Talk:Richard Carrier/Archive2

New Lawsuits

His previous lawsuits, placed from Ohio, were thrown out. Now he's suing Amy Frank in Arizona, PZ Myers in Minnesota, and Lauren Lane and Skepticon in Missouri. Carrier is also representing himself. In states with anti-SLAPP. This is bound to go well. (Source: https://skepchick.org/2019/05/prominent-atheist-sues-everyone-shares-intimate-details-of-sex-life-with-court-of-law/) ^{— Unsigned, by: 2600:1700:8d11:a90:c34:c3fb:ad2a:f2dc / talk 18:14, 10 May 2019‎}

Carrier abandoned his latest lawsuit in November 2019 https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2019/11/25/we-win/ ^{— Unsigned, by: Polydamas / talk / contribs}

Sexual Harassment Section

Even wikipedia couldn't find reliable sources regarding the Sexual Harassment charges and based on my late mother's legal background the legal references do not seem to say what they are cited as saying.

For example, the claim of "attempting to trade sex for a recommendation letter" document didn't even have the word "recommendation" in it! More over the only reasonable alternative ("reference") appears only once: "...alleges, and incorporates by reference all allegations of the foregoing Paragraph..." nothing about a letter in that. It looks like the same BS somebody did on the Little Red Riding Hood using a reference that in reality didn't support a word of what was cited.

More over the court document linked to has issues. The CaseNo. to the side is missing and so is the signature. For how a formal trial document should look see Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 812 Epic vs Apple. More over an actual court document Ifor Case: 2:16-cv-00906-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1-25 the issues become even more obvious.

If exact wording can be presented with a page number fine. But just throwing up link to a 35 page version of a court document to support something isn't going to cut it, especially when it has some glaring irregularities and largely conflicts with a signed sworn affidavit which lying in is perjury. Note page 9 point 26. ---BruceGrubb (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

So instead of fixing the section with easily available sources confirming that Richard Carrier has been accused by numerous people of sexual harassment, you decided to scrap the section completely? You must have made a mistake. Thankfully, I have fixed the section for you. No BLP violations present. Friedman (talk) 03:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

the sexual harrassment claims are, from the sources that went into great detail, unproven. two of these sources are legal documents stating the grounds for his legal action of defamation against some blogs reprinting and/or making claims of alleged sexual harassment. the case was dismissed as were subsequent refilings due the court he filed it in had no jurisdiction. the sexual harassment claims remain unproven. the detail of unproven claims within in these documents is far more extensive than is remotely needed for claims that are unproven. the commentary that these sources were supporting in the article treats unproven claims as fact describing carrier as a sexual abuser and sexual deviant combined with pointless moralising over his marriage and affairs with an inane statement as to the validity of polyamorous as an orientation that is neither here nor there. taken together it trys to paint a picture of a sexual predator with unproven claims and some frankly inane puritanism over their stated but unrelated sexual proclivities.

there is a brief mention of sexual harassment claims and a court case in the intro. thats all thats required here for unproven claims certainly not what was rightly removed. if much more than this is wanted then provide something more concrete than regurgitating the lurid detail of sexual harassment allegations via court documents of a case that was not heard. claims that are disputed and remain untested and unproven in court. assertions to the contrary and pearl clutching over marital infidelity tells me the bad faith is not in the removal of this from an article on a living person that requires extra care to support its claims. AMassiveGay (talk) 05:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@AMassiveGay, are you talking about my edits, or the contents that BruceGrubb removed? I did not base my additions on what he removed. I created mine from scratch. If you have not looked at them, please do.

Nowhere did I indicate that the claims were true. My additions simply indicated (and provided sources) that he has been accused, and that these accusals led to his being barred from Skepticon, fired from his position at FTB, and led to a number of court cases in which he sued his accusers and public platforms for defamation. These claims I have listed are all in the public record, and every one of them is irrefutably true. Whether or not he was convicted is irrelevant. The site that I linked includes citations to the relevant court documents.

