Talk:Jeff Rense

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on May 28, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2006/10/24. The result of the discussion was keep.


Contents

[edit] Edits 11.19.06

"Rense's radio program and website (see below) cover such subjects as UFO reports, paranormal phenomena, conspiracy theories, reports of new diseases and a plethora of other material rarely covered by the mainstream media. Jeff Rense leans towards a populist approach regarding politics and media."

Has anyone watched the history/SciFi channel? UFO abductees and bible code conspiracy theorists are on all the time. These channels do qualify as mainstream media and the ending part of the above sentence is misleading to readers.

Secondly, its as if the Populist label has been applied to give this man more credibility. There was a populist party in the US at one time and if still around in force today, they would want nothing to do with Rense. I have not deleted it but have assumed that he regards himself as such, though it is still vague.

[edit] Corrections 10.03.06

The article on the Peabody awards is relevant to the reliability of Rense. He is either intentionnaly misleading people or he doesn't care. It's important that Rense not gain respectability by association to the Peabody. The paragraph is entirely accurate. If the Peabody is obscur then why is it featured so prominently on his website?

There is promotion of holocaust denial and promotion of the anti-semitic "protocols of the elders of zion" right on rense. com. A huge portion of jeff rense's site and program is devoted to defending neo-nazis

The Rense.com website claims 7 Peabody Award nominations. RENSE IS LYING. The Peabody Awards do not have nominees. Anyone can fill out an entry and then later the winners are announced. The following is an email from the Peabody Awards Foundation: 'The Peabody Awards program receives between 1,000 and 1,200 entries each year. We have a 15 member judging panel that meets several times during the judging season, as well as listening to/watching entries alone in their homes. They discuss all entries as a group, usually awarding between 30 and 35 Peabodys each year. There are no set number of awards given, and the board does not choose winners according to categories. We do not have a list of finalists or "nominees" as other awards programs have. ... Danna L. Williams Senior Administrative Assistant, emailed Feb. 6th 2006 '

Last time I looks promotion of neo-nazisism etc was undesirable, but was still a constitutionally protected form of free speech. Therefore it should be matched with logic and historical accuracy, not used to imply wrongdoing.
perfectblue 10:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inaccuracies / Suggested corrections

Current article text says: "In September, 2004, due to the popularity of his radio show and the resultant increwholelse in the cost of bandwidth, Jeff Rense began to charge listeners a monthly fee in order to access his radio archives. It is, however, still free to listen to his show live."

The first statement is not verifiable: the PURPORTED reason for the start of subscription archives was because of increased listenership and therefore increased costs, but there is only Rense's word to go on this... hardly objective. Also, the free feed for the live show is limited by both number of listeners and bandwidth (8kb). The current statement as it stands does not indicate this. I suggest:

"In September 2004, Jeff Rense began to charge a subscription fee for access to the higher-bandwidth feeds of his live show as well as to the show's archives. The reason given was because of increased listenership and a resultant increase in the cost of bandwidth. Currently, a free 8kb stream of the live program is available, which has a cap on the number of listeners."


[edit] Standing by what I said

I feel I was fair enough on my edit. While Rense is no doubt anti-Zionist (considers Israel to be a front for Western Imperialism and unfair to the Palestinians) I really do not think he is an anti-Semite. He does host some Jewish scholars on the subject of Zionism, particularly Barry Chamish (Again, I will give the man's website [1] and His Rense contributions [2], I will note Barry is not really an anti-zionist and is loyal to his country, but he does see that the people who formed the idea and are presently promoting the creation of "Greater Israel" as being driven by bad motives) and posts by the likes of Judy Andreas ([3] and [4]) and even socialists like Ralph Schoenman [5] and Marxist Lenni Brenner (This is the site I referred to, I made a mistake, it is not Marxists.org, it is Marxsts.de, they may be related, here is his full criticism of Zionism and it's collaborations with the Nazis [6]). And, on the other, more conservative hand, he has (admittedly controversial and somewhat extreme) Orthodox sects post articles, such as the Hungarian Haredim of Neturei Karta and (affiliated?) Jews Against Zionism[7] (I say extreme because I am weary of supporting the Palestinians too much, since they do have quite a bit of blood on their hands[8], too, and their sure not dealing with their problems very well, as exemplified in the current French-Crisis. I just think Palestine was provoked first).

