Talk:Richard Carrier/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Richard Carrier. 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 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Uncited comment

"Claiming to be a philosopher with a doctorate degree, however, has prevented Mr. Carrier from being taken seriously in academic circles."

I removed the above as there is no cite for this view. I have no problem with dissenting information being included but it looks more of a personal comment so without a reference it shouldn't stay in the article. Sophia^TalkTCF 18:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed the title of historian from Richard Carrier's bio

Richard Carrier has no doctorate in history nor any other outstanding accomplishments to give him the title of historian. --24.75.30.114 20:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Where does it say one must have a doctorate in order to have the title of historian? This is were your premise is false.Giovanni33 04:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Providing Credentials?

I do not know what the Wiki standards are for justifying calling someone a historian or a philosopher in their bio. If someone can provide or explain those standards then I can provide the necessary quals if I have them. For now, regarding "historian" I have a B.A., M.A., and M.Phil. in history, all from accredited universities (Berkeley and Columbia, respectively), I have contributed three chapters to a published book on a historical subject (The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave), my work on historical subjects has been accepted for presentation at two university conferences (at Berkeley and Columbia, references provided in my cv below), I wrote several entries for a published reference in history, the Encyclopedia of the Ancient World (s.v. Epicurus, Lucretius, Philodemus, Second Sophistic, Soranus of Ephesus), and my work has been published in at least one peer reviewed journal: my study on Hitler's Table Talk was published in German Studies Review and is already cited as an authoritative reference on that source by a qualified historian in Hitler studies (Richard Steigmann-Gall, The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945, citation on p. 253, n. 178). Though I think all that qualifies me as a historian, if a Ph.D. is deemed necessary for the title, then that will arrive in due course as I am presently working on same.

As for the title of philosopher, I have never claimed to have any degrees specifically on that subject, though I have degrees in intellectual history (noted above and in my cv below), I have published a book on philosophy (Sense and Goodness without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism) and I have published several articles on the subject of philosophy in peer reviewed journals (in Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines, The History Teacher, and Biology and Philosophy, references provided in my cv below).

For one's judgment, my full curriculum vitae is available here.

RichardCarrier 01:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

No widely respected book on history and no doctorate in history - not a historian

Richard Carrier has no widely respected book on history and Richard Carrier has no doctorate in history. Richard Carrier is not a historian. --192.135.227.226 17:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Where does it say one must have a doctorate in order to have the title of historian? This is were your premise is false. Giovanni33 04:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed the title of philosopher from Richard Carrier's bio

I really don't see any academic credentials or outstanding accomplishments recognized by philosophers to warrant calling Richard Carrier a philosopher. --192.135.227.226 17:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a bit of a red herring and straw man since no one has made the claim in the article that Richard is a philosopher of outstanding accmplishments. That is a POV that may or may not be true but its besides the point. Outstanding accomplishments are not required to be a known as a philosopher. I think the title is apropos given the evidence that we have rearding the thinker published works in philosphy. He has a published a book on philosophy (Sense and Goodness without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism) and he has published several articles on the subject of philosophy in peer reviewed journals (in Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines, The History Teacher, and Biology and Philosophy.So, if you don't see any academic credentials, then this also is of no import because they exist regardless if you see them or not. And, I do assume good faith that you simply do not see them.Giovanni33 04:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Verifiable vs. Unverifiable Claims

Since the bio never stated I had a doctorate in history, that is not a valid reason for removing the title "historian." Whether my "accomplishments" have been "outstanding" in any sense is an unverifiable opinion and therefore not a valid reason for removing the title "historian." That The Empty Tomb and The Encyclopedia of the Ancient World are not "widely respected" is an unverifiable opinion and therefore not a valid reason for removing the title "historian."

Nor should being "widely respected" even be a criterion required to verify the claim "Richard Carrier is a historian." I have advanced degrees in history and have worked as a historian (I've actually made money writing and teaching history and have spoken at professional conferences on history) and I have published peer reviewed work in history that other historians cite. That should count as verifying the claim that I am a "historian" and Wiki standards only require information to be verifiable. I ask someone to edit my bio according to actual Wiki standards and not biased hostility toward me.

