Talk:Joseph Sobran/Archive 1

Wikinfo:Revolution within the form

128.143.*.* Buffer

Seems to be someone working out of University of Virginia.

Klonimus 21:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Klonimus, an admitted zionist, keeps deleting valuable external references -- it's not enough for him to slander Sobran by proxy.

His obsession points up the weakness of Wiki anything: might makes right, or in this case, time makes truth.

Please assume good faith by other editors. In fact, I accidentally deleted the new links when I made a small edit concerning Wm. Buckley. -Willmcw 17:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Joseph Sobran is not an anti-Semite, or if he is, it is under a definition of "anti-Semite" so broad as to empty it of its usual negative significance. See The Myth of the New Anti-Semitism for a good analysis of the word's abuse DJac75 01:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

This article had previously been ridiculously swayed....

Came upon it while doing a report on anti-semitism from the right....

The current article reflects more upon who Joseph Sobran truly is...

If he disagrees he should retract/change his positions....

-From the user known as CaliforniaDreamlings

Revolution within the form

Joe Sobran uses the above phrase in his articles. It is part and parcel to his philosophy. Garet Garrett coined the above phrase to describe what was going on in America. It was posted on Wikipedia and offered to be an external link or an article but both were rejected. Wikipedians rejected this article on March 6, 2006.WHEELER 23:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

What????? -CD

If you look at the top of the talk page there is a link to the aforesaid article. happy reading! (Oh, and dear CD use the four tilde marks ~~~~ above the tab key on your keyboard to sign your name instead of writing it.) WHEELER 01:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Quotations

Quotations belong in Wikiquote. There's already a link on the page. -Will Beback 02:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

I will let "controversial" stand, although it is not the sort of modifier of which wiki usually approves. However, the other references, e.g. "identified" v. "accused" of anti-Semitism are not acceptable. It is obvious which phrasing violates NPOV principles, since 100% of those aware of Sobran's career would agree that he was accused, while something less than 100% would agree that the accusation was valid (which alone would warrant a conclusive verb like "identified.") If that and other disputable descriptions of Sobran return, I will tag the article with an NPOV warning, but I hope that won't become necessary. DJac75 21:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I concur, although I have gone the extra step of removing "controversial." It may have a place in the article, but certainly doesn't belong in the first sentence. Dick Clark 21:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Buckley's criticism of Sobran is well-known and notable, so it needs to be included in some form. However it is simply an opinion, not a fact, so we should not declare Sobran an anti-Semite on the basis of Buckley's opinion. "Controversial" can definitely be left out, instead the article should include whatever controversies exist. -Will Beback 00:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Use of word "incendiary" is unacceptable, since (1) criticism of Hitler would be "incendiary" to an audience of Hitler fans, making the word rather meaningless in a neutral context and (2) one cannot cite any consequences proceeding from Sobran's statements other than his own loss of popularity. As to Rogerman's silly idea that only the controversy makes Sobran notable, Sobran was much better known before the controversy than he is today.

Even with the revisions I keep making, this article is severely slanted, hence the POV tag. A truly neutral article would include references to, for example, Sobran's views on abortion, the war, immigration, the Oxfordian question, etc., since most of his columns do not concern Israel. I intend to remedy this at the earliest possible time.DJac75 11:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Wiki articles are supposed to have notable information. For the most part, Joe Sobran isn't a notable guy. The only thing which distinguishes him from other random people is that he's very controversial. He associates with neo-Nazis etc. He's not a scholar nor an intellectual. He's a raving maniac, and that's what's significant about him. Any POV material in support of Sobran will be removed immediately. This is an encyclopedia, not a place for you to give your friend Joey credentials that he doesn't have. - Roger

Being an editor of a major political magazine for 18 years constitutes credentials. We have been more than willing to meet your viewpoint halfway, but if that's insufficient, we can play the game you started as well as you can. Do we really need to go down this road? DJac75 15:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not here to play games. If you're saying I have an agenda, then you're absolutely right. My agenda is to add to the Wikipedia by making sure the information presented is truthful. The fact is that the greater significance of Joseph Sobran is the high degree to which he is controversial. - Roger

Let's please stop deleting the Buckley assertion, which is well-known and notable. We should re-insert his hobby as a de Vere proponent. -Will Beback 21:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Everyone needs to be aware of our three revert rule WP:3RR, which forbids more than three reverts in a 24 hour period. Users may be blocked for unproductive revert warring. -Will Beback 21:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Roger, that is your opinion. Obviously a number of us disagree with it and see a great deal else in the subject's life and career that is noteworthy. We've tried to be accommodating and explain our reasons, but that hasn't done a lot of good, so the edit war continues. DJac75 01:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Since Rogerman seems to me not to have read WP:NPOV (I may be mistaken on this count, of course), I am posting the following excerpt from that policy:

What about views that are morally offensive to most Westerners, such as racism, sexism, and Holocaust denial, that some people actually hold? Surely we are not to be neutral about them?

We can maintain a healthy, consistent support for the neutral point of view by attributing emotional charged views to prominent representatives or to a group of people. Those who harbor attitudes of racism, sexism, etc., will not be convinced to change their views based on a biased article, which only puts them on the defensive; on the other hand, if we make a concerted effort to apply our non-bias policy consistently, we might give those who we consider to have morally repugnant beliefs opposite to our own an insight that could change their views.[1]

So, even if Sobran is guilty of the things you say, Rogerman, your edits are still a violation of WP:NPOV. Please abide by Wikipedia policy and strive for a neutral point of view in your additions. Dick Clark 18:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the points of contention here are. One matter seems to be how to caracterize Buckley's comments. Sobran is the main source for that. The External link is on the main page. We should be able to summarize what he says there about what Buckley, et al, said. As for assessing Sobran's general fame, he is known as a columnist. I'm not sure that being one counts as being a journalist. Whatever the issues are, please try to bring them up here if they are disputed. -Will Beback 03:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Houghton-Mifflin (via Yahoo search) gives definition (2) of "journalism" as "Material written for publication in a newspaper or magazine or for broadcast." I think this describes JS's profession.

