Talk:Flemming Rose

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Contents

[edit] weasel words

At least pretend to be neutral. This article is plagued with weasel words, original research and is simply a hit piece. We can do better. Kyaa the Catlord 17:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, the weasel words are gone for the most part. Now if someone could find some sources for this would be much better. Kyaa the Catlord 17:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is Flemming Rose's Racial Background?

Does anyone know Flemming Rose's racial background? He seems connected with Russia, but his name implies he maybe of Hungarian or Jewish origin? Druidictus 21:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

His racial background: Dutch. What country his ancestors came from is of little relevancy other than fodder for smearing.

Racial background?? Human being, nomatter what you may think about him! I believe it would be more relevant to state his shoe size Bertilvidet 15:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Racial background sometimes does matter as some races do have the powr to diskay more wickedness.Anyway,Drudictus is right,he is certainly of Jewish origin but in my opinion ,e is a Rusiian jew with cross breeding to give him white looks...just like in case of Roman Abramovich...also a jew... --Yahoo 12:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Ayatollah Komeini was also part Jew, what does that tell?

[edit] Pipes Article

The fact that Pipes has Rose's article on his website doesn't mean it's "generally positive". It could well be because of Pipes’s ego (my opinion, not fact). While the article isn’t negative, that doesn’t make it positive by default. Pipes might just feel important by seeing his name and ideology written up by Rose. Also, I feel strongly that we can’t have it listed that Rose went to the USA “to visit” Pipes. The word visit implies more friendliness than journalism. It also gives the impression that seeing Pipes was Rose’s primary reason for traveling –which I can't imagine that you can say for sure (particularly as Rose was there during an election year in the USA).

Yeah, that strikes me as original research. I believe this article was started in an effort to smear Flemming Rose, although most of the vitriol has been subsequently removed. Its main problem is the lack of sourcing and stubby nature now. Kyaa the Catlord 07:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Kyaa, you are commenting on an anonymous user's opinion who can't handle the fact that Rose visited Pipes in the US and wrote a positive article about Daniel Pipes which you conveniently deleted. That was an article about Islam which shed light on the subsequent Cartoon controversy. Kembali 11 February 2006 (GMT+8)
I think the Pipes article should be mentioned in the WP Flemming Rose article. There is currently much being made in some circles about a Pipes-Rose connection in regard with the cartoon thingie, but from what I've been able to find out (which is not much) and from my general knowledge of how such journalism is being made, this "connection" is about as close as Rose's link "association" with Yeltsin, which is not very much at all - Rose seems just to have played his connections from his correspondent time and, no stranger to causing controversy, may have decided to publish Pipes' rather uncompromising view of Islam. The article itself is rather nondescript, the only thing that can safely said is that rose does not openly question Pipes' views (but he is not openly appreciative either). FWIW, the fact that there is a currently ongoing controversy about the relationship between Rose and Pipes and some make much of it would justify a brief discussion of the topic in this WP article, if only to counter some myths that are now being spread (i.e. that Rose is a, quote, "close confederate", unquote, of Pipes, which simply seems to be very untrue. Thinking Pipes has a point worth making, yes; always willing to stir up controversy, definitely; in appreciation of Pipes' views, maybe so, but a buddy? Not borne out by fact.
(Why is it always the usual suspects? As a game of mind, consider this: Yeltsin was extremely anti-islamist, possibly anti-Islam in general - think "Chechnya" and you have it. Why make much of a Rose-Pipes connection, and not mention the equally plausible Rose-Yeltsin link at all. But the physical link between Rose and Pipes was of the same degree as that between Rose and Yeltsin. This uncreative finger-pointing bores me. There are conflicts between radical brands of Islam and other people, but those "other people" are all sorts of folks, from all sorts of coutries and of all sorts of religions, including Islam. That one frequently encounters views in which it is unspokenly assumed that there is only one major antipathy in the world, namely that between certain Muslims and certain WASP/Jewish-American neocons, is uncreative to say the least. This antipathy definitely exists, but it is neither the only one nor all that important.
Or, to turn it the ther way: al-Jazeera featured Pipes. Does that mean that al-Jazeera is his ideological henchman?) -- Dysmorodrepanis 00:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC

Picked this from a discussion site from the Danish Association of Journalists.

Needs verification!

According to an article by Anne M. Sørensen in the competing newpaper Politiken (both newspapers are owned by the same holding company, but have competing editorial stances, and have different board of trustees)

The Politiken article was transcribed by user Jens Yde 09. Februar 15:53:

Headline:

"Mr. Rose - made of the fabric that will start wars."

Excerpts:

"He is arrogant and hysterical. Definetely not a nice collegue. If he pretends to defend freedom of speech it is pure hypocricy. As [cultural] editor he does not allow even the smallest amount of criticism or debate."

"His anti- and sympathies are extremely strong. He forms an opinion in a relatively quick fashion, and he will stand by it no matter what. He NEVER regrets. No matter if is has to do with personal, political or social matters."

"He does not know anything about the fine arts, theatre or the movies, and nor does it interest him. He did not even know what ordrupgaard was"

"In addition he is a fanatical tee-totaler."

"Flemming Rose does not regret one moment. On the contary he would do the same again."

Then follows some analysis of the network Flemming Rose is involved in with various people in Denmark.

