Talk:Robert Sungenis

Geocentrism Section

WyattMJ - I used the exact wording from the article. The wording you added is unsupported by any citation.

"He believes that physics, the Bible, and the Church acting through the guidance of the Holy Spirit show that the universe, incuding the sun and all the planets revolve around a stationary Earth."

That is not in the article. And based on past experience, you can't pull in something else right in the middle because it creates a synthesis. Last - I see no reason to quote mine from Sungenis' own work if you are considering it. That's only necessary if there is no third party reference from which to draw something positive. The article cited already provides positive material to sufficiently give the other side.

Liam Patrick (talk) 05:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Notability Message

It's not clear who put in the "Notability" template from the history. I'm surprised that there isn't a separate section here discussing the "Notability" question.

So, here's the thing. In the subculture of Catholic Apologetics, Sungenis is a big deal. He wrote a couple of (very thick) books which were read and referenced by others in that field. He is noted for holding strong opinions which differ from many in his field. He attracted enough attention that SPLC cited him, and The Washington Post wrote about him.

Now, those of us who follow the Catholic apologetics subculture would all think of that as very interesting. If you told me that someone was a big deal in the Analytical Astrology subculture, I'd shrug my shoulders and say "who cares?" At any rate, let's have a discussion here about exactly which WP Notability guidelines might apply, and how we can establish whether Sungenis meets those criteria. Delrayva (talk) 04:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's the basic notability guideline:

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.

If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.

Delrayva (talk) 04:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

So, looking over the various sources, I see The Washington Post article, which wasn't primarily about Sungenis, as being the best candidate for establishing notability. The question is, does it amount to "trivial coverage" or "substantial?" Delrayva (talk) 05:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Professor Marginalia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Professor_marginalia) and Slp1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Slp1) were the ones who put this template on. They are administrators with authority and they seem very experienced. They're also insistent that this entry is borderline. Maybe try their talk pages to see if they will explain it? Liam Patrick (talk) 21:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I have appealed both to Professor Marginalia and Slp1 for an explanation, and neither has engaged. Lacking any further action, and the reasonable determination of notability according to the article in The Washington Post, I'm going to remove the "Notability" template in the main article. Delrayva (talk) 19:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

"Whom we love as Christ loved"

With all due respect, SLP1 - I disagree that the article needs that addition. That particular quote has concerned me from the beginning. The statement as it now stands, noting that Sungenis denies hating Jews but opposes Zionism is more than sufficient without drawing in a controversial and offensive quote comparing himself to Jesus Christ. Although, it's obvious that if he at one time only opposed Zionism that is no longer the case. Articles and Q & A's on his website right now criticize a lot more than Zionism - he goes after Judaism and the Jewish people as well. You indicated that you were only drawing from Sungenis' own material out of necessity for the sake of balance and that generally speaking, all Wiki articles should stay away from doing that. Well, again, how is it necessary to throw in such a loaded quote in order to provide counterbalance? To me, that is every bit as loaded as if we included what the SPLC said about him being a "RABID ANTISEMITE". It wasn't necessary to the article, imo, so I didn't include the "rabid" part. So, again, I see no compelling reason to reach in and cherry pick that particular quote - controversial and loaded as it is. I also seriously question the relevance of that statement as it is so anachronistic. Wyattmj tried to find a relevant, timely quote from Sungenis (about his supposedly "loving" feelings toward Jews) that would be contemporary with all of the other factual material presented in the wiki article and he couldn't find one. So, is it really correct to reach back in time - 6 years before the current issues covered in the article - and use it as though it is relevant? That doesn't make much sense to me. If you look at Sungenis's website, there are statements on it *right now* where he refers to Jews as "slave masters", etc. and he is quoting Holocaust deniers and other anti-Semites. Don't you think it's an extreme example of unacceptable cherry picking to go back 7 years and pull that one out about "loving as Christ loved" from an article that isn't even on his website any longer?

