Talk:Ramakrishna

Unacknowledged and POV use of obsolete sources

Common sense and respect for our readers dictate that you would inform the reader when knowingly using outdated, 100 and 50 year-old sources. Our goal should be to make a readable document, not to push your own personal POV into the article with whatever references you can gather. — goethean ॐ 00:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your WP:AGF. I can give examples of edits and comments in the talk page to indicate who is pushing the "personal POV" and in WP:CONFLICT. --Nvineeth (talk) 06:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I dont find this discussion even remotely amusing. What do you mean by "unacknowledged", in fact if one goes through the complete intact discussion, ( before it was split by you) (s)he gets the complete picture. (See the analysis of Isherwood refs above) There is no wikipedia policy which "outdates" and here is one archived discussion. Anyway there are several books out there which say the same thing in these "100 and 50 year-old sources". --TheMandarin (talk) 06:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is an example that without virtually changing any text, other books from Oriental Blackswan, Motilal Banarsidass etc., can be used. From outside opinion, if "the emphasis in a biography should first be on verifiable facts and only secondly on derived opinions and theories", and if we stick to this, it is easily achievable. I suggest you to start dispute resolution, or even approach the WP:ARBCOM instead of iterating over and over again here. I can provide all the relevant diffs. --TheMandarin (talk) 08:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Malcolm McLean material, edit warring

Now User:Priyanth has again removed well-sourced, highly notable material from the article, absurdly citing WP:UNDUE. This article should reflect the research of university scholars, not the dogma of a religious organization. If any editor is willing to stand up for honesty scholarship and reason against the dishonest devotees of a guru, Priyanth's edit should be reverted. — goethean ॐ 18:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Your charges of vandalism are really untenable and so is the 1997 review of a 1995 book. In 1998 in the second edition of the book, Kripal wrote about the material in question, "I have also, I believe, overplayed the degree to which the tradition has suppressed Datta's Jivanavrttanta. Indeed, to my wonder (and embarrassment), the Ramakrishna Order reprinted Datta's text the very same summer Kali's Child appeared, rendering my original claims of a conscious concealment untenable." Now, placing the 1997 review below the 1998 material is sort of "outdated" isn't it? Apart from this there is no point in repeating the same material in the body of the article again in the reference. --TheMandarin (talk) 06:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Since you advocate for replacing the texts by contemporary scholars with texts by max muller from 1901, using obsolete texts should not be a problem for you. Unless your real objection is that the texts by contemporary scholars contradict your religious sensibilities. — goethean ॐ 12:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

As your edit summary indicates, there was no "removing scholarship", the views of Kripal and McLean ( Kripal's book review ) are related and both were combined in order to avoid confusion, Even if one arranges chronologically like here, Kripal 1998 comes last. Right? Also what is the point in repeating what has been said in the main body again in the footnote, when both are virtually the same? I will make these changes and if we fail to agree, we can take other actions like mediation or even approach arbcom if it fails. --TheMandarin (talk) 07:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for comments

This is Request for Comments from other editors, regarding dispute over emphasis on sexuality, usage of book reviews in this article. I would like to mention that earlier a outside opinion ( archived here ) was sought and subsequently a consensus was reached to avoid overemphasis on sexuality, this being a Biography article and avoid book reviews. However, User:Goethean still believes that "we should be focusing on the serious problems with this article, namely, the suppression of the fact that most scholars of Bengali literature believe that Ramakrishna's sexuality was eccentric", while other editors (including the third opinion) like me believe that overemphasis of sexuality is out of place in the article and there is already a section dedicated to it and also a main article Views on Ramakrishna which discusses several contrasting views in detail. Also I have argued that, several scholars like Peter Heehs, Gayatri Spivak, Alan Rolland, Kelly Ann Raab, Amiya Sen, James Gerald Larson, Somnath Bhattacharyya, John Stratton Hawley, Dr. Jean Openshaw to name a few do not agree with "eccentric sexuality". ( for ex see : Talk:Ramakrishna#Other_quotes )

Also editors like myself, User:Priyanath, User:RegentsPark, User:Ludwigs2 to name a few believe that book reviews are not as reliable as the book itself and the book itself should be used. I have also argued that selectively cherry picking quotes for book reviews ( while ignoring the negative elements ) is prone to give a wrong impression, for ex, see Talk:Ramakrishna#Book_review_RSN_examples, Talk:Ramakrishna#Other_quotes .

Interested editors can have a look at an example of how confusing inclusion of book reviews can be

I would like to request for comments on the following:

• Overemphasis on sexuality in this biography article.
• Usage of book reviews ( especially when more critical reviews exist ).

