Talk:Acharya S/Three

THeir are acutaly three critics. RisenJEsus, Tekton, and Robert PRice. In relaity more, but these are the oens hwo worte copelte reviews suitable here.

And, her disiples will not allow criticsm, they say it makes the artilce bias. Indeed, unless it read slike her wbesite an promotes her, they will not be satisfied.

ZAROVE 03:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have links to all three of the major critics? That would come in handy in improving this article. Not having criticism would be "bias", but not having rebuttals to that criticism would also be "bias". Do we have links to the rebuttals Acharya makes to the critics? That would also help.

In my experience, those who talk most about "removing bias" from the article and "keeping the article unbiased" tend to be the worst sort of POV warriors. The best Wikipedians are the ones who are up-front about their personal POVs, but are willing to work with others with differing POVs. If some of the pro-Acharyans continue to be a problem, we have ways of resolving such issues. But I hope it won't come to that. At any rate, I'd worry less about them, and more about your own actions. crazyeddie 15:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Never think in generalities.

I dudnt even bother htis aritcl till Acharya Herself showed up to mess iwht it. Actualy not then either, as that was bakc in August I ebelive and I didnt notice.

I checked htis aritcle in Sptmeber, checked it s hisotry, and saw how it was bign manipulated.

You can of ocurse retain your suspicion, but have I displayed a personal bias hre? If not, then prhaps some of us rlelay are capable of veiwign thing sin a non-baised way.

I just became upset when I saw Dorothy on hr mailign list advocating popel alter Wikipedia to reflect her own approved version fo the article. THis is the truth.

As to all three critics, links ar eint he current article. A Link to RisenJesus, Tekton Ministires, and Robert PRice's site.

You may eamine them their.

HEr rebuttlas ar eon ehr site, but relaly do not address any of the actual points made agaisnt her books, instead prefering to insult the peopel who dared critise her work.

Tersm like "Moron" and "NEanderthal" grace the text, but no hint of Addresisng Spacific critissm.

ZAROVE 01:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at these so called "criticisms":

The claims of Acharya S have been criticized for a number of reasons. Her detractors say:

Acharya S's works are poor scholarship. They contain essentially no primary research and little substantiation for her claims.

This is a broad brush accusation, not a critique, depicting someone's opinion. This is a typical tactic of fundamentalistic apologistics designed to malign and discredit to validate their own indefensable stance.

Her research is one-sided, and uses biased, inaccurate, and outdated sources to prove her point.

Broad brush again. Without definition, it is meaningless mumbo jumbo designed to cloud and confuse, not to depict any actual reality. It is a personal expression of someone's disbelief and does not address any point of contention.

The sources for her books, including The World's 16 Crucified Saviors by Kersey Graves and Women's Encyclopedia of Myth and Secrets by Barbara Walker, are themselves of suspect authority and lacking in primary research.

The definition of "primary research" has been discussed previously and has totally refuted this accusation. These are unsubstantiated claims depicting someone's opinion of these works... but even if true, without addressing what is quoted of them and showing that to be suspect, it is nothing more than faith's bookburning all over again.

Her work shows ignorance of the topics on which she writes, and in particular of the Hindu and Buddhist traditions.

The similarities between Krishna and the Buddha and Jesus, which is the theme of her second book, for instance, do not seem to correlate with the actual beliefs of Buddhists and Hindu's respectively.(Pages 109 and 116 of "The Christ Conspiracy", and the entire book "Suns of God" reference these facts.) For instance, Buddha and Krishna are not considered to have been crucified, and neither is said to have been born on December 25th, as Acharya claims. Other discrepancies between the various other "Saviour" gods and legends she compares Jesus to, such as Attis, Dionysus,Hercules,Apollo,Orpheus,Quetzalcoatl, etc., make her books suspect. Few of the similarities in the various myths, legends, and histories of the characters outlined in her book can be verified by independent sources, or shown to be part of the belief system involving them. These similarities appear in list form in Chapter 9 of The Christ Conspiracy, which is entitled "The Characters".

This has also been refuted and is a bastardized rendition of what was actually stated. It is a low minded, simplistic attempt that selectively twists words to favor an accusation and is without merit.

Accusation, inuendo, and conjecture do not make fact but they do make clear the intent and motive of those utilizing them to gain concensus from those with the same beliefs.

Please log in and sign your posts. Thank You.

I support rewritting the Criticisms section. Let's start by taking a look at the primary sources - the critics themselves - and see what specific points they are making. Then we can attribute those critiques to them. crazyeddie 22:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]