Jump to content

Talk:Robert Sungenis/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 8

New Section on the RS page (Apologetics, Justification, Theology, etc.)

I think introducing a new section which talks about other viewpoints that Sungenis holds or other things that he has done apart from or distinct from his views on the Jews, Judaism, or geocentrism would greatly improve the article. I have never added a new section before. So, it would be wise for me to ask more experienced editors on how to do it. I wish I could find secondary sources, but Sungenis doesn't seem to be very popular with the media. I will continue digging in order to find secondary sources, but for now I only have a primary source that I found on the RS page. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Possible new Section (or maybe it could be squeezed into the bio): Justification

Source is already on RS page: Not By Faith Alone: The Biblical Evidence for the Catholic Doctrine of Justification, Queenship Publishing (1996), 774 pp. ISBN 1-57918-008-6

Possible Edit (work in progress):

Sungenis believes that God does not owe any man salvation based on man's faith or works. He views salvation as a gift based on the grace of God and once man is in God's grace, then God can reward man's faith and works with eternal life. Sungenis introduces three theological terms. The first is the "principal of obligation" which he believes is the key to unraveling the apparent contradiction between St. Paul's views of faith and works . The second is the "system of grace" which allows God to reward man for his faith and works despite the fact that both man's faith and works are not perfect. The third is the "system of obligation" which obligates God to pay man for his faith or works with eternal damnation for no man's faith or works are good enough for him to earn salvation since they can never meet God's perfect standard of righteousness.

He has critiqued the theological writings of popular Protestant theologians on the theme of Justification. The writings of those he critiqued include...

Sungenis' writings on Justification (NBFA) has been praised by popular Catholic theologian Scott Hahn:

...this work represents the first book-length response by an American Catholic to Protestant attacks against the Catholic Church’s teaching on faith and justification in more than half a century — perhaps longer, since I am not familiar with a single title written in the 20th century!

Other possible new sections (or maybe they could be squeezed in to the biography or some section already on the RS page). I will dig for secondary sources and re-read sources already on the RS page:

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


2.) His insistence that the consecration of Russia has not been done properly would be good to mention. He even wrote a new book about it. Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 19:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it makes a great deal of sense to try to fill out this article. However, based on experience, the foundation of the article needs to be based on secondary sources. It's acceptable to fill in details from the subjects own writings here and there. But it's not okay to have his own writings form the frame and substance of the section. One suggestion? Have other authors, maybe Protestants, critiqued his books? You could use information from their websites, magazines, papers and books. Just a thought. Good luck in your search. Liam Patrick (talk) 20:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I found two sources:

http://www.modernreformation.org/digitaledition.php?issue=95

http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=11-05-050-b Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 22:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Possible Edit (work in progress):

Robert Sungenis considers the question, "Do Roman Catholics teach salvation by works?", to be similar to the question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?". If a man answers yes, then he is going to convict himself; if a man answers no, then he is still going to convict himself. He thinks it is a question that must be answered carefully especially in a theological arena where things can be misunderstood. Sungenis answers the question by saying on the one hand that the Catholic Church does not teach that man is saved by works if the works are done outside of God's grace, but on the other hand the Catholic Church does teach that man is saved by works if the works are done within God's grace.[7] Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 03:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The section you added was akin to an academic essay. The advice was to use secondary sources; an interview could be useful in context, but it needs secondary sources as well and avoidance of extended quotations. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

So far, I have two secondary sources and an interview for the Justification section. Now, I just need to figure out how to put it into words. It think the main title of the section should be Apologetics and the subtitle section should be Justification:

http://www.faithalone.org/journal/2003ii/wilkin.pdf

http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=11-05-050-b

http://www.modernreformation.org/digitaledition.php?issue=95 Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Met with officials from the bishops' conference...

The citation for this sentence (He wrote to the Vatican and met with officials from the bishops' conference in order to voice his concerns that the sentence implies that people can be saved without believing in Jesus) comes from:

Burke, Daniel (September 13, 2008). "Catechism Edit 'Troubling,' Jewish Leaders Say Deletion of Passage on Moses in Catholic Handbook Questioned". Washington Post. pp. B09. Retrieved 2009-04-10.

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

If the sentence were not deleted from the catechism, Sungenis said, it would "shake the faith" of lay Catholics by implying that people can be saved without believing in Jesus.(End Quote) Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 10:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Granted... Burke Daniels does not explicitly record Sungenis saying those exact words. He only says that Sungenis said it. The only words actually recorded were: "shake the faith" and "I tried all the proper channels and I think it worked," Sungenis said. Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 10:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't see that. Thank you. I inserted the word "said" (as in Sungenis said...") because the current wording implied that it was an established fact rather than an assertion made by Sungenis. The article states that this was an assertion made by Sungenis. Liam Patrick (talk) 21:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I found a letter to "Most Reverend Cardinal William J. Levada, Prefect Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith" a very high ranking member of the Vatican. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregation_for_the_Doctrine_of_the_Faith Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 04:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Levada Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 04:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

http://web.archive.org/web/20080228221643/http://www.catholicintl.com/catholicissues/Letter%20to%20Levada%20re%20US%20Catechism%202.pdf Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 04:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Unnecessary parentheses explaining geocentrism.

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

Geocentrism is a very obscure word in this part of the world I can assure you. Since it is what Sungensis is best known for it is helpful to explain it further in the article. Theroadislong (talk) 21:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Is it really what Sungenis is best known for? Then why is the RS page's shortest section "Geocentrism"?
I don't know what part of the world you are from, but if we are from the same part of the world then I would have to disagree with you. Almost everyone has learned about the Galileo affair in grade school (geocentrism vs heliocentrism).Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
If Geocentrism is what Sungenis is best known for, then it still does not automatically follow that we need to add parentheses to the word (though we should add more meat to that tiny section). You still have not shown that it is a very obscure word or what part of the world you are from (that does not know about the Galileo affair (geocentrism vs heliocentrim). Where are you from? Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 22:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I only assume it's what he is mainly known for because it has prominence in the lead of the article. I am from the UK where geocentrism is just an obscure ancient Greek idea and was not taught in any form at all at my grammar school that I can recall. The idea of an encyclopaedia is to educate, why would you want to make it more difficult to understand what he is about? Theroadislong (talk) 19:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
You are making assumptions about my intentions. I have contributed some things to the RS page in order to make it easier to understand who RS is. Just because we disagree on parentheses does not mean I am trying to make it more difficult to understand what he is about.
We have had arguments about science/physics proves vs science/physics supports, raising awareness, and who knows what other things. I do not automatically assume you have bad intentions. I assume good faith.
Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but perhaps we can compromise. Is there anyway to link "geocentrism" to Wiktionary? Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 20:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Just remove it if it really upsets you, but I can't agree the article would be better for it. Theroadislong (talk) 21:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Raised Awareness...

