Talk:Robert Sungenis/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Robert Sungenis. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Youtube source

Re the addition of material on the basis of "ChurchMilitant.tv" -- as a first step, can you please indicate a time during the video where Sungenis says the things you are summarising in your content addition? I will then seek advice at RSN as to whether this is a reliable source. thanks. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity, there's a website that documented Sungenis' views vis a vis Jews, but the material has been removed. I did find it on the WayBack Machine, though. I wondered at first if perhaps Sungenis had changed his mind on the Holocaust and Jews. If so, then it could be true to say, in the present tense, that he does not hate Jews and does not deny the Holocaust (even though he did in the past). But the website says that he still holds those views even though he is no longer saying them publicly: "Robert Sungenis recently contacted me and stated that he has removed all the material about Jewish issues that led to the creation of this website and that he will not be returning to such material in the future. As such, I've chosen to remove the documentation formerly found at this website.This is not to imply that Sungenis has retracted and/or apologized for the statements on Jewish issues that were formerly documented here. He has not. Instead, he has recently stated, both publicly and privately, that he believes God has given him a new vision/direction related to the issue of geocentrism. As a result of his desire to pursue this new vision/direction, Sungenis writes, “I’ve publically declared that I am no longer addressing [Jewish] issues and don’t wish to discuss them with anyone” and “I…will never discuss them again.” However, he has said that he still personally holds to the same beliefs and considers them to be true." http://www.sungenisandthejews.com

Here are things I found on the WayBack Machine that Sungenis stated about the Holocaust. I suppose people can judge for themselves as to whether they constitute Holocaust denial or not. I'm dubious that this source would pass muster for Wikipedia, but it has links Sungenis' original documents which might be worth researching for you. I just don't have time at the moment. Happy searching. http://web.archive.org/web/20120209234334/http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2009/05/pope-benedict-xvi-continues-to.html PAGauden (talk) 02:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The time you want is between 5:15 and 7:05. Also, the reason why I removed "Holocaust Rivisionism" from above is because I could not find the phrase "Holocaust Revisionism" in the article. Also, should not the top portion of the article be neutral? Sungenis claims he is not a holocaust denier and so do his supporters, but his critics think he is a holocaust denier. This should be discussed in the body (and it was). By mentioning it on top, we are showing preference to the critics and we are not being neutral.Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 06:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmm -- interesting point. The phrase the article uses is "Holocaust denier". You would maybe prefer that we use that? (I think it's better the way it is.) As for the lead in general: it should summarise what is in the body, and so it's entirely proper to note the range of issues for which he has become notable. I suppose we could include the fact that he has denied being a Holocaust denier… Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I prefer you call a spade a spade. Holocaust revisionism is not even mentioned in the source. Where does the RS page's body even mention holocaust denier or holocaust revisionism? The only time holocaust denier is even mentioned in the body is when it is negated by Sungenis.Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 01:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmm -- okay, then, I'll give that some thought. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 03:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

New Material on Sungenis and his Bishop does not meet Wiki Rules

This statement that was recently added does not pass Wiki muster: "Sungenis claimed that by removing the name "Catholic" from his organization he was obeying his bishop's enforcement of Catholic Canon Law #216 and preserving his apostolate." The source cited is Sungenis' own article, "Anatomy of a Smear Campaign", published at his own website.

The wiki rules for biographies of living persons say the following: "Using the subject as a self-published source: Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if: it is not unduly self-serving;it does not involve claims about third parties" Since the material from Sungenis' own self-published source involves a claim about a third party (his bishop), it's not allowable. PAGauden (talk) 07:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Note, an unregistered user tried to restore this by removing reference to the bishop. But by so doing, he changed the actual claim made in the article. The claim is also clearly "self-serving" (which is still in violation of wiki rules for self-published sources). Using self-published sources to provide neutral background information is one thing, to make a point about a confrontation with another individual in order to make oneself look better is another. If there is a permissible 3rd party source that makes such an argument, then it should be brought forth. PAGauden (talk) 18:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I answered your objections about third parties (which even you admit). Now, you make two new objections:

1.) ...he changed the actual claim made in the article.

2.) The claim is also clearly "self-serving".

To the first, I just shortened the claim. "Sungenis obeyed... Catholic Canon Law" and "Sungenis obeyed Bishop's Rhoades enforcement of Catholic Canon Law" both have the same substatial meaning which is that Sungenis obeyed Canon Law and shortening it is not detrimental to the claim itself.

To the second, if it was clearly "self serving" then why did you not highlight it like you did with the third party? The only thing that is self-serving is you mentioning it now since it seems to be in your favor to claim something that was not so obvious to you before. There is nothing self-serving about Sungenis obeying canon law. It fills in the gaps about what transpired. There is a law that requires Sungenis to remove the Catholic name regardless of whether he was right or wrong in the confrontation.38.96.12.2 (talk) 01:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The "self-serving" statement wasn't highlighted only because it seemed unnecessary. As initially worded in the article, the conflict involved with mentioning a third party was the most obvious, black and white violation of wiki rules and that's why it was highlighted. But the "self-serving" verbiage was still included. The new, edited wording you offered changes the actual argument made by the author (Sugenis) and arguably makes it more self-serving than the original because it obscures the fact that the bishop’s intervention was what caused the removal "Catholic" from his organization. It gives the impression that the subject of the article (Sugenis) discovered this law himself and independently followed his own interpretation of it by removing "Catholic", which is not what the article you cited actually says. According to the article cited, the previous bishop did not interpret and enforce the law in this way but the new bishop did. He was central to what happened, but he can't be mentioned using this self-published source because it's a violation of wiki rules. As such, there doesn’t seem to be a way to use this article in relation to this specific point while both being accurate about what it states and not violating wiki rules. PAGauden (talk) 16:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Seems like a "self serving" explanation to me.

To the part about changing the actual argument made by the author, I did not change the argument. I never even mentioned the argument, so that is a non-issue. All I did was shorten a claim which is backed by a source.

