Jump to content

Talk:Acharya S/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14

Sock/meat puppetry?

Looking at the style/content of the above and SPA edits to article the SPAs appear to possibly some/all be Meatpuppets/Sockpuppets of the same 1 possibly 2 users. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Personal name

I have changed the name in the lede of the article to the form with "D.M." because that is clearly the more commonly used version of the name at this time. Given that this is both the article subject's preference and the more commonly used form, it is the appropriate form to receive first position. See also WP:IDENTITY. I am surprised that this has apparently been overlooked in the discussions to date.

What form should appear in the lead is a separate question from whether the full name should be mentioned later in the article. That is a closer question, although my personal preference is to accommodate the subject's preference in borderline cases. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

That's fine as long as we have support for the common name. The five or six refs on this talk page are all full name not D.M. Are the refs for D.M. more numerous and indicative that D.M. is the common name? Capitalismojo (talk) 22:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
User:Newyorkbrad, sorry but that's not fine. We had a RFC and we have WP:FULLNAME, which overrides WP:IDENTITY in first mention in lead. Look at similar pseudonymous authors' articles; we don't hide stagename/penname/pseudonym using peoples' birth/real names in lead first mention if they are documented in sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
The RfC did not focus specifically on how the name should be featured in the lead and hence is not dispositive, in my opinion, on that issue. There is some tension within different parts of the MOS on how to handle this situation, which I favor resolving in favor of the article subject's preference, within reason, on BLP type grounds. (Although I don't say this is what's happening here, sometimes there is an air of reflexively opposing changes requested by a BLP subject regardless of their merit, which I find troubling.) My main source for the most usual form of the name is the subject's own publications. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
The RfC did not focus specifically on how the name should be featured in the lead. This is exactly what was discussed. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Reviewing the RfC, In ictu seems correct: there was consensus on using the FULLNAME. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
User:Newyorkbrad, User:Capitalismojo in this case then I find it unusual to have any individual editor override the specific question and result of an RFC without instituting a subsequent RFC to make an exception to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
You are correct, the RfC represents the consensus. I would suggest you revert the lead to the consensus as decided by the RfC. If others would like to start a new RfC to change the lead to "D.M." we could consider that. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh no, not this again! I agree with User:Newyorkbrad, see also my comments above. Raquel Baranow (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok, 2 users want to overturn an RFC result without having a new RFC. Again I find it unusual to have any individual editor override the specific question and result of an RFC without instituting a subsequent RFC to make an exception to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies. Raquel Baranow, do you understand the principle/purpose of having RFCs? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
@Raquel when you say "see also my comments above" are you talking about the legal threat stuff or some other section? Capitalismojo (talk) 22:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
My general opinion is that this issue has been decided by the RfC. Again if NYB or others wish to begin a new RfC that is always an option. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The closing of the RfC said this: "There is a clear consensus to include the real name in the lead and footnotes. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC) I see no policy based reason to set aside this consensus. The lead should be restored. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@Armbrust: does seem little point in having RFC's if one user comes along and ignores the result. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

This article reads like it was written by biased critics who have never read the authors work, have an anti-Acharya S agenda to defame and degrade her and her work. Acharya S has stated several times that she has never used her real name in public and absolutely does not ever want it used. Those who keep reposting it here should be banned from editing this article as they're likely Christians out to shore-up their faith and euphoria with their war on the secular world. Those above who elected to post her full name ... let me guess, Christians &/or others who've never read her work and are not aware that she does not want it used and are also not aware that she has already suffered a kidnapping due to privacy issues just like this. Footnotes 1 & 2 are Christian apologists and so are many others here.

This is reckless endangerment and Wikipedia and editors here should be sued.

Here is what Acharya S has stated on this issue:

"Just an FYI - I HAVE NEVER REVEALED MY FULL NAME IN PUBLIC. If you see a site claiming to know my "real name," do not believe it - and do not send me familiar "howdy, yada, yada" messages using it. The attempts at outing my personal information are entirely against my will by typical disrespecters of persons, and are obviously designed to endanger me and my family." - Acharya S

"Dear friends: If ever you see someone pretending to know my "real name," please feel free to ignore that person. I have never revealed my first name publicly, and anyone pretending to know my real name is doing so fallaciously. In most cases, what people believe is my real name is being used in order to abuse, terrorize and bully me into submission. I don't appreciate the contemptuous familiarity AT ALL. To those who think they know my real name, no, you don't. You have heard an internet rumor but nothing from me. Those who are using what they think is my real name in internet writings are doing so unethically and with hostility against my person. That sort of poor character should not be given any credence or credibility."

"I have been advised by LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES not to disclose ANY personal information, because I was the victim of VIOLENT CRIME that included the felonious abduction of my small child. So, any and all attempts at publicizing what is believed to be my real name will be construed as a form of TERRORISM and BULLYING. " - Acharya S

"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@yahoo.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." - Acharya S

https://www.facebook.com/acharyasanning/posts/709849762361439

http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=28736#p28736

Posting her name against her will is harassment and abuse. Any and all mentions of her name should be removed at once. This is disgusting and I cannot believe this has been allowed to happen at all. JoseAziz78 (talk) 18:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It does seem kind of rude for Wikipedia to insist on using her full name when she's specifically asked for that not to happen.--InfiniteBratwurst (talk) 22:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

What are conspiracy theorists

and who has the prerogative of interpretation? The negative term conspiracy theorist is used to discredit people for their work by avoiding to challenge specific parts of a theory and range of subjects is becoming even broader. All you need for a conspiracy are two people or more. You can believe there are lots of conspiracies going on in your neighborhood on a daily basis. But what exactly makes a person becoming a conspiracy theorist. Where is the measuring scale? "Her presentation of Christianity as a "conspiracy" has drawn positive attention from other conspiracy theorists" Is that a citation from the following book source? I don't think so but I cannot review since I dont have access to the book. As I said in Daniele Ganser talk I would not call anybody a conspiracy theorist as long its not a citation of a reliable source and the opinion remains by the author. I tend for removal of the "conspiracy theorist" term since I believe at this time we have to handle personal opinions based on ideologies here. What do you think?Spearmind (talk) 00:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Professor Dick Harrison, a Swedish professor of history, has referred to the self-published non-academic CMT proponents as "conspiracy theorists". That does not mean Wikipedia has to repeat it, but it's at least an indication that it's not just the opinion of some Wikipedia editors.Jeppiz (talk) 19:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Please provide a source.Spearmind (talk) 20:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
There is no word in English "conspiration", do you mean "conspiracy"? Capitalismojo (talk) 20:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes of course, just corrected it.Spearmind (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

A bio of Dorothy Murdock

Maurice Casey obviously hates and disrespects Acharya S by (among other things) not using her most common names (maybe so no one will Google it correctly and find her writings or Facebook page): D.M Murdock and Acharya S.
Here's what she says about Maurice Casey.
Of the five reviews of Casey's book at Amazon, here's a quote from a two-star review: Jesus: Evidence and ARGUMENT or MYTHICIST MYTHS? is supposed to be an academic piece of work by maurice but contrary to the title there is no evidence for his assumptions and his arguments in this book are several times anything but scholary. if he wasnt so arrogant and full of contempt i would have liked this book much more. Raquel Baranow (talk) 02:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
"obviously hates" and amazon reviews??? really ?? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
This is an academic work published by T&T Clark. It's known for publishing academic works since 1821, specifically in the religous academic field. RS. Capitalismojo (talk) 05:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
The Amazon reviews have no bearing. Please go to WP:RS/N and get a determination whether this source is good enough for this purpose. Be patient for there is no rush. Jehochman Talk 07:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
There's a discussion about this now on the RS/N[2] but like I said, she doesn't use the name "Dorothy" so it's just going to confuse readers and serves to "out" someone who chose to use a pen name to avoid harassment. Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Raquel Baranow (talk), I appreciate your many post to this talk page, and your contribution to the RS Noticeboard. I would also appreciate if you would allow both time and space for other editors to comment on the validity of arguments and sources in the above discussion. It will not benefit this discussion if all the editors here move their arguments to the RS Noticeboard. Thank you. Ism schism (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Ism, thank you for bringing forward this source. Your action is helping to clarify matters. Jehochman Talk 17:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
This to me seems very reminiscent of similar controversy at Stoya where a "reliable" source posited Stoya's true name -- and was wrong, but kept getting put back in. Just going by Facebook there is a "Murdock" having that first name who is a machine operator at Kellogg's, another one he Board of Trustees of Trinity Oaks Chrisitian Academy, another owning a Sundance Properties, and others with various high schools and universities. Here's one who died year before last in Atlanta and another the year before in North Carolina and just this year in Louisville. The point of all this being (as to the live ones) how far are we willing to go to expose those who are not this writer but share the name possibly errantly claimed for this writer? Pandeist (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Please read the material in the ref. This is a bio of the subject of this article written in an academic book. There is no confusion. This is, I believe, the 4th 5th reliable source we have for the proper name. So, no, this is not at all reminiscent of your Stoya controversy. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
The two paragraphs are libelous and Acharya S says so on her Forum.[3] The ref has no place in a BLP. Ism schism, should I cross-post this to the RS/N? Raquel Baranow (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
there is nothing libelous in saying that someone has performed poor scholarship when they have performed poor scholarship. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
It's libelous (and unscholarly) because, as Acharya wrote in the ref on her Forum,[4] Maurice Casey did not refer to her latest (revised) book that does have references. Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
It is not libelous to say that someone who has a long history of unscholarly work has a long history of unscholarly work, even if the most recent version has "footnotes" to long outdated materials that actual scholars view only as historical and not acurate.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Raquel Baranow, please - if you want to use Free Thought Nation, then post on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard on how to use "Free Thought Nation." I will respect their decision. Thank you. Ism schism (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I see that my comment was hatted at the RS/N and saw Jehochman's comment too, *sigh* Raquel Baranow (talk) 14:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Jehochman edited those comments and hatted them. Raquel Baranow, please post on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard specifically on how to use "Free Thought Nation." You have to talk about one source at a time on that page. I will respect their decision. Thank you. Ism schism (talk) 14:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Biography of living persons

