Talk:Acharya S/Archive 11

message: Yoru atakcs on me are simply further lies, Lobo. Im not here to shoot the messenger because I dotn liek th message. You onthe other hand wan tot silence anyone who speaks againt th emessage, thats why you rmove all Critiism, or neutralise it by wordign that makes it seem unimportant.
A bully often projects their own actiosn on their victims, in this case me.
The truth is this. Her ideas are presdented neutrllay. Supporters arent needed. No other wikipedia aritlce has htem, and int ruth he rsuypporters arte all "Nobodies".
She doesnt have Universities totign her name, she doesnt have academics clammoring for her. SHes worthless as a Scholactic tool.Her works are all seondary and form suspect soruces themselves.
The removal of the King David link is not acceptable. Becuase you only remove it as it shows that she cannot defend her position. It is included onlybecause hse is direclty invovled.
Critisim to her ideas is include dot show dome reaosns why her ideas arent accepted. You will to neutrlaise the critiissm in order to promote her ideas, and then challenge anyone who opposes you in this as soemone blidned by rleigiosu beleif.
Your verison isnot neutral. It slants the arilc ein Favour of DOrothy Murdock.
this Bias is unforgivable, and worse, you have completley Islated critism to make her veiw appear mroe promenant then LIE about her in the "Rave reviews" paragraph. You also make judgement calls concernign religion and rleigios belivf, which is beyind the scope of WIkjiepdia.
Its vandalsim. You may have blinded soem here, includign soem administrators, into thinkitn this is you defiendign somthgin agaisnt a zealot, but the trith is your just here to attakc those who you see as a threat. Any neutrality is seen as a threat. You want this to clearly show her ideas as correct.
Its baotu rleigoosu dogma all right. Yoru rleigiosu Dogma.
ZAROVE 04:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To keep the record straight, I sign what I write as el Lobo and use no other name. 
66.174.79.227 07:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atakc me all you like...

message: Im not smearign Acharya S. Thats a lie. You guys are just promotign her by vandalising the aritlce. Its a lie to say it snto Vandalism. the "At leats one critic and several detractors fromt he apolgist camp" line is POV.It exists to minimalise the critiism of her work. Just like the "Rave review" paragrpaph exists more to present her works as accepted schoalrship and turley compelling. Its an advertisement.
Deletign the link shows a bais. its an interview with the author that didnt go well so has to be removed. You just wan tot controle th einformaiton.
ZAROVE 12:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So it doesn't matter to you... well, I think you've amply proven that. 
66.174.92.165 03:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: dOESNT MATTER.

message: Lobo, you and yoru confederates advocae a biased verison, and bemoan the cuirrent one as Biased. You do nto show how it is biased, you jjust accuse it of such. Ive shwon how yours is.
ZAROVE 18:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Every point you have made has been discounted and shown to be false. Your bias is denial.
12.203.133.224 22:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Of COurse

message: No, it's not. You didn't even address the problems I showed withthe current version. All the hwile, you remove a link you disagree with, minimalise critisism, add lies tot he text ( Such as the "Fact" that Acharya nonetheless has origional research, or the rave review section.)
No, yours is promotional of her ideas. It is not NPOV, and is vandalism.
ZAROVE 23:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No it has not.

message: At least one critic and various detractors from the apologetic camp have claimed her work is based on poor scholarship, with little primary research and heavy reliance on outdated or fringe sources, and shows ignorance of the topics on which she writes, in particular of the Hindu and Buddhist traditions. Nevertheless, there is much original research in her work, especially in "Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled," her follow-up to "The Christ Conspiracy."
The Bold sections are Biased. Saying that she has only oen Critic and several detractors fromt he apologist Camp is Biased. Calling her critics detractods is biased. Saying that she "NEvertheless has origional research" is bais. It is nto WIkipeidas palce to determine if her owrk is origional or not. Her critics say it is not. (Critics, not detractors.) 
Sayin that it is as a point-of-fact is a bais.
Acharya S has been described, by her own books, and website, as well as the Paranoia Magazine website, as a historian, mythologist, religious scholar, linguist(she speaks, reads and writes several ancient and modern languages), and archeologist with moderate undergraduate experience in Archeology. Internet essayist John Kaminski describes her as "the ranking religious philosopher of our era".
The Kamanski quote exists only to further boost her image. The statement baotu spekaign more thna one language is not rlelay relevant, and the Omisison of the reason WHY she is claimed ot be " A Historian, Religiosu Shclar, Archeologist, and Lingust" is not preasent. ( Ys you say she speaks multiple languages. But no other explanaiton rellay eixts.)
It is entrley promotional.
The ommission of the fac thtat she hodls no trianign in any of these fields, and is only these thigns "By DIcitonary definition", the argument her supporters made her to forc the ridiculosu list in the encyclopidia int he firts place, is biased. Youd o nto want hte reader to know she hodls no degree and try to sway the readers opinion.
She has received rave reviews from readers across the spectrum, from those on the edge of doubt about their religons to those having some familiarity with the unhistorical nature of religon generally. Her books have become popular with avid "truth-seekers" from around the world, eliciting interest from the average person to the professional and academically trained thinkers.
THis entire paragrpah is promotional, and thus shoudl not be in the encyclopedia. It exosts only to firther her views.
It is also of import that it claim as a fact that religion is Ahistorical, which is not Wikipeidas palce.
It also seems not to be vrified form any known source, and is just a form of marketing.
The Omisison of the link to King David's website was doen soley for the sake of preservign her knoeldgable image. In the exchange, she filed ot rellay defend her views, and so it servs the interests of her legiosn to rmove it.
These are the problems.
As to the version I reverted to, no problems are even listed.
ZAROVE 01:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You made 3 revisions the first day you got off being banned then today, you have made 4 revisions. It seems you also don't care about wikipedia rules as well. 
66.174.93.102 02:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This is also a lie.