To the part about obscuring the fact of the bishop's intervention on removing the name Catholic, I did not obscure the bishop's intervention. His intervention is already mentioned above, so how can I obscure it?

To the part about the shorten claim giving the impression that Sungenis discovered the law himself and independently followed his own interpetation, this is just you reading into the claim what is not there. "Sungenis claimed that by removing the name "Catholic" from his organization he was obeying Catholic Canon Law #216 and preserving his apostolate."

To the part about the previous bishop did not interpret and enforce the law in this way but the new bishop did. He was central to what happened, first the article does not mention the previos bishop's interpretation. It just says that he did not enforce it. Second, the claim (and the RS page) is about Sungenis and not his new bishop. Mentioning that Sungenis obeyed canon law is the central issue of the claim. The bishop's enforcement of it is secondary to the claim and does not harm the claim by its presence or absence. If you want to include it, then you go find a secondary source. We already know that he obeyed his Bishop. What is not mentioned is that he obeyed canon law. So the primary source fills the gap.38.96.12.2 (talk) 07:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Please drop the personal comments about motivations, etc. This is the second time you've done that. By "going there", it just poisons the well and makes constructive conversations more difficult. Thank you. You write, "To the part about changing the actual argument made by the author, I did not change the argument. I never even mentioned the argument, so that is a non-issue. All I did was shorten a claim which is backed by a source." By "shortening" the claim, you changed the claim actually made in the article you cited and made it appear to be something other than what it actually was. Primary sources, like those from the subject of the article himself, are to be avoided (I understand this can be frustrating - it took me a while to understand it, too, when I first became involved with Wikipedia). If you can find reliable, second or third party sources who make the points you seek to add, then please bring them forth. Those would be perfectly acceptable. If I have time, I'll do a search, too. Also, I took some time to look more closely at this self-published piece by the subject of the article (Sugenis). I had only looked at it in regard to the material another editor wanted to add because it is so lengthy. As I look more closely at it, even for a self-published source, this one is particularly undesirable because the entire thing is extremely self-serving. It's one, long self-defense and justification in some kind of on-going argument with a couple of individuals the subject of this wiki article dislikes, so claims about third parties are also made throughout it. When you combine that with the fact that the use of primary, self-published sources is discouraged, this source becomes even less desirable. The wiki rule against using self-published sources is not just about particular claims made within the source, it goes to the source itself. And the rule is that such a source may be used only if it is not self-serving, doesn't involve claims about third parties, doesn't involve claims about events not directly involving the subject of the article, the authenticity of the piece is not in question, and the article isn't primarily based on such sources. The name of this article you want to include is "Anatomy of a Smear Campaign." The title alone gives away that this source does not meet wiki standards for a primary, self-published source. PAGauden (talk) 13:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Demand to stop using the word "Catholic"

I have removed a claim about Bishop Rhoades directing Sungenis to stop using the word "Catholic" in his organization's name. However my edit summary here was wrong - it is indeed in the Washington Post article (His local bishop, Kevin Rhoades of Harrisburg, has demanded that Sungenis stop writing about Jews and made him stop using the word "Catholic" in his organization's name.) However, it seems that the Washington Post is misunderstanding what was said - the actual direction (see here) was

I hereby direct you immediately to desist from commenting on the Jewish people and Judaism both online and in all other publications. I ask that you further remove all commentary presently contained on the website Catholic Apologetics International pertaining to Judaism and the Jewish people by July 20, 2007. If you do not comply with these directives I will publicly advise the faithful of my directives and further declare that Catholic Apologetics International lacks the appropriate ecclesiastical consent for the use of the name Catholic and I will direct that the name 'Catholic' should not be used due to the above-mentioned concerns about your writings.

That is, if Sugnenis didn't comply, then he would direct that the name "Catholic" not be used. So it was a conditional directive, and I'm not sure the second directive was ever carried out. St Anselm (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

An editor's job not to try to synthesize evidence. You don't know whether and what the Washington Post article was referring to. For all we know, the Bishop eventually carried out the warning. It's a very credible 3rd party source and one can't just keep deleting it. PAGauden (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

It's our job to identify reliable sources. Any generally reliable source may be unreliable in a particular instance. Are you saying you are not aware of any source that states that the Bishop carried out the warning? St Anselm (talk) 01:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

And this is a reliable source. So far you've provided no proof that it was unreliable in this instance beyond conjecture. That's not a legitimate reason to revert an edit. A reliable 3rd party source states that the bishop directed Sungenis to remove the name Catholic. If you have another reliable, allowable source that contradicts this statement, then you can certainly cite it. But just deleting/reverting the statement isn't reasonable. We know at the very least that the Bishop warned Sungenis that if he did not stop writing about Jews that he would direct him to remove the name Catholic. We also know that Sungenis did remove the name Catholic. As such, it seems reasonable to conclude that the article is accurate on this point. But what you have done is to completely remove any mention of any of this entire dynamic about the name Catholic. That's doesn't seem justified. PAGauden (talk) 01:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I just spent some time searching to see if I could find corroboration from Sungenis himself that his bishop made him remove "Catholic" and found it. Sungenis was writing in response to a writer at Discover Magazine regarding geocentrism. Here's what he said: "R. Sungenis: By June 2008 the bishops of the United States voted 231 to 14 to eliminate the heretical sentence about the Mosaic covenant from the US catechism that I, and only I, had pointed out to them and the rest of the world. After that, Rhoades’ campaign against me dwindled, but not before he forced me to take the name “Catholic” from my website because I dared disagree with his heretical doctrine." - October 12, 2010 at 8:20 am https://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/09/14/geocentrism-seriously/#comment-253631 PAGauden (talk) 02:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, I am not going to resist any more at this point. St Anselm (talk) 05:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I do think it's okay, given corroboration from Sungenis himself. That source should be added for that passage. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Another attempt today to remove this material. In case things are not clear enough from the edit summary: the material in question is supported directly by the source, which says "His local bishop, Kevin Rhoades of Harrisburg, has demanded that Sungenis stop writing about Jews and made him stop using the word "Catholic" in his organisation's name". It's really quite simple. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it is that simple. It was argued in one of the sources that Rhoades injured Sungenis' canonical rights. Sungenis may have felt that he was being forced to remove the name Catholic, but that does not mean that he was legally obligated too. See Dr. Robert Sungenis Has Disobeyed No Binding Precept Of His Bishop. To leave the readers with the impression that his organization is not Catholic (implying that he is not Catholic) by mentioning the Rhoades incident without including Fr. Harrison's defense along side the Rhoades incident is unfair. We risk damaging a living persons reputation by not including both sides.

