Talk:Acharya S/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Atakc me all you like...

Yoru atakcs on me are simply further lies, Lobo. Im not here to shoot the messenger because I dotn liek th message. You onthe other hand wan tot silence anyone who speaks againt th emessage, thats why you rmove all Critiism, or neutralise it by wordign that makes it seem unimportant.

A bully often projects their own actiosn on their victims, in this case me.

The truth is this. Her ideas are presdented neutrllay. Supporters arent needed. No other wikipedia aritlce has htem, and int ruth he rsuypporters arte all "Nobodies".

She doesnt have Universities totign her name, she doesnt have academics clammoring for her. SHes worthless as a Scholactic tool.Her works are all seondary and form suspect soruces themselves.

The removal of the King David link is not acceptable. Becuase you only remove it as it shows that she cannot defend her position. It is included onlybecause hse is direclty invovled. Critisim to her ideas is include dot show dome reaosns why her ideas arent accepted. You will to neutrlaise the critiissm in order to promote her ideas, and then challenge anyone who opposes you in this as soemone blidned by rleigiosu beleif.

Your verison isnot neutral. It slants the arilc ein Favour of DOrothy Murdock.

this Bias is unforgivable, and worse, you have completley Islated critism to make her veiw appear mroe promenant then LIE about her in the "Rave reviews" paragraph. You also make judgement calls concernign religion and rleigios belivf, which is beyind the scope of WIkjiepdia.

Its vandalsim. You may have blinded soem here, includign soem administrators, into thinkitn this is you defiendign somthgin agaisnt a zealot, but the trith is your just here to attakc those who you see as a threat. Any neutrality is seen as a threat. You want this to clearly show her ideas as correct.

Its baotu rleigoosu dogma all right. Yoru rleigiosu Dogma.

ZAROVE 04:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

-

To keep the record straight, I sign what I write as el Lobo and use no other name.

66.174.79.227 07:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 02:04 AM CST

-

dOESNT MATTER.

Im not smearign Acharya S. Thats a lie. You guys are just promotign her by vandalising the aritlce. Its a lie to say it snto Vandalism. the "At leats one critic and several detractors fromt he apolgist camp" line is POV.It exists to minimalise the critiism of her work. Just like the "Rave review" paragrpaph exists more to present her works as accepted schoalrship and turley compelling. Its an advertisement.

Deletign the link shows a bais. its an interview with the author that didnt go well so has to be removed. You just wan tot controle th einformaiton.

ZAROVE 12:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

-

So it doesn't matter to you... well, I think you've amply proven that.

66.174.92.165 03:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 10:51 PM EST

-

Of COurse

Lobo, you and yoru confederates advocae a biased verison, and bemoan the cuirrent one as Biased. You do nto show how it is biased, you jjust accuse it of such. Ive shwon how yours is.

ZAROVE 18:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

-

Every point you have made has been discounted and shown to be false. Your bias is denial.

12.203.133.224 22:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 05:21 PM CST

-

No it has not.

No, it's not. You didn't even address the problems I showed withthe current version. All the hwile, you remove a link you disagree with, minimalise critisism, add lies tot he text ( Such as the "Fact" that Acharya nonetheless has origional research, or the rave review section.) No, yours is promotional of her ideas. It is not NPOV, and is vandalism.

ZAROVE 23:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

There are no problems with the current article to address. You have not presented any valid criticism. You have rejected any and every editor's point of view except your own. The bias has always rested with your endless opinionating and self-aggrandisement. There is no reasoning with someone whose motives are always in question, therefore if there be vandalism---it is all yours. No one else but you here being pettily arguementative (I can only suspect vandal's crave attention and are control freaks, other than being nuiscances).

Promotion-demotion is irrelevant. The liar accuses others of lies--you have not proved a lie about anything. The article is NPOV.--70.73.15.88 00:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)toothfairy

This is also a lie.

At least one critic and various detractors from the apologetic camp have claimed her work is based on poor scholarship, with little primary research and heavy reliance on outdated or fringe sources, and shows ignorance of the topics on which she writes, in particular of the Hindu and Buddhist traditions. Nevertheless, there is much original research in her work, especially in "Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled," her follow-up to "The Christ Conspiracy."

The Bold sections are Biased. Saying that she has only oen Critic and several detractors fromt he apologist Camp is Biased. Calling her critics detractods is biased. Saying that she "NEvertheless has origional research" is bais. It is nto WIkipeidas palce to determine if her owrk is origional or not. Her critics say it is not. (Critics, not detractors.)

Sayin that it is as a point-of-fact is a bais.

Acharya S has been described, by her own books, and website, as well as the Paranoia Magazine website, as a historian, mythologist, religious scholar, linguist(she speaks, reads and writes several ancient and modern languages), and archeologist with moderate undergraduate experience in Archeology. Internet essayist John Kaminski describes her as "the ranking religious philosopher of our era".

The Kamanski quote exists only to further boost her image. The statement baotu spekaign more thna one language is not rlelay relevant, and the Omisison of the reason WHY she is claimed ot be " A Historian, Religiosu Shclar, Archeologist, and Lingust" is not preasent. ( Ys you say she speaks multiple languages. But no other explanaiton rellay eixts.)

It is entrley promotional.

The ommission of the fac thtat she hodls no trianign in any of these fields, and is only these thigns "By DIcitonary definition", the argument her supporters made her to forc the ridiculosu list in the encyclopidia int he firts place, is biased. Youd o nto want hte reader to know she hodls no degree and try to sway the readers opinion.

She has received rave reviews from readers across the spectrum, from those on the edge of doubt about their religons to those having some familiarity with the unhistorical nature of religon generally. Her books have become popular with avid "truth-seekers" from around the world, eliciting interest from the average person to the professional and academically trained thinkers.

THis entire paragrpah is promotional, and thus shoudl not be in the encyclopedia. It exosts only to firther her views.

It is also of import that it claim as a fact that religion is Ahistorical, which is not Wikipeidas palce.

It also seems not to be vrified form any known source, and is just a form of marketing.

The Omisison of the link to King David's website was doen soley for the sake of preservign her knoeldgable image. In the exchange, she filed ot rellay defend her views, and so it servs the interests of her legiosn to rmove it.

These are the problems.

As to the version I reverted to, no problems are even listed.

ZAROVE 01:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

-

You made 3 revisions the first day you got off being banned then today, you have made 4 revisions. It seems you also don't care about wikipedia rules as well.

66.174.93.102 02:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 09:23 PM CST

-The "problems" are only problems for you Zarove. Do you even know the meaning of bias?! Everything is biased. Every little suggestion you have made or criticism is a bias. Jesus, I hope you don't expect me to point out the bias in the things you like in the article--the key is to balance out views, which is what you apparently DON'T WANT! So really, stop pretending you care about bias or FACTS!

Everything that is written there is a fact--even the negative reviews (who the heck cares about this silly King David email--you seem fixated on a silly peice of "alleged" private correspondence reputed to some nobody with a nuiscance objective)--it could have been you for Christ's sake! The Price, Holden, and Licona remarks (website operators unconfirmed to have any credibility in the field of mythology or religon) are negative biases.

Only Price could have the dubious distinction of being a "critic", because he at least is published and a known figure of some credibility. Holden is an obvious "huckster" (and so is he a mainstream expert, or is it Licona or any self-proclaimed expert on Christianity from the innumerable churches, sects, scientist-archeologists and Doctors of Religon, including those who have recanted the literal historical nonsense they came to see was inherent in religon?!). Take all these "biases" or "criticisms" away if BIAS is your big concern. Take all the "favoritisms" away if you are concerned about "BIAS". These BIASES were removed--both pros and cons were pared down considerably and you rejected that. Remove them all together and you would still object! What you want is heavily negative bias--get over it!

• • her work is based on poor scholarship, with little primary research and heavy reliance on outdated or fringe sources, and shows ignorance of the topics on which she writes, in particular of the Hindu and Buddhist traditions** Is this not demotional (a detractive statement of opinion)?

• • considers her work so poor as to constitute an embarrassment to the case. I cringed... Writing at second hand, she is too quick to state as bald-faced fact what turn out to be, once one chases down her sources, either wild speculations or complex inferences from a chain of complicated data open to many interpretations. And sometimes she swallows their fanciful etymologies like so many shiny goldfish at a frat party. Worse yet, she just goofs here and there and betrays a lack of ability to weigh evidential claims... The Christ Conspiracy is a random bag of (mainly recycled) eccentricities, some few of them worth considering, most dangerously shaky, many outright looney** How about this--is it not demotional opinion of the worst kind, with absolutely no proof to those words presented?

• • His article includes correspondence with several scholars who noted inaccuracies in her work, in one case writing that she should take a Religion 101 class** I suppose this isn't demotional/detractive statements of opinion without any presentation of fact of where she is innaccurate or proof that "those scholars" are right and she is totally ignorant? Now I know you will reject this logical revelation of BIAS, INNUENDO, DEMEANING CHARACTER ASSASSINATION as non-NPOV as you claim the bias stated in her favour is! Is this encyclopedic?!!

I suspect, rather I know you that YOU are BIASED (and the archives show that you are a malicious "encyclopedic" detractor; you have been shown to have deliberately tried to pawn off a misrepresentation (lieing) of her attendance at an educational institute she never claimed to have been at! Why would you do that? Why would you, on this talk page, bring up all kinds of personal matters (innaccurate and slanderous at that), which have absolutely no bearing on her persona as a learned author of religous/mythology?! You deserve no respect at all as an expert on proper editing, as a source of information on the article itself, on Acharya's life, or what is or is not NPOV, because your credibility as anyone can read throughout these archives is WORTHLESS.

Now that is just an obvious fact, aside from having any discussion with you on any part of this co-operative editing being an exercise in analistic futility! There has got to be someone else in here beside Lobo with whom an intelligent and reasonable discussion on the direction this page should take.--70.73.15.88 08:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)toothfairy

Now.

-The "problems" are only problems for you Zarove. Do you even know the meaning of bias?!

Acutlaly their problems for everyone excpt htose who agree with Acharya S.

Everything is biased.

Not everything.

Every little suggestion you have made or criticism is a bias.

Not really.

Jesus, I hope you don't expect me to point out the bias in the things you like in the article--the key is to balance out views, which is what you apparently DON'T WANT! So really, stop pretending you care about bias or FACTS!

You can't show prblems withthe current artucle.

Thats why you don't. If yo did it woud be trumpet upnonsence liek when you said callign her an "American" was an atack on her...

Everything that is written there is a fact--

No its not. Its not a fact that "Nonetheless she has much origional research." It basiclaly eixsts to invalidate the Critism that she has no roigional research and doesnt balance the arilce so much as it serves to dismiss the Critisism.

The Rave Reviews section is not a factual paragrpah, and veen states religion is AHistorical, whih is a POV Comment, not a fact.

I need not go on really.

even the negative reviews (who the heck cares about this silly King David email--you seem fixated on a silly peice of "alleged" private correspondence reputed to some nobody with a nuiscance objective)--it could have been you for Christ's sake! The Price, Holden, and Licona remarks (website operators unconfirmed to have any credibility in the field of mythology or religon) are negative biases.

Robert Price, of Jesus Seminar, has no credibility in the feild of rleigion???

Licona I belive is workign for a degree int he feild.

Even if they do not hwoever, Dorothy Murdocks own credentuals arent int he feild of rleigiosu studies, but clasical studies.

So it's equivolent.

Only Price could have the dubious distinction of being a "critic", because he at least is published and a known figure of some credibility.

Holding also has credibility in many cirtucles and is often referenced.

Holden is an obvious "huckster" (and so is he a mainstream expert, or is it Licona or any self-proclaimed expert on Christianity from the innumerable churches, sects, scientist-archeologists and Doctors of Religon, including those who have recanted the literal historical nonsense they came to see was inherent in religon?!).

This is POV opinion and not a fact.

Take all these "biases" or "criticisms" away if BIAS is your big concern. Take all the "favoritisms" away if you are concerned about "BIAS". These BIASES were removed--both pros and cons were pared down considerably and you rejected that. Remove them all together and you would still object! What you want is heavily negative bias--get over it!

See this is what I mean. You guys hate Tekton Ministires, so its an obviosu Huskcter site.

Any Christain Critism of her work will be seen as Bias and so shoudl not be int he artilce. Unfortunarly she critises CHristaintiy, so the CHristain side of the story will obviosuly be needed ot balance this out. You relaly don't expect anone to take seriously the comment that someone can bash Christainity, and only a NonChristain can then refute her work, do you?

Its obvious that you simply want to promote her work, andnot balance the aritlce.

her work is based on poor scholarship, with little primary research and heavy reliance on outdated or fringe sources, and shows ignorance of the topics on which she writes, in particular of the Hindu and Buddhist traditions** Is this not demotional (a detractive statement of opinion)?

You omit the first art of this comment, whioch states that her Critics claim this. Not WIkipedia. And its verifiable that her Crictics make htis claim. We also state that she claims that the CHristain Faith is basd on Plagerised Myth.

The difference is, Wikipedia is not syaing this statement is true, it says that the Criics say it. Just liek it doesnt say JEuss was a Plageised Pagan Myth. it states that Acharya S says he is.

considers her work so poor as to constitute an embarrassment to the case. I cringed... Writing at second hand, she is too quick to state as bald-faced fact what turn out to be, once one chases down her sources, either wild speculations or complex inferences from a chain of complicated data open to many interpretations. And sometimes she swallows their fanciful etymologies like so many shiny goldfish at a frat party. Worse yet, she just goofs here and there and betrays a lack of ability to weigh evidential claims... The Christ Conspiracy is a random bag of (mainly recycled) eccentricities, some few of them worth considering, most dangerously shaky, many outright looney** How about this--is it not demotional opinion of the worst kind, with absolutely no proof to those words presented?

The firts problem with the above is the Hypocracy of it. Origionally an Encapusualted Critisim section wa sincluded. Becuase it was not a series of direct quotatiosn form her critics you complaiend and said that it was WIkipeida makign the claims. THen someone added lengthy quote blocs fromt he Critics. Now yor complaining about this.

Wikipeida has stated as a matter of coruse who said hte above, and mentioned thta he was a Critic.

Your problem withthe above is groundless.

His article includes correspondence with several scholars who noted inaccuracies in her work, in one case writing that she should take a Religion 101 class** I suppose this isn't demotional/detractive statements of opinion without any presentation of fact of where she is innaccurate or proof that "those scholars" are right and she is totally ignorant?

See above. You are the ones who demanded we use quotes and not a simple encapsulation of what her Critics claim. Now you want to rmeove the wuotes on dubous grounds. Wikipeda states the sourc of the informaiton, and os the problem is mooted.