Buckley/Sobran controversy

After rereading Buckley's "In Search of Anti-Semitism" it is clear that we have been operating on a false premise. Buckley did not accuse Sobran of Anti-semitism at all. He explicitly said the opposite: "What needs to be said first is that those who know him know that Sobran is not anti-Semitic....Those who know Joe Sobran know not only that he does not harbor ethnic prejudices, but that he regards such prejudice as sinful, despised by God, and therefore despised by man." Buckley's accusation against Sobran amounts to a charging him with recklessness in getting himself accused of anti-Semitism by Podhoretz.

Therefore the section referring to Buckley and Podhoretz needs to be altered. I plan on revising it when I have the time to produce a good version, but wanted to run this point by everyone so I didn't catch anyone unawares. DJac75 19:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Dookie: I googled the phrase "Sobran's anti-semitic prejudice" and it produced no hits. Moreover, it does not appear in Buckley's article. Where you are pulling it from is unclear. DJac75 17:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

See "In search of anti-semitism: what Christians provoke what Jews? Why? By doing what? - And vice versa" -Will Beback 23:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The phrase "Sobran's anti-semitic prejudice" does not appear in that article. The following does, however: "What needs to be said first is that those who know him know that Sobran is not anti-Semitic....Those who know Joe Sobran know not only that he does not harbor ethnic prejudices, but that he regards such prejudice as sinful, despised by God, and therefore despised by man."DJac75 23:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Shakespeare

Why are we deleting mention of his work on Shakespeare? He's written a book on the topic. This is biography, so it seems relevant to describe what his work is. -Will Beback 22:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Israel/Jews

There seems to be a dispute over whether Sobran has criticized Jews in general, or just the state of Israel, and of whether he was accused of being an anti-Semite, or just anti-Semitic. Or more specifically- the question of what Buckley and Podhoretz's criticism of him was. Let's not get over-excited about this, it's a rather minute point albeit important to some. Can anyone find a direct source in which Buckley or Podhoretz give their view of Sobran and of why he was fired? Aslo, let's not call good faith edits "vandalism". I'm sure we're all working towards a better article. -Will Beback 20:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

http://www.marwenmedia.com/articles_images/SobranJewishFaction.html

There's your evidence

I happen to have been Joseph Sobran follower for over 11 years

He used to write good stuff for the National Review

I, and many others, became disgusted with him after he started to pass out this anti-Jewish BS

and as to: There seems to be a dispute over whether Sobran has criticized Jews in general, or just the state of Israel,

It's pretty clear, he's going after Jews. There are plenty of people, and I'd put Lew Rockwell in the lot, who are anti-Israel without being anti-Jewish. Joseph Sobran isn't one of them. His writings clearly state that Jews are parasites on all of the nations in which they reside. If that's not anti-Jewish, dam I don't know what is.

-TheDookieMan

Well that article, The Jewish Faction, certainly looks to me to be Sobran criticizing the Jews for a variety of cultural and investment activities in the U.S. and elsewhere, not simply criticizing Zionism or Israel. The second half of the questions is what Buckley and Podhoretz said in response. -Will Beback 01:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I would say that some of his language borders on anti-Semitic in the cited piece, however it is from 2004 and cannot be offered as evidence of why he was fired from NR in 1993. Prior to that time, the only general criticism of Jews I have seen from Sobran involved (1) Zionism or (2) what Sobran believes is an unfair anti-Catholicism among secular Jews. I don't necessarily agree with every word Sobran wrote on the subject even before 1993, but it didn't rise to the level of anti-Semitism. I'd also like to offer the opinion[2] of Sobran's Jewish libertarian mentor Murray Rothbard on the Pat Buchanan controversy in 1990, an opinion which applies, mutatis mutandis, to everything Sobran was saying at the time. DJac75 06:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Protected

Please work out your differences on the talk page instead of edit warring. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 15:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow, many, many problems

Okay, so I tripped up on this page, what a mess.

• Is the only thing notable about this guy his firing from the National Review? He never wrote any articles, had any positions, wrote any books?

• Did he have a life before NR? Any information at all about his prior work?

• More info on what he's done since 1993? At all?

This is one of the worst POV hackjobs I've seen here in a while. I hope we can start coming up with some references to expand this before it gets unprotected. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 17:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, there has been an edit war going on, and teh protected version is a conglomeration of hasty edits in said war. Go through the edit history and examine the two competing versions first off, then let's try to work towards concensus from there. Thanks for getting involved, we definitely need some new blood working on this article. Dick Clark 19:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Middle Ground

What hasn't really been mentioned is that in general, Joseph Sobran is considered an anti-semitic nutcase. Obviously that kind of language is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article, but the fact that Sobran is thought of that way is significant in that it necessitates the exploration of Sobran's anti-semitism in his Wikipage. Additionally, Sobran is not in national syndication. He is primarily known as an anti-semite, not as a anti-semitic scholar/journalist/writer.

