Talk:Joseph Sobran/Archive 1

message: Seems to be someone working out of University of Virginia. 
Klonimus 21:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please assume good faith by other editors. In fact, I accidentally deleted the new links when I made a small edit concerning Wm. Buckley. -Willmcw 17:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  128.143.*.* Buffer 

message: Joe Sobran uses the above phrase in his articles.  It is part and parcel to his philosophy.  Garet Garrett coined the above phrase to describe what was going on in America.  It was posted on Wikipedia and offered to be an external link or an article but both were rejected.  Wikipedians rejected this article on March 6, 2006.WHEELER 23:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at the top of the talk page there is a link to the aforesaid article. happy reading! (Oh, and dear CD use the four tilde marks ~~~~ above the tab key on your keyboard to sign your name instead of writing it.) WHEELER 01:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Revolution within the form

message: Quotations belong in Wikiquote. There's already a link on the page. -Will Beback 02:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotations 

message: After rereading Buckley's "In Search of Anti-Semitism" it is clear that we have been operating on a false premise.  Buckley did not accuse Sobran of Anti-semitism at all.  He explicitly said the opposite: "What needs to be said first is that those who know him know that Sobran is not anti-Semitic....Those who know Joe Sobran know not only that he does not harbor ethnic prejudices, but that he regards such prejudice as sinful, despised by God, and therefore despised by man."  Buckley's accusation against Sobran amounts to a charging him with recklessness in getting himself accused of anti-Semitism by Podhoretz.
Therefore the section referring to Buckley and Podhoretz needs to be altered.  I plan on revising it when I have the time to produce a good version, but wanted to run this point by everyone so I didn't catch anyone unawares.  DJac75 19:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See "In search of anti-semitism: what Christians provoke what Jews? Why? By doing what? - And vice versa" -Will Beback 23:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The phrase "Sobran's anti-semitic prejudice" does not appear in that article.  The following does, however: "What needs to be said first is that those who know him know that Sobran is not anti-Semitic....Those who know Joe Sobran know not only that he does not harbor ethnic prejudices, but that he regards such prejudice as sinful, despised by God, and therefore despised by man."DJac75 23:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Buckley/Sobran controversy

message: Why are we deleting mention of his work on Shakespeare? He's written a book on the topic. This is biography, so it seems relevant to describe what his work is. -Will Beback 22:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shakespeare 

message: There seems to be a dispute over whether Sobran has criticized Jews in general, or just the state of Israel, and of whether he was accused of being an anti-Semite, or just anti-Semitic. Or more specifically- the question of what Buckley and Podhoretz's criticism of him was. Let's not get over-excited about this, it's a rather minute point albeit important to some. Can anyone find a direct source in which Buckley or Podhoretz give their view of Sobran and of why he was fired? Aslo, let's not call good faith edits "vandalism". I'm sure we're all working towards a better article. -Will Beback 20:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that article, The Jewish Faction, certainly looks to me to be Sobran criticizing the Jews for a variety of cultural and investment activities in the U.S. and elsewhere, not simply criticizing Zionism or Israel.  The second half of the questions is what Buckley and Podhoretz said in response. -Will Beback 01:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that some of his language borders on anti-Semitic in the cited piece, however it is from 2004 and cannot be offered as evidence of why he was fired from NR in 1993.  Prior to that time, the only general criticism of Jews I have seen from Sobran involved (1) Zionism or (2) what Sobran believes is an unfair anti-Catholicism among secular Jews.  I don't necessarily agree with every word Sobran wrote on the subject even before 1993, but it didn't rise to the level of anti-Semitism.  I'd also like to offer the opinion of Sobran's Jewish libertarian mentor Murray Rothbard on the Pat Buchanan controversy in 1990, an opinion which applies, mutatis mutandis, to everything Sobran was saying at the time. DJac75 06:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Israel/Jews

message: Please work out your differences on the talk page instead of edit warring. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 15:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: Okay, so I tripped up on this page, what a mess.
* Is the only thing notable about this guy his firing from the National Review?  He never wrote any articles, had any positions, wrote any books?
* Did he have a life before NR?  Any information at all about his prior work?
* More info on what he's done since 1993?  At all?
This is one of the worst POV hackjobs I've seen here in a while.  I hope we can start coming up with some references to expand this before it gets unprotected. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 17:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, there has been an edit war going on, and teh protected version is a conglomeration of hasty edits in said war. Go through the edit history and examine the two competing versions first off, then let's try to work towards concensus from there. Thanks for getting involved, we definitely need some new blood working on this article. Dick Clark 19:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wow, many, many problems 