So I'm removing it again, and I think with legitimate cause.

If you really believe that exact quote is crucially important and justifiable, I would like to read your rationale as to what it exactly accomplishes that is important for the article and why an extremely isolated, anachronistic statement from 2002 that no longer exists on his website is relevant to a controversy in 2008. Thank you.

Liam Patrick (talk) 04:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's the deal. Sorry to be blunt, but you are to all intents and purposes a single purpose editor whose sole raison d'être here on WP has been to place Sungenis in a bad light. Your editing of this article led to a post to the BLP noticeboard and radical stubbing because of BLP concerns. I don't doubt that you are acting in good faith, and that you think it important to get your information about Sungenis out there to the world. However, this is not the place. For example, your analysis of his current posts on his website is irrelevant, as I have explained before. Think about it: do you think his followers see it the same way you do? Probably not. Which one of you is WP supposed to believe is right? How do we determine this? We don't and won't make decisions based on your original research that he has changed his tune since 2002.

Your edit was also very problematic because in the edit summary you claimed were simply adding a word, when you were also deleting material that had been discussed in April, and which I had explained was in my view, important to balance a very serious charge of anti-semitism.[1] [2]. At the time, you seemed to accept the argument, but I also stated that if you disagreed you should seek outside opinions from various noticeboards, which you did not do. Instead you waited a few months and then deleted the material in an edit summary claiming to add a word. Did you mean to be deceptive in the edit summary? I would like to think not, and that it was an oversight.

I will be reverting your edit once again. If you don't agree, once again I suggest you get outside opinions from WP:3O; WP:BLP etc. I would also like to suggest that you broaden your editing here on WP so that you can get some experience in other areas.--Slp1 (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

SLP-1, after chastising me and others because you thought we had engaged in mind-reading, that's a little tough to swallow. I'm not interested in what you think my motivation is. As if a person couldn't notice what was changed in the text easily enough - especially someone like you who obviously has considerable experience and has repeatedly demonstrated that he has taken it upon himself to be the constant moderator of this article. That's fine. You've decided this is your job. I understand.

Now, can you please interact with the facts and points I laid out? Can you please explain to me how it is putting Sungenis in a "bad light" to ask that you use current material rather than reaching back 7 years ago? I have no qualms saying that he denies hating Jews. But I continue to find it illogical how first Wyattmj and now you seem to be the ones who are worried about how it makes him look while he HIMSELF doesn't seem to be worried about it. Please answer this. If Sungenis is worried about how he looks in regard to Jews, then why does he continue to publish material referring to Jews as "slave masters", "infection", etc. - all very, very publicly and openly at his web site? Does not this strongly suggest that you and Wyattmj are essentially (even if unintentionally) playing the role of marketing consultant for him, censoring what *you* believe is harmful to him while he obviously doesn't see it that way? Is that really your job? I mean that sincerely. I really think that you are simply trying to do your job, but it might appear differently to some. If a man continuously posts material saying that Jews are "slave masters", and "infection" and uses sources that are widely accepted to be anti-Semitic, then why is it Wikipedia's job to ignore that for the subject of the article and make it appear as though his views are fundamentally different that what his own writings say? Again, if he is not shy about saying that Jews are slave masters, why is it an editor's job to make a value judgment as to whether that is harmful to him, seeking out anachronistic quotes that THEY personally deem to be more beneficial to him? In my opinion, it seems you are the one who is exhibiting bias, not me. I simply want this article to accurately reflect what he himself has actually written and what others (from acceptable sources) have written about him. The fact that his repeated statements don't look flattering to him doesn't change the fact that he repeatedly makes them, does it? I would think that is what an encyclopedia would want to accomplish - the most objective, properly documented presentation of the subject possible.

And while this is not the only article I have edited, I freely admit that I am particularly concerned about it. You're right. It was used as basically a Sungenis advertisement for quite some time while no one seemed to care here (people in your capacity). Perhaps you weren't involved with Wikipedia back then.

