![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Point of View edits by Truth Seeker should be reverted. He is a geocentrist.
PhilVaz 20:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Point of view edits by Phil Vaz should be reverted. He is an anti-creationist. Truth_Seeker 03:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
PhilVaz 04:32, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Robert is considered one of the brightest minds in apologetics:
http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=918004&postcount=5 http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=727295&postcount=15 http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=729978&postcount=31 http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=734456&postcount=53 http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=735040&postcount=63 http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=736884&postcount=73 http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=806799&postcount=91
Truth_Seeker 04:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Is that better, Phil? I am trying to differentiate between "universe" and "solar sytem". Modern geocentric theory deals with the universe, recognizing the solar system. Your original text emphasized the solar system and did not deal with the universe. Feel free to edit, keeping that in mind. Truth_Seeker 05:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Truth Seeker, thanks for the comments. This was your intro:
"is a well known and respected Catholic apologist famous for standing up for orthodox Church views. Robert Sungenis often examines contorversial Church views that other Catholic apologists shy away from. His series of apologetics books are well respected, and recommended widely by Catholic apologists and clergy. Currently his most famous controversial view is that the Church's 17th century position regarding geocentrism is valid and has not been rescinded, is scientifically viable, and worthy of consideration."
Respected by who? Even the contributors to his own book Not By Scripture Alone have disowned him ( Mark Shea, for example). He is not respected by the majority of Catholic apologists today who consider him a crank on his scientific views. EWTN dropped him like a hot potato in 2002, both his series on Justification, and his series with Patrick Madrid on sola scriptura are deleted from EWTN's programming. He is not respected by the majority of even his fellow Catholic apologists today because of his crank science views, and because of the attacks he has made on his own web site on fellow apologists Karl Keating, Jimmy Akin, Scott Hahn, etc.
But we can be fair to him and simply state he is a "traditional" or "traditionalist" Catholic apologist (OK, I understand he attends the traditional Mass, but if that's mistaken then correct that) who views the universe like they did back in the 16th century (OK, you can edit the Geocentrism Controversy section here). His books are "thorough" (I think someone before me put that there) but he is not "well respected" today. He is only "well respected" by you since you have bought into his crank scientific views: geocentrism. And neither you nor Robert are trained in physics and astronomy. You basically engage (in my opinion) in what TalkOrigins has called "quote mining."
"Robert Sungenis often examines contorversial Church views that other Catholic apologists shy away from."
That is frankly untrue since Catholic Answers and EWTN have dealt with all the issues Sungenis has dealt with, whether the priest scandal or whatever else controversial. But Catholic Answers or EWTN does not deal in crank science which is what sets Sungenis apart today from his fellow Catholic apologists. And you cannot spell controversial. Watch the typos.
"His series of apologetics books are well respected, and recommended widely by Catholic apologists and clergy."
That is no longer true, since 2002. Catholic Answers dropped Not By Faith Alone from their catalog. EWTN dropped both his series on Justification and Sola Scriptura (with Patrick Madrid) from their programming line up. Those are the facts. They are still running Madrid's series on the Papacy (saw it last week). But anything involving Sungenis has been dropped.
"Currently his most famous controversial view is that the Church's 17th century position regarding geocentrism is valid and has not been rescinded, is scientifically viable, and worthy of consideration."
That statement is probably correct. I'll agree with that.
I said I wasn't going to battle you, but Wikipedia is very addicting. Hee hee.
PhilVaz 21:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Answer this question: who is Robert Sungenis "well respected" by? Not EWTN, not Catholic Answers, and not even Mark Shea who contributed a chapter to his Not By Scripture Alone. All of these folks consider him "eccentric" at best, a "crank" at worst. But as I said, we can be fair to him and leave that out, and just state the facts. "Well respected" is clearly your opinion, you well respect him because you buy into geocentrism. PhilVaz 21:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
For sarters:
http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=918004&postcount=5 http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=727295&postcount=15 http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=729978&postcount=31 http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=734456&postcount=53 http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=735040&postcount=63 http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=736884&postcount=73 http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=806799&postcount=91
i.e., he is well respected by those served by apologists. Why do you judge him solely on those unwilling " to take a stand on unpopular and controversial issues"? Truth_Seeker 21:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Pardon me but (excuse my French) who the heck are these people? The apologists of Catholic Answers, EWTN, and Mark Shea (a popular Catholic apologist and author) consider him a crank, or eccentric, or both. Those are basically the opinions that count, not some anonymous folks on the board. You already have my opinions of his books, they are good books. But I'm sorry he had to include an appendix on young-earth creationism in Not By Bread Alone (2000). I saw the crank science coming even back in 2000. BTW, I'm mentioned in that book in a footnote. :-) PhilVaz 21:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Try some comprimise wording on the one sentence you do ont like. Do not change the whole article back. Truth_Seeker 21:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
"I just got a tape set by Tim Staples HOW IS MAN SAVED which is Copyright 1998. In this tape Tim says that Robert Sungensis' NOT BY FAITH ALONE is "THE BOOK on Justifcation" and Mr. Staples recommends the book several times."
I had dinner with Tim Staples in Orlando, FL in 2004 (Pete Vere drove me there, so he can also verify) and basically Staples thinks Sungenis is "nuts." Not his exact word, but Staples told me he engaged in much private discussion with Sugnenis trying to reason with him on his crank science and the Catholic teaching on that. To no avail. So No, Tim Staples (presently with Catholic Answers) would not be one today who "well respects" Bob Sungenis, sorry to say. He might have back in 1998 however, shortly after Not By Faith Alone was published. PhilVaz 22:35, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
OK, I broke this discussion page into sections. I think this part can probably be edited:
"In early 2002, Robert Sungenis came under much criticism, even amongst hitherto fans, for publicly postulating a geocentric worldview. This view is akin to the Ptolemaic worldview and is contrasted to that of Copernicus, which is today the accepted view of the civilized world which holds that the sun, and not the earth--as with Ptolemy--is centrally located amidst revolving and rotating celestial objects in our solar system."
You said reference to "solar system" is irrelevant. It might be today, but back then (in the 16th or 17th century) it is my understanding that without powerful telescopes one could not see beyond the solar system. So that's why I guess I added the distinction that Copernicus view (and Galileo ?) was that the "celestial objects" (planets, including EARTH) revolved and rotated around the sun in the solar system, which was basically the extent of the "universe" at that time. But much of that section was written before I got here. And I understand these days as a "geocentrist" you have to argue the "entire universe" somehow rotates/revolves around the earth. But you know more about what "modern geocentrism" means and how Sungenis interprets that (you obviously read more of his material than me on that) so you can edit that section. The rest is quite adequate.
Also the Church Fathers don't interpret the Bible "authoritatively" (or infallibly) on science issues, since the Church only speaks authoritatively or infallibly on faith and morals, not science. The Church Fathers could all be young-earthers and geocentrists and be completely wrong on their science, and the Catholic Church would have no problem with that. So the sentence on the Church Fathers and biblical texts is accurate. PhilVaz 02:12, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Phil: You have made a lot of statements about "faith and morals" and Papal infallibility.
1. You have not shown us an authoiritative definition of faith and morals 2. You have not shown that stating thst the earth moves is not faith and/or morals. In the condemnation of Paul V it states:
""...The proposition that the Earth is not the centre of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith..."
3. Faith and morals relates only to the specific instances of infallibility. ROBERT IS NOT CLAIMING IT IS INFALLIBLE. He is claiming that we should give and assent of the will towards it, but that it could be overturned by a future proclamation of equal weight (i.e., to the Papal Bull using Apostolic authority for instance). WE SHOULD STATE THIS IN THE ARTICLE.
So your arguments may make you feel better about rejecting geocentrism, but they have nothing to do with Robert's case. Truth_Seeker 14:47, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Phil:
Now you are putting words into my mouth. The Vatican COuncil (I) and Trent talked about more than papal infallibility.
Nowhere has the Church stated that anything that can be treated with the "scientiifc method" trumps the Church.
As for Fr. Jaki, may be interesting in a general discusison, but does not change what the Church did, nor is in itself doctrinal, infallible, or requiring assent of the faithful's will. Talking about Babylonians and Israelites feelings is phenemological, something the fathers and the three Popes rejected IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE (i.e., geocentrism).
I give no creedence to flat earth, nor did the consent of the fathers (one or two early fathers, maybe, but this is ont consent), nor have any Popes or councils pushed it.
Back to the main point- this article is about what Robert Sungenis believes, not your personal reasons for rejecting his beliefs. If you want a general discussion on sicience and faith, or even geocentrism, I suggest you start one, perhaps on CA. I will join in. Truth_Seeker 07:04, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Right, in an effort to move this discussion along a bit, here are my thoughts (for what they're worth) on the sections of this article:
I hope that this helps- obviously criticise away! -- G Rutter 12:03, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Sungenis belongs amongst the Neo-Conservative section of Traditionalist Catholics. However, while I know that there are Sedevacantist and Traditionalist Catholic categories, and have created the Sedeprivationist category, I want to know if there is a "Neo-Con" category (or rather subcategory of Traditionalist Catholics), or whether I should create one, and if I do, and added Sungenis to it, what would be the potential reaction? WikiSceptic 16:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Documentation
There's a lot of slander here against those who have documented Sungenis's antisemitism. The positions of Dr. Cork are spelled out clearly in "Antisemitism on the Catholic Right," where Sungenis' writings are compared with the sources from which he plagiarized. http://wquercus.com/sungenis. Sungenis' former employees have all recognized the validity of this--Ben Douglass, Jacob Michael, Michael Forrest. It is not POV to point out what has been factually demonstrated. It is a POV violation for apologists for hate to pretend that Sungenis has not acted as he has done.
FactChecker
This charge by William Cork is a classic smear campaign. I would rather not have the topic mentioned, but if it is going to be mentioned I am clearly going to identify it for what it is- a guttter dragging smear campaign. How can anyone take Cork seriously? This is a clear POV violation. Either we remove the entire section, or I will continue to press for a truthful disclosure of what this is really about. No one other than Cork came out against Sungenis publicly. To Cork anyone who questions his views is anti-semitic. This "controversy" is only in Cork's imagination and should not be reported as a fact.
Documentation
There's a lot of slander here against those who have criticized Sungenis. The positions of Dr. Cork are spelled out clearly in "Antisemitism on the Catholic Right," where Sungenis' writings are compared with the sources from which he plagiarized. http://wquercus.com/sungenis. Sungenis' former employees have all recognized the validity of this--Ben Douglass, Jacob Michael, Michael Forrest. It is not POV to point out what has been factually demonstrated. It is a POV violation for apologists for hate to pretend that Sungenis has not acted as he has done.
Truth-Seeker
I was just thinking about that recently. One unknown figure accusing Sungenis does not allow for a separate section with honorary mention. If that particular controversy was high-profile enough in Sungenis' apostolate, I can, however, see it being mentioned somewhere in the article. But there are many other traditional Catholics critical of the same, so it really is not all that unique. ( Diligens 14:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC))
Truth Seeker
Read the article on "Smear Campaign". Bill Cork is your only reference. He does not deal with the facts. He does not dispute the facts. He offers no alternative facts or sources. He attempts to use innuendo, association, and other low tactices to smear Robert Sungenis. This does not deserve a section, even mention in my opinion.
Truth Seeker
This is clearly a "he said" "he said" situation isn't it? Why do we even have a section on it? How about my proposal, above?
I have been trying to strike a comprimise. I did not see your changes the last time. I do not want a header stating "ANTISEMITISM". This in itself is a smear tactic, considering the weight of the charge. Also, the out of context statements regarding what he allegedly said is unfair,. If you want to place whole quotations with context, then that may be ok, but the article will get out of hand. You have a link to the smear job, so people can read the charges for themselves if interested.
Truth Seeker
Removed by TruthSeeker:
In his articles critiquing this position, Sungenis included charges that Jews were behind both Communism, Capitalism, Freemasonry, the Second Vatican Council, World War 1, World War 2, and the Gulf Wars.
Is this really not something that Sungenis wrote? I read through some of the document, and it does seem like he is saying that "Jews" were behind some of these things. -- ScienceApologist 20:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
This is news and relevant. Stop removing it.
Truth Seeker
ScienceApologist 20:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, did not see you had placed it elsewhere. Try using discussion more.
Truth Seeker
This is becoming a kludge. Every odd charge that comes up is thrown into this as though a collection of charges- most from the same small group of dis-satisfied ex-collegues is evidence. We should summarize the charges and responses in a few sentences, then move all the links to external links.
Truth-Seeker —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.81.205.20 ( talk) 20:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC).
I partly agree with Truth-Seeker in that persons who dislike the subject intensely and have a vested interest in embarrassing Sungenis, are on an almost daily basis re-writing this section without regard to enyclopedia ethics and objectivity. Hotly contested allegations of moral turpitude and cheating are preceded by words like "undoubtedly" and "certainly." So we have a polemical scoreboard rigged to reflect the viewpoints and "victory" of his opponents over him posing as a wiki encyclopedia entry and this abuse seriously detracts from the veracity of the article and the credibility of Wikipedia.
Where I disagree with Truth-Seeker, is with his suggestion that the charges should be summarized rather than specified. Since wiki desires neither to uphold nor detract from Sungenis, most of the charges (except where patent libel is present) should remain, but set-out within the context of allegations by partisans.
Equally lengthy quotes from Sungenis may be added for balance and fairness. The solution is not to contract the entry, but expand it, since it forms a part of the evolving historical record concerning this subject.
However, if the subject's opponents continue to sabotage the entry and violate the guidlines of the Wikipedia, using the encyclopedia as a forum to attack and belittle the subject, then it may be that Truth-Seeker's suggestion is necessary to implement as a last resort. In the interim the Sungenis entry should be flagged as disputed. Aaron Asimov 14:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
This section is definitely biased--it shows up in the intro, too: "increasingly virulent anti-semitism, inflammatory charges against the Talmud," etc. At least throw in a few uses of of the word "alleged." Propugnatorfidei 18:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I have a serious issue with the fact that Mark Wyatt (AKA "Truth-Seeker", under IP address 63.81.205.20 on the history pages) is out here on an almost daily basis, removing links and attempting to correct "POV" statements - his name is in the "Acknowledgements" section of Sungenis' geocentrism book, for goodness' sake. If that's not a true "vested interest," then the phrase has no meaning. From what I can tell here, none of the statements made about Sungenis in this wiki entry are without documentation. Let the facts speak for themselves, Mr. Wyatt. Or at least, if you're going to be out here shilling for Sungenis, have the decency to sign your name to your edits. Lumengentleman 18:27, 21 March 2007 (EST)
http://www.sungenisandthejews.com/ is a personal web page, while http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/ is a blog. These are not acceptable sources and should not be used as such. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Please see | Biographis of Living Persons. This Wikipedia policy is being trampled on. Specifically:
1. See this section "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material"
2."Biased or malicious content"
3. "Reliable sources"
Truth_Seeker —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.81.205.20 ( talk) 20:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC).
In light of the extent of the controversy with Sungenis and Jews it is unacceptable to leave the entry as simply "Some critics have accused Robert Sungenis of unfairly dealing with the Jews. Robert Sungenis denies this." The Jewish controversy occupies a tremendous amount of space at Catholic Apologetics International. — Liam Patrick — continues after insertion below
As blogs are unacceptable, what of the other sources? Why were they also deleted by Truth Seeker? What if the things said by Sungenis are simply sourced directly to Catholic Apologetics International or the Web Archive?
Ignoring Sungenis' writings against Jews with the entry Truth Seeker has put in would be like having an entry on George Bush and Iraq that says only "He also presided over a war in Iraq" or on David Duke that says "Some of his critics claim he is racist. He denies the charge." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liam Patrick ( talk • contribs) 23:15, March 21 2007 (UTC)
Truth Seeker, then there is no problem with documenting the Jewish controversy at Catholic Apologetics International by quoting Sungenis and linking directly to his own writing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liam Patrick ( talk • contribs) 00:11, March 22 2007 (UTC)
My Proposal for the "Jewish" section:
Position on the Jews
Robert Sungenis strongly holds to a view of Biblical inerrancy which, as he claims the Church has traditionally done, tends to emphasize the literal interpretation strongly where appropriate. This, plus his interpretation of Patristics, Concliar, and Papal pronouncements has lead him to some of the following positions on the Jews and Judaism:
1. The Jews did have (in the time of Christ) a "hardened heart", and still predominately have this condition today (ref. Rm 9:18-32; 11:5-23)
2. The Jews are no longer a special people (above the gentiles) in God's eyes (ref. Gal 3:28 '...There is neither Jew nor Greek...',Col 2:11-16; Eph 2:11-16; Ac 10:34-35; 5:1-4; 6:12-16; Rm 2:28-29; Heb 7:18; 8:13; 10:9; 2Co 3:6-14).
3. Jewish converts to Catholicism should not practice Jewish rituals and festivals, nor seek special identity markers within the Church (Acts of the Apostles, Council of Florence)
4. Though speculatively possible, there likely will not be a massive conversion of Jews at the second coming of Christ. Robert also identifies theological difficulties in holding this position. Robert holds that only a remnant will be converted, and this throughout the time of the gentiles. (see the Mark Cameron debates)
5. Today's national Israel was not predicted in the Old Testament (misinterpertations of Isaiah 66, Genesis 12:3),nor does this represent the final fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant (this already occured in the Old Testament, Joshua 21:43-45; 1Kings 8:56; Nehemiah 9:7-8), nor does the the cedeing of control of Jeruseluem to the Jews of Israel in 1967 indicate the time of the "fulfilment of the gentiles" (Luke 21:24, Rm 11:25).
6. The Talmud is an anti-Christian document.
7. The Mosaic covenant was fulfilled by and replaced by the New Covenant with Christ (ref., Hb 7:18; 8:13; 10:9; 2Co 3:6-14; Gl 3:10-29).
8. The New Covenant fulfills the Old, not vice-versa.
9. Jews do need to convert to Catholicism to attain salvation.
The same thinking, Biblical exegesis, and interpretation of Patristics, Concliar, and Papal pronouncements which have led to Robert Sungenis being lauded by Catholic apologists when applied to Protestant ideas, have caused some consternation amongst some Catholic apologists and even secular groups when applied to the Jews. Especially contentious to some apologists are his speculations interpreting points 1,5, and 6 to events and people today.
END PROPOSAL
I do not think anything more needs to be said. Please let me have your thoughts.
Truth seeker new 20:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Protection has ended "(expires 2007-03-28T23:20:17 (UTC))", I made the proposed (and undisputed) changes. Truth_Seeker 05:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Truth-seeker, your submission is not reasonable. It is clear that many of Sungenis' views are highly controversial and you neglected to address them in any meaningful way.
It deserves to be known that Sungenis' ideas are his own in certain controversial areas and that the Catholic community does not agree with them. Some specifics deserve to be drawn out as this is an encyclopedia. At least as much care should be shown for the reputation of the Catholic Church as it is for Robert Sungenis. He is presented as a Catholic apologist.
This section has been rewritten in line with Wikipedia guidelines. Most of what you originally entered has been retained. However, a sample of Sungenis' own more controversial writings have now been included. The outside references to EWTN and CUF have been retained as they fall within Wikipedia guidelines.
Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liam Patrick ( talk • contribs) 08:27, March 29 2007 (UTC)
Truth-Seeker,
You have gone to great effort to avoid the most serious issues involving Sungenis and Jews. Why? View Michael Hoffman's wikipedia entry and you will see that they at least deal with the issue and don't cover it over in the way you are trying to cover over the things Sungenis writes. Hoffman is a living person obviously, too.
It cannot be improper to site the very things Sungenis himself writes at his website. The things you will only site are not the things that have caused controversy. You seem to know this. So while you worry about negative agendas you are clearly showing a positive agenda to cover over certain things. If he is comfortable enough to put these things on his web site and keep them up, then why are you trying to hide them? This is not supposed to be a propaganda site or hagiography.
Also, a sentence MUST be added that at least gives the reader a clue that some of Sungenis' views are not in harmony with the general Catholic community. His views are clearly on the margin in certain areas. Do you dispute that?
If not, then this needs to be in the section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liam Patrick ( talk • contribs) 06:18, March 31 2007 (UTC)
Truth Seeker,
The sentence added speaks about the "Catholic community". And it is accurate. Are you really saying that you believe these views are in harmony with what the Church is saying about Jews now or what the vast majority of Catholic think about Jews?
That's just a few.
Are you saying that Michael Piper's views of Jews (whose works he says he can't put down now) and a good deal of Michael Hoffman's views are in step with the mind of the Church and the views of most Catholics?
That's not reasonable.
I hope you can agree that as this stands right now, it is a very charitable rendering of what Robert Sungenis believes and at least gives the reader SOME insight that he is not speaking for the Catholic Church or the general Catholic community on these controversial issues. He is speaking for himself.
Okay?
If it is not, I will bring it to Wikipedia because anything less would be propaganda/hagiography.
Liam Patrick 01:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Truth-seeker,
What do you mean "these are not his views"? Of course they are. He says that he believes Jews intend to rule the world and the Catholic Church. That's a pretty big over-arching view, don't you think? He subscribes to multiple Jewish conspiracy theories in support of that view. And btw...the link to the interview does work so please stop removing it. He comes right out and says that Monica Lewinsky was sent in by the Jews after Clinton. The site was having difficulties, that's all. — Liam Patrick — continues after insertion below
Do you dispute that it is these kinds of views that have created the controversy and that Sungenis embraces? It is a pattern of views. So yes, any one taken by itself in isolation you may say, "Oh, is that really important?" The point is the pattern and the over-arching trajectory. — Liam Patrick — continues after insertion below
What is so difficult to admit about that?
Do you dispute there is an important controversy centering around this issue with Sungenis? Seriously? Do you believe that Wikipedia needs to avoid dealing with such prominent issues? It looks very much like you're trying to cover it over. — Liam Patrick — continues after insertion below
Again, would you object if a Bush supporter came in and said we can't talk Abu Ghraib or Hussein's attempt on his father's life in relation to the war on Iraq? Or how about Monica Lewinsky with Bill Clinton? That was far more personal in nature, yet it was central and to insist on leaving it out would be ridiculous imo. This is about HISTORY. It is an ENCYCLOPEDIA not an autobiography or hagiography site. It is not about advertising for Robert Sungenis. It is to inform the PUBLIC. Your focus is almost entirely on Sungenis.