Link:

http://www.journalistforbundet.dk/sw4657.asp?&gbCmd=showThread&pID=BFF7E470432C2932C12570CC007115B0&gbStart=1&gbnull=y#GB2

86.52.36.140 21:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Threat of Islamism external link

Kembali apparently seems to believe that this link seems to be a vital external link about Rose. It is one of 10.000 other articles by him. He is a journalist, thus he writes articles!! This particle article has not one bit to do about Rose, in fact there is nothing in it about Rose. I believe Kembali thinks this shows how Rose is some kind of racist against Muslims. Now I’m will not be the judge about Rose’s political stance, in fact I don’t even care, but this page is about Rose, not some person he has written about, who happens to have some views about Islam. Just to demonstrate how irrelevant this link is, here is 5 other links to articles written by Rose on 5 other subjects.

  • [1] here he writes about Russian propaganda about Chechnya, and Danish media not questing it.
  • [2] here he writes about Danish foreign policy toward Russia.
  • [3] here he writes about Lego Mind Storm in Russian.
  • [4] Here he writes about Siberian.
  • [5] Here he writes about Dmitrij Rjurikov, the new Russian ambassador in Denmark.

So unless somebody demonstrates why this particle article written by Rose, is of vital importance to a page about Rose, I will continue to remove the link. Twthmoses 06:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Twthmoses, many journalist can write about Daniel Pipes but his view of Pipes is so positive that Pipes actually put it up on his (Pipes) website. Pipes is fanatically hostile to Islam, Arabs, and anyone who opposes his extreme Israeli nationalism ideas, something Rose conveniently omit in the "journalistic" interview. BTW... I will put it back as quickly as you can delete it. Kembali 12 February 2006 (GMT+8)
I disagree. The article isn't positive in it self, however the method he has chosen to use in this interview, was to ask a few question and then let Pipes talk. He did not challenge Pipes opinions in anyway, that is correct and he (Rose) didn't give any other informations, except what Pipes choose to tell him.
If you take a look at the interview that he (Flemming Rose) did at the same time (Interview: Askar Ajtmatov 18 oktober 2004 and Interview: Madeleine Albright 29 august 2004 ...) then you'll see that he interviewed those persons in the exact same way. Rose asks them a few question, then let them talk without challenging, and he didn't give any other information except the informations that the interviewed person volenteered. (I am not saying that Mr. Rose doesn't have the same opionions as Mr. Pipes, I am just saying that you can not draw that conclusion based on that article) Hekatombe 19:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


This article is very relevant since it encapsulates the excellent reasons for publishing the cartoons. The article is a very good defense of the reasons why we should be cautious about non-western world views and is very relevant. (by anonymous 60.228.43.92)

No its not. It is one of many other articles written by Rose. Rose has example written about Lego Mindstorms, should I therefore deduct that Rose has an issue with Lego?
Find a reliable source that speaks about Rose’s political stance. Until that happens, and it does not matter whether he a fanatical racist or Buddha monk, all insertions are purely speculative and thus not suited for Wiki. Twthmoses 08:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed another Rose political stance text

Removed another piece of unverifiable information.

Rose is politically very forward thinking and is known to be supportive of Daniel Pipes, a highly respected American conservative thinker and philosopher. He has written an insightful article about Pipe's innovative views on the impact of Islam on western civilisation. Always interested in learning from primary sources, Rose travelled to Philadelphia US in October 2004 at his own expense and spent time with Daniel Pipes to better understand his political philosophy.

It is as simple as this; Source it!

Rose visited Daniel Pipes October 25, 2004, and conducted a standard interview and the article out of the interview was published on October 29, 2004 in Jylland-posten. The article is neither positive nor negative of Pipes, it simply reports what Pipes reported to him. In case anybody is in doubt, this is what a journalists do! making interviews and write articles. It you got something to add about Rose’s political stance, then source it. This is not a place for conspiracy thinking, wish for thinking, “I think”, and ”I believe” etc..

The other Rose’s bio data can be confirmed here [6] Twthmoses 09:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Twthmoses, it is you who makes too many assumptions. If you disagree on the above paragraph, please provide your alternative version of events that is less presumptious. Kembali 12 February 2006 (GMT+8)
I make no assumptions what so ever. This is an encyclopaedia and its not based on negative proof e.g. I have to disprove your un-sourced version. This in based on facts (or as close as we can get to it), so unless you have a reliable source that speaks of the political stance of Flemming Rose, there is nothing to include. Until a source is found, I will continue to delete these unverifiable insertions. Twthmoses 12:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship and Vandalism byUser:Twthmoses

You need to grow up and realise that others do not necessarily share your viewpoint of the world and that you cannot impose your views on other contributors.

