Talk:Acharya S

More Sources

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

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

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

Acharya's Response

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

Credentials

[1] [2]

Books

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

The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold

Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled

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

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

[3]

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

[4]

The citations from my work are here:

[5]

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

[6]

Contributors to My Books

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

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

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

Book Reviews

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

[7]

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

[8]

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

[9]

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

[10]

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

[11]

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

[12]

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

[13]

And another review of SOG appears here:

[14]

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

[15]

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

[16]

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

Radio Appearances

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

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

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

[17]

John also has a Wiki page:

John_Daly_(journalist)

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

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

[18]

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

Articles in Books

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

[19]

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

[20]

And another in the book Wake Up Down There!:

[21]

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

[22]

Kersey Graves has a Wiki article.

Magazine Articles

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

[23]

Atheist Alliance International has a Wiki page.

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

[24]

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

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

[25]

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

[26]

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

Public Appearances

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

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

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

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

I have been interviewed on camera for various documentary projects.

Internet Interviews

One published on the Paranoia website:

[27]

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

[28]

The Progressive Observer interviewed me here:

[29]

An interview in Spanish by Cristobal Cobo appears here:

[30]

Websites

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

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

[31]

The response itself is here:

[32]

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

[33]

and here:

[34]

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

[35]

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

[36] (ED: wayback link)

(I believe Kirby is a frequent Wiki editor.)

I am also cited on the Religious Tolerance website:

[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]

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

[41]

(Lindtner is cite several times on Wiki.)

Islam Watch regular links to my articles and blog posts:

[42]

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

[43]

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

[44]

Kenn Humphreys cites and links to my work:

[45]

Humphreys is cited in several places on Wiki.

Red Ice Creations has linked to several of my articles:

[46]

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

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

[47]

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

[48]

Videos

Consciousness Media Network has a free online video of me:

[49] (registration required)

My videos can be found here:

[50]

One of my videos has over 100,000 views:

[51]

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

[52]

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

[53]

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

[54]

Mentions in Books

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

[55]

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

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

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

"Acharya S is currently the most widely read proponent of a non historical pure pagan Jesus. [56]

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

"Acharya S is probably the most popular proponent of this view among mainstream readers." [57]

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

[58]

[59]

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

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

[61]

And on this one for "Team/Vishnaism":

[62]

Critical Sources

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

[63]

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

[64]

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

[65]

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

[66]

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

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

Beware of Defamation of religion

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

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

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

His 1-4 points are taken directly from Acharya's advert/promo page for "Suns of God" [67] :

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

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

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

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

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

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

[68]

[69]

[70]

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

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

Notability of Acharya S

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RS that she has a "large following" [72] jbolden1517^Talk

WP:V

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

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

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

Ready for mainspace?

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

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

Just so you have the ref:

In search of Jesus: insider and outsider images

By Clinton Bennett

ISBN 0826449166, 9780826449160

starting on page 208

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

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

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

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

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

Writings of Acharya S

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

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

Requested Move

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

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

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

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

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

Notes

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

pet peeve fixed

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

Licona References

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

Move mess

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

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

Yes...I decided this article was not appropriately named. It was called Acharya S from the beginning and I was around for a year at least while religious bigots tinkered and tampered with this page in order to defame and ostracise the person and the work of the well known underground author. When I returned here after so long, I saw this silly title "Writings of Dorothy Murdock". This page is linked elsewhere in wiki under Acharya S and it would be confusing to those clinking on those links. This is in my view, more fine tuning sabotage by people directly or under pretensions of not caring doing their best to undermine it. I saw what had changed over the year and a half I have been absent from this page. I did not like what I saw as a result of more sabotage out of mischievous bigotry (admittedly I have not participated in the mean time), so I reverted to a version I thought was the best I could get to fairest. I did not know this page had been under nomination for deletion at that version. I would like to thank User: RL0919.... for correcting the CAPs I mistakenly used. Thank you for hearing me out. Skull (talk) 00:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