Sungenis wrote to the Vatican, he met with officials from the Bishops Conference, he tried all the proper channels, he expressed his views on his blog, he takes credit for the change, he pops up in a newspaper about the catechism being changed, and he may have been the first to raise the issue according to Kutys. Taking all this into consideration, it follows that he did raise awareness. Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 21:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

You will need reliable secondary sources to back up your claim that he raised awareness, him expressing his views on his blog comes no where close!!Theroadislong (talk) 21:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
The blog is not my strongest point... I thought people would object to the word "complained" and I never would have expected to be challenged by the words "raised awareness". I guess "being the first to raise the issue" and "raising awareness" don't follow each other even if you write to the Vatican and meet with officials from the Bishop's conference in order for them to be aware of your concerns. Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 22:06, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
How about "raising an issue" instead of "complaining"? Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 05:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Would this count as "raising awareness"?
"The USCCB and individual bishops began receiving letters about the catechism in 2006, after a Pennsylvania man, Robert Sungenis, targeted the reference to Moses on the Web site of his Bellarmine Theological Forum, according to Kutys."
Burke, Daniel (September 13, 2008). "Catechism Edit 'Troubling,' Jewish Leaders Say Deletion of Passage on Moses in Catholic Handbook Questioned". Washington Post. pp. B09. Retrieved 2009-04-10. Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I think it would.Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 19:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Just pointing out, despite the recent edit summary to the contrary, that this section does not constitute "consensus", particularly so when the edit was reverted after being introduced. Please try harder to work with other editors to make positive improvements.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I was referring to consensus within the Talk page (as were you according to your own words on the Revision History, but now it appears like you are switching what you mean by consensus). As you can see, there is no consensus within the Talk page. The only person who dialogued with me in the Talk page is Theroadislong (and just recently you). I don't see Liam Patrick or Nomoskedasticity.
I do see consensus outside the Talk page (what you now mean by the word consensus), but I would not have seen it had I not been editing and trying to get people to join me in discussion.Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by "consensus outside the Talk page". WP:CON describes what consensus is. It happens when either the issue is discussed on the talk page, or an edit is made to the article which is not objected to. No discussion has taken place on the talk page except for Theroad objecting to the edit, and when the change was made it was reverted by multiple editors. To establish consensus for the change, you'd need to discuss it further here. For right now, I have to agree with the others that "raised awareness" seems like unnecessary advocacy. We try to avoid using language that takes sides on controversial issues. "Criticized" is neutral, while "raised awareness" is positive. We should try to remain neutral.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I will try to explain myself better since you did not understand what I meant, but first I want to explain something else since it appears that you are not familiar with the history on this issue.

I introduced this edit "raising awareness" on June 14th. Theroadislong objected to my change and said that I needed to provide evidence that Sungenis "raised awareness". I provided evidence, but he did not accept that evidence. He wanted a secondary source that backed up my claim because he did not believe that our current secondary source did. I removed "raising awareness" at his request on June 15th. When I found out that our current secondary source showed Sungenis "raising awareness", I presented the evidence to Theroadislong on August 3rd. Theroadislong never commented back on the evidence I showed him. On August 5th, I was bold enough to introduce raising awareness again since I felt that I had satisfied Theroadislong objection (which was to back up my claim that Sungenis "raised awareness" with a secondary source).

Notice that up to this point Liam Patrick, Nomoskedasticity, and Mann_jess are not involved. The only editors that were involved up to this point were Theroadislong and myself. Also, notice that I was cooperating with Theroadislong.

On August 7th Liam Patrick objected to my edit "raising awareness", but for a different reason than Theroadislong. He objected to "raising awareness" because it seemed like "advocacy, unnecessarily subjective". I didn't understand what he meant. Had Liam Patrick commented on the Talk page, I would not have reverted his edit. However, he just added a brand new edit ("publicly criticized") without talking about it. Was he aware that I had evidence that Sungenis "raised awareness"? Did he visit the Talk Page? I don't know. I felt like I was justified in reverting his edit. Notice that up to this point, the only editors are Liam Patrick and myself. The burden of proof was on Liam Patrick since he was the one who was now introducing a new edit. He needed to go to the Talk page and explain his edit (I did not need too since I already explained my edit on the Talk Page).

On August 8th Nomoskedasticity reverted my edit. His reason was that Liam Patrick was right. That is not really a good reason. Why is he right? If Nomoskedasticity would have commented on the Talk page, I would not have reverted him.

On August 8th Mann_jess reverted my edit. His reason was that I was engaging in a edit war and that I needed to come to a consensus on the Talk page. This caught me by surprise. I began to realize that nobody was planning to defend Liam Patrick's new edit on the Talk page. Instead they were going to add it through consensus by brute force reverts, avoiding the Talk page, and putting the burden of proof on me.

On August 11th I reverted Mann-jess' edit knowing it was my last revert and my last chance to get someone to join me in discussion. Fortunatly, Mann_jess joined me in discussion and now here we are in the Talk page.Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 01:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I would like to share my opinion on "raising awareness" not being positive or a form of advocacy and "criticized" being negative. However, my opinion is really irrelevant at this point in time and a waste of time to argue about or defend. There is already a consensus opposed to my edit and it does not matter if I am right. Wikipedia does not care if I am right. Wikipedia cares about consensus. Perhaps when two or three new editors support my position I will defend "raising awareness" again. Until then, I should focus my attention else where.Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 01:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Tachyon, the behavior you're describing is edit warring. Please be aware that you aren't entitled to 3 reverts; read WP:EW carefully, as it repeats this point often. There's nothing to be done about this issue now - everything is good, and we can move on to other topics - but it is important for you to understand when editing other articles in the future. Editors can be (and are often) blocked for fewer than 3 reverts, so you should use the revert button carefully; it's never a substitute for discussion. Some editors will not participate on the talk page right after undoing an edit if they feel they've explained themselves sufficiently, or they are enforcing an existing consensus. That isn't an invitation to revert them back. Just be careful. I want to see you getting the most out of your time here and enjoying editing. It's tough adjusting to policies as you edit, I know. See you around.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I will let you have the last word Mann Jess and I will keep your advice in mind. Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 15:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Robert Sungenis Bio

I am a long time patron of Robert Sungenis. Last December I came on with the user name of SuzanneOpp. I had to create a new user name since I did not visit the site for several months. Since I have a conflict of interest, I am using the Talk page to indicate possible changes to the article. Below is a line from Sungenis' bio section:

Sungenis obtained a highly questionable Ph.D. in 2006 from the Calamus International University, a private distance-learning institution located in Republic of Vanuatu.

