Talk:Robert Sungenis/Archive 2

TS correction of "some" vs. "several"

TS recently made an alteration on my choice of "several" when commenting on Karl Keatings description of the number of people in the SPLC list who were anti-Semitic. I won't argue with the change because it makes no real difference and it is actually the specific word Keating himself used. But I make this point in order to draw out that, if anything, "some" is perhaps more likely to mean a larger number than "several" depending on the number. So I don't know why TS felt the need to change it. It doesn't really help Sungenis if that is TS' aim.

"Some" means "an indeterminate quantity, portion or number as distinguished from the rest." As such, "some" in a list of 12 (like the "Dirty Dozen" anti-Semites) could range from 2 to 11 technically.

OTOH, "several" is potentially a more limited number. It means, "more than two but fewer than many."

There is actually enough crossover between the two that they are listed as synonyms in the thesaurus. So this is a rather meaningless change on TS' part. There was nothing exaggerated or unfair with what was already there.

Liam Patrick 20:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Laim: Here is what KK said:

The greatest fault of the SPLC report is its lumping all Traditionalists into the anti-Semitism category. I know that there are some authentically anti-Semitic people within Catholic Traditionalism, but I also know that they are not representative of the movement.

Yes, some of the individuals and groups discussed in the SPLC report truly are anti-Semitic, and only a disingenuous person could deny that. But not everyone and not every group discussed in the report is anti-Semitic. And, what is more important, those that are discussed comprise only a subsection of the Traditionalist movement.

Truth_Seeker 22:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

TS must not have read carefully. That Keating used the word "some" was not the point. That was already acknowledged.

Liam Patrick 15:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Notes and References

I have added a section for notes and references. New notes can be added easily using tags as follows: <ref>..note..</ref>. Many of the notes here are currently hard to follow, and could benefit from being placed into this form. I've also added a section on his PhD, which was the impetus for adding notes. -- Duae Quartunciae 04:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Charges of anti-semitism

I have just now reverted some changes by 71.112.223.5 (talk · contribs) which were likely to cause another outbreak of disagreement. Although I am personally highly critical of Sungenis myself, the rules for biographies of living persons apply. We can't have headings that presume in advance that Sungenis is anti-semitic. Please discuss potentially contentious changes here first, and look for a solution that is going to pass muster with wikipedia guidelines and avoid an edit war. Thanks -- Duae Quartunciae (t|c) 22:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

TS inserting sources Hebrew Association of Catholics and Roy Shoeman

To my knowledge, Sungenis has never sourced the Hebrew Association of Catholics or Roy Shoeman in terms of forumlating his own personal views on Jews. He has criticized and attacked both of them. Whether or not Shoeman has an imprimatur on anything is completely irrelevant. Shoeman is not the topic of the article. Sungenis is.

Liam Patrick 03:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Jewish controversy

Sungenis' recent acknowledgment of problems with the manner in which he has written concerning Jews is welcome, and if he is removing contentious articles from his pages then it is fair enough that this page does not treat them as current statements.

However, it was not really a good idea to go as far as to remove the whole section and replace everything with a brief link to the July 31 article where Sungenis makes this acknowledgment. I would like to see a bit of neutrally stated information as to how this became such a controversy and why Sungenis was called upon to manage the matter differently.

The history of this dispute is relevant, and in this encyclopedia there should be something about the problems left for context to the new announcement. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 20:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Just saw the recent additions by Liam. It's a controversial subject, so I'm just adding a note to say: good work. Other edits can be anticipated, of course; but Liam has provided a good baseline to work from. (diff at 00:14, 2 August 2007) —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 00:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

NOTE regarding TS complaint...no one has said that the bishop ordered Sungenis to remove articles. I have added language directly from Sungenis' letter that should more than resolve the problem.

Liam Patrick 04:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Sungenis Ordered by Bishop to "Desist" on Jewish Attacks

Truthseeker has complained that Sungenis was not ordered to remove his articles about Jews. He wrote (in the "history" section):

"bishop did not order him to remove articles. Read his doaument. Anything else is just rumor". (Aug 16, 2007)

and

"His bishop did not order him to remove the articles." (Aug. 25, 2007)

It turns out that Truthseeker is incorrect again. An article in Culture Wars magazine proves (page 9, with a direct quote from the letter Sungenis received from his bishop) that Sungenis was ordered to "desist from commenting on the Jewish people and Judaism both online and in all other publications" or he would be denounced. Liam Patrick 17:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Wyattmj inserting POV

Wyattmj, aftering complaining about POV, you have just loaded this article with POV from a decidedly pro-Sungenis perspective. You have even included original argumentation, which is prohibited.

Is this the same person truthseeker?

What you are doing is destructive. I hope you are not planning to do what you did last time. It will be another long affair.

The information needs to be factual and documented.

Liam Patrick (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed POV by spliting section

Whether intentional or not, the article on Robert Sungenis contains severe POV. By mixing the lack of imprimatur (not required and not present on all Catholic books) plus the conflict with the bishop (does not automatically mean any, and certainly not al his views are suspect)in the section on Theological Views and Work, the implication is that the Views and Works are suspect or outright wrong. This is a disservice to the NPOV policy, as well as to Robert Sungenis and the Catholic Church (which does support many if not most of his views- at least I suspect).

I seperated the issues out into seperate sections so they can be dealt with reasonably and fairly.

Keep in mind this is a biography of a living person. I suspect this article steps well over the line on Robert Sungenis.

Wyattmj (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I can appreciate Wyattmj's concerns. However, it does not appear that way to me. The vast majority of this information has been written about by Sungenis himself and a friend, in very public articles appearing at his own website and various periodicals. It would seem, then, that Sungenis himself does not share Wyattmj's level of concern.

In my opinion this is all perfectly relevant information about which the public has a legitimate right to know.

Liam Patrick (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Wyattmj inserting POV and reading his own POV into factual statements

Wyattmj is drawing his own personal conclusions from factually stated material and invalidly judging these statements as therefore objectively promoting a POV. He is incorrect. The fact the he arrives at certain conclusions is reflective only of his own deductions, not the objective content of the words themselves. However, I have no objection to splitting the section on imprimatur.

That being said, Wyattmj himself has just inserted clear POV. In one instance, he states that Michael Forest is "author of a website and blog dedicated to attacking Robert Sungenis." Describing either site as "dedicated to attacking Robert Sungenis" is obviously POV. I've read several articles at these sites and in my opinion they could more readily be described as "defending Jews from Robert Sungenis' attacks". My guess is that Wyattmj wouldn't accept that description and understandably so. So I will amend his POV and make it neutral.

Also, unless something has changed, Forest is not properly called the author of the blog dealing with Sungenis. He is only the author of the *website*. My recollection is that he has *written* for the blog and that Jacob Michael is the one running it, but I will first confirm this.

