User talk:Kendrick7/Archive/0

Andrew Jackson Zilker

Wow, Andrew Jackson Zilker is a heck of a way to make an entrance! Well done. Melchoir 10:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Come to think of it, what is your reference? Melchoir 10:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it's late night for me too. Well, I'll add one of the milder tags to the article asking for sources. No offense, of course! Melchoir 10:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure, it would be great if you could include those sources. In fact, citing an unreliable source is better than than using it without mention. Ultimately, the perfect Wikipedia article would list and refute the most popular myths about Zilker, if any are found; but whether myth or fact, for now it's enough to know where the info comes from. Melchoir 11:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Apartheid

Please stop changing the articles on apartheid. This is a very contentious issue, and is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Central_discussions/Apartheid. In the meantime, both apartheid articles are being kept stable until such time as a resolution is reached. Thank you. — Impi 23:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Local regression

Thanks for doing the merge. Btyner 02:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

SLBN vs. BUV

Sorry about that, I never thought about the IATA code. I work at an airport and we only use the ICAO. Anyway here's what I found. If you go to here and enter BUV into the IATA box it brings up Bella Union, Uruguay. This also shows BUV as Bella Union, Uruguay. Next I tried google with Bolivia and Uruguay. Another releiable source is Falling Rain and all I found there was the town of Bella Union, Uruguay. Most seem to say that BUV is in Uruguay but I can't find the government listing of airports in that country. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Two different people. The first a potato chip salesman going to Cambridge, Ontario and came here. The second going to Victoria, British Columbia and got sent to Victoria Island (Canada). There are IATA codes for towns, railways and airports and there are also duplicates in different countries. The ICAO is better because you can identify the country by the first or first two letters and there are no duplicates worldwide. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Environmental effects - Lebanon

Thanks for your comment. I was referring to size mainly in terms of bytes - while 30kb is no longer an issue, WP:SIZE states that we should try to keep the article as close to 50kb as possible - and it's currently 70kb. Photos aren't actually included in the size of articles, I beleive, only the text and formatting. Hence why size as in brevity is important too - all of the sections, I think, have their own sub articles now, so the only thing that should remain is the summary. Sorry if I deleted info that isn't in the parent article - I assumed the comparison with the Exxon Valdez was already in there, but I didn't check, and I should have. I've no dislike of that particular comment; as you say, it provides a scale with which people can measure the spill, but just in general, that section needs to be shorter. Since there is no sub article for the fires or the depleted uranium, I left those sections in, even though they aren't nearly as important in the oil spill. Anyway, I've explained what I'm trying to do - you've done a great job on that section, so I'll leave it up to you what to do with it. Iorek85 06:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. My mistake - I missed the "readable prose" criteria. I thought the kb list at the middle of the article referred to the total size (excluding pictures), not the readable prose. However, reading some of the discussions (on the size talkpge), length is still somewhat of an issue - History of Russia (I believe the longest featured article we have) is 78kb, only a few more than the Lebanon article. Most of that is text, however, but you can understand a vast topic such as that requiring such a size, but I don't think it can be justified for a one month long conflict. (the 1982 Lebanon War doesn't even register, while World War II is 108kb, and the Vietnam War is 128). However, as you rightly point out, the readable prose isn't a concern - I think the references are the main problem. As for speeds, remember uploads; down here in backwardsland cable and ADSL have a 128kb/256kb upload, and only 2 out of the 8 million or so houses have at least that. Uploading a 78kB article edit will take 5 seconds, and somewhere in the region of 20 on dialup. Sure, its not a big thing, but it can be annoying.