Again, Sungenis has been very open about his derogatory views of Jews. Do you believe it is your job (or anyone's here) to basically edit Sungenis' views, as he has openly and repeatedly expressed them, by searching for very selective, anachronistic quotes that are not representative of the vast body of his work in regard to Jews? If you disagree and believe that Sungenis has plenty of similarly positive things to say about Jews, could you please provide the evidence, SPL-1? You would be the first. Wyattmj tried and came up empty. Why is that? I'm really not trying to be jerk here - I'm completely sincere about that.

Now, with that, I am proposing a compromise. Would you at least agree to change it to "Sungenis has stated that he loves Jews"? What I am having an especially hard time with is the invocation of Christ's name here, especially in light of the huge volume of material he has put out in which he is quite plain in his disdain for Jews. I see nothing that would negate the "defense" of Sungenis by simply not including an invocation of Christ's name that came 7 years ago.

Fair enough?

As I may not be able to get back to this, I've put up a compromise. I think it's more than fair, still defending Sungenis. See what you think.

24.31.130.40 (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not speculating about your motivations or mindreading; instead I am describing the clear pattern of your edits to this encyclopedia. And yes, it is my job as an administrator to prevent this article from deteriorating into an attack page again, or, incidentally into the advertisement that you describe, though the article when you first starting editing it could hardly be described as that.[3]
• You request me to engage in the material you describe; what I notice is that contrary to your comments above, I can find no evidence that Sungenis "continuously posts material saying that Jews are "slave masters", and "infection"." Attack websites quote him as saying this at one point, but if this is the case, then it appears he has thought better of the comments since he has removed them from his website. Which would seem to reflect his most up-to-date expression of his views that you request, no? But in any case, it isn't really relevant; the statement "I simply want this article to accurately reflect what he himself has actually written and what others (from acceptable sources) have written about him" seems to indicate that you still don't completely understand that we cannot quotemine his statements, because your idea about what "accurately reflects" his position will be different from a supporter's which will be different from Joe Public's etc etc. We can't go down that road of original research.
• The sentence that you have reedited[4] is contained in a 7 line paragraph in which 6 lines of text are given over to his alleged antisemitism and his quarrels with the Bishop over his Jewish views. Then one line is given over to a denial of a most serious charge, which your most recent edit turned in context into veiled ironic criticism, in my view. However, if your problem is with the Christ material, then we can deal with that. I've replaced it with other material without the reference to JC. It's a question of balance. The article needs to be of Neutral Point of View; it's not easy with a man who holds views like this, but like anyone, he is allowed a sincere word in his own defense. You'll understand from this that I have no personal sympathy for this man or his views, but that does not mean I will not make sure that the appropriate WP policies, including BLP are respected here. And I'll tell you a something, readers are much more likely to truly understand what this man is all about if the article is fair, balanced and well sourced and they are allowed to draw their own conclusions. That's the problem with the attack websites.. there is so much hyperbole and quote mining out of context etc that your average person probably thinks "I bet there's another side to this...." and ignores it. --Slp1 (talk) 00:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Look, the change is satisfactory, so I'm not going to argue with you more about it. What troubled me the most was the outrageous comparison to Christ. But I will say that you're not looking at his material very closely if you think it's all in the past or just taken out of context. When I wrote that Sungenis continuously writes about Jews as "slave masters" "infection", I did not mean that he uses precisely those same words over and over. I meant that he generally says very similar things and has done so continuously over the past 7 years or so - and so he does. Over the past 7 years, he has continued to put up this kind of trash (I appreciate that you do not intend to endorse it in any way). And yes, a lot of it's still there - new stuff even. As for the Jewish "slave masters" comment, you can still find it at this link, on *his* website right now: http://www.catholicintl.com/articles/Answer%20to%20Shea%20on%20Jones%20book.pdf There's a nice comment about Jews owning the mortgages on his bishop's property and that being why the bishop is likely bowing down and paying "homage" to them there, too: http://www.catholicintl.com/articles/Answer%20to%20Shea%20on%20Jones%20book.pdf