Hello. The subject of this article does not want to be called "Dorothy" so please let's not do it. The fact that a couple sources use this name is not enough to overcome the subjects statement that mis-naming her is insulting and thus a probable violation of WP:BLP. Please discuss and address why it is so important to add "Dorothy". There should be some sort of over-riding importance to over-rule the subject's right to name herself, or to keep her first name a secret if she so wishes. I don't see any such arguments on this page. A majority of reliable sources use "D.M." If this is legitimately in dispute, it could be mentioned with proper sourcing some place else in the article rather than in the lede. Jehochman Talk 02:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

flat out rubbish. it is not a violation of BLP to state a person's name is their name. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
The person claims this name is wrong. Mis naming somebody is a BLP violation. If you persist you will get in trouble. You need to state a better reason than just calling it flat out rubbish. Jehochman Talk 06:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't see this as a BLP violation. Reliable sources, including apparently the person themselves, have used the name Dorothy. It is out in the public domain and Wikipedia is a compendium of publicly available knowledge. What exactly is achieved by excluding the name? --regentspark (comment) 13:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Links? I haven't seen them. It's not what a couple cherry picked reliable sources have said that matters. What matters is (1) what the person themselves wants to be called, now, (2) what the majority of reliable sources use, (3) some other stated reason to disregard point 1. WP:BLP says not to include contentious material without proper sourcing. Apparently, the name is contentious by the subjects own statement. It's causing her stress. Therefore, it is a WP:BLP issue. We should respect her right to name herself unless there's a very good reason to disregard her wishes, and strong sourcing. Jehochman Talk 13:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Your point 1) is absolutely wrong. That someone wants to be known by a vanity name has no impact on the encyclopedic presentation of their actual name. your 2) is a strawman, other than indicating that her name is/was Dorothy we do refer to her by her commonly known stage name. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
What's your source for her real name? How many times do I need to ask for links to get a proper answer? The subject herself denies that to be her real name. Just because some other author makes a mistake in a footnote doesn't mean we import that incorrect info into Wikipedia. Jehochman Talk 14:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Good question. Per the article, there is this but that doesn't seem particularly reliable. The second reference is to a book by Murdock and, presumably, she declares her Acharya S. identity there. Can we verify the exact text used in that book? And are there other sources, reliable ones, that link Murdock and Acharya S.? If there is strong sourcing linking the two then I don't see why we can't include the name in the article whether or not the person likes it. If there isn't, then we should probably err on the side of caution. --regentspark (comment) 17:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
She has openly declared that she is "D. M. Murdock", so there is no dispute on that much. What she has denied is claims about what the initials stand for. This has been a matter of dispute on this talk page for years. --RL0919 (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
"Dorothy" is not the name she wants to be known as. (No dispute about "D. M.") She says she has been harassed because of her occupation (see her Facebook and blog linked above). Maybe a few early publications or her high school yearbook has another name that (for whatever reason) she denies is hers but she doesn't want that name used anymore. WP:BLPNAME should be the end of the discussion: 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) 18:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Except that she is not a private individual. She is a public author, seeks publicity for her works, and is apparently of sufficient public notability that she merits a Wikipedia page. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Lawyers will often argue the law and a jury or the judge will either ignore the law or interpret or construe the law's intention or spirit. In this case, the spirit of the WP:BLPNAME law should protect individuals, whether "private" or not. Raquel Baranow (talk) 19:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
The "spirit" of the law is conveyed in the introductory sentence of the section "Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event." - that someone who happens to be going about their day to day life without seeking publicity and are sucked up into some noteworthy event should not then have their private life broadcast. That "spirit" is clearly not the case here - the individual has actively gone before the public for peronal promotion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
She is a "private individual" as opposed to a public official. See also WP:BLPPRIVACY: With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object. Raquel Baranow (talk) 21:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Um. This argument does not fly at all. She may not be a public 'official' but - as the author of books, the proponent of a controversial theory, and the maintainer of a website pushing that theory - she definitely is a public person. If D.M. Murdock or Dorothy Murdock are associated in the public domain and in reliable sources, then not including it here is no longer a BLP issue and makes no sense whatsoever. The question asked above is, and I haven't seen an answer yet, where are these reliable sources? --regentspark (comment) 16:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

We've had this discussion. There has been an RfC. The end result was and remains full name will be used. Start another RfC if you disagree. Capitalismojo (talk)

To remind everyone: The closing of the RfC said this: "There is a clear consensus to include the real name in the lead and footnotes. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC) " Capitalismojo (talk) 22:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Sources, as requested. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Copan, Paul; Craig, William Lane (2012). Come Let Us Reason: New Essays in Christian Apologetics. B&H Publishing Group. pp. 170–. ISBN 9781433672200. Retrieved 20 February 2015.
  • Brooks, Christopher W. (2014-06-01). Urban Apologetics: Why the Gospel is Good News for the City. Kregel Publications. pp. 120–. ISBN 9780825442902. Retrieved 20 February 2015.
  • Colavito, Jason (2014-03-24). Jason and the Argonauts through the Ages. McFarland. pp. 260–. ISBN 9780786479726. Retrieved 20 February 2015.

I think it's very hypocritical that people who don't use their real names on Wikipedia (I often wonder why) try to "out" Acharya S. See also subsequent harassment at Gamergate . . . this type harassment may be what Acharya S is trying to avoid. Raquel Baranow (talk) 23:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it is bad form to be calling fellow editors "hypocritical". Please strike. And I for one, have not published books, put out a website to promote my books, nor participated in the podcast circuit to promote my books, so even your analysis is fatally flawed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The references mention Murdock in passing as an author, not in the context of a biography of Murdock. That's not adequate to overcome the subject's claim that the name is wrong, which Jehochman reports is the case. It seems the better choice is to go with D.M. Murdock. Tom Harrison Talk 00:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I have never heard of something like that. "Not in the context of a biography"? What rule or policy does that come from? These are RS, no one disputes that. They state a fact. That these are not full blown biographies of Murdock means nothing, some people are not notable enough to have books written about them and receive mere mentions in other books. Wikipedia is full of them. Capitalismojo (talk)
He is talking about a passing mention versus a source that is focused on the topic. Passing mentions aren't worth much. Jehochman Talk 00:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
This is a very minor fringe author. Aside from her self promotion, no credible/reliable sources spend much time writing about her, other than passing mentions. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
If you are saying this isn't even a public person, we should place a higher emphasis on protecting her privacy. If she was a notorious criminal or a politician (sorry for being redundant), we'd worry less about privacy. Since she's a minor figure, I think we should just take her word for it that her name isn't Dorothy, and move on. It doesn't matter what her name is as far as a user who wants to understand the topic. They just need to be able to identify her. Since she commonly goes by "D.M." or "Archaya S." those monikers are sufficient to identify. It's not like there's another "D.M. Murdock" running around who could be confused with this one. Jehochman Talk 05:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
No. She is not discussed at length because she is such a minor fringe author. This issue has already been discussed, and consensus is to state her name. That's the way it works. Ism schism (talk) 07:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Where is the reliable source that tells us her name? I am not interested in passing mentions. The person herself says that this is not her name. You need something good to overrule that. By the way, I don't give a damn about the contents of this article. I'm here strictly as a matter of BLP enforcement. Next time you or anybody else on this thread restores the disputed content, I will block you. As far as past discussions, you should link to it, but there's a current discussion here that hasn't finished yet, and there are a substantial number of knowledgeable editors who agree that the name is contentious and that a good source for it hasn't been presented yet. Jehochman Talk 13:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
You mean what other sources than the three listed above? *Copan, Paul; Craig, William Lane (2012). Come Let Us Reason: New Essays in Christian Apologetics. B&H Publishing Group. pp. 170–. ISBN 9781433672200. Retrieved 20 February 2015.
it is great nonsense to state that there must something other than a "passing mention" that someone has chosen an obvious pen name for the name change to be included. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Leave off the rhetoric. All it does is convince me to be suspicious that you are pushing an agenda. The subject says this isn't her name so why would be use these two passing mentions to overrule her? Don't you think the subject would know her own name? Has anybody reliable ever written an article or a book review about Archaya S.? Jehochman Talk 14:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that question would be addressed at WP:AFD -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
We all know that a ham sandwich with two passing mentions would survive AfD. She's a very minor author. When balancing her desire for privacy versus the public interest in knowing what her real first name might be, I think the balance tips strongly towards privacy. Apparently some folks view her work as blasphemy, and are working to silence her, intimidate her, sort of like GamerGate. We are not going to be any part of that. Jehochman Talk 14:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
TRPoD, were you arguing that the subject's full name be included (adding content), and are now suggesting that the article be deleted (removing all content)? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
(e/c)"She's a very minor author. When balancing her desire for privacy versus the public interest in knowing what her real first name might be, I think the balance tips strongly towards privacy. " That is a position I respect, as long as she is not putting forth new works which she seeks to publicize. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
It's not as if the references cited for her name say they have determined what it is after careful investigation and asking the subject(!). They mention the name in passing as that of an author whose work they go on to discuss. If there were nothing else, that would be fine. But if the subject has told Wikipedia (through OTRS?) that the name is incorrect, then we should use "D.M." Tom Harrison Talk 14:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Here's where she made the statements. These aren't ironclad, but nobody has suggested that they are fake:

At http://www.truthbeknown.com/ she has stated her names. I think it's a basic human right to name oneself, and she's well known under the two names documented in the article. The Dorothy form is used in a small minority of sources, and she apparently has stated that its wrong and she doesn't like it. Jehochman Talk 14:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The "D.M." is not disputed - every time it gets changed to the full name, she writes to OTRS saying we have it wrong. Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

This long discussion could end up as an example on the infamous List of lamest edit wards. Yes, BLPNAME state we should not name individuals whose name is not widely disseminated. That's not even remotely the case here. On her own website, she gives "D.M. Murdock/ Acharya S" so I guess nobody disputes giving both names here. The remaining issue then is whether to give her first name or not. That name, too, is widely found on the Internet. What is more, it is given in books by some WP:RS academics who criticize her books. I don't see how anyone can claim it has not been widely disseminated. Honestly, I'm not quite sure what the issue is here.Jeppiz (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Jehochman has yet to precidely describe why this neutral and reliably sourced information should be eliminated from the article. He has suggested two possible reasons. The first as a courtesy to the article's subject. The second is a vague invocation of WP:BLP policy. What precisely is the violation? We don't know.
There is no policy that demands we edit BLPs to be more pleasing to the subjects, on the contrary we are to follow where the RS refs lead. The notion that "I think it's a basic human right..." therefore ignore we must ignore the RS refs is absurd.
Invoking BLP policy (and threatening banning) is impossibly TE absent an actual identified BLP problem. What precisely is the BLP violation in including a person's full name in their biography? The question answers itself. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Self-identity

