Talk:Acharya S

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

[1] [2]

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:

[3]

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:

[4]

The citations from my work are here:

[5]

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:

[6]

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:

[7]

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

[8]

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

[9]

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

[10]

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

[11]

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

[12]

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

[13]

And another review of SOG appears here:

[14]

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

[15]

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

[16]

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:

[17]

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:

[18]

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:

[19]

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

[20]

And another in the book Wake Up Down There!:

[21]

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

[22]

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.

[23]

Atheist Alliance International has a Wiki page.

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

[24]

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):

[25]

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

[26]

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:

[27]

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

[28]

The Progressive Observer interviewed me here:

[29]

An interview in Spanish by Cristobal Cobo appears here:

[30]

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:

[31]

The response itself is here:

[32]

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

[33]

and here:

[34]

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

[35]

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

[36] (ED: wayback link)

(I believe Kirby is a frequent Wiki editor.)

I am also cited on the Religious Tolerance website:

[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]

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

[41]

(Lindtner is cite several times on Wiki.)

Islam Watch regular links to my articles and blog posts:

[42]

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

[43]

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.

[44]

Kenn Humphreys cites and links to my work:

[45]

Humphreys is cited in several places on Wiki.

Red Ice Creations has linked to several of my articles:

[46]

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:

[47]

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

[48]

Videos

Consciousness Media Network has a free online video of me:

[49] (registration required)

My videos can be found here:

[50]

One of my videos has over 100,000 views:

[51]

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

[52]

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

[53]

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

[54]

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:

[55]

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. [56]

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." [57]

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

[58]

[59]

Notice on this page concerning "India" the amount of articles for deletion, including mine: [60]

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

[61]

And on this one for "Team/Vishnaism":

[62]

Critical Sources

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

[63]

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:

[64]

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

[65]

"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.

[66]

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)

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" [67] :

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:

[68]

[69]

[70]

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.

[71] —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" [72] 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. [73]. jbolden1517^Talk 23:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

found the original [74] jbolden1517^Talk 00:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)