As for Piper, why don't you listen to the interview first? As for Hoffman, would you say that it is fine to use, endorse and quote from David Duke as a source on Blacks because I don't endorse a couple of things he believes? Or would you consider it noteworthy? Do you think MOST people might want to know that a man who writes on blacks likes a good deal of Duke's works on Blacks? Of course they would want to know that and they have a right to know it. But you want to cover it over. Why? It can be stated in a completely neutral way:
If you find that "guilt by association", then it is because you personally believe people would find his sources themselves to be the problem. There is nothing in the statement itself at all that objectively harms Sungenis. It is a neutral statement of fact and it is not skewed. If you want to include all of his sources, then that would be fine, too. Look over his public statements and the documentation. But these are the ones publicly documented. So, if there is a problem, the sources themselves would create the guilt in the mind of the reader and it is not up to you whether the reader sees a problem with the objective information or not. Sungenis himself made the choices to seek these sources out Truth-Seeker. Do you not see this?
And that is not guilt by association, Truth-seeker. Guilt by association is when someone is deemed guilty for simple proximity to another. If Sungenis were only, for example, friends with Hoffman and the entry said, "Sungenis is also friends with Hoffman, a man generally seen as an anti-Semite", that would qualify as guilt by association. But he has directly and openly used his work and expressed approval of it with one or two caveats. Much more so in the case of Piper. Has he ever disagreed with Piper? This is all much more than mere meaningless connection...or guilt by association. So you are misusing the argument of guilt by association.
And please read what Sungenis actually writes before changing things anymore. He did more than just say that PIPER believes it:
Sungenis says, "We know". So he does more than just "referencing" Piper as you wrote. He endorses Piper's theory. You can't seriously argue that. You're trying to carve out non-existent distinctions, one would guess in order to distance Sungenis. But how can you legitimately distance a man from something he embraces?
And why are you focusing on this now anyway? You managed to expunge that part from the Wiki-record and I haven't tried to restore it up to now, although I disagree with you and believe Wikipedia would agree with me in the end that if it was done in neutral way it is perfectly legitimate to point out that Sungenis appeals to the work of Piper, IHR, Hoffman, Jones in his work. These are his main sources. But, on second thought, I am going to restore that section now the more I think about it. It is perfectly legitimate and I don't think you have a leg to stand on really. If Sungenis has repudiated any or these sources, then he needs to do so publicly. If not, it is perfectly legitimate, even necessary, to point out the sources he himself cites.
Next, look at his work again. You changed the wording to Zionist, not Jew. His views on Communism and Jews have nothing to do with Zionists. His comments on Disney have [nothing] to do with Zionists. His comments on Dear Abbey and Dr. Ruth have [nothing] to do with Zionists. The only common thread is [Jews], Truth-seeker. So you are distorting the record. — Liam Patrick — continues after insertion below
Finally, again, if he is so certain of his opinions about Jews as to put them up on his website, and there are many of them, then why do you keep trying to cover them over? How can the man's own writings and opinions be off-limits? This is absurd on the face of it. Liam Patrick 18:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
If you intend to keep changing and removing these things let me know now and I will request arbitration. I doubt you will find much support for what you are trying to do right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liam Patrick ( talk • contribs) 20:11, April 2, 2007
Patrick:
Please consider these wikipedia policy statements (which I posted at the beginning of the section):
Truth_Seeker 20:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Patrick:
Why don't you write your proposal for the Jewish section here, as I wrote my proposal previously. Anything about the Jewish controversy should be neutral (as you have said), and according to policy, should be well balanced. You have no reliable 3rd party sources (that I know of), so you need to use Robert Sungenis' own material. But at the same time, I think it shows bias to "cherry pick" quotes that are designed to make him look extereme. It is better to discuss the items that can be supported by entire articles (i.e., 'Robert Sungenis is critical of zionism' rather than Robert Sungenis said that the Jews killed JFK). In the case of the example, a reasonable way to say it may be
Do you see what I mean? His point was not to say that the Jews killed Kennedy, but to tie zionism to the Kennedy assasination- the political motive suggested is nuclear weapons to further zionist political ambitions. You need to study the article to understand what he is saying and why, then even you need to consider the policy guidelines. I feel your "PATTERN OF VIEWS" could easily be interpreted as an agenda, which is directly in conflict with the wikipedia policy. Truth_Seeker 20:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Truthseeker,
We're at an impasse. If you continue to believe this entry accurately portrays Robert Sungenis and what he has written about Jews, then I will not spend anymore time on it for now. I can see where you are going (even in your last proposal) and I want no moral responsibility before God for what is presented in this article.
And I will not be approaching Wiki for arbitration. I don't have the time at this point. So unless someone else is interested in this entry, the moral responsibility for the entry is yours for now.
I formally disown it.
Pray for wisdom.
Under the Mercy,
Liam -- Liam Patrick 20:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Truth-seeker,
Looking forward to your attempt to sanitize what Sungenis is writing now. Just another throw-away line?
Liam Patrick 19:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Truth-seeker,
Stop the white-washing. You are covering over his own writing. He says these kinds of things multiple times. No conspiracy theories needed. It's out there for all the world to see. It is Sungenis that is the conspiracy theorist. Are you not as proud of it as he obviously is?
His view of Jews is that they are trying to take over the world and the Catholic Church. And they are doing it by conspiracies like the JFK, FDR, Monica Lewinsky situations.
Why are you trying to hide this from the world? He's not.
Does he know that you are systematically trying to cover over his own work and important "truths"? You might think he'd be glad to get it out there even more! Buck up and have faith in him! -- Liam Patrick 05:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I copyedited this contentious section. Please note:
Reply to Otheus and Truth-Seeker,
IMO, Truth-seeker, you are inconsistent and have tried to create an interpretation of the rules in which only the things you consider best and most positive are presented about Sungenis. Anything negative is pulled out or watered down so much that it doesn't present the starkness of his actual writing. The fact is that this man espouses a number of Jewish conspiracy theories and has made many controversial statements. He is anything but subtle about it. Why are you trying to be subtle and cagey for him? He's not. He is not in the mainstream of Catholic thought when it comes to Jews and people deserve to know that. The controversy over all of this dominates his website. It seems you would like people not to know about this. But unless I'm wrong, Wikipedia is not a site for hagiography...or propaganda, either pro or con.
You complained when sites other than Sungenis' were cited (not just by me). Okay. Agreed that some of it seems to have not been legit by Wiki-policy. Then I provided quotes directly from his own work to overcome that. Then you complained that this was cherry picking, even though some of the quotes expressed an over-arching philosophy...like the fact that he believes Jews are trying to rule the world and the Catholic Church. That doesn't seem like an insignificant point. You complained. Down it came. I even went along with that and agreed to more general statements about his views. But then you proceeded to insert cherry-picked specific information about Fr. Neuhaus from Sungenis' radio interview.
So, I think you should consider your actions here before making more accusations. You obviously have your own agenda. I agree that one or two individuals went too far in the other direction. I also agree that I made errors because I did not understand wiki policy. But you have been less than consistent and fair yourself.
Liam Patrick 17:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Truth_Seeker 18:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Liam Patrick 15:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Truth-seeker,
I think ScienceApologist is right. There are a multitude of quotes from Sungenis about Jews. They're his own words. If you want to add context because you think the additional words really change the meaning, fine. To me, sometimes it looks like needless verbiage that only clutters the article and makes it less accessible. Whether or not his own words make him look nutty is one's personal POV, of course. Sungenis obviously doesn't think these things are nutty and it's not anyone's job to clean up his work and make it look less extreme than it actually is for Wikipedia, is it? You've removed quite a few things and said they were unsubstantiated or whatver and then I provided the verbatim quote.
But I do appreciate that you have started to be a little more reasonable lately. It hasn't gone unnoticed and so to be fair, I acknowledge it and thank you.
However, I do question your understanding of Public Person. Sungenis runs a very public organization, a non-profit that is legally open to public scrutiny, financially and otherwise, has authored several books, does radio programs, tv programs, gives public presentations etc. How much more does he have to do to be a public person?
Regarding conspiracy theories about Sungenis, I don't follow your argument. All one has to do is look at his website. You don't need to be a conspiracy theorist to see how much controversial and extreme material there is. To me, it's like saying one's making up conspiracy theories if they note that there are a lot of tall people in the NBA.
And finally, regarding your "one time statement" objection, I don't find that persuasive. Are you saying that as long as he only writes about any particular Jewish conspiracy theory once or twice, it's not right to note it? And what if he mentions **many** different conspiracy theories just once or twice...which is what he seems to do? The point is, he is a Jewish conspiracy theory advocate, Truth-seeker. He doesn't hide it. What has he written or said? Lewinsky. FDR. JFK. Pope Paul VI. Jews are trying to take over the world and the Catholic Church. U.S. foreign policy is secretly (and not so secretly sometimes!) dictated by the Jewish lobby. Communism was a Jewish enterprise. The Holocaust itself. Jewish financiers are secretly behind the push to make everyone do the bidding of Israel. The laundry list is pretty extensive. And it kind of looks like you are arguing that because he only mentions each of these once or twice (sometimes more, really), they must be ignored because it makes him look "nutty."
That's not a reasonable argument, imo. The individual points about Jews may vary, but one thing remains pretty consistent: if Jews are involved (or are thought to be involved), it's bad and he's bound and determined to expose the "truth" as he sees it. They're just up to no good.
Liam Patrick 04:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
TruthSeeker has been opposing wording which attributes the claims of a "scientific case" for geocentrism directly to Sungenis on the basis of an edit summary which states "science is not absolute", perhaps one of the most transparent arguments for POV-pushing I've ever seen at Wikipedia. Applicable policies for attribution need to be adhered to. These are Sungenis' claims and do not represent those of scientific consensus. Deal with it. -- ScienceApologist 11:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Biased or malicious content Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content in biographies or biographical information. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.
The "Jewish Controversy" section now contains way too much detail, in relationship to this person's life or his notability. I acknowledge that his views range from mundane to extremely controversial. I acknowledge that he associates himself with conspiratorial theorists and and anti-Semitic views. I also acknowledge that his views may or may not be based solely on doctrinal disagreements. However, this version is simply over-the-top. As an atheist who was once the son of a Protestant missionary, I offer to moderate the discussion on this section on what should go in, and what should not. Liam Patrick and Truth Seeker, I implore you to take me up on this offer. If so, until moderation is over, the minimalist approach should be taken.
First, we must keep in mind the core policy NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH (No "OR", or NOR) WP:NOR. Making long, attributed quotes to explain a person's view, while not "OR", is generally unencyclopaedic, and can result in violating another core policy, NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW WP:NPOV, by selecting and choosing quotes. Normally this is not a problem, but here it clearly is as we have a continued debate on this.
Second, to alleviate this problem, we should first try to lean upon reliable sources, sources which themselves are not polemical, blogs, or more opinion peddling. So far, I have not found such sources, and I ask you two to do your best. The closest thing I could find to such a reliable source was the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), but their criticism seems to have been almost completely stolen from a blogger, Mr. Bill Cork. It's also a fact that the SPLC is regarded by many (including myself) to be ultra-liberal, and not particularly even-handed (though they may entirely be correct). Another source was from Searchlight magazine, avowedly against anti-semitism and "hate". However, I cannot judge on my own whether their coverage of Sangenis is neutral and balanced.
Third, it needs to be noted that Sangenis runs CAI and that basically the site is his own, completely self-published site. As Truth Seeker (TS) notes above, it is acceptable to use this in a source in stating what Sangenis has said, but it must be clear that this is so and it must be balanced, in that we editors here have a solid consensus on how the statements are summarized.
I will ask the page to be protected until we can make some progress in this area. -- Otheus 10:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Otheus,
That sounds fine to me. Thank you for the offer. I agree that it's too cumbersome and have said so previously. The reason so many quotes were provided from Sungenis' own writing in the first place was because more generalized statements were often deleted because the accuracy or truthfulness of them were so often doubted. By providing a series of direct quotes, the doubt was removed (and the statements were finally allowed to stand).
Also, I ask that we bear in mind that a great deal of Sungenis' work and writing is internet-based. And almost *all* of his most controversial work is internet-based. As such, the sources and commentary on him (especially this issue) are almost exclusively internet-based as well. In looking at wiki rules, my sense is that they are not intended to be hard and fast with no exceptions. Yes? There needs to be some common sense in this, I would think. Agreed?
Regarding the Jewish controversy section, the things I believe must be present in some form or the article will be obscuring or distorting reality rather than making it accurately available to wiki readers:
Reactions? Liam Patrick 14:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Otheus,
Actually, what you have written, with some balance is more than fine with me. I would leave it as it is, but drop the SPLC link, which is very biased and factually a mess. If it is kept, then I would propose to add one line:
Other Catholic commentators disagree with this [2], while some prominent Catholic apologists, such as Karl Keating question the accuracy and veracity of the SPLC report [3].
If Liam Patrick agrees with this, then I say let's just do that.
Liam Patrick: I would argue that Robert Sungenis is not a "public person" per the wiki policy :
Clearly there are not,and the SPLC is not reliable (nor third party- they have a stated bias). Robert may be well known to most Catholic apologists, but that group represents a very small fraction of the public. Public figures are people in the general public limelight, not well known in a small, specialzed field. Examples are George Bush, Ted Kennedy, Ozzie Osborne, Madonna, and many lesser known individuals who still are known to the general public (Like Fr. Neuhaus who makes onto CNN and is known). Let me repeat, here, some of what I stated when we started this latest round:
Refactoring by Otheus. TS, I'm refactoring your inclusion of the policies, because it's not evidently clear which is policy and which is your analysis. Simply put, we all should re-read [WP:BLP]]. You referenced these 3 subsections:
Regarding whether Catholics support his views:
I am sorry, Liam, I disagree strongly on this position of yours. I agree that when Robert Sungenis wanders into politics, and what you call conspiracy theories, there may be some disagreements, but I would propose that those agreements/disagreements are less a matter of religion, and more political. Most of the views expressed in the previous version of the Jewish section would be agreed on by many if not most Catholic apologists. Maybe not the Kennedy assasination possibly having involvement of Ben Gurion and the Mossad, but most of the Scripturally and covenant related ones. Robert attempts to apply the doctrinal /Scriptural thesis to the real world, and this is where there is some controversy.
I also tried to balance your negative POV with context to show that the reasons he holds some of those political andother views are based on doctrinal issues. I used his own writings to show that.
The purpose of a wiki biography is not to point out every detail about the subject, but to give a general overview of who that person is and what he/she does. The line written by Otheus, with the modifications I proposed are more than adequate to accomplish that. You are trying to bring the view of a handful of disgruntled ex-employees of Robert's (plus a few supporters) into an internationally accessed resource (Wikipedia), and pass it off as demonstrated fact. Well it is not demonstrated fact, and your attempts to do this is theorizing. This is unacceptable.
Now I propose that we stick with what Otheus wrote, plus my proposed modifications, and leave it at that. If we attempt more detail, we will end up where we were yesterday in order to be fair to both sides of the issue.
I think we should not use the word "anti-semitic", as even Sungenis' attackers did not use that word (until they realized they were not being successful, even then they used it in a guarded fashion). The word anti-Jewish, or "negative towards the Jews" is more fitting. Sungenis si NOT a holcaust denier, white supremacist, or a neo-Nazi.
Truth_Seeker 17:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Otheus,
You have previously agreed that something needs to be in here making clear that Sungenis does not speak for the Catholic Church when it comes to his views on Jews (in particular, his opinion that they are trying to rule the world and the Church). As a Catholic, I can tell you that it is deeply offensive and wrong that he uses the name "Catholic" in the title of his organization (and here at Wikipedia, with a helpful link to send people [right to the website filled with the very things that seem to be off limits for Wikipedia to address]) while spreading his personal theories about Jews. He has a link to his website, prominently featuring the name "Catholic" here as well. By doing so, he appropriates some of the weight and respectability of the Church and uses it to his advantage. This is certainly one of the reasons why he didn't simply name his organization "Bob Sungenis Apologetics" or "Bob Sungenis' on Politics and Race"
There seems to be something seriously wrong, imo, with either the rules or the interpretation of the rules. From what I am reading here, Otheus, it would seem that I could fill an entire website with conspiracy theories about Jews, recommendations of David Duke, Mein Kampf, ritual murder of Jews and Wikipedia couldn't mention it unless some other 3rd party that met certain weightiness guidelines wrote about it. Is this what is being said? Maybe I'm misunderstanding, because that looks very unreasonable. — Liam Patrick — continues after insertion below
Regarding the idea of conspiracy theories and whether his views can be termed such, what else would you call them? Have you seen the documentation in his own words? He believes Jews are trying to rule the world and the Catholic Church. He has promoted the idea FDR let the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor because he was part-Jewish and thought it would help create the state of Israel. JFK was probably murdered by Zionist Jews. Monica Lewinsky was sent in by Zionist Jews after Clinton. The Holocaust itself was financed and partially orchestrated by Jews for the sake of creating Israel. Then there are his theories about Pope Paul VI's and his Jewish past and more. What do you objectively call all of these but conspiracy theories?
And Truth-seeker, you seem to be forgetting all the examples like this:
"95% of the Jews today still despise Jesus Christ.” here
“The charge of 'anti-Semitism' is nothing but a clever ploy…" here
“In fact, the concentration camps and genocide instigated by the Jewish communists in Russia against Christians and other groups dwarf those against the Jews in Nazi Germany. Hitler was merely modeling what was already practiced in Russia, a fact ignored by such Jewish authors as Daniel Goldhagen. Contrasted to the dozens of concentration camps in Hilter’s regime, the Russian Jews had thousands of such camps… but evidence of these camps have been systematically destroyed and their existence denied by the Jewish controlled media in Russia and the United States.” here
“A telltale sign in the movie industry of the shift in mores was demonstrated no better than in the Walt Disney Corporation. Founder Walter Disney was well-known in the 50s and 60s for wholesome family entertainment. Interestingly enough, Walt had a policy of not hiring Jewish people.” here
“Today we get deviant sexual advice from such Jewish matrons as Dr. Ruth Westheimer, and questionable behavioral advice from Dr. Laura Schlesinger, Ann Landers (formerly Esther Friedman Lederer) and her sister Abigail van Buren (Pauline Esther Friedman Phillips).” here
“Christianity is certainly not inherently violent, but unfortunately, Judaism tends to be, because real Judaism considers all non-Jews goyim that are less than animals, and this precipitates a loathing and violence against non-Jews.” here
"The Jews...do intend to rule the world. And now the problem is that they want to rule the Catholic Church, too." here
"Are the Protocols (of the Elders of Zion) forged? I don’t know. What I do know is that there is a lot of reason to believe that there are certain people, yes, the Jews, who would like us all to believe that they are forged." here
“When (Jews) come into power…they can be some of the most ruthless people on the face of the earth." here'
Examples could be multiplied.
And Truth-seeker, it looks to me like you are creating theories and judging motives here. For you, it seems to be just about Sungenis, and who is "attacking" him. They're all operating from malice against the poor man, right? Yet what he does to Jews is not attacking, right? It's all good-hearted. Well-intentioned. I suppose its just bringing out his deeply held beliefs. Matters of conviction and conscience, right?
Liam Patrick 23:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I finally did find a well-known, well-respected, objective third party that deals with Sungenis' website. Please read this:
Here is what they say:
They also write the following:
Certainly this qualifies as an objective, sufficiently solid resource to note. And they call some of his material "blatantly anti-semitic"...among other things.
Liam Patrick 23:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
T-S
No, I never even knew about it until yesterday. And do me a favor. Read who this is addressed to: OTHEUS. If you have comments, put them at the bottom rather than cutting up my post. Do you see this being addressed to you? Please restrain yourself. Thank you. Liam Patrick 16:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Otheus, please, you must see that this is simply unacceptable.
Regarding the New Mass, it is only more recently that Sungenis changed his approach to the new mass. He wrote about his change in direction and you know it. So the material in that instance is a little dated, that's all. Regarding Jews, he has written more and more of these kinds of things. So, if anything, Catholic Culture was under-evaluating what he has said about Jews because it was written a while ago. Your attempt to discredit Catholic Culture on this point is not valid.
T-S,
Where does the Catholic Culture website ever say that Sungenis said the New Mass is invalid? I don't see it.
Liam Patrick 16:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
You understandably don't like their evaluation.
T-S...not surprising. Of course you do. But if you look around this certainly reflects a prett broad consensus of those who know about him. You have a very minority opinion. My perception? Yes, but one that is not difficult to back up.
Liam Patrick 16:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, you don't seem to see the irony in your complaint. Does Sungenis officially speak for the Catholic Church? Is he a bishop? A priest? No. So if you are going to be consistent, then either you need to pull EVERYTHING about Sungenis's website (including the helpful link to send them there) or include this material from Petersnet. They are ecclesiastical equals. Peers. You can't have it both ways. Or at least I hope Wikipedia will not allow it. That would be a travesty. — Liam Patrick — continues after insertion below
removed redundant post to thread about creation of article, above Otheus 15:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
And can't you see that on the face of it, this is ridiculous? By what you are saying, a person could go on and on about the beauty of Nazism on his website, call for the extermination of Jews, and no one could touch it at Wikipedia with a ten foot pole unless what you call a reliable third party writes about it. That's ridiculous.....oh, unless it's something that his advocates find helpful to market him, that is. Furthermore, I did find a recommendation for a criticism of Sungenis' work on Jews by a VERY credible organization, Catholics United for the Faith. The fact that they recommended it and linked to it should say something important. But you even shot that down because you claim it's just a ruse to pass through to a non-approved site. That's your opinion and I think you're stretching the rules. Where does it say that this is strictly off limits. I want to see it, verbatim Truth-seeker, not you reading into motives and stretching. If it's there black and white, fine.
And so, why did they recommend the information that is highly critical of Sungenis about how he deals with Jews? They endorse it. The endorsement of a criticism of Sungenis by a very credible third party strikes me a legitimate. Again, I think you're stretching the rules, there. The link is to a very reputable third party that recommended a criticism of Sungenis about Jews.
Liam Patrick 23:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
OTHEUS:
Please notice that I have made more than one entry above. There is a very long one under "Response to Otheus" as well.
thank you.
Liam Patrick 23:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Liam Patrick,
I will need more time to review your lengthy posts. But for now, you have met the requirement of providing a reliable secondary source which can be used to label Sungenis' remarks as anti-semitic. Note, however, two things.
First, the site's review is balanced -- it lists pros and cons of Sungenis' site, which is the most important thing for a secondary source. But the thing that makes this a "reliable source" is from their "About page" [5] mentions they maintain a review of over 500 sites and a library of over 5000 documents. This indicates this is not a single-purpose site dedicated to taking down anything in particular, and that their views encompass a range of sites. Their "about" page clearly discloses the mission/goal of the site which is to communicate on Catholic matters. In sum, this cite is not of the polemical sort found in blogs or the SPLC site. I acknowledge that this site does not "speak for the Church", but that's irrelevant; we don't need Papal authority to count as a reliable source.
Second, what I would expect as "blatant anti-semitism", to use the site's terminology, is someone saying something like "all Jews are evil and just want to get you" or slightly more mildly, "The Jews just want your money", which one hundred years ago in Germany, was tehcnically true since they were effectively banned from any other kind of endeavor, but is not true today. So when the website cites supporting evidence from Sungenis' writings, the quote they used hardly seems "blatantly anti-semitic" — until you come across the last sentence: "When they have succeeded, then [the Jews] will persecute the very Catholic Church that helped them gain their land, for Judaism, as has been historically true, can have no competitors." Certainly, anytime someone characterizes the motivations of an entire people by their ethnic identity, they are engaging in a vile form of polemicism; but when one predicts such a group will act with malice, one is clearly engaging in anti-racial discourse. Had Sungenis consistently used the term "Judaism" instead of "the Jews", then this would be a matter of culture and not ethnicity. But he mixes the two terms which means either he is confused, or he honestly thinks his readers won't be.
This is progress, but I urge Liam to find more reliable sources. Meanwhile, to Truth Seeker, you will need to find some reliable sources that present the kind of balance you desire to the article... although, I'm not sure yet what that would entail. Question to Truth Seeker: do you agree with my two points above?
Otheus 15:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Additional clarification from Otheus requested:
Otheus, T-S rejected this link to an extremely well-known and respected organization because he thought it was just a ruse to get to an un-acceptable website. But take a look at this website and link. It is absolutely clear that this organization, Catholics United for the Faith, is also expressing its concern about Sungenis when it comes to Jews. There is certainly at least SOMETHING noteworthy in here. The fact that it is in the context of recommending a link to a website Wikipedia might not consider good enough to be directly linked to itself doesn't seem to rule out the Catholics United for the Faith page, imo. If it does, please explain why. I would like to see the literal rule against this. Here's what Catholics United for the Faith wrote:
Notice:
CUF is not a one-issue place at all. They are widely esteemed and cover the gambit when it comes to the Catholic Church. Look at them. See what you think.
Liam Patrick 03:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Liam Patrick 18:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Robert Sungenis has publicly espoused many positions in regard to Jews. However, beginning with an article dated September 2, 2002 (give link to article), Sungenis began taking some increasingly controversial positions that have been termed "blatantly anti-semitic" (links to Catholic Culture and SPLC) and that are neither generally accepted in the Catholic community nor approved by the Catholic Church. Sungenis completely denies the characterization of his views as anti-semitic (source to Sungenis denial?).
I think this is very brief and fair. Reactions?
Liam Patrick 18:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Here is my proposed statement built upon Liam's:
We cannot state that "...are neither generally accepted in the Catholic community nor approved by the Catholic Church..." as this is Liam's opinion. Obviously Sungenis and others disagree, and also, it depends on which specific position. We also do not need to state "increasingly controversial positions ", as Liam has not demonstrated that Sungenis' position was changing.
My latest proposal allows Robert Sungenis tell all, including the fact that he is accused of anti-semitism. Therefor we have no issues of using potentially unsuitable sources.
Truth_Seeker 16:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Just to add a thought- if this were not a biography of a living person, the website (CUF) proposed by Liam would be fine, but since it is , and it is very contentious, we need to take extra caution. Truth_Seeker 18:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The original text can be found here. I am refactoring this because of the need to expedite this process and because of the impossibility of responding to a threaded discussion. I need to get a handle on the views here, which is impossible unless I refactor. See WP:REFACTOR. -- Otheus 16:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Abbreviations used:
Convention: Where possible, I used the authors' original wording, if slightly rephrased for clarity. When I introduce wording which my alter the meaning, they are put in [brackets] to make this distinction. Where things are unclear or unambiguous to me, I have enclosed question marks in brackets, [???]. Redactions comments made by me <are in angle-brackets>.
LP responds to TS's proposal (the TSP) [18:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)]:
TS interjects several times into LP's response above. [19:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)] and as clarified [18:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)]
[13]:
At point 2
At points 4 and 5, TS interjects [19:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)]:
Concerning point 7, TS states:
Concerning point 8, TS argues:
Concerning point 10.2.1, TS argues:
On point 11, TS proposes:
After the initial refactoring, TS made some "Additional Comments":
<That's it for now. Please comment below on any inaccuracies you find on the present state of refactoring. Yes, there is more work to do with follow-up arguments, but I am needed at home. I will return in about 2 hours. >
IGF,
Otheus
17:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
1) TS would not be so quick to judge whether or not the Church is in agreement with Sungenis' controversial and inflammatory views.
Where and when has the Church ever said that Jews are trying to take over the world and the Catholic Church?
Where and when has the Church ever said that real Jews tend to be violent?
Should I go through the list again? TS shifts the field of play to those places where Sungenis is on less controversial ground. The things he focuses on are not the issue here. Otheus has agreed that at least some of what Sungenis writes can reasonably be described as anti-Semitic.
3) Definition of anti-Semitism. Here is the OED (Oxford English Dictionary) definition:
4) Otheus, I have not seen an answer to this point: Does it strike you as legitimate for TS to expend so much effort down-playing and covering over what Sungenis is obviously very committed to and bold about? His website is filled with comments and positions about Jews, as I've documented.
My point is, on what rational basis do we conclude that SUNGENIS HIMSELF considers these statements harmful to him (the quotes about Jews ruling the world, etc)? If he thought these repeated statements were so bad, then why do they remain prominently on his website? Why does he defend these statements?
5) The third parties who have written about Sungenis (Catholic Culture and CUF in particular, possibly also SPLC) and that have been agreed to by Otheus need to be accepted. To allow Sungenis alone to spin this controversy and what he has objectively written is unreasonable.
I provided documentation that the president of Catholics United for the Faith knowingly provided a recommendation to www.sungenisandthejews.com and that CUF itself described Sungenis work on Jews as "problematic." In Sungenis' own record of his correspondence with Leon Supernant (pres. of CUF), Supernant labels some of Sungenis' material anti-semitic. There can be no reasonable doubt that CUF sees things this way and has made it known.
6) I already agreed that any organization that has the name "Catholic" in it should provide some kind of evidence that they are approved. If they are not, then a disclaimer does belong in there, regardless of who is using the name. But yes, how much more so when one writes the kind of controversial things Sungenis writes. It's not right to use the name "Catholic" to draw people in and then proceed to lay out personal conspiracy theories about Jews...or anyone.
7) I agree that not all of Sungenis' position about Jews are seen as controversial. Many are, or at the very least, some are.
8) Michael Hoffman II and Michael Collins Piper both have the word "conspiracy theorist" in their wiki-articles. Sungenis admits that he is a fan of Piper's, he has used Hoffman's work on Jewish issues...why should it be difficult to admit that he is a fellow conspiracy theorist? Some of his ideas come directly from other conspiracy theorists.
9) Barring some kind of direct recognition that others have judged his work to be anti-semitic, I might be persuaded to accept a listing of some of his ideas, including the most controversial. And then, some kind of acknowledgement of his stated resources when it comes to Jews. The advantage of this approach is that one can come to one's own judgment as to whether his work is objectionable or not. But according to Wiki policy, I think we have to go with the secondary sources. I've been hammered over and over about this by TS and it seems unreasonable to then turn around and ignore all of that now because I finally found reasonable sources that TS doesn't like. So, my leaning is "no."
10) TS is wrong. I am not trying to "assign truth to one side." I'm trying to make sure that this does not become a nifty marketing tool for Sungenis that white-washes his work, at the expense of the Church and all the people he attacks. And I am documenting my claims with facts from others and Sungenis' own articles.
Liam Patrick 20:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
1)I agreed some of his positions are controversial. Cherry picking quotes is not fair, and will require adding context. We could go back to where we started.
2) missing
3) I am sorry, LP, your definition would end up fitting Jesus and many of the prophets. And, yes, Jews can be anti-semtitic, this is usually referred to as a self-hating Jew. My understanding (which may be wrong as I do not see it in the wiki article) is that the ADL uses this term.
4) I am sure that Sungenis is not pleased to be called an anti-semite.
5)"Catholic Culture and CUF in particular, possibly also SPLC" are secondary sources, but not unbiased third parties.
6)You may hold that opinion. It is not a Wiki policy. I am Catholic, and feel free to create a website containing the name. It does not mean I speak for the Church, but it may mean I am a speaking Catholic.
7) Thanks.
8) Michael Hoffman II and Michael Collins Piper also have footnotes leading to third party sources stating so. In fact per BLP, the sentence should read "such and such a source" states that ________ is a conspiracy theorist.
9) Again, I posited that as the other option (i.e., go back to where we started).
10) I accept that I may have mis-stated your motive. That was the impresssion I got.
Truth_Seeker 21:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
1) Regarding the definition of anti-Semitism, your problem is with the dictionary, not with me. It is not "my definition", TS. If you know anything about English and dictionaries then you know that the OED is probably considered the most authoritative English dictionary on the planet.
If you know any English teachers or professors, ask them. Would you like me to produce many more such definitions from other dictionaries?
Where are your authoritative sources saying that the OED is wrong or a definition you believe absolutely excludes Sungenis' writings?
2) Regarding Sungenis and the label anti-semitic, let's be clear. Contrary to what you just wrote above (point #4), no one has proposed that the article identify Sungenis as an anti-semite. I agree that Sungenis probably doesn't like the label. But the issue is: by the most widely accepted objective standards, is at least some of his material reasonably identified as such? I think the answer is clearly, yes, and Otheus also expressed agreement. And now we have acceptable secondary sources who believe so as well, from CUF to Catholic Culture to SPLC.
It has less than a positive appearance when it was you that pressed so hard for secondary sources and standards according to wiki policy in the first place. Now I have what I was forced to find (after much effort), and the rules change again? Not fair. Not reasonable.
3) Catholic Culture and Catholics United for the Faith are highly respected, legitimate sources, TS. They do not operate with an agenda either for or against Sungenis. I agree SPLC looks to have a bias, but so what? They're a huge organization designed specifically to deal with this very kind of issue and they certainly qualify under wiki guidelines to be included. You can't disquality them because they come from a different viewpoint. What you could do is include qualifying language about their secular, more liberal nature. I have no idea how you would try to marginalize CUF. They are as mainstream and respectable as they come. Catholic Culture is also hardly an organization with an anti-Sungenis agenda or myopia, either (another point Otheus agreed with).
4)Regading Hoffman and Piper, regardless of how it should or should not be done technically, the fact is, they are identified with the phrase "conspiracy theorist". If Sungenis openly admits these are some of his favored sources on his theories about Jews, then of course he is a conspiracy theorist, too. How is he not? All one need to is link to the times where he acknowledges these men as his sources and then link to the sources that identify these men as conspiracy theorists.
5) I want to hear from Otheus before going back to where we started. You insisted I jump through a lot of hoops, TS, holding to the most rigorous interpretation of wiki policy and now I have, according to Otheus. So the idea of returning to how the entry was before (which Otheus previously said was not acceptable) is more than a little frustrating. I've played along with this, doing what was required...and not easy. It strikes me as a bit unseemly to now basically say, "nah, let's forget all that."
Frankly, I think arbitration may have to be the answer because you've already shown a ready willingness to disregard what this mediator says. Why should I go to all this effort when it looks like you will accept the mediation of Otheus if it works to your advantage but reject it if it doesn't? I can tell you that I most certainly have found some of this wrong and yet I've jumped through the hoops I was told I had to jump through.
It's about enough at this point, honestly. So, I need to hear from Otheus. I don't have the time or desire to continue what may be a pointless exercise and it shouldn't be a matter of attrition that decides the issue.
So I put it to you plainly, TS: If Otheus agrees that the links to Catholic Culture, CUF and or SPLC are legit are you going to reject it regardless of what else is in the article?
Liam Patrick 22:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
"4)Regading Hoffman and Piper, regardless of how it should or should not be done technically, the fact is, they are identified with the phrase "conspiracy theorist". If Sungenis openly admits these are some of his favored sources on his theories about Jews, then of course he is a conspiracy theorist, too. How is he not?"
5) I want to hear from Otheus before going back to where we started. You insisted I jump through a lot of hoops, TS, holding to the most rigorous interpretation of wiki policy and now I have, according to Otheus. So the idea of returning to how the entry was before (which Otheus previously said was not acceptable) is more than a little frustrating. I've played along with this, doing what was required...and not easy. It strikes me as a bit unseemly to now basically say, "nah, let's forget all that."
"Frankly, I think arbitration may have to be the answer..."
1) This is not guilt by association, TS. Guilt by association:
Sungenis actively seeks out and uses their work. There is a fundamental difference. If he merely were friends with Piper or Hoffman and never endorsed or used their work, and someone called him a conspiracy theorist based on that alone, THAT would be guilt by association. Their association is precisely over Jewish issues, conspiracies and the writings they have done in that area.
2) Why can't you answer the question, TS? Will you accept what Otheus has to say or not? Your avoidance of the question doesn't exactly lead me to want to continue this. Just answer the question, please.
3) Any rejoinder regarding the def. of anti-semitism?
4) This is not "sort of arbitration", TS. Read what arbitration is. It differs from mediation.
Liam Patrick 23:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
"3) Any rejoinder regarding the def. of anti-semitism?" "Theory, action, or practice directed against the Jews. Hence anti-'Semite, one who is hostile or opposed to the Jews; anti-Se'mitic"
Is Jesus Christ and Antisemite? (from John 8, NAB):
41...They said to Him, "We were not born of fornication; (B)we have one Father: God."
42Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, (C)you would love Me, (D)for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have (E)not even come on My own initiative, but (F)He sent Me.
43"Why do you not understand (G)what I am saying? It is because you cannot (H)hear My word.
44"(I)You are of (J)your father the devil, and (K)you want to do the desires of your father (L)He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because (M)there is no truth in him Whenever he speaks a lie, he (N)speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
I'm not trying to be smart, nor insulting towards non-Christians, but I am pointing out that your simple definition is not sufficient for labeling someone an Antisemite. Clearly Jesus "acted" against some Jews, and was "hostile" towards them.
Be patient, see what Otheus proposes. Truth_Seeker 23:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
1) TS, I am going to assume you have no idea how blasphemous and disturbing what you have just written is. All over an effort to protect Sungenis, no less. Is there anything you are unwilling to do in that which you think aids him?
Of course what Christ said was not anti-semitic. He is God Himself, a Jew and knows the hearts and minds of all people. If you are a Catholic (are you? Maybe I've assumed wrongly...if not, that would give you a legitimate excuse) then you know this and should agree with it. Do either you or Sungenis claim to know the hearts of men? To even make this comparison is extremely distasteful and offensive, at least if you are Christian.
Even so, neither the Catholic Church nor even Christ treated all Jews as one block but Sungenis has. As Otheus noted, he has labeled them all in some of his accusations. Conversely, I noticed how TS wrote that Jesus acted agaisnt "some" Jews. A very important difference. The definition from O.E.D says "the Jews", not "some Jews." I would add, Christ didn't use white supremacists, conspiracy theorists and others of that ilk to act against Jews. He didn't use manufactured or altered writing to attack, either. The comparison is perverse.
2) And you need to stop identifying this as "my definition" or my "simple" definition of anti-semitism. Why do you continue to do this? I know it may help to paint this as a he-said she-said matter of opinion, but it's not true. So again: Where are your authoritative sources for a definition of Antisemitism that definitively exclude Sungenis or that contradict the O.E.D? I can provide a slew of them just like the O.E.D. if necessary.
3) No answer from you on guilt by association. Do you agree this is not such a case now?
Last, why do you keep admonishing patience over a very simple question, TS? What is stopping you from saying forthrightly one way or the other as to whether you will accept Otheus' recommendation? I'm sorry, but it looks increasingly like you are just using this to the extent that it will help you and if true, that's dishonest.
If it's not true, then just answer the question.
Liam Patrick 00:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for agreeing with me. Of course Christ is not Antisemitic (certainly not as the term is used today), and yes he was Jewish (I pointed out that that alone does not generally exclude someone from a charge of anti-semitism). My point, using an extreme example, is to demonstrate that the definition you used is not worthy of being applied to any human being- living, dead, or God himself. Before labeling anyone with the label "anti-semitic", which is an extremely serious charge as it is used and understood today (regardless of the infantile simplest possible dictionary definition- and stop hiding behind dictionaries anyway) you had better be very sure of yourself. And Wikipedia has very specific policies to deal with Biographies of Living Persons specifically because of issues such as this. Sure the dictionary can reduce the definition to the simplest form, but that reduction is not proportionate to the effect felt by a person labeled as such, in today's society as used and understood by the average person.
And yes, I am Catholic.
"What is stopping you from saying forthrightly one way or the other as to whether you will accept Otheus' recommendation?"
I am still waiting to see it. Again, please be patient.
Truth_Seeker 00:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
1) I've noticed you have yet to provide an authoritative definition from any source at all, let alone one that exonerates Sungenis, TS. Why is that? It's remarkable to me that you can call the providing of authoritative sources "hiding" while you have yet to provide anything at all beyond your personal say-so.
Now, how about this source, TS? Wikipedia Should we now expect you to say that even wikipedia's own explanation of anti-semitism is off-limits?
2) You are shifting the field, yet again. NO ONE has said to label Sungenis as an anti-semite or anti-semitic. We are talking about things on his website.
3) I know Jesus Christ, and Robert Sungenis is no Jesus Christ. Your comparison is insulting to God and incredibly offensive. It is perverse to imply that what is legitimate for God is also legitimate for man. Should we expect you next to defend Sungenis should he decide to go on a shooting rampage because God sometimes wiped out whole towns? After all, what is murder? How do we KNOW that it was murder? For all we know, maybe he had a word of knowledge from God that these were bad people who needed to be killed. Maybe he really loved them. Hey, maybe Charles Manson didn't really commit murder, too. By whose definition, TS? Now, don't hide behind simplistic silly dictionary definitions of murder. Was it murder for God to wipe out Sodom and Gomorrah or not?
(And no, I'm not saying Sungenis is a murderer.)
And even so, neither the Son of God nor the Church label all Jews, attack them with such sustained intensity and use (and even defend) demonstrably fraudulent information like Sungenis has seen fit to.
4) I know enough now as to what you are about after your answer to my question (will you accept what Otheus ultimately decides?). And I have no intention of wasting my time with you in what by all appearances now is a charade. I've probably wasted too much time already.
Otheus, I'm sorry if my reaction bothers you, but this man claims to be a Catholic and he has written things and defends a man who writes things that harm the Church deeply and offend common decency. And they clearly seem not to care. Use the Church and it's very name when it helps your aims? Sure, why not. This is disturbing and wrong. It is also sufficiently clear that he has no intention of accepting what you say if it disagrees with his aims.
I know you have to approach this in a detached way and that you're an atheist, so perhaps it looks unserious or whatever to you (I don't know). Perhaps it may be hard for you to understand the depth of the reaction (again, I don't know). But as a Catholic, I can assure you this: it is anything but unserious. I ask for your understanding.
If these men were before the bishops of the Church and tried to say these things they would either be thrown out or laughed out of their presence.
I am still interested in what you come back with.
Liam Patrick 01:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I could not log into my account this morning. Need to look nto that. Protection edned. Please consider that everything is being said. Note I left in the line about the smear campaign, because the article I referenced re: anti-semitism charges involved those attacking Sungenis. He does feel it is a smear campaign, and I referenced that.
Truth_Seeker
Otheus: Thanks for the effort. Not sure why you gave up at the end. Don't blame you, though ;).
Truth_Seeker
Whew. First, I almost gave up, but I didn't. However, if I had given up, it would have been because for ever hour I spend on this, the voluminous responses require 2 hours to get through :) But I see it's getting better.
Here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to prepare an RFC on this debate. That means I will formulate a page where others can look at the issues and give their opinions. To make this work, we have to whittle down the issues to well under 10. PLEASE, give this discussion a rest until I've posted this formulation. If either of you need to change or clarify your own remark, do so. If you have a new point to make, however, please hold off until I've come up with this formulation. Thanks.-- Otheus 14:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll wait to hear from you, Otheus. But I did notice that TS went right ahead and put up what was not agreed to, including even a sentence he agreed was out of bounds and quotes as original argumentation.
TS's explanation for this change is less than satisfactory. He insists on giving Sungenis' version of everything (only using Sungenis' article) and then goes on to say that because Sungenis also attacks his critics in the article, that gives him the right to add the sentence that Sungenis feels he is being smeared? Unreasonable.
I added the links to Catholic Culture, SPLC and CUF IN ADDITION TO Sungenis' own defense and explanation. In this way, both sides of the issue are aired. People can make up their own minds. I also added the link to the original article from 2002, which for some reason was omitted. I removed the direct quotes and argumentation because according to Otheus, they do not meet Wiki guidelines.
Liam Patrick
14:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I am willing to lave it as it is [14] , for now. I disagree with some of the links, but if we freeze it here, I will leave it until we get some more opinions on some of the links. The link from CUF which acts a a portal to sungenisandthejews.com has to go. Truth_Seeker 16:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Lost a link, but added it back. Truth_Seeker 16:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Otheus, for the record, I'm willing to accept the removal of the CUF link (even though I disagree), IF...IF...TS agrees to remove all of the quotes and the "smear campaign" comment. Again, he's trying to have it both ways. If the CUF link is gone, there is no direct or necessary connection to the supposed "smear campaign" in the wiki article. The only indirect link to it, conveniently, is the very article from Sungenis that TS insisted upon in the first place, and it already gives Sungenis' personal POV on the controversy. So it is unreasonable to use what TS insisted upon as justification to provide yet more pro-Sungenis POV.
However, there is no justification for removing mention of Sungenis' sources when it comes to Jews. No value judgments were made about them in the section. They were simply stated in a neutral way. This is factual material. If TS wants to add additional sources, that is perfectly acceptable. Simply deleting them is not.
