Talk:Robert Sungenis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Peer review This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] geocentrist vs. anti-creationist

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)

Oh so this is going to a battle is it? I think we need an admin here. Who says Sungenis is "refreshingly" controversial. He is a controversial Catholic apologist, that is a factual statement. Modern geocentrism contradicts the science of modern physics and astronomy, that is factual statement. You are clearly trying to insert POV here with your edits. Go ahead and re-write the article saying Sungenis is a brilliant physicist and astronomer, and ruin the article.

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)

You are a persistent one aren't you? Yes, his Not By series of books are very thorough. I originally added the descriptions of them, including the statement that he has formally debated Protestants quite "successfully." I was present at his Oct 2000 debate on papal infallibility. Those were my statements. However, there is definitely a problem with this article if a geocentrist is going to edit it. Definitely POV. We need to call admin to resolve. PhilVaz 04:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, Phil, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. You are a professional anti-creationist. You also spend a lot of time criticizing Robert Sungeis' position on science. You have also engaged in a number of public debates with him, thus having a direct stake in his perceived image. If anyone is POV material it is you.
I grant that you were relatively fair overall, and I am not making major changes. Everyone has some POV, we just have to manage it to be fair to the opposing view here.Truth_Seeker 05:12, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
P.S. do not give up and get flustered so fast. Working in Wikipedia requires a lot of drafting and redrafting. sorry.Truth_Seeker 05:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
You wiped out my changes to this page. I guess two can't edit at the same time. Calling him brilliant is POV. He is controversial, traditional or traditionalist, and thorough in his books, those are factual. Calling him brilliant anything is POV. Kenneth Miller is the professional anti-creationist, I am an evolutionary creationist and accept that designation. See my edits to that page. PhilVaz 05:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] changes to Geocentrism Controversy section

"Most scientists hold an acentric view (no center) and a solar system similar to that of Copernicus, which holds that the sun is centrally located amidst revolving and rotating celestial objects in our solar system." Why most? Would you say 49% of all physicists and astronomers today are geocentrists? This should be changed to VIRTUALLY ALL scientists, etc. That would be factual. Yep you have now ruined the article and I won't battle you any more. PhilVaz 05:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Most scientists are relativists and do not hold either heliocentric or geocentric views, Phil. This is the point I am trying to make. I am trying to make this scientifically accurate. Yes many scientists hold a "Heliocentric" or "barycentric" solar system views, but many relativists do not accept absolute space and simply stick to relative motions.Truth_Seeker 05:12, 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)

Go ahead and edit how you like. I won't battle you any more. Three back and forths is enough for me. A professional physicist should edit this section on geocentrism, not a geocentrist. POV PhilVaz 05:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Edit the Geocentrism controversy only, the rest is fine. I probably have known Robert Sungenis longer than you have, well since 1993 before Surprised by Truth came out. I have all his books, and I was present at his Oct 2000 debate on papal infallibility. I am the authority on Robert Sungenis. :-) You can edit a little on his geocentrism section, but don't touch the rest. It was factually correct September 1. PhilVaz 20:29, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Sorry Phil: I reverted before reading. I re-reverted back to your version, changed the geocentrism section, and made small, but important changes to the Intro. I do not believe Robert considers himself a tradionalist. This is attributed to him by others. Granted some of his views are in line with tradionalist views, but so are other apologists.Truth_Seeker 20:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to Intro section

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)

You new version of the intro is: "He is well respected by many for his willingness to take a stand on unpopular and controversial issues that other apologists shy away from."

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)

[edit] Locked pages and compromise discussion

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)

OK, now we're getting somewhere. You can edit the Geocentrism section if you don't like it, but merely state what it is Sungenis believes about that, not anything in defense of geocentrism which is clearly an extreme minority view in science. Leave the "defense" of geocentrism to your modern geocentrism article (which I won't touch). ALSO, you can edit this statement which may be factually incorrect: "and accepts the Novus Ordo Mass as valid--although he seems (like most Traditionalists) to prefer the Tridentine Latin Mass." I understand Sungenis does accept the Novus Ordo (he is or has debated traditionalist Gerry Matatics on this subject) but I am not sure whether he prefers the traditional Mass (someone put that there before me, and I left it). So is it true that Sungenis prefers the traditional Latin Mass? PhilVaz 22:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Someone has locked the page. DId you request a lock? I have requested it be unlocked. It appears to be locked between two identical pages. I do not know if he prefers traditional mass. I think he may, but check his web site.Truth_Seeker 22:32, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
I didn't request any lock. But apparently admin are reading and making decisions. Good. BTW, your link above to this post from the Catholic Answers boards says:

"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)

Sorry to hear Tim Staples thinks that about him. Did you ask him about the soy sauce incident?Truth_Seeker 04:37, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
OK I'm responding. It's late. Didn't ask about soy sauce, that was between Karl and Bob. We had Italian if I remember. It was Tim Staples, his wife, their baby, Peter Vere, and myself. The hi-lite of my life. Hee hee. PhilVaz 07:02, 10 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."

The phrase "civilized world" is POV. This implies anyone who holds the opposite view is uncivilized.Truth_Seeker 04:35, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
OK agreed as to "civilized world" -- that was done by the person before me however. You can edit that section on geocentrism and simply state what it is Robert Sungenis believes on the issue. Don't defend geocentrism since that would be POV as well. State what Robert believes. PhilVaz 07:02, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

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.

Robert's case is based on the universe spinning. This was part of the original geocentrism, also, because observers saw the stars rotating each night.Truth_Seeker 04:35, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
All right I'll agree, state what Robert's position is in that paragraph, I'll let you edit it, or copy/paste to what you previously had in that paragraph.

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)

Wrong, Phil
No, on this one point I am right: The Church speaks authoritatively or infallibly on faith and morals only, not on science. That is the Catholic dogma on papal infallibility as defined by Vatican I and other sources, such as Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. Dogma pertains to faith and morals only. However, this Wikipedia article we are disputing is about Robert Sungenis, not about the Church's teaching on infallibility. This one point: "the Church speaks infallibly on faith and morals only, not science" is absolutely correct, as demonstrated by your quotes from the Church below. PhilVaz 07:02, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
"Trent: "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published..."
Thanks for the quote from Trent, I am aware of it. Doesn't speak to science: "in matters of faith, and of morals" is what it says. Faith and morals, not science. If Robert Sungenis thinks this has relevance to his geocentrism teaching, he is mistaken. He has quoted Popes to that effect, but your quote above from Trent speaks to faith and morals, and explicitly says so. PhilVaz 07:02, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Similarly, Vatican I states (Session 2, Profession of Faith): "...Likewise I accept sacred scripture according to that sense which holy mother church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy scriptures; nor will I ever receive and interpret them except according to the unanimous consent of the fathers..."
Keep reading the definition of papal infallibility and you will find it also speaks to faith and morals only, not science. PhilVaz 07:02, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
And again (Session 3, Dogmatic Constitution of the Catholic Faith, Chapter 2- On Revelation): "...In consequence, it is not permissible for anyone to interpret holy scripture...against the unanimous consent of the fathers." Truth_Seeker 04:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but doesn't speak to issues of science. The Fathers could be completely wrong in their science, which in fact they were if one accepts modern physics and astronomy (age of universe), modern geology (age of earth), and modern biology (evolution). PhilVaz 07:02, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
And: "...Later on, this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, which claims for these books in their entirety and with all parts a divine authority such as must enjoy immunity from any error whatsoever, was contradicted by certain Catholic writers who dared to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture to matters of faith and morals alone, and to consider the remainder, touching matters of the physical or historical order as obiter dicta and having (according to them) no connection whatsoever with faith. Those errors found their condemnation in the encyclical Providentissimus Deus..." (Pope Pius XII in Divino Afflante Spiritu)
Anyway, regardless of what YOU think, this IS a big part what Robert's case rests on. Truth_Seeker 04:30, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, we're mixing apples and oranges. Robert may argue that, and you can put a sentence in there maybe saying that he does argue this way, but he is mistaken. The quotes above you provided from Trent and Vatican I speak to the Church's infallible teaching on faith and morals, and the "unanimous consent of the Fathers" on faith and morals. They don't speak to science. What the quote above from Pius XII is talking about is limiting Scripture's inerrancy to faith and morals only, which is a different thing, which I don't do. However, the fact that Pius XII accepted the universe and earth is billions of years old (see | my articles responding to Sungenis on my site), and that the study of evolution, including human evolution is permissible, means Pius XII didn't see a problem with modern science and the Bible, and that he didn't interpret the Bible literally when it came to science and its view of the world. I won't push this point, but according to many folks (like Fr. Stanley Jaki, and the skeptic Robert Schadewald) the Bible, interpreted as literal science, teaches a FLAT DOMED earth, not simply geocentrism. That was how the ancient Hebrews, ancient Babylonians, and ancient Egyptians saw their universe and earth. I don't have the book with me at the moment, but check Fr. Jaki's Bible and Science (Christendom Press, 1996) and | this article by Schadewald. Many folks (including a minority of the Church Fathers) used the Bible to teach a FLAT earth. My view on that is that the Bible is not to be interpreted scientifically on these issues (whether flat earth, fixed earth, or young earth), it is poetry or simply how the world appeared to the ancients (an "ancient science"). I also recommend you read the quote I provided from John Paul II on the Genesis cosmology in the article on Evolutionary creationism. PhilVaz 07:02, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Finally, I would like the part about his "traditionalist" views changed, or at least moved. He once told me he attends a Novus Ordo mass. I still think he may prefer a Latin mass, but there is not [a non-schismatic] one available near him. I think sometimes he refers to himself as being in the tradtional camp, but at others he infers he is not completely. I think he holds views that many traditionalists agree with, and he should if he is orthodox, but I do not feel it is accurate to label him as a traditionalist. It is ok to say that he holds some traditionalist views, but it does not need to be in the intro., since these views do not define who he is or what he believes (i.e., he is not speaking out against Vat. II or constantly talking about the Latin mass, etc.). What do you think?Truth_Seeker 04:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Fine you can change that if Robert doesn't consider himself a "traditionalist" -- others have attributed that title to him but he himself may not accept the title. This article can be unlocked now, unless you have strong disagreement with what I've said so far. Edit the section on Robert's geocentrism, and explain what he believes on that. PhilVaz 07:02, 10 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)

