Dear Demiurge: 

 I get your points, and I certainly endeavor to stick to facts, preserve an objective tone, and respect the tendency to a neutral point of view. 

 I have already written four full-fledged Wikipedia articles, all of them practically brand-new, on untouched or undeveloped subjects by the Wikipedia cohort of editors. 
 I accept your remarks, offered in good faith. 

 However, I must respectfully claim that the following comment by Richard Carrier: 

 "I know Ehrman read Doherty’s monstrous second book but not his original Jesus Puzzle, and yet the latter is a far superior argument for his conclusion, by the standards Ehrman would expect, whereas the second is 90% speculative digression (hundreds and hundreds of pages worth) which is exactly the kind of thing that chaps the hide of professional scholars."  

 does belong to the section Reception. 
 Alternatively this quote could be reduced to a shorter form, since Carrier's evaluation of the Jesus Puzzle has already been mentioned at the beginning of the section: 

 "I know Ehrman read Doherty’s monstrous second book but not his original Jesus Puzzle, and... the second is 90% speculative digression (hundreds and hundreds of pages worth) which is exactly the kind of thing that chaps the hide of professional scholars."  

 or even (probably the best excerpt, as being the shortest): 

 Doherty’s monstrous second book... is 90% speculative digression (hundreds and hundreds of pages worth) which is exactly the kind of thing that chaps the hide of professional scholars.  

 Those are the points to consider: 

 * 1. Carrier is an authentic Ph.D. in ancient history from Columbia University (Manhattan), which Doherty is not (with only an unverified B.A., probably an online degree from a degree mill) 
 * 2. He's already written many books, contributed chapters to many other books, all of them published by respected publishers (Prometheus is, in the States, the most prestigious publisher for skeptical books about religion and Christianity), a feat that  Doherty has never been able to achieve. 
 * 3. He's written a lot of articles, published in creditable reviews 
 * 4. He has a Wikipedia article Richard Carrier, much longer and detailed than Doherty's, for example 
 * 5. He is not only notable in the States, but respected and invited to talks by many universities.  
 * 6. His articles are well known, and often quoted in the scholarly literature by other Ph.D.s, (whereas no article written by Doherty is ever quoted by anybody, for the reason that they are not read. The second book, Neither God nor Man is an effort to bring this collection of those unread articles to the public.) 
 * 7. He is the only person who has published a full review of Doherty's first book, The Jesus Puzzle, in fact mentioned in the Doherty article (Note 12, of Feb. 2002). No other scholar worldwide has published another review of that book. 
 * 8. Paul Ellingworth, of Aberdeen, a famous expert Biblical translator from the Greek, who's written one of the top commentaries on The Epistle to the Hebrews (and whose scholarship is used by Doherty in his chapter on Hebrews in Neither God nor Man), has declared that he has verified that only one academic library in the whole of the UK has a copy of The Jesus Puzzle and none of the second book, Neither God nor Man. 
 * 9. Carrier is already mentioned in the section "Reception" about the first book, The Jesus Puzzle: 
 "Among authors sympathetic to the view that Jesus never existed, Doherty's work has received mixed reactions. The Jesus Puzzle has received favorable reviews from skeptics Robert M. Price and Richard Carrier." 
 * 10. Carrier's quotation about the recent book, Neither God nor Man is, in Wikipedia's perspective, objective and factual, and not related to any editor's POV. It does belong to the Section "Reception".  
 * 11. I am willing to bring the consideration of the eligibility of Carrier's quote to the most experienced court of Wikipedia. But I can only hope you'll agree with me. (a new experience for me)  
 And indicate which formulation of the quote best satisfies you. Meanwhile I'll repost the (shortest) #3 formulation . 

 Regards from a good-faith editor to another one.