--TheMandarin (talk) 07:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The entire article should be based on contemporary scholarship rather than ghettoizing it in a section at the end of the article. Ramakrishna's highly eccentric sexuality is part of his biography. This article does not present a neutral view of the scholarship. It presents the Ramakrishna Mission's view of the scholarship. — goethean ॐ 13:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Your inability to acknowledge other scholars like Gayatri Spivak, Peter Heehs, Huston Smith, Larson etc., (not to speak of mischaracterization of them as "Ramakrishna Mission's view" ) and your comments above saying "highly eccentric sexuality" despite other views is an indication of WP:POINT (also pointed out at the ANI here in response to your "publicity"). Anyway, I am sure that once we approach WP:ARBCOM they will give a accurate view and we can also discuss the recurrent personal attacks as well. --TheMandarin (talk) 07:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Removed Malcolm McLean's quote. It is a book review of Kripal's book Kali's child and it is not McLean's separate view, but a just summary of Kripal's view in the book (the same has been noted). --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 07:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I think there was a edit conflict resulting in repetition of McLean twice, and have fixed it, check if this is what that was intended. --TheMandarin (talk) 07:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It is a book review of Kripal's book Kali's child and it is not McLean's separate view, but a just summary of Kripal's view in the book

Wow! That's really quite an amazing comment. So McLean isn't discussing his own views when he writes:

This manipulation of the sources by the Ramakrishna Movement is significant because it has allowed the Mission to present a particular kind of explanation of Ramakrishna, that he was some kind of neo-Vedantist who taught that all religions are the same, and so on. It is Kripal's contention, and I am sure that he is correct, that this is wrong. And it is significant that the Jivanavrttanta presents an altogether different picture of Ramakrishna

McLean is saying about as clearly as possible that it is McLean's view that the Ramakrishna Mission's image of Ramakrishna — and that's of course the exact same image which is portrayed in the Wikipedia article — is, to use McLean's word, "wrong". It's no wonder what lengths you will go to to keep this text out of the article. Your interpretation of McLeans words is absurd on its face and impossible to take seriously. — goethean ॐ 15:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to be unclear, but I meant "In 1997, Malcolm McLean of Otago University[127] argued that the Ramakrishna Movement has manipulated Ramakrishna's biographical documents, that the Movement has published them in incomplete and bowdlerized editions, that the Movement has virtually suppressed Ram Chandra Datta's Srisriramakrsna Paramahamsadever Jivanavrttanta". is repetition of "In 1995, Kripal argued that argued that the Ramakrishna Movement has manipulated Ramakrishna's biographical documents, that the Movement has published them in incomplete and bowdlerized editions, that the Movement has suppressed Ram Chandra Datta's Srisriramakrsna Paramahamsadever Jivanavrttanta." The quote is not needed as its essence is included. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

"It's no wonder what lengths you will go to to keep this text out of the article. " Please assume good faith. To Mandarin, the correct version last edited by you was intended. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Your comments are crystal clear. — goethean ॐ 16:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

"In the 1997 book review of Kripal's book, Malcolm McLean of Otago University supported Kripal's view" is already added. I thought I was explicit by using "separate view". --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It's clear from the bolded statement of McLean's quoted above —"It is Kripal's contention, and I am sure that he is correct"— that McLean is only reviewing and parroting/supporting Kripal's views in the book. A single book review is not particularly notable, except for the article about the book. At most, this article could say that McLean, "in a book review, supported Kripal's claims." Though I think that any of the numerous and varied book reviews about Kali's Child all belong only in the article about the book, not in the article about Ramakrishna. There are numerous reviews of that book, many of them negative, at Kali's Child — I don't see what makes McLean's review uniquely notable. Priyanath ^talk 18:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It is unsurprising to say the least that you want to minimize the usage of a source which describes the Mission's interpretation of Ramakrishna as "wrong." — goethean ॐ 18:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Other equally notable scholars that reviewed the book called Kripal a "shoddy scholar with a perverse imagination" (Sil), questioned his complete lack of qualifications as a psychoanalyst (Roland), termed his book "colonialism updated" (Huston Smith), "monocausal reductionism" (Larson), "so full of cultural and linguistic mis-translations that the general premise cannot be taken seriously" (Spivak), "lack of attention to social and historical context" (Urban), "willful distortion and manipulation of sources" (Sil), "tendency toward sensationalism and at times an almost journalistic delight in playing on the "sexy," "seedy," "scandalous"" (Urban), and "none of the evidence cited in the book supports a cause-effect relation between the erotic and the mystical (or the religious), much less an identity!"(Larson), and there's more. None of these reviews belong here either, in my opinion, since they are just book reviews, and belong only in the article about the book. One could argue for a mass of dueling quotes and book reviews here, but that's why we have a link to the book article. Priyanath ^talk 19:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

My comment was about McLean's verifiably negative opinion of the Mission's interpretation of Ramakrishna, which is obediently parroted in the Wikipedia article. You respond with a series of quotations about Kripal's book. Something tells me we're not connecting here. — goethean ॐ 19:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

McLean's quote is a book review that essentially says "Yeah... what he said!" It's a book review. We've been down that road here before, so I'm surprised you want to start putting book reviews back in the article. I'm opposed to book reviews either supporting or refuting Kripal, by the way. Priyanath ^talk 19:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, since your only problem with the McLean material is that it's from a book review (in an academic journal), I'll just find it in his book and re-add it to the article. Thanks for your help. — goethean ॐ 19:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The same material is already in the article, in the sentence that begins "In 1995, Kripal argued that the Ramakrishna Movement..." The fact that McLean says "Yeah... what he said!" is at best marginally notable, and worthy (at most) of a comment that McLean "supported Kripal's statement." And yes, we are heading down the road of dueling comments by scholars who support or refute Kripal - whether in book reviews or not. Priyanath ^talk 20:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

