Talk:Joseph Sobran

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

/Archive1 - (Oct 2005 - 20 April 2006)

Contents

[edit] New page?

Now that the defamation crew is gone (for now) can someone who knows how archive this page and start a new talk page? St. Jimmy 20:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. I'd also like to extend a request to everyone involved that any changes that even MIGHT be controversial, bring them here first and see if we can't hash them out. I'd hate to see another situation like before, except with real people. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 20:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orthodox Catholic

  • Sobran holds orthodox Roman Catholic views on abortion and the Iraq War, both of which he has vociferously opposed.

Is vociferous opposition to the Iraq war an "orthodox Roman Catholic" position? Does he hold that position because it is Catholic? I don't see the need to for mentioning the church unless there is a direct connection. If we are going to phrase it like this perhaps we should review which positions of his are not orthodox. -Will Beback 21:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I think he always does write within a particular Roman Catholic natural law tradition, and I want to somehow reflect that, but my wording might not be the best possible way to do that. His opposition to the war is also at least on the borderline of a tradition of Catholic pacifism/anti-war sentiment (Dorothy Day, Roy Bourgeois, etc.) I'm open to changes but I do think his views on the war are informed by his pro-life Catholic views. St. Jimmy 22:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I looked up his position on the death penalty, but his opposition to it is more informed by libertarian political view than than Catholic dogma. Do we have a source that ties his views on the war to the church? -Will Beback 23:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Here's one article that cites the Vatican's position on the war Wartime Of course, I don't mean that he really longs to support the war but thwarts it due to being a good Catholic. I just mean that it ties into his overall Catholicism. Sometimes it's not possible to absolutely determine where religious convictions end and other convictions begin, but it's still fair to cite the religious influence. St. Jimmy 13:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC) Also, from his most recent Wanderer column: Faith in War St. Jimmy 13:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I still think we should be very careful about how we link Sobran's political and religious views. Perhaps it would be better to say something like, "Sobran cites Roman Catholic teachings to support his opposition to abortion and the Iraq War." -Will Beback 20:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Will, I would suggest a wording choice that makes it clear that those purportedly "orthodox" positions are what Sobran considers to be orthodox. As long as we attribute this interpretation of Catholic dogma to Sobran, there's no POV issue, right? Certainly we should make no categorical pronouncements about Catholic positions in the encyclopedic voice. Dick Clark 16:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
The current wording is:
  • Sobran cites Roman Catholic teachings as support for his views on abortion and the Iraq War (both of which he has vociferously opposed.)
To my eye, that appears to put the Catholic Church in a passive position, with Sobran doing the interpreting. If we can improve it more then by all means let's do so. -Will Beback 20:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I think there is some measure of objective verifiability to what Vatican doctrine is. Calling it good or bad, true Catholicism or heresy, would be POV, which is why I agreed that my choice of the word orthodox was a bad one. Still, Sobran's positions on most issues line up with the Vatican's position, and there has to be a way of making that point while respecting NPOV principles. St. Jimmy 23:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversial Bits

Since somebody deleted my contributions without cause, I should explain some of my changes:

1.) "Sobran has also been criticized for his association with the Institute for Historical Review,"

What does "association" mean? I added clarifications. BTW, a LONG line of people have accused Sobran of anti-semitism over the last two decades, many with more evidience than discussed here. Aren't there better examples than one paragraph published by the Stephen Roth Institute and an off-the-cuff remark by Tom Palmer?


No there isn't any better examples. Sobran wrote some articles diagreeing with Zionist and Israeli government policies and practices - most of the intellectuals confused this with any Jewishness.


2.) Also, the writing style in the "current political philosophy" needed some tightening up:

a.: "Joseph Sobran went from identifying as a paleoconservative to advocacy of a libertarian anarchocapitalism. In December 2002 he announced his philosophical and political shift to libertarian anarchism in Sobran's,[3] where he cited inspiration by libertarian theorist Murray Rothbard."

The word "libertarian" appears THREE times. One should be sufficient.

b.: "Sobran cites Roman Catholic teachings as support for his views on abortion and the Iraq War (both of which he has vociferously opposed.)" He's a pundit. Being vociferous is part of the job description, so bringing it up is a bit redundant. Not to mention that this sentence is terribly awkward. --Yakuman


For wikipedia, not too bad an article. Though the body of the text is pretty low quality, the links as to what Sobran actually wrote are good ( only because Sobran wrote them, no credit to wikipdia ). If Sobran was anti-Semitic you would have little trouble finding vague examples - they would be BIG, CLEAR and hit you right between the eyes. If you have to look this hard then wikipedia is probably lying/smearing/just being wiki.


Nearly all of the links here are to works by Sobran or people who think like him. Surely there should be some balance? 75.57.67.207 04:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The recent (last 9 months) versions of the page represent a hard-won consensus. Nobody objects to critical views being mentioned as part of the whole, but I don't see what the grounds are for resurrecting a POV argument at this stage. 67.46.0.13 13:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Syndicated columnist?

My understanding is that Sobran is syndicated by his PR agents, and mainly "published" on the web. This article is basically a cover-up masquerading as a bio, so it's a bit funny to correct only one error. But I would like to know who the author of this piece purports is syndicating his columns, and who, other than the holocaust denial websites, is publishing him? Adam Holland 19:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I pick him up at Drudge - could and do go directly to his site. If you pay you get more and faster. I don't think a holocaust denial site has ever published any of his books. They do occasionally print exerpts from him - he isn't scared to death by Jews, Zionists or being called anti-semitic (I think he must be independently wealthy ). Zionists seem to get really out of sorts with an antiZionist, particularly when the sob wont fall into anti-semitism (he's probably just too tricky to be baited but I bet there are a few Jews he doesn't like (circular argument, I bet they are all Zionists)). 159.105.80.141 18:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

As the Wikipedia disambig article on syndication notes, syndication may include print syndication, web syndication, television syndication, and radio syndication. Since we are here discussing Sobran's columns being syndicated, we are naturally limited to the first two. Either of those constitutes "syndication" and would qualify Sobran for the title of "syndicated columnist." We already see that Sobran's columns are syndicated on the web. It is my understanding that they are also (or have been in the past) syndicated in print, but I don't have any citations for this at this time. DickClarkMises 18:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I came here because someone sent me an article he wrote on Pat Buchanan's site, so it seems that perhaps many different sites use his articles. Whether published on the Web or in newspapers, syndicated is syndicated.--Gloriamarie 15:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

On David Irving, it should be known that in the Wikipedia profile http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving "Irving's status has widely been discredited" On the page it says David Irving is a widely discredited historian. Semantics are important and the perception of these two different ways of saying, perhaps, the same thing does not mean it is the same thing. Having your status discredited and being discredited are two different things. One is subjective and the other is objective. I am going to change it to a historian whose status is widely discredited —Preceding unsigned comment added by RG415WBFA (talk • contribs)


REGARDING SYNDICATION: My point when I started this section last February was that his column is posted on the web by his press agents, not a news or opinion syndicate. To call him a "syndicated columnist" is thus a misnomer. The fact that the web is the medium by which his columns are disseminated is not the issue. My question concerns who is doing the disseminating.

He would be more accurately described as a web-based or self-published columnist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Holland (talk • contribs) 16:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whats this guys name?

Will this be like the hub bub at Fred Thompson? I sure hope not :) Cheers!--Tom 13:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)