I believe the phrase "highly questionable" should be removed. My understanding is that Wikipedia articles are supposed to be making statements of fact. This phrase is not a fact, it is a statement of personal opinion.

Thank you for considering my comments. (SuzanneCampbell (talk) 22:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC))

Since the "Calamus International University" is a fake university, it would misinform readers if we asserted simply that Sungenis has a PhD from it. A PhD from a fake university is no PhD at all. Either we can indicate something about its nature, or we can omit the claim entirely. The only source currently provided for it is a WP:SPS anyway -- it's not exactly a robust assertion here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your quick response. Although, you will not make that change, would you be able to add some additional information?

Within or following the second paragraph:

In 2000, Sungenis wrote and hosted a 16-part series on the Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN) titled, Justification: Not By Faith Alone. In 2001, he co-wrote and co-hosted with Patrick Madrid an 18-part series on EWTN titled, Not By Scripture Alone, both shows being based on his two published books, Not By Faith Alone and Not By Scripture Alone. Sungenis also made several appearances on EWTN’s Mother Angelical Live, The Journey Home and The Abundant Life. In August 2002, Sungenis was a guest on CNN International to debate the issue of women priests with guest Rea Howrath. In August 2006, Sungenis was a guest on the BBC’s “The Today Programme” debating modern cosmology against Bro. Guy Cosolmango of the Vatican Observatory. In 2006, Sungenis was a contributor to the documentary produced by The Fatima Center titled “Heaven’s Key to Peace,” concerning the apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary at Fatima, Portugal in 1917.

Then could you change the Stellar Motion Pictures info.:

Sungenis is the chairman and co-manager of Stellar Motion Pictures, LLC in Los Angeles, which produces movies for the Christian and secular market. He is the executive producer of the upcoming film, The Principle, starring Kate Mulgrew as narrator. Footnote:http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000550/

Again, thank you so much for your attention (SuzanneCampbell (talk) 21:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC))

Questions regarding CIU as a recognized teaching institution

CIU is not merely "located" in the Republic of Vanatu, it is registered and under the authority and jurisdiction of the Republic of Vanatu, and therefore it is recognized as a university by the Republic of Vanatu.

The Calamus website clearly states that CIU is registered and operates under the authority of the Republic of Vanatu.

http://www.unicalamus.org/status.htm

It states the following:

Registration of CIU in the Republic of Vanuatu from September 2007

In September 2007, Calamus International University became registered in the Republic of Vanuatu, in the South Pacific, under the International Companies Act No. 32 of 1992, Republic of Vanuatu. To honour the original foundation of CIU in the West Indies in 2001, the university company registered in Vanuatu was given the name of Calamus International University (British West Indies) Ltd. 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. (Please note that all routine correspondence, including all student and academic matters, should be sent to our International Office at Calamus Extension College Ltd., LONDON, United Kingdom. This applies to enquiries from ALL COUNTRIES.)

In the Republic of Vanuatu, no government approval or accreditation is necessary in order for a private university entity to award its own degrees. A similar situation exists in various other countries, including Denmark and the Turks and Caicos Islands.

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.

I forgot to sign the edit...please accept my apologiesSuzanneCampbell (talk) 15:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I can't find any secondary sources that says it's accredited but plenty that say it's not?

We admit Calamus is not accredited by the United States or any other country that requires accreditation through government agencies, and that is because Calamus is a private university and it does not seek accreditation from governmental agencies. Calamus sought, and obtained private accreditation from a private institution. Calamus Extension College Limited and Calamus International University has its modest accreditation from the International Interfaith Accreditation Association. Calamus is also an approved member of the International Association for Distance Learning. These facts are stated clearly on the homepage of its website

http://www.unicalamus.org/

“CIU degrees are not government-accredited and are not UK, EU or US degrees. They are not intended to be equivalent to UK degrees. CIU is fully accredited by the International Association of Distance Learning and CIU graduates are recommended to Apostille agencies in the USA and UK for international verification of their qualifications. Please see the status page for more information on verification, status and suitability of the CIU awards.”


Calamus does not seek, and has never sought, accreditation in the US or Europe. It is a private educational institution specializing in alternative medicine and science, and thus it gets its accreditation from private institutions not affiliated with governments.

Further, the degrees Calamus issues are legal degrees, under the jurisdiction of the Republic of Vanatu.


Also:

-Calamus requires a credited degree (a BA or MA) before it will allow anyone to enter its Ph.D. program.

-Calamus requires that the field of endeavor for which someone is seeking a Ph.D. match his previous degrees and experience.

-Calamus requires at least a two-year curriculum, which time is spent writing the dissertation for the Ph.D.

-Calamus follows the “research Ph.D. program” common in the UK and European Union, but is not available in the United States.

-The dissertation is then examined by a selected committee of Ph.Ds in the same or related field. The examination includes nine separate fields of scrutiny, from writing style, to research, to content. If the dissertation is approved by the committee, it is then the head who approves the committee’s recommendation.

-Calamus does not issue degrees in any rigorous field (e.g., allopathic medicine, engineering, law) but only those fields that everyone knows are considered “alternative.”\ 

   "Calamus is not a recognised university within any jurisdiction of the world. These professorships have no meaning in the world of academia that we know." http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/be-careful-what-the-doctor-may-have-ordered/2005/09/18/1126981947794.html 

The source for this is a newspaper, The Spring Morning Herald, and is not an authority on what goes on in academia. Moreover, the newspaper has its facts wrong, since Calamus is under the jurisdiction of the Republic of Vanatu, and this is clearly stated on Calamus’ website, as follows.