message: -The "problems" are only problems for you Zarove. Do you even know the meaning of bias?! 
Acutlaly their problems for everyone excpt htose who agree with Acharya S.
Everything is biased.
Not everything.
Every little suggestion you have made or criticism is a bias. 
Not really.
Jesus, I hope you don't expect me to point out the bias in the things you like in the article--the key is to balance out views, which is what you apparently DON'T WANT! So really, stop pretending you care about bias or FACTS!
You can't show prblems withthe current artucle.
Thats why you don't. If yo did it woud be trumpet upnonsence liek when you said callign her an "American" was an atack on her...
Everything that is written there is a fact--
No its not. Its not a fact that "Nonetheless she has much origional research." It basiclaly eixsts to invalidate the Critism that she has no roigional research and doesnt balance the arilce so much as it serves to dismiss the Critisism.
The Rave Reviews section is not a factual paragrpah, and veen states religion is AHistorical, whih is a POV Comment, not a fact.
I need not go on really.
even the negative reviews (who the heck cares about this silly King David email--you seem fixated on a silly peice of "alleged" private correspondence reputed to some nobody with a nuiscance objective)--it could have been you for Christ's sake! The Price, Holden, and Licona remarks (website operators unconfirmed to have any credibility in the field of mythology or religon) are negative biases.
Robert Price, of Jesus Seminar, has no credibility in the feild of rleigion???
Licona I belive is workign for a degree int he feild.
Even if they do not hwoever, Dorothy Murdocks own credentuals arent int he feild of rleigiosu studies, but clasical studies.
So it's equivolent.
Only Price could have the dubious distinction of being a "critic", because he at least is published and a known figure of some credibility.
Holding also has credibility in many cirtucles and is often referenced. 
Holden is an obvious "huckster" (and so is he a mainstream expert, or is it Licona or any self-proclaimed expert on Christianity from the innumerable churches, sects, scientist-archeologists and Doctors of Religon, including those who have recanted the literal historical nonsense they came to see was inherent in religon?!).
This is POV opinion and not a fact.
Take all these "biases" or "criticisms" away if BIAS is your big concern. Take all the "favoritisms" away if you are concerned about "BIAS". These BIASES were removed--both pros and cons were pared down considerably and you rejected that. Remove them all together and you would still object! What you want is heavily negative bias--get over it!
See this is what I mean. You guys hate Tekton Ministires, so its an obviosu Huskcter site.
Any Christain Critism of her work will be seen as Bias and so shoudl not be int he artilce. Unfortunarly she critises CHristaintiy, so the CHristain side of the story will obviosuly be needed ot balance this out. You relaly don't expect anone to take seriously the comment that someone can bash Christainity, and only a NonChristain can then refute her work, do you?
Its obvious that you simply want to promote her work, andnot balance the aritlce.
her work is based on poor scholarship, with little primary research and heavy reliance on outdated or fringe sources, and shows ignorance of the topics on which she writes, in particular of the Hindu and Buddhist traditions** Is this not demotional (a detractive statement of opinion)? 
You omit the first art of this comment, whioch states that her Critics claim this. Not WIkipedia. And its verifiable that her Crictics make htis claim. We also state that she claims that the CHristain Faith is basd on Plagerised Myth.
The difference is, Wikipedia is not syaing this statement is true, it says that the Criics say it. Just liek it doesnt say JEuss was a Plageised Pagan Myth. it states that Acharya S says he is.
considers her work so poor as to constitute an embarrassment to the case. I cringed... Writing at second hand, she is too quick to state as bald-faced fact what turn out to be, once one chases down her sources, either wild speculations or complex inferences from a chain of complicated data open to many interpretations. And sometimes she swallows their fanciful etymologies like so many shiny goldfish at a frat party. Worse yet, she just goofs here and there and betrays a lack of ability to weigh evidential claims... The Christ Conspiracy is a random bag of (mainly recycled) eccentricities, some few of them worth considering, most dangerously shaky, many outright looney** How about this--is it not demotional opinion of the worst kind, with absolutely no proof to those words presented? 
