Talk:Robert Sungenis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]


Archive
Archives
(1) discussion up to May 17 2007


Contents

[edit] TS correction of "some" vs. "several"

TS recently made an alteration on my choice of "several" when commenting on Karl Keatings description of the number of people in the SPLC list who were anti-Semitic. I won't argue with the change because it makes no real difference and it is actually the specific word Keating himself used. But I make this point in order to draw out that, if anything, "some" is perhaps more likely to mean a larger number than "several" depending on the number. So I don't know why TS felt the need to change it. It doesn't really help Sungenis if that is TS' aim.

"Some" means "an indeterminate quantity, portion or number as distinguished from the rest." As such, "some" in a list of 12 (like the "Dirty Dozen" anti-Semites) could range from 2 to 11 technically.

OTOH, "several" is potentially a more limited number. It means, "more than two but fewer than many."


There is actually enough crossover between the two that they are listed as synonyms in the thesaurus. So this is a rather meaningless change on TS' part. There was nothing exaggerated or unfair with what was already there.

Liam Patrick 20:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Laim: Here is what KK said:
The greatest fault of the SPLC report is its lumping all Traditionalists into the anti-Semitism category. I know that there are some authentically anti-Semitic people within Catholic Traditionalism, but I also know that they are not representative of the movement.
Yes, some of the individuals and groups discussed in the SPLC report truly are anti-Semitic, and only a disingenuous person could deny that. But not everyone and not every group discussed in the report is anti-Semitic. And, what is more important, those that are discussed comprise only a subsection of the Traditionalist movement.
Truth_Seeker 22:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
TS must not have read carefully. That Keating used the word "some" was not the point. That was already acknowledged.
Liam Patrick 15:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notes and References

I have added a section for notes and references. New notes can be added easily using tags as follows: <ref>..note..</ref>. Many of the notes here are currently hard to follow, and could benefit from being placed into this form. I've also added a section on his PhD, which was the impetus for adding notes. -- Duae Quartunciae 04:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charges of anti-semitism

I have just now reverted some changes by 71.112.223.5 (talk · contribs) which were likely to cause another outbreak of disagreement. Although I am personally highly critical of Sungenis myself, the rules for biographies of living persons apply. We can't have headings that presume in advance that Sungenis is anti-semitic. Please discuss potentially contentious changes here first, and look for a solution that is going to pass muster with wikipedia guidelines and avoid an edit war. Thanks -- Duae Quartunciae (t|c) 22:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] TS inserting sources Hebrew Association of Catholics and Roy Shoeman

To my knowledge, Sungenis has never sourced the Hebrew Association of Catholics or Roy Shoeman in terms of forumlating his own personal views on Jews. He has criticized and attacked both of them. Whether or not Shoeman has an imprimatur on anything is completely irrelevant. Shoeman is not the topic of the article. Sungenis is.

Liam Patrick 03:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish controversy

Sungenis' recent acknowledgment of problems with the manner in which he has written concerning Jews is welcome, and if he is removing contentious articles from his pages then it is fair enough that this page does not treat them as current statements.

However, it was not really a good idea to go as far as to remove the whole section and replace everything with a brief link to the July 31 article where Sungenis makes this acknowledgment. I would like to see a bit of neutrally stated information as to how this became such a controversy and why Sungenis was called upon to manage the matter differently.

The history of this dispute is relevant, and in this encyclopedia there should be something about the problems left for context to the new announcement. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 20:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Just saw the recent additions by Liam. It's a controversial subject, so I'm just adding a note to say: good work. Other edits can be anticipated, of course; but Liam has provided a good baseline to work from. (diff at 00:14, 2 August 2007) —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 00:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
NOTE regarding TS complaint...no one has said that the bishop ordered Sungenis to remove articles. I have added language directly from Sungenis' letter that should more than resolve the problem.
Liam Patrick 04:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sungenis Ordered by Bishop to "Desist" on Jewish Attacks

Truthseeker has complained that Sungenis was not ordered to remove his articles about Jews. He wrote (in the "history" section):

"bishop did not order him to remove articles. Read his doaument. Anything else is just rumor". (Aug 16, 2007)

and

"His bishop did not order him to remove the articles." (Aug. 25, 2007)

It turns out that Truthseeker is incorrect again. An article in Culture Wars magazine proves (page 9, with a direct quote from the letter Sungenis received from his bishop) that Sungenis was ordered to "desist from commenting on the Jewish people and Judaism both online and in all other publications" or he would be denounced. Liam Patrick 17:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Wyattmj inserting POV

Wyattmj, aftering complaining about POV, you have just loaded this article with POV from a decidedly pro-Sungenis perspective. You have even included original argumentation, which is prohibited.

Is this the same person truthseeker?

What you are doing is destructive. I hope you are not planning to do what you did last time. It will be another long affair.

The information needs to be factual and documented.

Liam Patrick (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed POV by spliting section

Whether intentional or not, the article on Robert Sungenis contains severe POV. By mixing the lack of imprimatur (not required and not present on all Catholic books) plus the conflict with the bishop (does not automatically mean any, and certainly not al his views are suspect)in the section on Theological Views and Work, the implication is that the Views and Works are suspect or outright wrong. This is a disservice to the NPOV policy, as well as to Robert Sungenis and the Catholic Church (which does support many if not most of his views- at least I suspect).

I seperated the issues out into seperate sections so they can be dealt with reasonably and fairly.

Keep in mind this is a biography of a living person. I suspect this article steps well over the line on Robert Sungenis.

Wyattmj (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I can appreciate Wyattmj's concerns. However, it does not appear that way to me. The vast majority of this information has been written about by Sungenis himself and a friend, in very public articles appearing at his own website and various periodicals. It would seem, then, that Sungenis himself does not share Wyattmj's level of concern.
In my opinion this is all perfectly relevant information about which the public has a legitimate right to know.
Liam Patrick (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wyattmj inserting POV and reading his own POV into factual statements

Wyattmj is drawing his own personal conclusions from factually stated material and invalidly judging these statements as therefore objectively promoting a POV. He is incorrect. The fact the he arrives at certain conclusions is reflective only of his own deductions, not the objective content of the words themselves. However, I have no objection to splitting the section on imprimatur.

That being said, Wyattmj himself has just inserted clear POV. In one instance, he states that Michael Forest is "author of a website and blog dedicated to attacking Robert Sungenis." Describing either site as "dedicated to attacking Robert Sungenis" is obviously POV. I've read several articles at these sites and in my opinion they could more readily be described as "defending Jews from Robert Sungenis' attacks". My guess is that Wyattmj wouldn't accept that description and understandably so. So I will amend his POV and make it neutral.

Also, unless something has changed, Forest is not properly called the author of the blog dealing with Sungenis. He is only the author of the *website*. My recollection is that he has *written* for the blog and that Jacob Michael is the one running it, but I will first confirm this.

    • I just confirmed this at the blog, my recollection is correct.**

Liam Patrick (talk) 00:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not mind changing the statement regarding "attacking Sungenis". As to the factual account of who is author of which website, that is fine, too. He is author OF one website and ON the blog to be specific.
Wyattmj (talk) 01:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Very good. Agreed. Liam Patrick (talk) 01:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)