Talk:Thallus (historian)

message: I removed the line "On the other hand, if the fragment is taken at face value, it provides interesting confirmation of the existence of Jesus and the historicity of his crucifixion from a non-Christian first-century historian" from the Early Christian Use section, simply because it's wrong. It does not do this in any way, and this line does not contribute to the article as a whole. Hierophantasmagoria (talk) 08:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, but surely it does (or at least seems to).  After all, why else do people take any interest in Thallus?  Roger Pearse 14:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ″Why else?″ is not an argument. It can definitely be not for that reason without positing a known reason why. As it happens, his contribution to Jesus' historicity is now deprecated, and was never his main claim to fame until modern times when that historicity became an issue. Thallus never met Jesus, so that's a bit of a problem in a time before mass media. Thallus was mostly known since ancient times for explaining the darkness during the Crucifixion as an eclipse. However, the Crucifixion took place at Passover, and Passover timing doesn't allow for an eclipse. Centrepull (talk) 19:18, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Confirms Historicity of Jesus?

message: Would this be acceptable? "The works are are important because they help confirm the historicity of Jesus." -  Ret.Prof (talk) 12:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This description of Thallos' work is simply distorted. What we do know is that it is Julius who mentions the Crucifixion and explains that the event was not an eclipse. Again we do not know what Thallos actually wrote in the subject, or if he indeed speaks directly of the Crucifixion or of Jesus.
This is precisely why I included the quote from Julius' work, so the reader can actually read the source. The above statement is an interpolation which can be done away completely with the use of the original quote from History of the World. Can we please include some form of it?Orarchy (talk) 20:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You won me over. Go ahead. - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead

message: There is a quote in the lead of this article to a website run by blogger Richard Carrier - . Blogs and non academic websites are not reliable sources for wikipedia - see WP:USERG "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated". However the article on the blog does link to a peer reviewed academic journal with an article by Carrier on the subject, so I am replacing the current quote from the blog with a quote from his article in the journal.Smeat75 (talk) 01:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Richard Carrier quote 

message: The page says that the majority of scholars think that the darkness over the land in the work of the Gospels is a literary creation. That's a pretty grand claim with pretty non-existent evidence, all I can see is a single source to a single academic who holds that view. Is there any evidence that the view that the darkness is a literary creation is  a lot more prevalent than being held by a single person, let alone a majority view? I am in very, very high doubt that this is a 'majority' view. Unless someone can show its a majority view, or at least a lot more prevalent, then the Wikipedia page should be quickly changed from saying "most" to "some". Korvex (talk) 00:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Better now? Doug Weller talk 15:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Majority of Scholars believe darkness is literary creation? 

message: Hi. Slightly confused as to your last edits. You say that Dr. Richard Carrier, B.A. (History), M.A. (Ancient history), M.Phil. (Ancient history), Ph.D. (Ancient history), is not a subject matter expert. You seem to be saying this because you think that  (per WP:SPS) is not Ancient History but Thallus. Given the level of scholarly study Thallus has attracted (ie not much) it seems unreasonable to view the study of him as a field in its own right. I would further note that Dr. Carrier has a peer-reviewed article on Thallus so you would need to set both a specific field and a high bar to stop him from being a subject matter expert.
I would further note that the Infidels article was used only as a citation to the claim that , a claim you have not removed. Additionally I dispute that infidels is a self published source but I won't get in to that. Thank-you, ~ El D. (talk to me) 10:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi again, I kind of responded in the section below, but to re-iterate, Carrier has no solid expertise on Thallus as a historian or as a source. The peer reviewed paper you cited is about relation to Jesus and the Gospels, not Thallus. Infidels is a self-publishing think tank, it is not peer reviewed, it is not an academic journal, and it is clearly not a source used by academics. Carrier self published much of his research on Christianity there.Ramos1990 (talk) 00:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank-you for replying but I am afraid you seem to have missed my main point. SPS is specific that the Subject Matter Expert clause is for . It seems to me that Thallus is not a field of study in and of himself and that  is ancient history. Thank-you, ~ El D. (talk to me) 13:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not consider Thallus a field of study. The problem is that Carrier has very little tracking record in peer reviewed works relating to ancient Roman history let alone Thallus. He could not even get a peer reviewed academic publisher for his own history PhD dissertation (Carrier, Richard (2016). Science Education in the Early Roman Empire. Pitchstone Publishing.). He also has a strong propensity to self-publish (he loves his blog) than actually get relevant peer reviewed contributions to his own field. Credentials are not enough to make him a reliable source. He also has never held an academic position at any institution of higher learning.Ramos1990 (talk) 01:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you wish to remove the text I was attempting to cite him for then? ~ El D. (talk to me) 08:53, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It probably is best to remove the uncited claim. It is not like there is much of Thallus' writings and it seems an odd point to make.Ramos1990 (talk) 23:53, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Dr. Richard Carrier