Then check out this Q-A where he speaks positively about Texe Marrs (re: Jews) and defends his attacks on the Catholic Church: http://bellarmineforum.xanga.com/661128308/question-76-8211-texe-marrs-analysis-of-history/ Read Wikipedia's own article about Marrs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texe_Marrs

Check this Q-A that includes some comments about Jews being "Christ Crucifiers" and what Sungenis has to say about that (leaving the comment up and seeming to agree with it, etc): http://bellarmineforum.xanga.com/642233863/question-44---old-covenant-revoked-or-not/

Check this new posting out: http://www.catholicintl.com/articles/Conversion_of_the_Jews_Not_Necessary_edited.pdf and do a little search on some of his material, where he got it from. He plagiarized from guys like Mohr, Dilling and Hoffman, without any references. Read up about these people. (Yes, I know, original research and can't be used in the wiki article - that's fine, but I'm suggesting that you *personally* check these out for yourself and you will see that I'm not making this stuff up or just twisting his words to try to "make him look bad" - he's doing that all by himself. I checked this stuff myself and didn't just rely on "blogs" against the man).

Then check out this article and do a little reading about the characters referenced therein in this article he posted at his forum: http://bellarminetfnews.blogspot.com/2008/05/jim-condit-warns-of-abcs-jesus-mary-and.html If you want more, I'm sure I can give it to you or you can probably find it yourself. Again, I'm not just making this stuff up, SLP-1, and I'm not just taking the word of "blogs" that are against him. It's pretty ugly when you look at all of it *in context* over the last many years.

I'm writing all of this for your personal knowledge - not trying to change the article again at this juncture.

I think my point stands about what his views of Jews are and that he is not shy about putting them "out there" and so there's no good reason to be so careful to avoid mentioning them for fear of harming his reputation. He has repeatedly written about much more than "Zionism." And he seems not to share the fear that his views are damaging to him, else he wouldn't be putting it out there so publicly and repeatedly over all these years. He seems to think he's doing the world a great *service* by warning them about "the Jews." But at least as the article stands now (without the Christ comparison), it is somewhat easier to accept, imo.

thanx. (You may have a problem with the links to catholicintl.com because it looks like some Turkish hacker has hacked the site just a few minutes ago - but as of a few days ago, they were all working).

Liam Patrick (talk) 06:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

SLP-1 - it appears that Sungenis slightly changed the URL for the article where he calls Jews "slave masters" and says that his bishop is likely paying "homage" to Jews because they own the mortgages on diocesan property. This is the new link: http://www.catholicintl.com/articles/Answer%20to%20Shea%20on%20Jones%20book.pdf Liam Patrick (talk) 21:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Removing Krauss criticisizm

I removed this part: Sungenis's theory has been criticized by Dr. Lawrence Krauss, the director of the Center for Education and Research in Cosmology and Astrophysics at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. According to Krauss, "Science works. Geocentrism doesn't...it's hard to convince people who believe otherwise, independent of evidence.". My reasons:

• I think the quote gives the false impression that this is a dispute between two persons, which give credence to this theory.
• Some sayings are so absurd, all you have to do to refute them is to repeat them.
• The quote does not say anything really. "Science works. Geocentrism doesn't...it's hard to convince people who believe otherwise, independent of evidence." This add no new information.

If anyone revert my change, I will not object. Sole Soul (talk) 15:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Your edit makes sense to me. Thanks for explaining yourself. Count my vote for your change! Delrayva (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Good points, good change. Liam Patrick (talk)

he was born in 1955? But he's so cute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.56.65 (talk) 07:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

birth year, where's the citation?

he was born in 1955? But he's so cute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.56.65 (talk) 07:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Ph.D.?

