Talk:Robert Sungenis/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Additional information to Bio

I would like this to be added to the bio section following "Republic of Vanuatu that has been characterized as a diploma mill"....

"But, other sources support that CIU is not a diploma mill since its Ph.D. degrees are legal degrees authorized by the government of the country of Vanuatu. Similar to Denmark, Vanuatu does not require the degree-conferring institution to have third-party accreditation in order to issue degrees, although CIU does require an extensive, supervised and faculty-approved dissertation for its research doctorates similar to other institutions. "

I edited the article with this information on May 16, 2016 but was not aware that as a person with a COI, that I could not make edits. I did not remove the comment referring to CIU as a diploma mill. I only added information, with sources. I think this is a fair addition: The CIU website clearly spells out the institution's requirements, which are typical of most secondary education institutions; i.e. in order to obtain the degree advisors in the same field must be on staff, the candidate most do research and defend the research and the candidate for degree most have a mentor in the field. I see no reason why the negative comment about CIU should not be balanced with actual information about the schoolSuzanneCampbell (talk) 21:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Absence of reliable sources. Such an institution's website full of empty excuses is of as much value as a Wikipedia source as its degrees are: none whatsoever."Illegal to Use in Texas"Maine BiologicalMe (talk) 05:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not asking you to remove the "diploma mill" comment. I am only asking you to put up a second source and let the reader of this biography make his/her choice. I believe you fail to distinguish between an institution not having US accreditation but is permitted to give legal degrees under authorization from the country within which it is domiciled, as opposed to a diploma mill that has neither.

There are no "excuses" on the CIU website, just facts. The fact is: CIU is granted the authority to grant degrees by the government of Vanuatu. Vanuatu does not require the institution to have accreditation from a third party, just as Denmark and Turks and Cacos does not. These are facts.

"Illegal to use in Texas": So what? There are a lot of places that won't accept a CIU degree, but that doesn't make it a diploma mill or make it to have "degrees none whatsoever." The fact remains that there is a government, recognized by all the other governments of the world, who does accept CIU degrees. THAT is all that matters. More importantly is that the students of CIU must do the work and research required for the degree. That is a fact. An actual diploma mill gives degrees to students that have not researched and studied. This is not true at CIU. You just won't accept this degree because it is on the side of this science debate that you don't agree with. Many can argue that in the USA, "government approved" education institutions often don't support research of new ideas in the science area unless they are funded by specific people and with that goes a lot of "politics" in what research does and doesn't occur. Both of my sons are graduated engineers from excellent, "government approved" institutions in the US and they saw first hand in their alma maters when politics and "money talks" is involved in the choice of research occuring in our "government approved" institutions.SuzanneCampbell (talk) 18:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses reliable sources. Wikipedia does not use the fringe approach of balancing reliable sources with junk. This applies to both the science and the evaluation of quality of academic institutions. The website of an organization that fits Texas's criteria for "[f]raudulent or substandard degree" and "not the equivalent of an accredited or authorized degree"[1] does not count as a reliable source. Unless you have reliable sources, there is no further discussion warranted. BiologicalMe (talk) 19:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear Participants, I have recently been alerted to the fact that I (Robert Sungenis) can modify my own Wikipedia page, which I will be doing on a daily or weekly basis, depending on the need. By the looks of it, I will need to make several changes due to the fact that the rules are not being followed and biases are being presented as fact. Please remember that Wikipedia has special rules for “Biographies of Living Persons” (BLP) and since it is my reputation at stake, I will protect it accordingly. For example, Wiki rules state for BLP’s: “Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.” Wiki also says: “Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.”

The first order of business is the statement on my bio concerning Calamus International University. Someone here described it as “a private, unaccredited distance-learning institution located in the Republic of Vanuatu that has been characterized as a diploma mill.[7][8][9][10]”

First, the statement conflates facts with opinions. Although it is a fact that CIU is “a private, unaccredited distance-learning institution located in the Republic of Vanuatu,” it is neither correct nor a fact that CIU is a “diploma mill”; and those “characterizing” it as such have no authority or legal recognition to do so. Opinions are not accepted as fact, especially under the strict guidelines of Wiki’s BLP policy to protect the reputation of the person. “Diploma mill” is a derogatory colloquial term sometimes given to institutions that give diplomas simply for paying a fee, but have no academic standing and require no academic work. Moreover, just because an institution is “unaccredited” does not mean it is a diploma mill. Many institutions do not seek government or third party accreditation because it allows the government to intrude into what the institution can teach or how it can conduct its affairs. Many religious schools, for example, do not seek government accreditation simply because they don’t want the government telling them what to teach. But these religious institutions are often as rigorously academic as government accredited institutions purport to be.

Second, the statement “characterized as a diploma mill” simply has no sources to substantiate such a charge. Of the four footnotes attached to the sentence in question (namely, #7, #8, #9, #10), only one of them mentions a “diploma mill,” which is #10 from Matthew Claxton in an 16 April 2014 article: "To Boldly Go Where Science Fears to Tread," in the Richmond News. But Mr. Claxton’s article is clearly a hit piece on me and my movie, The Principle, and thus he is biased from the get-go. Of the issue in question he says: “Second, because Sungenis isn't an expert - he's a man with a doctorate from a diploma mill on Vanuatu with a history of antisemitic writings.” First, one can easily surmise where Mr. Claxton obtained this biased opinion. He got it from my Wikipedia page, since there is no other source that says I have a “doctorate from a diploma mill.” Wiki rules do not allow Wiki writers to use a source that is using Wiki as its own source. Second, since Mr. Claxton cites no authoritative source for his claim of a “doctorate from a diploma mill,” he is likewise out of line for making such a charge. Mr. Claxton’s false charge is precisely the thing that Wiki rules are trying to stop, that is, using rumors and opinions as authoritative source material. Third, I also find it interesting that the other footnotes, namely, #7 and #8, are citing statements that I myself have made. Since I have vehemently denied that CIU is a “diploma mill,” then they obviously cannot be used in a sentence that is also claiming that CIU is a diploma mill. I only admitted that CIU is unaccredited. So, the placement of the footnotes is biased and shoddy. The other footnote, #9, says nothing about diploma mills, but only refers to unaccredited institutions.

