User talk:DieWeisseRose/Archive Sep 2007

Request from a neophyte
It's to do with what is a reliable source. On the Baruch Goldstein page and a few other places, I have found an administrator, jayjg, blocking all sourcing from the following academics:-

(1) Ian S. Lustick - Professor, Bess W. Heyman Chair, at the University of Pennsylvania. 'For the Land and the Lord' 1988,1994 ed., on the grounds that the quote is either untrue, or irrelevant. Lustik quotes an unidentified Rabbi at Goldstein's funeral as saying 'A million Arab lives are not worth one Jewish fingernail'. The excuse now is that this graveside quote is immaterial to the page on Baruch Goldstein, section 'Commemoration'.

(2) He/she rejects as violations of Wiki policy citations from Israel Shahak's books and articles, though Shahak was also an eminent authority on Jewish fundamentalism, on the grounds he was primarily a Chemist at Tel Aviv University. Shahak however was recognized as a reliable historian by the Council on Foreign Relations at Washington, whose house journal published his papers.

(3) He rejects anything that might be quoted on Jewish Fundamentalism from Norton Mezvinsky, professor of history at Central Connecticut Central University, with relevant Phd (1954) with many reputable publications to his credit, on the grounds they are co-authored with Shahak, who must not be quoted. (4) He rejects sourcing from Noam Chomsky, on the grounds that he is a linguist, not a specialist historian. Many of the classics of historiography were not written by professional historians, Thucydides, Herodotus, Tacitus, Livy, Sima Qian, David Hume, Henry Adams, etc. were not academically qualified as historians.

My query is, are these four academics officially considered to be in violation of wikipedia policy, and therefore unquotable, as this administrator seems to affirm, for whatever they argue about Israeli-Arab relations or the Occupied Territories?

Sorry for the bother, but I don't know how to request a formal ruling on the way he consistently behaves in dragging in sanctions, threats and revert wars when, as a minor part of my work, I use these sources to document facts and reports these four authors cite from Israeli/Hebrew newspapers and books.Nishidani 21:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * My answer to your query would be no. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Would you please tell me, specifically, on what articles you have had these disputes with jayjg? Have you discussed your concerns with her/him directly? Have you looked at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes? I'm sorry, I probably don't have much more experience than you do in these matters but, perhaps, together we can figure this out. --DieWeisseRose 04:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Please consider joining the discussion on Reliable sources (talk) here. The discussion specifically mentions Noam Chomsky. --DieWeisseRose 04:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Would you please tell me, specifically, on what articles you have had these disputes with jayjg?' --

Sorry. I forgot to reply to this request, and only noted it now. These are the pages where I have encountered very strong resistance. Dov Lior, 1929 Hebron Massacre, Baruch Goldstein, Hebron

the Lustik material was disallowed here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baruch_Goldstein&oldid=146463752

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baruch_Goldstein&oldid=146606152

And see ' "fingernail" speech' on Baruch Goldstein talk page.Regards, and thanks Nishidani 16:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I looked at some of the pages you referenced above. I know that it might be difficult but I suggest that you try to refrain from discussing the motives of other editors and also strictly adhere to WP:CIVIL. I say this not only because it's the right thing to do but also because if you don't it will probably be used against you, eventually. A lot of otherwise good editors get banned from Wikipedia because they can't keep their heads when confronted with the infuriating tactics of others editors with a POV. --DieWeisseRose 21:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Just wanted to say thanks because your excellent work has helped me as a beginner build my own userbox and category on your 'framework'. I hope it's OK to do this.

I still can't figure out why I get the extra page on Category:Wikipedian Conspiracy Theory Sympathizers

(btw, respect for your interests etc)

Thanks again Drywontonmee 02:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. You get two pages because you placed "Category:Wikipedian Conspiracy Theory Sympathizers" in the noinclude block of your ubx. It should only appear in the includeonly block. I fixed it for you. --DieWeisseRose 02:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. I doubt that the category will survive very long. You might think about "Wikipedians interested in conspiracy theories" or some similar name if it doesn't already exist. --DieWeisseRose 02:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, thank you so much. I'm on a steep learning curve and it's funny that I just changed it to your suggestion before I read your message on here (and gave it the right parent). Cheers. Drywontonmee 09:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

RE:conditional template programming
''Steve, would you be interested in helping me with some simple (for you) conditional template programming? --DieWeisseRose 06:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)''
 * Certainly. :-) What do you need done? אמר Steve Caruso 03:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

