Talk:Richard Carrier/Archive 2

MINOR EDIT

Why are the fundamentalist-christian trolls monitoring this guy's biography? The "pseudo-scholarship" reference is from the same goof-ball - Michael James McClymond- who asserts that not believing in a the "Bible Jesus" is on a par with Holocaust denial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Groovymaster (talk • contribs) 06:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Any person with any knowledge in Biblical Scholarship knows that the Mythical Jesus theory was popular 100 years ago but since the 30's-early 40's it has been debunked and refuted my modern scholars, even non-believers. Only an handful have carried over such theories and most of them were not competent in the field. Calling Carrier's work "pseudo-scholarship" is even charitable. No serious scholar has taken it seriously and when notices it has been dismissed as poor and ridiculous scholarship. "Why are the fundamentalist-christian trolls monitoring this guy's biography?": Carrier claims he's the new Aristotle in his books. Wikipedia readers should KNOW if a person is reliable as a scholar or just has delusions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.57.65.217 (talk) 07:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Carrier's upcoming book on Jesus Mythicism passed peer review. That means "serious" scholars took it seriously, and did not find it to constitute poor or ridiculous scholarship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.202.241.112 (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

PhD

As Dr. Carrier noted on his blog, he earned his Doctorate in history in June, 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.143.152 (talk) 07:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy

Not quite sure what is going on here as Carrier is more than notable enough to justify a page. Its been kept brief as it attracts some uncharitable characters but it gives useful links to the guy who is so well known on the web due to the infidels website. Sophia 07:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I seriously challenge the claim that Carrier has justified anything more than a page. His views are considered highly radical by the majority of Christian/biblical scholars today and even by some historians of antiquity. No, the Jesus myth hypothesis has garnered no attention by any credible scholar, even skeptics. Brandon 21:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Carrier is a notable atheist. I reserve opinion on whether his views on the particular issue of the historicity of Jesus are notable within the specialism, but whether they are or not is irrelevant - it isn't necessary for every single one of an individual's views be "notable" for the individual to be notable. --Dannyno (talk) 07:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Brandon, most of Richard Carriers work is NOT on the Historical Jesus. His main topic of interest is actually ancient science, the history of philosophy and metaphysical naturalism as a whole. His Historical Jesus studies are a secondary pursuit, which he has a forthcoming book about. Also he does not explicitly advocate that Jesus did not exist, rather it is the agnostic position i.e. the evidence is so ambiguous and clouded with contradictions, redactional change and parallels to other myths that to assert that there is a real person under there is almost arbitrary, even though there might well have been. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.126.134 (talk) 12:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Some of the references...

Dumping the refs in case they are ever used to source something. I will remove them from the article as the actual source for the fact that he has written these papers is his list of publications. --Merzul 17:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• "Whence Christianity? A Meta-Theory for the Origins of Christianity" in Journal of Higher Criticism.
• "The Argument from Biogenesis: Probabilities Against a Natural Origin of Life" in Biology & Philosophy.
• "Hitler’s Table Talk: Troubling Finds." in German Studies Review.
• "The Function of the Historian in Society." in The History Teacher.
• "The Guarded Tomb of Jesus and Daniel in the Lion’s Den: An Argument for the Plausibility of Theft" in Journal of Higher Criticism.
• "Pseudohistory in Jerry Vardaman’s Magic Coins: The Nonsense of Micrographic Letters." in Skeptical Inquirer.

Is this really enough for Notability?

So far it seems that we have:

1. He used to publish a (just notable) website on which he published lots of his articles
2. He once appeared in a documentary
3. He has been mentioned in a couple of newspaper articles about someone else.
4. He has published in 4 obscure journals, one of which is defunct, and in an atheist web publication
5. He only sole-authored book was published by a "vanity publisher"
6. He has contributed a chapter and (apparently) a few articles to 2 other books.
7. One argument he makes is mentioned in one published paper
8. His website is mentioned in passing by a world-class philosopher
9. Someone posted an "exclusive interview" with him on "Associated Content" which is a kind of group Blog.
10. He is mentioned by some other websites

If we tried to assert notability for a theist on this basis I think we'd be laughed out of court. is there more, or in the view of the learned editors who support this, is this enough? NBeale 18:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yawn... Compare and contrast Nicholas Beale, perhaps? Snalwibma 18:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

. . . created appropriately on the first of April. Laurence Boyce 19:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added a reference to a newspaper article of which Carrier is actually the main subject. This is a brief (174-word) report on an upcoming speech by Carrier at a local event. If the newspaper published anything on the speech after it had been given, LexisNexis couldn't find it. EALacey 19:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

At least all the info here is verifiable. And Carrier doesn't edit his own article to pad it out with refs. I've never met the guy - I started the article as I had come across the Secularweb with his writings and seen him in the documentary. He is very well known on the web (especially in America where whole tracts are written by the faithful to refute what he has written) and I was very surprised he didn't have an article already. I always wondered whether the timing of this AfD was somehow linked to disputes elsewhere. Sophia 20:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur, Carrier is more than notable enough.Giovanni33 20:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Nicholas Beale has more than enough verifiable information to write an advocacy journalism style glorified biography, while Richard Carrier has no reliable sources whatsoever... After all, Richard is just briefly mentioned on some websites... with so little information about him it will be impossible to write a glorified resume! If there are only some worthless essays about his opinion by other people, what can we say about his notability?? Surely, Wikipedia is here as a promotion agency, surely it is the number of publications that matter. Richard hasn't even filed a single patent, so why is he talking about religion? Delete this article, please... --Merzul 20:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

If someone is doing research into atheism or the historical Jesus from a secular point of view on the web, you are going to run across Richard Carrier's name, if not articles by him. Sure, he doesn't have a PhD (isn't a requirements that everyone who has an article have a degree), and sure he may be more of a 'pop' historian than a True Scholar, but the very fact alone that he is a 'pop' historian, ergo popular, solidifies his notability. So he is a web celebrity, so he isn't a true scholar, these are the sort of things you can use to attack him during an academic debate, but they are useless here at wikipedia. In the realm of online atheists, he is a celebrity. I find it strange that the most vocal complaints are coming from someone who is defending notability concerns director towards his own article (which I agree is not quite an encyclopedia article, as much as an overblown resume.) -Andrew c 21:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Richard Carrier is notable enough to be listed in the book Who's Who in Hell (compiled by Warren Allen Smith, 2000, Barricade Books). The entry (p. 186) reads: "Carrier, Richard C. (20th Century) Carrier, when a student at Columbia University in 1998, signed the Campus Freethought Alliance's Bill of Rights for Unbelievers." His entry appears right after Asia Carrera and before Moritz Carriere. Lippard 22:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Richard now figures prominently in the New York Times story about former atheist philosopher Antony Flew's new book about his conversion that was actually written by Christian evangelists, which I've added as a reference to this article. Lippard 05:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

wow! "listed in the book Who's Who in Hell"? with this wonderful entry: "Carrier, Richard C. (20th Century) Carrier, when a student at Columbia University in 1998, signed the Campus Freethought Alliance’s Bill of Rights for Unbelievers"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.40.179.204 (talk) 11:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

