Talk:Robert Sungenis/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1 Archive 2 →

Contents

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)


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)

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)

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

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)

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)


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.—This is part of a comment by Liam Patrick , which was interrupted by the following:

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." —Preceding unsigned comment 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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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)

Proposal for the "Jewish" section

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)

Proposal inserted

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)

Proposal disputed

Truth-seeker, your submission is not reasonable. It is clear that many of Sungenis' views are highly controversial and you neglected to address them in any meaningful way.

It deserves to be known that Sungenis' ideas are his own in certain controversial areas and that the Catholic community does not agree with them. Some specifics deserve to be drawn out as this is an encyclopedia. At least as much care should be shown for the reputation of the Catholic Church as it is for Robert Sungenis. He is presented as a Catholic apologist.

This section has been rewritten in line with Wikipedia guidelines. Most of what you originally entered has been retained. However, a sample of Sungenis' own more controversial writings have now been included. The outside references to EWTN and CUF have been retained as they fall within Wikipedia guidelines.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liam Patrick (talk • contribs) 08:27, March 29 2007 (UTC)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth seeker (talk • contribs) 16:37, March 29, 2007

Truth-Seeker,

You have gone to great effort to avoid the most serious issues involving Sungenis and Jews. Why? View Michael Hoffman's wikipedia entry and you will see that they at least deal with the issue and don't cover it over in the way you are trying to cover over the things Sungenis writes. Hoffman is a living person obviously, too.

It cannot be improper to site the very things Sungenis himself writes at his website. The things you will only site are not the things that have caused controversy. You seem to know this. So while you worry about negative agendas you are clearly showing a positive agenda to cover over certain things. If he is comfortable enough to put these things on his web site and keep them up, then why are you trying to hide them? This is not supposed to be a propaganda site or hagiography.

Also, a sentence MUST be added that at least gives the reader a clue that some of Sungenis' views are not in harmony with the general Catholic community. His views are clearly on the margin in certain areas. Do you dispute that?

If not, then this needs to be in the section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liam Patrick (talk • contribs) 06:18, March 31 2007 (UTC)

"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. —This is part of a comment by Liam Patrick , which was interrupted by the following:

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. —This is part of a comment by Liam Patrick , which was interrupted by the following:

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. —This is part of a comment by Liam Patrick , which was interrupted by the following:

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." —This is part of a comment by Liam Patrick , which was interrupted by the following:
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.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Liam Patrick (talk • contribs) 20:23, April 2, 2007

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. —This is part of a comment by Liam Patrick , which was interrupted by the following:

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

If you intend to keep changing and removing these things let me know now and I will request arbitration. I doubt you will find much support for what you are trying to do right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liam Patrick (talk • contribs) 20:11, April 2, 2007

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


Policy review

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)

Request to Liam Patrick

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)

Impasse

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." [1]

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)

Copyediting

I copyedited this contentious section. Please note:

  • First, there is no reason to number the points. They are are not given in any particular order, nor is any reason given for their order.
  • Second, links and references should be given in a consistent style. Please see WP:MoS-L#Link_titles. They should also always be placed after punctuation marks.
  • Third, parenthetical material is discouraged as it is unencyclopaedic. Sometimes it's necessary, and it is useful for providing Biblical references as was done here. But large sections of text should never be parenthetical. If the material is not that important, it should be removed.
  • Fourth, I performed some content editing, according to WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:BLP. Please inform me here if my edits were too aggressive or conservative. Otheus 10:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Otheus- I understand your point, but what you may not understand is that some people have been using this article as a vehicle of personal attack against Robert Sungenis. In recent weeks, since I have insisted on sticking to WP:BLP guidlines, it has become more reasonable. Still, some people think they can find any single quote from Sungenis and ascribe it as his viewpoint. This statement sums up and puts in context where it is that he is coming from. Context is what is often lacking. Truth_Seeker 16:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Otheus and Truth-Seeker,

IMO, Truth-seeker, you are inconsistent and have tried to create an interpretation of the rules in which only the things you consider best and most positive are presented about Sungenis. Anything negative is pulled out or watered down so much that it doesn't present the starkness of his actual writing. The fact is that this man espouses a number of Jewish conspiracy theories and has made many controversial statements. He is anything but subtle about it. Why are you trying to be subtle and cagey for him? He's not. He is not in the mainstream of Catholic thought when it comes to Jews and people deserve to know that. The controversy over all of this dominates his website. It seems you would like people not to know about this. But unless I'm wrong, Wikipedia is not a site for hagiography...or propaganda, either pro or con.

You complained when sites other than Sungenis' were cited (not just by me). Okay. Agreed that some of it seems to have not been legit by Wiki-policy. Then I provided quotes directly from his own work to overcome that. Then you complained that this was cherry picking, even though some of the quotes expressed an over-arching philosophy...like the fact that he believes Jews are trying to rule the world and the Catholic Church. That doesn't seem like an insignificant point. You complained. Down it came. I even went along with that and agreed to more general statements about his views. But then you proceeded to insert cherry-picked specific information about Fr. Neuhaus from Sungenis' radio interview.

So, I think you should consider your actions here before making more accusations. You obviously have your own agenda. I agree that one or two individuals went too far in the other direction. I also agree that I made errors because I did not understand wiki policy. But you have been less than consistent and fair yourself.

Liam Patrick 17:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Liam Patrick:
Perhaps you have not noticed, but I ahve gone along with many of your quotes. Where I thought you were mis-representing him (perhaps not purposely) I added clarification. This is a biography of a living person, and the purpose is not to highlight every out of context statement. Quite truthfully, just stating that some of his views on the Jews upset some atholic apologists is more than enough, but you wnat details, so I will balance with details.
Fr. Nehaus was an example. I am trying to add some context to the views, and will continue to do so. Also, Fr. Neuhaus, likely unlike Robert Sungenis, is a "public person" per the guidelines WP:BLP. There is nothing controversial about saying that he has received millions of dollars from neo-conservative foundations- it is a matter of public record.
Your one-liners are basically "zingers". Without context they stand out and give the impression of nuttiness. In the context of the topic to which they were attached, they may still be controversial, or even a little nutty, but he deserves to have the context stated, and in fact, if it is a one time statement, as a side comment in an interview (Like the Lewinsky issue), etc., per the guidelines, it likely does not even belong in the article. Your attempt to show a "pattern" is actually theorizing, which is discouraged on Wikipedia, especially for biographies of living persons.

Truth_Seeker 18:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Your perception that Liam Patrick is trying to make Sungenis appear nutty by quoting him looks a little strange. At some point, it needs to be acknowledged that people may appear nutty because they may have done nutty things (like, for example, promoting a Tychonian Solar System). BLP does not say anything about positively spinning the nutty things that are directly attributable to a biographical subject. --ScienceApologist 18:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


Liam Patrick,
You started your previous post, "Otheus and TruthSeeker". Howevever I did not see any points pertinent to me or to my edits. Did you forget something? Otheus 08:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Otheus,
Yes, I did forget something. But I can't remember what. LOL

Liam Patrick 15:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Truth-seeker,

I think ScienceApologist is right. There are a multitude of quotes from Sungenis about Jews. They're his own words. If you want to add context because you think the additional words really change the meaning, fine. To me, sometimes it looks like needless verbiage that only clutters the article and makes it less accessible. Whether or not his own words make him look nutty is one's personal POV, of course. Sungenis obviously doesn't think these things are nutty and it's not anyone's job to clean up his work and make it look less extreme than it actually is for Wikipedia, is it? You've removed quite a few things and said they were unsubstantiated or whatver and then I provided the verbatim quote.

But I do appreciate that you have started to be a little more reasonable lately. It hasn't gone unnoticed and so to be fair, I acknowledge it and thank you.

However, I do question your understanding of Public Person. Sungenis runs a very public organization, a non-profit that is legally open to public scrutiny, financially and otherwise, has authored several books, does radio programs, tv programs, gives public presentations etc. How much more does he have to do to be a public person?

Regarding conspiracy theories about Sungenis, I don't follow your argument. All one has to do is look at his website. You don't need to be a conspiracy theorist to see how much controversial and extreme material there is. To me, it's like saying one's making up conspiracy theories if they note that there are a lot of tall people in the NBA.

And finally, regarding your "one time statement" objection, I don't find that persuasive. Are you saying that as long as he only writes about any particular Jewish conspiracy theory once or twice, it's not right to note it? And what if he mentions **many** different conspiracy theories just once or twice...which is what he seems to do? The point is, he is a Jewish conspiracy theory advocate, Truth-seeker. He doesn't hide it. What has he written or said? Lewinsky. FDR. JFK. Pope Paul VI. Jews are trying to take over the world and the Catholic Church. U.S. foreign policy is secretly (and not so secretly sometimes!) dictated by the Jewish lobby. Communism was a Jewish enterprise. The Holocaust itself. Jewish financiers are secretly behind the push to make everyone do the bidding of Israel. The laundry list is pretty extensive. And it kind of looks like you are arguing that because he only mentions each of these once or twice (sometimes more, really), they must be ignored because it makes him look "nutty."

That's not a reasonable argument, imo. The individual points about Jews may vary, but one thing remains pretty consistent: if Jews are involved (or are thought to be involved), it's bad and he's bound and determined to expose the "truth" as he sees it. They're just up to no good.

Liam Patrick 04:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

"Science is not absolute"

TruthSeeker has been opposing wording which attributes the claims of a "scientific case" for geocentrism directly to Sungenis on the basis of an edit summary which states "science is not absolute", perhaps one of the most transparent arguments for POV-pushing I've ever seen at Wikipedia. Applicable policies for attribution need to be adhered to. These are Sungenis' claims and do not represent those of scientific consensus. Deal with it. --ScienceApologist 11:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong with "... in which Sungenis cites scientific evidence for geocentrism.". He does cite evidence. Please do not link whole articles, without explaining which policy you are refering to specifically, and explaining how it applies. I did not state that a "scientific consensus" was reached concerning geocentrism, only that Sungenis cites scientific evidence. Your statement tends to sound mocking, this is against the folowing:
Keep thse guidelines in mind (from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biographies_of_living_persons | 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.

Please propose a wording that will satisfy us both: you want to say that Sungenis has not made a case that modern science will accept (this is your opinion, a problem), I just want to say he does cite and use scientific evidence. Truth_Seeker 18:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
You cannot baldly state that Sungenis made a scientific case because he is neither a scientist nor has his material been accepted by any scientific journal, for example. Therefore, we can attribute his statement that it was scientific, but we cannot state as fact that it was scientific. This is non-negotiable. --ScienceApologist 18:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
For the nth time, I did not "baldly state that Sungenis made a scientific case". I just object to your wording, which I see as mocking. See my comprimise wording: " ...in which Sungenis describes reasons to consider geocentrism using scientific, philosophical, and historical sources." Is this acceptable to you? Again, you do not cite the specific policy, so I still do not see the connection between your link and the issue you perceive. Truth_Seeker 20:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
It's closer to okay, but still problematic. Sungenis is interpretting sources (what I deem are mostly secular, as opposed to theological or religious appearing in an upcoming volume -- but I digress). I tweaked the wording somewhat. Making a plain statement that Sungenis is relying on science is not verified by any source we have. All we can go on is taking Sungenis' word for it. --ScienceApologist 18:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Offer to moderate Jewish controversy

The "Jewish Controversy" section now contains way too much detail, in relationship to this person's life or his notability. I acknowledge that his views range from mundane to extremely controversial. I acknowledge that he associates himself with conspiratorial theorists and and anti-Semitic views. I also acknowledge that his views may or may not be based solely on doctrinal disagreements. However, this version is simply over-the-top. As an atheist who was once the son of a Protestant missionary, I offer to moderate the discussion on this section on what should go in, and what should not. Liam Patrick and Truth Seeker, I implore you to take me up on this offer. If so, until moderation is over, the minimalist approach should be taken.

First, we must keep in mind the core policy NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH (No "OR", or NOR)WP:NOR. Making long, attributed quotes to explain a person's view, while not "OR", is generally unencyclopaedic, and can result in violating another core policy, NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW WP:NPOV, by selecting and choosing quotes. Normally this is not a problem, but here it clearly is as we have a continued debate on this.

Second, to alleviate this problem, we should first try to lean upon reliable sources, sources which themselves are not polemical, blogs, or more opinion peddling. So far, I have not found such sources, and I ask you two to do your best. The closest thing I could find to such a reliable source was the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), but their criticism seems to have been almost completely stolen from a blogger, Mr. Bill Cork. It's also a fact that the SPLC is regarded by many (including myself) to be ultra-liberal, and not particularly even-handed (though they may entirely be correct). Another source was from Searchlight magazine, avowedly against anti-semitism and "hate". However, I cannot judge on my own whether their coverage of Sangenis is neutral and balanced.

Third, it needs to be noted that Sangenis runs CAI and that basically the site is his own, completely self-published site. As Truth Seeker (TS) notes above, it is acceptable to use this in a source in stating what Sangenis has said, but it must be clear that this is so and it must be balanced, in that we editors here have a solid consensus on how the statements are summarized.

I will ask the page to be protected until we can make some progress in this area. --Otheus 10:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I have intentionally steered clear (mostly) from this dispute, but I'd like to also encourage the involved editors to accept Otheus' offer. One more thing to consider: Wikipedia is a tertiary source. That means that quoting secondary sources (such as SPLC and Searchlight) is ususally considered to be better editorial form than quoting primary sources (such as CAI or Sungenis directly). --ScienceApologist 10:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Liam Patrick

Truth Seeker: do not reply in this section. Put your comments in the section provided for you below. Thank you. Otheus 16:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Otheus,

That sounds fine to me. Thank you for the offer. I agree that it's too cumbersome and have said so previously. The reason so many quotes were provided from Sungenis' own writing in the first place was because more generalized statements were often deleted because the accuracy or truthfulness of them were so often doubted. By providing a series of direct quotes, the doubt was removed (and the statements were finally allowed to stand).

Also, I ask that we bear in mind that a great deal of Sungenis' work and writing is internet-based. And almost *all* of his most controversial work is internet-based. As such, the sources and commentary on him (especially this issue) are almost exclusively internet-based as well. In looking at wiki rules, my sense is that they are not intended to be hard and fast with no exceptions. Yes? There needs to be some common sense in this, I would think. Agreed?