Isn't the real issue here the fact that the subject denies it is her first name, which is an important aspect of personal identity? If a subject denied something that wasn't identity related, and plenty of reliable sources said otherwise, it's a no brainer that the reliable sources trump their denials. For a trivial example, if someone claims they were born in 1980 while the preponderance of the sourcing indicates they were really born in 1976, their denial of their 1976 birth date would likely be ignored. A more serious example would be when a subject claims they didn't commit crime X, and reliable sources document they were indeed convicted of crime X. However, when it comes to BLPs and self-identity issues, there is precedent to affording some accommodation. For example, when it comes to gender identity, a subject's expressed preference for being known as a "he" or a "she" overrides all the reliable sourcing proving otherwise. If you take a look at the Gender Identity essay under the subsection I'm the King of Spain, it mentions "Note that Wikipedia considers self-identification (and not others' identification) to be definitive with regard to several other matters, such as religion and sexuality, not just gender." Is a person's expressed preference for their chosen personal name not a core self-identity issue? Under "Self-identification," that essay also refers to the BLP policy consideration that "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment", and that on 9 April 2009 the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees passed a resolution urging that special attention be paid to "neutrality, verifiability and human dignity" (emphasis added). Ergo, one might think the spirit of Wikipedia's BLP policy and the concept of self-identification would give some preference to a person's expression of personal self-identity in their first name as a basic human right, as opposed to other BLP disputes/claims that are non-identity based (like the birth year or felony conviction scenarios). Should we be taking this into account in our analysis of the issue? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I do not see how the denial of being a 39 year old is in any manner differentiated from your "identity" than the denial that your previous name. And from an encyclopedic frame, the swap of "identity" would seem to me be of significant import in understanding the subject.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
With regard to encyclopedic frame, that line of thinking would overrule affording someone gender identity preference, right? For years they say they are a man, then suddenly the swap and they say they are a woman, etc. Yet, we do afford that aspect of self-identity to subjects as a matter of personal dignity and basic human rights. With regard to denying being 39 and denying your first name, one is something society doesn't give you protection for or consider a basic human right, while the other is central to your personal identity and you can get it changed (legally) to suit your preferences if you want to. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
No, addressing someone by their preferred gender is not stating that we do not mention that they were previously addressed as a different gender. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
In keeping with that thinking, we could put something minor in the article mentioning that a couple authors referred to the subject as "Dorothy" in passing and that the subject says this is incorrect. Then we style the lede to say "D.M. Murdock" in accord with her preferred identity. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 04:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
If any of the denials are in a form that is considered reliably authenticated as her, then yes, something along the lines of "Multiple sources have reported her first name as Dorothy 1 2 3 4, a claim which she refutes.5" — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk • contribs) 05:22, 23 February 2015‎ (UTC)

For relevant discussions elsewhere, see also:

—BarrelProof (talk) 11:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

  • To avoid confusion we should report that some sources call her Dorothy but that she disputes this. The lede should remain D.M. This exactly reflects what we know and gives the reader complete transparency. It's not up to us to decide The Truth. Jehochman Talk 12:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
While we don't determine capitol "T" truth, we do write biographies. In this case Dorothy Murdock is the name for the subject, reliable sources also let us know that her pen name is Acharya S. If reliable sources are found that state she prefers to go my D. M. Murdock, then that also maybe included. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
No, it has not been determined that her name is Dorothy Murdock. Some writer doesn't trump the subject's own declaration. Sometimes reliable sources make mistakes or are outdated. The fact that "Dorothy" is out there is a relevant fact that we can report, in context, with the subject's denial. There is no consensus to change the lede to "Dorothy", and doing so would be a needlessly hostile action to the subject, a violation of her human dignity. We can not do that, per WP:BLP. Jehochman Talk 13:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
BLP's must use Reliable sources.I have Reliable Sources that back up my claim. What reliable sources back up your claim? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
BLP's must use reliable sources when adding content that is challenged, but the BLP human rights and identity issues here are broader than that and the subject has put in OTRS tickets saying that "Dorothy" is not her first name. It's an oversimplification to take the position that this is a simple battle of dueling secondary reliable sources. Plus, whatever the "D" stands for, even if the lede says "D. M. Murdock", technically that still doesn't contradict any of the sources that have been presented. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
So, you have no reliable sources to back up your claims. What you are suggesting is Original Research. Ism schism (talk) 15:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
You're trying to make this be a simple issue limited to a battle between dueling sources; what you are suggesting is unlikely to gain traction with editors who are looking at the broader considerations. And whatever the "D" stands for, even if the lede says "D. M. Murdock", technically that doesn't contradict any of the sources that you have presented. The initial of her first name is still "D" regardless of whether your sources say "Dorothy," "Denice," "Delores," etc. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Without reliable sources, your information is just Original Research, and not suitable for BLP. Thank you. Ism schism (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
It is not original research to deliberately use the initial "D" instead of any given first name in the lede where it says "D.M. Murdock". Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • There is no requirement that we include information from any source if there is a reasonable doubt that it is incorrect. It is not uncommon for error to happen and be copied into other works. (We know that this is true because it happens everyday when incorrect information from Wikipedia is reused.) For a BLP the standard is even higher, and information that is challenged by the subject of an article must be carefully considered when they state that it is incorrect or good reason not to use it. So, we need to either leave out the name Dorothy, or include it a manner that makes it clear that the link to the name is not conclusive. Additionally, since she is known by the pen name and she herself makes the link to the name with initials, this is the name that should be in lede. If it is absolutely necessary for completeness to include references from people who only use the name Dorothy when discussing her, then perhaps the name could be included in a note or slight mention in the article. But if they also use her other names, I see no reason that a name that she does not use needs to be highlighted in the article. The insistence on promoting Dorothy in the lede or other places in the article (at best an alternative name for her writing on this topic) approaches being creepy at worst, and investigative journalism at best. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 16:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
The information, that her name is Dorothy Murdock, has been verified through the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. If you have disagreements, then you need to come up with reliable sources that back your claims. Anything not backed up by reliable sources is Original Research. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Your response entirely misses the point of my comment. There is no requirement that we include any specific content from a reliable source just because it is a reliable source!!! Information being in a reliable source does not mean that it must be in Wikipedia. Every day we make decisions about whether content is relevant enough to be included and also about the manner that it should be present to be as accurate as possible. With a BLP, the subject of the article has every right to be heard about whether the information about them is wrong. When someone has not been widely know by a name, a mention is short biography in a book, particularly by someone who is could be biased on the topic, needs to weighed for the relevance of inclusion. So, there is no automatic inclusion in the lede or title just because it can be found in a reliable source a few times. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 17:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • For interested editors, the subject's complaint can be verified by an OTRS volunteer at ticket 2010010110011483. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm no fan of not including publicly available information on Wikipedia. If something is out there, there doesn't seem much point in removing it from here. Depending on how well known or important the name is, it diminishes Wikipedia if the information is missing. However, I'm no longer sure about this. By all appearances, the name Dorothy seems reliable enough. But, and this is the question worth asking, is it absolutely relevant that we include it? Her writings are not published under that name and whether D stands for Daphna or Dorothy or Douglas doesn't seem necessary for researching her views on Christianity or on anything else. Neither is it the case that she has a second notable life as a Dorothy Murdock. Clearly, we have to include D. M. Murdock because she has published under that name, but what exactly do we lose by dropping the Dorothy? --regentspark (comment) 20:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The more that I think about it, the more that I don't want to use it. I want to point out that the name mentioned in the Wikipedia article will get considerable more looks than the name buried in these reliable sources. So essentially we will be promoting the use of a name and heavily influence its use. The BLP policy exists to make sure that the content that we create covers the topic in a way that does give undue weight to a piece of information and influence the world's opinion of something beyond it's relevance. The prominent use of the name in articles from these minor sources doesn't follow the spirit of BLP. That is my current thinking. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Spirit of BLP policy? I suggest we just follow the actual policy and don't get sidetracked on what each editor may or may not consider the "spirit" of a policy. I, for example, think the "spirit of BLP policy" is to be extremely accurate and fair, but not to allow the subject (or followers) to improperly edit and influence the article. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
If the subject has submitted an OTRS ticket complaining that "Dorothy" isn't her real first name, is that improperly influencing the article? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I must wonder at how the various sources claiming to know her unpublished name can make this claim. Where is it written how they know this? Perhaps some earnest guessed made it up, and put it in Wikipedia or elsewhere on the web, and it became "fact" that way, copied by every aftercomer. Pandeist (talk) 00:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
And by unpublished you mean aside from multiple RS books? Capitalismojo (talk) 00:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
You may not be aware, but this discussion has been going on for years here. As I recall from those discussions, some of the primary sources for this have been brought up, linked, and debated (see archive). Murdock has in her writings talked a great deal about her participating in a Classical Studies program in Greece. This is the program. The program is sponsored by Lake Forest College. They publish the list the full names of all the "other schools participants" at the college's site. Easy enough to check but arguably not suitable for use here because it is a primary not a secondary source ref. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
By the way, the direct link (which I have not supplied) to her full name as a participant at the college has been used here at talk before and is apparently used in other wikipedia language mainspace articles currently. Academics generally don't conceal their names, activities, and accomplishments so thats why I think our academic refs and books are aware of and use her full name and activities.Capitalismojo (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Page protection?

A couple of questions:

  • Who protected the page so that it cannot now be edited even by editors with reviewer status?
  • Why was the page protected with a lede that has "D.M. Murdock" rather than the result of the RFC which was to use the (then) two reliable academic sources givin the name "Dorothy"? And what notification was given to RFC participants of decision to overrule the RFC?
  • Since the publication of the Maurice Casey book we now have a third academic source which both uses "Dorothy" and also gives a review of the author's work. This source needs to be included in the article. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I would not worry about these matters. The discussions at BLP/N and RSN were vigorous and, I think, helpful. I'd suggest that there is a reasonable expectation of consensus. There is no deadline and at some point the article page will reflect that consensus. The protection is something that allows edit wars to cool. They are not a permanent condition and not something to be concerned with in my opinion. FWIW. Capitalismojo (talk) 05:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
It appears User:Newyorkbrad (confirm please) changed the lead contrary both to User:Armbrust's RFC close Talk:Acharya_S/Archive_12#Request_for_comment and WP:FULLNAME guideline which is the relevant guideline for leads. WP:COMMONNAME applies to titles not leads which are always WP:FULLNAME. It's evident that the author does not want to be referred to by her WP:FULLNAME.. as clear from the frenetic activity of canvassing, off-wp forum activity, at least meatpuppets and possibly sock puppets. But nevertheless WP:FULLNAME is the relevant guideline. And aside from this BLP/N and RSN have not discussed the Casey (T&T Clark) source which is several ranks higher up - this is the big UK academic religion publisher, a more reliable publisher is not going to be found. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi In ictu oculi and others. As clearly indicated in the log and history, I protected the page. It was merited based on the comments I left in the log, and others that I did not mention (such as edit warring). As for which version was protected, I'm sure I protected The Wrong Version. My apologies, but per PPOL and administrative procedures, we typically must stay completely neutral in the case and protect the article in the current state, rather than a preferred state. If that does not sufficiently answer your questions please link my username here for notification or leave a note on my talk page. Thank you. - Rjd0060 (talk) 11:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
User:Rjd0060 no problem, but can you yourself restore the lead as per (a) stable version (b) the RFC and (c) WP MOS BIO guidelines on WP:FULLNAME. If you cannot do we need a second RFC to enforce the result of the first RFC?
Also can you please unlock the page at least for editors with reviewer status. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately I will have to decline both requests. As for the latter (unprotection), you may request a second opinion at WP:RFUP but it is highly unlikely to be unprotected (even modified to the level you describe) as that would still allow for edit-warring amongst the users who have differing opinions. Rjd0060 (talk) 02:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Maurice Casey

Content from (finally) the following reliable source needs to be included: In ictu oculi (talk) 05:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC) Maurice Casey Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths? T&T Clark ‎2014 p21-22

DOROTHY MURDOCK - Dorothy Murdock, who writes also under the name of Acharya Sanning, claims to have received a B.A. degree in Classics, Greek Civilization, from Franklin and Marshall College, after which she completed postgraduate studies at the American School of Classical Studies at Athens.50 She also claims to have been brought up as a liberal Christian in the Congregationalist Church... liable to attack a fundamentalist version of Christianity rather than critical scholarship, of which she seems to be largely unaware. The major faults in Murdock's work include her anti-Christian outlook, a lack of any proper sense of reality, failure to give adequate references, ... The first three faults are well illustrated by her comments on the Council of Nicaea in 325 ce. This was a major council of Christian bishops, but Murdock alleges that it was also attended by 'the leaders of many other cults, sects and religions including those of Apollo, Demeter/Ceres, Dionysus/Bacchus/Iasios, Janus, Jupiter/Zeus. For this amazing assertion, she gives no evidence whatever.