If there's a Wikipedia page for self-published Christian apologist J. P. Holding then I think there's a place for Richard Carrier. Muzilon (talk) 10:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Addenda: I see the J.P. Holding article has now been deleted due to "lack of notability." In any case Carrier has now had books published by Prometheus Books and Sheffield Phoenix Press (rather than just self-published works). I'd suggest that this lends some weight to his "notability" factor. Muzilon (talk) 01:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 04:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I Am Not Gravitationalist

This bio says that "Carrier makes regular video and written contributions to YouTube, where he uses the nickname 'Gravitationalist'." This is not true. As I am Richard Carrier, I ought to know. I do not post on YouTube at all and I have no idea who Gravitationalist is.

RichardCarrier (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Very recent vandalism by an anon IP. Now fixed. Snalwibma (talk) 20:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Peer review?

"Though originally skeptical of the notion, and subsequently more agnostic, since 2005 he has considered it "very likely" the historical Jesus didn't exist,[19] but that this still "remains only a hypothesis" in need of peer review.[20]"

Is he referring to his own thesis or the general mythical-Jesus thesis? If it's the second one, it's pretty much not open to debate anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.79.182 (talk) 11:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Some thoughts on the content

I have been editing this, because I'm not at all happy it's a good reflection of Carrier's actual work. However, it seemed only fair to explain my reasons.

1) It talked a lot about his 'self published' work. Why? Self published work is usually self published because it's so bad it can't be published any other way. The idea that it's somehow relevant to his intellectual or philosophical status - which is what the article's really about - is doubtful. I would suggest his status is actually probably quite marginal, and tends to rest on his internet work and speeches, not his 'books' or even the comparatively small number of articles he has written.

2) Quite a lot of it seemed to be trying to big him up. So, his involvement in Antony Flew's conversion received national attention? Well, no, not really. It got attention from a couple of national newspapers. Not quite the same thing. Moreover, there is not the slightest evidence for Carrier's claims, and plenty of evidence to the contrary, including one cited on the page. I have therefore toned that passage down.

3) On the subject of the introduction. I haven't changed this bit because it's more sensitive, but he's called an historian. How so? In what sense? Most of his work seems to be philosophy or even theology rather than history. The only exception is his work on Adolf Hitler, which has, to judge from comments elsewhere, been totally disregarded by professional historians. Maybe 'philosopher' or just plain 'writer' would be better?

I know Carrier has many fans - so I'm wary of causing upsets! Any other thoughts?86.173.206.118 (talk) 16:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Have altered it to the following:

"Richard Cevantis Carrier (born December 1, 1969) is an American blogger and a writer on philosophical and historical topics."

which should answer these comments.86.183.139.60 (talk) 10:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

WP rules state that "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field". and "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." If the use of self-published material is to give info about Richard Carrier's positions, I see no problem with discussing it here.--WickerGuy (talk) 05:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

In particular the revision removes all reference to the fact that Carrier is a defender of metaphysical naturalism in toto. Granted his field of professional expertise is history rather than philosophy, but this seems to be a significant element of his writing and ought to at least get a brief mention.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Potential Libel Issue

I found fundamental dishonesty and arguably libelous remarks in the Stephanie Fisher blog post, which is inappropriate to include in my Wikipedia entry. I have removed it accordingly. If anyone attempts to reverse that decision I will take this matter up the chain of command here. For the issues involved see her article and now my official response. For specific instances of her lying about the content of my book, see here and here. I also find that her review does not in fact discuss the thesis of my book, beyond cursorily, and that she presents no valid grounds for calling it "amateurish." My book was formally peer reviewed by professors of mathematics and biblical studies, and I am sufficiently qualified to present the actual thesis of the book, in the manner it is presented (I have a Ph.D. in the history of ancient religion and philosophy from a top ranked university, I have published mathematical arguments in peer reviewed journals, and have official training in statistics, calculus and electronics engineering). RichardCarrier (talk) 17:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I read Dr Carrier's remarks and Ms Fisher's originals with some interest. Some basic points to note:

1) It is entirely inappropriate under WP:RS to cite blogs in a personal page, no matter who writes them or publishes them (it is worth pointing out that both Hoffman and Fisher are recognised experts in the particular field that Dr Carrier chose to base his application of Bayes Theorem around). So far, so good. It is also entirely inappropriate for people to edit their own WP pages. However, under the circumstances that seems an irrelevance given the material should have been removed, and even though referring to somebody who does not earn their living from a subject as an 'amateur' could be construed as a factual statement and is not libellous per se, I fully agree with Dr Carrier that it should not be replaced.

2) It is at best doubtful that the claims of 'lying' made by Dr Carrier stack up. Fisher's review is unedifying to say the least, consisting of ad hominem remarks that add little to the discussion. However, it seems to be carefully sourced, refers throughout to the content of the book and is written by an expert in the field. Dr Carrier's brutal and lengthy response, which is in places repetitive and in others simply abusive, seems to be based on muddled rage and a desire to hurt or diminish Ms Fisher. Incidentally, accusing somebody of wilfully libelling another scholar is in itself a possible libel under both British and American law, particularly as the allegations could be construed as a malicious attack in response to her earlier inflammatory remarks. So Dr Carrier's remarks on this page might themselves be considered libellous (and he should certainly hope that Ms Fisher does not launch an action over his rebuttal, because she would have a strong case against him certainly under British law and very probably under American law).

3) In the interests of strict accuracy, the link in question refers to one article published in a peer-reviewed journal, rather than the implicit multiple articles implied by the plural. This, I believe I am right in saying, brings Dr Carrier's total of PRAs in the last decade up to two.

