Talk:Acharya S

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• /archive 1, /Archive2, /Archive3, /Archive4, /Archive5,
• /Archive6, /Archive7, /Archive8, /Archive9, /Archive10
• /Archive11

This article was nominated for deletion on 10 December 2005. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.

Personal attacks are not acceptable on Wikipedia: Wikipedia:No personal attacks. They will not be allowed to stand on this page. Postings should be signed with ~~~~. Unsigned postings may be removed without notice. Charles Matthews

• [Personal attacks removed Charles Matthews]
• [Unsigned comment removed, see notice at top. No further warnings, all improper postings to this page will be cut.] Charles Matthews]
• [Further unsigned comment removed, see notice at top. No further warnings, all improper postings to this page will be cut.] Charles Matthews
• Several of those posting here have recently been blocked for periods, because of personal attacks. Charles Matthews 20:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The proper use of this page is to discuss the article content only. Further off-topic postings may be removed with no further notice. Charles Matthews 20:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:^^James^^ blocked under 3RR

I have made a block, since four reverts in just over a day is still breaking the policy at Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. It is made abundantly clear there that persistent reverting is discouraged. The edit warring here is sterile. Anyone reverting persistently without talking it over can equally expect to be blocked. Charles Matthews 21:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

--::The proper use of this page is to discuss the article content only. Further off-topic postings may be removed with no further notice. Charles Matthews 20:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC) Those are your words Charles. Your bias toward AJA is showing. He reverted 3 times in one day also and has not bother to discuss on this talk page. Apply the rules fairly. I expect to see a posting as you have done here to that effect as you have done with James.--68.146.186.180 06:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)toothfairy

Forget this sort of argument (accusing admins of bias when they are doing their job). You clearly don't even know the policy. I actually prefer the ^^James^^ version, for the most part. But this discussion needs to be called to order. Charles Matthews 08:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

-

If the referee has a vested interest in the outcome of a game, it becomes assured. To narrow the playing field, bend the rules and throw the opponents key hitter out of the game while having ignored other days where reverts ran rampant by all parties. It does seem rather selective, Charles. Did you allow your own beliefs to influence your decision in this case?

66.174.92.167 10:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 05:06 AM CST

Nothing at all to do with my beliefs. You should take care in this kind of ad hominem. Charles Matthews 11:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

---The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Wikipedia article within a 24 hour period-- "four reverts in just over a day is still breaking the policy". Was not Jame's 4th revert in the next day?

This does not imply that reverting three times or fewer is acceptable. In excessive cases, people can be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day. "So the 3 revert rule does not always apply. How is it decided when the less-than-3 rule is excessive and edit warring?"

I am sure you know your job better than I as do two editors who have warned the ONE editor in here about messing up their work without even discussing it here (I gather they are admins). It is clear this cagey editor knows just how to stay under the radar apparently.

Sounds like quibbling? Just seeking fairness, balance and peace. Pleased to see that you prefer Jame's vs. as a good working structure, which may be improved upon by reasonable people. Peace out.--68.146.186.180 10:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)toothfairy

[edit] Compromise edit

I have made what I see as a compromise edit. I would very much appreciate it if everyone could write here any objections to it, as specifics.

As before, deletion is not an option except via AfD nomination. Under the usual convention, AfD nominations should be six months apart. Those who feel this article should be deleted out of hand are referred to the possibility of nomination in line with deletion policy, in June. (Policy pages are at Wikipedia:Deletion policy, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.) Charles Matthews 11:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Charles, you blocked me for 4 reverts in 27 hours (even though AJA refuses to discuss his changes, thus leaving me little choice but to revert!) Only days later AJA continues to revert without comment, making 5 reverts in 30 hours, completely ignoring your warning above. I have to wonder why it is I get blocked while AJA does not. It reeks of selective use of administrative power. Please explain! ^^James^^ 15:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

You do have a choice. You could, for example, decide to just let it be neutral. But then you'd have no reason to be here, would you? A.J.A. 16:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

-

James changed it to bring it closer to a neutral stance... it was your choice to undo it. Since you asked, it begs the question as to just what your reason for being here is? Just what is your objection to showing both sides of the issue? Is Christianiy but a continuation of legend and myth or not?

66.174.79.232 04:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 11:11 PM CST

What is most of the article? Her views. You have been consistently and adamantly opposed to "showing both sides", even to the point of repeatedly demanding the article be deleted because somebody might add some balance. And you accuse me of not wanting both sides? Pure bad faith.

A.J.A. 04:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

-

Neither James nor I have made such accusations of positive input to balance the negative input in the article as "commercial promotion", "commercial blurbs", "commercial promotions", "inappropriate content", "advertizements"... as we have discussed previously, these are judgment calls which should be placed upon the table for discussion. I would be interested in how you support

these accusations. "Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia."

66.174.92.164 06:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 01:06 AM CST

-

You have a point. However I have not been online during all that time, there being other things in my life. And I'm trying to move things forward here. Edit wars are a time sink for everyone. Charles Matthews 15:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

____

Link added: http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/acharya.html

I contributed this recently. It's not fluff; it's Acharya herself explaining her positions and as such is at least as relevant as any number of positive and negative reviews. Nonetheless, it lasted for perhaps five minutes. I didn't mean to offend against anyone's belief system, and hope that wasn't the reason.

