User talk:DieWeibeRose

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Welcome to Wikipedia! 2 anon IP 3 "WE PROMISE" 4 Your comment (Jack Abramoff article) 5 Mahatma Gandhi 6 found orig quote 7 Redirects

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello DieWeibeRose, welcome to Wikipedia!

I noticed nobody had said hi yet... Hi!

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the Edit this page link. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.

You might like some of these links and tips:

• some General guidance.
• Tutorial and the Manual of Style.
• Find out how to revert, move and merge pages.
• Sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~).
• Add yourself to the New user log and a regional notice board
• Ask questions at the Village pump or Help desk.
• Use the Show preview button
• Provide an Edit summary
• Add the correct image copyright tag to any images you upload
• Take a look at Consensus of standards
• Create a User page

If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. Wikipedia has a vibrant community of contributors who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. As well as the wiki community pages there are IRC Channels, where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks and happy editing, --Alf ^melmac 10:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome, Alf.--DieWeibeRose 06:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] anon IP

...blocked. Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 08:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope this solves the problem.--DieWeibeRose 08:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "WE PROMISE"

The unsigned missive below from Talk:Jack_Abramoff is courtesy of 62.0.170.46 ^{(talk • contribs)} .

Get this through your FAT, THICK, OBTUSE JEW HATING SCULLS. Any reference to Jews, Jewish schools, Israel, Yarmulkas, SANDY F--KING KOFAX, anything of the HEBRIAC, MOSIAC, JUDIAC PERSUASSION!!

will be removed.

GOT IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This Shabbos I was able to get tens of volunteers to monitor this site, who in turn will get tens more. If we have to WE WILL HIRE HACKERS TO TAKE CARE OF THE PROBLEM.

We promise you. This is going to get worse. There is no compromise on this issue. Jack Abramoff commited crimes. You want to lynch the man. Even though much of the material that you have written is taken out of context and some of it is plain conjecture. What can we do, There is no way we can make human beings out of you people. You're goyim. It's Gods problem. But blatant references to ANYTHING Jewish is ours. And we will do everything possible to see that the references are removed. (bolding added)

Is this the work of a Jewish racist or an anti-Jewish racist posing as a Jew? Who knows?--DieWeibeRose 11:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, our friend is in Tel Aviv, Israel[1].--DieWeibeRose 11:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your comment (Jack Abramoff article)

Notice how criticizing any aspect of Israel becomes antisemtic [sic] and "Jew-hatred"? Notice, too, how you fan this bias by doing the grunt work for those who will, apparently, accept no discussion of Israel in the article even though Newsweek, The Hill, Bloomberg and probably other legitimate media sources thought this was one noteworthy aspect of the story. [2][3][4] But we know why they reported it, don't we? Because they're Jew haters, of course. Needless to say, I don't appreciate your revert because of this manufactured "controversy." You slashed-and-burned the section to appease the Israel-firsters and you couldn't even bother to get the title of the Newsweek article right.--DieWeibeRose 08:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Your comment betrays the fact that your own intention in editing is to criticize Israel, not inform the reader about Jack Abramoff. And I find it laughably ironic that, in trying to keep the article focused on the subject matter at hand, I'm accused of anti-semitism and pro-semitism appeasement simultaneously. Guess I'm doing something right. KWH

Reply posted on Talk:KWH.--DieWeibeRose 07:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

DieWeibeRose wrote: My intent was not to criticize Israel but to document and tell an important part of the Abramoff story--where some of his ill-gotten funds went and why they went there.

As above: Notice how criticizing any aspect of Israel becomes antisemtic [sic]

That's where I feel that your comment betrays your intent to criticize Israel.

My intent was to criticize this response: "Thank you for reverting the antisemtic/anti-Israel material. -Brad (with the Jew-hatred watch)."[5] At some points along the way there may have been anti-Jewish material on the page but that was not what Brad and his anonymous friends were going after.

DieWeibeRose wrote: I never said or insinuated that you are engaging in "pro-semitism."

