Talk:Nonviolent resistance/Archive 1

Archive 1

Early text

Gene Sharpe's idea would provide a good gateway to understanding. He wrote a book in the eighties (copyrighted but not dated) called Making Europe Unconquerable with the subtitle the potential of civilian-based deterrence and defense. Its ISBN are 0-85066-329-6 (soft cover) and 0-85066-329-9.

(List outlining tactics of non-violent resistance as a military tactic moved to article)

The book also contains a table of historical civilian defence which has sub tables:

• Cases of nonviolent insurrections and revolutions against domestic dictatorial rule. 15 items
• Cases of national resistance to established foreign domination. "8 items
• Cases of noncooperation against coup d'etat and other other internal usurption 5 items
• Cases of resitance against recent foreign invasions, occupations, and puppet governments "6 items"

The philosophy must be given justice. Pacifism is not passive. There are stategic dimensions and tactical practices. There has been a culture of war on this planet as for back as the garden of eden: Pacifism is a challange to history

There is much more to pacifism than getting your head kicked in. ;-}

Of course, I have more insight into improving this article; but this post is long enough don't you think.

For what it is worth: the paperback's forward is the review given the hardcover in The New York Review of Books by George F. Kennan.(1986) Two16

The person who started this article did so at my prompting, and I know he's read some of Mr. Sharpe's work. However, he's a busy guy with a lot of projects on the go... I'll have to bug him to work a bit more on this. ;-) -- Stephen Gilbert 21:27 Jan 17, 2003 (UTC)

Denmark

the last paragraph on Denmark is confusing and needs editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.16.240.207 (talk) 07:59, 31 January 2005 (UTC)

True. I removed the worst part of it, but the remainder is still difficult to make sense of

Eventually, nobody believes in possibility of defeating Nazis without using military violence.

I removed this because it is a categorical statement. I'd bet that there is SOMEONE who believes in the possibility of defeating the Nazis without military force. This statement invites quibbling over what it means to "defeat" them, and the sentence structure is terrible. AdamRetchless 20:42, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Nazis were defeated at least twice by Nonviolent Resistance - in Denmark, and in Berlin itself (the Rose Street protest). Maybe more such actions would have brought more defeats for them if more had been carried out. You never know if something is going to work or not until you do it. - Das Baz, 16 February 2006. 10:21 AM.

scripture

In this article, someone has quoted an element from the Book of Mormon as fact. Meaning no disrespect to the LDS, is this NPOV? What is Wiki policy on quoting religious holy books as truth? 11:30, 8 December 2005 IP 128.40.190.156

I don't think quoting from a scripture is the problem -- the problem might be that many people would think that the Book of Mormon has a lot more to do with 1830 A.D. than with 77 B.C., so that as a historical source for ancient times, it couldn't be considered to be on a level with Josephus at all. Move it down to a section that's more in line with a date of 1830 A.D., if you wish... AnonMoos 11:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree with AnonMoos.--Jbull 15:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

If you're talking strict chronology, the section on the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi should precede the section on Caesarea. - Das Baz, 16 February 2006.

That's nice -- however, not one archaeologist who is neutral (i.e. who is not an active Mormon apologist) has ever discovered the slightest remains or traces of "Anti-Nephi-Lehi", and there has never been any secure identification (according to accepted scientific methods) of any site mentioned in connection with the "Anti-Nephi-Lehi" of the Book of Mormon with any specific geographical location whatsoever. By contrast, the Ammonites are very securely geographically localized to the east of the River Jordan, and there are many indications of the historical existence of Ammonites -- not least of which is that we have an actual 2600-year old inscription in the name of Amminadab king of Ammon, which was found in the vicinity of Amman, Jordan, whose name is in fact simply the Arabic version of the word "Ammon"! Therefore, mention of "Anti-Nephi-Lehi" on Wikipedia articles generally should occur solely and exclusively in the articles which discuss Mormonism -- quite unlike "Ammonites" (whose existence is a neutral established historical fact). AnonMoos 14:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Read the Book of Mormon and study it carefully, and you'll see it that it is truly ancient, as reliable as Josephus or even more, - Das Baz, 16 February 2006 10:23 AM.