@LeftyGreenMario, as you were the one who reversed my edits, I'd also like your opinion on the matter.Friedman (talk) 06:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

my post refers to what bruce grubb removed. your addition i did not remove though i was in the process of removing the link to the supposed time line as unnecessary restating of disputed claims, but edit conflict. we dont need to link to gloating over the dismissal of a case that in no way validates the claims made against carrier. people can google their own way to that noise AMassiveGay (talk) 06:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I apologize if my link was seen as gloating. I meant to link here (https://allegedlythewebsite.org/timeline). I understand that the homepage of that website contains gloating, but the timeline is a source for all the claims made in the case, including regarding his later litigiousness over the issue, which I believe should be added as well. Friedman (talk) 06:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I just noticed your edits. I find them mostly agreeable, but I made a few changes. On the issue of the timeline, I didn't re-add it, but I do believe it should be added.

I removed the allegations as a means of practicing caution, with intention of restoring it once there's a strong case to be made here. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 06:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

For the record, I'm not accusing you two of bad faith editing. I understand why you did what you did. Thank you for helping. I do in fact think the article looks cleaner the way it is. Again though, I do believe the timeline should be added, as it contains relevant sources for the claims. Otherwise, it's an unsourced statement, which is far more problematic from a BLP angle. Friedman (talk) 06:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ The timeline link has numerous problems. Many statements have "[Internal defendants’ chat and attorney emails]" or something similar which, based what I know regarding legal matters. sends up a major red flag. Unless one of the parties was silly enough to use their work e-mail, both sides agreed those correspondences could be made public, or they were used in the actual court documents should fall under attorney-client privilege A little digging shows this "Jason Thibeault is organizing this fundraiser on behalf of Stephanie Zvan." - ok that is the defendant's side but what about Carrier's right to keep those correspondences private? AFAIK one side can't just go off and reveal material from the other side that was limited to attorney-client correspondence without the other side's permission. Also the site contradicts itself as the funding page says "the case against Amy Frank in Arizona is ongoing." and hasn't been updated since October 12, 2019 but the timeline states "2019-12-02 Judge formally dismisses AZ case against Frank". I assume the running total is the defendants on this but even that is strange - "Invoice #36 from attorney: $9,610.00 - Running total: $237,442.88" but the funding page has "$80,627 raised of $115,000 goal". There is just too much wrong (clearly biassed, "hidden" references, needlessly snarky comments, failure to properly maintain the site) with that whole site to be usable in a piece about a living person.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:53, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't care where or how they obtained the correspondences; they are referenced, and that's what matters to me.

Just because the site allegedly contradicts itself doesn't mean it's not a valid reference. Typos happen.

As for your list of what's wrong with the source:

▪It is written from the defendant's side, yes. However, all references to court documents are publicly available. Hell, some of the references are linked statements that Carrier has made on his blog.

▪"Needlessly snarky comments"? Since when do we have a problem with snark around here?

▪"Failure to properly maintain the site"? Really? What you claim is a minor error. How is it failure to properly maintain the site? This all ended in 2019, and the end reflects that. There's no more need for the site to be updated. Any anyway, this is a standard we don't hold other sites too. Why should it be for this site? Friedman (talk) 13:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

As pointed out by LeftyGreenMario and AMassiveGay the material didn't really add anything and is of highly questionable value by BLP standards. As one of them said "people can google their own way to that noise" as that link has no place here. As pointed out before "the bad faith is not in the removal of this from an article on a living person that requires extra care to support its claims."--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:53, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Reliability as a source

Richard Carrier is not reliable as a source, and any articles in which he is listed as an overwhelming source (such as Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ, Jesus myth theory, and Second-god (Christ)) should be considered for complete overhaul or AfD. The viewpoint that he expresses is extremely fringe, and the majority of Biblical scholars reject him as a crank. Friedman (talk) 16:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

In regards to his 2017 book "On the Historicity of Jesus", despite what some will repeatedly claim, there is no reliable claim that it was ever scholarly peer-reviewed by the publisher. The only sources we have for this claim are:

▪Carrier himself (https://web.archive.org/web/20160114000113/http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4090), who has noted that he sent it to a number of friends for review before publications, thereby allowing his book to have the label of "peer-reviewed",