Now I know you will reject this logical revelation of BIAS, INNUENDO, DEMEANING CHARACTER ASSASSINATION as non-NPOV as you claim the bias stated in her favour is! Is this encyclopedic?!!

Yes, because the above are quotes from her critics, and not IWkipeidas own claims. Your sttaement "Nevertheless her work contians much origional research, especially in the Suns of God" is wikipedia saying " Her critics say this but are wrong." It snot Wikipeidas palce to settle the matter.

Again, you are the one who wanted the quotatiosn used.

I suspect, rather I know you that YOU are BIASED (and the archives show that you are a malicious "encyclopedic" detractor; you have been shown to have deliberately tried to pawn off a misrepresentation (lieing) of her attendance at an educational institute she never claimed to have been at!

Actually this is yet anothe rlie. I said I had no proof of hte claim f her being int he Am School, other than her website. When documentation was given, by her, I then allowed the comment. You blow it out of proportion.

Why would you do that? Why would you, on this talk page, bring up all kinds of personal matters (innaccurate and slanderous at that), which have absolutely no bearing on her persona as a learned author of religous/mythology?!

Actually I threatened to post an article I wrote ont he web, an use it as a source, sicne she, and her disiples, complaiend abuth the sources alreayd avaialbel online. Noen of hat I said was slanderous. She did on occasion make poor grades,and was not seen as overly mpressive in hr academic work. She was an average student overall. ANd her personal life came to my attention by various peopel who had knwon her. ( Not her ex lover though.) And the records that appeared as part of a standard news article. At the time sh was unavailabel or comment hwoever or I'd have spoken to her as well.

This is not the same as slander.

You deserve no respect at all as an expert on proper editing, as a source of information on the article itself, on Acharya's life, or what is or is not NPOV, because your credibility as anyone can read throughout these archives is WORTHLESS.

This is just more Ad Hom. You have no credibiloty since you ar ejust here to slant the aritlce. The problems Ive had on wikipeida owe to you gusy trashign me and distirtign everyhtign I said. James even went so far as to create a huge list of evidence agaisnt me, noen of which save one parabraph even dealign withthe issue at hand and most of whihc beign things I siad he disagrees with but that arent rlelay violatiosn fo any rule. All to make me look bad. THen he threatened to use my past website expeiurnces agisnt me. Naturllay usign the same smear tactics he accused me of. You guys tries too too. Withthe OLD stalkers on your side you coudl rellay make me look bad. You woidl ignroe any posiitve claism to me and focs on the negative, and forget that they all stem formt he same soruce and just claim Im a monster.

Really, this is so much Hokum.

Now that is just an obvious fact, aside from having any discussion with you on any part of this co-operative editing being an exercise in analistic futility! There has got to be someone else in here beside Lobo with whom an intelligent and reasonable discussion on the direction this page should

You have yet to even address the problems I raised withthe Aritlce. You Obfuciate the matter by simply attacign mne, my credibility, and sentences that you yourself insiste dupon having in the article int he firts palce. But you didnt addrss the problems I raised.

ZAROVE 17:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

vANDAL CLAUSE

You made 3 revisions the first day you got off being banned then today, you have made 4 revisions. It seems you also don't care about wikipedia rules as well.

Actually I reported htis page as vandalised. Vandalism maybe reveted. I pointe dout that the "Edit warrign" which got me banned was juist a ruse. I also poitne dout the sentneces you gsy keep inscertignm, the changes, and ommisisons.

Removal of informaiton and inscertion of diliberate Biased informaiton is Vandalsim, which may be reverted.

ZAROVE 18:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

-

By that definition, what you are doing qualifies as the same thing and thus must be reverted to a more neutral version.

12.203.133.224 00:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 07:03 PM CST

-

No it doesnt.

No it doesnt.

The current vrsion does not make any attemot to promote her works, or to attack her works. Neither does it attmeot to ttack her.

On the other hand, it does present critism. And itpresents her ideas.

It also presents her life as best is known currently without rleying on informaitn from other osruces than the internet and her mailign list.

So, how is this Vandalism? Simpy because you disagree withthe content.

ZAROVE 00:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

-

But then, all you are doing is disagreeing with the content. You have not shown any criticism, you have shown what those detractors say in favor of their own belief systems. What you seek in the article is clearly what can show her and her books in a negative light. And if thatr must be, so be it biut inorder to remain neutral, you must also show the other end of the scale which you consistenly filter out claiming it shows her in a good light.

12.203.133.224 00:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 07:11 PM CST

-

No.

But then, all you are doing is disagreeing with the content.

THis is Patently false. I disagree with slantign the Article to read in her favour. I also disagree with tellign promotional paragrpahs beign added.I disagree with her critics beign called "Detractors" and beign dismissed as wrong, whc is a vlaue call not to be include din Wikipedia.

You have not shown any criticism, you have shown what those detractors say in favor of their own belief systems.

That is Critiism. And agauin, I prefered the encapsulated Critism section. And I didnt compose either Critism seciton. THe Critics are Critics, not detractors. Likewise, we cannot simply say "They say that she has no origional research, nevertheless she does" without it bign a clear bias in her favour.

What you seek in the article is clearly what can show her and her books in a negative light.

Actually no. I was the one who included the enture "Astro-Theology" list. It was shaved by another editor.

However, Critisim, and accurate protrayal of the owman herself, are paramount to me.

You cnanot show whats acutlaly wrogn withthe curent version, you can just call it Vandalsim. I've shown two or three times now whats wrong wiht your "Imprived, Neutral" version. Its nto Neutral, it is clealry writtne in her favour.

And if thatr must be, so be it biut inorder to remain neutral, you must also show the other end of the scale which you consistenly filter out claiming it shows her in a good light.

We do this. We tell what she beleives, then tell what Critics say. THis is normal for WIkipedia. Itsnot normal for Wikipedia to then say the Critics are wrong, or to call them "Detractors". Its also not nromal fo Wikipeida to tlak about rave reivws and avid truth seekers form all walks of life loving her book. Put that in an ad, not here.

And it is normal for WIkipedia to put in her real credentials if the claism she makes abotu her stand. You and James said by DIcitonary definition she is these htigns, why not allow htis argument in?

Omisison fo the link to King David is also removal of informaiton and Vandalism.

ZAROVE 00:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

-

No, this is not false... what you do is slant the article negatively. You remove anything you think might show it in a positive light and claim that this constitutes neutral ground. To be truly neutral, it must be neither positive nor negative but since you cannot do this, the next level is to balance the views by show a negative balanced by showing a positive view. A detractor reduces the value, importance, or quality of something.where a critic tends to make harsh or carping judgments, they are a faultfinders Either way, what you present of them holds them an unsavory light. They are duty bound to refute and deny the premises of her books, that is the meaning of an apologist.

All you have to read is what you post... it is amply clear what you are doing. My saying so means nothing compared to that.

She is an author but beyond that, she is a person and what you have stated you would have posted is not what you now claim. I merely use your own logic and in applying it to the other side to the coin... they are the same thing by the definition and logic you apply. You are not telling what she believes, you do not have any idea of that. She is reporting what she has observed and what you are doing is denying that. You say this is normal on Wikipedia and yet, you consistently violate its rules. You do not determine them and your interpretation of them to fit your goals is also not what Wikipedia is about either. If you show a critic having a negative review then it is apropo to show a critic in favor. That is being fair.

We have gone over and over on this credentiual thing and it is a major hanguyp you have there... in the first place, you are the one designating them as credentials. What she demonstrates is life experiences that provide evidence or testimonials that earned her the right to credit, confidence, and authority. Argue all you want, but provide evidence , not you feelings about them. I completely destroyed any creditibility on the King David email. You have no idea what all was included or excluded in this private email... and furter, it falls into the Wikipedia rule of verifiability. Drop it, it's a lost cause.

12.203.133.224 01:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC) -el LOBO 08:23 PM CST

-

-

It has come to my attention that nearly all of February's history on the article is missing. In that history I posted what a straight forward article which complies with a dozen other Wikipedia articles posted on other authors who have writen books would look like... This is what I think the article should look like.

---

Acharya S

Acharya S is the pen name of D. Murdock who has authored two books and owns a website called "Truth be Known". She contends that religion is founded in earlier myth and that the characters depicted in Christianity are the result of the plagiarizing of those myths to unify the Roman State.

Contents [hide]

  * 1 Books
  * 2 Critical and non critical external links

Books

Her 1999 book, The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold and a follow-up book, Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled, discusses her observations further. Suns of God is addresses criticisms of her former book and expands teh topic measurably. In it, she comments on the Hindu story of the life of Krishna, as well as the life of Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama). She claims parallels to the life of Jesus, presenting evidence that the story of Jesus was written based on existing myth and not the life of a real man.

Acharya describes the historical existence of Jesus Christ and the New Testament as a work of mythic fiction with an historical setting. The story of Christ, she maintains, is actually a retelling of various pagan myths, all of which represent "astro-theology" or the story of the Sun. She asserts that the pagans understood these stories to be myths but that Christians obliterated evidence to the contrary through religious persecution, and thorugh the destruction and control of literature, such as the Library of Alexandria, once they attained control of the Roman Empire. [1]

This purportedly led to widespread illiteracy in the ancient world and ensured that the mythical nature of Christ's story was lost in the Dark Ages. Scholars of other sects continued to oppose the historicizing of a mythological figure. Where no evidence exists, Acharya claims that this is because the arguments were destroyed by Christians. However, Christians preserved these contentions, she states, through their own refutations. [2] [3]

Acharya compares Jesus' history to that of other gods—such as Mithra, Horus, Adonis, Krishna, Quetzalcoatl, Odin—claiming that the similarities result from a common source, the myth of the sun-god. In "The Christ Conspiracy" she describes this theory, claiming allegorical parallels between the story of Christ, and the story of the solar deity: "The sun 'dies' for three days at the winter solstice, to be born again or resurrected on December 25th", and "The sun enters into each sign of the zodiac at 30 [degrees]; hence, the 'Sun of God' begins his ministry at 'age' 30."

Background

Acharya S is a historian, mythologist, religious scholar, linguist, archeologist who has a Bachelor of Liberal Arts degree in Classics, Greek Civilization, from Franklin and Marshall College, and attended the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Greece. She is a fellow of the Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion. She been interviewed on a variety of radio stations.

Critical and non critical external links

  * Truth be Known (Acharya S's website)
  * The Origins of Christianity and the Quest for the Historical Jesus Christ by Acharya S
  * Interview with Acharya S in Paranoia Magazine
  * Earl Doherty reviews The Christ Conspiracy, see Earl Doherty
  * Robert Price reviews The Christ Conspiracy
  * Paranoia Magazine review of Suns of God by Joan d'Arc
  * Review by Danny McNeal 
  * "A Refutation of Acharya S's book, The Christ Conspiracy" by Mike Licona, and rebuttal
  * ebtx.com reviews The Christ Conspiracy
  * Tekton Apologetics Ministries reviews The Christ Conspiracy

---

Since getting this article deleted seems to be impossible, I would be interested to hear any objections to an article based on something like this.

66.174.79.232 10:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 05:19 AM CST

-Lobo--this is quite pared down an article and that is good! I have just a few suggestions. Instead of she "operates" a website, the words "owns" or "has" could be used (a friend suggested the connotations of "operate" almost imply something devious! lol!). In the same paragraph--"She contends that all religion"--the word "all" could be removed because it appears superfluous. Also, if you hadn't noticed, I inserted another review by Danny McNeal--perhaps it could stay? Otherwise, there is enough there for the Wiki reader to link with to familiarise themselves with her material thesis and the pros an cons of the subject. It may be down the road that some of these links will become redundant (as certain critics change their minds about the incendiary qualities of their reviews). --70.73.15.88 16:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC) toothfairy

-

I agree... and made the changes. I'll leave this for another day and then post it.

12.203.133.224 18:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 12:54 PM CST

-

If there is a problem with the current version, please discuss it here. Merely reverting the article only causes edit warring.

66.174.79.232 11:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 06:49 AM EST

-

The current version has stood on several occassions. It needs to be updated and brought more in line with other Wikipedia authors.

You say it is poorly formatted and disposes of significant text for no apparent reason... but that is not so. The format is little different than other Wikipedia articles on other authors... I modeled this version on Upton Sinclair, Sinclair Lewis, Robert Frost, John Milton, George Bernard Shaw, Carl Sandburg, Ralph Waldo Emerson, James Thurber, Jane Austen etc. Besides, there is no rule that says that a category called "criticisms" has to be created. As far as "significant text"?... those texts can be found in the links provided.

"Under policy, biographical details should only be included if they can be checked in credible sources. In this case those are relatively scarce. There are difficulties even in inlcuding matters on the Acharya S website (this is mentioned on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons). It is quite legitimate to give an idea of the content of the books. But issues arising should clearly be treated on pages such as Jesus-myth. It should be obvious to all here, but Wikipedia articles are in no sense meant to come to any conclusions on contentious issues in the field of religion." Charles Matthews 16:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

66.174.79.227 16:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 11:21 AM CST

-Ok..Lobo--did you post this as a hint that the external critical links (including the reviews) could be removed, since they can be treated at Jesus-myth page as Charles suggested?? I have no problem with that. As a previous "editor" stated in spite of everything else, this is a bio, the subject matter just an introduction as to the reason the author is noted.

The subject matter (pros and cons) or contentions should be treated elsewhere ie. Jesus-myth page or some other religon page directly dealing with these matters. I think Acharya's own website link is enough on this page for the reader to pick up everything else that is already here. I have been to the Jesus-myth page but only cursorily some time ago, so I don't know at this posting what is there. I am not near anywhere near up to snuff on wiki policy, but I imagine internal links to other wiki sites dealing with the subject matter could be referenced here, as her materials should be included at those sites, where appropriate--that is if anyone is disposed to do it.

As Charles said, it is not up to Wikipedia to settle the contentions of the subject but merely to lay them out for the reader to have access and decide for themselves--that is good sense that I have always held to. What is your thoughts on this?--70.73.15.88 19:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)toothfairy

-

Actually, I posted this to point out that this article exists because of the books. It is not a biography. Any contentions against the theme, data or ideas of the books should be taken up in a different forum. It should tell what the books are about as simply and succinctly as possible and the bio should merely tell who the author with a touch of background just like other wikipedia articles on authors. If there is a concern as to book reviews being too much, it would necessarily then mean that the Pierce, Licona and Holding comments would be removed as that is what they are... book reviews.

66.174.92.165 07:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 02:22 AM CST

- I see your point Lobo. Just a mention of the Books (with a pared-down description of them?) and reviews removed. What would your version look like?--70.73.15.88 09:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC) toothfairy

-

I'm afraid it doesn't matter as I have been effectively blocked from making any changes to the article by an Administrator who has their own favorite version they wish to enforce. Any post I make is automatically reverted by an Admin named SWATJester. So far, Wikipedia admin's seem to do as they please. A concensus to remove the article is achieved and they decide to keep it, we use the talk pages to inform and call for objections and when we make those changes, they throw them out in favor of what they prefer. What's the use? There is no way any justice will be done on this article on Wikipedia. Fairness, neutrality, objectivity, common sense, logic, reason and decency are held in contempt by those who are responsible for administrating how it is supposedly run.