Oh, really? I was under the impression that I would find numerous mentions of placenames, NOT ONE OF WHICH HAS EVER BEEN SOLIDLY GEOGRAPHICALLY LOCALIZED BY MEANS OF ACCEPTED SCIENTIFIC METHODS (so that even Mormons dispute helplessly among themselves whether the events of the Book of Mormon took place in Central America or over a thousand miles away in North America!), along with mentions of steel swords, horses, cattle, chariots, etc. -- none of which existed in the Americas during the time period in which the Book of Mormon claims to be set, as far as can be verified by accepted scientific methods.

By strong contrast, the existence of every major city (and many minor towns) mentioned by Josephus can be verified from sources outside of Josephus, the existence of every major historical figure (and a number of minor ones) mentioned by Josephus can be verified from sources outside of Josephus, and modern archaeological research has verified a number of details of Josephus' accounts of specific battles (such as those of Masada, and Gamala in the Golan). AnonMoos 14:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Ammonites

And a bit of disambiguation is called for. The Ammonites in the Book of Mormon and those in the Hebrew Bible are totally unrelated to each other- DB 25 Feb 2006, 10:21 AM.

In other words, there's no ascertainable external evidence that the "Ammonites" of the book of Mormon ever existed -- as opposed to the Ammonites of the Bible, for which such evidence does in fact exist. You were the one who started using the term "Ammonite" in relation to your idiosyncratic personal anti-Lephi-Cesario-Nehi-Ammonitic hypothesis... AnonMoos 01:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The Hypothesis (which is not my hypothesis anyway; it existed before me) is called the Caesarean Paradigm. I have already agreed to keep the Book of Mormon out of the discussion of it. - Das Baz 28 Feb. 2006, 10:20 AM.

Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon

For those who wish to pursue the matter, I recommend An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, by John. L. Sorenson, Deseret Book. DB, 28 Feb. 2006, 10:22 AM.

Josephus/Jesus editor

The Josephus/Jesus person is getting kind of nasty now. Over on the Requests for Protection page, I asked that this page be "semi-protected", which would force the Josephus/Jesus person to stop editing for four days, and get a user account to continue editing, but it seems that the situation here does not meet the narrow official criteria for semi-protection. AnonMoos 02:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Could have outed himself as User:Das_baz AnonMoos 14:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it to me.--Jbull 16:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Das Baz

Yes, Das Baz is the defender of Jesus here. In fact, Das Baz originally created the article "Nonviolent Resistance" largely in order to showcase the Caesarean Paradigm, the bold and revolutionary theory that proposes that Jesus, author of the maxim "Turn the other cheek", victim of Pilate's Cross, Teacher of Gandhi and Dr. King on Nonviolent Resistance, was the secret leader of the great action at Caesarea Maritima. No argument to the contrary has been offered anywhere by anybody. No alternative candidate has been suggested. The theory deserves to be discussed and studied, not to be squelched and forbidden. Questions for AnonMoos and anyone who thinks as he does:

• What exactly is your problem with the CP? What do you have against it?
• If not Jesus, then who?
• Do you really believe than in his people's hour of need, Jesus stood aloof and said and did nothing?
• Why?
• Do you really believe that it is better to squelch a theory and forbid any discussion of it than to study it?

- Das Baz, 16 February 2006. 10:18 AM.

I think you should read our policy on inclusion of original research. Wikipedia serves to inform people about currently accepted or widely discussed theories. It is not the place to showcase new or not generally accepted ones. Palmiro | Talk 16:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Did you notice how he refers to himself in the third person? That's a common sign of a crank -- or of Bob Dole! ;-) AnonMoos 16:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

There's even a word for it -- "Illeism" ;-) AnonMoos 17:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I shall gladly give up illeism, and the Book of Mormon, if you give up "Dude," "I bet," fancy-schmancy," bad epistemology, and nonsequiturs. Das Baz, Third Month, first day, 9:59 AM>

By the way, you created Nonviolent Resistance, but the Nonviolent resistance article (note capitalization) existed long before you. I was the one who merged the two articles. AnonMoos 18:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Copying from your user talk page, etc.

Dear Das Baz, please address some of the points I mentioned on your user talk page:

1. You have presented absolutely no POSITIVE evidence whatsoever for your speculative hypothetical theory. All you have given is the proximity in the text of Josephus -- but while such textual proximity might possibly provide additional support if there were any actual positive evidence in the first place, it really means nothing when there isn't any such actual positive evidence.
2. You haven't presented the slightest evidence that anyone in the last 1900 years of history ever held this belief before you did. Wikipedia is not the place to push your idiosyncratic personal theories (or even your new groundbreaking brilliant genius Cesario-Ammonitic theories, if no one else accepts them): WP:NOT.
3. Every other single person actively involved in editing the Nonviolent resistance article unanimously rejects your additions. You stand completely alone and isolated. AnonMoos 16:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

-That would make no difference whatsoever, even if true (which it is not). Truth is not determined by how many people believe it. Your Epistemology is just plain wrong. If the whole world rejects the truth, it still remains the truth. - Das Baz, 18 February 2006.11:25 AM.