The Wikipedia exists for internet users to be able to obtain information. If someone is looking for the basic info on Joe Sobran, and sees a page that devotes a disproportionate amount of space to material that is not significant to the general public, they will think that the information that figures centrally disproportionately to its actual significance really is the key information.

The key information about Sobran is the scandal that occured when he began to write anti-semitic materials and was fired from the National Review. Any edit that ignores this face is a disservice to the public. Rogerman 20:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)Rogerman

Okay, so do we have verifiable information on his "anti-Semitism?" I'm looking at this talk page, and I'm seeing one very clear indication from WFB that he did NOT consider him anti-Semetic. Regardless, if he's not anti-Semetic, the article needs to show that, and if he actually is, the article needs to a) verify it with reliable sources, and b) not allow it to overwhelm the article, as someone with nearly 2 decades of work at a publication like National Review would certainly have more to be said about it. --

badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 20:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

1) He is anti-semitic

It is not wikipedia's job to determine whether Sobran is or is not anti-Semitic. You think he is, I think he's not. WFB, in 1991, clearly said Sobran wasn't, but that his want of tact brought the suspicion on himself. I disagree with WFB, but don't object to that point of WFB's being mentioned, nor to Podhoretz's less polished accusation being mentioned. But anything that would imply endorsement of either accusation is obviously POV.St. Jimmy 14:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Buckley was contradictory in the statement which DJac cited. Buckley likely said this because he felt bad about firing someone, but if you look of Buckley and Sobran on google you will see that it is clear that he is accusing Sobran of anti-semitism.

I'm assuming you're referring to the column linked at the bottom, "In Search of Anti-Semitism." Perhaps you can point out where WFB is accusing Sobran of it, because I'm merely seeing an exploration of the history of it, WFB's experience with it, and the Sobran situation. At no time is Sobran labeled as an anti-Semite by WFB as far as I can see, he merely acknowledges the appearance and dismisses it. That should be reflected as such, and not as it currently is, as it does not appear he was fired for anti-Semitism as much as contextual issues and an inability to play by WFB's rules. badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 21:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

2)Again, the controversy that surrounded Sobran and anti-semitism is the only significant thing about him. While he worked for the National Review for a long time, he was not a notable/well published author there for much of his time. It seems he was doing a lot of research, coffee-preparing, etc

Uh, if he was a Senior Editor for nearly two decades, he certainly wouldn't be "coffee preparing." --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 21:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

You can't have if both ways. If Sobran was the insignificant coffee boy you claim he was, then his firing is not significant either, and having a wiki article on him at all is a fraud. Wikipedia isn't here to give you a pulpit to abuse people you don't like. St. Jimmy 20:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Jonah Goldberg is considerably less distinguished and experienced than Sobran, but nobody objects to providing more details about him than is strictly necessary for an encyclopedia article.St. Jimmy 14:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

3) The reliable sources are cited at the bottom of the page Rogerman 20:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Great. Some of it is certainly linkspam, others unnecessary, and very little about him outside of your singular context. Are you familar with the WP policies on neutral point of view and verifiability? If you are, great, and I look forward to hashing this out with you further. If not, can you check those out for us and keep them in mind when we're moving forward to repair this article? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 21:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect to Rogerman, I would make the case that Rogerman's word (in his point "1") isn't satisfactory evidence to apply the label "anti-semite." We need to make sure that we are using verifiable, notable sources here. Rogerman's own speculation about William Buckley's thought process seems less than relevant here. All we can do is quote Buckley's published remarks when we want to cite him as the source for something. The Buckley source seems to clearly indicate that Sobran was not anti-semitic in his opinion. As for Rogerman's claim #2, I would again contest his assertion that we should just take his word. Sobran is clearly notable, and it seems like it would be a very tough case to say that he is solely notable for being anti-semitic. I would argue that any senior editor (with a tenure of 18 years) at a magazine with the circulation of National Review would be notable for that achievement alone. I especially would love to see Rogerman's source for saying that Sobran was primarily or even spending significant amounts of time engaged in "coffee-preparing" at NR. That seems rather unlikely for a senior editor. Dick Clark 21:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Right. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 21:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Hard Ball

Awww you boys seem awfully tough.... But I'd suggest that you end your quest to fill Wikipedia with disgusting anti-semtitism and racism... Never forget that however many times you try to vandalize this page or others... I'll be there to REVERT your edits IMMEDIATELY... Let the games begin..... (unsigned comment by User:CaliforniaDreamlings)

I would respond by simply asking that you read WP:NOT, specifically Wikipedia is not a Battleground. I suspect that you will ignore my above request, so I copy below a particularly pertinent potion of said policy:

Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, harass or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter in an intelligent manner, and engage in polite discussion.

We are here to write an encyclopedia collaboratively, not to allow you to feel like you are defending something. I really hope that you will read Wikipedia policy and abide by it, so that all of this energy can be redirected towards more productive ends. Dick Clark 22:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Check facts

First point, just to get it out of the way: I am the webmaster for sobran.com and the managing editor for Joe Sobran's newsletter.

To the point I wish to make: I dispute the factual exactitude and challenge the relevance of the following paragraph:

"He has since then written an article entitled 'Jewish Power' in the Journal of Historical Review which is published by the Institute for Historical Review, a think tank which promotes Holocaust revisionism. He has also participated in annual conferences of the Institute. Sobran's association with the Institute for Historical Review has cost him the friendship of many people on the neoconservative intellectual right."

The article referred to (and cited at the end of the Wikipedia article on Sobran) is in fact a composite reprinting three articles, two of which originally appeared in Joe Sobran's newsletter. (The other article was a reprint from Dale Crowley's "Capitol Hill Voice," which was itself a reprint: it was originally written for "The Wanderer.") It is not immediately obvious that who publishes JHR or what they promote tells us anything about Sobran. Surely, what readers want to know is what Sobran has written, not what others who have reprinted him believe or do.

Similarly, that he has participated in some of the conferences of IHR, does not tell us anything about what he said at those conferences. Again, surely what readers want to know is what he said, not to whom he said it.

On the matter of Sobran and anti-Semitism, would it not be more to the point before asserting that he is an anti-Semite to state just what is meant by that assertion? The Wikipedia itself gives several definitions and meanings. Maybe it would be more useful to say just what it is Sobran has said that the author of the article wishes to draw attention to. The ongoing debate here suggests that the charge of anti-Semitism by itself is simply not capable of being falsified, whereas a less general accusation might be.

Thornwalker 00:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Thorn, and welcome. I agree with and appreciate what you are saying, the only reservation I have about it is that precisely since the accusations by Podhoretz and the somewhat backhanded defense by Buckley, are themselves so general, they cannot be falsified. To get into defining anti-Semitism in the article would (1) require putting words into the accusers' mouths that may not represent their actual views and (2) appear to be trying to "settle" the controversy. What I would like to see is a good, sound article that mentions the controversy as one among many notable aspects of Sobran's career, but does not tilt to one side or the other. Readers should decide for themselves who is right based on reading Sobran's actual work. Unfortunately, we have a loud, bullying faction present that insists that Sobran is notable for nothing but the controversy, and which vandalizes the page with assertions that have repeatedly been proven false. We hope you will stick around and contribute to the resolution of this dispute. St. Jimmy 01:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Jimmy is correct. We shouldn't make any attempt to decide, as encyclopedia editors, if Sobran is or is not "anti-Semitic". Our job is simply to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. Sobran's relationship to IHR is notable, but it is only part of his life and work. -Will Beback 21:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thorn, what is the current circulation of Sobran's? When was Sobran dropped from the Conservative Chronicle? St. Jimmy 20:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess then Will my question is what is it about Sobran that doesn't meet the definition of anti-semite??

Rogerman 05:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)Rogerman Rog

What does it matter? It isn't our job to decide. If he calls himself an anti-semite, or if others notably do so, then it is probably worth reporting. Just as we should report on what books he's written, what major periodicals he's worked on, what university he's associated with, his year of birth, etc. -Will Beback 06:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I think I can answer that. Before I do, may I ask you a question? Specifically, do you define anti-Semitism as merely a specific embodiment of the larger concept "racism", or as something different? St. Jimmy 07:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

That actually isn't significant here because Joe Sobran fits numerous definitions of anti-semitism...He doesn't like Jews...he thinks that Jews are a problem for the United States and other countries, he doesn't like Jewish culture...I don't know what else is neccessary....

Rogerman 22:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)Rogerman Rog

Not liking Jews as a group is not sufficient for the disparaging title "anti-Semite." Hating all Jews, would be. Advocating discriminatory laws against Jews, also would be. Claiming that Jews are biologically inferior, would be as well. None of those apply to JS. St. Jimmy 02:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

No, you're wrong. Not liking Jews as a group does make Sobran an anti-semite, and that is why he will continue to be labelled as such (including on this encyclopedia), and that is why he is a non entity in public discourse.

Rogerman 03:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)Rogerman Rog

Well, that is your POV and you have a right to it, but if you think this is the place to push it you'll find plenty of us will you challenge you.St. Jimmy 02:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Well luckily I have truth and the vast majority of the human race on my side.

Rogerman 03:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)Rogerman -Rog

Maybe a majority of the U.S.; the human race is another matter. St. Jimmy 06:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Come on guys, let's not wander off into a debate that isn't about this article and its subject. Our job is only to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. Cheers, -Will Beback 07:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Well this encylopedia is about concensus, and if the concensus is, as it seems to be, that Sobran is an anti-semite, then what is the reason for not mentioning that? TheDookieMan 23:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)TheDookieMan

No, this encyclopedia is about NPOV, verifiability, and no original research. If we have reliable who call Sobran an "anti-semite" then it is appropriate to include the info. -Will Beback 00:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Consensus of whom? Consensus means either unanymity or near-unanymity. There are at least 4 users who feel the term "anti-Semite" as applied to Sobran amounts to libel. And we still haven't heard any retraction of the plain lie that WFB called JS an anti-Semite. Until we do, there is no basis for discussion.St. Jimmy 03:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The evidence suggests that most people consider Sobran to be an anti-semite. The fact that DJac75 and other supports of Sobran don't think he is anti-semitic doesn't really matter. Rogerman 04:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Rogerman

You don't know me from Adam, Rog. You don't have a clue if I am a "supporter of Sobran" or not.St. Jimmy 04:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected

I've unprotected the article; everyone's free to edit. Just don't edit war, or I'll have to protect it again. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 17:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Heh Dammit Kate Fan I don't claim that ya meant any harm but you've unleashed some serious demons. This DJac75 guy, who may be Sobran himself, just keeps defending the hell out the guy. Dammit. Has anyone read what he says? Seriously!!! The National Review is a RIGHT wing publication and they fired him. Read Buckley's WHOLE commentary. Read the whole thing. And read what others have to say about him. The only place I was able to find anything positive on him was the IHR website and Stormfront.com. Yeah, that effin says something about him. 07:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)CaliforniaDreamlings