Quick delete this atrocity of an article... it can never be made to be free of those who simply cannot keep from denying its premise.

66.174.93.103 04:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 11:53 PM CST

-

Per your request... the reviews can be left off or not but suggest that they are so argumentative that keeping them is of little benefit.

Acharya S

Acharya S is the pen name of D. Murdock who has authored two books and owns a website called "Truth be Known". She contends that religion is founded in earlier myth and that the characters depicted in Christianity are the result of the plagiarizing of those myths to unify the Roman State.

Contents [hide]

Her 1999 book, The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold and a follow-up book, Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled, discusses her observations further. Suns of God addresses criticisms of her former book and expands the topic measurably. In it, she comments on the Hindu story of the life of Krishna, as well as the life of Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama). She claims parallels to the life of Jesus, presenting evidence that the story of Jesus was written based on existing myth and not the life of a real man.

Acharya describes the historical existence of Jesus Christ and the New Testament as a work of mythic fiction with an historical setting. Widespread illiteracy in the ancient world ensured that the mythical nature of Christ's story was lost in the Dark Ages.

Acharya S is a historian, mythologist, religious scholar, linguist, archeologist who has a Bachelor of Liberal Arts degree in Classics, Greek Civilization, from Franklin and Marshall College, and attended the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Greece. She is a fellow of the Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion. She been interviewed on a variety of radio stations.

Main site.

Truth be Known (Acharya S's website)

General topics and interviews.

Interview with Acharya S in Paranoia Magazine Paranoia Magazine review of Suns of God by Joan d'Arc

Reviews.

Review by Danny McNeal Earl Doherty reviews The Christ Conspiracy, see Earl Doherty Robert Price reviews The Christ Conspiracy "A Refutation of Acharya S's book, The Christ Conspiracy" by Mike Licona ebtx.com reviews The Christ Conspiracy Tekton Apologetics Ministries reviews The Christ Conspiracy Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acharya_S" Category: Religious philosophy and doctrine

12.203.133.224 19:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 02:43 PM CST

-

The demand for respect by color of politic, religion or authority that is unearned breeds contempt. The travesty that is this article fills the talk pages where authority has chosen sides. Is there no honorable administrator left that will enforce the 3 to 2 decision to delete this article?

66.174.79.233 06:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 01:42 AM CST

-

Changes

I'd like to see the article revamped as well. Perhaps we could go over it section by section? Unfortunately I don't have as much time as I'd like, so it may be a fairly slow process. Regarding the Books section:

Her 1999 book, The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold, is a development of part of her website. A follow-up book, Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled, discusses her views further. It is largely written to address criticisms of her former book. In it, she comments on the Hindu story of the life of Krishna, as well as the life of Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama). She claims parallels to the life of Jesus, presenting this as evidence that the story of Jesus was written based on existing stories, and not the life of a real man.

I have some problems with the above. Is the first book really a "development of part of her website"? Was the second book written "largely to address criticisms of her former book"?

Also, a book titled "Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled" will obviously contain comments on the life of Krishna and Buddha. The next line, "She claims parallels..." is misleading as well. Suns of God is better described as an "exploration of the origin and meaning of the world's religions and popular gods".

For consideration, here are the authors own descriptions of Suns of God and The Christ Conspiracy.

^^James^^ 00:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

-

Done.

12.203.133.199 20:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 03:04 PM CST

-

Regards AJA changes. Do you not see Charles and you other Admin's? This subject cannot be dealt with objectively. Believers simply have to refute or deny the observations presented in the books lest their beliefs be subject to doubt. They are driven to "blackwash" them in an effort to hold their beliefs superior to anything that might challenge them. Delete this abomination to fact, fairness, and reason.

66.174.92.167 06:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 01:27 AM CST

Well, I do see, and you are very clearly pushing a point of view. This is a serious offence against Wikipedia policy. Please be absolutely clear on this. This article must conform to Wikipedia's policy on NPOV; as it must conform also to the policies on sourcing and verifiability. It must also conform to guidelines on biography of living people. That is three criteria to meet. I intend to continue to work towards acceptability of this article on each of those fronts. Charles Matthews 21:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

-

How 'bout something like below?

Her 1999 book, The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold, is a development and expansion of her essay The Origins of Christianity and the Quest for the Historical Jesus Christ. Her follow up book, Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled, examines the stories of Krishna, Buddha and Christ, discussing their similarities, their origins and their meaning.

^^James^^ 18:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Two stupid paragraphs

1. There's no purpose to including the personal invective against Holding, but Acharya and her groupies believe that everyone who disagrees must do so from malice against our ranking religious philosopher. I guess we must be jealous.

1. There's no point to including the second quote from Price except to try to prove your larger argument. But it's off-topic, and Price is misleading or ignorant. A.J.A. 20:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

-

If Holding's invective can be quoted then countering with a like invective is just as legitimate.

If there is no point in a second quote by Price then it would be just as valid to replace the first quote with the second. Perhaps, the way to reconcile this is remove both. Neither is off topic unless you consider the whole criticism category as a means to prove your larger argument.

12.203.133.199 21:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 04:15 PM CST

-

Holding wasn't quoted. There's one link and that's it. A link to her reply would be fine. What was added isn't.

There's no point to quoting that particular paragraph at all, either as the second or only paragraph. Or do you think "Criticisms" should only include endorsements? Wait, of course you do. Anything else is believers helplessly driven to...

It has nothing to do with Acharya to quote somebody accusing Rabbis of conspiring to dominate the world through international finance make everyone think the ancient Hebrews were monotheist. (They did a really poor job, considering that the Book of Ezekiel is still in the Bible.) A.J.A. 21:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

-

The simplest remedy is to delete any such comments and refer the reader to book review links provided.

The books and the web site speak for themselves. We do not have to do anything more than provide links that cover both pro and con and then let the reader judge for themselves. I see no reason to propound on this subject here unless you have an ulterior motive for doing so.

12.203.133.199 23:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 06:32 PMK CST

-

Dark mutters about ulterior motives aside, my motive is a reasonably complete and on-topic article. You don't want that. Anything else, but not what Wikipedia exists to create. You'd rather have the article deleted than have even the minute risk a criticism might be neutrally presented, but short of that you'll add in whole paragraphs that have little to do with Acharya and embittered complaints about critics and the huge variety of blatently POV statements you and your fellow groupies have included. A.J.A. 23:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

-

Finger pointing, blame casting and name calling aside... I have listed numerous Wikipedia articles (Upton Sinclair, Sinclair Lewis, Robert Frost, John Milton, George Bernard Shaw, Carl Sandburg, Ralph Waldo Emerson, James Thurber, Jane Austen etc) on other authors and their works, none of which have received the vitriole this article assumes to be necessary to create an article about a pair of books. Your neutrality, it would seem, deems the dark side of negativity as the norm... and would have any positive aspect nullified to preserve itself. Much like the belief system that spawned such thinking in the first place, I would guess. As for groupies... do understand that the pot calling the kettle black, of necessity, speaks with experience.

12.203.133.199 00:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 07:25 PM CSt

-

The guy who keeps taking good content out and repeatedly calls for the article to be deleted accusing someone else of trying to nullify aspects. And then writes about the pot calling the kettle black. Okay... A.J.A. 00:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

-

That is a judgement call... so, as for what is deemed as "good content" this is relative to what you use as your criteria. Bring that up here and argue the merits of your judgement and let's see how it fares. I have sought, on the other hand, to preserve the content by providing links for those who wish to explore those aspects according to thier own inclinations. Let them judge for themselves instead of endeavoring to intercede and color what you think should be what they think.

12.203.133.199 00:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 07:38 PM CST

-

Not all criteria are equal. Yours, for example, are intentionally anti-knowledge. After all, some knowledge might reflect badly on Acharya and that might lead to... belief! Egads! Better delete it. And then claim to preserving the content you're trying to remove. If you'd gotten your way, there'd be no links because there'd be no article. But you'd like credit for trying to put the information you can't hide entirely behind links? A.J.A. 00:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

-

With that logic, any positives would be equally dealt with... no? I am anything but anti-knowledge. I would have both sides equally represented, but then, that would turn what is essentially an article into a debate platform, would it not? I say make the links available for both sides and let the chips fall where they may. It has been my endeavor to be more accommodating than any other. If you do not think so, do quote where it is not so. Nearly every move I have made has been discussed here in these pages. I seek no credit, no honor no glory... I am long past those petty states of mind. But your having thought it so bespeaks a mindset of its own.

12.203.133.199 01:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 08:16 PM CST

-

First boast about being more accomodating than any other (for trying to destroy anything that might in your mind be connected to "belief"). Then say "I seek no credit, no honor no glory..."

How self-denying! How noble! How like the soldier who knows he will be forgotten among all the other casualties, yet rushes into the fight to die for his country! A.J.A. 01:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

-

If putting ones life on the line for others denotes quality, courage, character, generosity, honor and purpose, then I will consider that a compliment. Thank you and for decrying that... thank you for demonstrating how the ignoble respond.

66.174.92.163 04:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 11:05 PM CST

-Lobo--I have to agree with you on the bio thing. I can see the "Claims about other religons"(that covers the claims she makes against all religon geneally, so it not neccessy as a separate section.)-- being removed as well the criticisms or reviews, except for the mentions that she does have critics or detractors (as well as complementary reviews). As you say these could be taken up on another created page or an existing one dealing with these conflicts of ideas.--70.73.15.88 04:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)toothfairy

-

If anybody has any objection to these suggestions, speak up and let's iron them out here.

66.174.79.227 05:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 12:08 PM CST

-

Some cleanup

I gather that this page has been the subject of some controversy.

I've taken a stab at cleaning up some of the style, formatting, and waffle wording. I've also poked and prodded at the 'Criticism' section, which is probably the most contentious bit of the article.

I'd appreciate it if people would, in their future edit warring, at least try not to break the formatting and cleanup that I've done. The 'Criticism' section is still probably in need of hacking up and constructive input is – as always – welcome.

I've trimmed the quote from Robert Price because I thought it was a bit much (in terms of both length and cruelty) for a biographical article. I think we're good with a reduced quotation and an appropriate link to the review; it preserves the argument made without being wordy or unprofessional in appearance. It's reproduced here if anyone needs it—but I really don't think we need the whole thing in the article, and I suspect we could probably get by with even less than I've kept.

I got a copy and read it for myself, and immediately I cringed... Writing at second hand, she is too quick to state as bald-faced fact what turn out to be, once one chases down her sources, either wild speculations or complex inferences from a chain of complicated data open to many interpretations. And sometimes she swallows their fanciful etymologies like so many shiny goldfish at a frat party. Worse yet, she just goofs here and there and betrays a lack of ability to weigh evidential claims... The Christ Conspiracy is a random bag of (mainly recycled) eccentricities, some few of them worth considering, most dangerously shaky, many outright looney. [1]

Also, I'm not sure if Mike Licona's point-conterpoint belongs here. Who the heck is he, anyway? As far as I can tell, he's just a PhD student, and lacks any other formal credentials...? If we want/need to discuss remarks by other religious scholars mentioned in Licona's writing, we ought to cite them by name.

One final thought about the 'criticism' section. Has there been a positive response from any legitimate scholars? An appropriate mention could be added. I don't like to portray a unanimous condemnation of the work unless that is actually the case.

Anyway, could people please avoid blind reverting? I've put a good chunk of effort into this; I'm trying to defuse the situation a bit. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Summary of changes

The edits which I hope are uncontroversial are these changes: [2].

The major changes to the 'criticism' section are here: [3]. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Charles... does NPOV mean to establish a piece in an acceptable manner according a preconceived view? I thought neutral meant "representing views fairly and without bias. representing views fairly and without bias. This includes reader-facing templates, categories and portals". Does this also mean the attitudes of the administrators as well? Why the leeway with the 3RR rule?

To tenofalltrades... you have not cleaned anything up. You have taken a simple article aboiut two books and muddied the waters with all manner of superfluous junk talk that shows little research on your part. First, the "critics" quoted are not critics, they are detractors and the quotes used are from "online" book reviews and not published works such as verifiability would have us use. Price is the only scholar and he agrees with the premise of the books seeing as he has written several making the same claims.

Further, the quote used is not all he had to say about the Christ Conspiracy... he also said "Murdock presents us with a whole smorgasbord of “unorthodox” theories, some of them quite legitimate, such as a deconstruction of the Rabbinical apologetic that had us imagining for so long that ancient Israelite religion was monotheistic. It is now clear enough (see, e.g., Mark S. Smith, The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel, 1987, or Margaret Barker, The Great Angel: A Study of Israel’s Second God, 1992) that the ancient Hebrews worshipped Yahweh amid a pantheon of gods. If that comes as shocking news to some, so be it. That is a reason neither to reject nor to relish the fact." If you see fit to only use the negative comment then you are guilty of slanting the piece with a biased view.

66.174.79.229 08:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC) 03:08 AM CST

We could probably stand to trim the bit about Apologetics' opinion, as it should be pretty obvious based on Murdock's writing what Christian Apologetics would have to say about it.

It's worth noting that online publications are certainly verifiable sources. They're readily accessible to anyone with an internet connection, and are probably easier to verify than many print sources. It's very easy to establish that our articles accurately represent what is said on another web site, and resources like the Internet Archive let one verify that the content hasn't been altered. Where online-only sources may fall down is in terms of factual correctness—are they reliable sources? That's a more complicated question, and it depends on the information that one seeks. Would I trust a random web site for factual information (what is the GDP of Bolivia?)? Well, not without corroboration. Can I trust that an individual's web site and signed, written articles thereon accurately represent that individual's words? That seems quite likely.

It is the latter case that applies here. These are Price's words posted on Price's website. It is not for us to assess whether or not he is correct; we are merely responsible for accurately representing what he – a scholar in the field – has said.

I think that we have accurately represented Price's opinion of Christ Conspiracy. To paraphrase a quote I've seen recycled too often for proper attribution of its source, "This book is good and original. Unfortunately, the good stuff isn't original, and the original stuff isn't good." Our comment about Price's evaluation indicates that he agrees with Murdock on some substantive points, but still finds her reasoning sloppy and her writing poor.

