Talk:Acharya S/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Too many Christian critics editing here

Too many Christian critics editing here

It is blatantly obvious to those who've actually read the works by Acharya S that most of the editors here are mostly Christian critics who are not familiar with her work and it shows in the article. The article leaves much to be desired for sure. Now, will Wikipedia allow people who are actually familiar with her work to fix it or no? There are a few who should be banned from making any changes in this article or anything related to Acharya at all for example,

http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=18221#p18221

Acharya has had a response to Licona here http://www.truthbeknown.com/licona.htm and JP Holding here http://www.truthbeknown.com/holding.htm for years. Why aren't these posted here?

Here is Acharya's FAQ http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1149&start=0

And why is this allowed to be here"

"A critique of the movie Zeitgeist criticizes her contributions to the movie, saying she "cherry-pick[ed]" material that was "outdated and always fringe" in order to "support her own astrological fantasies".[29]"

It has nothing to do with this article, rather, it is just trying to sell an anti-Zeitgeist book here with free advertising. Get it out of here, please.

Many of her best excerpts and articles are nowhere to be found here such as:

Astrotheology of the Ancients http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/astrotheology.html

The Origins of Christianity: Free E-book http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/originsofchristianity.pdf

Jesus as the Sun throughout History http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/jesussunexcerpt.html

As well as

Zeitgeist Part 1 & the Supportive Evidence http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=2997

Acharya's article here at Wikipedia should not be in the hands of biased Christian critics. I've been waiting for a very long time for this article to be done properly. I just had to finally say something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jose5643 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Please note that it is in no way acceptable to make blanket attacks on other editors, especially not by implying you know their views. If you have concrete suggestions to make to improve the article, within Wikipedia's content policies, please make them. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh please, Eugeneacurry and Ari posted their plan to come here to attack Acharya's Wiki article on each others blogs here at Wiki. You can see their quotes to each other here as well: http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=18221#p18221 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jose5643 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The two editors you name are hardly a majority of the persons editing this article, and one of them has been indefinitely blocked for over a week. Instead of indulging in unsubstantiated talk page speculations about the personal beliefs of other editors, I would encourage you to make (WP-policy compliant) changes to the article to fix any problems you've identified, or recommend specific changes here if you don't feel comfortable making them yourself. --RL0919 (talk) 02:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The fact remains that Eugeneacurry, Ari, Jclemens and others here are Christians who've never read any of Acharya's books but have offered loads of edits here. And in the past there have been loads of Christian critics editing here so nothing any of you have said disproves my comment on that issue and you know it, so just drop it. This article should be in the hands of James not Jclemens, period.

I did make some suggestions here both above and below. The most important part of Acharya's work is not even mentioned here, there needs to be a new section in the article titled, The Mythicist Position with the relevant links and video as posted below. The above suggestions are self explanatory.

I'll offer more as I have time but, a new section for the mythicist position could go up now, probably with a basic premise. Here's more about it:

The Evemerist vs. Mythicist Position http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=12409#p12409 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jose5643 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Please note that we don't normally accept discussion board postings as sources of information. Acharya's books and essays on her website could be used as sources to help describe her views, provided this is done as neutral summary. Secondary sources are preferred, however. As to other editors, please review the policy at WP:NPA and try to keep your discussions focused on the improvement of the article instead of your opinions about other people. No one owns the article, and editors from all viewpoints are welcome to edit it as long as they do so constructively and within Wikipedia guidelines. --RL0919 (talk) 13:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that forums aren't accepted sources of info but, within that forum thread ARE sources that explain much and would be helpful to this article. And, I am trying to be "helpful and improve the article" by pointing out the obvious Christian bias of Christian critics here ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN POSTS TO EACH OTHER with intent to mar this article. It should've been address long ago. Just drop it and move on, they've been caught red-handed and you know it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jose5643 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The Mythicist Position

It would be great to see a new section in the article titled, "The Mythicist Position" outlining what it is since it is an major part of Acharya's work.

The Mythicist Position:

"Mythicism represents the perspective that many gods, goddesses and other heroes and legendary figures said to possess extraordinary and/or supernatural attributes are not "real people" but are in fact mythological characters. Along with this view comes the recognition that many of these figures personify or symbolize natural phenomena, such as the sun, moon, stars, planets, constellations, etc., constituting what is called "astrotheology." As a major example of the mythicist position, it is determined that various biblical characters such as Adam and Eve, Satan, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Joshua, King David, Solomon and Jesus Christ, among other entities, in reality represent mythological figures along the same lines as the Egyptian, Sumerian, Phoenician, Indian, Greek, Roman and other godmen, who are all presently accepted as myths, rather than historical figures."

