Talk:Robert Sungenis/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Apologetics

User:Tachyon1010101010 about this; having the section about this 18 year old book is UNDUE; that book is just part of his ongoing traditionalist catholic apologetics, per the current section, which is well sourced to independent, secondary sources. Jytdog (talk) 03:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Are you against mentioning his critique of the Protestant doctrine of faith alone? Can we not write about his Catholic belief that is not just held by traditional Catholics? It is mentioned in the EWTN series, the Patrick Madrid book and not just his book Not By Faith Alone.Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 03:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for talking! Not against mentioning it, no. The section is too narrowly titled and you have added a bunch of unsourced content to it, now. WEIGHT is determined by secondary sources. Jytdog (talk) 04:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Your welcome! The content that you deleted is sourced by the Bob Wilkins reference. Read the first couple of pages.Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 21:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, you are too quick to accuse people of edit warring. Just because someone changes your edit does not mean they are engaging in edit wars. I think Im not the only one you accused of edit warring in this Sungenis page. You are the one that completely changed the Sungenis page without consensus or discussion. The burden of proof is on you to explain your changes.Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

"After his conversion back to Roman Catholicism Sungenis became known as a radical Traditionalist Catholic. He wrote a book of apologetics, explaining his view of the Catholic Church's doctrine of justification and his critique of the Protestant doctrine of salvation by faith alone."Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

He wrote a book of apologetics??? He wrote many books on apologetics. Which book are you refering too? Is it "Not By Faith Alone"? Isn't faith alone the subject you complain is too narrow? I think we need to fix this because he did not become known as a radical traditionalist Catholic because he defended the Catholic Church's doctrine on justification and critique the Protestant doctrine of faith alone. Don't you agree?Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I am referring to the one book that there are secondary sources discussing - the one on justification. I reckon there are more (as you confirm) which is why the section should be broader. Fine to expand it with more secondary sources. Jytdog (talk) 23:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous Jytdog. Can I make one edit without you accusing me of breaking a rule or edit warring? You said yourself that we should expand the apologetics section. You could have just changed the part you disagreed with. Instead you removing everything. Sungenis is in the mainstream apologetic when it comes to the doctrine of justification and that is all that is mentioned in the apologetics section so far. I would like to put more but you wont let me. Can I put more? I will even put the references and wording in the talk page first so you can double check it. This way I can avoid all the scare tactics and bullying that you are employing to myself and other editors.Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 01:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Please do not copy/paste from sources. As I noted above, if you want to add content about his theology, based on reliable, secondary sources, please do so. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

Is it Pseudoscience, or religious belief (or even as the article on Geocenterism says "is a superseded description of the universe with the Earth at the center"). We need RS describing Sungenis's version of it as Pseudoscience rather then (say) "religious cosmology" or "idiocy".Slatersteven (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC) And why must users revert without even an attempt at discussion?Slatersteven (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :"geocentrism" is pseudoscience, in that it pretends to be science and Sungenis uses geocentrism it make claims about the actual universe. This is well sourced in the body of the article. The current content complies with WP:PSCI and your edits do not comply with PSCI. Please see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I am not including any claims. I certainly am not (as my last edit clearly shows) calking they are true or scientific.Slatersteven (talk) 21:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Removing the well-sourced statement that Sungenis' geocentrism is pseudoscience is a violation of PSCI; your edit has no consensus (and cannot gain it, as local consensus cannot override policy) Jytdog (talk) 21:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

We now have two sources, now (I am not sure two are really "well sourced" (or am I missing any?)). Would it have been so hard to have disused this earlier (as I asked to)? We are supposed to talk to editors, not just demand they accept what we are doing. And stop the threats and bullying tactics, talkSlatersteven (talk) 21:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

One of which you have now removed.Slatersteven (talk) 22:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Slatersteven. Enough with the bully tactics Jytdog. You are engaging in edit wars.Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 07:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Links

Per WP:ELNO: "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid providing external links to:..." Multiple websites by Sougenis are under ELNO. All we need to do here is link to his main site. Jytdog (talk) 03:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Except for a link to an official page... Is not Galileo Was Wrong an official page for his geocentrism that is an exception? The rule says except for a link to an official page.Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 03:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Sougenis' personal website is his "official website" and people who are interested can get to his various other websites through that one. Jytdog (talk) 04:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Isn't Galileo Was Wrong his official website for geocentrism?Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 21:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

People often have multiple websites they run which in why ELNO advises against turning the EL section into a linkfarm. Jytdog (talk) 23:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Can someone have more then one "official" page?Slatersteven (talk) 09:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I would imagine so. I could have a university page, LinkedIn page, a page on a professional society of which I am a member... DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:44, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Sungenis only has two official websites. Hardly a farm overflowing with links. The exception rule still applies. Official websites are an exception.Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 17:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with significant unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites. For example, if the main page of the official website for an author contains a link to the author's blog and Twitter feed, then it is not appropriate to provide links to all three. The main page of his site contains a link to Galileo Was Wrong. Thereby, our one official link handles it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Galileo Was Wrong provides significant unique content.Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 07:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

We've already explained ELNO. Jytdog (talk) 07:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Similar to ID and creationism

User:Joefromrandb about this and this, please read the last sentence of the lead of the source provided, here. The source says: "Geocentrism is a less well known cousin of the intelligent design, or anti-evolution, movement. Both question society's trust in science, instead of using religion to explain how we got here -- and in geocentrism's case, just where "here" is." Jytdog (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