• • I just confirmed this at the blog, my recollection is correct.**

Liam Patrick (talk) 00:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not mind changing the statement regarding "attacking Sungenis". As to the factual account of who is author of which website, that is fine, too. He is author OF one website and ON the blog to be specific.

Wyattmj (talk) 01:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Very good. Agreed. Liam Patrick (talk) 01:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

New Editor 130.13.217.229 using original argumentation, excessive quotations from articles, extreme pov, deleting legitimate material without explanation and other violations of wiki rules

This article has been revised repeatedly by many individuals. Some for Sungenis. Some not. Some neither. It is well documented and reasonably well written. A great deal of time and work has gone into it. Greater care would be helpful as well as explanations for the large revisions and additions in light of wiki guidelines, etc. is called for.

Liam Patrick (talk)

Again, this editor is reverting things back that are in violation of wiki policies. You can't just reproduce an article like this on from the priest. And many of your other statements are false. The controversial issues were not dogmas. They were the views of Sungenis that are documented by Catholic Culture, Catholics United for the Faith and the Southern Poverty Law Center (and they're in the wiki article). Many of your other statements are loaded with strong point of view (which is not allowed ) and original argumentation (which is not allowed). Please try to learn the rules and at least communicate before jumping in and making these kinds of changes.

Liam Patrick (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

WyattMJ and "Speedy Deletion"

Mark Wyatt, the person objecting, is an associate of Sungenis and is on his board of directors (http://lordylordyhavemercyonme.blogspot.com/2009/02/call-to-catholic-action-pope-benedict.html - scan down the list of signatories). If there is something false in the article, then by all means, point it out/correct it. I have no problem with it being corrected. But this article has been a product of a great deal of research and work. I believe it is all factually correct - but again, if there is something incorrect, I completely agree it should be corrected.

If someone feels that additional information about other aspects of Sungenis should be included, by all means, add them in. But the information here has been well documented and has been out in public. It can be difficult keeping up with articles that appear and disappear, etc. But people have made a solid effort to get the facts right. I don't know of any original argumentation in the article. Are there arguments on the facts themselves? If so, what?

Sungenis has been a highly controversial figure in the Catholic Church, to the point where bishops and dioceses are publicly distancing themselves from him. Sungenis himself doesn't seem to shy away from it at all, and has really been quite confrontational about it. But in the past WyattMJ (a year or two ago now?) has tried to cover over or silence things that Sungenis himself wasn't the least bit shy about. I hope this is not going to be another exercise like the one a year ago or so. It was a long, drawn out affair and it did not make the article more informative.

Liam Patrick (talk) 07:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Understood, Liam. I looked over the article and it seems to be pretty conscientiously done. You might check for a couple of dead links. Perhaps some articles are no longer active. You might just give the name of the original citation that was linked so there are no dead links in the article. But there isn't much.

Trident44 (talk) 13:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Biography of Living Persons

This article is getting way out of hand. It is being used to track every movement of Robert Sungenis and then used as a launch pad to attack him.

Let's review the BLP policy:

"Wikipedia is a high-profile, widely-viewed website with an international scope, which means that material we publish about living people can affect their lives and the lives of their families, colleagues, and friends. Biographical material must therefore be written with strict adherence to our content policies."

"The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves."

Reliable secondary sources are mainstream magazines, news reports, etc. Not internet chatter. Most of what is in this article is from Sungenis' own writings, with mainly Liam Patrick's interpretation. This is original research.

From original research:

"Original research is research that is not exclusively based on a summary, review or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research. This material is of a primary source character. "

This is what is occuring here.

Back to BLP:

"Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides;"

The article is overwhelmed by Liam Patrick's (and others to be fair) original research based on Sungenis' writings.

"When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. In the best case, it can lead to an unencyclopedic article. In the worst case, it can be a serious violation of our policies on neutrality. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic."

"n the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. "

Obviously there is not an overwhelming amount of third party material, so Robert Sungenis is not to be considered a "significant public figure".

"Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability. Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source. Material published by the subject must be used with caution."

I see lack of caution, especially in using even Sungenis' own material, which is being turned into original research.

I understand that Patrick Liam is frustrated that he cannot use the attack websites and blogs as sources, so he has turned to Sungenis' own writings to attempt to follow the policy guidelines. Good for him. Unfortunately this has turned into Liam Patrick's original research. Proportionality is highly skewed in this article. Karl Keating is one of the best known, most active Catholic apologists out there, and compare the articles. Mr. Keating's article is encyclopedic. Robert Sungenis' is not. Wyattmj (talk) 16:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Wyatt MJ

What I see is something that looks like a board member of Sungenis' organization trying his best to keep Sungenis' controversial and troubled history out of the public view as best as possible again.  ;-) (That is you, right? WyattMJ - Mark Wyatt? If not, let me know!) I still find it very strange because Sungenis is no such shrinking violet - he seems to unabashedly thrive on the public controversy. His board member Mark Wyatt, not so much! LOL. I disagree that it is original research to cite Sungenis' own words, writings and works on very public issues and developments. It looks like WyattMJ kind of wants to have it both ways again. We already went through this a year or two ago. We can't cite the third parties who have carefully documented the issues related to Sungenis' multiple controversies because they aren't good enough for him - even though Sungenis himself has written back and forth, arguing with these very individuals on his own website. And I kind of notice that WyattMJ never challenges the factual accuracy of the work cited, which is interesting. Then, when citations are given from Sungenis' own words and works on the very topics under consideration, he claims that it is "original research." Well, that's ridiculous.  :-) We've already gone through this before. This is why it looks as if he's striving again to find a way to exclude every source that accurately and thoroughly documents Sungenis' controversial history so that people don't see it - or see very, very little of it.

And as for Karl Keating - why Keating's article has so little that is troubled or controversial compared to Sungenis? Well, perhaps because Keating has not been any where near as controversial and hasn't gotten into the kinds of situations that Sungenis has? Maybe? I'll bet we don't find a lot of controversy and trouble being written about in the articles on Scott Hahn or Benedict Groeschel, either. I haven't looked, but it's just a hunch.

I suggest that rather than cutting out material, Sungenis' board member adds more material that he thinks is positive to balance it out. The material is accurate, I and others have checked and rechecked it. It has been plainly out in public, it is legitimate information that people have a right to know about - it's not exactly hidden by Sungenis himself!

So, by all means - he should add some more sections on other topics. It has been a while since those kinds of things have been updated. As his board member, WyattMJ probably knows quite a bit about that. So he should go for it!  :-)

One little note - something that just got cut out of the article (not by me) was originally put in by WyattMJ and it didn't have a source. It was from an unpublished letter from his bishop's vicar. But I left it in all this time because it seemed well-attested and factual, backed up by other statements Sungenis has made in other places.

