^^James^^
Tektonas
Re: "Tekton doesnt mean 'Fremason'... I checked."
You checked? Are you sure? Perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to jump to conclusions, based on such scant research. Get to know your subject a little deeper before forming set opinions. A little rigour and extra care never hurts. I've fact-checked this in the past, but did so again today. Here's what I came up with:
"the Modern Greek word for mason, or free mason, is Tektonas. And the word for "Masonic" is tektonikos (Reference: "Oxford Greek Mini-dictionary"; Watts, Niki; Oxford University Press, 1997)"
Hey, by the way, did you know that the masons are rumoured to be in the religion crafting business? For example, I've read articles suggesting that prominent freemasons were involved in the creation of the Jehovas Witnesses and the Mormons. Interesting, no?
As to your claims about ASCSA, if you can post information to suggest that Acharya S is a lier, then be my guest. I'm all ears. Personally, I could care less about guarantees. I don't take things on 'faith', and I don't take things on 'trust'. I require solid evidence and an intelligent argument. And even then I'm open to new information. Otherwise, people would be able to manipulate me just by telling me lies.
Also, I need some clarification: please explain (with examples) as to what you mean when you say 'primary sources'.
And feel free to "list as many errors as you like, although I think you should focus on her major tenets, as wikipedia probably is not the place to get bogged down in minor details. And make sure that the 'errors' are based on what she actually wrote, not what some religious website claims she wrote. You do have access to her books, correct?"
Tekton and other neusances
I don't care what Tekton means in Greek. It was presented ot show another poitn fo veiw besides Acharya's. Robert Price's peice stands because he's a fellow Mytheisst.So even if Acharya is Discredited peopel still beleive what she say's,basiclaly.
I know you on the mailign list have Tekton with a passion, just as much as you hate actual fair and baalnced articles on wikipedia. You rpefer the glowong "Isn't Acharya so wonderful" Variety.That's not fair and balanced.Her critics need an equel voice to her.
Again, I cna post a link to ASOGS and you can browse the list, opnline, of Alumni and mmbers past and preasent. I gurentee you that Dorothy Murdock isnt one of them.
But what you rlelay want is a document hat says "She is nto a mebmber." Thats not posisble, a sporving a negative is seldom acheivable. Can you prove that she's a member, other than form her own soruces?
Show me evidence she is,in fact, a member. Any evidence.So far I have none. I'd gladly retract my claim that she's not if I had evidence. That's wat makes me different form you.
No, the only place you find this is on her website.
Let's not forget, the critis=ms to her book ar ealso freley available pnline. IE, herlakc of prrimary source use, her use of discredited soruces, her fallacy in word origins. I can go ona nd on lisitn lots more erros than just "The Buddha and Krishna wheren't Crucified."
Again, do you rlelay want me to go that far?
I'm not lookign to just out and out discredit Acharya. But you are looking to promote her.
This is an encyclopidia, so her critics must be allowed, as wlel as all available evidence.
Also, a small addition. Tekton doesnt mean "Fremason", it means builder, or craftsman. It cna be taken to mean Freemason, in the sence of oen who builds things, but ha no Messianic attatchment as far as the secret society goes. I checked.
- I don't consider Tecktonics to be a reputable source. I doubt anybody else would, either. If you can back up your assertions, please do. I'm all ears. Otherwise, your tossing around baseless accusations.
- Acharya S either is a member of ASCSA or isn't. It's something that can be checked, unlike proving the existence of God. Please provide some evidence of inpropriety regarding her credentials, else you come off as attempting to smear her character. Why are you holding back on this? Because your claim is baseless and you're lying??
- List as many errors as you like, although I think you should focus on her major tenets, as wikipedia probably is not the place to get bogged down in minor details. And make sure that the 'errors' are based on what she actually wrote, not what some religious website claims she wrote. You do have access to her books, correct?
From Zarove.
James, you wrote this.
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)
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! --Ragib 03:02, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- I don't know what you're talking about. ^^James^^ 03:08, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- Does this diff ring a bell? You blanked out comments from several users. Don't blank comments. --Ragib 03:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- oh, I removed the section I had added before because geni had modified it.
- Compare http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Acharya_S&oldid=23425311 (my original post)
- to genis mods here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Acharya_S&oldid=23428140
- Isn't what geni did considered vandalism? If so, I was only trying to correct it. (I have a user account now.)
- I called it vandalism. Of course, the rules are rather unclear regarding talk pages, so many people might disagree. In any case, James, I think your removal of the voting section was rather magnanimous, and a reasonable way to avoid an edit war. I must say that, although I agree with most of Geni's points, I disagree greatly with his methods, and I consider his removal of the voting section (twice!) to be extremely impolite.
By the way, regardless of whether there is a vote, I'd like to know what exactly you wanted us to vote on: the short name (initial + last name) or the full name. If the latter, then I would say don't worry about it. It's been days since any edit of the article included it, and I think the consensus on leaving it out is pretty clear.
Reply here if you want; I'll watch this page for a while.
- I called it vandalism. Of course, the rules are rather unclear regarding talk pages, so many people might disagree. In any case, James, I think your removal of the voting section was rather magnanimous, and a reasonable way to avoid an edit war. I must say that, although I agree with most of Geni's points, I disagree greatly with his methods, and I consider his removal of the voting section (twice!) to be extremely impolite.
I was going to ask for a vote on having her name at all. I realized of course that the name is available on google... still I thought I had a compelling case for its removal, but perhaps was a little overzealous in its pursuit. No biggy. Interesting culture here on wikipedia. I will learn more about it, will add more content to AS's page, and am thinking of setting up a wiki-based site of my own (as I heard that could be done.)
- It certainly can. Plenty of Wiki software is available under an open-source/free-software license. I imagine the MediaWiki software (which is what Wikipedia runs) is available under such a license. — Nowhither 18:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
3RR warning
Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. Thank you. --Ragib 18:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Even when reverting vandalism? But thanks for the 3RR tip. ^^James^^ 18:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
- You are welcome. In this case, it is an edit dispute. I've given the warning to both the parties involved. --Ragib 18:45, 21 September 2005 (UTC)