“Calamus International University is a private, campus-free distance university that was founded in 2001 in the British West Indies. CIU was first established in the Turks and Caicos Islands but in recent years has been registered in the Republic of Vanuatu. CIU offers Bachelor's, Master's and Doctoral degrees in various fields and all CIU distance learning programmes are co-ordinated via Calamus Extension College Ltd., London, which handles admissions formalities.” 

   List of colleges, universities, and other institutions that do not have educational accreditation. which includes Calamus. http://www.foreigncredits.com/Resources/Unaccredited-Universities/

This refers to government or state sponsored accreditation, and we acknowledge that Calamus does not have such accreditation, but as noted above, Calamus does not seek such accreditation. It obtained its private accreditation from the International Interfaith Accreditation Association. 

   All names on this list are- diploma mills, or they don't have the authority to issue degrees they are not officially accredited they have already been closed by governments they issue degrees that are recognized nowhere.includes Calafmus http://www.newsabah.com/ar/1069/26/11078/dipl-mafia.htm?tpl=21

This comes from an unauthorized, unrecognized and private website from the Islamic Middle East, hardly an authoritative source. Calamus is not a “diploma mill.” A “diploma mill” is a pejorative slang term given to an institution that

does not require any work for the diploma.

does not require the person to have a credited degree from any other institution in order to advance to the higher degree.

does not require the person to spend anytime communicating with a faculty, or submit any degree-related experience.

does not require the writing of a dissertation.

None of these are applicable to Calamus, since the Ph.D. candidate must study and work for the diploma; he is required to have a previous degree; he is required to spend at least two years in the program, and he is required to write a dissertation that must be approved by a select committee of scholars from the adjunct faculty whose names and degrees are listed on the website. 

   List of Universities offering degrees that are NOT recognised by Teachanywhere includes Calamus http://www.teachanywhere.com/pdfs/list_of_degree_mills.pdf Theroadislong (talk) 15:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

“Teachanywhere” is not an authority on the legal validity of degrees, but merely a watchdog group informing the public of degrees it does not recognize the same as governmental accredited degrees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuzanneCampbell (talk • contribs) 01:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Clarity on second doctorate

As the validity of his first doctorate is still rather unclear, can we have some clarity on his proposed second doctorate? A recent edit added "He is presently seeking a second doctorate in religious studies from Maryvale Institute/Liverpool Hope University." These are two different institutions in the UK. Theroadislong (talk) 09:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I found this (http://www.maryvale.ac.uk/index.php?id=3):
The Institute's Research Degree provision (M.Phil and Ph.D) is offered through Liverpool Hope University and offers supervision in programmes of research in the area of Catholic Studies, including history, literature, philosophy, spirituality, theology, Newman studies and religious education and catechesis. Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 18:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Scientific Documentary

To the best of my knowledge, there are at least two interviews where Sungenis claims he is planning to make a Scientific Documentary. Would the interview sources be better than the previous source I tried to use from his blog? Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 04:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I am thinking about using this as a secondary source.

http://beforeitsnews.com/science-and-technology/2013/12/earth-is-in-special-location-in-universe-the-principle-documentary-2659044.html Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 03:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Edits and a question

Today I have removed large chunks of material sourced to primary sources (including material from a presumably private letter which I doubt the author has given permission to publish) and thoroughly some unreliable sources, most especially for a BLP. I have restored some previous versions which are sourced to secondary sources. I understand that this man has his supporters and his detractors, but any of you in this position needs to stop editing this article if you can't let your biases influence you in your choice of sources etc.

I've kept an eye on this article for a long time (though obviously not very well recently) but it is only in looking at the sources here that I realize that I have considerable doubts that this person meets the various notability standards for inclusion in WP. He is basically a self-published author who has caused some controversy in various circles, with a few very brief mentions in secondary sources. I am considering nominating the article for deletion. What do others think? Take a look at WP:GNG and WP:PEOPLE and let me know how you think he qualifies for includion here (if you do, that is). --Slp1 (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you did a good job of shortening a big section. However, you brought back false information that is not supported by our secondary sources (For ex. Sungenis denying the holocaust), erased secondary sources that have nothing to do with your complaint about primary sources (For ex. Harrison, Brian (April 2008). "Dr. Robert Sungenis Has Disobeyed No Binding Precept Of His Bishop". Fidelity Press. Retrieved 2013-06-30. and U.S. Bishops get Vatican ‘Recognitio’ for Change in Adult Catechism), and highlighting things red that have no reason to be red (For ex. Calamus International University and U.S. Catholic Catechism for Adults).
More homework... Sigh... I will try to read these links you put in your paragraph above and give you my answer.Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 08:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Not sure why you deleted the bit about him questioning whether 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust -- that's clearly in the Jewish Chronicle Source. As for why to have a red link -- it might lead someone to create an article! Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
You need to read my edits before removing them. I never deleted the bit about him questioning whether 6 million Jews died in the holocaust. You did. I added it. You deleted it. Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 10:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay, true -- and my apologies. But then what you wrote above ("false information", including "Sungenis denying the holocaust") is quite confusing. To question whether six million Jews died in the Holocaust is to question the Holocaust. Apart from that, SLP1's version had him "question[ing] the Holocaust", not "denying" it as you put it. So if you want not to be misunderstood, do try to be clearer and more accurate yourself. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Actually questioning the 6 million number is a form of Holocaust denial. But since reliable sources don't call him a holocaust denier, we don't and won't either.
About your specific complaints, Tachyon1010101010, I can't imagine that Fidelity Press would be considered a reliable source, most specifically about a living person. It seems to be a haven of anti-semitic conspiracy theorists... most unpleasant.
Using the "U.S. Bishops get Vatican ‘Recognitio’" reference would be synthesis. The reference doesn't mention Sungenis at all, and its inclusion seems to be to indicate that Sungenis was somehow "right" when this is a conclusion that no source makes. It is classic synthesis.
Tachyon1010101010, can I ask you if you are Sungenis? It seems that your interests on your user page are closely related to his, and you also only edit topics of interest to Sungenis. It is fine if this is the case, but per WP:COI and WP:AUTO it is recommended that you are open about it, and that you make suggestions on the talkpage of the article rather than edit the article yourself.Slp1 (talk) 16:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

You make too many assumptions and accusations that have no merit. Are you sure you are not biased? I am not Sungenis.

