Talk:Robert Sungenis

{{BLP noticeboard|section=Robert Sungenis}}

Original Research

Please end this. Stating that Calumus is a "diploma mill" is WP:NOR. This is article mis WP:BLP and deserves more scrutiny. Why are you insisting on stating this? This is clearly your opinion.research, and not a neutral point of view. I will slap this tag on the article if it continues.Joe6Pack (talk) 05:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Could you please try to offer a more literate contribution to the discussion? The phrase is supported by the references given. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I completely disagree. One of the links is to Wikipedia itself plus a Dept. of Education website that defines a diploma mill, but does not mention "Calamus University". The second is to a local newspaper article where the author makes a snide remark about Robert Sungenis having a PhD from a diploma mill. Putting the two together is original research. Her is what the Richmond News article said:

"Sungenis isn't an expert - he's a man with a doctorate from a diploma mill on Vanuatu with a history of antisemitic writings."

This is hardly unbiased factual reporting. Note that it does not even mention the name "Calamus University" in the article. You are clearly desperate to drive home a point that Calamus is a diploma mill, perhaps to slander the WP:BLP subject. Even if that is not your intent it is appears that way. Joe6Pack (talk) 16:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

[1] is an opinion piece from a local newspaper. It also makes no mention of Calamus. [2] makes no mention of Calamus. At best this is synthesis, at worst it is total misrepresenting sources.Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. This is WP:BLP and needs to be treated as such. Joe6Pack (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

From List of unaccredited institutions of higher education:

• "Calamus International University: Important Statement on Accreditation". Calamus International University website. Retrieved 2010-04-07.. This is Calamus' own page, disclaiming any government-recognized form of accreditation, but claiming accreditation by the "International Association for Distance Learning", an unrecognized entity.

• "Colleges and universities not accredited by an accrediting body of the Council on Higher Education Accreditation" (PDF). State of Michigan. Archived from the original (PDF) on June 28, 2011. (list is no longer being maintained)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Then you can say "unaccredited", not diploma mill.Slatersteven (talk) 18:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Disputed

Please follow WP:BLP and WP:NOR. Please work from the article I have provided. I think this is fair and balanced. Joe6Pack (talk) 16:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

{{BLP noticeboard|section=Robert Sungenis}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe6Pack (talk • contribs) 17:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Robert_SungenisJoe6Pack (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Robert_Sungenis Joe6Pack (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Joe6Pack:Your edit warring has left the article a complete mess with orphaned references, poor quality grammar and unreferenced content please check your edits more carefully. Theroadislong (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

proposed changes

Here's a section for JoeSixpack (and others) to propose changes and discuss re the material on Jews/Judaism. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

OK. Here a re my thoughts. First, SPLC is not a neutral source. While I recognize that some of Sungenis' notoriety stems from his views on Judaism/Zionism, and this needs to be expressed in the article, the primary neutral/acceptable source is the WaPo article, which discusses the Catechism. That is why I considered combining the articles. I am open to leaving the link to the SPLC, but I want that reviewed on the BLP board. Recall, that I am the editor that separated the sections in the first place. As I started reviewing the documentation and support, I do not feel it within WP:BLP to use the SPLC as a primary source to aschew general views of alleged anti-semitism on Sungenis. Nor is Raw Story a neutral 3rd party source. That is why I think we need to combine the sections and work it around the Catechism, which is typical of Sungenis' work aorund Judaism in a Catholic context. Joe6Pack (talk) 17:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

This supports my contention of "weight" with the SPLC. I do not think it holds enough weight to warrant a general charge of anti-semitism. I do not mind the opening sentence mentioning that some people including Catholics and the SPLC are critical, but i think it is out of WP:BLP standards to go too much further than that.

"Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 130 (section SPLC examined by RSN and by outside experts) The SPLC is certainly a reliable source for whom the SPLC classifies as hate groups. The real issue is WP:WEIGHT - how important is it that the SPLC has 263 KB (37,280 words) - 14:03, 3 November 2016"Joe6Pack (talk) 17:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

---

If this is a dead link: " in religious studies from the Calamus International University (CIU),[2][dead link] " then replace it or delete it. I replaced it with a link to Calamus University and someone undid it back to a dead link. Joe6Pack (talk) 17:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I fixed this one by linking to his Linkedin page. Joe6Pack (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Linked in is a user generated unreliable source and the Calamus University link doesn't mention Sungenis Theroadislong (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

So, are you proposing that we delete the Calamus University statement altogether?Joe6Pack (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

No... it's not disputed is it? It just needs a better quality source maybe [3]. Theroadislong (talk) 21:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest "Modern Geocentrism: A Case Study of Pseudoscience in Astronomy" by Matthew P. Wiesner. I don't have access at the moment, so I won't use it, but but I may have found an author's copy(?) that looks promising. BiologicalMe (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I think Linkedin is a better source. Wiesner states the fact, but does not support it with his own reference. Maybe we state that Robert Sungenis states that he attended Calamus...Joe6Pack (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

A stable (complete with a print version) third-party source and editorial oversight is a better source than a profile that can be deleted or modified at any time. BiologicalMe (talk) 22:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

---

My Proposed rework of the Judaism/Catechism section(s):

Views on Judaism United States Catholic Catechism for Adults

Sungenis's controversial views of the Jewish people and Judaism have been sharply criticized by fellow Catholics and by the Southern Poverty Law Center as being antisemitic[15][16]

In May 2014, Michael Voris interviewed Sungenis in order to help Sungenis promote his new movie, The Principle. During the interview, Voris defended Sungenis in regard to his views on the Jewish people and then asked him, "Are you a Holocaust denier?" and "Do you hate Jews?" Sungenis answered "no" to both questions.[17]

Sungenis wrote to the Vatican and met with officials from the bishops' conference in order to voice his concerns about a sentence in the United States Catholic Catechism for Adults (USCCA) which read, "Thus the covenant that God made with the Jewish people through Moses remains eternally valid for them". He believed it implied that the Jews can be saved without believing in Jesus. In the summer of 2008, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) voted to remove the sentence and replace it with "To the Jewish people, whom God first chose to hear his word, 'belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ". Monsignor Daniel Kutys stated that the sentence was changed because of the confusion it was generating and not because of Sungenis. Kutys thinks that Sungenis may have been the first to raise the issue about the sentence, but he does not think Sungenis deserves credit for revising the catechism.[15]

1) The SPLC is an excellent source and much favoured at WP:RSN, particularly on this very issue. 2) The sections you propose to combine are not sufficiently related. 3) You seem to want not merely to combine sections but to deleted material which ought not be deleted. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

An "excellent source" in general is not necessarily an "excellent source" for purposes of WP:BLP. I think the "weight" issue comes in to play as I posted over on the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. The weight may be sufficient to state that he has had controversies in this area, but certainly not to start leveling specific charges. Joe6Pack (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I do no think this part is sufficiently sourced:

In 2002, he claimed it was a fact that no one had ever proven that 6 million Jews died during the Holocaust and that demographic statistics show no real difference in the number of Jews living before and after World War II. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, he also "repeated a series of ancient anti-Semitic canards" and later wrote about the involvement of Jews and Israel in a Zionist Satanic conspiracy aimed at Satan ruling the world.[18][19] Sungenis has also claimed that Israel orchestrated the JFK assassination in retaliation for the president's opposition to Israeli nuclear weapons.[20]

Plus my point is that the only third party neutral source (WaPo) talks about the Catechism issue. That is the logic for recombining the sections. Joe6Pack (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Just as a wording matter on this - and something I tried to implement in the article but have been partially undone - saying his "controversial views... have been criticized" is redundant. If they've been criticized, that is controversy, and it does not need to be said that they are controversial. Just "Sungenis's views... have been criticized..." should do. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiesner

The source is available at http://web.archive.org/web/20160921153927/http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~mwiesner/Wiesner_geocentrism.pdf , I have included it in the article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Jews and Judaism

Made the change. I think this version is reasonable, neutral, and fair based on Sungenis' actual notoriety, with proper weight associated to sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Sungenis&oldid=765466353 Joe6Pack (talk) 15:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Other editors disagree, and keep leveling charges of anti-semitism using poor sources. Can someone else please review. Here is what I consider balanced: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Sungenis&oldid=765476598#Jews_and_Judaism

Here is what other editors propose: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Sungenis#Jews_and_Judaism

