Talk:Desmond Tutu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Desmond Tutu is currently a good article nominee. Anyone who has not contributed significantly to this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article, as outlined on the nominations page. To start the review process, follow this link to create a dedicated subpage for the review. (If you have already done this, and the template has not changed, try purging this talk page.) Date: 13:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Desmond Tutu article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography     (Rated B-Class) 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] More information about this article... This article has had a peer review by the Biography WikiProject, which has now been archived. The following comments have been left for this page: Too many redlinks, including links for his children? Badbilltucker 15:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC) (edit) WikiProject Anglicanism     (Rated B-Class) Anglicanism Portal 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: WikiProject Law (Rated B-Class) 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 and the subjects encompassed by it. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. Low This article has been assessed as low-importance on the assessment scale. WikiProject Human rights (Rated B-Class) This article is part of WikiProject Human rights, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Human rights on Wikipedia. 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 contribute to the discussion. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. High This article has been rated as high-importance on the assessment scale. WikiProject Africa / South Africa      (Rated B-Class) Africa Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Africa, which collaborates on articles related to Africa in Wikipedia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject South Africa. See also The South Africa Portal. Assessment comments The following comments were left by the assessors: (edit · refresh) Too many redlinks, including links for his children? Badbilltucker 15:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
This article has an assessment summary page.

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.

This article uses British English dialect and spelling. Some terms that are used in it differ from, or are not used in, American English. For more information, see American and British English differences. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

	This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
	This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Additional information: B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. Template:ZZ-Importance This article has been rated as ZZ-Importance on the assessment scale. This article 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. The following comments have been left for this page: Too many redlinks, including links for his children? Badbilltucker 15:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC) (edit)

To-do list for Desmond Tutu:	edit · history · watch · refresh
Here are some tasks you can do: Requests: more images Cleanup: references Expand: criticism Tutu's influence in South Africa Tutu's anti-apartheid activities Tutu's role in combatting HIV/Aids

Archives

/Archive (2006) /Archive (2007)

---

Contents 1 Article's subject matter are out of relative proportion 1.1 I agree 2 Awards? 3 Image copyright problem with Image:Cover Volume I Issue 2.jpg

[edit] Article's subject matter are out of relative proportion

Firtsly let me introduce myself and any bias that may go along with it. I am a South African Anglican (admitedly I attend chruch only a few times a year) that lives not far from Archbishop Desmond Tutu.

I have read the article and the above debate. The problem with the article is not one of neutrality but one of relevance and proportionality

• This is an article about Desmond Tutu. It is not an article about the the Israeli / Palestine conflict
• Apart from his religious duties, Archbishop Desmond Tutu's life was centered about his battle against apartheid. He won the Nobel Peace Prixe for the activism.
• Second to that has been his run-ns with the new SA government
• Only after that has been his comments about Israel.
• Yet the artcile spends more time on homosexuality and Israel and Palestine than it does on his battle against apartheid or his religious duty. It is not relevant that those matters are important to you. What is relevant is what was and is important to the Archbishop.
• It is not relevant whether the comments about Israel are neutral. The article is unbalanced.
• This is an encyclopedia and not a platform for debate. We should be describing the Archbishop and the matters that were closest to his heart. The Palestie Israel debate belongs in another article (except for Desmonds opinion on the matter)

Therefore I propose

• We expand the anti apartheid part of the article
• We expand his debates with the current SA government
• We expand the content on his religious career
• We slightly reduce his comments on homsexuality
• We slightly reduce his comments on the Israel conflict

None of the reduced content needs to be lost. It can get moved to sub-articles

Please let me know what you think. I have not been part of this edit-war so don't paint me with any brush.

The debate and edit war demeans the great man that the Archbishop clearly is.

Ask yourself the question. Does his battle with apartheid describe the man? Or does his comments about Israel or homosexuality describe the man? Please lets get off out soapboxes

--Tiucsib 22:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I agree

This always happens because there are more writers for provokative subjects. What should the new article be named? "Desmond Tutu on the Israel/Palestine conflict". Could it be linked with other such articles? Once this is done the neutrality tag can be removed. Dejo 16:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not good practice to "hide" the badly written or non-neutral material of an article in a sub-article. This article shouldn't be split up so soon. If Tutu's views on Israel isn't an as important topic, it should just be a modest section. —msikma (user, talk) 23:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I have been adding additional information to the other sections under Tutu's political views, however the section on Israel is still out of proportion to the rest - especially if one considers that Tutu has actually spent little time campaigning for Palestine etc. Therefore I'm streamlining the section removing comments such as:

"Marv Davidov, an adjunct professor at the university's Justice and Peace Studies program, was quoted as saying "As a Jew who experienced real anti-Semitism as a child, I'm deeply disturbed that a man like Tutu could be labeled anti-Semitic and silenced like this. I deeply resent the Israeli lobby trying to silence any criticism of its policy. It does a great disservice to Israel and to all Jews."^[1] The school's president, Rev. Dennis Dease, denied that a lobbying effort had been conducted against Tutu, and was quoted as saying, "I was under no pressure from any pro-Israeli groups or individuals, nor did I receive any requests from them to refrain from inviting Archbishop Tutu to speak."^[2]...On October, 10, 2007, Rev. Dease reversed his decision in a letter to students and faculty". I feel that these comments do not add to the article and are unnecessary. --Cazo3788 (talk) 20:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Awards?

What about an awards section in this article - he has received many other awards both in South Africa and nationally than the Nobel Peace Prize. --Cazo3788 (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The awards section shows two entries for the Freedom of the City for Kingston upon Hull in 1989 & 1999 - is this an error as I would have only expected you could receive the Freedom of the City once. Keith D (talk) 00:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Have corrected this - thanks for pointing it out. --Cazo3788 (talk) 13:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for prompt response. Looks like you have been doing a lot of hard work on this article recently. Keith D (talk) 14:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Cover Volume I Issue 2.jpg

The image Image:Cover Volume I Issue 2.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)