As for my secondary source from Fidelity press, it was being used to correct a date. It was in 2007 (not 2008) that Bishop Rhoades first told Sungenis to stop writing about the Jews and threatened the removal of the name Catholic from Sungenis' organization.

As for the "U.S. Bishops get Vatican ‘Recognitio’" reference. I was using it to correct another mistake. The Vatican did not confirm the new change. It just gave a Recognito. Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 03:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the "U.S. Bishops get Vatican ‘Recognitio’" is needed anymore though. Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 03:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Re Holocaust statements

(Previous section was getting too long). I don't think we need a great deal more on his statements re the Holocaust. If we're going to add something, we should do it on the basis of secondary sources, not his own publications. For this purpose, an article in the Jewish Chronicle might be useful. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Demonstrably false

My objection was on "demonstrably false" in the geocentrism section. It is not found in the source and it is too strong a word. Also, in the past, the wording was "mainstream scientists" and not "Science". Probably because the scientists mentioned in the article do not speak for the minority, but only the majority. Science is too broad a term. It should be replaced since no where does the article claim that science has shown this world view to be demonstrably false. It only shows a couple of scientists giving their perspective that it is untenable. Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I for one have no issue with using "Demonstably false" and "Science" rather than "mainstream scientists". Geocentrism is WP:FRINGE and does not need to be rehashed in this article. Rmosler | ● 00:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Demonstrably false means that you can prove it to be wrong. Where does the article claim this? Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 00:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, are we really arguing whether heliocentrism is demonstrable? It's not just "mainstream science" that accepts this view. It's "science".   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
No. We are not arguing about whether heliocentrism is demonstrable. We are arguing about where does the article claim that geocentrism is demonstrably false. The source does not claim that science considers geocentrism demonstrably false. We are inserting our viewpoint that geocentrism is demonstrably false. Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 04:21, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
This is (merely) a "viewpoint"?? Your answer will help me form an impression as to whether you have any business editing an encyclopaedia… Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity, you can have whatever impression you want of me. I never claimed "This is (merely) a "viewpoint". You are putting words in my mouth. This discussion is starting to go off-topic and it is becoming emotional. I never denied that the article considers geocentrism false. I just thought that "demonstrably false" was too strong a word and that the article didn't go that far. If I made a mistake, then I am sorry. We are all human. However, if I didn't then we should change it. Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I have issues with the statement due to the simple fact that's wrong and not supported by the referenced article. You're obviously thinking of geocentrism and heliocentrism as antithetical to each other, but Sungenis isn't defending an Earth-centered Solar System, or ptolemaic geocentrism. That would indeed be untenable and demonstrably false. He's defending an Earth-centered universe. His position isn't that geocentrism is antithetical to heliocentrism, quite the opposite. His position is that geocentrism as antithetical to the Cosmological Principle, and given that, it can't be proven wrong as of now, and it is indeed a viewpoint. The statement is not only wrong, but the whole section is misleading, since it doesn't depict what Sungenis is really defending. I am editing the section, since [User_talk:Mann_jess|♥] thought it was something else entirely and is obviously not familiarized with the actual claims made by the author. The same section is also misleading when claiming his film The Principle is about geocentrism, while in fact it attacks the Cosmological Principle, so I'll be correcting that as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.247.242.147 (talk) 17:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
The idea that the earth is the centre of the universe is of course even nuttier… Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
That's how you intend to build consensus here? Not at all, but even if it is, the objective of the article is to reflect what the author's view is, not whether you think they are nuttier or not. If you have a reference that shows it to be wrong, then feel free to add the reference, but it doesn't make sense to keep a misleading claim and reference in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.247.242.147 (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Question

Has anyone looked into the possibility that this guy is working for Alan Abel? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Corrections to article

I have previously identified myself as having a COI because I am a long time patron of Robert Sungenis. I am slightly inexperienced with the editing changes for Wikipedia but understand that with a COI I need to make edit requests on a talk page. I have observed that often times requests have been made but not responed to. I have noticed 4 errors in this article and hope that changes can be made:

1. In the biography section it states "Calamus International University (CIU), a private unaccredited. I believe unaccredited should be removed: CIU is accredited by the International Association of Distance Learning and CIU graduates are recommended to Apostille agencies in the USA and UK for international verification of their qualifications.

The CIU website says the following:

“CIU degrees are not government-accredited and are not UK, EU or US degrees. They are not intended to be equivalent to UK degrees. CIU is fully accredited by the International Association of Distance Learning and CIU graduates are recommended to Apostille agencies in the USA and UK for international verification of their qualifications. Please see the status page for more information on verification, status and suitability of the CIU awards.

http://www.unicalamus.org/

The IADL itself is a private accreditation company that has no authority or recognition in any country. Wikipedia has a page covering this, and it specifically lists the International Association of Distance Learning (IADL): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unrecognized_higher_education_accreditation_organizations#I This is part of the scam that diploma/degree mills use. Private "accreditation" companies are created that have no standing or actual authority in order to turn around and "accredit" degree mills and diploma mills to give them the appearance of some kind of standing. You might also read the research paper, "Bogus Institutions and Accrediting Bodies":
"Clever operators of diploma mills have invented their own accrediting bodies to add an air of legitimacy to their credentials and to further confuse prospective students who know they need to look for an accredited program but don't know that there are recognized and unrecognized accrediting bodies, much less how to tell the difference. Further muddying the waters, some diploma mills may claim to evaluate a student's work history, professional education, and prior learning and require a student to submit a thesis or dissertation as the basis for their award of the diploma or degree." - Hendrickson, Peggy Bell; Bogus Institutions and Accrediting Bodies: http://www.transcriptresearch.com/Bogus.pdf Liam Patrick (talk) 17:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


2. CIU is referred to as a "diploma mill". This is incorrect:

According to the footnote [5], the claim that CIU is a “diploma mill” comes from an unauthorized source who is merely giving his opinion in an obviously biased article, namely, Claxton, Matthew (16 April 2014). / "To Boldly Go Where Science Fears to Tread". Richmond News. Retrieved 17 April 2014. There is no authorized institution that has “characterized” CIU as a “diploma mill.” A “diploma mill” is a derogatory term for institutions that issue degrees for money and little or no work.