Liam Patrick 16:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Just listing sources implies that there is some signficance to using those sources. Why not say 'Sungneis has used Time magazine'? He did. What you are doing is at least a subtle form of guilt by association. If you put them back, then I will start building context around them. Truth_Seeker 16:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
TS's repeated argument about guilt by association is false. I already explained why. It is no more guilt by association to list a man's sources at wikipedia than it is in a book's bibliography. The sources are what they are. He actively associates himself with their work by using it. And there is perfectly good reason to list these sources. This is why books have bibliographies. This is why articles have footnotes to sources. People have a right to know where a man gets his information from.
Now as I said, if TS wants to add more sources, I have no objection. But it is against Wiki policy to keep deleting permissible, factual material because of his personal opinion. TS is reading into simple, factual material. That is his prerogative as an individual, but not as a wiki editor.
If there is a problem with the sources (or if there is not), then each individual will have to come to that conclusion independently.
But a note of caution, I will be looking to see if Sungenis does in fact use the sources TS names. Sungenis sometimes uses secondary or tertiary sources without citing them and then makes it appear that he has read the primary one.
And if TS tries to make argument in the article as to why Sungenis used these sources, then we need to make sure all of his uses are brought out (or at least a representative sampling) and not just cherry-picked in one direction or the other. I would suggest it is better for the article (and Sungenis) to just let his sources stand without further comment one way or the other.
Liam Patrick 17:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Liam- please source where he explicitly used these sources. Also, please stop removing my properly sourced material. Truth_Seeker 17:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Otheus agreed that the quotes of Sungenis need to go. It is properly sourced, but not proper. Still, I left it but changed it from direct quotes to statements about the quotes. I also deleted a redundancy. No need to state he loves Jews AND he has no animosity.
Conversely, it should be noted that TS has completely removed my sources and links 2 or 3 times now. And these are fully in accord with wiki policy. His call for where Sungenis has used these sources is questionable. Those sources have already been provided. And he knows that Sungenis has used them. The links to the documentation regarding his use of them were not included now only because they cause unnecssary clutter. But again, for the record, documentation as to what sources Sungenis used :
Michael Piper: The recent radio interview where he raves about Piper and says he read him in bed every night for 3 months or whatever. Then also this article: here.
Michael A. Hoffman II: here
Mohr: pages 12 and 13 and article and article and here
Ted Pike: page 10
Israel Shamir: Question 26 and page 14
Liam Patrick
18:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
This is a dispute about the contents of a section concerning this WP:BLP living person, Robert Sungenis. The section under dispute is tentatively named "Jewish controversy".
I came across this article out of shared interest with User:ScienceApologist on science-pseudoscience articles.[FILL] After doing some initial copyediting[FILL], and observing the ongoing discussion on the Talk pages and the changes to the article's "controversy" section, I offered to help moderate. The result of my moderations are to present this RFC with a concise list of issues.
This article is about Robert Sungenis (RS), a published author of Catholic Church apologia and doctrinal issues.
The abbreviation JJJZ stands for "Jews, Jewry, Judaism, and Zionism", instead of simply "Jews". This is to help distinguish between our statement of the issue and the content of some of the controversy.
<more to come>
<more to come> -- Otheus 18:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
First here are some of the relevant policies, all are quotes from the policy:
| Biographis of Living Persons. This Wikipedia policy is being trampled on. Specifically:
1. See this section "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material"
2."Biased or malicious content"
3. "Reliable sources"
All of the three sources proposed do not meet these requirements. Specifically,
Liam thinks I am splitting hairs here. For most of Wikipedia, all these sites could be ok for some purposes, but NOT for a BLP. A BLP has the potential to cause great damage to a living person, as well as expose Wikipedia to libel suits. That is why Wikipedia had the wisdom to set a different standard for BLP's. One of the mottos is "Do No Harm". This applies to the subject of the bio.
Regarding the fact that Sungenis does not speak for the Catholic Church, officially: It is more than that. In these controversial "Jewish areas" he is completely speaking for himself. On doctrinal matters and such (even pastoral ones), to the extent that a person faithfully repeats what the Church teaches officially, a person can be said to speak for the Church. But in this case (again the controversial areas), it is even more clear that he speaks for no one but himself. You will find nothing in official documents about Jews trying to take over the world and the Catholic Church for instance and I can assure you the bishops are not in accord with Sungenis on these things. — Liam Patrick — continues after insertion below
Please note recent discussion on this, too. I don't want to reinvent the wheel. I've suggested a very moderate way to address this as TS seems adamantly against the idea that it should be plain Sungenis does not speak for the Church. I used the phrase "controversial personal positions". That makes it clear that these are his own so he cannot illegitimately appropriate authority from the Church in regard to his own theories but does not come right out and use the word "Church."
Also, reading through the website CUF recommends, it is clear that the author is a primary source for certain material. I think the website meets the "reliable source" criteria at wiki: here Forest, the author, worked for Sungenis for several years. And there are recommendations there from several others who know Sungenis personally and also worked with him as well. — Liam Patrick — continues after insertion below
I also draw your attention to the following statement regarding critics:
Review the information at www.sungenisandthejews.com. It is very carefully documented, linking to evidence for every point made. The author(s) are eye-witnesses and colleagues of Sungenis.
Finally, after reading further, I have found that some of the very kinds of things Sungenis says about Jews are explicitly listed as conspiracy theories by wikipedia: here Therefore there can be no legitimate objection to mentioning this.
Liam Patrick 19:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
LP- I am only saying the cites should be in the article, not on the talk page. I think thisis going to be required. I will then write some context if needed. I will first see what Otheus has said. Truth_Seeker 19:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I have consulted wiki policy and wiki mediators regarding the paragraph that lists Sungenis' sources when it comes to his Jewish positions. From what I am told, it is not in accord with wiki policy to keep deleting this paragraph.
I have fully documented that these are in fact Sungenis' sources when it comes to Jews and have no objection if anyone finds additional sources to add to the list, as long as the record proves with reasonable certainty that Sungenis has actually used them. I have included all sources I have seen from Sungenis re: Jews. There can be no bias or agenda in simply laying out a man's sources anymore than when a man has to include footnotes or a bibliography in a book. His sources are his sources.
No value judgments have been made about his sources *at all* in the paragraph I added so TS is reading into this his own POV as to whether there is a problem with the sources or not. One thing is clear, these *are* his sources and it is perfectly legitimate to make them known. So, I see no possible violation of wiki policy.
OTOH, I have been informed that it *is* a violation of wiki policy to repeatedly delete something that is not in violation of wiki policy.
Liam Patrick 17:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I am adding context to balance this addition. Truth_Seeker 20:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
TS's effort to provide "context" is a problem because it opens up a can of worms regarding why Sungenis used what...in other words, POV. This is already evident in the wording chosen by TS. I propose that TS's "context" be removed entirely because by it's very nature it is extremely subjective. Let people draw their own conclusions from his sources. If TS wants to add more documented sources for balance, that's perfectly fine.
It would be helpful, though, if TS would read the documentation as to what Sungenis has actually written before giving his own personal explanation of Sungenis's relationship to these sources in the actual wikipedia article.
Issues:
1)The title of the new section TS created, which ends with "or that Sungenis was accused of using." Problem: he was not only "accused" of using these sources, he was demonstrated to have used them. Some were openly admitted to, others only subsequent to criticism. They are documented by any reasonable standard, regardless. Also, these sources are more than "mentioned" by Sungenis.
2) Mentioning that Sungenis writes for someone is off topic and only clutters this section. This section deals with the postings at his own website and his sources. If TS wants to mention the publications Sungenis writes for, that belongs more appropriately in one of the sections higher up in the article.
3) E. Michael Jones, Sungenis more than writes for Culture Wars, he recommends Jones' work on Jews specifically and uses him as a resource:
Proof 1: "Jewish History: R. Sungenis: I would get a hold of all the back issues of Culture Wars, beginning since 2002. E. Michael Jones is about the best when it comes to this subject." (Question 58)
Proof 2: "As E. Michael Jones reads it: 'Portnoy ushered in the Golden Age of Jewish humor and cultural subversion.....(quote of entire paragraph from Jones truncated)" here
4) Michael Piper, Sungenis more than "felt" Piper "provided interesting research" regarding Ben Gurion as TS chose to describe it.
Proof 1: "Well, I've read Michael Collins Piper's book from cover-to-cover, every word of it ... couldn't put it down, actually, um (laughs), it was my bed-time reading for about the last three or four months, and he uncovers some things there that would astound people, basically - people who consider themselves experts on the Kennedy Assassination have never considered the angle that he's brought forth. And although he doesn't come right out and say, 'yes, the Israelis killed JFK', he lined all the ducks up for you so that you can walk right through it and see all these political connections and make your obvious conclusion, and I think he did a very professional job in doing it that way." (Transcribed from Sungenis radio interview: here and here)
Proof 2: “We also know through the exhaustive effort of Michael Collins Piper’s new 738- page book, Final Judgment, how Bronfman (note: a Jew) is implicated in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. The story begins when Kennedy refused to capitulate to Israel’s demand for nuclear weapons, and you can probably guess the rest of the story.” (Neocons and the Jewish Connection)
Notice, Sungenis' precise words are "we know" that this purportedly Zionist Jew(Bronfman) "is implicated", not "he feels" Piper has "provided interesting research".
5) Ted Pike:, TS is correct that Sungenis posted a few news items from Pike. But according to the record, Sungenis stopped using Pike at the urging of his now ex-Vice President Douglass. Douglass quit and and subsequently Sungenis has publicly indicated support for Pike's work again and is a source in a current Sungenis article.
Proof 1: "Actually, I’m coming closer to the conclusion that Ted Pike and Michael Hoffman may be better representatives of truth than Mr. Douglass. A least they don’t try to glorify the Talmud and make excuses for Jewish errors. Despite their shortcomings, they can be great sources for information and courageous reporting." here
Proof 2: It would almost seem as if the gospel of Christ and the gospel of the Antichrist were destined to originate among the same people” (Illustrated Sunday Herald, London, Feb. 18, 1920, cited in “The Other Israel” by T. Pike). here
6) Michael Hoffman: TS writes that Sungenis disagrees with him on "some" "critical issues". "Some" would indicate plural. TS provides one instance of disagreement. "Critical" is also very subjective and I think "significant" would be more than sufficient.
TS also deleted a link to the article in which Sungenis openly used Hoffman as a source.
7) Israel Shamir: Sungenis did much more than just post a positive comment by a reader.
Proof: "The Shamir article was posted for what it said about Israel and the Jews... And I will be posting a few more articles from Mr. Shamir in the near future." here
8) IHR: Sungenis admits to using it as a source but denies he "plagiarized". He has also praised it as an excellent source in regard to Jews.
Proof 1:
Proof 2:
9) Jack Mohr: Sungenis did more than just use a little material from an article in 2002. He also praised and defended Mohr and used almost 16 paragraphs of material from him without giving the source.
Proof 1: "Notice how he calls a Lt. Colonel in the US Army a 'White Supremacist,' simply because the Colonel critiques the Talmud for being a anti-Christian book (which it is); and for exposing what he (and I) believe are Zionist plans to take over Solomonic Palestine...Does Mr. Cork ever contest any of Lt. Col. Mohr's material? No, Mr. Cork is not interested in seeing the merits of Mohr's critiques of the Talmud...No, Mr. Cork would rather call a US army Colonel a liar and anti-semite, when all Mr. Mohr did was quote from Talmudic sources and Zionist literature!" here
Proof 2: 16 paragraphs of writing taken from Mohr...leaving aside the issue of plagiarism. But we could discuss that and its applicability to this article on Sungenis if TS would like, too: here
10) John Vennari: Sungenis did more than write for him.
Proof: "As I said above, John Vennari sent me the material to use, so I had his permission." here
Add more if you want, just keep it factual. The notes about Vennari and Jones are contextual, I am not claiming he did not use them as references elsewhere. Just state where.
One of the links I deleted did not state what you claim, please check them. Some of them are redundant, or did not relate directly to what you were saying, or weer from non-policy sources. I kept all relevant links.
Truth_Seeker 15:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
TS needs to be specific, what was not correct, exactly. The "context" TS is providing serves no legitimate encyclopedic purpose. A bibliography needs no context, it simply is what it is. TS's explanations as to why Sungenis used particular sources are biased and involved POV. If I provide more similar "context", this will only clutter the article more, create more discord and raise objections from wiki-mediators, etc. as we have already dealt with for being excessive in this section.
The way to make sure this section is "balanced" is not to add TS's or anyone else's version of why Sungenis did what he did, but simply to add more Sungenis sources on Jews if they actually exist.
TS or whoever should provide more objective documentation as to sources and provide proof. If there are more documented sources, it should not be a difficult undertaking.
Liam Patrick 00:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I am removing the link you keep putting in to CUF,[ here] which goes to this page:
Further Information in Support of Example: "Some material is blatantly anti-semitic." Sungenis has elected to go beyond legitimate arguments about why the conversion of the Jews is a theologically legitimate objective. Instead, Sungenis has chosen to recycle the worst slurs and slanders in the anti-Semitic repertoire.
"In "Conversion of the Jews Not Necessary?? The Apocalyptic Ramifications of a Novel Teaching":
The reason behind this whole charade of Jewish ecumenism is one, and one reason only: It is so the Jews can rebuild the nation of Israel that was lost after the time of Solomon. Everything the Jews do today is motivated by that single thought, and they are shrewdly using the Catholic Church to help them accomplish their goal. Prelates in the Catholic Church think that by helping the Jews they are fulfilling the mandate of neighborly love. In their perversion of the Gospel, they have convinced themselves that this mandate cannot include converting the Jews, for that would cause "offense." [God forbid that the Gospel should cause offense! (cf., 1 Cor 1:23-24)]. They have deceived themselves, and the Jews of today are feeding off this deception in an effort to build their long awaited "nation state." The Jews have no interest in Christ or Christianity. They are merely using Catholics as pawns for their own self-interest. When they have succeeded, then they will persecute the very Catholic Church that helped them gain their land, for Judaism, as has been historically true, can have no competitors.
Return to Review "
It is not related to anything you are referencing.
Truth_Seeker
Bill Cork's site is baised (wquercus.com). Truth_Seeker 15:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The link to CUF TS references was removed some time ago when the reference to a "smear campaign" was also removed. It has not been restored. The link TS wants to remove is to Catholic Culture, not CUF, which is *directly pertinent* to the issue in this section (Sungenis' Jewish postings and the charge of anti-semitism). It meets the criteria for Wikipedia, was even agreed to by the wiki mediator and there is no valid reason to remove it.
As to Dr. Cork's website, Sungenis' own writing on this subject references Cork's work illustrating Sungenis' sources. As such, imo, it is perfectly legitimate to include the link to his documentation.
Liam Patrick 16:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
This criticism by Keating does *nothing at all* to help Sungenis in regard to anti-semitism and if anything, tends to suggest his personal agreement with SPLC in that specific issue.
Liam Patrick 17:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The charge of anti-semitism is a serious one. If you insist on using biased sources, which do not conform to BLP guidelines, then I insist on extending fairness to Sungenis by allowing his colleagues, who have publicly denounced the most significant source of the charges to impeach the credibility of the source. The credibility of the source is questioned. I did not state that they specifically defended Robert Sungenis.
The sources are properly documented and you cannot contest the fact that these people did question the SPLC report. Do not remove properly sourced material. Truth_Seeker 17:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
No, Keating opined that only a small perecentage of traditional Catholics are anti-Semitic (a much smaller percentage than implied by the SPLC report he states), and he did ont state Sungenis was. I added a comment to the effect that Keating does state theer is a problem. I left out the Traditional aspect, as this could lead to further expansion of the article (since first of all, Sungenis does not even classify himself as a Traditioanlist, and I am pretty sure Keating knows that). Truth_Seeker 20:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
No I did not "invalidly removed...[your]... addition and clarification", you invalidly removed the entire sentence, and I restored it. I already added this "... while stating that there is some anti-Semitism within some Catholic circles [16]" to my original statement "some prominent Catholic apologists, such as Karl Keating, question the overall accuracy and veracity of the SPLC report,..." to satisfy your point. You deleted all of it. Truth_Seeker 21:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Liam, could you have found a more inflammatory, anti_Catholic source? [22]. This does not meet BLP guidelines for sure. And you questioned by Catholicity! Truth_Seeker 00:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
If you keep insisting on using the Catholic Culture site, at least use the review page, which states it is talking about Sungenis (unlike the example page). I will stop removing this link until we come to some agreement on BLP policy. Truth_Seeker 00:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
TS seems to have forgotten that I described Sungenis' positions on Jews as his "personal positions" because he complained that I shouldn't specifically remark that Sungenis does not speak for the Church. I still disagree with him that there is *anything* wrong with noting that. But I chose even gentler wording that at least gives the reader the sense that Sungenis is speaking for himself and not of any Catholic teaching when he speaks about Jews taking over the world and whatnot. I see no reasonable objection to this very gentle word.
TS also deleted my mention of some conspiracy theories. As I pointed out before, Wikipedia itself calls some of Sungenis' positions "conspiracy theories" in its own guidelines. So there is no reasonable objection to mentioning that.
Here is some of the relevant text from Wikipedia on
conspiracy theories:
I will put a link in the Sungenis article itself to Wikipedia's conspiracy article.
Liam Patrick 16:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)\
Liam Patrick 20:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Thre is a perceived difference between a "conspiracy" and a "conspiracy theory". The latter is POV. This is from your link to the wiki article:
Usage The term "conspiracy theory" is considered by different observers to be a neutral description for a conspiracy claim, a pejorative term used to dismiss such a claim, and a term that can be positively embraced by proponents of such a claim. The term may be used by some for arguments they might not wholly believe but consider radical and exciting. The most widely accepted sense of the term is that which popular culture and academic usage share, certainly having negative implications for a narrative's probable truth value
Some of your examples are of real "conspiracies" (i.e., communism- the Bolsheviks "conspired" to take over and succeeded). The Copernican Conspiracy is a literary take off on a quote from Arthur Eddington:
…for there is nothing to guide him as to the planet to be selected for the standard of rest….There is no answer, and so far as we can see no possibility of an answer….Our common knowledge of where things are is not a miraculous revelation of unquestionable authority….Location is not something supernaturally revealed to the mind….It would explain for instance, why all the forces of Nature seem to have entered into a conspiracy to prevent our discovering the definite location of any object…naturally they cannot reveal it, if it does not exist….Nature has been too subtle…she has not left anything to betray the frame which she used….Our predecessors were wise in referring all distances to a single frame of space…
LP- Do you believe satan is "conspiring" for the souls of men? Truth_Seeker 22:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
LP has totally failed to demonstrate that Robert Sungenis is "advocating" conspiracy theories. He quotes them. He has stated that a website seems to be advocating them, etc., he occasionally uses the word anecdotally, or uses thenm as a literary device, but this is different than advocating them. I will remove the conspiracy theory line. Please see my comments on your quotes above, LP. None of them are valid. Unless you want to say Sungenis has quoted others who claimed conspiracy theories, including Richard Nixon, John F. Kennedy, etc. Truth_Seeker 01:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
From, "Uncorking" article here:
(Dr. Cork): Dr. Robert Ley, Nazi Labor Minister
Mr. Sungenis refers to Franklin D. Roosevelt's alleged Jewish ancestry. He claims that Roosevelt knew in advance of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, but deliberately refrained from acting (because of the blood of this distant Jewish ancestor), in order to draw the US into World War 2.
(Sungenis): Again, this material was taken off the website, but let me address it anyway. Notice again that Mr. Cork doesn't refute the issue or supply any contravening evidence. He just assumes it's not true. But in exchanges I had with Mr. Cork over this issue I told him that the Detroit Jewish Chronicle of 1935 was the initial source for the fact that Roosevelt had Jewish ancestry he was concealing from the public. Mr. Cork told me that I wouldn't have known that unless I got it from the nazi quote. I told him I didn't know it was from a nazi, but in the end it made no difference, because the fact is that the nazi was quoting from the Detroit Jewish Chronicle about Roosevelt's Jewish roots!
(Dr. Cork): His discussion of Roosevelt's genealogy includes a reference to an "Adolf Schmalix" who wrote a pamphlet on the subject in the 1930s. Suspecting that Schmalix was probably a Nazi, I did an internet search--and was shocked by what I found. I discovered that a long section of Mr. Sungenis' article was lifted verbatim, without attribution, from an on-line source. This was the first instance of plagiarism I discovered in Sungenis' writings.
Equally shocking was the nature of the source, a Nazi propaganda tract--Dr. Robert Ley, Roosevelt verr t Amerika! (Berlin: Verlag der Deutschen Arbeitsfront, 1942). The English translation used by Mr. Sungenis (Roosevelt Betrays America!) is from the German Propaganda Archive of Calvin College. It was translated by Professor Randall Bytwerk, Professor of Communication Arts & Sciences at Calvin.
When I informed Mr. Sungenis and Prof. Bytwerk of this, Sungenis replaced the original version with a paraphrase, but still failed to cite either the author (the Nazi Dr. Ley) or the translator. He and his defenders have argued that the source makes no difference. He claimed not to have gotten the document from the Calvin College site, but would not mention the name of the site where he obtained it (and a Google search shows no other source).
(Sungenis): As I said above, Prof. Bytwerk from Calvin College accepted my explanation that I had no intentions of plagiarizing his material. I told him I would reword his material so as to avoid any impression of impropriety. He allowed that. As for the site from which I obtained the material, as I said above, I don't remember. END QUOTE FROM "Uncorking" article.
Fact: Bytwerk was merely *translating* the work of Dr. Robert Ley. Sungenis used the translation of Ley's work and did not openly acknowledge it in his original article. Cork demonstrated conclusively that Sungenis used the material and Sungenis did not deny it but only said he didn't intend to plagiarize and that the material was *true*.
Liam Patrick 06:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
LP- he may have used him one time indirectly to get to the fact that the Detroit Jewuish News did claim that Roosevelt had Jewish blood. This is one time 5 years ago, and not even clear that he did use him. Sungenis did not reference Ley. I see this as an attempt to make Sungenis look bad. I am leaving some of the others, because he has mentioned them multiple times over time, and has given explanations to their use. I may add some of theat expaklantion in the future.