Several people have posted relevant material about an anti-Islamist article by Flemming Rose, along with references and links. Deleting that to present a whitewashed view of Flemming is the worst kind of though-control, censorship and vandalism. Yes, we realise that you are Danish, but try to adopt a modicum of objectivity. 60.225.187.87 09:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm nobody is whitewashing anything. I ask you to source your insertions, so source it - should not be difficult at all, since you must have gotten it from somewhere. Source me this;
  • Ukrainian descent.
  • 49 year old Rose was born on 14 March 1956 into a Jewish family in the Ukraine
  • He has an active interest in meditation and practices it regularly
  • Inspired partly by the well known American conservative thinker Daniel Pipes, Rose has long had concerns about the impact of incompatible world views on Western liberal society.
Should be easy since you have included it, right?
The page is now littered with weasel words, irrelevant information and major POV, that is designed to show that Rose is a racist. And here is where we differ. I don’t care if he is a racist or not. If it can be sourced by all means include it, racist or not. There is a long comment on this page that is extracts from the Daniel Pipes interview (e.g. its Pipes ideas), which are now used to pass off that Rose has some kind of issue with Muslims. What is this? He made an interview and everything in the article is Pipes. The interview has nothing to do with Rose and is most certainly not neither relevant nor say anything about Rose’s political stance. Since you seem to know so much about Rose’s political stance give me a source that speaks about it and not a irrelevant pipes interview, that is all about Pipes and not at all about Rose. What you think this interview shows (one of a 1000 others) is irrelevant to Wiki, cause that is POV. Twthmoses 10:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

[edit] Twthmoses: if not Ukraine, where was Flemming rose born?

Twthmoses: I began updating entries on wikipedia yesterday. you keep removing references to Flemming Rose’s Jewish roots and to his place of birth – the Ukraine. My question to you is why? Flemming Rose’s Jewish roots is vital information in light of the fact that he came to the united states to meet with one of the most arab-hating Neocons by the name of Daniel Pipes. Please also notice that I do not remove anyone’s entries on wikipedia, I only add mine. Why must you resort to removing entries? Why can’t you add your own? Go ahead and tell us where Flemming Rose was born.

Who makes you the lord to decide which articles stand and which ones are removed? what makes you think that a newsweek article is more truthful than one by many of the great bloggers, one being www.kurtnimmo.com? Ronam

`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

Unbelievable. This is getting ridiculous now. I don’t even want to answer this anymore (already done so several times on this page). Yes I know it you Catstail and your cohorts of ips; there are no way new users and new anonymous IPs come to wiki and as their very first task jump on to this page and follower your trip. We need administrators to come and hopefully block this page from anonymous IPs and new user ability to edit.
Short, even though I now know it is pointless to argue with you, I do not know his family background, thus I do not writing anything… do you understand that? You claim his this and that, so I ask you to source it, you seemly can’t, which makes your insertion pointless to wiki and in fact it is policy to active delete unverifiable thing. Anything that cannot be sourced has no place on wiki, this is fundamental wiki stuff. So there is no chance this is gonna stay unless you source it. Btw nice of you to sign with Ronam …heheh Twthmoses 17:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Catstail, User:Kembali and anonymous ips

Will you please be reasonable? This is not an encyclopaedia for conspiracy theories, “I think”, and ”I believe”. Anything you can source so others can check it is valid to include. The insertions you have made the last few days are unverifiable. Source it so others or I can check it. You must have it from somewhere if it is true, right? So source it. Where does all that Ukrainian and Jewish family descendent come from?

Also understand there is a difference between Works, External links and Source / References so you cannot just leap everything in under References. Works are things the man has done. External links are something like further reading and Source / References are sources used to draw from to make the page in the first place.

And Catstail stop moving around the talk page entries, what is the point? You are splitting up comments by users and that is vandalism. Add a new entry if you got something to say. How difficult can it be? So please be reasonable and lets try and work this out, shall we? Twthmoses 08:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] added by anon to article; not sure if it's worth anything