Regarding the Jewish controversy section, the things I believe must be present in some form or the article will be obscuring or distorting reality rather than making it accurately available to wiki readers:

  • 1) His controversial views and theories about Jews are not reflective of the the views and approach the Catholic Church takes toward Jews. His views and theories in regard to Jews are his own.
    This is crucial, imo, because the name of his organization is Catholic Apologetics International (noted prominently in the article itself, with a helpful link right at the top to send people over there, of course). Clearly, he appropriates a certain recognition and drawing power by using the name "Catholic" in the name of his organization. If nothing is written, Wikipedia will unwittingly help to propagate the false impression that the Catholic Church is somehow in agreement with Sungenis on these things or even perhaps that he speaks with some kind of Catholic authority. He does not.
  • Comment: Agreed. Otheus 17:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • 2) He openly espouses and propagates many conspiracy theories about Jews.
  • Comment: To the degree these views are labeled "conspiracy theories", this must be covered by secondary sources. Otheus 17:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • 3) His research about Jews comes from conspiracy theorists and those widely considered to be anti-Semitic (like Hoffman, Mohr, IHR, Piper, et al).
    (I have a feeling Truth-Seeker may object to that characterization, but I don't think an objective person would dispute that.)
  • Comment: I have also seen opinions that say such, for instance Cork's commentary. However, Cork is refuted, to some extent by John Grasmeier here, by Ferrara here, and Sungenis' overall points are supported here. So the problem here is that we have this debate going on non-secondary sources. For us to characterize this debate would essentially be "OR". Otheus 17:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • 4) I think we have to acknowledge that many of his views are generally considered to be anti-Semitic.
  • Comment: I want to do that, but it needs to be given by a reliable secondary source. We have Searchlight and Southern Poverty Law Center, but as I've noted, these are not neutral and don't pass the typical standard for "reliable". However, they may be used, but we should have a discussion first. Otheus 17:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • 5) I think it makes sense to at least give some indication of the specific controversial views he propagates.
  • Comment I want to, but then we need a secondary source saying these views are controversial. Otherwise it's selectively pulling out from primary sources and is considered OR.Otheus 17:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Reactions? Liam Patrick 14:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Truth Seeker

Otheus,

Actually, what you have written, with some balance is more than fine with me. I would leave it as it is, but drop the SPLC link, which is very biased and factually a mess. If it is kept, then I would propose to add one line:

Other Catholic commentators disagree with this [2], while some prominent Catholic apologists, such as Karl Keating question the accuracy and veracity of the SPLC report [3].

Support I personally am not keen to linking to what the SPLC "reports". I concur that the link be removed, if it is the only one of its kind. The newsletter was sufficient (but not necessary) to proving that case. Otheus 15:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

If Liam Patrick agrees with this, then I say let's just do that.

Liam Patrick: I would argue that Robert Sungenis is not a "public person" per the wiki policy :

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. From | Biographies of Living Persons

Clearly there are not,and the SPLC is not reliable (nor third party- they have a stated bias). Robert may be well known to most Catholic apologists, but that group represents a very small fraction of the public. Public figures are people in the general public limelight, not well known in a small, specialzed field. Examples are George Bush, Ted Kennedy, Ozzie Osborne, Madonna, and many lesser known individuals who still are known to the general public (Like Fr. Neuhaus who makes onto CNN and is known). Let me repeat, here, some of what I stated when we started this latest round:

Refactoring by Otheus. TS, I'm refactoring your inclusion of the policies, because it's not evidently clear which is policy and which is your analysis. Simply put, we all should re-read [WP:BLP]]. You referenced these 3 subsections:

  1. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material
  2. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable sources: Material found in self-published books, zines, websites or blogs should never be used, unless written or published by the subject. (emphasis original)
  3. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Biased or malicious content: 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."

Regarding whether Catholics support his views:

I am sorry, Liam, I disagree strongly on this position of yours. I agree that when Robert Sungenis wanders into politics, and what you call conspiracy theories, there may be some disagreements, but I would propose that those agreements/disagreements are less a matter of religion, and more political. Most of the views expressed in the previous version of the Jewish section would be agreed on by many if not most Catholic apologists. Maybe not the Kennedy assasination possibly having involvement of Ben Gurion and the Mossad, but most of the Scripturally and covenant related ones. Robert attempts to apply the doctrinal /Scriptural thesis to the real world, and this is where there is some controversy.

I also tried to balance your negative POV with context to show that the reasons he holds some of those political andother views are based on doctrinal issues. I used his own writings to show that.

The purpose of a wiki biography is not to point out every detail about the subject, but to give a general overview of who that person is and what he/she does. The line written by Otheus, with the modifications I proposed are more than adequate to accomplish that. You are trying to bring the view of a handful of disgruntled ex-employees of Robert's (plus a few supporters) into an internationally accessed resource (Wikipedia), and pass it off as demonstrated fact. Well it is not demonstrated fact, and your attempts to do this is theorizing. This is unacceptable.

Comment It might be possible to demonstrate this, however. But the burden of proof is on Liam. Otheus 19:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Now I propose that we stick with what Otheus wrote, plus my proposed modifications, and leave it at that. If we attempt more detail, we will end up where we were yesterday in order to be fair to both sides of the issue.

Comment That gives me warm fuzzies. :) Otheus 19:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we should not use the word "anti-semitic", as even Sungenis' attackers did not use that word (until they realized they were not being successful, even then they used it in a guarded fashion). The word anti-Jewish, or "negative towards the Jews" is more fitting. Sungenis si NOT a holcaust denier, white supremacist, or a neo-Nazi.

Comment Although some of his attackers certainly did use that term (Cork discusses it at length here, and I saw another blogger who revealed that Sungenis had questioned the blogger's ancestry in an alleged attempt to poison the well), I agree we cannot say that here without reliable sources confirming this. And I agree that "reliable" in this context, at least, should not include SPLC, except to explicate it as their viewpoint. Otheus 19:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Truth_Seeker 17:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I am talking specifically about the recent batch of attackers, some of whom actually "helped" edit this article. True Bill Cork may say it outright (though he has become a supporter of the recent batch). As to the Jewish ancestry, Sungenis states he asked all his attackers this to help determine if they are coming at him with a personal bias. Bill Cork does have personal Jewish bias, and states it, as do other supporters of the attack(i.e., Miesel, Scott). If a bunch of people attacked you as being anti-Russian, you may wonder if the attackers were Russian or biased towards Russians. I do not think it was to "poison the well" because I do not believe that Sungenis has any personal animus towards Jews. Clearly he is against what he sees as certain Zionist policies, Judaizing influences in the Church, etc., and he feels he can trace these issues to revelation concerning the Jews. Again, it is this attempt to apply these ideas to real, existing situations that causes much of the controversy. Truth_Seeker 19:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Acknowledged. Otheus 10:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Liam Patrick responds to Otheus

Otheus,

You have previously agreed that something needs to be in here making clear that Sungenis does not speak for the Catholic Church when it comes to his views on Jews (in particular, his opinion that they are trying to rule the world and the Church). As a Catholic, I can tell you that it is deeply offensive and wrong that he uses the name "Catholic" in the title of his organization (and here at Wikipedia, with a helpful link to send people [right to the website filled with the very things that seem to be off limits for Wikipedia to address]) while spreading his personal theories about Jews. He has a link to his website, prominently featuring the name "Catholic" here as well. By doing so, he appropriates some of the weight and respectability of the Church and uses it to his advantage. This is certainly one of the reasons why he didn't simply name his organization "Bob Sungenis Apologetics" or "Bob Sungenis' on Politics and Race"

There seems to be something seriously wrong, imo, with either the rules or the interpretation of the rules. From what I am reading here, Otheus, it would seem that I could fill an entire website with conspiracy theories about Jews, recommendations of David Duke, Mein Kampf, ritual murder of Jews and Wikipedia couldn't mention it unless some other 3rd party that met certain weightiness guidelines wrote about it. Is this what is being said? Maybe I'm misunderstanding, because that looks very unreasonable. —This is part of a comment by Liam Patrick , which was interrupted by the following:

Response. Yes, that is the case. Sometimes the guidelines appear unreasonable to me too. In this case, we're dealing with a mixed-gray area. Sungenis appears to be notable in his own right, and so this article is here. However, it's difficult to comment on his views without violating the core policy of "No Original Research". So that's why we're here -- to eliminate Original Research so that a neutral, reliable article can be read by others. --Otheus 16:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the idea of conspiracy theories and whether his views can be termed such, what else would you call them? Have you seen the documentation in his own words? He believes Jews are trying to rule the world and the Catholic Church. He has promoted the idea FDR let the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor because he was part-Jewish and thought it would help create the state of Israel. JFK was probably murdered by Zionist Jews. Monica Lewinsky was sent in by Zionist Jews after Clinton. The Holocaust itself was financed and partially orchestrated by Jews for the sake of creating Israel. Then there are his theories about Pope Paul VI's and his Jewish past and more. What do you objectively call all of these but conspiracy theories?

One man's dogma is another man's conspiracy theory. You really want an atheist's opinions on transubstantiation or the principle of Ex cathedra? :) Otheus 16:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

And Truth-seeker, you seem to be forgetting all the examples like this:

"95% of the Jews today still despise Jesus Christ.” here

“The charge of 'anti-Semitism' is nothing but a clever ploy…" here

“In fact, the concentration camps and genocide instigated by the Jewish communists in Russia against Christians and other groups dwarf those against the Jews in Nazi Germany. Hitler was merely modeling what was already practiced in Russia, a fact ignored by such Jewish authors as Daniel Goldhagen. Contrasted to the dozens of concentration camps in Hilter’s regime, the Russian Jews had thousands of such camps… but evidence of these camps have been systematically destroyed and their existence denied by the Jewish controlled media in Russia and the United States.” here

“A telltale sign in the movie industry of the shift in mores was demonstrated no better than in the Walt Disney Corporation. Founder Walter Disney was well-known in the 50s and 60s for wholesome family entertainment. Interestingly enough, Walt had a policy of not hiring Jewish people.” here

“Today we get deviant sexual advice from such Jewish matrons as Dr. Ruth Westheimer, and questionable behavioral advice from Dr. Laura Schlesinger, Ann Landers (formerly Esther Friedman Lederer) and her sister Abigail van Buren (Pauline Esther Friedman Phillips).” here

“Christianity is certainly not inherently violent, but unfortunately, Judaism tends to be, because real Judaism considers all non-Jews goyim that are less than animals, and this precipitates a loathing and violence against non-Jews.” here

"The Jews...do intend to rule the world. And now the problem is that they want to rule the Catholic Church, too." here

"Are the Protocols (of the Elders of Zion) forged? I don’t know. What I do know is that there is a lot of reason to believe that there are certain people, yes, the Jews, who would like us all to believe that they are forged." here

“When (Jews) come into power…they can be some of the most ruthless people on the face of the earth." here'

Examples could be multiplied.

And Truth-seeker, it looks to me like you are creating theories and judging motives here. For you, it seems to be just about Sungenis, and who is "attacking" him. They're all operating from malice against the poor man, right? Yet what he does to Jews is not attacking, right? It's all good-hearted. Well-intentioned. I suppose its just bringing out his deeply held beliefs. Matters of conviction and conscience, right?

Liam Patrick 23:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Liam Patrick responds to Otheus(2)

I finally did find a well-known, well-respected, objective third party that deals with Sungenis' website. Please read this:

Catholic Culture: [4]

Here is what they say:

WEAKNESSES
  • Example(s)
    • A tendency to rush to judgement and condemn others. (Fidelity)
  • Example(s)
    • · Some material is blatantly anti-semitic. (Fidelity)

They also write the following:

"Sungenis has elected to go beyond legitimate arguments about why the conversion of the Jews is a theologically legitimate objective. Instead, Sungenis has chosen to recycle the worst slurs and slanders in the anti-Semitic repertoire." here

Certainly this qualifies as an objective, sufficiently solid resource to note. And they call some of his material "blatantly anti-semitic"...among other things.

Liam Patrick 23:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It has already previously been linked in (by you I believe) and removed since it does not meet the guidelines for biographies of living persons. Truth_Seeker 00:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

T-S

No, I never even knew about it until yesterday. And do me a favor. Read who this is addressed to: OTHEUS. If you have comments, put them at the bottom rather than cutting up my post. Do you see this being addressed to you? Please restrain yourself. Thank you. Liam Patrick 16:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment Liam, while it's better if we keep to our own sections for now, just because you addressed something to me here does not mean T_S cannot comment. Otheus 15:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say he couldn't comment. But when he cuts up my posts like this it makes it far more difficult to follow what I am trying to communicate...especially when it isn't even directed to him. It's like interrupting someone else's conversation. I think common courtesy, if not wiki rules, would support that.
Liam Patrick 23:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
This is a privately run, biased website by someone who decides for themselves how to rate Catholic websites. They are not part of the Church and do not speak for the Church. On top of that it is factually wrong. FOr instance, Sungenis does not "constantly criticize the new mass", in fact he defends its validity. I could go on, but do not feel like getting angry. In a private website you can do what you want. On Wikipedia, there is policy regarding what you can say, and how to say it. Truth_Seeker 22:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Truthseeker,
LOL. How did I know that would be your response? Yes, we can advertise Sungenis's privately run website at Wikipedia, provide a nice link right at the top, use the Catholic name to do it and spread his views about Jews. But we can't talk about anything the vast majority of Catholics would obviously find seriously objectionable. Heavens no. What a nice system you've erected.
Response to Truth Seeker
  • The commentary is on the CAI site as a whole, not on Sungenis himself. The criticisms of the New Mass are demonstrated to be from other others, other than Sungenis. This undercuts your "factually wrong" objection.
  • "They do not speak for the Church". True, but that doesn't undercut it's neutrality or usefulness. If they did speak for the church, you might call into question its objectivity, since Sungenis takes issues with some of their views.
  • So far, unlike with the SPLC, I cannot see any reason to keep this website out of the article. However, I have asked several 3rd parties to comment. Otheus 15:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia chose to write an article about Sungenis. If they do they should link to his website. Truth_Seeker 00:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. Otheus 15:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
T-S Unless I am missing something, "Wikipedia" did not "choose to write an article about Sungenis". Someone, possibly Sungenis himself or one of his employees (or a supporter), chose to write the article in Wikipedia. The way it looks from the beginning would suggest a very friendly source.
Liam Patrick 16:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
It was started by Phil Porvaznik, who staretd a series of articles about Catholic apologists- Keating, Sungenis, Madrid (I think), maybe others. Truth_Seeker 16:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, then, so it wasn't "Wikipedia" who wrote it. And by the looks of it, he was a Sungenis supporter at least when he first put it up.
Liam Patrick 17:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Liam Patrick responds regarding the New Mass

Otheus, please, you must see that this is simply unacceptable.