OK, so now we're agreed that your quotes from the Council of Trent and Vatican I give no support to Robert's case, since they are talking about faith and morals only, and "geocentrism" is a scientific question. The Council of Trent and Vatican I don't speak to scientific issues, only faith and morals. We are agreed. Good. As for the papal bulls you and Robert have quoted, I would just assert that the modern popes trump the older popes on scientific issues. Pius XII, John Paul II, Benedict XVI see no contradiction between modern physics, astronomy, geology, biology and the Bible/Catholic dogma. I've posted to the Catholic Answers boards ad nauseum on these points re evolution/creation. As for definitions of what "faith and morals" means, you can examine the definition given for papal infallibility of Vatican I (nothing in there about science or scientific matters) and the modern Catechism. You can edit the paragraph and include a statement about Robert Sungenis appealing to those 15th and 16th century popes for his geocentrism. That's fine. PhilVaz 00:01, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Now Here is Fr. Stanley Jaki, a distinguished physicist and theologian, on the flat and fixed earth of the Bible:
"If asked about his physical surroundings or about the physical world at large, the typical Israelite would have given a reply very irritating to the modern mind. It is irritating to say the least to hear that the earth is a flat disk, the sky an inverted hard bowl, and that the two form a vast tent-like structure. Of course, other inhabitants of the ancient Near-East would have given similar answers....To be sure, much the same would have been done by a typical ancient Egyptian and Babylonian....The hardness of the sky, but especially the immobility of the earth, had to appear all the more a divinely ordained physical fact as, according to the Bible, a mere man, Joshua, could be authorized by God to stop the sun and the moon in their tracks and, apparently, for a whole day....Obviously, to modern eyes dazzled by space rockets cruising along 'world lines' set by Einstein's four-dimensional cosmology nothing could seem more jarring than the Bible's physical world, which is little more than a glorified tent. To that tent the Bible assigns the sky as its cover and the earth as its floor, though hardly in a consistent way. In Genesis 1 the sky is a firmament, that is, a hard metal bowl, whereas in Psalm 104 and Isaiah 45:24 it is more like a canvas that can be stretched out....Herein lies one of the non-trivially unscientific aspects of the world as described in the Bible....Well before the advent of modern science, and indeed of heliocentrism, the contrast between that biblical world-tent and the world of Aristotelian-Ptolemaic geocentrism had to appear enormous." (Fr. Jaki, Bible and Science, pages 19-25)
Now the reason the Church Fathers and the medieval Popes didn't believe in a FLAT DOMED earth with a HARD VAULTED TENT-LIKE SKY as is clearly taught in the Bible, is because they INTERPRETED the Bible in light of the best science of their day (which accepted a round sphere-shaped earth). So likewise, we should interpret the Bible's "scientific" descriptions of a flat, fixed, and young earth in light of today's science. I do not interpret the Bible literally when it comes to its descriptions of the world since that was how that world appeared to the ancients, and we've learned a lot since then. Frankly, I do not care what a Church Father or a pope has said SCIENTIFICALLY in the 15th or 16th century or early centuries. The definition of papal infallibility of Vatican Council I deals with faith and morals, and the biblical interpretations that the earth is flat, the earth does not move, the earth is young are scientific statements, testable by the scientific method, and that bad science is rejected by the Popes of the 20th and 21st centuries. PhilVaz 00:01, 11 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)