[edit] Christopher Bollyn (internet conspriracy theorist) on Flemming Rose

- - The following comments are taken from an email sent to Prof. Mikael Rothstein of the University of Copenhagen and Flemming Rose, the editor of Jyllands Posten who commissioned the anti-Muslim cartoons. In this letter I strongly urge that Denmark, and those responsible like Rose, immediately issue a formal and complete apology to the Muslims of the world. - - Thank you for your note. I am an American journalist who has lived in the Middle East for years and have a degree in History with emphasis on the Middle East. Having lived among Muslims, I have a good understanding of their religious values. This is why I responded so quickly when I became aware of these cartoons that Flemming Rose had commissioned and then published. - - About, Flemming Rose, allow me to clarify my line of questioning a bit. My question of Flemming Rose's religious persuasion is not the point. The real issue is where does his loyalty lie? - - The anti-Muslim cartoon scandal is clearly turning out to be a key event in the Zionist Neo-Cons' "clash of civilizations," the artificially constructed struggle to pit the so-called Christian West against the Islamic states and peoples. - - We know that Flemming Rose is a colleague and fellow of the Zionist Neo-Con Daniel Pipes. He has visited Pipes in Philadelphia and written a friendly biographical article which is featured on Daniel Pipes Danish website. - - As you know, Pipes is a radical Zionist of the most extreme sort - a hard-line Jabotinsky sort of Zionist. You know, the Iron Fist-Iron Brain, kind of Zionist - the kind that considers Ariel Sharon to be soft on the Palestinians. - - We know that there are radical Zionists among Danish Christians as there are millions of Christian Zionists in the USA. The real question is what does Flemming Rose believe? - - Is he a Christian Zionist who is leading a kind of Danish crusade against Islam? - - Is he an atheist who does not care about or respect the beliefs of Muslims? - - ...or, is he a closet Jew who denies his Jewish roots and waves his Danish citizenship while waging a poorly-disguised Zionist campaign against Muslims and Arabs? - - Because of Rose's close connection with Daniel Pipes, his position as "cultural editor" and his physical appearance, I suspect the latter is the case. I think Rose is a Zionist agent who has created this scandal for a strategic purpose. - - Rose should be arrested and interrogated for his actions in creating hatred and hostility against people of another religious group. Why is his crime against an entire people not considered a crime in Denmark? - - If holocaust skeptics are arrested and held in jail for raising questions about the holocaust, why is Rose allowed to wage media terror and offend millions of Muslims with impunity? - - I think this scandal has actually been created and is being manipulated by a hidden hand in order to foment racial and religious hatred in Denmark and across Europe and the Middle East. Why else would the Danish government not do the sensible thing and issue a formal apology? - - You do realize that the crisis will continue and deepen until the Queen or the Prime Minister issue a formal and heartfelt apology, don't you? This could become a religious and civil war between Europeans and Muslims. Europe has had a few such wars in the past. - - How much does Denmark want to lose before it does the only proper and sensible thing and issue an apology? Do they want Denmark and Europe to suffer more? - - Muslims imams are now calling for the heads of Flemming Rose and those responsible for the cartoons. He should immediately issue a sincere and public apology to the Muslim people. If he does not do so, I fear his life will be in danger. - - Furthermore, if he continues to refuse to apologize, it only proves that his effort, which has lead to such hostility, was intentional all the way. If that is the case, he should be arrested and put in prison because he has been directly responsible for the insult he has caused millions of Muslims and the consequent damage he has caused to Denmark and the Danish people. - - The damage to Denmark's image, prestige and economy is likely to be severe and long-lasting. Danish lives are clearly in danger. - - As a religious scholar of high standing, Mr. Rothstein, you and other concerned citizens should urge the Queen of Denmark and Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen to issue an apology as soon as possible. Otherwise the crisis will only get worse and the relationship between Denmark and the Islamic world will never be repaired. Who could possibly want such an outcome? - - Muslims have a strict code of honor and Denmark has committed a grave insult and affront against Islam - therefore, there is only one way out and that is to issue a sincere apology and ask for forgiveness - and then pray and work for peace. - - Christopher Bollyn --Spangineer (háblame) 01:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


            • Christopher Bollyn?! You have to be kidding me. Please, look into your sources. Mr. Bollyn is best known as the psuedo-journalist who has been hammering away for years on the internet about how Israel was behind 9-11 (http://www.911wasalie.com/phpwebsite/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=45) and how the USA is controlled by Mossad (Israel's secret service). The guy has NO creibility. It would be like someone quoting the crazy guy who drinks in front of the local convenience store as a source about how the moon landing was really staged by Willy Wonka (so far unvertified). Or, even more direct, it would be like someone quoting the KKK (hate group) on black culture.

I can't help but get more and more frustrated by this page. I'm as idealistic as anyone you'll meet but, by golly, wiki has its hands full with some of the hate that gets posted. The Jews did not plan 9-11; the Jews are not behind these offensive cartoons; and, no, the Jews are not why you are losing your hair. I'm not saying that I am a Zionist; but come on, folks: Let's leave the Jews out of this for once.

[edit] Incorrect information and Disruptive Insertions

Having looked over all insertions by Catstail and all his puppets accounts and anonymous Ips, and that Catstail has repeatedly been asked to source them; I have come to the conclusion that, Catstail does not have them, Catstail may actually be trying to build a source here on Wiki and Catstail is obsessed with a Pipes-Jew-Rose connection, which by the shire nil that is available is close to original research.

This is the source Catstail has given for “born 3/14/1956 into a Jewish family in the Ukraine”. Like me when finish reading this link you will probably be like one big huh? Not only is this like a forum, but there is also nothing about Rose in there. But if you look really hard though the archives you will find a comment to a February 11, 2006 entry, by a certain David Allen, who writes this;

Flemming Rose born 3/14/1956 into a Jewish family in the Ukraine has a major in Russian language and literature from University of Copenhagen. From 1990 to 1996 he was the Moscow correspondent for the newspaper Berlingske Tidende. Between 1996 and 1999 he was the correspondent for the same newspaper in Washington, D.C.. In 1999 he became Moscow correspondent for the newspaper Jyllands-Posten and January 2005 the cultural editor of that paper (KulturWeekend). He fled Denmark where he was under police protection to Miami, Florida in fear for his life where he is currently in hiding.

This looks suspiciously familiarly, and that is because this is a mirror of Revision 14:01, 10 February 2006 of this page! Nice try of circular logic. Which again leaves us with, source me this “born 3/14/1956 into a Jewish family in the Ukraine” (also note that 3/14/1956 is original inserted as 3/14/1960)

Given that for seven day you have been asked to source your insertions and seemly are unable to, I can only assume you are deliberately trying to falsify the page with something you have no factual knowledge or source about. I cannot see this as a good-faith effort to improve the encyclopaedia, thus I have filed a vandalism in progress. I have also put a {{{verror2}}} on your talk page. Twthmoses 08:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Just saw you filed vandalism in progress against me vandalising this page. Now that is comedy :) You got a sense of humour I grant you that. Hopefully that will bring more users to this page and some 3rd party opinions. Twthmoses 12:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flemming Roses age?

