a better idea of what Tutu meant.
• I'll reiterate that Tutu has used the "monopoly on God" line with reference to Christianity as well. We shouldn't present one quote without also presenting the other.
• I'm not opposed to including the "Jewish arrogance" line per se, but the Holocaust quote could easily have been taken out of context as well. The presentation does not seem at all fair to the subject.

[Please read the above discussion for further context. It's hardly encyclopedic to present "Tutu's own words" in a skewed or misleading context.] CJCurrie 05:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

If you can present some mysterious "context", please do. But do not censor or whitewash what he said just because it would make his cheerleaders feel uncomfortable. He's not a saint as many try to point him. As any influential public figure, Tutu should be held responsible for his words. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The article already holds Tutu accountable for his words, Humus. We've summarized his controversial statements concerning Israel and its supporters; there's no need to pad out the section with dubious, and possibly out-of-context fragments. CJCurrie 05:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you even read the previous discussions? CJCurrie 05:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Assuming not:

As of yet, no one has been able to reproduce the original 1984 Hartford Courant article in which Tutu allegedly compares the Temple in Jerusalem to South Africa's apartheid system. The only perspective that we have on the matter is from Morton Klein's Zionist Organization of America, which is an extremely biased source and should not be accepted at face value. For all we know, Tutu might have used the geography of the outer and inner temples for an innocuous visual metaphor.

vi) "During his 1989 visit to Israel, Tutu “urged Israelis to forgive the Nazis for the Holocaust” (Jerusalem Post, Dec. 31, 1989), a statement which the Simon Wiesenthal Center called “a gratuitous insult to Jews and victims of Nazism everywhere.” In another instance regarding the Holocaust, Tutu said "You might even say that the gas chambers made for a neater death" than South Africa's resettlement policies. Some Jews objected the remark, arguing that the evils of apartheid had never extended to systematic annihilation of the blacks and pointing out that no rabbi in Nazi Germany was extended the freedom to criticize the regime as Archbishop Tutu had. Tutu's response was to describe this "as a kind of Jewish arrogance." "Jews seem to think that they have cornered the market on suffering," he said to interviewers."

There are a number of problems here:

• The conflation of these events is more than a tad leading.
• Tutu's 1989 message was one of universal forgiveness. I suppose it's allowable to include criticism, but (i) Tutu's own position should be clarified in a more balanced way, and (ii) the controversy shouldn't be included under "views on Israel and Palestine".
• Tutu's "Holocaust" comment could very easily have been taken out of context. (The gas chambers allowed the Nazis to inflict death upon their victims on a massive scale without literally "getting their hands dirty" in the process. This is hardly a point of controversy, and it's quite possible that this was what Tutu meant.)
• I notice that you included copious criticisms from the AJC's yearbook, but left out the part where they exonerated him of actual anti-semitism. CJCurrie 06:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

And here's the context for the "monopoly on God" line: [12]. CJCurrie 06:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, the Hartford Courant material is already included in a footnote. CJCurrie 06:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

i dont believe in edit wars when 2 users gang up and usurp the process which makes wiki plural and civilized. This pattern concerns of edits concerns me most. Lets discuss and then make the changes. not revert and re-revert. THe one issue i have is the length of this section needs to be reduced or def not expanded. leave it in its original or most positive (pro-Tutu to avoid bio vio) state and then make a talk page request. The section is too long, it has too much counter talk, Tutu says this, and an over explained reply from the other group. How long should it be. I dont have issue with some of it but the over extended reply "No Rabbi in Nazi germany could have b so free 2 spk out.." this is useless chatter by those without knowledge of South African racism, they r not experts to make these silly statements.Alsmost like slavery wasnt so bad, it only went on for 300 years.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ)+(הלכה)+(حَلَقَة) March 2007 (UTC)

I'll just ignore Halaqah since I dont see what significance his statements make.

• The conflation makes no difference, that is POV
• Please do so. And the section can just be renamed since its pretty much one story.
• Yes indeed it could have been. Does that mean that all the criticism of Pope Benedict XVI's comments on Islam should be removed because it was taken out of context? Stay real. And yes it was a point of controversy (that is not for you to decide).
• Once again you have jumped to conclusions and are oblivious to what I have been repeating CONSTANTLY throughout this discussion. Jewish organizations will almost never label someone an antisemite. Secondly, the edit never said that they exonerated him of antisemitism. It is simply put that those statements were (quite obviously) controversial and criticized.