As above: you fan this bias by doing the grunt work for those who will … accept no discussion of Israel

You slashed-and-burned the section to appease the Israel-firsters

Just because I criticize you for caving in to Israel-firsters doesn't mean I think you were doing it out of "pro-semitism." And just because I'm critical of pro-Israel editors imposing their POV doesn't mean I want to impose an anti-Israel POV.

(Note that in this "slash-and-burn" case I simply reverted a POV edit without realizing that the edit to which I reverted was already damaged/"slashed-and-burned" by another editor.)

I'm not sure what happened but I accept your explanation that some part of what you did was inadvertent.

DieWeibeRose wrote: As for your conclusion, "Guess I'm doing something [right]." This is fallacious reasoning on your part. The name of the fallacy you have fallen victim to is the golden mean fallacy or fallacy of moderation.

Far be it from me to be a victim of a fallacy. The position is justifiable outside of the fallacious reasoning; like many fallacies it's a useful shorthand to use outside of the formal-logic realm, but that does not mean that the premises or conclusion are incorrect (only not valid under that argument).

Regardless, since your conclusion that you were "doing something right" was based purely on fallacious reasoning, as you seem to admit, there is no compelling reason to agree with it.

I don't believe that discussion of the particular legal status of certain settlements belongs in Jack Abramoff, as it is dilatory to the intent of describing the life of Jack Abramoff. If there are points to be made about this Gush Etzion block, Betar Illit, legal statuses, UN or International Court decisions, et cetera, there are articles where that information is in context. I believe that introducing these points out of context, in articles which are only loosely relevant such as Jack Abramoff, is an attempt to posit a point of view in a location where it is less likely to be challenged.

I never intended to discuss "the particular legal status of certain settlements." I used a single word modifier and used it accurately. I don't think the use of that one word was "out of context." First, if the settlement had been 'legal,' as in somewhere within Israel, then there would have been no reason for shipping the weapons, etc. to it in the first place. Town and cities within Israel are not defended by armed settlers. Second, the tribes who were defrauded by Abramoff, arguably, thought his purposes were especially egregious:

" 'This is almost like outer-limits bizarre,' says Henry Buffalo, a lawyer for the Saginaw Chippewa Indians who contributed $25,000 to the Capital Athletic Foundation at Abramoff's urging. 'The tribe would never have given money for this.' "[6]

Third, breaking the law and then using the ill-gotten gains in furtherance of another crime is an example of aggravation and a concept that I think most people understand even outside of a strictly legal context.

I'm not sure on your definition of philo-Semitism and whether that is my position, but I can assure you that I am not interested in bringing all the fine points of discussion on the position of political boundaries in the Levant into biographical articles on American lobbyists.

Re: "fine points," me either and I certainly never did that in the article but I did it in Talk because of the manufactured controversy. Have a look at Philo-Semitism, it's close enough.

I see that you are interested in starting an article on Shmuel Ben-Zvi... I'd support that a full exposition on Shmuel's actions in Betar Illit (and Juan Cole's opinion) might be topical on that article. (For instance, in one email Shmuel mentions his patrol "going into Beit Jalla" in October 2001 - a town which as far as I can tell is definitely under the Palestinian Authority, so what was he doing?) However, others might think that Shmuel Ben-Zvi is non-notable, and nominate the article for deletion. KWH 18:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough.

FYI, after making this reply I checked the article to see what the current status of this text is, I see that someone seems to have damaged the text at Jack Abramoff (ends in "in the Israel", which does not make sense) and much of the explanation is now at Capital Athletic Foundation (maybe that should be Capitol?), which is slightly better. CAF may be more in context in that it was used as a conduit for this money. I'll think about this more. KWH 23:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough.--DieWeibeRose 11:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mahatma Gandhi

Dear Weisserose, Are you aware of the fact that the gandhi article is currently undergoing a process of size compression? If not, it really is. While your input is very important and valuable indeed, (as gandhi's pacifism is complex and not easily understood by people unfamiliar to his life, and you quote your source directly, which is good), please understand that size reduction is the major concern, and that editors of the article are attempting to make the article brief, succinct and clear, leaving detailed discussions to sub articles. thanks for your contributions, anyway-Pournami 13:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Replied on Talk:Pournami.--DieWeibeRose 06:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

