Talk:Robert Sungenis

Geocentrism is NOT pseudoscience

Anybody who has read Dr. Sungenis' books on the subject of geocentrism knows that calling it pseudoscience is dishonest. He deals with all the relevant science and provides a reasonable interpretation of the data. The person who has used this pejorative label in order to discredit him obviously doesn't realise that Albert Einstein acknowledged that a geocentric view can account for ALL the scientific data. Please remove this smear of "pseudoscientific" for the sake of neutrality. Knowledgeispower3 (talk) 07:16, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you find a reputable scientist who says this, and provide where they said it.Slatersteven (talk) 07:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

First, you may change the frame of reference to whatever you like and physics would still work. Earth is in no way special in this respect: any frame of reference is as good as any other one. The belief that mainstream science endorses geocentrism is delusional. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:41, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

A reputable scientist who says this? Wolfgang Smith. You should read his book Ancient Wisdom and Modern Misconceptions: A Critique of Contemporary Scientism (2003), Chapter VIII (The Status of Geocentrism). Smith is a mathematician, physicist, philosopher of science and metaphysician. yuri vieira (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

OK, you have one. who says it has scientific merit. But it is still a fringe view, and thus pseudoscience accdor9ing to most experts, and we go with the scientific weight (see wp:undue.Slatersteven (talk) 18:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

First, ad hominem arguments like Anybody who has read Dr. Sungenis' books on the subject of geocentrism knows that calling it pseudoscience is dishonest. have no place here.

Second, while it is true that in General Relativity a geocentric coordinate system is as valid as a heliocetric coordinate system, that does not mean that the geocentric and heliocentric views are equivalent; the geometry does not depend on the choice of local coordinates. An observer will see the worldline of the Earth winding around the worldline of the Sun in either coordinate system. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Notes

References

Bias

None of that stuff about Dr. Sungenis "complaining" on his blog is backed up by any sort of citations. And I really don't know much about what happened exactly, but I am under the impression that Sungenis merely noticed the heresy and reported it in the proper manner. 98.115.103.26 (talk) 03:29, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I have changed the text to better reflect the source.Slatersteven (talk) 09:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

The WaPo source says 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.

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.

The content saying he complained was actually tame. He campaigned. Jytdog (talk) 22:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Who wrote most of the letters, does the source say? Seems to me that saying he campaigned is OR.Slatersteven (talk) 08:47, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

"I tried all the proper channels and I think it worked" Sungenis said." There is nothing ambiguous about that. Jytdog (talk) 00:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

No it is not, it does not say he launched a campaign, so we cannot say he did.Slatersteven (talk) 10:38, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The fact that the apologetics section is scant, yet the Jewish section plentiful, displays the biassed and dishonest agenda of the author. This is so wildly out of proportion that it gives little value to those seeking to understand Dr. Sungenis' work. Knowledgeispower3 (talk) 05:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I would point out that most of the "Jewish section" is about his version of catholic doctrine regarding Jews. But you may have a point, care to expand the section on apologetics.Slatersteven (talk) 09:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I added a line the other day which was taken down - alas, I shall try again. Knowledgeispower3 (talk) 05:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

If it was taken down you need to make a case here for inclusion.Slatersteven (talk) 08:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I already made my case... this article is seriously biassed. You have already said I may expand the section on apologetics, yet you have again deleted my additions. Please restore them, they are not even controversial. Knowledgeispower3 (talk) 13:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you may, as long as it is neutrally worded, does not claim that what Sungenis says is true or represents anything but his own opinions, and as long as it is sources to RS. Saying you can expand does not mean "with anything you like".Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

My contributions were neutrally worded yet Slatersteven deleted them. Slatersteven is clearly hostile to Dr. Sungenis and thus is incapable of providing a proper account of the man's work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledgeispower3 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

See WP:GOODBIAS. That's who we are, that's what Wikipedia is (our identity). Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:11, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I've reverted the new edits, which do not have consensus for adoption. Knowledgeispower3, your references were malformatted, plus the omission of the description of geocentrism as a discredited/pseudoscientific claim is not in keeping with our policy on treatment of fringe views. Neutrality^talk 04:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Why don't they have consensus? They were objectively uncontroversial additions... I simply listed a couple of his most well know works. Since it seems that my contributions are unwanted I would just urge anyone with editorial power over this page to write it in a way that reflects the breadth of the man's work and not just a biassed hit piece. Knowledgeispower3 (talk) 04:15, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Just take a look from the outside: even his own bishop considers him fringe. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:59, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

No one is preventing you from suggesting something here, and then having it discussed.Slatersteven (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Once again I already have! This page should AT LEAST include his 'Not by..." series. This series was a significant work in Sungenis' career. Knowledgeispower3 (talk) 01:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

We don't use Kinsey's books for WP:Verifying claims about Kinsey's life. Same applies to Sungenis. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

without mentioning these books there is a gaping hole in the life of Dr. Sungenis. Knowledgeispower3 (talk) 07:01, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

And if no one else cares why should we, we go with what RS care about. Also you have not suggested any edits here, you have made a vague assertion. What "suggest an edit" means is that you say (for example) "I would like to include the following passage..." followed with the passage.Slatersteven (talk) 07:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

BLP violation

An IP is edit warring in violation of WP:BLPSPS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)