Sungenis is often listed as "Dr. Robert Sungenis." If this is true (that is, he has an actual doctorate or medical degree), shouldn't this be noted in the article? 12.175.159.130 (talk) 01:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure, if there's a source for it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, we now have a slightly different question: is it a PhD or a "PhD"? I think a PhD from an unaccredited "university" is a "PhD". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Allrighty now, I've tried to start a discussion on this, and yet I'm only getting reverted, with no participation here. A "PhD" from an unaccredited institution is not really a PhD, and "letting the facts speak for themselves" in this instance is highly misleading (especially insofar as other sourced "facts" that I had added about the institution have also been deleted). I can't imagine why we give Sungenis's perspective primacy here, particularly when it requires recourse to primary sources to do so. Highly unsatisfactory and I'm not going to let it rest, all the more so when there has been no response to my opening of discussion here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said in the edit summary, I am sympathetic to the notion that the PhD is not equivalent to PhD from a reputable university but that does not get away from the fact that this is my and your opinion about the matter.. There are no reliable sources that use scare quotes of this sort, and it simply isn't appropriate for us to add them based on our personal opinion. On the other hand, there are reliable sources that point out that the so-called university is unaccredited, and Sungenis himself gives useful information about the "type" of institution it is. Readers are smart. We don't need to, nor are we permitted to, insert our POV about the validity of the PhD in this fashion. --Slp1 (talk) 19:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not just that they're not equivalent -- it's that it's not actually a PhD. Who says it's a PhD, apart from Sungenis himself? In Wikipedia terms, you're right that it can't be a matter of my own POV. But it's hardly NPOV to say that it's a PhD, particularly given the quality of the sources being used to support that. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand your frustration; as it happens the Washington Post gives him a doctorate (but qualifies it as from an unaccredited university) [5] as does this other newspaper article [6] which tempers the achievement in a different way. So there are reliable sources there, not just Sungenis, and I attempted to follow their lead, with the information and with the caveats. Slp1 (talk) 20:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

Recent edits by User:Laurencegonzaga and User:67.234.39.65 (likely the same person) have added unsourced material and deleted material that is well-sourced (e.g. to the Washington Post). The consistent tendency has been to introduce "positive" and remove "negative" material, suggesting problems with point of view. I have reverted the most recent edits. --Slp1 (talk) 15:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It appears that Laurence is the webmaster of Sungenis' website, suggesting a significant conflict of interest too.[7]--Slp1 (talk) 16:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've already left a COI notice for Gonzaga. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Good move. --Slp1 (talk) 19:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

More recent edits

I'm curious about the latest reversion on 13 July 2011 by Nomoskedasticity. I wonder if you thought that I had deleted material. If you look closely I didn't actually delete any material, I just grouped similar material together. I believe that the material that I provided was properly sourced, so curious about the reason for the reversion. Thank you. Journierman (talk) 19:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

My apologies -- I only intended to correct spelling (I haven't evaluated the changes you made). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I've removed some sections of quote farming and original research per BLP. I have zero personal sympathy for this man, but we've been through before, and Wikipedia isn't the place to collect together his more extreme past statements for the ones (and ones about him) that make him look especially bad. There are other websites for that. See the archives for past discussions. --Slp1 (talk) 14:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Having looked at one of the sources, large chunks of it were also a copy and paste copyright violation of an article published in the Jewish Chronicle.--Slp1 (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree the article is improved by deleting some of that stuff, but I've restored some of it as well. I'm not inclined to look to the archives for discussions that would be 3 years old -- if there are discussions to be had about how to edit this article, then we can have them here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I've removed some of the stuff you restored again, but the rest is fine. You'll understand why in a second.

