Talk:Flemming Rose

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Twthmoses: I began updating entries on wikipedia yesterday. Someone keeps 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

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

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)[reply]

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

Christopher Bollyn – American Free Press 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]