Talk:Robert Sungenis/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

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)

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.[5]--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)

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) [6] as does this other newspaper article [7] 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)

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)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:15, 22 September 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, Suzanne Opp (talk) 20:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah -- well, there's not much we can do about that. You might have a look at WP:V and WP:RS in relation to these issues -- we go by what the sources say. If you'll pardon me for saying so: Wikipedia editors (particularly those of us who have been doing this for a while) will put more stock into what appears in a major newspaper than in what a "random individual" posts here. If the newspaper article is really a problem, then I would suggest taking it up with the newspaper. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

If Sungenis believes the information in the Washington post article is not true and wants to use the Father Harrison article I previously mentioned, as a refutation, would it be best to have this article or part of the article in a publication such as Culture Wars or The Remnant: http://culturewars.com/ or http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/? Suzanne Opp (talk) 02:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

After a very quick perusal I would suggest the Remnant. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Would you add this sentence to the article? “But Sungenis has also been supported by a number of Catholics, such as Fr. Brian Harrison who wrote a lengthy paper defending him from the charges of fellow Catholics and the SPLC.” and footnote it with this source for the Fr. Brian Harrison article: http://www.culturewars.com/2008/Harrison.htm. This sentence would go after "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] "

Also, Sungenis has two other books:

Bob's Dictionary of Big Words (smaller version), CAI Publishing, Inc. 2011 ISBN 984185984

Bob's Dictionary of Big Words (larger version), CAI Publishing, Inc. 2011 ISBN 984185976 Suzanne Opp (talk) 21:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

At the end of the last paragraph in the Biography section, would you please add this sentence: Sungenis is also the executive producer of Stellar Motion Pictures, LLC in Los Angeles, CA, a company created to provide educational movies on science and theology for the general public. . Also, I noticed that the books I requested to be added back in July were not.Suzanne Opp (talk) 18:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Please note that I added the above information because I did not receive responses to my "talk" items Suzanne Opp (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Science/physics proves or Science/physics supports

You followed me here too... [Mann Jess]. I should probably ask you to adopt me since you seem to have taken an interest in my edits...

I don't think Sungenis believes that science or physics proves his position. He only thinks it supports it. Just speed reading through his material reveals his position on the matter.

This doesn't make sense to me:

"Sungenis published the book Galileo Was Wrong in the hope that people will "give Scripture its due place and show that science is not all it's cracked up to be."

He published GWW in the hope that people will show that science is not all it's cracked up to be? I thought he was the one doing the showing? Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 16:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

You're right, that's a grammar issue. I've corrected it in the article. Does that help? Anyway, when a brand new editor is reverted, it's pretty common to check his other contributions too. It can help identify patterns and make helping out easier. If you're interested in being adopted, there is a list of users at WP:ADOPT. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

It does help, but you left out the proof/support part. I have never heard Sungenis say that physics proves his position. Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 20:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The reference at the end of the sentence supports this assertion, he says "physics and the Bible shows that the vastness of space revolves around us; that we are at the center of everything on a planet that does not rotate" Theroadislong (talk) 21:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Notice that neither Sungenis nor the author of the newspaper article use the word "prove". Instead, the author (not Sungenis) uses the word "show". "Prove" is a much stronger word than "show". In fact, Sungenis states explicitly that he does not claim to have scientific proof for his position. I am not planning to put this MS Word document in the RS page. I only mention it to show you that you are reading into the newspaper author's words something that is not there. We should change the word "prove" to "show" or even better "support".

http://galileowaswrong.blogspot.com/p/q.html

"Question 125 – Debate on Geocentrism, Part 3

Emmanuel: Geocentrism Violates Its Own Rules Remember their definition of "proof:" By "proof" we mean that your explanations must be direct, observable, physical, natural, repeatable, unambiguous and comprehensive. We don't want hearsay, popular opinion, "expert" testimony, majority vote, personal conviction, organizational rulings, superficial analogies, appeals to "simplicity," "apologies" to Galileo, or any other indirect means of persuasion which do not qualify as scientific proof. Okay, so where's the direct, observable, physical, natural, repeatable, unambiguous and comprehensive evidence that the earth is fixed? Where's the evidence that distant objects are moving faster than the speed of light as they whip around the earth? Where's the evidence that some mysterious force carries everything in the universe around the earth? Where's the evidence that the earth is immune to the laws of motion? Instead we have references to Catholic doctrine, to the Bible, to the alleged degenerative effects of heliocentrism, and to attempts to show that heliocentrism can be reinterpreted in geocentric terms, all nice examples of "indirect means of persuasion which do not qualify as scientific proof."