message: Awww you boys seem awfully tough.... But I'd suggest that you end your quest to fill Wikipedia with disgusting anti-semtitism and racism... Never forget that however many times you try to vandalize this page or others... I'll be there to REVERT your edits IMMEDIATELY... Let the games begin..... (unsigned comment by User:CaliforniaDreamlings)
:I would respond by simply asking that you read WP:NOT, specifically Wikipedia is not a Battleground. I suspect that you will ignore my above request, so I copy below a particularly pertinent potion of said policy: 
::Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, harass or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter in an intelligent manner, and engage in polite discussion. 
:We are here to write an encyclopedia collaboratively, not to allow you to feel like you are defending something. I really hope that you will read Wikipedia policy and abide by it, so that all of this energy can be redirected towards more productive ends. Dick Clark 22:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hard Ball 

message: First point, just to get it out of the way: I am the webmaster for sobran.com and the managing editor for Joe Sobran's newsletter.
To the point I wish to make: I dispute the factual exactitude and challenge the relevance of the following paragraph:
"He has since then written an article entitled 'Jewish Power' in the Journal of Historical Review which is published by the Institute for Historical Review, a think tank which promotes Holocaust revisionism. He has also participated in annual conferences of the Institute. Sobran's association with the Institute for Historical Review has cost him the friendship of many people on the neoconservative intellectual right."
The article referred to (and cited at the end of the Wikipedia article on Sobran) is in fact a composite reprinting three articles, two of which originally appeared in Joe Sobran's newsletter. (The other article was a reprint from Dale Crowley's "Capitol Hill Voice," which was itself a reprint: it was originally written for "The Wanderer.") It is not immediately obvious that who publishes JHR or what they promote tells us anything about Sobran. Surely, what readers want to know is what Sobran has written, not what others who have reprinted him believe or do.
Similarly, that he has participated in some of the conferences of IHR, does not tell us anything about what he said at those conferences. Again, surely what readers want to know is what he said, not to whom he said it.
On the matter of Sobran and anti-Semitism, would it not be more to the point before asserting that he is an anti-Semite to state just what is meant by that assertion? The Wikipedia itself gives several definitions and meanings. Maybe it would be more useful to say just what it is Sobran has said that the author of the article wishes to draw attention to. The ongoing debate here suggests that the charge of anti-Semitism by itself is simply not capable of being falsified, whereas a less general accusation might be.
Thornwalker 00:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Thorn, and welcome.  I agree with and appreciate what you are saying, the only reservation I have about it is that precisely since the accusations by Podhoretz and the somewhat backhanded defense by Buckley, are themselves so general, they cannot be falsified.  To get into defining anti-Semitism in the article would (1) require putting words into the accusers' mouths that may not represent their actual views and (2) appear to be trying to "settle" the controversy.  What I would like to see is a good, sound article that mentions the controversy as one among many notable aspects of Sobran's career, but does not tilt to one side or the other.  Readers should decide for themselves who is right based on reading Sobran's actual work.  Unfortunately, we have a loud, bullying faction present that insists that Sobran is notable for nothing but the controversy, and which vandalizes the page with assertions that have repeatedly been proven false.  We hope you will stick around and contribute to the resolution of this dispute. St. Jimmy 01:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jimmy is correct. We shouldn't make any attempt to decide, as encyclopedia editors, if Sobran is or is not "anti-Semitic". Our job is simply to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. Sobran's relationship to IHR is notable, but it is only part of his life and work. -Will Beback 21:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Thorn, what is the current circulation of Sobran's?  When was Sobran dropped from the Conservative Chronicle? St. Jimmy 20:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: What does it matter? It isn't our job to decide. If he calls himself an anti-semite, or if others notably do so, then it is probably worth reporting. Just as we should report on what books he's written, what major periodicals he's worked on, what university he's associated with, his year of birth, etc. -Will Beback 06:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think I can answer that.  Before I do, may I ask you a question?  Specifically, do you define anti-Semitism as merely a specific embodiment of the larger concept "racism", or as something different? St. Jimmy 07:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Not liking Jews as a group is not sufficient for the disparaging title "anti-Semite."  Hating all Jews, would be.  Advocating discriminatory laws against Jews, also would be.  Claiming that Jews are biologically inferior, would be as well. None of those apply to JS. St. Jimmy 02:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, that is your POV and you have a right to it, but if you think this is the place to push it you'll find plenty of us will you challenge you.St. Jimmy 02:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe a majority of the U.S.; the human race is another matter.  St. Jimmy 06:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Come on guys, let's not wander off into a debate that isn't about this article and its subject. Our job is only to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. Cheers, -Will Beback 07:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: No, this encyclopedia is about NPOV, verifiability, and no original research. If we have reliable who call Sobran an "anti-semite" then it is appropriate to include the info. -Will Beback 00:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Consensus of whom?  Consensus means either unanymity or near-unanymity.  There are at least 4 users who feel the term "anti-Semite" as applied to Sobran amounts to libel.  And we still haven't heard any retraction of the plain lie that WFB called JS an anti-Semite.  Until we do, there is no basis for discussion.St. Jimmy 03:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: You don't know me from Adam, Rog.  You don't have a clue if I am a "supporter of Sobran" or not.St. Jimmy 04:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Check facts 

