Talk:Ramakrishna/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Advice

I would advice editors to find ways to incorporate all significant viewpoints on the subject and not dismiss one viewpoint at the expense of another viewpoint. All viewpoints can and should co-exist in the article, with attribution. If editors cannot find common ground, please pursue dispute resolution: Any deletion of well sourced material from this article, will be assessed as vandalism and acted upon accordingly. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

jossi, the reliably sourced information has already been removed from the article over the past few weeks by Nvineeth. My edit undid that removal of information. Of course, my edit was immediately reverted by User:Priyanath. The article remains severely damaged by Priyanath and Nvineeth. — goethean ॐ 20:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Please note that Goethean deleted an entire month's worth of well-referenced additions made by Vineeth and SriniG, without discussing first (39 references to be exact). The relevant issues are currently discussed in the article, just not with the (un)due weight that Goethean would like. Granted, I think the "Views" section could be expanded to allow for more of the views of Kripal and Sil. That's where the discussion should begin, which Vineeth has begun with his comments on each section above. Vineeth is making a good-faith effort to discuss, while Goethean is simply deleting. Discussion is the way this should proceed. ~ priyanath ^talk 20:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Per recent mass deletion by Goethean... A discussion has been going on about changing this article, a process has already began in which the article is addressed section by section. Goethean took it upon itself to delete major sections of the article during this process. These deletions have been restored and the process should continue looking at the specifics of the article - not by attacking editors personally - and not by mass removals of information by one editor alone. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Are Sil or Kripal referenced in the biography section of the article? No. Those two authors have written the two most notable books on Ramakrishna's biography in the past 30 years. That is a flagrant violation of Wikipedia policy. I am sorry that I have not been able to babysit the article every day for the past 6 weeks while flagrant POV editing has been systematically removing reliably-sourced information from the article. But that does not give you license to impose your views on the article. — goethean ॐ 20:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment : This Edit is not justified, and against wikipedia guidelines. Its not our problem if you cannot "babysit" the article for the past 6 weeks. Tomorrow another editor can come and saying he couldn't "babysit" for 1 year can revert the article back. We will not let the hardwork and good faith edits of other editors go down the drain. Other editors , Srinig, priyanath, ism_schism, nvineeth have given clear proofs, arguments and you on the other hand have indulged in vandalism, personal attacks. Pls stop this. -- Ramashray (talk) 11:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Its not our problem if you cannot "babysit" the article for the past 6 weeks.

Vineeth removed all references to Kripal and Sil from the biographical section and replaced the with references more favorable to The Mission's POV. He knew exactly what he was doing. In order to avoid a mess like this in the future, he should cease editing in an extreme POV manner. That damage must be undone. — goethean ॐ 13:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment : You are not even reading the comments on each section, which discusses the inconsistencies in these works. -- Ramashray (talk) 11:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I am well aware that there are problems with Sil and Kripal's books. That doesn't mean that this article can ignore them. If there were other recent scholarly books on Ramakrishna that were of comparable notability, maybe we could. But there isn't. — goethean ॐ 13:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not imposing my views on the article - I am acknowledging your massive deletion of weeks of good faith edits by others during a process where individuals are discussing this article section by section. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Please look at the article history. Look at what Vineeth did to the article in the past six weeks. He removed reliably sourced information, and substituted information referenced to books which a religious organization finds more friendly to their agenda. These books are 40, 50, and in some cases 100 years old. They are not relevent to the current academic debate. What Vineeth did is vandalism. — goethean ॐ 21:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Per your edit disagreements with Vineeth - please pursue dispute resolution over choosing to make a mass deletion during a discussion on making major changes to this article. Per Jossi, "any deletion of well sourced material from this article will be assessed as vandalism and acted upon accordingly." While changes are under discussion, this is a good guide for all editors to follow. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you could read my comments and respond to thenm, rather than making robotic non-sequitors. — goethean ॐ 21:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I did read your comments and strongly suggest that you take your disagreements with Vineeth to dispute resolution instead of choosing to delete major sections of this article that are currently under discussion on this talk page. Please, stop such deletions as this discussion attempts to move towards consensus. There is a sincere discussion on major changes for this article, so please do not make major deletions alone without consensus during this process as many editors are involved. That is a simple request. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, it would really be nice if you could respond to the points that I made instead of ignoring them. — goethean ॐ 00:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, I strongly suggest that you take your disagreements with Vineeth to dispute resolution instead of choosing to delete major sections of this article that are currently under discussion on this talk page. There is a discussion underway - and I advise that you participate in this discussion rather than go about deleting massive amounts of material from the article on your own - respect for consensus is necessary in this debate! This article does not belong to you, and regardless of your strong opinions, a good faith attempt at consensus is the proper process to begin with - This attempt at a good faith consensus is what this discussion is about. Please participate in this discussion rather than make mass deletions. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I accept that you are unwilling or unable to respond to my comment. — goethean ॐ 01:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Please take your personal disputes with Vineeth to dispute resolution. Also, if you have any constructive comments to add to this discussion, on the various sections of this article discussed on this talk page, please add them. Otherwise, please seek dispute resolution. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

<<< I would argue that it is not just Goethean's deletion that I expressed a concern about. The concern and warning applies also to other editors who have deleted well sourced material from this article over the last several weeks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Reply I am well aware that your concerns were, and are, not just about Goethean's massive deletion - But your comments do apply to Goethean as well, even if you did not intend them to be towards Goethean - as you have suggested at Prinanth's talk page. There appears to be a double standard here - do you have an explanation for this suggestion that Priyanath was the first to delete sections of this article instead of Goethean? I do not see any info to support this and strongly advise that you expand on your comments about this as it is an accusation against one editor over another - any reason? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

If you would take the time to familiarize yourself with the article, you would see that Priyanath's version also deletes many well-sourced items from the article. And no, Vineeth was the first to start deleting well-sourced information from the article. My reversion undoes his changes. — goethean ॐ

Again, I strongly suggest that you take your disagreements with Vineeth to dispute resolution instead of choosing to delete major sections of this article that are currently under discussion on this talk page. There is a discussion underway - and I advise that you participate in this discussion rather than go about deleting massive amounts of material from the article on your own - respect for consensus is necessary in this debate! This article does not belong to you, and regardless of your strong opinions, a good faith attempt at consensus is the proper process to begin with - This attempt at a good faith consensus is what this discussion is about. Please participate in this discussion rather than make mass deletions. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I have advised both sides in the recent past to pursue WP:DR, as I did here. The message on Prinanth page was related to the fact that substantial information was deleted from the article by that editor. Basically we have a situation here in which two sides of a dispute are deleting material, and that is no acceptable. The obvious compromise: include all significant viewpoints. Hope both sides of the dispute can see that and restore the deleted material. As it stands now, the current version of the article is missing information sourced to reliable sources which was deleted over the course of the last several weeks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

You specifically singled out one editor on their talk page. This is not impartial. You have not attempted to advise both sides equally and have only criticized Prinayanath on its talk page and no other editor's talk page. Why only single out one editor who only reverted anothers deletion of referenced material? As an editor, you need to explain these edits of yours. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to cool it. Now, can editors here start collaborating and re-adding the deleted material? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Please cool it and remain impartial. There is a discussion underway, a process underway, to address the various sections of the Ramakrishna article - why interfere with this discussion on the side of only one individual? I suggest that you let this discussion proceed in a natural course for at least a few day - at least - and then after reviewing more than one editors response - a more complete analysis can be attempted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Vineeth and SriniG have added a wealth of well-referenced material while editing the article during the last month. Goethean is saying that in their rewrite, they deleted his referenced material. Rather than making blanket statements and accusations, it's time to look at each section and come to a consensus about what should be included. Let's start with the lead, comparing the version from one month ago (the version that Goethean tried to revert to) and the current version. It's a perfect example of how Goethean is violating WP:UNDUE to add a POV that is not the mainstream academic view of Ramakrishna.

The August 13 version, essentially created by Goethean, started by stating that Ramakrishna "was a rustic Bengali religious ecstatic[2] who practiced Vaishnava and Śakti bhakti, Vedanta, Tantra, and other spiritual disciplines" and ended by stating that "Though recent academic scholarship has concentrated on, among other things, aspects of his sexuality,[5] the Ramakrishna Mission and other scholars have criticized the work of these scholars.[6]" He completely ignored (or removed) the fact that Ramakrishna was an influential Hindu leader and launched the movement that is represented today by the Ramakrishna Mission. In addition he gave undue weight to the non-mainstream psychoanalysis on Ramakrishna's sexuality, and put emphasis on the controversy itself - which has nothing to do with Ramakrishna, but with academics arguing about him.

The current version begins by saying Ramakrishna "was born in a small Bengali village and became a Hindu religious leader and founder of the religious school of thought that developed into the Ramakrishna Mission.[2]" and ends with "He was considered an avatar or incarnation of God by many of his disciples, and is considered as such by many of his devotees today.[7]", which sentence was also in Goethean's version. Only the sentence that emphasized the sexual studies of Ramakrishna was removed.