Regarding the claim that I am a philosopher, Wiki standards only require that claim to be verifiable. No claim has been made that I have "academic credentials" in philosophy or "outstanding accomplishments" recognized by philosophers, therefore the lack of those things has no bearing on whether "Richard Carrier is a philosopher" is verifiable. I believe that having published a book on philosophy and having published papers on philosophy in peer reviewed philosophy journals verifies the claim that I am a philosopher. Again, I ask someone to edit my bio according to actual Wiki standards and not biased hostility toward me.

RichardCarrier 20:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your arguments above, and have restored the removed material.Giovanni33 04:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Richard Carrier's lack of a history book cited by historians

Richard Carrier has no doctorate in history. Also, I would ask which historians have cited the book "The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond The Grave" published by Prometheus books (Richard Carrier is said to have written three chapters of this book). ken 02:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Ken, it's been pointed out that this is entirely irrelevant, so I don't see why anyone should address it further. Thank you for understanding. Al 04:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Do any reference works list Richard Carrier as a philosopher or historian?

Do any reference works list Richard Carrier as a philosopher or historian? I don't believe any do. The reason I believe that this is the case is that he has no doctorate in philosophy or history and has produced no notable works in these areas. Richard Carrier is a graduate student who has yet to earn the gravitas to be considered a historian or philosopher. 192.135.227.226 15:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This claim was addressed and refuted above. Therefore, I am going to undo your deletion of these links. Thank you for understanding. Al 15:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Al, I didn't see sufficient proof that Richard Carrier has the gravitas to be considered a philosopher or historian. Certainly no reference works list him as a historian or philosopher and I believe that is due to his lack of a doctorate and lack of notable works in these areas. 192.135.227.226 15:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Read the above links carefully - the wikipedia categories are not a brand of authority but a tool to help people find articles. He is described in the popular press as a historian and philosopher so people may look for him there. I'm also removing the NPOV tag as that is for content dispute - not filing disagreements. Sophia 16:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

SOPHIA, I don't think any major newspapers or magazines describe Richard Carrier as a historian or philosopher. 199.29.6.2 18:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Not that it matters--again, mention in a "major" newspaper is not a requirement to be called a historian or a philosopher--but the Los Angeles Times describes me as "Historian Richard Carrier, the atheist author" on p. B2, Saturday, August 20, 2005, written by journalist Patricia Ward Biederman, in the full-page article "Documentary Questions the Existence of Jesus." I haven't had occasion yet to be mentioned in "major" newspapers for my work in philosophy, but people who Google my name will find me frequently mentioned as a philosopher or author of a work of philosophy, and I am often described as such in atheist newsletters around the country, thus as Sophia says, many people will be looking for me as a philosopher. Finally, the editors of the Center for Naturalism website acknowledge me as a philosopher. So with these facts and all the others I list above, I believe "Richard Carrier...is a historian and a philosopher" is sufficiently verifiable, even independently of my own approved bios in IMDb and AmazonConnect. But as before I leave this issue entirely up to objective and fair editors to decide since I did not write this Wiki bio for myself nor am I its editor now. RichardCarrier 19:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

(edit clash- with the subject of the article - how wierd!) Here are some links where readers may come across him. As I said the categories are not there are confirmation of academic qualifications - they are filing tags [1][2][3][4]. This is a random selection of ones I came across. He has published books and papers in peer reviewed journals as his cv above shows. I somehow don't think there is anything I can write that will convince you of the validity if the tags as looking at your other contributions there is a very firm agenda. However I would ask that you stop reverting - read the policies above and leave the tags alone. We can disuss how to represent him in the article but the tags are just for ease of access for readers. Sophia 20:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

And apparently Earl Doherty is not a historian either. [5] Same old song and dance. ^^James^^ 18:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Credentials

We've had this discussion Kdbuffalo. Carrier easily falls within his cats on account of his output. Ditto Doherty. Your continued knawing at this issue is both tiresome and ungracious. Please drop it, you were easily outnumbered last time. Laurence Boyce 11:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Collection of links too biased towards Richard Carrier, why was my critical link removed?