Please read WP:UNDUE. Wikipedia is not a collection of facts. We try to write coherent articles that are neutral. Several editors here are obsessed with criticizing this author. Apparently she is viewed as a Christian heretic. People are entitled to their view, but not to use Wikipedia to turn biographies into attack pages. Jehochman Talk 09:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

If she is viewed as a christian heretic, then that is how we present her. but actually, what she is primarily viewed as is a purveyor of pseudo-history/conspiracy theories. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
User:Jehochman I see you are an admin, but judging by your comments "Apparently she is viewed as a Christian heretic" I question your competence in this subject area and your neutrality, that evidently is not how the source describes the subject, so the supplied information"Apparently she is viewed as a Christian heretic" reflects Jehochman's views not Maurice Casey's. It is also technically wrong. This author is viewed in reliable sources (which mean obviously academic sources) as cited above, or as User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom correctly paraphrases a purveyor of pseudo-history/conspiracy theories. Not "heretic", that is your vocabulary and I think you should recuse yourself from involvement if those are the terms in which you see the discussion. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


Acharya S never uses her first name (if it is her first name) or "Sanning:. She says in her forum that Casy is wrong, he did not look at her revised work, which is properly referenced and she says he is libelous and "full of bile": If he did know my work, rather than being a dishonest poseur full of bile, Casey would also know that I've backed up pretty much every major and many minor contentions since that book was written over 15 years ago. Hence, I do NOT rely on secondary sources. In fact, I'm quite sure that I read more primary sources in their original languages than does Casey, or he would be FAR better educated about the history of religion and mythology than he is. It is HE who is relying on outdated and specious sources in trying to uphold PATENT FAIRYTALES from antiquity. . . . Maurice Casey is yet another rabid believing libeler of persons desperately trying to shore up his cultic beliefs by whatever means. Raquel Baranow (talk) 14:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Im really astonished by attacks like "conspiracy theorist" without giving a reference too add the term to a real person. I think in the U.S. there is a lot of christian fundamentalism to find. Keep the article neutral.Spearmind (talk) 14:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
see the above source-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The problem with this page is that there is over-aggressive editing that disrupts the rational discussion of these issues. I don't know if she's a conspiracy theorist or not, but I do know that levelheaded discussion and good sources are needed before saying something like that in an article. On the flip side, if she's a crank, the article has got to say so. We can't misrepresent this author as something she isn't. My recommendation to all sides is to slow down. Don't edit war. Use WP:RSN and WP:NPOV/N to get outside opinions as needed to work through these issues. Jehochman Talk 20:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree, particularly on the aggresive editing front. I'd only add that WP:BLP/N seems to get a lot of good independent eyes as well. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
My recommendation is to follow normal MOS:BIO guidelines and use only WP:RS reliable sources. Currently the page is not following MOSBIO and not allowing a source published by T&T Clark. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
An example of aggressive editing is the way In ictu oculi tries above to scare me away from this discussion.[5] Such hostility is totally unnecessary and unproductive. Jehochman Talk 14:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
User:Jehochman I'm afraid that would be further example of your non-neutrality here. You are welcome in an individual editor capacity but language "aggressive editing" "hostility" and the earlier comment of "Apparently she is viewed as a Christian heretic" about Maurice Casey, which bore no resemblence to the chunk of the Casey bio indicate you should not be using any admin tools in relation to this page. I restate that my recommendation is to follow normal MOS:BIO guidelines and use only WP:RS reliable sources. Currently the page is not following MOSBIO and not allowing a source published by T&T Clark. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I particularly find the use of the vocabulary "Christian heretic" disturbing. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Your presence is extremely frustrating on this talk page because you apply personal attacks at every juncture, disrupting any sort of reasonable conversation. I'm not interested in having a conversation with you. Jehochman Talk 15:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
You started off here by characterizing editors who wish to follow MOSBIO and WPRS as "obsessed" - please see WP:NPA In ictu oculi (talk) 04:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Village pump (policy) discussion concerning this article

User:Raquel Baranow has started the thread Author (BLP) uses pen name to not be harassed is now being outed with "real name" at the policy village pump. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit request

Under "Reception", suggest changing

As a rebuttal of Ehrman's critiques, Robert M. Price, Richard Carrier, D.M. Murdock, and others
to
As a rebuttal of Ehrman's critiques, Acharya S, Robert M. Price, Richard Carrier, and others
To make it clearer that the subject was involved. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit

This sentence: "Her theories have received negative commentaries from academic scholars.[7][8][9]" appears to be poorly-sourced contentious material about a living person. The sources[6][7][8] are blogs and a random link. However, I cannot remove it because the article is protected? I do not know any of the context of why it's protected. CorporateM (Talk) 18:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Bad refs and sentence in need of removal. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
per WP:FRINGE#Parity of sources saying that someone promotes fringe ideas that are not accepted by the mainstream academics when those ideas are not accepted by mainstream academics is not a BLP issue.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean. The refs are blogs. One might suggest the first blog, that of a prominent academic would be usable for his opinion. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Not a problem at all if it has refs, but currently does not and in its current state is too vague to be useful anyway. CorporateM (Talk) 03:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - generally Dorothy Murdock/Acharya S' theory's have not received direct attention from scholars per se because she is a fringe theorist below the academic comment threshold, however to the extent that specific theories are often repeated from other sources those theories generally have received negative comment. And Murdock/Acharya S has directly received negative commentaries from academic scholars. As with moon landing deniers and other fringe writers its relevant to bring in rejection of the collective theories even when the individual fringe writer is not taken seriously individually. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Can you please provide sources for these statements? CorporateM (Talk) 03:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 01:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support removing - these "sources" (risenjesus.com?) are insufficient. Diehard evangelical Christians are not objective sources on WP:BLP about authors of the Christ Myth Theory . Academics of any persuasion can comment on the theories themselves yes, but commenting on WP:BLP when they are so clearly biased, no. Including them is POV-pushing. As I said in the RfC, surely there are neutral reviewers available to use as sources who have no interest one way or the other. —МандичкаYO 😜 00:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Include EhrmanBlog - actually I think Bart Ehrman's comments are valuable even though he wrote them on his blog. He is a noted expert in this area and unlike other supposed experts does not have contradictory theological views. As I said above, criticism is perfectly warranted for BLP when it comes to things concerning research methods etc (eg the statue she says is at the Vatican of which Ehrman said does not exist). —МандичкаYO 😜 05:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
We need to remember that Dorothy Murdock is the victim of a plot by conspiring Christian extremist posing as scholars who are trying to defame her highly credible research. These same extremist are now using Wikipedia to try to damage her research by disclosing her first name to the public. Ism schism (talk) 18:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Cool conspiracy theory, or is it WP:TRUTH? Have you considered adding your discovery to the article page? Right now we don't have anything about this conspiracy nor anything that suggests that her research is anything but fringe. I look forward to hearing more. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Modify my sentence (after reading the EhrmanBlog cited above): Ehrman may not be an evangelical Christian but may not understand the anatomy of a rooster. See, Snood_(anatomy) (in turkeys snoods become erect when the bird is sexually aroused) and Caruncle_(bird_anatomy) (in roosters, also related to sexual arousal). Raquel Baranow (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Raquel Baranow is it okay to ask if are you in direct e-mail contact with Dorothy Murdock about this? In ictu oculi (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as is By 'parity of sources' rule (see WP:PARITY), articles about fringe theories and fringe theorists that are supported mainly by less than high quality sources, can have criticisms about them sourced from similar informal, less than high quality sources. Darx9url (talk) 14:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

RfC: should the result of previous RFC be restored?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The consensus is to include the name, thus the previous RFC should be followed. AlbinoFerret 13:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Should the result of previous RFC Talk:Acharya_S/Archive_12#Request_for_comment be restored? See above comment User:Rjd0060 "As for which version was protected, I'm sure I protected The Wrong Version. My apologies, but per PPOL and administrative procedures, we typically must stay completely neutral in the case and protect the article in the current state, rather than a preferred state". In ictu oculi (talk) 04:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Restore What's the reason that we should not comply with the previous RfC result? Noteswork (talk) 07:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Include The original RFC [9], RS Noticeboard [10], and the BLP Noticeboard [11] all say use first name and references as reliable - the consensus already exist. Thanks, Ism schism (talk) 12:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • include , if this RfC is solely about the WP:WRONGVERSION then restore to the lead per the previous consensus. My preference would be to also include an appropriately sourced statement that the subject contests the use of that name ( if the contesting can be done via a reliable source). If we are able to get into that level of detail, the content is probably more relevant in a section of the body on biography rather than lead itself. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Include full name into the lead. WP:FULLNAME is very clear about this — the subject of the article doesn't get to decide how her article looks. Also, following policy and not following subject's preferences, is NOT a WP:BLP violation — to even suggest that is to not understand WP:BLP. Darx9url (talk) 07:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Include Per previous RfC points and policy discussion above. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Exclude Restoring the Name is not necessary, the author uses a pen name for a reason: she does not want to be harassed, her privacy should be respected. Raquel Baranow (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
any actual policy to support your position? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy is the relevant document. It says "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. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value." (emphasis added). Since her real-name is included in a scholarly work, it seems to meet the exception criterion to include it here as being too important to readers to omit in favor of the BLP's privacy. CorporateM (Talk) 19:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)A
and it has been published in secondary sources other than news media such as the work of recognized experts. see Talk:Acharya_S#Maurice_Casey . and the passage that you quote is clearly talking about people who when going about their daily private life get caught up in events that become big, not about people who go on book tours and appear on podcasts promoting their works. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I hope this page is protected forever. Consensus here is like mob rule. AzureCitizen said it best with his post above: "Self identity". Raquel Baranow (talk) 23:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
@@TheRedPenOfDoom: That's exactly what I meant. The source is strong enough to over-rule any objection to it. CorporateM (Talk) 23:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Additionally these privacy rules are more about private people, such as victims of crime, whistleblowers, etc. It does not apply to authors and pen names. —МандичкаYO 😜 21:25, 16 March 2015 (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.

RfC: should content from Maurice Casey be included in the article?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The consensus is to include the content. AlbinoFerret 13:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Somewhat odd to have two unrelated questions running simultaneously on the same article, but both related to the active campaign by the bio subject to have critical scholarly reception excluded from the article. The new book by Maurice Casey for T&T Clark has been notified at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Maurice_Casey_reliable_for_Acharya_S._article.3F. Now should content from Casey be included in the article? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

not necessarily by the subject, but [12] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Most if not all legitimate scholars are contemptuous of the people who advocate such nonsense and we follow the sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
People who label the Christ Myth Theory as "such nonsense" have a large neutrality issue that contradicts WP policy. By the way, the idea that the earth was not flat was or revolved around the sun were also once dismissed as "such nonsense" by "all legitimate scholars." I would suggest you contribute on other articles where you can be neutral and thus helpful. —МандичкаYO 😜 05:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
you are quite quite off on a lot of things with that comment. People can hold personal non neutral opinions about subjects if they edit appropriately representing the sources. The sources are quite clear, her works make extraordinary claims and the reliable sources do not support them in the least - they contradict pretty much everything she attempts to assert. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Include There is no policy based reason I can see to exclude reliable academic source material. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. The RSN discussion has since been archived. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • EXCLUDE - but more info needed – summoned by bot. What does Maurice Casey actually WRITE about this author? Is it truly an objective analysis of her work, research methods, etc, or is it, as Raquel Baranow (talk · contribs) says above, simply a contemptuous assertion that the theory itself is all nonsense? If that is the case, per WP:BLP, it should NOT be included on her article, but could go in criticism of the Christ Myth Theory article. He certainly seems an academic source in his area of expertise, but there is also a conflict of interest as his entire living and belief system was, apparently, devoted to Christianity. If I as an author write books asserting that Mormonism is all invented and Joseph Smith was a fraud, would the correct source to criticize my work be a Mormon professor of theology at Brigham Young University? You can see the possible conflict of interest there. Surely there are better, more neutral sources and reviews of Acharya S's work if she merits a Wikipedia article. —МандичкаYO 😜 00:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I see his comments now. Absolutely should not be included; completely undue. His asserts that she is lying ("claims to have received a B.A. degree in Classics, Greek Civilization, from Franklin and Marshall College, after which she completed postgraduate studies at the American School of Classical Studies at Athens" and "She also claims to have been brought up as a liberal Christian in the Congregationalist Church") but he does not provide ANY evidence to the contrary! Where is the evidence that she never got a degree or is in fact lying about the way she was raised? Where are HIS adequate references on that? Surely if her real name is an open secret, this can be confirmed pretty quickly. With a little bit of snooping you could probably find out if there is anyone matching this description, or least demand her publisher confirm this information. Also his statement that she is "liable to attack a fundamentalist version of Christianity rather than critical scholarship" is just an opinion rather than actual evaluation, as is his statement that "major faults in Murdock's work include her anti-Christian outlook, a lack of any proper sense of reality" — These are just his way of dismissing her with no basis in academic critique. The comments that she does not cite references ARE appropriate, but he's already shown complete scorn for her without being objective so I really don't know how much value his contribution has. —МандичкаYO 😜 17:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
my interpretation of the above is "for works like those of Acharya S that critique christianity, only reliable sources published by non christians should be allowed "
is that what you are stating or can you clarify? because if that is what you are stating, please point out where there is any policy that might be interpreted to support such an approach.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
WP:NPOV WP:BLP: The RS who can reasonably take an objective approach to her work should be preferred as sources, as they are best suited to offer critique. When it comes to this area, yes, personal religion is important, because of this thing called "faith" that holds large influence over people. For example, she could expose documents hidden in caves and Vatican archives for 2,000 years, signed by every Pope ever, outlining the church conspiracy to create Jesus based on recycling pagan myths, and there are some people who, because of their own faith, would never, ever believe it and would dismiss it as a hoax or the devil at work. This is just the way it is. So this makes selecting sources different than other kinds of scholarly/scientific research that is based purely on proof. Certainly there are Christians who could take a reasonable and neutral approach to critique; that's why I asked earlier about what it was that Maurice Casey actually WROTE about Acharya, and whether he actually took a scholarly approach (pointing out factual errors, like Ehrman did) or simply ridiculed the whole concept as a bunch of garbage. —МандичкаYO 😜 22:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
The material from the academic source that in ictu oculi suggested is relevant appears in a box nearer the top of this talk page. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, I posted my comment above. —МандичкаYO 😜 17:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
User:Wikimandia "claims" just means claims. We cannot reject an academic source because it says someone claims something they do claim. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:57, 20 March 2015 (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.

Edit request

The first two links in the lede behind D. M. Murdock,[1][2] are left over from deleting the "real name" and can be deleted. (D.M. Murdock does not require refs because she is well-known as D.M. Murdock, see the biography of her works in the article.) Raquel Baranow (talk) 20:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, no. (regarding the [1][2] refs in lede) The past RfC, the discussions at noticeboards, and the RfC above indicate that the full name of the subject is likely the end point. Removing refs supporting that is unlikely. I suspect that rather than remove refs we will be in fact adding more refs. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
For now, the links are misleading and not necessary. We'll see what the future brings, I hope it's not more distress for D.M. Murdock and the unnecessary Name. Raquel Baranow (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Dorothy's name does need a reference, but its kind of a moot point. The Casey reference takes care of the citation for Dorothy Murdock. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "If the proposed edit might be controversial, discuss it on the protected page's talk page before using this template." -- the request template should be removed until it's clear there is consensus for the edit. It's plain that there is no such consensus. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
User:Nomoskedasticity why? who apart from Raquel Baranow opposes reliable but critical sources being added? In ictu oculi (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

There is consensus to use the name given in the sources

Talk:Acharya_S/Archive_12#Request_for_comment and the above RFC "RfC: should the result of previous RFC be restored?" both overwhelmingly say "the name should not have been removed. There were also RSN and BLPN resolutions (linked in the latest RFC) which concluded that it was reasonable to include as well. The consensus is that the name should be included. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, can anyone please give any reason why RFC RSN BLPN and sources should no be followed now? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

"There is consensus to use the name given in the sources"

The consensus knows absolutely NOTHING about her or her work and they are clearly oblivious to the fact that Acharya's child was abducted by thugs getting ahold of her private information. So, those of you hell-bent on pushing this issue will also be held responsible for the next attack.

The first name must removed. SHE HAS NEVER USED THAT NAME!!! What part of that do you not understand? Your sources for this are all Christian fundamentalists out to shore up their faith and bully her into submission to get her to shut up. Wikipedia should be absolutely ASHAMED for the crap that is being pulled her AGAIN by Ian.thomson and In ictu oculi and others too. The name was already removed but those with an agenda to smear her and out her private information as is the case with Ian thomson and In ictu oculi. They should be banned from working on this Acharya S page at all. They are Christians trying to intentionally put Acharya S in a bad light. This entire article reads like it was written by critics.

"I have been advised by LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES not to disclose ANY personal information, because I was the victim of VIOLENT CRIME that included the felonious abduction of my small child. So, any and all attempts at publicizing what is believed to be my real name will be construed as a form of TERRORISM and BULLYING. " - Acharya S http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=28736#p28736

The trash by Bart Ehrman must be removed as it is nothing more than an ad hom attack and smear. Both Dr. Robert Price and Richard Carrier have both strongly defended Acharya S against the defamation from Bart Ehrman.

Bart Ehrman caught in lies and libel? http://freethoughtnation.com/bart-ehrman-caught-in-lies-and-libel/

Here's Dr. Price calling Bart Ehrman's comments on Acharya S "LIBEL":

"Such libel only reveals a total disinclination to do a fraction of the research manifest on any singe page of Acharya's works." - Dr. Robert Price, page xxi of the book, ‘Bart Erhman and the Quest of the Historical Jesus of Nazareth: An Evaluation of Ehrman’s Did Jesus Exist?’

So, why is the trash from Ehrman here but not the comments from Price? I think we know why - biased Christian editors here with an agenda out to shore up their faith and euphoria at all costs. 96.41.147.1 (talk) 20:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

We have had 2 RfCs and a BLPN on this issue. It is resolved, robust consensus has been achieved (multiple times). The full name will be used at this bio article. Repeating failed arguments over and over will not change that. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Original research in article

  • There are many times in the article where there is analysis of Murdock's work, and Murdock is listed as references about these very works. This has led to numerous instances of bias and OR. Better sourcing should address this. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Throughout the article, beginning in the intro, Murdock's primary sources are listed as references and interpretations are given by editors. This is synthesis. If interpretations are valid, they need proper verifiable reliable sources. We can not list Murdock's work and offer our opinions as editors claiming she means this or that. Better writing and sourcing is required here. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I dont think that is WP:SYN or WP:OR per se: there is no advancing novel claims that have not appeared in the primary source being discussed.
There is the issue of WP:UNDUE with Wikipedia editors being the ones determining which claims from book length works are the key issues to be highlighting and discussing, and there is the issue of WP:REDFLAG - extraordinary claims being made without proper mainstream context. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
User:Ism schism User:TheRedPenOfDoom yes to both comments. I don't know if there is any other BLP on en.wp where off-wp lobbying by an author named in three WP:RS sources has had their name not just following WP:FULLNAME but apparently removed from footnotes too. That's bad enough, the article should make clear that the author is not regarded as credible by reliable source writers. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

This is one of the worst articles on Wikipedia due to Christian editors purposely defaming and libeling Acharya S/ Murdock. They are also dishonestly adding what they claim is her real name against her wishes as has been made categorically clear repeatedly:

"Dear friends: If ever you see someone pretending to know my "real name," please feel free to ignore that person. I have never revealed my first name publicly, and anyone pretending to know my real name is doing so fallaciously. In most cases, what people believe is my real name is being used in order to abuse, terrorize and bully me into submission. I don't appreciate the contemptuous familiarity AT ALL. To those who think they know my real name, no, you don't. You have heard an internet rumor but nothing from me. Those who are using what they think is my real name in internet writings are doing so unethically and with hostility against my person. That sort of poor character should not be given any credence or credibility."

"I have been advised by LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES not to disclose ANY personal information, because I was the victim of VIOLENT CRIME that included the felonious abduction of my small child. So, any and all attempts at publicizing what is believed to be my real name will be construed as a form of TERRORISM and BULLYING. "

- Acharya S

In ictu oculi says: "the article should make clear that the author is not regarded as credible by reliable source writers."

Just more lies from those who know absolutely nothing about her or her work. Scholars who've actually studied her work tend to be supportive:

"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." "I find myself in full agreement with Acharya S/D.M. Murdock" - Dr. Robert Price, Biblical Scholar with two Ph.D's

Earl Doherty defers to Acharya for the subject of astrotheology:

"A heavenly location for the actions of the savior gods, including the death of Christ, would also have been influenced by most religions' ultimate derivation from astrotheology, as in the worship of the sun and moon. For this dimension of more remote Christian roots, see the books of Acharya S" - Earl Doherty, Jesus: Neither God Nor Man, (2009) page 153

"...In recent months or over the last year or so I have interviewed Frank Zindler and Richard Carrier and David Fitzgerald and Robert Price all on the issue of mythicism ... when I spoke to these people I asked for their expertise collectively and what I got, especially from Fitzgerald and Robert Price, was that we should be speaking to tonights guest D.M. Murdock,author of 'Did Moses Exist? The Myth of the Israelite Lawgiver'." - Aron Ra

"Your scholarship is relentless! ...the research conducted by D.M. Murdock concerning the myth of Jesus Christ is certainly both valuable and worthy of consideration." - Dr. Ken Feder, Professor of Archaeology

But readers will never hear about any of that here thanks to blatant and intentional utter dishonesty by Christian editors here at Wikipedia. It's just sickening. Here is a professor from Carnegie Mellon University, Dr. Paul J. Hopper, a longtime scholar who has been publishing peer-reviewed articles in journals for over 40 years and specializes in linguistics who has peer reviewed Acharya's/Murdock's article but no mention of that anywhere at Wiki because Wiki only means to defame and libel her:

Josephus’s Testimonium Flavianum Examined Linguistically: Greek Analysis Demonstrates the Passage a Forgery In Toto https://www.academia.edu/10463098/Josephus_s_Testimonium_Flavianum_Examined_Linguistically_Greek_Analysis_Demonstrates_the_Passage_a_Forgery_In_Toto

As if dealing with the abuse from Wikipedia and its editors influencing others to smear her too wasn't enough, she also has stage 4 cancer, probably in part due to all the stress of dealing with such abuse: https://www.giveforward.com/fundraiser/lsn9/d-m-murdock-acharya-s-s-breast-cancer-fundraiser

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.41.147.1 (talk) 00:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Which is actually in remission now, if you had read further in her commentary. Also, assuming that Wikipedia gave someone cancer is (a) unlikely and unprovable and (b) the ultimate in not assuming good faith. If you really want to effect change on this article, such accusations are not going to help. Just some friendly advice. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 18:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


(Sorry if I have entered this contribution incorrectly - not sure how the talk section works) I would like to point to this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxH9lF7m9_A as a reference for the comment on 'Son & Sun' that a critic of hers refers to. In this video where she is in conversation with Aron Ra, she addresses this and it is absolutely obvious she never puts forward the notion that there was any awareness in the past that in modern English 'Son of God' and 'Sun of God' would be homophones. She does comment how this is common symbolism in the cultures of the time and the coincidence of the homophone in English has delighted many poets. She certainly never presented this as 'evidence' of anything. I think it should state after that criticism that she did not hold the view that she is being accused of.

Removed line regarding academic rejection

The sources which stand against Acharya S are not scholarly, but rather Christian Apologists. 2601:882:100:D7B0:D1FA:BE1C:3CA:AF52 (talk) 14:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

There are reports that she has died

Reports are coming from people who know her privately that she has succumbed to breast cancer.2602:306:CCC1:E470:7928:C59C:C30B:9B47 (talk) 20:29, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Facebook posts do seem to confirm this, but we should wait for something more reliable before declaring her death in the article. In the meantime I have added mention of her cancer diagnosis based on her own Facebook post (acceptable for such information per WP:SPS). --RL0919 (talk) 20:57, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm taking the memorial announcement that was shared on her official Facebook feed as sufficient for now and have started making the related changes to the article (categories, etc.). We will want to substitute a newspaper obituary or other neutral source when one becomes available. --RL0919 (talk) 00:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Dodgy. Wait for reliable independent sources, please. Guy (Help!) 01:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Here is one. I know personal knowledge doesn't count for anything here but I was in contact with her at various points and I knew that she was dying, so this is expected. Pandeist (talk) 03:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Not a RS as far as I can tell, sorry. Guy (Help!) 00:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
On what grounds do you claim that? It's a regularly aired show produced by an organization that is independent of the subject. It's clearly biased (since the producer is an advocacy organization), but I would expect to be reliable in regard to whether a person known by the host and guests has died. --RL0919 (talk) 01:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Knowing where she died would make it easier to find an obituary or death announcement. Jonathunder (talk) 02:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

This seems to be the nearest thing to an official announcement: https://www.giveforward.com/fundraiser/lsn9/u/updates/138747 - but it doesn't really meet RS criteria. The problem is of course that she was a very insignificant figure in scholarly and public discourse (her admirers won't thank me for that, but it's true) and actually, nobody is likely to be publishing gushing obituaries except in the mythicist blogosphere which don't match WP's criteria anyway. Indeed, it might be worth considering whether the article itself meets notability criteria - the owner of a website who self-published a few books that have demonstrated to be based on bad scholarship, which is all she was when you strip it out?
Unrelated, but it might also now be worth adding the real information about what happened to her son to this page, because it has sometimes been used to try and drive away debate around her real name for bizarre and unspecified security reasons:
http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jan/10/local/me-venice1086.159.187.241 (talk) 10:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
You would need to have some source that confirms the "Dorothy Murdock" in that incident is the same person as the subject of this article. The name is not unusual, and abductions in child custody disputes are unfortunately common. --RL0919 (talk) 18:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
As I mention above, it is a regularly produced podcast from a third-party organization. Not a gold standard source, but it meets the basic RS requirements. Also, one of the guests during the podcast is Robert M. Price, an academic who meets the "established expert" standard for the subject. Guy (JzG (talk · contribs)) reverted my edit adding this source previously, but has not yet responded to my request for further explanation. Also, I want to note (before I restore the information) that the earlier Facebook announcement about her cancer is an acceptable source per WP:BLPSELFPUB, so it should remain regardless of what we decide about the podcast. --RL0919 (talk) 18:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I would say public reports by known people (especially multiple people) who would have first hand knowledge and who have no reason to lie are reliable as far as death dates. These can be replaced by newspaper/journal obituaries later but those might be some weeks in coming. BTW if it had been only reported by her website (or any single source), I would be more suspicious, websites can be hacked. --Erp (talk) 21:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The Facebook page that the article cites to say she has cancer says she's dead. Either that's a usable source as to her health or it's not. But either way, as it stands now, this article does not match the source cited. Jonathunder (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

A subject writing about herself is an acceptable source as described in WP:BLPSELFPUB and WP:SELFPUB. Facebook posts are explicitly included, and a post under her name from April 22, when by all accounts she was alive, was presumably by her unless you have some evidence to the contrary. But it is problematic to claim that a subject posted an after-the-fact announcement of her own death. Hence the acceptability of the former but not the latter. --RL0919 (talk) 22:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Is this page on Gnostic Media a usable source? Jonathunder (talk) 23:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

From an initial look, I would say no. I couldn't find any page on the site explaining who publishes it, and some of the unsigned blog posts use the first person singular, suggesting the whole site may be run by one individual. That would make it a self-published source and therefore not OK to use. (Exceptions exist for subjects publishing about themselves, but that doesn't apply for them publishing something about Acharya S.) In contrast, the Mythicist Milwaukee site has a prominent "About" link with pages describing the organization's activities and management, which confirms it is more than just some guy's blog. So far, it seems like only Guy is rejecting their podcast as a reliable source. --RL0919 (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
And I am doing so on the grounds that specialist podcasts (and I subscribe to a dozen or more) are not, IMO, reliable sources as a rule. For example, I would never cite Skeptoid, SGU or Answer Me This, even though all of them are professionally produced and have a reputation for fact-checking. The problem I have always had with this article is that pretty much everything in it is drawn from sources that we would not use if we had better ones: every sourcing discussion has been "oh well, there are no really good sources, so let's use this iffy one instead". I think the article should be deleted on that basis, but I am sure I am pushing water uphill since there are a small number of both fans and detractors who will carry on advocating that we keep it and keep adding mediocre-at-best sources. At least we will no longer get complaints from the subject, which is how I came to have this on my watchlist. Guy (Help!) 00:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
As WP:RS notes repeatedly, context matters. I would not cite an advocacy group's podcast to establish a scientific matter, but I'm comfortable that they would know whether one of their fellow advocates has recently died. To verify a fact that no one appears to be disputing, a source that is mediocre but within the letter of WP:RS should be sufficient. --RL0919 (talk) 01:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Can we all then agree to use this source for this fact? Whether the whole article is appropriate would be a good topic for discussion at AfD. It looks like this person isn't really notable, but as Guy suggests, she has a bunch of active fans and detractors. It would make sense to run an AfD that is well-advertised to bring in lot of experienced, and uninvolved, editors. Jehochman Talk 01:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm fine with using this source for this fact. Regarding an AFD, I'll repeat a point I made in the last AFD: There are sources discussing her, but they are primarily focused on her work, not her life. This (combined with her own efforts at keeping her personal details private) leaves a dearth of sources about her biographical details, but that doesn't mean she isn't notable. --RL0919 (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • An AFD would be time wasting, one might as well AFD B. Traven. As for leaving the date of death until a more reliable source is confirmed that seems preferable to mistakenly including one. Are death records public in the US? In ictu oculi (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Death records are public, but they are maintained locally and aren't always available online. Even when they are, they may not be indexed by search engines. So it can be hard to find the record if you don't know where the person died. Usually the more accessible source is the local newspaper, but death notices there can lag. That said, a funeral service listing did just pop up this afternoon for a "Dorothy Murdock" of an appropriate age who died on December 25 in Oregon. Will need to monitor further to see if a more clearly identified (and RS) death notice/obit appears, but at least it provides a locality to focus on. --RL0919 (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Am I alone in seeing the irony here? Fans rejected for a long time the inclusion of her real name, but now we're supposed to accept a funeral announcement based on the real name with no link at all to the Acharya S persona! Guy (Help!) 01:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Did someone suggest using the funeral announcement as a source? I said there was a possibly relevant notice but something better is needed. (No comment on the name situation, which has always been a mess IMO.) --RL0919 (talk) 02:22, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
The Gnostic Media source I linked above uses "Dorothy Murdock", as does this. So perhaps we can end that controversy. Jonathunder (talk) 04:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
I will note that given that time has passed since the initial announcement, multiple people who knew her have publicly said she has died, and that no one has explicitly said she has not, a refusal to even note that her death has been reported makes us look like mythicists who want the Roman record of Jesus's execution before they'll accept his existence was likely. Be explicit in the references on the connection to her and allow the reader to draw the conclusion on reliability. I will note that someone who knows she is dying is likely to hand over passwords etc to a family member or friend or executor so as to clear up and eventually close down so facebook posting on her page isn't surprising. --Erp (talk) 05:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
No, it makes us look like people who actually want to be accurate and well sourced. It's amazing that somebody so "notable" has so very little coverage of her death. Guy (Help!) 11:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
To be honest, after seeing http://rogue.tributes.com/dignitymemorial/obituary/Dorothy-Murdock-103139072 I'd be inclined to enter it. The burden of reliable source for many borderline notable BLP biodata is done on much less. At this point with her companion Robert Tulip having confirmed it there is zero possibility of the story being a hoax. But leaving a week won't matter. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:45, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
It is one day short of a week and with the recent death template with its warning also on the page, I think we are covered. I'll note that outside the small mythicist community she is not prominent and they tend to use the internet rather than older forms of announcements (e.g., print newspapers). I suspect a note will eventually appear at her publishers' site after the holidays. --Erp (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Acharya S D. M. Murdock

ChasMick (talk) 13:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)Reading this article on Wikipedia about Acharya S. It says her pen name is Dorothy M. Murdock. When I have emailed D.M.Murdock, she told me her name is not Dorothy. She informed me she had been in touch with Wikipedia and asked not to be called 'Dorothy'. However, Wikipedia have not been very helpful regarding this matter and have ignored her request and continue to call her Dorothy.

[redacted]

Could anyone please tell me why Wikipedia insist on calling D.M.Murdock Dorothy?

@ChasMick: Because we follow what the reliably published sources state. You can also read the comments and discussions on this page and the archives. (please also see WP:NLT. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

She used the name Dori. See Oriflamme: Franklin and Marshall College Yearbook, 1982, p. 247 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.189.174 (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2016‎ (UTC)

We can add one more alternate name to the list, but what we really need are more independent sources. Jonathunder (talk) 22:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
To base a name on a college yearbook, we would need something to show the person in the yearbook is the person in the article. She claimed to have graduated from Franklin and Marshall (for example, see here), but to my knowledge never gave a year. Guessing at it based on her approximate age and then connecting a yearbook entry to her based on that guess, is classic original research. --RL0919 (talk) 22:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Clean up and biodata

Now that the death of article subject is confirmed can we please clean up the biodata and format. Particularly WP:FULLNAME and get a place and date of birth. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Have inserted WP:FULLNAME per Lake Forest College Program in Greece & Turkey 1981 Dorothy Milne Murdock. No longer seems any reason to maintain secrecy over the M. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

"The attempts at outing my personal information are entirely against my will by typical disrespecters of persons, and are obviously designed to endanger me and my family." - Acharya S

"I have been advised by LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES not to disclose ANY personal information, because I was the victim of VIOLENT CRIME that included the felonious abduction of my small child. So, any and all attempts at publicizing what is believed to be my real name will be construed as a form of TERRORISM and BULLYING. " - Acharya S

http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=28736#p28736

Wikipedia and its editors here are putting Acharya's family in danger and will be held accountable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.94.225.154 (talk) 19:24, 4 November 2016‎

Obituary apparently composed by her family

This obituary contains a lot of information. http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/hartfordcourant/obituary.aspx?pid=177367841 Smeagolalwayshelps (talk) 12:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)smeagolalwayshelps

This is very helpful, thanks! --RL0919 (talk) 14:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Bias

The end of the section on Einstein reads: Einstein's intellectual achievements and originality have made the word "Einstein" synonymous with "genius".

It does not read: His theories have received negative commentaries from academic scholars.

True, there are *separate* articles discussing possible problems with his theories. I would not object to a separate article with the title "Controversies in the Philosophy of Acharya S." But to put such a disclaimer at the end of the first paragraph introducing her on her own page is clearly biased. Clearly. Yes, someone could make such a separate page...apparently...but until it exists, I again maintain that it is unfair to put the "negative commentaries" sentence (backed up by other biased language in the article) in a prominent position on a page which would appear to be simply about the individual.

In the first paragraph the usage of the phrase "she claimed" also indicates bias.

As an illustration of the pejorative connotation of the verb "claim" consider again the Einstein article. We do not see this sentence:

Near the beginning of his career, Einstein *claimed* that Newtonian mechanics was no longer enough to reconcile the laws of classical mechanics with the laws of the electromagnetic field.

Rather *thought* or *realized* or the like is used for Einstein's point of view.

What if the Acharya S sentence read like this:

She *realized* that Christianity is founded on earlier myths and the characters depicted in Christianity are based upon Roman, Greek, Egyptian, and other myths.

Really, all you have to say is that she was a mythicist. Here in this Wiki article, there are a whole slew of them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory

Acharya S is simply a modern exponent of this time-worn interpretation of the Bible.

This is not the only Wikipedia article which demonstrates such bias. In my view it would be better to simply state the facts about the subject rather than use such slanted language. It seems to damage the credibility of Wikipedia as a reliable source of information.

169.226.91.121 (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I think there's some validity to your point about the language used in the articles, but I also think the validity of your point is limited by the indisputable facts that Murdock's theories have not achieved nearly the degree of acceptance of Einstein's and that Murdock hasn't nearly the degree of significance in popular culture as Einstein. I'll illustrate both the validity of your point and the limitation of the validity of your point, in reverse order. In John Grisham's novel, The Pelican Brief, there is a minor character known as Einstein. He is described thus: "Einstein was the nickname for Nathaniel Jones, a demented legal genius the firm kept locked away in his own little library on the sixth floor. He read every case decided by the Supreme Court, the eleven federal appellate courts, and the supreme courts of the fifty states. Morgan had never met Einstein. Sightings were rare around the firm." Now, Einstein is a bad guy. Grisham's heroine, Darby Shaw, proves to be Einstein's intellectual equal. Now, Darby Shaw is a good "guy". The Pelican Brief was published years before The Christ Conspiracy. Were The Pelican Brief published today, and if a character commented, "They may have their Einstein, but we have our Acharya," not many of its readers would understand the reference. (There's the illustration of the limitation of the validity of your point.) But if a curious reader read the article on Murdock in Wikipedia, the reader still wouldn't understand the reference. (There's the illustration of the validity of your point.) Smeagolalwayshelps (talk) 12:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
You wrote above, "Really, all you have to say is that she was a mythicist. Here in this Wiki article, there are a whole slew of them:" and linked to the article on Christ myth theory. However, I think that from your perspective, the language of that article would be just as slanted. For example, the first sentence describes Christ myth theory as a "hypothesis" and the second sentence reads, "The Christ myth theory contradicts the mainstream view in historical Jesus research...." And from the Talk page for that article, it appears that issues similar to those you've raised here also have been raised there and that similar explanations have been given. That article makes brief mention of Murdock as being among the later writers influenced by the "assertions" of Gerald Massey and lists four of her books as sources. I think it might improve the article on Christ myth theory if something more about Murdock were added there. Why don't you give it a try? Smeagolalwayshelps (talk) 13:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
The use of "claimed" is easily corrected, but "realized" is biased in the other direction. Neutral (if sometimes boring) words like "said" or "stated" are preferred (see WP:CLAIM). As far as mentioning criticism of her, that is entirely appropriate if the criticism comes from appropriate sources (as it does). There is no reason to split such material into a separate article unless this one becomes excessively long. That certainly isn't the situation now. Comparison with a widely studied figure such as Einstein is not apt -- the sourcee material exists to have multiple robust articles about Einstein and his work, but this is not true for persons of much more limited notability. --RL0919 (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Acharya's mythicist position should be here

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, various biblical characters such as Adam and Eve, Satan, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Joshua, King David, Solomon & Jesus Christ, among other figures, in reality represent mythological characters 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: The Horus-Jesus Connection page 11-12

The Mythicist Position | What is Mythicism? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63BNKhGAVRQ

"Your scholarship is relentless! ...the research conducted by D.M. Murdock concerning the myth of Jesus Christ is certainly both valuable and worthy of consideration." - Dr. Ken Feder, Professor of Archaeology

Earl Doherty defers to Acharya for the subject of astrotheology:

"A heavenly location for the actions of the savior gods, including the death of Christ, would also have been influenced by most religions' ultimate derivation from astrotheology, as in the worship of the sun and moon. For this dimension of more remote Christian roots, see the books of Acharya S" - Earl Doherty, Jesus: Neither God Nor Man, (2009) page 153

"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." "I find myself in full agreement with Acharya S/D.M. Murdock" - Dr. Robert Price, Biblical Scholar with two Ph.D's, review of Acharya's "Christ in Egypt"

"This book is a slightly revised version of my doctoral dissertation entitled “Solar Worship in the Biblical World” which was submitted to the Graduate School of Yale University in the Spring of 1989. As may be judged from the title of that work, I had at one time planned to cover more territory than sun worship in ancient Israel, but found the material pertaining to ancient Israel so vast that I never got beyond it."

- Rev. Dr. J. Glen Taylor, "Yahweh and the Sun: Biblical and Archaeological Evidence for Sun Worship in Ancient Israel" (1993)

"At Stonehenge in England and Carnac in France, in Egypt and Yucatan, across the whole face of the earth are found mysterious ruins of ancient monuments, monuments with astronomical significance. These relics of other times are as accessible as the American Midwest and as remote as the jungles of Guatemala. Some of them were built according to celestial alignments; others were actually precision astronomical observatories ... Careful observation of the celestial rhythms was compellingly important to early peoples, and their expertise, in some respects, was not equaled in Europe until three thousand years later."

- Dr. Edwin Krupp, astronomer and director at Griffith Park Observatory in Los Angeles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.94.225.154 (talk) 20:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Negative Commentaries

I find it a bit much that at the end of the first paragraph there is the sentence "Her theories have received negative commentaries from academic scholars," with a reference to some little known journal.

I'm sure Einstein has received some negative commentaries at similarly little known journals, but I don't see such a disclaimer on his page.

Sigh...but by now I have become used to the bias of Wikipedia. I don't even know why I am bothering to write this, like speaking into the North Wind, it is.

Still, that sentence is unfair and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.226.244.199 (talk) 21:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I've no dog in this fight, but actually, Wikipedia has entire articles devoted to this on Einstein.[1][2][3][4][5] It's my understanding that anyone who thinks the complained of sentence and reference lack perspective can create an article entitled "Academic Response to Acharya S" and link it to the main entry on her. Hopefully, however, it would have more content than blurbs from her fan pages. Smeagolalwayshelps (talk) 16:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%27s_unsuccessful_investigations
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr%E2%80%93Einstein_debates
  3. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity
  4. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternatives_to_general_relativity
  5. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity_(alternative_formulations)
I suspect it would be even more difficult to find any positive commentary from academic scholars. Academic scholars tend not to comment on her work because her work is not considered academic (for instance almost all is self-published; Stellar House Publishing was started and run by her). I suspect instead of a separate article it should be a section within this (and carefully separating the academic from the non-academic responses). BTW I notice no mention of Maurice Casey's criticism of her work yet. Erp (talk) 02:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Here is a compilation by Murdock herself of claimed positive commentary on her work, with claimed academic and claimed non-academic responses all mixed up. This is why some of her fans think it's "unfair" that the article states, "Her theories have received negative commentaries from academic scholars." http://freethoughtnation.com/what-people-are-saying-about-the-work-of-d-m-murdockacharya-s/ Note also her unverifiable claim that "In addition to the people quoted below who have read my work are many others who have done likewise but who have not publicly stated as much." Smeagolalwayshelps (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Of course someone's going to say that their own work is well received, especially on the site that's made to sell their books. That's why we rely on independent sources. And really, Charles Covington's opinions on history don't matter any more than yours or mine. The problem is that the criticism of her ideas is coming from actual historians. The source cited for the claim that her views are received negatively? Robert M. Price, another Christ Mythicist. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, this article reads like it was written by anti-Acharya critics who appear to know nothing about her work. This article is far more interested in sharing her private information than they are sharing anything about her work. I've pointed this out before and my comments were deleted and I was banned. From someone who has actually read and owns all of her books, whoever has been in charge of this article should be fired immediately for such biases and libel.

Bart Ehrman's LIBEL should be deleted. Here's what Dr. Robert Price had to say about this issue regarding Bart Ehrman's malicious smears tossed at Acharya S:

“Such libel only reveals a total disinclination to do a fraction of the research manifest on any singe page of Acharya’s works.”

– Dr. Robert Price, page xxi of the book, ‘Bart Erhman and the Quest of the Historical Jesus of Nazareth: An Evaluation of Ehrman’s Did Jesus Exist?’