The raw story source, in our article which says: "The new geocentrists believe scientists have conspired for centuries to undermine religious faith by promoting the heliocentric model of the universe proposed by Copernicus and famously championed by Galileo."...add: "“Just as there are those on one extreme who incorrectly hold that science is antithetical to faith because they have a false or incomplete understanding of philosophy and/or religion, we have the geocentrists on the other extreme who reach the same incorrect conclusion, but because they have a false and/or incomplete understanding of science — and even their own faith,” Palm said. “For these geocentrists, their personal understanding of faith trumps all appeal to reason and physical evidence.”" Americans may be particularly vulnerable to such “bunkum.”.... “A surprisingly wide spectrum of people – obviously anyone predisposed to be anti-science or to believe in conspiracy theories (is vulnerable),”..... Palm, who maintains the website GeocentrismDebunked, said it would be a mistake to assume geocentrists are stupid or acting in bad faith. “Belief in this theory seems to be largely a product of being emotionally affected by the false idea that our physical location in the universe must convey something about our existential and/or theological significance,” he said.... Indeed, many of the group’s social media postings plaintively ask: “Are you significant?” The view has attracted a rogue’s gallery of crackpots who promote a stupefying variety of conspiracy theories – usually anti-Semitic – that casts doubt on the lunar landing, the Holocaust, and the official investigations into 9/11, the JFK assassination, and even the sinking of the Titanic.

The Chicago Tribune source in the article quotes him: " "False information leads to false ideas, and false ideas lead to illicit and immoral actions — thus the state of the world today. … Prior to Galileo, the church was in full command of the world; and governments and academia were subservient to her" and puts Sungenis/geocentrism in the same boat as Ken Ham/creationism: "Just as Ham challenges the foundation of natural history museums, Sungenis challenges planetariums, most notably the Vatican Observatory." Garnavich said the theory of geocentrism violates what he believes should be a strict separation of church and science. One answers why, the other answers how, and never the twain should meet, he said.

See also the quotations from the interview two sections above, where this notion is explictly discussed above.

See also Losos, Jonathan B.; Lenski, Richard E. (2016). How Evolution Shapes Our Lives: Essays on Biology and Society. Princeton University Press. pp. 285–288. ISBN 9781400881383.

* from Beiting source: "It begins with a consideration of the works of Solange Hertz and Paula Haigh, two radical traditionalist Catholic writers for journals such as The Remnant who, as part of their complaints about most aspects of modernity, also find time to criticize modern cosmology, essentially seeking a traditional, old-fashioned, hierarchical view of the cosmos to go along with their desire for a traditional, old-fashioned, hierarchical view of human society. Which means, in essence, that Galileo was wrong: By displacing the earth from its traditional place in the center of creation and claiming that it revolved around the sun, Galileo would end up destroying the dignity of man and the basis for a traditionalist, religious, God-centered view of the cosmos. This pattern of thinking tends to be what drives most of the new geocentrists: a dislike of modernity, a longing for traditional authority, and, frankly, a sense of wounded pride. ...And it’s not limited to Sungenis by any means; most of the prominent geocentrists are conspiracy theorists, and an ugly anti-Semitism links many of them....Moreover, part of what drives them, paradoxically, is the sin of pride. “Are you significant?” is the tagline for The Principle, with the implication that, if the earth is not the center of the universe, we are not. The new geocentrists somehow fail to realize that our position as children of God does not depend on where we are in the cosmos but who we are with respect to God and what He has done for us. Keating is right to note that the new geocentrists are as sloppy with history as they are with everything else:even in the days when people lived with a geocentric concept of the universe, the fact that man was in the center gave them no comfort. For them, the center of the cosmos was not the best place but the worst — full of corruption and farthest from the perfection of Heaven. That was just as true for pagans as for Christians (see Cicero’s Dream of Scipio). ... " And make sure you read the quote from Augustine in the penultimate paragraph, ending with For how can they believe our books in regard to the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they catch a Christian committing an error about something they know very well, when they declare false his opinion taken from those books, and when they find these full of fallacies in regard to things they have already been able to observe or to establish by unquestionable argument?”.

Your reversions have no basis in the sources. Jytdog (talk) 00:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC) (added some stuff through redaction Jytdog (talk) 08:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC))

oh, and this. Jytdog (talk) 01:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

If you don't understand WP:BLP and WP:SYNTH you really shouldn't be editing this article. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

"Geocentrism is a less well known cousin of the intelligent design, or anti-evolution, movement. Both question society's trust in science" seems to make the link quite cleanly.Slatersteven (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

No good deed goes unpunished, does it? WP:WikiVoice! In-text attribution. It's not difficult. It really isn't. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Trying as compromise text.Slatersteven (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to Talk. It does not need to be attributed. It is fact that geocentrism as propagated by Sungenis and others has the same objectives and motivations as ID and creationism - they are all religiously motiviated pseudoscience with larger societal goals. The sources are not ambiguous about this, and Sungenis is also unambiguous that his cosmology is based on religion and has religious goals. Your reversions have no basis in policy and guideline or in RS. Jytdog (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I did not say it should be attributed, My edit suggested that we say say it has been called related.Slatersteven (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Look, I can't spell this out any more plainly. Edit the article in compliance with WP:BLP, or you will be reverted. Stop using Wikipedia's voice to state these things. Use in-text attribution, as required. "X" has compared Sungenis' views on geocentrism to (pseudoscience) . Joefromrandb (talk) 01:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I started an RfC below. Please see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 01:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Coatrack?