4) It is interesting to note some claims not backed by evidence. For example, Dr Carrier claims to have received 'official training in statistics, calculus and electronic engineering'. This seems important - so important it deserves to be included in the wiki - but some more details and a RS would be helpful from that point of view (including dates - was it before or after the PhD at Columbia)? Further, it is curious that Dr Carrier states so confidently that his book was reviewed by 'professors of mathematics and biblical [sic] studies'. My experience of peer review is that reviewers are strictly anonymous as to name, status and profession, to avoid potential conflicts of interest. It is of course possible that Dr Carrier's publishers broke with tradition in this regard, but some further information would be of interest.86.181.141.194 (talk) 15:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Edits by Monado

I looked at these edits with some interest. However, I thought that they were pretty strong edits to put in without discussion on the talk page so I have reverted them until they can be properly analysed. To list my concerns:

1) Carrier was described in the new edits as 'American professional historian, philosopher'. Is he? Most of his work is and remains blogging/debating. To be sure, he is slowly starting to get books on the history of philosophy published but that leaves him a long way from being either a professional historian or philosopher. It does of course beg the question of what is a professional historian or philosopher. However, as Carrier's primary source of income is speaking and blogging, rather than writing or researching, I would advise caution in bestowing these labels so freely on him.

2) He is also described as 'an advocate for sound historical methods' - the source is his own website, although according to WP RS that's fair enough because it's his work about him. However, even the most cursory glance at reviews of his work would call this claim into question. Looking at his own work, which has called for the replacement of historical methods with the less than brilliantly useful Bayes Theorem, it would seem he defines 'sound historical methods' on his own terms, which would not be terms recognised by any active professional historian.

3) Carrier claims he can translate four languages, which was the source for this claim put in by Monado. I do not speak Greek or classical Latin so I cannot judge two of them. He certainly cannot translate German or medieval Latin satisfactorily. Anyone who thinks 'Christentum' is an idiomatic word for 'Catholic' because it happens to suit his purposes is not somebody whose translation skills can be relied upon. It is one of the reasons why his work on Hitler is ignored by scholars. His work on medieval science and Christianity also leaves somewhat to be desired when it comes to translating and analysing documentation. If that claim is to remain in the article, it must be backed by other sources.

4) Citing Carrier's own promotional materials on Amazon in support of the quality of his books is at best circular reasoning. All bar one are self published (shortly to go up to two). They are useful as sources for the article, but hardly major works.

5) The sentence on Flew, replacing a direct quote, appears to be intended to encourage people to believe that Flew was indeed manipulated because he was old, as Carrier claimed in defiance of Flew's own assertions. While this may be true, of course, replacing a direct quote which provided the necessary information with a paraphrase that doesn't seems a little unwise.

6) All major new sources were in fact Carrier's own website - again, it's allowable as a source despite the usual BLP rule, but Carrier is noted for his egomania and the emendations showed a disturbing tendency to uncritically reflect some of his more remarkable claims.

Overall, I felt these edits were rather gushing in their praise of a man who is at best of limited importance and at worst a highly controversial 'revisionist'. If some of the information is replaced and backed by proper third-party sources that would be acceptable.86.149.33.178 (talk) 16:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Edits by Rosylyn Grock

Rosylyn Grock's edits to the lead appear designed to emphasise Carrier's credentials rather than his current status. He is a blogger. That's what he does. It's what he's done for years. It's what he's known for. Frankly, it's also what he's good at. He's also a trained historian from Columbia. That's not in dispute. But a training in history doesn't make an historian. To take a random example Tim Brain, former Chief Constable of Gloucestershire, is a trained historian and publishes history books. His article describes him as an ex-Chief Constable. That's because it's what he is. Carrier works primarily through his blogs. I accept that he's now starting to publish history books (discounting the spectacularly inept vanity published books) through due academic process, but he himself admits that the majority of his income comes from this other source. If Rosylyn Grock (who appears to be working on two articles, this and Bart Ehrman's) wishes to change that she should look to establish a consensus. She should also look to provide additional reliable sources to back her rather contentious claims. I would also caution against pointed remarks like 'Ivy League', which appear designed to big up his credentials. Again, I've come across good PhDs from low-ranked universities and shockingly inferior ones from supposedly good universities. The credentials of an institution, particularly one Carrier left so many years ago, have only a limited bearing on his current work. Moreover, I would have thought it was common knowledge that Columbia is Ivy League and therefore the over-emphasis is remarkable. If she wishes to come on here to discuss it, great, but unilateral edits when the subject has been discussed before and some form of consensus reached is not terribly helpful however well intentioned.86.181.139.204 (talk) 18:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

This user claims to be a "professional historian" and yet keeps inserting a new criticism section full of Christian apologetics at the Bart Ehrman page. Similarly here on this page, he makes various unsubstantiated assertions, trying to undermine Carrier.......P.S. If you are confused why a Christian would partially defend Ehrman against Carrier, as the user sometimes does, its because Ehrman still believes Jesus existed, something Richard Carrier doesn't. RosylynGrock (talk) 01:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Rosylyn Grock, you are merely indulging in personal attacks. It is open to you to provide evidence for your assertions. You have repeatedly failed to do so instead indulging in edit warring. I am a professional historian. That is a fact, and I am afraid facts will not change because you do not like them. Such an attitude unfortunately reveals you to be an ideologue, as much as those Christian fundamentalists you so despise. This is not about Carrier's beliefs, it is about his status. Either engage with the subject, or get off Wikipedia. Now, on that subject, Carrier is undoubtedly notifiable as a blogger. As I said, it's what he does and what he's good at. There is no reason to think he is as an historian. He has published almost no work - one book and one article (on Hitler) - through due academic processes. The article's central premise is rejected by all experts in the field, including me. This is not because we are or are not Christians, it is because it is not good enough. Similarly, has it ever occurred to you to wonder why Carrier's books are never reviewed by academic journals, only by academics through websites? It's because they do not meet the criteria. They're simply not relevant or good enough. So on that basis, as an historian he's not notifiable. I would further point out that hundreds of perfectly good historians - far better than Carrier and far more important in their work - do not meet that criteria. For example, Callum Brown, whose work on religion in the twentieth century is actually ground breaking. Or Laura Beers. Or Christopher Hilliard. So - he's a blogger. That will not change until/unless he changes his profession and becomes a full-time researcher. As for Ehrman, respond to that on the talk page there. It is totally irrelevant to this particular article.86.181.139.204 (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Yet more unsubstantiated assertions from the "professional historian".RosylynGrock (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Both 86.181.139.204 and RosylynGrock are users targeted at Richard Carrier. While I wonder about 86.181.139.204's historian status, it does not matter. But I wonder about Richard Carrier's historian status and that does matter. Is there any reliable source about that degree? A curriculum is not enough. Is there anything like this? The article provides a source, but the "blogger" lead and infobox made me doubt.