The point of citing Price here is not to get a read on the credibility of the Jesus-myth hypothesis in general. We already know that he believes it, and that he should be a decidedly sympathetic audience for Christ Conspiracy. (Any discussion about the credibility of the hypotheses advanced by Murdock belong in their respective articles anyway: Historicity of Jesus, Jesus-myth, etc.) Our sympathetic scholar nevertheless has an overwhelmingly negative opinion of Murdock's work. He's qualified to judge – certainly more so than we, unless anybody here is a theological scholar – and he's predisposed to agree with Murdock's opinions because they line up (to at least a rough first approximation) with his own. Despite those factors, he trashed Murdock's writing.

I would be pleased to see comments on Acharya S from other scholars; if any such references are available, they would be welcome here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's a review by Earl Doherty.

As to reliability... I think wiki policy is pretty clear. Licona and Holding do not pass the test. ^^James^^ 18:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

They're not actually cited for anything. It simply gives them as examples of critical responses. A.J.A. 19:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you clarify what you mean by 'reliability'? I've done a bit of poking around since yesterday, and it seems that both at least appear to be credible representatives of the Christian Apologetic school of thought—which is what we're really discussing here. Licona is reportedly the director of Apologetics & Interfaith Evangelism of the North American Mission Board. Holding seems to be a Apologetic of some note, having been recognized with a Wikipedia biography: James Patrick Holding.

While I don't necessarily buy their reasoning, at first blush I don't think that we have misrepresented the positions of Licona or Holding, nor have we erred in suggesting that their opinions are representative of Apologetics in general. Remember, we're not arbiters of absolute truth here – personally, I'm open to discussion of whether or not Jesus existed, and I don't have any ties to Christianity – rather our role is to accurately represent the different schools of thought regarding Murdock's work.

On Earl Doherty, he seems (again, at first blush) to be a qualified source of opinion. I don't have time to review his review in detail at the moment, but a statement of his opinion might well be appropriate here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring the question of whether the "apologetic school of thought" is credible in itself... Holdings particular brand of apologetics has been called depraved. His original article on Acharya S was called "S is for Stench". There's a difference between being a notable defender of the inerrancy of the bible and being a credible source for an encyclopedia.

As for Licona, his "review" is full of criticism by people who haven't read the subjects work! Is that fair? What about verifiability? Are the many personal conversations he cites considered good enough for wikipedia? My reading of wiki policy suggests caution be taken, especially in regard to biographies of living people. Here are some policy excerpts for your consideration:

• In general, sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight.WP:V

• Self-published sources: Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. WP:V

• Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution and should probably not be used if the material is negative. Information found in self-published books, newspapers, or websites/blogs should never be used...WP:LIVING

• Any negative material about a living person that is not sourced to a reliable publication should be removed both from the article and its talk page. Restoring such material is a blockable offence.WP:LIVING Also see WP:RS

^^James^^ 04:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Email Price and ask him to comment on his review of Acharya and the Christ Conspiracy to see if he has had a change of heart...

12.203.133.199 18:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 01:41 PM CST

Er, you're more than welcome to do just that. Absent any disavowal by Price, I think we're safe to assume that he hasn't changed his opinion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Apologetics is the defence of Christian doctrines... it is obligated to perform the duty, right, wrong or indifferent of justifying the orthodoxy of religion.

Form http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/apologetics we find "Today the term "apologist" is colloquially applied to groups and individuals systematically promoting causes, justifying orthodoxies or denying certain events, even of crimes. Apologists are often characterized as being deceptive, or "whitewashing" their cause, primarily through omission of negative facts (selective perception) and exaggeration of positive ones, techniques of classical rhetoric. When used in this context, the term often has a pejorative meaning. The neutralized substitution of "spokesperson" for "apologist" in conversation conveys much the same sense of "partisan presenter with a weighted agenda," with less rhetorical freight."

As for Licona... his position is tainted by the fact that he has an imperative to refute and deny the premises of these books because he makes his living by preaching the opposite of them. Both Holding and Licona have no choice but to deny the books because they challenge their faith... after all, what else could they say? Price is in direct compitition of the books and he halso has a vested interest in subverting the sales of any book that might infringe on his money making books.

So, what it boils down to is to simply tell the reader that there are reviews, both pro and con, of these works and let them discover what most interests them on their own without endeavoring to color what they think by quotes from people who have vested interest one way or another. These sites that contain these reviews from which the quotes were drawn are not edited, not overseen by any peer and are self validating which makes anything they say just about as subjective as it gets.

Since you wish to quote Price... it behooves that you validate what he says. I have already refuted about 25 or so points Price made that were posted by crazyeddie months ago. They are in the archives if you care to look them up. What it appears to me is that this is a Johnny come lately parroting of what was found on the surface without knowing the real story behind this article... maybe I'm wrong, I welcome you to show it otherwise.

12.203.133.199 20:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 03:11 PM CST

I'm concerned that we may be talking past each other here. I agree wholeheartedly that Christian apologists are doctrinally compelled to try to refute these books. Their bias is absolutely clear. That's why we've linked to our article on Christian apologetics at their first mention—it allows readers of our article to know what they're dealing with. Nevertheless – taken with an appropriately-sized grain of salt – their critiques are quite thorough and make for a valuable counterpoint to Acharya S' writing. The fact is that Murdock's books have provoked a strong reaction from the apologists, and that reaction is worth mention.

If you can substantiate your claim that Price is trashing Christ Conspiracy out of selfish financial interest, I think that would be an excellent reason to qualify or remove mention of him from the article. (Heck, if there were news reports about some sort of scam or manipulation, that would be really interesting and possibly worthy of expanded discussion.) On very cursory inspection, Price's review seems to be a bit more nuanced and targeted in its criticism. The first paragraph describes a book on the same topic (Earl Doherty's The Jesus Puzzle) as "masterful". I don't know why Price would be willing to plug Doherty's book and not Murdock's.

It's not my – or anyone here's – responsibility to fact-check Price. We are providing information about his comments on the book as well as his identity and credentials. Based on his credentials, he is a sound source for discussing this topic. Engaging in our own original research and evaluation of his claims isn't what we do as an encyclopedia. I'm not qualified to evaluate his claims, and short of demonstrating appropriate academic credentials, I suspect that no one else in this thread is either. As an encyclopedia, we attempt to report on the verifiable statements, opinions, and conclusions of experts; we are not in a position – as editors here – to debate the correctness of those statements. By all means, we should discuss rebuttals of Price's criticism made by other scholars. I'd like to see statements about Murdock's books from other properly-credentialed scholars, too. What we cannot do is engage in original research of our own.

I will readily admit that I haven't read all of the archives of this talk page. I took a stab at the last couple and found that I didn't have the stomach for it. A number of editors just kept taking shots at each other without any trace of civility. I gather that at least one of the editors involved was banned, and a number of other cautions were issued. Frankly, I'm rather hoping for a bit of a fresh start here. It would be nice to see a change in tone from the earlier discussions. I'd appreciate it if editors here could try to assume some good faith on my part; I know that this article has been the subject of edit wars in the past, and I'd like to see that put to rest. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Ten! You sound like a reasonable person. Suggestions: If the review from Price is to be quoted in the article itself, why not a peice on a postive note from Earl Doherty--for balance?

I know you are new to the history of this page (and I am one of those who got spanked for reacting to gross behaviour and unreasonableness by the creator of this page). Just before you came in, a contentious contributor removed a review by Danny McNeal http://truthbeknown.com/suns_of_god_review.html and reinserted the "email exchange" which has been considered "un-wiki"-like: you will have to read it for yourself to understand why (as well as some of the history on the talk page to aquaint yourself with the lack of balance and contempt).

Since you are an admin., my question is who can be considered a viable reviewer--anyone, an internet writer, a publisher or just one who is a member in the field of religon and mythology?

Another suggestion: rather than a separate section on the author's views of "other religons", why not just incorporate whatever is considered acceptable to quote under one general heading. If one UNDERSTANDS the basic premise of the authors overall theme (outlined at the top of the page, it is that the basis of ALL religons, ancient and modern, are the result of MYTHS based upon astro-theological beliefs, not to be taken literally. ALL are the subject of critiquing for the unoriginality of their tales, as well as the "discerned-absurdities" of their ethics, philosophy, rules, unhistoricity etc.

The subject is very complex and wide-ranging--thus the selection of material which might potentially be "edited" into the page could be endless. That is why some of us have argued for keeping it as simple as possible and balanced as possible; when the edited material is acceptable under wiki policy for verifiability etc.

I noted your concern about "Licona's" status as a mere Phd. student, however, Holding has been considered by far the least sincere and credible source to quote as a member of the "apologetics"! This is the dilemna--who should be considered as credible and viable among the latter group as well?! Good luck and welcome Tenofalltrades!--70.73.15.88 02:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)toothfairy (aka. Skull)

-

Ten... I maintain that since the quotes are from book reviews, they should be listed and treated that way. The fact is, they are not published sources and are free to say whatever they wish. Their only restraint or oversight is themselves and this makes quoting them a dubious at best. I challenge that they are thorough... they rely on unsubstantiated accusations and do not represent evidentiary facts. In fact, they are little less than expressions of what they feel and do not represent logic or reason as well. They express themselves in terms that resort more to character assassination and personal attacks than they do anything else. Perhaps, in using Turkel's Tekton Ministries as some sort of reputable source of rebuttal, we should also post a disclaimer for thje reader to see jusat what they are being fed... http://members.aol.com/bbu85/hold.htm

I would think there would not be much need to substantiate the idea that Achary's books are in direct competition to Price's own works. After all, he mentions that fact in his critique of The Christ Conspiracy. To see a list of his works.... http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/#book Your own logic should be

able to understand the competitive nature of books sales. In that same paragraph he openly makes the a declaration of hostility in saying "Those of us who uphold any version of the controversial Christ Myth theory find ourselves immediately the object not just of criticism, but even of ridicule. Even that supposedly most radical of all biblical critics, Rudolf Bultmann, dismissed the Christ Myth hypothesis as a fancy of diseased minds. And, beginning with George A. Wells, the modern advocates of the theory (including myself and Earl Doherty) have sought to distance ourselves from previous Mythicists"

He further mentions his own works in comparison "recently I was interviewed on local television on the subject of my book Deconstructing Jesus. The host recommended the book to viewers along with Earl Doherty’s masterful The Jesus Puzzle and Acharya S’s The Christ Conspiracy, a work utterly unknown to me. I got a copy and read it for myself, and immediately I cringed, realizing that skeptics and freethinkers might, as apparently the television host did, regard my book and The Christ Conspiracy as interchangeable polemical weapons" and reason to hold The Christ Conspiracy in askance.

I have striven to pare this article down to the essentials precisely because it controversial and illicites debate. I think it is far supperior to simply tell what the books are about with a brief bio along weith links to cover bothe the pro's and cons and let teh reader do thier own thing without attempting to influence them one way or another. Is this not a reasonable approach?

12.203.133.199 19:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 02:55 PM CST

-

I am reminded of this quote from the Robert Frost poem "the Mending Wall"

"He said it for himself. I see him there

Bringing a stone grasped firmly by the top

In each hand, like an old-stone savage armed.

He moves in darkness as it seems to me~

Not of woods only and the shade of trees.

He will not go behind his father's saying...

Quick delete this article... it will never be free from those who walk in darkness.

12.203.133.199 20:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 03:27 PM CST

-

It is beyond normal comprehension how someone can take a completely benign description of two books and call it POV when they replace it with such diatribe as this: "Critics have claimed her work is based on poor scholarship, with little primary research and heavy reliance on outdated or fringe sources, and shows ignorance of the topics on which she writes, in particular of the Hindu and Buddhist traditions. Not surprisingly, a number of Christian apologists have criticised or rebutted Acharya's work. James Patrick Holding has presented a list of criticisms of Christ Conspiracy." It would seem that nnsubstantiated, undocumented and unreferenced negative comments are not POV?

Prices comments have already been discredited but to put Holding in a proper light... let's quote him... "S is for Stench" This is more his true colors than the white washed version provided in the link listed in the article. http://web.archive.org/web/20030104114019/www.tektonics.org/JPH_SFS.html

Now just because there are those who agree with him, that doesn't render what he says as anything other than POV which seems to be the tactic of the anti-Acharyan's. Thjis article does not deserve to stayu on Wikipedia. Wikipedia should want it removed for all the Wikipedia tenets it constantly violates. Remove it and be done wioth it. It is fast becoming a poster child for all that is wqrong with Wikipedia.

12.203.133.199 00:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 07:43PM CST

This talk page has had a {{calm talk}} template added. Comments such as those calling for instant deletion, against policy, will themselves be deleted. Charles Matthews 15:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

-

Explain why this result was deemed "no concensus"...

"The result of the debate was no consensus (I counted 3 deletes, 2 keeps, 2 non-votes, 2 uncounted comments). — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:23, Dec. 18, 2005"

Is not a 3 to 2 a majority or concensus?

Since the regular avenue of deletion was ignored... what is left to do but to seek a reasonable and fair minded Admin willing to do the right thing?

Would you cite where calling for a speedy deletion is against "policy"?

I see several instances which would qualify this article for speedy deletion but chief among them, the subject of the article has requested it and

"Attack pages. Articles that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject"

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Deletion_guidelines

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion

12.203.133.199 15:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 10:54 AM CST

-The page is starting to look fairer Tenofalltrades and James. Just one suggestion: The subtitle "Critical responses" should be changed if it is to include positive responses to in that section. Perhaps "Critiques" or Current critiques--the word critique, I believe conveys the idea of various degrees of observations from the critical to the positive. If someone can come up with something better for it, please do. Thankyou.--68.146.186.180 01:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)toothfairy

-

This page is starting to look fair? When there are 50 reverts in less than a week... one wonders but that absense is the same as condoning. To what purpose are these reverts allowed? The article is nothing but a petty nitpicking og deniers and supporters who simply must stand firm or allow the debate won by default. This piece fails on so many levels unless the end product of it is to show these works in a negative light so as to uphold a belief. What is the purpose of this piece? Why is it listed on Wikipedia? I think, if one will go back and read the very first introduction of it the explaination is self revealing. The reason for this article was laid down then and that premise has not changed to this very day and thus the necessity of refuting and debunking them. This article should be about the books just like any other author on Wikipedia and any debate about them should be taken up on a different forum.

12.203.133.199 20:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 03:17 PM CST

-Well I agree with you in a sense Lobo, but someone insists it remains as an article, so I seeking to find a decent balance in it. At least one person here repetitively insists on emphasizing the negative. This is definitely not a biography--but is for the original creator of this page and fellow thinkers, a peice for exorcising the author through her books. The latter should have their own page and you can bet the same things would go on there. I would back you in the request for deletion, but the process appears to be "wikified"--if you catch my drift. --68.146.186.180 20:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)toothfairy

-

What Acharya has acheived is beyond the scope of individual criticisms. She has made observations that cause the mind to question and this is an intolerable state of affairs for any belief system. Questions beg answers. Questions bring light to the darkness. What has been happening here is the result of an intollerance that has need to keep people from reading the books and making their own judgments. The simple act of recognizing that Christianity is a myth and just one among hundreds of myths is enough to send belief into a frenzy of fear and trembling. The fact that this article generates such controversy is more defeating to the cause of belief than deleting it ever could. The primary reason to delete it is because the author tires of its intrusion and the fact that it has tended to bring out fanatics who are beyond civility.