If there is so much negative press about Sobran we should have no trouble attributing the criticisms of him to reliable sources. -Will Beback 08:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been reading Sobran since 1991, and for the past 2-3 years have probably read every article he's written. NR is a neoconized magazine, JS is a paleocon, therefore he got the hatchet when he didn't see the error of his ways. WFB specifically denied that he was an anti-Semite (while claiming Gore Vidal was one, which is also libelous.)St. Jimmy 14:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

DCM's rewrites, Rogerman's reversions

DCM's version is factually correct and meets NPOV guidelines. The version Rogerman is continually reverting to, unfortunately, does not appear to be. How do we solve this? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 20:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your work thus far, Roger. Thanks for trying to work with us. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 21:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree! Cheers, Dick Clark 21:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I hope that this spirit of cooperation can continue--- that said, I would encourage you to keep DJac75 under control if you want an end to the edit war. I consider the current revision to be at the limit of what I can accept. I will in turn encourage editors who have supported my revisions ie "TheDookieMan," and "CaliforniaDreamlings" to also keep this current version.

Let's see if we can extend this spirit of cooperation to dealing with other articles that all three of us or combinations of us edit. --Rogerman 21:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Rogerman

My personal feeling is that the current version [3] accurately reflects the conflict as I understand the facts to be. I still think the article needs some shuffling around, and his pre- and post-NR history be expanded, but can we agree on this version and remove the tag or is there any other protest regarding the changes? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 22:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Listen, [personal attack removed], it is a little much to be suggesting I need to be kept "under control" when I haven't yet so much as offered an opinion on, or seen, the new edit. Moreover, I have had no substantive differences with Jeff or Dick on this article, yet you seem to be implying otherwise.St. Jimmy 05:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Look please cool it down. For the first time in months a concensus has been reached, so there's no need to get aggressive/emotional. Thanks, TheDookieMan 06:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)TheDookieMan

I was so happy about the prospect of cooperation that I forgot to really look into the version that Badlydrawnjeff made. If we're saying Podhoretz is the main guy who called Sobran anti-semitic, then Pohoretz's specific accusation belongs there. -- Rogerman 15:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Rogerman

I'll take full responsibility for that. I misread where you were pulling the quote from before, and how you were attributing it. I think I get it now, and I think the context is clearer. Sorry 'bout that. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 16:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I endorse this version also, without prejudice to any additional material I may wish to add later regarding Sobran, e.g. his views on abortion, the Iraq War, etc. I dislike the reference to Irving, especially as a Holocaust denier (if he qualified as that once, he does not now) but will not start a war over it.St. Jimmy 16:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, one other thing: Tom Palmer only deserves one shot at Sobran in an article this size, not two. Palmer doesn't have any special insight into Sobran. You (Rog & co.) can decide which critique is more relevant to the ideas you want to get across.St. Jimmy 16:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

WFB

• Man, is that Buckley article long winded or WHAT, (whats new) :)? I added Mr. Buckley's response to Mr.Podhoretz's comments on the main page of this article. It seems from the article (In search of anti-semitism) that Mr. Buckley DOESN'T believe Sobran to be anti-Semitic?? Has that changed? Any refferrences would help. Thanks!Tom 16:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, that's his style, haha. I never saw any evidence from the beginning that WFB thought Sobran was anti-Semetic, so I don't know what would have changed. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 16:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The current revision is pretty close to perfect.St. Jimmy 17:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to go ahead and remove Buckley's response to Podhoretz. The claim that Buckley himself called Sobran an anti-semite has been removed, so there is no longer any reason to given evidence contrary to that.

I don't think that removal was a good one, as the Buckley response provides better context and a clearer NPOV situation. I also have to protest your assertation in the introduction, as I don't see any evidence to suggest that the main reason for his notability is his firing when he's published numerous books and is a syndicated columnist long after the fact. Do you have any explanation? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 19:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all, some evidence for my removal of LA Times and the other one as well..

http://www.latimes.com/search/dispatcher.front?Query=Sobran&target=blendedsearch&first-page-size=5 http://www.google.com/custom?domains=uExpress.com&q=sobran&sa=Search&sitesearch=uExpress.com&client=pub-7612837788893803&forid=1&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&safe=active&cof=GALT%3A%23008000%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A%23336699%3BVLC%3A663399%3BAH%3Acenter%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3ABB0202%3BALC%3A0000FF%3BLC%3A0000FF%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3A0000FF%3BGIMP%3A0000FF%3BLH%3A59%3BLW%3A159%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fimages.ucomics.com%2Fimages%2Fuexpress2%2Fui%2Fuexpress_logo.png%3BS%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.uexpress.com%3BFORID%3A1%3B&hl=en

Moving on......

The best way to keep this NPOV is just keep it to the facts. Sobran was fired from the National Review due to Podhoretz's statement that Sobran was anti-semitic. If we put one defense of Sobran there, then I can spend the rest of the day piling up more accusations of him (many of which you will indeed be able to find defenses to).