[edit] Changes to the article

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:

  • Introductionary section: basically OK, although I'd like more information including birth date and place. Main problem "Traditional" - doesn't mean much unless you know about the debates over Vatican II. How about "conservative" (and note in quotes, they're rather annoying)? That gives the right flavour I think.
  • Theological works and views: needs expansion on his first three books - what did he argue, possibly with brief summary quote. Again, replace "Traditional" with conservative or similar.
  • Journey to Catholicism: change name to Biography/Early Life or similar, move above Theological works and views and expand. Delete phrases: "very well", "quite successfully", etc they're not necessary and are judgemental (ie POV) in nature. "Sojourned" is also POV- "he attended" is much more neutral. Did he ever formally convert? If so, this should be discussed, as when he started discussions to reconvert to Catholicism.
  • Geocentrism controversy: delte "even amongst hitherto fans" and reference this assertion. Replace "civilized world" with "scientific community" or similar. Regarding the argument above: state that Sungenis believes that papal pronoucments, etc are more important than scientific observation, if that is what he believes (ie you can cite a source for it). It doesn't matter what we think about this, this is an article on Sungenis, not on us!
  • Catholic Apologetics International: merge with Biography.

I hope that this helps- obviously criticise away! --G Rutter 12:03, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me.Truth_Seeker 16:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. I've left a note on Phil Vaz's talk page, so we'll see what he thinks (he hasn't been around for a couple of days). Also, one further section that the article requires is a list of his publications, with dates, ISBNs etc if you've got them. --G Rutter 07:29, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Changes above are fine with me. I added "successfully" about his debates but that was my opinion. A section on Sungenis books with ISBN would be OK. His first book (co-authored with Scott Temple and David Allen Lewis) was Shockwave 2000! The Harold Camping 1994 Debacle (New Leaf Press, 1994) with ISBN = 0-89221-269-1. Then the 3 "Not By...Alone" books, then the Catholic Apologetics Study Bible (Matthew done, and forthcoming in 12 volumes?). I don't think this article should be much longer than it is. Karl Keating and Patrick Madrid need longer articles then. I'm not sure what year Robert was born, maybe 1955 is my best guess so he may be 50 this year. My guess was right, his bio page here. PhilVaz 14:58, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
What can we do to get this page unlocked. It is currently being held hostage. Neither Phil nor I are asking for it to be locked, and the "locker" (Dunc|☺) is not even participating in this discussion, yet is keeping the page locked.
So, I propose that we use the geocentric section, as edited in my last edit, remove the "traditionalist" label (though if others want something said, a statement could be added elswhere than the intro. that Sungenis does hold some views in common with the traditionalists, which covers most Catholics), and I propose adding the fact that Robert does not claim geocentrism to be infallible (i.e., a statement of equal authority from a currrent or future Pope could change the previous decrees). Other than that, with the content provided by Phil, and the suggestions of G. Rutter, we should have a good article. Truth_Seeker 16:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
To get it unlocked, you list it at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. I imagine Dunc locked it as you and Phil were edit warring over it- if we sort that out first, we can then put in a request to get it unlocked. As you say, we should be able to get a good article out of this. First, however, could you provide a link to which version of the geocentricism section you prefer. If you copy and paste it in a new section on this page we can discuss it here which might be best.
Phil, thanks for the info. I think both those other pages should be longer and better than they are. If someone is notable enough to make it into Wikipedia, then we should really give a brief bio of their life plus information on what they've done/written/argued. --G Rutter 16:31, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I unprotected the article. Please feel free to edit away. --Tony SidawayTalk 17:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Right, I've made the changes I discussed above. The Biography section could do with some more detail and a Writings section needs adding. --G Rutter 09:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Classifying Sungenis

