Talk:Acharya S/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

12/10/05

In light of the latest Zarove hit piece... Admin's please remove this article from existence. There is little else that can be done. You cannot be so blind as to not see what is going on here.

-el Lobo

The page is now up at Articles for Deletion. I have replaced the Zarove version, which was horrible, with a tightened version of an older edit of mine, so that discussion at AfD will have some reasonable basis. Charles Matthews 10:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Charles... sanity at last. I would point out that your reasonable grounds are not the grounds for why this piece should be removed. The grounds for removal are found in the efforts of Zarove and others who continued to maintain the horribleness you noted and removed.

Some points of contention in your fair attempt to make sense of a horrible piece.

I would point out that the "her views" section was refuted) e.g. her website does contain a "Declaration of Life and Freedom" but not in which she declares everyone free from the older governments, lead [led] by "egotistical men and coercible women." That isn't so. This line was taken out of context... what the line actually says is "We proclaim that we have the right to live unharassed and according to our internal, universal laws, and not by the laws of a handful of egotistical men and coercible women." At best or worst, this is article by Acharya is a rather benign rant. See: http://www.truthbeknown.com/declare.htm

As for "She has defended the use of entheogens, and advocates types of meditation and communion with nature, to expand one's mind." This too has been repudiated. She advocates the legalization of drugs while noting cautions in their use. And what on earth is wrong with meditation and communing with nature?

Note that the "relies heavily upon" comment in the Life section is an unsubstantiated opinion... if you removed them from her works, the books would only be reduced by a small fraction. By making such note, what, in effect is happening is denigrating those authors without any evidence to support the accusation that they are less than reliable. Besides... it strictly depends on what was quoted from thier works... if the quotes used were true and factual, then what's the rub? If they were used as a spring board to examine a falacy or question a premise... what harm? That's what writers do, isn't it?

The comment on archeology has also been repudiated in that a degree is not required to be an archeologist and making this sort of comment is just an ulterior way to lessen her image. Some of the greatest archeologists and the most important discoveries in archeology have been by non degreed, unpublished men and women.

And again, thanks for your efforts.

12/10/05 -el Lobo

I have now cut out those contentious matters. The AfD process takes a few days, and there is every reason to have a crisp version of the article for others to consider. Charles Matthews 14:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I do hope that they take into consideration the 500 changes this piece has undergone since April of this year and read what has been going on with this piece. That averages to around 62 changes a month! I fervently hope that they will examine the discussion pages to see just how intolerant any opposing view has been handled, as well. Thanks for your efforts.

-el Lobo

12/10/05 Please note the mispelling of the author Wheless name. I edited it, but am not savvy enough to have retained it as a link. The previous spelling was Wheeles. Rene/Skull

small change

I changed the cser line, to indicate that she is a "fellow" of the committee, not center. I also removed the "branch of ... etc" as I don't see why it is needed. ^^James^^ 05:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I do, as context. Charles Matthews 09:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Context serving what purpose? If you wish to do that, put the url in so that the full context can be investigated. Futher, I would note that the use of her last name intstead of the name under which the books were written, is a tactic used by propagandists to

minimalize. You state that "The Christ Conspiracy" is an "extended version" of her website. Actually, the book was based the article "The Origins of Christianity and the Quest for the Historical Jesus Christ," which is only one small part of the "Truth Be Known" site. The "poor scholarship" comment is pure unsubstantiated opinion and unless backed evidence, has no place in any form of a review. Acharya is asked to appear on radio talk shows... she doesn't the grant interviews, they grant them and even if it were so, which it is not, what's "late night" have to do with them?

The version I posted cleaned up these matters as the older version Charles (far better than those of Zarove) had posted still had vestiges of the old hit piece in it as noted above. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Acharya_S&oldid=30920810

12/12/05 -el Lobo

I'll replace Murdock by Acharya in the article. The hostile criticism is reported in line with WP policy, i.e. attributed to sources and neutrally treated. Charles Matthews 12:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't mention the Criticizm category nor did I change it in the version I posted... check it out. I thought it perfectly acceptable. I understand the detractors, what they feel, how they react... My contention in all this is that a Wikipedia entry should provide information and is not the forum to debate, denigrate, nor defame. List her detractors, no problem... but the claim to poor scholarship is what those who wish make an author look less than knowldgable do without having to provide a shred of evidence. It's a tactic, a ruse, and a cheap shot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Acharya_S&oldid=30920810

-el Lobo

reviews

Is there any vetting process with regard to book reviews? What is the threshold for inclusion? I'm thinking specifically of tektonics.org, which has been described as "depraved apologetics". In the meantime, I will add some positive reviews for balance.

OK, we want to be fair. The threshold for inclusion: I think it is the same as 'no spam'. Spam can be either off-topic, or arguably only self-promoting and not in any way helpful to the reader. Charles Matthews 19:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've got a few reviews. Before I add them, I'm wondering about formatting. Maybe we should just have a simple 'book reviews' section or something, with links? As it stands, there's a criticisms section with two book reveiw links, plus another book review link at the bottom, and I've got three more positive reviews on the way. The brief 'poor scholarship' line can be countered with a 'stunning scholarship' line if you like, but I think that would be kind of silly. It would be better to just have a bunch of links I think. ^^James^^ 21:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

12/12/05 Charles--you sound fair and balanced. I agree, it is alright to have creditable professional criticisms included--not blanket statements made by personally biased sources, who have not pointed out the details of legitimate criticism. It is a welcome sign that you are thinking of including positive views for balance. I have been to "tektonics" and it is as described "depraved apologetics". I am positive there are genuine sources, who may have creditable criticisms on specifics or generalities with regard to this topic, who can do so without being vitriolic. I am quite sure that Acharya can answer to Robert Price's review (included as a critic) in the way he deserves--I will say no more on the latter "critic". Thankyou. Rene/Skull

Charles, re: "The use of the word 'claim' within our NPOV policy is discussed, for instance, at Wikipedia:Words to avoid. I believe I have used it within the acceptable bounds as set out there. Charles Matthews 16:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)"... I understand that but would ask what purpose saying so serves if you list the the url's where the reader can check it out for themselves if so inclned? By making the statement, it sounds like you are influencing what you want the reader to know whether they want to or not.