Truth_Seeker
16:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Point of View edits by Truth Seeker should be reverted. He is a geocentrist.
PhilVaz 20:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Point of view edits by Phil Vaz should be reverted. He is an anti-creationist. Truth_Seeker 03:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
PhilVaz 04:32, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Robert is considered one of the brightest minds in apologetics:
http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=918004&postcount=5 http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=727295&postcount=15 http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=729978&postcount=31 http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=734456&postcount=53 http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=735040&postcount=63 http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=736884&postcount=73 http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=806799&postcount=91
Truth_Seeker 04:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Is that better, Phil? I am trying to differentiate between "universe" and "solar sytem". Modern geocentric theory deals with the universe, recognizing the solar system. Your original text emphasized the solar system and did not deal with the universe. Feel free to edit, keeping that in mind. Truth_Seeker 05:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Truth Seeker, thanks for the comments. This was your intro:
"is a well known and respected Catholic apologist famous for standing up for orthodox Church views. Robert Sungenis often examines contorversial Church views that other Catholic apologists shy away from. His series of apologetics books are well respected, and recommended widely by Catholic apologists and clergy. Currently his most famous controversial view is that the Church's 17th century position regarding geocentrism is valid and has not been rescinded, is scientifically viable, and worthy of consideration."
Respected by who? Even the contributors to his own book Not By Scripture Alone have disowned him ( Mark Shea, for example). He is not respected by the majority of Catholic apologists today who consider him a crank on his scientific views. EWTN dropped him like a hot potato in 2002, both his series on Justification, and his series with Patrick Madrid on sola scriptura are deleted from EWTN's programming. He is not respected by the majority of even his fellow Catholic apologists today because of his crank science views, and because of the attacks he has made on his own web site on fellow apologists Karl Keating, Jimmy Akin, Scott Hahn, etc.
But we can be fair to him and simply state he is a "traditional" or "traditionalist" Catholic apologist (OK, I understand he attends the traditional Mass, but if that's mistaken then correct that) who views the universe like they did back in the 16th century (OK, you can edit the Geocentrism Controversy section here). His books are "thorough" (I think someone before me put that there) but he is not "well respected" today. He is only "well respected" by you since you have bought into his crank scientific views: geocentrism. And neither you nor Robert are trained in physics and astronomy. You basically engage (in my opinion) in what TalkOrigins has called "quote mining."
"Robert Sungenis often examines contorversial Church views that other Catholic apologists shy away from."
That is frankly untrue since Catholic Answers and EWTN have dealt with all the issues Sungenis has dealt with, whether the priest scandal or whatever else controversial. But Catholic Answers or EWTN does not deal in crank science which is what sets Sungenis apart today from his fellow Catholic apologists. And you cannot spell controversial. Watch the typos.
"His series of apologetics books are well respected, and recommended widely by Catholic apologists and clergy."
That is no longer true, since 2002. Catholic Answers dropped Not By Faith Alone from their catalog. EWTN dropped both his series on Justification and Sola Scriptura (with Patrick Madrid) from their programming line up. Those are the facts. They are still running Madrid's series on the Papacy (saw it last week). But anything involving Sungenis has been dropped.
"Currently his most famous controversial view is that the Church's 17th century position regarding geocentrism is valid and has not been rescinded, is scientifically viable, and worthy of consideration."
That statement is probably correct. I'll agree with that.
I said I wasn't going to battle you, but Wikipedia is very addicting. Hee hee.
PhilVaz 21:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Answer this question: who is Robert Sungenis "well respected" by? Not EWTN, not Catholic Answers, and not even Mark Shea who contributed a chapter to his Not By Scripture Alone. All of these folks consider him "eccentric" at best, a "crank" at worst. But as I said, we can be fair to him and leave that out, and just state the facts. "Well respected" is clearly your opinion, you well respect him because you buy into geocentrism. PhilVaz 21:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
For sarters:
http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=918004&postcount=5 http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=727295&postcount=15 http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=729978&postcount=31 http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=734456&postcount=53 http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=735040&postcount=63 http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=736884&postcount=73 http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=806799&postcount=91
i.e., he is well respected by those served by apologists. Why do you judge him solely on those unwilling " to take a stand on unpopular and controversial issues"? Truth_Seeker 21:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Pardon me but (excuse my French) who the heck are these people? The apologists of Catholic Answers, EWTN, and Mark Shea (a popular Catholic apologist and author) consider him a crank, or eccentric, or both. Those are basically the opinions that count, not some anonymous folks on the board. You already have my opinions of his books, they are good books. But I'm sorry he had to include an appendix on young-earth creationism in Not By Bread Alone (2000). I saw the crank science coming even back in 2000. BTW, I'm mentioned in that book in a footnote. :-) PhilVaz 21:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Try some comprimise wording on the one sentence you do ont like. Do not change the whole article back. Truth_Seeker 21:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
"I just got a tape set by Tim Staples HOW IS MAN SAVED which is Copyright 1998. In this tape Tim says that Robert Sungensis' NOT BY FAITH ALONE is "THE BOOK on Justifcation" and Mr. Staples recommends the book several times."
I had dinner with Tim Staples in Orlando, FL in 2004 (Pete Vere drove me there, so he can also verify) and basically Staples thinks Sungenis is "nuts." Not his exact word, but Staples told me he engaged in much private discussion with Sugnenis trying to reason with him on his crank science and the Catholic teaching on that. To no avail. So No, Tim Staples (presently with Catholic Answers) would not be one today who "well respects" Bob Sungenis, sorry to say. He might have back in 1998 however, shortly after Not By Faith Alone was published. PhilVaz 22:35, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
OK, I broke this discussion page into sections. I think this part can probably be edited:
"In early 2002, Robert Sungenis came under much criticism, even amongst hitherto fans, for publicly postulating a geocentric worldview. This view is akin to the Ptolemaic worldview and is contrasted to that of Copernicus, which is today the accepted view of the civilized world which holds that the sun, and not the earth--as with Ptolemy--is centrally located amidst revolving and rotating celestial objects in our solar system."
You said reference to "solar system" is irrelevant. It might be today, but back then (in the 16th or 17th century) it is my understanding that without powerful telescopes one could not see beyond the solar system. So that's why I guess I added the distinction that Copernicus view (and Galileo ?) was that the "celestial objects" (planets, including EARTH) revolved and rotated around the sun in the solar system, which was basically the extent of the "universe" at that time. But much of that section was written before I got here. And I understand these days as a "geocentrist" you have to argue the "entire universe" somehow rotates/revolves around the earth. But you know more about what "modern geocentrism" means and how Sungenis interprets that (you obviously read more of his material than me on that) so you can edit that section. The rest is quite adequate.
Also the Church Fathers don't interpret the Bible "authoritatively" (or infallibly) on science issues, since the Church only speaks authoritatively or infallibly on faith and morals, not science. The Church Fathers could all be young-earthers and geocentrists and be completely wrong on their science, and the Catholic Church would have no problem with that. So the sentence on the Church Fathers and biblical texts is accurate. PhilVaz 02:12, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Phil: You have made a lot of statements about "faith and morals" and Papal infallibility.
1. You have not shown us an authoiritative definition of faith and morals 2. You have not shown that stating thst the earth moves is not faith and/or morals. In the condemnation of Paul V it states:
""...The proposition that the Earth is not the centre of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith..."
3. Faith and morals relates only to the specific instances of infallibility. ROBERT IS NOT CLAIMING IT IS INFALLIBLE. He is claiming that we should give and assent of the will towards it, but that it could be overturned by a future proclamation of equal weight (i.e., to the Papal Bull using Apostolic authority for instance). WE SHOULD STATE THIS IN THE ARTICLE.
So your arguments may make you feel better about rejecting geocentrism, but they have nothing to do with Robert's case. Truth_Seeker 14:47, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Phil:
Now you are putting words into my mouth. The Vatican COuncil (I) and Trent talked about more than papal infallibility.
Nowhere has the Church stated that anything that can be treated with the "scientiifc method" trumps the Church.
As for Fr. Jaki, may be interesting in a general discusison, but does not change what the Church did, nor is in itself doctrinal, infallible, or requiring assent of the faithful's will. Talking about Babylonians and Israelites feelings is phenemological, something the fathers and the three Popes rejected IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE (i.e., geocentrism).
I give no creedence to flat earth, nor did the consent of the fathers (one or two early fathers, maybe, but this is ont consent), nor have any Popes or councils pushed it.
Back to the main point- this article is about what Robert Sungenis believes, not your personal reasons for rejecting his beliefs. If you want a general discussion on sicience and faith, or even geocentrism, I suggest you start one, perhaps on CA. I will join in. Truth_Seeker 07:04, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Right, in an effort to move this discussion along a bit, here are my thoughts (for what they're worth) on the sections of this article:
I hope that this helps- obviously criticise away! -- G Rutter 12:03, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Sungenis belongs amongst the Neo-Conservative section of Traditionalist Catholics. However, while I know that there are Sedevacantist and Traditionalist Catholic categories, and have created the Sedeprivationist category, I want to know if there is a "Neo-Con" category (or rather subcategory of Traditionalist Catholics), or whether I should create one, and if I do, and added Sungenis to it, what would be the potential reaction? WikiSceptic 16:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Documentation
There's a lot of slander here against those who have documented Sungenis's antisemitism. The positions of Dr. Cork are spelled out clearly in "Antisemitism on the Catholic Right," where Sungenis' writings are compared with the sources from which he plagiarized. http://wquercus.com/sungenis. Sungenis' former employees have all recognized the validity of this--Ben Douglass, Jacob Michael, Michael Forrest. It is not POV to point out what has been factually demonstrated. It is a POV violation for apologists for hate to pretend that Sungenis has not acted as he has done.
FactChecker
This charge by William Cork is a classic smear campaign. I would rather not have the topic mentioned, but if it is going to be mentioned I am clearly going to identify it for what it is- a guttter dragging smear campaign. How can anyone take Cork seriously? This is a clear POV violation. Either we remove the entire section, or I will continue to press for a truthful disclosure of what this is really about. No one other than Cork came out against Sungenis publicly. To Cork anyone who questions his views is anti-semitic. This "controversy" is only in Cork's imagination and should not be reported as a fact.
Documentation
There's a lot of slander here against those who have criticized Sungenis. The positions of Dr. Cork are spelled out clearly in "Antisemitism on the Catholic Right," where Sungenis' writings are compared with the sources from which he plagiarized. http://wquercus.com/sungenis. Sungenis' former employees have all recognized the validity of this--Ben Douglass, Jacob Michael, Michael Forrest. It is not POV to point out what has been factually demonstrated. It is a POV violation for apologists for hate to pretend that Sungenis has not acted as he has done.
Truth-Seeker
I was just thinking about that recently. One unknown figure accusing Sungenis does not allow for a separate section with honorary mention. If that particular controversy was high-profile enough in Sungenis' apostolate, I can, however, see it being mentioned somewhere in the article. But there are many other traditional Catholics critical of the same, so it really is not all that unique. ( Diligens 14:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC))
Truth Seeker
Read the article on "Smear Campaign". Bill Cork is your only reference. He does not deal with the facts. He does not dispute the facts. He offers no alternative facts or sources. He attempts to use innuendo, association, and other low tactices to smear Robert Sungenis. This does not deserve a section, even mention in my opinion.
Truth Seeker
This is clearly a "he said" "he said" situation isn't it? Why do we even have a section on it? How about my proposal, above?
I have been trying to strike a comprimise. I did not see your changes the last time. I do not want a header stating "ANTISEMITISM". This in itself is a smear tactic, considering the weight of the charge. Also, the out of context statements regarding what he allegedly said is unfair,. If you want to place whole quotations with context, then that may be ok, but the article will get out of hand. You have a link to the smear job, so people can read the charges for themselves if interested.
Truth Seeker
Removed by TruthSeeker:
In his articles critiquing this position, Sungenis included charges that Jews were behind both Communism, Capitalism, Freemasonry, the Second Vatican Council, World War 1, World War 2, and the Gulf Wars.
Is this really not something that Sungenis wrote? I read through some of the document, and it does seem like he is saying that "Jews" were behind some of these things. -- ScienceApologist 20:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
This is news and relevant. Stop removing it.
Truth Seeker
ScienceApologist 20:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, did not see you had placed it elsewhere. Try using discussion more.
Truth Seeker
This is becoming a kludge. Every odd charge that comes up is thrown into this as though a collection of charges- most from the same small group of dis-satisfied ex-collegues is evidence. We should summarize the charges and responses in a few sentences, then move all the links to external links.
Truth-Seeker —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.81.205.20 ( talk) 20:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC).
I partly agree with Truth-Seeker in that persons who dislike the subject intensely and have a vested interest in embarrassing Sungenis, are on an almost daily basis re-writing this section without regard to enyclopedia ethics and objectivity. Hotly contested allegations of moral turpitude and cheating are preceded by words like "undoubtedly" and "certainly." So we have a polemical scoreboard rigged to reflect the viewpoints and "victory" of his opponents over him posing as a wiki encyclopedia entry and this abuse seriously detracts from the veracity of the article and the credibility of Wikipedia.
Where I disagree with Truth-Seeker, is with his suggestion that the charges should be summarized rather than specified. Since wiki desires neither to uphold nor detract from Sungenis, most of the charges (except where patent libel is present) should remain, but set-out within the context of allegations by partisans.
Equally lengthy quotes from Sungenis may be added for balance and fairness. The solution is not to contract the entry, but expand it, since it forms a part of the evolving historical record concerning this subject.
However, if the subject's opponents continue to sabotage the entry and violate the guidlines of the Wikipedia, using the encyclopedia as a forum to attack and belittle the subject, then it may be that Truth-Seeker's suggestion is necessary to implement as a last resort. In the interim the Sungenis entry should be flagged as disputed. Aaron Asimov 14:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
This section is definitely biased--it shows up in the intro, too: "increasingly virulent anti-semitism, inflammatory charges against the Talmud," etc. At least throw in a few uses of of the word "alleged." Propugnatorfidei 18:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I have a serious issue with the fact that Mark Wyatt (AKA "Truth-Seeker", under IP address 63.81.205.20 on the history pages) is out here on an almost daily basis, removing links and attempting to correct "POV" statements - his name is in the "Acknowledgements" section of Sungenis' geocentrism book, for goodness' sake. If that's not a true "vested interest," then the phrase has no meaning. From what I can tell here, none of the statements made about Sungenis in this wiki entry are without documentation. Let the facts speak for themselves, Mr. Wyatt. Or at least, if you're going to be out here shilling for Sungenis, have the decency to sign your name to your edits. Lumengentleman 18:27, 21 March 2007 (EST)
http://www.sungenisandthejews.com/ is a personal web page, while http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/ is a blog. These are not acceptable sources and should not be used as such. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Please see | Biographis of Living Persons. This Wikipedia policy is being trampled on. Specifically:
1. See this section "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material"
2."Biased or malicious content"
3. "Reliable sources"
Truth_Seeker —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.81.205.20 ( talk) 20:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC).
In light of the extent of the controversy with Sungenis and Jews it is unacceptable to leave the entry as simply "Some critics have accused Robert Sungenis of unfairly dealing with the Jews. Robert Sungenis denies this." The Jewish controversy occupies a tremendous amount of space at Catholic Apologetics International. — Liam Patrick — continues after insertion below
As blogs are unacceptable, what of the other sources? Why were they also deleted by Truth Seeker? What if the things said by Sungenis are simply sourced directly to Catholic Apologetics International or the Web Archive?
Ignoring Sungenis' writings against Jews with the entry Truth Seeker has put in would be like having an entry on George Bush and Iraq that says only "He also presided over a war in Iraq" or on David Duke that says "Some of his critics claim he is racist. He denies the charge." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liam Patrick ( talk • contribs) 23:15, March 21 2007 (UTC)
Truth Seeker, then there is no problem with documenting the Jewish controversy at Catholic Apologetics International by quoting Sungenis and linking directly to his own writing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liam Patrick ( talk • contribs) 00:11, March 22 2007 (UTC)
My Proposal for the "Jewish" section:
Position on the Jews
Robert Sungenis strongly holds to a view of Biblical inerrancy which, as he claims the Church has traditionally done, tends to emphasize the literal interpretation strongly where appropriate. This, plus his interpretation of Patristics, Concliar, and Papal pronouncements has lead him to some of the following positions on the Jews and Judaism:
1. The Jews did have (in the time of Christ) a "hardened heart", and still predominately have this condition today (ref. Rm 9:18-32; 11:5-23)
2. The Jews are no longer a special people (above the gentiles) in God's eyes (ref. Gal 3:28 '...There is neither Jew nor Greek...',Col 2:11-16; Eph 2:11-16; Ac 10:34-35; 5:1-4; 6:12-16; Rm 2:28-29; Heb 7:18; 8:13; 10:9; 2Co 3:6-14).
3. Jewish converts to Catholicism should not practice Jewish rituals and festivals, nor seek special identity markers within the Church (Acts of the Apostles, Council of Florence)
4. Though speculatively possible, there likely will not be a massive conversion of Jews at the second coming of Christ. Robert also identifies theological difficulties in holding this position. Robert holds that only a remnant will be converted, and this throughout the time of the gentiles. (see the Mark Cameron debates)
5. Today's national Israel was not predicted in the Old Testament (misinterpertations of Isaiah 66, Genesis 12:3),nor does this represent the final fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant (this already occured in the Old Testament, Joshua 21:43-45; 1Kings 8:56; Nehemiah 9:7-8), nor does the the cedeing of control of Jeruseluem to the Jews of Israel in 1967 indicate the time of the "fulfilment of the gentiles" (Luke 21:24, Rm 11:25).
6. The Talmud is an anti-Christian document.
7. The Mosaic covenant was fulfilled by and replaced by the New Covenant with Christ (ref., Hb 7:18; 8:13; 10:9; 2Co 3:6-14; Gl 3:10-29).
8. The New Covenant fulfills the Old, not vice-versa.
9. Jews do need to convert to Catholicism to attain salvation.
The same thinking, Biblical exegesis, and interpretation of Patristics, Concliar, and Papal pronouncements which have led to Robert Sungenis being lauded by Catholic apologists when applied to Protestant ideas, have caused some consternation amongst some Catholic apologists and even secular groups when applied to the Jews. Especially contentious to some apologists are his speculations interpreting points 1,5, and 6 to events and people today.
END PROPOSAL
I do not think anything more needs to be said. Please let me have your thoughts.
Truth seeker new 20:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Protection has ended "(expires 2007-03-28T23:20:17 (UTC))", I made the proposed (and undisputed) changes. Truth_Seeker 05:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Truth-seeker, your submission is not reasonable. It is clear that many of Sungenis' views are highly controversial and you neglected to address them in any meaningful way.
It deserves to be known that Sungenis' ideas are his own in certain controversial areas and that the Catholic community does not agree with them. Some specifics deserve to be drawn out as this is an encyclopedia. At least as much care should be shown for the reputation of the Catholic Church as it is for Robert Sungenis. He is presented as a Catholic apologist.
This section has been rewritten in line with Wikipedia guidelines. Most of what you originally entered has been retained. However, a sample of Sungenis' own more controversial writings have now been included. The outside references to EWTN and CUF have been retained as they fall within Wikipedia guidelines.
Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liam Patrick ( talk • contribs) 08:27, March 29 2007 (UTC)
Truth-Seeker,
You have gone to great effort to avoid the most serious issues involving Sungenis and Jews. Why? View Michael Hoffman's wikipedia entry and you will see that they at least deal with the issue and don't cover it over in the way you are trying to cover over the things Sungenis writes. Hoffman is a living person obviously, too.
It cannot be improper to site the very things Sungenis himself writes at his website. The things you will only site are not the things that have caused controversy. You seem to know this. So while you worry about negative agendas you are clearly showing a positive agenda to cover over certain things. If he is comfortable enough to put these things on his web site and keep them up, then why are you trying to hide them? This is not supposed to be a propaganda site or hagiography.
Also, a sentence MUST be added that at least gives the reader a clue that some of Sungenis' views are not in harmony with the general Catholic community. His views are clearly on the margin in certain areas. Do you dispute that?
If not, then this needs to be in the section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liam Patrick ( talk • contribs) 06:18, March 31 2007 (UTC)
Truth Seeker,
The sentence added speaks about the "Catholic community". And it is accurate. Are you really saying that you believe these views are in harmony with what the Church is saying about Jews now or what the vast majority of Catholic think about Jews?
That's just a few.
Are you saying that Michael Piper's views of Jews (whose works he says he can't put down now) and a good deal of Michael Hoffman's views are in step with the mind of the Church and the views of most Catholics?
That's not reasonable.
I hope you can agree that as this stands right now, it is a very charitable rendering of what Robert Sungenis believes and at least gives the reader SOME insight that he is not speaking for the Catholic Church or the general Catholic community on these controversial issues. He is speaking for himself.
Okay?
If it is not, I will bring it to Wikipedia because anything less would be propaganda/hagiography.
Liam Patrick 01:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Truth-seeker,
What do you mean "these are not his views"? Of course they are. He says that he believes Jews intend to rule the world and the Catholic Church. That's a pretty big over-arching view, don't you think? He subscribes to multiple Jewish conspiracy theories in support of that view. And btw...the link to the interview does work so please stop removing it. He comes right out and says that Monica Lewinsky was sent in by the Jews after Clinton. The site was having difficulties, that's all. — Liam Patrick — continues after insertion below
Do you dispute that it is these kinds of views that have created the controversy and that Sungenis embraces? It is a pattern of views. So yes, any one taken by itself in isolation you may say, "Oh, is that really important?" The point is the pattern and the over-arching trajectory. — Liam Patrick — continues after insertion below
What is so difficult to admit about that?
Do you dispute there is an important controversy centering around this issue with Sungenis? Seriously? Do you believe that Wikipedia needs to avoid dealing with such prominent issues? It looks very much like you're trying to cover it over. — Liam Patrick — continues after insertion below
Again, would you object if a Bush supporter came in and said we can't talk Abu Ghraib or Hussein's attempt on his father's life in relation to the war on Iraq? Or how about Monica Lewinsky with Bill Clinton? That was far more personal in nature, yet it was central and to insist on leaving it out would be ridiculous imo. This is about HISTORY. It is an ENCYCLOPEDIA not an autobiography or hagiography site. It is not about advertising for Robert Sungenis. It is to inform the PUBLIC. Your focus is almost entirely on Sungenis.
As for Piper, why don't you listen to the interview first? As for Hoffman, would you say that it is fine to use, endorse and quote from David Duke as a source on Blacks because I don't endorse a couple of things he believes? Or would you consider it noteworthy? Do you think MOST people might want to know that a man who writes on blacks likes a good deal of Duke's works on Blacks? Of course they would want to know that and they have a right to know it. But you want to cover it over. Why? It can be stated in a completely neutral way:
If you find that "guilt by association", then it is because you personally believe people would find his sources themselves to be the problem. There is nothing in the statement itself at all that objectively harms Sungenis. It is a neutral statement of fact and it is not skewed. If you want to include all of his sources, then that would be fine, too. Look over his public statements and the documentation. But these are the ones publicly documented. So, if there is a problem, the sources themselves would create the guilt in the mind of the reader and it is not up to you whether the reader sees a problem with the objective information or not. Sungenis himself made the choices to seek these sources out Truth-Seeker. Do you not see this?
And that is not guilt by association, Truth-seeker. Guilt by association is when someone is deemed guilty for simple proximity to another. If Sungenis were only, for example, friends with Hoffman and the entry said, "Sungenis is also friends with Hoffman, a man generally seen as an anti-Semite", that would qualify as guilt by association. But he has directly and openly used his work and expressed approval of it with one or two caveats. Much more so in the case of Piper. Has he ever disagreed with Piper? This is all much more than mere meaningless connection...or guilt by association. So you are misusing the argument of guilt by association.
And please read what Sungenis actually writes before changing things anymore. He did more than just say that PIPER believes it:
Sungenis says, "We know". So he does more than just "referencing" Piper as you wrote. He endorses Piper's theory. You can't seriously argue that. You're trying to carve out non-existent distinctions, one would guess in order to distance Sungenis. But how can you legitimately distance a man from something he embraces?
And why are you focusing on this now anyway? You managed to expunge that part from the Wiki-record and I haven't tried to restore it up to now, although I disagree with you and believe Wikipedia would agree with me in the end that if it was done in neutral way it is perfectly legitimate to point out that Sungenis appeals to the work of Piper, IHR, Hoffman, Jones in his work. These are his main sources. But, on second thought, I am going to restore that section now the more I think about it. It is perfectly legitimate and I don't think you have a leg to stand on really. If Sungenis has repudiated any or these sources, then he needs to do so publicly. If not, it is perfectly legitimate, even necessary, to point out the sources he himself cites.
Next, look at his work again. You changed the wording to Zionist, not Jew. His views on Communism and Jews have nothing to do with Zionists. His comments on Disney have [nothing] to do with Zionists. His comments on Dear Abbey and Dr. Ruth have [nothing] to do with Zionists. The only common thread is [Jews], Truth-seeker. So you are distorting the record. — Liam Patrick — continues after insertion below
Finally, again, if he is so certain of his opinions about Jews as to put them up on his website, and there are many of them, then why do you keep trying to cover them over? How can the man's own writings and opinions be off-limits? This is absurd on the face of it. Liam Patrick 18:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
If you intend to keep changing and removing these things let me know now and I will request arbitration. I doubt you will find much support for what you are trying to do right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liam Patrick ( talk • contribs) 20:11, April 2, 2007
Patrick:
Please consider these wikipedia policy statements (which I posted at the beginning of the section):
Truth_Seeker 20:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Patrick:
Why don't you write your proposal for the Jewish section here, as I wrote my proposal previously. Anything about the Jewish controversy should be neutral (as you have said), and according to policy, should be well balanced. You have no reliable 3rd party sources (that I know of), so you need to use Robert Sungenis' own material. But at the same time, I think it shows bias to "cherry pick" quotes that are designed to make him look extereme. It is better to discuss the items that can be supported by entire articles (i.e., 'Robert Sungenis is critical of zionism' rather than Robert Sungenis said that the Jews killed JFK). In the case of the example, a reasonable way to say it may be
Do you see what I mean? His point was not to say that the Jews killed Kennedy, but to tie zionism to the Kennedy assasination- the political motive suggested is nuclear weapons to further zionist political ambitions. You need to study the article to understand what he is saying and why, then even you need to consider the policy guidelines. I feel your "PATTERN OF VIEWS" could easily be interpreted as an agenda, which is directly in conflict with the wikipedia policy. Truth_Seeker 20:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Truthseeker,
We're at an impasse. If you continue to believe this entry accurately portrays Robert Sungenis and what he has written about Jews, then I will not spend anymore time on it for now. I can see where you are going (even in your last proposal) and I want no moral responsibility before God for what is presented in this article.
And I will not be approaching Wiki for arbitration. I don't have the time at this point. So unless someone else is interested in this entry, the moral responsibility for the entry is yours for now.
I formally disown it.
Pray for wisdom.
Under the Mercy,
Liam -- Liam Patrick 20:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Truth-seeker,
Looking forward to your attempt to sanitize what Sungenis is writing now. Just another throw-away line?
Liam Patrick 19:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Truth-seeker,
Stop the white-washing. You are covering over his own writing. He says these kinds of things multiple times. No conspiracy theories needed. It's out there for all the world to see. It is Sungenis that is the conspiracy theorist. Are you not as proud of it as he obviously is?
His view of Jews is that they are trying to take over the world and the Catholic Church. And they are doing it by conspiracies like the JFK, FDR, Monica Lewinsky situations.
Why are you trying to hide this from the world? He's not.
Does he know that you are systematically trying to cover over his own work and important "truths"? You might think he'd be glad to get it out there even more! Buck up and have faith in him! -- Liam Patrick 05:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I copyedited this contentious section. Please note:
Reply to Otheus and Truth-Seeker,
IMO, Truth-seeker, you are inconsistent and have tried to create an interpretation of the rules in which only the things you consider best and most positive are presented about Sungenis. Anything negative is pulled out or watered down so much that it doesn't present the starkness of his actual writing. The fact is that this man espouses a number of Jewish conspiracy theories and has made many controversial statements. He is anything but subtle about it. Why are you trying to be subtle and cagey for him? He's not. He is not in the mainstream of Catholic thought when it comes to Jews and people deserve to know that. The controversy over all of this dominates his website. It seems you would like people not to know about this. But unless I'm wrong, Wikipedia is not a site for hagiography...or propaganda, either pro or con.
You complained when sites other than Sungenis' were cited (not just by me). Okay. Agreed that some of it seems to have not been legit by Wiki-policy. Then I provided quotes directly from his own work to overcome that. Then you complained that this was cherry picking, even though some of the quotes expressed an over-arching philosophy...like the fact that he believes Jews are trying to rule the world and the Catholic Church. That doesn't seem like an insignificant point. You complained. Down it came. I even went along with that and agreed to more general statements about his views. But then you proceeded to insert cherry-picked specific information about Fr. Neuhaus from Sungenis' radio interview.
So, I think you should consider your actions here before making more accusations. You obviously have your own agenda. I agree that one or two individuals went too far in the other direction. I also agree that I made errors because I did not understand wiki policy. But you have been less than consistent and fair yourself.
Liam Patrick 17:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Truth_Seeker 18:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Liam Patrick 15:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Truth-seeker,
I think ScienceApologist is right. There are a multitude of quotes from Sungenis about Jews. They're his own words. If you want to add context because you think the additional words really change the meaning, fine. To me, sometimes it looks like needless verbiage that only clutters the article and makes it less accessible. Whether or not his own words make him look nutty is one's personal POV, of course. Sungenis obviously doesn't think these things are nutty and it's not anyone's job to clean up his work and make it look less extreme than it actually is for Wikipedia, is it? You've removed quite a few things and said they were unsubstantiated or whatver and then I provided the verbatim quote.
But I do appreciate that you have started to be a little more reasonable lately. It hasn't gone unnoticed and so to be fair, I acknowledge it and thank you.
However, I do question your understanding of Public Person. Sungenis runs a very public organization, a non-profit that is legally open to public scrutiny, financially and otherwise, has authored several books, does radio programs, tv programs, gives public presentations etc. How much more does he have to do to be a public person?
Regarding conspiracy theories about Sungenis, I don't follow your argument. All one has to do is look at his website. You don't need to be a conspiracy theorist to see how much controversial and extreme material there is. To me, it's like saying one's making up conspiracy theories if they note that there are a lot of tall people in the NBA.
And finally, regarding your "one time statement" objection, I don't find that persuasive. Are you saying that as long as he only writes about any particular Jewish conspiracy theory once or twice, it's not right to note it? And what if he mentions **many** different conspiracy theories just once or twice...which is what he seems to do? The point is, he is a Jewish conspiracy theory advocate, Truth-seeker. He doesn't hide it. What has he written or said? Lewinsky. FDR. JFK. Pope Paul VI. Jews are trying to take over the world and the Catholic Church. U.S. foreign policy is secretly (and not so secretly sometimes!) dictated by the Jewish lobby. Communism was a Jewish enterprise. The Holocaust itself. Jewish financiers are secretly behind the push to make everyone do the bidding of Israel. The laundry list is pretty extensive. And it kind of looks like you are arguing that because he only mentions each of these once or twice (sometimes more, really), they must be ignored because it makes him look "nutty."
That's not a reasonable argument, imo. The individual points about Jews may vary, but one thing remains pretty consistent: if Jews are involved (or are thought to be involved), it's bad and he's bound and determined to expose the "truth" as he sees it. They're just up to no good.
Liam Patrick 04:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
TruthSeeker has been opposing wording which attributes the claims of a "scientific case" for geocentrism directly to Sungenis on the basis of an edit summary which states "science is not absolute", perhaps one of the most transparent arguments for POV-pushing I've ever seen at Wikipedia. Applicable policies for attribution need to be adhered to. These are Sungenis' claims and do not represent those of scientific consensus. Deal with it. -- ScienceApologist 11:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Biased or malicious content Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content in biographies or biographical information. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.
The "Jewish Controversy" section now contains way too much detail, in relationship to this person's life or his notability. I acknowledge that his views range from mundane to extremely controversial. I acknowledge that he associates himself with conspiratorial theorists and and anti-Semitic views. I also acknowledge that his views may or may not be based solely on doctrinal disagreements. However, this version is simply over-the-top. As an atheist who was once the son of a Protestant missionary, I offer to moderate the discussion on this section on what should go in, and what should not. Liam Patrick and Truth Seeker, I implore you to take me up on this offer. If so, until moderation is over, the minimalist approach should be taken.
First, we must keep in mind the core policy NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH (No "OR", or NOR) WP:NOR. Making long, attributed quotes to explain a person's view, while not "OR", is generally unencyclopaedic, and can result in violating another core policy, NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW WP:NPOV, by selecting and choosing quotes. Normally this is not a problem, but here it clearly is as we have a continued debate on this.
Second, to alleviate this problem, we should first try to lean upon reliable sources, sources which themselves are not polemical, blogs, or more opinion peddling. So far, I have not found such sources, and I ask you two to do your best. The closest thing I could find to such a reliable source was the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), but their criticism seems to have been almost completely stolen from a blogger, Mr. Bill Cork. It's also a fact that the SPLC is regarded by many (including myself) to be ultra-liberal, and not particularly even-handed (though they may entirely be correct). Another source was from Searchlight magazine, avowedly against anti-semitism and "hate". However, I cannot judge on my own whether their coverage of Sangenis is neutral and balanced.
Third, it needs to be noted that Sangenis runs CAI and that basically the site is his own, completely self-published site. As Truth Seeker (TS) notes above, it is acceptable to use this in a source in stating what Sangenis has said, but it must be clear that this is so and it must be balanced, in that we editors here have a solid consensus on how the statements are summarized.
I will ask the page to be protected until we can make some progress in this area. -- Otheus 10:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Otheus,
That sounds fine to me. Thank you for the offer. I agree that it's too cumbersome and have said so previously. The reason so many quotes were provided from Sungenis' own writing in the first place was because more generalized statements were often deleted because the accuracy or truthfulness of them were so often doubted. By providing a series of direct quotes, the doubt was removed (and the statements were finally allowed to stand).
Also, I ask that we bear in mind that a great deal of Sungenis' work and writing is internet-based. And almost *all* of his most controversial work is internet-based. As such, the sources and commentary on him (especially this issue) are almost exclusively internet-based as well. In looking at wiki rules, my sense is that they are not intended to be hard and fast with no exceptions. Yes? There needs to be some common sense in this, I would think. Agreed?
Regarding the Jewish controversy section, the things I believe must be present in some form or the article will be obscuring or distorting reality rather than making it accurately available to wiki readers:
Reactions? Liam Patrick 14:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Otheus,
Actually, what you have written, with some balance is more than fine with me. I would leave it as it is, but drop the SPLC link, which is very biased and factually a mess. If it is kept, then I would propose to add one line:
Other Catholic commentators disagree with this [2], while some prominent Catholic apologists, such as Karl Keating question the accuracy and veracity of the SPLC report [3].
If Liam Patrick agrees with this, then I say let's just do that.
Liam Patrick: I would argue that Robert Sungenis is not a "public person" per the wiki policy :
Clearly there are not,and the SPLC is not reliable (nor third party- they have a stated bias). Robert may be well known to most Catholic apologists, but that group represents a very small fraction of the public. Public figures are people in the general public limelight, not well known in a small, specialzed field. Examples are George Bush, Ted Kennedy, Ozzie Osborne, Madonna, and many lesser known individuals who still are known to the general public (Like Fr. Neuhaus who makes onto CNN and is known). Let me repeat, here, some of what I stated when we started this latest round:
Refactoring by Otheus. TS, I'm refactoring your inclusion of the policies, because it's not evidently clear which is policy and which is your analysis. Simply put, we all should re-read [WP:BLP]]. You referenced these 3 subsections:
Regarding whether Catholics support his views:
I am sorry, Liam, I disagree strongly on this position of yours. I agree that when Robert Sungenis wanders into politics, and what you call conspiracy theories, there may be some disagreements, but I would propose that those agreements/disagreements are less a matter of religion, and more political. Most of the views expressed in the previous version of the Jewish section would be agreed on by many if not most Catholic apologists. Maybe not the Kennedy assasination possibly having involvement of Ben Gurion and the Mossad, but most of the Scripturally and covenant related ones. Robert attempts to apply the doctrinal /Scriptural thesis to the real world, and this is where there is some controversy.
I also tried to balance your negative POV with context to show that the reasons he holds some of those political andother views are based on doctrinal issues. I used his own writings to show that.
The purpose of a wiki biography is not to point out every detail about the subject, but to give a general overview of who that person is and what he/she does. The line written by Otheus, with the modifications I proposed are more than adequate to accomplish that. You are trying to bring the view of a handful of disgruntled ex-employees of Robert's (plus a few supporters) into an internationally accessed resource (Wikipedia), and pass it off as demonstrated fact. Well it is not demonstrated fact, and your attempts to do this is theorizing. This is unacceptable.
Now I propose that we stick with what Otheus wrote, plus my proposed modifications, and leave it at that. If we attempt more detail, we will end up where we were yesterday in order to be fair to both sides of the issue.
I think we should not use the word "anti-semitic", as even Sungenis' attackers did not use that word (until they realized they were not being successful, even then they used it in a guarded fashion). The word anti-Jewish, or "negative towards the Jews" is more fitting. Sungenis si NOT a holcaust denier, white supremacist, or a neo-Nazi.
Truth_Seeker 17:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Otheus,
You have previously agreed that something needs to be in here making clear that Sungenis does not speak for the Catholic Church when it comes to his views on Jews (in particular, his opinion that they are trying to rule the world and the Church). As a Catholic, I can tell you that it is deeply offensive and wrong that he uses the name "Catholic" in the title of his organization (and here at Wikipedia, with a helpful link to send people [right to the website filled with the very things that seem to be off limits for Wikipedia to address]) while spreading his personal theories about Jews. He has a link to his website, prominently featuring the name "Catholic" here as well. By doing so, he appropriates some of the weight and respectability of the Church and uses it to his advantage. This is certainly one of the reasons why he didn't simply name his organization "Bob Sungenis Apologetics" or "Bob Sungenis' on Politics and Race"
There seems to be something seriously wrong, imo, with either the rules or the interpretation of the rules. From what I am reading here, Otheus, it would seem that I could fill an entire website with conspiracy theories about Jews, recommendations of David Duke, Mein Kampf, ritual murder of Jews and Wikipedia couldn't mention it unless some other 3rd party that met certain weightiness guidelines wrote about it. Is this what is being said? Maybe I'm misunderstanding, because that looks very unreasonable. — Liam Patrick — continues after insertion below
Regarding the idea of conspiracy theories and whether his views can be termed such, what else would you call them? Have you seen the documentation in his own words? He believes Jews are trying to rule the world and the Catholic Church. He has promoted the idea FDR let the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor because he was part-Jewish and thought it would help create the state of Israel. JFK was probably murdered by Zionist Jews. Monica Lewinsky was sent in by Zionist Jews after Clinton. The Holocaust itself was financed and partially orchestrated by Jews for the sake of creating Israel. Then there are his theories about Pope Paul VI's and his Jewish past and more. What do you objectively call all of these but conspiracy theories?
And Truth-seeker, you seem to be forgetting all the examples like this:
"95% of the Jews today still despise Jesus Christ.” here
“The charge of 'anti-Semitism' is nothing but a clever ploy…" here
“In fact, the concentration camps and genocide instigated by the Jewish communists in Russia against Christians and other groups dwarf those against the Jews in Nazi Germany. Hitler was merely modeling what was already practiced in Russia, a fact ignored by such Jewish authors as Daniel Goldhagen. Contrasted to the dozens of concentration camps in Hilter’s regime, the Russian Jews had thousands of such camps… but evidence of these camps have been systematically destroyed and their existence denied by the Jewish controlled media in Russia and the United States.” here
“A telltale sign in the movie industry of the shift in mores was demonstrated no better than in the Walt Disney Corporation. Founder Walter Disney was well-known in the 50s and 60s for wholesome family entertainment. Interestingly enough, Walt had a policy of not hiring Jewish people.” here
“Today we get deviant sexual advice from such Jewish matrons as Dr. Ruth Westheimer, and questionable behavioral advice from Dr. Laura Schlesinger, Ann Landers (formerly Esther Friedman Lederer) and her sister Abigail van Buren (Pauline Esther Friedman Phillips).” here
“Christianity is certainly not inherently violent, but unfortunately, Judaism tends to be, because real Judaism considers all non-Jews goyim that are less than animals, and this precipitates a loathing and violence against non-Jews.” here
"The Jews...do intend to rule the world. And now the problem is that they want to rule the Catholic Church, too." here
"Are the Protocols (of the Elders of Zion) forged? I don’t know. What I do know is that there is a lot of reason to believe that there are certain people, yes, the Jews, who would like us all to believe that they are forged." here
“When (Jews) come into power…they can be some of the most ruthless people on the face of the earth." here'
Examples could be multiplied.
And Truth-seeker, it looks to me like you are creating theories and judging motives here. For you, it seems to be just about Sungenis, and who is "attacking" him. They're all operating from malice against the poor man, right? Yet what he does to Jews is not attacking, right? It's all good-hearted. Well-intentioned. I suppose its just bringing out his deeply held beliefs. Matters of conviction and conscience, right?
Liam Patrick 23:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I finally did find a well-known, well-respected, objective third party that deals with Sungenis' website. Please read this:
Here is what they say:
They also write the following:
Certainly this qualifies as an objective, sufficiently solid resource to note. And they call some of his material "blatantly anti-semitic"...among other things.
Liam Patrick 23:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
T-S
No, I never even knew about it until yesterday. And do me a favor. Read who this is addressed to: OTHEUS. If you have comments, put them at the bottom rather than cutting up my post. Do you see this being addressed to you? Please restrain yourself. Thank you. Liam Patrick 16:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Otheus, please, you must see that this is simply unacceptable.
Regarding the New Mass, it is only more recently that Sungenis changed his approach to the new mass. He wrote about his change in direction and you know it. So the material in that instance is a little dated, that's all. Regarding Jews, he has written more and more of these kinds of things. So, if anything, Catholic Culture was under-evaluating what he has said about Jews because it was written a while ago. Your attempt to discredit Catholic Culture on this point is not valid.
T-S,
Where does the Catholic Culture website ever say that Sungenis said the New Mass is invalid? I don't see it.
Liam Patrick 16:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
You understandably don't like their evaluation.
T-S...not surprising. Of course you do. But if you look around this certainly reflects a prett broad consensus of those who know about him. You have a very minority opinion. My perception? Yes, but one that is not difficult to back up.
Liam Patrick 16:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, you don't seem to see the irony in your complaint. Does Sungenis officially speak for the Catholic Church? Is he a bishop? A priest? No. So if you are going to be consistent, then either you need to pull EVERYTHING about Sungenis's website (including the helpful link to send them there) or include this material from Petersnet. They are ecclesiastical equals. Peers. You can't have it both ways. Or at least I hope Wikipedia will not allow it. That would be a travesty. — Liam Patrick — continues after insertion below
removed redundant post to thread about creation of article, above Otheus 15:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
And can't you see that on the face of it, this is ridiculous? By what you are saying, a person could go on and on about the beauty of Nazism on his website, call for the extermination of Jews, and no one could touch it at Wikipedia with a ten foot pole unless what you call a reliable third party writes about it. That's ridiculous.....oh, unless it's something that his advocates find helpful to market him, that is. Furthermore, I did find a recommendation for a criticism of Sungenis' work on Jews by a VERY credible organization, Catholics United for the Faith. The fact that they recommended it and linked to it should say something important. But you even shot that down because you claim it's just a ruse to pass through to a non-approved site. That's your opinion and I think you're stretching the rules. Where does it say that this is strictly off limits. I want to see it, verbatim Truth-seeker, not you reading into motives and stretching. If it's there black and white, fine.
And so, why did they recommend the information that is highly critical of Sungenis about how he deals with Jews? They endorse it. The endorsement of a criticism of Sungenis by a very credible third party strikes me a legitimate. Again, I think you're stretching the rules, there. The link is to a very reputable third party that recommended a criticism of Sungenis about Jews.
Liam Patrick 23:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
OTHEUS:
Please notice that I have made more than one entry above. There is a very long one under "Response to Otheus" as well.
thank you.
Liam Patrick 23:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Liam Patrick,
I will need more time to review your lengthy posts. But for now, you have met the requirement of providing a reliable secondary source which can be used to label Sungenis' remarks as anti-semitic. Note, however, two things.