Harrison's defense: (Quote) We can now conclude this canonical study of Dr. Robert Sungenis' present standing in the Church. Again, the admittedly speculative character of section 8, which ends only with a reasonable presumption, not a proof, should not cause the reader to forget that the principal conclusion of this study does not depend in any way upon the correctness of that presumption. In other words, even if the truth happens to be that Bishop Rhoades, at the present moment, does in fact consider Dr. Sungenis to be still bound by an obligation of silence on the aforesaid issues, what we have brought to light in sections 1 to 7 above shows conclusively that this is not the case. For we have demonstrated the following with regard to the two disciplinary measures issued by the Diocese of Harrisburg, namely, those expressed respectively in the bishop's own letter of June 29, 2007 and that of his Vicar General dated August 25, 2007:

1. The first was illicit, unjust, and possibly invalid because of failure to observe due process as specified in canon 50, and was in any case revoked after less than a month by the bishop in a decision communicated to Dr. Sungenis on July 27, 2007;

2. The second was invalid as a putative act of imposing silence on Dr. Sungenis in regard to Jewish issues, because both its content (expressing a mere request) and the form of its promulgation (a merely indirect communication of the bishop's decision through a third party) rendered it an act that fell very short of being a singular precept as defined in canon 49.

In short, Dr. Robert Sungenis has never disobeyed any lawful and binding precept of either the local or universal Church. He is thus a Catholic in good standing with the Church, and is entitled to be treated by all as such. (End quote) (http://archive.is/5rXtJ)

In 2013, Sungenis removed all controversial material related to Jewish issues from his website and claimed that he would not be returning to such material in the future (http://www.sungenisandthejews.com/). This should be included in the Robert Sungenis page. I do not understand why it was considered unreliable.

I did not mean to edit war. My apologies... Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

What you're missing here, Tachyon, is that Sungenis himself wrote in 2010 that Bishop Rhoades forced him to remove the name "Catholic". Here's what he said: "R. Sungenis: By June 2008 the bishops of the United States voted 231 to 14 to eliminate the heretical sentence about the Mosaic covenant from the US catechism that I, and only I, had pointed out to them and the rest of the world. After that, Rhoades’ campaign against me dwindled, but not before he forced me to take the name “Catholic” from my website because I dared disagree with his heretical doctrine." - October 12, 2010 at 8:20 am https://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/09/14/geocentrism-seriously/#comment-253631 This more than sufficiently corroborates the story in the Washington Post. The Washington Post is a trustworthy source. You can't just delete it because you think it may have gotten the story wrong. The article you cite was written back in April 2008. The Washington Post story was written in September 2008. Sungenis's own testimony was in October 2010. So both the Washington Post story and Sungenis's own testimony came *after* your article. There is no reason to suppose that the subsequent reporting - including Sungenis's own statement - were incorrect. There is no necessary conflict or contradiction between the stories. So I will be restoring it. Please do not revert this edit again. Thank you. We'll leave it all in - including your addition of the statement from the Culture Wars article. PAGauden (talk) 06:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. I am no longer arguing about Rhoades carrying out his threat against Sungenis or if the Washington Post is reliable. What I am arguing about is the one-sideness of the Robert Sungenis page. Even in your Discover Magazine comments section https://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/09/14/geocentrism-seriously/#comment-253631 (not the Discover Magazine article itself but the comment section which is questionable as a Wikipedia source) it has Sungenis defending himself claiming that he was forced to remove the name Catholic because he disagreed with his Bishop's hertical doctrine. Why is Sungenis' defensive claim not included in the RS Page? Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 19:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

If you'd like to include something sourced to the comments below an article published on-line, I suggest getting some feedback from WP:RSN first. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Tachyon - okay, so you're making a new argument now. Let me give you my thoughts on it. I think the problem is that there's no good reason to get into a "he said - he said" as to why Sungenis was forced to remove the name Catholic. Bishop Rhoades is on record denying Sungenis's accusations about what he supposedly believes (the alleged "heretical doctrine") and called Sungenis's accusations "slanderous and erroneous". So if we put up the accusation about Rhoades supposedly holding a heretical view according to Sungenis, then that necessitates introduction of the Bishop's denial and his characterization of Sungenis's accusation against him as "slanderous and erroneous". But if you just keep it with the established facts from acceptable sources, then none of this part of the dispute is necessary. It's a well-established fact that Sungenis was forced to remove the name "Catholic". Sungenis claimed a reason as to why he thought he was forced to do so, but the Bishop denies it.

