Talk:Acharya S
This article was nominated for deletion on 28 December 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Acharya S article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 |
To-do list for Acharya S:
|
|
||||||||||||||
Too many Christian critics editing here
Too many Christian critics editing here
It is blatantly obvious to those who've actually read the works by Acharya S that most of the editors here are mostly Christian critics who are not familiar with her work and it shows in the article. The article leaves much to be desired for sure. Now, will Wikipedia allow people who are actually familiar with her work to fix it or no? There are a few who should be banned from making any changes in this article or anything related to Acharya at all for example,
http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=18221#p18221
Acharya has had a response to Licona here http://www.truthbeknown.com/licona.htm and JP Holding here http://www.truthbeknown.com/holding.htm for years. Why aren't these posted here?
Here is Acharya's FAQ http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1149&start=0
And why is this allowed to be here"
"A critique of the movie Zeitgeist criticizes her contributions to the movie, saying she "cherry-pick[ed]" material that was "outdated and always fringe" in order to "support her own astrological fantasies".[29]"
It has nothing to do with this article, rather, it is just trying to sell an anti-Zeitgeist book here with free advertising. Get it out of here, please.
Many of her best excerpts and articles are nowhere to be found here such as:
Astrotheology of the Ancients http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/astrotheology.html
The Origins of Christianity: Free E-book http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/originsofchristianity.pdf
Jesus as the Sun throughout History http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/jesussunexcerpt.html
As well as
Zeitgeist Part 1 & the Supportive Evidence http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=2997
Acharya's article here at Wikipedia should not be in the hands of biased Christian critics. I've been waiting for a very long time for this article to be done properly. I just had to finally say something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jose5643 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- Please note that it is in no way acceptable to make blanket attacks on other editors, especially not by implying you know their views. If you have concrete suggestions to make to improve the article, within Wikipedia's content policies, please make them. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh please, Eugeneacurry and Ari posted their plan to come here to attack Acharya's Wiki article on each others blogs here at Wiki. You can see their quotes to each other here as well: http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=18221#p18221 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jose5643 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- The two editors you name are hardly a majority of the persons editing this article, and one of them has been indefinitely blocked for over a week. Instead of indulging in unsubstantiated talk page speculations about the personal beliefs of other editors, I would encourage you to make (WP-policy compliant) changes to the article to fix any problems you've identified, or recommend specific changes here if you don't feel comfortable making them yourself. --RL0919 (talk) 02:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
The fact remains that Eugeneacurry, Ari, Jclemens and others here are Christians who've never read any of Acharya's books but have offered loads of edits here. And in the past there have been loads of Christian critics editing here so nothing any of you have said disproves my comment on that issue and you know it, so just drop it. This article should be in the hands of James not Jclemens, period.
I did make some suggestions here both above and below. The most important part of Acharya's work is not even mentioned here, there needs to be a new section in the article titled, The Mythicist Position with the relevant links and video as posted below. The above suggestions are self explanatory.
I'll offer more as I have time but, a new section for the mythicist position could go up now, probably with a basic premise. Here's more about it:
The Evemerist vs. Mythicist Position http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=12409#p12409 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jose5643 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- Please note that we don't normally accept discussion board postings as sources of information. Acharya's books and essays on her website could be used as sources to help describe her views, provided this is done as neutral summary. Secondary sources are preferred, however. As to other editors, please review the policy at WP:NPA and try to keep your discussions focused on the improvement of the article instead of your opinions about other people. No one owns the article, and editors from all viewpoints are welcome to edit it as long as they do so constructively and within Wikipedia guidelines. --RL0919 (talk) 13:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that forums aren't accepted sources of info but, within that forum thread ARE sources that explain much and would be helpful to this article. And, I am trying to be "helpful and improve the article" by pointing out the obvious Christian bias of Christian critics here ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN POSTS TO EACH OTHER with intent to mar this article. It should've been address long ago. Just drop it and move on, they've been caught red-handed and you know it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jose5643 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
The Mythicist Position
It would be great to see a new section in the article titled, "The Mythicist Position" outlining what it is since it is an major part of Acharya's work.
The Mythicist Position:
"Mythicism represents the perspective that many gods, goddesses and other heroes and legendary figures said to possess extraordinary and/or supernatural attributes are not "real people" but are in fact mythological characters. Along with this view comes the recognition that many of these figures personify or symbolize natural phenomena, such as the sun, moon, stars, planets, constellations, etc., constituting what is called "astrotheology." As a major example of the mythicist position, it is determined that various biblical characters such as Adam and Eve, Satan, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Joshua, King David, Solomon and Jesus Christ, among other entities, in reality represent mythological figures along the same lines as the Egyptian, Sumerian, Phoenician, Indian, Greek, Roman and other godmen, who are all presently accepted as myths, rather than historical figures."
- Christ in Egypt, page 12 http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/mythicist.html
The Mythicist Position video is a basic introduction http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKW9sbJ3v2w —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jose5643 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
The History of Mythicism http://stellarhousepublishing.com/mythicism.html
The Evemerist vs. Mythicist Position http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=12409#p12409 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jose5643 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
In his review of Acharya's book titled, Christ in Egypt, biblical scholar Dr. Robert Price comments:
"I find it undeniable that ... many of the epic heroes and ancient patriarchs and matriarchs of the Old Testament were personified stars, planets, and constellations." http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/reviews/murdock_christ_egypt.htm
"The research conducted by D.M. Murdock concerning the myth of Jesus Christ is certainly both valuable and worthy of consideration."
- Dr. Kenneth Feder, Professor of Archaeology and author of the book titled: Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries: Science and Pseudoscience In Archaeology. http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=18378#p18378 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jose5643 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
POV: undue bias towards criticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Feder Professor of Archaeology, Central Connecticut State University
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Price Professor of Theology and Scriptural Studies at the Coleman Theological Seminary, Professor of Biblical Criticism at the Center for Inquiry Institute
Both of the above make approving statements about "Christ in Egypt" at http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/christinegypt.html
Yet all that is shown in the current article are criticising sources. This looks like a POV issue. 123.3.170.49 (talk) 02:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- The problem comes down to this: what sources should Wikipedia use for it's articles? Some objective standard has to be applied; a line has to be drawn somewhere. In the case of Kenneth Feder, the source is an amazon.com book review. Wikipedia does not consider amazon.com book reviews to be a reliable sources for information. Ever. See WP:RS and WP:V for detailed information on Wikipedia's sourcing policy.
- I do agree that Robert Price's views are not accurately represented in the article. Despite his unfavorable review of Murdock's first book, he has strongly supported her subsequent work. He has written the forward for one of her books, appeared with her on talk shows voicing support, and has written a favourable review of "Christ in Egypt". Yet Price is presented here as though he is a critic of her work. That is simply not the case. Feel free to make changes in this regard. ^^James^^ (talk) 12:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Can you support that assertion through a reliable source, James? If so, then by all means make the change. But remember: if all the RS'es we have depict Dorothy M. Murdock in a negative light, then NPOV requires that if we have an article on her, we follow those sources appropriately. Jclemens (talk) 16:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- You mean the assertion that Price is supportive of Murdock's work, Jclemes? Yes of course. (Did you not read the above?) We already cite his review of Christ in Egypt in the article. [1] ^^James^^ (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Can you support that assertion through a reliable source, James? If so, then by all means make the change. But remember: if all the RS'es we have depict Dorothy M. Murdock in a negative light, then NPOV requires that if we have an article on her, we follow those sources appropriately. Jclemens (talk) 16:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)