What is the source to the statement, that he was born in 1956?

According to the Danish newspapers "Information" (February 11. 2006) and "Politiken" (February 9. 2006) he is 47 year old not 49 years old. Hekatombe 06:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It is based on this (JP explorer) where he is listed as 43 year in 1999. I can truly say I don’t know for sure, and cannot find a 2nd source to confirm it. I’m all for removing it if we are in doubt. Catstail (talk • contribs) and all his cohorts acounts seem to know a great deal about this man, even birthday, but dispite being asked for 8 days now, he has still to give a source for anything. Twthmoses 12:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
According to Fyns Stiftstidende february 11th, 2006, Flemming Rose was born March 11 1958 (Well, at least the conspiracy theorists got the month right :) ). I'll add it. Hekatombe 10:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
The date March 11 1958 is supported by Flemming Rose's entry in Danske Journalister 2000, the latest published edition of the listing of members of Journalistforbundet (the Danish Journalists' Union).--82.211.249.10 21:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To: Justin Raimondo of antiwar.com: all references to Flemmng Rose's Jewish roots have been removed from wikipedia

i emailed the following to Justin Raimondo today.

Dear Justin: In your article: "Rotten in Denmark - Flemming Rose and the clash of civilizations", you wrote: [Here is his Wikipedia biography, which states that he has "links with U.S. neoconservatives," but lacks citations.]

Please be aware that that entry has been removed from wikipeida. Any Jewish references to Flemming have all been removed, and in fact he is listed among those whose place of birth is declared unknown. Wikipedia seems to know his birth date but not his birth place, sounds strange! The Flemming Rose bio on wikipedia has been updated to death, mainly someone adding his jewish roots and another removing any references to his jewish roots.

Take a look: all references to his Jewish roots have been removed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemming_Rose#debate_about_Flemming.27s_jewish_roots

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flemming_Rose&limit=500&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Unknown_births


          • Have you considered that "all references to Flemming Rose's Jewish roots" have been removed because: 1. THERE IS NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE THAT ROSE HAS ANY JEWISH ROOTS. NONE. ZIP. Similarly, all references claiming that Rose is a Catholic, Muslim, or space alien will be removed if supporting evidence is not first offered (unless, of course, Rose's fellow aliens can use their mind-control devices against us... This should be looked into further).


[edit] Why is Flemming Rose’s interview with Newsweek on his bio, but NOT the one with Daniel Pipes?

If wikipedia is to claim uprightness and evenhandedness, then fairness is the name of the game. How dare you remove the most relevant document, his interview with the most arab-Islam hating Neocon by then name of Daniel Pipes? In that interview, Daniel Pipes tells Flemming Rose: “there is no reason to lean back and wait for things to happen by themselves”. Rose also tells us that “Pipes is surprised that there isn't greater alarm in Europe over the challenge that Islam represents”. BINGO! There you go! And it looks like Flemming Rose did not “lean back and wait for things to happen by themselves”, did he?

All these snooty “administrators” at wiki need to come forward and explain their reasoning for excluding this crucial document. Please!

http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showpost.php?p=145023&postcount=5 I really find it funny to se people like Daniel Pipes,Flemming Rose and David Spencer talk about benefits and protection of Europe and white people.All three of them hav Jewish origin and white people consider them as much aliens as they consider Muslims or Arabs.

[edit] Wikipedia looks compromised to me! You?

.........................................................................................

Twthmoses wrote: Yes I know it (is) you Catstail and your cohorts of ips; there are no way new users and new anonymous IPs come to wiki and as their very first task jump on to this page and follower your trip. We need administrators to come and hopefully block this page from anonymous IPs and new user ability to edit… Btw nice of you to sign with Ronam …heheh Twthmoses 17:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)]]

..........................................................................................

Twthmoses: I am not Catstail (whoever that is), and Yes, I am new to wikipedia and I am already disillusioned. I am female, 35, reside in Northern California. I remember about a year ago listening to the wiki guy (forgot his name) and I remember being very impressed with his eloquence and knowledge. That was my first introduction to wiki. I then saw many folks on the Internet site wikipedia and I followed suit. Unfortunately, I can’t rely on wikipedia anymore knowing what I know now. Case in point: a very vital information - the Flemming Rose interview of Daniel Pipes - was deliberately left out of his bio. Why? It makes no sense! After all, Flemming Rose wouldn’t be on wikipedia if it were not for the Mohammed cartoons and the riots that it ignited. ! And one has to ask: WHO BENEFITS from the Christian-Muslim conflict? And one has to keep in mind that It was not like Flemming Rose stopped over Daniel Pipes’ house on his way to work, a couple of blocks away, but that he traveled thousands of miles across the Atlantic to meet one of the most hateful creatures towards Arabs and Muslims! And as I mentioned in my earlier post, Daniel Pipes did tell Flemming Rose: “there is no reason to lean back and wait for things to happen by themselves”. And it looks like Flemming Rose did not “lean back and wait for things to happen by themselves”, did he? It appears to me that someone at wikipedia is working very hard on behalf of Zionists to do what I call “damage control”. Too bad, wikipedia seemed very promising in the beginning but now it looks very comprised to me. The good things don’t last forever, do they?