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)


[edit] Sungenis' Antisemtism

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))

The "smear campaign" is really simply a criticism. We can rewrite the section if we'd like to, but it's doesn't rise to the level of slander or libel. --ScienceApologist 19:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it has gone well beyond criticism, and I agree with Diligens, that the complaints of one person does not deserve a whole section. Maybe a line somewhere, "Bill Cork, a Catholic apologist, has accused Robert Sungenis of anti-semitism in some of Sungenis' writings dealing with the Declaration..., the Talmud, and Zionism. Robert Sungenis responded that the charge was unfounded. No other Catholic apologists have publicly followed Cork." And this in the general text, not a complete new section.

Truth Seeker

It isn't just "one person" who has expressed these misgivings regarding Sungenis' alleged anti-semitism -- it's just that only Bill Cork has accused him of plaigarizing Nazi tracts. In fact, as far as I can tell there are a number of others who have distanced themselves from Sungenis since his publication of this, Cork just happens to be the one who exposed his plaigarism. --ScienceApologist 19:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Um, while it's okay to include Sungenis characterization of this controversy as a smear campaign, there have been others critical of Sungenis for the same reasons including a number of his fellow Catholic Apologists. --ScienceApologist 19:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


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?

We have a section on it because it is true and noted in a number of places. The actual facts of the matter are that Sungenis did write the things stated in the article and that Cork did criticize. The wholesale reversion was not only unwarranted, it belies the point of consensus. Please, let's work out an NPOV compromise rather than reverting to atrocious writing such as "victim of a controversy". --ScienceApologist 20:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Now was that so hard? --ScienceApologist 20:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Fair enough. What exactly are the contexts of the statements regarding what he allegedly said? --ScienceApologist 20:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Did Sungenis write this?

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)

I think you would need to read the documents. He may have said Zionism is part of the reason for something (i.e., WWII), I believe he made a statement in some context regarding the % of Russian Communists who were Jewish, etc., but to string it together out of context, to make him look foolish is itself a smear campaign. If you want to lift entire quotations, with context, or link to documents, that is fair. I can take everything you have ever said or written, and tie together a series of partial quotes, and I am sure I could make you look foolish. Would that be fair? Truth Seeker
Thanks for the info. I think the compromise wording works fine right now. --ScienceApologist 20:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
A site put up by former CAI supporter Michael Forrest documents some of the past Sungenis material on this topic here www.SungenisAndTheJews.com PhilVaz 07:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Sungenis released a new book directly relevant to the geocentrism controversy section

This is news and relevant. Stop removing it.

Truth Seeker

We don't need to mention it in two places in the article. --

ScienceApologist 20:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, did not see you had placed it elsewhere. Try using discussion more.

Truth Seeker

[edit] Time to Clean Up the "Jewish Controversy Section"

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)

[edit] Blogs and personal web pages

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)


[edit] Jewish Controversy Dispute

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"

"Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Attribution, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. Where the information is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel."

According to the Attribution policy, blogs are not considered reliable sources for this type of writing.

2."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.

Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of positive or negative claims that rely on guilt by association."

Third party sources do not include blogs.

3. "Reliable sources"

"Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Material found in self-published books, zines, websites or blogs should never be used, unless written or published by the subject (see below). These sources should also not be included as external links in BLPs, subject to the same exception."