I mean sometimes it hits me how really insignificant this page is since most people never heard of Joe Sobran. But essentially if someone is looking him up, if you avg Wikireader is looking him up, they are looking for what connects him to notability. And that is the fact that he was fired after being accused of anti-semitism. So that should be offered to the reader immediately. That is part of his headline. It really should open with "Joe Sobran is an American writer/thinker whow as fired from the Nat'l Review following accusations of anti-semitism. --TheDookieMan 19:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)TheDookieMan

First off, the LA Times and other one come straight from his biography page. As he was syndicated from the LA Times 10+ years ago, I wouldn't expect his articles to be in the archive, especially if they may have attempted to distance themselves following the NR flap. I didn't notice that removal, and I'm going to re-add them per Sobran's biography. Secondly, I'm not sure what exactly connects him to notability the most. I see Ann Coulter reference him 9 times in 9 different articles in one of your links, I see he had a fairly notable book in the Shakespeare one, I don't know where you get the idea that he's only notable due to the NR firing. Can you provide a source of some kind which would back that claim up, or is it fair to say that Sobran is notable for numerous reasons, both due to his professional resume and the controversy that surrounds him? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 19:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree or say that his notoriety should be left up to the reader to decide since this is POV imo.I would leave his first sentence very basic and him being accused or being anti-semitic or whatever left below and for the reader to decide based on his articles, others opinions, ect. This isn't easy but isn't the "prime directive" if you will to be NPOV? Anyways, just my 2 cents....Tom 19:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh well thank you for your two cents, Tom. With regards, --CaliforniaDreamlings 20:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)CaliforniaDreamlings

How do you believe that this is "sooooo moderate." Also, how exactly are you sourcing that most of the real world knows him as an "anti-semitic bigot?" I hadn't even heard of the guy before being asked to take a look at this entry, and I'm not sure I'd personally make that claim, and I certianly don't think an article that's supposed to conform to a neutral point of view can make that claim. The blanket removal of the WFB quote (which provides necessary context as to his feelings regarding Sobran considering WFB would have been the one firing him) and the removal of actual bullet points regarding his professional career (which are important to note his WHOLE career, not focused on one aspect) do not seem to improve the article. Please explain your edits with sourcing if possible as to why those things should be removed. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 20:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I find it hilarious that "moderate" is being used an an epithet in the context of an encyclopedia.St. Jimmy 23:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Reprotection

The current version reflects a fair and balanced view of Sobran. That is what Wikipedia is all about. Please try not to violate Wikipolicies in the future. Thanks, Rogerman 00:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Rogerman -Rog

I'm not sure it does. We again have censorship of his previous professional endeavors, as well as people who continue to want to remove WFB's explanation of his feelings regarding the charges levied against Sobran. I have yet to see any legitimate explanation as to why the context of WFB's quote and factual parts of Sobran's history should be removed. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 04:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

To quote from TheDookieMan

The best way to keep this NPOV is just keep it to the facts. Sobran was fired from the National Review due to Podhoretz's statement that Sobran was anti-semitic. If we put one defense of Sobran there, then I can spend the rest of the day piling up more accusations of him (many of which you will indeed be able to find defenses to). --Rogerman 04:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Rogerman

Rog

Are you TheDookieMan? Serious question. Beyond that, it's extremely important to note that WFB did not feel that Sobran was anti-Semetic, and the quote certainly provides that context. It's more POV to leave the context as it currently is than to provide the WFB response to Podohoretz's comment, is it not? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 04:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I really resent that Jeff. Are you Projection70? After today coming to the point where we can work in a more cooperative fashion I would ask that we refrain from personal attacks. I quoted TheDookieMan because I agreed with his point.

Now let me ask you a question

Is your vision for the article one where all of the accusations of anti-semitism and all of their refuations are listed? Or should we just mention the accusation of anti-semitism that led to his firing?

Rogerman 04:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Rogerman ROGER

I'm not sure where the attack is, I'm simply asking a question. As for the vision of the article, the article should be NPOV and reflect the various sides of the controversy. If there are more separate accusations, then I have no problem discussing them, seeing if they're valid and notable, and possibly incorporating them, but the situation we're currently in is that the current version doesn't seem to want to bother with showing reactions from involved parties or other factual aspects of his history. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 04:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Well the answer is no. And for the record you haven't answered mine. The accusations are all the same: Sobran is an anti-semite. So are the refutations: he isn't. My point is do you want to list all of those exchanges? Rogerman 05:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Rogerman

As I said before, if there are more separate accusations, then I have no problem discussing them and their validity, and incorporating them as judged by the discussion. Even then, it still doesn't preclude adding the WFB quote that continually gets removed, and certainly doesn't warrant removing factual information regarding his previous career. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 12:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The Buckley comment that he disagreed with Podhoretz should be included. Its not "defending" the guy, its providing BOTH sides of what the the linked article said. The guy might be/is scum bigot racist lowlife ect ect, but this is suppose to be an encylopedia that presents all the facts and BOTH sides. Rogerman, I can understand your dislike for this character but there are many other places where you can vent about him, ect. Buckley disagreed with Podhoretz, thats all. Spending the rest of the day "piling up more accusations" against the guy just shows you really aren't NPOV on the topic. Presenting Buckley's views are relevent and doing so doesn't mean the editor likes or supports Sobran. This isn't either you are with me or you are against me type deal, you seem too emotive and that really isn't an attack or slam198.176.188.201 05:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Podhoretz started slamming Sobran in 1986, but Sobran wasn't fired until 1993. Obviously Podhoretz's accusation was not the proximate reason for the dismissal, although it set a chain of events in motion that ended in the dismissal.St. Jimmy 05:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you point to another person who noted Sobran's anti-semitism who's accusation was more influential in his being fired? Rogerman 05:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Rogerman

No, but then I also dispute that he was fired for anti-Semitism (by anyone's definition), since there is no record whatsoever of WFB calling him anti-Semitic. WFB did call Buchanan and Gore Vidal anti-Semitic, so why he would spare Sobran that designation if that had been his actual evaluation of him is unclear. St. Jimmy 05:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes of course, now I see it. Sobran wasn't fired for being anti-Semitic, he was fired because he choose to speak the truth rather than let himself be silenced by the Jewish masters of capital who exercise undue control over the media and hollywood. When other libertarians called for free trade and freedom, Joseph Sobran stood up and told the working people of this country the truth, that American Jews were making money off their hard work and using it to support the country where their true loyalties lay, Israel...that Jewish invention that they use the supposed "Holocaust" as an excuse for. The mighty Sobran refused to believe in this Holocaust hoax either. An invention of the Jewish propagandists..much like the material they churn out of Hollywood! By Jesus Sobran's no anti-semite, he's a hero who called out those damn wall street/hollywood parasites for stealing this country's resources dammit!!!