Liam Patrick (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Biography of Living Persons Warning

I have removed large portions of negative material about this living person. Where sourced at all, it was mostly sourced to thoroughly unreliable sources including blogs. Much of it appeared to be original research. Do not restore this information without discussion of the content proposed and the sources proposed to support it here on the talkpage. --Slp1 (talk) 22:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Good edit. The sourcing is absolutely inadequate for these sorts of claims. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, a few other admins have apparently disagreed with you, previously restoring the work done on this page. Perhaps you are not familiar with the history, but the information on "blogs" that you mention has been published by well-known individuals, many of whom have worked for Sungenis. Sungenis has written multiple public articles in response to these individuals at the blog and website cited. Sungenis's own bishop responded to one of these individuals and his letter is posted in full there. Perhaps they deserve another look.

If there is something about which you are concerned, wouldn't it make sense to examine it a little more closely to see if we may be dealing with a legitimate exception here? Others have seemed to think so.

Thank you.

Liam Patrick (talk) 22:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no, I fully support Slp1's stubbing of this article, and had been considering something similar myself. Those sources really are unacceptable. Indeed, given the low quality of the sources being used, as well as the fact that there is extremely little reporting on Sungenis in traditional media (a rarity for a significant American critic), I am starting to wonder if he is even noteworthy. I am also concerned about the quality of sourcing for some of the other biographical articles you mention above. Risker (talk) 22:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. There are two authors of the references now there: Sungenis, and Madrid, who I suspect has almost completely deferred to Sungenis in a retelling of his religious conversion. The Madrid book is a relatively obscure work in itself. Without solid independent refs, this article will never be more than a resume. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about you, Risker. I don't even remember you being involved in this article until just now - were you? So, even the multiple links to Sungenis' own articles are "poorly sourced"? Really? You think a letter from Sungenis' own bishop - which appears only at that Sungenis and the Jews Blog - and which was actually referenced in an article in the Washington Post and Religion News Service - is not acceptable for Wikipedia? Really? Interesting.

But, whatever. Perhaps it really is best if there is nothing about Sungenis here- he has been a repeated embarrasment to and thorn in the side of the Church.

Liam Patrick (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

See, you've missed the point entirely. The letter from the bishop isn't notable by itself; it is only notable if independent third parties consider it worthy of comment. This may come as a shock to you, but the majority of people who get letters from their bishops are not noteworthy. So, why no link to the Washington Post article or the Religion News Service? Those might be worthy of inclusion, depending on what form they take (e.g., book reviews would probably not be as useful as straight reports, and op-ed is generally not acceptable for sourcing). Risker (talk) 22:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, Risker. Agreed. Relative nobodies sometimes get letters from Bishops. But this relative nobody has an article up at Wikipedia about him. Maybe he shouldn't. And another third party did mention it, aside from the Washington Post: http://www.cufblog.org/?p=273 http://www.cufblog.org/?p=311. I guess my concern is simple - if he's important enough to mention at Wikipedia, then it seems bizarre to ignore the central controversy swirling around him. He's at odds with his own bishop and others now as well. He's been roundly criticized by Catholics, Jews and others for his anti-Jewish bigotry. It's rather ignoring the pink elephant in the room not to mention anything about it.

To put up a totally innocuous stub for someone who has called Jews an "infection" (his words, btw) is a travesty, really. Have you read about the things he has said and done against Jews ? I have. And though not a Jew myself, I'm sickened by it. Better for there to be nothing than a nice little advertising stub for him. Goodness. Oy. (ooops!) LOL

Liam Patrick (talk) 01:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that he did not say that (infection). Someone attributed it to him, and it stuck. Wyattmj (talk) 04:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Your understanding is incorrect:

R. Sungenis: "the Jewish element has so infected our Catholic Church today that they have turned Catholics into Jewish apologists." Q and A #33, March 2007. http://web.archive.org/web/20070326171210/http://www.catholicintl.com/qa/qa.htm#Question+33

Liam Patrick (talk) 04:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be several misconceptions here, Liam. Wikipedia has several policies, and these are non-negotiable, no matter how much you would like them to be flexible. One of the them says that this is not the place to right great wrongs, matter how justified we feel in our our actions. (see also WP: GREATWRONGS). Another key policy here, Risker notes above, is that we only include information that has been noted by other, reliable, independent sources. The final key policy in this case is WP:BLP which states that we can "never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person." By one or several of these policies, the websites quoted above cannot be used. A Washington Post article is in a different category. Can you find a link to the original article? And see below for other suggestions.--Slp1 (talk) 12:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

For now I removed the BLP template. We will see how things go from here. I left the deletion proposal for further discussion. Wyattmj (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Are Sungenis' Views of the Jewish People Controversial? Is The Southern Poverty Law Center an Admissible Source?

WyattMJ has deleted two legitimate citations without cause. I understand that he does not like what they have to say, but that does not make them illegitimate for citation here.

Also, I don't see how he can dispute that Sungenis' views of the Jewish people are controversial - again, deleting my edit without cause. How much hot water does he have to get into with his bishop, Bishop Burke, the Diocese of San Bernardino, the SPLC, a cohort of former volunteers, Catholic Culture, The Washington Post, etc. etc. before WyattMJ will concede this rather obvious point?

I would also point out, Sungenis's controversial views are not about supercession. That is the least controversial, probably. It's all the other "stuff" for the most part, and a lot of it has nothing to do with theology. I can't believe that you don't already know that.

Liam Patrick (talk) 05:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Liam, you need to read our policies about living persons very carefully, and stop ascribing motives to people's edits. I have removed the unreliable sources that you added: blogs posted on Southern Poverty Law Center website are clearly and obviously not reliable sources for a BLP per policy, no matter what has been decided by editors on this article in the past.[1] As Risker and I stated above, this encyclopedia is not interested in collecting interesting facts about any subject. If no reliable, mainstream source (e.g. newspaper, book, magazine) though has noted his quarrels with his bishop, the lack of imprimatur on his books, his PhD, or his geocentrism then no matter how interesting or informative it is to you, WP won't be including it.(see verifiability; undue weight). If you want to include more information about him, then you need to spend your time finding reliable sources that talk about him. The Washington Post article obviously qualifies. So do these books. [2][3][4][5]. Some of the books include references to his views on Jews, but none of them go as far as has been included in this article in the past, and in using these references we must reflect these sources faithfully and not go beyond what is included in them. It is also possible that this SPLC magazine article [6] might be usable if attributed as their opinion, and used with great caution. --Slp1 (talk) 13:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Slp1, thanks. I'm trying to follow, but perhaps part of the problem is that different admins/editors seem to interpret and apply the rules differently at different times, so maybe you can understand why I'm not seeing things quite as clearly as you say they they are? And could you please tell me to what “people” I'm acribing motives? There's only been one person (WyattMJ) that I'm aware of, not "people," and the reasons go beyond what's happened just here and now. But I'll follow your admonition in his case.

Although, WyattMJ first made a judgment of my motivations and reactions without notice. What I wrote was in reaction to that. Maybe you missed it. Perhaps both Wyatt and I can avoid that kind of thing in the future.