A Catholic wrote to the bishop during the dispute and said, "Mr. Sungenis has now made public accusations about you based on selectively quoted private correspondence with you and other 'evidence' that amounts to no more than innuendo and guilt by association. As such, I would like to pose four brief questions in a general way in order to give you an opportunity to clarify matters for the sake of all who may be confused or troubled by his accusations." The bishop responded by saying, "I was saddened to learn that Robert Sungenis has made slanderous and erroneous statements about me." And then the bishop explained the reason for his intervention against Sungenis. According to the bishop, it wasn't a dispute about doctrine, it was a dispute about Sungenis's writing about Jews that the bishop calls "hostile, uncharitable and unChristian." This is what the Washington Post quoted from. See: http://web.archive.org/web/20120209223504/http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2008/02/bishop-rhoades-sets-record-straight_21.html and http://www.sungenisandthejews.com/uploads/Bishop_Rhoades_Letter.pdf

As an aside, personally, I don't think Sungenis's explanation makes much sense. With the kinds of things Sungenis was writing about Jews and the Holocaust etc., it seems very unlikely to me that the bishop actually told him to stop using the name "Catholic" merely over a doctrinal dispute. How many bishops would care enough about a doctrinal issue put forward by a lay Catholic to take such a step? But I can definitely see a bishop stepping in when a Catholics starts with Holocaust denial etc. According to another source , The Southern Poverty Law Center said they contacted the bishop, too, and that he responded "with alacrity": http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2007/08/17/anti-semitic-leader-rebuked-by-catholic-bishop/ The SPLC expose on Sungenis said nothing about doctrine. It focused completely on Sungenis's views on Jews like the Holocaust and conspiracy theories. You can read it here (it's sourced in this wiki article): http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2006/winter/the-dirty-dozen

Regardless, based on the "he said - he said" dynamic, I don't think it makes good sense to go down this road. I think it makes much better sense to just stick with the established facts from solid, acceptable third party sources. I also doubt it helps Sungenis to point out that the bishop said his accusations were "slanderous and erroneous". I would think it would be better for his sake to avoid that exchange. PAGauden (talk) 01:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am making a new argument. Although I am considering the option of going back to my original argument too because I found another source from 2010 [Catholic/Jewish Dialogue: Controversies and Corrections, CAI Publishing, Inc. (2010)]. It appears that our sources are conflicting with each other. Fr. Harrison article/ Sungenis' book and the WP article about the Catechism/Discover Magazine blog post:

(Quote)Question #1: Robert, various people claim that you have defied your bishop. They say that he ordered you not to talk about the Jews but that you ignored his order. Is this true? R. Sungenis: I have not defied any order that my bishop gave me. Because the bishop (Kevin C. Rhoades) and I have a difference of opinion on certain Jewish matters, and because my opponents waged a letter-writing campaign to the bishop complaining about my Jewish writings, at one point my bishop requested that I not write about Jewish issues, he did not order me to do so. The only canonical stipulation he added in his letter was that he had the right to force me to remove the name “Catholic” from my apostolate’s title if I did not comply with his request, since canon law states that an apostolate must first get the permission of the bishop to use the name “Catholic.” Prior to this, I had used “Catholic” for the three years (2004-2007) that the bishop had been in my diocese and which he knew since I had exchanged letters with the chancery. The bishop also invited me to discuss the matter with his vicar general, Fr. William King, and thus I arranged a meeting at the chancery in July 2007. At that meeting, Fr. King said it was not the intention of the bishop to prohibit me from writing on Jewish issues, as long as I used the proper tone. At this point, I did not see anything with which to disagree. After the meeting, I voluntarily removed all my Jewish-titled material from the CAI website with the intention of changing the tone of my articles. In the interim, I alerted CAI patrons to my meeting with the bishop and I apologized for anything I had written previously that had an improper tone. I also included a summary of CAI’s theological positions on the Jews, all of which I believed was written with the proper tone. In August 2007, Fr. King wrote to me and said that the bishop requested that I take down the article since it disagreed with some of the bishop’s personal views. I wrote back to Fr. King and complained about what I began to sense was censorship without due process being waged against me by the bishop, for the tone of the article in question was obviously polite and respectful toward the Jews. Apparently, there

was more to the bishop’s “request” than appeared on the surface, and this was confirmed by several instances in Fr. King’s letter that revealed it was primarily doctrinal issues that were the bishop’s chief concern, and that “tone” was, perhaps, being used only as a euphemism for the bishop’s real concern. I had a solid inkling what these “doctrinal” issues concerned, since at the July 2007 meeting, Fr. King said that he and the bishop (and by implication, the Catholic Church at large) “no longer believed in supersessionism.” Fr. King’s August 2007 letter confirmed my suspicion, since it mentioned these same items. All in all, the bishop was requesting that I accede to his and Fr. King’s views that the Old Covenant was not superseded by the New Covenant; the Jews are still the Chosen People, and other related matters. I then wrote a 15-page letter to Fr. King and the bishop showing from Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium that supersessionism was, indeed, a Catholic doctrine, and that the bishop was wrong in trying to force me to reject it by threatening that he would remove the name “Catholic” from my apostolate. Knowing that the bishop was fond of John Paul II, I even included a section showing that when John Paul II said in 1981 that the “Old covenant was not revoked,” he was not, according to the pope’s speech in 1986, referring to the Mosaic covenant, but the Abrahamic covenant (which has now become the New Covenant). But I also added that, in order to keep the peace, I would voluntarily change the name of our apostolate to Bellarmine Theological Forum. Neither Fr. King nor the bishop replied to that letter, and at that point our communication came to a close. Hence, with no further requests or doctrinal argumentation from the bishop, I determined that the article in question would remain on our website and that I would continue writing on Jewish issues. I would not, however, compromise the doctrinal integrity of the Catholic Church by acceding to the bishop and Fr. King’s anti-supersessionist views, even though I would diligently try to voice my objections with the proper “tone.” There the situation stands.(End Quote)