R. Sungenis: We never claimed to have scientific proof of geocentrism. We only claimed to have scientific proof that heliocentrism was not a proven scientific thesis. People like Mr. Dutch and you, however, are claiming that you have proof of heliocentrism, and I’m showing you that you don’t have proof, because every claim of proof you make can be shown to be false by the fact that it can be explained from the perspective of a fixed earth in a rotating universe as opposed to a rotating earth in a fixed universe. Since that is the case, neither of us will be able to prove whether geocentrism or heliocentrism is correct. At that point, then, is when I go to “Catholic doctrine, to the Bible” to find out which one is correct, and the only one that Catholic doctrine and the Bible say is correct is geocentrism, and that heliocentrism is not only incorrect, it is a “formal heresy” because it contradicts God’s very own words." Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 02:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The reference name is wrong. The title is not "Bible Proves Earth is at Center of Universe, Writer Claims". The title is "In this world view, the sun revolves around the earth" Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Sungenis has become known for...

I want to add some things to the RS article.

1.) Sungenis' criticism of Pope John Paul II (the Prayer meetings at Assisi).

2.) His campaign which he believes led to the removal of a heretical sentence in the US Catholic Catechism which stated that the Mosaic covenant has never been revoked.

3.) His insistence that the consecration of Russia has not been done properly would be good to mention. He even wrote a new book about it.

4.) His contributions to the defense or study of Catholic Justification would be worth mentioning since many of his peers considered his NBFA book to be great. Dr. Scott Hahn went so far as to state:

“...This work represents the first book-length response by an American Catholic to Protestant attacks against the Catholic Church’s teaching on faith and justification in more than half a century — perhaps longer, since I am not familiar with a single title written in the 20th century!...If you are a Protestant, this book affords you today’s greatest opportunity to judge fairly — for yourself — the solid scriptural grounds for the Church’s teachings on justification, and how an informed Bible-Catholic would respond to standard anti-Catholic arguments put forth by many evangelicals today.”

5.) His contributions to the defense or study of geocentrism would be worth mentioning since many of his peers (geocentrists) consider his GWW to be a great book. Dr. Gerardus Bouw went so far as to state:

"A truly magnificent work. There exists no better exposition of the history and science of geocentrism. Very highly recommended and a must for all those interested in the issues surrounding geocentrism today. The animations of the CD are excellent. They illustrate the daily and yearly motions of the sun and planets about the earth, the seasons, retrograde motion, and parallax in a uniform way. The authors have done a very admirable job all around."

Long story short... Sungenis has become known for...

I don't know what will be challenged or not. So, I want to talk about it in the Talk page Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 19:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Sources?? What you have in mind will likely require discussion of the nature of any sources you can produced to support it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I need to know what you challenge. Otherwise every sentence I put needs a citation or reference since I don't know what you will challenge. Heck... I added one word in the past and it was challenged. I fixed a sentence and it was challenged. It was later accepted. Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 20:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I will put up things I want to add on this page and you tell me what you challenge... Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 20:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's start with Number two. Sungenis raising the issue about the US catechism which eventually led to a removal of a sentence about the Old Covenant (he believes he deserves credit, but Kutys does not [However, Kutys does think that Sungenis may have been the first to raise the issue). Number two has a source that is already in RS. The source is "Catechism Edit 'Troubling,' Jewish Leaders Say Deletion of Passage on Moses in Catholic Handbook Questioned". Washington Post. pp. B09. Retrieved 2009-04-10." In this source, the relevant information is listed below:

A.) The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), which published the catechism in 2006 with the Vatican's approval, says it is the first change to the new catechism, which took six years and three drafts to complete.

B.) In addition, a controversial Catholic apologist -- whose writings have been denounced by his bishop and whom the Southern Poverty Law Center has labeled a "rabid" anti-Semite -- is taking credit for the change.

The USCCB says the statement about the Moses covenant was not wrong, just ambiguous and misunderstood. The conference decided to replace it with a section from the older "Catechism of the Catholic Church" that quotes St. Paul's letter to the Romans:

"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."

C.) Sungenis, 53, of State Line, Pa., said he wrote to the Vatican and met with officials from the bishops' conference. "I tried all the proper channels and I think it worked," Sungenis said.

If the sentence were not deleted from the catechism, Sungenis said, it would "shake the faith" of lay Catholics by implying that people can be saved without believing in Jesus.

D.) Deleting the sentence allows U.S. bishops to dodge the controversy, said Monsignor Daniel Kutys, executive director of evangelization and catechesis at the USCCB's committee on the catechism.... Sungenis might have been the first to raise the issue, but he shouldn't be given credit for revising the catechism, said the USCCB's Kutys. "It was changed, but not because of what he said," Kutys said. "People were misunderstanding it, and through that blog spreading that misunderstanding to other people."