• The Christian monopoly stuff is absolutely ridiculous. No one has drawn that line, especially then. 1) It was said after the Jewish monopoly comment. You kept saying it was unfair for critics to say that because Tutu has said it about Christianity, but at the time he apparently did not anyway. 2) It has nothing to do with the section or the comment. Tutu showed no relationship between that comment and the earlier one. 3) No source draws the connection. 4) It is not similar to the comment he made regarding a Jewish monopoly. Yes the word monopoly is said, but it is used a bit differently. He says that Christians simply do not have a monopoly, while he said that Jews actually think and act like they do. Nor does he saying anything about them "shutting out human beings." 5) Get this straight. He (a Christian) said it about Jews. He is not a Jewish leader and he is not a Jew, but he said that (which is negative) about Jews. It does not even amount to the Christian thing he said much later.

There is a world of difference between a Christian leader saying that about Jews than about Christians--huge. Perhaps (apparently I need to remind you: this an example) you need to imagine it this way: Sheikh Qardawi says "Muslims do not have a monopoly on God [...] To acknowledge the reality of the existence of other faiths does not mean you, as a Muslim, need to compromise on the tenets that you hold dear". Probably not a big deal at all. Now imagine this: Pope Benedict saying "the Muslims thought they had a monopoly on God; Jesus was angry that they could shut out other human beings." What would the result of that be? Apparently you needed an example, well there you go.

I am going to revert this page back to the sourced material. You have not provided a single legitimate reason to remove or vandalize it. --Shamir1 19:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

CJCurrie has made it clear for me to understand. But on another issue which i want to raise. this section should not get any longer. So what ever edits you and currie r planning keep it in proportion to Desomond Tutu and the 70+ years he has been alived. I think it is offensive to have excessive content around one group of poeple, esp when his work is focused somewhere else, nobody knows him for this. So limit it do not add every opinion and rebuff and retort you can find. state the points and move on. "Desmond tutu has more freedom in SA than a Rabbi would have had in Germany" this nonsense doesnt belong here. or do u think we should add every comment on Tutu we can find?--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 00:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no say on how long the section should be. Each quotation is notable, and as brief as possible. By removing them, you are unfairly compromising the integrity of the article in favor of your own bias. Once again, your opinion. For some reason that all you seem to offer on the table. The fact that *you* "think it is offensive" is entirely irrelevant, and what do you mean "one group of people"? Last time I checked, the Jews were one group of people... This is controversy, this is not about making Tutu look like the best person in the world. Already I just noticed that there is not a single source noted that accuses him of antisemitism. The source provided says no such thing. I removed that. Nor is the accusation that big. The point is stated and we will move on as soon as you stop reverting and vandalizing. It's very funny how you say you are so against reverting and edit wars while you are participating in it yourself and you put all the blame on one side. Oh and that stuff is not "nonsense" (once again, opinion, we're not interested) it comes directly from the source. The only thing is, you dont like it. You cannot remove every basis for offense these people have for your own belief. This will be reverted until a legitimate argument is brought up to remove direct sources. --Shamir1 01:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Undue Weight to a section is a problem

[[WP:NPOV#Undue_weight]] The editors here feel it is long enought, already another editor disputes the balance of it (see above) this section has grown as much as it should be allowed to grow. It is undue weight and vulgarly selfish. I fail to see how a 70+ man who has spent most of his life doing many things could have a section on 2 issues which begin to dominate and exceed the size of all the 70 something years of his life. This is undue weight. And since the content you are adding is negative, i also brings in other concerns. Every man and his dog that speaks in not notiable. So dont add them. Improve the rest of the article. expand the other sections. basically DEVELOP THIS ARTICLE --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 08:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] shamir is it working out for you?

i dont understand y u continue, it will b reverted, use the talk page,--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 03:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I do use the talk page. Halaqah, answer each one of my points individually. And state your problem with each sentence on the article individually. Simply coming here and saying your opinion about how you think it is too long or other nonsense does not cut it. You have to have a valid reason to dispute sourced and relevant information. --Shamir1 01:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)