Why was this article created in Wikipedia? Because of his work as historian or because of his writings on Internet Infidels?

I do not know who is right, but I advise RosylynGrock to start using this talk page and to talk about content, because 86.181.139.204 is following the policy. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not the one making unfounded assertions in clear violation of WP:BLP.RosylynGrock (talk) 03:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

This discussion should focus on providing evidence about how third-party sources describe Carrier. Do they call him a historian or a blogger or something else? From a quick look at sources used in the article, I've seen one call him a historian, none call him a blogger, and the rest all describe him in some other way. --RL0919 (talk) 03:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the first reasonable discussion on the topic. Dr. Ehrman, who argues with Carrier, still considers Carrier to have an "impressive credential", since Carrier is an Ivy League PhD in Ancient History. Characterizing Carrier as a blogger is a clear violation of WP:BLP. Lastly, Carrier describes himself as a professional historian on his website. This shouldn't even be a matter in dispute. Carrier sends all his books for blind peer review just like any other historian. RosylynGrock (talk) 04:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Carrier's website is not a third party source. He does not send his books for third party blind review - Carrier himself admits that he put his forthcoming book out to review to four historians/theologians and that SPP accepted their verdict. That's not unheard of, but it is unusual. Again, however, we come back to the vexed question of notafiability. There are thousands (literally) of far better historians than Carrier who do not have pages than Carrier because they are not notifiable. Many of them have better credentials than him. I would argue if he is there as a blogger, he is notifiable (just) but as an historian, he's not. I would further suggest that Rosylyn Grock's accusations of unreasonableness are ironic under the circumstances given her behaviour not to mention her abusive comments. Incidentally, I accept that most people will not believe me when I say I am an historian, because I'm not willing to offer proof. It's a free country and it doesn't matter, because this is about Carrier and to a lesser extent Rosylyn Grock not me. As it happens, I am one, but I know others out there will claim to be one falsely in a bid to win the argument. But it will make no difference to the facts, and that is what WP is about.86.181.139.204 (talk) 16:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

In further response to some earlier points: (1) this was created in response to his writing on the Secular Web, some years ago, judging by the dates (long before my time!) (2) half the problem with Carrier is the lack of good sources on him. Because he's more or less ignored or rejected by mainstream scholarship, most reviews of his books/status are on other websites and blogs. These are of course not considered RS and judging by previous comments on this page, Carrier would not wish that to change. Most academics who review his books on the internet, whatever they say about his credentials, describe him as a blogger. e.g McGrath, Fisher (on google search, because the Christ Myth Theory is right outside my field). But because their reviews are on blogs not journals, they don't count.86.181.139.204 (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello folks, please concentrate on the sources. Here is Carrier's website.[1] He calls himself a "philosopher, historian, and author Richard Carrier". Per WP:ABOUTSELF, unless we have VERY reliable sources to the contrary, wikipedia also calls the BLP that. Here is the L.A.Times,[2] who in 2005 called him "Historian Richard Carrier, the atheist author". 86, do you have sources which specifically call him "not a historian" and/or sources which specifically call him "blogger Richard Carrier" without mentioning the other bits? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Like I said above 74, half the problem is that those academics who do bother to engage with him tend to so outside their professional journals. So that would not be a RS - see for example here (which Carrier specifically deleted and about which you may observe a conversation on this page which piqued my interest). But if we're only going to write the page on the basis of carrier's own website, it would impossible to include any criticism - this of a man who famously claimed to be as great a philosopher as Aristotle or Spinoza (or was it Hume? Somebody like that). If you want to go with the LA Times, fair enough, but again that begs the question - if he's only a common-or-garden historian, is he notifiable? And now I'm afraid I have to dash. I will check back on Saturday to see how it's going.86.181.139.204 (talk) 17:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Here is the dispute, from what I can see.

86 says:

Richard Cevantis Carrier (born December 1, 1969) is an

((1)) American blogger, best known as the former editor of the Secular Web.

((2)) He currently contributes to The God Contention, a web site comparing and contrasting various world views.

((3)) He is also a trained

historian who received his PhD from

Columbia, specializing in Ancient History, and

the author of the books

Proving History and On the Historicity of Jesus (forthcoming).

He is an advocate of atheism and metaphysical naturalism

((4)) as an independent scholar and writer.

((5)) He has published articles in books, journals and magazines, and also

features on the documentary film The God Who Wasn't There, where he is interviewed about his doubts on the historicity of Jesus.[1]

RosylynGrock says:

Richard Cevantis Carrier (born December 1, 1969) is a

historian who received his PhD from

((6)) Ivy League university

Columbia, specializing in Ancient History. He is

the author of the books

((7)) Not the Impossible Faith,

Proving History and On the Historicity of Jesus (forthcoming). Carrier was

featured in the documentary film The God Who Wasn't There, where he is interviewed about his doubts on the historicity of Jesus.[1]

He is also an advocate of atheism and metaphysical naturalism.

Personally, I think that without extremely good sources, we should not insert #1 and #3, and to a lesser extent #4; LATimes says historian & atheist & author, therefore so should we. I'm against inserting #6 per WP:SPIP and WP:PEACOCK. I don't see any problems with #5 and #6. As for #2, that only prolly needs to be sourced, to prove it is WP:NOTEWORTHY; note the redlink. Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

74, I agree that the characterization of blogger violates WP:BLP. As you can see above there seems to be an effort to demean Carrier using every manner of unsubstantiated baloney. Thank you for your reasonable discussion. RosylynGrock (talk) 19:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The characterization as a blogger doesn't violate WP:BLP, if there are RS which call Carrier that. Speaking logically, it is obvious that Carrier is a blogger: one who blogs, is, by definition, a blogger. But fortunately or unfortunately, wikipedia isn't about WP:The_Truth, it is about sticking to what the wikiReliable Sources say. Carrier isn't a wikt:historian in the sense that he teaches history at some university, which is the definition that 86 (and Dougweller) are working from, but by the dictionary definition (one who writes history; one who is well-versed in history) I'd say Carrier qualifies. But again, none of that matters; all that matters is what the sources say.

