Talk:Joel C. Rosenberg

The Last Jihad

Can't speak for 70.137.31.142, but I've never been confused about when I wrote a book. How about you, :emallson: ?

He wrote The Last Jihad before the 9-11 attack, and then it was shelved. I'm sure that 70.137.31.142 has never been confused before either. ::emallson::

Im pretty sure that "The Last Jihad" was written after the September 11th attacks considering they are mentioned in the book. Contrary to what is written in the article currently.

The book was written before the attacks. After 9/11, however, some revisions were made so that it would be up-to-date. « amiИa . skyшalkeя (¿Hábleme?) 17:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Rosenberg's account of his "writing The Last Jihad before 9-11™" varies depending upon what day of the week it is. In "Epicenter" he says he wrote 3 chapters before, and he and his agent Scott Cooper, a kid right out of college, thought it was all pretty amazing. In interviews with Glenn Beck he says he wrote it all...on Sean Hannity he said he came up with the idea for it before 9-11. I'm sorry but this guy is a delusional man and needs to be held in check. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.137.31.142 (talk) 05:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Orthodox background?

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

His mother was a Jew. Therefore, naturally, Mr. Rosenberg is a Jew also. He is from a third generation Orthodox Jewish family who escaped anti-Semitism in 1900s Russia. This makes him a Messianic Jew, a Jewish believer in Y'shua (Jesus) keeping his Jewish faith (Judaism) alongside belief in the Messiah- different from gentile Christians, who do not consider themselves Jewish. --DandanxD 12:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you kidding me?!?!?!? His mother is a gentile. Read "Epicenter" and the part where he says his Mom is a gentile pretty much clears up the fact that she is a gentile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.137.31.142 (talk) 05:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, his mother is NOT Jewish. It is his father who was a Jewish convert to Christianity when Rosenberg was a child. These facts exclude Rosenberg from any claim whatsoever to Orthodox Judaism. His father's ancestors were never religious. Joel Rosenberg exploits the term Orthodox Jewish "background" (whatever that means) as a PR gimmick among Evangelicals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.169.208 (talk) 08:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The man cannot claim Orthodox background if his mother is not Jewish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.23.40 (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

To me it seems like a bad job of editing? Perhaps the idea 'Orthodox Jewish family' should read 'orthodox Jewish family.'

That is to say, his father being a convert doesn't change the fact that most of his extended family on at least one side of his family practiced Judaism in an orthodox manner. This is truly a very different mindset, even if many of the sacred texts are shared between Judaism and Christianity. All except the New Testament, as a matter of fact.

Orthodox Jew in the proper noun usage leaves some of the more grammatically discerning readers with an entirely different vision that is more indicative of a societal stereotype than any real orthodoxy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.24.169.75 (talk) 02:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Is he a Messianic Jew?

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

He is from a 3rd Generation orthodox Jewish family. --124.168.179.253 12:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Joel calls himself an evangelical Christian.

Actually, his mother is NOT Jewish. It is his father who was a Jewish convert to Christianity when Rosenberg was a child. These facts exclude Rosenberg from any claim whatsoever to Orthodox Judaism. His father's ancestors were never religious. Joel Rosenberg exploits the term Orthodox Jewish "background" (whatever that means) as a PR gimmick among Evangelicals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.169.208 (talk) 18:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The man himself determines his religion. Who knows another man's heart? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

revert

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

Hobit Vandalism

Undid second incident of vandalism by Hobit in two days. This is a neutral article giving all sides of the arguement and not promotional material for Joel Rosenberg. In stead of reverting edits, Hobit should note that which needs clarification and/or citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.169.208 (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Per WP:BLP sources need to be included right away for negative/attack things. Please believe me, I'm no fan of the man. (I only got here because I was looking for the page of the SF/fantasy author Joel Rosenburg). But you've got to source these things (at least as I read WP:BLP) when you first add them or out they go. If you care enough to edit the article, do a bit of research and find sources. The most recent edit that I reverted was quite solid other than the lack of sources. Hobit (talk) 17:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• As a note, this also includes positive things. I'd not read this for a while. Hobit (talk) 22:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Fact issues

There are a few sweeping statements here that aren't supported by cites. In a BLP it is generally wise to delete these, but in this case I've just added fact tags as they seem likely to be true. But if no one can support these claims, I'll delete them at some point (or someone else might do so sooner). Hobit (talk) 21:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed. See rev. history for details. No objection to restoration if sourced. Hobit (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

issues

The whole article feels like a list of praise for the man to me. Here are a few issues.

• At the beginning of his first novel, The Last Jihad, he puts the reader inside the cockpit of a hijacked jet, coming in on a kamikaze attack mission against the President of the United States.

• too much like the back of the jacket of the book trying to sell it.

• Rosenberg's novels have garnered a sense of interest among those interested in Bible Prophecy, due to several of his fictional elements of his books that would occur after his writing of books

• Needs a cite at the least.

• "has hailed him as a"

• Just a bit POV there. I don't think hailed is the right turn of phrase.

• although Rosenberg tries to play down those proclamations, stating that "(he) prays to God that what he writes does not come true."

• Both needs a cite and sounds like a PR bit.

• Rosenberg has been interviewed on radio and TV programs, including ABC's Nightline, CBN's The 700 Club, CNN Headline News, Fox News Channel, MSNBC, The Rush Limbaugh Show, The Glenn Beck Program, and The Sean Hannity Show. He has been profiled twice by The New York Times, and was the subject of two cover stories in World magazine.

• At the least needs a cite.