However, as you seem to be the one who's decided to step forward and take control at this particular time, I’ll do my best to follow your interpretation of wiki rules. Can you please tell me though, what's your authority and what are the limits of it? I'd like to see proof at Wikipedia if you could point me to it. I want to respect Wiki rules, but it would help to know precisely who you are what your jurisdiction/authority is. Nothing personal, just hard to know who is who here! LOL

Also, three of the citations you deleted weren't from blogs. One was a citation of the same SPLC magazine article you just said might be "usable." Another was from a well-known and respected website dedicated to assessing Catholic sources, run by Dr. Jeffrey Mirus. So I'm not sure why you deleted them all. They were cited just as proof of the very brief statement in the article. And the statement was totally uncontroversial - Sungenis' views of the Jewish people are controversial. Even Sungenis himself has admitted his views are controversial. So I'm not sure why this has become so difficult to say now at Wikipedia - to the point that you deleted it. Am I missing something?

Thanks

Liam Patrick (talk) 17:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I am an administrator on WP, charged with making sure that editors follow the policies here. If you don't agree with my interpretations of policy you are welcome to post your queries at WP:RSN or WP:BLP, but note to date that one experienced editor in policy issues and one other administrator (and arbitrator actually) has agreed with my stubbing of the article. It might be worth noting that the rules about BLP articles have become much more strictly applied in the last year or so.

I deleted four refs:

• this is an blog, as mentioned even within the link itself; cannot be used in an article about a BLP
• this one is from the SPLC, and as I stated above should only be used with caution and attribution (eg the SLPC states that .....), as it is an advocacy website
• a link to self-published website that says nothing about Sungenis at all
• a link to a self-published website that only contains a link to an unreliable "anti-Sungeris" website"

None of these make the grade as reliable sources for the statement made. But there are sources out there. The Washington Post article for example [7]. Use them and them only and you will not have a problem. --Slp1 (talk) 18:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I understand what you are looking for better. But I don't understand this statement you made: "a link to self-published website that says nothing about Sungenis at all"

What do you mean that it "says nothing about Sungenis at all?" The whole page is about him and CAI-BTF. Here are the assessments that were on topic (about being controversial):

Criticisms of Pope John Paul II's relations with other religions implies a rejection of Catholic teaching on salvation. (Fidelity)

Constant criticism of the New Mass, which promotes a disrespect for papal authority over the liturgy. (Fidelity)

A tendency to rush to judgement and condemn others. (Fidelity)

Some material is blatantly anti-Semitic. (Fidelity)

Link to The Remnant (though they refute some of the paper's ultra-traditionalist views). (Fidelity)

A problematic and confusing position on Geocentrism. (Other) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liam Patrick (talk • contribs) 18:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I understand now: the "Bellarmine Theological Forum" is somehow connected to Sungeris. However,(A) this webpage is about this website he is affiliated with somehow, not about Sungeris himself. And (B), even if it was about Sungeris, all this information is self-published and cannot be used in a BLP article. --Slp1 (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The Bellarmine Theological Forum is more than just connected to Sungenis. It's his organization. He's the president, he formed it. He's the only real writer there. But I understand about being "self-published". Still learning. Thanks. - Liam Patrick (talk) 19:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

If all these sources were supported by admins in the past, either these admins didn't examine them or they were not well-informed on the relevant policies. No blogs, no blogs, no blogs. No self-published material. Exceptions may be made for self-published material authored by Sungenis, but only those that are about himself and his opinions, and even then only limitedly, only within very confined boundaries. Speaking more directly to the problem here before the cleanup--Sungenis material cannot be used to cite accusations of his made against other people, and his material must be straightforwardly represented here. No spinning it. In other words, no interpretation of it is allowed. No quote mining, no text that is used as "evidence" to bolster broader statements of opinions or conclusions about him. For obvious reasons, Sungenis's own work is not sufficient for this article. At this point his notability isn't even established yet. And that's a mandatory first step to even keeping this article. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Slp1 - can you please explain to me what's unacceptable about being more specific in regard to what views are controversial from Sungenis? Why are you deleting any specific mention in the body of the article, regardless of how objective and brief? It's not as if there are a myriad of areas where he's controversial. So the way it's stated now might actually give a worse impression than the reality. There are only two that I know of - geocentrism and his Jewish views. It seems there's as much or more public documentation on those things than anything else about him. So, what violates wiki policy in simply stating that? I don't follow.

To anyone who knows anything about Sungenis, it just seems weird to not mention it. Over the past several years, geocentrism and Jewish stuff are what he's become known for. Thanks. Liam Patrick (talk) 19:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Source it first. Say it here second. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

??? No comprendo. LOL It's already sourced. I found articles in the National Catholic Reporter and the Washington Post. Anyway - I'm blind. Slp-1 removed it from the intro and put it in the body of the article. It's there, just missed it. Early onset dementia. Liam Patrick (talk) 19:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

that's a good source for his views on Jews. Is there one yet for the geocentrism? Professor marginalia (talk) 19:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, you're right. Good question. I'll see if I can find any. Liam Patrick (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Recent Wyattmj edits

I believe Wyattmj is now doing original research and making unsupported statements. For instance, he inserted the word "controversial" for the Southern Law Poverty Center. Where is the support for that? And is it appropriate to use the article on Sungenis in this way? It also seems inconsistent after he objected to using the word "contoversial" for Sungenis.

His story about what happened with Sungenis, why he was in the article/news and Sungenis' role is either disputed or original research. The permissible documentation does not support what Wyatt wrote.

Also, in trying to characterize what has happened, it looks to me that this section about Sungenis' Jewish controversies is receiving undue weight now. I thought WyattMJ objected to how much attention this was receiving, yes? If so, then it needs to be kept short and factual, without editorializing,original research and pov. Liam Patrick (talk) 20:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the inclusion of "controversial" was marginalizing and not appropriate. On the other hand, much of the rest of the information he added comes fairly directly from the WPost article, and as such provided useful context to the article. As long it is verifiable, (and I think with tweaking, his addition was) it can and should be included. A piece of advice here to both of you. Reverting edits is not a good idea, and can get you blocked from editing in the long term. I suggest you discuss on the talkpage first before deleting things each other adds. --Slp1 (talk) 20:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It is fair to state what the article was about, and how Sungenis got named in it. The article was specifally about the one sentence in the Catechism, and Sungenis writing to the Vatiacn about it goes directly to his notoriety. Adding the bit about SPLC clling Sungenis "anti-semitic" is actually your research. Once again, you have searched for and ound a cvehicle to allow you to asay what you want to say. The story is not about accusations of Sungenis' anti-semitism, it is abnout the one sentence. As for the SPLC, I linked it to Wiklipedia's section on the SPLC which discusses the nirregularities in their fundraising. Remove it if you wish. Wyattmj (talk) 20:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