  Doing some good old WP:GOOG turns up this,[3] where Carrier is called a blogger explicitly (and implied to be an atheist implicitly due to context); historian is not mentioned in this context, because it is about controversy in the modern atheist movement, whereas in the L.A.Times article, the historian-aspect of Carrier was relevant to the movie's topic. So, our article should reflect both: Carrier is WP:NOTEWORTHY as a historian & atheist per the L.A.Times, and is WP:NOTEWORTHY as a (FreeThoughtBlogs aka Pharyngula_(blog)#History) blogger & atheist per the Guardian. Anybody have more sources? Please bring them forth. Once we have a good grasp on what the sources actually say, we can summarize and distill them down into a good article, with a neutral-n-correct first sentence. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

As a graduate of what I think is a rather better Ivy League school I'll say it's irrelevant. He was a writer at Internet Infidels before he got his PhD, if that's relevant. The LA Times discussion of him is trivial (ie not in depth) and if that was all we had on him he wouldn't be notable enough for an article. I also don't see it as enough to call him a historian (there are other authors of historical works that we don't give the 'historian' label to also, eg David Irving). If he described himself to them as a historian then they are just repeating what he said. What academic historians call him a historian? We also need a source from him stating he is an atheist. This[4] might do.

I cannot understand the objection to calling him a blogger - he claims he blogs, see [5] which may also nullify my concerns about calling him an atheist as he moved his blog to an all-atheist site. He talks about his "my work as a national public speaker, blogger, academic writer, and online lecturer for CFI Institute Online" - so he's a self-proclaimed blogger. Interesting that there he calls himself an academic writer. Dougweller (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it is ridiculous to put "received his PhD from Ivy League university Columbia" in the lead or anywhere else, we do not say things like "received her PhD from world famous historic University of Oxford", that is obviously someone trying to make his credentials sound impressive. Also calling someone a blogger is not an insult, especially when that is what he calls himself.I am going to go ahead and make some bold changes.Smeat75 (talk) 13:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

This is definitely looking better. One thought though - you can author blogs and books (including history books). Might it be better to open with 'author, trained historian and blogger?' That seems to cover all bases. Admittedly it's not the most elegant of phrases.86.181.139.204 (talk) 11:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally 74, I didn't have a chance to look at the LA Times article on Wednesday as I was in such a hurry. However, isn't the date (2005) just a bit of an issue? At the time, he was still doing a PhD in History at Columbia. Therefore although he was a blogger at the time, being a student historian was officially at least his main occupation. If anyone had described me as a blogger while I was doing my PhD, even though I was a blogger as well (albeit only about music and never in his class) I would at the very least have given them a very odd look. That doesn't necessarily mean he's still an historian. Look at Gordon Brown for a comparison - he's not still referred to as an historian or a journalist, just as Clinton and Obama are not referred to as lawyers. I think we need something a bit more recent than that if you're looking for further backing for his claims to be an historian. However, I have no objection to his being described as a trained historian - which after all is a simple statement of fact, backed by the PhD itself, cited in the article - as long as it's not all that is said about him or falsely implied he is a significant historian. That was my main problem with RG's edits and it has now been resolved.86.181.139.204 (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

In light of this statement, I've removed the POV tag now. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Notability

Is he notable? I'll ask here. I can't find the kind of sources that would denote notability. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

He is notable as one of the leading current proponents of the Christ myth theory, an idea with next to no standing among academics and professional scholars, but increasingly popular among certain sections of the general public who enjoy fringe "conspiracy" type theories. Self published authors and bloggers Earl Doherty and Acharya S are less notable than Carrier, who has had some articles published in academic journals and is a trained historian, but there are articles about those two. Efforts have been made to have to those articles deleted on grounds of notability among other reasons, but as you can see on their talk pages, they were unsuccessful. If Doherty and Acharya S are notable, then Carrier is, so rather than disputing that it would be better to try to improve this currently very poor article on him.Smeat75 (talk) 13:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Also I do not see the value of this paragraph- "His work has attracted criticism. After briefly assessing Carrier's critique of Mark Steiner's The Applicability of Mathematics as a Philosophical Problem, Russell Howe, professor of mathematics at the Christian academy of Westmont College, argues that Carrier's line of argument plays into the hands of Steiner,[6] though Carrier disputes this.[7] On the other hand, Yonatan Fishman of the Department of Neurology at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, in a paper published for Science & Education, quotes and defends Carrier's demarcation between the natural and the supernatural, which allows supernatural claims (when properly formulated) to be investigated scientifically.[8]" Carrier tried to criticise a work by Steiner, but a professor at a Christian academy (why is it relevant that it is Christian?) said Carrier's criticism was no good but Carrier doesn't agree? Then some other writer says Carrier has a good idea somewhere else.So what? I am taking that paragraph out.Smeat75 (talk) 14:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

@User:Smeat75: "If Doherty and Acharya S are notable, then Carrier is," That is not how Wikipedia rules work. Each article must establish notability. See: WP:OTHERSTUFF Correct observation by Smeat75. Carrier, Doherty, and Acharya S, belong to the same category of writers, each blowing his/her loud trumpet, claiming to have become, outside of academia, and mostly on the Internet, a "world-famous" expert on the question of the historicity of Jesus Christ, each rebottling in his/her way all the past scholarship and debates already established in that field for the last 200 years with new, resounding, titles for their articles and books, which are their principal sources of income.--ROO BOOKAROO (talk) 07:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Which is what I'm doing. What are the sources that give detailed coverage of Richard Carrier? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The proper response to "other stuff exists" is to question all of their notability. Now let's look at third party sources to denote Carrier's notability:

• New Republic

Has a paragraph that mentions him. Article is not primarily about him.

• Manteca bulliten Makes two brief mentions of him.

• The Exponent

Purdue Campus newspaper does devote a short story to him. However, since this is a campus newspaper I don't think it passes WP:RS and I'm not sure if it can support notability. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Is the Exponent a reliable/notable source? I know nothing about it, which is why I ask, but the quality of its journalism is abysmal. Saying that he is a Professor at (or even 'from') Columbia is simply wrong - not even Carrier has ever claimed that!86.181.139.204 (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

It's a campus newspaper. Typically these are written by untrained volunteers, with little oversight. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

A few more sources:

• Fox News
• LA Times

First is about Anthony Flew, with a tiny paragraph on Carrier. Second is about the documentary The God who Wasn't There with a little on Carrier. Neither source is the kind of in depth coverage from reliable sources that would indicate notability. Also the LA Times link is to some repost, and not the original. If the original does not exist, an archive of it should be found.