That's nice -- however, if no one besides you accepts your theory, then it doesn't belong on Wikipedia: WP:NOT. AnonMoos 15:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, other people do accept it; ergo it belongs in Wikipedia.- Das Baz 15 Feb. 2006, 10:06 AM.

Nope -- unfortunately for you, that happens not to be the case. If a few other individuals accepted it, that would NOT automatically mean that it should have a place on Wikipedia -- and the more important point here is that YOU HAVE NOT PRESENTED THE SLIGHTEST EVIDENCE HERE THAT EVEN ONE PERSON AGREES WITH YOU. 01:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Other people agree with me, and I agree with the Caesarean Paradigm. But even if only one person, or nobody at all, agreed with it, it would not be any less true. - DB 28 Feb. 2006, 10:24 AM.

It might not make it any less true, but it would make it a whole lot less relevant for Wikipedia. And in any case, who are these supposed "other people"? Start naming names! 12:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, as for "If not Jesus, who?", the answer could have been any of a large number of Jewish religious leaders, the names of most of whom are lost to history. From what we see in the New Testament, Jesus was thought by many established Jewish religious leaders of the time to be something of a dissident troublemaker of dubious orthodoxy, so that they would have been rather unlikely to take part in a movement or action led by Jesus. AnonMoos 16:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Jesus is the only great Teacher of Nonviolent Resistance known from the First Century. This is positive evidence. Since no one in the thousands of years before Einstein believed in E=mc squared, then according to your Epistemology, the theory of Relativity cannot be true. Your argument is strictly a nonsequitur. How do you know other people do not accept the Caesarean Paradigm if you never give them a chance to think about it by erasing it as soon as anything is written about it? - Das Baz, 17 February 2006, 10:20 AM.

Dude, it's up to you to demonstrate that there's already a respectable scholarly consensus (or prominent minority view among some reputable scholars) in favor of your theory -- not to use Wikipedia as a proselytization tool to try to gain support for your theories. We don't give the flat-earth theory equal billing in the Structure of the Earth article. The burden of proof is really on you. AnonMoos 16:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Flat Earth

For thousands of years, Flat Earth was the only theory accepted by everybody everywhere. Ergo, by your Epistemology, it should be considered eternal truth. It was never a bold new paradigm from a heretic.- DB 25 Feb 10:12 AM.

Other people

Not only by me - I know for a fact that somebody else, unknown to me, inserted a thought about it that was quickly jumped on and deleted.- Das Baz, 17 February 2006, 10:20 AM.

Do you mean JimWae, who on "17:19, 11 February 2006" toned down some of the more extravagant and extreme claims in your remarks (calling them "POV" in the edit summary)? If he had known your full editing history with respect to this page, I bet he would have just deleted your remarks like the rest of us do... AnonMoos

Saying "Dude" and "I bet" is not very scholarly. - DB 18 Feb. 11:36 AM. It is also unscholarly, and wrong, to presume to present what somebdoy else would think and say. - DB 25 Feb 2006, 10:51 AM.DB, 25 Feb. 2006, 10:51 AM

It allows me to vent my feelings harmlessly, while not detracting from your ability to present relevant facts (if you had any relevant facts to present, which you don't). AnonMoos 18:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Relevant Facts follow: (DB 25 Feb 2006, 10:52 AM)

Relevant Facts

Relevant Fact NUmber One: Jesus was the only Teacher of Nonviolent Resistance in the First Century.

Relevant Fact Number Two: Jesus was the only Rabbi crucified by Pontius Pilate. - DB, 25 Feb 2006, 10:08 AM.

"The Rest of Us"

It is very presumptuous of you to call yourself "the rest of us" - You are the only person trying to suppress this Paradigm.- Das Baz, 18 February 2006. 11:28. AM.

Dude, look at the article page history again -- the "rest of us" means at least Palmiro and Jbull, both of whom have made their feelings on the matter quite clear on numerous occasions. AnonMoos 18:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

So that's three people. Three against one. Irrelevant as to Epistemology.- DB 25 Feb 2006, 10:14 AM.