There, I removed it (and reverted your last edit). Please discuss here before making any more changes. I think it shold stay just as it is. Wyattmj (talk) 20:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)The element that seems to revolve in and out again is the nature of his controversial writings about Jews. Is it about how Sungenis views the role of the covenant, and the issue of where Jews currently stand with God after the arrival of Jesus? I do think "his views about Jews" needs to be a little more specific. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Wyattmj - I thought you were concerned about how much weight the section on Sungenis and Jews was receiving. You added a lot of information that makes his article mostly about Jews now. Also, the way you framed it originally was not quite accurate and involved reading into certain things - original research. If you don't care about the fact that this section is getting larger as you give more context, I suppose that's okay, as long as it is factual, well-documented and even-handed.Liam Patrick (talk) 20:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

If you fight with each other, it's just making things harder than they need to be, ok? I have several disagreements with the current wording. Specifics to follow. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Professor marginalia, you mentioned that the article needs to be more specific in regard to which "views about Jews" are controversial. I know these sources can't be used in the article, but these provide proof from Sungenis' own writings what is at issue. We're not just talking theology here. These articles have links to Sungenis' articles where you can see his statements for yourself. http://www.sungenisandthejews.com/Section2.html and http://web.archive.org/web/20050214144647/www.wquercus.com/sungenis/

And this is what the bishop wrote (which is referenced in the Washington Post article). He wrote that Sungenis writes about "Judaism and the Jewish people in a hostile, uncharitable and unchristian manner." A copy of his letter is found here: http://www.sungenisandthejews.com/uploads/Bishop_Rhoades_Letter.pdf -- Liam Patrick (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Issues:The Washington Post article described Sungenis's part in a very specific way. The Church planned to change the catechism; the church earlier received many "inquiries" about that passage following a webstory by Sungenis; Sungenis was taking credit for the change; Sungenis was already on the SPLC's radar for what it viewed as anti-semitic views, and the SPLC was clearly suspicious and unnerved there might be a connection. The other point made clear is that Sungenis was held in disfavor by the church establishment for controversial views about Jews. If this episode is included here, it needs to be more faithful to the story in the source. A) Sungenis is claiming credit, but he isn't given credit. B) The church "establishment" is displeased with him, raising the question whether he was influential in the change. and C) His part in this change is controversial because of his past writings about Jews. (thanks Liam Patrick, but let's keep the focus only on WP:RS.) Professor marginalia (talk) 21:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

ec :Thanks, Professor, and I reiterate to both Liam and Wyattmj that you need to stop squabbling and concentrate on reaching agreement politely here on the talkpage. Reverting each other does not help at all.

This book [8] provides some details for earlier squabbles with the Church on this matter, which may be helpful in framing this.--Slp1 (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Great catch. I've never seen that. Thanks for the help. Liam Patrick (talk) 22:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that assessment, Professor marginalia. That is faithful to the article. I tried to encapsulate that in the wiki article. See if I did so. -- Liam Patrick (talk) 21:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's pretty tight.Professor marginalia (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm having trouble finding a usable article about his geocentrism. There was one in the Sun Times, but it has expired online. I think it was in the printed paper, too. Other websites quote the article: http://www.splendoroftruth.com/curtjester/archives/2006/03/ and http://brothersjuddblog.com/archives/2006/03/ and http://www.mememachinego.com/2006/10/ and http://dadahead.blogspot.com/2006/03/galileo-was-wrong.html. But I don't think any of them make the grade. Any ideas? Maybe WyattMJ knows some usable sources because he helped with the book Sungenis wrote. WyattMJ? Liam Patrick (talk) 22:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I changed the text to read that Msgr. Kuty's stated that the tyext was not changed because of Sungenis. The article does not state that the USCCB stated so. We know that the bishops voted in secret, so we do not know why they voted as they did. My rewording is neutral, yours makes implications (OR). Wyattmj (talk) 23:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

If you are looking for a neutral source for geocentrism, Newhouse News Service wrote one a couple of years ago. The link was here: http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/sefton032806.html, but not available now. The Herald Sun picked it up (saw on Free Rep., but cannot link as is a wiki no-no). Wyattmj (talk) 23:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It's great to see you guys cooperating. Keep it up. This is the way we get a neutral article. And it works much better!!

Reliable sources do not need to be online. We can source to the original articles in the Herald Sun or Sun Times or other newspapers if you have hard copies to hand.--Slp1 (talk) 23:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Your change is fine, WyattMJ, but I don't see anything wrong with what I wrote, either. Msgr. Kutys spoke as a representative for the USCCB. That's not original research and it doesn't make implications - it's just a fact. But still, I'm fine with your change. Slp1 - I don't have a hard copy of that issue of Herald Sun or Sun Times. Maybe WyattMJ does? Maybe I'll check the Way Back machine for the article at Newhouse news. -- Liam Patrick (talk) 01:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't seem to find anything that is up to wikipedia standards on geocentrism/Sungenis. I guess that can't be mentioned then. Liam Patrick (talk) 00:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I have access to online newspaper archives and can email a copy of a published article on Sungenis' geocentrism if I'm sent an email. --Slp1 (talk) 13:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Slp-1, I didn't see this until just now. I'll check your page for an email address. That sounds good. Thanks....UMMM -- now, where do I find your email address? LOL Liam Patrick (talk) 04:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Changes as of Easter 2009

Some good changes made by WyattMJ, imo - adding the sentence itself makes sense, makes it more specific. But now the sentence is a little confusing - need to make clear that the change was made by the bishops. The way it appears now, looks as if "by the bishops" refers just to putting the sentence in originally that was removed. Liam Patrick (talk) 03:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the bishops voted to remove it, and the committee is proposing to add the new sentence as a replacement. I did not want this to get too complicated. I think it helps to show the replacement sentence, also. Wyattmj (talk) 23:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I see both points WyattMJ is making. He wants both quotes used in the article but he recognizes that its getting a little complicated and long now. Following the example of Prof Marginalia and Slp1, I think it makes sense to just summarize the situation and footnote the lengthy quotes to the reference section. That way people can see it easily enough but it doesn't make the body of the article get too complicated and long. Visitors can also just read the referenced article already (there's a link to it), so I don't think both full quotes should be in the body of the article. I think we need to be even-handed here - I'm trying to be. There are other things in the Washington Post article that are worded much more harshly than what we've put into the article at this point (like the fellow Catholics accusing him of being anti-Semitic, his bishop making him remove the name Catholic from his organization's name, telling him to stop writing about Jews, the SPLC calling him a "rabid" anti-Semite, etc.) Right now, I think its more than fair to Sungenis but still gives a decent representation of the facts as presented in the Washington Post article. The text is still pretty faithful to what Prof Marginalia said was fair, too. Liam Patrick (talk) 00:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Changes on sequence of events, plus new reference

Liam Patrick made some good changes that improved the article and made it more compact. But, I think it got some facts switched. Between the Washington Post article and the Catholic News Service article, it is clear that:

1. The bishops voted to remove the sentence;

2. The committee is proposing to insert a new sentence.

As Liam Patrick stated it, it sounds like the bishops proposed to remove the sentence. While it may have go to the Vatican for approval (as the replacement sentence surely does), it is clear that the bishops voted to delete it 231-14.