One thing I just realized is that I mistakenly attributed all the moves to you, when the initial moves were actually made by User:Eugeneacurry. That's where the "Dorothy" name came from. My apologies for conflating the two of you. --RL0919 (talk) 01:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

On Murdock's website she states, "In his typically vicious, unprofessional, unethical and immoral manner, [James Patrick] Holding first revealed my name." An article on James P. Holding's webpage lists Acharya S' real name as "Dorothy Murdock". Further, Acharya S has given her name in numerous publications as "D. M. Murdock." Finally, Murdock's own bio page states she obained a degree in Classics from Franklin and Marshall College and her credentials page states "During my sojourn at F&M... when I traveled around Europe, I could and did conduct myself in French, Italian, Spanish, German and modern Greek, the latter of which I taught myself while studying in Greece with the Lake Forest College Program under the direction of Professor Emeritus of Religion Rev. Dr. Dan Cole." Lake Forest's web site contains a list of students from other universities who availed themselves of the "Lake Forest College Program in Greece & Turkey." This list includes "Dorothy Milne Murdock: Franklin & Marshall, '82 Classical Studies." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eugeneacurry (talk • contribs) 07:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

That's great, but we require reliable sources for information, not non-RS websites combined with original research. The use of "D.M. Murdock" in the article is fine, because the subject has given that as her own name. Independent research by Wikipedia editors into college graduation lists to get a best guess as to what "D.M." stands for, on the other hand, does not belong in any article. --RL0919 (talk) 15:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Dorothy Milne Murdock and sourcing

I've removed the reference to Lake Forest's College Program in Greece & Turkey (though, given the other information, I'd hardly call the identification a "best guess"). Even so, Murdock herself stated that Holding revealed her real name and the name Holding "revealed" was "Dorothy Murdock" and "Dorothy Milne Murdock." Considering that Murdock herself confirmed the authenticity of this information as given by this source, and given just how utterly basic a person's name is, I think quibbling over what constitutes a reliable source can be set aside; most Wikipedia articles don't even bother to source the full version of names attributed to authors who generally go by initials (see N. T. Wright and G. K. Chesterton) and I don't see any reason why Murdock should be treated differently. Eugeneacurry (talk) 15:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Following the reliable sources guideline is not "quibbling". Murdock does not state what specific name Holding revealed, nor does she cite any specific page from his site. She also accuses him of releasing "false and libelous information", meaning she believes at least some details of his material are incorrect. So there is no specific confirmation from her about the name beyond the initialized version that she uses in her own works. Holding's site has been repeatedly rejected as a reliable source (see here and here, for example). Even if Holding were considered a reliable source, it is clear that she objects to the circulation of her full name, and there is a consensus against circulating the personal details of living persons when they object to it and the information is not already widely used in reliable sources. (See WP:BLP#Other considerations for a full explanation.) So in short, I'm removing this again, and I'm happy to take it to the BLP noticeboard if necessary. --RL0919 (talk) 16:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I restored the name Dorothy M. Murdock in the article and have sourced it with a book publised by a division of Simon and Shuster. Given your history of trying to supress the inclusion of this information in this article I can only wonder what objection you will raise this time. (My first attempt was opposed on the grounds that Dorothy wasn't her "real name", my second attempt was opposed on the grounds that the sources I gave amounted to original research, my third attempt was denounced as unreliable synthesis.) As for the claim that including Murdock's real name violates her privacy or some such nonsense, her real name has been mentioned on numerous discussion boards including RichardDawkins.net, the James Randi Educational Foundation, and the Rational Response Squad, not to mention innumerable Christian sites. If you want to take this matter to the BLP noticeboard, be my guest. Eugeneacurry (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Now that the information is reliably sourced, I have no objection to its inclusion. I'm not trying to "suppress" anything (and please read WP:AGF in your spare time), just trying to make sure that the material in this BLP article follows the BLP and sourcing guidelines. When you present something as obvious original research or synthesis (e.g., by giving a long explanation of how you compared the author's bio with college graduation info to infer her full name), then you should expect it to be treated as such. If you had initially presented the same info sourced as it is now, there would never have been a problem. --RL0919 (talk) 18:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

This raises an interesting question. Where did these authors get the name Dorothy Murdock from? (The book does not source that information.) The author hasn't revealed it herself, and the only places it has appeared are on a few discussion boards and some dubious Christian sites. These apparently are all based on the name given by Holding. The only other place it has appeared is on Wikipedia. I wonder if this is a case of a wikipedia paradox.