- Christ in Egypt, page 12 http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/mythicist.html

The Mythicist Position video is a basic introduction http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKW9sbJ3v2w —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jose5643 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The History of Mythicism http://stellarhousepublishing.com/mythicism.html

The Evemerist vs. Mythicist Position http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=12409#p12409 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jose5643 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

In his review of Acharya's book titled, Christ in Egypt, biblical scholar Dr. Robert Price comments:

"I find it undeniable that ... many of the epic heroes and ancient patriarchs and matriarchs of the Old Testament were personified stars, planets, and constellations." http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/reviews/murdock_christ_egypt.htm

"The research conducted by D.M. Murdock concerning the myth of Jesus Christ is certainly both valuable and worthy of consideration."

- Dr. Kenneth Feder, Professor of Archaeology and author of the book titled: Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries: Science and Pseudoscience In Archaeology. http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=18378#p18378 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jose5643 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

POV: undue bias towards criticism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Feder Professor of Archaeology, Central Connecticut State University

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Price Professor of Theology and Scriptural Studies at the Coleman Theological Seminary, Professor of Biblical Criticism at the Center for Inquiry Institute

Both of the above make approving statements about "Christ in Egypt" at http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/christinegypt.html

Yet all that is shown in the current article are criticising sources. This looks like a POV issue. 123.3.170.49 (talk) 02:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem comes down to this: what sources should Wikipedia use for it's articles? Some objective standard has to be applied; a line has to be drawn somewhere. In the case of Kenneth Feder, the source is an amazon.com book review. Wikipedia does not consider amazon.com book reviews to be a reliable sources for information. Ever. See WP:RS and WP:V for detailed information on Wikipedia's sourcing policy.

I do agree that Robert Price's views are not accurately represented in the article. Despite his unfavorable review of Murdock's first book, he has strongly supported her subsequent work. He has written the forward for one of her books, appeared with her on talk shows voicing support, and has written a favourable review of "Christ in Egypt". Yet Price is presented here as though he is a critic of her work. That is simply not the case. Feel free to make changes in this regard. ^^James^^ (talk) 12:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you support that assertion through a reliable source, James? If so, then by all means make the change. But remember: if all the RS'es we have depict Dorothy M. Murdock in a negative light, then NPOV requires that if we have an article on her, we follow those sources appropriately. Jclemens (talk) 16:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

You mean the assertion that Price is supportive of Murdock's work, Jclemes? Yes of course. (Did you not read the above?) We already cite his review of Christ in Egypt in the article. [1] ^^James^^ (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

You're speaking of the current ref 18? Seems fine to expand on that to me. Jclemens (talk) 00:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

New changes to the Acharya S article

Dear Sirs,

Well, as you see I am changing and adding parts to the article. I want to improve and extend the article. I removed Joel McDurmon with his footnote, but i see that you've put it back in place. I removed it because going through every critique of Acharya S there seems to be no Joel McDurmon. It seems that he is getting free advertizing. McDurmon doesn't have a single article online for anyone to read on this issue. He is not known as a credible scholar. And sorry for the repetiton, but it seems that he's just trying to sell his book so, his advert doesn't belong here.

And today also i've seen that you removed the new links/articles in the External Links section? Why did you remove them? What's wrong with them?

Thank you for your support and help!

--Mtx1 (talk) 06:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, now i've read from the history your commentary after deleting/reverting the parts i've changed. I responded you about McDurmon. So in the External Links you don't accept from the same website different articles. Is that what you mean? It's that those articles are important, they are the core i'd say of the works of Acharya S. They include images of primary sources, scholarly citations and bibliography as well.

Thank you again for your support and help!

--Mtx1 (talk) 07:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Dr Price issue

According to the standards set by Wikipedia, the citation in 20 must be removed:

"This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous."

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

That book review was certainly "contentious" and "libellous" to the point that Dr. Price himself removed the book review from his own website in 2004. It is now 2011, 7 years later so, there is no point to include it here except to provide as much over-the-top (and unnecessary) criticism as possible. That book review is no longer relevant and should no longer be here.

This is what has been up on Price's website ever since he removed it in 2004:

"Until a revision can be posted, the review of The Christ Conspiracy is no longer available on this site." http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/rev_murdock.htm

Thank you for the attention!

--Mtx1 (talk) 23:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The article says that Price wrote a review, then removed it from his website. That isn't even remotely libelous, nor is it libelous to cite the details of the publication that printed the review. We haven't quoted any of the review's content, so even if the review itself were to contain libel, there is nothing that needs to be changed on Wikipedia because of that. --RL0919 (talk) 23:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The fact is that the review, removed by Dr. Price himself 7 years ago, serves no purpose here whatsoever in my opinion. It's only used here to pile on more trash criticism, exaggerate criticism. Readers of this article gain nothing from hearing about a review by Dr. Price that he stopped supporting 7 years ago.

