Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
Smear. |
||
Line 1:
==Smear==
To address the "Smear tactics" you reference...
''I've got several other problems with the page. For example, the constant insinuations that the author may be lying about her credentials:''
No, as it stands now it lists her fill known credentials.
''...who bills herself as a "historian, mythologist, religious scholar, linguist, and archaeologist".''
This is true, she does bill herself as this. Soitisnot a smear tacgic. Espeiclaly since no evidence exists to prove she is any of these thigns.
''She is an historian, mythologist, religious scholar, linguist, and archaeologist. If you have information suggesting otherwise, please provide it. Otherwise you are not-so-subtly suggesting she is a lier. A smear tactic.''
The Irony is that Acharya woudl make this demand. " It snot up to the Unbeeliver ot prove God or Jesus Existed, its up to the beleiver." Shes acutlaly said htis. And is soemwhat right.
You see, its up to the cliamant ot prove the claim, not the sceptic. IE, if I claimed to be a PH.D holder in Nuclear Physics, it snot up to yu to prove me wrong. its up to me to present my credentials and prove it.
Acharya is not a Historian, Linguist, rleigious schoalr, or an archeologist. At leats no real record verifies her as such.
If you wan tot prove she is, then by all means please show us her records that prve such.
''She claims to be a member of an institute for the study of Ancient Greek civilization, the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Greece, Though they haveno record of her as a member.
She is a member of the American School of Classical Studies. If you have information suggesting otherwise, please provide it. More smear tactics to cast doubt on the authors character and credibility.''
Again, see above. The Claimant must provide the evidence. Until evidence is provided, then the above is 100% accurate.
''Her primary sources for her Premise Are the works of Kersey GRaves... and BArbara Walker...
That is blatantly false, and easily checked.''
I did check, she cites these tso more often than anyone else... and defended the use of Graves till itbecame a lost cause.
''(Oh yeah, nobody arguing with me on this has even read her books, so how can they check?!)''
Ive read the CHrist Conspiracy and parts of Suns of God, the fre bits online...
''She does reference these works, among many. 'The Christ Conspiracy' contains hundreds of quotes and 1200 footnotes, for example. These so-called critics (so-called because this smells like a deliberate smear) pick out a couple sources they feel confident attacking, then try to characterize them as her "primary sources".''
Most of her other soruces ar equelly dubious. IE, Godfrey Higgins, Jospeh Wheeles, G.A.Wells, need I list all her osurces and tell why eahc is considered queasitonable?
Let's not gforget her selective use of Biblical citaitons...
And her misrepsentaiton fo CHruch Fathers...
And her many uncited claims...
''Her research is one-sided, and uses biased, innaccurate, and outdated soruces to prove her point.
Ummm, how exactly are we to rebut this sweeping claim??? Sheesh.''
By showign relevant quites. Also, this is not a debate forum, this is an encyclopidia, so sayign ehr critics say this is not exaclty a bad idea.
Again, this arilce telsl what peoepl say about her, and doesnt take sides.
'' Seriously, how about some specific, attributed crticisms that we can sink our teeth into, instead of broad sweeping unattributed statements... that suggest, once again, that wikipedia is being used to smear an author.''
No, it suggests that this article is abotu HER , nto her works, and ives what others are sayign abotu her. Anyoen curiosu enough can check the links for further study...
''I also note that nobody has challenged the quality of scholarship of the RisenJesus.com article in the links section. It is quite plainly abhorrent. Why not?''
Because its not Wikipedias policy to challenge nayoensscholarship. Wikipedia reports what others are saying, but formulates no opinion of its own.
Again, this is an Encyclopidia, not a debate.
''As to the accusation of self-promotion, delete the page (as was offered by an 'admin' above, and agreed to by me) and the whole issue (wikipedia being used to smear and disseminate personal information about an author) would disappear. Since I am not yet familiar with the procedures on wikipedia, please forgive my ineptness in dealing with the issue.''
So either show unilateral unabashed support for her and nto allow critism ofher, or else delete her. ISnt this childish?
==Dear James===
| |||