I also wonder if the book in question would normally qualify as a reliable source. It appears to be half-fantasy in the Holy Blood Holy Grail tradition. (The authors have written that the Egyptian Gods are real extra-terrestrials for example.) The authors apparently have no knowledge of the controversy surrounding her name, they just matter-of-factly include it as though it were common knowledge. (Hey, it's on wikipedia after all.)

Another separate issue is that the author is generally known as DM Murdock. That name should be in the article, regardless of what happens regarding the alleged full name.^^James^^ (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It's conceivable that they got the name here, but from what I can tell it looks like prior attempts to place it were quickly reverted (just as was happening this time before Eugeneacurry came up with an acceptable source), so they would need to have looked at the right time to see it. But since they don't say, any comment would be speculative. If you think the book itself is generally unreliable, then that's another matter, although given that it is from a major publisher you would need some evidence against it to get consensus that isn't reliable for this purpose. This most obvious place to look would be for a direct denial from Murdock or a third-party RS that this is her first name (clearly she's now open about the initials and last name). Absent some other source to contradict the claim, speculation about where the book authors got their info doesn't seem like a good basis for rejecting it as a source. Anyhow, you are right that "D.M. Murdock" is what she uses now on her books, so I'll add that as an additional pen name. --RL0919 (talk) 21:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Now that the fuller "Dorothy M. Murdock" has been reliably sourced, can we expand the middle "M." to the full "Milne" in accordance with general wikipedia practice (see T. S. Eliot & E. P. Sanders) on the basis of Lake Forest's student list which corroborates Murdock self-supplied creditials page? I imagine, using the presumption of good faith, that were I to refer to the Lake Forest page in order to support Murdock's education claims with an independent source, no one would object. So, if that's the case, doesn't it stand to reason that such a source should be enough to supply her middle name? Eugeneacurry (talk) 22:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

That would be considered WP:OR. ^^James^^ (talk) 23:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Would it be WP:OR if I included that same source as a reference in the "Author's background" section to substantiate Murdock's claims regarding her education, claims which are currently only supported by her word? Eugeneacurry (talk) 23:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that it is only inference that leads to the conclusion the person listed on the Lake Forest student list is the same as the author. If Acharya/Murdock had given enough specific details that there was no doubt that a particular entry referred to her (such as providing the year she participated), then I would say fine, but we don't have that situation. BLPs are expected to maintain the strictest standards for sourcing, and if it turns out that the person on the list isn't Acharya, then we've potentially done an injustice to two living people. The full names of Eliot and Sanders can be found in reliable sources that leave no doubt as to who they are talking about. So my take is that if and when the middle name appears in a reliable source that is clearly referring to the subject of this article, then we can add it. --RL0919 (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