66.174.79.228 10:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 05:09 AM CST

More Sources

She has appeared on TV stations such as WUFO in Washington, D.C. and Edge Media Television in the UK. It should probably be mentioned that she regularly appears on "The X-Zone Radio Show". Should the article mention sales? I think she has sold ~50,000 copies of her books. Not sure how to confirm that. What about websites? Her work regularly appears on a website that receives ~10 million hits per month for example (rense.com). She has also written articles and given interviews for numerous magazines and websites, although I think most are not exactly mainstream. I will look into that, but she is not exactly a mainstream author either. How do most articles deal with niche topics that don't have much mainstream attention? ^^James^^ (talk) 11:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Both Amazon and B&N provide a way for somebody to roughly estimate total sales of a book. (Methodology is disputed, but it more or less accurate.) There is an extremely expensive publication that provides "verified" sales of books through the "normal" book publishing channels. Book sales are the only numbers that might count for anything. jonathon (talk) 05:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Bone-Box No Proof of Jesus This article was published in Secular Nation magazine. I don't think there's a web link, I'll try to find out what issue. ^^James^^ (talk) 03:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Acharya's Response

I appreciate your efforts and you contacting me for my assistance in providing sources and citations for my work. (I guess I really need a Curriculum Vitae, which I will probably make out of this missive eventually.)

Credentials

[4] [5]

Books

Two of my books were published by Adventures Unlimited Publishing, owned by David Hatcher Childress:

The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold

Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled

David Hatcher Childress himself has a Wiki page, as does his company.

I have my own publishing company, Stellar House Publishing, under which I published my book Who was Jesus? Fingerprints of the Christ:

[6]

My book The Christ Conspiracy has been translated into Spanish and Korean, has sold tens of thousands of copies, and was one of the sources for the hit internet movie "Zeitgeist," which also has a Wiki page. So far, ZG has been viewed at least 15 million times in dozens of languages around the world. On this page you will see a "Special thanks" to me:

[7]

The citations from my work are here:

[8]

I have written an ebook for the movie called "The Companion Guide to ZEITGEIST, Part 1," which can be found linked to the ZG site here:

[9]

Contributors to My Books

The "Preface" to The Christ Conspiracy was written by Kenn Thomas, who also has a Wiki page.

The "Foreword" to Suns of God was written by Dr. W. Sumner Davis, who also has a Wiki page.

The "Foreword" to my book Who Was Jesus? was written by Jesus Seminar fellow Dr. Robert M. Price, who also has a Wiki page.

Book Reviews

The Christ Conspiracy was reviewed in the book You Are Being Lied To by the Disinfo company, which has a Wiki page:

[10]

The author of The Jesus Puzzle, Earl Doherty, who also has a Wiki page, reviewed my book The Christ Conspiracy:

[11]

Doherty mentions me in his review of Price's book Deconstructing Jesus:

[12]

Christ Con was also reviewed by "Nexus" magazine, which has a Wiki page:

[13]

Alex Burns of Disinfo wrote a review of Christ Con as well:

[14]

A review of Suns of God has also appeared in Nexus magazine:

[15]

And in "Paranoia" magazine, which also has a Wiki page:

[16]

And another review of SOG appears here:

[17]

My book Who Was Jesus? was featured on the website HollywoodJesus.com, owned by Pastor David Bruce:

[18]

A review of Suns of God by Dr. Robert M. Price appears on my website here:

[19]

This review was published in Price's "Journal for Higher Criticism," vol. 13.

Radio Appearances

I have appeared on the radio show of Alan Colmes, of Fox's Hannity & Colmes, who has a Wiki page.

I have appeared several times on Jeff Rense's show, who also has a Wiki page.

I also appeared on a podcast with TV personality John Daly, who used to host "Real TV" as well as a show on HGTV:

[20]

John also has a Wiki page:

John_Daly_(journalist)

Robert Price and I have also appeared on radio together, on Reg Finley's "Infidel Guy Show." Reginald Finley also has a Wikipedia page.

I have also appeared on many other radio programs over the years - the list can be found here:

[21]

The list includes several appearances on Rob McConnell's "X-Zone" radio show, which also has a Wiki page.

Articles in Books

One of my articles was published in the book Underground!: The Disinformation Guide to Ancient Civilizations:

[22]

Another of my articles was published in The New Conspiracy Reader:

[23]

And another in the book Wake Up Down There!:

[24]

I also wrote the foreword to the AUP edition of Kersey Graves's World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors:

[25]

Kersey Graves has a Wiki article.

Magazine Articles

A three-part article of mine was published in the Atheist Alliance International's magazine "Secular Nation." My contact there is August Berkshire.

[26]

Atheist Alliance International has a Wiki page.

My work has also been published in "Steamshovel Press," which has its own Wiki article.

[27]

My work has also been featured on a number of occasions in Paranoia magazine.

An interview of me in Spanish was included in a magazine "Más Allá" (12/2005):

[28]

"New Archaeology Review" also published a three-part article of mine:

[29]

Dr. Price published one of my articles in his Journal, vol. 13.

Public Appearances

In November 2007, I was a panel speaker at the Artivist Film Festival in Hollywood, CA, which presented ZEITGEIST with the "Best Feature Documentary" award.

I have also addressed audiences at colleges and elsewhere concerning "Zeitgeist."

I am also slated to be a speaker at next year's "Conspiracy Conference" or "Con Con" by Brian Hall.

I have addressed the Art Bell Fan Club in San Diego and have also appeared at conferences for AUP.

I have been interviewed on camera for various documentary projects.

Internet Interviews

One published on the Paranoia website:

[30]

I have also been interviewed on the blog of "Infidelis Maximus":

[31]

The Progressive Observer interviewed me here:

[32]

An interview in Spanish by Cristobal Cobo appears here:

[33]

Websites

My online articles are linked to from thousands of pages and receive hundreds of thousands of hits per month, including from Rense.com, which receives 10 million hits a month.

My response to Richard Carrier's article about Luxor is linked to here:

[34]

The response itself is here:

[35]

Richard Carrier's website "Internet Infidels" has also linked to my article "Origins of Christianity" for several years:

[36]

and here:

[37]

Here's a link from Infidels.org to my review of Earl Doherty's The Jesus Puzzle:

[38]

Peter Kirby of "Early Christian Writings" has linked to one of my articles:

[39] (ED: wayback link)

(I believe Kirby is a frequent Wiki editor.)

I am also cited on the Religious Tolerance website:

[40]

[41]

[42]

[43]

Danish Sanskrit and Buddhist scholar Dr. Christian Lindtner links to my site:

[44]

(Lindtner is cite several times on Wiki.)

Islam Watch regular links to my articles and blog posts:

[45]

David Icke, who also has a Wiki page, has posted my work on his website:

[46]

Atheist comedian Pat Condell, who also has a Wiki page, has named my book The Christ Conspiracy in his top favorites on his MySpace page.

[47]

Kenn Humphreys cites and links to my work:

[48]

Humphreys is cited in several places on Wiki.

Red Ice Creations has linked to several of my articles:

[49]

My work is also being discussed in a number of forums on the internet, including IIDB or Internet Infidels, which also has a Wiki page; the Danielle forum, which belongs to Brian Flemming, who also has a Wiki page; and the forum of James Randi, who also has a Wiki page; the forums of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, both of whom also have Wiki pages.

I am also linked to from Brian Flemming's "The God Movie" website:

[50]

Famous Italian atheist Luigi Cascioli, who also has a Wiki page, links to my site:

[51]

Videos

Consciousness Media Network has a free online video of me:

[52] (registration required)

My videos can be found here:

[53]

One of my videos has over 100,000 views:

[54]

My videos have been featured on WUFO TV in Washington, DC, which was voted this year the best TV station of its kind:

[55]

My videos have also been featured quite recently on Edge Media TV in the UK:

[56]

Adventures Unlimited also offers a DVD of my Suns of God presentation:

[57]

Mentions in Books

My work was cited in The Pagan Christ by Canadian theologian Tom Harpur, who also has a Wiki page. Harpur was the subject of a documentary as well:

[58]

My work was also cited in David Icke's Children of the Matrix.

My book Suns of God was also mentioned by Dr. Robert Price in his book The Pre-Nicene New Testament.

Note the following quote on this Wiki User page, under the section "Mythography of Christ":

"Acharya S is currently the most widely read proponent of a non historical pure pagan Jesus. [59]

On a different but related page, under "Jesus as ahistorical myth":

"Acharya S is probably the most popular proponent of this view among mainstream readers." [60]

Here are other relevant User pages mentioning or linking to my work:

[61]

[62]

Notice on this page concerning "India" the amount of articles for deletion, including mine: [63]

It is also on this page, concerning the "Team/Krishnaism":

[64]

And on this one for "Team/Vishnaism":

[65]

Critical Sources

My work was criticized by evangelist author Mike Licona, who also has a Wiki page:

[66]

Another notorious internet evangelist who has written quite a bit about my work is James Patrick Holding, who apparently does not have a Wiki article. Holding has assailed me in dozens of articles over the past decade:

[67]

Holding has also included me in his book Shattering the Christ Myth. James Hannam who calls himself "The Venerable Bede" also links to me:

[68]

"The Fortean Times" also published a review of The Christ Conspiracy around 2000, by David Barrett, who has since brought me up a couple of times in that magazine, including asking Dr. Bart Ehrman about me.

[69]

Ehrman, who also has a Wiki page, has apparently mentioned me on a couple of occasions. The Fortean Times also has a Wiki page.

Kitfontaine (talk) 02:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

http://www.examiner .com/x-17009-Freethought-Examiner~y2009m7d17-Beware-of-defamation-of-religion-censorship Beware of Defamation of religion

Rook's intellectually dishonest blog does *NOT* belong here

The blog, "Problems with Acharya S: A Brief Review" by Rook Hawkins does *NOT* belong in the Acharya wiki article. Rook claims to be a "historian and ancient text expert" meanwhile, has no qualifications or credentials in any field. He's only 25 with a mere high school education. He is not notable as he currently has no published books. His only notability is his connection with the RRS since they got on the news a few years ago. Now, he thinks he can debunk scholars and their decades of work Rook has never studied with his intellectually dishonest blogs.

And, if you read the comments in the blog you will find out that Rook has never read Acharya's book "Suns of God" which is what his "REVIEW" is supposed to be about.

His 1-4 points are taken directly from Acharya's advert/promo page for "Suns of God" [70] :

1. Comparing Jesus to Krishna/Buddha 2. Claiming the Moses/Jesus stories are Midrash based on the Bhagavad Gita 3. Claiming that both Julius Caesar and Plato were both said to be born of virgins and sons of God 4. Claiming ALL Caesars were deified

In Rook's diatribe against Acharya, take notice that he doesn't cite anything from Acharya at all. No page numbers, no books, no websites or any online articles at all. Rook can't cite anything by Acharya because he hasn't studied her works. Which creates the foundational flaw with his blog - it's based on false assumptions, ignorance, bias, intellectual dishonesty, sloppy research & poor scholarship. I'd also simply like to point out that this blog by Rook began with insults, derogatory comments & name-calling in the VERY FIRST SENTENCE.

Rook is clearly dishonest here but seems to appeal to people who are too lazy to do their own research. And on top of that, It seems that Rook gets his false assumptions about Acharya from his hero Richard Carrier who also hasn't read Acharya's work. So Rook is RELYING on R. Carrier & doesn't go to the source - hows that for "sloppy scholarship"? Rook's blog is an embarrassment to freethinkers & mythicists and especially himself for dishonestly attempting to smear a great mythicist like this.

Only much later in the blog after pressure to provide citations did Rook cite a source - Acharya's online promotional page for her book "Suns of God" even though he has never actually read the book (Rook even inaccurately titles her book as "Sons of God" - which gives us another clue.

Rook's blog is nothing less than a smear campaign designed to keep others from reading her work for themselves. An apology to Acharya from Rook is in order for his severe intellectual dishonesty.

Rook and the RRS seem to have a pattern of this intellectual dishonesty:

[71]

[72]

[73]

If you're going to provide criticism at least use honest sources who have actually studied the works of D.M. Murdock aka Acharya S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.15.226.224 (talk) 02:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I find it rather ironic that someone is defending Acharya S who claims to be a "historian and ancient text expert" from someone else who also, without academic qualifications, claims to be a "historian and ancient text expert." Interesting rant. --Ari89 (talk) 06:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Notability of Acharya S

If Acharya S / D.M. Murdock isn't notable then, what is this:

"On Thursday, July 31, 2008, an article appeared in the newspaper South Shields, England, called The Shields Gazette that highlighted my book The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold.

The Shields Gazette apparently has a circulation of about 100,000 throughout the South Shields area in northeast England."

Now, this is significant given the fact that the book is nearly a decade old and having articles written about it. And occasionally ranks in the top 10,000 at Amazon etc. So do all of her other books too.

[74] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.15.226.206 (talk) 19:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Acharya S has been featured in a new documentary entitled, "God in the Box." Enjoy an interesting video clip of "Acharya S" at 2:05 through 2:45: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRRooPQolJ8

This documentary could turn out to be very interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.15.226.196 (talk) 18:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

RS that she has a "large following" [75] jbolden1517^Talk

WP:V

Let me just point out Wikipedia:V#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves Murdock is automatically a reliable source about her own theories or her own life. We simply summarize her books and comments about her. In other wikipedia's voice only asserts" Acharya said X, and Y responded with Z". We don't need any academic works that X is in fact true. jbolden1517^Talk 22:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Consensus was against me when I tried arguing that--the counterargument was that WP:V might be satisfied, but WP:N was not. Jclemens (talk) 22:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, that was my read of the deletion debate. So we can focus on WP:N. jbolden1517^Talk 22:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ready for mainspace?

Nexus magazine is available in print. That meets the print review criteria. I think the evidence on this list of hers is overwhelming. You have her being reviewed by about a dozen authors. A few magazines. Frankly I'd just as soon move your article back in place. It now has reliable sources for the claims in it and she has 66 citations to prove notability. jbolden1517^Talk 23:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there's another source someone gave me that I have yet to put in, that should settle it. See User_talk:Jclemens/Archive_2#secondary_source_for_Acharya_S for details. I don't see any compelling reason to have a YouTube link, though, per WP:EL#NO Jclemens (talk) 01:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Just so you have the ref:

In search of Jesus: insider and outsider images

By Clinton Bennett

ISBN 0826449166, 9780826449160

starting on page 208

So it is your article. You want to do the move?