"that where there is only a choice between cowardice and non-violence, I would advise violence." - This quote on your userpage doesn't sound correct. Isn't the choice between cowardice and violence ? Tintin (talk) 06:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Replied on Talk:Tintin. --DieWeibeRose 09:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Better check your source, i think tintin has a point: i'm very familiar with the quote, so i didn't notice the anomally until tintin pointed it out.

you read it from the book, right?

this is what gandhi meant: when you have the option of choosing either violence or cowardice(meaning, escapism, running away, not facing the facts and reality), ie, either one must stand and fight using violence, or one must run away in one's cowardice(which would be nonviolent), when the options are limited to one of the two, choose courage, not cowardice; choose violence, not non violence;: this is in situations when non-violence is a weak excuse for cowardice, don't be a coward, rather sacrifice your philosophy of non violence, than abstain from violence, being a coward: i hope you get the point. i kinda heard it like a story: some villager asked gandhi, "bapu, should we not always be non violent? if someone tries to rape my wife, can i use violence to overcome him?" gandhi said, if you can't protect your wife, you're not a man. that's probably just a nonsense story, but that's what the quote meant. i don't know where i can get the quote first hand. but tintin is right.

usually, the choice is between cowardice and non-violence: ie, nonviolence=courage. that was the case with british raj. non-violent protest was gandhi's choice. first one gets brutally beaten, next one, the next, the next, and so on, but no one runs away or resorts to violence. and that strategy had some success. the jails filled up with satyahgrahis. gandhi's word could fill up all of india's jails.

but only in situations where nonviolence=cowardice, chose violence, ie, courage. Always chooose courage, whatever be the situation. Choose nonviolence only when nonviolence=courage.
-Pournami 10:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] found orig quote

CWMG, VOL. 27 [12 JANUARY, 1924 - 21 MAY,1924] (page8-9) CH 7. ANSWERS TO DREW PEARSON’S QUESTIONS,1,February 5, 1924 Gandhi wrote By non-violence I do not mean cowardice. I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence. But I believe that forgiveness adorns a soldier. And so I am not pleading for India to practise non-violence because she is weak, but because she is conscious of her power and strength. The rishis, who discovered the law of non-violence, were greater geniuses than Newton. Having themselves known the use of arms, they realized their uselessness and taught a weary world that its salvation lay not through violence, but through non-violence.

-Pournami 11:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I was serious about my question and thanks to Pournami for finding the source. Apart from what you said, another explanation is that Gandhi believed that non-violence is better than violence but also that violence is better than cowardice (non-violence > violence > cowardice). So if you face a situation where non-violence is pointless (maybe if you are a prisoner at Auschwitz), you should choose violence rather than fail to act on account of cowardice.

If the choice was between cowardice (failing to act out of fear) and non-violence (opposing the oppressor through non violent means), you should obviously pick non-violence; violence wouldn't even enter the picture. Tintin (talk) 12:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Are we all agreed that I quoted my source accurately? I don't think Gandhiji would ever argue that "non-violence is pointless," not even in Auschwitz. I think that what he meant is that nonviolence often requires greater courage than violence and if you do not have sufficient courage to practice nonviolence then you should turn to violence rather than succumb to fear.--DieWeibeRose 13:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Are we all agreed that I quoted my source accurately? Errrr... no. Your quote is 'that where there is only a choice between cowardice and non-violence, I would advise violence'. What Pournami found is 'I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence.' Tintin (talk) 13:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Tintin for catching my transcription error. I've fixed it on the Ghandhi page and my user page. Bondurant cites as her source for the quote: "Young India, August 11, 1920, as quoted in Chander, op. cit., p. 408." The Chander work is Jag Charvesh Chander, ed. Teachings of Mahatma Gandhi (Lahore:The Indian Printing Works, 1945).--DieWeibeRose 13:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirects

On 19-Feb, you added a redirect template to Ela valley & Elah valley. However, in both cases, you put the template in front of the redirect. The template needs to go after the redirect for the redirect to work. I fixed both of these. If you have questions, please let me know. Thanks! -- JLaTondre 18:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, I've clarifed the instructions at Wikipedia:Template_messages/Redirect_pages. --DieWeibeRose 06:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)