--Mtx1 (talk) 07:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

It is, please note, not a matter of your opinion. Reliable sources may be used to build up the article. In some cases a book review is only a relevant reliable source for the author's own views; Price can be mentioned as a critic if that fact can be verified. On the question of proportionality, it might be hard to make the point that critics of Acharya S are over-represented in the article's current state. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Price removed that book review of The Christ Conspiracy from his own website in 2004 because he could no longer stand behind it anymore. It was a petulant review full of knee-jerk reactions and professional jealousy that overlooked many of the great things brought up in that book - many things Dr. Price himself agrees with.

Dr. Price also got tired of it being used to bludgeon Acharya to death. Frankly, I think he became embarrassed by it. It was not any sort of review becoming of such a great scholar.

"Reliable sources may be used to build up the article..."

That's the point, even Dr. Price himself doesn't consider it a reliable book review, which is precisely why he removed it from his own website 7 years ago. Again, readers of this article gain nothing from hearing about a review by Dr. Price that he stopped supporting 7 years ago. If Dr. Price doesn't consider his own book review reliable then, that should give us a clue, yes?

"it might be hard to make the point that critics of Acharya S are over-represented in the article's current state."

Yes, most of the over-the-top and irrelevant parts have finally been removed except for the Dr. Price review. So, I greatly appreciate the help here on that. This article is getting better. The article previously read like it was written by critics who knew almost nothing of her work. I am quite familiar with it so, I simply hope to help improve the article. I have few more things to add and I'll be done.

--Mtx1 (talk) 21:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

does not declare what the S. stands for." is no longer true.

The line saying that " Acharya S. does not declare what the S. stands for." is no longer true. Acharya has been naming many posts and her blog as "Acharya Sanning" on "Freethoughtuniverse.typepad.com/blog" and Google+ In the same vein, many Internet sites have revealed that her full name is "Dorothy M. Murdock", which is considered an objective fact never denied by her. Legal documents have also identified her by that full name. She has not stated the reason for her penchant for disguising her name. Although "Acharya" is more poetic and mysterious. She has presented her name in the past as a mystery, and her expertise as a specialist of mystery in religions and mystery religions. But the adoption of "Acharya", a Hindu name meaning "teacher," "leader" also indicates that she wants to be considered a "teacher" of some new truths, like a prophetess or an oracle, (against Christianity, against religion, pro New Age, pro Theosophy), and speaks willingly of her "followers". Critics use the term of "Acharya's fanboys". Richard Carrier, in his own blog, calls them "fanatical followers". Murdock has published a book called "The Gospel according to Acharya S" and a video on "Please Respect My Religion", which both indicate that she presents her ideas as having "religious" meaning and value. Especially the influences of Helena Blavatsky, Savitri Devi, and Barbara Walker should be emphasized, and their impact on Murdock's interest in comparative mythology, astrotheology, theosophy and a feminist bias in the study of religions. ROO BOOKAROO (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)March 20, 2012

Evidently the case, listed as "Acharya Sanning CEO", so line deleted. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there any confirmation she even runs this blog? Also, what legal documents? You have provided none, please provide evidence for you're claim. The rest of your comment is completely irrelevant to this section because it is mainly to spearhead your own specific views of a person. Please keep the bias in posting to a minimum, thanks.Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 05:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Objection to Description of "Christians Attaining Control of the Roman Empire"

The article reads: " Christians obliterated evidence to the contrary by destroying and controlling literature when they attained control of the Roman Empire"→ This is a gross historic misrepresentation. The Christian Church, in fact the Catholic Church NEVER attained "control of the Roman Empire". The effective control of the Empire was always assured by the Roman Emperor, through the agency of his legions and administration which controlled civil life and jurisdiction, and provincial governors who represented the Emperor. The Catholic Church only obtained the privilege of exclusive state religion in the Empire, and the only control it achieved was over the hierarchy of churches, bishops, spiritual life and education. The Emperor himself was above the Church, and controlled its affairs, both internally and externally. And this was true of the Western Empire, and even more so of the absolutist Byzantine Empire. → Claiming that the Catholic Church "controlled the Roman Empire" is a total distortion of historic reality. No Roman Emperor would have condoned the statement now inserted in the body of the article.→ Charles Freeman-The Closing of the Western Mind- The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason; Charles Freeman-A.D. 381; Charles Freeman-A New History of Early Christianity. ROO BOOKAROO (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The article very clearly states that this is an assertion made by Acharya S. It does not say that this is an objective fact. So unless she doesn't claim this, the article would appear to be accurate. --RL0919 (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

This is not a place to debate her ideas and the validity of her views. If you wish to do that then please go to http://freethoughtnation.com/ where you can interact with her personally on her forums; but this is not a forum format.Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 11:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#First_mention

WP:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#First_mention states:

"While the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known, the subject's full name should be given in the lead paragraph, if known."