How do mainstream, neutral, academic bios begin their leads?

Britannica (2008):

...Hindu religious leader, founder of the school of religious thought that became the Ramakrishna order, and the best-known Hindu saint of the 19th century.

Britannica makes no mention of the sexual studies in the lead paragraphs, or in the entire article.

Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religions:

...founder of a school of religious thought that became the Ramakrishna Order and considered by many Hindus to be not just a Guru but a saint.

Merriam-Webster's makes no mention of the sexual studies in the lead paragraphs, or in the entire article. Lest you think that Merriam-Webster was written from a Hindu, Indian, or Ramakrishna Mission perspective, trying to cover up the 'real' story, be aware that Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religions was written by none other than Wendy Doniger, Jeffrey Kripal's mentor and guide.

In addition, look at these two encyclopedias first sentence, and compare to Goethean's version, and the current version. The current version of the lead is uncannily similar to these two mainstream, academic, and neutral encyclopedias.

What about references in the lead? The current version has seven. Goethean's has six. Compare them for yourself and you'll see that the current version uses a wide range of academic and reliable sources.

Jossi, I know that you and Goethean go back a ways in Wikipedia. I hope you can be neutral here. Some fine editors, showing good faith, have done a fantastic job upgrading and making this article neutral. There have been some egregious violations of Wikipedia policy during the last months by Goethean, including WP:NPA, WP:UNDUE, WP:AGF, and WP:CIVIL. These are core policies of Wikipedia. If this needs to go to dispute resolution, then so be it. It may well be the environment here has gotten too toxic for a reasonable discussion of the issues, as I'm doing here, and as others have tried. ~ priyanath ^talk 04:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Is that the only material that was deleted by you? If not, could you or Goethean please add a list below of the deleted material? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Is this factually inaccurate, or unsourced? Though recent academic scholarship has concentrated on, among other things, aspects of his sexuality,[5] the Ramakrishna Mission and other scholars have criticized the work of these scholars. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• This: became a Hindu religious leader and founder of the religious school of thought that developed into the Ramakrishna Mission. When Ramakrishna was alive, was he the founder of anything? Was he a religious leader at that time? Did he start a mission under his name? Was not Vivekananda the one that started the mission? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm about to sign off and step away from the computer for a day. I think this needs time for others to give their feedback, particularly Vineeth and SriniG, who we haven't heard from lately. The most relevant issue, and the most egregious violation of Wikipedia policy that has been corrected over the last month, is WP:UNDUE: "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all." Goethean's POV is a minority view, though more notable than a tiny-minority view. It deserves mention in the "Views" section. The other encyclopedias support the current approach. Cheers to all, ~ priyanath ^talk 04:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have been editing this article during the first week of September and my additions have mainly been to the first half of the biography section. While I have taken care not to remove material sourced to Sil and Kripal as far as possible, I did remove such material on two occasions, here and here. In the first instance, the sentence "Sarada, now a young woman, heard rumors of Ramakrishna's bizarre practices and came to Dakshineshwar ...." is totally false. Sarada was only 8 years old then, morover, she came to Dakshineswar only in 1872, long after the Tantric sadhana (I can provide references for these). I thought that was reason enough to remove that sentence. In the second instance, the sentences "Ramakrishna entered into samadhi (or fainted, depending on which account one reads).Datta said: "We have heard many tales of the brahmani but we hesitate to divulge them to the public."" I did not understand what that is supposed to mean. Under what context did Ramakrishna enter Samadhi, and what relevance has Datta's statement to his samadhi? But even as I deleted that sentence, I have added well sourced material from Walter Neevel on more details about Ramakrishna's tantric sadhana. I think I should have discussed before removing these, I therefore apologize if my actions were wrong. —SriniG (talk) 04:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Goethean's POV is a minority view, though more notable than a tiny-minority view. It deserves mention in the "Views" section. The other encyclopedias support the current approach.

That's a lie. First, I am trying to get the scholarly point of view into this article. Most articles only include the scholarly point of view. Listen up Priyanath: every time that you bring up the Britannica red herring, I am going to point out that there are other notable, mainstream, neutral encyclopedias of religion, including Gale's Encyclopedia of Religion, which do reference Sil and Kripal prominently. I can send you documentation of this fact. Besides, Wikipedia doesn't take marching orders from Britannica anyways. Britannica, being a paper encyclopedia has limited space for a particular subject; we do not. — goethean ॐ 13:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Where can an impartial admin, not related to editors directly involved in this discussion, be found? This might help facilitate the discussion underway. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that your comment is inappropriate. You may want to challenge my impartiality as an admin, if that is what you want. But even in that case you cannot ignore me as an editor. So, please avoid making comments about me, and focus on the arguments. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I respect you as an editor but not as an impartial editor. This, you have no claim to considering your history of attacking specific editors concerning their referenced edits. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with Jossi's advice that we incorporate all significant viewpoints. Various scholars could have criticized the works of Kripal and Sil, but that doesn't mean that their works should be totally avoided. The same way, even though books like "The Gospel of Ramakrishna", "Ramakrishna the Great Master" are published by Ramakrishna Mission and may have a POV in favour of glorifying Ramakrishna, I think we cannot totally neglect these books because they provide some basic facts and information that are not available in the works of Sil and Kripal. As long as we stick to the basic facts about Ramakrishna's life, and only about what he said and done, there should be no problems at all. Problem comes only when we try to interpret the events in Ramakrishna's life. Therefore, it's better that we stick to facts and avoid interpretations as far as possible, but when such interpretations have to be added, it should represent all viewpoints, those of the Ramakrishna Mission, those of Sil and Kripal, and everything inbetween. This is only my suggestion and I would like to know what other editors think about this. —SriniG (talk) 05:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well Lot of things have happened :) , well I can myself tell the things I removed , I mainly removed in the "Biography Sources" when I raised a NPOV tag., The reason was that , this section was original research and gave undue weightage (See the explanation above). I removed it as per the wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ:

However, there are legitimate reasons for removing text because of bias: As per our undue weight policy, large sections of text expressing a minority or fringe point of view could hinder our primary purpose as an encyclopaedia by leaving the reader confused as to what the academic consensus on a subject might be. Likewise, Wikipedia is not intended for advocacy, so text which simply advocates a point of view, but offers no information should be deleted.

And above I have also discussed how Sil's views are a minority., . But its also equally true that I added Sil's views back with other balancing POVs, ( pls read my explanations above) Yes, I should have discussed this and this edit from me was somewhat spontaneous. I will be happy to address the other claims if any on deletion. Thanks -- vineeth (talk) 05:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

And, I would like to remind here that wikipedia is not a court of justice to give verdict on whether Kripal and/or Sil are unreliable, or if Ramakrishna Mission is dishonest. Let's just provide facts and details, properly sourced, and let the readers make their own judgement. From the perspective of a reader, I would like to have (an essence of) all possible details and viewpoints about Ramakrishna. I'll take in the details and decide for myself, I don't want wikipedia to make the decision for me. —SriniG (talk) 05:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice point SriniG, Simple Advice to editors who are worrried about old stuff being deleted is to add the old data back in the corresponding sections, and I have enough research to balance the views or move them to corresponding sections. I can also clearly prove what is UNDUE weightage, original research. Regarding the "Biographic Sources", they can add it to the section at the end, "Notes on Biographic Sources". Thanks. -- vineeth (talk) 07:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S: Before adding the old data I would request the editor to go through the arguments in the talk page., Happy editing. -- vineeth (talk) 08:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I compared and added some old data with proper NPOV words usage, other editors pls compare and do the same, thanks -- vineeth (talk) 10:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Totapuri

This is an opinion presented as a fact:

Totapuri was "a teacher of masculine strength, a sterner mien, a gnarled physique, and a virile voice". Ramakrishna address the monk as Nangta or Langta — the "Naked One".[54]

To correct this (and many other such sentences in this article) it requires attribution, as in:

Ramakrishna described Totapuri as "a teacher of masculine strength, a sterner mien, a gnarled physique, and a virile voice". He addressed Totapuri as Nangta or Langta — the "Naked One", because as a renunciate he did not wear any clothing.[54]'

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It should be "because as a renunciate of Naga tribe". The Naga tribe is very important, because without this it will mean that all renunciates go naked, which is incorrect. Digamabaras are another such example. Thanks. -- vineeth (talk) 08:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Too many details