This just seems silly. (1) Dorothy M. Murdock's credentials page states that (2) she attended Franklin & Marshall College, (3) persuing a degree in Classics, (4) that she went to Greece, (5) in her junior year, (6) with the Lake Forest College Program. The Lake Forest page states that (1) "Dorothy Milne Murdock", (2) who was enrolled at Franklin and Marshall College, (3) persuing a degree in Classsics, (4) went to Greece/Turkey, (5) in her junior year, (6) with the Lake Forest College Program. There are no other Dorothy M. Murdocks listed; there are no other Murdocks of any sort listed; the only other student from Franklin and Marshall listed is a man named Kenneth B. Huber. I find it difficult to believe that a fair-minded editor wouldn't regard this as a reliable and unambiguous primary source both coroborating Murdock's claims and supplying her middle name. Afterall, if this source can't be used in the article, then why allow the reference to the Council for Secular Humanism's Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion? I mean, it's logically possible that the (1) Acharya S who (2) is a writer and (3) worked with CSER listed on that page could be a different (1) Acharya S who (2) is a writer and (3) worked with CSER who's the subject of this article, but no reasonable person would object to the reference on that basis. And considering that there are only three points connecting this article's subect to the CSER page and there are six such points connecting this article to the Lake Forest page, allowing the Lake Forest reference should be a slam-dunk. Continuing to oppose the inclusion of the Lake Forest reference and its subsequent validation of expanding Murdock's "M." to "Milne" seems like nothing more than a rank example of WP:GAME. Eugeneacurry (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The author does not want her full name to be common knowledge, and last I heard she had good reason for it. Regardless, it would be different if a reliable source published her real name using the Franklin Marshall page as one of his sources. But here you are doing your own research and publishing the results on wikipedia. That qualifies as original research. It may seem like splitting hairs, but this is how it works. For example, I cannot quote a scholar saying there is little evidence of an historical Jesus in the Christ myth page if the author is not making that argument in support of the Christ myth theory. But if another author references that quote in support of the Christ myth theory then it is no longer original research. Splitting hairs? Yes. But it's an important guideline. ^^James^^ (talk) 01:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

If the "obstruction" of other editors is preventing you from placing personal information about a living person into an article without a clear reliable source, then I for one make no apologies for that. Far from WP:GAME, I think it is fully within the spirit of the BLP policy to keep this material out. Unlike her first name, which is available in an internationally published book and on dozens of web sites (over her objections, unfortunately), her middle name is appears to be little circulated, and if no more reliable source can be found than what you've presented so far, I will see about getting it redacted from this talk page. Wikipedia is not in the business of digging up and publishing information about people just because it can be found somewhere online. --RL0919 (talk) 01:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not ZAROVE; I'm not out to "get" anybody. I'm merely interested in seeing this article conform to general Wikipedia format if it's going to be on the site at all. As I've pointed out several times, other authors that generally go by initials (T. S. Eliot, G. K. Chesterton, C. S. Lewis, N. T. Wright, E. P. Sanders, and on and on) are identified by their full name at the beginning of their Wikipedia article. If Murdock is entitled to an article here then it ought to conform to general formats.

As to the matter of her safety, I've seen this objection a few times now and it's always struck me as misleading, as if the implication is that critics of Murdock's work are so enraged that they are seeking to do her bodily harm, as though if they could only get her full name they'd track her down to satisfy their crazed blood lust. First, numerous popular authors have been arguing that Jesus is a mythical construct recently (Freke, Gandy, Price, Harpur, Price, Carrier, etc.) without incurring the wrath of pitch-fork wielding mobs of Christians. And secondly, both the 2005 L. A. Times article on Murdock's "abduction, security and privacy issues" and her own comments on the incident clearly indicate that those involved weren't strangers and they didn't receive her personal information from the web, they have been supplying it. So, again, Murdock's past security issue had nothing to do with Wikipedia (or any other online source) making her full name known; the objection simply isn't factually relevant.

It seems like I'm not going to get anywhere with this, so I'll make my last appeal and leave it at that. J. P. Holding states in his book, Shattering the Christ Myth, "Acharya S is a writer’s pseudonym, but recently Acharya has publicly reverted to use of her given name, Dorothy Milne Murdock." (pg. 263) Now I realize that Holding's book is self-published and wouldn't normally qualify as a reliable source. But since Murdock herself has stated on her site that "In his typically vicious, unprofessional, unethical and immoral manner, Holding first revealed my name," it seems that she concedes Holding's identification is correct. (RL0919, I recognize that Murdock claims Holding has also disseminated false information about her, but she draws a clear distinction between this alleged libel and her name: "Holding first revealed my name... and then passed along the false and libelous material.") This, taken together with the Lake Forest page, would seem to justify the conclusion that that Milne is Murdock's middle name and allow for its inclusion in the opening of this article, in conformity with the other Wikipedia articles I mentioned above. That's it for me. Eugeneacurry (talk) 06:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