E.) Pending Vatican approval, this sentence will be deleted from the text: "Thus the covenant that God made with the Jewish people through Moses remains eternally valid for them."

Does anyone have any ideas on how to present number two as a sentence(s)? Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 13:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Possible edit (work in progress):

Sungenis has become known for raising awareness on a controversial sentence found in the U.S. Catholic Catechism for Adults by writing a letter to the Vatican, meeting with officials from the Bishop's conference, and posting controversial statements on his blog. Daniel Kutys, executive director of evangelization and catechesis at the USCCB's committee on the catechism, recognizes that Sungenis may have been the first to bring up the issue but he does not think he deserves credit. Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 05:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I bet if I added this right now... someone would remove it (saying who knows what rule prohibits me to do this or that...) I am going to wait one more day. After that, I am going to be bold and add this possible edit. I have a source... I just need help wording it. Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 01:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

2008 or 2007? Rhoades may have violated Church law and Sungenis' canonical rights being injured not mentioned. Sungenis was later allowed to write about the Jews not mentioned. Required or Requested?

I would like to talk about this before I make any changes since I have never bumped into this before in Wikipedia. The sentence I am concerned with is this one from the RS page. There is more I am concerned with, but I want to bring up this issue first:

"In 2008, Sungenis' bishop, Kevin C. Rhoades,... required Sungenis to stop writing about them."

The source for this sentence is: Burke, Daniel (September 13, 2008). "Catechism Edit 'Troubling,' Jewish Leaders Say Deletion of Passage on Moses in Catholic Handbook Questioned". Washington Post. pp. B09. Retrieved 2009-04-10. The sentence it was gotten from is:

"His local bishop, Kevin Rhoades of Harrisburg, has demanded that Sungenis stop writing about Jews..."

Now at first glance the sentence from the RS page appears to be fine since it accurately reflects the sentence of it's source. The word "required" is used in place of the word "demand". However, it's source is about the Catechism edit (Sungenis and Bishop Rhoades are spoken about in passing and are not the main focus of the source) and there is another source that is more focused on Sungenis and Bishop Rhoades. It paints a different picture.

http://www.culturewars.com/2008/Harrison.htm

A.) The demand was not made in 2008. It was made in 2007:

http://www.culturewars.com/2008/Harrison.htm

Read number 1 in the article.

B.) Bishop Rhoades may have violated Church law and Sungenis was not required to obey the command since his canonical rights were being injured.

http://www.culturewars.com/2008/Harrison.htm

Read number 2, 3, 3a, 3b, 3c in the article.

C.) Sungenis was later allowed to write about the Jews:

http://www.culturewars.com/2008/Harrison.htm

Read number 4 in the article.

D.) Bishop Rhoades later asks Sungenis to refrain from talking about the Jews (his request was not a command):

http://www.culturewars.com/2008/Harrison.htm

Read number 6, 7, 7a, 7b in the article. Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The whole phrase "New World Order Satanic Conspiracy" is highlighted?

Sentence: According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, Sungenis... wrote about the involvement of Jews and Israel in a New World Order Satanic conspiracy aimed at world domination.

Sources: "The Dirty Dozen". Intelligence Report (Southern Poverty Law Center). Winter 2006. Retrieved 2009-04-10.

Lipman, Jennifer. "Speaker row cancels Catholic conference". The Jewish Chronicle Online. Retrieved 11 July 2011.

Thoughts: Why is the whole entire phrase "New World Order Satanic conspiracy" highlighted? There is no reason why "satanic conspiracy" should be highlighted? Only "New World Order" should be highlighted since the phrase is linked to a conspiracy theory page called "New World Order".

It would be better to use the phrase "Zionist Satanic conspiracy" since both sources connect the conspiracy to Zionism, it has the luxury of being a phrase that is actually used by one of the sources, and Sungenis says he is against Zionism in the very next sentence.

Examples from Sources: Quote "Sungenis is also a columnist for The Remnant, where, in a piece entitled "The New World Order and the Zionist Connection," he detailed a massive conspiracy aimed at Satan ruling the earth." End Quote

Quote "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. They also noted a piece in which he discussed a Zionist Satanic conspiracy." End Quote Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 16:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Questioning the Holocaust or Questioning how many died during the Holocaust?

RS page: In 2002 he questioned the Holocaust...

Sources: "The Dirty Dozen". Intelligence Report (Southern Poverty Law Center). Winter 2006. Retrieved 2009-04-10.

Lipman, Jennifer. "Speaker row cancels Catholic conference". The Jewish Chronicle Online. Retrieved 11 July 2011.

Concern: I read both sources and Sungenis never questions the Holocaust. He only questions facts about the Holocaust. The "Dirty Dozen" does not accuse Sungenis of denying the Holocaust and "Speaker row cancels Catholic conference" only says that Sungenis questioned the number of Jews who died during the Holocaust. There is a difference between questioning whether the Holocaust really happened and questioning whether the number of Jews killed during the Holocaust was more or less than 6 million.

