^^James^^

Revision as of 18:53, 21 September 2005

Revision as of 19:36, 21 September 2005

Line 7:

''You have to back up your assertions. For example, if you want to claim that she has lied about being a member of the American School of Classical Studies, provide some evidence and documentation, else your claim should be considered baseless.''

:I have evidence. I was a reporter. Idid a story on her. Trust me, I could have posted a lot mor personal informaiton, but only posted what was alreayd made known. IE, her real name. Dr.Price made that available in publications.

:I called the American Society for Greek Studies, and they have no record of her as a member. I am not placing this evidnece in because it is superfluous to the artilce, it is sufficient for me to tell others that the society has no record of her as a member. And perhaps post a link to their website, so others cna confirm. WOudl this be better for you?

::If you have evidence, please provide it. Wikipedia does not operate from 'trust'. The guidlines require that claims be backed up with verifiable sources. So please provide them. And it's not my job to back up your claims. Back them up yourself.

::Dr. Price made 'D. Murdock' available. Please provide verifiable documentation, as per wiki guidelines, that shows your full version of her name is correct. Otherwise your claim (regardless of it's truth) is not based on any provided evidence.

''The 'Theme of Books' section is no place for criticism. Criticism must be balanced and present a fair representation of what she actually writes. Provide direct quotes to illustrate the claims she makes so that we can see for ourselves what she actually says first, then criticise her position. Otherwise it might look as though you were misrepresenting her position, then attacking your own misrepresentation. The well known straw-man fallacy. ^^James^^ 18:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)''

The 'Theme of Books' section is no place for criticism. Criticism must be balanced and present a fair representation of what she actually writes. Provide direct quotes to illustrate the claims she makes so that we can see for ourselves what she actually says first, then criticise her position. Otherwise it might look as though you were misrepresenting her position, then attacking your own misrepresentation. The well known straw-man fallacy. ^^James^^ 18:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

:My crititisms where fair and baalnced. By Fair and Balanced you relaly eman in support of her claims. You woudl not allow any critisism. You won't even allow TEkton's link to stand. Your sole agenda seems to be promotion of Acharya S, not in offering any vlaid informaitom abotu her outside of her sales pitch. You want to make her appear reputable, as if her book and ideas are taken seriosuly in academia. They arent. SHe's a conspiracy theorist.

::I do allow criticism. Consider that I haven't argued against allowing Robert Prices criticism to stand. I don't consider Tekton (which means "freemason" in modern greek by the way) a reputable source. And please lets not cast vague aspersions as to my motives. I don't mind a fair and balanced assesment of AS's work or credentials. Some in academia DO take her work seriously. Academia is far too broad a term to be tossing around, as though it were some homogenous entity. It's not. Science is based on disputes and debate. That's how it grows. If nobody were offering controversial, challenging perspectives, it would become stagnant and unthinking. And 'conspiracy' simply means that people secretly cooperated to commit a crime. It happens all the time, and so is not much of a criticism. Consider the Churches efforts to cover up child abuse by its priests. That should be rightly labeled a conspriacy, IMO.

:As to direct quotes, thats a bit hefty. This artilce is a breif summation of Acharya S and her work, not a detialed ananlysis of the acual books in queasiton. They may get future Wikipedia articles on them. But for this aritlce it is sufficient to post a few basic facts she getswrong, so peopel get the general gist.

::The problem is, presenting the 'gist' of her work is one thing, but basing criticisms solely on that 'gist', which is only a general idea of what her work is about, is another. If you want to accurately criticise, you have to get into some detail about what she actually says in her work. The devil is in the details, as they say.

My crititisms where fair and baalnced. By Fair and Balanced you relaly eman in support of her claims. You woudl not allow any critisism. You won't even allow TEkton's link to stand. Your sole agenda seems to be promotion of Acharya S, not in offering any vlaid informaitom abotu her outside of her sales pitch. You want to make her appear reputable, as if her book and ideas are taken seriosuly in academia. They arent. SHe's a conspiracy theorist.

:In the History secion, a "Critisisms" area use to exist. I did not compose this. Noentheless, it served to balance out Acharya's claism of herself. You remove critisism, not to make the article fair and ba;anced, but yo mae it biased in faovur of her.

::See the talk page under 'Smear Tactics'. Discuss it there.

As to direct quotes, thats a bit hefty. This artilce is a breif summation of Acharya S and her work, not a detialed ananlysis of the acual books in queasiton. They may get future Wikipedia articles on them. But for this aritlce it is sufficient to post a few basic facts she getswrong, so peopel get the general gist.

:I have sent the administrator warnings.I have shown him the Christ COnsoiracy mailign list and how you discyss the edits.

In the History secion, a "Critisisms" area use to exist. I did not compose this. Noentheless, it served to balance out Acharya's claism of herself. You remove critisism, not to make the article fair and ba;anced, but yo mae it biased in faovur of her.

I have sent the administrator warnings.I have shown him the Christ COnsoiracy mailign list and how you discyss the edits.

You dont weant fair or balanced, you want propoganda.

:You dont weant fair or balanced, you want propoganda.

::Please, lets not get personal. I am most capable of being fair and playing by the rules. If you want to make edits, discuss and debate them first on their merits instead of going ahead and simply changing things.

==Warning==