Hypotheticals

P.S. It is also extremely presumptuous of you to declare what somebody else "would" think or say "if" such and such. - Das Baz, 18 February 2006, 11:29 AM.

Yes, Jesus was a dissident troublemaker. Thank you very much for providing an argument in favor of the CP. The Orthodox leaders certainly did not put their necks on the line at Caesarea. The common people did. - Das Baz, 17 February 2006, 10:20 AM.

Dude, the word "Orthodox" as you used it is relatively meaningless in the context of pre-70-A.D. Roman Judea. The main Jewish factions were the Sadducees, priestly aristocrats who ran the Temple in Jerusalem (and who were sometimes considered collaborators with the Romans by other Jews), and the Pharisees, who gained prominence through scholarship, insisted on somewhat strict observance of both the written and "oral" Jewish Law, and in fact had the greatest popular following. Standing up to the Romans was exactly the kind of thing that a number of Pharisee leaders sometimes did. You have no evidence that Pharisees WEREN'T involved in the incident Josephus narrates, and the default presumption would be that some were. AnonMoos 16:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC).

Jesus being a dissident troublemaker is an argument for, not against, the Caesarean Paradigm. - Das Baz, 18 February 2006, 11:26 AM.

But Jesus not having the respect of more recognized Jewish religious leaders of the time who commanded more support among the populace at large is an argument against your purely personal and subjective hypothetical speculations. AnonMoos 18:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The Talmud never mentions any other Rabbi who stood up to Pilate and was crucified by Pilate.- Das Baz, 18 Feb., 11:30 AM.

Thanks to Josephus and the Talmud, Jewish leaders of the first century are relatively well-known. - Das Baz, 17 February 2006, 10:20 AM.

But I thought you cast doubts on Josephus above. Please be consistent. AnonMoos 16:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

True, you cannot trust Josephus 100%. Fortunately, we also have the Talmud. -Das Baz, 18 Feb. 11:31 AM.

The only one who preached Nonviolent Resistance - "Turn the Other Cheek" - was Jesus. Jesus insisted that doves should not be sold on Temple grounds. Do you really think he got so worked up about kosher birds while doing and saying nothing about the idolatrous Eagles of the Romans? Please. Do you think people will be turned away from the Nonviolent Philosophy and Practice if they realize Jesus was the founder of it?- Das Baz, 17 February 2006, 10:20 AM

But I thought you said that anti-Lehi-Nephi founded it before Jesus. Please be consistent. AnonMoos 16:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC).

You are showing off your ignorance. The people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi were followers of Jesus, and what they did was following the teachings of Jesus. And you have not answered my questions. - Das Baz, 18 Feb. 2006, 11:33 AM.

They were followers of Jesus at least 70 years before Jesus was even born??? That's a startling development in theology, but I completely fail to see what relevance it has to the Nonviolent resistance article. AnonMoos 18:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Now, at last you have a point. Christians believe that Jesus existed as a Spirit being long before birth on Earth, but this is a matter of Faith, not of Scholarship, so it does not really belong in a scholarly discussion (any more than those "Dudes" and "I bets" and emotional outbursts). -DB 25 Feb 2006 10:17 AM.

A Leader of Wisdom and Charisma

Only a Leader of great wisdom and charisma could have organized and inspired such an action as the Caesarean Protest while keeping it within the bounds of Nonviolence. You still have not explained why the CP outrages you so. Why does it?- Das Baz, 17 February 2006, 10:20 AM.

My emotions are irrelevant as to what the content of the article Nonviolent resistance should be -- what is extremely relevant is that you still haven't presented the slightest evidence that anyone in the last 1900 years of history ever held this belief before you did. AnonMoos 16:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, most people in most places never believed the Copernican theory. Does this invalidate Copernicus? DB, 18 Feb. 11:34 AM.

The basic Copernican hypothesis (not Copernicus' exact theory, which contained circles and epicycles instead of ellipses) is widely accepted by scientists over the last almost 400 years, while the Anti-Cesario-Nephi-Ammmonitic-Lehi personal hypothetical speculation is accepted by you alone in history (as far as any evidence that you've presented to the contrary goes...).

Caesarean Paradigm

Again, how many people accept a theory is irrelevant to its truth. - DB 28 Feb. '06, 10:27 AM>

But it's quite relevant as to what belongs in a Wikipedia article!

We have already agreed to leave the Book of Mormon out of the discussion, so let us call the Caesarean Paradigm by its proper name, and leave the Ammonites for religious debates.= DB 25 Feb 2006, 10:20 AM.