CaliforniaDreamlings 05:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)CaliforniaDreamlings

You're barking. Call back when you get back on your medication. St. Jimmy 06:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand Jimmy. I know.. It's tough. You're angry goddamit!! You and your decent, hard-working friends got laid off from the factory since some damn Jew capitalist outsourced your job to "those damn Indians and Chinese" two thousand miles away. And since those damn Indians and Chinese are so far away, but the Jew is right here, among us, he's easier to go after. Well it's pretty obvious what you're trying to do DJac75. I'm not going to let you turn this page, which is supposed to be a effin encyclopedic article, into a Joe Sobran shrine. The guy is reviled and this page is going to reflect a fair and balanced ---yeah Bill O Reilly what what---view of Sobran. His publications and such are already listed. The only damn reason hes known is gonna be listed too. And thats that hes a racist. CaliforniaDreamlings 14:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)CaliforniaDreamlings

At this point, it might be worthwhile for you to look at WP:CIVIL and WP:NPOV if you want to contribute to this article. The rest of us here are trying hard not to violate the guidelines and policies here, and it appears that you're bent on your POV that he's a racist. We can't stress enough that it's not our job to decide if he's a racist or a martian, simply to make an article reflecting the facts of his history. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 15:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to second badlydrawnjeff's plea above, and to remind everyone of the Wikipedia policy forbidding personal attacks, particularly where it says, Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will rarely help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping create a good encyclopedia. Dick Clark 15:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Gots to keep it civil...my agenda in here is to counter people who have an agenda in here :) This guy is/might be/whatever a scumbag, thats NOT the point, otherwise the article would just read

Joseph Sobran is an American scumbag, anti-semite, lowlife loser, ect.

Now some might like that or say yeah, thats how it should read, but is that really encyclopedia like??Tom 17:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Nobody here thinks Farrakhan is an anti-semitic do they?? Check out his autobiog...."his alleged anti-Semitism" that must be a fun article to watch/edit:)Tom 18:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry

FWIW - Rogerman, CaliforniaDreamlings and TheDookieMan have been confirmed as meatpuppets and blocked from editing. Syrthiss 21:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Given the above note from Syrthiss, it would probably be appropriate to unprotect this page. I believe that the offending parties have all been blocked. Dick Clark 21:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I already left a note with the blocking admin. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 22:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

After the artilcle is unblocked can we add a section about how wonderful a man Sobran is and how he really cares about ALL peoples...that would really send those meat puppetts into hyper drive. THIS WAS A JOKE in case anybody didn't get it. I am actually amazed how tough Wikipedia is and how it busted them. How is it 100% definate that they were working together? I read about meat puppets but not sure if I get it. Roger seemed well intentioned but POV. The calidreamlings was WAY over the top offensive in my opinion. Good luck with edits and i'll just lurk as always.198.176.188.201 01:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

There were susupicions, but he apparently admitted it. The subject will probably stay quiet behind the admins and them for the forseeable future, so I don't really see the need to comment further on it. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

ok, that makes sense because I am not going to register with Wikipedia, and I just went to look at "my" talk page and contributions and WOW that wasn't me who made those edits ect. IPs can change or what. I am on a lap top at home on a local network but I would hate to be accused to vandalism or being a meat puppet ect. I'll lurk on.198.176.188.201 02:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

New page?

Now that the defamation crew is gone (for now) can someone who knows how archive this page and start a new talk page? St. Jimmy 20:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. I'd also like to extend a request to everyone involved that any changes that even MIGHT be controversial, bring them here first and see if we can't hash them out. I'd hate to see another situation like before, except with real people. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 20:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Orthodox Catholic

• Sobran holds orthodox Roman Catholic views on abortion and the Iraq War, both of which he has vociferously opposed.

Is vociferous opposition to the Iraq war an "orthodox Roman Catholic" position? Does he hold that position because it is Catholic? I don't see the need to for mentioning the church unless there is a direct connection. If we are going to phrase it like this perhaps we should review which positions of his are not orthodox. -Will Beback 21:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I think he always does write within a particular Roman Catholic natural law tradition, and I want to somehow reflect that, but my wording might not be the best possible way to do that. His opposition to the war is also at least on the borderline of a tradition of Catholic pacifism/anti-war sentiment (Dorothy Day, Roy Bourgeois, etc.) I'm open to changes but I do think his views on the war are informed by his pro-life Catholic views. St. Jimmy 22:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I looked up his position on the death penalty, but his opposition to it is more informed by libertarian political view than than Catholic dogma. Do we have a source that ties his views on the war to the church? -Will Beback 23:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's one article that cites the Vatican's position on the war Wartime Of course, I don't mean that he really longs to support the war but thwarts it due to being a good Catholic. I just mean that it ties into his overall Catholicism. Sometimes it's not possible to absolutely determine where religious convictions end and other convictions begin, but it's still fair to cite the religious influence. St. Jimmy 13:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC) Also, from his most recent Wanderer column: Faith in War St. Jimmy 13:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I still think we should be very careful about how we link Sobran's political and religious views. Perhaps it would be better to say something like, "Sobran cites Roman Catholic teachings to support his opposition to abortion and the Iraq War." -Will Beback 20:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Will, I would suggest a wording choice that makes it clear that those purportedly "orthodox" positions are what Sobran considers to be orthodox. As long as we attribute this interpretation of Catholic dogma to Sobran, there's no POV issue, right? Certainly we should make no categorical pronouncements about Catholic positions in the encyclopedic voice. Dick Clark 16:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The current wording is:

• Sobran cites Roman Catholic teachings as support for his views on abortion and the Iraq War (both of which he has vociferously opposed.)