According to Wikipedia standards, a statement in Richmond News is an acceptable source to quote. That source identifies Calamus International University as a "diploma mill". If you disagree with it, then you could find another acceptable source that states it is a legitimate university that is recognized in the United States (where Sungenis resides and advertises himself). Both statements could be left in the Wiki article to convey that there is disagreement. But, again, the IADL itself is a private accreditation firm that has no authority or recognition in any country. This is part of the scam that diploma/degree mills use. Bogus private "accreditation" companies are created that have no standing or actual authority in order to turn around and "accredit" degree mills and diploma mills to give them the appearance of some kind of standing. Liam Patrick (talk) 17:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

3. Incorrect comment: In the state of Texas, it is a class B misdemeanor to use a degree from CIU.

Correction: This comment is totally irrelevant since Sungenis does not live or work in the state of Texas, and has no plans to do so. Moreover, there are many states in which a degree from CIU is not a misdemeanor.

Sungenis has recently worked in the state of Texas, for example, at Fisher More College: http://fishermore.edu/guest-speakers-fisher-college/ He has also publicly stated that he will be teaching this fall at Fisher More College (in Texas): "You are a perfect example of what Fisher More College is all about, and I am very proud of you and I am looking forward to becoming a part of your faculty in the Fall." - Robert Sungenis, Jan 16, 2014 [1] and "Sungenis has publicly claimed that he has, 'accepted a professorship”' at a college in Texas and 'will be starting there in September 2014.'" http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/some-background-on-the-new-geocentrists/
Even aside from that, it would remain relevant to the millions of Wikipedia users in Texas to know that use of Sungenis' degree from Calamus International University is a class B misdemeanor in their state. Liam Patrick (talk) 17:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

4. Incorrect statement: In January 2006, Sungenis' website indicated that he was about to receive a doctorate from Maryvale Institute.[7] Since 2010, his website has indicated that he is a doctoral candidate in religious studies at Maryvale Institute.[3][8]

Correction: This information is no longer relevant. Sungenis is not attending Maryvale Institue any longer and does not plan on getting a degree from that institution. SuzanneCampbell (talk) 20:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The status of CIU has been discussed at great length above. Their own website is not a reliable source. Do you have a reliable source for him no longer attending Maryvale Institute? Theroadislong (talk) 21:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Adding to what Theroadislong already noted, it is not incorrect to state that Sungenis' website indicated that he was about to receive a doctorate from Maryvale Institute in 2006. His website indicated that the degree was earned and that Maryvale was mailing the doctorate out. I see no other information from him or anyone else explaining what happened. If the degree was essentially in the mail, then how does he not have it now? It seems hard to believe that he earned a PhD, was about to receive it in the mail and then rejected it for some reason. Also, it is not incorrect to state that Sungenis' website indicated in 2010 that he was a doctoral candidate in religious studies at Maryvale. That fact is documented from his website. But if he is no longer a doctoral candidate there, then where is a statement indicating that he is no longer pursuing the doctorate? The current silence at his website about Maryvale is not a denial that he is still pursuing a doctorate there. As you are a friend and patron of his, if you or he would like Wikipedia to note that he is no longer attending Maryvale, perhaps you could suggest that he make a statement on his website indicating that he is no longer pursuing a PhD at Maryvale rather than simply being silent on the matter?Liam Patrick (talk) 17:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
It seemed reasonable to at least note that the bio at catholicintl.com no longer mentions Maryvale. Hopefully that will address Suzanne Campbell's concerns. Liam Patrick (talk) 16:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your quick response. I just went to the Robert Sungenis website to check his bio. It does not state that he is enrolled at Maryvale. What more confirmation do you need than this? Thank you so much for your assistance. SuzanneCampbell (talk) 20:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Presumably you have removed it but the reference at http://web.archive.org/web/20100919073447/http://catholicintl.com/staff.html still says he is there though? Theroadislong (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
The source here [2] says that...

"The Maryvale Institute has accepted his thesis and is mailing him his doctorate." Are you saying this is not correct? Theroadislong (talk) 20:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

This statement is incorrect, Ben Douglas wrote erroneous info on that Q and A. SuzanneCampbell (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on what the sources say. Can you direct us to the correct sources? Theroadislong (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

There are no sources that I am aware of that state that Robert Sungenis was enrolled at Maryvale. Incorrect information needs to be removed from the article. Having incorrect information in Wikipedia articles is damaging to the reputation of the Wikipedia website. SuzanneCampbell (talk) 03:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Robert Sungenis himself says it here... [3] I'm not sure who you are or what you are trying to achieve here? Theroadislong (talk) 08:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I took a few seconds and just Googled "Robert Sungenis Maryvale". Here's what I found:
At the Galileo Was Wrong blog (run by Sungenis), it states: "Robert is presently seeking a second doctorate in religious studies at Maryvale Institute/Liverpool Hope University." http://galileowaswrong.blogspot.com/p/authors.html
"I am reenrolled in the EU accredited Ph.D. program at Maryvale Institute (which now comes under the accreditation of Liverpool Hope University)." - Robert Sungenis, May 15, 2013 http://galileowaswrong.com/is-this-a-joke/
Interestingly, back in 1997, Sungenis claimed to be pursuing at doctorate at Maryvale: "For the record, I am presently pursuing doctoral studies at the Maryvale Institute in England." - Robert Sungenis, June 17, 1997 http://www.mwt.net/~lnpalm/sungenis.htm
Also interestingly, Sungenis wrote the following on June 17, 2011: "I am presently at Maryvale Institute resuming the Ph.D. I had started before I went to Calamus, and will graduate in 2013." (Scan down in the comments under the article): http://www.ncregister.com/blog/mark-shea/good-for-cardinal-burke
Here, on October 12, 2010, Sungenis writes, "I am reenrolled in the EU accredited Ph.D. program at Maryvale Institute (which now comes under the accreditation of Liverpool Hope University) and the topic of my dissertation, interestingly enough, is a critique of Catholic Zionism." http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/09/14/geocentrism-seriously/#comment-253630 Liam Patrick (talk) 06:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

CIU Degree

In the bio your editors have stated that Calamus International University is unaccredited. It would be preferable to state that "CIU is accredited by the International Association of Distance Learning and CIU graduates are recommended to Apostille agencies in the USA and UK for international verification of their qualifications".