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)So I'll wait in case others can find sources. But if sources can't be found it might make sense

Carrier is definitely notable, he is one of the leading proponents of the Christ myth theory and quite famous among people who pay attention to that. I am not saying this because I agree with him, I do not agree with the Christ myth theory at all, but there are many who do and Carrier is a torch bearer for that cause. Bart Ehrman, his "opponent" in the "did Jesus exist" debate, writes of him " Richard Carrier is one of the new breed of mythicists. He is trained in ancient history and classics, with a PhD from Columbia University – an impressive credential. In my book Did Jesus Exist I speak of him as a smart scholar with bona fide credentials. I do, of course, heartily disagree with him on issues relating to the historical Jesus, but I have tried to take his views seriously and to give him the respect he deserves."[6]. That's just a blog, it may not qualify as a source according to WP:GNG but I am not going to spend time looking for more references to establish his notability, if someone wants to challenge it, they can nominate the article for deletion but it is most unlikely such a nomination would succeed. Carrier has a forthcoming book "On the Historicity of Jesus" going to be published soon, he and his supporters are making a big deal out of the fact that it is the first "mythicist" book to be peer-reviewed, it will get a lot of attention and start a lot of debate, there does need to be a WP article about him.Smeat75 (talk) 20:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

What about Ehrman's book? Does that count as a source? It should also be noted that according to Carrier's own remarks on the subject, his book has not survived normal (blind) peer review process. Rather, he had it reviewed himself and then got the reviews accepted by Sheffield Phoenix. It might have got through had he tried the normal way - I don't know enough about either the book or the field to comment. But I would guess 95% of the comment about it will again be on the internet, despite the fact it's from a respected if minor academic publisher, for that reason. Besides, should WP be second-guessing future notability on the basis of books that may be notable? As I have said before, I personally think he's notable (now 74 has guided me on getting the word right!) but due to his work as a blogger rather than as an historian.86.181.139.204 (talk) 07:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

PS - what about Oppenheimer's piece in the New York Times (which is cited in the article)? There's a lot on Carrier in there, although admittedly it takes Carrier's own valuation of himself.86.181.139.204 (talk) 07:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

There is an overlapping debate over Carrier's "notability" factor in Section 5 (above) of this Talk Page. As I mentioned there, as he is now a published author (rather than just a self-published one) this probably strengthens the case for his Wikipedia notability. Muzilon (talk) 02:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Richard Carrier is very notable in academia. He’s more notable than Jesus, who certainly never even existed. Just because you did a google search and not much came up doesn’t mean he’s not notable. His findings are troubling for Christian culture and the media does not often report on his stuff because of that, but he is a noteworthy academic, and people who step away from the boob tube actually know about his work, and here is a sample:

Wrote a peer reviewed book on the Historicity of Jesus, published by an academic press. Sorry, s meat, it’s no longer a “fringe” theory “for people who can’t get enough conspiracy theories.”

“In my estimation the odds Jesus existed are less than 1 in 12,000. Which to a historian is for all practical purposes a probability of zero For comparison, your lifetime probability of being struck by lighting is around 1 in 10,000. That Jesus existed is even less likely than that. Consequently, I am reasonably certain there was no historical Jesus… When I entertain the most generous estimates possible, I find I cannot by any stretch of the imagination the probability Jesus existed is better than 1 in 3.” p. 600

Carrier, R. (2014). On the historicity of Jesus: Why we might have reason for doubt. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press.

Other publications:

Published in the Journal of Early Christian Studies vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 489-514

"Analysis of the evidence from the works of Origen, Eusebius, and Hegesippus concludes that the reference to "Christ" in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200 is probably an accidental interpolation or scribal emendation and that the passage was never originally about Christ or Christians. It referred not to James the brother of Jesus Christ, but probably to James the brother of the Jewish high priest Jesus ben Damneus." More Info: vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 489-514 Journal Name: Journal of Early Christian Studies

Journal of Early Christian Studies vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 489-514 http://www.academia.edu/2329601/Origen_Eusebius_and_the_Accidental_Interpolation_in_Josephus_Jewish_Antiquities_20.200 http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/2946

Published in German Studies Review 26.3 (Oct 2003): 561-76, where he uncovers some lies from books used by apologists: “Discusses the nature and origin of the Table Talk manuscripts (stenographs of Hitler's private rants in his official bunker from 1941 to 1944) and demonstrates that the Trevor-Roper edition of the Table Talk (so far the only English translation in print) is wholly unreliable, particularly the many quotes often used to demonstrate Hitler was an atheist and opposed to all forms of Christianity. In the original German their meaning and content are substantially different.”

http://www.academia.edu/276994/Hitlers_Table_Talk_Troubling_Finds

Cited by other notable academic author (see footnote):

http://books.google.ca/books?id=RreXLeUG_AIC&pg=PA253&lpg=PA253&dq=Hitler+%22troubling+finds%22&source=bl&ots=BsJp-TMIB9&sig=3E3CzSX1lQf7wiENU4SnnooXTFs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=orYgVPmMHo3koAS5mILgAg&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Hitler%20%22troubling%20finds%22&f=false

Dr. Carrier published in the Washington Post:

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/conscience-realist/2013/dec/19/jesuss-mother-mary-probably-wasnt-virgin-experts-s/

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/conscience-realist/2013/dec/23/jesus-probably-didnt-travel-through-asia-or-teach-/

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/conscience-realist/2013/dec/25/jesus-probably-didnt-rise-dead-experts-say/

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/conscience-realist/2013/dec/27/whats-so-special-about-jesus-christ/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.107.165 (talk) 00:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