As for the video I don't see the problem. Virtually all browsers have flash.

jbolden1517^Talk 02:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Technically, we ought to go to DRV first, since it was deleted by AfD. Jclemens (talk) 03:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Listed Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_March_10#Acharya_S jbolden1517^Talk 06:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Writings of Acharya S

Well what do you think about the Writings of D.M. Murdock idea? I want to get this article back up. That has the advantage of making her stalker kind of things completely off topic. It also gets rid of the issue of notability for her (which is so/so) vs. her books (which are notable). The page is on your home page, so....? BTW why didn't you vote? jbolden1517^Talk 21:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, have been busy IRL... I commented once, then forgot to watchlist the debate. Writings sounds like a good idea, since I really don't care about Murdock's personal life at all, but want to see notable fringe religious ideas fairly represented. Never read any of her stuff personally, I just don't like to see real positions deleted, even unpopular ones. Jclemens (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Requested Move

Why is this page named "Writings of D.M. Murdock", rather than simply "D.M. Murdock" or "Acharaya S"? On Wikipedia, authors generally have their own pages, which include their biographies and a list of their works. Furthermore, her background, education, and other such information should be included, as it is entirely relevant to her writing. I'm adding the move template to the page. —Godheval^{T C H} 19:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Previous iterations of this page that were at Acharya S were deleted on the basis of there being no independent, RS'ed documentation for Murdock's life. The complaint essentially said that nothing was WP:V about her except the writings themselves. Jclemens (talk) 20:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Godheval. You are absolutely right that this treatment is abnormal. But I have to agree with Jclemens. Until we have good quality RSes on Murdock's life we have to stick with this compromise proposal (see Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_March_10#Acharya_S). Besides, as you can see from the to-do list there is plenty of work that can be done on this article without going into her biography. Once we have a great article, on her writings I think putting in an analysis of her background makes sense but right now we don't have an analysis of her writings so what purpose does the biography serve? jbolden1517^Talk 16:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

the article should still be moved to D.M. Murdock, even if it discusses only the works of this author. We have many articles titled "$AUTHOR" which discuss exclusively the "writings of $AUTHOR". The question is whether there is enough notability for an article here, regerdless of its title. As far as I can see, this is all about "Christ myth" literature and could easily be covered in the "literature" section of that article. --dab (𒁳) 16:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

What seems to be the consensus on AFD... is that her literature is notable but her person is not. Yes it is abnormal, but it is a compromise that seems to work. Find some good citations on Murdock the person / biography and we can do the move. As far as Christ myth, my goal would be a much longer article than what would be appropriate there. She has many many unique theories, and takes on gospel origins. Astro-theology plays no role in most of the Christ myth theories but is central to her thinking. Take a look at the to-do list and tell me if you think that could all fit in Christ myth. jbolden1517^Talk 16:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Notes

• Christ in egypt review: http://whatisspiritual.blogspot.com/2009/05/horus-in-egypt-by-dm-murdock.html

pet peeve fixed

i rewrote the lead sentence to conform with the title of the article. this should not be controversial. i think the bolded name in the header should match the article. but i wont revert if its changed, even though i dont see any reason to. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Licona References

I don't think the article needs four different references to the Licona review, especially since they are secondary, and there are no original reliable sources for those references. I know for a fact that Bryant has never read her work and has never reviewed her work, and I strongly suspect the same for the other two authors mentioned. Thus the passage in contention is misleading. I'm sure Bryant would not want Wikipedia to misrepresent his views. Wiki policy is pretty clear on this subject: Quotations should be cited to the original source if possible; when secondary sources are used, those that cite the original source should be preferred over those that don't. Partisan secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion if they lack neutral corroboration.^^James^^ (talk) 02:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Move mess

User:Rpsugar apparently decided recently that this article was not appropriately named, and began moving it through various names, eventually taking it to "ACHARYA S" (in all caps), which does not match Wikipedia naming guidelines. I've moved it to the proper capitalization, over the old redirect, and I fixed the string of double redirects that the multiple moves left behind. There was also a talk page already in place for this page, which I've moved to Talk:Acharya S/History. That talk page discusses the previous deletion of the article that was under this name in the past. The name this was at prior to the start of the moves, Writings of D.M. Murdock, was a revival of that old article with a different name, as part of a compromise discussed on this page above.

Personally, I do not care whether the article is named "Acharya S" or "Writings of D.M. Murdock" or any of the other choices that Rpsugar went through (excepting the all-caps version that violated WP:NAME), and the old compromise is nine months old and may not be necessary any longer. However, if anyone objects to the return to the "Acharya S" name, they are welcome to say so here. I will gladly move the article to whatever name is preferred by consensus, or if you consider me "involved" since I have edited content on this page, you can obtain review from a different administrator by posting a move request at Wikipedia:Requested moves. --RL0919 (talk) 21:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Quoting Acharya S's website

As my edits indicate, I have problems with the inclusion of biographical information from this self-published site. At least they should be verbally flagged as "According to her own site ...". Allusion to WP:SELFPUB is all very well, but the authenticity of that information has indeed been called into question before; and the issue of whether the claims are "self-serving" has indeed been brought up. There is a fundamental problem with the pseudonym, too. There is a real lack of verifiability of any biographical information. I think it better for Wikipedia not to include biographical information that is not verifiable through proper third-party sources, particularly in this case. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Her credentials may have been questioned on this talk page, but I haven't seen a reliable source making any controversy over her education. She discusses it in detail here. Could you provide some documentation showing there is reasonable doubt as to its authenticity? ^^James^^ (talk) 20:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, no, I don't think I have to "verify" that there is doubt. It is in fact a trifle disingenuous to suggest that there need be any reliable source that "doubts" them, when as we know Acharya S guards her privacy: so that the basis of a "reliable" doubt may not be there. A pseudonymous online existence and a rationing of biographical information is not a good basis for the inclusion of self-published biographical facts. Was the past doubting settled? How could it be, other than by some "original research", of which enough has been seen here? Note that part 5 of WP:SELFPUB warns against inclusion of such material unless "the article is not based primarily on such sources". Well, as a biography it primarily is based on such sources, which is why warning bells should ring. The page you cite is headed "What Are Acharya's Credentials?" It is odd, I think, to see an argument that biographical facts should be tsken as not subject to doubt here, while they are used as credentials in another. I'm not of course concerned with readers of "Truth be Known", but whether readers of Wikipedia find such self-certification compatible with our ideal of verifiability. In some cases we allow our readers to make up their own minds; in others they expect our editors to exercise a skeptical line for them. If the former applies here, then say "according to her own site ..."; but I think the latter applies here, that indeed the biographical info on her site is "self-serving" in that it argues for the intellectual basis of her views, and it should be excluded here because we are trying to write a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia article. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

First off up until a month ago we were writing a verifiable article about her books not her person. And that should remain the focus, so I certainly not agree this article is primarily or even in any major way biographical. That being said authors are allowed to be self serving. Cookbook authors talk about their food experiences and education, political authors about their contacts and who they got the inside scoop from... An everyone is a reliable source about themselves. Unless we have good reason to doubt an author we assume an author is telling the truth not lying about their biography. jbolden1517^Talk 06:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Not everyone is a reliable source on themselves. That is why third-party information is considered important. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

No everyone is a reliable source on themselves when it comes to wikipedia. That's the point. What I think you mean is that they may not be an accurate source on themselves, which is entirely possible. But Generally 3rd parties are good for that. In Murdock's case that's difficult because there aren't the 3rd parties. I think WP:SELFPUB should be fine for her jbolden1517^Talk 17:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

What I meant was that if you look up policy on "reliable sources" it says in several places Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. And I dispute the idea that her website in any sense obviously passes the five tests in WP:SELFPUB. I don't know what you mean by "fine" there, but if you mean we should just suspend a skeptical view for it, I would say that is wrong. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Which part of SELFPUB do you think it fails? Jclemens (talk) 19:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the actual whole thing:

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Under #1, "self-serving" it is: the claims are used as credentials on that site. Obviously "unduly" is a judgement call. Under #4, doubt has been expressed in the past: again "reasonable" is a judgement call. Is the article based primarily on such sources? This is something of a special case, in that Acharya S (as far as I can tell) shuns any release of personal data, other than that given on the site, for the purposes I have designated as "self-serving". There is nothing in the slightest wrong with that: but obviously it conditions the attitude Wikipedia should take to such biographical facts as are available. (Compare the case of a reality show contestant, where all that is available is a press release; if the contestant posts it on the Web, a skeptical line is appropriate.) If you add these up, I think there are real concerns about verifiability in this case. Of course you can dismiss each of the three points as a quibble, but I'd say that is wikilawyering. A biography is being written in a vacuum of reliable biographical sources. Not a good idea. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to ask again: What claims from her website do you specifically assert are unduly self-serving? Which do you specifically assert may not be authentic? The burden on those who cite SELFPUB non-compliance to remove biographical date is on those asserting such things; by default and absent such allegations, anyone's own website is certainly permissible as people are experts about themselves. Jclemens (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually what WP:V says is that The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. The material was restored by User:jbolden1517, with the qualification that it is taken from Acharya S's own website. I am arguing that simply saying it is "fine" to do so ignores the caveats in the policy, and I have not been convinced by the arguments produced by User:jbolden1517 (who now claims that this is not a biography, which would presumably place it outside WP:BLP, while arguing for the inclusion of biographical material). I'm not intending to remove the educational claims (flagged by "her own website") until there is consensus to do so. I am looking for a properly stringent scrutiny of the entire content of the article, given that there has been a serious ArbCom case about it in the past, and partisan editors operate on this topic. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

A couple of things: First, I have no problem whatsoever with attributing things from her website to that website. It's a good practice for any reference, really. Second, BURDEN is different than saying (for example) "This material is UNDULY self serving because...." which is all that I've asked for. Absent any such specific claims of deficiency, it's sufficient to say "This is from her own website and meets SELFPUB" to meet BURDEN for those arguing for inclusion. And finally, I'm still interested in the specific problematic details. Really, let's not have an argument in the abstract--what do you think should be excised completely vs. just attributed accurately? Jclemens (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Criterion 4 ("authenticity") is about whether the material is authentically from the hand of the subject. I don't know of any claims that the "Truth Be Known" website isn't Acharya's. Do you mean there are claims that the material presented is false? She has a number of vocal critics, so if the basics of her resume are believed false I would expect that to be trumpeted by the critics. But what I've seen goes in the opposite direction: critics uncovered her identity (as discussed in some threads that have been rightly removed from this page) by correlating college graduation info with her online bio. I've seen puffery in this article before (now removed), but the basic info about her degree seems sound, and not unduly self-serving. --RL0919 (talk) 00:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Jclemens and RL0919. That being said, again this is not a biography. There is no person named Acharya S is is a pen name. No one now or ever has asserted this article should be primarily or even in any major sense a biography of Ms. Murdock. The issue is whether we can cite her as a source about herself for passing references while diving into a literature review. jbolden1517^Talk 01:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I hope you read through all 11 archives before you made your sweeping statement there. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

And how would I do that? The old talk pages were deleted. What I'm going from is not the discussions that happened in 2006 or whatever but rather the discussions that happened it 2009 when this article was restored. No one addressed biographical issues for months and months. jbolden1517^Talk 11:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Kind of hard to talk to you. Archive 1, referenced at the top of this page, was created in October 2005. As you know, the deletion discussion at AfD led to this page being userfied, in the userspace of User:Jclemens; from which status you moved it out into article space again? The old discussions would be important to understanding the issue of why there was an ArbCom case, and what doubts have been raised about the content, as well as the point at issue here. (I don't recommend trying to read them, by the way.) Charles Matthews (talk) 11:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to claims raised four years ago by User:ZAROVE? ^^James^^ (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Naturally (though end 2006 and the ArbCom case is not quite four years ago) I consider the history relevant (you were around then and know what I mean, and User:Rpsugar who was active on this page before getting banned was around also). But I was bringing such matters up only because of rather approximate statements made in this thread. The history informs my thinking on the matter, and I know it does for others. But let's get back on an even keel: I think a skeptical line is best, and if this is a special kind of "not a biography of a pseudonym" page, then I think biographical facts are intrusive. But using the forms of words that are in place, as "according to" a website, is my second choice. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Technically, RPSugar is simply blocked until such time as he agrees to abide by WP:NLT. (Which may be a while, but his intransigence is the only thing keeping him blocked) For what it's worth, actually, I wasn't aware there had been an arbitration case on this topic until this discussion. Jclemens (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes I moved it back to Writings of D.M. Murdock which was the results of the discussion in deletion review. I tried to honor that compromise Talk:Acharya_S#Requested_Move. But what I do know is for months, before all these moves we had an article which primarily focused on her writings and not biographical information. Further unlike 2005 Murdock is more public. I really think you are reacting to issues involving editors who aren't here. The people focused on biographical aspects seem to yourself and Ism. I read the arbcom case, I don't think deletion was justified at the time. The people who want the article mainly want to write about her books. jbolden1517^Talk 13:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You should understand how sensitive BLP issues are, and what care is required to apply the current policy correctly. Actually I think that the ideal solution might be to have a title like astrotheology, and have such reference to the Murdock writings as can support such a topic. What I don't know about "astrotheology" includes the points: is "astrotheology" used in other ways (i.e. would such a title be ambiguous)? Does it cover enough of the writings in question? If effectively "astrotheology" does cover the same territory as the Murdock writings, plus some aspects of her predecessors in this line of argument, then an article under that heading could concentrate on the debate on its content. That would be a good outcome. My suggestion of Stellar House was meant to cover the situation where there is not a single coherent topic that could be named in that way. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It appears that astrotheology already redirects to astrolatry, which means that there is a problem of ambiguity. Some write astro-theology which likewise redirects. Astrotheology (Acharya S) would be a title disambiguated in a typical way. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The article that links to her area of speciality is Astrolatry, a term I've never actually heard used. As far as I can tell she isn't in the article, yet. The primary author, Dbachmann, knows about her but hates her. But you are certainly welcome to start including her stuff in the article. I think you keep assuming that she's not like any other author. We have thousands of authors on wikipedia. In 2005 people were obsessed with throwing in BLP violations. Rules are much much stricter here than in 2005.