I think we are adding too many details here that are not directly related to Ramakrishna. Some of those details can be moved to other relevant Wikipedia articles and some can be simplified. For example, the whole list of Ramakrishna's monastic disciples is not needed here, the list has its place in Apostles of Ramakrishna. This is just one example. I also think there are too many quotes in the article. I will be trying to simplify things without sacrificing on valuable details. I request the editors to be brief and concise (WP:ATE & WP:SIZE). —SriniG (talk) 12:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:SIZE, "> 100 KB Almost certainly should be divided", and the current article size is 123KB. Apart from briefing the article, we can create new articles from sections like - "Ramakrishna#Ramakrishna’s impact", "Ramakrishna#Views on Ramakrishna’s Religious Experiences and Practices" ( this section is 31KB as of now, and its better if we separate this out, with brief explanation in main article ). And yes, honestly I think I added way too many details at few places, sorry for that, I will correct my mistakes slowly :) -- vineeth (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I have merged the contents from the section Views of Ramakrishna ( the title is slightly incorrect ), into a new section Views on Ramakrishna, also will be adding more details related to "Biography and Stages of Life", "Education and Language" later, so pls delay the split for sometime., thanks! -- vineeth (talk) 16:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the article is getting too long—but often that is the best way to collaborate on a long article: get all of the relevant material in one place first and then begin pruning it. Some sections could get broken off into new articles, especially "Views on Ramakrishna". I think the "Ramakrishna's Impact" section could actually have a bit more about the Ramakrishna movement today and the Ramakrishna Mission. I also think a small section, leading to another 'main article' on "Parables of Ramakrishna" would be good. Here is the relevant guideline about breaking off sections of long articles: Wikipedia:Summary style. All-in-all there is a great deal of good information being added to the article lately! ~ priyanath ^talk 17:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I will be carving out two articles, Ramakrishna's impact and Views on Ramakrishna. The article is 153K! — Nvineeth ^talk 07:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I have removed couple of quotes in the biography section related to Yogeshwari, Madhura bhava, Nirvikalpa Samadhi to reduce the unnecessary details. Others pls check it these quotes are strictly necessary. ([1] [2] [3]) Thanks. — Nvineeth ^talk 08:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Lead

These questions remain unanswered above, so I am re-listing them here.

• Is this factually inaccurate, or unsourced? Though recent academic scholarship has concentrated on, among other things, aspects of his sexuality,[5] the Ramakrishna Mission and other scholars have criticized the work of these scholars.

pls read these : Talk:Ramakrishna#Intro_line., Talk:Ramakrishna#Introduction, , and moreover the most recent academic studies are related to growth of religious movements and the ramakrishna mission and recent keeps changing :) . the last paper I am aware of related to psychoanalytical studies, was in 2004 by Hawley. The term sexuality is somewhat crude, for ex: Kripal says it psychoanalytic study ( and not sexuality of ramakrishna ), Profs like Raab combine psychoanalytical and phylosophical approach, etc., and not all these works were criticized. And we cannot give undue weight age to psychological studies , we need to add all areas of research. I think its ok even if we remove the intro on academic studies (which Goethean has already done), because we may give undue weightage to few authors/journals , and completely ignoring other books/authors... this is what Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias policy of wikipedia addresses. -- vineeth (talk) 08:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• This: became a Hindu religious leader and founder of the religious school of thought that developed into the Ramakrishna Mission. When Ramakrishna was alive, was he the founder of anything? Was he a religious leader at that time? Did he start a mission under his name? Was not Vivekananda the one that started the mission? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, jossi. Vivekananda founded the Mission. This can most likely be sourced to Sil and/or Kripal, and probably other sources as well. Sil has written an entire chapter, which has been published as a stand-alone article in a peer-reviewed academic journal, on Vivekananda's work in this area and time-frame. — goethean ॐ 15:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

we could say that he is considered to be the founder of a religious school of thought, but I would argue that during his life Ramakrishna does not look as one interested in founding anything in particular, or being a leader. Granted, he was a deeply spiritual person that has substantial ecstatic experiences; it was later on after his death, that his disciples founded a mission in his name. These are undisputed facts and should be made clear in the lead, as this is a biographical article on Ramakrishna. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Vivekananda was the founder of the Ramakrishna Mission. There is no ambiguity about this. The statement "considered to be the founder of religious school...." is not even necessary. I think it's enough to say "Ramakrishna's most eminent disciple Swami Vivekananda founded the Ramakrishna Math and Mission under his name". As far as the introduction goes, "Ramakrishna was a nineteenth century Bengali mystic" would be sufficient. I think even Kripal introduces Ramakrishna that way. Possibly, it can be added that "He played a major role in the evolution of modern Hinduism", insert the word considered if you want. —SriniG (talk) 04:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict and outdent)The first statement, on academic scholarship, addresses only one area of recent scholarship. It gives Undue Weight to that particular area. Perhaps a list of all the recent scholarship, which Goethean just deleted, might be appropriate.

The second statement ("founder of the religious school of thought that developed into the Ramakrishna Mission") is so perfectly accurate that it's exactly what both Britannica and Merriam-Webster state, LOL. Didn't anyone read what I wrote above? We could say this or that, but reliable sources say it just like that. Perhaps 'founder of a religious school of thought' is a bit too nuanced for some, but it's accurate, and reliably sourced. I've also added the direct quote from Jackson, to the footnote that currently references the sentence. He describes Ramakrishna as "...the founder of the Ramakrishna movement."

Regarding the use of Sil and Kripal as reliable mainstream neutral third-party sources on Ramakrishna - they are not accepted by the majority of mainstream Asian Study scholars, particularly Kripal. The Kali's Child article makes that abundantly clear. But there are many other fine sources that are accepted by the majority of academia, why not use them? ~ priyanath ^talk 04:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

founder of the religious school of thought that developed into the Ramakrishna Mission is simply factually inaccurate. His philosophy was adopted by a disciple, which created the mission. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

(Response to Goethean's comments above, where he says 'That's a lie' and ' Listen up Priyanath ' (bolding is his), since this response addresses the all-important sourcing):

Sil's and Kripal's is a minority view. The majority of mainstream works completely ignore their POV: Encyclopedia Britannica, Merriam-Webster Encyclopedia of Religion (written by Doniger), and also Gale Encyclopedia of World Biography (2004). The Gale work, which completely ignores Kripal and Sil and their 'views', also recommends only the following works: Gospel of SR (1907), Gospel of SR, Nikhalananda (1937), Muller, Rolland, Isherwood, and Devdas. If Gale Encyclopedia of Religion includes Sil and Kripal, it would be interesting to hear how, and it would still be one of four mainstream works that consider the view even noteworthy enough to mention - which makes their view arguably notable - but certainly notable enough to include in the "Views" section. ~ priyanath ^talk 04:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not Britannica, Merriam-Webster, or Gale Thompson, but Wikipedia, in which we have the policy of WP:NPOV. Kripal and Sil and significant viewpoints and need to be included. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

They are included, that's the whole point. Each of them has an entire section in this article: Ramakrishna#Narasingha Sil and Ramakrishna#Jeff Kripal. And because of the academic controversy around their views, they each warrant those lengthy sections. The dispute here instead revolves around giving their views undue weight in the biography section, since those views are not accepted widely in academia. Britannica and Merriam-Webster are reliable sources, and prove that mainstream neutral biographical sources give no weight to Sil and Kripal. The fact that each has a rather large section here on Wikipedia of course proves that WP has an NPOV policy, and that it is being fulfilled here, to a fault. ~ priyanath ^talk 17:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I think "founder" is not completely correct, since it was SV who established the mission., we can say "under the leadership of his eminent disciple SV, it later developed into mission". Yes the POVs of Sil, Kripal are included. Jossi, pls go thru my and SriniG's observations on the mistakes that existed in the materials from Sil. Thanks. -- vineeth (talk) 06:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

This has been corrected., and other POVs related to kripal, sil, corrections in the old text have been made, (ex: [4][5][6][7]). I will be removing the totally disputed tag, and even going by the unknown wikipedia policy of recent scholarship, the article has very recent journals, for ex: Amiya P. Sen.(2006) Several corrections have been made., original research has been removed., the older revision deserved a totally disputed tag, and not the current revision. I would request other editors to cross check with the older revision and add any relevant info., Thanks. — Nvineeth ^talk 06:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Unattributed material

After a cursory look I see a large number of unatributed and/or unsourced opinions in the article. A few examples:

1. Not satisfied with his visions, he started practicing severe asceticism, usually by the banks of ganga at the Panchavati garden of Kali temple.
2. To get rid of the ego that he belonged to a higher brahmanical caste, he used to serve the Pariahs — servants and cleaners who belonged to the lowest caste. He would eat food cooked by the lowest classes.
3. Ramakrishna received her very kindly, and told that he could never look upon any woman as his wife and saw his mother, the Goddess Kâlî, in her.
4. In preparation for monastic life, Ramakrishna ordered his monastic disciples to beg their food from door to door without distinction of caste. He gave them the saffron robe, the sign of the Sanyasin, and initiated them with Mantra Deeksha.
5. Religion, for him, was merely a means for the achievement of this goal.
6. Ramakrishna’s proclamation of jatra jiv tatra Shiv (wherever there is a living being, there is Shiva) stemmed from his Advaitic perception of Reality.