It is the original sentence that the article is really about, so I placed it in the text. It provides significant context for why there is a controversy. I also reworded the statement about Kluty's "denying" why the deletion was made. I realize the WP used the word "deny", but it is likely not factually correct. Kluty's did not necassarily (and likely did not) know why the bishops voted the way they did. During the open meeting last summer, Kluty's may have been present during the discussions, but at that meeting, the bishops were unable to garner enough votes to delete the sentence. If you re-add the word deny, I will have to add more to clarify the situation, so I propose for brevity we just say he "stated" it. Just because the WP is a neutral source, does not mean we should not be sure that we are not passing on mis-statements. As I reworded it, it is neutral, makes no implications, and cannot be considered OR. Wyattmj (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The Catholic News Service reference doesn't mention Sungenis at all[9]. It could be used to support material found in other sources about Sungenis but cannot be used alone to fill out the story because of the danger of original research and synthesis. In summary, we can't put material from reference A together with material from reference B to make point C. It was one of the problems that led to the article stubbing.

While we must strive for neutrality, in fact, Wyattmj WP is not really interested in the "Truth" (or mis-statements) per se; partly because everybody's version of the truth and what has been mistated is so different. We have to go with what verifiable sources say. --Slp1 (talk) 20:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

A couple of questions/points. 1) Where is the support from usable sources for the statement in the article that Sungenis removed all the material? Because, in fact, there is still objectionable material about Jews at Sungenis' website. 2) WyattMJ does not know what Msgr. Kutys knows or doesn't know about what happened and why. And actually, this idea that the bishops couldn't garner enough votes seems to be a myth propagated by Sungenis. There's an article on the internet about it (not usable in the article, I know, but still worthwhile for this discussion): http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2009/03/debunking-another-conspiracy-theory.html According to this, there just weren't enough bishops present at that vote. -- Liam Patrick (talk) 23:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think unreliable sources make useful contributions actually, because we are not supposed to be having a discussion about anything except how to fairly and accurately summarize the reliable sources available; so like Prof. Marginalia, I won't be looking at the blogspot post. As far as I can see there is nothing in the article about votes anymore, so I am not sure the point of this. Since we have no reliable sources about Sungenis that mention any of this voting business, it cannot be included because it would be likely synthesis as I mentioned above. I added to the article that Sungenis said that he had removed the material, which he did say; this claim (and that he loves the Jews etc) is sourced to an article he wrote on his own website: as the subject of the article we can include some small amounts of his own self-published material, as long as it meets certain criteria, including that it cannot include information about other individuals. See Prof. M's post above on this matter. --Slp1 (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

A couple of points, Slp1: 1) My reference to the article about what happened at the USCCB meeting had to do with WyattMJ's change to what Msgr. Kutys said and how it was presented in the article. According to WattMJ, Kutys didn't know why the bishops voted as they did. There is nothing in the article to support that contention. But he changed the wording in the article to reflect his opinion, regardless (changed it from "denied" - which is the word the Washington Post used - to "stated", which he prefers.) I pointed out an article on the web that directly contradicted his surmise about Msgr. Kutys and what occurred with the bishops at the meeting. The word "denied" - which is what the Washington Post used.

The other problem is that the article he cited from Sungenis in answer to the SPLC is dated 2002, but the SPLC article is dated 2006 and the bishop told him to stop writing about Jews in 2007. So the article he's citing from Sungenis is anachronistic. It doesn't answer either the SPLC or the bishops demands to stop writing about Jews. -- Liam Patrick (talk) 23:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

You'll have to clarify the issue about Kutys, because I don't understand your point. Specifically, is there anything wrong with that section NOW, in your opinion, based on the reliable sources that we have?

I added the Sungenis rebuttal, not WyattMJ. There are multiple accusations, and Sungenis has the right of rebuttal (as he has done). Is the exact chronology important? I doubt it, but perhaps you have reliable sources that contradict this? And if there are more up-to-date denials, then feel free to add them.--Slp1 (talk) 23:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The issue about Kutys was simply that WyattMJ changed the wording to be more equivocal. He didn't like the word "denied" because he felt that Kutys didn't know why the bishops made the change. My point was simply that he had no basis for that contention. Kutys was at the meetings. And the Washington Post article used the word "denied." As such, WyattMJ shouldn't be changing the word "denied" to one he personally prefers.

Regarding the denials (from Sungenis), the timing isn't important in regard to whether he agrees that he's an anti-Semite. I think we can assume he still doesn't think he's one. I'm concerned with statements about removing his offensive material. If the SPLC and his bishop were denouncing what he had on his website in 2006 and 2007, then it would seem obvious that whatever he removed in 2002 was not the problem. As such, an article from 2002 about removing material isn't relevant to the current controversy. The fact is that Sungenis put a load of offensive stuff back on his website AFTER 2002 and THAT is what caused the problems with his bishop and so many other Catholics (and the SPLC). So, if there is going to be statement saying that he has removed all of his offensive material, that should be a current statement. Again, the fact is that Sungenis has removed offensive things only to later put new offensive things back up. So the timing is important to keep things accurate. Did I explain that more clearly? -- Liam Patrick (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I take your point about removing the website material and have removed that particular sentence. I changed 'denied' to 'disagreed' as a compromise, but I see you have changed it back. I don't care about this, and it's true that denied is sourced, but suggest that discussing first and reverting later would be better etiquette in the future.--Slp1 (talk) 00:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Slp1 -

1) Sorry about changing the word "denied" without discussing with you first - I didn't realize you had changed it when I did so. But I do maintain that "denied" is the best word - it is sourced and precise.

2) There is only one other sentence that bothers me in here: "Sungeris has denied allegations of anti-semitism, stating that he has questioned Zionism rather than Judaism and the Jews, "whom we love as Christ loved".