Hence, as per Wiki’s stipulation that “poorly sourced” material should be removed immediately, I have removed it, immediately.Robert Sungenis (talk) 14:22, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Please don't edit this article -- have a look at WP:COI for the reason. You're welcome to discuss matters here, but if you edit the article directly any changes you make will likely be summarily reverted by someone else (including me). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:12, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

First, I am declaring a conflict of interest. Second, COI rules do not frown upon COIs making edits when a clear violation of Wiki's rules is in progress and there is an attempt to defame the BLP or there is a serious error in fact regarding the BLP. On the COI page, Wiki states: "An exception to editing an article about yourself or someone you know is made if the article contains defamation or a serious error that needs to be corrected quickly. If you do make such an edit, follow it up with an email to WP:OTRS, Wikipedia's volunteer response team, or ask for help on WP:BLPN, our noticeboard for articles about living persons. See "Writing about yourself, family and friends" at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest.

For all the reasons I stated in my last post, calling or implying that CIU is a "diploma mill" is an unauthorized, unsourced, biased and irresponsible opinion that is not only a serious error but is highly defamatory.Robert Sungenis (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Other editors plainly do not agree with your view on the topic. Editing against consensus of established editors is not a wise course of action here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:12, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

References

Greetings. First, my COI is duly noted. Second, I will be editing the phrase "some have characterized it as a diploma mill" out of my biography based on the rules in the Wiki page on COI. Although COI's are discouraged from making edits, Wiki says "An exception to editing an article about yourself or someone you know is made if the article contains defamation or a serious error that needs to be corrected quickly. If you do make such an edit, follow it up with an email to WP:OTRS, Wikipedia's volunteer response team, or ask for help on WP:BLPN, our noticeboard for articles about living persons. See "Writing about yourself, family and friends" at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest

Stating or implying that Calamus (CIU) is a diploma mill is an unauthorized, irresponsible, unsourced, biased opinion made by my ideological competitors which is not only a "seriour error" but more importantly is a blatant attempt to defame me. How it has managed to stay up on my biography for so long is rather amazing. From reading the history on this issue, I am not the first one to bring this to the attention of the editors of this page. As requested by Wikipedia, I am sending an email to WP:OTRS to bring this matter to their attention, and rest assured I will follow the chain of command to the top, if necessary.Robert Sungenis (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

There are ample references that support the statement that Calamus (CIU) is a diploma mill. Theroadislong (talk) 18:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Greetings. Wikipedia OTRS has been notified or your repeated attempts to keep the defaming clause "characterized as a diploma mill" on my biography. The fact that you have no explanation for your behavior when you took it off, in spite of the fact that I cited Wiki's rules to you about exceptions for COI edits in cases of defamation and serious error, shows that your motivation is suspect, and Wikipedia has been duly notified of it.Robert Sungenis (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Greetings. "Theroadislong" states the following: "There are ample references that support the statement that Calamus (CIU) is a diploma mill. Theroadislong (talk) 18:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)" So at least now we know who is behind this attempt at defamation. I think at this point Theroadislong could all do us a favor by revealing his true identity and his motivation, since this is clearly a blatant attempt to smear someone. Be that as it may, Theroadislong claims there are "ample references of CIU being a diploma mill." The fact is, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE. If there were any credible and authorized sources, Theroadislong would have included them. All he can find are biased opinions from hit pieces written by my ideological enemies. For example, the only one cited in my Wiki bio is from an article by Matthew Claxton, "To Boldly Go Where Science Fears to Tread" in the Richmond News, of April 16, 2014, but Claxton cites no sources for his defaming assertion. It is just an opinion, and one that he most likely got from my Wikipedia page. So one defamation is following another. Let me remind everyone that Wiki says that any citations for Living Persons must be "highly qualified" and that Wiki is not your personal dartboard to use against someone with whom you disagree on various subjects.Robert Sungenis (talk) 18:42, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

You don't mention these references though? [2] [3] [4] Theroadislong (talk) 18:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Theroadislong writes: “You don't mention these references though? [2] [3] [4] Theroadislong (talk) 18:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)”

This just proves my point. Two of the references (3 & 4) (http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/list_of_unaccredited_institutions_of_higher_learning and “https://web.archive.org/web/20110628214640/http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Non-accreditedSchools_78090_7.pdf) are talking about “non-accredited” schools, NOT diploma mills. Perhaps Theroadislong is under the impression that a “non-accredited” school is a “diploma mill,” but he is categorically wrong. If he thinks otherwise, then he is required to have a “highly qualified” source that states that a non-accredited institution is automatically a diploma mill, but, of course, there are none, which is why Theroadislong resorts to websites that only state whether an institution is accredited or not. In fact, most of the non-accredited schools on the Michigan list are religious schools, and it is a fact that many religious schools choose not to acquire government accreditation due to ideological and theological differences with government’s rules and regulations. But these schools are well known to have satisfactory or superior academic standards. As protected by the Constitution, religious schools have the governmental right to teach what they want to teach and remain non-accredited. Conversely, a “diploma mill” is a derogatory colloquial term applied to a fraudulent degree-for-money scheme in which the recipient does little or no work for his diploma but is issued a piece of paper saying he has a diploma. Theroadislong knows very well that is not the case with CIU.

Additionally, Theroadislong’s first footnote is to “Registered Degree” (2) (http://www.registereddegree.com/how-to-buy-a-degree) but this site is not an authorized website commissioned by the state or federal government but simply a private website that continues the confusion between a non-accredited school and a diploma mill, and thus heads its list of non-accredited schools with the word “diploma mill.” It states at the top of its sections on “Degrees” the following sentence: “This is a list of diploma mill [sic] and you should be avoided [sic]. We represent NONE of the following institutes listed. You should be worry-free and you should not be worry of our represented universities.” First of all, the author didn’t even use correct English, and we wonder whether he got his education from a diploma mill or perhaps the website and its author are from a foreign country and thus do not know proper English. Correct English would say: “This is a list of diploma mills, and you should avoid them” or “This is a list of diploma mills and they should be avoided.”