Truth_Seeker —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.81.205.20 (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

May all editors please maintain a cool head when editing, and remember that controversial comments in biographic articles need to be well cited. Wikipedia is not a battlefield and verifiable views on a living person must be represented equally. This does not mean tugging the article into an overly critical and negative stance merely because it was positivly balanced before, and I'm afraid nor is personal stance on the person alone reason to place emphasis on that point of view either. Please be sure to take great care when adding strongly worded content to the article, and make sure it is well sourced (see Wikipedia:Sources) an internet blog is not considered a reliable source. Thanks all, SGGH 20:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, editors involved who do not already have a user account please obtain one if able, it makes tracking article histories and dispute resolutions easier. Thanks SGGH 20:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Rather than fix my old account, I created a new one Truth seeker new

In response to Mark Wyatt ("Truth_Seeker"), I would point out that the Sungenis and the Jews web site and its supplement, Sungenis and the Jews Blog, are two of the primary sources for fully-documented information about Sungenis and his handling of Jewish issues. You may not agree with the content, but you cannot deny that the information is extremely well referenced, with dozens and dozens of live links back to Sungenis' own web site that provide objective verification. If those sites were hosting exclusively "opinion" pieces, you might have a point, but as it stands they are the most exhaustive sources of verifiable information on the Internet regarding this subject. Lumengentleman 18:35, 21 March 2007 (EST)

The policy is still quite clear regarding blogs regardless of how much Mr. Lumengentlemen claims it is well documented. Presumably both "Mark Wyatt" and "Truth_Seeker" are living persons. Wikipedia does allow anonimity, so do not attempt to associate the names without support from the "Truth_Seeker" "User" page, where Truth_Seeker may choose to state his identity Truth seeker new 22:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


    • Question and Point: 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.
First, I inserted that statement as a substitute for a more fair and policy acceptable eventual statement. As far as "The Jewish controversy occupies a tremendous amount of space at Catholic Apologetics International", this is somewhat nonsensical, since the rash of articles dealing with the "Jewish controversy" are mainly Robert Sungenis deending himself from the unfair attack. Truth seeker new 13:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

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." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Liam Patrick (talk • contribs) 23:15, March 21 2007 (UTC).

Read the policy statement: "Material found in self-published books, zines, websites or blogs should never be used, unless written or published by the subject "

The subject is "Robert Sungenis". The reason for the policy is that this article is about a "Living Person". Anyone can create a website or blog and attack a "Living Person". If the attack is unfair, this is harmful to the "Living Person". Wikipedia in the wisdom of their policy on | Biographies of Living Persons understands the implications of this. Wikipedia is not intended to serve as a hit piece. Other than blogs and websites (and all pretty biased), you had no other sources. Truth seeker new 23:40, 21 March 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Liam Patrick (talk • contribs) 00:11, March 22 2007 (UTC).

Keep thse guidelines in mind (from | Biographies of Living Persons):
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.
Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of positive or negative claims that rely on guilt by association.


Critics
The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material.
Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article.
Non-public figures
Shortcut:WP:NPF
Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are nevertheless entitled to the respect for privacy afforded non-public figures. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only information relevant to their notability. Material from primary sources should generally not be used unless it has first been mentioned by a verifiable secondary source (see above).
In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.


I suspect we need to determine if Robert Sungenis is a "Non-Public Figure". Consider this guideline for Public Figures:
Public figures
In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take information from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.
Truth seeker new 00:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Who am I talking to? Why is IP tracking not on? Truth seeker new 00:27, 22 March 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Liam Patrick (talk • contribs) 08:27, March 29 2007 (UTC).

Why do we not knpw who this person is? Is IP tracking not a Wikipedia policy? Truth_Seeker 16:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


Here is the guideline for the exception from [Reliable Sources]: Truth_Seeker 16:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Exceptions

As mentioned above there are a few specific situations in which a self-published source can be considered reliable. These include:

When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. Editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so; second, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking.
Government officials self-publishing within the scope of their official duties, and using official government channels, but without editorial oversight, are also acceptable primary sources for reporting on the official acts of that person or group.


The "controversial" points you put in violte this policy (Bio. of Living persons): Also, the "citation by controversial sources" bit is aguilt by association tactic. I will remove it completely.Truth_Seeker 16:37, 29 March 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.
Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of positive or negative claims that rely on guilt by association.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Liam Patrick (talk • contribs) 06:18, March 31 2007 (UTC).

"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?"

Certainly his views no geocentrism are, and that is stated. He is accused of being out of step on the Jews, but if you look at the Catholic position on the Jews (the Magesterium), he really is not. Where is he not in harmony? I am no talking about people who ignore what the Church has said, or create new apologies. Most of what causes controversy is outside what the Church really deals with (i.e., Zionism). In fact if anything the Church is neutral on this, while Robert tends to be more negative. Please point out some specific points, and what the Church ahs said. Truth_Seeker 21:08, 31 March 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?