I admit some of his guests and contributors make me nervous at times (Lorraine Day, Zundel, Makow, etc.). The truth is similar to the Second Amendment issue, if anti-social personalities are going to abuse free-speech, then they are going to do it no matter what type of laws are out there. The best way to defend is with countermeasures (I respected the RenseWatch site[9] for this reason, and hope Jeff reads that article about Hoss because he may have inadvertently stepped into some trouble). Hate laws do not fix things and could only end up hurting more because it can be manipulated for controlling law-abiding, mentally stable citizens with marginal effect on the intended target (if they are not already controlled or funded/cultivated for use in problem=reaction=solution type operations), and such moves often only convince them of their own prejudices even more, making them more dangerous and unreasonable anyway. There must be calls towards hate awareness (informing and warning people about hate), not thought control (slandering then banning people or ideas that could threaten special interests).

Now that I think of it, I may have made a bigger impression writing this here because it is true that we are dealing with a public encyclopedia and it is very hard to sepereate fact and opinion (or objectively present opinions, as I thought I was doing). I was irresponsible with my actions, sorry.

BTW: While reading some of the discussions surrounding the Rabin assassination I stumbled across the comments from one "Kempler Video" (a reference to a video showing that Amir did not shoot Rabin, but that he, similar to Kennedy incident, was shot from the front at point blank-range by another gunman) who has charged of some shady characters of editing his work. I want to give my word of encouragement. Keep up the good work KV! Don't let them get in your way, speak out!

 Ideocentric Roybot (AKA: 69.248.43.27)

The definition of an anti-semite is as follows according to websters.

"One who discriminates against or who is hostile toward or prejudiced against Jews."

Upon investigation, I have found no evidence of anti-semetic comments made by Jeff Rense. It is causally flawed to link text published on the website "www.rense.com" to Mr. Rense himself. Based on his own assertions to the contarary, and the lack of any supporting evidence to the claim, I have removed the anti-semetic wording.

There is no question that Jeff is not an anti-semite. It is flawed logic to assume that the actions of a government are supported by the people of that nation. Further, it is flawed to assume that the actions of a government reflect on a paticular race of people. I may not like things that the U.K. government is doing: that does not affect my view of the U.K. people. Here in the U.S. there popular opinion is opposed to much of what the current administration is doing. It would be illogical to pin blame for that on the american people. To say otherwise is to demonstrate a flawed understand of the way the institutions Italic textactuallyItalic text function.

I am confused as to your statements. Why is having famous anti-semitic forgeries and incitement against Jews posted as true on rense.com not anti-Semitic? Is it not Mr. Rense's website? Also, he has known anti-Semitic Holocaust deniers on his show (Mark Weber and Zundel, among others). Anyhow, in the end, it is irrelevant what you or I think, it is what other people say. I will include some links to accusations, we already mention that he denies it. --Goodoldpolonius2 00:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Two out of three people making the accusations espouse the idea that space aliens are visiting earth. Art Bell is well known for his belief in space aliens. Is this your idea of a credible witness? If an inmate at an insane asylum were to accuse Jeff of being anti-semetic would that hold equal weight? These people making the claims that Jeff Rense is an anti-semite are hardly credible. You might want to include someone respected in the academic community or at least someone with a shred of reputable standing. You are relying on someone who's book "The Coming Global Superstorm" lacks even the pretense of scientific validity. Who else do you rely on for information who ignores even the most basic cannons of evidence? The absuridity of pointing to the lunatic fringe to support your position is self evident in this case.