Second, it is quite clear from an examination of the list that the website is targeting religious institutions. For example, for “Illinois Theological Seminary Online” the website states: “Illinois Theological Seminary Online, also named In-Depth Theological Seminary, Independent Theological Seminary and Intercontinental Theological Seminary.School states: ‘ITS is not an accredited school with any accreditation board. ITS very much cherishes…the principle of separation between Church and State.’” Once again, the issue is ACCREDITATION, and no one has the right to then classify it with the derogatory label of “diploma mill” simply because the school does not have or has not sought accreditation or because it believes in separation of church and state. In addition, a search of the “Registered Degree” website shows neither state or government authorization nor who the authors of the website are. It is simply a private anonymous website with a list of what institutions have accreditation and which do not. The issue of diploma mills and what precisely they are is NEVER discussed.

Bottom line: if someone wants to use this list to find an accredited institution, he can do so. But that does not mean that either “Registered Degree” or anyone else has the right to classify a non-accredited institution as a diploma mill.

The United States Department of Education website clearly states that under the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 "'diploma mill' means an entity that...

(B) lacks accreditation by an accrediting agency or association that is recognized as an accrediting agency or association of institutions of higher education..."[5]

As such, trying to split hairs between unaccredited and diploma mill is meaningless. Reliable sources establish: a degree is "Illegal to Use in Texas"[6], and a degree the institution "is not a recognised university within any jurisdiction of the world"[7]. I've been meaning to rework the article, but there is no reason to remove the phrase "diploma mill". BiologicalMe (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

First, as the subject of this article, my COI has been duly noted.

Second, BilogicalMe, I’m glad you cited the US Dept of Education’s guidelines. Let’s take a close look at what it says about “diploma mills”:

"What is a diploma mill? The Higher Education Opportunity Act defines a diploma mill as follows: “DIPLOMA MILL- The term ‘diploma mill' means an entity that--(A)(i) offers, for a fee, degrees, diplomas, or certificates, that may be used to represent to the general public that the individual possessing such a degree, diploma, or certificate has completed a program of postsecondary education or training; and (ii) requires such individual to complete little or no education or coursework to obtain such degree, diploma, or certificate; and…”

R.Sungenis: Obviously, CIU does not fit this definition, since the Ph.D. requires at least two years of vigorous research, under a qualified Ph.D. advisor approved by CIU, in order to write a Ph.D. dissertation. My dissertation took 2.5 years and my advisor was Dr. Robert Bennett, and the dissertation earned an “excellent” rating in nine out of nine categories. The second definition is as follows:

“(B) lacks accreditation by an accrediting agency or association that is recognized as an accrediting agency or association of institutions of higher education (as such term is defined in section 102) by--(i) the Secretary pursuant to subpart 2 of part H of title IV; or (ii) a Federal agency, State government, or other organization or association that recognizes accrediting agencies or associations.”

R. Sungenis: CIU does not fit this definition either, since, as it states on the homepage of CIU website: “CIU is fully accredited by the International Association of Distance Learning” and has been since 2006 with membership #11031. This is an “association of institutions of higher education,” according to the above US definition. The article then cites the dictionary…The dictionary defines a diploma mill as:

"An institution of higher education operating without supervision of a state or professional agency and granting diplomas which are either fraudulent or because of the lack of proper standards worthless. - Webster's Third New International Dictionary"

R. Sungenis: CIU does not fit this definition as well, since it is supervised by the state of the Republic of Vanuatu, and the degrees it confers are not fraudulent since they are legal degrees allowed by the government of the Republic of Vanuatu. In September 2007, CIU was registered in the Republic of Vanuatu under the International Companies Act No. 32 of 1992, Republic of Vanuatu. The company is limited by Guarantee (therefore it operates on a non-profit basis) and its registration number is 34088. The address of CIU in the Republic of Vanuatu is: Calamus International University (British West Indies) Ltd., PO Box 1487, Port Vila, Republic of Vanuatu. Vanuatu is a member of the Commonwealth of Nations (formerly the British Commonwealth). From Wikipedia: In 1906, the United Kingdom and France officially claimed [Vanuatu], jointly managing it through a British-French Condominium as the New Hebrides. An independence movement was established in the 1970s, and the Republic of Vanuatu was created in 1980. In the Republic of Vanuatu, no government approval or accreditation is necessary in order for a private university entity to award its own degrees. The article also says,

“Diploma mills are schools that are more interested in taking your money than providing you with a quality education. You need to know how to protect yourself as a consumer.”

R. Sungenis: CIU does not fit this definition, since the Ph.D. degree requires at least two years of research under the supervision of a qualified Ph.D. advisor, and requires the writing of a comprehansive dissertation that is judged for merit by the international faculty of CIU.

As for your citation of the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board at the website: http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/?objectid=EF4C3C3B-EB44-4381-6673F760B3946FBB, it says the following:

“Calamus International University, British West Indies, No degree-granting authority from any government in the British West Indies.”

R. Sungenis: This only shows that the Texas research and website is itself misleading or fraudulent since CIU is not in the British West Indies any longer, and hasn’t been since 2006, which is ten years ago! Prior to 2006, CIU was registered in the Turks and Caicos Islands, in the Caribbean. The Turks and Caicos did not have “degree-granting authority.”

But the situation is different in the Republic of Vanuatu. The whole reason that CIU chose Vanuatu is that Vanuatu allows CIU to issue degrees because Vanuatu does not require US or other foreign accreditation to issue degrees, otherwise CIU degrees would be illegal.

Along these lines, it is interesting to note what Texas did with the Académie Européene d'Informatisation World Information Distributed University, which is the second on their list. It states

“The Belgian government has referred to the entity as a diploma mill and has confirmed that this entity has no authority to issue degrees.”

In this case, the governmental body has publicized the fact that the Academie has no authority to issue degrees, and thus it is designated as a “diploma mill” obviously because its degrees are illegal. But this is not the case with Vanuatu and CIU. Vanuatu cannot and would not publicize that either CIU is a diploma mill or is unauthorized to issue degrees since Vanuatu doesn’t require CIU to get approval or accreditation to issue degrees.

As for your citation of the article on Dr Tracie O'Keefe at http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/be-careful-what-the-doctor-may-have-ordered/2005/09/18/1126981947794.html

First, notice that the article says “her doctorate comes from a hypnotherapy institute in California,” not CIU. As such, this article is irrelevant as regards to degrees from CIU. The article is about the degree O’Keefe got from the United States, but which she subsequently used in the British West Indies.

The article also says, “As for her professorship, it is held at Calamus International University, an internet extension college. This ‘university’ was founded in the British West Indies, where any business can call itself a university, says George Brown, a consultant to the Australian Universities.”

Obviously, this article has the same problem as the Texas website. The article on O’Keefe was written on September 19, 2005, which is a full year before CIU obtained its jurisdiction in the Republic of Vanuatu and before it obtained its association accreditation from the International Association of Distance Learning. So things are simply not the same as they were when O’Keefe came to CIU prior to 2005 when CIU was domiciled in the British West Indies.Robert Sungenis (talk) 01:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

The "International Association for Distance Learning" is not a recognized accreditation agency. Calamus is not a university or college in Vanuatu according to the Commonwealth of Nations.[8] While you may choose to complain about unequivocal published statement because it was not the principal subject (that's not how it works) of an article and other minutia, based on this response, I will be editing the article to reflect reliable sources unless the OTRS suggests otherwise. BiologicalMe (talk) 02:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Vanuatu's Ministry of Education and Training also fails to mention it. BiologicalMe (talk) 13:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Identifying reliable sources in education

In order to evaluate "foreigncredits.com", I traced it back to http://aice-eval.org/members/ and then to http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ous/international/usnei/us/edlite-visitus-forrecog.html which has three documents which mention AICE as a credential evaluations service. In the case of "registereddegree.com", I could not make any similar connections. For this reason I added the former after removing the latter. BiologicalMe (talk) 18:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

BilogicalMe writes: The "International Association for Distance Learning" is not a recognized accreditation agency.

R. Sungenis: IADL is a “private” accrediting agency for distance learning, which is “recognized” by the laws of England. The website of the IADL says: “Governing Law and Jurisdiction: This website, its contents, and the terms and conditions of membership of the International Association for Distance Learning are governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and subject to the jurisdiction of the English courts.”

BilogicalMe writes: Calamus is not a university or college in Vanuatu according to the Commonwealth of Nations.[8]

R. Sungenis: This article has nothing to do with universities, colleges or Vanuatu. Be that as it may, if you are trying to argue that Vanuatu is not in the Commonwealth of Nations, that is inept. The Wiki article on Vanuatu shows that it is a recognized country among the countries of the world:

“Vanuatu has joined the Asian Development Bank, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the Agence de Coopération Culturelle et Technique, la Francophonie and the Commonwealth of Nations. Since 1980, Australia, the United Kingdom (UK), France, and New Zealand have provided the bulk of Vanuatu's development aid. Direct aid from the UK to Vanuatu ceased in 2005 following the decision by the UK to no longer focus on the Pacific. However, more recently new donors such as the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) and the People's Republic of China have been providing increased amounts of aid funding. In 2005 the MCA announced that Vanuatu was one of the first 15 countries in the world selected to receive support—an amount of US$65 million was given for the provision and upgrading of key pieces of public infrastructure. Vanuatu retains strong economic and cultural ties to Australia, the European Union (in particular France and UK) and New Zealand. Australia now provides the bulk of external assistance, including the police force, which has a paramilitary wing.

BiologicalMe writes: While you may choose to complain about unequivocal published statement because it was not the principal subject (that's not how it works) of an article and other minutia, based on this response, I will be editing the article to reflect reliable sources unless the OTRS suggests otherwise. BiologicalMe (talk) 02:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

R. Sungenis: I suggest you read the Wiki rules on Biographies of Living Persons. Wiki does not allow opinions from third parties, only facts that can be substantiated from authoritative sources. The fact that you quote from Claxton shows that you will use any source that gives the same opinion as you do without regard to whether the source has the authority or knowledge to do so. As I noted earlier, it is highly likely that Claxton used “diploma mill” because he saw it on my Wiki page – a page that you seem determined to control.

BiologicalMe writes: Vanuatu's Ministry of Education and Training also fails to mention it. BiologicalMe (talk) 13:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

R. Sungenis: This is a bad link, thus it is no source. But your citation of it does reveal something. On the one hand, you desire to appeal to the education authority in Vanuatu which shows that you recognize it as a legitimate government. On the other hand, you earlier tried to claim that Vanuatu has nothing to do with the Commonwealth of Nations. So which is it? You can’t have it both ways.

Similarly, although your citation to the “education authority” in Vanuatu means you are appealing to Vanuatu as a legitimate government, you refuse to accept that Vanuatu has legally accepted Calamus as a legal university in Vanuatu, and has allowed Calamus to issue legal degrees with no government objection. So which is it? Obviously, you don’t know which way to go on this issue, so you use whatever will work for you at the time, and all for the purpose of smearing someone’s name with the phrase “diploma mill.”

BiologicalMe writes: In order to evaluate "foreigncredits.com", I traced it back to http://aice-eval.org/members/ and then to http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ous/international/usnei/us/edlite-visitus-forrecog.html which has three documents which mention AICE as a credential evaluations service. In the case of "registereddegree.com", I could not make any similar connections.