Rather than pepper the article with {{fact}} and {{who}} tags, it would be advisable to go through the article with a fine-tooth comb and either remove these or attribute and provide sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, these kind of statements of course should be sourced. I think many of them do have sources, and some probably don't, judging from the way they are written. The article does have 205 footnotes at this point, most of them very good references, but there is alot of cleaning up needed. ~ priyanath ^talk 05:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, refs should be added for these. I can think of references to 3 or 4 of these in the list, and I will add them in the article later., but few of the others should be removed. Thanks for pointing these. -- vineeth (talk) 08:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Found refs for 2,4. 6 seems valid, need to check it. The rest can be removed as unsourced POV. I think its better to add the fact, who tags at relevant places, so that other editors who dont bother to look into talk page can add refs. Thanks. -- vineeth (talk) 10:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the others, in one case rewriting and adding a reference. Also added more references and did some cleanup. Much more is needed, of course. ~ priyanath ^talk 21:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

"Other attitudes"

This section is slightly out of place, because, these were practiced by RK, before the arrival of the Bhairavi., all the major Bios tell this. But here its placed after Totapuri, I will be correcting this and will combine Religious practices and teachers under one heading., Thanks. -- vineeth (talk) 05:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Article rating

From long studies in Hinduism, I give this article a D. So very much of Goethean's criticisms have been swept aside as if the actual factual sources were outright lying. This is Wikipedias failure at its greatest. the POV of this article is absurd. Its borderline propaganda. Its neither scorarly nor exceptional, but I guess its just par for the course --Artoftransformation (talk) 02:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your rating! In fact it will be helpful if you can make contributions at the peer review which is still in progress. — Nvineeth ^talk 07:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ramakrishna/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

I will put this article on hold for now, as I believe that changes can be made to improve the article before it is failed.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Nice organization

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Not all dubious facts sourced. Maybe this has to do something with POV. See below

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Overly promotive for the person. Gives me a feel the writer is preaching to us to make him god.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   On hold

• Could you pls list the issues? Are you referring to the quotes? Yes, I would have removed a few of quotes and put them in wikiquote. Thanks Nvineeth (talk) 16:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

  No, I was not referring to quotes. I was referring to the whole article. I can find something that is not WP:NPOV in almost every single paragraph. I would say that if NPOV is reached, the citation requirment would also be reached. Leujohn ^(talk) 03:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you take a section as an example, say "Birth and childhood", and explain in detail what you say above? Also I am not sure, about how "NPOV is reached, the citation requirment would also be reached". An example will be very good. Nvineeth (talk) 05:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Upon closer examination, I did find some peacock terms, and fixed them, I would like know more about "dubious" references and other POV issues that you may see. Nvineeth (talk) 09:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Review 2

I have few issues to raise:

• In the lead section, "Ramakrishna's ideas were spread to the West by Swami Vivekananda, beginning in 1893 as the spokesman for Hinduism at the first Parliament of the World's Religions at Chicago. There Vivekananda's message of universalism was well received and he attracted widespread support. He eventually established the Vedanta Society to spread the universal truths of Hindu philosophy in America and in India he founded the Ramakrishna Mission—a monastic society that promotes Ramakrishna's ideas of religious pluralism and carries out social service.[11] The Ramakrishna movement has been termed as one of the revitalization movements of India.[12] As of 2008, Ramakrishna Mission has 166 branch centers all over India and in different parts of the world and the headquarters is located at the Belur Math.[13]" should have a corresonding section in detail in the biography or some other place, say "Impact" or after "Biography-The last days"

Yes, this needs to be added. Probably this need not be added in Biography, because other articles Vivekananda, Ramakrishna Mission which are linked discuss this in detail... I would like to hear from other editors/reviewers regarding this.

• Can this line, "Ramakrishna is known to have practised some of these bhavas" be improved, because this is a weasel line.

 Completed (this line was removed, doesnt make any value addition as such)

• This line, "He reportedly became well versed in the songs, tales and dramas which were based on the religious scriptures.[17] At a very early age, he is said to have become acquainted with the Purāṇas, the Rāmāyaṇa, the Mahābhārata, and Śrīmad Bhāgavatam, hearing them from wandering monks and the Kathaks—a class of men in ancient India who preached and sang the Purāṇas for the uneducated masses.[18]". I think it is repetitive, and I feel that it can be shortened. But not a major problem though.

 Completed , yes this line has unnecessary phrases.

• This line, "At the age of six or seven, Ramakrishna describes about his first spiritual ecstasy. According to him, he was walking along the paddy fields and suddenly looked up to find a flock of white cranes flying against a backdrop of dark thunder-clouds." should be improved, because, the first line specifically tells, "Ramakrishna describes" and the second line again says "According to him", which is again repetitive, and the second line should be corrected.

 Completed, this sentence was poorly written, fixed it.

• This line, "After the vision, Ramakrishna surrendered himself to Kali. Childlike, he obeyed what he called the will of the Mother Kali in everything, no matter how trivial or philosophical." probably should be prefixed with "Ramakrishna says that after the vision".

 Completed

• This line, "After his marriage Ramakrishna returned to Calcutta and took upon himself the charges of the temple", "took upon himself" can be simply made, "resumed".

 Completed

• This line, "that all he needed was a suggestion ", should be "all that"?

 Completed

• Can this line be improved, "She had heard rumours that her husband had become mad, and was in deep grief. She also heard reports that he had become a great religious man."? First line contains a "rumour" and the second line contains a "report", I think this should be made consistent.

According to the biography, the usage of "rumour" and "report" is correct.

• This line, "Ramakrishna was a teacher of popular appeal, speaking in rustic Bengali, freely using stories and parables." I think is not neutral, because it has peacock word-"popular appeal".

 Completed, fixed this line

• The references are solid and good. But take care of formatting such as, in this citation, "Chapter 20 — RULES FOR HOUSEHOLDERS AND MONKS", remove the Capitals.

 Completed

• The "pages" in citation template should be fixed. ( Was the cite button in the edit toolbar used? ) Few citations have pp. instead of p. for single pages. Probably this was because of using the cite button in edit toolbar which by default adds, "pages="

 Completed

For time being, these are the few issues I see. If there are any I will raise them. Thanks. Bluptr (talk) 06:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Review 3

Why have the views of contemporary scholars been removed to another article entitled "Views on Ramakrishna"? Can you name another article of a religious, historical or philosophical figure in which the views of contemporary scholars are moved to a separate artice? Can you find any precedent in Wikipedia policy for this organization of the content? — goethean ॐ 18:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you define "contemporary scholars"? Did you go through the Peer Review and have you forgotten this discussion? Do you know there is a wikipedia policy related to Article Size? Can you tell why "contemporary" stuff should be given more weightage than Teachings which also has a separate article? Can you explain taking Jesus article as example? --Nvineeth (talk) 10:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, the Ramakrishna article was under the philosophy subtopic, not religion. So Jesus would not be the appropriate analogy. The Jesus article deals extensively with recent scholarship on Jesus. [8][9][10] The Ramakrishna article does not. — goethean ॐ 20:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you tell why "contemporary" stuff should be given more weightage than Teachings which also has a separate article?

Most of the Ramakrishna article is devoted to the traditional story of Ramakrishna's life as presented in the Kathamrta Gospel. Numerous scholars have treated this material. Reference to this criticism is absent from the article. That needs to be fixed. Additionally, there are other biographies than the Kathamrta which have been excluded from the article. If you will remember, the article that I wrote opened with a discussion of the materials relating to Ramakrishna's biography. You deleted it. — goethean ॐ 20:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

When another editor can find the discussion related Biographical sources in the archives and the "removed" material linked at proper place, I wonder why you cannot? --Bluptr (talk) 04:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Could you clarify? — goethean ॐ 16:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

"If you will remember, the article that I wrote opened with a discussion of the materials relating to Ramakrishna's biography. You deleted it."--If you remember I also listed the original research, failed reference checks,[11] and one sided POVs. Did you the check discussion related to biographic sources in the archive and also in the peer review? Another editor also identified this lengthy discussion as WP:UNDUE. None of the wikipedia articles begin with a one sided discussion on "Biographic Sources". Apparently "You deleted it" is false. Apparently I have edits in which I have added material from Kripal, Sil, pls go thru the last section --Nvineeth (talk) 05:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

" Numerous scholars have treated this material. Reference to this criticism is absent from the article. That needs to be fixed."--This is a article on Ramakrishna, not "Criticism of Gospel of Ramakrishna". BTW, why add only "criticism", what about Neevel, Lex Hixon's views, Philip Zaelski's views?? --Nvineeth (talk) 05:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