If you don't want to look in the archives, here's the summary. Various of Sungenis' opponents and proponents have used this article as a battleground to variously denigrate, promote and/or sanitize the guy's reputation. One of the techniques is the search through Sungenis' writings for juicy quotes to include. At one point, the article consistently mostly of a series of cherrypicked quotes designed to make him look bad (which isn't hard, I will admit). There were complaints to the WP:BLPN which led to the article being rewritten, and an understanding that such quote farms of primary sources is original research and synthesis, and problematic per BLP and NPOV. We need to focus on what secondary sources have to say about him, and there is plenty out there in these sources to allow a clear coverage of this man's very unpleasant views. However, last year, one of these "anti-Sungenis" editors restored some of the quote farm from the article history (note the access dates in 2009). The section you recently restored is part of this; and as well as the policy based objections I have to it, as mentioned above, it is also unverifiable, as the cited links are dead. --Slp1 (talk) 16:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

If there are dead links, then (as I'm sure you know) there's a template for that to alert readers that clicking won't take them anywhere, but dead links are not a failure of WP:V. I agree that taken too far an article can become a quote farm but it's incorrect that quotes by article subjects are entirely disallowed in articles on them. Again, I agree with most of the deletion you undertook. As for archives, it's not that I don't want to look in the archives, it's just that in deciding how to edit the article the way forward is to be determined by participating editors here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, there are such tags, but this is a BLP and we need to be extra careful with appropriate editing. The editor who adds (or restores) the material needs to stand behind the fact that these are accurate quotes and not an out of context misrepresentation or have been withdrawn and without checking the original document, it was (and is) impossible for you (or I) to do so, which is very problematic given the content. Even if they can be verified, I continue to disagree that these cherry picked quotes from original sources are needed or even permissible. The point about his views are clearly made from secondary sources without resorting to original research by editors picking out particularly outrageous quotes from original sources. If you must include something of this sort, I'd be much more comfortable with some of the quotes in the SPLC or Jewish Chronicle or other secondary sources. I am going to remove that unverifiable section again per my BLP concerns. Please don't restore it without getting consensus here, per the guidance on the WP:BLP policy page . Slp1 (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

No, you can gain consensus for removal of material that has been present for a long period. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you reread WP:BLP " Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." "To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first." I am going to remove this one more time per BLP: it is poorly sourced material about a living person. Do not restore it. --Slp1 (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

You are in violation of 3RR, on a preposterous BLP claim. I know how this gets played out, so I won't bother with the noticeboard. Instead I'll take it to BLPN, noting the absurdity of asserting that it's a BLP violation to quote what the BLP subject himself has said. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Please go ahead if you insist. However, I doubt you'll get much support that this is such a preposterous claim when the material was both inaccurate (the file is not on his website as suggested in the edit) and unverifiable, with the dead links making it is impossible to verify that "the BLP subject himself" actually did the saying at all. It is highly concerning that you would think of restoring this material even once without actually checking the links to see that the claims were valid and the sourcing was good but to do so 3 times, despite my explaining the problem is very worrying indeed. --Slp1 (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I would agree that the specific statement about the material being currently "on his website" was inaccurate and needed to be reworded. The sourcing issue is easily addressed however. The two pieces by the subject referenced in footnotes 15 and 16 may be found here (http://web.archive.org/web/20110510054845/http://www.catholicintl.com/qa/Ask_Your_Question_about_the_Jews.pdf) and here (http://web.archive.org/web/20101105164137/http://www.catholicintl.com/articles/Book_Review_of_The_Israel_Test_2.pdf) Simply updating the footnotes to reflect these links should address the sourcing concerns. If the concern is that these quotes may not accurately reflect the subject's views then the sources are given and any interested party may read the quotes in their context. And answering the concerns about "cherry picking" it seems strange to hold that articles making claims about the individual would be acceptable but supporting documentation from the individual's own writings documenting those claims would not. The supporting documentation makes the Wikipedia article more fair not less. If there is any question whether the subject still holds such views the link to the subject's web site is given in the article and any interested party can see how many conspiracy theories involving Jews are present there which helps to put the citations to previously written material in context. I take issue with the claim that there were "large chunks" that represented a "copyright violation" of a Jewish Chronicle article. That claim cannot be sustained. I noticed that quotations from the works of such figures as David Duke and Louis Farrakhan are included in those Wikipedia articles. The material that was in this article prior to the recent intervention may easily be sourced and verified which was all that was necessary. I agree with the absurdity of objecting to a quotation that was verifiably said or written by the subject of the article. If there is some sort of appeal taking place I won't interfere with that but otherwise I submit that the article should be returned more or less to its prior state as Nomoskedasticity has been trying to do except with the links updated as I have given them. Journierman (talk) 19:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