message: I've unprotected the article; everyone's free to edit. Just don't edit war, or I'll have to protect it again. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 17:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is so much negative press about Sobran we should have no trouble attributing the criticisms of him to reliable sources. -Will Beback 08:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I've been reading Sobran since 1991, and for the past 2-3 years have probably read every article he's written.  NR is a neoconized magazine, JS is a paleocon, therefore he got the hatchet when he didn't see the error of his ways.  WFB specifically denied that he was an anti-Semite (while claiming Gore Vidal was one, which is also libelous.)St. Jimmy 14:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotected 

message: DCM's version is factually correct and meets NPOV guidelines.  The version Rogerman is continually reverting to, unfortunately, does not appear to be.  How do we solve this? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 20:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate your work thus far, Roger.  Thanks for trying to work with us. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 21:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree! Cheers, Dick Clark 21:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: My personal feeling is that the current version  accurately reflects the conflict as I understand the facts to be.  I still think the article needs some shuffling around, and his pre- and post-NR history be expanded, but can we agree on this version and remove the tag or is there any other protest regarding the changes? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 22:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Listen, [personal attack removed], it is a little much to be suggesting I need to be kept "under control" when I haven't yet so much as offered an opinion on, or seen, the new edit.  Moreover, I have had no substantive differences with Jeff or Dick on this article, yet you seem to be implying otherwise.St. Jimmy 05:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take full responsibility for that.  I misread where you were pulling the quote from before, and how you were attributing it.  I think I get it now, and I think the context is clearer.  Sorry 'bout that. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 16:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DCM's rewrites, Rogerman's reversions 

message: *Man, is that Buckley article long winded or WHAT, (whats new) :)? I added Mr. Buckley's response to Mr.Podhoretz's comments on the main page of this article. It seems from the article (In search of anti-semitism) that Mr. Buckley DOESN'T believe Sobran to be anti-Semitic?? Has that changed? Any refferrences would help. Thanks!Tom 16:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that removal was a good one, as the Buckley response provides better context and a clearer NPOV situation.  I also have to protest your assertation in the introduction, as I don't see any evidence to suggest that the main reason for his notability is his firing when he's published numerous books and is a syndicated columnist long after the fact.  Do you have any explanation? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 19:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: First off, the LA Times and other one come straight from his biography page.  As he was syndicated from the LA Times 10+ years ago, I wouldn't expect his articles to be in the archive, especially if they may have attempted to distance themselves following the NR flap.  I didn't notice that removal, and I'm going to re-add them per Sobran's biography.  Secondly, I'm not sure what exactly connects him to notability the most.  I see Ann Coulter reference him 9 times in 9 different articles in one of your links, I see he had a fairly notable book in the Shakespeare one, I don't know where you get the idea that he's only notable due to the NR firing.  Can you provide a source of some kind which would back that claim up, or is it fair to say that Sobran is notable for numerous reasons, both due to his professional resume and the controversy that surrounds him?  --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 19:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have to agree or say that his notoriety should be left up to the reader to decide since this is POV imo.I would leave his first sentence very basic and him being accused or being anti-semitic or whatever left below and for the reader to decide based on his articles, others opinions, ect. This isn't easy but isn't the "prime directive" if you will to be NPOV? Anyways, just my 2 cents....Tom 19:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: How do you believe that this is "sooooo moderate."  Also, how exactly are you sourcing that most of the real world knows him as an "anti-semitic bigot?"  I hadn't even heard of the guy before being asked to take a look at this entry, and I'm not sure I'd personally make that claim, and I certianly don't think an article that's supposed to conform to a neutral point of view can make that claim.  The blanket removal of the WFB quote (which provides necessary context as to his feelings regarding Sobran considering WFB would have been the one firing him) and the removal of actual bullet points regarding his professional career (which are important to note his WHOLE career, not focused on one aspect) do not seem to improve the article.  Please explain your edits with sourcing if possible as to why those things should be removed. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 20:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it hilarious that "moderate" is being used an an epithet in the context of an encyclopedia.St. Jimmy 23:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WFB