And you've nothing to apologise for. Iorek85 08:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Historical Background in 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

Could you please stop adding the section on the May 2006 ceasefire, and calling it "reverting vandalism"? I have moved (note, not deleted) it into the historical background section where it flows better. The ceasefire itself is not worthy of a larger section; I feel its mention in the historical background is enough. If you disagree, it'd be good if we could take it up on the talkpage. Thanks. Iorek85 23:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Harvard Extension

I got your message on Harvard Extension. It's most unfortunate that that is the case. I think Harvard may be doing a disservice to younger students who get into this program which apparently, consistent with extension programs at most universities, was designed for older superannuated students with special needs not planning on entering the career rat race in the first instance (agricultural classes for local farmers etc. is the classic example from "land grant" universities). In fact previously, the NYT article noted, those of presumptive undergraduate age were specifically barred from the program. Thus I felt the young lady featured in the NYT article who turned down admission at Hopkins to go to Harvard Extension may feel in later years that she made a big mistake, of course she could transfer. The point being why be a second class citizen anywhere or as Caesar supposedly commented in response to a query from an aide while traveling through a small village in the Alps during his march on Rome, he would rather be village chief in that small place than second fiddle in Rome any day. It is good, however, that Harvard is seeking to broaden its role of community service.Tom Cod 17:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Categories

Apologies. It looks like in two years since I last looked into the rule book the formal interpretation has reached a different consensus. Thanks for bringing my attention to it. `'mikka (t) 19:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: WP:BUNCH

Actually, it's pretty common knowledge among people who work with infoboxes. The issue is a known bug with CSS rendering (and only shows up on some browsers, to boot); I don't think there's ever been a Wikipedia-wide consensus on whether we should move templates around (potentially causing gaps to appear on larger screens) or just wait for the bug to be fixed.

The other obvious fix, incidentally—and the reason why this issue doesn't come up so much in practice—is to simply make the lead longer. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 22:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

In any case, I've added a note to the relevant template instructions. Kirill Lokshin 22:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

1982 Lebanon War

Southern Lebanon and Israeli Security Zone are two different things; please look them up. For most of the post-invasion period, Hezbollah controlled much of Southern Lebanon, excluding the Israeli Security Zone, which was controlled by Israel until 2000. (I added the SLA, but it would be difficult to say that they "controlled" the area given their dependence on Israel.) I'm not sure why you keep insisting that Israel controlled southern Lebanon, but, after 1985, it did not. Calbaer 00:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Israel-Lebanon conflict

Good work on the lead, it is better.I still think "relations" is the more appropriate title, but I want to wait and see what other editors have to say about it. Definitely we shouldn't merge into Arab-Israeli conflict.Sanguinalis 00:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

2006 Israel Lebanon conflict Catholics and Maronites

Hello Kendrick, I'm sorry if this sounds rude but you are mistaken about "most Christians in Lebanon are/were Cathloic", although most christians in Lebanon are not Maronites today, they were certainly the majority of christians when lebanon became independent. I think you might be confused due to the fact that today the Maronite church is in full communion with the Catholic church, so they are technically unified. However, to actually refer to Maronites as Catholic really is misleading since they actually have entirely different histories. In fact, the Maronite church is more similar to the eastern rite churches than to the Catholic church. Although this is not my area of expertise (in fact I am not even christian) I do however happen to know quite a bit on this subject. I will be changing the passage back in the article, if you would like to discuss it more please leave me a message on my talk page.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Ninjas can beat pirates any day of the week!

What do you mean by lumping them in with protestants?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I never really understood why people tend to consider "Christian" as a reference to "protestant" as opposed to "Catholic", but I really wouldn't have any problem with refering to them as Maronite Catholic as long as part of the name does not link to Roman Catholic. I understand that technically they are considered part of the same church as the Roman Catholics, but still they are more of an eastern church that actually has more in common with the eastern orthodox than with western churches (least of all the protestants), the fact that they agreed to be in full communion with Rome is really quite unique but it doesn't change how different their traditions are. I figured that all of this is quite a tangent from the actual intention of your edits to that article, so I apoligize.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Shabtai Shavit quote