On the subject of reviews-- couldn't a better quote from Barbara Walker be used? She is an author of substance and acomplishment, however all this tells us is that she 'nodded her head.' Some of us nod, others may shrug.

[edit] User:66.174.79.233 blocked for 7 days

User:66.174.79.233, signing as el Lobo, has been blocked for a week for a personal attack (on me, implying bad faith). I should like to point out that non-registered users have little protection, by custom: they put themselves in a false position by going ad hominem. A warning was given, and the attack itself has been removed from the page. Charles Matthews 10:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

-

The truth often hurts but it is seldom unjust.

66.174.92.169 12:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 07:12 AM CST

-

Please note... I never made an accusation...

I asked a question with reference to a specific action... the answer to which was being banned. All Charles had to say was explain how it was not (if that were the case), but since he did not, is not this action proof enough of its validity?

66.174.92.162 23:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC) el Lobo 06:33 PM CST

Editing from another IP, when banned, is really not smart. Repeating the whole business, as if this is a debating club, is also to misunderstand the situation. Charles Matthews 10:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

el Lobo - if you want to be taken seriously then get an account and protest this ban on your talk page. Evading the block shows a worrying lack of commitment to process that does not bode well for this article's integrity. Sophia 12:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Here, I'm discussing

In the bad version, we get three paragraphs telling us that people who agree with her agree with her and also complement her writing style. So what? Of course they do. The content is of no interest and surves no purpose except to make the article more favorable to her. We're also told that people who don't agree say she's wrong, but she says she's right. No, really!?

The mere existence of criticism is expected and uninteresting. The content of the criticism is the only thing worth covering and that's what my version covers. A.J.A. 17:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Words like 'reckless', 'looney', 'aberration' (new) are uninteresting? From people who are on her side of the argument? The Barbara Walker quote does needs attention, as has been pointed out above. Charles Matthews 18:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

That's an insult, not a reply. A.J.A. 18:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• • • Looks like AJA prefers to make his edits without discussion on this page. He is merely whittling away at edited quotes from others, while leaving his favorite "negative" quotes untouched. I guess that is called "editing". I will find a source for Barbara Walker and re-edit it in when I do, so it is properly sourced. As for "concise", I can narrow down Robert Price's scathing generalisations as well---soon.--Skull 05:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

-I have added sourced quotes from other authors in the field and sourced Barbara Walker's. Feel free to correct any mistakes I have made and to edit down what you consider concise enough to be qualified under wiki policy. Thank you.--Skull 08:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Please confine your comments to the content. This page is a forum for discussing the article content only. Thank you for providing further quotes. I have reduced the length of several of these, as we aim for concision. Charles Matthews 13:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] By personal attacks, do you mean...

On Acharya S, other users, or both? (you should know by now that I'm a curious guy and ask a lot of meaningless questions) (does this count as on-topic if it concerns that notice you put up on the top of this talk page?) Random the Scrambled 14:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks, in the meaning of the policy, is ad hominem discussion of other editors. Charles Matthews 18:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks on the subject of the article foster an atmosphere of incivility. I can see no good reason to allow such behaviour. It certainly doesn't add to the article, nor to the editing process. ^^James^^ 21:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, got it. You mean "other users". Thanks. Random the Scrambled 11:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I think we should put Acharya S's full real name

I think we should put Acharya S's full real name in the article. ken 02:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

That information is private. Do not use wikipedia to violate someones privacy. ^^James^^ 03:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's any problem with providing the full name of the author; it's a fact that is reasonable for us to report. However, we need to have some sort of confirmation from a reliable source that the name is correct. A very cursory Google search doesn't turn up an online source for the name, just a bunch of Wikipedia mirrors and one or two forum postings. Provided we can cite a good source – on- or off-line – there's no reason not to mention this important fact about the Acharya S pseudonym. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

That is true... except there is no reliable source since User:ZAROVE is the one who first made it public here on wikipedia. For that, and for threatening to publish other private information, such as Acharya's school grades and her credit report, he was banned from editing this page. ^^James^^ 06:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I found this [1] - is it of any use? Sophia 06:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

In a sense yes, as it helps show the damage done. This site scrapes their content from wikipedia. So even though Acharya's full name was eventually removed from wikipedia, it has been automatically spread all over the net. I understand that privacy invasions and harassment are taken quite seriously when wikipedians are the target. Why ZAROVE gets away with a topical ban and a slap on the wrist for violating it is beyond me. Nevermind the extraordinary personal situation the author is in. Acharya S is in hiding because her child was kidnapped, and the kidnapper jumped bail and is still on the loose. I can't understand why any admin, knowing this, would still allow ZAROVE to harass and ridicule her for so many months. Look at all the crap he got away with. He was allowed to do so because technically since Acharya S is not a wikipedian, WP:NPA doesn't apply, as Charles appears to reaffirm above! ^^James^^ 07:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I had no idea of the circumstances - as a mum of 3 she has my sympathy that these nuts are hounding her. I agree that wikipedia should take this more seriously - editing here is quick and easy and well linked but setting up a website takes knowledge and time which most people don't have. Sophia 12:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

My understanding – please, correct me if I'm mistaken – is that the kidnapper was the boy's estranged father. If that is the case, it strikes me as pointless to conceal the author's name, because the kidnapper already knows it. Obviously if ZAROVE (or someone else) decides to start trying to post addresses, credit history, phone numbers, or other harrassing information it should be removed without delay. Under the circumstances, edits of that nature will rightly be met with a swift, harsh response.