The CIU website says the following:

“CIU degrees are not government-accredited and are not UK, EU or US degrees. They are not intended to be equivalent to UK degrees. CIU is fully accredited by the International Association of Distance Learning and CIU graduates are recommended to Apostille agencies in the USA and UK for international verification of their qualifications. Please see the status page for more information on verification, status and suitability of the CIU awards.

http://www.unicalamus.org/

I understand that CIU is not accredited in the US or UK, however, that is not at all unusual for theology students to obtain their Ph.D.'s from universities in other countries. SuzanneCampbell (talk) 22:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


Suzanne, I already answered this above regarding the IADL. Please look above where you raised this same point and I answered you. Liam Patrick (talk) 03:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC


If you want to say the CIU is not accredited in the US, you can do so. But the US is not the be-all and end-all of accreditation. CIU has been accepted in the Republic of Vanuatu, and, like Denmark, the Republic of Vanuatu allows academic institutions to issue degrees for their programs without the necessity of having accreditation from a governmental body. At the least, those facts need to be stipulated. Without it, you are telling a half truth.


Additionally, the very source you cite above says of IADL:


“it does not accredit institutions unless they "are licensed or approved by national or regional government or are already accredited by a nationally or internationally recognised organisation or body" and that it has no government affiliation,”


In other words, IADL has recognized the fact that CIU has been accepted in the Republic of Vanuatu, and as such, IADL abides by the rules set up for degree programs in the Republic of Vanuatu. Bogus accrediting institutions don’t bother with such licensing and governmental approval.


The ending part of the sentence says: “but IADL has been claimed as an accreditor by institutions lacking standard licensing, approval or accreditation,” but there is no source cited for this accusation, and there is no source cited for who is making the “claim” against IADL, so it is not a credible comment.SuzanneCampbell (talk) 22:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Calamus has been publicly characterized as a diploma mill by a source that is acceptable by Wikipedia standards. The IADL is listed right at Wikipedia as an unrecognized accrediting agency with no authority. The facts are what they are. If you have contrary sources that are acceptable according to Wikipedia, then by all means, bring them to light. They can be added. Liam Patrick (talk) 00:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

CIU Referred to as "Diploma" mill

The phrase "that has been characterized as a diploma mill" needs to be removed.

According to the footnote [5], the claim that CIU is a “diploma mill” comes from an unauthorized source who is merely giving his opinion in an obviously biased article, namely, Claxton, Matthew (16 April 2014). / "To Boldly Go Where Science Fears to Tread". Richmond News. Retrieved 17 April 2014. There is no authorized institution that has “characterized” CIU as a “diploma mill.” A “diploma mill” is a derogatory term for institutions that issue degrees for money and little or no work. SuzanneCampbell (talk) 22:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Suzanne, I already answered this above. Please look above where you raised this same point and I answered you. Liam Patrick (talk) 03:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

No, the burden is not on me to provide a US source that says CIU is legitimate, since the US doesn’t make judgments about private universities domiciled in other countries. The burden is on you to prove CIU is a “diploma mill,” and in that regard your task is fruitless. A “diploma mill” is a phrase used against organizations that make money off of selling pieces of paper, and the whole purpose of it is to deceive whoever doesn’t check up on it. To characterize CIU as a diploma mill, and to associate Sungenis with that kind of institution, is the worst kind of slander, especially since you have been made aware of the rigorous program Sungenis underwent to obtain the degree from CIU. Moreover, Sungenis already has two accredited US degrees (a BA and MA) and thus has already shown he is not of the variety of people who seek bogus degrees, but it appears that you want to make it appear he is such a person. In using the passive language “and some have characterized it as a diploma mill,” and using an unqualified source to do so, your obvious intent is to put a negative aura around Sungenis, and this has been your MO ever since you’ve been writing on Sungenis’ bio page.

CIU is not a diploma mill, and no reputable and qualified organization holds the CIU is a diploma mill. CIU has been granted its degree-conferring status by a government entity, the Republic of Vanuatu. Diploma mills neither seek nor can obtain such degree-conferring status.

There are two kinds of accrediting: governmental and private. Obviously, if an organization is a private accrediting agency, it is not governmental. If it is not governmental, then it doesn’t need “governmental authority or recognition.” The problem with your view is that you automatically assume that a private accrediting agency is illegitimate. That simply is not true.

There may be “bogus” accrediting companies that work with diploma mills, but you haven’t proven that either the IADL or CIU are either. It is obvious that, since CIU has an academic program in which the Ph.D. candidate is required to write a lengthy dissertation, under the supervision of a qualified advisor, which Ph.D. is then examined by qualified PH.D.s in that field, then it can’t be a “diploma mill.” The IADL has accredited CIU because of both its jurisdiction under the Republic of Vanuatu and because of the rigorous program CIU administers for its degree programs. No one slips through CIU with a shoddy academic record.SuzanneCampbell (talk) 22:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you understand how this works. Richmond News (which calls CIU a diploma mill) is an acceptable source according the Wikipedia standards. The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board also rules the use of a degree from CIU illegal. As such, it's perfectly legitimate to cite these. If you have other sources that are also legitimate according the Wikipedia standards, then you are free to refer to them and cite them. That's the way it works. And regarding what is and is not a diploma mill, as the research paper I cited indicates, it isn't merely paying money for a piece of paper. It can be more than that. But regardless, again, it is not me saying that CIU is a diploma mill. Richmond News says it. It isn't me saying that it's illegal to use a degree from CIU in Texas. The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board says it. So your disagreement is with those acceptable sources. If you can find another acceptable source (according to Wikipedia standards) that says CIU is a legitimate university and not a diploma or degree mill, then bring it to light and it can be added. That's the way it works. Liam Patrick (talk) 00:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Texas Law about CIU

The comment in the bio reads "In the state of Texas, it is a class B misdemeanor to use a degree from CIU."