Considering that the whole Hersh claim is roundly denied by both sides, that quotation seems grossly out of context. Also, I'm not sure why you reverted my changes to the intro, as I merely copied the changes, at least some of which you seem to have agreed to, on the identical section at 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. Let me know... Tewfik^Talk 16:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Lead to Israel-Lebanon conflict

Woops then - I'll have another go

. I just meant to include the changes that you (and subsequently I) made to the paragraph at the main article. Let me know what you think. Tewfik^Talk 16:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we agree then? Again, my edit/suggestion was that we be more specific, and thus not give an opportunity for the types of issues you mentioned to gain hold. Tewfik^Talk 16:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I must disagree - the 1948 founding of Israel and the 1967 war are only indirectly relevant. The Lebanese Civil War article makes it clear that the precipitating factor is the expulsion from Jordan of Palestinians, especially of the PLO. Including the references to the wars will only cloud the issues and make it easier for people to come away with the ideas you mentioned as wanting to avoid. Tewfik^Talk 18:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand you. If you agree that the indirectly responsible details shouldn't be included, then why talk about the founding of Israel? All I am saying is that because the Lebanese Civil war was not directly caused by the founding of Israel, or the 1967 war, those details should not be included, but rather only the direct cause - the Black September (as in my earlier edit). The avoiding I was referring to was your "immediate implication" comment on my Talk. Let me know, Tewfik^Talk 19:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't dispute that those may be factors, but they are not the direct cause. Again, the article about the Civil War points to the Black September as the immediate cause, whatever the factors that may have led up to Black September. Tewfik^Talk 20:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The LNM's calls don't really prove anything one way or another, as there was internal discord and a demographic question since Lebanon's founding. The Civil War article stresses in three separate places that the post Black September events were key, despite the 1969 Cairo agreement being the PLO's formal beachhead. Again, the events of 1948 and 1967 may certainly have provided a backdrop for the Black September, but the most direct cause of destabilisation vis-a-vis the Palestinians is the post Black September expulsion. I'm really not sure why you feel we must document all of the steps leading up to the Black September, as it seems that those details both reduce clarity and open the door to nonneutrality. Let me know, Tewfik^Talk 21:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I assure you the feeling is mutual

. I'm not saying that Black September is the cause of the Civil War. I am saying that when you analyse the factors leading up to the events, the Black September results were far more directly tied to the Civil War than the 1948 or 1967 wars. Did those two wars play a role? Yes, but in a far more indirect manner. There were some Palestinians in Lebanon before Black September, and there was even the Cairo agreement in 1969, but the instability was far more affected by the post Black September arrival of far more Palestinians, and a whole lot of PLO. Listing the '48 & '67 wars alongside it both cloud the issue, as even the WP article on the Civil War makes it clear that the Black September (3 times) was a turning point, while it makes almost no reference to the previous two wars. Based on your comments it doesn't seem like you dispute that the two wars are far less important than the Black September in this context, which is why I am puzzled by your insistence that they all be mentioned. I suppose I have probably just misunderstood you - of course if you do believe that the two wars are just as directly tied to the Civil war as the Jordanian expulsion, I would be interested to see why, because that is not apparent to me... Tewfik^Talk 22:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the demographic data is really very relevant, though I'll take a look later. All I am pointing out is that whatever the results of '48 and '67, they were only indirectly factors in the Civil war, while Black September is a direct catalyst. I'm not discounting that they are part of the chain of events, but they are not regarded with anywhere near the same importance as the expulsion in the later instability. Tewfik^Talk 23:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort to compromise by only discussing '48, but I still don't think that that is supported by what happened. I'm not sure on what basis you argue that the events of '48 were directly relevant. Please clarify, as the current formulation, as neutral as it may be, seems misleading. Tewfik^Talk 18:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I am replying on the Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. Tewfik^Talk 07:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Afghan death penalty for apostacy