Here is the link. Resurrection Dodgeball: A Critical Review of the Habermas-Licona-Carrier Exchange 136.183.154.45 15:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I made the article more neutral by adding a section called "criticisms of Richard Carrier's works"

Here is what I wrote: JP Holding has a number of articles which critize Richard Carriers works.[6] ken 15:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

The article is not in any sense lacking in neutrality. I have removed your unsatisfactory link. Any criticism should be balanced and authoritative. Laurence Boyce 18:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you. First of all, reverting contributions and not coming to talk to discuss things until a day later isn't that productive. Yes, I'm sure we've all experienced ken in the past, and he sometimes edit wars and blanks helpful content or adds unhelpful content. That doesn't mean we are allowed to be jerks to him due to prior conflicts. I feel that having one sentence about how online apologists criticize Carrier is fair. In my mind, Carrier barely meets notability requirements as it is. However, he has a fairly large internet following. The majority of his work isn't really notable or verifiable. So having an equal to him (only on the other side of the debate), say J.P. Holding, who has an equivical internet following, and predominately self-publishes his work on the interent seems only 'balanced'. This isn't undue criticism or grasping at straws. It is just as notable as the internet infidels website. If we qualify it by saying the criticism is from Christian apologists, and on the internet, I feel we meet NPOV requirements. It isn't giving undue weight to a minority view, it isn't weasely. It is qualified and contextualized. So I support one sentence with one link (references if you will) to Carrier's internet critics, because Carrier himself, by and far, is just that, an internet critic.--Andrew c 20:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I can see Andrew's point but it can be frustrating dealing with ken who is very good at making you have the same discussion every few months as he tries to wear you down. The article as it currently stands is just a very brief stub - all it says is that Carrier has doubts about the historicity of Jesus. As it doesn't explain his views on anything in detail having criticisms in the body of the article would currently unbalance it. If ken wants to put the work into expanding it to include some details on Carriers views and who supports them then the criticisms would be needed for balance. As things stand the only place that could use balance is the external links where a properly labeled criticism link would satisfy NPOV. Sophia 21:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. I would support one external link that perhaps had a parenthetical comment such as (internet criticism) or something like that. Of course, that is until the article is expanded.--Andrew c 22:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

OK let's see if we can conflate as many issues as possible here. On second thoughts, let's not. Andrew, if you feel that Carrier is insufficiently notable to merit a Wikipedia article, then please start an AfD; otherwise this is not relevant to the discussion. As for Ken, I generally expect his edits to be unsatisfactory and I am rarely disappointed; but equally this is irrelevant.

So the issue is what does or does not constitute a satisfactory critical link. I have a number of problems with the link provided:

The link is essentially a private website. It is therefore in my view liable to be insufficiently authoritative, accurate, stable, or accountable.
The link is poor in quality. You have to scroll down a bit to get to Carrier which is far from ideal.
It is a "meta" link, i.e. a link of links which reduces reliability still further.
If we are going to have criticism then it should be balanced, say one for and one against. With this link we effectively have none for and 15 against.
In any case, for an article this size I really feel that criticism is unnecessary.

But please don't say that you support a link to "Carrier's internet critics, because Carrier himself, by and far, is just that, an internet critic." I disagree that Carrier is just an internet critic, but even if he were, it does not mean that I can set up a spazzy website of my own and link to it from this article, does it? I don't feel the link should appear anywhere in the article.

Laurence Boyce 23:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I said, in my opinion, Carrier barely meets notability requirements. However, he still meets them. I don't want to AfD this article. He has a marginally known webpage. And he is a gradstudent who has one published book, and a few published essays (nothing, to my knowledge, in a scholarly journal though). He does represent the vocal presence of internet atheists, who are normally engaged in internet debate with internet apologists, such as Holding. The fact that Carrier's website finds Holding notable enough to mention roughly 339 times, and Holding's webpage is linked to or mentioned roughly a dozen times, seems that mentioning that Carrier has internet critics that he himself acknowledges and responds to is not out of line. I'm sorry to say this, but Carrier's website has all the faults you listed of Holding's (private, self-published, not authoratitive or accountable, etc). I am not suggesting we remove the links to Carrier's webpages, just simply it isn't a terrible thing to have one critical link, even if it is from an internet apologist. If Carrier was more notable or more published, my opinion would differ, but like it or not, most of Carrier's name comes from his internet prescence, so it isn't suprising that he has internet critics.--Andrew c 23:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to respond to a couple of things you've said Andrew . . .

Carrier's website has all the faults you listed of Holding's (private, self-published, not authoritative or accountable, etc).

