Talk:Robert M. Price

Point of inquiry

I don't think Price's updated version of Carter's Lovecraft: A Look Behind the Cthulhu Mythos was ever published. Confirmation may be rquired.83.254.63.123 (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I made this article less biased

I added the following for balance: In addition, Christian apologist James Patrick Holding criticized Price's works in a number of essays. [1] ken 00:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

The article is not in any sense biased. I have removed your unsatisfactory link. Any criticism should be balanced and authoritative. Laurence Boyce 18:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I dunno--I don't think that the article was particularly biased before, in the sense that it wasn't cheerleading for Price. But if there's substantive criticism of Price out there, why not link to it? Criticism by its nature is not "balanced"--and as for "authoritative", that's a measure a lot of people would use to dismiss Price's work. I say it's worth putting back. Nareek 20:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's relevant whether or not Price is considered to be authoritative. When I suggested the criticism was not authoritative, I was referring to the fact that it came not in the form of an article published in a reputable journal, say, but merely from somebody's pet website. The link is also very unsatisfactory as you have to scroll down to get to Price. By balanced criticism, I meant that a view both for and against should be presented; though frankly for an article this size, I think criticism is unnecessary, especially if it comes in the form of a flaky link. Laurence Boyce 20:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Is James Patrick Holding a good source for critique? Mr Price is a scholar and Holding, I believe, is not. Link should be removed IMHO. 80.213.177.249 23:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Surely the best proponent of Price's ideas is Price, and you can (of course) easily access his views from this article. I think the article is greatly strengthened by including a link to a representative of orthodox Christianity who has paid serious attention to Price's writings and has made an effort to refute it. I followed the link, found the Price material easily, and wasn't terribly impressed by the counter-arguments--which was informative to me, assuming that this is the strongest Price rebuttal one can find on the Web.

Holding is a scholar in the same sense that Price is--that is, his reputation is based on his work rather than on his credentials. I get pretty annoyed when I see WP editors dismissing people like Price because they don't have the proper certifications--it reminds me of the scene in The Wizard of Oz where the Wizard gives the Tin Man a diploma instead of giving him a brain. For consistency's sake, I try to be equally annoyed when editors try to squelch people I disagree with as well.

Clearly, a good WP article on Robert M. Price should explain his views and explain the views of his critics--regardless of whether we think either Price or his critics are full of hot air. As it stands, the article doesn't do much explaining of anything. But a step in the right direction is the inclusion of links so that the more resourceful reader can find out for themselves what's being said pro and con. If someone knows of a site that does a better job of refuting Price, let's replace Holding. Until then, I think the article is better off with the link. Nareek 01:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I know this very much after the fact but I should point out that Holding is NOT anywhere near the same level as Price. Price has been published in several peer-reviewed journals while Holding hasn't seen a single work published in such a venue. Moreover as the 1 star reviews at Amazon regarding his Shattering the Christ Myth shows anyone with reasonable access to a library or even the internet can refute Holding showing that his research is poor to non existence and instead of providing reasoned rebuttal he prefers to insult people...even if they are a seminary student!--67.42.65.209 (talk) 07:50, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The fact that Holding had his article deleted makes a better case for deleting his link. Maybe it could be moved down to External Links? Nareek 16:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

My main problem is with the nature of the link itself, and the fact that it is essentially a private website. I would not mind some critique from Holding if it were in the form of an article from a reputable journal. But anyone can set up a POV website and say anything including stuff that might be wholly erroneous; it's insufficiently accountable and it might even change over time without our noticing. So I still don't think the link should appear anywhere in the article, but I'm happy to concede the argument for now. But whether Price or Holding are considered notable doesn't really come into it in my view; in that sense I'm anti-credentialist too. Laurence Boyce 17:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Should there be an internal link to the yet to be created Johnnie Colemon Theological Seminary wikipedia article?

The article has an internal link to yet to be published Johnnie Colemon Theological Seminary Wikipedia article. I looked at the website for the Johnnie Colemon Theological Seminary and it isn't too impressive. [2] Is there any major accrediting organization which accredits the Johnnie Colemon Theological Seminary? 11:25, 17 November 2006 ken (UTC)kdbuffalo

Its main claim to fame seems to be that Price is affiliated with it--so maybe not. Nareek 12:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Robert M Price.jpg

Image:Robert M Price.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Rearrange January 2009

I've had a go with this article. I've culled a lot of stuff in Theology section because one argument was unsourced, and the other I thought went on after the point had been made. The previous article was here [3]. I've left the tags. Has anyone got any negative critism about this guy? Edgepedia (talk) 08:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

References

Here are the references found during the deletion disussion:

1. http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7DVXA&q=%22Robert%20M.%20Price%22%2C%20Lovecraft&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wphttp://hplfilmfestival.com/2008/portland/guests/robert-m-price
2. http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/p/robert-m-price/new-lovecraft-circle.htm
3. http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl/9780307416797.html
4. http://www.bookfinder.com/author/robert-m-price/
5. http://www.hippocampuspress.com/other/tales_out_of_dunwich.html
6. http://www.tower.com/new-lovecraft-circle-robert-m-price-paperback/wapi/102147453
7. http://www.prometheusbooks.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=90_7&products_id=82
8. http://www.tektonics.org/books/priceshrink.htm http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=5033
9. http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/pdf/Archive/Talk/talk.atheism/2005-08/msg00250.pdf
10. http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregion/northernsuburbs/story/508858.html
11. http://www.stanford.edu/group/rt/CarrierHandout1.pdf

Refs 1-6 are lists of books or new(ish) books.