"The linked article is a fraction of the size of the wikipedia article and contains no footnotes,"—nice original research. The sections you mention above are unrelated here.--Nvineeth (talk) 08:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Goethean's 'contemporary scholars' are a couple of scholars that present an extremely small minority view that is not accepted by the broader scholarly community. This has been discussed ad infinitum in the past. Per WP:UNDUE, "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts". Commonly accepted reference texts, for example Brittanica, and Britannica Encyclopedia of World Religions[12] make absolutely no mention of the extreme minority views of Goethean's 'contemporary scholars'. Per WP:UNDUE, "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." Goethean's minority-view scholars and some actual majority-view scholars are in the appropriate sub-article Views on Ramakrishna. Priyanath ^talk 05:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The linked article is a fraction of the size of the wikipedia article and contains no footnotes, so it is impossible to determine anything about what sources were used in its construction. — goethean ॐ 16:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

And even with its small size, the Britannica article manages to be more objective and less devotional than the Wikipedia article in its current, non-neutral revision. — goethean ॐ 16:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

"The linked article is a fraction of the size of the wikipedia article and contains no footnotes,"--Did you see this, and also the Notes section of the article Books_on_Ramakrishna?--Nvineeth (talk) 08:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

For comparison's sake, here are some Good Articles that have similar subjects, and a similar tone: Krishna, Saint Patrick, John Chrysostom, Sai Baba of Shirdi. Priyanath ^talk 18:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

And yes, the fact that no mainstream reference books even mention the use of a fringe practice on Ramakrishna (psychoanalysis based not on a one-on-one therapist relationship, but on 100 year old texts) goes to the heart of the matter according to WP:UNDUE. Priyanath ^talk 21:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Closing comments

I think that the text quality still needs to improve, few examples:

• "One day when Ramakrishna saw the picture of Madonna and Child Jesus, he felt that the figures became alive and had a vision in which Jesus merged with his body. In his own room amongst other divine pictures was one of Christ, and he burnt incense before it morning and evening." , this should probably start with Ramakrishna said that...
• "Ramakrishna had an extraordinary style of preaching and instructing, convincing even the most skeptical visitors.", is a peacock sentence, and can probably written as, "Even some of the skeptical visitors were convinced by Ramakrishna's style of preaching and instructing." (just a suggestion)
• The inline references are good, but there is a mismatch between inline references, and the References section, this needs to be worked on as well. See, WP:REF#Inline_citations
• Its also a good idea to get the article reviewed by a editor who has zero knowledge on Hinduism and Ramakrishna. This will help in identifying the problems. The problems indicated by Abecedare should also be addressed.[13]

The GA review has proceed for more than a month, and I think addressing these issues will take more time, so I will be failing the GAN. But the article has improved significantly ever since the review began.(and thats the whole point of all these reviews!) I feel that the article is close to GA but not quite there, still some work is needed. I feel that if the prose quality is improved, the article will be a GA. I also feel that its generally more challenging and tougher to write a article in religion/philosophy than the article on science/psychology/biology, which are nothing but a collection of facts. Considering this, the article is definitely good, but still needs improvement. If somebody feels my review is not proper, I will be glad to address the issues or raise them at the talk page. Thank you. Bluptr (talk) 16:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments

I see that the article is undergoing GA review at present, so I'll add some more issues that would be good to deal with in the process:

• Section titles should have sentence case. See WP:HEAD.
• Check for consistent and correct capitalization, italicization and IASTisaztion of Sanskrit terms. Example, Gopis, Santa bhava (Do you mean śānta or sant) etc.
• Check for overlinking of same term. Example, Ramakrishna Mission is linked twice in the lead itself.

Will add more as I read the article. Abecedare (talk) 09:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I just edited the first lead paragraphs of the Religious practices and teachers and found several cases of overlinking, incompletely formatted references, unattributed anecdotes and extrapolation of sources (see diff). More importantly, the sources cited in the section talk about Ramakrishna's renunciation of casteism/pride, money and sex; while the first two are discussed in the section, the third is not even mentioned. If this is representative of the whole article, then it needs to be looked over by an editor familiar with the subject, before it is considered for GA review. Abecedare (talk) 09:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Will check for overlink and MOS issues: heading title. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

IMO, I have removed most cases of overlink, if not all. Corrected section heading. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Redtigerxyz! That helps but I think the overall prose of this article is severely sub-par, to the extent that it hinders understanding of the subject matter for someone not already familiar with Ramakrishna. For illustrative purposes, consider the second paragraph of the lede:

Ramakrishna was born into a poor Brahmin Vaishnava family in rural Bengal. He became the^{a or the} priest at the Dakshineswar Kali Temple, dedicated to goddess Kali ^{Who is dedicate to Kali - Ramakrishna or the temple ?}, which had the influence of ^{"had the influence of" is very stilted; use was influenced by.} the main strands ^{What are these main strands ?} of Bengali and Indian bhakti. ^{bhakti or bhakti movement of bhakti school of philosophy} His first spiritual teacher was an ascetic woman skilled in Tantra^{Capitalization/ italicization ?} and vaishnava^{Capitalization/ italicization ?} bhakti. Later ^{missing comma.} an Advaita Vedantin^{Capitalization/ italicization ?} ascetic taught him non-dual meditation, under whom^grammar Ramakrishna experienced Nirvikalpa Samadhi. ^{says who ? WP:REDFLAG/ POV. Also capitalization ?} Ramakrishna also experimented with other religions, notably Islam and Christianity, and said that they all lead to the same God. He had wide^redundant popular appeal, speaking in rustic Bengali, making use of many stories and parables. Though conventionally uneducated, he attracted attention among the Bengali intelligentsia and middle classes^{why plural ?}. By the mid-1870s Ramakrishna had become the focal point of a resurgence of Hinduism,^{Resurgence of Hinduism ? Does that mean more people converted to Hinduism, or do you mean rennaissance instead ?} particularly among Westernized intellectuals. ^{In Bengal, India or abroad ?} He eventually^redundant gathered^redundant and organized a group of followers, led by his chief disciple Swami Vivekananda, who continued his work as a monk ^{How does one continue someone's "work as a monk", if by monk you mean ascetic ?} following Ramakrishna's death in 1886.

Note that the paragraph refers to "Indian bhakti", "Bengali bhakti" and "vaishnava bhakti" without trying to explain or distinguish them. My guess is that this is because the sentences have been paraphrased/quoted from different sources, without trying to reconcile the use of parallel/equivalent terms. In any case, is this nuance significant enough for the lead ? Also note the number of non-English terms used in this paragraph without any explanation:

• Brahmin
• Vaishnava
• bhakti
• Tantra
• Advaita Vedantin
• Nirvikalpa Samadhi

I did not include Kali, since by prefacing it with goddess, we have informed the reader that this is just a proper noun that he does not need to "interpret" for now. Similar qualifiers or explanatory phrases should be added for the other listed terms. Remember that the lead is supposed to set up the background for the reader and entice him to read more.(I realize that I may be overly strict since I am used to reviewing FA candidates, but haven't reviewed a GA before). Abecedare (talk) 11:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, I had removed peacock and possibly POV stuff from the biography few days back, but had completely forgotten about the lead., I think that the lead needs to be worked on. Thanks for pointing these. I might have possibly over linked, because I was under the impression, that for each section, the first occurrence of the word can be wikified.. --Nvineeth (talk) 15:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

"Swami Vivekananda, who continued his work as a monk" is not correct, it gives the impression that he continued his work in the Kali temple! The Second Para in particular needs to be worked upon., Can you give an example as to how the non-English terms such as Brahmin, Vaishnava, bhakti can be used with explanation? I thought wikifying was explaining. Probably these terms are "obvious" to me and I am incapable of looking beyond! --Nvineeth (talk) 15:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

What Abecedare says above should be looked in greater detail. As the editor says, if prose of this article is severely sub-par, its time to start fixing things with the aid of experienced editors. --Bluptr (talk) 04:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Good article nomination failed

Article is not neutral. Article relies on 30 to 100 year-old scholarship, rather than dealing with current scholarship. These issues have been discussed extensively in the past. — goethean ॐ 19:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The 'contemporary scholars' are a couple of scholars that present an extremely small minority view that is not accepted by the broader scholarly community. This has been discussed ad infinitum in the past. Per WP:UNDUE, "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts". Commonly accepted reference texts, for example Brittanica, and Britannica Encyclopedia of World Religions[14] make absolutely no mention of the extreme minority views of Goethean's 'contemporary scholars'. Per WP:UNDUE, "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." Goethean's minority-view scholars and some majority-view scholars are in the appropriate sub-article Views on Ramakrishna. Priyanath ^talk 05:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The removal of any discussion of the biographical sources relating to Ramakrishna's life is untenable. This article uses the Gospel of Ramakrishna in a naive, devotional way rather than in a critical scholarly way. You might note that the name "Datta" does not appear once in the article, even though he wrote the first biographical material on Ramakrishna. This is merely an illustration of the absurd one-sidedness of this version of the article. — goethean ॐ 16:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you have forgotten something Goethean, [15] (the "biographic sources" of this revision is full of POV, original research), see this discussion , "This article uses the Gospel of Ramakrishna in a naive,..."—Walter G. Neevel, Peter Heehs, Huxley, Somnath Bhattacharya, Atmajnanananda, to mention a few do not think so. Let us not forget that you yourself had added Walter G. Neevel, not long back! "You might note that the name "Datta" does not appear once in the article,"—Pls translate the 9th edition of this Bengali book, and provide it to us, we will add it. You are probably referring to Kripal's allegations, and did you forget that 9th edition shocked him! Applying the same logic, the name S.N.Balagangadhara, Sarah Claerhout's "latest scholarship", Antonio De Nicholas's Invading the Sacred and other "latest scholarship" are not present in the article Jeffery Kripal, so should we add a Totally disputed tag there? Did you go through the peer review of this article as well? --Nvineeth (talk) 04:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

