Talk:Michael Dennis Rohan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag
Portal
Michael Dennis Rohan is maintained by WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Australian crime.

As I got into the process of creating this article I began to wonder whether there is a reason why no one else has written about this subject before. It seems so loaded and destined to provoke POV responses from Arabs, Muslims, Israelis, Jews, Christians, Worldwide Church of God and all of its many breakaway factions, Australians and who knows who else? It is almost as conspiratorial as a biographical entry for Lee Harvey Oswald in trying to address the question of why he shot President Kennedy ... assuming that he did shoot President Kennedy. So if you are reading these words please understand that in putting together the article that I am not trying to take any side but to report upon an incident which in turn has led to many continuing acts of killing and destruction which have been performed in the name of this one initial act of arson. I also need to point out that in 1968 when this event took place, the Worldwide Church of God was not accepted as a mainstream Christian religion but as a cult which had emerged by blending together various beliefs from different religions and all of that was glued together by a very specific chain of prophecy distributed via a multi-million dollar publishing and broadcasting empire. MPLX/MH 19:11, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm considering writing a brief Arabic article. Most English sources that mention his ethnicity say he's not Jewish, while most Arabic ones that do say he is. The former seems far more plausible, considering, but does anyone know an article that provides an unarguable source on his ethnicity? - Mustafaa 23:57, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mustafaa: That sounds like a good idea. Sorry I cannot help you immediately with the information that you are looking for, but the best sources are: a) official Israeli government records since they took him into custody; b) the omnibus web site of everything about Armstrong that originates from New Zealand and the webmaster's name is Gavin (I am not Gavin.) Also, you might want to check out Ernest L. Martin. This is an article that I have been building that is also related to both the Temple Mount; the Ambassador/Hebrew University digs and therefore Herbert W. Armstrong. Martin held in a book that the son of Dr. Mazar held that the Temple had been mislocated on Temple Mount. There is a related web site and book if you follow the links. Lot's of luck. This seems to only add more fuel to the fire, but this time to the idea that Rohan had the wrong location to begin with and therefore ... everyone else who thinks that the Temple was on Temple Mount is also mistaken. You should have lots of fun with that (tongue in cheek), meaning that everyone will start throwing bricks in the direction of your new article. Such are the joys of writing about controversial matters, you can end up with no one liking what you write. Just be sure to document everything! MPLX/MH 23:20, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Just read the opening paragraph, holy otters noses, talk about biased POV. Any more whitewashed and agenda pushing and I'd have thought it was a leaked government election advertisement due to the BS factor alone. This man is also a notable Jewish-Australian, he had no action with the church mentioned, so why is the church mentioned? Clarification is really needed, it's all just too POV defending some church. Jachin 12:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. POV problems in this need to fixed. I don't think if this article is about Michael Dennis Rohan it should travel far afield with stuff about rebuilding the Temple unless it is germane to Rohan. Some of it comes across as shilling for obscure authors and ideologies. I moved the section on other sources to the external links and edited a lot out, and I even think that it probably should be cut. It's other sources yet it had three articles from one guy - David Ben-Ariel. From searching around, he seems to be some totality non-notable guy pushing some idiosyncratic views. He's a religious-based white supremacist. I don't think NPOV requires the inclusion of the thoughts of every obscure blogger and self-publisher who has an opinion somewhat related to the topic. Quite the contrary, views of obscure, non-expert individuals should be shoehorned in various articles when they're not significant contributions on the topic. --JamesAM 18:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who said he was a Australian-Jew?

Jachin, what led you to believe that this man is/was a Jew? It was the Arab press that claimed he was Jewish. Rohan was an Australian who arrived in Israel with a (Christian) evangelistic mission - according to all reliable press accounts. This event was given front page coverage at the time (complete with photograph of Rohan showing a "Plain Truth" magazine sticking out of his pocket.) The publisher of that magazine disowned Rohan, but the magazine did contain an article by the publisher's son (Garner Ted Armstrong) that gave the impression that Jesus Christ would return when the Dome of the Rock was removed and the Jewish Temple restored. Rohan decided to bring about that event and it created a crisis for Israel. Yassir Arafat always maintained that Rohan was an Israeli agent who sought to destroy Islam and it was from this single act that the beginnings of the "Al Asqua Martyrs Brigade" (excuse spelling) began with the mayhem which continues until today. The problem is that there is no reliable source to show who Rohan was since Israel arrested Rohan, isolated him and caused him to vanish from the scene. So to claim that he was a notable Jew creates a tremendous insult to Jews who have always repudiated that claim. Even Rohan identified his cause with Armstrong which led Armstrong to repudiate his claim. The only group that has built upon the original event and kept its memory going is the PLO faction who have identified themselves as martyrs in the name of the Al Asqua mosque. I believe it is very useful and very enlightening to have all the various voices commenting on this issue, because it shows how the act of one lone individual with a mental defect can inspire generations of people to commence killing in the name of avenging something which in reality, we know very little about. It would be helpful if the official Israeli government investigation into this matter could also be added to the article. However, while Herbert W. Armstrong was alive he was a constant visitor to Israel and a financial benefactor for several cultural activitiews there. In reality it is a story that those who know the facts don't want to talk about, and a story for those who don't care about the facts but want to use it to cause as much trouble as possible. For this reason it stands as an article (somewhat like those akin to Sirhan and Oswald) of madmen whose acts change the world for the worse and leave a trail of murky conspiracy stories in their wake. But for us to decide which stories should be edited out will really turn the article in a POV rant for one side or the other. The only facts known are that Rohan existed, he did commit the act and that his act has been used to fan the flames of terrorism.

The reference to Rohan being an "evangelical Christian" is also incorrect. Armstrong was not "evangelical Christian" any more than say the Mormons are. The article reflects the chaos of the Middle East and the irrationality of all of the various beliefs in play there. But the irrationality of it all is a self evident fact in the current wars that are ongoing there and it is impossible to solve that violence by siding with any religious view - they are all crazy.