(Quote)Question #2: Robert, various people claim that you have falsely accused your bishop of holding the heretical view that Jews still have valid and legal possession of the Old Covenant. What is the truth of this matter from your perspective? R. Sungenis: Although I don’t have indisputable proof that my bishop holds to this heresy since I have not personally talked with him about this issue, the

circumstantial evidence is so strong that I am compelled to include him as holding to this erroneous view of the Old Covenant unless I receive clarification from him that he does not hold to it. There are three basic reasons for this: (1) in our meeting of July 29, 2007 at the bishop’s office in Harrisburg, the vicar general, Fr. William King, said to me and Mr. Herron: “we don’t believe in supersessionism any longer.” In that meeting, Fr. King assured me that the use of “we” referred to himself and the bishop, since Fr. King assured me that he was “deputized by the bishop” for that specific meeting and that he “spoke for the bishop.” (2) in a recent email of July 15, 2008 that Fr. King privately sent to the priests and deacons of the Harrisburg diocese (but which I received a copy through a friend), he wrote the following words: “Dr. Robert Sungenis…personal opinions…including…supercession [sic] of the Old Testament Covenant, stand apart from (and in discord with) authentic Catholic teaching on these subjects.” Supersessionism is the doctrine which says that the Old Covenant was superseded by the New Covenant, such that the Old Covenant is no longer valid for the Jews. Hence, if Fr. King denies supersessionism, he denies that the Old Covenant has been superseded by the New and he believes that the Old Covenant is still valid for the Jews. Since he previously said he “speaks for the bishop” on these matters, and since I don’t think the bishop would allow Fr. King to send such an email to the priests of the Harrisburg diocese unless he concurred with it, I can only assume that the bishop believes the same as Fr. King about the Old Covenant. I have received nothing from either Fr. King or the bishop that says Fr. King no longer speaks for the bishop on this issue. When I wrote to the bishop and Fr. King a few weeks later asking them for a response to Fr. King’s July 15 2008 email that I had in my possession (and of which I showed them a copy), Fr. King wrote back and told me he was not going to reply due to an implication that I would bring a canonical lawsuit against him. I wrote back to Fr. King and told him I had no intentions of suing him, but I wanted him to write another letter to all the same priests and deacons of the Harrisburg diocese apologizing for slandering me and for propagating an erroneous theological idea to them. A copy of the letter to Fr. King was also sent to Bishop Rhoades. To this day, neither Fr. King nor Bishop Rhoades have replied.

(3) When the bishop was interviewed in a questionnaire by Michael Forrest in February 2008, the bishop gave ambiguous answers about the Old Covenant. Instead of directly clearing up the matter and saying that the Old Covenant was superseded by the New and that the Jews no longer had valid possession of the Old Covenant, the bishop stated the following: “I do not believe that the Jewish people have their own independent salvific covenant with God, apart from Jesus Christ.” The problem with this statement is that it allows the Jews to have the Old Covenant as long as it is not “apart from Christ.” A similar problem occurred in the interview when the bishop answered a question concerning page 131 of the United States Catholic Catechism for Adults. The sentence on page 131 says: “Thus the covenant that God made with the Jewish people through Moses remains eternally valid for them.” In August 2008, the bishops of the United States voted 231 to 14 to eliminate this sentence from the catechism, obviously because it was erroneous. But Bishop Rhoades’ answer to Forrest does not seem to agree. Instead, he reiterated the ambiguous phrases “outside of Christ” and “apart from Christ” and did not say that the sentence on page 131 was erroneous or should be excised from the catechism. He wrote: I do not interpret anything on page 131 of the U.S. Catechism for Adults to mean that the Jewish people (or any group) have their own independent saving path to God, outside of Jesus Christ. I can see how the statement that “the covenant that God made with the Jewish people through Moses remains eternally valid for them” might be misunderstood. I would interpret it to mean that the Jewish people retain a special relationship to God because of the Old Covenant, but I would not interpret it to mean that the Jewish people can be saved through the Old Covenant apart from Christ. Although I would like to give the bishop the benefit of any doubt in his above statement, I find it hard to do so in light of #1 and #2 above in which Fr. King insists that, in denying supersessionism, he is speaking directly for the bishop; as well as the bishop’s silence when he was directly confronted with Fr. King’s denial of supersessionism. So, to me it seems to be a logical conclusion that in the bishop’s above answer he leaves room for denying supersessionism since, according to the implication of his answer, the Jews can possess the Old

Covenant just as long as it is not “outside of Christ,” or that the Jews could be saved through the Old Covenant, as long as it is not “apart from Christ.” If the bishop does not believe that the Jews still have possession of the Old Covenant, with or without Christ; and if he does not deny the doctrine of supersessionism such that Fr. King no longer speaks for him or never has, then I would think the bishop is required to make this a matter of public record to all interested parties, including me and Mr. Forrest. Until that time, I cannot help but believe that my bishop holds the same doctrinal position as Fr. King, that is, that supersessionism is not a doctrine of the Catholic Church and that the Jews still have valid possession of the Old Covenant. The bishop could have easily sent me a response to the July 15, 2008 email distancing himself from Fr. King’s denial of supersessionism, but he did not do so. Hence, I must take his silence as an implicit agreement with Fr. King’s assertion.(End Quote)

Now, with regard to my new argument. You said that we should not get into a "he said - he said" because the facts clearly support Sungenis' opponents. Well, we had a similar situation where the "he said - he said" worked. Sungenis' opponents accused him of anti-semitism. The facts appeared to clearly support his opponents accusations. Yet, Sungenis was allowed to defend himself. Now, we have Sungenis' organization having the name Catholic removed (whether by force or voluntary). His opponents claim that it was removed for justifiable reasons. The facts appear to clearly support his opponents. Yet, why not allow Sungenis to defend himself? Why not allow a third party to defend him? Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 15:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity, what I wanted to include was this:

(Quote)"R. Sungenis: By June 2008 the bishops of the United States voted 231 to 14 to eliminate the heretical sentence about the Mosaic covenant from the US catechism that I, and only I, had pointed out to them and the rest of the world. After that, Rhoades’ campaign against me dwindled, but not before he forced me to take the name “Catholic” from my website because I dared disagree with his heretical doctrine."(End Quote)

It is already in the RS page. The only problem is that it has been summarized poorly. However, I will take your advice and post it on the WP:RSN Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 15:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Tachyon: You wrote, "You said that we should not get into a "he said - he said" because the facts clearly support Sungenis' opponents." No, that's not what I said. What I wrote was, "I think the problem is that there's no good reason to get into a "he said - he said" as to why Sungenis was forced to remove the name Catholic. Bishop Rhoades is on record denying Sungenis's accusations about what he supposedly believes (the alleged "heretical doctrine") and called Sungenis's accusations "slanderous and erroneous". So if we put up the accusation about Rhoades supposedly holding a heretical view according to Sungenis, then that necessitates introduction of the Bishop's denial and his characterization of Sungenis's accusation against him as "slanderous and erroneous"." AND also "I also doubt it helps Sungenis to point out that the bishop said his accusations were "slanderous and erroneous". I would think it would be better for his sake to avoid that exchange."

