Talk:Joel C. Rosenberg

message: Can't speak for 70.137.31.142, but I've never been confused about when I wrote a book.  How about you, :emallson: ?
He wrote The Last Jihad before the 9-11 attack, and then it was shelved. I'm sure that 70.137.31.142 has never been confused before either. ::emallson::
Im pretty sure that "The Last Jihad" was written after the September 11th attacks considering they are mentioned in the book. Contrary to what is written in the article currently.
:The book was written before the attacks. After 9/11, however, some revisions were made so that it would be up-to-date. « amiИa . skyшalkeя (¿Hábleme?) 17:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Last Jihad

message: Anybody have any idea what he means by claiming an Orthodox Jewish background? 75.3.193.243 05:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Orthodox background?

message: Does anyone know if Rosenberg is a "Messianic Jew" or if he is part of a mainstrem church. What are the details surrounding his involvement with Christianity? Please contact me on my talk page if you know something about this subject. Thank you. IZAK 13:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is he a Messianic Jew? 

message: I reverted a change by an IP author as a BLP violation.  If anyone objects, this would be a good place to do it. Also, doesn't anyone have this page on their watch list? That edit stood for more than a day.  Hobit (talk) 15:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  revert 

message: Undid second incident of vandalism by Hobit in two days.  This is a neutral article giving all sides of the arguement and not promotional material for Joel Rosenberg.  In stead of reverting edits, Hobit should note that which needs clarification and/or citations.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.169.208 (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *As a note, this also includes positive things.  I'd not read this for a while. Hobit (talk) 22:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hobit Vandalism 

message: There are a few sweeping statements here that aren't supported by cites.  In a BLP it is generally wise to delete these, but in this case I've just added fact tags as they seem likely to be true.  But if no one can support these claims, I'll delete them at some point (or someone else might do so sooner).  Hobit (talk) 21:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed.  See rev. history for details. No objection to restoration if sourced.  Hobit (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Fact issues

message: Is there a valid reason for the extensive information about his books in "Works"?  Absent a valid reason, I would think it is unneeded stuff, not directly related to his biography. Collect (talk) 13:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. --Tom 13:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

text: We mention his books substantially -- the question is whether each and every book needs a precis.  Collect (talk) 15:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So would it be ok to mention what the books received e.g. New York Times bestseller, Denver Times best seller etc., as opposed to what the books were about?
129.100.194.166 (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Like how JK Rowlings page talks about her books; doesn't mention what happened to Harry, but how it made him famous had?
Nicholas.tan (talk) 21:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

text: The "theme" is cited quite adequately indeed.  Collect (talk) 22:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

text: can we get rid of the puffery? or do you have issues that we can fix also?
Nicholas.tan (talk) 04:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's depuff every article we can -- it is one of the issues I have with WP that people judge their successes by how long they can make an arricle ... Collect (talk) 23:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure thing, maybe just state the parts that in your opinion would be considered puffed for discussion
Nicholas.tan (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  every book has a precis? 

message: By the way I tried to shorten the works section by a lot, it doesnt talk about the books rather than just talk about his writing career... sorry but it seemed like a bit of a jump. Tell me what you think
Nicholas.tan (talk) 00:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Writing Career

message: It is a criticism section.  Given that the rest of this article is still very"puffy" (very positive about a man of whom a lot of criticism has been directed at, Glen Beck isn't exactly an unbiased source here).  I'd ask that the NPOV either go to the top of the article or be removed. Hobit (talk) 18:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  critisism -- what's the problem? 

message: I reverted a number of edits by a user because of NPOV issues.  The removal of a reference bothered me and the "scare quotes" added along with the general tone seemed inappropriate.  Could the IP making those edits explain what he/she was shooting for? Hobit (talk) 09:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV revert 

message: Should the prediction about a war with Iraq 5 months before the invasion be used as an example? It was obvious to anyone who read a paper or watched the news that this was happening. You didn't need "biblical" prophecy to see that coming. Ace-o-aces (talk) 23:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Modern Nostradamus" and Iraq 

message: I had removed that specifically because a) the portion discussed was less about Rosenburg and more about one group's belief that apocalyptic talk is worthy of note and b) that Rosenburg was far from the highlight of the section, but rather the criticism is of CNN.  Is the intention to discuss his apocolyptic views?  If so, we should do that.  Is the intention to talk about how often CNN talked about the end of the world?  Because that's effectively what the section currently highlights.  I don't see where the actual criticism of Rosenburg is here, merely of CNN for giving him airtime. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rosenberg and Paula Zahn 

message: this is an objective article and not free advertisement for mr. rosenberg.  it must include criticisms, lawsuits, etc. and not simply be a fan club piece.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.130.132.92 (talk) 02:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If this information is notable, it can be sourced to reliable sources such as the press, not to blogs and primary sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  undid vandalism 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Joel C. Rosenberg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110304010407/http://joelrosenberg.com:80/ezekiel_q13.asp to http://www.joelrosenberg.com/ezekiel_q13.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101226032916/http://old.nationalreview.com:80/comment/rosenberg200402241417.asp to http://old.nationalreview.com/comment/rosenberg200402241417.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090325201137/http://www.joshuafund.net:80/body_give.html to http://www.joshuafund.net/body_give.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110720230032/http://www.joshuafund.net/body_the_mission.html to http://www.joshuafund.net/body_the_mission.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Success! --1990'sguy (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Joel C. Rosenberg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080205011117/http://www.ecpa.org/christianbookawards/cba2006.php to http://www.ecpa.org/christianbookawards/cba2006.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:32, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Success! --1990'sguy (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Joel C. Rosenberg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090228011055/http://www.joelrosenberg.com/about.asp to http://www.joelrosenberg.com/about.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100325203224/http://www.joelrosenberg.com/spiritual.asp to http://www.joelrosenberg.com/spiritual.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090328231946/http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/03/sp_world_rosenberg012903.htm to http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/03/sp_world_rosenberg012903.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified