Talk:Acharya S/Archive6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Reply to el Lobo

<<That you assume to hold the power of life or death over this article bespeaks the arrogance of belief, prejudice, and bias.>>

If you mean the single-person you, I do not. If you mean the plural you, most definitely. And why not? We are the Wikipedians who collectively make up the Wikipedia. On the other hand, you (single-person you) do seem to assume you hold the power of life or death over this article. You are free (if not welcome), to list this article for speedy deletion. However, this article clearly does not meet the criteria, and I seriously doubt any administrators will take you up on it.

<<Just because two thirds of this nation are Christian>>

Fortunately, you don't have to gain the consensus of the nation - or since Wikipedia is international, the English-speaking world. You don't even have to gain the consensus of the entire Wikipedia - which would tend to tilt the odds in your favor, since non-Christians are disproportionately represented here. You just have to reach a consensus with the other contributors to this article - many of whom are not Christian. You aren't, I'm not. Not sure about the others. They might be Christians, they might not be. (Might as well lay down your cards people - the pro-Acharyans are going to accuse us of being biased anyway.) It would not be wise for you to simply assume that everyone who disagrees with Acharya is a Christian. While we are on the subject, what are your religious beliefs?

<<adament an opponent to prejudice, belief, bias, hate, racism and subjectivity.>>

Wow, I get to flex my philosophical muscles!

  • Prejudice - actually, prejudice is pro-survival. We are wired by millions of years of evolution to come to snap judgements. It is better to come to a nearly-correct decision at once (that the orange-and-black stripped object over there is a dangerous predator) than to make a correct one after hours of reflection (that's a good way to wind up as kitty chow). Of course, we owe to ourselves to double-check our prejudices. I'm willing to revaluate my beliefs about Acharya, anytime you are willing to try to convince me.
  • Belief - I believe that I'm sitting in front of a computer right now. I believe that I am human. I even believe that I exist. Are you saying I shouldn't believe these things?
  • Bias - bias helps us to come to snap judgements. We are hard-wired to be biased - experiments have shown that we have emotional reactions to even nonsense strings of syllables. But, just as we have an obligation to doublecheck our prejudices, we have an obligation to overcome our bias - if we have a reason to do so.
  • Hate - So, would you say that it is wrong to hate prejudice, belief, bias, hate, racism and subjectivity? Though I would say that it is wise to love the sinner, hate the sin.
  • Racism - your opposition to it is commendable. But I fail to see how it applies in this situation. What race would you say that your fellow contributors belong to? Are you saying that we are discriminating against Achayra because she is a WASP?
  • Subjectivity - As my ethics prof says, "ought implies can". If you say that we ought not to be subjective, you are implying that we can be otherwise. I disagree. We will always be influenced by our prejudices, our biases, our pre-existing beliefs. But we might be able to affect how much we are influenced by those things.

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alteripse#Acharya_S_2

If I were engaged in a conspiracy, I would take care for the conspiracy to be kept secret. I have the ability to privately email other Wikipedians - a form of communication that others would be hard pressed to intercept. You will also note that the first person I suggested we "recruit" into this "conspiracy" was James, a pro-Acharyan. A most odd choice for an anti-Acharyan conspiracy!

My intention was to break up the two combatants. It was clear to me that Zarove and James were engaging in an escalating cycle of mutual recrimination. I hoped that by approaching them seperately, we might be able to broker a compromise. Unfortunately, schoolwork caught up with me, and I was unable to put this plan into action.

<<As an example: the introduction of the Noahide Laws without referencing where you obtained the information is an example of slanting the article to make it seem that she is antisemitic.>>

Actually, I'm fairly sure that even the original version of that passage included a link to Acharya's article. And I repeat, you are welcome to suggest alternative langauge.

<<It is worthy of note that she has criticisms of Buddhism and Islam, as well.>>

That doesn't mean that she can't be antisemitic in addition to hating (or at least criticising) other religions as well. Accusations of antisemitism are rather touchy, but she is accusing Jews of taking part in the shadowy "New World Order". Shades of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" there.

Back to the task at hand - my rewrite of the Criticism section. My ethics as a scholar-in-training don't include an obligation for objectivity. But they do include an obligation for honesty and self-criticism. That means taking the objections of my ideological opponents (who might well be my personal friends - personal animosity is not required in a scholarly debate!) into consideration. My ethics also include the need for peer-review. So, I say again, you will be given every opportunity to raise objections, and we will do our best to address those objections. crazyeddie 19:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Going through the Criticisms

I'm starting to read over the big honking stack of printouts. I've just gotten to Acharya's response to Robert Price. Apparently Acharya believes that the Masons were the instigators of the Christ Conspiracy. Robert Price scoffed at that. Her reply, in part, was that "For modern examples of masonic connection to religion, all one need to do is investigate Mormonism and the Jehovah's Witnesses." Firstly, could somebody get me some Advil? Secondly, could el Lobo, or AJA, or somebody who has actually read her stuff outline her proposed narative of the Christ Conspiracy? I think providing this outline in the article just gained a whole new level of importance for me. crazyeddie 22:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Back to the point about "She bills herself as...", I'm reading her response to Holding, and she says "my own credentials - meager in quantity but not in quality - are far greater than Holding's..." This suggests that I might be right in my hypothesis that it was Paranoia Magazine that was engaged in puffing up her reputation, not her. Can anybody find an example of her labeling herself as a historian, religious scholar, linguist, and archeologist?

From what I've seen, her critics begin by attacking her most plausible propositions, and working down from there. I think we ought to do the opposite, start with the most implausible and work towards the more plausible. To do that, I think I'm going to need that outline. crazyeddie 23:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Is Acharya responding to the same criticism I just read? She quotes Holding as saying "S is for Stench" and "low-rent intellect". I used Firefox's find feature on Holding's criticism, and neither turned up. I thought she might be referring to this: http://tektoonics.com/parody/achyvssheila.html But same thing. What's going on here? crazyeddie 23:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

According to Mike Licona, "The thesis of The Christ Conspiracy is that pagans and Jews who were Masons from the first and second centuries got together and invented the account of Jesus and his disciples in order to create a religion which it was hoped would serve as a one-world religion for the Roman empire. This religion would be a collage of all other world religions and combined with astrology." Does anybody have anything to add to this statement? crazyeddie 00:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


Just got this when I loaded the article:

Line 1: Line 1: Thanks for experimenting with the page Fag on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Thanks for experimenting with the page Fag on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. --Krich 07:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC) --Krich 07:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

   +

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.Makemi 06:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC) Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.Makemi 06:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


Whoever you are... I have not made a change in this page since the 19th. The last edit was by AJA. Before you go jumping the gun with false accusations and making warnings, I would point out to you that in the real world there are consequences for ones actions. To be accused unjustly, just might cause someone to become more resolute, determined and stubborn and get exactly what it is you are warning against. Your vandalism is 100 times beyond the one you accuse of.

12/21/05 -el Lobo

[edit] Developing policy on biographies

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is a page in a state of being redrafted - not therefore a final version or settled policy. It does seem to me particularly relevant to this article, in the matters of tone and the handling of criticism. Charles Matthews 11:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


A biography is an account of the of the events that comprise a person's life. Without their cooperation, to do that, they would have had to have lived a life somewhat public in nature. Putting the pieces of a persons life together means that you would have to interview their relatives, friends, associates and aquaintances. Not an easy chore and one that is very time consuming. Verifying what oters say about someone else is a daunting experience. Just making simple reports on an incident can take hours of unraveling who said what about whom. A brief bios, as I have mentioned previously, for the purposes introducing an author to an audiance, should be geared to show who they are, the reason the bio is being written and how that concerns what they have authored.

12/21/05 -el Lobo


To crazyeddie...

I am a cautious person. Trust does not come easy to me, it has to be earned. I know CYA when I hear it. Way too many years in the trenches. You cannot be serious when you say you desire to exhibit scholarship after having declared your intention to not read the very material you (laughingly) critique. Read the books... then critique. By the way, most of the material you are seeking has been, point by point, covered in these discussions. Use your scholarly abilities to read them, it won't take long, and you can eliminate most of your questions. Then, if you have any questions, ask me and I will endeavor answer them or will look them up for you.

12/21/05 -el Lobo

[edit] Finished reading the criticisms

Unfortunately, it does look like I'm going to have to read the books. I was hoping to assist others who had actually read the books, but that doesn't look like it's going to work. After going through the criticims, I've managed to gather a partial impression of her actual thesis:

She believes that a conspiracy involving free-masons, pagans, and Jews fabricated not only the gospel accounts of Jesus and the story of Jesus' life, but also the story of the apostles, and Paul, and apparently John the Baptist. She says Paul's letters were fabrications, forgeries. She argues that not only the sections from Flavius Josephus that deal with Jesus were fabricated (which has at least some support with mainstream scholars, although according Mike Licona they are in the minority), but also the passage that deals with John the Baptist - something that virtually no scholar believes. (The only reason I put in the "virtually" is because there is always the lunatic fringe...) She also apparently states that Josephus was a freemason (therefore probably part of the conspiracy). She also states that Tacitus' passage on Jesus (see Tacitus on Jesus) was a fabrication, added by a Christian editor, on the basis that nobody cited it until the 15th century. This allegation seems to be unique to Acharya.

One of her major burdens of proof would be to provide evidence for the existence of Freemasonry before the 17th century.

She states that, in addition to more likely candidates, certain obscure forms of Hinduism and Buddhism were "plagiarized" in the fabrication of the Christ Myth. If Mike Licona is to be believed, these branches were either influenced by Christianity, or at least post-date the writing of the Gospels.

There is some discussion about astrology, that the twelve tribes of Israel were based on the twelve signs of the Zodiac, that Judaism had its origins in moon worship, and that the "fish sign" of Christianity was selected because it symbolized that Jesus marked the beginning of the Age of Pisces. Other than the last, I'm not sure how this ties into her larger thesis. All of these allegations are debatable.

It says something about this dispute that nobody saw fit to mention the bit about the freemasons. Are there any other surprises lurking for me around the corner? I'm already aware, vaguely, of her comments about beings from beyond the third dimension. Anything else?

At any rate, what I think we should do, in the long term, is this: have a rather lengthy section on her thesis, and intergrate the criticisms of her thesis into that section. We can save criticisms about Acharya's person for a different section.

For now, I suggest we concentrate on writing a section on her thesis, and save criticising it for later. Unless there are objections, I think I'll put what I wrote above into more neutral language and use that. So, el Lobo, do you have anything to add to the above? It's not perfect, but it'll have to do until I can actually read the books.

As for your comments:

<<I know CYA when I hear it.>>

Hmm. Yes, I suppose you could describe my self-enforced rules of conduct as CYA. I do like it when ethical principles have the backing of enlightened self-interest.

<<Way too many years in the trenches.>>

You don't say? What is your background? Tell us about yourself.

<<You cannot be serious when you say you desire to exhibit scholarship...>>

Oh, I do desire to exhibit scholarship. That is not to say that I'm any good at it. I'm still in training. Although this is my sixth year of college, I'm still only the equivalent of a junior.

<<Whoever you are... I have not made a change in this page since the 19th. The last edit was by AJA. Before you go jumping the gun with false accusations and making warnings, I would point out to you that in the real world there are consequences for ones actions. To be accused unjustly, just might cause someone to become more resolute, determined and stubborn and get exactly what it is you are warning against. Your vandalism is 100 times beyond the one you accuse of.>>

You can avoid getting such messages by logging in. You can do this by clicking on the blue login link in the upper right-hand corner of your screen and following the directions. Right now the only way to tell who you are is by your IP address. What happened is that someone else was using the IP address you are currently using and vandalised the article called Fag. The good wikipedian who left you that message was not calling you a fag. And, no, the person who vandalised the article most likely did not deliberately steal your IP address. Most likely, you are being dynamically assigned one by your internet service provider every time you log on to the internet. The nameless vandal just happened to be assigned the one you are using when he logged on to the internet him/herself. You can prevent such things from happening in the future by getting a login, and logging in before editing. That way, unless somebody steals your password, we know who made your edits.

This information was more-or-less available on the page you got this message from:

This is the discussion page for an anonymous user who has not created an account yet or is not signed in. We therefore have to use his or her numerical IP address to identify him or her. Such an IP address can be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user and feel that irrelevant comments have been directed at you, please create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users. We also recommend creating an account if you do not want anyone to see your IP address.

Perhaps you should have read this before you went jumping the gun with false accusations. :-) crazyeddie 18:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


Regarding Masonry... do quote where Acharya states a "belief" "that a conspiracy involving free-masons, pagans, and Jews fabricated not only the gospel accounts of Jesus and the story of Jesus' life, but also the story of the apostles, and Paul, and apparently John the Baptist." You state that she "believes" this... any proof that this is a fact?

The "burden of proof" for the existence of Freemasonry before the 17th century can be found in the url you provided... just read what it says. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasonry If that is not good enough try these: http://www.oelodge.uklinux.net/history.htm http://users.1st.net/fischer/MASHST01.HTM http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09771a.htm

But first, you provide where she made that claim beyond speculation and the drawing of correlations.

Mike Licona must not be aware of the timeline of christianity... Hinduism dates to around 5000 BC http://hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/h_antiquity.htm and Buddhism to circa 500 BC http://www.aboutbuddhism.org/history-of-buddhism.htm making it laughable that christianity influenced them.

Regarding astrology, see http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02018e.htm

My background is immaterial. I write the words to stand on their own merit. I am inconsequential to them. Read them for what tehy say. What you do with them is beyond my control. I won't be around all that long to own up to them anyway. I have to apologize for not making myself clear on that warning notice. In my opoinion, wikipedians are far too quick to pull out these warnings prior to any discussion of them. I neglected to reflect that (as I have been told myself) that this is what these discussion pages are about. My only excuse is that I wrote it between 4:30 and 5 AM after a restless, sleepless night.


12/21/05 -el Lobo


To AJA... just thought a little medicine might serve to illustrate what the current version looks like. With few exceptions, the whole piece is slanted. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Most of what is posted is unneeded, unwarranted and is designed to smear the author in an effort to dissuade the reader from reading the books. "The most common type of vandalism is the replacement of existing text with obscenities, page blanking, or the insertion of other wholly irrelevant content. Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia." After all... by your reckoning, what you did to what I wrote is exactly what I did to yours which makes you the vandal now.


12/21/05 -el Lobo


12/21/05 -el Lobo

If someone read what you had put in place of the Criticisms section, and then read the above, he would, if he assumed you write in good faith, think it contains something like:
Most of those who study the issues sincerely conclude that Acharya is a kook whose research is sloppy at best.
Nothing that "slanted" appears. Nor should it, although it would at least have the advantage of being objectively true. You don't want any presentation of what the other side says. It's "unneeded"... propaganda only needs one side, you know. A.J.A. 03:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

While we're citing policy, Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. When (you?) made an edit called "less is more", should I have taken the principle to its logical conclusion and blanked the page?

Other than the existence of people who aren't Acharya groupies, is there anything specific you think slants against her? A.J.A. 03:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


Sorry you took the bait.

Il provide an example of what I think is npov.

12/21/05 -el Lobo

And he removes good content, including the section linking to her theory of a Jewish conspiracy. Because HER OWN WRITINGS might make her look kooky. Can't have that. A.J.A. 05:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
By the way, I meant to address this:
Hinduism dates to around 5000 BC http://hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/h_antiquity.htm and Buddhism to circa 500 BC http://www.aboutbuddhism.org/history-of-buddhism.htm making it laughable that christianity influenced them.
Next time, before you make an utter buffoon of yourself, THINK. Just a little. A.J.A. 05:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

What Jewish conspiracy are you talking about A.J.A.? 12/22/2005--rpsugar


neutral... Not aligned with, supporting, or favoring either side in a war, dispute, or contest. Belonging to neither side in a controversy: on neutral ground. One who takes no side in a controversy. NPOV is an official Wikipedia policy which states that articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing all views fairly and without bias. According to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable".

My comment as to the timeline of Hinduism, Buddhism and Christianity was in response to "She states that, in addition to more likely candidates, certain obscure forms of Hinduism and Buddhism were "plagiarized" in the fabrication of the Christ Myth. If Mike Licona is to be believed, these branches were either influenced by Christianity, or at least post-date the writing of the Gospels." Buffoonism is a two way street. Read: http://www.truthbeknown.com/lifeofbuddha.htm

12/22/05 -el Lobo

"representing all views"
Get that? It's not that hard.
I knew why you posted the comment about Hinduism and Buddhism. It still makes you look buffoonish.
The Jewish conspiracy I'm talking about is the one Acharya believes in because she's a nutcase. A.J.A. 17:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Do take note the tunnel vision... it says "representing all views fairly without bias." And just as in the article, a point that has been harped on from the beginning and has not only been ignored but consistenly undermined. Better a jester than slow. 12/22/05 -el Lobo

"Fairly and without bias" is not a license to ignore the part about representing all views; nor, for the other IP, is it a license to throw in POV content at the opening of the section designed specifically to poison the well against views you happen not to like. A.J.A. 22:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
That is one way to earn a reputation... since I quoted "representing all views fairly without bias" how is it that you concluded I ignored it? It licenses nothing... in fact, it says just the opposite: "NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable" it is because of such attitudes that the this well has been poisoned. I am pro objectvity, a neutral view, fairness, equal treatment, principled behavior,

and intellectual honesty which is contrary to how this article has been handled. For my part... it should be asked why is this article published on Wikipedia? From what I can see, it exists because two books were written. Without those books, the author would not be mentioned. So, it should tell about the books with a cursory bio about the author but only as it pertains to the books and that should be all. Short, sweet, to the point, listing only that information that would aid a reader who is so inclined to check into it. It should not be a debate on the merits of the books or a hit piece against the author.

12/22/05 -el Lobo

You quote it, and advocate (even in this very comment!) omitting all reference to anything you personally wish didn't exist, viz., people with enough sense to discern a kook when they see one. No, this article will not be a PR puff piece promoting her work. What about a reader who weants to know if it's worth checking into? Ah, then you demand that the piece be "slanted" in such a way he thinks it's a bold breath of fresh air, to quote some of the groupies' versions. A.J.A. 03:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
crit·i·cism Pronunciation (krt-szm)

n. 1. The act of criticizing, especially adversely. 2. A critical comment or judgment.

So, now you feign reading minds. You do not know what I wish... but by your own observation declare what you wish were true. From the very first instance, the reasons for this piece was to deny the thesis of the books making it a hit piece both on the author and on the books. You set the standards according to your own judgment which was preordained by your own beliefs. Under these circumstances, this article should never have been allowed to stand. It is not a review of her work, it is a condemnation of it so shallow in its attempt at denial that only blind belief could feel justified in it. 12/23/05 -el Lobo


[edit] Updated response

Wikipedia Response by Acharya S

I agree. If we are to include her criticisms of Noahide Laws and Judaism, lets also include sections for her criticisms of Buddhism, Mormonism and Islam.

^^James^^ 11:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Fine, no problem. Just let's have them reported in a neutral and fairly crisp way. Charles Matthews 11:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

So I clicked on the Mormon link expecting a rehash of the standard objections (e.g., archeology), which are conclusive enough. Instead I get stuff about about how they're plotting to take over the world with nuclear weapons. Nice. A.J.A. 18:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fremasons...

I did mention the Freemasons. Just got lost in the list of rpelies.

Acharya S's veiws on other htigns WHERE attmetoedot be added, but the fans objected as Acharya threw a hissy fit and acted like this was meant as an attack. (See her reply section.)

The section was ot be expanded iwht further aspects of her views, which I think shoudl make a unified section, as oppsoed to a "Noahide laws" Section. Lump them in togather.

But th elife seciton ( Which the Disiples wan tot remove) seems the most relevant in this artilce,as its baotu her andnot her viees, which should be covered in Brief.

[edit] More Shenanigans

Look at this:

I said: "The Jewish conspiracy I'm talking about is the one Acharya believes in because she's a nutcase."

And he, altering MY comment, changed it to: "The Jewish conspiracy I'm talking about is the one A.J.A believes in because he's a nutcase."

"Don't misrepresent other people: As a rule, refrain from editing others' comments without their permission. Though it may appear helpful to correct typing errors, grammar, etc, please do not go out of your way to bring talk pages to publishing standards, since it is not terribly productive and will tend to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Certainly don't edit someone's words to change their meaning." A.J.A. 02:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


Gee! Isnt editing other peoples bio and words fun! I didnt think you would notice. LOL! Just following your lead is all....you know all about dishonesty...calling people names like "Buffoon" and "nut". What makes you think I am an Acharya supporter? Mr. know it all! Grow up....I can be just as immature and condescending as you. I have only ever seen 2 mature people from Wikipedia in this place, but they seem to let the children play. So lets play! 12/22/2005 rpsugar

"I didnt think you would notice."

