Joshua Jonathan (talk | contribs) |
Paul Siebert (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
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. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.156.95.130|69.156.95.130]] ([[User talk:69.156.95.130#top|talk]]) 04:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
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. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.156.95.130|69.156.95.130]] ([[User talk:69.156.95.130#top|talk]]) 04:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
==[[WP:BLP]] violation fixed== |
|||
I removed the mention of Carrier's adherence to a fringe theory. Per BLP, "'''contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion'''". The statement that Jesus myth theory is fringe is poorly sourced, the sources cited in the article say otherwise. Thus, Tucker, Aviezer (February 2016). "The Reverend Bayes vs Jesus Christ", History and Theory 55 (February 2016), 129-140 says: |
|||
::"''The Bayesian perspective on historiography is commonsensical: If historiography is not certain like a priori knowledge or sense data, and it is not fiction, historiography is prob-able. Richard Carrier’s book argues for a Bayesian, probabilistic interpretation of histori-ography in general and of the debate about the historicity of Jesus in particular. Jesus can be interpreted as a historically transmitted reference of “Jesus,” as a bundle of properties, or literally. Carrier devotes too much energy to debating literalism that confuses evidence with hypotheses. But evidence preserves information to different degrees; it is true or not. Carrier proposes to apply objective, frequentist Bayesianism in historiography despite the difficulties in assigning values. He argues that ranges of values can determine historio-graphical hypotheses. Carrier does not analyze in Bayesian terms the main method for Bayesian determination of posterior probabilities in historiography: inference from multi-ple independent sources. When the prior probability of a hypothesis is low, but at least two independent evidential sources, such as testimonies, support it, however unreliable each of the testimonies is, the posterior probability leaps. The problem with the Synoptic Gospels as evidence for a historical Jesus from a Bayesian perspective is that the evidence that coheres does not seem to be independent, whereas the evidence that is independent does not seem to cohere. Carrier’s explanation of some the evidence in the Gospels is fascinat-ing as the first Bayesian reconstruction of structuralism and mimesis. Historians attempted to use theories about the transmission and preservation of information to find more reliable parts of the Gospels, parts that are more likely to have preserved older information. Carrier is too dismissive of such methods because he is focused on hypotheses about the historical Jesus rather than on the best explanations of the evidence. I leave open questions about the degree of scholarly consensus and the possible reasons for it.''" |
|||
:Such a review published in [[History and Theory]] by no means may refer to some fringe theory. |
|||
:Furthermore, another review on Carrier's book (also cited in the article), (Lataster, Raphael (December 3, 2014). "RichardCarrier: On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2014; pp. xiv + 696". Journal of Religious History. 38 (4): 614. ) says: |
|||
::"''As a result, this work far outdoes anything the typically amateurish mythicists haveproduced to date, but is also methodologically superior to the work of more respectedand mainstream historicist scholars. ''" |
|||
:That is an absolutely unequivocal proof that the claim that Jesus Myth theory is fringe is at least questionable. Therefore, this statement must be immediately removed per BLP. |
|||
:I will be busy next two weeks, so I will not be able to respond. Please, do not restore removed material without a serious reason, at least, without detailed discussion, because BLP violations are severely punishable.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 21:01, 2 August 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== Badly written, many problems, needs fixing == |
== Badly written, many problems, needs fixing == |
Revision as of 21:01, 2 August 2019
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.95.130 (talk) 04:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
WP:BLP violation fixed
I removed the mention of Carrier's adherence to a fringe theory. Per BLP, "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion". The statement that Jesus myth theory is fringe is poorly sourced, the sources cited in the article say otherwise. Thus, Tucker, Aviezer (February 2016). "The Reverend Bayes vs Jesus Christ", History and Theory 55 (February 2016), 129-140 says:
- "The Bayesian perspective on historiography is commonsensical: If historiography is not certain like a priori knowledge or sense data, and it is not fiction, historiography is prob-able. Richard Carrier’s book argues for a Bayesian, probabilistic interpretation of histori-ography in general and of the debate about the historicity of Jesus in particular. Jesus can be interpreted as a historically transmitted reference of “Jesus,” as a bundle of properties, or literally. Carrier devotes too much energy to debating literalism that confuses evidence with hypotheses. But evidence preserves information to different degrees; it is true or not. Carrier proposes to apply objective, frequentist Bayesianism in historiography despite the difficulties in assigning values. He argues that ranges of values can determine historio-graphical hypotheses. Carrier does not analyze in Bayesian terms the main method for Bayesian determination of posterior probabilities in historiography: inference from multi-ple independent sources. When the prior probability of a hypothesis is low, but at least two independent evidential sources, such as testimonies, support it, however unreliable each of the testimonies is, the posterior probability leaps. The problem with the Synoptic Gospels as evidence for a historical Jesus from a Bayesian perspective is that the evidence that coheres does not seem to be independent, whereas the evidence that is independent does not seem to cohere. Carrier’s explanation of some the evidence in the Gospels is fascinat-ing as the first Bayesian reconstruction of structuralism and mimesis. Historians attempted to use theories about the transmission and preservation of information to find more reliable parts of the Gospels, parts that are more likely to have preserved older information. Carrier is too dismissive of such methods because he is focused on hypotheses about the historical Jesus rather than on the best explanations of the evidence. I leave open questions about the degree of scholarly consensus and the possible reasons for it."
- Such a review published in History and Theory by no means may refer to some fringe theory.
