Talk:Ramakrishna

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Ramakrishna was a Philosophy and religion good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Swami Vivekananda (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Swami Vivekananda, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Swami Vivekananda on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
This article was last assessed in September 2013.
WikiProject India / West Bengal / History (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject West Bengal (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (marked as High-importance).
 
Note icon
This article was last assessed in April 2012.
WikiProject Biography (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
Note icon
This article has had a peer review which is now archived.
WikiProject Hinduism / Philosophy (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Hindu philosophy (marked as Top-importance).
 
WikiProject Religion / New religious movements (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by New religious movements work group (marked as Top-importance).
 

Adding Audio Pronunciation Of Ramakrishna Paramhansha's Name[edit]

I have added audio pronunciation of Ramakrishna Paramhansha's name. Thanks! --Tito Dutta (Talk) 06:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thakur Honors - Edit Undone[edit]

I have undone this edit. They wrote well in the synopsis- After studying books on Shri Ramakrishna, Devotees were used to call Shri Ramakrishna as 'Thakur' in respect. 'Paramhansa' is a spiritual stage that Shri Ramakrishna achieved. So Shri Ramakrishna's honourable name was 'Thakur'. But, they did not provide the name (source) of the book. So, the edit was unreferenced. I have undone it. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 03:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The scholarly claims having been forcibly removed by devotees, the entire article is completely hagiographical and poorly sourced so you might as well leave it in. — goethean 19:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I have received an email from them with some arguments. I have asked them to post it again in Talk Page. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 22:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply. Regarding proof for "Thakur"(Honorable name of Shri Ramakrishna), There are many books in which you will notify this thing. You can refer book "Shri Shri Ramkrishna Kathamrita" (Ref 84 - already given). Open any part of this book and just search for "Thakur", You will come to know that everyone used to call Shri Ramkrishna as "Thakur" with love and honor. "Paramahansa" is a stage in spiritual life that he has achieved by yoga. so there are many paramahansa, like Paramahansa Yogananda and many others. Paramahansa means "supreme swan" and is a title indicating the highest spiritual attainment. (According to wikipedia on Paramahansa Yogananda). So request you to please change the honor name to "Thakur" asap. If you need more explanation please tell me --Ankit Shah —Preceding comment added 19:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC).

So, anybody having doubt? Can I change Shri Ramkrishna's honorable name to 'Thakur'? --Ankit Shah (Send me a message) 7 May 2012 (UTC)

No. It is not recommended to use Sri, Dr., Sir, Thakur etc., See MOS:HONORIFIC. --TheMandarin (talk) 10:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I deleted the meaningless words "Located far from the railroad,"[edit]

I changed the line below because there were no railroads in India in 1836 when Ramakrishna was born. The first were built about 1850, and he left the village in 1853, so saying there were no railroads near it is meaningless.

I just deleted the words "Located far from the railroad,"

Ramakrishna was born on 18 February 1836, in the village of Kamarpukur, in the Hooghly district of West Bengal, into a very poor but pious, orthodox brahmin family.[1] Located far from the railroad, Kamarpukur was untouched by the glamour of the city and contained rice fields, tall palms, royal banyans, a few lakes, and two cremation grounds.

Unsurprising, considering that the entire article is inaccurate, anti-historical hagiography. — goethean 17:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

J. Kripal[edit]

I think there is undue weight to this author on this Biography page -- in fact an entire section for his viewpoint and then the counter views. He has written: When Swami Atmajnanananda advanced his textual criticisms, I publicly apologized for my mistakes, thanked Swamiji, and corrected them in the second edition. When Swami Tyagananda published his extensive rebuttal, I openly acknowledged the corrections that I considered legitimate, publicly apologized for them both on a Harvard Divinity School web-site and later in a prominent Indian journal, and promised to correct them in any future edition. Does any one know what was the discussion between them?

On a lighter note, this definitely does not deserve a mention: Question: "You mentioned in your professional bio that opened this website that you think you may be Spider-Man. Are you sure about this?" Answer: "I'm pretty sure." Jyoti (talk) 06:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