• Rosenberg's views on the Ezekiel 38-39 war of Gog and Magog and the end times are also not fully accepted in the Christian community

• I think that's an understatement of huge proportions. I don't think most even know his views. That certainly includes me (more of a mainline Christian). Hobit (talk) 03:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hobit (talk) 03:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, well here are the proposed edits, see if you are happy

• At the beginning of his first novel, The Last Jihad, he puts the reader inside the cockpit of a hijacked jet, coming in on a kamikaze attack mission against the President of the United States.

• too much like the back of the jacket of the book trying to sell it.

Proposed Edit: Following his decision to retire from politics, Joel wrote The Last Jihad, the first of a series of five books. His book started described a kamikaze plane attack on Denver, Colorado, against the President. This was written...

• Rosenberg's novels have garnered a sense of interest among those interested in Bible Prophecy, due to several of his fictional elements of his books that would occur after his writing of books

• Needs a cite at the least.

The cite is carried below, under the US and World News report article and CNN's Glenn Beck Interview

• "has hailed him as a"

• Just a bit POV there. I don't think hailed is the right turn of phrase.

Sorry, I was actually quoting CNN's Glenn Beck there. What about "referred to as a modern Nostradamus"?

• although Rosenberg tries to play down those proclamations, stating that "(he) prays to God that what he writes does not come true."

• Both needs a cite and sounds like a PR bit.

Read the author's note of Dead Heat cite is here [1]. I will add the cite

• Rosenberg has been interviewed on radio and TV programs, including ABC's Nightline, CBN's The 700 Club, CNN Headline News, Fox News Channel, MSNBC, The Rush Limbaugh Show, The Glenn Beck Program, and The Sean Hannity Show. He has been profiled twice by The New York Times, and was the subject of two cover stories in World magazine.

• At the least needs a cite.

click on the footnote number 10, takes you to the amazon site on him

• Rosenberg's views on the Ezekiel 38-39 war of Gog and Magog and the end times are also not fully accepted in the Christian community

• I think that's an understatement of huge proportions. I don't think most even know his views. That certainly includes

He holds a dispensationalist view, if you want to put that too go ahead.

Anything else, just add. thanks!

Nicholas.tan (talk) 04:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• I think that these are largely improvements, but still has a strong sense of being a promo piece. I really don't care much about the subject (I got sucked in here when I found vandalism when looking for the other joel rosenburg). But I'll try to find some people with an expertise in BLPs and see if they won't jump in. Hobit (talk) 13:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow. This may have been a praise piece at one time, but we're a long way from that now. This is a hatchet job now that accuses him of doing everything but shooting schoolchildren. 72.86.42.38 (talk) 14:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

every book has a precis?

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

Sounds good. --Tom 13:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Well we should still give a brief synopsis of why he is famous, because of his books Nicholas.tan (talk) 14:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

We mention his books substantially -- the question is whether each and every book needs a precis. Collect (talk) 15:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

So would it be ok to mention what the books received e.g. New York Times bestseller, Denver Times best seller etc., as opposed to what the books were about?

129.100.194.166 (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Like how JK Rowlings page talks about her books; doesn't mention what happened to Harry, but how it made him famous had?

Nicholas.tan (talk) 21:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

We list every book. If a book is notable per se, it can have its own article. Absent that, I find the idea of laying every book out to be unnecessary as a minimum. Collect (talk) 21:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

what about a section on his writing style. it was that that did get him famous Nicholas.tan (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

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

can we get rid of the puffery? or do you have issues that we can fix also?

Nicholas.tan (talk) 04:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's depuff every article we can -- it is one of the issues I have with WP that people judge their successes by how long they can make an arricle ... Collect (talk) 23:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing, maybe just state the parts that in your opinion would be considered puffed for discussion

Nicholas.tan (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Writing Career

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

critisism -- what's the problem?

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

NPOV revert

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

A Modern Nostradamus" and Iraq

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

Rosenberg and Paula Zahn

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

• I see your point, but I think the interview and reaction are relevant to this article. In other words, think the material needs to be in the article, but I agree it could use some editing, though I don't really see how to manage it from the sources we've got. Thoughts? Hobit (talk) 14:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • If that's the case, should we have a section on Rosenberg's viewpoints, add a section on the end of the world/apocalypse, and cite the Zahn show directly? Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

undid vandalism

this is an objective article and not free advertisement for mr. rosenberg. it must include criticisms, lawsuits, etc. and not simply be a fan club piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.130.132.92 (talk) 02:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• Without reliable sources, the inserted section did not appear to be objective or appropriate; removing it cannot accurately be described as vandalism. As you have added sources that substantiate the lawsuit claim, the section will in all likelihood remain in the article. However, it is advisable not to engage in an edit war, even when you believe yourself to be in the right. Generally, such behavior is dealt with quite strictly; making constructive suggestions here on the talk page or on other users' talk pages is a good way to start. Thanks, dci | TALK 03:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I have blocked the IP editor above for 72 hours for violating the 3RR policy. In addition, due to the serious edit warring and POV changes that this editor made to the article over the last few days, I reverted the article back to the version of February 14, 2013, and removed some wikilinks at the bottom that made no sense and didn't belong. Hopefully the IP editor can cool down and discuss constructive changes to the article here, instead of edit warring to make his point. KrakatoaKatie 05:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Restored this section which is well-referenced to the Federal Court's public database. An unbiased profile must give all sides of the story. JohnHan1949 (talk) 20:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

If this information is notable, it can be sourced to reliable sources such as the press, not to blogs and primary sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)