12/12/05 -el Lobo

I see that section as essentially dictated by our NPOV policy. It is a concise way of including controversy in the page, and I think it is proportionate and not slanted. Charles Matthews 10:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Oook... By your incluson of their opinion, it just sounds like you concur with them and want to alert the reader of it, that's all. But, as you wish. Belief works the mind in mysterious ways.

12/13/05 -el Lobo

I've changed things around a bit... I decided to go with a single 'book reviews' section. I could add something like: "Her books are highly controversial. Some reveiwers claim her work represents 'stunning scholarship', while others claim it represents 'poor scholarship'." Like I said, I think that would be silly, and I think it's better to simply provide links and let readers find out for themselves. I also added a link to a relevant essay. ^^James^^ 21:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, you've removed the balance in the article, so I don't find that acceptable. Charles Matthews 21:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

How so?^^James^^ 21:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Look, I'm a pretty nice guy, but this wheedling approach is not going to get you anywhere. Constantly cutting out the critical part of the article won't wash. If there isn't an 'opposing view', why has there been such an edit war over this page? It is not 'silly' to represent both sides of the argument, it is the way laid down for achieving NPOV, by simply informing the reader that a controversy exists. Sweeping it under the carpet won't do. As Jimbo Wales insists, NPOV is not negotiable. Charles Matthews 22:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, how about now? ^^James^^ 19:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Passes. Charles Matthews 20:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

You have to know, this article will never be left alone... it must be removed from Wikipedia. 12/15/05 -el Lobo

We have a principle - 'assume good faith'. We have no principle basing our actions on predictions of how our editing community will behave in the future. Charles Matthews 10:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

True... but you do have something else, it's called a track record, a modus operandi, and it does lay the ground work of predictability. The addage about assume is also a principle. You have 500 changes to this article and that should tell you something of how that faith works. At the very least, it will hold far truer than pretending it won't happen again.

12/16/05 -el Lobo

I'm not pretending at all. I won't pretend that my life wouldn't be easier if this page wasn't here. But I'm explaining the framework within which this all operates. We cannot just drop contentious articles, and we do not pass judgement on anyone who posts here, without a very thorough process. Charles Matthews 11:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The framework does contain the element of removing an article. I say use it. This is not a contentious article... on the conrtary, had contentions been allowed, all this might have been avoided but if you will check that track record, all contentions were systematically eleminated in favor of one view. Enough time and entries have been made to establish the fact that not only contributors but Admin's themselves were culpable in a conspiracy to discredit and make the author seem a "kook"... this has tainted this piece forever. Were it to remain as is, it might not be so bad but the fact is the damage is already done and only newcomers to it will see it in a fair light. That's not good enough. To do it justice, Remove the article. 12/16/05 -el Lobo

The article is currently at AfD, and that process only assesses articles as they are, and not as they were. Charles Matthews 15:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I see... being as I have a suspicious nature, there wouldn't be an ulterior motive behind stepping in and making this piece benign at this moment for them to see, would there? I learned a long time ago, never trust coincidence. You want this piece to stand? Ok... but I will continue to refine it and will endeavor to make it as neutral as it is possible to be. And... between you and I, I don't think for one minute that once the AfD process is over, it won't go back to the way it was. The elements that have been involved in this article are believers and they can't help themselves. -el Lobo

My involvement is not partisan - I don't have a great deal to do with other articles in related categories. I'm 'on the side' of Wikipedia. Charles Matthews 16:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

See? I rest my case... eL

So what about it Charles?

We are what we know and hold true but we are known to others by what we do. Belief begins where fact ends... leaving reason, logic and intelligence in the past. Belief is an emotional response to the unknown and any decision made in the throes of emotion is likely to be wise. There is nothing we can say or do that will alter what another has been indoctrinated to feel. Oh sure... maybe one in a hundred thousand might read a thing and say, "Eureka!" but what is going on here is not about getting the reader to expose themselves to new ideas... what is happening here is the exact opposite, it is an effort to keep them from discovery. I think it best to simply remove the article and get Wikipedia out from under the gun. It can't win in this situation. 12/17/05 -el Lobo

I have the capability to delete pages, but that is ultra vires in this case. Charles Matthews 14:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

If you were intra vires, that would be a different matter... but I didn't expect you to do it. I would like to see you vote in favor of removal, though. Those who see this piece as something to ridicule, to brandish their labels like shields of protection against perceived attack... will not and cannot let this go. They are held by an image in a fascination that has them mesmerized

to the exclusion of any other view. This will not go away and neither will they. Better to simply remove the source of thier anxiety instead of baiting it into an interminable battle that cannot be won leaving Wikipedia to suffer the blame. 12/17/05 -el Lobo