Normally, I would agree that the lunatic fringe is not relevant, but the issue here is that Rense is a member of that fringe, so criticsm from his community is relevant. Only conspiracy theorists and UFO people follow Rense (who also believes in aliens), so he is mostly criticized from within that community, and Art Bell is significant there. Despite claimsto the contrary by Resne, the wider world has not heard of him, as a Nexis or JSTOR search demonstrates (0 JSTOR hits, 1 mention in passing on Nexis news search). However, he has been criticized by the Wyman Center for Holocaust denial and anti-Semtism, and by the State Department for misinformation. (but not specifically anti-Semitism). And the anti-Semitic forgeries on Rense.com, and the anti-Semitism of Weber and other guests, as well as the anti-Semitic nature of Holocaust denial, are all well-evidenced facts noted by many scholars. Again, your defense ignores the questions I asked above -- there is clearly a lot of anti-Semitic materials on rense.com, and from his guests as well, saying it doesn't exist seems to be against the facts. --Goodoldpolonius2 03:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is how I would respond to your comments: How would you verify that materials posted on www.rense.com were posted there by Mr. Rense himself? Would the posting of those materials constitute an endorsement of them? By his own statement materials posted on www.rense.com do not represent the opinion of Mr. Rense. While some materials posted on www.rense.com might qualify as anti-semetic that does not reflect on Mr. Rense as he is clearly not the only person with the abilty to post on that website. To make your argument more effectivly here is what you would say: The absense of counterbalancing articles and documents would tend to imply a biased view. In this case that is not readily aparent due to the multitude of Jewish guests on the program and articles by Jewish authors (or at least with Jewish sounding names) on subjects not related in any way to these issues.

Is the operator of a public internet forum responsible for posts made on that forum that might be anti-semetic? Not in an open society with freedom of speech and the right to debate and examine materials on their own merits.

Further, what would you expect to find about Mr. Rense in JSTOR? Are you in the practice of using JSTOR to find information on radio talk show hosts, celebrities, and so forth? To imply that the lack of any mention of Mr. Rense on a JSTOR search is somehow significant is absurd.

In response to your comment, "...but the issue here is that Rense is a member of that fringe, so criticsm from his community is relevant." This is tantamount to saying that an uncredible individual's testimony is somehow validated as long as he is speaking about another uncredible individual. The courts of my country would disagre with your anaylasis, as would courts in any nation with a fair justice system, and the courts of public opinion. If someones testimony is not credible, it is not credible regardless of whom or what it is regarding.

First, you may want to sign your comments with --~~~~. Second, your focus on JSTOR is strange, as I also mentioned that I did a Nexis search of all newspaper and magazine articles about Rense and found a single mention, in passing -- clearly comments about him are not to be found in the press, good or bad. So who does comment on him? Why, fellow conspiracy theorists and radio hosts (and the occasional Holocaust denial monitoring organization), which claim that he is anti-Semitic. But, you say, these groups (I assume you don't mean the Wyman Center) are conspiracy theorists and are uncredible, but by your own standards of evidence, Rense himself would not be credible, so I am confused. In any case, Wikipedia is not a forum, and rather than getting into point-by-point discussions of why Rense has Holocaust deniers appear frequently, etc., I am comfortable with your most recent change to the article (changing "identified"), so if there is no substantive issue, we can stop the back-and-forth debate over Rense and move on to other issues. --Goodoldpolonius2 04:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

First off I am glad we can agree with the edit changing "identified" to "charged". In american english Blacks Law Dictionary there is a real and substantive difference bettween the two words: Excellent, we can indeed move on to other issues.

I do also need to configure my settings to facilitate a sig, I will, thank you for pointing that out.

As to your comment: "So who does comment on him? Why, fellow conspiracy theorists and radio hosts", if you rely on the "main-stream" media for all you information, you would likely not run across any mention of Mr. Rense, but an internet addict like myself views links to www.rense.com all the time, and that is how I became aware of him.

As to your comment "But, you say, these groups (I assume you don't mean the Wyman Center) are conspiracy theorists and are uncredible, but by your own standards of evidence, Rense himself would not be credible, so I am confused." I did not intend to imply that Mr. Rense is credible, on the contrary, I think he is not. There is no question that Mr. Rense believes in space aliens, and I believe that discredits him on the face of it. I in no way meant to assert that Mr. Rense was somehow credible, I merly wish to challenge the assumption that he is anti-semetic based on the comments of another uncredible individual. (and no, I was not reffering to the Wyman Center, though I would not go so far as to say they are credible, I simply do not have the revelant information to make a call either way)(I would also clarify that I have no aversion to "conspiracy theory", and that a more accurate term used by academics for this area is "institutional anaylasis". A conspiracy is merly a crime planned by 2 or more people, leaving much room for legatimate "conspiracy theroy". To discount claims on that basis alone is evidence of something in its own right)

regards, Cypress

[edit] Minor changes and update 01/03/06

I made two minor but important changes to this Jeff Rense article. Firstly, I removed Dr Lorrainne Day from the list of regular guests due to the fact that she is no longer a regular guest on his show.