The Jews intend to rule the world and the Church. Jews tend to be inherently violent and consider non-Jews less than human. Jews tend to be morally degenerate. Jews were behind the assassination of JFK. FDR's Jewish ancestry led him to purposely allow the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

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)

Liam Parick:

These really are not his views are they? Thety are one-liners lifted out of large essays and articles dealing with much more general topics. These more general topics are his views, and basically they are the ones I listed. For instance, just granting you the JFK example, does this mean that Robert believes that every Jew was behind the assasination? Or maybe just a specific group of them? Or maybe one or two specific Jewish people? You are forcing an interpertation to the these one-liners through the use of inuendo and guilt by association.

As to Michael piper or Michael Hoffman II, Robert may have used them as a source for some of their research, but this does not mean he endorses all their views. You saw the Q&A where Robert stated very clearly his differences in opinion with Hoffman on Jewish issues, using Sciptural evidence as the differentiator. Just because there are differences, does not mean that Hoffman may not have done some valid research. This is guilt by association isn't it? Anyway, most of what they write has nothing to do with the "Cathoic community" and falls more under history or politics. Truth_Seeker 05:49, 2 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.

I tried the link several times this weekend, and it did not work. What is the content of the link? What website is it on? Truth_Seeker 20:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


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.

The problem is YOU are trying to put the pattern of views into a theory which is very negative towards Robert Sungenis. There are NO reliable, independent third party sources to back up your theory. Wikipedia is not the place to create speculative theories about living persons. We have already said the following:
"Robert Sungenis has publicly espoused many positions in regard to Jews. Some of his positions are not generally accepted within the Catholic community. As a result of some of his public statements about Jews, his former programs and association with the Catholic network EWTN were terminated."
Does that not get the idea across? Truth_Seeker 20:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


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.

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:

"Robert Sungenis' research on Jews includes the works of Michael Piper, Michael Hoffman, Michael Jones, Ted Pike, The Institute for Historical Review....etc."

And by the way, please do not remove the link to E Michael Jones or Ted Pike. Especially in the case of Pike, this is where Sungenis went for his information. If you read the wiki entry on websites, it says this rule is NOT hard and fast. And as this is where Sungenis got the information in the first place, it seems an obvious case in point for exceptions.

In the case of Hoffman and Piper there is no grounds to object to the link because the link is Wikipedia, obviously.


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:

                       "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 article)

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.

I disagree. Here is a statement from your referenced article:
...Edgar Bronfman is also the head of the World Jewish Congress, one of the most powerful Zionist groups in the world.
We also know through the exhaustive effort of Michael Collins Piper?s new 738-page book, Final Judgment, how Bronfman 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. Now, of course, everything is different. Sean McDade of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police assigned to the infamous PROMIS case, concluded that: ?The Israelis may now possess all the nuclear secrets of the United States.? George Tenet, director of the CIA, adds: ?Pollard stole every worthwhile intelligence secret we had. The American public just doesn?t know the full extent of what he did.? As of this day, Israel is the only country ?allowed? to have nuclear weapons, and they possess four nuclear facilities and over 200 nuclear warheads, thanks to the BBC?s detailed investigation...
Please, Patrick, do not use wikipedia to create your own conspiracy theories. Truth_Seeker 20:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


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.

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.

Be my guest. Truth_Seeker 20:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


Liam Patrick 18:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Patrick:

Please consider these wikipedia policy statements (which I posted at the beginning of the section):

Critics The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material.

Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article.

Non-public figures Shortcut:WP:NPF Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are nevertheless entitled to the respect for privacy afforded non-public figures. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only information relevant to their notability. Material from primary sources should generally not be used unless it has first been mentioned by a verifiable secondary source (see above).

In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.


Public figures In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take information from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out. 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

'Robert Sungenis is critical of zionism for the following reasons:
1. ...

2::. ...

...
Some people feel he goes to extreme lengths to express his views, in one case, even citing Michael Piper's book, ..., to illustrate the implication of Bronfman, former head of the AJC, in the Kennedy assination could be related to zionist plans to obtain nuclear weapons...,'

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?

"The Talmud is a satanic book from hell, to be blunt, but they bend over backward to sanitize it."

http://www.catholicintl.com/qa/qa.htm#Question%208

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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/o/b/Talk%7ERobert_Sungenis_55e0.html"