(Outdent) Hello Journierman, and thank you for your comments. In particular, thank you for the links to the webarchive, and for agreeing that the information is not on the website. I see that you are quite new here so to respond to your comments I will refer to a few policies and guidelines>

• Yes, there was a problem with copyright and plagiarism, but not in the quotations per se. The Jewish Chronicle says "Mr Sungenis has been described by a US hate-monitor as "one of the most rabid and open antisemites in the entire radical traditionalist movement". The Southern Poverty Law Centre included him in its "Dirty Dozen" list after he published an article which repeated "a series of ancient antisemitic canards" on the subject of Catholic conversion of Jews." You copied this exact text into the WP article, which is not allowed per WP policies.
• You also might find it helpful to read no original research policy and that for biographies of living people for an explanation of why Secondary sources about people and topics are the principal sources for WP's articles. We don't want or allow quotes, especially negative quotes, saying something like "well, readers can always go check whether these quotes accurately reflect the person's views." As an encyclopedia, WP simply summarizes the work of reliable sources, sources with a history of fact checking, who do the work of evaluating those views for us. We don't collect together quotes to make a point ourselves. If it seems desirable to include quotes, then the most notable ones from an encyclopedic perspective are the ones that other reliable sources have deemed relevant and illustrative, rather than ones that you or I decide are key.
• Look, I personally agree Sungenis holds despicable views. As I said above, I don't object to expanding the section and elaborating on his positions a bit, even including some quotes that other sources have found notable; in fact just a couple of days ago I added some more information about conspiracy theories from the Jewish Chronicle article. But don't trawl through primary sources written by him to find quotes. Use the secondary sources out there, be very accurate and precise about summarizing the source, but it in your own words, and don't go overboard per WP:UNDUE. Less is very often more.Slp1 (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

You appear to believe that quotes from sources published by BLP subjects are not allowed. WP:BLPSPS makes it clear that that belief is incorrect. Sure, secondary sources are the main ones we should use, but self-published sources are not disallowed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

You will be glad to know that you are mistaken about what I believe. You are entirely correct that self-published biographical sources are allowed assuming they also follow other policies, such as WP:V, WP:UNDUE; WP:NOR etc. But just as you say, secondary sources are to be preferred, most especially when we are talking about very controversial information about a BLP. The advantage of sticking to secondary sources is that disagreements about V, Undue, NPOV, NOR etc are then much easier to solve; this is very helpful in articles such as this one, where pro and anti editors congregate and are inclined to cherry pick quotes to suit their purpose. --Slp1 (talk) 11:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I need to ponder your second and third point a bit more and I'm a little rushed right now. Could you please elaborate on your first point for me? What I cited from the Jewish Chronicle was neither a copyright infringement nor was it plagiarism. It was a reasonable amount of material, properly documented. But if the way in which I cited it was in some way "not allowed per WP policies" then please educate me on that score. I knew that "reliable sources, sources with a history of fact checking" are prefered which is why I included the text from the Jewish Chronicle in the first place. So I am surprised that this does not pass muster. Do secondary sources have to be merely summarized rather than cited verbatim? Is there really a WP policy to that effect? In short I'm confused by the position in your first point. Journierman (talk) 01:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. All sources (except direct quotes, of course) have to be summarized/rewritten in your own words. You copy and pasted entire sentences from the source; it's true that you included the citation at the end, but that is not enough per WP:PLAGIARISM.