Secondly, out of a sense of balance and fairness to Jeff Rense I amended the contents list sub-title that previously read 'anti semitism'. I changed it to 'alleged anti semitism' because the casual reader casting their eye over the page, but not reading in depth, may be left with the impression that Jeff Rense is an anti-semite if they are to see the sub-title 'anti semitism'. It has been hotly debated all over the internet as to whether Jeff Rense is actually an anti-semite or not. This largely boils-down to a matter of opinon. However, given that many of the guests on the Jeff Rense show are Jews, allegations of anti-semitism are highly questionable at best. This is why I felt the minor change in wording here to be important. Rense is at the center of allegations of anti-semitism yet this does not automatically make him a proven anti-semite. The issue is open to debate and thus anti-semitism is 'alleged'.

With relation to the paragraph on the Peabody awards: I am presently looking into this matter and am awaiting a reply from the said Peabody awards organisation. If indeed the assertions are correct that anyone can become a nominee simply by entering the competition then I see every reason to highlight this in the article. I did remove the paragraph at first because I felt it to be largely irrelevant but I now realise I was wrong to do so until this matter has been resolved. --cdfreelancer 02.52 GMT 1st March 2006.

[edit] Update 02/03/06

I recieved a reply from the Peabody organisation concerning my query. They confirmed that there are no nominees in the official sense. Organisation and individuals either enter themselves or are entered without consent by members of the public. Winners are chosen from the list of all entrants.

I emailed Jeff Rense's webmaster (webmaster@rense.com) and quizzed him on this issue. This was his reply:

"Jeff is most certainly a 'nominee' as are all those who have been recommended/entered for recognition.

In our case, Jeff was first nominated ---entered---by one of our listeners two years ago for his program on SSRIs with Ann Blake Tracy. If someone is put forward, entered, nominated, recommended for an honor, it is a matter of semantics as to how you choose to term it. You've been duped into thinking there is something negative in being advanced for recognition.

We are grateful to the people who nominate anyone for Peabody Awards because it shows a committed public. Unfortunately, the great majority of the awards go to the major radio and television networks."

His webmaster made it clear in his reply that the Jeff Rense show was recommended to the Peabody awards by members of the public. Therefore, technically, Jeff Rense is correct in saying that he's been 'nominated'. There's no evidence that he nominated himself. It only serves to defame his character by questioning the nature of the nominations. Thus I amended the former 'Peabody awards' paragraph and renamed it 'Accolades' and included the fact that the Jeff Rense show has appeared in the list of top 100 radio hosts in talkers magazine.--cdfreelancer 16.37 GMT 2nd March 2006

The issue here is that Rense makes lots of claims about his popularity, but they need verifiable sources. Rense claims that he was nominated for the Peabody awards, clearly implying that nomination involves some sort of process, like the Oscars - it is important to note that there are, in fact, no nominees according to the actual organization, and that Rense's fans have given his name to the Peabody organization, which implies no special recognition. Similarly, when was Rense in Talker magazine? And what number was he ranked? He isn't in the top 250 in 2006. Finally, how does he know he was the top internet radio host? Who tracks this data? These issues need to be verified, otherwise they are claims, not facts. --Goodoldpolonius2 17:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I am presently looking into the issue of Jeff Rense's claim to be in the Talkers 100. Until I have more information I agree that the alteration by Goodolpolonius2 should remain unchanged.