Look, for the sake of argument I'll agree with you, but it's irrelevant. There is no symmetry between Carrier and Holding in the context of this article, because this is an article about Carrier.

If Carrier was more notable or more published, my opinion would differ.

It shouldn't differ. Once we accept that Carrier deserves an article, then the same standard should apply right across the board in my view.

Laurence Boyce 13:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

What I meant to say was that a link to some obscure internet apologists on a page for a highly noted scholar like Dawkins who has real scientific critics seems inappropriate. If Carrier was as well known and qualified as Dawkins, and didn't spend his time debating on the internet, then sure I would agree with you in not including the link. However, since the primary reason that Carrier IS notable is precisely because he debate people like Holding on the internet, I feel it is wrong not to at least have one silly link to his critics. It isn't like some unknown, crazy Christian out of the blue decided to attack Carrier because he is Godless. The debate is completely mutual, and ignoring the fact that this is what Carrier does seems like we are ignoring a large portion of Carrier's claim to fame.--Andrew c 17:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Sigh – have it your way if you wish. I'm just tired of all this POV pushing and this won't set a helpful precedent. I think on the Robert M. Price article, the link went in the external links section after a similar argument to the above. Laurence Boyce 18:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I put the JP Holding material in the external links section like it is in tje Robert M. Price article. Here is what I wrote: *James Patrick Holding has criticized Carrier's work in a number of essays from an orthodox Christian perspective. ken 10:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

But here's the problem again that was brought up earlier. In that link you give, it's just a collection of fifteen other links. Nine of them are by Holding, six of them are not. So it's not criticism by Holding, it's criticism by a bunch of random people (some of whom don't even have names, like a reader of Holding who calls him- or herself "Wildcat", and one of the links is to a page of still more random links. Just as Laurence Boyce said earlier, "If we are going to have criticism then it should be balanced, say one for and one against. With this link we effectively have none for and 15 against." If you want to link to something specific, then make your case for that specific criticism. This shotgun approach is not appropriate or encyclopedic. I'm taking out the link.

In what I hope will be an acceptable compromise, I'm going to include one of Holding's specific arguments against Carrier, paired with the article of Carrier's that Holding is criticizing. I think this is sufficiently even-handed, and it will give our reader a more useful introduction to both Carrier and Holding than a haphazard pile of fifteen unrelated links. — Coelacan | talk 17:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I also want to make it clear that I do not in any way believe that the article is POV without the Holding link. The article makes no POV claims whatsoever. It merely recounts very brief synopses of what Carrier believes. There is nothing POV about that, and mentioning that someone else disagrees with Carrier is not in any way a step toward NPOV. So I am not at all endorsing a Holding link. I do not believe it necessary, I do not believe it appropriate, I do not believe it encyclopedic. I am merely offering it in an unencyclopedic spirit of humane compromise, or more bluntly, in the hope that it will be enough of a sweet dessert to borrow some valuable peace and quiet. But if anyone here adamantly believes that the pair of Carrier/Holding links on the Rubicon analogy are so insufferably inappropriate here that they must not remain, then by all means, remove them both. — Coelacan | talk 07:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the support Coelacan. I might try to remove those links when nobody's looking! Laurence Boyce 14:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You beat me to adding the blog Laurence :-). We're going to have to watch the links now as this statement/rebuttal format is going to be a crank magnet. Sophia 23:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think the links will have to go in due course, both here and on the Robert M. Price article. Laurence Boyce 19:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Photo

We've lost the photo even though I thought I had tagged it as with the permission of the person. I have e-mailed Richard to ask if he can upload one and grant free licence as the creator of the work but in the meantime if anyone knows of one already in public domain we can use that would be good. The last one came from the imdb database but it's also used on his amazon list page. Sophia 23:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Sophia, apparently "permission to use on Wikipedia" is not enough for use here anymore. See Wikipedia:Example requests for permission#What not to ask permission for — coelacan talk — 23:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I've temporarily added a pic from TGWWT but I think the other one was better. Laurence Boyce 14:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I've added the old photo as Richard Carrier has uploaded it himself and made it public domain as the creator of the work. The other one was a bit grim! Sophia 22:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for pursuing that, Sophia. — coelacan talk — 22:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about Richard Carrier. 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.