Yes, there is a policy page, which I had already linked WP:COPYVIO, and here's another page that could help WP:COPYPASTE. Don't worry about this; it is a mistake that lots of people make, but one to avoid for the future. --Slp1 (talk) 11:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe the last revision by Campbellks needed to be removed completely, especially in light of the big discussion we just had here on sources. The link sourcing the next to last sentence is dead but I looked it up in the web archive and the sentence was accurate when it stated only that Sungenis would only remove material “under the aegis of a canonical trial”. The source cited doesn’t say anything about consultation with canon lawyers or material being proven heretical. The source for the last sentence suffers from a number of problems. The entire text of someone else’s work is reproduced in that source, which is a clear “fair use” copyright violation. The source says nothing about being “final” and it is a response not to “his critics” but to an individual, who I find after some looking is a former vice president of Sungenis’s organization. The piece he is responding to is on a private blog and so the whole matter appears to be a sort of internal discussion. As the original piece at that blog would not pass muster for a Wikipedia article citation I don’t see how Sungenis’s response to it would be any more appropriate, especially given the obvious copyright violation. So I reverted this back to the previous revision.Journierman (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

New concern

I am a long time patron of Robert Sungenis and have recently learned of his Wikipedia biography. This is my first exposure to Wikipedia, as I have not utilized this site in the past. In reading over Wikipedia guidelines, I have learned that although anyone can be an editor, I technically should not make edits because I have a COI by the Wikipedia guidelines. My understanding is that any concerns, questions, or corrections that I may have need to be brought to the talk page for this particular article.

Some of the statements in this biography seem one-sided and it would be nice to see both sides of an issue placed in the article. On this post I will provide one example: Quoted from the section Views on Jews and Judaism: "Sungenis has become known for controversial views of the Jewish people and Judaism that have been sharply criticized by some of his fellow Catholics and by the Southern Poverty Law Center as being anti-semitic.[3][9][10] " I know that a number of Catholics support Sungenis' views. One such view of support is given by Fr. Brian Harrison and his paper can be found here: http://www.catholicintl.com/images/stories/Dr_Robert_Sungenis_Has_Disobey_No_Precept.pdf

I think an article is better respected when it shows both sides of an issue and does not lend itself to bias. I would greatly appreciate hearing your thoughts on this. Thank you for your attention Suzanne Opp (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I get the sense from that web address that the paper by Harrison is published by Sungenis's organization. I don't think it does all that much to support the claim that there is a significant contingent of Catholics who support him; I have no doubt the point is true, but we'll need a better source (see WP:RS). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I have been doing further study of this bio of Sungenis and have a few thoughts. First, I noticed that four of the footnotes contain links that are "Dead". These footnotes are #'s 1, 2, 4 and 12. In regards to footnote #12, although the link is dead, the actual article is currently on the website. Second, my understanding of Wikipedia is that biography articles are about what "others" have to say about the bio subject. However, of the 13 footnotes, only 4 of the footnotes comes from "other's". Footnote #3 is a Washington Post article that quotes Bishop Kevin Rhoades. In reading this article the quote is not directly from Bishop Rhoades, it is actually taken from an "unidentified" letter written to and "unidentified" person. It comes out looking like "He said, She said, Who? said." I would appreciate any thoughts that you have on this. Thank you so much, Suzanne Opp (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand your concern about the Post article. It seems to support the content quite well, imo. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

My concern about the Washington Post article is that just because it is in a well know publication does not mean that it is the truth. The quote from Bishop Rhoades is not a direct quote...the Bishop was not even interviewed for the article. A few years back I had some experience with an issue in local politics and I quickly learned how quotes are very easily taken out of context when printed in the papers; consequently these "quotes" can end up being not what the interviewed person said and even a complete divergence or non-truth.