Exactly. You thought you could permanently forge my "signature" to a "confession" of being an anti-Semite. That's abusive. If I knew how to ask the admins to ban somebody I would do it. A.J.A. 04:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[Personal attack deleted Charles Matthews]

Good to see you on the job Charles! My edit on Acharya didnt stick...I wonder why..hmmm. Anyhow, the peice as it is, is downright atrocious. I am sure you could do a better job. I know you are a smart and I hope a fair man. I find your site at Wiki interesting. You are obviously very talented. Now why does anyone have to put up with the incompetents here, who do practice bias and call people names...like buffoon and nutcase? They insist on being demeaning and derogatory to Acharya, her viewpoint and anyone who tries to put it in balance. No one in their right mind objects to valid or even invalid criticism so long as reasonable counterpoints are put in place for balance. Play fair and let the reader decide. I dont see that happening here and at other sites I have been. I am not an expert at this editing here at Wiki Charles, but I am good at stating a case without bias and presenting balance. Controversy is good, but not maliciousness with intent. Thankyou sir! --Rpsugar 18:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)12/23/2005 rpsugar

I'm here as an admin. I'm not a gatekeeper on content. I want to see Wikipedia's policies being observed. They speak what goes into articles, but also on 'behaviour'. To put it in a high-flown way, I'm supposed to maintain the conditions under which some consensus on the article can be created. Charles Matthews 22:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Then why did you cut out most of the criticism? Why did you rewrite it so that the now-misnamed "Criticisms" section no longer even mentions anyone who rejects her theory outright? A.J.A. 02:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
See my edit summary. I found the section clunky; and the Holding thing has no place here, in my opinion, as below WP's threshold of attention. The Michael Licona story might expand to something useful, I don't know. As I say, I'm not ruling on content, but the article needs to have a reasonable overall shape. One known weakness of the wiki model is that when edit wars occur, the rest of an article tends to get neglected. I'm particularly aware of this in the case of this page. A reader coming fresh should become well informed as to what it's all about. Charles Matthews 08:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
In the first place, if you're excluding personal quarrels, you'd have to exclude any criticisms at all because that woman makes everything a personal quarrel. It's apparently the only mode of discussion she has. You finally added a link to the Licona article, although, for some reason I don't understand, you link to her rebuttal but not his rebuttal of hers. The thing is, in your "criticisms" section, the only person deemed worthy of mention agrees with her thesis. That's not neutral. Furthermore you altered what the generic "critics" say so that they don't even dispute her accuracy! A thing based on secondary sources can be fine, as long as the secondary sources are good. A thing based on outdated and fringe sources has serious problems. While I'm at it, the new Life section puts all the "impressive" stuff first before getting around to mentioning she only has an undergraduate degree in liberal arts in the second paragraph. All your edits appear to be pro-Acharya. A.J.A. 18:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, I disagree. Considering the date today, you might also have made the more charitable interpretation: that I'm trying to improve the article for the general reader. By getting rid of an online feud; by demoting Licona who is a doctoral student, as it turns out, to the references. I think you're falling into the trap of assuming 'media bias'. NB hostile media effect. Charles Matthews 18:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
So you didn't remove everyone who doesn't agree with her theory, it just looks that way because of a cognitive bias? Objectively false. But I'm not supposed to notice you've entered the edit war as a partisan because, hey, it's Christmas Eve. A.J.A. 20:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I am not a partisan. I have explained that. If you are so blinkered or inexperienced here as not to understand that edits are not judged here by 'direction', but the construction of articles as a whole is judged by the NPOV doctrine, then I don't particularly value your opinion. Anyone who does a good job on POV has simply to disregard this sort of accusation. My diffs don't have to seem 'balanced' to you or anyone else. There is no ratchet on what goes in or comes out. Partisans are the worst judges of fairness. Charles Matthews 21:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
You very much are a partisan. This is proven by the edits themselves: according your "Criticisms" section, nobody worth considering actually disagrees with her or considers her sources unreliable (just "secondary"). That's nothing more than the POV that she's right and that everyone who doesn't agree has something wrong with him. You're also imperious and overstepping your place in declaring it doesn't matter if I "or anyone else" consider your edits biased. It would be better if you left. A.J.A. 21:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Fundamental misconception. NPOV has nothing to do with you or anyone else imposing one-dimensional criteria on individual edits. It is to do with the way the page reads. Anyone who is an actual neutral can expect flak from partisans; well known fact of life. Charles Matthews 22:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
If you were paying attention you would know that the way the page reads is exactly what I'm complaining about. The way it reads now, the only problem anyone worth mentioning has is that she gives inadequate expression to ideas which are basically sound. That's a POV. A.J.A. 22:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
You have been given the benefit of policy: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Now you should give me the benefit of policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith. If you dislike an edit of mine, say so. Without attacking me as biased. That's how we do it around here. Charles Matthews 10:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Consideration of the use of the term "critic" in the Criticisms (the act of criticizing, especially adversely) category... it means to make harsh or carping judgments; a faultfinder. In light of this it is not difficult to see that the whole category is contrived to serve but one purpose... even if it pretends to a balance with opposing views. It's all in the presentation, in how it is said. It is not difficult to read between the lines. "All the fun's in how you say a thing." -Robert Frost

12/23/05 -el Lobo


How exactly is discussing various theories relating to the etymology of the word 'solomon' a valid criticism? ^^James^^ 05:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

So you're saying the "Criticisms" section now consists of a weak counterargument and an ENDORSEMENT. Good thing I didn't pick one you guys think is stronger or that would be gone too. Wouldn't it?
I do not accept this. A.J.A. 06:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


I think it should be pointed out that other Christ mythicists are not attacked with the same animosity, hostility and venom as Acharya has had to bear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Doherty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Harpur http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Freke http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Gandy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jesus_Mysteries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus-Myth

JP Holding has a page at Wikipedia [1] and is treated benignly while Robert Price and Mike Licona, though heavily quoted in the past, do not have pages at Wikipedia rendering their importance somewhat less as a result. That aside, one wonders if gender may not be playing a part in this?

12/24/05 -el Lobo

Not much should be read into the existence or otherwise of pages; WP's coverage is imperfect, and is likely to be so for a while. I believe the Holding page survived AfD; don't read too much into that either. Charles Matthews 13:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


Skull 20:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)Another example of bias on page. The article states Acharya relies on a few and one heavily as sources for her theme. Here is the link to a full bibliography of "Suns of God" putting the claim to a lie: http://www.truthbeknown.com/bibliography.pdf --Skull 20:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)rpsugar

[edit] I am impressed.I make Acharyas Hit list, while she proves her Hypocracy...

I am a mysoiginist now. So, Im a Zealot Christainotu to defmae her, and hate her for bogn a woman. Yup. shes NPOV... and she would never stood to Charecter assasinationa nd guilt by association...


OK< CHarles, I think we have had enough. Look at her reponce ot Wikipedia. look at her discussion gorup. CHeck her out. THis sint Ad Hom, but tis clear that she only wants the rticle to sing he rpriases. Informaiton is omited that either makes he rlook like a crackpot, cast doubt on her grandeos claism abotu herself, or otherwise shwos critism to her work, whilst her work is advocated as a cutitgn edge peive of repsected scholarship and she is seen as a world renown expert. This is how Wikipeida shodlr ead acocridn got her. If not, her oponants are namecalled and labled for dismissal.

Lets forget my extensive trackrecord for toelration fo views alein to my won, I am a Christain, so thus hate her owrk ebcause it threatens my beleifs. And I also hate women. ( This in spite of the fac tthat 90% of my mates are women...I do not get on with men well.)