This preceding systematic review of citations and quotations could very well come from Richard Carrier himself, or his twin, or his double, or his ghost, or his guardian angel.--ROO BOOKAROO (talk) 07:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Dear Dr Carrier, it is most interesting to see how often you attempt to defend yourself on inter alia this page under a wide variety of names, addresses and pseudonyms as well as your own name. Unfortunately, nobody seems to take you terribly seriously and that is the nub of the problem. A handful of articles in the Washington Post, a few items of apologetics and a couple of articles that are ignored or ridiculed as the work of an obsessive by scholarship do not a notable scholar make. Every tenured academic working today (bearing in mind of course that you do not have any academic post, never have had one and on your own admission probably never will have one) 90% of whom are not on Wikipedia, could claim at least as much, as could a large number of school teachers and even office clerks. What is needed is reliable evidence of your impact upon your chosen fields of scholarship and this is singularly lacking. Virtually every author with knowledge of the fields you work in who has ever cited you (Casey, Ehrmann, Steigmann-Gall) have cited you you merely to reject your arguments. Where is the evidence that you have ever done anything ground breaking or useful in terms of advancing knowledge or understanding? I would argue it's pretty thin on the ground. I would further add that making misleading statements about certain articles and their importance on talk pages and desperately pushing them as essential sources ahead of actual material by experts merely makes you look faintly ridiculous.86.153.184.178 (talk) 19:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC) PS - you should make a point of reading citations before using them. If you had done with the Steigmann-Gall one above, you would have noticed it rejects your arguments. If you read further, you would see Steigmann-Gall does use Tischgespräche as a source - of pro-Christian statements, interestingly, but very different from the ones you chose and that present Hitler's views in a very different light. Who knows, if you take to reading sources carefully and reporting them faithfully, one day your work might be good enough to be cited on its own merits!86.153.184.178 (talk) 20:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not Richard Carrier. To all others, read the Steigmann-Gall citation in the link provided above and you'll see which one of us is the liar. Steigmann-Gall uses the work of Richard Carrier on Hitler's Table Talk, where he (a German speaker) and another German expose fraudulent work where all of the anti Christian remarks are made, these are the ones used by Christian apologists. Turns out it was a lie. The article by Carrier was peer reviewed and published in the academic journal "German studies". You could go look it up yourself or you could take this dude's word for it. Either way, he's well known and notable to academics in his field. The fact that jes not working as a professor is irrelavent. To this article or any of his peer reviewed work (the latest of which is a peer reviewed academically published book which places the probability that Jesus was anything more than another cult myth at less than 1 in 1200). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.107.220 (talk) 00:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

'To all others, read the Steigmann-Gall citation in the link provided above and you'll see which one of us is the liar.'

Yes, they will. Past all possible doubt. That is a rare occasion where the two of us agree. For those who don't have the time, here's what he says in a footnote on that page: '‘Ian Kershaw alludes to the questionable nature of Table Talk as an historical source…Richard Carrier goes further, contending that certain portions of Table Talk, especially those regarding Hitler’s alleged hatred of Christianity, are outright inventions...However, although Kershaw recommends treating the work with caution, he does not suggest dispensing with Table Talk altogether.’' That seems to me to be what we call in scholarship a rejection, especially as he cites the edition in question on the following page as a RS. There is no way in which he 'uses' it, he 'mentions' it, which is a different concept. I think you will find, therefore, that all the abuse in the world will not make you right and me wrong.

'The article by Carrier was peer reviewed and published in the academic journal "German studies". You could go look it up yourself or you could take this dude's word for it. '

I am aware of it and I have read it. I have also checked the footnotes and noted a number of crucial errors in them - none worse than the claim, to support a central plank of your argument, that 'contrary to popular belief, Irving has never denied the Holocaust, only that Hitler knew of it' (for which no citation is provided, although I think it must be a reference to the 1977 edition of Hitler's War where Irving did indeed claim something like that). However, since you reference the libel trial where Irving was found to have said something somewhat different on the following page, I was unconvinced by your pleading. I am also unconvinced by your claims to have a fluent knowledge of German (which are not supported by any source other than your own claims, or any mention of your qualifications in it). If you possess it, why did you require a translator whose lack of qualifications (other than the fact he seems to be a personal friend of yours) you attempted to hide? Finally, you should remember that merely because articles are peer reviewed doesn't make them good - I've had more than one article that was pretty poor and unoriginal published because the journal was desperate for material, and some much better stuff rejected because they didn't need it at that time (and accepted later, unchanged, in case you were wondering).

'Either way, he's well known and notable to academics in his field.'

You haven't established that. Many people are known to academics and dismissed as cranks who do not have WP pages. In your particular case, what is being requested is evidence that they have accepted your arguments or your interpretations of the evidence. The fact that the only way you can claim that is by misrepresenting one particular scholar is a pretty damning indictment of your lack of impact.

'The fact that jes not working as a professor is irrelavent.'

Leaving aside the typing errors and spelling mistakes, given that we all make them, the fact that your work is so bad it rules you out of the possibility of employment seems to me to be fairly relevant in establishing notability.

'To this article or any of his peer reviewed work'

You have very little work - indeed, do you have any other than the article we are discussing? - that has survived blind peer review, which is the normal process. I gather some others have been reviewed by your friends at your behest, but frankly I don't think that counts for a lot.

'I'm not Richard Carrier.'

It is a matter of regret to me that having seen you manipulate and distort historical scholarship on this page in precisely the way that Carrier does, and engage with your discussants in precisely the same combative and rude fashion he does, not to mention dogmatically adhering to doctrinal points that fly in the face of evidence, I am unconvinced by that claim.109.158.92.133 (talk) 14:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Notable yes. Removed notability tag. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what that has to do with his notability in the first place, but the issue about the Table Talk, as far as I understand it from what is quoted above and elsewhere, is that the English translation (commonly used by Christian apologists) is unreliable and misleading, if not outright fabricated in places, not the original German-language source. So there is no contradiction between Kershaw's and Carrier's stances (Kershaw seems to say the original German Table Talk is questionable as an historical source, Carrier rejects the English translation) and Kershaw cannot be said to reject Carrier's hypothesis. At least it's not clear from the above what Kershaw actually refers to. Does he really cite the English edition uncritically as a RS, and especially the controversial anti-Christian statements? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, considering that Carrier collaborated with a bona fide German speaker for this article, it doesn't really matter at all how good his German is ... Nor, as I note, is any of the alleged numerous errors in Carrier's article actually exemplified, only an "error" that is then swiftly acknowledged isn't really an error at all. I remain, to use the same words, unconvinced that Carrier's article is really that bad ... --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:32, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

This is feedback only - please read and delete if not relevant or appropriate here- I have not edited the article

I have come to this page because I could not find another way to tell you that the article reads as self-publicity for Mr. Carrier.

