Talk:Desmond Tutu/Archive 2

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)
    • I agree; it isn't up to any one person to say "who cares". That info may be useful to some, and a 'trivia' section seems to be a perfect fit. NoFleas 13:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

No, I think the question is about "25." What happened when Tutu was 25? Or does the number signify something else? Does the number signify something for the Palestinians, like some important occurrence in 1925? I believe that's what's relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.55.38.91 (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

"Anglican clergy are members of the OBE". What? My local vicar is certainly not an OBE! 86.132.140.178 (talk) 01:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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.

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.[1] --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)

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)

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)

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: [2]. 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)

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)

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)