IP editor 21:13, 24 March 2012‎ 76.17.90.97 (talk)‎ . . (16,317 bytes) (+9)‎ has added the author's real name to the BLP. I am of the impression that that's been done before and deleted despite (1) WP MOS guideline above (2) the fact that the author's "credentials.htm" cites a semester at Lake Forest College's study abroad program as a credential and the college's alumni list on the web cites the full name. On these two bases it would seem that IP editor's edit is correct and should be maintained. Also that any removal should be noted on Talk with reference to WP guidelines. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The reason it has not been included is because the subject is a living person. She publicly denies that this is her full name, and the sourcing for it is weak. The policy on Biographies of Living Persons is considerably more important than style guidelines. This has been discussed at considerable length in the past, both on this talk page and at the BLP Noticeboard, and the prevailing view was against including name details that the subject denies and which are not strongly supported in reliable sources. Therefore, I have removed and redacted the recent addition, and I would caution against re-adding it without a clear talk page consensus to change the past practice. --RL0919 (talk) 13:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't know that, the edit appeared reasonable to me. Maybe there should be a permanent note in the header that links to this discussion? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Here name is <redacted>. One can simply do a google search on this and see that is clearly Acharya S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.22.52.10 (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Where has she publicly denied this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.22.52.10 (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

First off, don't put this on the talk page either. BLP policy violations are blockable offenses even on talk pages. As for her objections, see the BLP Noticeboard discussion linked above. --RL0919 (talk) 18:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I just looked through and I found a book listening her name as <redacted> So why is that not used? It is clearly her name. Short of offending her cult why not use her name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.22.52.10 (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion covers this, but to summarize: She says she that has never revealed her full (non-initialed) name and that sites claiming to state it should not be believed. Books that mention the name are mostly of poor reliability. The very few possibly reliable mentions were published after the supposed name was placed on Wikipedia, meaning they could have gotten the "information" from us. The rule for BLPs is simple: err on the side of caution when dealing with living subjects. Controversial information must be strongly sourced and the subject's wishes have some weight in marginal cases. And stop putting it on the talk page. --RL0919 (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

So don't put <redacted> then — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.22.52.10 (talk) 19:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I will say anything with the name <redacted> on it is poorly resourced though, but for different reasons. Pandering to cult how pathetic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.22.52.10 (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Interpret it however you wish, but if you continue putting the disputed content on the talk page, you will be blocked. --RL0919 (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

What is the dispute it is her name. Trembles though at the idea of being blocked. Shudders please no. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.22.52.10 (talk) 19:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

It is a bit obvious that the individual utilizing Acharya's name has come here for the specific purpose of trolling. So unless you can actually provide a reliable source as to that being her name then you have no leg to stand on your continual use of her name in violation of Wikipedia policy. It has also been made explicit that conduct of users on Wikipedia should conform to Wikipedia policy. Since you have not only ignored this but also have made explicit attempts that you will not conform, I vote that this user be banned from this Talk Page and from editing to begin with.Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Name per RS

There is a reliable source (book published by Simon and Schuster) for the full name of the article's subject. There is nothing in WP:BLP that allows us to conceal the actual name of a person in a biography. Unless a policy argument can be be made for exclusion the subject's name should be re-added. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

As a note, I have read the BLP/N archive on this discussion. The arguments are dated and less than convincing. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

@Capitalismojo: I agree. If it is 100% confirmed that a book published by Simon and Schuster published the given name of the author then that is probably the end of the story. If reality has changed we should follow WP:RS. Can you please post a note to this effect without the name (see User:RL0919 comment above) at BLP/N to this effect and give ISBN of the book. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok here is link to google books. SIMON & SCHUSTER ref. The Masks of Christ By Lynn Picknett, Clive Prince Capitalismojo (talk) 00:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Scholarly reception separated out

I have struck Popular Reception from Reception section title and sub-sectioned Scholarly reception. Now that Bart Ehrman has spent 4 pages in a major book on Acharya S some of the non-scholarly reception can be shrunk down according to WP:Weight. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This page is on my watchlist and beeping over a slowburn conflict on the lead sentence between Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies (specifically WP:FULLNAME, example Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz (born August 13, 1926) ..) and the fact that the subject of the BLP, American mythicist writer Acharya S, real name D.M. Murdock, appears to have deliberately avoided using her first name D...... in the past and it is still not on the writer's website. Against this however two books which would appear to pass WP:IRS (published 2008, 2012) have used the name "D...... M. Murdock" in identifying the author. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Previous discussions in 2010 on this talk page and at the BLP noticeboard
• It may be helpful to indicate if you have edited this talk page before or not. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Sources

1. . 1983 Annual Report - American School of Classical Studies at Athens - this is simply a program which the author's website makes mention of Who is Acharya S D.M. Murdock - Truth Be Known
2. . 2008 Picknett and Prince ref. The Masks of Christ By Lynn Picknett, Clive Prince SIMON & SCHUSTER publishers page for book
3. . 2012 Copan and Lane ref Come Let Us Reason: New Essays in Christian Apologetics Paul Copan, ‎William Lane Craig - 2012 B&H Academic publishers page for book.