Sorry, but I'm not sure what you're talking about. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

soliciting help on neofacism article

Greetings

i'm just sheer outnumbered at the neofascism page. I have a perfectly innocent comment by Professor Juan Cole that keeps constantly getting reverted by Isarig for one and others. At one time a compromise formulation had been reached and isarig came in and reverted it. I stick it back in when I get a chance. It stays there a couple of hours before it's deleted. Here it is:

• The Likud members of Israel that protested that abadonment of the Gaza settlements according to Juan Cole, a professor who specializes in Middle Eastern studies, meet several factors he has identified as fascist. 1) Radical nationalism. 2) Militarism and aggressiveness. 3) Racism. 4) Favoring the wealthy, punishing the poor. (He maintains "in all the territory dominated by Israel, the poorest subjects are the Palestinians, who have been made poor by Israeli policies.") 5) Dictatorship. (He maintains " they have long favored Israeli military rule, which is to say, dictatorship, over the Palestinian population.)[1][2]

Best Wishes Will314159 04:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Citation needed

You're right, I was trying to source its relevance as a cause of the destabilisation. I'll take up your offer to meet on Talk. Tewfik^Talk 22:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Israel-Lebanon

My profuse apologies! I didn't realise. I see what happened - I lumped the 110,000 post 1948 and 300 post-1973 together, as the distinction didn't mean much at the time. (Still, I think it should be 300,000 total, not 110,000 + 300,000, like I put.) Sorry again. Iorek85 09:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Confused

I'm extremely confused by your latest edits - would you mind replying on Talk:Israel-Lebanon conflict? Tewfik^Talk 17:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I have replied on Talk:Israel-Lebanon conflict. Tewfik^Talk 18:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Left you some sources

...over at Talk:Israel-Lebanon conflict, which you might find useful. Kosmopolis (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Background to 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

I am not sure what you find innacurate. You say 'Israel was attacking Lebanese villiages as early as 1968' which is consistent with what I wrote. Without even getting into the issue of Fisk's reliability as a source on this conflict, your rewrite created a clear image of Israel being somehow at fault, having 'a history of using force', etc... I have toned that down.Isarig 05:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Your changes have been reverted

Kendrick7, someone mass-reverted the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict article to a 14 h old version by Tewfik, discarding changes made by you, me, Dianelos, Shamir1, Iorek85, Isarig, and Nielswik. Today, I have put a lot of effort into making this article better, and I ask for your help in retaining your changes and mine and all of the other ones. Please have a look at the history and the talk page and rescue my latest version. There are lots and lots of changes in there which are not content-based, but fixes etc.. Please take a look at talk and at the diffs. The last sane version is this one: [3] Jayjg has blocked me again, because I have let them drive me into 3RR. Thanks. Kosmopolis (talk) 19:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, you're right, probably I've been taking things much too serious. It's easy to become deeply absorbed in all this, so thanks for the wake-up call :-) Kosmopolis (talk) 19:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Attritious?

The "attritious" combat refers to until 2000, not after 2000, though it should be clear enough. When I initially looked it up I also found that it wasn't listed as a word, but Webster's provides the specialty meaning "ATTRITIOUS WEAR," which seems to mean that the conjugation I used isn't incorrect, if not necessarily accepted. Feel free to change it, though I thought about it for a while and couldn't come up with something. Tewfik^Talk 15:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct that there wasn't a militarily significant loss (a few soldiers every year), but those "minimal" losses were nonetheless focused on which lead to Ehud Barak's [pledge] (and major policy shift) to withdraw unilaterally from Lebanon. Perhaps there is a better way to characterise this? Tewfik^Talk 19:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Whoa! You've totally chopped off all the context. We will need to resolve the inclusion of Palestinian refugees in any event for the Israel-Lebanon conflict - removing this much detail seems extremely unwise. Tewfik^Talk 07:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I've provided a response to my understanding of your reasoning regarding inclusion of the 1948-9 Palestinian refugees, and your subsequent changes to the lead (which left me completely baffled as to your intentions) on Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. Please be so kind as to leave a clear response regarding why you've taken the action you have, and what outcome you'd like to see. Tewfik^Talk 04:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Counterpunch