Re:

Like other members of the radical Catholic Traditionalism movement, Sungenis' writings include antisemitic ideas, sources, and claims about the Jewish people and Judaism[8] and have been sharply criticized by fellow Catholics and by the Southern Poverty Law Center, as has the publishing company he founded and uses to publish his books, Catholic Apologetics International.[1][7][9][10] ……… According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, he also "repeated a series of ancient anti-Semitic canards" and later wrote about the involvement of Jews and Israel in a Zionist Satanic conspiracy aimed at Satan ruling the world.

Except source 8 does not refer to any "other members of the radical Catholic Traditionalism movement", let alone describe them as anti-semites. The SPLC source (7) does say "a handful of these organizations qualify as part of the "radical traditionalist Catholic" movement that is characterized by open anti-Semitism. (note use of quotes by SPLC, implying 'as they are sometimes called', we omit quotes as though who they were is obvious/established). Both sources cite numerous detailed remarks by Sungenis himself which are explicitly anti-semitic. Why spend so much space characterising ALL "radical Catholic traditionalists" (whoever they are, how would I know them?)? Why use generalised terms like 'canards', when there are specifics? Pincrete (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

"pseudoscientific"

The article accuses Sungenis of holding a pseudoscientific belief, geocentrism. I think this is wrong. According to Wikipedia, "pseudoscience consists of claims, beliefs, or practices presented as being plausible scientifically, but which are not justifiable by the scientific method". I don't think Sungenis presents geocentrism as plausible scientifically. Unlike say homoeopaths, he doesn't care, or pretend to care, about the scientific method. He believes what the bible tells him. Maproom (talk) 13:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Wrong, the Wiesner WP:SOURCE makes clear that Sungenis not only pretends that his view is correct, but that there is scientific evidence for it being correct and for the adepts of the Copernican principle being flatly wrong. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

antisemitism apology

A self published source cannot be used to say that someone has been praised, most people praise what they themselves do. In addition (as written) the passage added here [1] seems to that Church militant admits to being anti-semitic.Slatersteven (talk) 17:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Sungenis didnt publish this. Church Militant did. Voris is a secondary source. Church Militant explicitly admits to being anti-semetic??? Where?Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 17:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, yes you are correct Church militant is a secondary source. Your text does not have a break between "been criticized for being antisemitic" and "and praised for being true to the Catholic faith". Thus as it reads you are using Church militant as a source for the accusation that Sungenis is anti-semetic. My reason for saying it said Church militant was is becasue of my error in thinking Sungenis has something to do with them.Slatersteven (talk) 18:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

And another issue, this is Voris (I assume it is) saying this, so it would need to be attributed (and should not be in the lead, as it is not in the body of the text).Slatersteven (talk) 18:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Church Militant is a low quality, in-bubble source by fellow travellers in Sungenis' radical traditionalist catholic space. It cannot be used to over ride what truly independent, reliable sources say on this issue. You can take that to any board you like and using it this way will get shot down in a heartbeat per FRINGE, UNDUE, etc. Jytdog (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

So then (I as I said) if we use it we need to make it clear who said it. I think it can be RS for what Voris has said.Slatersteven (talk) 22:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

So you agree that Church Militant is a secondary source? I do too Slatersteven. Another reference I had in mind is Fr. Harrison. Low-quality, in-bubble source is your opinion and not a fact Jytdog.Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 06:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

No. Jytdog (talk) 07:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

No to what?Slatersteven (talk) 08:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I want to add three sources/references. They are all secondary sources. What do you think?

1.) Strand, Paul. "Shocker! Does the Universe revolve around Earth?". CBN News. The Christian Broadcasting Network. Retrieved 1 March 2017.

2.) Harrison, Brian. "Dr. Robert Sungenis Has Disobeyed No Binding Precept Of His Bishop". Culture Wars. Fidelity Press. Archived from the original on August 22, 2013. Retrieved 17 June 2013.

3.) Voris, Michael. "The Principle, Under Attack". MIC'D UP. Church Militant. Retrieved 19 February 2017.Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 06:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

At least two of them do not comply with WP:RS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

It would be nice to know which two and why? I could read WP:RS and still not see what you see. If book reviews of Sungenis' enemies like Karl Keating can be used as references/sources despite the overwhelming bias. I dont see why these three could not be valid references/sources.

1.) Harrison is secondary source with in-depth knowledge not found in other references of what happened regarding Sungenis and Bishop Rhoades. It was a reference for a least a year before it was removed for no reason.

2.) Voris is a secondary source with information regarding anti-semitism and geocentrism.

3.) Strand is a secondary source regarding geocentrism, the Principle, and anti-semitism.Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 16:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Remember the Past

You allowed me to put the word "geocentrism" in the first paragraph of the Sungenis page back in 2013. Don't you remember, Theroadislong?

Quote: "Unnecessary parentheses explaining geocentrism.