Question 1

The first question then is this: Should the article include the real name in lead as with a standard BLP?

Please do not use the actual name, use "first name" instead

• Yes/No:
• Yes - I'm not sure I see the counter argument here. WP:BIRTHNAME is pretty explicit in saying a "subject's full name should be given in the lead paragraph". Her "first name" should be spelled out in the lead. NickCT (talk) 12:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
• Yes The policy is clear. There are RS. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
• Yes. It is important to give the "real" name if we have a good reference for it. Dental plan / lisa needs braces! 14:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, per the sources and WP:BIRTHNAME-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
• Yes - my watchlist has just indicated the bot removing the expired RfC template so I will add my own !vote. I was already inclined to think Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies should be followed on this BLP like any other, but expecting some reason to be raised against. After having seen no argument against I confirm with a "yes" too. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Question 2

The second question is whether the two sources 2008 2012 could/should display the name in footnotes?

• Yes/No:
• Redundant - Question 2 is redundant. Her first name and commonly held pseudonyms ought to be spelled out in the lead no the footnotes. If there is some controversy about her name, we ought to add sources to the lead per WP:WHYCITE. NickCT (talk) 13:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, same reason as above.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, though Q1 makes Q2 redundant, that is true, there is no harm in also providing the source in footnotes given that this has been controverted in the past. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Delete actual name

Acharya S responded on her Facebook page that due to her occupation she feels duress from stalkers knowing her "actual name." Per WP:BLPNAME: When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. I ask that we remove the name. Raquel Baranow (talk) 16:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Her "stalkers" must be unaware of this thing called "google". Capitalismojo (talk) 04:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

And books. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, what she claims on Facebook is that the name given is not correct, but people who think it is her name use it in an attempt to intimidate her because they know she has been stalked in the past. The factual denial seems more relevant than the stalking concern. --RL0919 (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

There are certain things which a subject has a right to be the authority on. Her own name should be fairly high on that list. I know that with all the debacle over Chelsea Manning the basic principle of human dignity that humans should have some say over their own damn name has long been lost, but the subject has specified that she is made exceptionally uncomfortable by the printing of her alleged first name. How about we just follow the age-old Wikipedian principle of not being dicks and do that? —Tom Morris (talk) 08:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

someone who is out there publishing and promoting books is not a "private individual." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Were the two editors directly above invited here by email? I think this was considered in the RfC and the 4 book sources all use the name "Dorothy M. Murdock" and two use "Dorothy M___ Murdock" while referencing it to the author's own website so this seems to be rather ridiculous. WP:FULLNAME applies to leads in all biographies including "Chelsea Elizabeth Manning[4] (born Bradley Edward Manning, December 17, 1987) so I'm not sure what the comparison proves. If anything we shouldn't really have M. when Holding and the school source the middle name. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi: Sorry, I did not realize there had been an RfC. Full disclosure: I have interacted with the subject via OTRS. I changed to the initials because the subject has actually published under them unlike the full name. Are there instances of her having actually published under the name "Dorothy" or admitting that is here real name? Annual Report - American School of Classical Studies at Athens doesn't show any proof and the other two sources surely can't be said to be reliable for her full name. -- John Reaves 00:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The two additional book print sources, one "Dorothy M. Murdock", on "Dorothy Milne Murdock" are reliable sources. The summer school Annual Report - American School of Classical Studies at Athens was introduced by the author herself on her own website as part of author's expertise/credentials. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

How are the first two reliable sources for her name? The third reference does not seem to be linked from her website anywhere and I am unable to access the cited page. How does the third reference prove her first name? -- John Reaves 01:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

How is any book giving anyone's name reliable for their name? No reason to assume they are not. The link to Annual Report - American School of Classical Studies at Athens on Acharya's website as part of author's expertise/credentials was there earlier, in archives and is referenced her own books. 1 cf. 2. It is clear Dorothy M. Murdock wants an exception from WP:FULLNAME, editors in RFC understood that, and equally likely the author will continue to email every admin/user on Wikipedia, nevertheless if an author cites a public record with their name in it as their expertise in their books and website and it is also cited in reliable sources, there's no reason to grant that exception. What's more of an issue is that the American School of Classical Studies at Athens shows the author was simply an "alumna" - i.e. a young person on an extended summer school at the time at the time and in not "A Member" as claimed in the author's books. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:37, 26 December 20