First, the site's review is balanced -- it lists pros and cons of Sungenis' site, which is the most important thing for a secondary source. But the thing that makes this a "reliable source" is from their "About page" [5] mentions they maintain a review of over 500 sites and a library of over 5000 documents. This indicates this is not a single-purpose site dedicated to taking down anything in particular, and that their views encompass a range of sites. Their "about" page clearly discloses the mission/goal of the site which is to communicate on Catholic matters. In sum, this cite is not of the polemical sort found in blogs or the SPLC site. I acknowledge that this site does not "speak for the Church", but that's irrelevant; we don't need Papal authority to count as a reliable source.
Second, what I would expect as "blatant anti-semitism", to use the site's terminology, is someone saying something like "all Jews are evil and just want to get you" or slightly more mildly, "The Jews just want your money", which one hundred years ago in Germany, was tehcnically true since they were effectively banned from any other kind of endeavor, but is not true today. So when the website cites supporting evidence from Sungenis' writings, the quote they used hardly seems "blatantly anti-semitic" — until you come across the last sentence: "When they have succeeded, then [the Jews] will persecute the very Catholic Church that helped them gain their land, for Judaism, as has been historically true, can have no competitors." Certainly, anytime someone characterizes the motivations of an entire people by their ethnic identity, they are engaging in a vile form of polemicism; but when one predicts such a group will act with malice, one is clearly engaging in anti-racial discourse. Had Sungenis consistently used the term "Judaism" instead of "the Jews", then this would be a matter of culture and not ethnicity. But he mixes the two terms which means either he is confused, or he honestly thinks his readers won't be.
This is progress, but I urge Liam to find more reliable sources. Meanwhile, to Truth Seeker, you will need to find some reliable sources that present the kind of balance you desire to the article... although, I'm not sure yet what that would entail. Question to Truth Seeker: do you agree with my two points above?
Otheus 15:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Additional clarification from Otheus requested:
Otheus, T-S rejected this link to an extremely well-known and respected organization because he thought it was just a ruse to get to an un-acceptable website. But take a look at this website and link. It is absolutely clear that this organization, Catholics United for the Faith, is also expressing its concern about Sungenis when it comes to Jews. There is certainly at least SOMETHING noteworthy in here. The fact that it is in the context of recommending a link to a website Wikipedia might not consider good enough to be directly linked to itself doesn't seem to rule out the Catholics United for the Faith page, imo. If it does, please explain why. I would like to see the literal rule against this. Here's what Catholics United for the Faith wrote:
Notice:
CUF is not a one-issue place at all. They are widely esteemed and cover the gambit when it comes to the Catholic Church. Look at them. See what you think.
Liam Patrick 03:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Liam Patrick 18:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Robert Sungenis has publicly espoused many positions in regard to Jews. However, beginning with an article dated September 2, 2002 (give link to article), Sungenis began taking some increasingly controversial positions that have been termed "blatantly anti-semitic" (links to Catholic Culture and SPLC) and that are neither generally accepted in the Catholic community nor approved by the Catholic Church. Sungenis completely denies the characterization of his views as anti-semitic (source to Sungenis denial?).
I think this is very brief and fair. Reactions?
Liam Patrick 18:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Here is my proposed statement built upon Liam's:
We cannot state that "...are neither generally accepted in the Catholic community nor approved by the Catholic Church..." as this is Liam's opinion. Obviously Sungenis and others disagree, and also, it depends on which specific position. We also do not need to state "increasingly controversial positions ", as Liam has not demonstrated that Sungenis' position was changing.
My latest proposal allows Robert Sungenis tell all, including the fact that he is accused of anti-semitism. Therefor we have no issues of using potentially unsuitable sources.
Truth_Seeker 16:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Just to add a thought- if this were not a biography of a living person, the website (CUF) proposed by Liam would be fine, but since it is , and it is very contentious, we need to take extra caution. Truth_Seeker 18:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The original text can be found here. I am refactoring this because of the need to expedite this process and because of the impossibility of responding to a threaded discussion. I need to get a handle on the views here, which is impossible unless I refactor. See WP:REFACTOR. -- Otheus 16:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Abbreviations used:
Convention: Where possible, I used the authors' original wording, if slightly rephrased for clarity. When I introduce wording which my alter the meaning, they are put in [brackets] to make this distinction. Where things are unclear or unambiguous to me, I have enclosed question marks in brackets, [???]. Redactions comments made by me <are in angle-brackets>.
LP responds to TS's proposal (the TSP) [18:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)]:
TS interjects several times into LP's response above. [19:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)] and as clarified [18:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)]
[13]:
At point 2
At points 4 and 5, TS interjects [19:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)]:
Concerning point 7, TS states:
Concerning point 8, TS argues:
Concerning point 10.2.1, TS argues:
On point 11, TS proposes:
After the initial refactoring, TS made some "Additional Comments":
<That's it for now. Please comment below on any inaccuracies you find on the present state of refactoring. Yes, there is more work to do with follow-up arguments, but I am needed at home. I will return in about 2 hours. >
IGF,
Otheus
17:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
1) TS would not be so quick to judge whether or not the Church is in agreement with Sungenis' controversial and inflammatory views.
Where and when has the Church ever said that Jews are trying to take over the world and the Catholic Church?
Where and when has the Church ever said that real Jews tend to be violent?
Should I go through the list again? TS shifts the field of play to those places where Sungenis is on less controversial ground. The things he focuses on are not the issue here. Otheus has agreed that at least some of what Sungenis writes can reasonably be described as anti-Semitic.
3) Definition of anti-Semitism. Here is the OED (Oxford English Dictionary) definition:
4) Otheus, I have not seen an answer to this point: Does it strike you as legitimate for TS to expend so much effort down-playing and covering over what Sungenis is obviously very committed to and bold about? His website is filled with comments and positions about Jews, as I've documented.
My point is, on what rational basis do we conclude that SUNGENIS HIMSELF considers these statements harmful to him (the quotes about Jews ruling the world, etc)? If he thought these repeated statements were so bad, then why do they remain prominently on his website? Why does he defend these statements?
5) The third parties who have written about Sungenis (Catholic Culture and CUF in particular, possibly also SPLC) and that have been agreed to by Otheus need to be accepted. To allow Sungenis alone to spin this controversy and what he has objectively written is unreasonable.
I provided documentation that the president of Catholics United for the Faith knowingly provided a recommendation to www.sungenisandthejews.com and that CUF itself described Sungenis work on Jews as "problematic." In Sungenis' own record of his correspondence with Leon Supernant (pres. of CUF), Supernant labels some of Sungenis' material anti-semitic. There can be no reasonable doubt that CUF sees things this way and has made it known.
6) I already agreed that any organization that has the name "Catholic" in it should provide some kind of evidence that they are approved. If they are not, then a disclaimer does belong in there, regardless of who is using the name. But yes, how much more so when one writes the kind of controversial things Sungenis writes. It's not right to use the name "Catholic" to draw people in and then proceed to lay out personal conspiracy theories about Jews...or anyone.
7) I agree that not all of Sungenis' position about Jews are seen as controversial. Many are, or at the very least, some are.
8) Michael Hoffman II and Michael Collins Piper both have the word "conspiracy theorist" in their wiki-articles. Sungenis admits that he is a fan of Piper's, he has used Hoffman's work on Jewish issues...why should it be difficult to admit that he is a fellow conspiracy theorist? Some of his ideas come directly from other conspiracy theorists.
9) Barring some kind of direct recognition that others have judged his work to be anti-semitic, I might be persuaded to accept a listing of some of his ideas, including the most controversial. And then, some kind of acknowledgement of his stated resources when it comes to Jews. The advantage of this approach is that one can come to one's own judgment as to whether his work is objectionable or not. But according to Wiki policy, I think we have to go with the secondary sources. I've been hammered over and over about this by TS and it seems unreasonable to then turn around and ignore all of that now because I finally found reasonable sources that TS doesn't like. So, my leaning is "no."
10) TS is wrong. I am not trying to "assign truth to one side." I'm trying to make sure that this does not become a nifty marketing tool for Sungenis that white-washes his work, at the expense of the Church and all the people he attacks. And I am documenting my claims with facts from others and Sungenis' own articles.
Liam Patrick 20:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
1)I agreed some of his positions are controversial. Cherry picking quotes is not fair, and will require adding context. We could go back to where we started.
2) missing
3) I am sorry, LP, your definition would end up fitting Jesus and many of the prophets. And, yes, Jews can be anti-semtitic, this is usually referred to as a self-hating Jew. My understanding (which may be wrong as I do not see it in the wiki article) is that the ADL uses this term.
4) I am sure that Sungenis is not pleased to be called an anti-semite.
5)"Catholic Culture and CUF in particular, possibly also SPLC" are secondary sources, but not unbiased third parties.
6)You may hold that opinion. It is not a Wiki policy. I am Catholic, and feel free to create a website containing the name. It does not mean I speak for the Church, but it may mean I am a speaking Catholic.
7) Thanks.
8) Michael Hoffman II and Michael Collins Piper also have footnotes leading to third party sources stating so. In fact per BLP, the sentence should read "such and such a source" states that ________ is a conspiracy theorist.
9) Again, I posited that as the other option (i.e., go back to where we started).
10) I accept that I may have mis-stated your motive. That was the impresssion I got.
Truth_Seeker 21:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
1) Regarding the definition of anti-Semitism, your problem is with the dictionary, not with me. It is not "my definition", TS. If you know anything about English and dictionaries then you know that the OED is probably considered the most authoritative English dictionary on the planet.
If you know any English teachers or professors, ask them. Would you like me to produce many more such definitions from other dictionaries?
Where are your authoritative sources saying that the OED is wrong or a definition you believe absolutely excludes Sungenis' writings?
2) Regarding Sungenis and the label anti-semitic, let's be clear. Contrary to what you just wrote above (point #4), no one has proposed that the article identify Sungenis as an anti-semite. I agree that Sungenis probably doesn't like the label. But the issue is: by the most widely accepted objective standards, is at least some of his material reasonably identified as such? I think the answer is clearly, yes, and Otheus also expressed agreement. And now we have acceptable secondary sources who believe so as well, from CUF to Catholic Culture to SPLC.
It has less than a positive appearance when it was you that pressed so hard for secondary sources and standards according to wiki policy in the first place. Now I have what I was forced to find (after much effort), and the rules change again? Not fair. Not reasonable.
3) Catholic Culture and Catholics United for the Faith are highly respected, legitimate sources, TS. They do not operate with an agenda either for or against Sungenis. I agree SPLC looks to have a bias, but so what? They're a huge organization designed specifically to deal with this very kind of issue and they certainly qualify under wiki guidelines to be included. You can't disquality them because they come from a different viewpoint. What you could do is include qualifying language about their secular, more liberal nature. I have no idea how you would try to marginalize CUF. They are as mainstream and respectable as they come. Catholic Culture is also hardly an organization with an anti-Sungenis agenda or myopia, either (another point Otheus agreed with).
4)Regading Hoffman and Piper, regardless of how it should or should not be done technically, the fact is, they are identified with the phrase "conspiracy theorist". If Sungenis openly admits these are some of his favored sources on his theories about Jews, then of course he is a conspiracy theorist, too. How is he not? All one need to is link to the times where he acknowledges these men as his sources and then link to the sources that identify these men as conspiracy theorists.
5) I want to hear from Otheus before going back to where we started. You insisted I jump through a lot of hoops, TS, holding to the most rigorous interpretation of wiki policy and now I have, according to Otheus. So the idea of returning to how the entry was before (which Otheus previously said was not acceptable) is more than a little frustrating. I've played along with this, doing what was required...and not easy. It strikes me as a bit unseemly to now basically say, "nah, let's forget all that."
Frankly, I think arbitration may have to be the answer because you've already shown a ready willingness to disregard what this mediator says. Why should I go to all this effort when it looks like you will accept the mediation of Otheus if it works to your advantage but reject it if it doesn't? I can tell you that I most certainly have found some of this wrong and yet I've jumped through the hoops I was told I had to jump through.
It's about enough at this point, honestly. So, I need to hear from Otheus. I don't have the time or desire to continue what may be a pointless exercise and it shouldn't be a matter of attrition that decides the issue.
So I put it to you plainly, TS: If Otheus agrees that the links to Catholic Culture, CUF and or SPLC are legit are you going to reject it regardless of what else is in the article?
Liam Patrick 22:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
"4)Regading Hoffman and Piper, regardless of how it should or should not be done technically, the fact is, they are identified with the phrase "conspiracy theorist". If Sungenis openly admits these are some of his favored sources on his theories about Jews, then of course he is a conspiracy theorist, too. How is he not?"
5) I want to hear from Otheus before going back to where we started. You insisted I jump through a lot of hoops, TS, holding to the most rigorous interpretation of wiki policy and now I have, according to Otheus. So the idea of returning to how the entry was before (which Otheus previously said was not acceptable) is more than a little frustrating. I've played along with this, doing what was required...and not easy. It strikes me as a bit unseemly to now basically say, "nah, let's forget all that."
"Frankly, I think arbitration may have to be the answer..."
1) This is not guilt by association, TS. Guilt by association:
Sungenis actively seeks out and uses their work. There is a fundamental difference. If he merely were friends with Piper or Hoffman and never endorsed or used their work, and someone called him a conspiracy theorist based on that alone, THAT would be guilt by association. Their association is precisely over Jewish issues, conspiracies and the writings they have done in that area.
2) Why can't you answer the question, TS? Will you accept what Otheus has to say or not? Your avoidance of the question doesn't exactly lead me to want to continue this. Just answer the question, please.
3) Any rejoinder regarding the def. of anti-semitism?
4) This is not "sort of arbitration", TS. Read what arbitration is. It differs from mediation.
Liam Patrick 23:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
"3) Any rejoinder regarding the def. of anti-semitism?" "Theory, action, or practice directed against the Jews. Hence anti-'Semite, one who is hostile or opposed to the Jews; anti-Se'mitic"
Is Jesus Christ and Antisemite? (from John 8, NAB):
41...They said to Him, "We were not born of fornication; (B)we have one Father: God."
42Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, (C)you would love Me, (D)for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have (E)not even come on My own initiative, but (F)He sent Me.
43"Why do you not understand (G)what I am saying? It is because you cannot (H)hear My word.
44"(I)You are of (J)your father the devil, and (K)you want to do the desires of your father (L)He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because (M)there is no truth in him Whenever he speaks a lie, he (N)speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
I'm not trying to be smart, nor insulting towards non-Christians, but I am pointing out that your simple definition is not sufficient for labeling someone an Antisemite. Clearly Jesus "acted" against some Jews, and was "hostile" towards them.
Be patient, see what Otheus proposes. Truth_Seeker 23:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
1) TS, I am going to assume you have no idea how blasphemous and disturbing what you have just written is. All over an effort to protect Sungenis, no less. Is there anything you are unwilling to do in that which you think aids him?
Of course what Christ said was not anti-semitic. He is God Himself, a Jew and knows the hearts and minds of all people. If you are a Catholic (are you? Maybe I've assumed wrongly...if not, that would give you a legitimate excuse) then you know this and should agree with it. Do either you or Sungenis claim to know the hearts of men? To even make this comparison is extremely distasteful and offensive, at least if you are Christian.
Even so, neither the Catholic Church nor even Christ treated all Jews as one block but Sungenis has. As Otheus noted, he has labeled them all in some of his accusations. Conversely, I noticed how TS wrote that Jesus acted agaisnt "some" Jews. A very important difference. The definition from O.E.D says "the Jews", not "some Jews." I would add, Christ didn't use white supremacists, conspiracy theorists and others of that ilk to act against Jews. He didn't use manufactured or altered writing to attack, either. The comparison is perverse.
2) And you need to stop identifying this as "my definition" or my "simple" definition of anti-semitism. Why do you continue to do this? I know it may help to paint this as a he-said she-said matter of opinion, but it's not true. So again: Where are your authoritative sources for a definition of Antisemitism that definitively exclude Sungenis or that contradict the O.E.D? I can provide a slew of them just like the O.E.D. if necessary.
3) No answer from you on guilt by association. Do you agree this is not such a case now?
Last, why do you keep admonishing patience over a very simple question, TS? What is stopping you from saying forthrightly one way or the other as to whether you will accept Otheus' recommendation? I'm sorry, but it looks increasingly like you are just using this to the extent that it will help you and if true, that's dishonest.
If it's not true, then just answer the question.
Liam Patrick 00:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for agreeing with me. Of course Christ is not Antisemitic (certainly not as the term is used today), and yes he was Jewish (I pointed out that that alone does not generally exclude someone from a charge of anti-semitism). My point, using an extreme example, is to demonstrate that the definition you used is not worthy of being applied to any human being- living, dead, or God himself. Before labeling anyone with the label "anti-semitic", which is an extremely serious charge as it is used and understood today (regardless of the infantile simplest possible dictionary definition- and stop hiding behind dictionaries anyway) you had better be very sure of yourself. And Wikipedia has very specific policies to deal with Biographies of Living Persons specifically because of issues such as this. Sure the dictionary can reduce the definition to the simplest form, but that reduction is not proportionate to the effect felt by a person labeled as such, in today's society as used and understood by the average person.
And yes, I am Catholic.
"What is stopping you from saying forthrightly one way or the other as to whether you will accept Otheus' recommendation?"
I am still waiting to see it. Again, please be patient.
Truth_Seeker 00:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
1) I've noticed you have yet to provide an authoritative definition from any source at all, let alone one that exonerates Sungenis, TS. Why is that? It's remarkable to me that you can call the providing of authoritative sources "hiding" while you have yet to provide anything at all beyond your personal say-so.
Now, how about this source, TS? Wikipedia Should we now expect you to say that even wikipedia's own explanation of anti-semitism is off-limits?
2) You are shifting the field, yet again. NO ONE has said to label Sungenis as an anti-semite or anti-semitic. We are talking about things on his website.
3) I know Jesus Christ, and Robert Sungenis is no Jesus Christ. Your comparison is insulting to God and incredibly offensive. It is perverse to imply that what is legitimate for God is also legitimate for man. Should we expect you next to defend Sungenis should he decide to go on a shooting rampage because God sometimes wiped out whole towns? After all, what is murder? How do we KNOW that it was murder? For all we know, maybe he had a word of knowledge from God that these were bad people who needed to be killed. Maybe he really loved them. Hey, maybe Charles Manson didn't really commit murder, too. By whose definition, TS? Now, don't hide behind simplistic silly dictionary definitions of murder. Was it murder for God to wipe out Sodom and Gomorrah or not?
(And no, I'm not saying Sungenis is a murderer.)
And even so, neither the Son of God nor the Church label all Jews, attack them with such sustained intensity and use (and even defend) demonstrably fraudulent information like Sungenis has seen fit to.
4) I know enough now as to what you are about after your answer to my question (will you accept what Otheus ultimately decides?). And I have no intention of wasting my time with you in what by all appearances now is a charade. I've probably wasted too much time already.
Otheus, I'm sorry if my reaction bothers you, but this man claims to be a Catholic and he has written things and defends a man who writes things that harm the Church deeply and offend common decency. And they clearly seem not to care. Use the Church and it's very name when it helps your aims? Sure, why not. This is disturbing and wrong. It is also sufficiently clear that he has no intention of accepting what you say if it disagrees with his aims.
I know you have to approach this in a detached way and that you're an atheist, so perhaps it looks unserious or whatever to you (I don't know). Perhaps it may be hard for you to understand the depth of the reaction (again, I don't know). But as a Catholic, I can assure you this: it is anything but unserious. I ask for your understanding.
If these men were before the bishops of the Church and tried to say these things they would either be thrown out or laughed out of their presence.
I am still interested in what you come back with.
Liam Patrick 01:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I could not log into my account this morning. Need to look nto that. Protection edned. Please consider that everything is being said. Note I left in the line about the smear campaign, because the article I referenced re: anti-semitism charges involved those attacking Sungenis. He does feel it is a smear campaign, and I referenced that.
Truth_Seeker
Otheus: Thanks for the effort. Not sure why you gave up at the end. Don't blame you, though ;).
Truth_Seeker
Whew. First, I almost gave up, but I didn't. However, if I had given up, it would have been because for ever hour I spend on this, the voluminous responses require 2 hours to get through :) But I see it's getting better.
Here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to prepare an RFC on this debate. That means I will formulate a page where others can look at the issues and give their opinions. To make this work, we have to whittle down the issues to well under 10. PLEASE, give this discussion a rest until I've posted this formulation. If either of you need to change or clarify your own remark, do so. If you have a new point to make, however, please hold off until I've come up with this formulation. Thanks.-- Otheus 14:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll wait to hear from you, Otheus. But I did notice that TS went right ahead and put up what was not agreed to, including even a sentence he agreed was out of bounds and quotes as original argumentation.
TS's explanation for this change is less than satisfactory. He insists on giving Sungenis' version of everything (only using Sungenis' article) and then goes on to say that because Sungenis also attacks his critics in the article, that gives him the right to add the sentence that Sungenis feels he is being smeared? Unreasonable.
I added the links to Catholic Culture, SPLC and CUF IN ADDITION TO Sungenis' own defense and explanation. In this way, both sides of the issue are aired. People can make up their own minds. I also added the link to the original article from 2002, which for some reason was omitted. I removed the direct quotes and argumentation because according to Otheus, they do not meet Wiki guidelines.
Liam Patrick
14:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I am willing to lave it as it is [14] , for now. I disagree with some of the links, but if we freeze it here, I will leave it until we get some more opinions on some of the links. The link from CUF which acts a a portal to sungenisandthejews.com has to go. Truth_Seeker 16:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Lost a link, but added it back. Truth_Seeker 16:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Otheus, for the record, I'm willing to accept the removal of the CUF link (even though I disagree), IF...IF...TS agrees to remove all of the quotes and the "smear campaign" comment. Again, he's trying to have it both ways. If the CUF link is gone, there is no direct or necessary connection to the supposed "smear campaign" in the wiki article. The only indirect link to it, conveniently, is the very article from Sungenis that TS insisted upon in the first place, and it already gives Sungenis' personal POV on the controversy. So it is unreasonable to use what TS insisted upon as justification to provide yet more pro-Sungenis POV.
However, there is no justification for removing mention of Sungenis' sources when it comes to Jews. No value judgments were made about them in the section. They were simply stated in a neutral way. This is factual material. If TS wants to add additional sources, that is perfectly acceptable. Simply deleting them is not.