For comparison's sake, here are some Good Articles that have similar subjects, and a similar tone: Krishna, Saint Patrick, John Chrysostom, Sai Baba of Shirdi. Priyanath ^talk 18:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

And yes, the fact that no mainstream reference books even mention the use of a fringe practice on Ramakrishna (psychoanalysis based not on a one-on-one therapist relationship, but on 100 year old texts) goes to the heart of the matter according to WP:UNDUE. Priyanath ^talk 21:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you could list some of the recent, well-known, scholarly books that have been deliberately omitted from the Sai Baba of Shirdi article. Otherwise, your comment is a false analogy. — goethean ॐ 19:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

"deliberately omitted"—I dont think wikipedia has a rule that you have to refer to the following books for so and so article. The failed reference checks,(ex:Neevel, Openshaw, Amiya.P. Sen) original research, personal comments in the article^{more details} are more dangerous than "deliberate omission", aren't thy? --Nvineeth (talk) 10:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

No. The "personal comments" that you dislike and humorously call "dangerous" can be easily removed. But when a group of editors determined to exclude any reference to all of the scholarly material published in the last 30 years on the subject of the article, and to replace them with materials approved by a religious organization, that, my friend, is what I would call dangerous. — goethean ॐ 16:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

"materials approved by a religious organization"--is a original research my friend. Nvineeth (talk) 05:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Goethean, read my post again please. You'll see that I was offering those comparisons because they cover similar subjects and have "a similar tone" as this article, refuting one of your objections. Regarding your other objection, the use of sources that have no widespread acceptance (and that reference books won't touch) is covered by WP:UNDUE. Priyanath ^talk 16:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand. I stand by my response. If this article suppresses and refuses to deal with the last three decades of scholarship and those articles do not do so, your comparison is false. — goethean ॐ 17:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Stop adding totally disputed tags, that will take you nowhere. Can you define current scholarship since you have used this term so many times? The age of a work is not the measure of its reliability. Had this been the case, the works of some great scientists like Darwin, would have been phased out. Bluptr (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the work of Darwin has been superceded by the last hundred years of biology in exactly the same way the recent scholarship on Ramakrishna supercedes Isherwood (which is not a scholarly work and should not be used in the article at all), Muller, and others.

Can you define current scholarship since you have used this term so many times?

Sure. Literally anything written in the last thirty years, especially anything published by a university press. Specifically, all of the material which has been moved to Views on Ramakrishna.

Think about it. The editors of this article use works like Neevel (1976), Schneiderman (1969), Nikhilananda (1942), Rolland (1929), Farquhar (1915), and Muller (1898) as if no scholarship had been written since that time. After 1976, the coverage drops off dramatically. But there has been a whole bunch of stuff written since then. They have moved coverage of the entire debate to Views on Ramakrishna. It's not the case that Nikhilananda's Gospel presents the gospel truth on SRK and everything else is negligable, dismissable "views" on Ramakrishna. Everything written about Ramakrishna is a "view" of Ramakrishna, including the views of the swamis and devotees. If there is a debate about what Ramakishna did — and there obviously is, or we wouldn't be having this conversation, and there wouldn't be any controversial books to suppress from the article — if there is any debate about Ramakrishna, that debate should be discussed in this article. Debate about Charles Darwin's biography should be covered in the Charles Darwin article. But Kali's Child isn't mentioned in this article. And neither is Ramchand Datta, the author of the first biographical material on Ramakrishna. The situation is absolutely absurd and unconscionable. — goethean ॐ 18:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You forgot to add very recent scholars, Philip Zaleski, Amiya P. Sen, Arvind Sharma, Partha Chaterjee, Carl T. Jackson, Lex Hixon to the list above. --Nvineeth (talk) 05:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

To clarify my comments, I don't think that the most recent work on SRK is necessarily the most accurate, but the article has got to mention the work of the past 30 years and the issues they raise...like my version of the article did, before you guys moved everything to another article. — goethean ॐ 19:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

"like my version of the article did"--This version of the article also did contain failed reference checks, original research.⁺ Nvineeth (talk) 05:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

"but the article has got to mention the work of the past 30 years and the issues they raise"--why is it last 40 years sometimes and last 30 years sometimes. You had mentioned about "last 40 years" before. The concept of last 30 years is original research. --Nvineeth (talk) 05:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

And I know what your response will be: "Sil and Kripal have been proven unreliable!" But that doesn't mean that you can pretend that the books were never written. Nor can you exile mention of them to another "views" article. All notable views on Ramakrishna, including yours, Nikhilananda's, the swamis', Sil's and Kripal's are all views of Ramakrishna and need to be discussed in the Ramakrishna article. — goethean ॐ 19:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

They have not been "exile"d, read the article carefully, and why is it that you stress only on Sil and Kripal but not mention a thing about Raab, Hawley, Alan Roland, Openshaw, G.C.Ray, Somnath Bhattacharya, Atmajnanananda, Tyagananda... Why should we include only Sil and Kripal and exclude the rest as if they did not exist and give undue weightage? --Nvineeth (talk) 05:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I have read the article. It is not neutral. It excludes recent scholarship whose findings the Ramakrishna Mission doesn't like. Is that clear enough for you? — goethean ॐ 16:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Pls translate the 9th edition of this Bengali book, and provide it to us, we will add it.

That's not necessary, of course. Ram Chandra Datta's book has been discussed by Sil and Kripal and probably other scholars, and Wikipedia policy prefers that articles refer to secondary works like this rather than to primary works like Datta's. — goethean ॐ 18:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

"You might note that the name "Datta" does not appear once in the article"

No need to be so suspicious, let us not forget that the allegations were withdrawn!^-> --Nvineeth (talk) 05:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Give me one good reason why you deleted the entire section on the biographical material relating to Ramakrishna from the article, and repkace it with nothing. That is why Datta is not mentioned. Because you — partisanly, in line with your POV — redacted all mentions of his name from the article. — goethean ॐ 16:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Improper review

Perhaps you have not worked with GAN before, your review is invalid on the following grounds:

• you cannot review an article if you have made significant contributions to it prior to the review
• Go through the Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles, you need to discuss and then take action.

When I checked the the discussion pages, they are full of your personal attacks, the material you are saying to be "removed" is indeed available on wikipedia and has been linked from this article itself, ( clue : use google ) dont take irrational decissions. And in the peer review I did find why this was done, so apparently like you say, the material was not "removed".

In GAN, if there is a improper review like this, we restore the GAN, ex:Talk:Touch_the_Clouds#GA_review so that other editors can continue. --Bluptr (talk) 04:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your wikilawyering approach, but the fact remains that a non-neutral article cannot pass good article status. — goethean ॐ 16:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

But the wikipedia community does not "appreciate" inappropriate additon of "totally disputed" tags, personal attacks, Stonewalling, incivility. The article may or may not pass the GAN, thats' a totally different issue, but the editors should be made aware of the possible improvements. Bluptr (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Civility, please

Can both sides please try to remain civil? Goethean, could you lay out your problems with the article as it stands, as briefly and clearly as possible? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Nvineeth and Priyanath have moved all recent scholarship on Ramakrishna to a sub-article called Views on Ramakrishna. There is no mention in the current article of biographical materials other than the 1942 Ramakrishna Mission-approved Gospel of Ramakrishna. Months ago, using secondary sources, I had added information about other biographical materials, but that info was removed by Nvineeth and Priyanath. Thus my complaint that (for example) Ram Chandra Datta, who wrote the first biography of SRK, is not mentioned in the article. There have been books on Ramakrishna published by university presses in the last 30 years. Nvineeth and Priyanath have removed most references to these books and all reference to the ensuing debate over Ramakrishna's life, teachings, and practices to Views on Ramakrishna. But everything in this article is just as much a "view on Ramakrishna". Thus the subarticle was creating in a highly POV, non-neutral way. It is just that the views in this article are approved by the Ramakrishna Mission. Instead of discussing the debate of the past 30 years, the ediors have substitured obsolete works like Neeval (1976) and Schneiderman (1969) (not to mention their use of 50- and 100- year old sources), and pretended that they were the gospel truth. Instead, the article should cover the recent scholarly debate over Ramakrishna's legacy. — goethean ॐ 16:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Goethean, the addition of non-mainstream and highly contested 'scholarship' still fails WP:UNDUE: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." The fact that all the modern scholarly analysis of Ramakrishna is at a daughter article (Views on Ramakrishna) more than fulfills the "in some ancillary article" part of WP:UNDUE. There are nearly a dozen modern views there, and a healthy discussion of the issues. Priyanath ^talk 16:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Kripal's work was published by the University of Chicago Press in 1995 and 1998 and was widely reviewed and debated. And this version of the article pretends that it never existed. That is a rather serious problem. — goethean ॐ 17:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The fact that all the modern scholarly analysis of Ramakrishna is at a daughter article (Views on Ramakrishna) more than fulfills the "in some ancillary article" part of WP:UNDUE. There are nearly a dozen modern views there, and a healthy discussion of the issues.