Dude, you were the one who first used the word "Ammonite" in the context of your personal idiosyncratic theory, and I bet you were the one who added the Book of Mormon to the article page too... AnonMoos 01:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Your emotions are not irrelevant, either. They are the problem. -DB 18 Feb.11:38 AM.

And no, I did not add the page on the Book of Mormon to the article. -DB, 28 Feb. 2006,10:28 AM.

Scripture Page

It does seem to me a good idea to add a separate article on Scriptural Foundations of Nonviolent Resistance, or a separate section of this article. It could include the Hindu Scriptures that inspired Gandhi, the NT teachings of Jesus, and the Book of Mormon section in question. - DB 28 Feb 2006, 10:29 AM.

Epistemology

To say something cannot be true unless everybody, or at least most people, believe it is very bad wrongheaded Epistemology. Das Baz, 18 February 2006, 10:27 AM.

I don't know much about fancy-shmancy philosophy, but I do know very clearly that if you're the first and only person to believe "X", then "X" probably does not belong on Wikipedia (except perhaps in certain very special circumstances, none of which applies here). AnonMoos 17:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, I am far from being the only person to believe the Caesarean Paradigm, so yes, it belongs in Wikipedia. - DB 25 Feb '06, 10:22 AM.

Repeating reply above: If a few other individuals accepted it, that would NOT automatically mean that it should have a place on Wikipedia -- and the more important point here is that YOU HAVE NOT PRESENTED THE SLIGHTEST EVIDENCE HERE THAT EVEN ONE PERSON AGREES WITH YOU. 01:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, several people do, regardless of your feelings on the matter, but it is irrelevant to the truth of a matter how many people believe it. - DB 28 Feb. 2006, 10:33 AM.

It might not make it any less true, but it would make it a whole lot less relevant for Wikipedia. And in any case, who are these supposed "other people"? Start naming names! 12:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I shall collect a list of names and present it. Das Baz, 3/3/06, 10:07 AM.

Jesus the only Candidate

Josephus - or somebody - concealed the identity of the great Teacher who inspired and led the great Caesarea protest. Who could it be? What are the facts?

• Jesus was the greatest - perhaps the only - Teacher of Nonviolent Resistance in first-century Israel.
• Jesus was the only Rabbi whom Pilate crucified.
• The Gospel writers had good reason to conceal the facts, since their intent was to show that Jesus and Christianity were no threat at all to the Roman Empire.
• The Priests of the Temple certainly did not take part in the Caesarea Protest, since they were collaborators with the Romans.-

-Das Baz, 18 February 2006. 10:32 AM.

The House of Hillel and the House of Shammai

According to the NT Gospels, the Pharisees were bitterly opposed to Jesus because of his healings on the Shabat, and some even planned to put him to death for it. However, this cannot possibly be true of the House of Hillel, who agreed completely that it is lawful to heal on the Shabat. This is still the position of all Rabbis today, even the most Orthodox.

Therefore, Rabbis of the House of Hillel would have no problem at all participating together with Jesus in the Caesarean protest.

Rabbis of the House of Shammai were opposed to Shabat healing, but they certainly never killed or plotted to kill a fellow Jew (or anybody) for disagreeing with them on this matter (or any other matter).

Further, when the Trial and Arrest of Jesus came, no one brought up the matter of the Shabat healings, no one brought up the matter of the Shabat healings as an accusation against Jesus.

When Jesus traveled around the Galilee, wherever he went, he was treated with the greatest courtesy, invited to read the Haftarah and to preach a sermon.

The claims of Rabbinical opposition to Jesus are obviously a matter of great exaggeration and even outright invention on the part of the NT Gospel writers, due perhaps to anti-Semitism and certainly to a desire to distance Jesus and Christianity from Judaism and from opposition to the Roman Empire.

There is no reason why Rabbis of the House of Hillel, and even some of the House of Shammai, could not have taken part together with Jesus on the Caesarean protest. However, not one of these other Rabbis was crucified by Pilate. Only Yeshua. Not one of these other Rabbis is known as a Teacher of Nonviolent Resistance. Only Yeshua.

- Das Baz, 25 February 2006, 10:36 AM.