A Correction to your quote on Solomon's Temple
Those nations that u have mentioned were not reduced to slavery but were forced to "raise a levy of bondservants" (JPS 1917 Edition) to the United Kingdom of Israel... They were used as a sort of slaves for a specific period of time (7 years) and afterwords thery were released, because Jews as formers slaves themselves don't do hardship unto other people (like the egyptians did). Oren neu dag 12:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You haven't 'corrected' anything. I have accurately quoted the 1985 Jewish Publication Society Tanakh translation, which clearly indicates that the non-Israelites "whom the Israelites were not able to annihilate—of these Solomon made a slave force". If you have a problem with this translation then I suggest you take it up with the JPS. --DieWeisseRose 22:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. According to the 1917 JPS translation, the Israelites were not slaves in Egypt; they were "bondmen" see. e.g. Deut. 6:21, 16:12, 24:18. --DieWeisseRose 23:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well anyway in the hebrew bible (the tanakh, and i'm mentioning it because i'm a native hebrew-speaker), there is a difference between "Mas Oved" מס עובד (e.g. bondservants) and "Avadim" עבדים. which means that the first means a slave for a specific length of time, and the latter means a slave for all life (which includes inherently in it harsh oppression). and speaking of it, why was it so important to u to mention this story? are u implying something on the nature of the nation of israel? Oren neu dag 17:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You could ask the same question, re: importance, about the author of the account in I Kings. Any article about Solomon's Temple will, of necessity, rely heavily on the biblical narrative and that account makes it clear that part of the labor force used to construct the temple consisted of the survivors of a genocide perpetrated by the Israelites. The Jewish Study Bible, which uses 1985 JPS translation, notes that "Mas Oved" מס עובד appears in I Kings 9:21 but in the marginal note affirms the 1985 JPS translation of "slave". --DieWeisseRose 04:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * So Are your accusing my Nation in genocide? where do u get the nerve to do that huh? what do u think i am? a nazi? If u do think that, than u could fuck off! Jews were the victims of Genocide, NEVER the perpetrators! --Oren neu dag 16:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not accusing anyone of anything. Your problem is not with me but with the Tanakh which makes it clear that in the case of the passage we have been discussing the Israelites were engaged in slavery and what is today called genocide: "All the people that were left of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites who were not of the Israelite stock—those of their descendants who remained in the land and whom the Israelites were not able to annihilate—of these Solomon made a slave force, ..." If you accept the historicity of that account and personally identify with the perpetrators of the genocide then that is a burden of your own choosing and not mine.

Your most recent remarks violate official Wikipedia policy (see WP:CIV) and I suggest that you refrain from such language in the future. --DieWeisseRose 05:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Film languages and beyond
Hi DieWeisseRose, I commented on film languages, maybe not completely to your satisfaction, but there are cases where mentioning many languages (as many as possible) has created ridiculous results, both in infoboxes and in categorization. However, I also believe each film should be taken as an individual case, and therefore, even if a rule exists, it should be flexible to permit for justified exceptions.


 * I agree that mentioning as many languages as possible would probably not be helpful. I would like to see exceptions mentioned on the infobox instructions. I will propose some language on WikiProject Films/Categorization. --DieWeisseRose 03:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have copied your suggestion to the appropriate talk page and as soon as we get some feedback, I hope the guideline will be adjusted. Hoverfish Talk 07:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

On another line, thank you for turning my attention to Apocatastasis and Theosis through your userboxes. My spiritual beliefs are very close to these concepts and I find both articles very interesting. It may be of interest to you that some independent monks of Mount Athos have come to Athens (Greece) at times (at least in the early and mid 1980s) to speak with anarchists (of the non-violent orientation). The way I understand it, true Anarchy is when one becomes free from the domination of his/her ego. Best regards. Hoverfish Talk 12:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You're welcome, I'm glad to be of service. Are those independent monks affilated with any particular tendency within their religion (Christianity, I assume). Apocatastasis and Theosis are more strongly rooted in Eastern Christianity. That is an interesting interpretation of anarchism. --DieWeisseRose 03:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Mount Athos is a very diverse community. The whole political-social spectrum from left to right is present and self-government is expressed in different ways in various monasteries and skitae. Especially in the case of idiorythmic skiti there are many views held by the monks which are very close to Christian anarchism, socialism, libertarianism, etc, although I am not sure of the precise names used or the various credos. As for Theosis, it is a concept found in many spiritual ways, in particular Sufism and Hinduism. So, although I am nothing of a scholar, it seems like it precedes Christianity. If you wish to see a syncretic (Sufi, Hinduist and Western) approach to it, I have written a summary of the book God Speaks, which deals with Theosis throughout, but mostly in section The Perfection of Consciousness. Hoverfish Talk 07:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, that's all very interesting and new to me. Thanks for the tip. I hope the monks will work through their misogyny soon. Banning women is an awful way of dealing with sexual temptation. Any way, the community stills presents an interesting model in many ways. Yes, I'm sure that theosis is not unique to Christianity, I was merely trying to figure out the affiliation of the monks of Mount Athos. --DieWeisseRose 05:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

As soon as I find enough time I will try to source my summary. But since it all comes from the book itself (except from the Overview and from Syncretism on) and not from secondary sources, I hope referring to pages of the book where each section belongs will do. Let me know, please. Hoverfish Talk 08:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC) - Oh, well another editor got there first. Hoverfish Talk 16:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Operation Entebbe
Thank you for the barnstar award. Unfortunately the material on the declassified British documents were removed repeatedly. We should continue to get those who delete the sourced material to engage in discussion. --Agha Nader 16:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

A request for correspondance
Dear Weisse Rose, last time i've left a message here we've had a fierce argument about the meaning of a verse from the bible. but yet i felt that if didn't satisfied my need to know what's behind your worldview, and since you pointed out correctly that wikipedia isn't the place to express any personal POV, i'd like to ask u to have a correspondance with me about your worldview, that has left me curious (to say the least), and my question to you is: why do u support the right of return of the palestinians into Israel?

If u agree to my request than i'll be glad to recieve your response at my email (orenneumann@yahoo.com). waiting impatiently Oren neu dag 08:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Your wait is over. Based upon your earlier conduct on my talk page, I choose not to have a discussion with you about the Palestinian right of return. At that time you demonstrated little ability to carry on a respectful and substantive discussion with someone who sees some things differently than you. Incidentally, I did not say anything to you about your POV, which is appropriate on user pages, but rather I believe you violated Wikipedia's civility policy. --DieWeisseRose 01:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)