R. Sungenis: The above has little or nothing to do with whether CIU is a “diploma mill,” but it does show that you are on a hunt. In reality, the above sites actually speak against your attempt. The www2.ed.gov site says: “NOTE: THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND USNEI DO NOT EVALUATE FOREIGN DEGREES OR QUALIFICATIONS.” So there is nothing here to conclude that CIU is a “diploma mill.”

It further states: “There is no single authority in the United States for the recognition of foreign degrees and other qualifications.” Hence, with no one authority, there is no official authority to classify CIU as a “diploma mill.” It is simply your opinion.

It further states: “International agreements and the practice in the U.S. education system and labor market recognize the existence of three competent authorities for recognition matters: The admitting school or higher education institution, for students who seek to study in the United States and who are presenting credits or qualifications earned abroad; The hiring employer, for individuals seeking work and who are presenting degrees or other qualifications earned abroad; and State or territorial licensing boards, for individuals seeking to practice regulated professions in a jurisdiction of the United States and who are presenting degrees or other qualifications earned abroad.”

Hence, this is for people who are seeking to study in the US. In the case of CIU, it allows its students to use Apostlils to see if credits from CIU would be allowed in the US. “Diploma mills” don’t do such things.

BiologicalMe writes: For this reason I added the former after removing the latter. BiologicalMe (talk) 18:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

R. Sungenis: As noted, I will be sending a complaint to OTRS about you. The sources you cite above do not prove that CIU is a “diploma mill.” Moreover, before the discussion has been completed, and knowing full well of my recent and detailed objections, you still unilaterally chose to put “diploma mill” back on my biography [after “Theroadislong” took it down in mid-June] before a resolution can be worked out, and you did this knowing that “Biographies of Living Persons” is a special category in which Wikipedia demands the utmost scrutiny and reliable research due to the defamation that misleading or incorrect information can have on the person. It is obvious you have an agenda and that you are grasping for anything you can find to stick “diploma mill” to my name, and you do so knowing that the phrase “diploma mill” is used commonly for illegal institutions that are not recognized or permitted by any government, and that give fake degrees for no work. As noted, all of your sources have been found wanting, and you have yet to find a single governmental authority that classifies CIU as a diploma mill. Unaccredited, yes; diploma mill, no. You have given nothing but your opinion in this matter, which is extracted from mere opinions of the sources you quoted (e.g., Claxton), some of which were outdated by at least 10 years and didn’t even know that CIU had transferred from the British West Indies to Vanuatu (Texas). For all these reasons, I demand that you take the reference to “diploma mill” off my biography. In the meantime, I will be contacting OTRS about this, once again.Robert Sungenis (talk) 14:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

My COI has been noted previously. "BiologicalMe" has issued defaming statements about me, seeking to pin the label "diploma mill" onto CUI. I have replied to his statements, showing that "diploma mill" is merely his opinion and that there is no authorized source that has labeled CUI as a diploma mill. "BilogicalMe" has not responded for nearly a week. Under the rules of Wiki for emergency situations in the category of Biographies of Living Persons, I have deleted the phrase from my biography. Today I am sending another complaint to OTRS, this time about "BiologicalMe" and his attempt to control my biography and defame me with his opinions.Robert Sungenis (talk) 13:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

This reference [9] does describe it as a diploma mill. Theroadislong (talk) 13:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear "Theroadislong": The source you cited from Claxton is not an authorized source that can make judgments of academic institutions. Like you, his is merely an opinion designed to defame me. He is merely a journalist giving his unqualified, unsourced and biased opinion. In fact, it is highly likely that he got his opinion from what YOU have put on my Wiki biography page. Let me also remind you of the Wiki rules: "An exception to editing an article about yourself or someone you know is made if the article contains defamation or a serious error that needs to be corrected quickly. If you do make such an edit, follow it up with an email to WP:OTRS, Wikipedia's volunteer response team, or ask for help on WP:BLPN, our noticeboard for articles about living persons. See "Writing about yourself, family and friends" at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest. Hence, I have removed the phrase "diploma mill" from my biography, once again. Do not threaten me again with trying to block me from doing so, since you have no authority to adjudicate this matter. This is a matter for Wiki authorities (OTRS) to decide, not you. As such, I have written to OTRS once again this morning, this time citing your insistence of putting up defaming opinions on my biography that are based on unauthorized and unqualified opinions.Robert Sungenis (talk) 13:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

My apologies but I have no idea what you mean by "authorized source" and "unauthorized and unqualified opinions"? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that summarizes what independent, reliable sources say about a topic. I have no personal opinion on the matter at all. Theroadislong (talk) 14:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Disputed

Please follow WP:BLP and WP:NOR. Please work from the article I have provided. I think this is fair and balanced. Joe6Pack (talk) 16:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

{{BLP noticeboard|section=Robert Sungenis}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe6Pack (talk • contribs) 17:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Robert_SungenisJoe6Pack (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Robert_Sungenis Joe6Pack (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Joe6Pack:Your edit warring has left the article a complete mess with orphaned references, poor quality grammar and unreferenced content please check your edits more carefully. Theroadislong (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Original Research

Please end this. Stating that Calumus is a "diploma mill" is WP:NOR. This is article mis WP:BLP and deserves more scrutiny. Why are you insisting on stating this? This is clearly your opinion.research, and not a neutral point of view. I will slap this tag on the article if it continues.Joe6Pack (talk) 05:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Could you please try to offer a more literate contribution to the discussion? The phrase is supported by the references given. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I completely disagree. One of the links is to Wikipedia itself plus a Dept. of Education website that defines a diploma mill, but does not mention "Calamus University". The second is to a local newspaper article where the author makes a snide remark about Robert Sungenis having a PhD from a diploma mill. Putting the two together is original research. Her is what the Richmond News article said:

"Sungenis isn't an expert - he's a man with a doctorate from a diploma mill on Vanuatu with a history of antisemitic writings."