▪the publisher's website itself ("Manuscripts offered by the author will always be sent for evaluation to a series editor or a reader for the Press."), which says nothing about peer-review; only what is essentially a copy-editor and proof-reader,

▪and an email received from the publisher to an inquirer on the Staight Dope message board (https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-peer-review-work-for-books-in-the-academic-discipline-of-history/694719/24?page=2) saying "We can assure anyone who asks that all our books are peer reviewed before being accepted. But we cannot undertake to describe the process just to any person who asks us to do so—life is too short." Friedman (talk) 16:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Friedman seems to have a problem with getting their basic facts right. "On the Historicity of Jesus" was published in 2012 not 2017. Things basically go downhill from there.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:57, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

It seems we're both wrong. It's 2014. Friedman (talk) 17:05, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ For the interested, Gullotta has a peer-reviewed article pointing out the many flaws in Carrier's book. You can download the paper here: https://sci-hubtw.hkvisa.net/10.1163/17455197-01502009 Friedman (talk) 17:05, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Regarding reliability even wikipedia regarded Carrier reliable enough to to mention/site him 72 times in their Christ Myth Theory article (through they do have 404 listed references; insert error code joke here) and they have far stricter standards than we do (Wikipedia:Reliable sources)--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:05, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for moving that over here. I appreciate it.

Second, my response is the same as it was before. I only count 13 citations (and I think one of those is a response to him by Ehrman) out of the 404 (nice joke; didn't hit me before). I'm unsure where you're getting the 72 from. I would think 72 would be an inordinate amount of citations, but considering Carrier is pretty much the most vocal proponent of the mythic Jesus theory, I would certainly think he'd be cited a bit. That said, any response to all that I posted above, earlier? You didn't really respond, so much as acknowledge it. Friedman (talk) 19:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I said mention/site ie mention and cite. Putting "Carrier" results in Safari saying "x of 72" for contains with the x changing each step you progress through the count. The first mention in the text body is in the "Christ myth theorists" section (2 of 72; the first is in the inbox)--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

So essentially, I'm counting the actual citations, and you're using your browser's "find" feature to find all mentions of Carrier's name on the page (whether or not he's actually cited, or someone is pointing out how he's wrong).

Further, just because someone is cited on Wikipedia does not necessarily mean they are a reliable source. If someone claims they were abducted by aliens, you might cite their book for a direct quote. If someone is the head of their field, regardless of whether that field is nonsense or not, you would still cite them to get their side. Whenever "morphic resonance" comes up, people cite Rupert Sheldrake, but it's still nonsense. Also, and maybe it's because I'm new, but I was under the impression the site was called RationalWiki, not Wikipedia. Friedman (talk) 02:47, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I think we are talking about three kinds of "reliable" here. There is what Wikipedia considers reliable (as spelled out in Wikipedia:Reliable sources), what a particular profession considers reliable, and then there ie reliable as in accurate (Wikipedia:Inaccuracy). You seem to actually talking about Verifiability) which while related to Reliable is actually slightly different.

For an example of Wikipedia:Inaccuracy see Conspiracy theory - "The first recorded use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" dates back to a history article from 1909." (Knight, Peter. Plots, paranoia and blame. BBC News, 7 December 2006). Knight is a senior lecturer in American Studies from the University of Manchester being quoted in a well-respected paper--RS through and through. Another reliable source that implies 1909 is the Oxford English Dictionary. However such statements are inconsistent with other reliable source evidence that the phrase was used earlier. The phrase "conspiracy theory" occurs before 1909 in: (list)". Yes some of those source are not "reliable" in of themselves but they are "reliable" for showing the phrase "conspiracy theory" existed before 1909 as Knight did not specify how the phrase was used. The biggest hoot was the claim by some of the clueless editors (either for that article or another) that looking for a source was original research (I wish I was kidding).