I am a Christain, so thus I hate women and hate her work as it threatens my beelifs.


Lets forget that Crazieeddie is an Ahtiest, ehs just an idiot who doesnt ecognise greatness...This is because he disagrees iwthhe GReat Acharya S.

AJA is also a meandering Partisan.


All this because James, El Lobo, and others will to proclaim this as the case.

And while they defame us, they constantly omit vital informaiton on the subject of the article.

And slant whats left in her favour.

Now I knwo you will lielly delete this, btu pelase read what El Lobo and James state about us, in a clear attmeot t goad us into an attack.

And look at it relaisticlaly. They are tyrign to manipualte all invovled and bully hteir will into the aritvle.


Lets not overlook this, in our assesemnt ehre. This sint an edit war with elgitimate dispute. tis an edit war based on Acharya's Didisples tyrign to make this a promotional artice of their Guru's work.

Any who oppose htis agenda will be branded.Its standard Acharaya S SPin.

Zarove

4.153.53.198 21:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


It's the same old song and dance. Whining cannot change the fact that you were the chief archetect of what was little more than a platform for your beliefs. In your denial of even the possibility that religion is an adaptation of previous myth (rendering it impotent and useless)... you created an article that reeked of propaganda and slander based in inuendo, accusation, conjecture and denial. You ignored every challenge made to you and denied objections to your methods even in the face of irrefutable evidence. Now you come, hat in hand "decrying your outcast state". Well, it's your baby, so look what you have done. I've maintained that as long as the likes of you are free to edit at will, this piece should be removed. It cannot receive equal treatment, a neutral view, or an honest evaluation that will long stand unchanged because you and the believers of the world cannot help themselves. http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/

12/26/05 -el Lobo


[edit] reply.

It's the same old song and dance. Whining cannot change the fact that you were the chief archetect of what was little more than a platform for your beliefs.

This is simply the same Liableous soprt of claim hat you alledge we make. You have no real evidence that I wrote a peice to smear Dorothy. In fact, if you rad through any version,even those I personally edited, you iwll find not one hint of my personal beleifs.

On the other hand, if you look at what you or James have done, you will see plenty of partisain rambligns in an attemto to remove her claims that woudl reveal her for what she is, acceptabc of her self promotional claims abotu herself withotu queasiton, refusal to allowtour own argumetns for such inclusion in the article proper, and removal orf all critism.

So, rather than Hypocriticlaly attack me and sya I only wanted to push my beleifs, look at reality. You do nohtign but try to push your beelifs, and rmeove anyhtign that woudl cause one to pause and consider that perhaps this is not thebest source.

I have not crtiissed Doorthy's work in this artilce, neither have I done anyhtign to advance my beleifs. I merley report on her beleifs. You, on thd other hand, promote her beelifs. I also report on the known facts of her life. ( Which I didnt getfrom her ex-Boyfriend, by the way, I called courthouses and her school and such. I did a peice pn her. So let her call the FBI, what I did was a absic background search.)



In your denial of even the possibility that religion is an adaptation of previous myth (rendering it impotent and useless)...


Located where in this artivle? Or even the talk pages? Need I remind you its James who wante dot "Expose" me and my alledged agenda. He even said it was strange I edited on DInosaurs and posted a quot form me ( ut of context) whihc impleid I was a creationist...


So rather than lie again, try oproong htis allegation for once.

WHere do I make any such denial here?


you created an article that reeked of propaganda and slander based in inuendo, accusation, conjecture and denial.

As proven by...what? Can you even remoely quote me doing anyhtign at all in the article that does any of this?

Or is htis shallow posturing, the same sort we have become use to form an Acharya Disiple.



You ignored every challenge made to you and denied objections to your methods even in the face of irrefutable evidence.

Actually this isnt true at all. What I do is postinformaiton, such as that her son wasabducted in 2005. She posted th elink on her own website. it was removed here. I also post thather works arent tkenseriosuly in Academia. Thats pretty danged evident. I also posted that her beelif was that Jesus was a SOlar Myth andeven went so far as to rpelicate her entire list of claims.

This isnt a debate, this is an encyclopedia.



Now you come, hat in hand "decrying your outcast state".


No I didnt. I declared that you are bullying and harrassing others here, incluidng myself. THis much is obvious to al concenred.


Well, it's your baby, so look what you have done.

I write an aritlc eon a two bit conspiracy theorist and thendefended the articld form her legiosn of devotees who wan tot make the aritlce read as a commerical for her an who will say its a smear to read otherwise...


I've maintained that as long as the likes of you are free to edit at will, this piece should be removed.


Can yo show me any example where I actually smeared her? Anyhtign at all?

In the arilce itsself of coruse.


It cannot receive equal treatment, a neutral view, or an honest evaluation that will long stand unchanged because you and the believers of the world cannot help themselves.


By Neutal, of coruse, youmean " SHe has conclusiely, withotu a doubt, proced that Jeuss Christ didnt exist and is base don the millinia old Solar Myth and Astortheology. SHe is a brillaint world renown schoalr, repseted the wolrd over, and fights an endless crusade agaisnt the eivl that is the CHrurch, and allrleigoon."

Sorry, not buyign it. You dotn want neutral, you want slanted in faovur of her. I want neutral as I do not ovelry call ehr a crank in the aritlce itsself.

I think I hav better standing here.


63.17.213.120 19:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry to interrupt the fireworks, but...

<<Regarding Masonry... do quote where Acharya states a "belief" "that a conspiracy involving free-masons, pagans, and Jews fabricated not only the gospel accounts of Jesus and the story of Jesus' life, but also the story of the apostles, and Paul, and apparently John the Baptist." You state that she "believes" this... any proof that this is a fact?>>

Is there any evidence that she has this belief? (There is an epistemological difference between "proof" and "evidence", just to nitpick. Even if I had a signed note from Acharya saying that she holds these beliefs, that would not be proof, because it could be forged. It would, however, be fairly strong evidence.) At least in the criticisms, there is evidence to support this statement.