As Eugeancurry has evidenced, her full name is public knowledge. Even a search on contributors pages such as here User:^^James^^/evidence sport the name without hesitation. Following the style of other pages, as was shown above by another editor, it is the norm to have the full name for authors who publish under numerous names (e.g. N.T. Wright = Nicholas Tom Wright, who also published under Tom Wright.) As Murdock uses a few names, it makes the most sense to do this. For that reason, the current lead of "Dorothy M. Murdock, better known by her pen names Acharya S and D.M. Murdock" ensuring that her pen names are included is acceptable. Now that I have said something on the issue, you can continue your childish games and threats, Skull. --Ari (talk) 07:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Why does Acharya S use a pen name?

First, many authors use a "pen name". It's very common and a big deal really need not be made of it. When it comes to religion and challenging the status-quo it may be wise to hide ones true I.D. especially if one is discussing Islam - radical Muslims will create violent riots for exposing Islam. For example, remember the Danish cartoons of Muhammad which set-off violent riots by Muslims?

This is another ad hominem that critics try to use against Acharya S to dismiss her entire body of work, that's all. "Acharya" was chosen as a sort of joke to tease the Hindu authorities because no woman is allowed to be an "Acharya" - let alone a white woman. "Acharya" means many things - teacher, master, priest of the sun, guru etc. I thought that she added the "S" as in, Priest-ess for even more fun - it's a mystery.

In fact, some Hindu fanatics ended up getting Acharya's wiki page deleted because of her pen name, essentially validating why she used "Acharya" in the first place. That's why Wikipedia has forbid her wiki article to be titled "Acharya S." These few Hindu fanatics (Hare Krishna, I think) demonstrated their own biases, bigotry and prejudice by attacking a female for using the name 'Acharya" as a pen name.

Furthermore, there are loads of people with the last name "Acharya." The joke here is on those who take the pen name "Acharya S" too seriously. Acharya S doesn't.

http://www..freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1149&p=4756#p4756 Skull (talk) 06:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore this whole debate about her name was hashed out years ago, when another person attempted to post all sorts of libelous garbage about her as well as private information. There was a huge battle over her page, with Wiki lawyers having to step in and finally BAN this guy named ZAROVE. Charles Matthews was the main Wiki editor - he decided it was NOT allowed to use her name, not the least of which because her son had been abducted. We who were here back then remember this battle very well - maybe we have to start it all over again? Getting Wiki's lawyers involved again?

The RichardDawkins, James Randi, and Rational Response Squad are *NOT* reliable sources concerning Acharya S/D.M.Murdock. Most all of it comes from critics found in number 3 below:

1. She has never used that name and people trying to use it do not know if it's her real name or not anyway. I've seen an assortment of names used, Diane, Dawn, Deanna etc.

2. She does not want her full name used anyway.

3. It's use is mainly by critics who use it for derogatory or disrespectful purposes and to destroy her security and privacy. That's why they post it all over the net and are trying to post it here at Wiki.

4. She gets too many threats as it is already.. It's dangerous to her physical well being as well as her family.

5. The only acceptable names allowed are "Acharya S" and "D.M. Murdock" - that is it. I do not want to see "Dorothy" anywhere in this article at all.

It is absolutely unacceptable to use a full name as her abduction, security and privacy issues are real and serious. Any attempt to do so will result in immediate legal action. People like "Eugeneacurry" as well as "Ari89" should be banned from ever making changes at Acharya's Wiki article. There should only be a selected few allowed to make changes on Acharya's Wiki page. Her Safety and privacy should always be # 1 here. Wikipedia needs to respect that. Skull (talk) 05:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

(Note that this comment resulted an indefinite block for rpsugar (aka skull) per WP:NLT. Jclemens (talk) 07:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