message: FWIW - Rogerman, CaliforniaDreamlings and TheDookieMan have been confirmed as meatpuppets and blocked from editing. Syrthiss 21:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the above note from Syrthiss, it would probably be appropriate to unprotect this page. I believe that the offending parties have all been blocked. Dick Clark 21:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I already left a note with the blocking admin. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 22:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: There were susupicions, but he apparently admitted it.  The subject will probably stay quiet behind the admins and them for the forseeable future, so I don't really see the need to comment further on it. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: ok, that makes sense because I am not going to register with Wikipedia, and I just went to look at "my" talk page and contributions and WOW that wasn't me who made those edits ect. IPs can change or what. I am on a lap top at home on a local network but I would hate to be accused to vandalism or being a meat puppet ect. I'll lurk on.198.176.188.201 02:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Meatpuppetry

message: Now that the defamation crew is gone (for now) can someone who knows how archive this page and start a new talk page? St. Jimmy 20:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  I'd also like to extend a request to everyone involved that any changes that even MIGHT be controversial, bring them here first and see if we can't hash them out.  I'd hate to see another situation like before, except with real people. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 20:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New page?

message: Since somebody deleted my contributions without cause, I should explain some of my changes:
1.) "Sobran has also been criticized for his association with the Institute for Historical Review,"
What does "association" mean?  I added clarifications.  BTW, a LONG line of people have accused Sobran of anti-semitism over the last two decades, many with more evidience than discussed here.  Aren't there better examples than one paragraph published by the Stephen Roth Institute and an off-the-cuff remark by Tom Palmer?
No there isn't any better examples. Sobran wrote some articles diagreeing with Zionist and Israeli government policies and practices - most of the intellectuals confused this with any Jewishness. 
2.) Also, the writing style in the "current political philosophy" needed some tightening up:
a.: "Joseph Sobran went from identifying as a paleoconservative to advocacy of a libertarian anarchocapitalism. In December 2002 he announced his philosophical and political shift to libertarian anarchism in Sobran's,[3] where he cited inspiration by libertarian theorist Murray Rothbard."
The word "libertarian" appears THREE times.  One should be sufficient.
b.: "Sobran cites Roman Catholic teachings as support for his views on abortion and the Iraq War (both of which he has vociferously opposed.)"  He's a pundit.  Being vociferous is part of the job description, so bringing it up is a bit redundant.  Not to mention that this sentence is terribly awkward. --Yakuman
For wikipedia, not too bad an article. Though the body of the text is pretty low quality, the links as to what Sobran actually wrote are good ( only because Sobran wrote them, no credit to wikipdia ). If Sobran was anti-Semitic you would have little trouble finding vague examples - they would be BIG, CLEAR and hit you right between the eyes. If you have to look this hard then wikipedia is probably lying/smearing/just being wiki.
Nearly all of the links here are to works by Sobran or people who think like him. Surely there should be some balance? 75.57.67.207 04:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The recent (last 9 months) versions of the page represent a hard-won consensus.  Nobody objects to critical views being mentioned as part of the whole, but I don't see what the grounds are for resurrecting a POV argument at this stage. 67.46.0.13 13:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversial Bits

message: My understanding is that Sobran is syndicated by his PR agents, and mainly "published" on the web.  This article is basically a cover-up masquerading as a bio, so it's a bit funny to correct only one error.  But I would like to know who the author of this piece purports is syndicating his columns, and who, other than the holocaust denial websites, is publishing him? Adam Holland 19:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As the Wikipedia disambig article on syndication notes, syndication may include print syndication, web syndication, television syndication, and radio syndication. Since we are here discussing Sobran's columns being syndicated, we are naturally limited to the first two. Either of those constitutes "syndication" and would qualify Sobran for the title of "syndicated columnist." We already see that Sobran's columns are syndicated on the web. It is my understanding that they are also (or have been in the past) syndicated in print, but I don't have any citations for this at this time. DickClarkMises 18:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: On David Irving, it should be known that in the Wikipedia profile http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving "Irving's status has widely been discredited" On the page it says David Irving is a widely discredited historian. Semantics are important and the perception of these two different ways of saying, perhaps, the same thing does not mean it is the same thing. Having your status discredited and being discredited are two different things. One is subjective and the other is objective. I am going to change it to    a historian whose status is widely discredited —Preceding unsigned comment added by RG415WBFA (talk • contribs) 
REGARDING SYNDICATION:  My point when I started this section last February was that his column is posted on the web by his press agents, not a news or opinion syndicate.  To call him a "syndicated columnist" is thus a misnomer.  The fact that the web is the medium by which his columns are disseminated is not the issue.  My question concerns who is doing the disseminating.  
He would be more accurately described as a web-based or self-published columnist.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Holland (talk • contribs) 16:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Syndicated columnist? 

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