Regarding the New Mass, it is only more recently that Sungenis changed his approach to the new mass. He wrote about his change in direction and you know it. So the material in that instance is a little dated, that's all. Regarding Jews, he has written more and more of these kinds of things. So, if anything, Catholic Culture was under-evaluating what he has said about Jews because it was written a while ago. Your attempt to discredit Catholic Culture on this point is not valid.

Robert Sungenis, as far as I know, has never stated that the new mass is not valid. As long as I have known of him (~2003), he has attended the new mass. His change in direction was not regarding accepting the new mass, he always has. It involved being more cautious about criticizing John Paul II, amongst other things. Sungenis has always held that Vat. II is valid, and has continually stuck up for it, even against some traditionalists who discredit it. Truth_Seeker 00:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

T-S,

Where does the Catholic Culture website ever say that Sungenis said the New Mass is invalid? I don't see it.

Liam Patrick 16:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You understandably don't like their evaluation.

I think it is rubbish, but that is my personal opinion. Truth_Seeker 00:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

T-S...not surprising. Of course you do. But if you look around this certainly reflects a prett broad consensus of those who know about him. You have a very minority opinion. My perception? Yes, but one that is not difficult to back up.

Liam Patrick 16:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, you don't seem to see the irony in your complaint. Does Sungenis officially speak for the Catholic Church? Is he a bishop? A priest? No. So if you are going to be consistent, then either you need to pull EVERYTHING about Sungenis's website (including the helpful link to send them there) or include this material from Petersnet. They are ecclesiastical equals. Peers. You can't have it both ways. Or at least I hope Wikipedia will not allow it. That would be a travesty. —This is part of a comment by Liam Patrick , which was interrupted by the following:

Again, Wikipedia chose to write and article about him. He did not petition for it. If you are going to write a bio of a living person, you need to find reliable third party info. or use the material written by the person, or both. Catholic Culture.org is not a reliable third party. They have a clear bias. And yes, so does Robert Sungenis and hbis website, but the article is about him. Have you even bothered to read the policy? Truth_Seeker 00:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

removed redundant post to thread about creation of article, above Otheus 15:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

And can't you see that on the face of it, this is ridiculous? By what you are saying, a person could go on and on about the beauty of Nazism on his website, call for the extermination of Jews, and no one could touch it at Wikipedia with a ten foot pole unless what you call a reliable third party writes about it. That's ridiculous.....oh, unless it's something that his advocates find helpful to market him, that is. Furthermore, I did find a recommendation for a criticism of Sungenis' work on Jews by a VERY credible organization, Catholics United for the Faith. The fact that they recommended it and linked to it should say something important. But you even shot that down because you claim it's just a ruse to pass through to a non-approved site. That's your opinion and I think you're stretching the rules. Where does it say that this is strictly off limits. I want to see it, verbatim Truth-seeker, not you reading into motives and stretching. If it's there black and white, fine.

And so, why did they recommend the information that is highly critical of Sungenis about how he deals with Jews? They endorse it. The endorsement of a criticism of Sungenis by a very credible third party strikes me a legitimate. Again, I think you're stretching the rules, there. The link is to a very reputable third party that recommended a criticism of Sungenis about Jews.

Liam Patrick 23:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

OTHEUS:

Please notice that I have made more than one entry above. There is a very long one under "Response to Otheus" as well.

thank you.

Liam Patrick 23:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Response by Otheus

Liam Patrick,

I will need more time to review your lengthy posts. But for now, you have met the requirement of providing a reliable secondary source which can be used to label Sungenis' remarks as anti-semitic. Note, however, two things.

First, the site's review is balanced -- it lists pros and cons of Sungenis' site, which is the most important thing for a secondary source. But the thing that makes this a "reliable source" is from their "About page"[5] mentions they maintain a review of over 500 sites and a library of over 5000 documents. This indicates this is not a single-purpose site dedicated to taking down anything in particular, and that their views encompass a range of sites. Their "about" page clearly discloses the mission/goal of the site which is to communicate on Catholic matters. In sum, this cite is not of the polemical sort found in blogs or the SPLC site. I acknowledge that this site does not "speak for the Church", but that's irrelevant; we don't need Papal authority to count as a reliable source.

Second, what I would expect as "blatant anti-semitism", to use the site's terminology, is someone saying something like "all Jews are evil and just want to get you" or slightly more mildly, "The Jews just want your money", which one hundred years ago in Germany, was tehcnically true since they were effectively banned from any other kind of endeavor, but is not true today. So when the website cites supporting evidence from Sungenis' writings, the quote they used hardly seems "blatantly anti-semitic" — until you come across the last sentence: "When they have succeeded, then [the Jews] will persecute the very Catholic Church that helped them gain their land, for Judaism, as has been historically true, can have no competitors." Certainly, anytime someone characterizes the motivations of an entire people by their ethnic identity, they are engaging in a vile form of polemicism; but when one predicts such a group will act with malice, one is clearly engaging in anti-racial discourse. Had Sungenis consistently used the term "Judaism" instead of "the Jews", then this would be a matter of culture and not ethnicity. But he mixes the two terms which means either he is confused, or he honestly thinks his readers won't be.

This is progress, but I urge Liam to find more reliable sources. Meanwhile, to Truth Seeker, you will need to find some reliable sources that present the kind of balance you desire to the article... although, I'm not sure yet what that would entail. Question to Truth Seeker: do you agree with my two points above?

Otheus 15:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Though,in a quick overview , the site seems a reasonable Catholic site (I still persoanlly disagree with the review), it does not meet the criteria for a "thrid party source". It is biased (as it should be- it is a Catholic oriented site, and skewed to the view of its president,Dr. Jeffry Mirus, just like Sungenis and CAI). Also, I do not know if CUF has the authority or expertise to label someone an "anti-semite" (I do not feel anyone really does, except in cases where it is unquestionable- i.e. neo-Nazis, self described white supremacists, etc.). Truth_Seeker 17:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Good. So what we'll do is include this source in an RFC (see WP:Request for Comments). We'll ask the community to comment on whether this source and its link is appropriate for this article. Now, about CUF, that seems to be a separate matter. We can also include this site in the RFC, but it's not clear what the point of that would be. Liam and I are discussing whether or not their "recommendation" of the jewsandsungenis site is even noteworthy.Otheus 10:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I suspect most of my balance will have to come from Sungenis himself. This si allowed ber the BLP guidelines. I do not believe Sungenis meets the standards for a "public person" (BLP), and thus less, not more should be said about him, especially controversial charges And anything that is said should come from "disinterested third party sources". Truth_Seeker 17:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Support, in principle, at least. Of course, if someone thinks he's an anti-semite, does that rule out the possibility of our using their statement, because now he/she is no longer a "disinterested third party"? But so far it sounds like you and Liam are both agree on the principle of less not more, and so I suggest you take a shot at providing your proposed wording in the section provided below. Otheus 10:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Responses by Liam Patrick

Otheus, you've hit on a key element here. And there are many more examples I've ::produced from his writings. Again, here are a few:—This is part of a comment by Liam Patrick , which was interrupted by the following:
Hi Liam, while I do appreciate your input, you've got to help cut down on the amount of material on this page. I've done a controversial thing, and removed material which you already posted. I hope you won't find fault in this. Otheus 15:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
See here removed redundantly posted info Otheus 15:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
These are the kinds of things the man believes and propagates. If there is nothing to honestly address this, Wikipedia will be guilty of helping to white-wash and spread what I'm confident the vast majority of people would consider anti-Semitism(including Catholics!)...all under the name "Catholic". Can you understand my reaction and why Catholics might consider that so deeply offensive and harmful? Protection of reputations and people is a two way street. Sungenis is one man. Wikipedia cannot, at least ethically, be more concerned about him than those he attacks with under the guise of religion with these kind of repeated smears.
I hope you agree.
And Truth-seeker, if you have a comment about what I'm writing...again, please put it below and don't carve up my post with your edits. This is not addressed to you. Thank you.
Support. Yes, Truth-seeker, it would be better for now if we compartmentalized the statements. Otheus 15:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Although, let me ask you both this question: where can we find a credible, disinterested third party source (by the same exacting standards) that endorses Sungenis' work on Jews, especially a Catholic one? Ferrara doesn't count. Sungenis is an apologist for him. Although, Otheus, if you read carefully, you will notice Ferrara conspicuously says that "virtually" none of those people the SPLC went after were anti-Semitic. "Virtually", not all. Sungenis is singled out as the worst on that list. The lack of any defense of Sungenis is especially telling. These two men are associates. Sungenis sells Ferrara's tapes. He's an apologist for Ferrara. Why not a peep?
And the article you mentioned, written by Matt Abbott (not John Grasmeier) at the beginning of your offer to mediate does not really defend Sungenis at all, Otheus. He focuses completely on an errant photo and how careless it was. Not exactly a serious defense against the charge of anti-Semitism.
Sungenis writes for the Remnant. So that's no good. Obviously, can't be a friend/associate...too biased. Can't be an organization that has staked out its own anti- semitic agenda, either. And even against SPLC, Karl Keating did not defend Sungenis. And of course, the source needs to be balanced. See what you can find.
Liam Patrick 16:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Additional clarification from Otheus requested:

Otheus, T-S rejected this link to an extremely well-known and respected organization because he thought it was just a ruse to get to an un-acceptable website. But take a look at this website and link. It is absolutely clear that this organization, Catholics United for the Faith, is also expressing its concern about Sungenis when it comes to Jews. There is certainly at least SOMETHING noteworthy in here. The fact that it is in the context of recommending a link to a website Wikipedia might not consider good enough to be directly linked to itself doesn't seem to rule out the Catholics United for the Faith page, imo. If it does, please explain why. I would like to see the literal rule against this. Here's what Catholics United for the Faith wrote:

Notice:

  • a)They call it a "reliable source" here (the website Robert Sungenis and the Jews): [6]
  • b) "New Website Launched
    As a public service to our members, we provide the following link to CUF member Michael Forrest's website www.sungenisandthejews.com. The site was posted in response to the problematic approach taken by Catholic Apologetics International in its treatment of Jewish issues. Mr. Forrest has developed the site in an effort to provide some clarity and guidance for Catholics seeking the truth about Jewish issues." [7]

CUF is not a one-issue place at all. They are widely esteemed and cover the gambit when it comes to the Catholic Church. Look at them. See what you think.

Liam Patrick 03:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Liam, I am sorry, but I cannot see this as a reliable source, even though it has some level of endorsement from other sources. Just because CUF announces the launch of the site or refers to it does not mean they endorse its contents. Further, it does not appear that CUF (as a whole) has editorial overview of this material. It is essentially a collection of self-published essays that do not meet the criteria for inclusion in a "BLP" article. (Again, review the WP:BLP guidelines.) Though the author has a seemingly good intent to cover Sungenis' writings, it does not present a journalistic nor scholarly standard. If you can prove otherwise, then we can consider it. Otheus 16:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Otheus, I think you misunderstood. I am not asking for a link to the Sungenis and the Jews website. I am asking for a link to Catholics United for the Faith. On their website, they themselves called Sungenis' treatment of Jewish issues "problematic". It does not say that Forest considers him "problematic" when it comes to Jews. They wrote it themselves. Now, aside from that first point, they also say the website it "recommended". If it is recommended, then why would you think they are not endorsing it? I don't follow. As I read, I came across documentation that this was a big decision at CUF made at the top. Sungenis went after Leon Supernant because he himself made the decision to recommend the work of www.sungenisandthejews.com. If you need the proof, I think I can find it again.
Ah, so it's a link to the CUF that should be included. I'm open to that. As far as endorsement, this is tricky: They endorse the website, but that doesn't mean they endorse its content. Maybe I'm splitting too fine a hair here, but to me, that they consider the site "recommended" does not mean we can or should include that site's contents here. However, if they do have editorial oversight and clearly state this, then the site can be included along with CUF (assuming TS agrees to CUF). Otheus 10:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
But regardless, we are agreed that it needs to be clear that Sungenis does not speak for the Catholic community nor the Church when it comes to his anti-Semitic ideas and statements, right? And we are agreed that Catholic Culture meets the standard so far.
BTW...no problem removing the redundant material. I just didn't know if you saw it.
I would still appreciate your reaction.
I also haven't gotten any feedback about another point (at least I think so). At least from what I'm reading, a person could put up loads of Nazi propaganda, call for Jews to be killed on their website and Wikipedia could provide a nice link to and a quasi-advertisement for their work to lead people to the material. But any statments about the nature of the material (even quotes from the site itself) are off limits at Wikipedia unless a third party of certain somewhat subjective standards is found. That doesn't seem reasonable. So I would appreciate some interaction with this point.
I responded here. Not surprised you missed it. One way to look for responses is to click on the History tab of the talk page. Of course, with so much going on here, it's easy to miss a few things that way, too. Welcome! Otheus 10:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you.

Liam Patrick 18:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for Jewsish Controversy section

by Liam Patrick

Robert Sungenis has publicly espoused many positions in regard to Jews. However, beginning with an article dated September 2, 2002 (give link to article), Sungenis began taking some increasingly controversial positions that have been termed "blatantly anti-semitic" (links to Catholic Culture and SPLC) and that are neither generally accepted in the Catholic community nor approved by the Catholic Church. Sungenis completely denies the characterization of his views as anti-semitic (source to Sungenis denial?).

Comments

I think this is very brief and fair. Reactions?

Liam Patrick 18:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll withhold for now until I see TruthSeeker's attempt. Otheus 10:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

by Truth Seeker

Here is my proposed statement built upon Liam's:

Robert Sungenis has publicly espoused many positions in regard to Jews. However, beginning with an article dated September 2, 2002 (give link to article), Sungenis began taking some positions that, by his own admission, have led to charges of anti-semitism [8]. Sungenis completely denies the characterization of his views as anti-semitic, claims that a smear campaign is ocurring [9], states that he "loves the Jews and wants them all to convert to the Catholic faith" (Danmark interview- I need to find the right one), and states he has "no animosity towrds the Jews" [10]. He sums up his religous reasons for being critical of certain aspects of Jewish thought in the introduction of an essay [11].

We cannot state that "...are neither generally accepted in the Catholic community nor approved by the Catholic Church..." as this is Liam's opinion. Obviously Sungenis and others disagree, and also, it depends on which specific position. We also do not need to state "increasingly controversial positions ", as Liam has not demonstrated that Sungenis' position was changing.

My latest proposal allows Robert Sungenis tell all, including the fact that he is accused of anti-semitism. Therefor we have no issues of using potentially unsuitable sources.

Truth_Seeker 16:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to add a thought- if this were not a biography of a living person, the website (CUF) proposed by Liam would be fine, but since it is , and it is very contentious, we need to take extra caution. Truth_Seeker 18:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


Otheus refactors discussion

The original text can be found here. I am refactoring this because of the need to expedite this process and because of the impossibility of responding to a threaded discussion. I need to get a handle on the views here, which is impossible unless I refactor. See WP:REFACTOR. --Otheus 16:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Abbreviations used:

TS  
Truth Seekertalk
TSP 
TS's proposal for the Jewish Controversy section, as found here
LP  
Liam Patricktalk
LPP 
LP's proposal for the Jewish Controversy section, as found here
CAI 
Is Robert Sungenis' website and organization, Catholic Apologetics International
SAJ 
Stands for a website named "sungenisandthejews.org" or ".com" which is a retort by Catholics to some of Sungenis' positions.
CUF 
Is a Catholic organization and its affiliated website which has a link to the SAJ site.

Convention: Where possible, I used the authors' original wording, if slightly rephrased for clarity. When I introduce wording which my alter the meaning, they are put in [brackets] to make this distinction. Where things are unclear or unambiguous to me, I have enclosed question marks in brackets, [???]. Redactions comments made by me <are in angle-brackets>.

LPs response to TS's proposal (refactored)

LP responds to TS's proposal (the TSP) [18:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)]:

  1. It is filled with propaganda because it is so filled with defense of Sungenis
  2. It links, quotes, and provides argumentation from Sungenis'
  3. Per above, linking and quoting from Sungenis would [compel] LP to respond with quotes of his own; this [tit for tat] is what got us into trouble in the first place.
  4. It [omits] third-party links, which Otheus already said were permissible, and [in their place], substituted Sungenis' own writing on the issue, cherry-picking [quotes].
  5. TS should find a third party who is not directly related to [Sungenis or CAI] and who defends Sungenis' views and is credible
  6. TS uses Sungenis [quotes] when those works for TS, and TS ignores [or marginalizes] [quotes] when they don't.
  7. TS's addition that Sungenis is claiming that a "smear campaign" is being waged against him is "out of bounds":
    1. The "campaign" to which TS refers has nothing to do with what is being written about in this entry.
    2. There is no reference to the people TS [is presumably] referencing, such as Mark Shea, Dr. Cork, Sandra Meisal, Jacob Michaels, etc
    3. There is no legitimate reason to reference it solely from Sungenis' POV.
    4. If Sungenis' original argumentation and opinion can be referenced, then there needs to be something [from] the other side
  8. This [article] is not the place to promote Sungenis' original argumentation: A link to where Sungenis denies being anti-semitic would be one thing; however, this is well beyond that.
  9. Sungenis' website does not meet Wikipedia standards for source material.
  10. TS objected to the statement [from LPP] that Sungenis' views "are neither generally accepted in the Catholic community nor approved by the Catholic Church".
    1. The second statement "nor approved by the Catholic Church" is not an opinion.
    2. If Sungenis has received approval for his work in this area, then TS should produce the evidence, [such as] an endorsement [from] his diocesan website, [or] imprimaturs or nihil obstats for what he has written about Jews.
      1. TS's diocese website does not mention Sungenis or CAI, though there are Catholic Organizations that it does name and link to. [12] [19:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)]
    3. TS previously rejected and then accepted "not generally accepted in the Catholic apologetics community", but now TS [apparently] rejects the first statement, "not generally accepted in the Catholic community". Has TS changed his mind?
    4. Otheus has agreed that it is proper to make clear that Sungenis does not speak for the Catholic Church or the Catholic Community when it comes to Sungenis controversial personal views on Jews.
    5. <omitting somewhat uncivil remark>
    6. <omitting hypothetical hyperbolic analogy to Mein Kampf>
    7. Wikipedia should not become accomplice to Sungenis' use of the name "Catholic" to gain credibility and then draw people in to his Jewish garbage
  11. TS [omits] the word "controversial". TS previously accepted this. Has TS changed his mind?
  12. Most Catholics would find my proposal (LPP) to be extremely charitable.
  13. TS's complaint that the CUF site is too "contentious" is not reasonable. <evidence to be refactored below> [19:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)]

TS interjections (refactored)

TS interjects several times into LP's response above. [19:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)] and as clarified [18:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)] [13]:
At point 2

  1. Wiki policy permits linking to Sungenis' site
  2. Wiki policy permits the staements of the subject to be used in the articles.
  3. If no reliable third-party, disinterested sources are used, the subject's own statements are the safest material to use

At points 4 and 5, TS interjects [19:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)]:

  1. Otheus is not the final determiner of wiki policy. (Comment by Otheus: TS means that Otheus does not have the final say on what constitutes a reliable, disinterested source, which is true. Otheus 14:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC))
  2. Sungenis [acknowledges] that he is accused of Anti-semitism
  3. All other sources which refer to Sungenis [as anti-semitic] are biased
  4. It is therefore safer [via WP:BLP]to use Sungenis' acknowledgement

Concerning point 7, TS states:

  1. I am willing to remove [the "smear campaign"] line. I condede that this may be OR
  2. I will reconsider if other parties [or sites] (ie, SAJ) are mentioned

Concerning point 8, TS argues:

  1. The whole article is about Sungenis and his positions:
    1. The article is not merely why Sungenis is "bad".
    2. It is not only fair that his position be stated, [but that this should be done in the interests of balance].
  2. I am moving towards a minimal, but fair statement, [as we have all agreed upon].

Concerning point 10.2.1, TS argues:

  1. Sungenis has received nihil obstaat and imprimatur on some of his books, and by default they do deal with Jewish issues.
  2. Just because the diocese of Harrisburg lists a site does not imply its ecclesiastic approval
  3. Just because it does not list a site does not imply disapproval
  4. It is not the responsibility of this article to determine whether Sungenis speaks for the Church; I am not claiming Robert speaks for the Church, and LP should not try to prove that he is not (in this article).
  5. <clarified> It is irrelevant to argue whether or not Sungenis speaks (officially) for the Church:
    1. Sungenis does not speak for the chuch
    2. Most apologists do not speak for [their] church
    3. No other apologist in wikipedia has that statement attributed to him/her

On point 11, TS proposes:

  1. Not necassarily all Sungenis' positions on the Jews would be considered controversial by all Catholics or even Catholic apologists
  2. [Therefore], I do not mind your "controversial", but [propose] "some of his views are controversial"?

After the initial refactoring, TS made some "Additional Comments":

  1. This article qualifies as a Biography of a Living Person and we [should understand that policy].
  2. Being accused of anti-semitism is extremely ugly and not well defined.
  3. I propose that if [any article includes charges of] anti-semitism, then a concise definition of anti-semitism be created and linked to, and if it is multi-point, the points being applied be cited. <Comment by Otheus: TS: see antisemitism>
  4. Living persons can be greatly affected by charges of anti-semitism
  5. There is a difference between one being anti-semitic, and stating unpopular and possibly even offensive conclusions that were made based on doctrinal, ecclesiastic, patristic, etc. research
  6. Sungenis is not a white supremacist nor a neo-Nazi, and while the defintion of anti-semitism extends beyond these groups, strongly expressing such attrbutes to a living person [should not be done] in Wikipedia unless they clearly and unquestionably are demonstrated in disinterested, third party sources.
  7. This article should not be used as [an ideological] battleground for the Catholic Church's [attitudes, past and present] regarding Jews and Judaism
  8. I am open to some general statement that some Catholics find some of Sungenis' views controversial, but not to assign truth to one side [or the other]
  9. LP asserts that :
    1. Most Catholics disagree with Sungneis
    2. Therefore, Wikipedia has a responsibility to the public to point this fact out
  10. It has not been established that most Catholics disagree
    1. Many Catholics [do] find [much of what Sungenis says to be] controversial, and likely do not understand.
  11. There are NOT a preponderance of third party sources speaking about Sungenis
    1. Therefore Sungenis is not a public person
    2. The motto "Do No Harm" (BLP) should be adhered to.
    3. The "Do No Harm" motto indiactes disallows "cherry picking" his worst one-liners to create a short and distorted picture of Sungenis' views
    4. [Using Sungenis's own words to] state that he is under attack for anti-semitism is suficient to establish that fact

<That's it for now. Please comment below on any inaccuracies you find on the present state of refactoring. Yes, there is more work to do with follow-up arguments, but I am needed at home. I will return in about 2 hours. >
IGF, Otheus 17:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Liam Patrick Clarification of Refactor

1) TS would not be so quick to judge whether or not the Church is in agreement with Sungenis' controversial and inflammatory views.

Where and when has the Church ever said that Jews are trying to take over the world and the Catholic Church?

Where and when has the Church ever said that real Jews tend to be violent?

Should I go through the list again? TS shifts the field of play to those places where Sungenis is on less controversial ground. The things he focuses on are not the issue here. Otheus has agreed that at least some of what Sungenis writes can reasonably be described as anti-Semitic.


3) Definition of anti-Semitism. Here is the OED (Oxford English Dictionary) definition:

Oxford English Dictionary: Theory, action, or practice directed against the Jews. Hence anti-'Semite, one who is hostile or opposed to the Jews; anti-Se'mitic

4) Otheus, I have not seen an answer to this point: Does it strike you as legitimate for TS to expend so much effort down-playing and covering over what Sungenis is obviously very committed to and bold about? His website is filled with comments and positions about Jews, as I've documented.

My point is, on what rational basis do we conclude that SUNGENIS HIMSELF considers these statements harmful to him (the quotes about Jews ruling the world, etc)? If he thought these repeated statements were so bad, then why do they remain prominently on his website? Why does he defend these statements?

5) The third parties who have written about Sungenis (Catholic Culture and CUF in particular, possibly also SPLC) and that have been agreed to by Otheus need to be accepted. To allow Sungenis alone to spin this controversy and what he has objectively written is unreasonable.

I provided documentation that the president of Catholics United for the Faith knowingly provided a recommendation to www.sungenisandthejews.com and that CUF itself described Sungenis work on Jews as "problematic." In Sungenis' own record of his correspondence with Leon Supernant (pres. of CUF), Supernant labels some of Sungenis' material anti-semitic. There can be no reasonable doubt that CUF sees things this way and has made it known.

6) I already agreed that any organization that has the name "Catholic" in it should provide some kind of evidence that they are approved. If they are not, then a disclaimer does belong in there, regardless of who is using the name. But yes, how much more so when one writes the kind of controversial things Sungenis writes. It's not right to use the name "Catholic" to draw people in and then proceed to lay out personal conspiracy theories about Jews...or anyone.

7) I agree that not all of Sungenis' position about Jews are seen as controversial. Many are, or at the very least, some are.

8) Michael Hoffman II and Michael Collins Piper both have the word "conspiracy theorist" in their wiki-articles. Sungenis admits that he is a fan of Piper's, he has used Hoffman's work on Jewish issues...why should it be difficult to admit that he is a fellow conspiracy theorist? Some of his ideas come directly from other conspiracy theorists.

9) Barring some kind of direct recognition that others have judged his work to be anti-semitic, I might be persuaded to accept a listing of some of his ideas, including the most controversial. And then, some kind of acknowledgement of his stated resources when it comes to Jews. The advantage of this approach is that one can come to one's own judgment as to whether his work is objectionable or not. But according to Wiki policy, I think we have to go with the secondary sources. I've been hammered over and over about this by TS and it seems unreasonable to then turn around and ignore all of that now because I finally found reasonable sources that TS doesn't like. So, my leaning is "no."

10) TS is wrong. I am not trying to "assign truth to one side." I'm trying to make sure that this does not become a nifty marketing tool for Sungenis that white-washes his work, at the expense of the Church and all the people he attacks. And I am documenting my claims with facts from others and Sungenis' own articles.

Liam Patrick 20:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Brief TS rejoinder to LP Response to TS

1)I agreed some of his positions are controversial. Cherry picking quotes is not fair, and will require adding context. We could go back to where we started.

2) missing

3) I am sorry, LP, your definition would end up fitting Jesus and many of the prophets. And, yes, Jews can be anti-semtitic, this is usually referred to as a self-hating Jew. My understanding (which may be wrong as I do not see it in the wiki article) is that the ADL uses this term.

4) I am sure that Sungenis is not pleased to be called an anti-semite.

5)"Catholic Culture and CUF in particular, possibly also SPLC" are secondary sources, but not unbiased third parties.

6)You may hold that opinion. It is not a Wiki policy. I am Catholic, and feel free to create a website containing the name. It does not mean I speak for the Church, but it may mean I am a speaking Catholic.

7) Thanks.

8) Michael Hoffman II and Michael Collins Piper also have footnotes leading to third party sources stating so. In fact per BLP, the sentence should read "such and such a source" states that ________ is a conspiracy theorist.

9) Again, I posited that as the other option (i.e., go back to where we started).

10) I accept that I may have mis-stated your motive. That was the impresssion I got.

Truth_Seeker 21:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


Response from LP

1) Regarding the definition of anti-Semitism, your problem is with the dictionary, not with me. It is not "my definition", TS. If you know anything about English and dictionaries then you know that the OED is probably considered the most authoritative English dictionary on the planet.

Oxford English Dictionary

If you know any English teachers or professors, ask them. Would you like me to produce many more such definitions from other dictionaries?

Where are your authoritative sources saying that the OED is wrong or a definition you believe absolutely excludes Sungenis' writings?

2) Regarding Sungenis and the label anti-semitic, let's be clear. Contrary to what you just wrote above (point #4), no one has proposed that the article identify Sungenis as an anti-semite. I agree that Sungenis probably doesn't like the label. But the issue is: by the most widely accepted objective standards, is at least some of his material reasonably identified as such? I think the answer is clearly, yes, and Otheus also expressed agreement. And now we have acceptable secondary sources who believe so as well, from CUF to Catholic Culture to SPLC.

It has less than a positive appearance when it was you that pressed so hard for secondary sources and standards according to wiki policy in the first place. Now I have what I was forced to find (after much effort), and the rules change again? Not fair. Not reasonable.

3) Catholic Culture and Catholics United for the Faith are highly respected, legitimate sources, TS. They do not operate with an agenda either for or against Sungenis. I agree SPLC looks to have a bias, but so what? They're a huge organization designed specifically to deal with this very kind of issue and they certainly qualify under wiki guidelines to be included. You can't disquality them because they come from a different viewpoint. What you could do is include qualifying language about their secular, more liberal nature. I have no idea how you would try to marginalize CUF. They are as mainstream and respectable as they come. Catholic Culture is also hardly an organization with an anti-Sungenis agenda or myopia, either (another point Otheus agreed with).