Counterpunch is an extermist partisan source. Check out [4], and note the section which says "editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views, like Stormfront.org, Al-Qaeda, or the British Socialist Workers Party." You will find that the agenda of Counterpunch runs pretty much along the lines of the British Socialist Workers Party, only it is more extreme.Isarig 01:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I've expalined to you, with references, why CP is not a WP:RS. For someone who, by his own admission, did not even know what CP is until about an hour ago, you've certainly got a cocky attitude. CP is a partisan, extreme left source. It defends well known anti-Semites that even other far left oultlets have distanced themselves from. It would be one thing if it actually added anything to the article, but it doesn't - the content is fully sourced to the UNIFIL article. Please stop your disruptions. Isarig 04:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

FISK support?

you gave me a link to his book but not to the page where he says that. the page says the prior statement, not this I believe. Amoruso 01:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

well your link doesn't show it, you must have given me the wrong link. I can't find the page- [5] but if you say so. Thanks. Amoruso 01:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't remember him ever saying this kind of wording (read it), and it seemed a copy paste of the previous reference. TBH, i'm still not sure and I don't know what I'm looking at with the link you provided. Amoruso 07:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Amoruso 08:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

sorry i thought your insertions were POV (reacting too quickly) and then I saw they didn't, I should have assumed WP:AGF. Thanks. Please don't remove the Samir quntar reference though. Amoruso 01:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Please vote

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2006/October/16. It seems that some people want to remove any reference to Palestine. Hossein.ir 12:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Latin translation

Well done! That was way out of my league . -- Avi 04:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Troll nutrition

Was that thought in relation to anything in particular, or just some generalised and doubtless kindly advice? Alai 15:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Tony Snow

You know, I did think about the issue of neutrality before uploading that image, but really I think the concern cuts both ways. There are probably people who think that Snow hitting his head into the microphones reflects badly on him, but really equally many who were just as frustrated with question he was being asked. The point of the image is to illustrate the tension between the administration and the media on the Baker Report, which is not a matter of opinion. I won't press the issue if you think the image is biased, but I thought it was illustrative. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 18:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I know what you mean. I don't really have the time to write such a section at the moment though. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 18:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Smart to compliement SV on her improvements to the writing

In hopes of maintaining peace it would be good to compliment SV where you can. Because even though some of the things she did were not improvements some of it was. I say this with experience. --Ben 17:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking that. I have run into SlimVirgin a few times out here, and she's never done wrong by me. -- Kendrick7 17:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's let the article calm down

Seriously, we should let the article calm down or things are just going to get out of control. What needs to happen is patience so that any misunderstandings about the current state can be worked on out the talk page. There still is one major misunderstanding that is continuing and that is leading Jayjg and SlimVirgin to revert erroneously. Let's work this out on the talk page over the next day or two before we complicate it with other issues. Slow and steady tortoise rather than the rapid hare is the way to go here. --Ben 21:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You've just witnessed what I was expecting to happen. It's sort of funny really, since it was so extreme and obvious. Oh well, another day at crazy place that is Wikipedia. --Ben 23:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Need help

Hi Kendrick, i've added al-manar report to 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict but Isarig keeps reverting as usual. Would appreciate your help Nielswik_(talk) 04:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Al Manar

Please review WP:RS and realize that Al Manar does not meet the criteria. If another source prints the same thing 4 hours later - quote that source. Isarig 04:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Why do you continue to play this game? WP:RS clearly says "Widely acknowledged extremist or even terrorist organizations or individuals, whether of a political, religious, racist, or other character, should never be used as sources for Wikipedia". We've been through this before. Al Manar is an extremeist, self-professed propaganda organ, banned in the North America and Europe as a terrorist organization that promotes racial hatered. Why do you insisit on using such a source in our encyclopedia? If it is true that "you can't fake a sonic boom" - a WP:RS will surely report it, amd we can cite that source. Isarig 04:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I concur on this point Kendrick. That an RS agrees with an al Manar report does not mean that it is now an RS, nor that we should use it as a reference in anticipation of an RS's validation. Tewfik^Talk 05:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Injury timeout