The firts problem with the above is the Hypocracy of it. Origionally an Encapusualted Critisim section wa sincluded. Becuase it was not a series of direct quotatiosn form her critics you complaiend and said that it was WIkipeida makign the claims. THen someone added lengthy quote blocs fromt he Critics. Now yor complaining about this.
Wikipeida has stated as a matter of coruse who said hte above, and mentioned thta he was a Critic.
Your problem withthe above is groundless.
His article includes correspondence with several scholars who noted inaccuracies in her work, in one case writing that she should take a Religion 101 class** I suppose this isn't demotional/detractive statements of opinion without any presentation of fact of where she is innaccurate or proof that "those scholars" are right and she is totally ignorant? 
See above. You are the ones who demanded we use quotes and not a simple encapsulation of what her Critics claim. Now you want to rmeove the wuotes on dubous grounds. Wikipeda states the sourc of the informaiton, and os the problem is mooted.
Now I know you will reject this logical revelation of BIAS, INNUENDO, DEMEANING CHARACTER ASSASSINATION as non-NPOV as you claim the bias stated in her favour is! Is this encyclopedic?!! 
Yes, because the above are quotes from her critics, and not IWkipeidas own claims. Your sttaement "Nevertheless her work contians much origional research, especially in the Suns of God" is wikipedia saying " Her critics say this but are wrong." It snot Wikipeidas palce to settle the matter.
Again, you are the one who wanted the quotatiosn used.
I suspect, rather I know you that YOU are BIASED (and the archives show that you are a malicious "encyclopedic" detractor; you have been shown to have deliberately tried to pawn off a misrepresentation (lieing) of her attendance at an educational institute she never claimed to have been at!
Actually this is yet anothe rlie. I said I had no proof of hte claim f her being int he Am School, other than her website. When documentation was given, by her, I then allowed the comment. You blow it out of proportion.
Why would you do that? Why would you, on this talk page, bring up all kinds of personal matters (innaccurate and slanderous at that), which have absolutely no bearing on her persona as a learned author of religous/mythology?!
Actually I threatened to post an article I wrote ont he web, an use it as a source, sicne she, and her disiples, complaiend abuth the sources alreayd avaialbel online. Noen of hat I said was slanderous. She did on occasion make poor grades,and was not seen as overly mpressive in hr academic work. She was an average student overall. ANd her personal life came to my attention by various peopel who had knwon her. ( Not her ex lover though.) And the records that appeared as part of a standard news article. At the time sh was unavailabel or comment hwoever or I'd have spoken to her as well.
This is not the same as slander.
You deserve no respect at all as an expert on proper editing, as a source of information on the article itself, on Acharya's life, or what is or is not NPOV, because your credibility as anyone can read throughout these archives is WORTHLESS.
This is just more Ad Hom. You have no credibiloty since you ar ejust here to slant the aritlce. The problems Ive had on wikipeida owe to you gusy trashign me and distirtign everyhtign I said. James even went so far as to create a huge list of evidence agaisnt me, noen of which save one parabraph even dealign withthe issue at hand and most of whihc beign things I siad he disagrees with but that arent rlelay violatiosn fo any rule. All to make me look bad. THen he threatened to use my past website expeiurnces agisnt me.  Naturllay usign the same smear tactics he accused me of. You guys tries too too. Withthe OLD stalkers on your side you coudl rellay make me look bad. You woidl ignroe any posiitve claism to me and focs on the negative, and forget that they all stem formt he same soruce and just claim Im a monster.
Really, this is so much Hokum.
Now that is just an obvious fact, aside from having any discussion with you on any part of this co-operative editing being an exercise in analistic futility! There has got to be someone else in here beside Lobo with whom an intelligent and reasonable discussion on the direction this page should 
You have yet to even address the problems I raised withthe Aritlce. You Obfuciate the matter by simply attacign mne, my credibility, and sentences that you yourself insiste dupon having in the article int he firts palce. But you didnt addrss the problems I raised.
ZAROVE 17:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Now.