At no point did Jeff Rense make the claim that he was the most popular internet radio host. It was based upon a telephone coversation that I had with his radio network who asserted that he was the most popular internet radio host. It is only fair that any information relating to Jeff Rense's internet listnership is omitted until verified. Where did you hear that Jeff Rense claims to be the most popular radio host? Jeff Rense was, according to his webmaster, 'nominated' by members of the public for the Peabody awards. Thus his claim is entirely valid that he was, indeed, 'nominated'. cdfreelancer 18.09 GMT 03/03/06


The "most popular" claim was already in the article when I first came across it. As for the Peabody awards, you have to admit that saying that someone is a "7-Time Peabody Award Nominee" (Rense's claim) is highly deceptive, because, as the organization itself points out there is no such thing as a Peabody Nominee ("We do not have a list of finalists or "nominees" as other awards programs have. Basically we have entrants and winners.") He can say his name has been entered seven times, but the other use is clearly deceptive. --Goodoldpolonius2 18:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


Clearly deceptive? as to whether Jeff Rense is attempting to be deceptive or not is wholly subjective. Jeff Rense is highlighting that he has been nominated on seven occasions for the Peabody awards. He has been nominated several times by members of the public. I see no evidence to support the claim that he's trying to mislead the public. His name should not be defamed in this manner unless evidence is presented that suggests otherwise. --cdfreelancer 18.24 GMT 03/03/06

He says that he is a "7-Time Peabody Award Nominee." There is no such thing as a Peabody Award Nominee, so why are we saying that there is? --Goodoldpolonius2 18:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course there is such thing as a Peabody awards nominee. If someone had been nominated by a member of the public then they have, indeed, been nominated. The Peabody organisation states that they personally don't nominate people and that nominations are not official. However, if someone has been nominated it makes no difference whether they were nominated officially or not. --cdfreelancer 19.22 GMT 03/03/06

No, this is your view. The Peabody awards quote says "we do not have a list of finalists or nominees... we have entrants and we have winners." You need a source to say otherwise, and please stop deleting information that actually is referenced. --Goodoldpolonius2 21:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
No it is not merely my view. A dictionary definition of the word 'nominee' is: "One who has been nominated to an office or for a candidacy." Jeff Rense was nominated to be a candidate for the said Peabody awards. Look in any dictionary and you will see that the term 'nominee' is not misused in this respect. It is my view that Jeff Rense should be represented fairly on wiki and persistenly casting doubt on the voracity of his claims should not be tolerated without substantive evidence. You must provide proof that he was not nominated for the Peabody awards. To defame his character in this way, by virtue of semantics, is unacceptable. --cdfreelancer 22.32 GMT 03/03/06
The specific words of the Peabody award committee certainly trump a dictionary definition of the word nominee. Nominee, for many awards, means the same thing as finalist - thus an Oscar Nominee or Grammy Nominee or Pulitzer Nominee carries the prestige of being selected. Rense could be entered 2 million times for a Peabody award by anyone, including himself, but there is no such thing as a "Peabody Award Nominee" according to the Peabody committee, doesn't that seem at all relevant? Further, it is clear that his use of the phrase "7-Time Peabody Award Nominee" at the top of his homepage is misleading in this respect. Why is it at all relevant that he was entered for a Peabody award seven times? How is that an accolade or award? It really doesn't make any sense to display this as a sign of Rense's achievements, it is like saying that he received a number of positive phone calls from fans. Also, please be aware that the WP:3RR rule has been exceeded here, please discuss future changes before making them. --Goodoldpolonius2 07:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for making me aware of the WP:3RR rule. Whilst the peabody awards state that there is no such thing as a nomination, in the official sense, it is still an honour to be nominated by a member of the public. It is nit-picking to say that Jeff Rense has no right to claim that he's been nominated. If I had been recommended by a member of the public for my achievements then I would have every right to consider it an accolade. A dictionary definition for 'accolade' is: An expression of approval; praise. Being recommended for Peabody by a member of the public is most certainly an expression of approval and mr Rense has every right to publicise this. --cdfreelancer 15.00 GMT 04/03/06
You aren't responding to the substance of my point, which is that Rense is clearly using the term himself in a misleading manner. He is turning "entered by the public for a Peabody award" to the highly-placed "7-Time Peabody Award Nominee" on his page, hoping that people do not realize that unlike the Oscars, Pulitzer, and Grammy, there is no nominations process. I am going to remove the whole Peabody thing, since every time I change the page to point out that he claims to be a Peabody Nominee, which doesn't exist, you delete it. If it is true that he really means that he was entered 7 times by random people, then this is non-notable. If you want to include his status as a self-claimed nominee, then we need to explain the issue. I will delete the sentence for now. --Goodoldpolonius2 15:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I have clearly responded to the substance of your point which is that you feel that Jeff Rense is misleading the public by using the term 'nominee'. In my opinion there's no evidence whatsoever to suggest that he's deliberately talking-himself-up by pointing out that he's been nominated. I suggest that we compromise on this issue as we clearly do not agree on the Peabody issue which is highly subjective at best. I am going to replace the 'accolades' section but rename it 'awards' and include only the information about the now verified talkers magazine heavy 100. --cdfreelancer 23.05 GMT 04/03/06