How does Dorothy B. Thompson = Dorothy M. Murdock? The Christ Myth is a pseudo-historical piece and definitely not reliable and regarding the last source listed, we certainly can't accept a questionable source as the only source for someone's name, especially when the information has been called into question. Theretofore, I am reverting back to the initials. John Reaves 02:21, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

@John Reaves: There is more than 1 Dorothy on the page:

Annual Report - American School of Classical Studies at Athens 1983 ...M. Alison Frantz Virginia R. Grace Stella G. Miller Dorothy B. Thompson James J. Clauss (Seymour Fellow) Elizabeth A. ... R. Hershenson Preston B. Kavanaugh John D. Maclsaac Elizabeth P. McGowan Dorothy M. Murdock Jeffery S. Purinton

And the Christ Myth is not the source, this has all been gone through ad infinitum before, this has been the main topic on this page for years which is why we had a RFC

Please look at the plentiful above sources and discussion. If you wish to start a new RfC then do so. We cannot keep rehashing this every time the author finds a new editor to email. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Why is it so important to put her "real name" in the article? She does not use it, she prefers her initials. Per WP:BLPNAME: When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. Raquel Baranow (talk) 03:21, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Raquel, When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, does not cover an author who has published her own credentials including their name, so WP:FULLNAME applies. If you dispute the reasons in the RfC then you are free to open a new RfC. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Has not been widely disseminated" is not the same thing as "has not been disseminated". If the author published her own name once, that is dissemination, but it is not necessarily wide dissemination, and you can't just say "she disseminated it, so BLPNAME doesn't apply". Ken Arromdee (talk) 23:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Following the view of the RfC that is why the middle name "Milne" is not used in the lead, it has been disseminated only in the self published Xulon Press based on author's link to Lake Forest College source. But Simon & Schuster + B&H Publishing Group + American School of Classical Studies at Athens counts as both WP:RS and "widely disseminated" for "Dorothy". In ictu oculi (talk) 01:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Three or four out of thousands is not "widely disseminated" and the "real name" is NOT her preference or how she is widely known. Raquel Baranow (talk) 16:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Madonna Louise Ciccone is not her preference and appears in about the same proportion. Murdock is not a "private" individual, she is a public figure who has promoted her work. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

There simply are not reliable sources for her first name. The fact that this a contentious issue is reason enough to exclude her first name. -- John Reaves 22:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

This has been resolved by the recent RfC (see above). If you would like to start another RfC again so soon hoping to get another result, feel free but know that this issue has been resolved. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Removal of sourced material

In a series of edits, User:JzG removed more than half the article's material, the vast majority of it sourced. I restored most (not all) of his first mass removal with an edit summary inviting him to explain on the Talk page, but he reverted me instead and then cut more. I'm opening this discussion in the spirit of WP:BRD to see if some reasonable explanations can be provided. --RL0919 (talk) 23:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

See WP:RS. The sources were unreliable, not independent, or both. This article covers a contentious subject, hated by many and worshipped by others. Both extremes comprise primarily cranks and zealots. The article needs to be robustly sourced from reliable independent secondary sources, preferably not associated either with fundamentalist Christianity or the zeitgeist nutters. Good luck with that, since they seem to be virtually the only people who care. Guy (Help!) 00:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Except some of the material you deleted complies with WP:RS. In the most egregious case, you deleted material sourced to a book by respected religious scholar Bart Ehrman. Non-controversial information about the subject can be sourced from non-independent sources per WP:SELFSOURCE (a subsection of WP:RS). For example, a statement such as, "In 2009 she released Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection and The Gospel According to Acharya S.", cited to a non-independent source, should be fine. (This is actual text deleted from the article.) WP:BIASED sources can be used for attributed opinions, so there is no requirement to exclude fundamentalists or "zeitgeist nutters", if they appear in an appropriate outlet. However, I do agree that many of the ones cited previously should stay out, per WP:BLPSPS, because they were cited to their own blogs. --RL0919 (talk) 00:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Im coming in from the BLP board, and I must say that I strongly agree with RL0919's analysis of the removed material and sources on all counts.Two kinds of pork (talk) 01:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

All counts? Including the self-published sources, blogs and so on? I think you might be missing something. There is an awful lot of "X said something (source: X's bog where he said it)". Virtually nothing comes form indpeendent review sources that establish the significance of what X said (or indeed the significance of X as a commentator on this subject). Guy (Help!) 09:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

User JzG noted your change of signature to Guy In ictu oculi (talk) 09:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I have restored everything to the last reasonably stable version (which happened to be after the RFC adding the full name Dorothy M. Murdock and also the only credible scholar who has written about Murdock, Bart Ehrmann. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

User:RL0919, User:Two kinds of pork agree with your comments. Having restored the article what material/sources do you think could be usefully pruned? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