If her safety and privacy are an issue, then delete the article. The fact that I have said nothing on the issue of her name makes me wonder why you are attempting to attack me in this thread. --Ari (talk) 06:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Calm down, Rpsugar/Skull; your over-heated attempts at chivalry, while endearing, aren't necessary. I'm not ZAROVE; I'm not out to "get" anybody. I'm merely interested in seeing this article conform to general Wikipedia format if it's going to be on the site at all. As I've pointed out several times, other authors that generally go by initials (T. S. Eliot, G. K. Chesterton, C. S. Lewis, N. T. Wright, E. P. Sanders, and on and on) are identified by their full name at the beginning of their Wikipedia article. If Murdock is entitled to an article here then it ought to conform to general formats.

As to the matter of her safety, I've seen this objection a few times now and it's always struck me as misleading, as if the implication is that critics of Murdock's work are so enraged that they are seeking to do her bodily harm, as though if they could only get her full name they'd track her down to satisfy their crazed blood lust. First, numerous popular authors have been arguing that Jesus is a mythical construct recently (Freke, Gandy, Price, Harpur, Price, Carrier, etc.) without incurring the wrath of pitch-fork wielding mobs of Christians. And secondly, both the 2005 L. A. Times article on Murdock's "abduction, security and privacy issues" and her own comments on the incident clearly indicate that those involved weren't strangers and they didn't receive her personal information from the web, they have been supplying it. So, again, Murdock's past security issue had nothing to do with Wikipedia (or any other online source) making her full name known; the objection simply isn't factually relevant.

It seems like I'm not going to get anywhere with this, so I'll make my last appeal and leave it at that. J. P. Holding states in his book, Shattering the Christ Myth, "Acharya S is a writer’s pseudonym, but recently Acharya has publicly reverted to use of her given name, Dorothy Milne Murdock." (pg. 263) Now I realize that Holding's book is self-published and wouldn't normally qualify as a reliable source. But since Murdock herself has stated on her site that "In his typically vicious, unprofessional, unethical and immoral manner, Holding first revealed my name," it seems that she concedes Holding's identification is correct. (RL0919, I recognize that Murdock claims Holding has also disseminated false information about her, but she draws a clear distinction between this alleged libel and her name: "Holding first revealed my name... and then passed along the false and libelous material.") This, taken together with the Lake Forest page, would seem to justify the conclusion that that Milne is Murdock's middle name and allow for its inclusion in the opening of this article, in conformity with the other Wikipedia articles I mentioned above. That's it for me. Eugeneacurry (talk) 06:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

First, let me say that a living person's reasons for wanting to keep information private are not an appropriate matter for debate here. Whether this subject's desire to keep her full name private is totally justified or totally crazy does not change the fact that she has evidenced such a desire, both by using pseudonyms and by denouncing those who have revealed her name in other places. Searching suggests that her efforts to keep her first name private have failed, and we have at least one presumptively reliable source cited for it. But use of her middle name is not widespread, and the only reliable source purported to use it can only be connected to the subject via a lengthy explanation of correlations to her biography. Placing this detail in her Wikipedia article, which will be a high-ranked search result for her pen names and books, will spread it far more than the few discussion boards and self-published works where it currently appears. And essentially that is why it should not appear, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of established information, not a tabloid for spreading little-known private details to the world. Finally, that full names appear in some other articles where the information is already widely known is irrelevant. There are also articles where subjects' real names are not used at all. --RL0919 (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

In response to Eugeneacurry re: And secondly, both the 2005 L. A. Times article on Murdock's "abduction, security and privacy issues" and her own comments on the incident clearly indicate that those involved weren't strangers and they didn't receive her personal information from the web, they have been supplying it. So, again, Murdock's past security issue had nothing to do with Wikipedia (or any other online source) making her full name known; the objection simply isn't factually relevant.

Well, it is relevant. Making Murdock's full name public knowledge and available on Wikipedia makes hiding a lot more difficult. It means that anybody she meets can perform a simple web search and opine online about how they met the controversial author in Kansas. ^^James^^ (talk) 21:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)