Yikes, I'm really sorry to hear you're injured. I've been there too with tendinitis. You need your rest, so I'm going to try to not do anything on AoIA that would make you want to respond in the next week or so. Take care, Kla'quot 06:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

research sources for AoIA article

You probably missed the earlier work collecting together this: Talk:Israeli_apartheid/RS. --Deodar 20:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Warning

There is a chance that SlimVirgin and others may just say that your efforts on the sandbox are meaningless if their views are not represented and thus just throw away all that work. The more you work on it alone and the less they feel their views are represented the greater this chance. I say this for a few reasons, one of which is I don't want you to waste your time fruitlessly. The more you engage others to contribute the more likely it is to be accepted. --Deodar 23:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I encourage you to engage with SlimVirgin in moving forward. That might be the best way to go forward towards finding a lasting solution. --Deodar 23:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd second that, Kendrick7. I like some of the edits you're trying in the sandbox (I can't see how any non-blinded editor on either side of the issue could object to moving that almost-unreadable laundry list down towards the cellar of the article), but I also share Deodar's concerns about getting others to "buy in". He had asked me if I wanted to start working in the sandbox, but I told him that although it seemed like a good idea I haven't to date made any edits to the article itself and thought it would be best to wait and see if some of the previously-involved editors chose to work this way first. I do have some ideas about improvement for the article which I've mentioned to Deodar and a couple of others, but more important than my input is the consensus-building process with folks who have been active recently. To this end, it seems to me (after spending some time studying the article and some of its recent history) that Deodar's suggestion is spot on. If you and SlimVirgin can find some common ground on a couple of the contentious areas, it would go a long way towards creating a "critical mass of credibility" that could help stabilize the entire discussion. Dasondas 00:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I just took another look, and you've done a lot of good work over there. I hope SV decides to respond to your request. If you don't feel like you're getting traction with the other editors on this after some more time passes, let me know and I may jump in more actively. I'd just be one more voice, and I don't agree with everything you've done and would have changes of my own I'd want to make, but putting your sandbox version up against the current locked version I don't think leaves any doubt but that you've improved things quite a bit. Just my opinion. Dasondas 08:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: your note, thanks for asking. I'll take a shot at the sandbox. Kla'quot 06:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting mention of whether any of the comparisons are effective...

...in creating change. I noticed you added this to the article. There is a lot of debate whether any of the public efforts had much effect in ending South African apartheid in the first place as well -- some say that all the boycotts and other efforts had no effect until the US itself imposed severe sanctions and then and only then did SA apartheid end so quickly. I recently and very quickly wrote these two articles that expand on the comparison in a different dimension: Academic boycotts of South Africa and Academic boycotts of Israel. --Deodar 05:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The articles are written in a strange style but I find that that my heavy reliance on citations, a way of speaking in the words of others, is a way of deflecting criticism with regards to WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NOR and so forth. --Deodar 05:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

If I contribute too much, it is likely that the result will be an increase in tensions that would be overall counter productive. I would throw the ball back into the court for others to play with and see what they do. --Deodar 06:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Its probably best to leave others to comment on the talk page or contribute to the sandbox article for a while. Sometimes being always around with an opinion can work against you because it gets others into a reactionary mode. --Deodar 06:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Tourist apartheid

It's a direct comparison:

They rubbed their chins, a common reference to the bearded Castro, and ran a finger across their throats: They are waiting for Castro to die... The cousin and his friends talked about the places they cannot go, the hotels and beaches, the discos that now require dollars. "It's like South Africa," the cousin's friend said. "It's apartheid," the cousin said.

Jayjg ^(talk) 22:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)