For example: A conference featuring two controversial Catholic speakers, including one who publicly questioned the facts of the Holocaust, has been cancelled at the last minute. (The Jewish Chronicle Online)

In a 2002 article Mr Sungenis, the founder of a controversial group called Catholic Apologetics International, said of the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust: "The fact remains that no one has ever given proof of the six million figure." He went on to write: "The statistics show us that there was no large difference between the number of Jews living in 1939 as there were living in 1948, so how could six million Jews have died between those two periods?" (The Jewish Chronicle) Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 13:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Struggling to take this seriously, but let's briefly try: So only a "small number" (from "no large difference") died? "Died" being a euphemism for "were murdered"... The trouble you then have is that by using the term "Holocaust" all sensible people have in mind quite a large number of Jews being murdered. At some point questioning the "facts" of the Holocaust becomes very much questioning "the Holocaust" itself. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps this is too emotional for you. The point is not what people think the number is (whether big or small). The point is that the RS page is claiming that Sungenis is denying the holocaust itself. That is not true and the sources don't support the claim. He only questions the number. It is your opinion that Sungenis' questioning of the number becomes questioning the holocaust itself. Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 14:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, my dear -- I've made an edit so that our text corresponds more closely to the source. Lovely, no? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

You left out the statistics part, but the sentence is more accurate than before. There is another source which reveals that Sungenis thinks many Jews were killed. It is already on the RS page. The source is:

Sungenis, Robert (October 15, 2002). "Uncorking the Erroneous Teachings, False Allegations and Liberal Agenda of William Cork". web.archive.org. Retrieved 2009-04-14.

Quote"The statistics show us that there was no large difference between the number of Jews living in 1939 as there were living in 1948, so how could 6 million Jews have died between those two periods? Granted many were killed, but no one has proved it was 6 million."End Quote Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 13:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Quite curiously this is just the kind of words used in denialists' speeches. Of course, they "never deny the holocaust but they only raise questions about the figures" (and some other details - in fact you quickly really that they question absolutely everything). By the way no serious holocaust scholar considers that the six millions figure is 100% right. Most of them retain lower figures in a range of approximately 5.1 to 5.9 millions. But I have the strong feeling that this is not what Sungenis had in mind when expressing himself about the holocaust. The statistics show that half of the European Jews have disappeared between 1939 and 1945, but this would not be a large difference? what would then be a "large difference" for Sungenis? --Lebob (talk) 14:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I did some searching to see what other statements I could find from Sungenis himself on the Holocaust. Here are three, including one dealing with an explanation as to why the Holocaust happened to the Jews.

"I merely said that, like many other scholars who have recently begun to investigate this issue, it is becoming increasing difficult to believe that six million Jews were killed in Nazi internment camps. One example of this evidence is the fact that the worldwide Jewish population from 1940 to 1948 did not decrease by even a half million, much less six million. We can see the significance of this if we compare it to today. Today, some 60 years after World War II, there are only about 14 million Jews in the world. If today the Jewish population dropped by 6 million, this would leave 8 million and it would be rather noticeable, to say the least. Logically, the same would have been noticed in 1948. But the international population records show that the numbers of Jews after World War II were virtually the same as before the war." Robert Sungenis

"I also said that the documented records of the International Red Cross show that there were less than a few hundred thousand Jews who died in Nazi camps, and that most of those were from disease." Robert Sungenis

http://bellarmineforum.xanga.com/713618527/question-183---michael-forrest-talking-to-mark-shea/

"According to various accounts, the Germans treated the Jews very nicely when the Jews were excised out of Russia and migrated to Germany. As the story goes, however, the Jews turned on the Germans because they got a better deal from someone else. This made the Germans very bitter against the Jews." Robert Sungenis

http://web.archive.org/web/20110810170524/http://www.catholicintl.com/qa/Ask_Your_Question_about_the_Jews.pdf Liam Patrick (talk) 20:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Dating of last letter from Sungenis to Bishop

Tachyon, in regard to the last letter from Sungenis to his bishop vs. when the word "Catholic" was taken off his website, you wrote, "September 2007 is before January 2008" That's obviously true. But I don't see anything in the articles you cited that nails down when that letter was actually written, do you? All we know is that it had to be after August 25 because that's when the bishop answered back and changed his mind after reading Sungenis's new article about Jews and that it also had to be before January 2008 when Sungenis's article was written. If you can find a date, great. But if you can't find it easily, I don't think it's really too important either way, anyway. I think your change does make the flow better. Liam Patrick (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

You're right... Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 19:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)