If the section is put in where Sungenis accuses the bishop of making him remove the name "Catholic" because the bishop is supposedly a heretic, then this logically invites where the bishop denies Sungenis' accusation against him and calls Sungenis' accusation "slanderous and erroneous". That doesn't seem to make Sungenis look better, imo. Your new addition just ultimately leads to the introduction of the fact that his bishop has publicly accused him of being a slanderer. Then he'll be on record at Wikipedia as being accused by his bishop of being "hostile, uncharitable and unchristian" against Jews and ALSO engaging in slander of the bishop. Do you really want that in the article? You seem to be primarily concerned in your editing with helping Sungenis and his reputation. That addition doesn't seem helpful to him, imo.

Re the lengthy quotes you provided, I don't see anything in there denying that the bishop made him remove the name "Catholic." Besides, he admits this at the Discover website and it's in an acceptable 3rd party source. And his argument about the bishop is a circumstantial case. He has no direct proof agains the bishop and admits it. That is no justification to publicly accuse a Catholic bishop (or anyone) of heresy. And again, regardless, if that is put in, it necessitates the verbiage from the bishop denying Sungenis's accusation and calling it "slanderous and erroneous".

If you look back in the history a ways back, this information you want to introduce (Sungenis accusation/Bishop denial calling Sungenis accusation "slanderous and erroneous") was in this article. One of the higher up editors removed it. I don't think it makes sense to re-introduce it again. PAGauden (talk) 06:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be helpful to add some of the statements from Sungenis denying the Holocaust? Holocaust denial seems to be a central part of the issue, so why not provide some more current examples? Such as:

Robert Sungenis (2002): The figure of six million Jews dying under Hitler's regime is even admitted by informed Jews to be mere propaganda.

Robert Sungenis (2005): I have my doubts that it was 6 million [Jews killed in the Holocaust]...Hitler hated the Jews, not only for what he saw as a youth, but because the Jews had a stranglehold on European finance and banking for many years. There are some stories, however, that suggest these Jewish banking families actually helped Hitler in his quest, since their objective was to ellicit [sic] world-wide sympathy so as to migrate European and Russian Jews to Palestine, their long-sought goal which they have, indeed, accomplished."

Robert Sungenis (2009): "it is becoming increasingly difficult to believe that six million Jews were killed in Nazi internment camps."

R. Sungenis (2009): "I suggest you stop blaming it on the nation who excised [the Jews] and start looking at what the Jewish people do to get themselves excised."

R. Sungenis (2009): "As for Germany's relationship with the Jews, well, the Germans treated the Jews very nicely when the Jews were excised out of Russia and migrated to Germany. Then the Jews turned on the Germans because they got a better deal from someone else."

Robert Sungenis (2009): “I suggest you read the unsanitized accounts of what really happened [in the Holocaust]. When the Jews and Jewish sympathizers start showing proof that the Nazis killed 6 million Jews by gassing them, instead of jailing people for even bringing up the question, then you can talk about the Nazis and I’ll listen.”

Robert Sungenis (2009): "One example of this evidence is the fact that the worldwide Jewish population from 1940 to 1948 did not decrease by even a half million, much less six million....But the international population records show that the numbers of Jews after World War II were virtually the same as before the war."

Robert Sungenis (2009): "The documented records of the International Red Cross show that there were less than a few hundred thousand Jews who died in Nazi camps, and that most of those were from disease."

http://web.archive.org/web/20110810170524/http://www.catholicintl.com/qa/Ask_Your_Question_about_the_Jews.pdf

http://web.archive.org/web/20110726102844/http://web.archive.org/web/20021117112639/www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/uncorking.asp

http://web.archive.org/web/20110718125232/http://bellarmineforum.xanga.com/713618527/question-183---michael-forrest-talking-to-mark-shea/

http://web.archive.org/web/20120209234334/http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2009/05/pope-benedict-xvi-continues-to.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.14.85.138 (talk) 07:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Forgive me for misunderstanding you. Hopefully, I understand you now. The problem with your source is that it is not a reliable third-party source. The author (Phil Plait) of the Discover Magazine blog article does not talk about the "Catholic removal" issue. He talks about Geocentrism. You are relying on a reader's blog post for your source and according to Wikipedia rules you cant do that. See Wikipedia:Verifiability:

(Quote) Newspaper and magazine blogs

Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process.[7] If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer (e.g. "Jane Smith wrote..."). Never use blog posts that are left by readers as sources. For personal or group blogs that are not reliable sources, see Self-published sources below.(End Quote)

Also, you mentioned that you didn't see anything I sent you indicating that Rhoades did not make him remove the "Catholic" from his organization. Well, I did. Sungenis said he voluntarily changed the name. Fr. Harrison said the same thing. This was the conflict of sources I spoke about:

Sungenis' book(Quote)But I also added that, in order to keep the peace, I would voluntarily change the name of our apostolate to Bellarmine Theological Forum. Neither Fr. King nor the bishop replied to that letter, and at that point our communication came to a close. Hence, with no further requests or doctrinal argumentation from the bishop, I determined that the article in question would remain on our website and that I would continue writing on Jewish issues.(End Quote)

Harrison article(Quote): Taken together, the above four considerations present a strong presumption that in fact even the Bishop of Harrisburg himself does not consider Dr. Sungenis to be bound now – that is, ever since he voluntarily removed the word "Catholic" from the title of his website last year – by any obligation to remain publicly silent on Judaism and the Jewish people.9(End Quote)