Geocentrism is a word that is familiar to most people that have gone through grade school. There are words that are more obscure than geocentrism like Mosaic Covenant, Zionism, Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura, transubstantiation, and canonical trial. These words do not have parentheses explaining what they mean. Instead, they are linked to a page that is specifically designed to explain it. Geocentrism already has a section explaining what it means and it is already linked to a page that explains what geocentrism means. You are over doing it by adding parentheses. I would be over doing it by adding parentheses to all the obscure words I mentioned above (some of which do not have sections dedicated to them).Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 20:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Geocentrism is a very obscure word in this part of the world I can assure you. Since it is what Sungensis is best known for it is helpful to explain it further in the article. Theroadislong (talk) 21:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Is it really what Sungenis is best known for? Then why is the RS page's shortest section "Geocentrism"? I don't know what part of the world you are from, but if we are from the same part of the world then I would have to disagree with you. Almost everyone has learned about the Galileo affair in grade school (geocentrism vs heliocentrism).Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

If Geocentrism is what Sungenis is best known for, then it still does not automatically follow that we need to add parentheses to the word (though we should add more meat to that tiny section). You still have not shown that it is a very obscure word or what part of the world you are from (that does not know about the Galileo affair (geocentrism vs heliocentrim). Where are you from? Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 22:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I only assume it's what he is mainly known for because it has prominence in the lead of the article. I am from the UK where geocentrism is just an obscure ancient Greek idea and was not taught in any form at all at my grammar school that I can recall. The idea of an encyclopaedia is to educate, why would you want to make it more difficult to understand what he is about? Theroadislong (talk) 19:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

You are making assumptions about my intentions. I have contributed some things to the RS page in order to make it easier to understand who RS is. Just because we disagree on parentheses does not mean I am trying to make it more difficult to understand what he is about. We have had arguments about science/physics proves vs science/physics supports, raising awareness, and who knows what other things. I do not automatically assume you have bad intentions. I assume good faith. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but perhaps we can compromise. Is there anyway to link "geocentrism" to Wiktionary? Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 20:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Just remove it if it really upsets you, but I can't agree the article would be better for it. Theroadislong (talk) 21:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)" End QuoteTachyon1010101010 (talk) 05:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Well then remove the word, not the claim it is Pseudoscience. Also I cannot see the use of parentheses, I can see a link, but you did not remove that either. It's also not the shortest section in the article (Traditionalist Catholic apologetics is).Slatersteven (talk) 09:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

You also added the CBN source which we are avoiding due to its obvious non-neutral POV which makes it less than ideal for the lede. jps (talk) 11:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

For Wikipedia geocentrism is in the same category with flat Earth (i.e. a paragon of pseudoscience). Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:22, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

RfC re geocentrism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The content currently says, in the section on Geocentrism:

By 2006 he had become known as an advocate for this pseudoscience.

The underlined addition in the version below has been contested:

By 2006 he had become known as an advocate for this pseudoscience, which has been described as being related to intelligent design and creationism in that it challenges scientific findings based on biblical literalism and on the misunderstanding that scientific knowledge undermines faith in God and the authority of religious institutions.

References

The question: Is the added content supported by the sources and compliant with NPOV, BLP, etc? Jytdog (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

!votes

• Exclude as rather coatracky. StAnselm (talk) 01:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude It's WP:COATRACK, and the article doesn't need to take a position one way or the other in wikipedia's voice on controversial questions like whether scientific knowledge challenges religion and whether biblical literalism implies geocentricism, creationism, or intelligent design. NPalgan2 (talk) 01:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • That's not how I read the wording. I read it as indicating that Sungenis is a geocentrist and a creationist for similar reasons having to do with literalism and a rejection of scientific knowledge. jps (talk) 02:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Whether or not it is a "misunderstanding that scientific knowledge undermines faith in God and the authority of religious institutions" is an issue that this article simply doesn't need to go into. NPalgan2 (talk) 02:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

But this is one of Sungenis's primary contentions. He thinks that basically the entire world is apostate and the Galileo Affair is almost entirely to blame. That this is a misunderstanding seems pretty clear. I mean, it's basically something he randomly started believing and it has attracted notice primarily because it's so wack-a-do. Calling it a "misunderstanding" is as nice as we can be about it. Maybe we should call it just demonstrably incorrect? Would that satisfy you? jps (talk) 02:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Just say that he believes it then. NPalgan2 (talk) 02:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I thought that's what the wording does. Maybe you prefer alternate wording? jps (talk) 02:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

St Anselm and I both seem confused by your wording as to your precise meaning. Write what you want to say in short simple declarative sentences. Who believes what? Who describes what as what? NPalgan2 (talk) 02:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

My wording, or Jytdog's wording? I don't understand your confusion, but if you read the discussion below I think you will be able to follow what I interpret Jytdog's clause to mean. jps (talk) 03:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, the readers of the article aren't going to be reading the talk page. I would suggest rephrasing to clarify. NPalgan2 (talk) 04:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Please offer a concrete suggestion. Am very open to discussing. Jytdog (talk) 05:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• Include well supported by the sources provided; per PSCI we should describe the pseudoscience where it occurs. Jytdog (talk) 02:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
• Include WP:BLP does not imply that we should not call a spade a spade, especially when reliable sources do so. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
• Include, yes I think this is a good choice of wording.Slatersteven (talk) 09:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude as currently worded, it is coatracky in that it is 'knocking' this 'belief system', not him nor describing/criticising his beliefs. The phrasing is also tortuous. As someone else implies "Just tell me what he believes". Does he believe that "scientific knowledge undermines faith in God"? If he doesn't then much of this belongs as criticism on the main page or as criticism of his misconception only if specifically directed at him. The postulated connections between his beliefs/this belief system and creationism, intelligent design etc also belong on the main page. I also find the use of 'pseudoscience' on THIS page heavy-handed, "calling a spade a spade", doesn't have to mean hitting the reader over the head with that spade. I mean, some of this guy's beliefs are so wacko, that this stuff just gets in the way of me realising how odd these beliefs are. Sometimes NPOV works like ROPE, giving a neutral account of his beliefs and the criticisms of them (not similar beliefs, which he may not hold) would certainly be more informative to me than telling me how bad/mistaken etc the people who hold similar beliefs are. Readers can think too (we hope). Pincrete (talk) 23:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude - looks like UNSUPPORTED, and just bloviating stuff that doesn't even make sense to the quality of WP:OR logic or WP:SYNTH. The cites stuck on this line seem just duped, and they only support that line of he is involved with geocentrism -- no remark in the text cited that expresses geocentrism as similar or otherwise related to intelligent design by dint of being biblical literalism. That claim isn't really making sense either -- ID carefully avoids being biblical literalism, and even creationism mostly doesn't lean on bible cites. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