4)Regading Hoffman and Piper, regardless of how it should or should not be done technically, the fact is, they are identified with the phrase "conspiracy theorist". If Sungenis openly admits these are some of his favored sources on his theories about Jews, then of course he is a conspiracy theorist, too. How is he not? All one need to is link to the times where he acknowledges these men as his sources and then link to the sources that identify these men as conspiracy theorists.

5) I want to hear from Otheus before going back to where we started. You insisted I jump through a lot of hoops, TS, holding to the most rigorous interpretation of wiki policy and now I have, according to Otheus. So the idea of returning to how the entry was before (which Otheus previously said was not acceptable) is more than a little frustrating. I've played along with this, doing what was required...and not easy. It strikes me as a bit unseemly to now basically say, "nah, let's forget all that."

Frankly, I think arbitration may have to be the answer because you've already shown a ready willingness to disregard what this mediator says. Why should I go to all this effort when it looks like you will accept the mediation of Otheus if it works to your advantage but reject it if it doesn't? I can tell you that I most certainly have found some of this wrong and yet I've jumped through the hoops I was told I had to jump through.

It's about enough at this point, honestly. So, I need to hear from Otheus. I don't have the time or desire to continue what may be a pointless exercise and it shouldn't be a matter of attrition that decides the issue.

So I put it to you plainly, TS: If Otheus agrees that the links to Catholic Culture, CUF and or SPLC are legit are you going to reject it regardless of what else is in the article?

Liam Patrick 22:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

A very Brief counter-counter Reply from TS

"4)Regading Hoffman and Piper, regardless of how it should or should not be done technically, the fact is, they are identified with the phrase "conspiracy theorist". If Sungenis openly admits these are some of his favored sources on his theories about Jews, then of course he is a conspiracy theorist, too. How is he not?"

Liam- this is textbook definition of guilt by association. Sungenis only praised the research of Piper in regard to a single specific book, which Sungenis states did not reach a definitive conclusion (re: the assasination of Kennedy with involvement of the Mossad, etc.). As for Hoffman, he has many disagreements with him, but appreciates some of his research. Truth_Seeker 23:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

5) I want to hear from Otheus before going back to where we started. You insisted I jump through a lot of hoops, TS, holding to the most rigorous interpretation of wiki policy and now I have, according to Otheus. So the idea of returning to how the entry was before (which Otheus previously said was not acceptable) is more than a little frustrating. I've played along with this, doing what was required...and not easy. It strikes me as a bit unseemly to now basically say, "nah, let's forget all that."

Liam- I have always claimed you need disinterested third party sources. Otheus is the one who started talking about secondary sources. These are not the same thing.
And you also proposed possibly going back. None of us want that.
Truth_Seeker 23:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"Frankly, I think arbitration may have to be the answer..."

Liam- We are sort of in in arbitration. Be a little patient. Truth_Seeker 23:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Let's wait and see what Otheus comes back with, I agree. Truth_Seeker 23:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

A Reply from LP

1) This is not guilt by association, TS. Guilt by association:

The attribution of guilt (without proof) to individuals because the people they associate with are guilty
Princeton University
Guilt by association, also known as the bad company fallacy or the company that you keep fallacy, is the logical fallacy of claiming that something must be false because of the people or organisations who support it. Some examples are:* Atheism must be wrong — Karl Marx and Stalin were atheists, and just look at them.* Osama bin Laden is a Muslim, so Islam is an evil religion.* Catholic priests molest children, so Catholicism is evil.
Wikipedia

Sungenis actively seeks out and uses their work. There is a fundamental difference. If he merely were friends with Piper or Hoffman and never endorsed or used their work, and someone called him a conspiracy theorist based on that alone, THAT would be guilt by association. Their association is precisely over Jewish issues, conspiracies and the writings they have done in that area.

2) Why can't you answer the question, TS? Will you accept what Otheus has to say or not? Your avoidance of the question doesn't exactly lead me to want to continue this. Just answer the question, please.

3) Any rejoinder regarding the def. of anti-semitism?

4) This is not "sort of arbitration", TS. Read what arbitration is. It differs from mediation.

Liam Patrick 23:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

One more comment from TS

"3) Any rejoinder regarding the def. of anti-semitism?" "Theory, action, or practice directed against the Jews. Hence anti-'Semite, one who is hostile or opposed to the Jews; anti-Se'mitic"


Is Jesus Christ and Antisemite? (from John 8, NAB):

41...They said to Him, "We were not born of fornication; (B)we have one Father: God."

42Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, (C)you would love Me, (D)for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have (E)not even come on My own initiative, but (F)He sent Me.

43"Why do you not understand (G)what I am saying? It is because you cannot (H)hear My word.

44"(I)You are of (J)your father the devil, and (K)you want to do the desires of your father (L)He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because (M)there is no truth in him Whenever he speaks a lie, he (N)speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.


I'm not trying to be smart, nor insulting towards non-Christians, but I am pointing out that your simple definition is not sufficient for labeling someone an Antisemite. Clearly Jesus "acted" against some Jews, and was "hostile" towards them.

Be patient, see what Otheus proposes. Truth_Seeker 23:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

One more comment from LP

1) TS, I am going to assume you have no idea how blasphemous and disturbing what you have just written is. All over an effort to protect Sungenis, no less. Is there anything you are unwilling to do in that which you think aids him?

Of course what Christ said was not anti-semitic. He is God Himself, a Jew and knows the hearts and minds of all people. If you are a Catholic (are you? Maybe I've assumed wrongly...if not, that would give you a legitimate excuse) then you know this and should agree with it. Do either you or Sungenis claim to know the hearts of men? To even make this comparison is extremely distasteful and offensive, at least if you are Christian.

Even so, neither the Catholic Church nor even Christ treated all Jews as one block but Sungenis has. As Otheus noted, he has labeled them all in some of his accusations. Conversely, I noticed how TS wrote that Jesus acted agaisnt "some" Jews. A very important difference. The definition from O.E.D says "the Jews", not "some Jews." I would add, Christ didn't use white supremacists, conspiracy theorists and others of that ilk to act against Jews. He didn't use manufactured or altered writing to attack, either. The comparison is perverse.

2) And you need to stop identifying this as "my definition" or my "simple" definition of anti-semitism. Why do you continue to do this? I know it may help to paint this as a he-said she-said matter of opinion, but it's not true. So again: Where are your authoritative sources for a definition of Antisemitism that definitively exclude Sungenis or that contradict the O.E.D? I can provide a slew of them just like the O.E.D. if necessary.

3) No answer from you on guilt by association. Do you agree this is not such a case now?

Last, why do you keep admonishing patience over a very simple question, TS? What is stopping you from saying forthrightly one way or the other as to whether you will accept Otheus' recommendation? I'm sorry, but it looks increasingly like you are just using this to the extent that it will help you and if true, that's dishonest.

If it's not true, then just answer the question.

Liam Patrick 00:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Another TS response

Thank you for agreeing with me. Of course Christ is not Antisemitic (certainly not as the term is used today), and yes he was Jewish (I pointed out that that alone does not generally exclude someone from a charge of anti-semitism). My point, using an extreme example, is to demonstrate that the definition you used is not worthy of being applied to any human being- living, dead, or God himself. Before labeling anyone with the label "anti-semitic", which is an extremely serious charge as it is used and understood today (regardless of the infantile simplest possible dictionary definition- and stop hiding behind dictionaries anyway) you had better be very sure of yourself. And Wikipedia has very specific policies to deal with Biographies of Living Persons specifically because of issues such as this. Sure the dictionary can reduce the definition to the simplest form, but that reduction is not proportionate to the effect felt by a person labeled as such, in today's society as used and understood by the average person.

And yes, I am Catholic.

"What is stopping you from saying forthrightly one way or the other as to whether you will accept Otheus' recommendation?"

I am still waiting to see it. Again, please be patient.

Truth_Seeker 00:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


Response to TS =

1) I've noticed you have yet to provide an authoritative definition from any source at all, let alone one that exonerates Sungenis, TS. Why is that? It's remarkable to me that you can call the providing of authoritative sources "hiding" while you have yet to provide anything at all beyond your personal say-so.

Now, how about this source, TS? Wikipedia Should we now expect you to say that even wikipedia's own explanation of anti-semitism is off-limits?

2) You are shifting the field, yet again. NO ONE has said to label Sungenis as an anti-semite or anti-semitic. We are talking about things on his website.

3) I know Jesus Christ, and Robert Sungenis is no Jesus Christ. Your comparison is insulting to God and incredibly offensive. It is perverse to imply that what is legitimate for God is also legitimate for man. Should we expect you next to defend Sungenis should he decide to go on a shooting rampage because God sometimes wiped out whole towns? After all, what is murder? How do we KNOW that it was murder? For all we know, maybe he had a word of knowledge from God that these were bad people who needed to be killed. Maybe he really loved them. Hey, maybe Charles Manson didn't really commit murder, too. By whose definition, TS? Now, don't hide behind simplistic silly dictionary definitions of murder. Was it murder for God to wipe out Sodom and Gomorrah or not?

(And no, I'm not saying Sungenis is a murderer.)

And even so, neither the Son of God nor the Church label all Jews, attack them with such sustained intensity and use (and even defend) demonstrably fraudulent information like Sungenis has seen fit to.

4) I know enough now as to what you are about after your answer to my question (will you accept what Otheus ultimately decides?). And I have no intention of wasting my time with you in what by all appearances now is a charade. I've probably wasted too much time already.

Otheus, I'm sorry if my reaction bothers you, but this man claims to be a Catholic and he has written things and defends a man who writes things that harm the Church deeply and offend common decency. And they clearly seem not to care. Use the Church and it's very name when it helps your aims? Sure, why not. This is disturbing and wrong. It is also sufficiently clear that he has no intention of accepting what you say if it disagrees with his aims.

I know you have to approach this in a detached way and that you're an atheist, so perhaps it looks unserious or whatever to you (I don't know). Perhaps it may be hard for you to understand the depth of the reaction (again, I don't know). But as a Catholic, I can assure you this: it is anything but unserious. I ask for your understanding.

If these men were before the bishops of the Church and tried to say these things they would either be thrown out or laughed out of their presence.

I am still interested in what you come back with.

Liam Patrick 01:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Protection Ended

I could not log into my account this morning. Need to look nto that. Protection edned. Please consider that everything is being said. Note I left in the line about the smear campaign, because the article I referenced re: anti-semitism charges involved those attacking Sungenis. He does feel it is a smear campaign, and I referenced that.

Truth_Seeker

Otheus: Thanks for the effort. Not sure why you gave up at the end. Don't blame you, though ;).

Truth_Seeker

Otheus responds

Whew. First, I almost gave up, but I didn't. However, if I had given up, it would have been because for ever hour I spend on this, the voluminous responses require 2 hours to get through :) But I see it's getting better.

Here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to prepare an RFC on this debate. That means I will formulate a page where others can look at the issues and give their opinions. To make this work, we have to whittle down the issues to well under 10. PLEASE, give this discussion a rest until I've posted this formulation. If either of you need to change or clarify your own remark, do so. If you have a new point to make, however, please hold off until I've come up with this formulation. Thanks.--Otheus 14:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


LP

I'll wait to hear from you, Otheus. But I did notice that TS went right ahead and put up what was not agreed to, including even a sentence he agreed was out of bounds and quotes as original argumentation.

TS's explanation for this change is less than satisfactory. He insists on giving Sungenis' version of everything (only using Sungenis' article) and then goes on to say that because Sungenis also attacks his critics in the article, that gives him the right to add the sentence that Sungenis feels he is being smeared? Unreasonable.

I added the links to Catholic Culture, SPLC and CUF IN ADDITION TO Sungenis' own defense and explanation. In this way, both sides of the issue are aired. People can make up their own minds. I also added the link to the original article from 2002, which for some reason was omitted. I removed the direct quotes and argumentation because according to Otheus, they do not meet Wiki guidelines.


Liam Patrick 14:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

TS

I am willing to lave it as it is[14] , for now. I disagree with some of the links, but if we freeze it here, I will leave it until we get some more opinions on some of the links. The link from CUF which acts a a portal to sungenisandthejews.com has to go. Truth_Seeker 16:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Lost a link, but added it back. Truth_Seeker 16:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


LP

Otheus, for the record, I'm willing to accept the removal of the CUF link (even though I disagree), IF...IF...TS agrees to remove all of the quotes and the "smear campaign" comment. Again, he's trying to have it both ways. If the CUF link is gone, there is no direct or necessary connection to the supposed "smear campaign" in the wiki article. The only indirect link to it, conveniently, is the very article from Sungenis that TS insisted upon in the first place, and it already gives Sungenis' personal POV on the controversy. So it is unreasonable to use what TS insisted upon as justification to provide yet more pro-Sungenis POV.

However, there is no justification for removing mention of Sungenis' sources when it comes to Jews. No value judgments were made about them in the section. They were simply stated in a neutral way. This is factual material. If TS wants to add additional sources, that is perfectly acceptable. Simply deleting them is not.

Liam Patrick 16:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

TS

Just listing sources implies that there is some signficance to using those sources. Why not say 'Sungneis has used Time magazine'? He did. What you are doing is at least a subtle form of guilt by association. If you put them back, then I will start building context around them. Truth_Seeker 16:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

LP

TS's repeated argument about guilt by association is false. I already explained why. It is no more guilt by association to list a man's sources at wikipedia than it is in a book's bibliography. The sources are what they are. He actively associates himself with their work by using it. And there is perfectly good reason to list these sources. This is why books have bibliographies. This is why articles have footnotes to sources. People have a right to know where a man gets his information from.

Now as I said, if TS wants to add more sources, I have no objection. But it is against Wiki policy to keep deleting permissible, factual material because of his personal opinion. TS is reading into simple, factual material. That is his prerogative as an individual, but not as a wiki editor.

If there is a problem with the sources (or if there is not), then each individual will have to come to that conclusion independently.

But a note of caution, I will be looking to see if Sungenis does in fact use the sources TS names. Sungenis sometimes uses secondary or tertiary sources without citing them and then makes it appear that he has read the primary one.

And if TS tries to make argument in the article as to why Sungenis used these sources, then we need to make sure all of his uses are brought out (or at least a representative sampling) and not just cherry-picked in one direction or the other. I would suggest it is better for the article (and Sungenis) to just let his sources stand without further comment one way or the other.