The main article should present modern, scholarly views on SRK. There's no concievable reason why the entire contemporary debate should be moved to a daughter article. — goethean ॐ 17:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is the version of the article that contained a long section on "biographical sources". The entire section has been eliminated by Priyanath and Nvineeth. — goethean ॐ 17:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Also per WP:UNDUE: "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts". Brittanica, and Britannica Encyclopedia of World Religions[16] make absolutely no mention of the extreme minority views of Goethean's 'contemporary scholars'. Priyanath ^talk 17:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

As you know, there are other sources, like Gale's Encyclopedia of Religion, which do mention Kripal. — goethean ॐ 17:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

So to summarize - some of you believe that these facts are held by at least a small minority, whilst others of you believe that they are held only by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority. Is that an accurate summary of the dispute? Hipocrite (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the "small minority" includes most American religious scholars who have done work in this field. I would hope that their views would count for something. It's not clear how many people hold various views one way or the other on SRK. Suffice to say that I think that it's a debate that can't be ignored. — goethean ॐ 17:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand your position - note my formulation included "at least a small minority." If the other side agrees that I've summarized the dispute well, we'll see what we can't do to solve it. Hipocrite (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If only one reference (Gale's Encyclopedia of Religion) out of numerous references gives credence to Kripal, then it's an extremely small minority. It would be helpful to see exactly what Gale's says. It's an extreme misrepresentation when Goethean say that "the "small minority" includes most American religious scholars who have done work in this field." Read Views on Ramakrishna to learn more. That page gives the proper weight to Kripal and the few others who both agree and disagree with him. The vast majority of neutral third-party reference books (95%?) don't even mention these things at all. WP:UNDUE has been properly applied. (I'm gone for the rest of the day, so will check in tomorrow). Priyanath ^talk 18:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you appear to be arguing your point, which is not appropriate at this juncture. Let's first make the dispute clear. Do you agree that the dispute is that you state that his sources are the very small minority, whilst he disagrees? Hipocrite (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I was responding to Goethean also, so it was quite appropriate to explain the reasoning behind my point. Speaking only for myself, the sources (and the way Goethean tried to use them) are in an extreme minority, not supported by mainstream reference works. There are other issues, which Nvineeth has brought up, but I can't speak for him. Priyanath ^talk 17:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

More observations...

"Here is the version of the article that contained a long section on "biographical sources". "

You forgot to mention the problems it had that was discussed in detail. Goethean keeps repeating that they have been "removed", but in fact this was clearly discussed, peer reviewed. None of the wikipedia articles begin with a one sided discussion on "Biographic Sources". Apparently "You deleted it" is false. Apparently I have edits in which I have added material from Kripal, Sil, pls go thru the last section.

"Instead of discussing the debate of the past 30 years,"

This is original research, the same editor, Goethean is not clear if it is "last 30 years" or "last 40 years". And there is not such wikipedia guideline.

"...the ediors have substitured obsolete works like Neeval (1976)"

Again, the same editor Goethean had added Neeval (1976) under the title "Views on Ramakrishna". But now suddenly they become "obselete". It also important to note that the same editor who is opposing Views on Ramakrishna started this section in the first place.

"Kripal's work was published by the University of Chicago Press in 1995 and 1998 and was widely reviewed and debated. And this version of the article pretends that it never existed."

Again, the section Ramakrishna#Views_and_studies summarizes this. This is a article on Ramakrishna, and not debate on Kripal's work.

Thanks. The totally disputed tag is unjustified. --Nvineeth (talk) 05:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• ENOUGH IS ENOUGH Goethean, you disrupted the GAN review, and now you are adding the totally disputed tags inappropriatly. Just a quick look at the Ramakrishna#Notes is enough to show this article has a good balance of scholarships and even recent ones. You are working against the community. Let the admins look into it. Bluptr (talk) 08:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Would either of you mind commenting on my summary of the dispute, above? Hipocrite (talk) 13:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Disputed tags

This article went through an extensive peer review three months ago, and through an extensive Good Article review during the last month. Not only did they not raise Goethean's issues, they both confirmed that the article is right on track in that regard. The GAN failed due to mostly to prose issues, not to content issues. The article has been stable for several months, with the main issues of content supported by multiple editors in those reviews. The disputed tags are gratuitous and inappropriate use of tags by one editor. Priyanath ^talk 18:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

There's a dispute on this talk page. As opposed to arguing over tags, lets' resolve it, as opposed to arguing over tags. See below. Hipocrite (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

"The relevance of particular information in (or previously in) this article or section is disputed.", how can you add this tag, without explaining the "particular information"? --Nvineeth (talk) 06:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The particular information was the information about Kali's Child. You believe it does not belong on the page. Goethean believes it does. Thus, the relevence of particular information previously in this article is disputed. Hipocrite (talk) 08:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

read my discussion below, apparently i am not saying that "Kali's Child" does not belong to the article! The main discussion is going on with the "Views on Ramakrishna" section not the entire article. --Nvineeth (talk) 08:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that makes sense - you're saying there's not a dispute, and we should include information about Kali's Child. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 08:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding another tag which says, "The examples and perspective in this article may not include all significant viewpoints.", Does Kali's Child, comprise "all significant viewpoints"? pls explain. Nvineeth (talk) 06:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Goethean appears to be alledging that this article now lacks academic viewpoints. Thus, "the perspective in this article may not include all significant viewpoints." However, if you feel a different tag is more appropriate to point readers of the article to the lengthy dispute on the talk page, alternatives would be welcome - alternatively, if you don't think readers of the article should be made aware of the talk page dispute, I'd ask that you let the article remain in the state you do-not favor, but with whatever tags you would like on the article. That seems like a reasonable compromise? Either his tags on your article or your tags on his article? Hipocrite (talk) 08:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I am ok with the "content" tag on the views section., not the Biography. I can give examples of "academic viewpoints" in the article beyond Sil and Kripal! Yes I feel that the "Content" tag is appropriate in the "Views on Ramakrishna" section, so as to "point readers of the article to the lengthy dispute on the talk page." --Nvineeth (talk) 08:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm still working on getting up to speed on the fact pattern. Let's wait 12 hours for everyone to comment if they want and then put your proposed tag in. Thanks for being so reasonable, here. Hipocrite (talk) 08:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice to see things being discussed instead of adding tags inapproriately. Bluptr (talk) 09:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Can the editor who has put the "too few opinions" discuss the opinions that are missing? Nvineeth (talk) 05:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources - minority or mainstream?

Some people believe that the sources in question are a tiny minority. Other people believe they are not. Can we come up with some metrics to define if a source is a tiny-minority view vs. a view worth noting in the article page? Anyone have any ideas? Hipocrite (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Er, we have already. WP:UNDUE provides an unequivocal metric (this is a copy and paste from above): "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts". Commonly accepted reference texts, for example Brittanica, and Britannica Encyclopedia of World Religions[17] make absolutely no mention of the extreme minority views of Goethean's 'contemporary scholars'. Per WP:UNDUE, "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." Priyanath ^talk 18:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that gets us there - there's room between "majority" and "extremely small (or vastly limited) minority." I'm looking for a metric that would allow us to say "this is a minority viewpoint - let us note it," or to say "this fringe viewpoint is held by an extremely limited number of people, let us ignore it." Hipocrite (talk) 18:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe one sentence in the "Views and studies" section would be due weight, per what I've said below. Any more and it would require an entire lengthy section of rebuttals, counter-rebuttals, all the other scholars who have piped in on it, etc. All that is well covered in the daughter articles, as it should be. I ask this of Goethean- is there any recent scholarship on Kripal's book, such as the last few years? No, because it's been relegated to the 'interesting controversy but not serious scholarship' bin. Priyanath ^talk 16:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Kali's Child is the single most prominent book published on Ramakrishna in the past 20 years. The debate surrounding the book is looms very, very large in the contemporary academic and popular discussion of Ramakrishna. This can be proven with journal and newspaper citations if necessary. — goethean ॐ 18:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

But, to clarify, this article doesn't need to endorse the conclusions of Kali's Child. It merely needs to acknowledge the existence of the debate, and not as a single sentence at the end of the article with a link to a daughter article. The debate is prominent in discussions of Ramakrishna, and Wikipedia's coverage of that debate should be commensurate with that prominence. — goethean ॐ 19:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Priyanath, Bluptr, Nvineeth - Above Goethean states that "The debate is prominent in discussions of Ramakrishna." Do you agree or disagree? Hipocrite (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. It had a short moment of controversy, now it's off the radar. See WP:RECENT. Priyanath ^talk 16:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

"Kali's Child is the single most prominent book published on Ramakrishna in the past 20 years."