p.s. in addition, I guess I cold point out that is going WP:OFFTOPIC there, as it's nothing to do with him nor about his Geocentrism -- it's just sticking in a claim about a different topic. Put that down in the See Also if it's of interest, but don't put something in the text that he was not involved with. Markbassett (talk) 06:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• Exclude as being intrinsically a series of claims placed together to make a conclusion which is not made as a simple claim of fact. Collect (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude that incoherent mess. The sources may be usable for some sort of new text, but that text effectively WP:Synthesizes a WP:COATRACK the way it badly strings together elements. Alsee (talk) 08:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Followup: JonRichfield did a good job below[2] splitting it up into a series of clear and perfectly appropriate sourced sentences. I'd Support including something like that. Alsee (talk) 08:55, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
• Partially exclude: I would support a wording like "By 2006 he had become known as an advocate for this pseudoscience, which is based on biblical literalism and opposes the overwhelming scientific consensus on cosmology." The rest of the wording certainly feels coatracky and unnecessarily editorial. --Slashme (talk) 10:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
• Include: At the end of the day, one asks what is notable about the gentleman in question?JSR (talk) 10:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude as the proposed wording is awkward, fails WP:SYNTH, and is unnecessarily coatracky. --Joshualouie711^talk 13:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude: This entire sentence (not just the underlined part) misrepresents Sungenis worldview to the reader. Sungenis, being a Catholic, believes that true scientific knowledge can never undermine faith in God and the authority of the Catholic Church because God can't lie and God is the source of all truth. References like "Strand, Paul. "Shocker! Does the Universe Revolve Around Earth?". CBN News" or "Voris, Michael. "The Principle, Under Attack". Church Militant" are being ignored when constructing this sentence and words like "pseudoscience" are promoting the views of his critics and not taking into consideration both the views of Sungenis' critics (Palm and MacAndrew) and Sungenis' supporters (Voris and Wyatt).Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Disagree, per WP:PSCI we have to say in Wikipedia's voice that Sungenis's view is pseudoscience. The specific wording could be debated, but we definitely have to say that it is pseudoscience. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Include: we call pseudoscience pseudoscience, whether it is caused by religion or not. Sooner or later, the same discussion happens in every article about a pseudoscience or pseudoscientist: those who do not understand (or misunderstand) science want the word removed for this one specific instance. In the more popular articles, such as Intelligent Design, Homeopathy, or Acupuncture, it reappears every few months or so. But: WP:PSCI, WP:PSCI, WP:PSCI. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
• Suggest replace the current clunky underlined part with: "which was described by the Times-News as 'a less well-known cousin of the intelligent design, or anti-evolution, movement.'" Scolaire (talk) 18:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude much or all of the underlined text. Ok, it's true, and permitted by WP guidelines; but WP should not only take a neutral stance, it should appear to take a neutral stance. The underlined text, like Richard Dawkins, goes overboard on the side of verifiability, which is counterproductive to its (and Dawkins's) apparent purpose of persuading readers that pseudoscience is wrong. Maproom (talk) 08:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
• Include reworded the problem is not the factual content or refs, but the wording, as some have pointed out. To omit the facts on the grounds of the red herring that it is poorly stated would do readers of the article a disservice; to leave it in its current form would do other disservices. I include a suggestion for rewording in the discussion. JonRichfield (talk) 11:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude But the core of my reason is a structural one not discussed much above. The core sentence is about geocentrism, not creationism, intelligent design or biblical literalism. IMO anything where it's linkage to the article is a phrase like "which has been described as being related to" a term used in the article has not been established as being germane to the article. If there was suitably sourced material about his belief in or advocacy of creationism, intelligent design or biblical literalism, then we have a completely different question and IMHO that material would be suitable to include. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
• Weak exclude because the references to intelligent design and creationism seem to me anyway to be unnecessary. Maybe something like having the clause after the comma read, "which has been described as challenging (or "which challenges") scientific findings based on biblical literalism and on the misunderstanding that scientific knowledge undermines faith in God and the authority of religious institutions." John Carter (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• And, FWIW, It seems to me anyway to be a bit judgmental, in some sense, to say that it is a "misunderstanding" that scientific knowledge undermines faith in God. I tend to think that a statement to that effect is broadly true, but for all I know there may be some individuals or groups who specifically believe that science actually does undermine the authority of at least some religious institutions, maybe at least those institutions who oppose some particular aspects of scientific knowledge. Luddite fanatics may have as reasonable a claim to the "faith" and "authority" of their churches or leaders, whatever the rest of us think about them. John Carter (talk) 19:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• Include reworded Because the facts stated only justify a connection to biblical inerrancy and biblical literalism, not to "intelligent design" (née creationism). Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, even biblical inerrancy is questionable, given that the biblical text supports a flat Earth rather than a spherical Earth. But I still think that some sort of reference to the theological aspect is relevant. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• Exclude This feels like the kind of phrasing I would remove from a scientific paper because it runs away with the argument, to the detriment of good causal structure. I.e., what we call a WP:COATRACK issue here. I don't think it's necessary either, as geocentrism is linked sufficiently (and sufficiently prominently) for anyone to just click and get the background/details, should they be interested.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Realize that this malformed and biased RfC will have no bearing whatsoever on whether WP:BLP can be ignored at this article (it can't) . Joefromrandb (talk) 01:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• WP:CRYBLP? Can you identify the violation?
  • None, now. The article correctly notes that geocentrism is pseudoscience. It's using Wikipedia's voice to state that geocentrism is "related" to creationism and ID that's the problem. Just because someone believes in one nonsense theory doesn't necessarily mean they espouse others. Look, anyone who believes in geocentrism is obviously bat shit crazy. Please don't make me out as some kind of apologist for this guy. It's just that if Sungenis espouses young-Earth creationism, we need a source specifically stating that. We could also say "John Doe has compared Sungenis' belief in geocentrism to the pseudoscience of creationism". Joefromrandb (talk) 01:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

