Talk:Robert M. Price

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)