McLean's book came out before Kripal's. — goethean ॐ 20:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

And Sil's quote "…[Kripal's] method of supporting his thesis is not only wrong but reprehensible in that it involves willful distortion and manipulation of sources. . . . Kripal has faulted Swami Nikhilananda for his 'concealment' and doctoring of the crude expressions of KM [Kathamrita], but he has unhesitatingly committed similar crime[s] of omission and commission to suit his thesis" is in a journal article that is generally about Ramakrishna. Since that is not a book review but part of a study of Ramakrishna, should that be included in this article also? While I might be ok with the current compromise, which includes one sentence regarding McLean's views, more than that would be undue weight given to the opinion of one person. The current version at least has a semblance of balance. Priyanath ^talk 20:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Kripal has commented on this article at his Rice University FAQ

Question: "What's up with your Wikipedia entry?"

Answer: "My Wiki entry often reads oddly because it has generally been controlled by the harshest critics of Kali's Child, who appear to think, for some odd reason, that this is the only book I have written. They have even monitored the entry for any changes in order to delete, immediately, anything posted on it that is balanced or positive. Basically, they want to control who people think I am and what I have written.

"There is a silver, if not golden, lining here, though. Kali's Child is largely about the cultural, religious, and historical processes by which the saint's astonishing 'secret talk' (guhya katha) in the Bengali texts was systematically censored and suppressed by the tradition as it passed into the English translations and Western culture. Of course, these same censorship processes continue into the present (witness the two ban movements), and they can easily be seen again now on Wikipedia, on the 'Talk' pages of the entries involving Ramakrishna, Kali's Child, and me. Just go and look. But don't read the Wikipedia entries. Read the 'Talk,' that is, the 'secret talk' behind the Wikipedia entries. As with the original Bengali texts behind the English bowdlerized texts, or the unconscious behind the conscious surface ego, the truth is not what appears on the surface to the public. The truth is what does not appear, what has been erased and suppressed.

"On the humorous side, one could thus say that reading a Wikipedia entry for accurate information about 'Jeffrey J. Kripal' is a bit like listening to Rush Limbaugh for accurate information about President Obama. If you agree with Limbaugh, it's great stuff. If you don't, it's a lesson in bad logic and grossly distorting rhetoric."

— Jeffrey J. Kripal FAQ Rice University Religious Studies department

well, that seems like a pretty good reason to revise the text, yah? I'll look into it. this is almost a BLP issue. Gothean, I'm surprised you posted that - If I remember correctly you were one of the strongest advocates of harsh wording using Kripal's work. what am I missing? --Ludwigs2 18:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I am the only defender of Kripal, and of covering of Ramakrishna's sexuality at all, on this page. I'd have to see which exchange you are referring to in order to answer your question directly. — goethean ॐ 19:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

These are old arguments related to Secret talk etc., to which several scholars, William Radice, James Gerald Larson do not agree and there are other contrasting views. While Ludwigs2 is apt in mentioning the WP:BLP issue which should be taken care, WP:NPOV is another policy of wikipedia, and any living person is bound to have a conflict of interest. --TheMandarin (talk) 03:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I misread things. I think Kripal has it wrong, however. Frankly, I think the issue here is that most of the editors on this article haven't read much of any of Kripal's work; there's just been a big push to use certain segment's of Kali's child out of context which has prompted an unfortunate reaction. C'est la vie, I suppose. --Ludwigs2 11:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Meaning of "paramahamsa"

From subsidiary articles and other sources, it would seem that "Paramahamsa" is not just part of his name but (like "Sri") is a title or other descriptive word. If that is so, those two words need to be translated and/or explained in the article. Note that it is customary to omit titles and such in Wikipedia articles when referring to persons (E.g. Januarius not "Saint Januarius", Pedro I of Brazil not "King Pedro" or "Dom Pedro"; although there are many exceptions, as in every Wikipedia "rule",especially when the title is handy for disambiguation.) All the best,

Quick comment on edit war over mention of Tyganananda's new book

The intellectual powerhouse credentials of Swami Tyagananda, critiquing Kali's Child, are not good enough for WP, Goethean? LOL. You must have no respect for "publish or perish Harvard U" either, where Swami T probably still is a chaplain. I suspect his book is good enuf for Harvard, but not for Wikipedia? Goethean's opinion in this matter should be ignored, IMHO. Jack B108 (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The book published by Motilal Banarsidass is a WP:RS. Goethean would you stop edit warring. I would like to point out that your WP:BLP violation against Francis Xavier Clooney--who has written a blurb for this book--has been removed[1]; Before you indulging in further edit warring and incivility, you may discuss this with other WP:Hinduism members, or even seek dispute resolution. Your charges of advertisement are equally untenable. Thank you. --TheMandarin (talk) 03:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

A better idea would be to produced citations showing where the book has been reviewed or discussed. It shouldn't be so difficult with such a 'highly notable' book. — goethean ॐ 12:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)