Liam Patrick 16:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Just listing sources implies that there is some signficance to using those sources. Why not say 'Sungneis has used Time magazine'? He did. What you are doing is at least a subtle form of guilt by association. If you put them back, then I will start building context around them. Truth_Seeker 16:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
TS's repeated argument about guilt by association is false. I already explained why. It is no more guilt by association to list a man's sources at wikipedia than it is in a book's bibliography. The sources are what they are. He actively associates himself with their work by using it. And there is perfectly good reason to list these sources. This is why books have bibliographies. This is why articles have footnotes to sources. People have a right to know where a man gets his information from.
Now as I said, if TS wants to add more sources, I have no objection. But it is against Wiki policy to keep deleting permissible, factual material because of his personal opinion. TS is reading into simple, factual material. That is his prerogative as an individual, but not as a wiki editor.
If there is a problem with the sources (or if there is not), then each individual will have to come to that conclusion independently.
But a note of caution, I will be looking to see if Sungenis does in fact use the sources TS names. Sungenis sometimes uses secondary or tertiary sources without citing them and then makes it appear that he has read the primary one.
And if TS tries to make argument in the article as to why Sungenis used these sources, then we need to make sure all of his uses are brought out (or at least a representative sampling) and not just cherry-picked in one direction or the other. I would suggest it is better for the article (and Sungenis) to just let his sources stand without further comment one way or the other.
Liam Patrick 17:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Liam- please source where he explicitly used these sources. Also, please stop removing my properly sourced material. Truth_Seeker 17:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Otheus agreed that the quotes of Sungenis need to go. It is properly sourced, but not proper. Still, I left it but changed it from direct quotes to statements about the quotes. I also deleted a redundancy. No need to state he loves Jews AND he has no animosity.
Conversely, it should be noted that TS has completely removed my sources and links 2 or 3 times now. And these are fully in accord with wiki policy. His call for where Sungenis has used these sources is questionable. Those sources have already been provided. And he knows that Sungenis has used them. The links to the documentation regarding his use of them were not included now only because they cause unnecssary clutter. But again, for the record, documentation as to what sources Sungenis used :
Michael Piper: The recent radio interview where he raves about Piper and says he read him in bed every night for 3 months or whatever. Then also this article: here.
Michael A. Hoffman II: here
Mohr: pages 12 and 13 and article and article and here
Ted Pike: page 10
Israel Shamir: Question 26 and page 14
Liam Patrick
18:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
This is a dispute about the contents of a section concerning this WP:BLP living person, Robert Sungenis. The section under dispute is tentatively named "Jewish controversy".
I came across this article out of shared interest with User:ScienceApologist on science-pseudoscience articles.[FILL] After doing some initial copyediting[FILL], and observing the ongoing discussion on the Talk pages and the changes to the article's "controversy" section, I offered to help moderate. The result of my moderations are to present this RFC with a concise list of issues.
This article is about Robert Sungenis (RS), a published author of Catholic Church apologia and doctrinal issues.
The abbreviation JJJZ stands for "Jews, Jewry, Judaism, and Zionism", instead of simply "Jews". This is to help distinguish between our statement of the issue and the content of some of the controversy.
<more to come>
<more to come> -- Otheus 18:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
First here are some of the relevant policies, all are quotes from the policy:
| Biographis of Living Persons. This Wikipedia policy is being trampled on. Specifically:
1. See this section "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material"
2."Biased or malicious content"
3. "Reliable sources"
All of the three sources proposed do not meet these requirements. Specifically,
Liam thinks I am splitting hairs here. For most of Wikipedia, all these sites could be ok for some purposes, but NOT for a BLP. A BLP has the potential to cause great damage to a living person, as well as expose Wikipedia to libel suits. That is why Wikipedia had the wisdom to set a different standard for BLP's. One of the mottos is "Do No Harm". This applies to the subject of the bio.
Regarding the fact that Sungenis does not speak for the Catholic Church, officially: It is more than that. In these controversial "Jewish areas" he is completely speaking for himself. On doctrinal matters and such (even pastoral ones), to the extent that a person faithfully repeats what the Church teaches officially, a person can be said to speak for the Church. But in this case (again the controversial areas), it is even more clear that he speaks for no one but himself. You will find nothing in official documents about Jews trying to take over the world and the Catholic Church for instance and I can assure you the bishops are not in accord with Sungenis on these things. — Liam Patrick — continues after insertion below
Please note recent discussion on this, too. I don't want to reinvent the wheel. I've suggested a very moderate way to address this as TS seems adamantly against the idea that it should be plain Sungenis does not speak for the Church. I used the phrase "controversial personal positions". That makes it clear that these are his own so he cannot illegitimately appropriate authority from the Church in regard to his own theories but does not come right out and use the word "Church."
Also, reading through the website CUF recommends, it is clear that the author is a primary source for certain material. I think the website meets the "reliable source" criteria at wiki: here Forest, the author, worked for Sungenis for several years. And there are recommendations there from several others who know Sungenis personally and also worked with him as well. — Liam Patrick — continues after insertion below
I also draw your attention to the following statement regarding critics:
Review the information at www.sungenisandthejews.com. It is very carefully documented, linking to evidence for every point made. The author(s) are eye-witnesses and colleagues of Sungenis.
Finally, after reading further, I have found that some of the very kinds of things Sungenis says about Jews are explicitly listed as conspiracy theories by wikipedia: here Therefore there can be no legitimate objection to mentioning this.
Liam Patrick 19:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
LP- I am only saying the cites should be in the article, not on the talk page. I think thisis going to be required. I will then write some context if needed. I will first see what Otheus has said. Truth_Seeker 19:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I have consulted wiki policy and wiki mediators regarding the paragraph that lists Sungenis' sources when it comes to his Jewish positions. From what I am told, it is not in accord with wiki policy to keep deleting this paragraph.
I have fully documented that these are in fact Sungenis' sources when it comes to Jews and have no objection if anyone finds additional sources to add to the list, as long as the record proves with reasonable certainty that Sungenis has actually used them. I have included all sources I have seen from Sungenis re: Jews. There can be no bias or agenda in simply laying out a man's sources anymore than when a man has to include footnotes or a bibliography in a book. His sources are his sources.
No value judgments have been made about his sources *at all* in the paragraph I added so TS is reading into this his own POV as to whether there is a problem with the sources or not. One thing is clear, these *are* his sources and it is perfectly legitimate to make them known. So, I see no possible violation of wiki policy.
OTOH, I have been informed that it *is* a violation of wiki policy to repeatedly delete something that is not in violation of wiki policy.
Liam Patrick 17:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I am adding context to balance this addition. Truth_Seeker 20:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
TS's effort to provide "context" is a problem because it opens up a can of worms regarding why Sungenis used what...in other words, POV. This is already evident in the wording chosen by TS. I propose that TS's "context" be removed entirely because by it's very nature it is extremely subjective. Let people draw their own conclusions from his sources. If TS wants to add more documented sources for balance, that's perfectly fine.
It would be helpful, though, if TS would read the documentation as to what Sungenis has actually written before giving his own personal explanation of Sungenis's relationship to these sources in the actual wikipedia article.
Issues:
1)The title of the new section TS created, which ends with "or that Sungenis was accused of using." Problem: he was not only "accused" of using these sources, he was demonstrated to have used them. Some were openly admitted to, others only subsequent to criticism. They are documented by any reasonable standard, regardless. Also, these sources are more than "mentioned" by Sungenis.
2) Mentioning that Sungenis writes for someone is off topic and only clutters this section. This section deals with the postings at his own website and his sources. If TS wants to mention the publications Sungenis writes for, that belongs more appropriately in one of the sections higher up in the article.
3) E. Michael Jones, Sungenis more than writes for Culture Wars, he recommends Jones' work on Jews specifically and uses him as a resource:
Proof 1: "Jewish History: R. Sungenis: I would get a hold of all the back issues of Culture Wars, beginning since 2002. E. Michael Jones is about the best when it comes to this subject." (Question 58)
Proof 2: "As E. Michael Jones reads it: 'Portnoy ushered in the Golden Age of Jewish humor and cultural subversion.....(quote of entire paragraph from Jones truncated)" here
4) Michael Piper, Sungenis more than "felt" Piper "provided interesting research" regarding Ben Gurion as TS chose to describe it.
Proof 1: "Well, I've read Michael Collins Piper's book from cover-to-cover, every word of it ... couldn't put it down, actually, um (laughs), it was my bed-time reading for about the last three or four months, and he uncovers some things there that would astound people, basically - people who consider themselves experts on the Kennedy Assassination have never considered the angle that he's brought forth. And although he doesn't come right out and say, 'yes, the Israelis killed JFK', he lined all the ducks up for you so that you can walk right through it and see all these political connections and make your obvious conclusion, and I think he did a very professional job in doing it that way." (Transcribed from Sungenis radio interview: here and here)
Proof 2: “We also know through the exhaustive effort of Michael Collins Piper’s new 738- page book, Final Judgment, how Bronfman (note: a Jew) is implicated in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. The story begins when Kennedy refused to capitulate to Israel’s demand for nuclear weapons, and you can probably guess the rest of the story.” (Neocons and the Jewish Connection)
Notice, Sungenis' precise words are "we know" that this purportedly Zionist Jew(Bronfman) "is implicated", not "he feels" Piper has "provided interesting research".
5) Ted Pike:, TS is correct that Sungenis posted a few news items from Pike. But according to the record, Sungenis stopped using Pike at the urging of his now ex-Vice President Douglass. Douglass quit and and subsequently Sungenis has publicly indicated support for Pike's work again and is a source in a current Sungenis article.
Proof 1: "Actually, I’m coming closer to the conclusion that Ted Pike and Michael Hoffman may be better representatives of truth than Mr. Douglass. A least they don’t try to glorify the Talmud and make excuses for Jewish errors. Despite their shortcomings, they can be great sources for information and courageous reporting." here
Proof 2: It would almost seem as if the gospel of Christ and the gospel of the Antichrist were destined to originate among the same people” (Illustrated Sunday Herald, London, Feb. 18, 1920, cited in “The Other Israel” by T. Pike). here
6) Michael Hoffman: TS writes that Sungenis disagrees with him on "some" "critical issues". "Some" would indicate plural. TS provides one instance of disagreement. "Critical" is also very subjective and I think "significant" would be more than sufficient.
TS also deleted a link to the article in which Sungenis openly used Hoffman as a source.
7) Israel Shamir: Sungenis did much more than just post a positive comment by a reader.
Proof: "The Shamir article was posted for what it said about Israel and the Jews... And I will be posting a few more articles from Mr. Shamir in the near future." here
8) IHR: Sungenis admits to using it as a source but denies he "plagiarized". He has also praised it as an excellent source in regard to Jews.
Proof 1:
Proof 2:
9) Jack Mohr: Sungenis did more than just use a little material from an article in 2002. He also praised and defended Mohr and used almost 16 paragraphs of material from him without giving the source.
Proof 1: "Notice how he calls a Lt. Colonel in the US Army a 'White Supremacist,' simply because the Colonel critiques the Talmud for being a anti-Christian book (which it is); and for exposing what he (and I) believe are Zionist plans to take over Solomonic Palestine...Does Mr. Cork ever contest any of Lt. Col. Mohr's material? No, Mr. Cork is not interested in seeing the merits of Mohr's critiques of the Talmud...No, Mr. Cork would rather call a US army Colonel a liar and anti-semite, when all Mr. Mohr did was quote from Talmudic sources and Zionist literature!" here
Proof 2: 16 paragraphs of writing taken from Mohr...leaving aside the issue of plagiarism. But we could discuss that and its applicability to this article on Sungenis if TS would like, too: here
10) John Vennari: Sungenis did more than write for him.
Proof: "As I said above, John Vennari sent me the material to use, so I had his permission." here
Add more if you want, just keep it factual. The notes about Vennari and Jones are contextual, I am not claiming he did not use them as references elsewhere. Just state where.
One of the links I deleted did not state what you claim, please check them. Some of them are redundant, or did not relate directly to what you were saying, or weer from non-policy sources. I kept all relevant links.
Truth_Seeker 15:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
TS needs to be specific, what was not correct, exactly. The "context" TS is providing serves no legitimate encyclopedic purpose. A bibliography needs no context, it simply is what it is. TS's explanations as to why Sungenis used particular sources are biased and involved POV. If I provide more similar "context", this will only clutter the article more, create more discord and raise objections from wiki-mediators, etc. as we have already dealt with for being excessive in this section.
The way to make sure this section is "balanced" is not to add TS's or anyone else's version of why Sungenis did what he did, but simply to add more Sungenis sources on Jews if they actually exist.
TS or whoever should provide more objective documentation as to sources and provide proof. If there are more documented sources, it should not be a difficult undertaking.
Liam Patrick 00:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I am removing the link you keep putting in to CUF,[ here] which goes to this page:
Further Information in Support of Example: "Some material is blatantly anti-semitic." Sungenis has elected to go beyond legitimate arguments about why the conversion of the Jews is a theologically legitimate objective. Instead, Sungenis has chosen to recycle the worst slurs and slanders in the anti-Semitic repertoire.
"In "Conversion of the Jews Not Necessary?? The Apocalyptic Ramifications of a Novel Teaching":
The reason behind this whole charade of Jewish ecumenism is one, and one reason only: It is so the Jews can rebuild the nation of Israel that was lost after the time of Solomon. Everything the Jews do today is motivated by that single thought, and they are shrewdly using the Catholic Church to help them accomplish their goal. Prelates in the Catholic Church think that by helping the Jews they are fulfilling the mandate of neighborly love. In their perversion of the Gospel, they have convinced themselves that this mandate cannot include converting the Jews, for that would cause "offense." [God forbid that the Gospel should cause offense! (cf., 1 Cor 1:23-24)]. They have deceived themselves, and the Jews of today are feeding off this deception in an effort to build their long awaited "nation state." The Jews have no interest in Christ or Christianity. They are merely using Catholics as pawns for their own self-interest. When they have succeeded, then they will persecute the very Catholic Church that helped them gain their land, for Judaism, as has been historically true, can have no competitors.
Return to Review "
It is not related to anything you are referencing.
Truth_Seeker
Bill Cork's site is baised (wquercus.com). Truth_Seeker 15:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The link to CUF TS references was removed some time ago when the reference to a "smear campaign" was also removed. It has not been restored. The link TS wants to remove is to Catholic Culture, not CUF, which is *directly pertinent* to the issue in this section (Sungenis' Jewish postings and the charge of anti-semitism). It meets the criteria for Wikipedia, was even agreed to by the wiki mediator and there is no valid reason to remove it.
As to Dr. Cork's website, Sungenis' own writing on this subject references Cork's work illustrating Sungenis' sources. As such, imo, it is perfectly legitimate to include the link to his documentation.
Liam Patrick 16:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
This criticism by Keating does *nothing at all* to help Sungenis in regard to anti-semitism and if anything, tends to suggest his personal agreement with SPLC in that specific issue.
Liam Patrick 17:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The charge of anti-semitism is a serious one. If you insist on using biased sources, which do not conform to BLP guidelines, then I insist on extending fairness to Sungenis by allowing his colleagues, who have publicly denounced the most significant source of the charges to impeach the credibility of the source. The credibility of the source is questioned. I did not state that they specifically defended Robert Sungenis.
The sources are properly documented and you cannot contest the fact that these people did question the SPLC report. Do not remove properly sourced material. Truth_Seeker 17:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
No, Keating opined that only a small perecentage of traditional Catholics are anti-Semitic (a much smaller percentage than implied by the SPLC report he states), and he did ont state Sungenis was. I added a comment to the effect that Keating does state theer is a problem. I left out the Traditional aspect, as this could lead to further expansion of the article (since first of all, Sungenis does not even classify himself as a Traditioanlist, and I am pretty sure Keating knows that). Truth_Seeker 20:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
No I did not "invalidly removed...[your]... addition and clarification", you invalidly removed the entire sentence, and I restored it. I already added this "... while stating that there is some anti-Semitism within some Catholic circles [16]" to my original statement "some prominent Catholic apologists, such as Karl Keating, question the overall accuracy and veracity of the SPLC report,..." to satisfy your point. You deleted all of it. Truth_Seeker 21:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Liam, could you have found a more inflammatory, anti_Catholic source? [22]. This does not meet BLP guidelines for sure. And you questioned by Catholicity! Truth_Seeker 00:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
If you keep insisting on using the Catholic Culture site, at least use the review page, which states it is talking about Sungenis (unlike the example page). I will stop removing this link until we come to some agreement on BLP policy. Truth_Seeker 00:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
TS seems to have forgotten that I described Sungenis' positions on Jews as his "personal positions" because he complained that I shouldn't specifically remark that Sungenis does not speak for the Church. I still disagree with him that there is *anything* wrong with noting that. But I chose even gentler wording that at least gives the reader the sense that Sungenis is speaking for himself and not of any Catholic teaching when he speaks about Jews taking over the world and whatnot. I see no reasonable objection to this very gentle word.
TS also deleted my mention of some conspiracy theories. As I pointed out before, Wikipedia itself calls some of Sungenis' positions "conspiracy theories" in its own guidelines. So there is no reasonable objection to mentioning that.
Here is some of the relevant text from Wikipedia on
conspiracy theories:
I will put a link in the Sungenis article itself to Wikipedia's conspiracy article.
Liam Patrick 16:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)\
Liam Patrick 20:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Thre is a perceived difference between a "conspiracy" and a "conspiracy theory". The latter is POV. This is from your link to the wiki article:
Usage The term "conspiracy theory" is considered by different observers to be a neutral description for a conspiracy claim, a pejorative term used to dismiss such a claim, and a term that can be positively embraced by proponents of such a claim. The term may be used by some for arguments they might not wholly believe but consider radical and exciting. The most widely accepted sense of the term is that which popular culture and academic usage share, certainly having negative implications for a narrative's probable truth value
Some of your examples are of real "conspiracies" (i.e., communism- the Bolsheviks "conspired" to take over and succeeded). The Copernican Conspiracy is a literary take off on a quote from Arthur Eddington:
…for there is nothing to guide him as to the planet to be selected for the standard of rest….There is no answer, and so far as we can see no possibility of an answer….Our common knowledge of where things are is not a miraculous revelation of unquestionable authority….Location is not something supernaturally revealed to the mind….It would explain for instance, why all the forces of Nature seem to have entered into a conspiracy to prevent our discovering the definite location of any object…naturally they cannot reveal it, if it does not exist….Nature has been too subtle…she has not left anything to betray the frame which she used….Our predecessors were wise in referring all distances to a single frame of space…
LP- Do you believe satan is "conspiring" for the souls of men? Truth_Seeker 22:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
LP has totally failed to demonstrate that Robert Sungenis is "advocating" conspiracy theories. He quotes them. He has stated that a website seems to be advocating them, etc., he occasionally uses the word anecdotally, or uses thenm as a literary device, but this is different than advocating them. I will remove the conspiracy theory line. Please see my comments on your quotes above, LP. None of them are valid. Unless you want to say Sungenis has quoted others who claimed conspiracy theories, including Richard Nixon, John F. Kennedy, etc. Truth_Seeker 01:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
From, "Uncorking" article here:
(Dr. Cork): Dr. Robert Ley, Nazi Labor Minister
Mr. Sungenis refers to Franklin D. Roosevelt's alleged Jewish ancestry. He claims that Roosevelt knew in advance of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, but deliberately refrained from acting (because of the blood of this distant Jewish ancestor), in order to draw the US into World War 2.
(Sungenis): Again, this material was taken off the website, but let me address it anyway. Notice again that Mr. Cork doesn't refute the issue or supply any contravening evidence. He just assumes it's not true. But in exchanges I had with Mr. Cork over this issue I told him that the Detroit Jewish Chronicle of 1935 was the initial source for the fact that Roosevelt had Jewish ancestry he was concealing from the public. Mr. Cork told me that I wouldn't have known that unless I got it from the nazi quote. I told him I didn't know it was from a nazi, but in the end it made no difference, because the fact is that the nazi was quoting from the Detroit Jewish Chronicle about Roosevelt's Jewish roots!
(Dr. Cork): His discussion of Roosevelt's genealogy includes a reference to an "Adolf Schmalix" who wrote a pamphlet on the subject in the 1930s. Suspecting that Schmalix was probably a Nazi, I did an internet search--and was shocked by what I found. I discovered that a long section of Mr. Sungenis' article was lifted verbatim, without attribution, from an on-line source. This was the first instance of plagiarism I discovered in Sungenis' writings.
Equally shocking was the nature of the source, a Nazi propaganda tract--Dr. Robert Ley, Roosevelt verr t Amerika! (Berlin: Verlag der Deutschen Arbeitsfront, 1942). The English translation used by Mr. Sungenis (Roosevelt Betrays America!) is from the German Propaganda Archive of Calvin College. It was translated by Professor Randall Bytwerk, Professor of Communication Arts & Sciences at Calvin.
When I informed Mr. Sungenis and Prof. Bytwerk of this, Sungenis replaced the original version with a paraphrase, but still failed to cite either the author (the Nazi Dr. Ley) or the translator. He and his defenders have argued that the source makes no difference. He claimed not to have gotten the document from the Calvin College site, but would not mention the name of the site where he obtained it (and a Google search shows no other source).
(Sungenis): As I said above, Prof. Bytwerk from Calvin College accepted my explanation that I had no intentions of plagiarizing his material. I told him I would reword his material so as to avoid any impression of impropriety. He allowed that. As for the site from which I obtained the material, as I said above, I don't remember. END QUOTE FROM "Uncorking" article.
Fact: Bytwerk was merely *translating* the work of Dr. Robert Ley. Sungenis used the translation of Ley's work and did not openly acknowledge it in his original article. Cork demonstrated conclusively that Sungenis used the material and Sungenis did not deny it but only said he didn't intend to plagiarize and that the material was *true*.
Liam Patrick 06:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
LP- he may have used him one time indirectly to get to the fact that the Detroit Jewuish News did claim that Roosevelt had Jewish blood. This is one time 5 years ago, and not even clear that he did use him. Sungenis did not reference Ley. I see this as an attempt to make Sungenis look bad. I am leaving some of the others, because he has mentioned them multiple times over time, and has given explanations to their use. I may add some of theat expaklantion in the future.
Truth_Seeker
16:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)