For example, in first paragraph in the Reception section, the citations to Holding and Doherty, as well as some of the Price citations, are to material published on their own websites. These should be excluded per WP:BLPSPS. That may not be the only problematic sourcing, but it is the most clearly outside of policy. I did a targeted removal of this specific material in this edit. --RL0919 (talk) 15:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

(This reply predating comment below) agree, these edits (mainly by RL0919) seem like a much more well targeted trimming. I should have noted above that the apologetic Christian book source (Paul Copan, ‎William Lane Craig Come Let Us Reason: New Essays in Christian Apologetics 2012 p.170) mentioning Murdock are reasonably reliable (as apologetics books go), but seems that their useful information is much thinner than Ehrmann. As for the two Mythicist books (Holding Shattering the Christ Myth 2008 p.263 and Picknett/Prince The Masks of Christ 2008) those should have some mention under the fellow-mythycist section. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay I have asked JzG (aka Guy) to stop deleting content while we discuss. Can I just clarify on these two edits:

• "(Reverted 1 edit by RL0919 (talk): Reverting the admins, never a great idea... " - who is an admin here?
• "(Scholarly reception: This is canonical [[WP:OR]. Not sourced at all.)" - doesn't Ehrman say that sources on Mythicists are rare because scholars don't pay attention to them? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I still can't see the reason for deleting this. The fact that Ehrmann is the only scholarly source is not in question, so it is relevant to state so. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

To answer the question above: I am an admin, and I am also an email response volunteer. I'd remind everybody that deletion and editing are different things (only admins can see deleted text, anyone can see edited text in the history), and that the default in biographies especially is for any material open to challenge to be removed pending consensus, not to remain in pending consensus to remove. Also consensus is not the not-a-vote count of people who have an interest in a particular subject, it starts with policy.

The important policies here are: WP:BLP, WP:V/WP:RS and WP:NPOV. To ensure neutrality we cannot cite opposing opinions direct, because it's not our job to decide whether a given supportive or critical comment is significant, and what weight to assign to it. In the overall scheme of things the subject's view is barely significant at all - it has neither scholarly nor popular traction. If her work had not been used in Zeitgeist, itself a subject of only marginal significance outside of a small cult following, we almost certainly would not even be able to justify having an article.

So what is needed is commentary on the dispute in reliable independent sources - that is, review articles in good sources such as the major news magazines which discuss the dispute over the validity or otherwise of her research. What we had, and to an extent still have, is opinions quoted directly from self-published sources such as blogs. So Wikipedia editors have decided that the view of X is relevant and significant, and have quoted it directly, which is wrong on two counts. See what I mean? Guy (Help!) 20:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

JzG/Guy, well based on your edits here I am of the view you should refrain from any further undiscussed edits to this article. You came to a difficult and controverted article with no discussion and made radical cuts removing the only reliable sources (Ehrmann and to a lesser extent Paul Copan, ‎William Lane Craig - 2012), which indicates that you are not familiar with the topic area.

I'd agree that most of the Zeitgeist + Acharya S sources are non-reliable. And the web sources are likewise mostly junk.

User:RL0919 is I think the best editor (and admin) to sort this out, every edit made so far seems to be slow, careful and spot on. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Guy has been usefully involved in this article in the past. The working hypothesis is that Ehrmann's work somewhat alters how much can properly be said here, and that view should be given its chance. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Licona criticism

I have been trying to figure out the true origin of the criticisms from Mike Licona. The cited source is a seemingly defunct website, but the copyright info given on the archive of the page suggests they had copied it from somewhere else. It looks like the original may be Licona's own website. If that's the case, then this is self-published material that should be excluded for the reasons already discussed more generally above -- the short version being that it doesn't comply with WP:BLPSPS. But given the controversy over deleting material, I wanted to give folks a chance to show if it was actually published in some independent reliable source. --RL0919 (talk) 02:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Holding Shattering the Christ Myth 2008 is Xulon Press, self-published, so probably out anyway, and Page 254 presumably is quoting the website, also out:

Dr. Edwin Bryant, Professor of Hinduism at Rutgers University is a scholar on Hinduism. ... When I informed him that Ms. Murdock wrote an article claiming that Krishna had been crucified, he replied, "That is absolute and complete non-sense.