I read something in a blog by him, then went to his personal page where he sells his services as a public speaker, saw his "about" (http://www.richardcarrier.info/about.html) where he describes himself and his achievements. I then did a search in Google because I wanted to have other references, saw there is a Wikipedia article about him, came to read it and was very dissapointed to find that it adds nothing to my knowledge of Mr. Carrier once I had read his own "about" information in his self-marketing web page. I noticed the article had been edited just today. I then came to this talk page, skimmed through it and saw that the notability of Mr. Carrier has been challenged, and that some believe he personally (through socks) or through others has participated in editing it. I must say that was my first impression.

FWIW: I am not a religious person, nor do I consider myself an atheist in the militant sense that I am finding to be so common in the Internet amongst Americans. Religion was never pushed on me, so I never had to react. I just don't (can't) believe. I am not for or against either thing, or Mr. Carrier (of whom I'd never heard before and about whom I have learnt much more by reading this talk page).

My name is Alberto de la Cruz.

Please excuse my second language English, and lack of an English spell checker in Chrome. Thanks.---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.26.35.98 (talk) 05:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Mr. de la Cruz, you can probably now see that the debate over whether Dr. Carrier is worthy of a Wikipedia entry is largely settled. That said, why not take the time to suggest improvements in the entry, should you find something troubling? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.49.105.46 (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Making article a bit less disjointed

I found the organization of this article to be a bit haphazard and have rearranged the sequence of a lot of information in it.

I have placed the material on his debates and on Anthony Flew in entirely separate sections. I have added and removed material from the lede section. His best-known work prior to getting involved in Jesus controversies is "Sense and Goodness..." and the Loftus anthology contributions so it seemed that should be mentioned in the lede. A few of the debates should be in the lede since he debates frequently. But I removed mention of the Nygard documentary from the lede.

I added a bit on his autobiographical essay mentioning his being a Taoist in early adulthood.--WickerGuy (talk) 21:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I understand that earlier versions of this article did not mention Sense and Goodness... because it is self-published, but it does seem to be RC's best-known book in atheist activist circles.--WickerGuy (talk) 05:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

National TV debate with William Lane Craig references

Removed the text below because all links were dead:

Carrier appeared on national television in 2004, debating William Lane Craig on Lee Strobel's talk show Faith Under Fire on the PAX network (now ION Television), in a segment on the resurrection of Jesus. (ref)"The End of Faith" (Faith Under Fire episode 1, season 1, aired October 2, 2004). Reported by [<nowiki>http://worldnetdaily.com</nowiki> WorldNetDaily.com] ("[<nowiki>http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40736</nowiki> Faith Under Fire hits TV screens: PAX series looks at religion, spirituality, morality]"), EvangelicalNews.org (Randall Murphree, "Is God Republican Or Democrat? New PAX Series with Lee Strobel Debates Issues"), and IIDB.org (Richard Carrier debates William Lane Craig on "Faith Under Fire").(/ref)

Mnnlaxer (talk) 17:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

One of the links ("[<nowiki>http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40736</nowiki> Faith Under Fire hits TV screens: PAX series looks at religion, spirituality, morality]") works fine for me, although it redirects to a new URL (http://www.wnd.com/2004/10/26843/). --RL0919 (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I've restored the paragraph. WP:LINKROT says:

Do not delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online.

There's a reason Template:Dead link exists. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 04:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comments

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

About recent allegations and such

Wikipedia says:

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Take extra care to use high-quality sources. Material about living persons should not be added when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism.

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

I'm not sure this article is currently living up to those standards. Note, we are indeed dealing with potentially libellous material. Some of the sources being used are blogs. I think they fall under the category of "Self-Published Sources", and should thus be removed. I think the Skepticon news item falls under this category too.

We can sort the details out here. For now I've removed these items on these grounds, as requested by the quoted Wikipedia guideline.BrianPansky (talk) 04:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

It should be noted that Brian Pansky is an admirer of Carrier and defended him when he left FTB over this issue (see here).

That being said, I agree with Mr Pansky that this is a very difficult issue and one where WP editors should tread very carefully. I also tend to agree with him about the sources. The original statement about his behaviour is a Facebook post (which is clearly completely unsuitable!) and the post announcing that he was banned from Skepticon appears to have been deleted, presumably following his lawyer's letter.

In a sense this goes to the heart of the problem with the article - although Carrier is clearly an important figure on the internet, his work is of low quality and his academic standing is nil so WP defined reliable sources on him are extremely rare. For example, although six different academics, one physicist and five NTS (Barnes, Ehrman, Fisher, Casey, Hoffman and McGrath) have comprehensively and completely debunked his work on the CMT, not one has done so via a journal article or even a proper book review - they do so via blogposts, although one is hosted by the institution in question and two have since published books that mention Carrier more or less in passing. The only book review is actually by a doctoral student named Raphael Lataster, who is a sort of less impressive and less important version of Carrier (in academic terms, at least). Therefore, although his theory (and indeed his methodology) is laughed at by serious scholars, we can't actually include their comments. Similarly, although these allegations are pretty serious unless the case goes to court or Carrier is arrested, which would likely draw it into the MSM, we can't really include them in any sort of detail because the only sources we can mention are those of Carrier himself.

However, as matters stand the article implies that he is still a speaker at Skepticon etc. (which he clearly isn't) and also does not explain why he left FTB - it looks as though it was a personal choice (which in some ways of course it was) rather than under something of a cloud. This is clearly also rather misleading.

May I suggest a compromise - mention the bare facts of his banning, and his departure, cite his own blogpost giving his side of the story as the source, without further details, and leave it there? I think, looking at his recent posts, there is a very strong likelihood that he will himself be sued or possibly countersued for defamation and that is another area where this difficulty may arise. I would suggest again keeping any mention of such action if it arises to the bare mention of its occurrence, cited to Carrier's blog.31.52.71.240 (talk) 12:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

There is no way the Breitbart is a reliable source. Right? If Breitbart can be a source, that leaves us with virtually no standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.49.105.46 (talk) 17:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

It seems that while the allegations don't have solid substantiation (yet), his banning from Skepticon and his departure from Freethought blogs and his statement that he will counter-sue are real events which certainly need to be mentioned. Self-published sources are considered OK as statements about themselves.--WickerGuy (talk) 04:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Carrier has now filed a lawsuit against the complainants. That certainly seems worth mentioning at this point. There's a blog post on Patheos about the suit, and a copy of his complaint can be found here. Here is his own post about the subject.Margareta (talk) 04:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Reception & criticism

I opened a new section for reception of Carrier's work. This needs considerable beefing up for neutrality. The work is, obviously, highly controversial, and the article should reflect that. JerryRussell (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)