There are 12 mention of "Kripal" in the article (not in reference but directly in the article). And as stated above his rendering is controversial. I am cleaning up as per WP:UNDUE. Jyoti (talk) 12:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi User:Goethean, can you please provide your rationale for this revert, the edit summary did not have any note. What I am thinking is: 1. This referenced book is highly controversial, the author has apologized on selected criticism and also made corrections in his second edition and promised to make further corrections in future editions. (From here). 2. This is the only book presenting the view in contention which has been specifically criticized and there are several other books which maintain the other view which is undoubtedly the most commonly accepted interpretation. The interpretation from this controversial book has been given undue weight here and deserves removal. You may find three independent reliable reference for the commonly accepted interpretation here. Jyoti (talk) 04:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Have you even read the article?? The article mentions numerous scholars which agree with Kripal. — goethean 12:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I have. I have presented my point, could you please respond directly and specifically to what I have presented. WP:UNDUE. Jyoti (talk) 14:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I already have. Numerous scholars, including Kripal, interpret Ramakrishna as a sexual human being rather than as a desexualized object of puritanical and hagiographical imagination. Some of these scholars are cited in the article. Thus your claim This is the only book presenting the view in contention is false. — goethean 15:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Kindly limit this discussion to the revert under question. It concerns interpretation of "lover-and-gold" and I see only one book. Jyoti (talk) 04:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Jyoti.mickey : The para in question presents perspectives from different authors, and Kripal's perspective seems fine to me, even though I think it digresses into translation arguments. Controversial, but still a WP:RS in Wikipedia and there are numerous other WP:RSes which dispute this. The part in question has both these elements. --TheMandarin (talk) 07:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I think in the given context it is WP:UNDUE. Kamini-Kanchan is a common phrase, it has a widely accepted interpretation as discussed here. To top it the book is controversial and we don't even know what corrective edits Kripal intended to make in a future edition. Jyoti (talk) 09:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I will undo the revert under question. It concerns interpretation of "lover-and-gold". Jyoti (talk) 07:04, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Done. Jyoti (talk) 07:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I suggest that you desist from removing well-sourced material from the article. — goethean 14:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I am not contending the source, my argument is of WP:UNDUE and the edit is regarding interpretation of lover and gold. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Jyoti (talk) 15:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Your contention has exactly zero merit. Kripal is the most prominent contemporary scholar on Ramakrishna. To omit his interpretation would be fraudulent. — goethean 16:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
You are merely insisting, WP:REHASH. Kripal's interpretation is WP:UNDUE. The phrase has a widely accepted interpretation as discussed here, and here -- You may find four independent scholarly WP:RS right away! Jyoti (talk) 16:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
You have failed to make a single remotely cogent argument for your proposed edit. Instead you have edit warred for a proposal which does not have talk page consensus, and then accused me on my talk page of edit warring. Like you, I can cite completely irrelevant Wikipedia policies, but I guess I don't see the point. — goethean 16:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Please avoid WP:AOTE and follow WP:FOC. You have reverted thrice while I see only WP:REHASH on your part. Jyoti (talk) 16:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:Goethean, you have reverted 4 times: 1, 2, 3, 4. 2 of them did not have edit summary either. Please back your argument, I do not buy your view "Kripal is the most prominent contemporary scholar on Ramakrishna. To omit his interpretation would be fraudulent.". 'consensus' does not require me to get your approval. Jyoti (talk) 05:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
I suggest that you re-read the policy you are referencing, because it supports my case, not yours. It doesn't say to ignore everyone at the talk page and do whatever you want in conflict with consensus, which is exactly what you are doing. I suggest that you stop revert warring in violation of talk page consensus. — goethean 14:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Can you please respond to the content revert? Jyoti (talk) 15:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Just look at how many responses there have been in this thread. You won't listen. I can't do anything about that. — goethean 16:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
See I do agree that Kripal has a view and there is a reference for it. That is not what I am challenging. I am saying the phrase has an overwhelmingly common interpretation and Kripal's interpretation is getting overdue weight! Only you have responded once to it insisting that Kripal is very important author, which in my view is not a satisfactory reply. Jyoti (talk) 06:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I find it difficult to agree that two sentences that are sourced can be considered Undue, especially if Kripal is a well known scholar on this article's topic. However, as the statement does seem to be making an implied accusation of homosexuality (with some negativity attached to the implication by my reading) it would perhaps be beneficial to add a quote either in the text, or as part of the citation that more directly backs that statement. Regarding Jyoti's argument about Kripal recanting his arguments - one would need to show that that recantation specifically applied to this statement not just that he had changed arguments about some unspecified things. If there are other well known interpretations of the phrase (as Jyoti has already linked to), they can be added here to further balance this interpretation. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Kripal's interpretation is WP:UNDUE. There is a commonly accepted interpretation with multiple scholarly WP:RS. Jyoti (talk) 16:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
WP:NPOV explicitly states "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." It does not say "Exclude opinions of experts on the topic who have a minority opinion on a specific detail." As I said, add the other interpretations to give balance to this one, but removing it completely is not within policy. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I am primarily saying WP:UNDUE not exactly WP:POV. Quoting from the link you presented: 1. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. 2. Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. Jyoti (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Please show how is this individual interpretation of Kripal prominent enough for inclusion when there are several (at least four) scholarly WP:RS that establishes the common interpretation. Repeating your opinion that Kripal is scholar is not sufficient. I have reverted, I would gladly undo if you can establish your point with discussion. In case of repeated revert without meaningful discussion I would consider WP:AN3. Jyoti (talk) 02:40, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment : I had edited this article months ago, and today I saw that it has been brought to WP:ANEW. I think that Goethean may have tried to make this page look less of a fan page. Page looks interesting, I don't think that there is any undue weight. There should be no particular objection as long as Kripal has been a huge researcher and writer concerning this subject. If Jyoti.mickey has better interpretation it can be attributed well, just like Gaijin42 has put. OccultZone (Talk) 01:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

New Book - Jibanbrittanta translation[edit]

For your information: Advaita Ashrama just released an English translation of Ram Chandra Datta's biography. link Devadaru (talk) 13:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ Heehs 2002, p. 430