Liam Patrick 17:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

TS

Liam- please source where he explicitly used these sources. Also, please stop removing my properly sourced material. Truth_Seeker 17:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


LP: Documentation

Otheus agreed that the quotes of Sungenis need to go. It is properly sourced, but not proper. Still, I left it but changed it from direct quotes to statements about the quotes. I also deleted a redundancy. No need to state he loves Jews AND he has no animosity.

Conversely, it should be noted that TS has completely removed my sources and links 2 or 3 times now. And these are fully in accord with wiki policy. His call for where Sungenis has used these sources is questionable. Those sources have already been provided. And he knows that Sungenis has used them. The links to the documentation regarding his use of them were not included now only because they cause unnecssary clutter. But again, for the record, documentation as to what sources Sungenis used :

Vennari: here and here

Michael Piper: The recent radio interview where he raves about Piper and says he read him in bed every night for 3 months or whatever. Then also this article: here.

Michael A. Hoffman II: here

IHR: here and here and here

Mohr: pages 12 and 13 and article and article and here

Ted Pike: page 10

Israel Shamir: Question 26 and page 14


Liam Patrick 18:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comments

 This talk page or section is in the middle of an expansion or major revamping.
You are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well.
Please view the edit history should you wish to contact the person who placed this template. If this article has not been edited in several days please remove this template. Consider not tagging with a deletion tag unless the page hasn't been edited in several days.

This is a dispute about the contents of a section concerning this WP:BLP living person, Robert Sungenis. The section under dispute is tentatively named "Jewish controversy".

Introduction by moderator (Otheus)

I came across this article out of shared interest with User:ScienceApologist on science-pseudoscience articles.[FILL] After doing some initial copyediting[FILL], and observing the ongoing discussion on the Talk pages and the changes to the article's "controversy" section, I offered to help moderate. The result of my moderations are to present this RFC with a concise list of issues.

This article is about Robert Sungenis (RS), a published author of Catholic Church apologia and doctrinal issues.

The abbreviation JJJZ stands for "Jews, Jewry, Judaism, and Zionism", instead of simply "Jews". This is to help distinguish between our statement of the issue and the content of some of the controversy.

Points of Agreement

  1. Robert Sungenis writes on apologia and of doctrinal matters concerning the Catholic Church.
  2. RS runs an organization/website, called Catholic Apologists International (CAI); the CAI website is host to many or most of Sungenis' writings and views on a wide array of Church-related topics.
  3. RS opinions are his own. That is, like other apologists, he does not speak for "the Church" in any official way.
  4. There is almost a complete lack of attributable sources pertaining to RS's "controversial" viewpoints.
    1. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) puts Sungenis and the CAI atop their list of the "Dirty Dozen" of "Traditionalist Catholic" organizations that "preach anti-semitic" hatred.[15] It is agreed that this SPLC "inteligence report" cannot stand on its own as a reliable, disinterested, third-party source.
    2. The website "Catholic Culture" contains over 500 web site "reviews". One of these reviews discusses CAI.[16] Comments for/against the inclusion of this site as a reference is requested.
    3. RS's controversial views concerning JJJZ are rebutted on the website, http://sungenisandthejews.com (RSAJ). Comments for/against the inclusion of this site as a reference is requested.
    4. Catholics United for the Faith is a "Catholic lay" organization (see here) whose site includes a list of links;[17] this list does not include CAI, but includes RSAJ via a portal page.[[18]


<more to come>

Points of Disagreement (RFC)

<more to come> --Otheus 18:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


TS Responds

First here are some of the relevant policies, all are quotes from the policy:

| Biographis of Living Persons. This Wikipedia policy is being trampled on. Specifically:

1. See this section "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material"

"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."


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."


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."

All of the three sources proposed do not meet these requirements. Specifically,

1. The website "Catholic Culture" contains over 500 web site "reviews". One of these reviews discusses CAI.[19] Comments for/against the inclusion of this site as a reference is requested.
As I stated earlier, this is a fine web site, but it is biased, it is partisan. This is probably the least offensive of the three in that it at least does not single out Sungenis site (as you indicate it has over 500 reviews, etc.). Still, I would propose that labeling someone anti-semtic is malicious, and only a disinterested third party source shoud be cited, then on could say for exapmple, 'Time magazine in such and such article, by so and so states that Joe Blow is anti-semitic".
    1. RS's controversial views concerning JJJZ are rebutted on the website, http://sungenisandthejews.com (RSAJ). Comments for/against the inclusion of this site as a reference is requested.
Unquestionably this one violates all BLP policies. It is biased. It is malicious. It is a blog. It is composed of ex-employees with an agenda, and who state their agenda.
    1. Catholics United for the Faith is a "Catholic lay" organization (see here) whose site includes a list of links;[20] this list does not include CAI, but includes RSAJ via a portal page.[[21]
This is also a partisan site. It claims Catholic United for the Faith, yet I can guarantee you I can find many Catholics who will disagree with material on the site, including the material on Sungenis. Just because it claims to speak for all Catholics does not mean it does. There are different standards that apply. The portal page especially is composed of a few sentences, and a portal to the unquestionably non-policy site.

Liam thinks I am splitting hairs here. For most of Wikipedia, all these sites could be ok for some purposes, but NOT for a BLP. A BLP has the potential to cause great damage to a living person, as well as expose Wikipedia to libel suits. That is why Wikipedia had the wisdom to set a different standard for BLP's. One of the mottos is "Do No Harm". This applies to the subject of the bio.

Note to Otheus

Regarding the fact that Sungenis does not speak for the Catholic Church, officially: It is more than that. In these controversial "Jewish areas" he is completely speaking for himself. On doctrinal matters and such (even pastoral ones), to the extent that a person faithfully repeats what the Church teaches officially, a person can be said to speak for the Church. But in this case (again the controversial areas), it is even more clear that he speaks for no one but himself. You will find nothing in official documents about Jews trying to take over the world and the Catholic Church for instance and I can assure you the bishops are not in accord with Sungenis on these things.—This is part of a comment by Liam Patrick , which was interrupted by the following:

If a person faithfully repeats what the Church officially teaches, but has opionions of his own that deviate from the church, it's better to state that he speaks for himself, period. Otheus 11:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
No disagreement. I am only pointing out that especially when the issue is very controversial and inflammatory (and not supported by the Church), all the more reason that this really needs to be noted.
Liam Patrick 15:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Please note recent discussion on this, too. I don't want to reinvent the wheel. I've suggested a very moderate way to address this as TS seems adamantly against the idea that it should be plain Sungenis does not speak for the Church. I used the phrase "controversial personal positions". That makes it clear that these are his own so he cannot illegitimately appropriate authority from the Church in regard to his own theories but does not come right out and use the word "Church."

Also, reading through the website CUF recommends, it is clear that the author is a primary source for certain material. I think the website meets the "reliable source" criteria at wiki: here Forest, the author, worked for Sungenis for several years. And there are recommendations there from several others who know Sungenis personally and also worked with him as well. —This is part of a comment by Liam Patrick , which was interrupted by the following:

Well, that's the issue we will bring up in the request for comments. I take note of your position in this regard. Otheus 11:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I also draw your attention to the following statement regarding 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." wiki article

Review the information at www.sungenisandthejews.com. It is very carefully documented, linking to evidence for every point made. The author(s) are eye-witnesses and colleagues of Sungenis.

Finally, after reading further, I have found that some of the very kinds of things Sungenis says about Jews are explicitly listed as conspiracy theories by wikipedia: here Therefore there can be no legitimate objection to mentioning this.

Liam Patrick 19:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

LP- I am only saying the cites should be in the article, not on the talk page. I think thisis going to be required. I will then write some context if needed. I will first see what Otheus has said. Truth_Seeker 19:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Note Regarding TS repeated deletion of Sungenis Source Material

I have consulted wiki policy and wiki mediators regarding the paragraph that lists Sungenis' sources when it comes to his Jewish positions. From what I am told, it is not in accord with wiki policy to keep deleting this paragraph.

I have fully documented that these are in fact Sungenis' sources when it comes to Jews and have no objection if anyone finds additional sources to add to the list, as long as the record proves with reasonable certainty that Sungenis has actually used them. I have included all sources I have seen from Sungenis re: Jews. There can be no bias or agenda in simply laying out a man's sources anymore than when a man has to include footnotes or a bibliography in a book. His sources are his sources.

No value judgments have been made about his sources *at all* in the paragraph I added so TS is reading into this his own POV as to whether there is a problem with the sources or not. One thing is clear, these *are* his sources and it is perfectly legitimate to make them known. So, I see no possible violation of wiki policy.

OTOH, I have been informed that it *is* a violation of wiki policy to repeatedly delete something that is not in violation of wiki policy.

Liam Patrick 17:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

TS

I am adding context to balance this addition. Truth_Seeker 20:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

LP Further Proof and Documentation on Sungenis Sources and Uses

TS's effort to provide "context" is a problem because it opens up a can of worms regarding why Sungenis used what...in other words, POV. This is already evident in the wording chosen by TS. I propose that TS's "context" be removed entirely because by it's very nature it is extremely subjective. Let people draw their own conclusions from his sources. If TS wants to add more documented sources for balance, that's perfectly fine.

It would be helpful, though, if TS would read the documentation as to what Sungenis has actually written before giving his own personal explanation of Sungenis's relationship to these sources in the actual wikipedia article.

Issues:

1)The title of the new section TS created, which ends with "or that Sungenis was accused of using." Problem: he was not only "accused" of using these sources, he was demonstrated to have used them. Some were openly admitted to, others only subsequent to criticism. They are documented by any reasonable standard, regardless. Also, these sources are more than "mentioned" by Sungenis.

2) Mentioning that Sungenis writes for someone is off topic and only clutters this section. This section deals with the postings at his own website and his sources. If TS wants to mention the publications Sungenis writes for, that belongs more appropriately in one of the sections higher up in the article.

3) E. Michael Jones, Sungenis more than writes for Culture Wars, he recommends Jones' work on Jews specifically and uses him as a resource:

Proof 1: "Jewish History: R. Sungenis: I would get a hold of all the back issues of Culture Wars, beginning since 2002. E. Michael Jones is about the best when it comes to this subject." (Question 58)

Proof 2: "As E. Michael Jones reads it: 'Portnoy ushered in the Golden Age of Jewish humor and cultural subversion.....(quote of entire paragraph from Jones truncated)" here


4) Michael Piper, Sungenis more than "felt" Piper "provided interesting research" regarding Ben Gurion as TS chose to describe it.

Proof 1: "Well, I've read Michael Collins Piper's book from cover-to-cover, every word of it ... couldn't put it down, actually, um (laughs), it was my bed-time reading for about the last three or four months, and he uncovers some things there that would astound people, basically - people who consider themselves experts on the Kennedy Assassination have never considered the angle that he's brought forth. And although he doesn't come right out and say, 'yes, the Israelis killed JFK', he lined all the ducks up for you so that you can walk right through it and see all these political connections and make your obvious conclusion, and I think he did a very professional job in doing it that way." (Transcribed from Sungenis radio interview: here and here)

Proof 2: “We also know through the exhaustive effort of Michael Collins Piper’s new 738- page book, Final Judgment, how Bronfman (note: a Jew) is implicated in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. The story begins when Kennedy refused to capitulate to Israel’s demand for nuclear weapons, and you can probably guess the rest of the story.” (Neocons and the Jewish Connection)

Notice, Sungenis' precise words are "we know" that this purportedly Zionist Jew(Bronfman) "is implicated", not "he feels" Piper has "provided interesting research".

5) Ted Pike:, TS is correct that Sungenis posted a few news items from Pike. But according to the record, Sungenis stopped using Pike at the urging of his now ex-Vice President Douglass. Douglass quit and and subsequently Sungenis has publicly indicated support for Pike's work again and is a source in a current Sungenis article.

Proof 1: "Actually, I’m coming closer to the conclusion that Ted Pike and Michael Hoffman may be better representatives of truth than Mr. Douglass. A least they don’t try to glorify the Talmud and make excuses for Jewish errors. Despite their shortcomings, they can be great sources for information and courageous reporting." here

Proof 2: It would almost seem as if the gospel of Christ and the gospel of the Antichrist were destined to originate among the same people” (Illustrated Sunday Herald, London, Feb. 18, 1920, cited in “The Other Israel” by T. Pike). here


6) Michael Hoffman: TS writes that Sungenis disagrees with him on "some" "critical issues". "Some" would indicate plural. TS provides one instance of disagreement. "Critical" is also very subjective and I think "significant" would be more than sufficient.

TS also deleted a link to the article in which Sungenis openly used Hoffman as a source.

7) Israel Shamir: Sungenis did much more than just post a positive comment by a reader.

Proof: "The Shamir article was posted for what it said about Israel and the Jews... And I will be posting a few more articles from Mr. Shamir in the near future." here

8) IHR: Sungenis admits to using it as a source but denies he "plagiarized". He has also praised it as an excellent source in regard to Jews.

Proof 1:

"Mr. Palm: 6) And in the same 2002 article he plagiarized a lengthy section from an article by Mark Weber in the Journal of Historical Review. Weber has been the editor of the
blatantly racist National Vanguard and the JHR is a journal known for its Holocaust
revisionism/denial and pseudo-scholarship (Cork, "Antisemitism"; see also here). See
more below on what CAI vice president Ben Douglass has said about the National
Vanguard."
"R. Sungenis: I didn’t plagiarize. But now I see what they are trying to do. They think that
I didn’t quote the source because I was afraid that the source would be rejected as “antisemitic”or “racist” or whatever. But no, they have it wrong. I just copied and pasted material that was important for people to know. I wasn’t getting a degree with it, or selling it in a book or anything else of value except disseminating information. I just
wanted people to know the other side of the story."
here

Proof 2:

"Mark Weber has written an
article on the Jewish role in the Bolshevik revolution, an article that is included in a
highly prestigious and credible magazine, The Journal of Historical Review! You can't
get much more credible than that, as far as history goes"
here


9) Jack Mohr: Sungenis did more than just use a little material from an article in 2002. He also praised and defended Mohr and used almost 16 paragraphs of material from him without giving the source.