I understand Wikipedia's rules about "quote mining", but this statement about merely "questioning Zionism rather than Judaism and Jews" is so patently false that it almost demands quotes from his own writing that prove this contention to be blatantly false. Below are several you can find in his own writings that obviously are far more than about "Zionism". Could these be used here? I don't believe these are cases of "quote mining" strictly as defined in Wikipedia - cherry picking. They go directly to a point he made, not just trying to skew the perception of him. See what you think:

R. Sungenis: "the Jewish element has so infected our Catholic Church today that they have turned Catholics into Jewish apologists." Q and A #33, March 2007. http://web.archive.org/web/20070326171210/http://www.catholicintl.com/qa/qa.htm#Question+33

R. Sungenis: “when (Jews) come into power…they can be some of the most ruthless people on the face of the earth." http://web.archive.org/web/20060108134644/http://www.catholicintl.com/qa/qa.htm#Question+8

R. Sungenis: "“I am merely doing the same thing Jesus did when he confronted the sins of the Jews…Unfortunately, the Jews haven’t changed in our day. They are still the same godless racists they were in Jesus’ day. Few of them have repented of their sins.” (page 10) http://www.sungenisandthejews.com/uploads/Sungenis-_Adventures_in_Blogland_April_2007.pdf

R. Sungenis: "The Jews...do intend to rule the world. And now the problem is that they want to rule the Catholic Church, too." http://web.archive.org/web/20070621152024/http://www.catholicintl.com/qa/2006/qa-nov-06.htm#Question%2047

R. Sungenis: “Christianity is certainly not inherently violent, but unfortunately, Judaism tends to be, because real Judaism considers all non-Jews goyim that are less than animals, and this precipitates a loathing and violence against non-Jews.” http://web.archive.org/web/20060321002735/http://www.catholicintl.com/qa/2006/qa-jan-06.htm#Question%208

R. Sungenis: “A telltale sign in the movie industry of the shift in mores was demonstrated no better than in the Walt Disney Corporation. Founder Walter Disney was well-known in the 50s and 60s for wholesome family entertainment. Interestingly enough, Walt had a policy of not hiring Jewish people.” http://web.archive.org/web/20060408123118/www.catholicintl.com/noncatholicissues/neo-jewish.htm

R. Sungenis: "95% of the Jews today still despise Jesus Christ.” http://web.archive.org/web/20060519140250/www.catholicintl.com/catholicissues/schoeman-moss.htm

R. Sungenis: “every place that [the Jews] have beeen throughout history, they have been excised. Because they do the same thing every time they go in there, they try to take over places that they go to! And every time they do, people get wise to it, just we’re doing now, and they get themselves in trouble. And then they wonder why they’re so persecuted, and vagabonds across the face of the earth for the last 2,000 years – well this is why!” http://web.archive.org/web/20070511004858/http://www.catholicintl.com/images/rbn.jpg

Liam Patrick (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly what got us into this problem in the first place; you have a point to make against Sungenis (just as Wyatt as for him) and you are looking for quotes to justify your position and argue your case. You have decided that "questioning Zionism rather than Judaism and Jews" is "patently false" and provide your evidence to prove your point. You may be right, for all I know. But WP is not interested in your analysis unless you can get it published in a reliable source. Our articles cannot be used as a battleground or a place to prove your point about any topic. We must focus on reliable sources; and despite the outraged blogosphere, there are very limited sources about this man, and even fewer that critique him. Sungenis does say he that he is not anti-semitic, and he does say that he criticises Zionism not Judaism. Unless you have a reliable source contradicting this, then we need to leave it there. --Slp1 (talk) 00:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Slp-1 , I'm not sure I follow the problem. Did I put it in the article? No. Unlike WyattMJ, I put the information here for your review and advice. Is that or is that not what this page is for?

Here is what confuses me - at least in the way that you are articulating the rules, it appears as though one may only quote statements from the subject of the article (Sungenis in this case) if they are deemed positive. Statements from the subject himself that may be deemed "negative" by some standard are not allowable.

Why is it permissible to quote Sungenis at Wikipedia when he says he loves Jews, but impermissible to quote him when he calls them an infection or dozens of other such statements? If you can explain that to me, I would be greatly appreciative. These rules (again, at least as they are being applied and explained here) are not so plainly obvious and logical to me as you seem to find them.

Also, I'm confused as to why you find it unacceptable that I said that it was "plainly obvious" that Sungenis does question Judaism and Jews, not just Zionism. Looking at those quotes, he comes right out and criticizes Jews and Judaism BY NAME. Do you question whether he wrote these things directly attacking Jews and Judaism (they are all from his own archived website, not to other people's blogs or what have you)? Or are you saying that he must come out and explicitly say something like "I criticize Jews and Judaism"? I'm really not trying to be obtuse or argumentative, okay? I just don't follow the logic, at least as presented to this point.

Next, doesn't the statement from the Bishop contradict that? According to the Washington Post, the bishop denounced him specifically for his writing about "Judaism and the Jewish people", not "Zionism." So, I'll at least make that clear, rather than the ambiguous "Jewish issues" phrase that I put previously.

Last, I looked at the article you cited about Dr. Cork. You used it as proof that Sungenis said he doesn't criticize Judaism or Jews. Can you show me where in the article he says that? Because I see these statements in the article, but I don't see one that says what you wrote:

1) R. Sungenis: "I couldn't help but notice that you don't mention any of the other half-dozen or so popes I mentioned in my essay that forbid us to fraternize with Judaism,"

2) R. Sungenis: "The Kingship of Christ is opposed to the naturalism of Judaism."

3) R. Sungenis: "We're talking about the Jews and Judaism and their goal to spread their religion to the world."

4) R. Sungenis: "It is common knowledge among Jews that goi was also a Yiddish term that classed Gentiles as animals. That is why the Talmud also refers to Gentiles as "animals," since they don't have the same civil rights as Jews."

5) R. Sungenis: "Not only has CAI chosen to critique the goals of Zionism, but it has also critiqued the attempt by prelates in the Catholic Church to change the Catholic doctrine of salvation in order to accommodate the Jews."

6) R. Sungenis: "Pius XI goes on to talk about the Kingship of Christ (the same thing Leo XIII was saying in Temetsi) which the Jews, as a people, have always refused."

7) R. Sungenis: "We'll see if he uses the same contortions that Gil Student did in trying to say that the Jesus and Mary mentioned in the Talmud were not Jesus Christ and the Blessed Virgin Mary. The point remains that the Talmud is a blatantly anti-Christian book."

8) R. Sungenis: "the Talmud is an anti-Gentile treatise of the highest order. ...[I]t is precisely the disdain that the Talmud shows for non-Jews that is the cause of all the problems the Jews have had with Gentiles throughout the past 2,000 years."

9) R. Sungenis: "Incidentally, the figure of "six-million Jews dying under Hitler's regime is even admitted by informed Jews to be mere propaganda."

Now, I do see this:

R. Sungenis: "In order to deflect his views from CAI's scrutiny, Mr. Cork has mounted a campaign charging CAI as 'anti-semitic.' Apparently, his hope is to dissuade the public from listening to our arguments by engaging in the usual demagoguery common among Zionist protectionists. Despite our outright denials to his charges, Mr. Cork and his cohorts continue their campaign. They simply refuse to acknowledge that there is a crucial difference between critiquing the Zionist agenda, and having a hatred for Jewish people (whom we love as Christ loved)."

But that isn't quite what is in the article now. He denies hating Jews and "anti-Semitism". But he does not deny criticizing Jews or Judaism as the wikipedia article now states.

