Jump to content

Talk:Richard Carrier

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 69.156.95.130 (talk) at 04:46, 22 June 2019 (→‎Richard Carrier's lawsuit against atheist bloggers: Just a brief editorial comment, not an emendation.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

XLinkBot and external links

XLinkBot paid a visit, presumably triggered by a you-tube link, and reverted three days' worth of edits by IP96. I don't like seeing bots make such extensive edits, and I didn't see any problem with most of IP96's new citations that were reverted by the bot. But I did find myself wondering if we really need so many links to video blogs; or, for that matter, if we need any of them. Per WP:EXT, external links "should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article." JerryRussell (talk) 05:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I trimmed the older links, the newer ones include expert commentary on the CMT. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 06:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Carrier's lawsuit against atheist bloggers

The atheist Hemant Mehta just published an article entitled Judge Dismisses Richard Carrier’s Defamation Lawsuit Against Atheist Bloggers.

The aforementioned article indicates:

"After two years, a lawsuit that could have shut down two large atheist blog networks has been dismissed by a judge.

The lawsuit began in September of 2016, when Dr. Richard Carrier (below), the author of several books about ancient philosophy, religion, and science, sued individual atheists, Freethought Blogs and The Orbit (atheist blog networks), and the Skepticon conference on charges of defamation, interference with his business, and emotional distress. Those charges stemmed from posts made about his alleged sexual harassment, an accusation he repeatedly denied."[1]

Carrier's response is this article: You Should Judge My Sexual Harassment Case.

Given Carrier's atheist activism and the prominence of the Me Too movement, should this information be contained in the article?Knox490 (talk) 07:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think a summary would be appropriate but it must be very strictly in conformance with policy in regard to biographies of living people, see WP:BLP.Smeat75 (talk) 12:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Has this incident received any coverage in reliable sources? Both of the cited sources appear to be WP:SELFPUB blogs, and so neither would be compliant with WP:BLPSPS Nblund talk 20:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The biologist and professor PZ Myers, who owns and writes for the Pharyngula science blog (hosted at Freethoughtblogs.com), has written/spoken about this matter at Dang, we’re still being sued for defamation, and the guy has acquired deeper pockets. Carrier has given his position on this matter at: Judging from the Evidence: Richard Carrier and Sexual Harrassment.Knox490 (talk) 21:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Free Law Project via their website CourtListener.com has information concerning the trial at: Carrier v. FreethoughtBlogs Network (2:16-cv-00906) District Court, S.D. Ohio.Knox490 (talk) 21:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These also appear to be self published/user-generated personal blog pages. These have no editorial oversight. They are generally not considered reliable sources and they definitely wouldn't be reliable for contentious material about living people. Given that this involves a claim of defamation, there's a particularly strong reason to tread carefully here and avoid publicizing this unless it has been covered by a reliable secondary source. WP:BLPPRIMARY also prohibits citing court records and other public documents in BLPs. Nblund talk 21:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLPSELFPUB says There are living persons who publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source and then lists conditions. Carrier has written about this a lot[2] and published lots of inks to court documents and so on, [3].Smeat75 (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Carrier's defenses of himself against allegations of sexual harassment are obviously self-serving (violating item #1) and involve third parties (violating item #3). Even if deemed reliable (and they really aren't), citing these allegations would probably be WP:UNDUE unless someone can show that they have been covered by reliable secondary sources. Nblund talk 21:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only mainstream news report I can find about any of this is an article from the Washington Post from September 7, I am linking to it from a reprint in the Salt Lake Tribune as Washington Post is behind a paywall - [4]. The article is mainly about someone else and only briefly mentions Carrier Richard Carrier, a science historian and popular secularist speaker, has both apologized for and denied accusations of unwanted sexual advances at secularist and atheist events. He has been banned from at least one conference. I wouldn't describe Carrier as a "science historian" and it doesn't refer to his suing atheist blogs,but that might be the basis for a brief mention of the issue.Smeat75 (talk) 00:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Washington Post article does indicate he is a secular speaker which is correct, but I agree with you that he is not a science historian. In a year or two, perhaps the court cases will go through the court system. My guess is that a secondary reliable source will be available at that time and the additional reliable source (or sources) will mention the court cases.Knox490 (talk) 00:46, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Smeat75, it might make sense to bring this to the BLP Noticeboard if you feel strongly that this should be included. The WaPo source does contain a passing mention, but I still think the sourcing here is still quite weak for a BLP. Nblund talk 02:48, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That these allegations do not get a moment's attention in the article is surely a sign of serious bias on the part of the writer. They may be considered unproven, but, they are clearly a part of the subject and should be reported. They wouldn't be the only unproven allegations to appear on wiki.