  • Freemasons: Mike Licona states, "The thesis of The Christ Conspiracy is that pagans and Jews who were Masons from the first and second centuries got together and invented the account of Jesus and his disciples in order to create a religion which it was hoped would serve as a one-world religion for the Roman empire." Acharya, in her rebuttal, doesn't see fit to challenge this characterization. Further, he expends an entire section on Freemasonry. In her rebuttal, Acharya does not rebut the allegation that she believes that Masons were involved, but rather defends her allegations that they are. For example, she states that "In addition, in establishing the Masonic connection to Christianity, I reproduce a long excerpt from Thomas Paine's 'Origin of Freemasonry.'"
He also quotes Acharya as saying "The historian Josephus certainly knew of the Masons and allegedly was one . . ."(108) This demonstrates that Acharya believes that the Masons have been around since at least the first and second centuries AD.
Even assuming that Licona is flat out lying, Acharya's words in her response show that she believes that there is a Masonic connection to Christianity. The above quote demostrates that she believes them to have been around for much longer than is commonly suspected. At most, he is lying about Acharya claiming that they were involved in the original conspiracy. Acharya saw no reason to contradict him in this statement though. In short, I see no reason to doubt Licona's characterization of Acharya's thesis as stating that freemasons were involved in the creation of the "Christ Conspiracy". My main confusion is this: does Licona mean (pagans and Jews) who were free-masons, or pagans and (Jews who were free-masons)?
  • Paul: Again, according to Mike Licona: "She believes that all of Paul’s letters are forgeries. In support of this position she quotes Joseph Wheless: "The entire ‘Pauline group’ is the same forged class . . . says E. B. [Encyclopedia Biblica] . . . ‘With respect to the canonical Pauline Epistles, . . . there are none of them by Paul; neither fourteen, nor thirteen, nor nine or eight, nor yet even the four so long "universally" regarded as unassailable. They are all, without distinction, pseudographia (false-writings, forgeries). . .’"(48) She also quotes Hayyim ben Yehoshua who writes, "we are left with the conclusion that all the Pauline epistles are pseudepigraphic" and he also refers to Paul as a "semi-mythical" figure.(49) Again, this is a position that no major scholar takes."
I suppose it could be that she believes that Paul was only semi-mythical - that there was a historical Paul, but his letters are forgeries and virtually everything we know about him is false.
  • The Apostles: I have no evidence to submit, except to note that 1) Mike Licona's summary of Acharya's thesis characterizes it as saying that, 2) Acharya didn't see fit to rebut the point, 3) if Acharya is going to say that Paul, who appears later in the mainstream historical narrative and had no personal interaction with Jesus, is (semi)-mythical, then I see nothing preventing her from claiming the same for the earlier apostles who are recording as having interactions with the mythical Jesus.
  • John the Baptist: Again, Mike Licona: "Murdock's claim is grossly naïve as well as false. Josephus’ passage on John the Baptist(73) is regarded as authentic and is hardly disputed by scholars. Edwin Yamauchi, Professor of History at Miami University writes, "No scholar has questioned the authenticity of this passage, though there are some differences between Josephus's account and that in the Gospels . . ."(74) New Testament scholar, Robert Van Voorst of Western Theological Seminary likewise comments that the passage by Josephus on John the Baptist is "held to be undoubtedly genuine by most interpreters"(75) and that "scholars also hold [it] to be independent of the New Testament."(76) John Meier, professor of New Testament at The Catholic University of America writes that Josephus' mentioning of John the Baptist is "accepted as authentic by almost all scholars" and that it "is simply inconceivable as the work of a Christian of any period."(77) Jewish scholar, Louis Feldman of Yeshiva University and perhaps the most prominent expert on Josephus comments on this passage: "There can be little doubt as to the genuineness of Josephus’ passage about John the Baptist."(78) Therefore, Murdock's comment that this passage has "been dismissed by scholars and Christian apologists alike as forgeries" is demonstrably false.
"The reasons for accepting the authenticity of this passage are: (a) The style and vocabulary belong to Josephus. (b) If a subsequent Christian editor added the passage, we would expect a comment about John's preaching regarding the Messiah who was Jesus. (c) An interpolator would most likely not have included the discrepancy between the Gospels and Josephus in terms of the reason John was executed."
I seem to recall that Josephus is the only source we have on John the Baptist outside the Gospels that was written close to the time that he lived. (My memory might be shaky on this.) Since no scholar believes that this passage of Josephus was fake, the only reason I can see for her to allege that it is is if she wants to imply that John the Baptist is mythical. Admittedly, my evidence on this point is rather shaky, hence the "apparently".
  • Does Acharya believe this? Actually, I have considered the possibility that all of this is a truly massive practical joke on the part of Acharya. However, that would be a violation of Hanlon's Razor.

I'll admit that I have not read Acharya's books. However, based on the evidence present in her critic's writings and in her own responses to those critics, I must concluded that her thesis is much as I have described it. If anybody who has actually read the book wishes to dispute my characterization of her thesis, my ears are wide open.

<<Mike Licona must not be aware of the timeline of christianity... Hinduism dates to around 5000 BC http://hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/h_antiquity.htm and Buddhism to circa 500 BC http://www.aboutbuddhism.org/history-of-buddhism.htm>>

The emphasis here is on certain obscure branches of Hinduism and Buddhism, not Hinduism and Buddhism themselves. The phrase "certain obscure branches" is my own, not Licona's, and it may be that, at least for the Hinduism branches, they are not all that obscure.

  • Krishna: In Licona's reply to Acharya's response to his first article: "Regarding your “Christian sources,” Lundy and Georgius, even if you are correct, Lundy and Georgius write of their contemporary experiences with present-day Hindus. This does nothing to support your position that Hindus in antiquity worshipped a crucified Krishna. Hindu traditions on the life of Krishna come from the Bhagavata Purana and the Harivamsa, which as I pointed out in my paper, both post-date the rise of Christianity and, therefore, do nothing to support your thesis.(57)"
  • Buddha: From Acharya's rebuttal to Licona: "One aspect that demonstrates my knowledge of the orthodox story, which, naturally since it is readily available, long preceded my becoming aware of the contested information, is the fact that I cited these same contested characteristics. The same may be said concerning Buddha, which is obvious from my numerous footnotes, in particular as concerns the contested motifs, and from my statement on p. 109 of The Christ Conspiracy:
"'Because of this non-historicity and of the following characteristics of the Buddha myth, which are not widely known but which have their hoary roots in the mists of time, we an safely assume that Buddha is yet another personification of the ancient, universal mythos being revealed herein.' (Emph. added.)
"For the intelligent, it should have been obvious that I know very well the orthodox tales of these various godmen. Hence, Licona is either being deceptive in his presentation of the facts or he is not as clever as he likes to think."

From Licona: "In your rebuttal and citing your own words from The Christ Conspiracy, you write of, “this non-historicity and of the following characteristics of the Buddha myth, which are not widely known [ital. yours] but which have their hoary roots in the mists of time . . .”(58) We still have yet to learn from where you get your “not widely known” information. You simply quote others who many times turn out being terribly wrong and unscholarly in both their exegesis and reasoning."

This is what I gather Licona is getting at: Acharya's characterizations of Buddhism and Hinduism are, on the whole, false. In the case of Krishna-worship, they might be true of certain sects, but the origins of these sects post-date the writing of the gospels, and therefore either represent a convergent, but independent, development in two religious traditions, or are else borrowings from Christianity. Assuming that Acharya's "not widely known" information pans out, the same might be true of Buddhism - not true for the vast majority of sects, but possibly true for certain sects. It has yet to be determined whether these hypothetical sects pre- or post-date the gospels.

At any rate, the dispute over the possible Eastern origins of certain themes of Christianity is merely a sideshow. What should be focused on is her allegation that large chunks of the New Testament are the fabrications of a conspiracy. While her allegation that Eastern religious traditions were used as source material by the conspiracy is interesting (because it would mean that this ancient conspiracy had far greater knowledge of India than what we think the Romans had), but I don't suppose it matters too much where the conspiracy got their material from. Her allegations of borrowing from Eastern traditions has about the same level of interest as her allegations that the sections of Tacitus dealing with the Christians are interpolations of later Christian editors. crazyeddie 20:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] sorry to interrupt you Licona..er Crazy!