So you can have a source that is reliable per Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Verifiability but is not reliable per Wikipedia:Inaccuracy. This is ignoring made up references as what happened with the connection between Little Red Riding Hood and vampires. If Beckett, S. L. (2008). Little Red Riding Hood. In D. Haase, The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Folktales and Fairytales: G-P (pp. 466-492). Greenwood Publishing Group. had said was was claimed that would be reliable (Verifiability) but possibly inaccurate (Wikipedia:Inaccuracy) but another reliable source would have had to be found to contrast with it. As it turned out the reference was made up and it is only because the book existed in PDF form and somebody looked through it we even know that reference was bogus.

It has been decided that Carrier qualifies under the Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Verifiability. Your issue if I am reading it right is 'are there Wikipedia:Inaccuracy in either Carrier's data or how he reads that data'. Going though and cross checking some of the insane amount of sources he uses I finds stuff that would better support his position (and in one case at the very same the weaken it) so there may be Wikipedia:Inaccuracy issues with the book.

As for this being RationalWiki, not Wikipedia that is the point. Look at Wikipedia's Weston A. Price article and compare it to our own. I ask you which is the better sourced and more reliable (ie accurate) article?--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:17, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I think I follow with the Wikipedia-babble. If I understand correctly, we do agree that Carrier is WP:Reliable and WP:Verifiable. It's just slightly confusing, because I feel like the everyday use of the word "reliable" differs from WP:Reliable. So it seems we're somewhat at odds on WP:Inaccuracy.

Could you be more specific about which Carrier sources you went through? I don't need a big list; I was just wondering if you're looking at things from the book or elsewhere.

I'd argue that the two Price articles come at the topic from different angles: Wikipedia from an encyclopedic, full-facts angle, and ours from a more scientific, thorough refutation of Price's pseudomedical nonsense angle. Both serve their purpose. Friedman (talk) 23:24, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Hey, you're doing better than abut 90% of the editors I dealt with over on wikipedia. The one source I still remember is on OHJ page 160: Peter Worsley, The Trumpet Shall Sound: A Study of 'Cargo' Cults in Melanesia (London: MacGibbon & Kee, 2nd edn, 1968). IIRC that version doesn't have a key reference the 1957 version does: Guiart, Jean (1952) "John Frum Movement in Tanna" Oceania Vol 22 No 3 pg 165-177. That is the double edged reference I was talking about at it both supports Carrier and blows a major whole in his premise. The "Jesus Frum a.k.a. John Christ" section over on Jesus myth theory (which I agree is in need of a serious trim - perhaps a separate quotes page as the information is on topic) deals with this.

If you asked the simple question '"Did John Frum exist?" the answer would be yes as three natives used that name and there were people claiming to be "sons" of John Frum. However, if you asked "Did the John Frum the native believe in exist?" the answer would be 'likely no' as there are details that just don't line up correctly. Heck, we even have, caught like a fly in amber, a letter that indicates the John Frum movement may have existed In the 1910s - something that modern experts on the cult miss because it is stop being part of the native oral tradition somewhere in the 1950s.

I forget which reference resulted in me finding information on The apocryphal Acts of Paul (c. 160 CE) and "The Acts of Peter" (150-200 CE) both of which rip a major hole in the story Nero actively persecuted Christians just because they were Christians.

Wikipedia has never really dealt with Price from a encyclopedic, full-facts angle - it ignores Price's own words in Nutrition and Physical Degeneration by Paul B. Hoeber, Inc the Medical Book Department of Harper & Brothers (which as far as I can tell was a peer reviewed work). Every and I mean every attempt to put in this key fact by Price himself has been removed. As our article tries to explain and I think you missed is there was no "pseudomedical nonsense angle" for the time Price lived in. The pseudomedical nonsense was by Meinig not Price and the fact things changed since Price wrote his works. Claiming Vulcan (between Mercury and the Sun) exist would be considered pseudoscientific nonsense today but not for someone in the 19th century because the model and knowledge changed. In the ultimate irony some of Price's original concerns about focal infection are being looked though with better methods than he used.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:32, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Bruce, I'm going to ask you this one time, and I would like a straight answer: are you deliberately trying to be dishonest or are you just ignorant of common sense? If you're going to point to something in a Wikipedia policy to back up your claims, it's general practice (and common courtesy) to mention that you are the one edited it into Wikipedia in the first place. That whole section on the origin of the term "conspiracy theory" was added by you. Similarly, in pointing out the differences between the two Weston Price articles, it would have been nice for you to mention that you were nearly banned from editing the article, which is coincidentally about the same time you took to editing the Weston Price (and, by extension, Quackwatch) article here, for quite a while before you even created an account it seems. You then proceeded to do the same thing you do here e.g. post walls of text and becoming aggressively obstinate. You got topic banned from all articles related to Christianity for a pattern of behavior described thus: "BruceGrubb has problems with original research, misrepresentation of sources, the use of poor sources, and biased editing (largely in the promotion of fringe theories and fringe viewpoints on mainstream subjects). In addition, he often derails talk page discussions with long, rambling barely-relevant edits that often include text copy-pasted from earlier posts on different topics." You apparently have not changed in nearly 10 years. I see what the problem is here, Bruce. It's you. Friedman (talk) 07:37, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