It has been very odd because you have far and away been the person most focused on her biography. My guess is once the AFD closes down this article goes back to just being a few edits by people who like her books. I understand BLP is sensitive but Acharya S (unlike Murdock) isn't even a person it is a pen name. jbolden1517^Talk 15:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

This article is primarily about the ideas and works of Acharya/Murdock, and should be named accordingly (as far as I'm concerned, the current name is fine, although there are reasonable alternatives). There is no good reason to repurpose it to be about some broader topic. Since she is a living person, no matter what name she goes by, WP:BLP still applies to any content that is about her, regardless of the name of the article. When the disputes of 2005 began, the BLP policy didn't even exist as a proposed guideline, much less the well-established policy that it is today, and the BLP noticeboard was established months after the ArbCom case closed. There were also no noticeboards about unreliable sources, original research, or POV editing, all of which were evident in the 2005 discussions. Enforcement of the today's policy using the tools available today would have led to users being reported before the first archive's worth of discussions/rants were done, with blocks likely following soon after. So I see no reason to expect a reprise of what happened four years ago.--RL0919 (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You are correct to say that things are different: the original 2005 would now be speedily deleted as an attack page. But there is still the BLP problem. There is no category Category:Living persons on the page (to be accurate, it has been commented out). And yet the discussion in this section is entirely about the inclusion of biographical material; it was replaced by User:jbolden1517, who seems to be ducking the onus now. I don't see that there is a coherent discussion on this, and User:jbolden1517's approach is certainly not helping. As you say, WP:BLP still applies. It will always apply. So, how come an article with title a pseudonym of a living person is not a "biography"? This position seems to be asking for trouble. (I removed two talk threads almost entirely from this page a couple of days ago, which were as disruptive as any of the old discussions. You may "see no reason". but I'm not so complacent.)

The best outcome here would be a new title that sorted out the topic of discussion. There are few "writings of" articles around, and actually only two of the pattern (one is the writings of Cicero), since Writings of Leon Trotsky is a book title. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I support the "writings of..." compromise and the excision of irrelevant biographical material. I really don't care much who she is, really, but significant religious minority viewpoints need to be covered on Wikipedia, per FRINGE. Jclemens (talk) 21:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said in the AFD discussion, I'm not especially keen on the "Writings of" approach, but it isn't a terrible name either. Another editor spurred the move back to "Acharya S" as the name; I just corrected the capitalization. The content and BLP issues will be essentially the same either way, unless some new trove of reliable information on Murdock's life suddenly becomes available. There simply isn't material to create an extended personal biography, so the bulk of the article will be about her works and ideas. As far as I know, User:jbolden1517's position on pseudonyms vs. biographies is idiosyncratic. As to the recent discussions of her full name, my view is that the incident shows exactly how different the present is from 2005. Instead a months-long escalating dispute, the matter was quickly resolved by requiring reliable sources and no original research, and the discussions themselves were subsequently excised, so her privacy will not be compromised in web searches by the talk page itself. We can't prevent BLP issues from appearing in articles; even if the article were deleted, her name could come up as an issue on another page. But we can deal with them much better now than what happened back then. --RL0919 (talk) 00:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, you say "resolved", but the position is this: the article starts with a name including forename. It is referenced to a book, which is respectable, but on the other hand it isn't clear to me that the referencing isn't circular (the authors may not have had a source independent of the original 2005 article here). On the other hand they may. I wish to suspend judgement on that point. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Charles here. And I wonder if a single published reference to her first name warrants its inclusion here. ^^James^^ (talk) 03:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Stellar House

Having looked into the publishing background, I think that a better title for the article would be Stellar House, the publishers founded by Acharya S and based in Seattle. This would allow us to start with something verifiable, and to discuss the notability of the topic in terms of books and the attention they have received. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to cover things like 16 Crucified Saviors (a steller publication) in our article on Murdock. jbolden1517^Talk 11:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, that represents your expressed wish, then. But considering that we have it from Acharya S that "I wrote the foreword to this edition" in her Amazon review, I don't see the logic. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Because we are writing about her as an author. As an author you can cover her forward for Kersey Graves, maybe. I don't see what covering her as a publisher matters. As publisher she also had decide what type of paper to use, how to bind the book, what font to reprint it in.... If you want to cover Stellar House as a new topic that's fine. But she is primarily known as an author not a publisher. We cover jackie Collins on her own article not under St. Martin's Press. jbolden1517^Talk 13:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You wouldn't be asserting ownership of the article, would you? The fact that Stellar House says on its website that she founded the firm seems to be as verifiable as the biographical facts, at very least. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead and include her relationship with Stellar House. You were arguing before that this should be the title. I have objections to that as a title. I agree it is a verifiable biographical fact about Murdock (though not about Acharya S). jbolden1517^Talk 13:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Ehrman

The Ehrman reference doesn't belong in this article. The question is about writers like Acharya S and Freke and Gandy, not about Acharya's work specifically. And in his response he discusses the myth theory in general. This quote might suit the Christ myth theory page.

What about those writers like Acharya S (The Christ Conspiracy)5and Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy (The Jesus Mysteries),6 who say that Jesus never existed, and that Christianity was an invented religion, the Jewish equivalent of the Greek mystery religions?

"This is an old argument, even though it shows up every 10 years or so...

^^James^^ (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree. He doesn't address her work specifically and there is no indication he is familiar with it. This article is already in category Christ myth and the this quote appears in the lead article for that cat. jbolden1517^Talk 22:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Price

Done. OK, another issue is Price. While he did not care for Acharyas first book, he has supported her subsequent work, appearing on interviews with her, writing the forward for her book Who was Jesus? and writing a favorable review for Christ in Egypt. He has also removed the Christ Conspiracy review from his website until he can revise it. In the article here he is presented as a critic of her work and a skeptic. I'm not sure how the above should fit into the article but I do think Price's views are misrepresented. ^^James^^ (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes they are allies now. I think deletion of the quote, unless we ask him for clarification is appropriate. jbolden1517^Talk 05:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Ken Feder

I think we should include the Ken Feder endorsement if we can find a 3rd party source. [76]. jbolden1517^Talk 23:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

found the original [77] jbolden1517^Talk 00:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Name Issue

I want to revisit the name issue. As it stands we have a single dubious source for her first name. To quote SOPHIA (again) Wikipedia used to be about selecting sources to represent an overall picture of a subject, not finding whatever quote you could to make it stick. Wikipedia should not publish her name when it is published in virtually no reliable sources. See WP:UNDUE. ^^James^^ (talk) 21:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

How many alternative first names are published by reliable sources? Jclemens (talk) 21:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

None. The point is, the source used is dubious, and may have used Wikipedia as its own source for this information. Contested information on a living person that has only a single dubious source shouldn't be included. It's not Wikipedia's job to find out what her real name is then publish it, while scouring Google Books to find a quote to make it stick. From WP:UNDUE- How much weight is appropriate should reflect the weight that is given in current reliable sources. In this case there is virtually no weight given. Wikipedia is the prominent source for this information and that's backwards. ^^James^^ (talk) 22:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a non-issue. We have a book published by Simon & Schuster which lists her name as "Dorothy M. Murdock". We're not claiming she's a communist, or a flag-burner, or a crack addict, we're listing her name. Not all that controversial in the grand scheme of things. Eugene (talk) 22:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

If 100% of the RS published say "Dorothy" and 0% give any other name, UNDUE is met. End of discussion. Jclemens (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

From WP:BLP: Be very firm about the use of high quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. (Emphasis not mine.) The book in question, regardless of publisher, is dubious. ^^James^^ (talk) 22:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

On what basis is it dubious? Given that this is ^^James^^ of the Christ myth theory page, I'm very interested to hear the answer. Eugene (talk) 23:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:STICK applies. If all the RS who mention her first name are in agreement that it's Dorothy, you've got no leg to stand on. First off, it's not poorly sourced or unsourced, and second it's not contentious. If you try to remove it on such a BLP basis, you will be blocked for disruptive editing. Jclemens (talk) 23:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

If Wikipedia publishes information about a living person that they have chosen to keep private, it better have a good source for it. This is not the case. WP:BLP and WP:V are core policy and they both apply here.

• Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy.
• Be wary of feedback loops, in which material in a Wikipedia article gets picked up by a source, which is later cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original edit.

The source in question is a Holy Blood, Holy Grail style book. As such, it fails WP:Verifiability and WP:RS: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts..." This issue is pretty clear cut if you care about policy. ^^James^^ (talk) 08:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

No, while there is an issue here, and it has been aired before, it is not clearcut. But I think User:Jclemens should not be taking such an aggressive line. It is not justified to say someone "will be blocked" for edits in line with BLP enforcement, in a borderline case. That seems to be a heavy-handed assertion of administrator control over content, which is a complete no-no. The most can be said is that it does not make Wikipedia look foolish, to quote from a Simon&Schuster book. That does not speak further to the RS issue, or the BLP issue. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I stand by my statement. I absolutely will not tolerate someone who's raised a tenuous BLP case, had it rejected by consensus, and changed the material in question despite that consensus claiming BLP applied. Any editor, ^^James^^ included, is welcome to seek consensus for a change, but allowing an editor who has sought and rejected the BLP trump-card to use it anyways is per se disruptive. BLP is a very important principle, and incorrectly asserting that material can be removed without respect to process or 3RR, and then performing such a removal is entirely inappropriate. Thus, there is no special administrator exercise over content, just over a (potential) inappropriate use of BLP as a super-vote to remove the material. Jclemens (talk) 13:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it would be inappropriate for James to unilaterally change material in the face of talk page consensus. As you suggest below, he should seek outside opinions if he thinks the talk page participants are getting it wrong. However, it is also inappropriate for an admin to threaten blocks against an editor with whom they have an editorial dispute. That is a clear conflict of interest as described in policy. If James does something that you believe is disruptive, you should take it to WP:ANI or use the {{uninvolved}} tag to request an uninvolved admin to address the problem. --RL0919 (talk) 14:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI, this AND `this both mention Dorothy M. Murdock. No RS yet presented attributes any other first name to D. M. Murdock. People whose names appear in reliable sources do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, nor can Ms. Murdock claim (in person or by proxy) to be a non-public figure or low profile individual: she clearly seeks attention for her theories, and the attendant attention to her given name is inavoidable. By all means-^^James^^ can feel free to go to BLP/N or file an RfC on this if he wants... but until and unless a consensus exists that he has a case, he hasn't got one per the local consensus here. Jclemens (talk) 14:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, language such as User:Jclemens uses is in effect an assertion of ownership, backed up by threats of blocking, backed up also by a "blocking policy" formulated at User:Jclemens/Blocks as "making behavioral expectations and consequences clear". I.e. if second-class citizens don't do as told, they will be blocked and then ignored. (Read all of it, and note that this admin is not contactable by email.) Language such as I absolutely will not tolerate someone who's raised a tenuous BLP case, had it rejected by consensus, and changed the material in question despite that consensus claiming BLP applied. Any editor, ^^James^^ included, is welcome to seek consensus for a change, but allowing an editor who has sought and rejected the BLP trump-card to use it anyways is per se disruptive goes miles beyond policy, and entirely prejudges the issue of what is within the policy, and what is disruptive.

Further, the argument presented doesn't address the point. The point is basically this: a fact F is in the article, on the basis of single source S, and the single source S ticks one of the boxes to be a "reliable source", namely that the book is from a well-known publisher. Arguing that "the fact is true" is a basic misunderstanding of content policy. Arguing that the sourcing is well within BLP policy is also a misconception - the point is somewhat marginal.

In any case I'm currently seeking another way of getting at the issue. User:Jclemens is not acting "uninvolved", and I would have mailed said admin with information about what to do here. But I await developments. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

To respond to both Charles Matthews and RL0919:

• The advice to ^^James^^ that invoking BLP to changed an RS'ed statement is would result in a block is not involvement or ownership on my part. In fact, the "threat" appears to have served its purpose in that he has not disruptively changed the name as proposed. Thus, the interests of the encyclopedia are served, by appropriately and proactively communicating specific expectations. ^^James^^ has, if anything, demonstrated appropriate judgment by not pushing the matter after my statement. Jclemens (talk) 02:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
• People are certainly welcome to opine that I might be involved, but the simple fact is, I haven't edited this article in quite some time, and have no interest in its current content. If I have ownership over anything, it's proposed flagrant misuse of the BLP policy. Both of the statements are somewhat imprudent in WP:ABF'ing, while Charles Matthews' statement actively (and entirely unhelpfully) posits some sort of class warfare between admins and non-admins.

So, does someone want to go ahead and put together an RFC or a post to WP:BLP/N to seek further input, or is the only current thing of interest in this page my assertion that such input needed to be sought? Jclemens (talk) 02:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

What ^^James^^ actually said was "I want to revisit the name issue". Let's look at the arguments, not the alleged "advice" and its alleged good effect of said editor not doing something he wasn't necessarily proposing to do. Let's look at the actual arguments here, and the actual BLP policy, to see who is saying anything of merit.

(a) "virtually no reliable sources" (^^James^^)

(b) "How many alternative first names are published?" (Jclemens)

(c) "the source used is dubious" (^^James^^)

(d) "This is a non-issue" [& Simon & Schuster is mainstream publisher] (Eugeneacurry)

(e) "100% of the RS published say "Dorothy" and 0% give any other name" (Jclemens)

(f) "Contentious material" should be removed under BLP (^^James^^)

(g) "On what basis is it dubious?" plus ad hominem (Eugeneacurry)

(h) "it's not poorly sourced or unsourced" plus block threat (Jclemens)

(i) "Be wary of feedback loops" (^^James^^)

(j) book genre (^^James^^)

(k) not clearcut (Charles Matthews)

(l) need for consensus and/or third opinion (RL0919)

(m) adds Google news link by Rana Husseini (Jclemens)

(n) "no other name for Murdock" (Jclemens)

(o) "the single source S ticks one of the boxes" (Charles Matthews).