Finally, I wanted to say that we do not need to mention that Sungenis accused his Bishop of heresy since it seems like you want to protect his reputation. That's good. We should all try to avoid damaging a living persons reputation. My recommendation would be to point out in the RS page that one of our sources defends his status as a member of Catholic Church. A reader could easily misinterpret the removal of the name Catholic from his organization to mean that he(as an individual) is no longer Catholic. Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 17:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

To Tachyon: There is no reasonable way to look at the evidence and conclude that Sungenis just "voluntarily" removed the name "Catholic" as if it was just his idea. It's obvious from the record (including Sungenis's own account written at the Discover mag blog) that Sungenis knew he would have to stop calling his apostolate "Catholic" if he wanted to keep attacking Jews. This is what Sungenis meant by saying the bishop "forced" him to remove the name Catholic. This was no free will "gee, I think I'll remove the name Catholic". He knew it would be a further huge, public embarrassment to his apostolate if the Bishop came out with another public statement against him and canonically forced him to remove the name "Catholic." This really isn't that hard. It could only be "true" in the very narrowest and technical sense to say that he removed it "voluntarily". It would be like you saying to me, "If you keep doing X, I'm going to get a gun and shoot you." And then I stop doing "X" before I get shot and go on to say "I voluntarily decided to stop doing X". It's transparently face-saving rhetoric. Sungenis was forced to stop calling his apostolate Catholic, just as the Washington Post stated and just as Sungenis himself publically admitted at the Discover Blog. He removed the name "Catholic" only under pressure.

And then you (Tachyon) wrote, "The problem with your source is that it is not a reliable third-party source. The author (Phil Plait) of the Discover Magazine blog article does not talk about the 'Catholic removal' issue." Read the talk more carefully and the explanations on the edits. The part about being "made" to remove the name Catholic comes from the Washington Post, not the Discover blog. The corroboration about Sungenis acknowledging this happened was from the Discover blog. It looks to me as though the editor (PAGAUDEN) only included the Discover blog post to prove that even Sungenis publically admitted he was forced to remove the name Catholic, just as the Washington Post said. You and one other editor kept trying to revert a legitimate edit from a legitimate source. If you would stop that, then the citation from the Discover blog really wouldn't be necessary, imo. 69.137.192.181 (talk) 04:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I also second the idea of including those statements from Sungenis that an editor suggested above regarding Holocaust denial. Those seem very important and establish a continued use of such statements about the Holocaust on Sungenis' part, which is a central area of concern in all of this. What do you think, Nomoskedasticity? It's seems a significant lacuna in the article, imo. After all the controversy about his Holocaust denial, doesn't it make sense to show what he had to say about it years later? 69.137.192.181 (talk) 04:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

You can't use a source that Wikipedia explicitly states can't be used. So, this excuse that the blog post left by a reader named RS will stay on the RS page because I and one another editor won't stop arguing with you is a moot point. This source needs to be removed regardless of what our position is about the "Catholic removal issue". I will leave the WP source up so that we can discuss it later, but this blog post left by a reader needs to go. If you are looking for a more reliable source from 2010 than a blog post left by a reader named RS, then I would recommend Sungenis' book from 2010. You can find the quotes from his book in our discussion above.

See Wikipedia:Verifiability:

(Quote) Newspaper and magazine blogs

Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process.[7] If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer (e.g. "Jane Smith wrote..."). Never use blog posts that are left by readers as sources. For personal or group blogs that are not reliable sources, see Self-published sources below.(End Quote) Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 01:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Tachyon: Thanks for your reply, which I think was to me (not sure because several other editors commented in the interim).

1) Just to clarify: the blog post I cited wasn't left by a reader named "RS". The name attached to the comment was "Robert Sungenis" and he identified himself as such writing at length with knowledge that only Sungenis would be expected to have. He started by writing "Response to Seeker from Robert Sungenis:" You can see it for yourself, here: https://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/09/14/geocentrism-seriously/#comment-253630. And there he publicly stated that Bishop Rhoades "forced me to take the name “Catholic” from my website." I never would have cited it if it wasn't clear that Robert Sungenis was the author of it.

2) The editor above who wrote the following is correct: "It looks to me as though the editor (PAGAUDEN) only included the Discover blog post to prove that even Sungenis publically admitted he was forced to remove the name Catholic, just as the Washington Post said. You and one other editor kept trying to revert a legitimate edit from a legitimate source. If you would stop that, then the citation from the Discover blog really wouldn't be necessary, imo." I don't really care about the citation from Discover, I only put it there because St. Anselm and then you kept trying to remove the citation from a source that's definitely legitimate (the Washington Post). The Washington Post article states that the bishop "made" Sungenis remove the name "Catholic" from his organization. What Sungenis wrote at the Discover site only served to validate what is written at the Washington Post. I agree with those who point out that it's hard to deny that Sungenis removed the name "Catholic" only because of pressure from his bishop. Had there been no pressure or threat from the bishop, there wouldn't have been a reason to remove it.

3) I agree with removing the reference to the Discover site where Sungenis acknowledges that he was forced to remove the name "Catholic". But please do not revert the edit that cites the Washington Post and correctly conveys what that article indicates (i.e. that the bishop made Sungenis remove the name Catholic from his website). That citation is legitimate and accurate (see point 4a below for more).

4) You said, "Finally, I wanted to say that we do not need to mention that Sungenis accused his Bishop of heresy since it seems like you want to protect his reputation." No, it's two other things. First, including that accusation would logically lead to including the Bishop's denial of Sungenis' accusation and his statement that Sungenis engaged in slander. That doesn't seem helpful to Sungenis. Second, the wiki rules for biographies of living persons (which you've looked at), say the following: "Using the subject as a self-published source: Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if: it is not unduly self-serving;it does not involve claims about third parties;" Since what you wanted to include from Sungenis' own self-published source involves a claim about a third party (his bishop), it's not allowable. But it seems you have already agreed that this accusation by Sungenis against his bishop should not be included, so it's probably a moot point.