Also, he doesn't say that he "questions" Zionism. That's an understatement. He says that he is "against" it.

Last note - I found an article from CNS that is at the USCCB website. It at least gives us some more facts about the change in the U.S. Catechism (the change will be in the next printing). It's not a huge addition, but just gives some new detail. It that's not acceptable (it seems neutral and the source looks okay, I think), then just remove it. I just noticed that WyattMJ used it previously, but he used it in order to form a synthesis point - A + B = C. I don't think I used it in that way - just to bring out another background fact, not to lead to a synthetic conclusion.

I'll look forward to your reply. Thanks. - Liam Patrick (talk) 03:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem with quote mining is that someone (you or wyatt or me) decides what are and what are not notable quotes. You are not independent or uninvolved, and therefore pick quotes to suit your purposes. Wyatt would like do the opposite. Quote mining in this fashion is tantamount to original research, because individual, anonymous editors get to pick their favourite (often out of context) quotes from primary sources to justify their favourite position. WP generally wants secondary sources: magazines, newspapers, books, journals who have determined that this or that position or statement of Sungenis is or is not significant enough to be included in the article here. So, if you can find a reliable source that mentions that he said that Jews were an "infection" then we are off and running. If not, including it appears to be giving undue weight to a statement that nobody bar the blogsphere has found notable enough to mention.

As you point out, I did make an edit to include some of Sungenis' own statements in denial of some very serious accusations about a living person; I believe that this is appropriate in order to maintain NPOV. However, if you disagree you can argue your case here at the talkpage, or at WP:NPOVN or WP:RSN and I will happily abide by the resulting consensus.

We are also not here to sort out the logic of the various statements of the bishop, Sungenis etc etc and who is righter and who is wronger. If you want to discover the truth about Sungenis, then there are other websites that may more suitable for your contributions and analysis. Or better still write some articles for mainstream newspaper/magazine about him to get the news out. Once these are published we can use them here. On WP we merely faithfully and fairly summarize what the reliable secondary sources say and let readers make up their own mind. It's very boring really.--Slp1 (talk) 12:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Slp1 - with the statements in there from SPLC and his bishop, I think I understand your point. Thanks for the clarfication. The bishop and the SPLC are clearly saying that he is not just against Zionism. But he has previously said that he is just against Zionism. You needed to "quote mine" because there don't seem to be any third party articles that are usable and that defend him. But there should be as little quote mining as possible - even to give his side (Yes?) . Once people see that there is disagreement about what he has said and done, they can go on his website or other websites that have links to his statements on the web archive and make their own determination about who is right. (Yes?) If that's it - I think I get it, and the article looks acceptable. Thanks. -- Liam Patrick (talk) 13:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yup; you got it.

I do think that somebody needs to pick up and include the material from the book sources that I listed some sections above. There is still a big problem with this guy's notability for inclusion here at present --Slp1 (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the artile is pretty good as it is. I won't argue the point about "denied". I felt that my change was more neutral AND factual, but I agree (and agreed) that the WP article did use "denied". I'm not clear what your point is about the Catholic News Service story, which I originally linked in. I agree it does not mention Sungenis, but it is specifically relevant to vote of the bishops to remove the sentence- which is the actual topic of the Washington Post article. The main reason I introduced it was to support that the vote was 231-14 (plus 1 abstention). It also supported that the bishops did not have enought votes last summer ("The proposed change -- which would replace one sentence in the catechism -- was discussed by the bishops in executive session at their June meeting in Orlando, Fla., but did not receive the needed two-thirds majority of all members of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops at that time."). In any case, I see you saw some value in it, as you still have used it appropriately. One more change I want to include is something regarding lack of credibility of the SPLC, which is hardly unbiased or neutral. The only reason it is allowed in the article is because the WP mentioned them. Wyattmj (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Outdent. Well, it's good to see that we are getting somewhere. The reason why we can't use the information from the CNS article is because this article is about Sungenis, and we are not in the business of collecting various bits of information related to things he is involved to tell the story better; in the main because of the danger of original research. We end up making an argument that no reliable source has made, and that is not allowed. For the same reason, though there is no doubt that some people would say that SPLC is biased and lacks credibility, there are others that don't. I'm sure you can find a source saying something to suit your argument here. But we can't include it, because the Wpost article about Sungenis doesn't qualify their comment about the SPLC in any way. If people want to know about the SPLC, they can click on the link. By attributing the anti-semitic quote to them both the WPost and Wpedia are doing what it recommended here for citing advocacy organizations in these situations.--Slp1 (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree it's looking good, but WyattMJ just linked to a no-no source, a personal website (www.sungenisandthejews.com). Ironically, it's a website he rejected when it was used as negative documentation. Its one of the personal sites that criticizes Sungenis. Unless I've totally misunderstood something, he needs to find that quote in an article on Sungenis' own website or in another source that meets wikipedia's guidelines. I assume that if it's not an acceptable source as criticism, it's not an acceptable source as support. Yes?

I did a little more searching and it looks as if Sungenis withdrew this article (written in July 2007) about staying away from his controversial views about Jews because of his fight with his bishop. In one of the articles he wrote about the Old Covenant (January 2008) he said he didn't have to listen to his bishop any longer about Jews because he thinks the bishop believes a heresy (dual covenant). He said he'd only listen if the bishop took him to the Catholic canonical court. Here's the statement he made with the article at his website:

R. Sungenis: "I subsequently wrote the bishop a letter saying that, whereas I was willing to cooperate fully when he told me, (quoting his own words), that he would “allow [me] to continue publishing and speaking on those matters of Catholic doctrine which pertain to the Jewish covenant and the role of Israel in salvation history, provided that you take an approach quite different in tone and content from the one pursued in the past,” if he wanted to reverse his position once again and censor me, he would have to do so under the aegis of a canonical trial, at which time I would appeal to the Vatican in order to have the matter fully adjudicated, and at which time I would be quite happy to expose the belief in Dual Covenant theology that he and USCCB were apparently promoting." (January 2008)

http://www.catholicintl.com/articles/The%20Old%20Covenant%20Revoked%20or%20Not%20Revoked%20for%20Culture%20Wars.pdf

So, if he withdrew the article that has the quote WyattMJ used, I think there's a serious question as to whether the statement is even valid/relevant any longer, even if he can find it in a usable source. -- Liam Patrick (talk) 21:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You are right. I removed it. I will try and find something else. Wyattmj (talk) 02:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I removed a source you put in WyattMJ. What you sourced was already in the wikipedia article (the one answering Dr. Cork). I'm assuming you put it in by accident, because that article was from 2002 and it obviously can't have said anything about the Catechism question, which started in 2006 or 2007. I think I found the ref you meant to put in - but you put it after the wrong sentence. Check it out to make sure I got it right. -- Liam Patrick (talk) 04:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)