To my eye, that appears to put the Catholic Church in a passive position, with Sobran doing the interpreting. If we can improve it more then by all means let's do so. -Will Beback 20:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I think there is some measure of objective verifiability to what Vatican doctrine is. Calling it good or bad, true Catholicism or heresy, would be POV, which is why I agreed that my choice of the word orthodox was a bad one. Still, Sobran's positions on most issues line up with the Vatican's position, and there has to be a way of making that point while respecting NPOV principles. St. Jimmy 23:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Controversial Bits

Since somebody deleted my contributions without cause, I should explain some of my changes:

1.) "Sobran has also been criticized for his association with the Institute for Historical Review,"

What does "association" mean? I added clarifications. BTW, a LONG line of people have accused Sobran of anti-semitism over the last two decades, many with more evidience than discussed here. Aren't there better examples than one paragraph published by the Stephen Roth Institute and an off-the-cuff remark by Tom Palmer?

No there isn't any better examples. Sobran wrote some articles diagreeing with Zionist and Israeli government policies and practices - most of the intellectuals confused this with any Jewishness.

2.) Also, the writing style in the "current political philosophy" needed some tightening up:

a.: "Joseph Sobran went from identifying as a paleoconservative to advocacy of a libertarian anarchocapitalism. In December 2002 he announced his philosophical and political shift to libertarian anarchism in Sobran's,[3] where he cited inspiration by libertarian theorist Murray Rothbard."

The word "libertarian" appears THREE times. One should be sufficient.

b.: "Sobran cites Roman Catholic teachings as support for his views on abortion and the Iraq War (both of which he has vociferously opposed.)" He's a pundit. Being vociferous is part of the job description, so bringing it up is a bit redundant. Not to mention that this sentence is terribly awkward. --Yakuman

For wikipedia, not too bad an article. Though the body of the text is pretty low quality, the links as to what Sobran actually wrote are good ( only because Sobran wrote them, no credit to wikipdia ). If Sobran was anti-Semitic you would have little trouble finding vague examples - they would be BIG, CLEAR and hit you right between the eyes. If you have to look this hard then wikipedia is probably lying/smearing/just being wiki.

Nearly all of the links here are to works by Sobran or people who think like him. Surely there should be some balance? 75.57.67.207 04:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The recent (last 9 months) versions of the page represent a hard-won consensus. Nobody objects to critical views being mentioned as part of the whole, but I don't see what the grounds are for resurrecting a POV argument at this stage. 67.46.0.13 13:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Syndicated columnist?

My understanding is that Sobran is syndicated by his PR agents, and mainly "published" on the web. This article is basically a cover-up masquerading as a bio, so it's a bit funny to correct only one error. But I would like to know who the author of this piece purports is syndicating his columns, and who, other than the holocaust denial websites, is publishing him? Adam Holland 19:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I pick him up at Drudge - could and do go directly to his site. If you pay you get more and faster. I don't think a holocaust denial site has ever published any of his books. They do occasionally print exerpts from him - he isn't scared to death by Jews, Zionists or being called anti-semitic (I think he must be independently wealthy ). Zionists seem to get really out of sorts with an antiZionist, particularly when the sob wont fall into anti-semitism (he's probably just too tricky to be baited but I bet there are a few Jews he doesn't like (circular argument, I bet they are all Zionists)). 159.105.80.141 18:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

As the Wikipedia disambig article on syndication notes, syndication may include print syndication, web syndication, television syndication, and radio syndication. Since we are here discussing Sobran's columns being syndicated, we are naturally limited to the first two. Either of those constitutes "syndication" and would qualify Sobran for the title of "syndicated columnist." We already see that Sobran's columns are syndicated on the web. It is my understanding that they are also (or have been in the past) syndicated in print, but I don't have any citations for this at this time. DickClarkMises 18:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I came here because someone sent me an article he wrote on Pat Buchanan's site, so it seems that perhaps many different sites use his articles. Whether published on the Web or in newspapers, syndicated is syndicated.--Gloriamarie 15:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

On David Irving, it should be known that in the Wikipedia profile http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving "Irving's status has widely been discredited" On the page it says David Irving is a widely discredited historian. Semantics are important and the perception of these two different ways of saying, perhaps, the same thing does not mean it is the same thing. Having your status discredited and being discredited are two different things. One is subjective and the other is objective. I am going to change it to a historian whose status is widely discredited —Preceding unsigned comment added by RG415WBFA (talk • contribs)

REGARDING SYNDICATION: My point when I started this section last February was that his column is posted on the web by his press agents, not a news or opinion syndicate. To call him a "syndicated columnist" is thus a misnomer. The fact that the web is the medium by which his columns are disseminated is not the issue. My question concerns who is doing the disseminating.

He would be more accurately described as a web-based or self-published columnist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Holland (talk • contribs) 16:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Whats this guys name?

Will this be like the hub bub at Fred Thompson? I sure hope not :) Cheers!--Tom 13:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)