jps (talk) 01:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• • • Sungenis admits to being a YEC [3]. This isn't even remotely controversial. jps (talk) 01:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
      • Straw men upon straw men! I never said he isn't one. The only problem is stating in Wikipedia's voice that geocentrism is related to creationism. If he's a geocentrist and a young-Earth creationist, by all means say so. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
        • The connection between creationism and geocentrism is undeniable. You can read all about it in Ronald Numbers' book. jps (talk)

02:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• • • • • • Then say: "Ronald Numbers states that there is an undeniable connection". No problem there. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
            • But it's a fact. And we WP:ASSERT facts. jps (talk) 02:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
              • No, it's not. Your second statement is correct, though. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

*blink* Your connection is that it is mere opinion that there is a connection between modern religious beliefs in geocentrism and modern religious beliefs in creationism? Can you point to a single reliable source which argues this point? Above I see half a dozen that make my point, and do so as a statement of fact, not opinion. jps (talk) 02:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't really understand the disagreement. It is uncontroversial that Sungenis is both a creationist and a geocentrist. Every single reliable source that has evaluated the claims of geocentrism and creationism has identified them as pseudoscientific or having the qualities of a pseudoscience. What is the problem? jps (talk) 01:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

But that doesn't mean that his geocentrism is logically connected to his creationism. StAnselm (talk) 01:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

How's that? jps (talk) 01:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

That seems clear: there is a logically consistent model in which a) creationism is true but geocentrism isn't or b) geocentrism is true by creationism isn't. Though I do agree that logical dependence is a much stronger position than is needed to assert that two things are related. Perhaps it would be useful to explain what you mean by 'related'? In the text it might be clearer to say how the two are 'connected' or 'related', rather than just asserting that they are. —♫CheChe♫ talk 10:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

My bad, ignore that second bit: I had forgotten with the text in question had already said about that. To me though, it isn't clear whether that information should be on a page about this person. I remain undecided on it's inclusion. —♫CheChe♫ talk 10:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I think what confuses me is the proposal that we try to logically connect the two ideas when that isn't really the point of the statement. The reason that creationism and geocentrism are connected is because they are overlapping ideologies in the sociological sense. jps (talk) 13:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

What exactly is malformed about the RfC? It is neutral, concise, and identifies a clear question to be answered. Jytdog (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

And calling the claim that "scientific knowledge undermines faith in God" a "misunderstanding" is blatant editorialising. StAnselm (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

For some it does. jps (talk) 01:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Very true. Doesn't make the editorializing any less blatant. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. If this is a misunderstanding, then how is it editorializing? jps (talk) 01:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Because it being the case for some doesn't make it the case for all. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

When is it not a misunderstanding? Can you explain? I feel like either I'm missing something obvious or you're reading into the wording something which is not there. jps (talk) 02:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

People have different ideas of what God is (even in the same religion). It is simply not true that, in general, science undermining belief in God is a misunderstanding. (For example science undermines literal interpretations of the Bible) —♫CheChe♫ talk 10:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Editorializing would be if I wrote that, based on my opinion. The sources provided clearly describe geocentrism as advocated by Sungenis this way, as the cousin of ID and creationism. The "editorializing" complaint is just wrong. The claim of Sungenis in his geocentrists is that scientific knowledge necessarily undermines faith; it certainly can but the geocentrist claim that it does is based on the fallacy that science has anything to say about religion. It doesn't, and probably more importantly there are all kinds of theological positions on cosmology and evolution that do not make claims like this. I don't understand the objection. Jytdog (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Well at least that's correct. You do not understand at all. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

If what you (Jytdog) say is true, then the wording should include the word "necessarily" - but I don't know if that is supported in the source. In any case, we still have the problem of editorialising. Who says it's a misunderstanding? And calling the idea that "science has anything to say about religion" a fallacy is also personal opinion. StAnselm (talk) 02:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