message: You made 3 revisions the first day you got off being banned then today, you have made 4 revisions. It seems you also don't care about wikipedia rules as well. 
Actually I reported htis page as vandalised. Vandalism maybe reveted. I pointe dout that the "Edit warrign" which got me banned was juist a ruse. I also poitne dout the sentneces you gsy keep inscertignm, the changes, and ommisisons.
Removal of informaiton and inscertion of diliberate Biased informaiton is Vandalsim, which may be reverted.
ZAROVE 18:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By that definition, what you are doing qualifies as the same thing and thus must be reverted to a more neutral version.
12.203.133.224 00:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: vANDAL CLAUSE

message: No it doesnt.
The current vrsion does not make any attemot to promote her works, or to attack her works. Neither does it attmeot to ttack her. 
On the other hand, it does present critism. And itpresents her ideas.
It also presents her life as best is known currently without rleying on informaitn from other osruces than the internet and her mailign list.
So, how is this Vandalism? Simpy because you disagree withthe content.
ZAROVE 00:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But then, all you are doing is disagreeing with the content. You have not shown any criticism, you have shown what those detractors say in favor of their own belief systems. What you seek in the article is clearly what can show her and her books in a negative light. And if thatr must be, so be it biut inorder to remain neutral, you must also show the other end of the scale which you consistenly filter out claiming it shows her in a good light. 
12.203.133.224 00:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No it doesnt.

message: I'd like to see the article revamped as well. Perhaps we could go over it section by section? Unfortunately I don't have as much time as I'd like, so it may be a fairly slow process. Regarding the Books section:
Her 1999 book, The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold, is a development of part of her website. A follow-up book, Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled, discusses her views further. It is largely written to address criticisms of her former book. In it, she comments on the Hindu story of the life of Krishna, as well as the life of Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama). She claims parallels to the life of Jesus, presenting this as evidence that the story of Jesus was written based on existing stories, and not the life of a real man.
I have some problems with the above. Is the first book really a "development of part of her website"? Was the second book written "largely to address criticisms of her former book"? 
Also, a book titled "Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled" will obviously contain comments on the life of Krishna and Buddha. The next line, "She claims parallels..." is misleading as well. Suns of God is better described as an "exploration of the origin and meaning of the world's religions and popular gods".
For consideration, here are the authors own descriptions of Suns of God and The Christ Conspiracy.
^^James^^ 00:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.
12.203.133.199 20:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Regards AJA changes. Do you not see Charles and you other Admin's? This subject cannot be dealt with objectively. Believers simply have to refute or deny the observations presented in the books lest their beliefs be subject to doubt. They are driven to "blackwash" them in an effort to hold their beliefs superior to anything that might challenge them. Delete this abomination to fact, fairness, and reason.
66.174.92.167 06:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: More Sources

message: 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
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:
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:
The citations from my work are here:
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:
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:
The author of The Jesus Puzzle, Earl Doherty, who also has a Wiki page, reviewed my book The Christ Conspiracy:
Doherty mentions me in his review of Price's book Deconstructing Jesus:
Christ Con was also reviewed by "Nexus" magazine, which has a Wiki page:
Alex Burns of Disinfo wrote a review of Christ Con as well:
A review of Suns of God has also appeared in Nexus magazine:
And in "Paranoia" magazine, which also has a Wiki page:
And another review of SOG appears here:
My book Who Was Jesus? was featured on the website HollywoodJesus.com, owned by Pastor David Bruce:
A review of Suns of God by Dr. Robert M. Price appears on my website here:
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:
John also has a Wiki page:
John_Daly_%28journalist%29
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:
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:
Another of my articles was published in The New Conspiracy Reader:
And another in the book Wake Up Down There!:
I also wrote the foreword to the AUP edition of Kersey Graves's World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors:
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.
Atheist Alliance International has a Wiki page.
My work has also been published in "Steamshovel Press," which has its own Wiki article. 
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):
"New Archaeology Review" also published a three-part article of mine:
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:
I have also been interviewed on the blog of "Infidelis Maximus":
The Progressive Observer interviewed me here:
An interview in Spanish by Cristobal Cobo appears here:
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:
The response itself is here:
Richard Carrier's website "Internet Infidels" has also linked to my article "Origins of Christianity" for several years:
and here:
Here's a link from Infidels.org to my review of Earl Doherty's The Jesus Puzzle:
Peter Kirby of "Early Christian Writings" has linked to one of my articles:
 (ED: wayback link)
(I believe Kirby is a frequent Wiki editor.)
I am also cited on the Religious Tolerance website:
Danish Sanskrit and Buddhist scholar Dr. Christian Lindtner links to my site:
(Lindtner is cite several times on Wiki.)
Islam Watch regular links to my articles and blog posts:
David Icke, who also has a Wiki page, has posted my work on his website:
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.
Kenn Humphreys cites and links to my work:
Humphreys is cited in several places on Wiki.
Red Ice Creations has linked to several of my articles:
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:
Famous Italian atheist Luigi Cascioli, who also has a Wiki page, links to my site:
Videos
Consciousness Media Network has a free online video of me:
  (registration required)
My videos can be found here:
One of my videos has over 100,000 views:
My videos have been featured on WUFO TV in Washington, DC, which was voted this year the best TV station of its kind:
My videos have also been featured quite recently on Edge Media TV in the UK:
Adventures Unlimited also offers a DVD of my Suns of God presentation:
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:
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.
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."
Here are other relevant User pages mentioning or linking to my work:
Notice on this page concerning "India" the amount of articles for deletion, including mine:
It is also on this page, concerning the "Team/Krishnaism":
And on this one for "Team/Vishnaism":
Critical Sources
My work was criticized by evangelist author Mike Licona, who also has a Wiki page:
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:
Holding has also included me in his book Shattering the Christ Myth.
James Hannam who calls himself "The Venerable Bede" also links to me:
"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.  
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)
thread_title: Acharya's Response