Proof 1: "Notice how he calls a Lt. Colonel in the US Army a 'White Supremacist,' simply because the Colonel critiques the Talmud for being a anti-Christian book (which it is); and for exposing what he (and I) believe are Zionist plans to take over Solomonic Palestine...Does Mr. Cork ever contest any of Lt. Col. Mohr's material? No, Mr. Cork is not interested in seeing the merits of Mohr's critiques of the Talmud...No, Mr. Cork would rather call a US army Colonel a liar and anti-semite, when all Mr. Mohr did was quote from Talmudic sources and Zionist literature!" here

Proof 2: 16 paragraphs of writing taken from Mohr...leaving aside the issue of plagiarism. But we could discuss that and its applicability to this article on Sungenis if TS would like, too: here

10) John Vennari: Sungenis did more than write for him.

Proof: "As I said above, John Vennari sent me the material to use, so I had his permission." here

TS

Add more if you want, just keep it factual. The notes about Vennari and Jones are contextual, I am not claiming he did not use them as references elsewhere. Just state where.

One of the links I deleted did not state what you claim, please check them. Some of them are redundant, or did not relate directly to what you were saying, or weer from non-policy sources. I kept all relevant links.

Truth_Seeker 15:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

LP Response

TS needs to be specific, what was not correct, exactly. The "context" TS is providing serves no legitimate encyclopedic purpose. A bibliography needs no context, it simply is what it is. TS's explanations as to why Sungenis used particular sources are biased and involved POV. If I provide more similar "context", this will only clutter the article more, create more discord and raise objections from wiki-mediators, etc. as we have already dealt with for being excessive in this section.

The way to make sure this section is "balanced" is not to add TS's or anyone else's version of why Sungenis did what he did, but simply to add more Sungenis sources on Jews if they actually exist.

TS or whoever should provide more objective documentation as to sources and provide proof. If there are more documented sources, it should not be a difficult undertaking.

Liam Patrick 00:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

TS

I am removing the link you keep putting in to CUF,[here] which goes to this page:

Further Information in Support of Example: "Some material is blatantly anti-semitic." Sungenis has elected to go beyond legitimate arguments about why the conversion of the Jews is a theologically legitimate objective. Instead, Sungenis has chosen to recycle the worst slurs and slanders in the anti-Semitic repertoire.


"In "Conversion of the Jews Not Necessary?? The Apocalyptic Ramifications of a Novel Teaching":


The reason behind this whole charade of Jewish ecumenism is one, and one reason only: It is so the Jews can rebuild the nation of Israel that was lost after the time of Solomon. Everything the Jews do today is motivated by that single thought, and they are shrewdly using the Catholic Church to help them accomplish their goal. Prelates in the Catholic Church think that by helping the Jews they are fulfilling the mandate of neighborly love. In their perversion of the Gospel, they have convinced themselves that this mandate cannot include converting the Jews, for that would cause "offense." [God forbid that the Gospel should cause offense! (cf., 1 Cor 1:23-24)]. They have deceived themselves, and the Jews of today are feeding off this deception in an effort to build their long awaited "nation state." The Jews have no interest in Christ or Christianity. They are merely using Catholics as pawns for their own self-interest. When they have succeeded, then they will persecute the very Catholic Church that helped them gain their land, for Judaism, as has been historically true, can have no competitors.

Return to Review "

It is not related to anything you are referencing.

Truth_Seeker

Bill Cork's site is baised (wquercus.com). Truth_Seeker 15:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

LP Response

The link to CUF TS references was removed some time ago when the reference to a "smear campaign" was also removed. It has not been restored. The link TS wants to remove is to Catholic Culture, not CUF, which is *directly pertinent* to the issue in this section (Sungenis' Jewish postings and the charge of anti-semitism). It meets the criteria for Wikipedia, was even agreed to by the wiki mediator and there is no valid reason to remove it.

As to Dr. Cork's website, Sungenis' own writing on this subject references Cork's work illustrating Sungenis' sources. As such, imo, it is perfectly legitimate to include the link to his documentation.

Liam Patrick 16:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

REGARDING KEATING and MATT ABBOT
TS has entered links to these criticisms of the SPLC report in defense of Sungenis. The problem is that neither of these criticisms defend Sungenis on the charge of anti-semitism *at all*.
Here is what Keating had to say:
"Now back to the SPLC expose. Two things struck me when I read it. The first was that the topic is legitimate. There really is anti-Semitism within the Traditionalist movement. It is not a problem that has been ignored by Catholics, Traditionalists included. Over the last few years several Catholic blogs, in particular, but also several orthodox Catholic publications have examined the problem at length."
"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."
So Keating acknowledges there *really is a problem* with *authentically anti-Semitic people within Catholic Traditionalism", that "some of the individuals and groups discussed are truly anti-semitic", that "only a disingenuous person could deny that" and that "Catholic blogs" etc. have dealt with the problem....blogs which I doubt TS would like to include in the article on Sungenis.

This criticism by Keating does *nothing at all* to help Sungenis in regard to anti-semitism and if anything, tends to suggest his personal agreement with SPLC in that specific issue.

The Matt Abbot article: Regarding Sungenis, the only "defense" he managed was pointing out that a picture was labeled incorrectly. Nothing about anti-semitism and Sungenis.

Liam Patrick 17:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The charge of anti-semitism is a serious one. If you insist on using biased sources, which do not conform to BLP guidelines, then I insist on extending fairness to Sungenis by allowing his colleagues, who have publicly denounced the most significant source of the charges to impeach the credibility of the source. The credibility of the source is questioned. I did not state that they specifically defended Robert Sungenis.

The sources are properly documented and you cannot contest the fact that these people did question the SPLC report. Do not remove properly sourced material. Truth_Seeker 17:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I still maintain that what TS is doing here is not valid. What is pertinent from the SPLC report is that which directly pertains to Sungenis, by name. This is an article about Sungenis. There is *nothing* in the article from Keating or from Abbot that defends Sungenis on issues related to Jews. Therefore, the reference is *not valid*.
As I documented, in fact, on the issue of anti-semitism, Keating agreed that SPLC was correct. TS is clearly mischaracterizing what Keating wrote in order to make it appear as a defense of Sungenis. What Keating wrote is clearly *not* in any way a defense of Sungenis.
Abbot's article, while more critical, still lacks *anything* directly defending Sungenis.
If TS insists on keeping this information, it must be correctly identified and not spun from his POV as a defense of Sungenis in any way.
Liam Patrick 20:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

No, Keating opined that only a small perecentage of traditional Catholics are anti-Semitic (a much smaller percentage than implied by the SPLC report he states), and he did ont state Sungenis was. I added a comment to the effect that Keating does state theer is a problem. I left out the Traditional aspect, as this could lead to further expansion of the article (since first of all, Sungenis does not even classify himself as a Traditioanlist, and I am pretty sure Keating knows that). Truth_Seeker 20:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

TS is giving his POV as to what Keating wrote. I provided the actual quotes from Keating, above. What I wrote is accurate. None of these sources defend Sungenis against the charge of anti-semitism and TS's writing gives the impression they do. That needs to be clarified and I did. TS invalidly removed my addition and clarification. I will will restore it.
Liam Patrick 21:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

No I did not "invalidly removed...[your]... addition and clarification", you invalidly removed the entire sentence, and I restored it. I already added this "... while stating that there is some anti-Semitism within some Catholic circles [16]" to my original statement "some prominent Catholic apologists, such as Karl Keating, question the overall accuracy and veracity of the SPLC report,..." to satisfy your point. You deleted all of it. Truth_Seeker 21:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

In regard to TS's complaint, I was not referring to that particular sentence. That sentence was removed because it was unnecessary, imo, redundant. The link to the Keating article was retained and included with the others and the comment that some people disagreed with certain aspects of the SPLC report. I saw no need to single Keating out and repeat what was already written above regarding the first series of numerous links (i.e. people disagreed with SPLC). IMO, the way TS wants to write this section spends too much time belaboring and restating things that are handled more briefly and every bit as accurately. But as TS seems adamant, I have retained it for now. However, his characterization is still inaccurate as my quotes from the actual Keating article illustrate. Not only did Keating agree there was a problem, but also that some of the people specifically mentioned by SPLC ARE TRULY ANTISEMITIC. TS omitted that relevant point.
Liam Patrick 21:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Liam, could you have found a more inflammatory, anti_Catholic source? [22]. This does not meet BLP guidelines for sure. And you questioned by Catholicity! Truth_Seeker 00:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I never questioned TS' Catholicity in the sense that I *knew* he was Catholic and intended to insult him by the question. I did not know whether he was Catholic and didn't want to hold him to that standard if he wasn't. He later made clear he is Catholic.
Liam Patrick 19:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

If you keep insisting on using the Catholic Culture site, at least use the review page, which states it is talking about Sungenis (unlike the example page). I will stop removing this link until we come to some agreement on BLP policy. Truth_Seeker 00:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

TS is being inconsistent, imo. If a website says what he likes, it's okay, no questions asked. If it doesn't he deletes it. Ferrara is a colleague and associate of Sungenis. So is Jacob Michaels from Lumengentlemen. If one is acceptable, the other should be as well. One cannot reasonably exclude (or delete) either opinion simply because one does not like it. Michaels is a direct, very knowledgeable witness who also knows his subject well, having worked for Sungenis for some time, even very recently. Similar problems exist with Dr. Drolesky article and Daily Catholic...all of which are extremely biased, imo. If extremely biased sources are a no-go, then they are all a no-go, not just for articles TS does not like.
Liam, you are finally starting to understand. I propose we delete all the material we added and go back to my original proposal, which did NOT rely on any biased websites (ie.e., SPLC, CC, etc.). Truth_Seeker 16:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
TS obviously misunderstands me. The point of bias in relation to his citations is that these are friends, associates and publications Sungenis writes for. They are biased because of their *relationship* with Sungenis. TS rejects the Lumengentlemen website of Jacob Michaels even though it is just as legit and knowledgeable about the topic (probably moreso) as most of the ones he used, and the only reason I can see is because Michaels is very critical of Sungenis. Michaels *also* knows Sungenis personally and has worked for him. *This* is the bias I referred to, so TS's effort to eradicate any outside sources that refer to Sungenis' anti-semitism is off target. Perhaps one of the most biased sources of all when it comes to Sungenis and anti-semitism is of course, Sungenis himself. And this biased source is the only source TS would like to use, which is unreasonable on the face of it and not in line with encyclopedic principles. Obviously, everyone would like to describe and categorize themselves on every issue.
Catholic Culture is certainly not suffering from a bias due to relationship with Sungenis. The same is true of SPLC. And the CUF commentary on Sungenis's "problematic" handling of Jewish issues is a legitimate viewpoint as well. TS only objects to it because it also links to another website he dislikes. Note can be made of CUF's criticisms without actually *linking* to that source, opting instead for a Sungenis article as documentation and that will alleviate TS's complaint about the link.
Liam Patrick 02:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
The point with the link to Moriel Ministries is solely to demonstrate another valid source by wiki guidelines that judges Sungenis' material to be anti-semitic. And they make some well-reasoned arguments. By the standards Otheus laid out, this site covers a multitude of issues. It is not one dimensional and so it seems legitimate by wiki standards, imo. TS's point about aspects of Moriel's site are well taken and I do not dispute that there are objectionable things there, too, (from a Catholic POV). But I find a good deal of Sungenis' own material extremely objectionable, scandalous and harmful to the Church as well (again from a Catholic POV), especially because he uses the name "Catholic" to spread his anti-semitic ideas. So if *that* is the standard (the Catholic POV), then Sungenis' website shouldn't be mentioned *at all*, imo. But there it is, nonetheless. IMO, *neither* website should be mentioned, but my Catholic POV does not drive wikipedia policy.
The page at Catholic Culture I linked to *does* state that Sungenis is the subject right near the top. And it is the more relevant link because it deals specifically and exclusively with the issue being discussed in that section of the wiki article. The page TS would prefer is general page with many irrelevant details and so the reader may not find the directly pertinent material. TS should not replace this link again. I have also included the other link TS prefers shortly thereafter.
Last, TS's interpretation of my point on Catholic Culture and SPLC is incorrect. My intent was not to imply that CC commented on SPLC. My intent was to make clear that no one came out publicly against Catholic Culture's assessment of Sungenis. I will see if I can make that more clear if necessary.
Liam Patrick 06:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I was not impying that CC commented on SPLC. I see them as a somewhat independent source; though if you know the history, it is actually all intertwined. Truth_Seeker 16:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
TS wrote the following in the "comments" of the "history" (see 00:25, 28 April 2007) after deleting my comment about public reaction to Catholic Culture vs. SPLC: "Link does not show Catholic Culture supports SPLC report." So, TS did interpret my wording to mean that CC commented on SPLC and that was why he deleted it when it didn't need to be. He misunderstood my point and so I reworded it to make it more clear.
Re: Catholic Culture being intertwined with SPLC somehow, if it was pertinent (which it really isn't), part of me would really like to see the documentation for that. But not enough.
Liam Patrick 02:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

LP Regarding TS' Deletion of "Personal" and "Conspiracy Theories"

TS seems to have forgotten that I described Sungenis' positions on Jews as his "personal positions" because he complained that I shouldn't specifically remark that Sungenis does not speak for the Church. I still disagree with him that there is *anything* wrong with noting that. But I chose even gentler wording that at least gives the reader the sense that Sungenis is speaking for himself and not of any Catholic teaching when he speaks about Jews taking over the world and whatnot. I see no reasonable objection to this very gentle word.

TS also deleted my mention of some conspiracy theories. As I pointed out before, Wikipedia itself calls some of Sungenis' positions "conspiracy theories" in its own guidelines. So there is no reasonable objection to mentioning that.


Here is some of the relevant text from Wikipedia on conspiracy theories:

Examples of common conspiracy theories
Main article: List of conspiracy theories
9/11 conspiracy theories, usually relating the September 11, 2001 attacks to US government officials and their plans for expansion of militarism and the police state.
The New World Order, a conspiracy theory in which a powerful and secretive group plans to or does in fact rule the world through a one-world government.
John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, claiming the direct involvement of the US government in the assassination.
Jewish or Zionist global domination conspiracy theories, perhaps the oldest common type of conspiracy theories, most notable of which is the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion anti-:Semitic conspiracy theory (which is based on a fabricated document[5]).
The Apollo Moon-Landing Hoax Theory suggests that some or all elements of the Apollo missions were faked by NASA.
The death of White House aide Vince Foster, critics contend he did not die of a suicide.[6]


I will put a link in the Sungenis article itself to Wikipedia's conspiracy article.