Quite a mouthful there, but is it yours? You say you haven't read Acharya's work, but you sure like to blowhard a plenty through other mouthpeices. You really expect someone to explain every point to you?! Your carping adds about as much validity toward the subject as as a fart in a windstorm. I could just as well pontificate endlessly over a critique of Micheal Licona through his hostile detractors, without ever having read or studied his works. I guess that would make me an expert on him and his views!

The mature thing to do is to become familiarised with all sides and develope an overall knowledge of the subject, that way you can do your OWN thinking on a just basis. It is not up to you or I to make the decision about who is right or wrong, only to allow others to see and decide for themselves. Apparently, you don't want to do that for yourself, perhaps because of some preconceived hostility toward one view vs. another? The critics know where to debate or refute one another...in open forum, not in the editing room of a "pedia". --Skull 01:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] On that note...

I did read her first book. And, need I remidn you all, this articl eis not principly about her work. As much as her disiples will it ot be an advance of the thesis that Jesus Christ was a Plagersied SOlar Myth and to present htis veiw without oposiiton, the fact remains that the article is about a person, not the books.

Perhaps instead, we ought make a page about "The Christ Conspiracy" and its related sequel. After all, this article is not about the CHrist COnspiracy and Id rather mention it in passing.

Again, itsbaou her, not her works.


Besides, her devotees wont allow her works tobe rpoeprly treatee either, rather preferign to alter the articl ot reflect their own baises, while mokcign and denegrating anyone who wants ot present a Neutral Veiw.

Zarove


== There was no libel... what you wrote, in effect, was a smear. As previously noted and ignored by you... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smear_tactic

Your beliefs are evident in your actions. By removing any counter to the positions you posted... you demonstrate how and what you believe. You believe Acharya's premise to be wrong and have set about to make it read that way.


Name one partisan rambling. What I have contributed has been in refutation.I have consistently kept to the high ground as much as possible in light of the low ground those refutations countered. What claims? You make that sound like "claims" is just another word for lies. Every criticism you have posted has been resoundingly refuted and yet you continue on as though not a word was said repeating the same old stuff over and over and over again. The criteria for proving a fact is the evidence for it...and when challenged to provide it, you have consistenly ignored it and come back with the tired old shoe that the goal for refuting you is to show her in a good light. Well, I have news for you... the goal is not to show her in a good light, it is to show how you are in your own light.


I don't have to attack you... all I have to do is set you to showing where you are wrong, out of bounds, incompetant, and biased. The rest is history. I have no truck with beliefs... the facts are fine with me. The only time I have removed anything was to deonstrate what you were doing. In all other instances, I included what was posted and did so with a refutation to it. If what you have posted was not the best sourse, then saying so with appropriate data is precisely what should be done.


You have posted what others have said with impunity but in your comments on these pages have made your meaning clear. Show one instance where I have promoted anything of her let alone beliefs. You called the courthouse? What courthouse would that be? Who did you speak to there that passed on such information? You called her shool? What school? Who did you speak to there that passed on information about her? You did a basic background search? Just what does that consist of?


Your denial is seen in your responses to the material and the author. It is unspoken but crystal clear in your comments on them and your inability to accept any counter to what you have to say of them. I am not privy to what transpired between you and James but from what was said, you threatened him and he responded in kind... go back and read what was said. Correct me if I am wrong.


As proven by your posted responses such as your constant harping of credentials, pen names, listing of opinions instead facts, inclusions of inappopriate personal information etc. and the fact that you have consistenly cried foul about any contention clainming it is to make her look good which is your excuse to remove it.


What you have attempted to do is to have a one sided debate. That you should desire to post anything in regards to her family is just plain wrong. the fact that you are incapable of seeing that shows your level of commitment. Show where she is not taken seriously by academia. The very fact that she was accepted as a fellow in the Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion demonstrates her acceptance in acedemia because it is a very elite group that consists of highest of acedemia. I know you fought that tooth and nail but had to finally capitulate. Not sure what the jesus myth has to do with this list but I would point out that belief has nothing to do with it.


For a journalist, you certainly are lacking in concepts... apparently, you have no idea what bullying and harrassing are about. A better command of the language, personal professionalism, principle, honesty, integrity, fairness, objectivity, and enough pride to endeavor to present a readable article are easily come by... all you have to have is the desire.


Her legions of devotees? For all practicle purposes hter are two and the bulk of that has been me. Against how many? And you accuse me of bullying. How many have been deleted for improper behavior? And I harrass? It is a pecularity how blinders work... all that can be seen is where it is looking.


Ha ha... thank you.


No, I am not saying that anyone is conclusively right or wrong. From the very first instance all that is said is that she presents a thesis, a theory, an observation based on a whole set of comparisons. Personally, it is my opinion that she is very deligent scholar but that is my opinion and this is the very first time I have said anything of my thoughts on the matter. Does she venture into areas that I hold are of beyond the boundaries of my own observations? Sure... but she has that right just as do you but that should not (as opposed to you) sully the points that she makes that are valid.

Zarove... if the article is not about the books, then remove the criticisms that you have so steadfastly maintained. For that matter, outside stating she wrote them, remove all mention of them and see what is left. You have tried unsucessfully to perpetrate this ruse numerous times and it has yet to work. Why don't you just drop it.


12/26/05 -el Lobo


Zarov...who do you think you are fooling! I went back to the beginning of this talk page. You keep saying its about "Acharya"..not about her books or her views, yet right from the beginning of your own arguements and that of the others is the deliberate attempt to focus on her views! There you are with complete arguements attempting to "focus on her work" by misrepresenting details not only about her work, but her also. You keep repeating yourself...its about her..not about her views, but over and over, you come back to them with distortions. Do you really think people won't go back and read them. --Skull 07:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Sheesh...you are like a coyote (no offense Lobo!), you keeping coming back to dump your garbage and someone has to keep coming back to to show how biased (nay, how dishonest you are). Like a broken record you are! Can we skip the song and dance like Lobo said...I dont dance well to that kind of music. Now I sound like a broken record...grrrrrrr! --Skull 07:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] OK...

1: This article is not abotu her works, which are in pasisng mentione becausethis is what shes famous for. But ahgain, its nto abot ehr work and Im fine with rmeovign all reference othem aside form they facthtat she wrote them.

2: Dispite claism to the ocntrary, my views arent evident in any verison fo the article. If you contestthis, show proof, not accusation.

3: Regardless of your own claims, you, Lobo,James, Skull,and whoever else is form he rlist, arent here to balance the artilce. Form your actiosn, rangign form omitign the critism to placign her self-proffessed declaratiosn as unqueasitoned fact, in the zrticle show exaclty what your intent is.

Now, ratherthan make more useless Ad Hom attacks agsint me, try talkign about the article, OK?


-Zarove


[edit] Re: ok

Yawn, in an effort to be dismissive... whatever.

12/28/05 -el Lobo

The page now seems to me to be a reasonable and informative Wikipedia article; which is not to say it couldn't do with some tweaks. Charles Matthews 10:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


Some problems w/ the criticisms.