This is hardly unbiased factual reporting. Note that it does not even mention the name "Calamus University" in the article. You are clearly desperate to drive home a point that Calamus is a diploma mill, perhaps to slander the WP:BLP subject. Even if that is not your intent it is appears that way. Joe6Pack (talk) 16:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

[10] is an opinion piece from a local newspaper. It also makes no mention of Calamus. [11] makes no mention of Calamus. At best this is synthesis, at worst it is total misrepresenting sources.Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. This is WP:BLP and needs to be treated as such. Joe6Pack (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

From List of unaccredited institutions of higher education:

• "Calamus International University: Important Statement on Accreditation". Calamus International University website. Retrieved 2010-04-07.. This is Calamus' own page, disclaiming any government-recognized form of accreditation, but claiming accreditation by the "International Association for Distance Learning", an unrecognized entity.

• "Colleges and universities not accredited by an accrediting body of the Council on Higher Education Accreditation" (PDF). State of Michigan. Archived from the original (PDF) on June 28, 2011. (list is no longer being maintained)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Then you can say "unaccredited", not diploma mill.Slatersteven (talk) 18:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

proposed changes

Here's a section for JoeSixpack (and others) to propose changes and discuss re the material on Jews/Judaism. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

OK. Here a re my thoughts. First, SPLC is not a neutral source. While I recognize that some of Sungenis' notoriety stems from his views on Judaism/Zionism, and this needs to be expressed in the article, the primary neutral/acceptable source is the WaPo article, which discusses the Catechism. That is why I considered combining the articles. I am open to leaving the link to the SPLC, but I want that reviewed on the BLP board. Recall, that I am the editor that separated the sections in the first place. As I started reviewing the documentation and support, I do not feel it within WP:BLP to use the SPLC as a primary source to aschew general views of alleged anti-semitism on Sungenis. Nor is Raw Story a neutral 3rd party source. That is why I think we need to combine the sections and work it around the Catechism, which is typical of Sungenis' work aorund Judaism in a Catholic context. Joe6Pack (talk) 17:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

This supports my contention of "weight" with the SPLC. I do not think it holds enough weight to warrant a general charge of anti-semitism. I do not mind the opening sentence mentioning that some people including Catholics and the SPLC are critical, but i think it is out of WP:BLP standards to go too much further than that.

"Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 130 (section SPLC examined by RSN and by outside experts) The SPLC is certainly a reliable source for whom the SPLC classifies as hate groups. The real issue is WP:WEIGHT - how important is it that the SPLC has 263 KB (37,280 words) - 14:03, 3 November 2016"Joe6Pack (talk) 17:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

---

If this is a dead link: " in religious studies from the Calamus International University (CIU),[2][dead link] " then replace it or delete it. I replaced it with a link to Calamus University and someone undid it back to a dead link. Joe6Pack (talk) 17:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I fixed this one by linking to his Linkedin page. Joe6Pack (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Linked in is a user generated unreliable source and the Calamus University link doesn't mention Sungenis Theroadislong (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

So, are you proposing that we delete the Calamus University statement altogether?Joe6Pack (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

No... it's not disputed is it? It just needs a better quality source maybe [12]. Theroadislong (talk) 21:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest "Modern Geocentrism: A Case Study of Pseudoscience in Astronomy" by Matthew P. Wiesner. I don't have access at the moment, so I won't use it, but but I may have found an author's copy(?) that looks promising. BiologicalMe (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I think Linkedin is a better source. Wiesner states the fact, but does not support it with his own reference. Maybe we state that Robert Sungenis states that he attended Calamus...Joe6Pack (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

A stable (complete with a print version) third-party source and editorial oversight is a better source than a profile that can be deleted or modified at any time. BiologicalMe (talk) 22:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

---

My Proposed rework of the Judaism/Catechism section(s):

Views on Judaism United States Catholic Catechism for Adults

Sungenis's controversial views of the Jewish people and Judaism have been sharply criticized by fellow Catholics and by the Southern Poverty Law Center as being antisemitic[15][16]

In May 2014, Michael Voris interviewed Sungenis in order to help Sungenis promote his new movie, The Principle. During the interview, Voris defended Sungenis in regard to his views on the Jewish people and then asked him, "Are you a Holocaust denier?" and "Do you hate Jews?" Sungenis answered "no" to both questions.[17]

Sungenis wrote to the Vatican and met with officials from the bishops' conference in order to voice his concerns about a sentence in the United States Catholic Catechism for Adults (USCCA) which read, "Thus the covenant that God made with the Jewish people through Moses remains eternally valid for them". He believed it implied that the Jews can be saved without believing in Jesus. In the summer of 2008, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) voted to remove the sentence and replace it with "To the Jewish people, whom God first chose to hear his word, 'belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ". Monsignor Daniel Kutys stated that the sentence was changed because of the confusion it was generating and not because of Sungenis. Kutys thinks that Sungenis may have been the first to raise the issue about the sentence, but he does not think Sungenis deserves credit for revising the catechism.[15]

1) The SPLC is an excellent source and much favoured at WP:RSN, particularly on this very issue. 2) The sections you propose to combine are not sufficiently related. 3) You seem to want not merely to combine sections but to deleted material which ought not be deleted. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

An "excellent source" in general is not necessarily an "excellent source" for purposes of WP:BLP. I think the "weight" issue comes in to play as I posted over on the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. The weight may be sufficient to state that he has had controversies in this area, but certainly not to start leveling specific charges. Joe6Pack (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I do no think this part is sufficiently sourced:

In 2002, he claimed it was a fact that no one had ever proven that 6 million Jews died during the Holocaust and that demographic statistics show no real difference in the number of Jews living before and after World War II. 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.[18][19] Sungenis has also claimed that Israel orchestrated the JFK assassination in retaliation for the president's opposition to Israeli nuclear weapons.[20]

Plus my point is that the only third party neutral source (WaPo) talks about the Catechism issue. That is the logic for recombining the sections. Joe6Pack (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Just as a wording matter on this - and something I tried to implement in the article but have been partially undone - saying his "controversial views... have been criticized" is redundant. If they've been criticized, that is controversy, and it does not need to be said that they are controversial. Just "Sungenis's views... have been criticized..." should do. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiesner

The source is available at http://web.archive.org/web/20160921153927/http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~mwiesner/Wiesner_geocentrism.pdf , I have included it in the article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Jews and Judaism

Made the change. I think this version is reasonable, neutral, and fair based on Sungenis' actual notoriety, with proper weight associated to sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Sungenis&oldid=765466353 Joe6Pack (talk) 15:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Other editors disagree, and keep leveling charges of anti-semitism using poor sources. Can someone else please review. Here is what I consider balanced: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Sungenis&oldid=765476598#Jews_and_Judaism

Here is what other editors propose: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Sungenis#Jews_and_Judaism

Wikipedia is not a personal vehicle to punish people for perceived wrongdoings. My version clearly states there is a controversy, then allows Sungenis to deny it. Their are not sufficient sources to go beyond that and stay within WP:BLP Joe6Pack (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Joe6pack: you have asked me to reply on talk. Okay -- but I did -- and you ignored what I said and simply repeated core components of your edit. That's not how this works... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok. So we disagree. It is you and I only. No one else has weighed in. I do not think SPLC carries enough weight to use them as a source to level specific charges under WP:BLP. They make statements repeated in the article without sourcing, and are not to be considered neutral or third party from the perspective of BP:WLP. I have posted my point on this multiple times. I am willing to leave the reference to the SPLC as part of the statement that Sungenis made controversial statements, etc., but not specific charges lifted from SPLC or The Jewish Times, which appears to be a blog. Joe6Pack (talk) 02:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I contend this must go:Joe6Pack (talk) 02:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

In 2002, he claimed it was a fact that no one had ever proven that 6 million Jews died during the Holocaust and that demographic statistics show no real difference in the number of Jews living before and after World War II. 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.[19][20] Sungenis has also claimed that Israel orchestrated the JFK assassination in retaliation for the president's opposition to Israeli nuclear weapons.[21]Joe6Pack (talk) 02:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

As well as these sources (redundant and not up to WP:BLP):Joe6Pack (talk) 02:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Gettys, Travis. "Why are geocentrists trying to undo centuries worth of accepted science? (Hint: The Jews)". RawStory. Retrieved 30 April 2014.

Lipman, Jennifer. "Speaker row cancels Catholic conference". The Jewish Chronicle Online. Retrieved 11 July 2011.Joe6Pack (talk) 02:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

You're just repeating yourself. No point to it. Except that the new part here makes your position more absurd: the Jewish Chronicle is not a good enough source?? Where on earth are you getting that idea? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it is the format, but it looks like a blog to me. Also, it is certainly not neutral or 3rd party in this situation. They for instance level a charge (he claimed that 6 MM did not die...) about what he wrote, but do not even state the name of the article they got it from. Remember in any other circumstance they may be a reliable source, but WP:BLP has higher standards. Joe6Pack (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

This "blog" is the oldest continuously published Jewish newspaper in the world, in business since 1841. And in what way are they not a third party? Are all Jews to be barred from being reliable sources on this?? --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok. I did not know that.Joe6Pack (talk) 01:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Can we please only edit one thing at a time

If you are going to edit one section, please only edit one.Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

The Principle

User:9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS The Principle is clearly about the Copernican Principle. Many reviewers interpret that as saying it is advocating for geocentrism (and that is stated in the version I reverted to). Have you seen the film? Geocentrists are interviewed, and the film is made by a geocentrist. But factually speaking, if you watch the film, read the reviews for what the actual content is, etc., it is about the Copernican Principle. Maybe you can state that many reviewers interpreted the film as leading to geocentrism. Joe6Pack (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

User:9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS This kind of illustrates what I am saying, http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-mn-the-principle-movie-review-20150123-story.html, "Copernicus, shmernicus! That's the geocentric gist of "The Principle,...". It is a gist. Variety describes it as "A professionally polished, insidiously coy documentary that seeks to (sort of) debunk the Copernican principle." (http://variety.com/2015/film/reviews/film-review-the-principle-1201409088/). Joe6Pack (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

The film is clearly a trojan horse for geocentrism. To claim otherwise is to just be in denial. jps (talk) 17:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Have you actually seen the film? I have. Again, if you say something along the lines of "reviewers felt..." I guess I would not have an issue with that. You do need to keep in mind WP:BLP guidelines. I think the way you wrote it implied a lot of bias: "the film The Principle, which advocates for rejecting the Copernican principle as a pseudoscientific way to justify a religious belief that the Earth is the center of the universe and reject the results and understandings from the scientific study of cosmology." Shouldn't an encyclopedia be a bit less dramatic? How about

"the film The Principle, which critically examines the Copernican Principle has been characterized by reviewers as advocating for rejecting the Copernican principle to justify a religious belief that the Earth is the center of the universe. The Principle is very critical of current theories of cosmology in light of recent observations."Joe6Pack (talk) 17:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

No. There is no "critical examination". It's pulp. It's nonsense. It's laughably ignorant. We are balanced by identifying it as being as pseudoscientific as all the independent reviews by scientists have so identified it to be. jps (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

No. None of the scientsts have reviewed the film. Please provide a source. Anything from previous to November 2014 is not a review of the film, but a reaction to the trailer on Youtube. I have not come across any reviews by scientists of the actual film. Joe6Pack (talk) 19:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Then lets see some RS saying this.Slatersteven (talk) 18:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

You mean the one you removed from the article? jps (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

What do RS say?Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Here is what the producers say on their official site (RS is an executive producer): http://www.theprinciplemovie.com/about/

"“The Principle”, brings to light new scientific observations challenging the Copernican Principle. The film brings before the public eye astonishing results from recent large-scale surveys of our Universe which disclose surprising evidence of a preferred direction in the cosmos, aligned with our supposedly insignificant Earth. The film explores from all sides the question of Earth’s station in the universe and whether it could, in fact, have a unique importance.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe6Pack (talk • contribs) 18:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no interest in what the producers say about their own film, only what the independent reliable sources say. Theroadislong (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