You do not appear to have read the sources provided. the first one, Selton, is absolutely clear in supporting the content; the rest are additionally supporting, but not even necessary. Jytdog (talk) 02:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I read Sefton and I can't see it at all - he doesn't seem to mention "undermining faith" or "the authority of religious institutions" - let alone that Sungenis believes science necessarily undermines faith, let alone that this is a misunderstanding. StAnselm (talk) 02:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Sungenis believes that "science" as all reliable sources define it is not real "science". But you cannot redefine terms to get out of simple facts. There is no controversy about what science says and the fact that Sungenis opposes it and the fact that the things about science Sungenis opposes are those which he says necessarily undermines faith. That this is a misunderstanding on Sungenis's part seems to be plainly true and I cannot see how to read sources so that it isn't. Whether there is a better way to write the sentence is another matter, but arguing that the sentence is "editorializing" or, worse, "opinion" is an alarming tack. jps (talk) 03:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, there you're wrong. How is it "plainly true"? Who says it is "plainly true"? StAnselm (talk) 03:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

It's plainly true because the fact that geocentrism is incorrect does not mean that religious faith is undermined unless you believe that every person who professes religious faith and isn't a geocentrist is an apostate (as Sungenis seems to). If the only true believers in religion were Sungenis' comrades-in-arms then it would not be a misunderstanding. jps (talk) 03:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• the relevant quotes are in the section above, at Talk:Robert_Sungenis#Similar_to_ID_and_creationism. Jytdog (talk) 03:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
• As is typical, we have a flurry of a few issues-oriented editors cluttering this up. This RfC will run its typical course, and folks will come who will read the sources and comment. Jytdog (talk) 03:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

But there is no quote in that section that says it's a misunderstanding. StAnselm (talk) 06:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

At this point you appear to be willfully ignoring what the sources say, or you are incompetent. At the risk of violating COPYVIO I will put further quotes above.Jytdog (talk) 07:51, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

No, you still haven't proved your point. For a start, all the major stuff is coming from people cited within the articles: e.g. "incorrectly hold that science is antithetical to faith" (David Palm). And there are, of course, people of all sorts of persuasions who hold that science and faith are opposed: see Relationship between religion and science#Incompatibility. StAnselm (talk) 08:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I am not going to waste further time talking with you. You have !voted and made your perspective clear. If, however, you want to propose alternate text that might be useful. Jytdog (talk) 08:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's entirely up to you. But it's a bit suspicious that you do that just when I point out that incompatibilism is a major school of thought in the field of science and religion. StAnselm (talk) 09:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I have a hard time reading the proposed wording as "incompatibilism is a misunderstanding". I think, rather, the statement is saying that the form of incompatibilism for which Sungenis advocates is a misunderstanding. jps (talk) 13:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, the wording was especially chosen to make it more general than just Sungenis - i.e. it covers the incompatiblism of YEC and ID as well. StAnselm (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

You see, I am quite sure that Richard Dawkins could agree with the wording of the "misunderstanding": "scientific knowledge undermines faith in God and the authority of religious institutions". StAnselm (talk) 20:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

You are [WP:BLUDGEON]]ing this RfC. Your opposition to the current content is clear. Please make a suggestion you would find acceptable or let this go. This is not a forum for debate of the general topic. Jytdog (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Of course it's not for debate on the general topic - is regarding proposed wording. And I am arguing that the proposed wording violates WP:NPOV. StAnselm (talk) 01:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

You have said that several times. If you have wording that would be acceptable please propose it. Otherwise please stop BLUDGEONing. Jytdog (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes User:StAnselm (I think this is perfectly neutrally worded, it does not claim it is a fact, it makes it clear it is just an assertion. This would seem to be a compromise both sides can live with.Slatersteven (talk) 09:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

So should we add he is a YEC?Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Re "the things about science Sungenis opposes are those which he says necessarily undermines faith. That this is a misunderstanding on Sungenis's part seems to be plainly true". No it isn't (plainly true). If a film critic says "this director seems to think you can't have both lively action and a plausible plot", it's still a characterisation/opinion about what this director appears to believe. It may be an opinion that most people would agree with, but it is still a characterisation/surmisal, nothing could ever make it a fact. It's a valid response/criticism if RS'd.

If Sungenis does clearly say "Science necessarily undermines faith", then that is his belief, it's a pretty bonkers belief (contradicted by 1000s of religious scientists down the ages). We can say it is his belief (if clearly stated by him, rather than surmised by his critics), we can also say others see this as a misunderstanding, but we can't characterise a (surmised?) belief as a misunderstanding in WPvoice, regardless of how obvious it might seem to us. Pincrete (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The sentence in the RFC is a disaster. Just rip apart the various points into separate sentences. It will be easier to read, and it will do a better job of explaining how fringe his beliefs are. (And I choke to dignify his beliefs with the term "fringe".) Alsee (talk) 08:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

As I promised above, here follows a suggested rewording. I suspect that it is roughly along the lines that Alsee had in mind. JonRichfield (talk) 11:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

By 2006 Sungenis had become known as an advocate for various forms of pseudoscience, as opposed to Catholic teachings. One aspect has been related to intelligent design and creationism in that it challenges scientific findings on a basis of biblical literalism. This is in conflict with the principles of the Catholic Church. He also claims, in direct conflict with the authorities of the Catholic Church, that the study of science is intrinsically inimical to faith in God. Similarly he asserted that the claims of science undermine the authority of religious institutions. This too contradicts Catholic authorities.

We similarly might format it as a list:

By 2006 Sungenis had become known as an advocate for various forms of pseudoscience, as opposed to Catholic teachings.