  1. re: "little primary research". How many times must this be brought up? Maybe AJA or Zarove could define primary research for us, to show they even know what it is.
  2. re: "heavy reliance on outdated or fringe sources". Who said this? In reference to what? What is meant by "outdated" exactly? How does it square with reality? Since the christ-myth theory is itself fringe, ie non-mainstream, how exactly is this a criticism? And isn't it a logical fallacy?
  3. re: "show ignorance on what she writes, in particular of the Hindu and Buddhist traditions. ". Who said this? In reference to what? Was this in reference to the book she wrote on the subject??
  4. How is Robet Price's embarrassment pertinent?
  5. re "Solomon" reference: Isn't Acharya merely discussing various theories relating to the etymology of the word 'solomon'? What's wrong with that? How can Price possibly justify using this one flimsy example to characterize her whole book?
  6. Why is the brief aside of "professional jealosy" considered pertinent? Couldn't you pick a more substantial example from Acharyas rebuttle? Ditto for her comments in response to Prices 'embarrassment'. Isn't this focusing on personality exchanges at the expense of substance?
  7. re: "JP Holding, has no integrity" This quote is clearly taken out of context.

I want to reemphasize that while these criticisms are being applied to her work in general, they are based entirely upon book reviews of her first book.

Also, she attended the ASCSA, that should be included. Her essay should be included. The life section is a jumbled mess, it should be reorganized. Where it characterizes certain authors as her "main" references, can that be shown to be true? Where is that info from? Does it apply to her whole body of work? Please cite sources.

I've revamped the article to reflect much of this perspective. ^^James^^ 20:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Since someone has considered it fair to use the words of Robert Price's blanket statements, it is only fair that a response to his critique be given also outlining the silliness of it and the lack of ethics on his part. So I am going to edit the article with a response from Acharya to reflect this disingenousness: to wit this link--http://truthbeknown.com/firesponse.htm--Skull 23:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Let's Focus on the work, not the person

I think it is a mistake to attack focus on Acharya S herself. Let's focus on her ideas. It seems clear from the various pieces I've managed to read that she isn't just a Christ-mythist, but also a Christ-conspiracist. No, I haven't read her book, but I've just put in for it over Inter-Library Loan. I suppose we could wait for me to read it, but I'd rather save some time: Can somebody please tell me what Acharya's thesis was? Yes, "Christianity absorbed some elements of other religions" is part of it, but that's not the whole of it. She clearly states that Christianity was the result of a conscious conspiracy which deliberately plagarized elements of other religions. That puts her into an entirely different realm from the Christ-as-a-myth people such as Dr. Price.

Yet the article has been reworked to remove any evidence of the Christ Conspiracy concept. From the article, it appears that Acharya is just another member of the Christ-as-a-myth mob, albeit one with the odd notion that Eastern traditions went into the mix that formed the basis for Christianity.

I have no interest in "settling" the Christ-as-myth/Christ-as-a-conspiracy debate. But we owe it to our readers to at least outline what the debate is.

I believe that if we show Acharya's true thesis in all of its glory, a seperate Criticism section will be at best just icing-on-the-cake, at worst, beating a dead horse. There will be no need to use vague comments like "poor scholarship" and "lack of primary sources". The results of such faults will be available for anybody to see.

The same goes for the biography section. She could be a little furry blue creature from Alpha Centarui for all I care. So I propose that we simply use the resume she provides at the end of her "Reponse to Wikipedia", properly citing it. It'll have to be reworked a bit - I don't think we need to tell the world who her advisor was. We can always verify it at our leisure later. We might also want to tag on the bit about her religious history (also properly cited).

Any objections to any of that?

And yes, I do want her thesis spelled out for me. I'm going to read her book anyway, so why not save some time? crazyeddie 17:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


Is the idea that religious leaders deliberately lie to people so unbelievable to you, Crazyeddie? Ever heard of "pious fraud"? BTW, check out Acharyas updated licona rebuttle. ^^James^^ 21:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Her THesis

Basically, in a nutshell...


1; The whole of all world religion's are based on Astrology, what she calls "Astro-theology".

2: The story of a Dying and raising saviour is very ancient,and all the elements found in Christian mythology predate Christendom, and are found, whole cloth, in earlier stories. IE< Horus had 12 disiples, preached a semron on the mound, walked on water, was crifcified between two theives, and rose fom the dead.

3: The ancient ( SMart, peaceful, Goddess worhsipping) Pagans knew this was all a drama personifyign the sun.

4: The evil vile corrupt ROman State, run by Freemasons, Jews, ect, then wante dot unify the ORman Sttae so created a "Super" verison by combinign varisu myths into a signel eprson. ( Which makes no snece as each of the saviour socmbined each had ifential lvies ot eahc other andwhere actulaly the same person...the sun...)

5: They then forcedeveryoen to beelive in this myth as a rela hisotircal eprson.

6: Thoe who opposed 5 where slaughtered, peopel where forced to convert, sacred groces dedicate dot hee Goddes where desogyeed, and most of Ancient Literature was burned, resultign in ignroance and oppresion and widespread Illeteracy, due tot h evil, vule, corurpt HCurhc imposign tis iwll on anyoen who dared disagree.

7: The CHruch ocntinued to controle peopel brignign onthe Dark Ages. But the Heirarchs, suchas the Pope,knew the truth.

8: The evil corurpt Church then destroyed countless civilisaitons.

9: Now, vlaient, brave,and super intellegent Acharya S has revealed THE TRUTH! all a the risk of her own life!


That abotu sums it up, you can read the basic outline here.Its the artivle that her Didiples want desperatley int he linsk section. It also is the whoel reasonthey are devoted to her.

http://www.truthbeknown.com/origins.htm

Heres wheer ist al began, this grwintot he CHrst conspiracy, which si nohtign mor tan an expansion fothis oen aritcle.


Enjoy.


Zarove


He refers you to the very article he's arguing against including in the article! Truly remarkable. ^^James^^ 04:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] On this note.

James continues to revert the aritlce ot a Biased presentaiton.


1: The content is changed so as to word it in such a way as to minimalise the Conspiracy content and make Acharya seem far more reasonabel than she actulaly is.Word choice and often content are removed, or reworded.

Omitted are sections which Reference her point blank assertions thateven her followers know will sounds insane to most.

2: The Links section now contains three links to her website. THis is far more than any other wikipedia article.

3: Spakign fo this, they add her "Rebuttal" to Lucadia (Sp?) after hsi review. This not only is reduntant as we have a link to her site, btu the same is alreayd linked above in the main article. Likeise, in true Dishoenst fashion, they link to her rebuttsal, but not to his rejoinder.


4: THey rmeove an unflatterign link. ( As they attmepted to before, with the Tekton article and RisenJesus one.) THe link is an E-Mail exchange soemoen had with the Author. THey remove it as it reveals that she cannot answer direct critism. ( I know, I know, they will say its "Itrrelevant" and hows "Zarovesneed ot smear." But if we have two Paranoia mag links, why not this?)


Shoudl we allow this?


-Zarove

[edit] 3RR blocks applied

I have blocked various IP numbers 63.17.X.Y for excessive reverting, under 3RR. This is not the first time. The blocks are for 48 hours. Charles Matthews 21:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/c/h/Talk%7EAcharya_S_Archive6_7677.html"