For the purposes of our article, however, we're left with the question of what information is verifiable. The identification of Acharya S as D. Murdock goes back to 2001, as indicated by Murdock herself: [2]. The rest of the name still needs a verifiable, reliable source; until we have such, I'm not sure that we can support inclusion of the full name. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point - the father should know her real name and the info here will not change that. However as the site I provided was a wiki echo we can't use it as a RS so maybe just sticking with what the author has confirmed is best. Sophia 12:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, my understanding is that her full name was made public by Zarove here on wikipedia. He did not source it, and claimed it was original research. I consider his releasing her full name to be a privacy invasion in itself. He also made other threats, and was eventually dealt with, but inadequately it seems. (Note: I am not contesting the inclusion of "D Murdock".)

The other point I was trying to make was about the constant stream of personal attacks and vitriol directed towards Acharya S here in the talk pages. Would that be tolerated anywhere else in wikipedia? And considering the extraordinarily stressful situation the author is in, isn't it just a simple matter of decent humanity not to allow such attacks? Yet it went on for months. And even now... in the section above this one, a user is essentially asking for permission to personally attack Acharya S here on the talk page, and Charles appears to grant it! WTF!? ^^James^^ 16:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

---Hello folks! I added a new section called "Acharya's Views on Spirituality". Essentially this is a simple introduction to her personal views of the "spirituality" part of religon. However, Acharya S' views on religon also extend into the realm of it's socio-political underpinnings, as it affects the world today..ie. war, women, children, the environment etc. Acharya S, the person, is just not only "Christ-myth" or religion-myth oriented, but her views proceed from this into many arenas. Just a hint there could be more added to round out the "person", which is what this titled page is about as the author of a controversial hypothesis.--Skull 22:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amazon Reviews

I don't think amazon reviews are considered reliable sources. ^^James^^ 08:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I would agree as they are either publisher blurb or of unconfirmed authorship. Sophia 23:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

---I will try to see if I can confirm that this Amazon review is legitimate. Either this noted contender for the presidency made the review, or someone faked it in his name. Otherwise, I won't argue the point.--Skull 03:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• • • I have confirmed that this review @ Amazon was written by David P Bergland the Libertarian candidate for the Presidency and the author. One will note that at Amazon, that the "real" status is confirmation of the use of a real name (via credit card for eg.). I took the liberty of reaching Mr. Bergland through a Libertarian site and he responded thus:

Dear Rene:

Yes. I am the one and only David Bergland who wrote the review of "Suns of God" on the Amazon site. Acharya might have told you how that came about, but I will repeat it here. While reading the book, I came across an abbreviated reference and sent her an email requesting additional information. She graciously replied and also asked me if I would post a review of the book on Amazon; so I did.

I assume you have checked the entry on me in Wikipedia. It is a succinct and accurate report. If you need additional information, let me know. I would like the quote from my review to remain in the Wikipedia entry on Acharya, so whatever I can do to help, just ask.

David Bergland

(Hope this helps verify---with pleasure--)Skull 19:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Her books

It is not unfair or untrue to note that most of the books will be classed as "speculative". Borders Bookstore does place The Christ Conspiracy in the shelf location "Metaphysical > Metaphysical St > Speculation."[3] online as well as in their stores. Furthermore, is it really wrong to say that "One would be hard-pressed to find an endorsement of her work by a mainstream scholar?"--Killerwasp 18:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Her books are not accepted, at all, by mainstream academic scholarship and the article should make that fact clear. Gene Ward Smith 15:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

How bookstores organize themselves is entirely irrelevant. See WP:RS. Including information on who hasn't reviewed her work is not acceptable either. ^^James^^ 18:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not irrelevant at all. It is an example of how her work is viewed by others, as is the fact that her work is not accepted by mainstream scholarship. That scholars in the field do not even bother to review her work is a strong sign that experts do not even consider it worthwhile looking at. Such facts are noted when discussing scholars all of the time. This is an article, after all, about a person who professes to be a scholar, and her standing in the academic community gives one a good idea of what kind of work she does. Opinions of other scholars matter. They are not sufficient to prove good scholarship, but they are a very good sign that one is performing relevant, reliable work, even if that work is controversial.--Killerwasp 00:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Borders, I again urge you to familiarize yourself with wikipedias policies, specifically WP:RS. For your second point, read WP:V. That should get you up to speed on what is considered eligible for inclusion. ^^James^^ 02:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)