My argument against this sentence is this comment is totally irrelevant since Sungenis does not live or work in the state of Texas, and has no plans to do so. Moreover, there are many states in which a degree from CIU is not a misdemeanor. SuzanneCampbell (talk) 22:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Suzanne, I already answered this above. Please look above where you raised this same point and I answered you. Liam Patrick (talk) 03:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

This information is not “useful,” since you don’t even know whether Sungenis would have advertised his CIU Ph.D. in Texas. If he had advertised it in Texas, then you could make your accusations. But it seems that you want to infer there already exists a fault in Sungenis before Sungenis even makes a move in that direction.

This is a clear indication that you are engaged in a modern witch hunt to find anything that might make Sungenis look bad. You have been after Sungenis for years, watching his bio on a daily basis, almost as if you were being paid by someone to do so. You scrutinize positive information to the nth degree and often reject it for the flimsiest excuses, but anything you believe is negative you add it to the bio and fight very hard to keep it on when someone protests against it and shows that your sources are bogus or are suspect of the same bias.

For the record, Sungenis will not be going to Fisher/More College to teach in September 2014, since the residential college, as of May, is defunct, and in either case, Sungenis has decided not to teach at the school due to its risky financial issues. So the issue is moot.SuzanneCampbell (talk) 22:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand. It doesn't matter what you personally say Sungenis did or did not do. It matters what acceptable sources (according to Wikipedia standards) say about it. I cited some. If you have contradictory sources that are also acceptable and legitimate according to Wikipedia standards then you are free to cite them as well. Your personal word on the matter is irrelevant, as is mine, or any editor's. We are all required to do the same thing: find acceptable sources that address the subject matter. If you can, then that's great. That's the way it works.
While it's irrelevant, you stated, "you don’t even know whether Sungenis would have advertised his CIU Ph.D. in Texas. If he had advertised it in Texas, then you could make your accusations." If you had read the information at the link above, you would have seen that Sungenis was advertised as a PhD when he appeared at Fisher-More in Texas: "October 2013 - Dr. Robert Sungenis lectured on geocentrism, using arguments based on Sacred Scripture, traditional Church teaching, and science that the earth is fixed at the center of the universe. Dr. Sungenis showed lengthy clips of his soon-to-be released movie entitled “The Principle” as part of his presentation." http://fishermore.edu/guest-speakers-fisher-college/ Liam Patrick (talk) 00:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Jews and Judaism

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 anti-semitic.

This comment needs to be removed. It is completly biased against Sungenis, as is most of your bio. My argument is below:


The SPLC has accused many people and organizations of being “anti-semitic” for simply criticizing the political decisions of the state of Israel. As such, “anti-semitic” has become a political tool and has lost its original meaning, which was rightly characterized as “irrational hatred of the Jewish race” before it was commandeered by political activists to include anyone who disagreed with Israeli/Jewish politics. The SPLC is run by those of Jewish ethnic origin who have indicated an allegiance to the state of Israel and anti-religious values, and therefore, their opinion is biased and prejudiced. Recently, the FBI has dropped the SPLC as a resource, and the Washington Times has reported that the “SPLC, is actually a money-making scheme — some have called it a “scam” — of an Alabama lawyes r who set out years ago to get rich on the backs of the poor and the duped.” http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/28/editorial-the-fbi-dumps-a-hate-group/

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which works hand-in-hand with the SPLC, has also been dropped by the FBI.

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2014/03/splc-and-the-adl-dropped-from-fbi-hate-crimes-webpage/

A further example of the SPLC far-reaching tactics is also noted by the Washington Times: “‘Hate crimes’ by SPLC definition now include Christian opposition to same-sex marriage.”

Further more, in this bio you wrote: In 2002, Sungenis stated that he is against Zionism, but that he is not he anti-semiticSuzanneCampbell (talk) 22:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


This comment needs to be removed because the source your are citing has been removed: Sungenis has also claimed that Israel orchestrated the JFK assassination in retaliation for the president's opposition to Israeli nuclear weapons.[19]SuzanneCampbell (talk) 22:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The quote is accurate and was documented by another editor at the time. The fact that Sungenis has now removed does not change its legitimacy. However, just to add further documentation, it is still available on the web archive here: http://www.archive.today/2bO0q "Neocons and the Jewish Connection" Liam Patrick (talk) 17:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Geocentrism

Your Wiki bio states: Catholic writer David Palm has criticized Sungenis' work, particularly as it relates to the teaching of the Catholic Church, stating that Sungenis is misrepresenting it so as to falsely give the impression that geocentrism is an article of the Catholic faith.[15]

Sungenis does not claim that geocentrism is an “article of the Catholic faith” and does not claim that Catholics must believe in it as a matter of salvation. Sungenis has stated that the matter of the doctrinal status and requirement to believe in geocentrism is a matter entirely for the Catholic Church to decide. Sungenis has stated that he is only the messenger to tell the story of both the history and the science behind geocentrism. The above accusation is a canard invented by David Palm, a vociferous ideological opponent of Sungenis, and Sungenis has refuted Palm in a 100-page document that is available on the Galileo Was Wrong website titled “Debunking David Palm" Part one of this document is at this link: http://galileowaswrong.com/debunking-david-palm-phase-1-joshua-1010-14/ SuzanneCampbell (talk) 22:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on reliable third party references and the sentence above has four such references. Theroadislong (talk) 22:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Suzanne is right about one thing, though. The statement as it currently stands doesn't quite accurately reflect that article. Palm did not say that Sungenis holds geocentrism as "an article of the Catholic faith." Palm said, Sungenis claims it is "an official church teaching that had been covered up for centuries." So the article should be fixed to reflect that more accurately. Point taken. Liam Patrick (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Synthesis Re Credentials

The statement that the use of a degree from Calamus is a misdemeanor under Texas law is both original research and synthesis, and a BLP violation. No RS states these facts or connects them with Sungenis. I'm sure I could find plenty of articles describing Obama's alma mater Occidental College as a lower-tier school, or statutes that describe some of his conduct as criminal, but the inclusion of such facts in his bio would be improper. GaiaHugger (talk) 13:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

How about if you tell us what your earlier, now-blocked account is? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
:: How about you tell us what synthesis, original research and BLP are? GaiaHugger (talk) 15:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Robert_Sungenis/Archive_4&oldid=789560298"