4a) Another note on this source (Sungenis' self-published book). It appears that this 2010 book you cited (which I assume to be one titled "The Catholic/Jewish Dialogue: Controversies and Corrections") is basically just a compilation of Sungenis' articles and Q and A's that previously appeared on his website. I searched the quote you provided from him and it turns out that it comes from a Q and A series in 2009 called "Ask Your Question about the Jews, Judaism, Zionism, etc.". You can see it here from October 2009 on the right hand side of his website home page in the green box: http://web.archive.org/web/20091022105854/http://www.catholicintl.com/ And here's a direct link to the Q and A series with that quote you cited in it: http://web.archive.org/web/20110510054845/http://www.catholicintl.com/qa/Ask_Your_Question_about_the_Jews.pdf. You'll note that it was a full year later (Oct. 2010) when Sungenis publicly acknowledged on the Discover blog that his bishop "forced" him to remove the name "Catholic". It's clear from the evidence (even what you cited from Sungenis, where he says that he removed the name "Catholic" just in order to "keep the peace") that, at best, he only removed the name "Catholic" so he could continue to write about Jews without facing further public rebuke and legal intervention from his bishop. It's clear from all sources that removing the name "Catholic" was not something he wanted to do. I don't see any way around that. As such, again, I see no reason to continue to contest the quote from the Washington Post.

5) Suggestion: If you can find an acceptable source indicating that Sungenis stated he has removed all material about Jews and will never be returning to it, I think that would be a very good addition to the article. I don't have time myself for the search (and am honestly tiring of this article), but if you have time, I think that would be worthwhile. PAGauden (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I took a break from this discussion in order to look it again with fresh eyes. I think I found a compromise solution.

Yes, my reply was to you PAGauden.

1.) RS is an abbreviation for Robert Sungenis. Your Discover Magazine Reader's Blog Post is an unreliable source. You seem to be forgetting that. Using an unreliable source (that contradicts itself by the way) to back up the secondary source from the Washington Post does not give you a strong case. I on the other hand used a reliable primary source (Sungenis book) in order to back up a secondary source (Fr. Harrison article).

2.) There are conflicting sources. We have two conflicting secondary sources. I don't know why you are ignoring this. Both positions should be included and presented in a balanced unbiased way. Your arguments against Sungenis voluntarily removing the name Catholic do not override the claims made by Sungenis book and Fr. Harrison. I can argue that there exists no explicit statement from Bishop Rhoades ordering Sungenis to remove the name Catholic. There only exists a threat to remove the name Catholic unless certain criteria are met and a request to refrain from writing about the Jews after he backed down from the initial threat. I can argue that the time period in which the removal of the name Catholic happened was back in 2007, so there really was no new information that the Washington Post could have had that Fr. Harrison did not have with regards to the Catholic removal issue. They were only separated by 5 months. Fr. Harrisons source was more in depth while the WP only mentioned the Catholic removal issue in passing. Also, a later source does not necessarily mean its more accurate because we have an even later reliable source written in 2009 and added to a book by RS in 2010 that does not agree with the WP source. All this arguing however does not change the fact that the WP said it. Let's just include both positions and present them in an unbiased way.

3.) I am glad that we agreed upon the removal of the Discover Magazine Blog Post. If I had not complained and had not gone against the wishes of many to no longer make any edits on this issue. It would still be there.

4.) Like I said before, the Discover Magazine reader's blog post is an unreliable source. Also, later sources do not necessarily mean more accurate sources since the Discover Magazine reader's blog post contradicts itself (the SEEKER points this out). This is not a contest of who can find the latest sources. It should be about what really happened. Since there are conflicting sources then both sides should be mentioned.

5.) I'll see what I can do.

6.) Sungenis did claim in 2014 that Bishop Rhoades enforced Catholic Canon Law. However, he can enforce Canon Law by either threatening to remove the name Catholic unless certain criteria are met or explicitly ordering its removal. Like I said above there exists no explicit orders to remove it. Only a threat which he backed down from and a request.

My compromising solution is to mention both positions in an unbiased way. I think we are showing favoritism to sources that agree with our position (including me in the past) and are using arguments against sources that disagree with are position. We should really be unbiased however and include both positions. This earlier source said this, but this later source says that.Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 06:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

More information on geocentrism

I've been searching for more information for the geocentrism section because a great deal has been written on that topic from solid sources over the past few months. Unfortunately, it seems that most all of it is negative. I've at least added some additional information about the involvement of Michio Kaku and Max Tegmark in The Principle. But if additional information can be found, that would be helpful to the article, imo. PAGauden (talk) 20:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean "unfortunately"? It's 2014 going on 2015 and this guy calls himself an "intelligent geocentrist" and preaches hatred against Jews. The 16th century called, they want their time machine back. Viriditas (talk) 01:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The Jewish information is irrelevant to the section on geocentrism. And I meant "unfortunately" in the sense that I thought it might help the article to find something from proper sources that was neutral or positive. I'm not advocating for this individual, just trying to find balance and accuracy. PAGauden (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Robert Sungenis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://catholicintl.com/aboutus/b-robert.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.catholicintl.com/qa/2006/qa-jan-06.htm#Question%2054/
Corrected formatting/usage for //www.catholicintl.com/noncatholicissues/neo-jewish.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.culturewars.com/2008/Harrison.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Adding this information to balance the comment about CIU being a diploma millSuzanneCampbell (talk)

On May 16, 2016, I added information to the biography section. My edit was undone with the comment "not useful to the article". I strongly disagree. Just because one source characterized CIU as a diploma mill does not meant the school is. The resources I provided show that CIU has requirements similar to many universities. The main difference is that it is not government accredited. The country where CIU is located does not have stipulations for government accreditation. I was providing this information to make the article more balanced. Well written articles should provide opposing views that allow the reader to decide for themselves. I did not remove the original comment. I only added the information to provide a balanced view.SuzanneCampbell (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2016 (UTC)