• One aspect has been related to intelligent design and creationism in that it challenges scientific findings on a basis of biblical literalism. This is in conflict with the principles of the Catholic Church.
• He also claims, in direct conflict with the authorities of the Catholic Church, that the study of science is intrinsically inimical to faith in God.
• Similarly he asserted that the claims of science undermine the authority of religious institutions. This too contradicts Catholic authorities. JonRichfield (talk) 11:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

"Related to" something that is germane to the article does not equate to being germane to the article. IF it were sourced that he is an advocate for those other things (e.g intelligent design) THEN such would be germane to the article. North8000 (talk) 16:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The article is about Sungenis. The point at issue concerns his advocacy of various forms of pseudoscience. The points mentioned are germane to Sungenis, germane to advocacy of pseudoscience, are sourced, and accordingly (particularly in terms of WP standards) germane to the article. JonRichfield (talk) 11:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Publications

Most pages on writers (and actors and other creative artists) list their works, why not this one?Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

If you cannot give a valid policy reason for excluding this, please do not remove it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we should list them all. What if he published 50 books -- would we include them all? If we have a way of identifying the most significant ones... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:57, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually why not, we do for many writers. But this is not a good reason for rejecting the section, just being discriminating as to what we put in it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

They're vanity publications. This is just WP:SOAP. jps (talk) 15:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

They may well be, they have also been discussed by RS and critiqued by them. But let us discus this in one place, either here or the Fringe theory notice board, which would you prefer?Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

No they haven't. jps (talk) 16:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

So you are saying that the article is littered with none RS that (for example) describe The principle as pseudoscience, so should remove all the sources?Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

It is apparent you do not understand this simple point. The list of books is not discussed in secondary sources. His corpus of work is not noticed. There is no reason to repeat the books and films already mentioned in the article a second time in a list. Those not mentioned in the article already do not deserve inclusion. jps (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

We do it all the time in other articles. Also how do you know that have not been mentioned in RS, have you looked?Slatersteven (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

No we don't. And yes I've looked. jps (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Sources for his work being noted. The New World Order and the Zionist Connection (in the The Remnant})[4]Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I've noticed that many BLP writers, authors, scientists, and theologians have bibliographies, publications, or works on their pages. There is a broad consensus of this practice in Wikipedia (See the BLP Wikipedia Pages of Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, Bill Clinton, Stephen Hawkings, William Lane Craig, E. Michael Jones, or Washington Irving). Removing it and claiming WP:SOAP is not a valid reason. Where in WP:SOAP does it say no Bibliography page? It would help if you could copy and paste the exact sentence because I see no restriction. Also, removing it and attacking my person is not a valid reason either. Finally, his publications are mention in secondary sources like "A response to Robert Sungenis' Not By Faith Alone" and "In this view, the Sun revolves around the Earth". They mention Not By Faith Alone and Galileo was Wrong.Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 17:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

We might take you more seriously if you could cite a person who published as many vanity publications as Sungenis and had a bibliography. Comparing Sungenis to a bunch of much more notable people like you're doing is as precious as spelling Hawking's name "Hawkings". jps (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Sources for his work being noted. Geocentrism 101 (in the The Remnant})[ http://nicadd.niu.edu/~mwiesner/pseudoscience.pdf]

There is also James White, Peter Kreeft, and Dave Armstrong. They all have bibliographies and publications. They engage in apologetics just like Sungenis and have even interacted with each other about Non-geocentric topics like Sola Scriptura and whether God has emotions. Which sentence or paragraph in WP:SOAP are you using to support your position and why does it not apply to other BLP Wikipedia pages that have bibliographies or publications? Attacking my person is again not a valid argument.Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 18:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

They are self-published works. Comparing this person to a scholar who publishes in actual academic presses and journals is not reasonable. Jytdog (talk) 10:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

You're overlooking the fact that Dr. Sungenis is primarily an apologeticist and a recreational scientist, not a university professor off in academialand. Perhaps he just prefers to self-publish rather than getting caught up in all the formalities and the peer reviews and all that jazz. 98.115.103.26 (talk) 03:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

No, as not only university professors can get their work published by reputable outlets (even fringe theorists can get reputable publishes to publish their works). Also this is just your speculation, yes he may well self publish to avoid the need to have others critique his work, or it maybe because no one else wants to publish it, or...but we can go on and on. The fact it Wikipedia does not allow self publication to establish any kind of reputation. I agree, where his works have revived notice, we cannot include works no one but him gives a damn about.Slatersteven (talk) 09:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Biography

I made an addition to the Robert Sungenis Biography of a Living person at 19:47, 24 July 2018. My addition was reverted at 19:57, 24 July 2018, with a comment stating that I agreed to go to the talk page before making edits. With all due respect, I am not a regular editor for Wikipedia so I forgot to do this step. I have not made any comments or edits in two years so I am not fully savvy in how Wikipedia works. However, I do know that there is nothing wrong in my edit in that A) The edit is adding a second opinion and B) the source for the footnotes follows the Wikipedia guidelines. If you want to have an unbiased article you need to allow second opinions. Any good article, especially on Wikipedia should be unbiased.SuzanneCampbell (talk) 02:39, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

It's on your talk page due to a COI. That is what is wrong with your edit, the allegation of a COI which means you should not really edit this BLP.Slatersteven (talk) 10:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok, then I am kindly asking you to please put the edit back upSuzanneCampbell (talk) 18:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help, I really appreciate itSuzanneCampbell (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Robert Sungenis.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)