This is called original research and WP:BIAS, an example to quote:"Wikipedians, as a class, tend to over-represent intellectuals from academia" --Nvineeth (talk) 05:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

"The debate is prominent in discussions of Ramakrishna."

Another original research. Check Britannica for example. But at the same time I am not opposing the inclusion of more stuff related to the Kali's Child, probably a para of 3-4 lines saying what was the book on, and who disputed it and explained in more detail in Views on Ramakrishna article. But including this also means, that we will have to include equal amount of material on Alan Roland. Somnath Bhattacharrya, Kelly Aan Raab, Romain Rolland, G.C Ray, and other "scholars". You cannot give undue weightage and be systematically biased towards Kali's Chlid! Then we can add , the "Further information" template and link to the main article -- Views on Ramakrishna. Earlier, some good faith editor had removed the criticism of Kali's child, and included majorly the supporters of Kali's child ( If required I can point to the discussion of the problems ). If you want to add more info on Kali's Child, then equal weightage must be given to all the views. The Views on Ramakrishna is a big article, mergeto is not a great idea. I would argue that Teachings are more important, and it should be "merged" rather than "Views". --Nvineeth (talk) 05:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Goethean - Nvineeth appears to agree that the article merits a discussion of Kali's Child, in addition to a discussion of Alan Roland, Somnath Bhattacharrya, Kelly Aan Raab, Romain Rolland and G.C Ray. Could you craft a section on that for our review? Hipocrite (talk) 08:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

From above discussions, I understand that the recent scholarship being referred to is "kali's child". I dont think its fair to say that, "Kali's Chlid" which is based on Freud's observations, is the single most prominent book on Ramakrishna! Has somebody heard of Carl Jung? and this mans' views are superceding Freuds'. I had read somewhere (dont remember the journal) about the application of Jungs' analytical psychology on Ramakrishna, with completely different observations, without a trace of "homoeroticism". And in the field of psychology Freudian stuff is being questioned and getting outdated, so you cannot consider "Kali's Child" as the most important book. Incorporating Jungian views, is also a good idea. (If time permits I shall contribute) I think the section Views on Ramakrishna is small, so we can expand the section, giving equal weightage to everyone, and not just to "Kali's Child". Views on Ramakrishna is a good article (see talk page of the article), but needs copyedits, It is a big article and better off the way it is. --Bluptr (talk) 10:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, on the (lack of) notability of Kali's Child. Also, application of psychoanalysis by an untrained historian, based on 100 year old texts (rather than one-on-one therapy) takes it beyond fringe science. That's why the mainstream has not taken Kripal's book seriously. Going back to WP:UNDUE and its clear statement "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts". The Britannica Encyclopedia of World Religions[18] article make absolutely no mention of Kripal and his 'science'. That book, published in 2006, was in fact written by Kripal's thesis (which was Kali's Child) advisor, Wendy Doniger. She makes absolutely no mention of Kripal. The controversy may be another story, and notable for the Kali's Child article. But the scholarship is not worthy of mention, even by Kripal's own advisor. Priyanath ^talk 16:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Priyanath, have you ever heard of the Encyclopedia of Religion? It is the standard text in religious studies. I wonder how you missed it in your survey of Ramakrishna articles in reference books. It has a 5 page article on Ramakrishna. One half page, or 10% of the article, is dedicated to a discussion of Kali's Child. I have uploaded a copy of the article to here. — goethean ॐ 18:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

According to WorldCat, there are 220 libraries which have a copy of Brittanica's relatively cheap ($40) Encyclopedia of world religions: understanding the religions that shape our world.[19] There are 2579 libraries which own the far more expensive ($1600) Encyclopedia of Religion. [20]. I suggest that the substantial investment that over 2500 libraries have made in the larger set of books indicates that one of these books commands more respect than the other. Really, I'm surprised that you didn't notice this in your research. — goethean ॐ 18:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

About 42% of the Encyclopedia of Religion article was dedicated to describing SRK's life, 17% his teachings, 25% interpretations, and 17% on an historical/bibliographical account of scholarship on SRK. This is all verifiable at the above link or with the original materials at one of the 2579 libraries that house this set of books. — goethean ॐ 18:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Another thing: the Encyclopedia of Religion article on Ramakrishna is co-authored by Neeval and Hatcher. — goethean ॐ 19:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The "Encyclopedia of Religion" is a book built mainly by the ideas of Neevel and Hatcher. Neevel has his own theory which has been opposed by Amiya P. Sen. Moreover, they discuss only on "Kali's Child", but we have materials from other authors as well, Alan Roland, Kelly Aan Raab, Somnath Bhattacharrya, Hawley, ..... which are not even mentioned in the article shared by Goethean. But in wikipedia, we cannot give WP:UNDUE weightage, and we need to concentrate on the all the authors. Mentioning only Kali's Child is undue weightage, and when we such vast material, we cannot give undue weightage. Wikipedia has a clear cut policy to avoid undue weightage and Systematic Bias. Nvineeth (talk) 04:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hipocrite: Yes. — goethean ॐ 19:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

"Kali's Child is the single most prominent book published on Ramakrishna in the past 20 years."

This is what Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak says about Kali's Child in her "latest" scholarship. Jeffrey J Kripal has read Ramakrishna’s life as a bhakta, as tantric practice. ... Unfortunately, the book is so full of cultural and linguistic mis-translations that the general premise cannot be taken seriously’. The book is Other Asias^[21] And Spivak is the author of a work which is considered as the "founding text of postcolonialism".

In other words, what you're saying is that people are still discussing a book that was published 14 years ago. But you don't think that the book is important enough to warrant a mention in the main article. — goethean ॐ 14:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, well I did not say that. But few editors give undue weightage. Nvineeth (talk) 07:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

"...books approved by religious organizations"

One of the good faithed editors who is keen on building the article using reliable sources has criticized few of the publications as "books approved by religious organizations". Apparently, a neutral publisher like Motilal Banarsidass does not think so. This publisher has sent a book written by Jeffery Kripal for review to Prabuddha Bharata, the journal of Ramakrishna order. So the argument "books approved by religious organization" is original research. And the review has been done by Dr. M. Sivaramakrishna of Osmania University.^here

Okay, I guess its just a bizarre coincidence that you and Priyanath consistently remove all contemporary scholarship except that which is approved by the Ramakrishna Mission organization. My mistake. — goethean ॐ 14:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

No its not coincidence, you will find the "remove"d stuff clearly discussed and worked upon. Also to repeat, "contemporary scholarship" and "approved by the Ramakrishna Mission organization" is original research. Nvineeth (talk) 07:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Lets check more encyclopedias :

• Holy People of the World: A Cross-cultural Encyclopedia, describes about Kripal only in the biblio.
• Philosophers and Religious Leaders: An Encyclopedia of People Who Changed the World (1999) does not mention about Kali's Child.
• America's Alternative Religions By Timothy Miller mentions about Kali's Child only in the biblio.
• Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology (2003) does not saying anything about Kali's Child. Note, this encyclopedia also deals with psychology and does not mention a thing.
• Encyclopedia of Asian Philosophy 2001 By Oliver Leaman does not mention about Kali's Child.
• Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, (1998) does not say thing about Kali's Child!

We need to give equal weightage. Also I am eagerly waiting for the explanation for adding "Toofewopinions" and "Content" tag. I want a detailed explanation for each tag. Nvineeth (talk) 08:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You removed entire sections from the article in a POV manner. That's explanation enough. — goethean ॐ 14:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

So if the stuff was removed from the "Contemporary Section", why has the tags been overused on the entire article + another section? Also the earlier version you keep referring to had uncited claims, original research, failed reference checks,(+++) why did you not add the tags at that time. Pls explain this. "You removed entire sections from the article in a POV manner."--I still original research and unproven claim. Nvineeth (talk) 07:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The fact that only one reference work out of dozens even mentions Kripal's work only justifies my earlier statement that "I believe one sentence in the "Views and studies" section would be due weight". Any more than that, and it would require all the rebuttals and counterpoints of other recent scholars. Kripal is no more notable than they are, and they are all appropriately covered in the daughter article. And the controversy about the book is less about Ramakrishna than it is about Kripal's dubious scholarship, as attested by several American and Indian scholars who pilloried the book for so many different reasons. Priyanath ^talk 01:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)