Anti-Nephi-Lehi

Somebody has added a reference to the Mormon Anti Nephi Lehi in the Early nonviolent resistance section. As far as I know, the Book of Mormon, published in the 19th Century, is the only source for the existence of these people, and non-Mormons do not generally believe they existed. Should the Anti-Nephi Lehi be mentioned in this article?--Jbull 20:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

That's part of the "Das Baz" stuff (see section scripture above). The best thing would probably be to move the whole Book of Mormon thing down to a section which is more consistent with a date of 1830, but no such current suitable section exists in the page as it is at the moment. AnonMoos 15:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Here, I have to agree with AnonMoos. A section on scriptural teachings on Nonviolent Resistance should be created and added. - Das Baz, 25 February 2006, 10:38 AM.

Humboldt's Stages

According to the great German scholar Alexander Humboldt, all great theories in Science and Scholarship go through three stages: 1) Most people declare it cannot possibly be true. 2) Many people declare it is not important. 3) The discovery is attributed to the wrong person.

Obviously, we are still in the first stage. To pre-empt the third stage, let it be noted that the Caesarean Paradigm follows as a natural corollary to Mahatma Gandhi's discovery that Jesus was the Father of Nonviolent Resistance. Ergo, primary credit or blame needs to go to the Mahatma. - Das Baz, 25 February 2006, 10:43 AM.

The Great Unknown

Could there have been a Great Unknown Rabbi who was even more influential than Yeshua Bar Abba, but who escaped arrest from the Romans, Crucifixion by Pilate, mention by Josephus, mention in the Talmud, and History? Yes, but positing such a Great Unknown violates the Principle of Parsimony, also known as Occam's Razor, an important tool of Epistemology. Why invent somebody else, when Yeshua Bar Abba/ Jesus of Nazareth is already on the scene? - Das Baz, 25 February 2006, 10:48 AM.

Some people with Positive things to say about the Caesarean Paradigm.

James Lupo, a church leader in Chicago, Illinois, thinks the theory is "possible" and attributes opposition to it to religious prejudice.

Angela Suarez, a spiritual magazine editor in Pittsburgh, PA, likes the Caesarean paradigm and finds no problems with it.

More names to follow.

-Das Baz, 03/07/2006, 1:37 PM.

Dude, why do you have such unconqerable difficulties in organizing discussions in a simple logical manner, so that people won't have excessive difficulty following the thread of a discussion? Why did you think that these comments of yours belonged in a subsection under a discussion of the ship Exodus in 1947??? And vague non-commital private comments from people who you've written to, who probably out of politeness have refrained from directly calling you a crank, are hardly indications of a scholarly consensus, or even a respectable minority scholarly opinion. Otherwise, where are the scholarly articles that these people have written (published in reputable peer-reviewed journals) based on your hypothesis? AnonMoos 13:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

So now you are moving the goalpost and raising the bar. And you insist on calling it my hypothesis, which it is not. Also, you persist in your infantile "Dude." Try to be a bit more mature and I shall do what I can about getting the Caesarean Paradigm discussed in scholarly journals. Das Baz, 03/08/2006, 10:25 AM.

Nonviolent Resistance in the British Mandate of Palestine

Does the reference to the Exodus belong in this article as an example of nonviolent resistance? "[T]he immigrants put up a desperate defense"[1] and, according to the account of one passenger, Dvora, days before the British boarding, the passengers had "prepared" themselves "with anything that could serve as a weapon."[2] Dvora also describes the boarding as a "fight." --unsigned comment by User:DieWeibeRose 08:20, 18 February 2006

Sorry about not signing.--DieWeibeRose 13:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Added references needed templates to this section of the article.--DieWeibeRose 02:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Germany during World War II

Should this section really include: "I LIKE CHOCOLATE MILK!!!"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DerRichter (talk • contribs) 23:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Sorry about not signing that--DerRichter (talk) 23:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Non-Violence in Ireland

"In Northern Ireland, six months after the Civil Rights Movement had begun to have astonishing success, violence erupted leaving open questions as to what might have been achieved through strictly non-violent means."

Speaking as someone who is Irish and therefore takes an interest in such things, I think the term "astonishing success" is ridiculous, considering it had little to no success. Should this be re-worded?

• I'm not sure but i imagine the wording meant to refer to the US Civil Rights Movement. However, it should be reworded or struck, because it's incredibly speculative and POV at this moment. (So I struck it -- diff -- if someone else wants to have a go at writing something that isn't NOR speculation about Northern Ireland, that's great, and if there's a cite where someone else drew a connection between the US CRM & N. Ireland, then that could go back too. --Lquilter (talk) 04:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)