Liam Patrick 16:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)\

In a recent edit, TS has inserted a qualifier in front of "conspiracy theories" re:Sungenis. He claims that "some" would consider his ideas conspiracy theories. This is not accurate, imo. Even wikipedia calls some of his theories "conspiracy theories" as I proved in the link above, WITHOUT any qualification. Conspiracies are involved in some of his theories, this is just a fact, by definition. He writes about them. Jews trying to take over the world and the Catholic Church. Jews behind JFK assassination. etc. etc. In fact, even Sungenis himself has the word "conspiracy" in some of his articles about Jews and uses the word/phrase liberally in other articles about other issues, too. So I don't see a sound reason to continue resisting this or trying to nuance it with modifiers. Some examples below.
"The Order is the core, the inner circle of the conspiracy for change which run the outer circles including The Council on Foreign Relation, the Trilaterals...a terrifying long range conspiracy that seeks to control our lives from cradle to grave...The Order is a Bush family tradition." [23]
Here SUngenis quotes someone else who says this. Sungenis is not putting forth a "theory". Truth_Seeker 01:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
See "CLARIFICATION" below Liam Patrick 20:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
"The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create a one world government, combining super-capitalism and communism under the same tent, all under their control. Do I mean conspiracy? Yes I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent"
He is quoting John F. Kennedy !!!!!!!! Truth_Seeker 01:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
See "CLARIFICATION" below Liam Patrick 20:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


Question 43- Conspiracy theories and 9-11
Robert, Here is some material refuting September 11 theories about it being an inside job.
R. Sungenis: Matthew, I listened to this one. I hope they are right. But I get the feeling that they think everything in the word (at least with 9-11) is just normal, with no abnormalities to explain. Yet their next show is "China Stealing Secrets from the United States." So when it comes to issues that they favor, the conspiracy angle is resurrected, clandestine activity abounds, and the world is not behaving normally. Se la vi.
question 43
LP- in this one Sungenis is saying, 'hey ,it's interesting, but these guys seem to pusha lot of conspiracy theories'. Read it. Truth_Seeker 13:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
See "CLARIFICATION" below Liam Patrick 20:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Chapter 1
The New Galileo and the Real Truth about Copernicanism
Galileo’s Conversion to Geocentrism
Copernicanism’s Procrustean Bed
The Real Truth about Copernicus’ Solar System
The Real Truth about Kepler’s Solar System
What was the Attraction to Copernicanism?
Is There a Copernican Conspiracy?
The Demise of Modern Cosmology
question 59
LP- see below. Truth_Seeker 01:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
“The only two non-Jews in the communist conspiracy were Chambers and Hiss…"
page 10
Sungenis is quoting Richard Nixon! Truth_Seeker 01:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
See "CLARIFICATION" below Liam Patrick 20:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
"The evolutionist conspiracy against "intelligent design" was no better confirmed than in the case of Richard von Sternberg."
here


He is not proposing a conspiracy theory, he is just anecdotally referring to it as a conspiracy! Please, get real. Truth_Seeker 01:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
*CLARIFICATION: TS is adopting an unnecessarily hostile attitude when he has simply misunderstood my point. My point was that Sungenis describes *other people's theories* and some of those he quotes describe their *own theories* as "conspiracies". Sungenis is obviously not shy about using the term when others are involved. As such, it is inconsistent to insist wikipedia not use the word/phrase in relation to his own theories about Jews.
Liam Patrick 20:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Liam Patrick 20:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thre is a perceived difference between a "conspiracy" and a "conspiracy theory". The latter is POV. This is from your link to the wiki article:

Usage The term "conspiracy theory" is considered by different observers to be a neutral description for a conspiracy claim, a pejorative term used to dismiss such a claim, and a term that can be positively embraced by proponents of such a claim. The term may be used by some for arguments they might not wholly believe but consider radical and exciting. The most widely accepted sense of the term is that which popular culture and academic usage share, certainly having negative implications for a narrative's probable truth value

Some of your examples are of real "conspiracies" (i.e., communism- the Bolsheviks "conspired" to take over and succeeded). The Copernican Conspiracy is a literary take off on a quote from Arthur Eddington:

…for there is nothing to guide him as to the planet to be selected for the standard of rest….There is no answer, and so far as we can see no possibility of an answer….Our common knowledge of where things are is not a miraculous revelation of unquestionable authority….Location is not something supernaturally revealed to the mind….It would explain for instance, why all the forces of Nature seem to have entered into a conspiracy to prevent our discovering the definite location of any object…naturally they cannot reveal it, if it does not exist….Nature has been too subtle…she has not left anything to betray the frame which she used….Our predecessors were wise in referring all distances to a single frame of space…

LP- Do you believe satan is "conspiring" for the souls of men? Truth_Seeker 22:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no legitimate reason for TS to continue deleting or altering what I have written here, imo. Unless TS is trying to argue that Sungenis' ideas about Jews trying to take over the world and the Church, the JFK assassination, 911 conspiracies etc. are all established *facts* then Sungenis' ideas involving Jewish conspiracies are *theories*, by definition. This is not my POV, it is a *fact*. Furthermore, Wikipedia itself labels some of the very ideas that Sungenis proposes as "conspiracy theories" and I listed them, straight from Wikipedia above. They are not simply "conspiracies" as TS would have it but "conspiracy theories" by Wikipedia's own standards. A conspiracy may be actual or imagined. Unless it is proven and established as fact, it is by definition a theory. TS should stop deleting this.
TS' question about Satan is not relevant, imo. As a Catholic, of course I believe Satan is conspiring for the souls of men because it is a dogma of the Catholic faith, a fact as trustworthy as the *fact* that God exists as Trinity. When the Catholic Church teaches definitively that the Jews are conspiring to take over the world and the Catholic Church, that they were responsible for the death of JFK, that FDR allowed the bombing of Pearl Harbor because he had Jewish ancestry in his distant past, etc., then I will agree with TS that these are not conspiracy *theories*. Or when these conspiracy theories are soundly tested, proven and commonly accepted by far more than people like Michael Collins Piper and Robert Sungenis. Until then, if we apply Sungenis' own standards as to what constitutes fact (as illustrated by his views on science), then his own conspiratorial ideas about Jews are clearly *theories* as well.
Liam Patrick 00:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

LP has totally failed to demonstrate that Robert Sungenis is "advocating" conspiracy theories. He quotes them. He has stated that a website seems to be advocating them, etc., he occasionally uses the word anecdotally, or uses thenm as a literary device, but this is different than advocating them. I will remove the conspiracy theory line. Please see my comments on your quotes above, LP. None of them are valid. Unless you want to say Sungenis has quoted others who claimed conspiracy theories, including Richard Nixon, John F. Kennedy, etc. Truth_Seeker 01:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

TS is again deleting material without cause. I have demonstrated at length that Sungenis has more than simply "quoted" conspiracy theories, as though he is neutral on them. Yet, if TS will not go back and read the documentation, I will reproduce it here again and add more:
Kennedy Assassination Conspiracy Theory:
Michael Piper:
Proof 1: "Well, I've read Michael Collins Piper's book from cover-to-cover, every word of it ... couldn't put it down, actually, um (laughs), it was my bed-time reading for about the last three or four months, and he uncovers some things there that would astound people, basically - people who consider themselves experts on the Kennedy Assassination have never considered the angle that he's brought forth. And although he doesn't come right out and say, 'yes, the Israelis killed JFK', he lined all the ducks up for you so that you can walk right through it and see all these political connections and make your obvious conclusion, and I think he did a very professional job in doing it that way." (Transcribed from Sungenis radio interview)
Proof 2: “We also know through the exhaustive effort of Michael Collins Piper’s new 738- page book, Final Judgment, how Bronfman (note: a Jew) is implicated in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. The story begins when Kennedy refused to capitulate to Israel’s demand for nuclear weapons, and you can probably guess the rest of the story.” (Neocons and the Jewish Connection)
Notice, Sungenis' precise words are "we know" that this purportedly Zionist Jew(Bronfman) "is implicated." He is clearly showing his agreement with this conspiracy theory. The quote from the radio interview is almost gushing in its praise for this conspiracy theory.
TS's contention that Sungenis is merely quoting these without supporting them is not supported by the actual record.
FDR-Jewish Background-Pearl Harbor Conspiracy theory:
“President Roosevelt had a part in (the Zionist conspiracy) himself. Being of Jewish ancestry, he was sympathetic to their cause...Roosevelt brought America into World War II by
allowing Pearl Harbor to take place, for he had known way in advance that the Japanese were planning to attack.”
here
The Jews in Israel are tapping U.S. phone conversations conspiracy theory:
"I bet you didn't know that the nation of Israel has control of AMDOCS, the central telephone operation in the United States. It's one way the Mossad spies on American citizens, including you and those you talk to."
here
Jewish world domination conspiracy theory:
"The Jews...do intend to rule the world. And now the problem is that they want to rule the Catholic Church, too."
Question 47
This list does not even contemplate the Zionist conspiracy theories including the ones about Jews supposedly having a stranglehold on the German economy and possibly financing the Holocaust. Or Jews being behind world finance that is all about gaining more land for Israel and crushing its enemies. Is it really necessary to go further?
There is ample evidence that Sungenis supports more than one conspiracy theory involving Jews. TS' argument that Sungenis is merely neutrally or off-handedly mentioning what others have written is not reasonable and does not at all comport with the written record.
Liam Patrick 04:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sungenis Use of Dr. Robert Ley

From, "Uncorking" article here:

(Dr. Cork): Dr. Robert Ley, Nazi Labor Minister

Mr. Sungenis refers to Franklin D. Roosevelt's alleged Jewish ancestry. He claims that Roosevelt knew in advance of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, but deliberately refrained from acting (because of the blood of this distant Jewish ancestor), in order to draw the US into World War 2.

(Sungenis): Again, this material was taken off the website, but let me address it anyway. Notice again that Mr. Cork doesn't refute the issue or supply any contravening evidence. He just assumes it's not true. But in exchanges I had with Mr. Cork over this issue I told him that the Detroit Jewish Chronicle of 1935 was the initial source for the fact that Roosevelt had Jewish ancestry he was concealing from the public. Mr. Cork told me that I wouldn't have known that unless I got it from the nazi quote. I told him I didn't know it was from a nazi, but in the end it made no difference, because the fact is that the nazi was quoting from the Detroit Jewish Chronicle about Roosevelt's Jewish roots!

(Dr. Cork): His discussion of Roosevelt's genealogy includes a reference to an "Adolf Schmalix" who wrote a pamphlet on the subject in the 1930s. Suspecting that Schmalix was probably a Nazi, I did an internet search--and was shocked by what I found. I discovered that a long section of Mr. Sungenis' article was lifted verbatim, without attribution, from an on-line source. This was the first instance of plagiarism I discovered in Sungenis' writings.

Equally shocking was the nature of the source, a Nazi propaganda tract--Dr. Robert Ley, Roosevelt verr t Amerika! (Berlin: Verlag der Deutschen Arbeitsfront, 1942). The English translation used by Mr. Sungenis (Roosevelt Betrays America!) is from the German Propaganda Archive of Calvin College. It was translated by Professor Randall Bytwerk, Professor of Communication Arts & Sciences at Calvin.

When I informed Mr. Sungenis and Prof. Bytwerk of this, Sungenis replaced the original version with a paraphrase, but still failed to cite either the author (the Nazi Dr. Ley) or the translator. He and his defenders have argued that the source makes no difference. He claimed not to have gotten the document from the Calvin College site, but would not mention the name of the site where he obtained it (and a Google search shows no other source).

(Sungenis): As I said above, Prof. Bytwerk from Calvin College accepted my explanation that I had no intentions of plagiarizing his material. I told him I would reword his material so as to avoid any impression of impropriety. He allowed that. As for the site from which I obtained the material, as I said above, I don't remember. END QUOTE FROM "Uncorking" article.

Fact: Bytwerk was merely *translating* the work of Dr. Robert Ley. Sungenis used the translation of Ley's work and did not openly acknowledge it in his original article. Cork demonstrated conclusively that Sungenis used the material and Sungenis did not deny it but only said he didn't intend to plagiarize and that the material was *true*.

Liam Patrick 06:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


LP- he may have used him one time indirectly to get to the fact that the Detroit Jewuish News did claim that Roosevelt had Jewish blood. This is one time 5 years ago, and not even clear that he did use him. Sungenis did not reference Ley. I see this as an attempt to make Sungenis look bad. I am leaving some of the others, because he has mentioned them multiple times over time, and has given explanations to their use. I may add some of theat expaklantion in the future. Truth_Seeker 16:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Sungenis did not publicly acknowledge his source from the beginning is not a very compelling defense. Dr. Cork demonstrated and Sungenis eventually admitted that he had taken the material from Bytwerk's translation of Dr. Ley. He did not get his information from the Detroit Jewish Chronicle, that much is firmly established.
See the evidence here: [24] To my knowledge, Sungenis has *never* provided evidence of what the Detroit Jewish Chronicle supposedly said, he has only *claimed* it also gives proof of Roosevelt's Jewish blood. There is no evidence that he has ever even *seen* the Detroit Jewish Chronicle that I know if. If so, TS should provide the evidence that Sungenis has actually seen it.
Conversely, we have Sungenis' admission that he asked for Bytwerk's permission to use his translation of Ley's original work and that he didn't intend to plagiarize him. There is no possible dispute that he used Ley/Bytwerk.
TS' argument that Ley's inclusion in the list is only "an attempt to make Sungenis look bad" is clearly his POV and not relevant. The question is whether or not Sungenis in fact used Ley and the record is clear that he did. Contra TS, there is absolutely no doubt from Sungenis' own admissions. Why else would he go to Bytwerk for permission to use his translation of Ley if he in fact had never actually used it? TS' argument is not logical.
Yet, if TS finds this particular factual citation too objectionable, I can agree to omit for now. The reason: I do agree that, unlike the other citations (Pike, IHR, Mohr, et al), Sungenis did not actually defend Ley himself as a good source. Although he defended the material he took from Ley and clearly did plagiarize it, he seems not to actually approve of Dr. Ley in general. Neither has he used him as a source since. These two things together lead me to be somewhat more flexible in this case.
Again, the citation of Ley is accurate and not objectively impermissible for any reason, imo, but I will agree not to restore it. However, what is *not* acceptable, imo, is TS beginning his personal "explanations" on the sources listed in the second paragraph. This has already been addressed. A bibliography is a bibliography and commentary only clutters the article and may ignite an unnecessary "explanation" (POV) war. People can see the sources for themselves and come to their own determinations. For instance, almost every one of the first sources listed by TS and Sungenis' use (or perhaps misuse) of them can easily be commented on as well in objective, factual ways that may not be perceived as positive by TS. If TS chooses to begin his explanations of Sungenis' sources, it will open up a can of worms.
Liam Patrick 18:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)