Wikipedia is not a personal vehicle to punish people for perceived wrongdoings. My version clearly states there is a controversy, then allows Sungenis to deny it. Their are not sufficient sources to go beyond that and stay within WP:BLP Joe6Pack (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Joe6pack: you have asked me to reply on talk. Okay -- but I did -- and you ignored what I said and simply repeated core components of your edit. That's not how this works... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok. So we disagree. It is you and I only. No one else has weighed in. I do not think SPLC carries enough weight to use them as a source to level specific charges under WP:BLP. They make statements repeated in the article without sourcing, and are not to be considered neutral or third party from the perspective of BP:WLP. I have posted my point on this multiple times. I am willing to leave the reference to the SPLC as part of the statement that Sungenis made controversial statements, etc., but not specific charges lifted from SPLC or The Jewish Times, which appears to be a blog. Joe6Pack (talk) 02:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I contend this must go:Joe6Pack (talk) 02:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

In 2002, he claimed it was a fact that no one had ever proven that 6 million Jews died during the Holocaust and that demographic statistics show no real difference in the number of Jews living before and after World War II. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, he also "repeated a series of ancient anti-Semitic canards" and later wrote about the involvement of Jews and Israel in a Zionist Satanic conspiracy aimed at Satan ruling the world.[19][20] Sungenis has also claimed that Israel orchestrated the JFK assassination in retaliation for the president's opposition to Israeli nuclear weapons.[21]Joe6Pack (talk) 02:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

As well as these sources (redundant and not up to WP:BLP):Joe6Pack (talk) 02:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Gettys, Travis. "Why are geocentrists trying to undo centuries worth of accepted science? (Hint: The Jews)". RawStory. Retrieved 30 April 2014.

Lipman, Jennifer. "Speaker row cancels Catholic conference". The Jewish Chronicle Online. Retrieved 11 July 2011.Joe6Pack (talk) 02:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

You're just repeating yourself. No point to it. Except that the new part here makes your position more absurd: the Jewish Chronicle is not a good enough source?? Where on earth are you getting that idea? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it is the format, but it looks like a blog to me. Also, it is certainly not neutral or 3rd party in this situation. They for instance level a charge (he claimed that 6 MM did not die...) about what he wrote, but do not even state the name of the article they got it from. Remember in any other circumstance they may be a reliable source, but WP:BLP has higher standards. Joe6Pack (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

This "blog" is the oldest continuously published Jewish newspaper in the world, in business since 1841. And in what way are they not a third party? Are all Jews to be barred from being reliable sources on this?? --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok. I did not know that.Joe6Pack (talk) 01:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

The Principle

User:9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS The Principle is clearly about the Copernican Principle. Many reviewers interpret that as saying it is advocating for geocentrism (and that is stated in the version I reverted to). Have you seen the film? Geocentrists are interviewed, and the film is made by a geocentrist. But factually speaking, if you watch the film, read the reviews for what the actual content is, etc., it is about the Copernican Principle. Maybe you can state that many reviewers interpreted the film as leading to geocentrism. Joe6Pack (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

User:9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS This kind of illustrates what I am saying, http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-mn-the-principle-movie-review-20150123-story.html, "Copernicus, shmernicus! That's the geocentric gist of "The Principle,...". It is a gist. Variety describes it as "A professionally polished, insidiously coy documentary that seeks to (sort of) debunk the Copernican principle." (http://variety.com/2015/film/reviews/film-review-the-principle-1201409088/). Joe6Pack (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

The film is clearly a trojan horse for geocentrism. To claim otherwise is to just be in denial. jps (talk) 17:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Have you actually seen the film? I have. Again, if you say something along the lines of "reviewers felt..." I guess I would not have an issue with that. You do need to keep in mind WP:BLP guidelines. I think the way you wrote it implied a lot of bias: "the film The Principle, which advocates for rejecting the Copernican principle as a pseudoscientific way to justify a religious belief that the Earth is the center of the universe and reject the results and understandings from the scientific study of cosmology." Shouldn't an encyclopedia be a bit less dramatic? How about

"the film The Principle, which critically examines the Copernican Principle has been characterized by reviewers as advocating for rejecting the Copernican principle to justify a religious belief that the Earth is the center of the universe. The Principle is very critical of current theories of cosmology in light of recent observations."Joe6Pack (talk) 17:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)