He meant: what do WP:RS say? Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Exactly, what are the views of reliable sources.Slatersteven (talk) 18:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

What I posted above are views of two movie reviewers. repost: This kind of illustrates what I am saying, http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-mn-the-principle-movie-review-20150123-story.html,

"Copernicus, shmernicus! That's the geocentric gist of "The Principle,...". It is a gist. Variety describes it as "A professionally polished, insidiously coy documentary that seeks to (sort of) debunk the Copernican principle." (http://variety.com/2015/film/reviews/film-review-the-principle-1201409088/). Joe6Pack (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

BTW, the Copernican Principle is more than just the idea that earth is not the center of the universe. In modern terms it is expanded beyond that idea. Joe6Pack (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

"“The Principle’s” principal raison d’etre is to prompt a reconsideration of the Copernican principle in cosmology, effectively meaning a return to the ancient geocentric view that the Earth lies at the center of the universe"Slatersteven (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

That moves toward advocacy at best. If you watch the film it does not conclude that. Again, the geocentrists in the film state that, but others reject that idea in the film. I have not objected to the use of "advocacy" or some other term like that because that is how the reviewers interpreted the film. Joe6Pack (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

A joyous Teach the controversy defense. The filmmakers and the film itself is partial to geocentrism because of the peculiar religious beliefs of the filmmakers and those who paid money to the Hollywood shills to make it. jps (talk) 19:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I think the most objective statement in teh Variety review is "A professionally polished, insidiously coy documentary that seeks to (sort of) debunk the Copernican principle." The sort of leads to "...effectively meaning a return to the ancient geocentric view that the Earth lies at the center of the universe"Joe6Pack (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Your statement sounds like original research OR to some degree. Joe6Pack (talk) 19:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

RS (your chosen RS) says it is genocenterist. End of argument.Slatersteven (talk) 19:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I have edited it to say that. Joe6Pack (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

We should use the Forbes article, not the Popspective opinion built upon the Forbes article. Forbes is certainly a neutral 3rd party source per WP:BLP. I do not think Popspective is. Joe6Pack (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I am repeating this comment based on your last edit of The Principle: No. None of the scientsts have reviewed the film. Please provide a source. Anything from previous to November 2014 is not a review of the film, but a reaction to the trailer on Youtube. I have not come across any reviews by scientists of the actual film. Joe6Pack (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Having seen the trailer I can understand why scientists might not bother to see the actual film! Theroadislong (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

There are two trailers, and both controversial for sure. Trailers are often design to create controversy to sell movies. Joe6Pack (talk) 20:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

My suggestion is to let the main article form The Principle deal with this. Joe6Pack (talk) 20:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Who cares? The movie in question even in its full form which I watched in a pirated version is absolute dreck. I encourage everyone to see it and then demand their money back so that the theaters go bankrupt who show it. :) jps (talk) 20:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Um, it hardly matters whether the film itself came out before or after the PopSci article. The naked dishonesty and pseudoscience of the filmmakers is attested to by every last independent source we have on the subject. Therefore, we assert the facts that the filmmakers were deceptive and intellectually bankrupt in the most straightforward way we can -- following the sources regardless of whether you think the dates the sources were published are meaningful. jps (talk) 20:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

That is fine, but we also have right to include such facts as the scientists did not actually see the film (as Krauss attested to), etc. I am not against honesty in the article, but there are two sides to this (at least). Joe6Pack (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

The lead

How is my edit whitewashing and promotionalism, before reverting it please explain why. All I have done is to make the text not about one film, but his genial work.Slatersteven (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

You wholesale reverted my edits which (1) removed self-published books and (2) included reliable sources. Maybe you should self-revert. jps (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

This does not answer my question?Slatersteven (talk) 19:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

If you think his work is genial, we have a problem. jps (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

My mistake, that should have been general, also could you link here the two RS you claim I removed, I am having difficulty seeing them in your edit.Slatersteven (talk) 19:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I tire of spoonfeeding you. If you have substantive criticisms to make, make them. Otherwise stop whinging. jps (talk) 19:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• Slatersteven this set of edits restored a bunch of policy-violating content (WP:PROMO, WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and specifically WP:PSCI), and this following revert did the same. Please take care. Jytdog (talk) 00:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

So is any one going to actually explain what content was wrong, or just make accusations?Slatersteven (talk) 09:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Also the lead violates undue as it threat the principle as his only work in geocenterism, and gives it far too much prominence.Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

In addition I cannot help but note that substantively (I am still waiting to be shown what RS I removed that are still in the article) it is the same as my version now, with only the undue prominence given to one film being different.Slatersteven (talk) 09:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

removed a bunch of low-quality blogs and primary sources today. Not good to rely on them extensively on a controversial subject where we should raise source quality and keep it high. I updated the lead, thanks for pointing out that this needed doing. Jytdog (talk) 09:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I now note that the page is virtually identical to the one I edited to, which broke all those rules. MAybe that should have been given as the reason from the start rather then a block revert and we could have just removed them one at a time.Slatersteven (talk) 09:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

That is not accurate: diff. This page is under two sets of discretionary sanctions; as I noted above please be careful about what you say and do here. Jytdog (talk) 09:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

No but this is the version I finished with [[13]] before Jps did a block revert.Slatersteven (talk) 09:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Whatever. dif between that and current. Very different. Done here. Jytdog (talk) 09:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

And this is my final version [14], in fact I cannot find an edit of my you reverted. What you linked to was an early (and obviously incomplete) version. I would ask you in future to not misrepresent what peoples edits histories are.Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

The dif I provided is provided is between the one you indicated here and the current version. Very much done here. Jytdog (talk) 09:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

As I said my whole series of edits was block reverted. I was not given a chance to remake the changes before it was reverted again. I would have thought (especially given your edit war warning) that was obvious. This is why above I asked users to not block edit.Slatersteven (talk) 09:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)