7. Is the publishers page on the 'The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man', referencing reviews by Religious Studies Review, Ulster Humanist and The Freethinker.

8. Is bible.org taken from J. Ed Komoszewski; M. James Sawyer; Daniel B. Wallace (31 May 2006). Reinventing Jesus: How Contemporary Skeptics Miss the Real Jesus and Mislead Popular Culture. ISBN 082542982X. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |Publisher= ignored (|publisher= suggested) (help), critising 'The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man'.

Price reviews this book in the Religous Studies Review here (need to pay for text)

9. is a copy of http://www.acampbell.org.uk/bookreviews/, which does not appear to meet the requirements of WP:RS.

10. is a newspaper article describing Price as a 'veteran of the Jesus Seminar', at a Jesus Project meeting ... and is now a reference for their first meeting and a reference here.

11. Is a handout at Stanford, referring Price in their further reading list.

I thought I'd linked to this: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-730330471.html, but it looks like I didn't. A review of 'The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man' in The Catholic Biblical Quarterly - cite - William Arnal (October 1, 2004). "The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man (review)". Catholic Biblical Quarterly.

There are reviews of 'Deconstructing Jesus' published in Ashland Theological Journal and Journal of Church and State.

Johnnie Colemon

The article currently begins with, "Robert McNair Price (born July 7, 1954 in Mississippi) is Professor of Theology and Scriptural Studies at Johnnie Colemon Theological Seminary, an unaccredited school in Carol City, Florida governed by a New Thought organisation known as the Universal Foundation for Better Living". Now, I have no reason to doubt that any of this is true. Dr. Price is a professor at an unaccredited school, presumably because he has been unable to find a suitable position at a more prestigious school, which says more about American academe's shortcoming's that Price's. However, there's a serious undue weight issue here. It's true that Price's bona fides are not established by his teaching position. The solution, then, is not to derogate his teaching position in the intro and imply that he might be a New Thought-ist (I don't know but I doubt that he is). Instead, let's just describe him as a scholar and author, and leave the details of his role as professor to a later section.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 23:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

N.B. If anyone is in doubt, Price's teaching modules, "open to anyone" at $50 a time, are listed here.87.112.68.20 (talk) 22:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It might be worthwhile to note that the courses that Price teach are not those that are "open to anyone." The link in full reads:

Basic Master Certificate Classes Required classes (3 credits each) meet for ten weeks. These classes are OPEN TO ANYONE. You do NOT need to be in the certificate program to take these classes.

It also list's Price name amongst teaching popular courses, not that these are all the courses that he teaches. It might be worthwhile not to quote mine. Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 11:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I am the person who has edited the wiki page to indicate that Mr. Price has been fired from Johnnie Coleman. I have a screen shot of the facebook page where he has announced it if anyone wants evidence for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.126.159.73 (talk) 01:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Self-sourced?

There seem to be an awful lot of sources by Price about Price in this article. WP:PRIMARYSOURCES In ictu oculi (talk) 07:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• In ictu oculi : Yeah, not only that, but a lot of the sources which are not by Price are either interviews with him, brief quotes by him, or are made up of dead links. I guess this article was considered for deletion once before, and apparently that failed. The article right now sure doesn't convince me he is actually notable in anyone's mind but his own, however. I see a lot of hype, but I don't see a lot of real-world notability here. A loose noose (talk) 23:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Robert M. Price. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100608192808/http://www.centerforinquiry.net/jesusproject/fellows/price_robert_m/ to http://www.centerforinquiry.net/jesusproject/fellows/price_robert_m/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110504002038/http://www.ccel.org/ccel/irenaeus/demonstr.preaching_the_demonstration_of_the_apostolic_preaching.html to http://www.ccel.org/ccel/irenaeus/demonstr.preaching_the_demonstration_of_the_apostolic_preaching.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170417205223/http://www.centerforinquiry.net/jesusproject/articles/the_quest_of_the_mythical_jesus to http://www.centerforinquiry.net/jesusproject/articles/the_quest_of_the_mythical_jesus
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120226142605/http://www.radikalkritik.de/evolution_of_the_pauline_canon.htm to http://www.radikalkritik.de/evolution_of_the_pauline_canon.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Controversy About Pro-Rape Comments

I think this should really be added to the page: https://bleedingcool.com/comics/publisher-delists-flashing-swords-6-after-authors-rebellion/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.149.12 (talk) 04:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree, although I'm not sure the controversy/event is fully baked. I came here to see how this was covered in Wikipedia, and if there was more to the story than I had found elsewhere. Certainly could use a link to Lin Carter's page as his literary executor.

Might want to call it "Flashing Swords 6 Controversy" though. MichaelCroft (talk) 00:00, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Links within quotes

User:Editor2020, can you please refer me to a style guideline regarding links within quotes? Doesn't the awkwardness of listing the same sources twice weigh against that? 73.71.251.64 (talk) 19:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

MOS:LWQ. "Be conservative when linking within quotations; link only to targets that correspond to the meaning clearly intended by the quote's author. Where possible, link from text outside of the quotation instead – either before it or soon after. (If quoting hypertext, add an editorial note, [link in original] or [link added], as appropriate.)" Editor2020 (talk) 19:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

That's not a complete prohibition. Would you like to object to any of the links on intent grounds? 73.71.251.64 (talk) 19:42, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

You asked me to refer you to a style guideline regarding links within quotes. I have done so. Do with it what you will. Editor2020 (talk) 01:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Abortion

Should the article mention his opposition to abortion and that he considers himself a Pro-Life atheist? 198.200.115.29 (talk) 03:37, 14 August 2022 (UTC)