I see nothing of merit in what Eugeneacurry argues. What RL0919 says is very fair. Of the points by ^^James^^, I find (i) and (j) to be reasonable points, with (i) an explicit reference to WP:BLP#Avoid gossip and feedback loops. Of the points by Jclemens, much isn't really relevant (absence of sources saying D for Danielle has nothing to do with it), and it comes down to the part of (h) saying "not unsourced"; as for (m) that is more plausibly feedback from here than the book source, and I discount the source. I stand by (k) and (o). Charles Matthews (talk) 08:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I honestly don't care one way or the other about the inclusion of her first name. If there are reliable sources for it, I'm fine with keeping it. If the sources aren't reliable or there is a feedback loop, I'm fine with removing it. I believe that should be the focus of the discussion. The folks here with an opinion on it (including Jclemens, who has clearly taken a position in the discussion, and yes, that does make him "involved" regardless of whether he's edited the article recently) don't seem to have a consensus on that, so asking for opinions at a relevant noticeboard is probably the best next step. Either WP:BLPN or WP:RSN seems like a reasonable choice of noticeboard. --RL0919 (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Focusing only on the issues of content and reserving all my rights to disagree on the mischaracterization of me as involved, here's my response:

• (e) is absolutely necessary for it to be contentious--that is, an item under dispute. If there's even one source that says D.M. Murdock's first name is "Deborah" or "Dianne" or anything else, that creates a conflict between reliable sources. That hasn't been asserted. If you look at ^^James^^ arguments, the assertion is one of personal privacy. The argument that's lacking is "Her name isn't Dorothy, it's X"--which has never been advanced.
• Because of the lack of argument that the name is contentious, there is no BLP issue to discuss. If you want to go back to prior BLP wording, the assertion that Murdock's first name is Dorothy is not negative--it's a simple statement of fact, which may be incorrect, but meets WP:V on the basis that the two RS'es that comment on it use the first name. If it were an unsourced allegation of criminal activity or something else that might actually damage the person if believed to be true, BLP would absolutely apply. There is simply no justification for an editor believing that a notable article subject's name be kept private, whether or not the subject agrees, triggering a BLP removal--she's not a low profile individual, and BLP cannot be used to censor well-sourced but disliked information about a subject.
• Point (i), on feedback loops, might indeed be relevant, but the onus is on the editor who is arguing against two separate RS's to show that BOTH draw from a prior Wikipedia article, either directly or indirectly. If that can be proven, that would attack WP:V for the fact, but NOT on a BLP basis. Jclemens (talk) 15:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, the first two points seem to be just plain wrong. (How, exactly, could we combine ethics with what you suggest? See "Presumption in favor of privacy" and "People who are relatively unknown" at the BLP page.) And the definition of the "onus" seems to be wrong, too. As I say, I discount the journalist link on Google News who happens to have written about Acharya S on April 1 as independent verification of any sort. I have already pointed out that ^^James^^ has correctly identified a BLP issue in the feedback (plus gossip), and it happens that I raised exactly this point in earlier discussion and said I wanted to keep an open mind on whether the book authors had independently researched this point or just picked it up from WP a while back, I think we are exactly where we were:

• The referencing may be circular, and no one has said that the book authors have clearly researched the fact independently.
• As for notability of the "article subject", please note the phrase "exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, focusing on high quality secondary sources" at WP:NPF. Why would the forename be relevant? It is actually irrelevant to the writings, because it is not on the authored books that provide the basis for an article. Basically you assume throughout what you'd like to prove, which is that the fact in question is well-sourced. There is a source, but whether it is "high quality" is something else again.

Charles Matthews (talk) 21:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

If you'd like to impeach either of the RS that use the name, it is absolutely your right to seek consensus, through a new discussion or through finding an applicable past discussion, that does so. Saying "I discount..." isn't an argument--it's a personal opinion. While it's entirely possible that someone derived the name from the Wikipedia article and used it, that can't simply be presumed.

So, answer me this: Is Dorothy M. Murdock, who uses the pen name Acharya S, a notable figure or not? If not, we can go ahead and delete her bio on BLP concerns. I'll delete it, if consensus supports that outcome. On the other hand, if she IS a notable figure, then her name is not something that can be removed--the sentence you cite on "material relevant to their notability" is a rather recent innovation, and is not intended to be used to CENSOR material at the behest of the subject.

So which is it: Do you want the article deleted as non-notable, or would you rather the RS'ed name of a notable BLP subject be included? Jclemens (talk) 00:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's just recall Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration/ZAROVE from 2006, and the detail there applying to Acharya S. That is why sources may be suspect.

I see no reason to change what I wrote at the December 2009 AfD, which you can find through the link at the top of the page (to refresh your memory, I said "I doubt that there are actually reliable sources to establish biographical facts to current standards on verifiability: the sources cited look familiar and I would argue that as we now look at things, they are inadequate"). You disagreed. The fact that many of the books are self-published undermines the notability of the author, certainly. To answer your question, I would vote "delete" at AfD tomorrow for this article.

But there are obviously two views here. When I quote directly from WP:BLP you argue that WP:NPF is innovative, that removal under BLP is "censorship" (which is a very old chestnut and completely unfounded), and that anyway you have better insight into the intended use of that piece of policy than I do. I suggest you check the BLP page for two years ago, where you'll find the same section. You are quite wrong on your history, and not only that. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

To quote the end of WP:BLPNAME "Consider whether the inclusion of names of private living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved persons without independent notability." (emphasis mine, of course) While it doesn't specifically come out and say "always include the subject's name", it needn't do so: the privacy clause applies to non-subjects, not to subjects. Even artists who use pseudonyms, from Sting to Dr. Dre have their names included in articles. Dorothy M. Murdock, in addition to not being a private person within the scope of the policy, is the article subject: privacy would only apply if she were just a section in Christ myth theory or wherever her information was merged after a previous AfD. Jclemens (talk) 15:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You are now quite irrelevantly quoting from the section typically to be applied to family members. You have not answered the points, and you are still assuming what you want to prove: she is someone who guards her privacy, as she is entitled to, and the phrase "private person" simply does not appear on that page.

I see this all as pretty much clarified, anyway, by now, :

• going by the nutshell summary, there would seem to be case for including the name if it was properly referenced;
• but going by the specific section starting "Wikipedia contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known", there would be a case for not including any name under which she does not write (broadcast, blog, put up web pages, whatever).

That is why I have said that it is not clearcut. You have been using either/or arguments, and WP:NPF drives a wedge right through what you have been saying: it is simply not BLP policy that someone is either a private person or a public figure. Do you agree with that? The arguments have been put.

User:Jclemens, I think as an admin you can be expected to uphold official policy on Acharya S, and if you are not prepared to apply WP:BLP in general and WP:NPF in particular, when it is relevant, you should consider your position. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

A person's name is not "material about the person" That's covered elsewhere in BLP. You're cherry picking things that support your position, while openly admitting that you have no factual basis for challenging the actual name that is reliably sourced. I am absolutely upholding BLP by refusing to be bullied into censoring neutral, reliably sourced information just because one or two editors doesn't like it. You and ^^James^^ can WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT all week and it won't make the material any less clearcut.

The way forward for you, should you desire to seek a larger consensus to override the consensus here is to do one or more of the following:

1. Produce an RS that states that the "D" in D. M. Murdock stands for something besides Dorothy. Then, we report on all RS'ed names without taking any position on which is or is not correct.
2. Seek input at WP:RSN or with an RfC to impeach both of the reliable sources which use the name Dorothy. If both sources are held by broader consensus to be non-reliable, that eliminates a reliable source for the name, making it legitimate to be removed under BLP.
3. Seek input at WP:BLPN or with an RfC that sustains your interpretation of BLP.

All of these options are open to you; I will accept the input of larger community consensus if my view is not upheld. Jclemens (talk) 22:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Jclemens, before I ask for outside input, I'd like to better understand your interpretation of BLP. When BLP says that unsourced contentious material about living persons should be removed, do you interpret contentious to mean contentious among secondary sources? ^^James^^ (talk) 18:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure: "Contentious" means essentially "negative or positive". Past versions of the policy highlighted negative information, but that was changed to "contentious" to expand it to include positive info as well. Negative info that could disparage, harm, denigrate, libel, etc. a living person MUST be sourced, and the sum total of such information in an article can't be UNDUE such that the entire page is an attack page. Positive info that could be puffery, promotion, peacockishness, or boasting needs to be sourced as well. A name is neither positive or negative--it's a fact which can be correct or incorrect, so the proximate issue is whether WP:V is met by WP:RS. Even if something is contentious, however, if it's RS'ed, it stays in. Jclemens (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP encompasses negative, positive and neutral material. ^^James^^ (talk) 05:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

So what, precisely, does it mean, then? Anything anyone disagrees with? Read the talk page archives to gain a better understanding of the intent and limitations of those phrases. Jclemens (talk) 06:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Contentious material that is poorly sourced should be removed. That's what it says in plain english. It also says to be conservative in sourcing- especially with regard to a subjects privacy. ^^James^^ (talk) 06:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Except that her name is not in contention: Two RS use Dorothy, zero use anything else. No disagreement between sources? No contention. Contentious doesn't mean, and hasn't ever meant, "editors might disagree with it". Jclemens (talk) 07:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

As I said before, there appear to be two views. But citing WP:NPF for a person who is hardly known other than via writing is hardly "cherry-picking", is it? And no more of the "bullying": you were the one who introduced that tone here, User:Jclemens. I don't see why I should accept the comment A person's name is not "material about the person" That's covered elsewhere in BLP on your say-so. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

By all means, don't take my say so: read all of WP:BLP.

BLP is a big hammer to pull out. Calling "BLP!" in a dispute that clearly doesn't qualify is disruptive editing, and pointing that out ahead of time served to avert a potential edit war. Sorry if anyone got their feelings hurt, but the net result was a thorough discussion. Jclemens (talk) 04:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Please stop these accusations. I was in no way disruptive nor was I edit warring. This discussion took place despite your aggressive tone not because of it. ^^James^^ (talk) 07:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not accusing you of edit warring or disruptive editing; I'm stating that what you suggested had the appearance of threatening to do so. I've praised your restraint and discretion for not following through with what you proposed, once I explained its inapplicability. Jclemens (talk) 15:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I have asked RL0919 to come back and help out, since I cannot accept quite a number of your statements and comments. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I've explained why BLP/N and RS/N are the most appropriate places to solicit input; an inivited administrator is likely to tell you the same thing. Are you not interested in seeking broader review? Jclemens (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, this discussion should have been taken to a noticeboard several days ago. There are several concerns that push in different directions: the presumption in favor of privacy for subjects of marginal notability, the existence of sources that meet the general standards for reliability, questions about the true reliability of at least one of those sources, the possibility of a feedback loop and the difficulty of confirming a loop for such a simple piece of information. She is hardly the first person to try to conceal her real name, so the regulars at WP:BLPN are likely to have relevant opinions that are somewhat informed by similar discussions in the past. (A quick search shows that there have been a number of "real name" discussions over the past couple of years.) So take it there already, because the conversation here clearly isn't getting anywhere. --RL0919 (talk) 19:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Since ^^James^^ and Charles Matthews haven't yet sought input despite multiple urgings to do so, I've gone ahead and opened a topic there, asking for input here. Jclemens (talk) 20:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• I'm with Charles. If we only have one source, and it's hugely important, then that's not enough sources. If it's not hugely important then let it drop, trivia is of no real concern to me. Guy (Help!) 20:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I know this is legitimate TL;DR territory, but we have two reliable sources for the name. WP:BURDEN has been met more than adequately. I agree this matter should be allowed to drop, because there are no good reasons for censoring the name. Jclemens (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
    • If you have to excavate that deep to find the name, I don't think it should be used in the face of the objections raised. We are not supposed to be engaged in investigative journalism. Oh, and one of the "sources" linked for the purported full name does not actually mention it. It's obvious that the subject prefers the style D.M., which is incidentally not a pen name, any more than G K Chesterton is a pen name, it's a valid form of her own name. Guy (Help!) 10:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Err actualy you have no idea if it's a valid form for her own name unless you've gained acess to things like bank statements and utility bills.©Geni 11:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Excavate that deep? Google news: "Dorothy M Murdock" "Acharya S"... One source from April, no archive search needed. Jclemens (talk) 17:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, excavate that deep. The vast majority of references to this person to not mention the disputed name. The subject expresses a clear preference against, which can be verified by any OTRS volunteer at ticket 2010010110011483. Whether intentionally or not you are antagonising the subject for no obvious encyclopaedic benefit, since the article is essentially about the work done under the pen name anyway. Please just let it drop. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 11:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• There is a clear consensus at the WP:BLPN discussion, straw poll to remove this content, please don't put it back without a clear consensus in support. Off2riorob (talk) 15:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
• I support the removal also. There have been three threads (here, at WP:BLPN and on the Talk page at WP:BLP), and while it adds up to a messy debate, the outside input is pretty much in the direction of removal. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

For those not following the BLP Noticboard discussion. [78] ^^James^^ (talk) 21:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Subject's preference

• Yes, excavate that deep. The vast majority of references to this person to not mention the disputed name. The subject expresses a clear preference against, which can be verified by any OTRS volunteer at ticket 2010010110011483. Whether intentionally or not you are antagonising the subject for no obvious encyclopaedic benefit, since the article is essentially about the work done under the pen name anyway. Please just let it drop. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 11:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I copied the above from the previous section because I want to specifically respond to it. Guy, this is the FIRST thing anyone's said in this entirely too long discussion that addresses any of the objections I've raised. Thank you for doing so.

Having said that, let's look at some numbers. I like Sting (musician), but pick another pseudonymous person notable under WP:CREATIVE if you like. Google search for sting -"gordon sumner" yields 137,000,000 Ghits--many of which are undoubtedly false positives. sting +"gordon sumner" yields 149,000, or roughly 1/900th as many. If we do Google NEWS only, without Sumner yields 6750, with Sumner yeilds 18, or 1/350th the amount. Looking at "acharya s" "Dorothy Murdock" OR "Dorothy M. Murdock" we get 4,110 hits. For "acharya s" -"Dorothy Murdock" -"Dorothy M. Murdock", we get 86,400--or about 21x as much. Pick another celebrity if you don't like Sting (musician). Run the numbers. Murdock's first name is as widely reported, or MORE widely reported, than any celebrity of similar notability. Jclemens (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

"Alice Cooper" -Furnier: 25.2 million hits. "Alice Cooper" +Furnier, 258K hits--right at 1% of hits mention his name. Dorothy Murdock's first name is clearly more well known than contemporary WP:CREATIVE folks. Jclemens (talk) 21:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

"Dorothy Murdock's first name is clearly more well known than contemporary WP:CREATIVE folks" - even ignoring the many problems with Google hits, you haven't show this. All you've show is a lot more people writing webpages indexed by Google write about Vincent Damon Furnier and Gordon Sumner then Acharya S (let alone Dorothy Murdock who you're own statistics are shown is only mentioned in a relatively tiny number of webpages). From your statiscs, it's possible a greater percentage of people who know Acharya S know her birth first name, then people who know Alice Cooper know his birth first name but even if that's true, it's not particularly relevant. I've ignored the sting results because they seem somewhat useless given the many false positives you acknowledged (I mean in my case all 10 of the first Google hits are unsurprisingly not to do with the musician if you do your sting -gs example). When and if you actually find a relevant example, don't be surprised if a decision is made to remove the relatively unknown birth name and don't accuse people of pointy behavior. It happens quite a lot that when people find something they try to use as an example, it turns out that example is just an example of what we shouldn't be doing in the first place so it's entirely appropriate to fix it when it's brought to our attention. Nil Einne (talk) 14:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

"Reliably sourced" trumps "relatively unknown", especially for notable persons, I'm afraid. I'd love it if you'd help with the other half of my challenge: Find someone who's notable under WP:CREATIVE under a pseudonym whose full name is reliably sourced and not included in the article. I seriously doubt you'll find one. Precedent simply doesn't support notable people who use pseudonyms being able to conceal them on Wikipedia, preference or not. Jclemens (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)