Talk:Tom Harpur

Untitled

The link to Holding's article should probably be removed. I've read it, and unfortunately it is very sloppy work and would probably drive more people into Harpur's corner. I would welcome a decent critique of Harpur's The Pagan Christ (of the links here, I've so far only read Holding's), but Holding is not up to the task. His effort is embarrassing.

at my count there are currently seven links to critical reviews of harpur. I have been led to beleive that these links should be balanced. Unfortunatly there don't seem to be any positive reviews that I can find. I'll look around to find the most well written ones that I can and I'll put them up and take down some of the critical ones. Unless anyone has a problem.--Matt D (talk) 22:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above. In the interest of balance I've removed Holding's article. Following Wiki policy, I've removed one History New Network link, that of Barry Henaut, which not only appears to repost material under copyright, but is selective in what is included. Victoriagirl (talk) 00:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Casey's 2014 comments about Harpur's work indicate wide and scathing academic rejection of his best known book, a Critical reception section seems to be called for. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

URL seems to be going to an online gaming site.

http://tomharpur.com/ Cynwel (talk) 14:47, 28 July 2026 (UTC)