[edit] Talkers magazine 'claim'

I have just recieved an email from Michael Harrison of talkers magazine confirming that Jeff Rense was in the "heavy hundred" for talkers magazine in 2001. I suggest you email talkers magazine if you take issue with this: Michael@talkers.com --cdfreelancer 20.46 GMT 03/03/06

Great, thanks for hunting this down. --Goodoldpolonius2 21:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WING Tv

I feel it is worth noting that Jeff Rense is accused of co-conspiring with Alex Jones to protect his monopoly from any "competition" (this includes Victor Thorn and Lisa Guiliani, members of the World Independant News Group who are the duel's harshest critics on this regard), they also suspect him (and Alex) of being a schill for the conspiracy (they accuse the two of not being specific enough in regards to names and organizations, even in regards to the issue of Zionism, and hold that they delve into sensationalism rather then the real-world political and historic issues behind these particular threats). I also think their should be a special WING Tv artical -- IdeArchos 01:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

quote "A huge portion of jeff rense's site and program is devoted to defending neo-nazis"

I think a disscussion of what a "huge portion" constitutes is in order. Is less than 1% of total content "a huge portion"? I would submit that less than 1% is not a huge portion. The definition of huge in websters is as follows:

1.Of exceedingly great size, extent, or quantity 2.Of exceedingly great scope or nature

Does the mere presence of the material you metioned make it a huge portion? Or is there some other criteria you are using?

To suggest that Mr. Rense is defending neo-nazis is to suggest that they need defending simply because they exist. They do not. So called "neo-nazis" stand on their own merits and Mr. Rense does not "defend" them. He does advocate that everyone should have the freedom to speak and hold their own opinion. If you insist that Mr. Rense is "defending" so called "neo-nazis", what is the "attack" that he is "defending" against?

Quote "There is promotion of holocaust denial and promotion of the anti-semitic "protocols of the elders of zion" right on rense.com"

I take issue with this as well, the definition of promotion in websters is as follows:

1.The act of promoting or the fact of being promoted; advancement. 2.Encouragement of the progress, growth, or acceptance of something; furtherance. 3.Advertising; publicity

The word promotion does not apply unless you believe that the very existence of these materials is an act of promotion. By the same logic the existence of any published work is a form of promotion, so what is the point of using the word?

[edit] Reverted to previous version

Article was changed to previous version by cdfreelancer as the article had relative parity and didn't need a whole new section that's critical of Jeff Rense. Everyone has their critics, including most radio hosts, but it's not fair to turn the wiki entry for Jeff Rense into one big critique of him. Yes it's true that wing TV have criticised mr Rense but you can't include conjectured allegations in what should be a fair and objective article. Including heavy criticism of Rense only serves to make those reading the article to think that Rense is a dubious man. This wouldn't be done to other wiki subjects such as Rush Limbaugh so why should Rense be defamed in this way based on the opinions of others? --cdfreelancer 16.33 GMT 23/03/06 (Forgot to sign in before editing article)


[edit] Question

Could someone message me on my talkpage regardin which is the appropriate article for this? Thanks --Striver 22:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


Jeff Rense claims to be pro Jew yet anti Zionist. I heard him state this in an audio clip earlier today which I can provide for proof. ~NiceguyC

[edit] His Step-Mother, and others

Should there perhaps be a mention somewhere that Jeff Rense's step-mother is Paige Rense - editor-in-chief of Architectural Digest Magazine, and New York socialite? Also his brother is journalist Rip Rense, and his father (now deceased) was Arthur F. Rense. All people of some note. ~VanHammersly