However, presumably Dr. Bryant is actually in his correspondence commenting not only on Murdock but Murdock's cited source John Patterson Lundy: "One remarkable tradition avers the fact of Krishna dying on the fatal cross (a tree), to which he was pierced by the stroke of an arrow," .." (1876). But then is this correspondence considered as reliably published or not? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

If the only appearance of the "correspondence" is in Holding's self-published book, then no. If Bryant's comment's were published elsewhere in a reliable source that Holding is quoting, then that would be a different matter. Anyhow, given the lack of a reliable, non-WP:SPS source for the Licona comments, they should go. --RL0919 (talk) 06:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Edits for flow

These are meant to be improvements independent of the discussion on sourcing. The lead has been bulked up so that the general reader can understand the overall thrust of the views proposed in the works. I have also renamed the sections in the hope of segregating the types of material. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

BLP Noticeboard

An editor has taken the name discussion to the BLP Noticeboard, again. Capitalismojo (talk) 06:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

This is extremely tedious. I have beefed up the [invisible] note over lead refering editors contacted by email to consult the RFC. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC) As a review the sources below:

• Xulon Press (i.e. self published) James Patrick Holding Shattering the Christ Myth 2008 - Page 263 Which cites "http://campus.lakeforest.edu/academics/greece/Partic-OtherSchools.html Accessed April 12, 2008. "Acharya S" is a writer's pseudonym, but recently Acharya has publicly reverted to use of her given name, Dorothy Milne Murdock, as it ..."
• Lake Forest College: That source is still online and still lists "Dorothy Milne Murdock: Franklin & Marshall, '82 Classical Studies" although the link has been taken down from the author's website credentials section
• Simon & Schuster Lynn Picknett, ‎Clive Prince The Masks of Christ: Behind the Lies and Cover-ups 2008 "... and other books); “Acharya S.,” or Dorothy M. Murdock (The Christ Conspiracy, 1999); and philosopher and filmmaker Jay Raskin (The Evolution ofChrists and Christianities, 2006). "
• B&H Publishing Group Paul Copan, ‎William Lane Craig Come Let Us Reason: New Essays in Christian Apologetics - 2012 Page 170 "The basic thesis of this argument is well stated in The Companion Guide to Zeitgeist: Part 1. The book was written by Acharya S, the periodic pen name of Dorothy M. Murdock, who was a primary consultant for the film and whose book, The ..."
• American School of Classical Studies at Athens Annual Report - American School of Classical Studies at Athens 1983 "... Dorothy M. Murdock "

Acharya threatens to sue Wikipedia over her privacy: BLP violation

Acharya updated her FaceBook page threatening to sue Wikipedia over use of her "real name":

For the past several years, editors and vandals on Wikipedia have been tormenting me and my family, including endangering us with private information, and posting an endless stream of libelous and threatening remarks. My friends/supporters and I engaged successfully in a stressful, yearlong battle previously, now to no avail. I've circulated my problem with some lawyers, but I really need some help from a sympathetic legal eagle. If you can help with a possible emotional distress/libel action, please contact me ASAP at acharya_s@<redacted>.com.

It's difficult enough to do this challenging work, with few resources and only word-of-mouth publicity. I do not need the constant menace from this website hanging over my head.

Thank you.

Raquel Baranow (talk) 21:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

That's libel?Two kinds of pork (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The facebook posting is a legal threat. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the FB post is definitely a legal threat. But libel? Wow! Shovon (talk) 10:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The problem has always been that the name is available in reliable independent sources. It's not a problem of our own making, but it must be said that the people who hate her views do tend to take particular delight in ensuring that the real name stays in place. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if some editors have taken delight or not. It shouldf be a straightforward MOS:BIO WP:FULLNAME issue. As for legal threats, if there's a factual issue - such as a legal name change, that would be (and presumably has been) taken up with the publishers of the two WP:RS, both of which are already highly public on Google Books. So it's really not an issue that can be addressed on this Talk page. Other than watching the article for disruptive edits. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

She's better-known as D.M. Murdoch or Acharya S, that's the way she wants to be known. See WP:BLPNAME Raquel Baranow (talk) 03:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Raquel Baranow, (1) do the printed books which give the name "Dorothy" meet WP:BLPNAME "publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight"? (2) does MOS:BIO WP:FULLNAME have an exception for those who do not want their birth name listed first in lead paragraph? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

It's a matter of "weight" (like in "weight of the evidence"): Acharya S is afraid of being harassed, she has been harassed before. Did you know that judges (among others) out of fear for their lives are not listed with their addresses in the voter's registration lists or the County assessor's lists? Here's the appropriate section of WP:BLPNAME: When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. Raquel Baranow (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

We are not talking about a "private individual" - we are talking about a publicly published author who maintains an open website and does public appearances and participates in podcasts. If she wishes to be considered a "private individual", she would need to stop doing those things. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Article has too many Christian apologists

Words like "many" or "many scholars" without naming them or the reasoning are nothing but apologetics. I vote for removal because the article is just an attack on Ms. Sanning. Erviltnec (talk) 00:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

No, it is not an "attack". the article is a representation of how mainstream academia views her work; which is what we, as an encyclopedia, strive to do in order to fulfill one of our content obligations, WP:NPOV. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

If you have any evidence that there is some type of broad support for her work by the academic mainstream that we are not including so that our "many" ought to be changed, please provide them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)