Why isn't that posted here in response to the Ehrman quote? Because those in charge of this article are only interested in defaming her.

Bart Ehrman caught in lies and libel? http://freethoughtnation.com/bart-ehrman-caught-in-lies-and-libel/

Richard Carrier defended Acharya on this issue in the book too as well as across several of his own blogs:

“At the very least I would expect Ehrman to have called the Vatican museum about this, and to have checked the literature on it, before arrogantly declaring no such object existed and implying Murdock made this up … She did not make that up. The reason this error troubles me is that it is indicative of the carelessness and arrogance Ehrman exhibits throughout this book … [Ehrman] often doesn’t check his facts, and clearly did little to no research. This makes the book extremely unreliable. A reader must ask, if he got this wrong, what other assertions in the book are false? And since making sure to get details like this right is the only useful purpose this book could have had, how can we credit this book as anything but a failure?”

http://freethoughtnation.com/the-phallic-savior-of-the-world-hidden-in-the-vatican/#comment-11233

Why isn't any of that here? Well, I guess we know why ... those in charge of this article are anti-Acharya critics who know nothing about her work.

Erp, here: Critical Review of Maurice Casey’s Defense of the Historicity of Jesus http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/4282

There are plenty of highly respected scholars who support Acharya's work. Scholars who've actually studied Acharya's work tend to be supportive:

"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." "I find myself in full agreement with Acharya S/D.M. Murdock" - Dr. Robert Price, Biblical Scholar with two Ph.D's, review of Acharya's "Christ in Egypt"

Earl Doherty defers to Acharya for the subject of astrotheology:

"A heavenly location for the actions of the savior gods, including the death of Christ, would also have been influenced by most religions' ultimate derivation from astrotheology, as in the worship of the sun and moon. For this dimension of more remote Christian roots, see the books of Acharya S" - Earl Doherty, Jesus: Neither God Nor Man, (2009) page 153

"Your scholarship is relentless! ...the research conducted by D.M. Murdock concerning the myth of Jesus Christ is certainly both valuable and worthy of consideration." - Dr. Ken Feder, Professor of Archaeology

"...In recent months or over the last year or so I have interviewed Frank Zindler and Richard Carrier and David Fitzgerald and Robert Price all on the issue of mythicism ... when I spoke to these people I asked for their expertise collectively and what I got, especially from Fitzgerald and Robert Price, was that we should be speaking to tonights guest D.M. Murdock,author of 'Did Moses Exist? The Myth of the Israelite Lawgiver'." - Aron Ra, The Ra Men podcast EP10 - Did Moses Exist? with D.M. Murdock

"I've known people with triple Ph.D's who haven't come close to the scholarship in Who Was Jesus?" - Pastor David Bruce, M.Div

"...I have found her scholarship, research, knowledge of the original languages, and creative linkages to be breathtaking and highly stimulating." - Rev. Dr. Jon Burnham, Pastor

"I can recommend your work whole-heartedly!" - Dr. Robert Eisenman

Acharya S: Peer Review and Scholarly Journal Publications http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3411

Most importantly what has been intentionally omitted here is Acharya's mythicist position - the very first succinct, comprehensive position for mythicists.

The Mythicist Position | What is Mythicism? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63BNKhGAVRQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.94.225.154 (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Bart Ehrman's comments are LIBEL and should never have been here

Bart Ehrman's comments are LIBEL and should never have been here in the first place. It's only posted here to poison the well.

Here's what Dr. Robert Price had to say about this issue regarding Bart Ehrman:

“Such libel only reveals a total disinclination to do a fraction of the research manifest on any singe page of Acharya’s works.”

– Dr. Robert Price, page xxi of the book, ‘Bart Erhman and the Quest of the Historical Jesus of Nazareth: An Evaluation of Ehrman’s Did Jesus Exist?’

Richard Carrier defended Acharya on this issue in the book too:

“At the very least I would expect Ehrman to have called the Vatican museum about this, and to have checked the literature on it, before arrogantly declaring no such object existed and implying Murdock made this up … She did not make that up. The reason this error troubles me is that it is indicative of the carelessness and arrogance Ehrman exhibits throughout this book … [Ehrman] often doesn’t check his facts, and clearly did little to no research. This makes the book extremely unreliable. A reader must ask, if he got this wrong, what other assertions in the book are false? And since making sure to get details like this right is the only useful purpose this book could have had, how can we credit this book as anything but a failure?”

http://freethoughtnation.com/the-phallic-savior-of-the-world-hidden-in-the-vatican/#comment-11233

She more than proved her case against Bart Ehrman so, it is pure biases for Ehrman's smears to be posted here.

Bart Ehrman caught in lies and libel? http://freethoughtnation.com/bart-ehrman-caught-in-lies-and-libel/

97.94.225.154 (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Acharya's response to Carrier should be here

"Atheist activist and Christ mythicist Richard Carrier criticized her use of the inscriptions at Luxor to make the claim that the story of Jesus birth was inspired by the Luxor story of the birth of Horus.[20]"

Richard Carrier's criticism of Acharya S/Murdock consists of sloppy and egregious errors:

"...However, in "skimming" Brunner's text, as he puts it, Carrier has mistakenly dealt with the substantially different Hatshepsut text (Brunner's "IV D"), demonstrating an egregious error in garbling the cycles, when in fact we are specifically interested in the Luxor narrative (IV L)..."

http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/luxor.html

Acharya S mopped the floor with Richard Carrier making him look like a fool due to the fact that he has never actually read a single book of hers:

http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=4771#p4771

Acharya's rebuttal used to be cited and linked here but, it has been removed.

97.94.225.154 (talk) 18:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Scholars who've actually studied her work tend to be supportive

Wiki: "Her theories have been poorly received by mainstream scholars"

It is highly suspicious that such a negative comment is in the opening remarks, simply poisoning the well.

Scholars who've actually studied Acharya's work tend to be supportive:

"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." "I find myself in full agreement with Acharya S/D.M. Murdock" - Dr. Robert Price, Biblical Scholar with two Ph.D's, review of "Christ in Egypt" http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/reviews/murdock_christ_egypt.htm

Earl Doherty defers to Acharya for the subject of astrotheology:

"A heavenly location for the actions of the savior gods, including the death of Christ, would also have been influenced by most religions' ultimate derivation from astrotheology, as in the worship of the sun and moon. For this dimension of more remote Christian roots, see the books of Acharya S" - Earl Doherty, Jesus: Neither God Nor Man, (2009) page 153

"Your scholarship is relentless! ...the research conducted by D.M. Murdock concerning the myth of Jesus Christ is certainly both valuable and worthy of consideration." - Dr. Ken Feder, Professor of Archaeology, review of "Christ in Egypt"

"...In recent months or over the last year or so I have interviewed Frank Zindler and Richard Carrier and David Fitzgerald and Robert Price all on the issue of mythicism ... when I spoke to these people I asked for their expertise collectively and what I got, especially from Fitzgerald and Robert Price, was that we should be speaking to tonights guest D.M. Murdock,author of 'Did Moses Exist? The Myth of the Israelite Lawgiver'." - Aron Ra, The Ra Men podcast EP10 - Did Moses Exist? with D.M. Murdock

"I've known people with triple Ph.D's who haven't come close to the scholarship in Who Was Jesus?" - Pastor David Bruce, M.Div

"...I have found her scholarship, research, knowledge of the original languages, and creative linkages to be breathtaking and highly stimulating." - Rev. Dr. Jon Burnham, Pastor

"I can recommend your work whole-heartedly!" - Dr. Robert Eisenman

"This book is a slightly revised version of my doctoral dissertation entitled “Solar Worship in the Biblical World” which was submitted to the Graduate School of Yale University in the Spring of 1989. As may be judged from the title of that work, I had at one time planned to cover more territory than sun worship in ancient Israel, but found the material pertaining to ancient Israel so vast that I never got beyond it."

- Rev. Dr. J. Glen Taylor, "Yahweh and the Sun: Biblical and Archaeological Evidence for Sun Worship in Ancient Israel" (1993)

"At Stonehenge in England and Carnac in France, in Egypt and Yucatan, across the whole face of the earth are found mysterious ruins of ancient monuments, monuments with astronomical significance. These relics of other times are as accessible as the American Midwest and as remote as the jungles of Guatemala. Some of them were built according to celestial alignments; others were actually precision astronomical observatories ... Careful observation of the celestial rhythms was compellingly important to early peoples, and their expertise, in some respects, was not equaled in Europe until three thousand years later."

- Dr. Edwin Krupp, astronomer and director at Griffith Park Observatory in Los Angeles, 'In Search of Ancient Astronomies,' page xiii. Also quoted in "Suns of God," page 26

97.94.225.154 (talk) 18:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Note the word "mainstream" which may differ from the opinions in blurbs on her websites and books. Jonathunder (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

It's very dishonest as none of these so-called "mainstream scholars" have ever actually studied her work. So name these so-called "mainstream scholars" instead of posting a vague smear to poison the well. It should be removed because it doesn't belong here. It's dishonest. She likely has a rebuttal. Plus, the fact that the citation leads to Dr. Robert Price who is one of her biggest supporters.

"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." "I find myself in full agreement with Acharya S/D.M. Murdock" - Dr. Robert Price, Biblical Scholar with two Ph.D's, review of "Christ in Egypt" http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/reviews/murdock_christ_egypt.htm

The first sentence in the Reception section is just more of the same, Wiki: "Acharya's work has been well-received by amateur 'christ mythicists', but roundly criticized by biblical scholarship."

Who are these "amateurs" because I quoted several highly respected scholars with Ph.d's above but none are ever mentioned here (because Wiki and editors here are only out to smear Acharya S) and by "biblical scholars" what they really mean is Christian apologists out to shore up their Christian faith & euphoria at all costs - even if it means being dishonest. It's pathetic.

97.94.225.154 (talk) 18:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Writing career & Publication sections are missing these

Acharya's Stellar House Publishing published, "Man Made God: A Collection of Essays by Barbara G. Walker (2010) 978-0979963148

Anahita: Ancient Persian Goddess and Zoroastrian Yazata (2013) Publisher: Avalonia, 978-1905297306

Bart Ehrman and the Quest of the Historical Jesus of Nazareth: An Evaluation of Ehrman s Did Jesus Exist? (2013) Publisher: American Atheist Press, 978-1578840199

Did Moses Exist? The Myth of the Israelite Lawgiver by D.M. Murdock/Acharya S (2014) Stellar House Publishing, 978-0979963186

Astrotheology Calendar Series http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/2015calendar.html

Acharya’s article peer reviewed by highly respected linguist, Dr. Paul J. Hopper: Josephus’s Testimonium Flavianum Examined Linguistically: Greek Analysis Demonstrates the Passage a Forgery In Toto

Plus, DVD documentaries too: DVD produced by artist Scott Burdick entitled: Great Minds of Our Time: D.M. Murdock (2011, 2 hours)

http://freethoughtnation.com/get-acharya-s-goodies/

97.94.225.154 (talk) 20:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Acharya S. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Acharya_S/Archive_13&oldid=1136493967"