I would agree that this information should be included if indeed it can be verified. --NiceguyC 12:03, 27 April 2006 (GMT)

Hmmm... The only thing that comes close to verification that I've been able to find on-line so far is an obit from the N.Y. Times( http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE3D9163DF936A35752C0A967958260 ) for Arthur F. Rense. It lists his wife as Paige Rense, and his three sons as Jeff, Rip & Kirk. Of course, I suppose that doesn't verify this particular Jeff Rense as THEE Jeff Rense. :) Still looking. 70.27.168.78 07:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)VanHammersly

Jeff's brother, Rip Rense, often posts articles on rense.com. If Paige and Arthur Rense have sons called Jeff and Rip then it's obvious that Jeff Rense is one of them. I consider this to be verified beyond reasonable doubt. --NiceguyC 22:21, 14th May 2006 (GMT)

  • Agreed, I have now expanded the bio section to include Jeff's early history as well as references to Paige Rense and Jeff's second brother Kirk. I have also noticed an obvious similarity in appearance between Jeff and Paige Rense, which for me personally casts the step-mother claim into question. Also working on an entry for Arthur F. Rense. TimothyHavelock 19:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trimmed down critisism section

I removed two paragraphs from the criticism section due to the fact that not only was the recent addition highly POV but the section had become way oversized relative to the rest of the article. in the interests of fairness and balance it's best to keep the article relatively objective rather than to have it reading like one big criticism. If you compare the Rense article to the articles on Art Bell and George Noory, both of who are similar radio hosts to Rense, they don't feature any criticism at all. In my opinion the criticism section should be trimmed down further to one paragraph in keeping with other articles. This article has often been subject to politicised editing and vandalism and as a result there are three paragraphs of criticism. --NiceguyC 12:02, 27 April 2006 (GMT)


   They don't feature criticism because those guys aren't anti-semitic nutjobs. Better watch out or the International Jewish Conspiracy(tm) will getcha!(yeah yeah, it's not POV, but I'm not editing the article)
FretBored 06:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

WINGTV Rules! Can't wait 'till 08 to see what Victor has for in store for us. Peace! -- 68.32.201.254 21:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

"Jeff Rense: A Reinvention of What?", by Lisa Guliani, WING TV

[edit] Credulous slant

"investigative journalist?" "as the US mainstream media still purports?" "compelling evidence of highly advanced ancient technology?" Come now. Tom Harrison Talk 15:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree completely. Those are older parts that I have nothing to do with. I am in the process of neutralising those sections best I can. I am happy to see that type of phrasing go, let me know if you still find anything slanted aftern my current crop of edits.TimothyHavelock 23:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


The recent wholesale rewrite has turned the page into a ridiculously slanted promotional piece that works hard to legitimize a marginal conspiracist talk show host as a serious investigative journalist. We would have a better article if we began again with the earlier version and added material cited to reliable sources. I'm not eager to add tags to pages, but this one may need something until balance can be restored. Of more serious concern, our policy on biographies of living people requires that any controversial material be cited when added, not added and left waiting a citation. I see that "As of 09 Feb 07, his website has been unavailable due to hard drive issues during a server upgrade. The site is expected to come back up with major enhancements and stonger security." I hope the site operators find something to do while they get that sorted out. Tom Harrison Talk 18:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Again, I agree that some parts are over OTT, but those parts stem from previous authors from way back, not myself. Check the history. I have mainly worked on providing additional missing info, both historical and on the show, to what has previously been a very lackluster article on a fascinating subject. I have no agenda to slant anything, but balance goes two ways. I therefore recommend we keep the discussion open instead of rushing to judgement here. TimothyHavelock 23:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough. I see I did wrongly attribute that puffery to you, when it had been in the article for some time before. Tom Harrison Talk 02:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The update on the website's down-time is no longer needed, so I removed it. TimothyHavelock 23:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
To avoid edit warring, is it possible you tag sentences with {{cn}} instead? This will allow sources to be provided, if they cannot be supported by WP:RS sources then things will slowly revert themselves, also avoiding a pointless revert war. --NuclearZer0 18:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/e/f/Talk%7EJeff_Rense_6247.html"