- Furthermore, another review on Carrier's book (also cited in the article), (Lataster, Raphael (December 3, 2014). "RichardCarrier: On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2014; pp. xiv + 696". Journal of Religious History. 38 (4): 614. ) says:
- "As a result, this work far outdoes anything the typically amateurish mythicists haveproduced to date, but is also methodologically superior to the work of more respectedand mainstream historicist scholars. "
- That is an absolutely unequivocal proof that the claim that Jesus Myth theory is fringe is at least questionable. Therefore, this statement must be immediately removed per BLP.
- I will be busy next two weeks, so I will not be able to respond. Please, do not restore removed material without a serious reason, at least, without detailed discussion, because BLP violations are severely punishable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:01, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- " 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)
- 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)
Smeat75, i wrote this before reading this debate above, but do please tell me whats the intellectuel or even reason for that kind of phrase be inserted after most subjects dealing with this even before the arguments start?
Instead of quirky writing wrong, instead tell what function it has other then to "shield" or self-convincing, to put ONLY that phrase before?. Because its not true, its VERY dishonest, and i dont know another subject matter
that has that kind of quick mention, and for your to just say wrong to Jiohdis " 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" wich is VERY valid, because there is no factual statments or links or what criteria they used. Its funny when you find bible literalist and books from 1950s quoted (being very obsolete) in the list of "all serious scholars". I think its self evident this phrase should be stated as ARGUMENTS, and mostly in its own section, not on every other theory, and i cant see the defence of it, and you did offer none. Unless its ok for muslims to add in
before each subject "but all serious scholars (ours, like the christians) have confirmed that jesus was not the son of man" there can be no defence of this kind of qoute. Also on Jihods point again, these quote by abstaining from mentioning anything else then "confirmed" shadows the fact that many that hold this position hold MINIMALSTIC views of jesus, the two most common being the crucifiction and jesus baptism. This is missleading, above everything else,
giving the picture that those scholars who hold these points are confirming the jesus of the bible(when they are not). Just on this point its enough for these phrase to be taken down and another placed instead.
Im eargly waiting for your reply in defence of this. Also more shadowing is that biblical scholarship is diffrent from how classical historians go about researching, and it lacks methodological soundness or uniformity, but they are
portrayed like their education is researching the past and not more basically in theology ( exegetics like) and having reliance on consensus instead of working from primary sources (or even stating why) is kind of dishonest
in that it gives the impression that its clear cut, wich is far from.
Also Biblical scholarship have a looong standing critism for being overly apologetic due to the people it attracts. To say - where in the world did you get this idea? Absurd. means your remaining alof in this matter cause its been brought up and talked about before and now. If you had answered his questions mine would have been aswell.
Im irratated after years of reading wiki, i dont know what the defence of letting it stay is, but for the dishonesty it potrays. Again, to write after each mention of jesus,that consenus among muslims scholars is that jesus was not the son of god therby confirmed, is absurd yet if your christian its ok? their sources are as valid as the bible and on the same arguments.
Let people read what arguments people have, instead of stating that by consenus ( not true) at the start of the article what is and not, with each refrence of historical jesus, for somekind of argument from authority effect. So childish not even to put it in its separe colum but insert it after each critism of jesus.
Long post, but wikipedia is not for propagating your faith , stop putting them back in withouth a argument why its needed right there.
Now what i wrote before before reading this discussion above.
'Just a quick question to the Christiansthat have to, basically convince themself, to insert into every article and page on the historical debate this paraphrased qoute "But according to most major ancient history researchers and theologians, the historical reality of x(jesus in this case) is confirmed". And then you look and its ALL belivers of Jesus existing before doing their "research", saying he did. Also, POINT OUT were we can reads this facts. Infact, i reason its not put there cause this is some kind of self convincing that hurts the eyes when trying to read a article.
Why not just say these guys are using "multiple sources" from the same bible veryfing each other, using criterion of embarrassment as bulletproof, in other words there is no evidence to that conclusion other then the bible and theoretic arguments using the bible. Even on Josephus book every mention of jesus not appearing in the early transcripts is followed by "but all serious scholars have no doubt". I look into the links, and there are Roman Catholic priests used as a authority??? why not STATE how he come about that instead. What is the need for such a qurip but to cloud the issue?
Im going to change this article to remove that but i will wait for answer before touching" , and put a reference link to the page debatting the historical jesus instead, and change the sentence " all serious scholars have confirmed it" and instead state that belivers in criterion of embarrassment and the 4 gospels counting as multiple sources, are content with that they have verified the historical jesus, however withouth trying to figure how what he did, said, or anything contrary to the bible.
No other subject has this shielding of critism even before it is said, and gives the FALSE view that researchers on this subject are all clear, wich they arent and in 2019 alot of new research is IN, for people to be still qouting a book from 1955 (yes) as a "confirmation.
Not a rant, but found it on every mention of critisms of the historical "records". Whats the point? its dishonest and anti-intellectual, but i would like to know the point of putting that in other then belivers feel the urge to do this, rather then state the opinions and let the reader himself decide. There is no other page that starts with "your going to read some research here, but dont mind them since all serious scholars have confirmed this page false".
Il wait the week out for a answer why i shouldent remove all those notes that is worthless to the subject written about in the article, then il will start to this. Because its dishonest and not done in anyother article, it should be written in its OWN subject page, not every mention of jesus on wikipedia.