I do not know why the link to the interview was removed, but when I look at the history, I can surely understand why the reference to the interview, in this Wiki article, was removed since Catstail trys to quote Flemming Rose, while he (Flemming Rose) quotes Daniel Pipes, and thereby trying to pass Pipes' opinions as Roses. So why don't you try to add a link to that interview (without any unsourced theories) and if it gets removed as well, then we have to take that up for discussion. Hekatombe 05:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I can see that you've added the entire interview. I've removed the interview and added a link to the very same interview (I hope you wouldn't mind) Hekatombe 07:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with you on this Hekatombe, but I’ll let you be the judge about it. I think the article on Pipes is irrelevant to Flemming Rose. He is a journalist and thus he makes articles. I can find the first 20 articles by him on the net, not to talk about 200 more just looking though JP papers for the last year, and they cover every imaginable subject. I cannot see why a Pipes articles is of special interest. Of course it is to Catstail’s conspiracy theories. Just to demonstrate what I believe is a silly inclusion of an irrelevant link. Just a few days ago Lego announced that they have turned around and came out on top with a healthy profit. Since Flemming Rose has written articles about Lego, should that now also be included in External link on a Wiki page, as a possible link between Lego and Rose? Twthmoses 09:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't know how it's usually done on wikipedia, since I'm a new user, but when looking at a journalist, then I think it is important to look at his articles. I do not think, that there is anything that suggest that this interview with Pipes is representative of his other articles (As I has mention earlier, I do not think that he gave Pipes any special treatment in this interview), but untill we find some more articles, then I can't come up with a single good reason as to why this article should be omitted. And that's the reason for my previous post.
btw, is there any reason why we shouldn't also link to the Danish articles from tjetjenien.dk? Hekatombe 14:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

That is fine, and thank you for that effort. But I do hope you will answer the following questions for me => who are you? Are you one of the admins? If not, why is your discretion better than mine? And why did you pick Daniel pipes website as opposed to any other that is also carrying the interview, such as this one?

http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showpost.php?p=145023&postcount=5

I am not an admin. I found this article when I was trying to find some info on Flemming Rose and since then I've seen how this Wiki article has evolved. As to your question why is your discretion better than mine?. It is not, but did you have the copyright holders permission to copy the interview? You are not allowed to copy an article just because it's on the internet.

(Can I add something to Wikipedia that I got from somewhere else?) And I also doubt that originaldissent.com has permission to copy the article as well, where I find it more likely that Daniel Pipes might have gotten it. (which mean that it is most likely to stay, for a longer periode of time, on Pipes' page where its fate on the other sites are unknown) Hekatombe 08:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me this flemming’s bio is so carefully crafted and guarded to exclude essential and relevant information. As I told you before, he came into fame because of the cartoons, and the cartoons were preceded by him flying over to the United States to meet one of the most hateful Zionists in America. In that meeting, Daniel pipes tells flemming:

“There is no reason to lean back and wait for things to happen by themselves”.

“There is no reason to lean back and wait for things to happen by themselves”.

“There is no reason to lean back and wait for things to happen by themselves”.

There! I repeated it three times so that you can grasp the significance of that statement.

Let me tell you frankly: I don’t have the kind of time needed to watch your site to see what Zionists are doing to it. It is however crystal clear to me that this bio of flemming is a very sanitized Zionist version. How could people rely upon it to have integrity and credibility?

thanks again, i don't have the time to be locking horns with no zionists on this site or any other site.

I disagree with you. I think that the current article is dull, but at least it has been sourced and is based on facts. If you think that there has been removed any fact or relevant information, then please make it clear which information you think should be added once more. But please refere from speculations about his relation with Pipes without any sources. (I've read the Pipes article, and I've read other, more critical article about Pipes, and I do not think that Roses interview is enough to precent a Rose<->Pipes relation as fact) If there is a political analyst which says that there is a relation between Rose and Pipes, then I can see how it is relevant to bring it here. But it has to be clear that it is the analysts opinion and it also has to be clear who the analyst is. Hekatombe 08:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


Catstail (and your cohorts of ips) I will try to explain it to you one last time. This will be the last time I explain it to your, cause you are just being ridicules now. You are correct that the page is now careful guarded; as you have amber demonstrated that you are a vandal bend on deliberately falsifying this page by insetting un-sourced and unverifiable information, going on 9 consecutive days now. I have for 9 days asked you to source it. You seamlessly can’t, thus were does it come from? You failure to source your insertion or even address on the talk page where you got it from, so other can check it, makes this very likely a brainchild of yours (or some blog you have read), thus it is clear bias and an opinion, thus not suited for Wiki. What you seamlessly fail to grasp is that Wiki is not a place to state your opinion. It is a place to make articles of verifiable facts (or as close as we can get). Twthmoses 09:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


          • I have to agree with twthmoses. Here are the problems I see with how the Pipes article has been included:

1. Rose’s article on Pipes has been falsely presented as if Pipes’s opinions are Rose’s own. Nowhere in Rose’s article does he specifically agree or disagree with what Pipes is saying. Attempts to post that disclaimer have been taken down and replaced with OPINIONS on the positivism of the article and Rose’s motives. 2. As have been posted in this discussion, Rose also wrote articles on topics/people that could be considered friendly towards Islam/Muslims. Cherry picking one article and declaring it an ideological Rosetta stone is irrational and poor scholarship. 3. Word choice has been biased. Posters have repeatedly tried to claim that Rose “went to the USA to visit” Pipes or (as you wrote) “traveled thousands of miles across the Atlantic to meet one of the most hateful creatures towards Arabs and Muslims”. Do you know if that was Pipes primary motivation for going to the USA? It was election year, 2004, in America. Was it possible that Rose was in the USA for other reasons as well? Did he cover other stories? Was he there to visit family and friends? Does that even matter? Pipes lives/works in the USA and is an important (love him or hate him) ideologist in the neo-con movement. In other words, interviewing Pipes after watching him speak at a conference is basic journalism. As for stressing the distance of travel, let me give you an analogy. I, an American, studied abroad in Spain for a year. While there, I attended university and learned a ton about Spanish culture and history. I also, on occasion, did less scholarly activities like going out with friends and drinking too much (while watching soccer). Do you think my experience and motivation for traveling would be fairly summed by “In 2002, I traveled thousands of miles to Spain so that I could visit pubs and drink too much”? I don’t think so either. 4. There has been no evidence produced tying Rose to Pipes outside of this debatable profile. Similarly, there has been no evidence tying Rose to the neo-conservative movement. Do unsubstantiated neo-conservative links really seem like fair and vital info?

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

who ever wrote the above entry said:

"As have been posted in this discussion, Rose also wrote several articles on topics/people that could be considered friendly towards Islam/Muslims."

show me! i am fair and open minded. show me and i will be right back here telling you how right you were. show me where flemming writes anything positive of islam or muslims! show me.

one more thing: this [Twthmoses] poster seems to be a permannet resident here. he needs to stop alledging this and that. i have already said i am new to wiki. i have posted with my ip address which does not change. i have seen others bicker about one poster being this and that poster. it is such a waste of time, why bother? i have already said i was not catstail but you insist, so what should i do? i don't have the kind of time to waste squabbling about ip addresses, i don't care, i only care when misinformation is being passed as information,and especially when wikipeida has gotten the public's trust as trustworthy. Ronam.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Ronam- You are right in that I got ahead of myself and my supporting info. I too can be susceptible to the poison of dogmatism in research when frustrated enough. What I was thinking of when I wrote that was: http://www.tjetjenien.dk/artikler/angreb30dec02.html (an article in which Rose takes on the Danish Media for not questioning the Russian propaganda on Chechnya --a largely Muslim state attempting to separate from Russia). This article could be said to be friendly to Muslims. Of course, neither this nor the Pipes article reflect the entirety of Rose’s work. None of us have evidence to make sweeping statements. I should have made mine less so.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

[edit] Flemming Rose’s Picture appears on his wikipedia bio! Finally! Why was it hidden for all those precious days?

(starting off with a new title, since the last one got to be too long for easy navigation.)

this in reply to someone who wrote

  • "As have been posted in this discussion, Rose also wrote several articles on topics/people that could be considered friendly towards Islam/Muslims."

Hi, this Ronam again and thank you for your reply. When I dared you to show me anything positive Flemming Rose could have written on Islam, I based that only on common sense and nothing else. Logic dictates that an enemy of Muslims cannot be a friend of Muslims at the same time. It is also interesting to note that you sent me an article written in a different language? I keep asking you to Show me! Quote to me any paragraphs where this Zionist (in my opinion) is in any way shape or form supportive of Muslims. This Flemming Rose came to America to meet with one of the most hateful men towards Arabs and Muslims by the name of Daniel pipes. The article that he wrote is very damning of Muslims to the point where Daniel pipes confesses to Flemming Rose:

“There is no reason to lean back and wait for things to happen by themselves”.

The question that is begging to be asked is WHO BENEFITS when the Christian west and the Muslim world are at odds with one another? the title of flemming's article is "the threat of islamism", right? can you imagine the uproar if the article were titled "the threat of the jews"?

And thank you for putting up Flemming Rose’s picture on his biography. Why was it so conveniently hidden for all those precious days? Why so much secrecy about this man’s Jewish roots. You say he is not Jewish? Fine! It is like putting up a picture of o.j. simson and denying that he is black. go ahead and deny flemming rose is jewish. let his picture speak for itself.

The reason that his picture wasn't in the bio, was that nobdy had added it before now :) (You could have done that as well).
And nobody have said that he isn't jewish, all that have been said, is that there is no source that says he is jewish. Hekatombe 17:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
could you then do me a favor and tell me how to post a picture? i tried putting [img]link[/img] but did not work. how do you post pictures at wikipedia. much obliged.

Enough said, I do not intend to belabor this subject anymore, unless of course I notice essential entries being removed again, and I shall make voice heard again. I will end by saying:

to do nothing in the face of evil is to condone evil.

you must always speak out!

Thank you for your attention. Ronam.