message: 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"  :
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:
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Rook's intellectually dishonest blog does *NOT* belong here 

message: 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.
  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.15.226.206 (talk) 19:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability of Acharya S 

message: 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.  jbolden1517Talk 22:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: OK, that was my read of the deletion debate.   So we can focus on WP:N.  jbolden1517Talk 22:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:V

message: 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?  jbolden1517Talk 21:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Writings of Acharya S 

message: 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. —GodhevalT C H 19:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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? jbolden1517Talk 16:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

text: 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.  jbolden1517Talk 16:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested Move 

message: 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)
thread_title: pet peeve fixed

message: 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)
thread_title:  Licona References 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Move mess 

message: Having looked into the publishing background, I think that a better title for the article would be Stellar House, the publishers founded by Acharya S and based in Seattle. This would allow us to start with something verifiable, and to discuss the notability of the topic in terms of books and the attention they have received. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want to cover things like 16 Crucified Saviors (a steller publication) in our article on Murdock.  jbolden1517Talk 11:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that represents your expressed wish, then. But considering that we have it from Acharya S that "I wrote the foreword to this edition" in her Amazon review, I don't see the logic. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

text: You wouldn't be asserting ownership of the article, would you? The fact that Stellar House says on its website that she founded the firm seems to be as verifiable as the biographical facts, at very least. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Go ahead and include her relationship with Stellar House.  You were arguing before that this should be the title.  I have objections to that as a title.  I agree it is a verifiable biographical fact about Murdock (though not about Acharya S).  jbolden1517Talk 13:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Stellar House

message: The Ehrman reference doesn't belong in this article. The question is about writers like Acharya S and Freke and Gandy, not about Acharya's work specifically. And in his response he discusses the myth theory in general. This quote might suit the Christ myth theory page.
:What about those writers like Acharya S (The Christ Conspiracy)5and Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy (The Jesus Mysteries),6 who say that Jesus never existed, and that Christianity was an invented religion, the Jewish equivalent of the Greek mystery religions?
:"This is an old argument, even though it shows up every 10 years or so...
^^James^^ (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree.  He doesn't address her work specifically and there is no indication he is familiar with it.  This article is already in category Christ myth and the this quote appears in the lead article for that cat.  jbolden1517Talk 22:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Yes they are allies now.  I think deletion of the quote, unless we ask him for clarification is appropriate.  jbolden1517Talk 05:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ehrman 

message: Done. OK, another issue is Price. While he did not care for Acharyas first book, he has supported her subsequent work, appearing on interviews with her, writing the forward for her book Who was Jesus? and writing a favorable review for Christ in Egypt. He has also removed the Christ Conspiracy review from his website until he can revise it. In the article here he is presented as a critic of her work and a skeptic. I'm not sure how the above should fit into the article but I do think Price's views are misrepresented. ^^James^^ (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes they are allies now.  I think deletion of the quote, unless we ask him for clarification is appropriate.  jbolden1517Talk 05:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Price 

message: I think we should include the Ken Feder endorsement if we can find a 3rd party source.  .  jbolden1517Talk 23:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: found the original  jbolden1517Talk 00:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ken Feder