No my problem is people like you who will not except facts and try to game the system and push people with a federal protected disability (thought to be ADHD at the time but found to be high functional autism) off of places like wikipedia. First, you bring up something that even wikipedia standards should have never been here per BLP, fought the effort to have it removed, tried to puts something that was even worse (Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. - Wikipedia:Verifiability), and then there was that whole "RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation" and the community majority went why is this here?

I will ask you a simple question; what is factually wrong with the material I put into either the Weston Price or the Quackwatch article. Factually.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:56, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Why are you still holding onto the BLP issue? I was wrong about that. I admit it. Get over it.

How did I try and game the system? By going through the proper channels, and then accepting the AfD result even though I strongly disagree with it? And then trying to take a different approach by suggesting on the talk page that we do a series of excisions and merges with other articles?

Bruce, I'm sorry, but if you expect to use your autism diagnosis as a shield to hide behind, then you're sadly mistaken. Having autism does not equal being an asshole.

I don't think you understand that having a "federal protected disability" does not protect you from criticism. You have a victim mentality, thinking that people are targeting you because of your autism, despite the fact that you literally just added that to your profile.

You've been on RationalWiki for almost 10 years, and Wikipedia quite some time before that, and despite all that time, you refuse any sort of self-improvement, despite all the constructive criticism others have given you.

My question stands. Simply put, are you dumb or dishonest? Friedman (talk) 14:56, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

And on December 3, just 8 days ago, you added the words "double-blind" to the article on Sheffield-Phoenix! Were you going to try and use that as a reference to? You know very well that not only does the reference not support that (it doesn't even mention peer-review), but other posters and I have repeatedly debunked that. Friedman (talk) 14:13, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @BruceGrubb, why do you repeatedly post the same arguments on multiple pages, even after I've already addressed them? Three times you accused Gullotta of misquoting Suetonius (and used that to represent the general quality of the work of Carrier's critics), and three times I had to point out that he mistakenly attributed to Suetonius what he meant to attribute to Lucian (who was quoted directly before Suetonius), and that he intends on fixing it in a future publication. What makes this especially egregious is the source that I used to show this to you was a source that you originally gave me: a blog post by Richard Carrier, where he specifically acknowledges and accepts Gullotta's innocent mistake. So either you are not reading the sources you are giving me and I am giving you, or you are deliberately lying. This is exactly the kind of reason I believe you're editing in bad faith. I'm trying to have a debate here, and you're reposting the same thing in different places, even after I've conclusively addressed it. Friedman (talk) 00:06, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Method-Lataster

I would actually say that Carrier doesn´t stray very far from historical method here, and I think he is right that historical method is actually Bayesian in terms of how it works, it´s worth reading his book "proving history", which is very well thought out. I also question the relevance of mentioning that "so far only one peer reviewed book supports Carrier", I mean academic research isn´t a popularity contest, the question is whether or not the work meets the standards expected of scholarship and Carrier´s work clearly does as does Lataster´s. Carrier clearly has a good case at the very least here, or one that should be taken seriously. ^{— Unsigned, by: John stetson / talk / contribs}