  • Big whoop about his image appearing on the article... his image has been readily available for ages.Netscott 03:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flemming Rose gets to speak! Do I? Thank you! Ronam

  • Flemming Rose => Some individuals have taken the religion of Islam hostage by committing terrorist acts in the name of the prophet. They are the ones who have given the religion a bad name.
    • Ronam => Let me be the one to remind Flemming Rose that the “terrorist acts” that he speaks of are by occupied people resisting occupation by an alien European Jewry who landed on their land uninvited and displaced them. The logic is very straightforward. Had the Japanese landed on Palestine and stolen it instead of Europe's Jews, the fight for freedom would not have been any different. The arabs are not fighting Jews because they are Jews, but becasue they are predatory invaders and colonizers of their land. We never had any suicide bombers until European Jews arrived on Arab land and stole the land. Had the European Jews arrived in Uganda or Argentina as was initially planned instead of Palestine, I can assure you that the Ugandans or the Argentineans would not have behaved any differently than the Palestinians. People under occupation must fight by any means necessary to ward off the predatory invading alien population on their land. So let me remind Flemming Rose that the “terrorist acts” are not performed in the name of religion but in the name of FREEDOM, freedom from occupation, freedom from demolition, freedom from hunger, freedom from ethnic cleansing. Why is that so hard to understand, Mr. Flaming?
      • => so you think that Muslims should be pushed out of Europe for daring to invade Christian ground? Due Muslims have no tolerance for immigration?
  • Flemming Rose => I am offended by things in the paper every day: transcripts of speeches by Osama bin Laden, photos from Abu Ghraib, people insisting that Israel should be erased from the face of the Earth, people saying the Holocaust never happened.
    • Ronam => I think herein lies your motivation for publishing the offensive images of the prophet Mohammed. And thank you for that candor.


Btw Mr. Flemming: I notice that you refer to Muslims of Denmark as ‘Danish Muslims’. Would you then define yourself also as a Danish Jew? If not, why not?

Dear Flemming: I would like to present to you one of the most crucial documents ever published on the Arab vs. European Jewry conflict. If you read it and if you don't walk away horrified by the crimes committed on the Palestinians, then I am sorry to say that you do not belong in the human race. Every attempt was made to stop the publication of this book, and they decided against their original plan lest their opposition draws public attention to the book the same way Gibson’s Christ movie propelled it to unwarranted heights only due to the uproar that followed. Uri Avneri said of the book: “stopping the dissemination of the booklet would be a mistake of the first order, since this would give it much more publicity”. The author of this book Livia Rokach (the daughter of Israel Rokach, Minister of the Interior in the government of Moshe Sharett, second prime minister of Israel) would finally be found dead in her Rome Hotel room. Here is that book online.

http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/essays/rokach.html

http://student.cs.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/php/authors.php?auid=601

Thank you for your attention - Ronam.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

[edit] Danish anti-racism laws....?

He is currently on indefinite leave from his newspaper, after a controversial offer to reprint Iranian cartoons of the Holocaust. Due to Danish anti-racism laws Jyllands-Posten was not in a position to meet Rose's offer. Would anyone please come up with a source for that one, since I would claim that it is simply not true. JP denied printing the Irani cartoons before the cartoons were drawn. And therefore they couldn't made any evaluation as to whether or not the Irani cartoons would be a violation of the Danish Racism law. (And then there is also my gut feeling that says that they propertly wouldn't be a violation, but I have nothing to base that feeling on)

Hello Hekatombe, yes... unless the cartoons are religious in nature (which is highly unlikely) they'd fall under Section 266b of Danish Law a reference to which can be found here: Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy#Judicial_investigation_of_Jyllands-Posten, that said feel free to edit out the comment... for in reality Jyllands-Posten hasn't announced such reasoning.

I've removed the referance. I am neither a lawyer nor have I seen the Irani cartoons, so I can't confirm nor deny that they would be a violation of §266B. But in the Muhammed-Cartoon-case the Procecutor in Viborg said there wouldn't be pressed charges because it had to be seen in context with the interests of public debate (My interpretation). On Febuary 4, 2006 Jyllandsposten chose to re-print 14 (Arabic) cartoons, which could be seen as Anti-Israel or Anti-Semitic, in response to claims from the middle-east, that JyllandsPosten either couldn't (in according to Danish law) or wouldn't print a "Muhammed"-like cartoon which was directed towards Jews. And no charges has been filed in that case either. So whether or not the irani cartoons can be printed in a Danish newspaper in accordings to Danish laws comes down to content and context. Hekatombe 13:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

On another note this should be of particular interest to those who've been battling for sourced edits on this article. Keep up the good fight everyone (Twthmoses et al)! Netscott 09:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The first part can be sourced by this link, which is already in the article (link 4). The latter part is speculation I think, added yesterday I see, should be removed if it can't be sourced, but probably also not to far of either I think. To my knowledge JP (Carsten Juste) has never stated exactly why they did not print them. On the JP paper of February 9, there is a large message box in the top right corner on the frontpage, from Carsten Juste, which says (loosely) "Message to the Readers: In TV2 news yesterday at 1900 hours, it was said that JP on Sunday would bring a row of anti-semitic and anti-Christian drawings. This is not correct. The Chef editor". Twthmoses 09:36, 21 February 2006


Very glad to see that Rose's suspension has been documented. This is actually the most revealing part of the article - threaten to publish ( "free speech" ) Holocaust cartoons and you get canned. Rose must be an idiot to believe he could get away with "free Speech". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.219 (talk • contribs).

For your information, Carsten Juste, Flemming Rose, and Jyllands-Posten were all acquitted of violating any law. Not very surprising given that the Danish Constitution is very clear that censorship may never be introduced. Stop beating a dead horse. Valentinian T / C 10:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/l/e/Talk%7EFlemming_Rose_2c66.html"