Badly written, many problems, needs fixing

This page contains numerous problems and a lot of rewriting/deletion needs to be done. Here's a few examples throughout the page;

"Other scholars who hold the "Jesus agnosticism" viewpoint or "Jesus atheism" viewpoint,[18] include; Arthur Droge, Kurt Noll, Thomas L. Brodie, Earl Doherty, Robert M. Price, Thomas L. Thompson, Raphael Lataster, Hector Avalos and still others like Philip R. Davies, who have opined that the viewpoint of Carrier et al. is respectable enough to deserve consideration.[19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27]"

Earl Doherty and Raphael Lataster, however, are both not "scholars" at all. There's also the problem that this belongs to the 'reception' section of the page, rather than in the 'Career' section. (I've already transferred it). The 'Jesus Ahistoricity section' says;

"Per the Gospels' status as reliable historical sources, Raphael Lataster writes, "The Gospels, and indeed all the sources concerning Jesus, are not primary sources; they are not contemporary to the events they describe, nor is it reasonable to assume that they were written by eye-witnesses. The extant sources concerning Jesus are, at best, secondary sources."[73][74][75]"

But Raphael Lataster isn't Carrier, and so placing Lataster's views on Carrier's page is completely irrelevant. If a ref could be provided for Carrier making these claims, then that can be added in. This, however, is irrelevant and belongs in the Christ myth theory page (however, given Lataster is an unreliable source, this is also debatable).

Furthermore, many of Carrier's claims are made in this page with reference to those who support him (Lataster, Doherty), however, no sources that challenge him. This is odd, given the relative abundance of such sources. I've begun working on this page which, excluding the Reception section, looks like one long advertisement for the Christ myth theory. As the editing I've already done shows, many of the citations are also irrelevant for what's being mentioned in the article and so have been removed. One example of one of the changes I've already made is removing Thomas Thompson from a list of scholars who are mythicists. Thompson isn't even a mythicist, and the claim had no citation anyways. Wallingfordtoday (talk) 20:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you but please don't put Raphael Lataster onto the Christ myth page, Lataster is not notable at all, he is just a cheerleader for Carrier, who has a big fan base. "One long advertisement for the Christ myth theory" is exactly what this article is "excluding the Reception section" which I put in except for the "other scholars" bit, which I am going to remove as that is nothing to do with reception of Carrier's works, and the review from Lataster. I have felt that I shouldn't really try to revise the rest of the piece as I think Carrier's views and writings are completely wrong headed. I encourage you to try to make the article neutral.Smeat75 (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. You're right, Lataster is not notable at all, nor does he have any relevant credentials or publications in any publisher of historical work. I'll try to summarize this article some more, remove irrelevant references, etc. I also think you're right in completely removing that part of the reception section, since it has nothing to do with Carrier at all.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 23:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
" Nearly all contemporary scholars of ancient history[7] and biblical scholarship have maintained that a historical Jesus did indeed exist.[8][9]" Why is this put into the text? 1. it is very misleading as it does not explain that MOST scholars sign or pledge to NEVER investigate this issue to maintain their academic position. 2. it is an obviously fearful application of the fallacy of authority by someone not interested in truth but afraid others may take the article seriously.Jiohdi (talk) 14:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MOST scholars sign or pledge to NEVER investigate this issue to maintain their academic position- where in the world did you get this idea? Absurd.it is an obviously fearful application of the fallacy of authority by someone not interested in truth but afraid others may take the article seriously-wrong.Smeat75 (talk) 10:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"polyamory"

Note: Carrier has claimed to be "polyamorous." Per Polyamory, the practice &/or belief explicitly DOES NOT equate to "an open relationship" much less to "extramarital affair" (which is vague in any case, and might refer either to Affair#Extramarital affair or to Extramarital sex). He can claim whatever he wants, but in actuality admitted being a cheater and serial adulterer.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_Carrier&oldid=902907192"