Talk:Robert Sungenis/Archive 1

message: ::"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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  changes to Geocentrism Controversy section 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Changes to Intro section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Classifying Sungenis 

message: 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)
thread_title: Robert Sungenis released a new book directly relevant to the geocentrism controversy section

message: 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)
thread_title: Time to Clean Up the "Jewish Controversy Section"

message: 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)
thread_title:  Blogs and personal web pages 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proposal inserted 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Policy review

message: 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)
thread_title:  Request to Liam Patrick 

message: 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)
replies: text: "The Talmud is a satanic book from hell, to be blunt, but they bend over backward to sanitize it." 
Liam Patrick 19:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impasse 

message: :::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)
thread_title:  Statement by Liam Patrick 

message: 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. 
: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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Liam Patrick responds to Otheus

message: 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)
replies: text: I think it is rubbish, but that is my personal opinion. Truth_Seeker 00:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Liam Patrick responds regarding the New Mass 

message: 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)
replies: text: I'll withhold for now until I see TruthSeeker's attempt. Otheus 10:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  by Liam Patrick

message: I think this is very brief and fair.  Reactions?
Liam Patrick 18:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll withhold for now until I see TruthSeeker's attempt. Otheus 10:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: 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 . Sungenis completely denies the characterization of his views as anti-semitic, claims that a smear campaign is ocurring , 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" . He sums up his religous reasons for being critical of certain aspects of Jewish thought in the introduction of an essay .
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)
thread_title:  by Truth Seeker 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Otheus refactors discussion 

message: LP responds to TS's proposal (the TSP) [18:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  LPs response to TS's proposal (refactored) 

message: TS interjects several times into LP's response above. [19:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TS interjections  (refactored) 

message: 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)
thread_title: Liam Patrick Clarification of Refactor

message: 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)
thread_title: Brief TS rejoinder to LP Response to TS 

message: 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)
thread_title: Response from LP

message: 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)
thread_title: A Reply from LP 

message: "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)
thread_title: One more comment from TS 

message: 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)
thread_title: One more comment from LP 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Another TS response 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Response to TS =

message: 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)
thread_title:  Otheus responds

message: 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)
thread_title:  LP

message: I am willing to lave it as it is , 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)
thread_title:  TS 

message: 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)
thread_title:  LP 

message: 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)
thread_title: TS 

message: 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)
thread_title: LP 

message: 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)
thread_title:  TS 

message: 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)
thread_title:  LP: Documentation 

message: 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 ===
# Robert Sungenis  writes on apologia and of doctrinal matters concerning the Catholic Church. 
# 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. 
# RS opinions are his own. That is, like other apologists, he does not speak for "the Church" in any official way.
# There is almost a complete lack of attributable sources pertaining to RS's "controversial" viewpoints. 
## 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. It is agreed that this SPLC "inteligence report" cannot stand on its own as a reliable, disinterested, third-party source. 
## The website "Catholic Culture" contains over 500 web site "reviews". One of these reviews discusses CAI. Comments for/against the inclusion of this site as a reference is requested.
## 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.
## Catholics United for the Faith is a "Catholic lay" organization (see here) whose site includes a list of links; this list does not include CAI, but includes RSAJ via a portal page.[
<more to come>
=== Points of Disagreement (RFC) ===
<more to come>
--Otheus 18:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comments 

message: <more to come>
--Otheus 18:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Points of Disagreement (RFC) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Note Regarding TS repeated deletion of Sungenis Source Material

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  TS 

message: 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)
thread_title:  LP Response 

message: 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)
thread_title:  TS