Talk:Ramakrishna/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Compose a change

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) 18:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'll work on it. This article used to have a section on scholarship before it was whisked away to the Views on Ramakrishna article. — goethean ॐ 19:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This version and this version of the article had a decent section on contemporary scholarship. — goethean ॐ 19:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't support a lengthy discussion about the controversy in this article. I still think it belongs in the daughter article. A mention of it, yes. A lengthy section covering all the views is extreme undue weight. The two version Goethean mentions are just that—undue weight for a controversy that has long passed. Daughter articles are entirely appropriate for such peripheral but related issues.

Note also that the overall tone of the various reference works, even the one Goethean is putting forth, is similar to this article. The one work that even mentions Kripal does not use him as a reference for the overall biography, but only as a peripheral issue at the very end. If any tag is going to stay on the article, I second Nvineeth's earlier proposal that a "content" tag be placed only on the "Views and Studies" section. Priyanath ^talk 01:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It's amazing that such a minor, non-notable controversy arouses such passion and efforts. Look, Kripal's work was controversial enough that an attempt was made to ban it from India in the Indian Parliament. And guess what? The same totalitarian forces are still at work here, trying (and so far succeeding) to ban mentioning the book in this article. — goethean ॐ 05:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice personal attack and original research. Wikipedia talk pages are not forums. To answer your question, I don't want to say something that is original research, this journal will make it clear. Regarding "passion and efforts", if one good faithed editor can add original research, personal comments, failed reference checks, one sided POVs, give undue weightage[1] with "passion and effort" then other good faithed editors can also correct it with "passion and effort". Nvineeth (talk) 07:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I have started the reception section here, by simply depositing a few sentences from each paragraph from the exiled "Views" article. But I need to do a Lexis-Nexis search to discover which of the articles have actually had influence and which have simply been added in order to water down the content. — goethean ॐ 06:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The reception section User:Goethean/SRK_reception is still unbalanced, one sided:

• • The first work of Romain Rolland on oceanic feeling should be mentioned,
  • Regarding Sil's section, not just Openshaw, but Radice should also be mentioned.(and I have another 2 journals which I will add later to the Views article, lets not bother about it now).
  • Now coming to Kripal's section, the William Parsons's quote has been taken, but not of Gayatri Spivak, so this is unbalanced. Either add both of them, or dont include any. Just mention that the work attracted praise + disputes on reliability.
  • Now coming to Hawley and Kelly Aan Raab section, there is no mention about the conclusions, only the study is mentioned, where as for Sil, Kripal, Kakar, the deductions have been mentioned. I would like to see the deductions mentioned as well.
  • What about Somnath Bhattacharrya?

When we add this section, it will be getting undue weightage, and bigger than more important ones, The Teachings, Impact sections. we must ensure that we are truly summarizing keeping the article size in mind and giving equal weightage. So all these things should be taken into consideration. Also you are missing out the "Religious Views". The size of this section you are writing should be brought down even further. Going with Priyanath, "I don't support a lengthy discussion about the controversy in this article." Probably a para more in slightly more detail will suffice. The SRK_reception is still very long. Nvineeth (talk) 07:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Everyone knows that you would like a section consisting solely of reasons why Kripal is wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. Everybody knows that you think that that would be AOK 100% neutral. You don't need to tell us this again and again every day. I'm going to write a section that will actually reflect the reception that SRK had, not the imagimnary reception that you would have liked him to have. — goethean ॐ 16:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent)Goethean, stop the incivility in your edit summaries[2], personal attacks against other editors[3] and misrepresenting what other good faith editors have been doing.[4] Look at the references that are used in the biography section and you'll see that the vast majority are scholarly references that have wide mainstream acceptance. There has been an appropriate offer and discussion by Nvineeth to include a short mention of Kripal in the views section, along with other views. Why are you closing the door on any possibility of working this out by not responding to what has actually been discussed, and by continued personal attacks and insults? If there is going to be change to the article, it will have to be civilly discussed here, and not a solo creation in your personal userspace. Priyanath ^talk 02:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't see the point in discussing anything with either of you. You two are bent on reverting every change I make to any of the SRK articles and replacing it with religious propaganda. Until some good faith editors take an interest in these articles and force you two to abide by Wikipedia policies, These articles will trumpet the lies of the Ramakrishna Mission. Congratulations! — goethean ॐ 02:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Goethean, to repeat myself, I have no problem in having Kali's Child in the article, provided its presented in an unbiased way. My logic is simple, mentioning the deductions of one study,(Sil, Kripal, Kakar) but avoid the deductions of another study.(Hawley, Somnath, Raab) will give undue weightage and wrong impressions to the reader. As far as your personal attacks and incivility is concerned, its not going to matter much, "Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you...".(Matthew 5:7-12), "He who hates no creature, ...He who is the same to friend and foe, and also in honour and dishonour; who is the same in heat and cold, and in pleasure and pain; who is free from attachment; to whom censure and praise are equal; who is silent, content with anything, homeless, steady-minded, full of devotion,—that man is dear to Me." (Gita, Chapter 12). Probably you will attack this as pure "mindless bhakti" like before, but it really does not matter. To repeat again, I myself had added stuff from Kripal, Sil before and I have no problem in having them as long as the other views are mentioned as well. Thanks. --Nvineeth (talk) 05:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

If you are trying to giving the example of Jstor's search results (User:Goethean/JSTOR) to demonstrate the importance of Kripal, I would like to share something. The Jstor documents contains several book reviews of Kripal et al, which adds to the results and pls note that these are not directly related to Ramakrishna, these are book reviews (also books received list). Also several of the journals found on other journal sites like, ingentiaconnect, springer, oxfordjournals are not even present at jstor! (ex: Alan Rolland, Amiya P Sen) So the search figures of Jstor or for that matter any other journal site cannot be taken as presenting the complete and correct picture. Even google scholar will give misleading results because of the presence of several book reviews. The Several encyclopedia examples stated above clearly indicate the not much importance is give to psychoanalysis and Kali's Child. And irrespective of these search results, wikipedia tells us not to give undue weightage. --Nvineeth (talk) 09:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

If you have a more objective analysis of the contemporary academic discussion of SRK, I'm all ears. — goethean ॐ 18:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Goethean, have you completed composing a change for our review yet? Hipocrite (talk) 11:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I went through This version and this version, links given above. I will strongly oppose both versions of "scholarship" as WP:UNDUE, both versions have sections that talk more about the merits and demerits of the books, NOT of Ramakrishna. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point. The coverage given to Kripal's book should focus on its effect on the debate over Ramakrishna's life and teachings. — goethean ॐ 14:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly opposite of what Redtigerxyz said. Priyanath ^talk 16:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Still working on it here. — goethean ॐ 14:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Goethean, every editor here (Nvineeth, Bluptr, Redtigerxyz, Hipocrite, myself) except yourself has shown a willingness to compromise and discuss, and to be civil while doing so. Wikipedia is a collaborative environment. If you really want to work on changing the article, then you need to take a different approach. Priyanath ^talk 17:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Goethean is proposing a change. Let him propose it, then we will evaluate it. Hipocrite (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

He's rewriting the section/article in his userspace without inviting feedback, and without including the very scholars that Nvineeth has been proposing as other scholar views (Alan Rolland, Amiya P Sen, Somnath Bhattacharya, Openshaw, Atmajnanananda, Tyagananda). Did you mean that you also disagree about the incivility and namecalling that Bluptr, Nvineeth, and I have pointed out? That wasn't clear. Priyanath ^talk 20:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

He is drafting a change to propose to us for our review. Do you have a problem with him finishing his drafting before presenting it to us for review? If so, what is your problem with that? Hipocrite (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I've put my version here. As some of you have gathered, my choice of materials to include was based on an analysis of search result quantities on the academics Humanities index JSTOR. I feel that this is a better, more objective method than everyone adding their favorite authors willy-nilly. If anyone wants to do a better analysis, they are welcome to. I have not yet included information from Heinrich Zimmer or Huston Smith, but, based on the JSTOR analysis, it would be appropriate to do so. There needs to be one more sentence on Muller's views on SRK and one more on Rolland's views on SRK added to the reception. — goethean ॐ 20:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

We look forward to your proposed change. Hipocrite (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not aware of any wikipedia guideline which asks to build an article depending on the "analysis" of JSTOR. You would have already noted that the subset of journals in any archive does not reflect the actual metrics. Regarding the Reception, you are doing a fine work, and some POV fixes, needs to be done, which will I will try to address. --Nvineeth (talk) 05:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I am utterly unsurprised that you oppose using my JSTOR analysis. But if you reject my analysis, what metric do you propose to use to determine who are the most notable authors who have commented on SRK? Do you propose going back to the old chaotic method of everyone adding what they think should be added until the section becomes unmanageably long and it all gets exiled to a daughter article? If you would like to do a better analysis than mine, please go right ahead. But my JSTOR metric is better than relying on subjective impressions about who is notable and who is not. — goethean ॐ 12:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Viability of too few opinions, personal attacks and incivility

After going through the arguments above, I am questioning the viability of the Toofewopinions tag on this article. According to the discussion above, the tag was added because Kali's Child and other views are missing, but several mainstream encyclopedias listed above do not even mention them. And also this article has history of Totally-disputed being added inappropriately, and I see that the same thing now. And 2 days back two tags were (over)used.

Goethean, pls be civic in your edit summaries, and in what you write on the talk pages. For ex: Attacking fellow editors as "totalitarian"[5], This edit summary which says : "+refs --- keep in mind that I can provide extensive quotations from each of these to buttress my claim that SRK's sexuality is generally taken to be ambiguous.", is nothing short of harassment and another one says: "newsflash --- these guys died like 50 years ago." Edit summaries like these will add to the rift and are considered uncivic.

Pls be civic, and avoid personal attacks.

From the above discussions its also evident that psychoanalysis and Kali's Child are not given much importance in mainstream encyclopedias, and so the template Too few opinions is not relevant here. However, going with Hipocrite, users should know that a change is going on, so I would like to add a tag that truly indicates this. The Expand further template seems to be more appropriate.

Pls dont unnecessarily remove or add the tags. If you want to remove this tag or add totally disputed tags, we can get this sorted in Administrator's noticeboard, or dispute resolution ( or with other GA reviewers ). Along with this, the personal attacks and incivility which are increasing every day can also be discussed and dealt properly. Bluptr (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Section break

Before getting into this, could you complete composing your change? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It's done. — goethean ॐ 20:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Goethean. You obviously put some thought into it (said sincerely). I want to comment when I have serious time and bandwidth to give to it, which I don't right now. I will in the next couple days. Priyanath ^talk 03:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Goethean/SRK reception or Ramakrishna/Reception: Which is the final draft? If Goethean will confirm, i can comment appropraitely. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Ramakrishna/Reception — goethean ॐ 14:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments on Ramakrishna/Reception

• "In 1896, Max Müller wrote the influential[1] essay "A real mahatma: Sri Ramakrishna Paramahansa Dev" in the journal Nineteenth Century.[2] Müller's 1899 Râmakrishna: His Life and Sayings is one of the earliest books by a Western scholar on the life of Ramakrishna. Müller saw Ramakrishna as a bhakta and as "a wonderful mixture of God and man."" Here the first sentence agin concentrates on the book and author, suggested: Only "Müller saw Ramakrishna as a bhakta and as "a wonderful mixture of God and man."" be included
• There are missing page numbers. eg. Hawley 1998
• Overall, a good read. Can be incorporated, most probably in Views sub-article and summarized with other views in this article. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 03:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

re: Muller, I agree that the paragraph should focus more on what Muller said about SRK. That can be fixed. But don't you think that it was an important event in the story of SRK when Muller wrote his book and essay, introducing SRK to American and European academic culture as a religious figure? — goethean ॐ 13:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

re: overall, It was my intention that this text would constitute the summary section in the main article. The daughter article is already summarized with a few sentences. My entire contention was that text was too little and that opponents of contemporary research are hiding the academic material at the daughter article. — goethean ॐ 13:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Very Nice work! One of my concerns is that, it does not indicate all the Views and Studies, like Sil, Raab, Rolland,etc., Also, when we add the Postcolonial studies of Sumit Sarkar, Chaterjee, Gayatri Spivak, Amiya P. Sen in the Views article, this section will describe only that of Sarkar's.
• Instead of adding quotes, only from Hawley and Larson, I think its a good idea to discuss on the contents of the book and what findings were disputed in general. Because what I see is this: Today I am fine with this section, but when the section is incorporated into the article, another "devotee" will try to add a quote against the book, then another "skeptic" will add a quote to support the book... but if we avoid the quotes and add generic statements and observations, it will be more stable. Also after 1 year the stats of Jstor may change or some professor may say something for / against kali's child and some editor will try to add the quote to the section! --Nvineeth (talk)

The direct quotations can be turned into indirect quotations with little trouble. — goethean ॐ 13:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that the JSTOR scores will change much. If they do, I don't think that much effort will be needed to bring the section back in line with the scores. Remember: I am only using the top ten scoring authors, and most of them are dead. It would take a work as momentous as Kali's Child to change the scoring significantly and even then, it will take months for the reviews to come out, and in that case, the reception section would have to be re-written anyway. — goethean ॐ 13:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Instead of adding quotes, only from Hawley and Larson, I think its a good idea to discuss on the contents of the book and what findings were disputed in general.

I oppose having this article cover content by non-notable authors. To me this includes Raab and Roland as well as Bhattacharyya, Tyagananda, and others who are never mentioned in the academic discussion of SRK per my analysis. My analysis is certainly not perfect, but it is the best one that we have at this point in time and I suggest that we follow its findings. Keep in mind that its findings surprised me, too --- due to his surprisingly low score, I don't really support the inclusion of Sil as much as I did before the analysis. Although he's written four large books on SRK, Vivekananda, and Sarada, it's clear that those books aren't much discussed in academia, and so we have no obligation to discuss them here. (I would remove my single reference to Sil in the section if I could find a better source.) In fact, I would argue, we are obligated to discuss Hawley and Larson more than Sil. Bhattacharyya and Tyagananda, on the other hand, I would argue that we are obligated to ignore them completely, just as the academic community has ignored them. If their essays were significant to the conversation, they would be mentioned in the literature. They are never mentioned, so their essays are not notable and should not be mentioned, even in the daughter article. — goethean ॐ 13:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, editors will change this section, and our job is to decide whether their change improves or worsens the article. Because we are working at an intricate, highly-informed level here, most of the changes will worsen the article and will have to be reverted. There's no getting around that. — goethean ॐ 13:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Another ramification of the JSTOR analysis --- If we add anything to my version of the reception section, it should be on H. Smith's, H. Zimmer's or Spivak's views of SRK. — goethean ॐ 15:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Now that goethean has composed his change, and it has recieved tentative support with the possibility of some additions, other editors should feel free to compose reliably sourced alterations to his change for our review. Please do so. Hipocrite (talk) 15:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Goethean- thank you for the thoughtful rewrite. In general, I think it's relatively balanced. The biggest issue, no surprise, is with the Kripal and Hawley quotes. My reasons are not what you might expect. I think that by pulling some of the most salacious quotes from their writings, it actually diminishes them as serious scholars. Hawley would probably read this with a great deal of chagrin, knowing that his very nuanced writings on Ramakrishna were condensed to that one sentence. Kripal might have no chagrin, but this condensation doesn't really cover the main gist of his work, which is that it was a Freudian psychoanalysis of Ramakrishna based on 100 year old texts. I'm not opposed to mentioning Kripal's hypersexualized point of view - but it should be done with a sentence that describes his work rather than a single quote that sensationalizes it. Right now it reads more like a tabloid, and less like an encyclopedia. And again, it actually diminishes his work in the presentation. I think you'll also find that a neutral description of Hawley and Kripal's writings will withstand the test of time, in terms of editors making changes. Additions that are neutrally written, well-sourced, and properly presented have a much better chance, in theory and in practice.

Regarding the JSTOR analysis, I don't think that is at all relevant to what should be included here. For one thing, it's original research. Plus Roland is a highly trained and journal-published psychoanalyst and also published for his writings on Ramakrishna. Should he be included in a short review? Possibly. Should he and Bhattarcharya be included in the daughter article? Definitely. Both are published scholars, Bhattacharya mostly in India. Both meet Wikipedia standards for reliable sources. Tyagananda can and should be included because he is representing the Ramakrishna tradition. As long as that is stated clearly, then it's a point of view that can and should be in the expanded daughter article.

Thank you for the thought you've given this, Goethean. Priyanath ^talk 19:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you about the Kripal quotation. I'm uncomfortable with it because we should be using secondary works which describe the thesis of Kali's Child rather than doing it ourselves. Hawley is less clear-cut but can be improved.

Predictably, you dismiss my JSTOR analysis and offer nothing in its place, except your personal opinion that Tyagananda and Bhattacharyya's essays are highly notable, despite the fact that they have been completely ignored in every documentable debate, in every academic article about Ramakrishna.

The Ramakrishna Mission's opinions have been very strongly applied to this article, and to a reprehensible extent in the ridiculously one-sided article Views on Ramakrishna. I don't think that you need to worry about them having their views expressed in this article. They seem to be doing that quite successfully. — goethean ॐ 20:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Plus Roland is a highly trained and journal-published psychoanalyst and also published for his writings on Ramakrishna. Should he be included in a short review? Possibly. Should he and Bhattarcharya be included in the daughter article? Definitely.

Why aren't they ever mentioned in academic articles on Ramakrishna? I would think that you might be a little curious about that yourself. To repeat myself again, I support removing references to Narasingha Sil because, despite the volume of his writings on the subject, he is not mentioned in the literature very much (10 times according to my analysis). But your favored figures are never mentioned. — goethean ॐ 20:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Also --- the Tyagananda and Bhattacharyya essays are about Kripal's book, not about Ramakrishna. What do they actually say about Ramakrishna, which would allow us to include them in this article? When I read them, I noted that they studiously and conveniently avoided making any claims about Ramakrishna at all. (So as not to have to admit that any of his eccentricities actually existed and that Kripal wasn't making his interpretation up out of whole cloth.) Please re-read User:redtigerxyz's comments again --- all text should be about Ramakrishna, not about Kripal. — goethean ॐ 20:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

As before, this back-and-forth arguing is not productive. If you have specific changes that should be made to the proposed addition, propose all of your changes. We'll then have all the proposals in front of us and we can move forward. Hipocrite (talk) 21:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I propose this revised version of the Kripal paragraph, based on my comments above:

Jeffrey Kripal's controversial Kali's Child: The Mystical and the Erotic in the Life and Teachings of Ramakrishna (1995) argued that Ramakrishna rejected Advaita Vedanta in favor of Shakti Tantra. Kripal, based on his psychoanalytical study of Ramakrishna's life, portrayed Ramakrishna’s mystical experiences as symptoms of repressed homoeroticism. John Stratton Hawley agreed with him, while scholars including Gerald James Larson disagreed, seeing no causal relationship between the erotic symbolism seen by Kripal, and Ramakrishna's religious experiences.

Further (and necessary, I believe) explanation: It still gives more weight/space to Kripal, compared to the far more notable scholars such as Rolland, Isherwood, Muller, and also Vivekananda—but I can live with it for a summary section. Other than that, this version balances the relevant views, and may preclude the need for including the views of Roland and Bhattacharya in this summary section, though others may disagree. It is also encyclopedic and neutral in tone. I moved the Hawley and Larson quotes into the footnotes, since they directly address the points made. Priyanath ^talk 04:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I love how you minimize the Hawley section almost out of existence. — goethean ॐ 14:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Hawley was only agreeing with what Kripal said, so his specific comment is repetitive in a short summary section. In my proposed version, I moved his comment into the footnote, so it's still there. In the current draft version, the Kripal section is twice as long as any other, yet he is not nearly as notable as Muller, Rolland, Isherwood, Vivekananda, or Zimmer. I'm not going to edit war - it's only a draft that isn't going in to the article until it acheives consensus, which will require some discussion.

But surely Hawley doesn't agree with everything Kripal suggests. Therefore it is important to mention what Hawley agrees with in Kripal's book. — goethean ॐ 17:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Another point: the "erotic symbolism" mentioned in the last sentence is referring to what was seen by Kripal, and should say so. Priyanath ^talk 05:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that your text implied that Kripal was the only scholar who saw the erotic symbolism, which is false — Hawley and others saw it too. — goethean ॐ 17:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I think there's room to work on this, and I'm not tied to the exact way I wrote it. As I state below, though, I'm going to now insist that Roland's view from the psychoanalysis perspective be included in the summary. I'll write something during the next couple of days. He clearly meets and surpasses WP:RS standards. The fact that he is coming from a different academic discipline is, in fact, all the more reason to include his perspective. Priyanath ^talk 04:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Final warning

This is the final warning I'll be giving to all parties on this page before I ask for adminstrative intervention. Either propose concrete changes, or discuss specific changes to proposed concrete changes to the page or do not write on this talk page. There is a proposal on the table from Gothean. I have not seen any response to his proposal as of yet (by responce, I mean specific changes that someone would want made to the proposal, not a nebulous "add this scholar." Hipocrite (talk) 13:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Few Comments

• I am ok with not mentioning Tyagananda. The Kripal's section looks balanced, with a quote supporting and against the book. But I would suggest to have the "salacious" in the ref as priyanath suggested.
• I am also ok with not having Somnath Bhattacharyya in the section, since his work is primarily connected with Kali's Child. However his works are important because they have made important conclusions on psychoanalysis. Since the larson's quote on secondary transexuality related to Kakar is not present, I will not press for the inclusion on Bhattacharyya's conclusion on transsexuality.
• "...Sil. Bhattacharyya and Tyagananda, on the other hand, I would argue that we are obligated to ignore them completely, just as the academic community has ignored them." -- the academic community hasn't completely ignored them, for ex: Beckerlegge (2006) mentions about them. And we cannot ignore them completely, remember WP:BIAS. Also the multi-scholarly work of Antonio De Nicholas et al, includes all the three.
• "Another ramification of the JSTOR analysis --- If we add anything to my version of the reception section, it should be on H. Smith's, H. Zimmer's or Spivak's views of SRK."--I dont think that the analysis gives the complete picture, so we cannot impose restrictions like this, however, I am ok with the current version, with the inclusion of a line or two on Alan Rolland, because if we consider other equally important journal sites like springerlink, we can find several of his works there.
• "The Ramakrishna Mission's opinions have been very strongly applied to this article, and to a reprehensible extent in the ridiculously one-sided article Views on Ramakrishna." -- when things are begin discussed calmly, does attacks like this make sense? Comments like this will only encourage more arguments/comments like we have had before without bearing much fruit... isn't it?
• The Reception looks balanced now, but I would like to see a line or two on Alan Roland a very notable psychoanalyist.

Goethean, regardless of all the altercations we have had before ( and may have in future :-) ) I appreciate your version of Reception! --Nvineeth (talk) 06:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S: I hope we will be having a line or two on the religious views, on signs of death during samadhi. (G.C.Ray's IEEE paper) --Nvineeth (talk) 06:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

the academic community hasn't completely ignored them, for ex: Beckerlegge (2006) mentions about them. And we cannot ignore them completely, remember WP:BIAS. Also the multi-scholarly work of Antonio De Nicholas et al, includes all the three.

Maybe you could point me to a review of that book in an academic journal. If no scholar reviews a book, the academic community by definition has taken no notice of the book. — goethean ॐ 14:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Original research --Nvineeth (talk) 03:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. Quote from the Wikipedia WP:OR policy if you want anyone to give any credence to your accusation. — goethean ॐ 05:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is the excerpt from WP:OR--

Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments

Even the "Jstor analysis" comes under this. Nvineeth (talk) 08:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that using my JSTOR analysis on my userpage is a violation of WP:OR. And I am not advocating for the publication of any original thought. Instead, I am suggesting (insisting, really) that our coverage in the article reflect the current academic discussion. Our coverage of the reception of Ramakrishna should reflect the contemporary academic reception of Ramakrishna, instead of reflecting your personal, subjective opinion regarding which author is better, more important, or more amenable to your point of view. That seems like it should be uncontroversial. Alan Roland has written a single article on Ramakrishna, which has gone completely unremarked upon by every other Ramakrishna scholar in the world. The rest of his work is generally on the use of psychoanalysis on South Asian cultures. His work on Ramakrishna is therefore not notable. So your advocating that he gets an entire paragraph in the reception section is clearly without merit. — goethean ॐ 17:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I dont think that the analysis gives the complete picture, so we cannot impose restrictions like this,

Then maybe you could point me to your superior analysis. — goethean ॐ 14:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Very Simple, your "analysis" comes from a small subset, does not include other journal sites. See WP:BIAS. --Nvineeth (talk) 03:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

hen things are begin discussed calmly, does attacks like this make sense? Comments like this will only encourage more arguments/comments like we have had before without bearing much fruit... isn't it?

That's a statement of simple fact which any fool could easily observe from a quick look at this article. Maybe saying the clear truth over and over again does not have any purpose, but I'm still going to say it. You look at the Views on Ramakrishna article and tell me its balanced. What a joke. You have completely removed the opinions of academics and replaced them with the opinions of a religious organization. I can understand that you don't like people saying it over and over again, but it still needs to be said. — goethean ॐ 14:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes any "fool" can also see that few editors don't look into the peer review and discussions and keep repeating the same stuff "over and over again". Any "fool" can also see that its such a nice "joke" to try to revert the article to an version which is one month old. Any "fool" will also dislike the presence of original research, personal comments, ...."I can understand that you don't like people saying it over and over again, but it still needs to be said."[6] --Nvineeth (talk) 03:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Roland, as the only actual psychoanalyst in the bunch, and a well-published author on the subject, is relevant. He has also written on psychoanalysis applied to Ramakrishna by others. Because of that, a one sentence addition to the summary could read "Psychoanalyst Alan Roland, writing about those who attempt to apply Western psychoanalysis to Ramakrishna, describes the application of Western meaning to Hindu symbols as "facile decoding" that has long been the bane of psychoanalysis."

• Roland, Alan (2004). "Ramakrishna: Mystical, Erotic, or Both?". Journal of Religion and Health. 37: 31–36. doi:10.1023/A:1022956932676. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Just a few of his other publications (not all), journals and books:

• Roland, Alan. (1996) Cultural Pluralism and Psychoanalysis: The Asian and North American Experience. Routledge. ISBN 0415914787.
• Roland, Alan (1998) In Search of Self in India and Japan: Toward a Cross-cultural Psychology. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0691024588.
• Roland, A. (1991). Sexuality, the Indian Extended Family, and Hindu Culture. J. Amer. Acad. Psychoanal., 19:595-605.
• Roland, A. (1980). Psychoanalytic Perspectives on Personality Development in India. Int. R. Psycho-Anal., 7:73-87.

Priyanath ^talk 14:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Why hasn't anyone in an academic journal ever discussed, reviewed, or referred to Roland's writings in connection with Ramakrishna? Since no academic has ever discussed his writings in connection with Ramakrishna, it would be patently absurd for us to do so, especially since we are ignoring other, more notable scholars. The suggestion to cover this scholar, who is clearly not notable in connection with Ramakrishna, when coupled with your suggestion to reduce to nearly zero the coverage of the writings of John Stratton Hawley, the eighth most dominant Ramakrishna scholar (and the fourth highest living one), make me wonder how serious you are about trying to write a neutral passage. — goethean ॐ 15:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, although I shouldn't have to remind you of this every day, this is a biographical article on Ramakrishna. What has Roland written about Ramakrishna's biography? Is Alan Roland a notable biographer of Ramakrishna? Of course not, and I don't think that anyone thinks he is. You want him here because he criticizes Kripal. Take it to the Kripal article. You need to start getting serious about sincerely attempting to write a neutral article and stop trying to use this article as place to display your personal editorial opinions, or those of some organization. — goethean ॐ 15:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Why hasn't anyone in an academic journal ever discussed, reviewed, or referred to Roland's writings-- pls read Antonio De Nichola's book, Invading the Sacred for a simple example. --Nvineeth (talk) 06:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The Reception looks balanced now, but I would like to see a line or two on Alan Roland a very notable psychoanalyist. --Nvineeth

Yeah, sure. Just point me his his highly notable biography of Ramakrishna and we'll be all set. Or you can stop wasting everybody's time with transparant absurdities. — goethean ॐ 15:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Roland, as the only actual psychoanalyst in the bunch, and a well-published author on the subject, is relevant. -- Priyanath

If the subject you're talking about is Ramakrishna's biography, then that statement is false. I'm sorry, but no academic ever refers to him in connection with Ramakrishna. A simple academic journal query makes this perfectly clear. If this situation changes in the future, it can be discussed again. — goethean ॐ 16:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

"A simple academic journal query makes this perfectly clear."

Did you check springer, google scholar? --Nvineeth (talk) 04:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Roland is published in many academic journals and by university publishing houses as a leading psychoanalyst, specializing in cross-cultural applications. As such, he is clearly a reliable source for that field according to WP:RS. Moreso, in fact, than Kripal and other religious scholars who are not published in the field of psychoanalysis or its cross-cultural application. Priyanath ^talk 06:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I would not press for the inclusion of tyagananda, somnath etc., now, but Roland has done work independent of Kali's Child, so he deserves attention of a line or two. --Nvineeth (talk) 08:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but (again) unlike Kripal, no one discusses his work in connection with Ramakrishna. It is therefore obviously as inappropriate to discuss his work in the Ramakrishna article as it is to discuss the work of Somnath Bhattachayyra, Swami Tyagananda, or any other scholar whose work is non-notable on the subject of Ramakrishna. This seems...elementary and something I shouldn't have to repeat over and over again every day. — goethean ॐ 17:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

"the work of Somnath Bhattachayyra, Swami Tyagananda, or any other scholar whose work is non-notable"--If they were non notable, why did kripal even bother to reply to them, and why did he "read with a mixture of embarrassment, sadness, and hope Swami Tyagananda’s Kali’s Child Revisited." They are equally notable like kripal. --Nvineeth (talk) 06:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• I don't see why exclusion from the American academic discourse--that is, the world of universities and "scholarly journals"--automatically disqualifies a scholar's work from mention in Wikipedia. America is one country; its scholars don't have a monopoly on thought!
• By the bye, keeping the Kripal material here will, I suspect, become increasingly difficult, as the number of devotees of Sri Ramakrishna continues to grow. There will always be more people on the RK Mission side regarding this dispute. I do admire Goethean's perseverance and dogged tenacity. I couldn't keep up with him and dropped out of the debate. There were others who did the same. But the RK Mission side will always have new recruits to fight that side.
• It's funny really, how difficult we find it to appreciate the other side's views. If I understand him correctly, Goethean honestly believes that Kripal makes a true or at least very plausible analysis, and considers actions by the RK Mission and people like me to amount to egregious censorship. He points to enough material published by sources generally considered reputable to support his view. And I honestly believe Kripal is hopelessly misguided--a belief supported by study, a passing familiarity with the Bengali language, and deep thought, not to mention published sources generally considered reputable (though perhaps not appearing so much in the narrow field of American academia). But I try to respect Goethean's right to believe as he does. And who knows, there's probably a kernel of truth in Kripal's work. Time will tell: in 20 or 30 years, I imagine, Kripal's work will either have been verified and supported by others, or it will have been completely forgotten. Anyhow, it's nice to see the discourse mellowing out, and both sides recognizing that including both sides of a debate will make for a better article. Let each person discover for him or herself who Ramakrishna is.
• My apologies for personal musings... Devadaru (talk) 03:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to apologize, I actually appreciate your honesty. It's a refreshing change from all of the pious lies that have been typed into this talk page. My analyses do not only cover American academic journals. JSTOR and GoogleScholar cover most international academic journals. And if it did, that doesn't explain why Alan Roland makes such a poor showing in all of the citation indexes.

Your comments about Kripal are much more serious. It shouldn't matter whether you think that Kripal's interpretation is right or wrong. Attempting to distort the truth by suppressing information from articles is dishonest and shameful. The ends do not justify the means. That means that you should not do bad things for a good cause. I don't care how evil and wrong you think that Kripal and his book is, it is dishonest to present an inaccurate picture of reality in this article. Any religious organization that asks you to suppress information from this article is doing something that is dishonest and shameful. They are asking you to lie for them. And no genuinely spiritual person would do that.

Wikipedia has ways of dealing with simple vandalism. Otherwise, it would have been rendered irrelevant long ago.

All academic work has some truth and some error. None of it, even if it is done by a Swami, contains 100% truth. And not even Kripal's work contains 100% error. In one of my descriptions of Kripal's work, I called him post-modernist author. I think that's a fair assessment. He has a sophisticated understanding of the fact that different people interpret things in different ways. His book reflects his personal interpretation of Ramakrishna. It's not 100% true. But it is the most commented-on academic work on Ramakrishna in the past thirty years, and therefore deserves a special place in this article. — goethean ॐ 04:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your musings, Devadaru - they are appreciated by both sides. I too see progress in the discourse, and hope that we will be able to present both sides of the academic debate in the summary section. Priyanath ^talk 04:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing the musings, "America is one country; its scholars don't have a monopoly on thought!"--exactly, see WP:BIAS, "But the RK Mission side will always have new recruits to fight that side." -- :-), gives the idea that they are recruiting for a jehad! What Initially brought me to this article was : 1. Single Sided POV, I was aware of the postcolonial studies, psychoanalysis stuff etc., 2. Ironical it may seem, Personal attacks and interesting discussions on the talk page was a great motivating factor! Wikipedia is an great place and intellectuals with different POVs will always come here! --Nvineeth (talk) 07:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

"It's not 100% true. But it is the most commented-on academic work on Ramakrishna in the past thirty years, and therefore deserves a special place in this article."'--why did several encyclopedia described above not even mention about it? "deserves a special place" is WP:UNDUE. --Nvineeth (talk) 06:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Attempting to distort the truth by suppressing information from articles is dishonest and shameful. -- please read this. --Nvineeth (talk) 06:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Isn't "dishonest" to indulge in personal attacks? --Nvineeth (talk) 07:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• I sense your real frustration, Goethean, at what you perceive is unjust censorship. I think I misstated something above, about new recruits for the RK Mission. In my understanding, the Ramakrishna Mission is not some monolithic institution with swamis plotting how to suppress Kripal. They are not organized enough for that. They are very busy running hospitals and schools and so many other projects, and don't have a separate department for "dogma" as the Catholic Church does. I suspect that all the editors who have worked on this article, supporting the "RK Mission side" have done so of their own free will, and acted according to their own beliefs, not prompted by any swami. So it may be more accurate to call this view the "Ramakrishna devotee" side, or "Kripal doubter side", than "RK Mission side". I realize now that my comment about "RK Mission recruits" was not well-considered. I meant that there will always be a stream of "Kripal doubters"; your position, I am predicting, will remain a lonely one.
• I sense that part of your frustration stems from a belief that the RK Mission is actively opposing Kripal and, moreover, is purposely suppressing relevant information. I don't think your belief is correct, though. I find it impossible to believe that any swamis, deep down inside, know that Kripal is right, and are trying hard to make sure the "truth" he has uncovered doesn't get out. No. They honestly believe Kripal is utterly mistaken, and, finding his views offensive, his method flawed, and his approach towards them aggressive, naturally fight back to some extent, eg Tyagananda, Atmajnanananda. Yes, we know the mission withholds stuff--you have mentioned, for example, all the ellipses in the Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda. I hope you might acknowledge at least the possibility that they are not trying to hide an ugly truth they are afraid may come to light, but rather, are withholding material they feel would be misunderstood. Just imagine: a bunch of old monks who look on Ramakrishna as God incarnate are suddenly told by a non-Hindu American scholar that their God was actually a repressed homosexual who was abused by his guru and later abused his disciples--if there is some reaction, is that surprising? I mention this in the hope that your frustration might diminish to the extent that you can see the other side is also acting in good faith, according to the faith they have. I'm not arguing that Wikipedia shouldn't offend old monks, but that the more we can understand an opponent's position, the more persuasively we can argue our own position. Arguing that Kripal's work is relevant because it is widely discussed, as you are now doing, is more persuasive than arguing that he's right; the latter argument will only offend, never convince. Devadaru (talk) 15:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Devadaru. I count myself among the "Kripal doubters" also. That's why it is easy for me to argue that Wikipedia should cover his work (as well as that of his most notable critics) regardless of the accuracy of that work.

If the Mission called themselves the Vivekananda Vedanta Society (as they do here in Chicago), I wouldnt have any problems with them. But instead, the call themselves the Ramakrishna Mission and then completely misrepresent Ramakrishna — much like the Vatican completely misrepresents Jesus (if you read the Gospel of Thomas you find out that Jesus was against organized religion — much like Ramakrishna had contempt for the type of social work to which the Mission is dedicated). Sure, I'll grant that they are more self-deceptive rather than deliberate liars....sort of like how Bush and Cheney really believed that they were doing a great thing for Iraq and the US when the invaded Iraq. But that doesn't change the fact that they wanted to believe the lies that eventually became apparent to everyone. At the highest levels, it is clear that the Mission has and continue to deliberately obstruct and censor many important documents — Vivekananda's letters, the Kathamrta, an English translation of Ram Chandra Dutta's Jivanavrittanta, anything that would result in an accurate understanding of the bhakti and tantra aspects of Ramakrishna's mystical realization.[7] At the highest levels, they are dishonest, corrupt, and morally reprehensible. Now there are so many lies and deceptions in these Wikipedia articles, they will probably never be accurate. Behold the legacy of the Ramakrishna Mission: mendacious dishonesty. — goethean ॐ 15:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

"I hope you might acknowledge at least the possibility that they are not trying to hide an ugly truth they are afraid may come to light,"--Yes I sincerely acknowledge this, but this does not mean that the article is written in such that it has only such information related to these "secrets". I am not a blind "RK mission follower", but the article when I initially read it was written with WP:OR as if to create a lot of suspense and "secrets", completely ignoring the other views. Had I not been aware of the several studies, I wouldn't have bothered, but if you consider all the studies available--the psychoanalysis, the postcolonial studies etc., there is lot more to write, than projecting the "secrets". What Neevel says in this light is very true, "some of Ramakrishna's followers tend to be apologetic about his taking up tantric practices because of the eroticism that has discredited tantric schools in general and those of Bengal in particular." Ramakrishna may have practiced with the attitude of "expression of the eternal male-female principle" as Isherwood puts it, but it is also very easy to be misunderstood."At the highest levels, they are dishonest, corrupt, and morally reprehensible."--this explains why so many personal attacks are made... Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point by categorically calling all the translations "highly problematic", when the actual verfication with the references do not prove this, there are other POVs which also needs to be expressed. There is no need to try prove that they are "dishonest, corrupt..."--"Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." and differnt scholars will express their views which should be expressed neutrally, and not add non existing references. And according to one "recent" academic study I was going through, the sources have been overlooked and misunderstood in the process of "deconstruction". A question, aren't personal attacks, adding non-existant references to prove a point "mendacious dishonesty" as Goethean puts it? Thanks for the Urban link you posted, but I am also aware of others like Hixon who have written that translation across boundaries is no easy task and very easy to be misunderstood[8] "...One might be surprised to learn after reading the preceding quotation that the text in question was printed and published by the very organization accused of suppressing and eliminating it, the Rimakr..s.na Order, through its publication department in Udbodhan, Calcutta."...how can the texts which are existing from the past 100 years in Bengali suddenly become "secret" when are translated? --Nvineeth (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

but the article when I initially read it was written with WP:OR as if to create a lot of suspense and "secrets", completely ignoring the other views

Yes, and then you immediately moved all of these secerets out of the main article to the POV fork Books on Ramakrishna, in flagrant violation of WP:SUMMARY. Get all of the "secrets" out of the public eye, away from the main article. That was and is the strategy of the Ramakrishna Mission and its devotees. — goethean ॐ 18:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not a blind "RK mission follower"

Then maybe you should distinguish yourself from them in your deeds as well as in your words. — goethean ॐ 18:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Strange that a "Kripal doubter" becomes infuriated with anything added against Kripal, and terms it as "religious"! Speaking of "deeds" and "words", the archive stands as a testimony to what you have said before, "I, following Kripal, disagree."(Archive2) --Nvineeth (talk) 05:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• Well, Goethean, you obviously have strong feelings about the Ramakrishna Mission. You have every right to them. But I think when we vent our feelings and opinions in strong language here, we tend to alienate those who disagree with us, and make reasoned discourse difficult. That goes for all sides of course. But supporters of the RK mission, reading your characterization of the mission as "dishonest, corrupt, and morally reprehensible", will tend to dismiss everything else you write as well. Remember, the mission is one of the most highly regarded and influential religious organizations in India; there are many who will take offense at your words. (India is full of corruption; it is institutionalized, it is almost everywhere. The mission is known for not engaging in corruption.) Again, not that you don't have a right to believe what you believe, or to express it, or to offend people, but that expressing it here in the strong language you used will tend to elicit similarly strong responses from those who disagree; thus the dialogue spirals down into name-calling, and the article is set aside to pursue silly arguments on the talk page. Anyhow, I wish for all participants in this discussion that we could step back, remember that we are interacting with other human beings who deserve our respect (by virtue of being fellow human beings), and also remember that this is only Wikipedia, it is not a matter of life and death. I don't think I can spare more time for this, but thanks for listening. Devadaru (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the good advice. I have as hard time respecting people who stoop to the deliberate suppression of facts. And look: they are still succeeding in suppressing information from this article. There is no tag on the front of the article informing readers that they are reading a censored article. Ranmakrishna Mission: 1 Wikipedia: 0. — goethean ॐ 19:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again, Devadaru. You have a great deal of good insight into the situation here. The Ramakrishna Mission, as you imply, is not all powerful. Heck, it's been two months since they sent me a paycheck for this work (just kidding...). In fact, I'm not a follower of Ramakrishna, or a minion of the Ramakrishna Mission. Just someone who is interested in Ramakrishna (though not in that way, Goethean ;-), and again, just kidding). Like everyone else here, who I believe are all acting in good faith, I'm interested in the article reaching a point of balance that reflects the mainstream thinking about Ramakrishna. We just disagree on what that means. I also respect and understand your stepping away from this article for a time. Wikipedia, and the discussions here, provide me a great deal of enjoyment and education. If that were to go sour, I would probably take a 'time out'. I hope you can continue to add your musings here occasionally, as a welcome reminder to all of us to be more respectful of each other, more human, and more humane. Thanks, Priyanath ^talk 22:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Devadaru very welcome at this point of time and this is only an article, not a matter of life and death, well said. Reg "I have as hard time respecting people who stoop to the deliberate suppression of facts."--Is it respectable to distort the sources, add non existing refs?[9] --Nvineeth (talk) 05:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Question

I have a general, personal question for my interlocutors. You don't have to answer me here, but you can if you want to. Do you think that it is possible to suppress information about Ramakrishna from Wikipedia indefinitely? I suggest that it is ultimately impossible. If some academics believe that Ramakrishna was a homosexual, that information will eventually be displayed in this article, and there's not very much that you can do about it. You have both read all of the same articles that I have. We all know what information is out there. Do you really think that you can keep it out of this article forever? The article is currently a whitewash. We all know it. You two have been busy busy busy little bees since September, busily whitewashing the article. You think that you can keep the views of secular academics out of this article forever and replace it with the traditional views of the Mission? You cannot. Your cause is lost. You will save us all a great deal of stress if you cooperate. — goethean ॐ 17:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Goethean, Just above I suggested and approved of the statement "Kripal, based on his psychoanalytical study of Ramakrishna's life, portrayed Ramakrishna’s mystical experiences as symptoms of repressed homoeroticism.[4] John Stratton Hawley agreed with him,[5]...." being part of the summary section in the Ramakrishna article. Nobody is trying to hide anything. I'm also now going to insist that a sentence or two about Roland's studies be included in the summary section. He gets 83 JSTOR results and 365 Google scholar results. He meets every qualification according to WP:RS as a Reliable Source for his field, psychoanalysis. Both sides must, and will have their point of view in the article. Priyanath ^talk 04:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Those search results don't match mine. Could you share the exact search terms you used which yielded those results? — goethean ॐ 04:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I got 365 Google Scholar results for the search term "alan roland"."alan+roland"&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search But that search doesn't tell you how notable he is on the subject of Ramakrishna. It only tells you that he's notable generally. There's not enough room in this article to include the opinion of every notable author in the world who has ever written on Ramakrishna. — goethean ॐ 04:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

He meets every qualification according to WP:RS as a Reliable Source for his field, psychoanalysis.

But this isn't the article on psychoanalysis. It's the article on Ramakrishna. Unless he is notable on Ramakrishna, we are not going to include him. Don't bother writing the passage. Unless you can prove that he's notable on Ramakrishna, he's not going in. — goethean ॐ 04:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Roland is notable On Ramakrishna, and for "But this isn't the article on psychoanalysis"--the views section indeed gives coverage to this. --Nvineeth (talk) 06:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Both sides must, and will have their point of view in the article.

There aren't two sides. There's an accurate account and there's an inaccurate account. — goethean ॐ 04:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

"If some academics believe that Ramakrishna was a homosexual, that information will eventually be displayed in this article, and there's not very much that you can do about it. "'

Well ofcourse this will be displayed, but few editors prevent the other views from coming in, which is not possible and the other POV will "eventually be displayed in this article". --Nvineeth (talk) 06:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Apart from Roland, Another POV is missing in the "Reception", the other postcolonial POV for Sumit Sarkar exists, which will be added later. --Nvineeth (talk) 07:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Again again again. please try to get out of this mindset in which every view has to be negated by an opposing view. Do I insist that because you added Spivak, someone else has to be added to negate her views?

Do I?

No I do not. That's because I am reasonable and follow Wikipedia policy as well as common sense and you are not and you do not. Not every view needs an opposing view added to the article. That idiocy is how we ended up with a Views on Ramakrishna article that bears no relationship to the real world, and instead reflects the fantasies of devotees of the poorly-named Ramakrishna Mission. If I had collaborators that strove to have this article accurately reflect reality, instead of bickering over trying to have their partisan sectarian interests represented more and more, like they are haggling over potatoes in a bazaar, there would be no conflict on this page. You do not need to insert the opinion of a non-notable no-name scholar in order to somehow "balance" the views of Sumit Sarkar. Go around and look around Wikipedia. Not every views needs to be "balanced" by another view! — goethean ॐ 12:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not "idiocy" Goethean, when several views on something exists, they should be reported to give an accurate picture, and this is what wikipedia asks... I am not trying to "somehow balance", you may find it surprising that I was planning to write more on Sarkar's views on "othering" of SRK which is not so "religious organization" friendly and other postcolonial works.... When this is done, you yourself will see that the Sumit Sarkar's works represents only a small view. --Nvineeth (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to avoid the continual expansion of the text into a unwieldy mess, like what resulted in moving all of the text to Views on Ramakrishna. Being the main instigator of this activity, I think that you are familiar with what I'm talking about. This is when I add two positive words about Kripal and you add ten paragraphs about some non-notable swami, for "balance". — goethean ॐ 18:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm ok if Roland is only included in the daughter article. And yes, his views are notable, even though he isn't a religious scholar. 'All views' means the views of different academic disciplines, all of which are valid. Priyanath ^talk 22:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Fine. Are we done? Nvineeth? — goethean ॐ 22:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes Goethean I am fine, but before adding, we need to work a bit on the references, (missing titles, page nos). The "non-notable swami" you are referring above, is Sumit Sarkar's collaborator in postcolonial studies. Anything that is opposed to Kripal and "contemporary reception" becomes "non-notable" and "religious", even though it originates from sources like OUP, IIAS... --Nvineeth (talk) 05:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Pending Issues

Pending issues to be sorted at this point:

• Summary Vs Highlights -- so far everybody has more or less agreed to go with Highlights instead of summary as suggested by Goethean
• Alan Roland -- discussion underway
• Sumit Sarkar -- I see a very valid other POV from a Postcolonial study which can be added, will add later when I get time.

Thanks. --Nvineeth (talk) 08:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Alan Roland does not go in. He is not a notable Ramakrishna scholar. We already have two scholars (Smith and Larson) saying what is wrong with Kripal's book. Here we see the complete unreasonableness of Kripal's opponents. They insist not merely that Kripal's opponents be represented, which is fair, but that the article must be totally one sided. Just like the main article, the Views on Ramakrishna, and all of the articles on this topic must be completely lop-sided, against contemporary scholarship; Kripal must be utterly destroyed. Not only must most of the Kripal paragraph be dedicated to showing that Kripal is wrong, but we must recruit another author, from another field — someone who has nothing to to with Ramakrishna studies — to say that Kripal is completely full of crap. The religious editors will INSIST that the section be completely one-sided against Kripal. Forget it. Roland is clearly inappropriate to this article. He is quite clearly not a notable scholar on Ramakrishna. No other scholar has ever referred to his work in a journal article. You religious people do not have to win everything every single time. — goethean ॐ 12:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Roland's work, I was under the impression that it was an original work, but when I read it again, just from the first page it can be linked to Kali's Child, so its ok even if it is left out. --Nvineeth (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Summary Vs Highlights -- so far everybody has more or less agreed to go with Highlights instead of summary as suggested by Goethean

I don't have any clue what you are referring to here. This is the first time that the term "highlights" has been used on this page. Please try to write clearly so everyone else can figure out what you are talking about. — goethean ॐ 12:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I meant that the "Jstor analysis" instead of WP:SUMMARY is being used, apparently in support of what you have written in the Reception instead of summarising, but amidst the personal attacks, you probably failed to get "any clue". --Nvineeth (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You are not making a bit of sense. There's nothing wrong with noting which scholars are notable on a particular subject and which are not. That does not in any way contradict WP:SUMMARY. You are the one who flagrantly and deliberately violated WP:SUMMARY when you moved ALL of the reception text to the POV fork Views on Ramakrishna, because you prefer religious material over academic, reliable material. — goethean ॐ 18:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no qualms in repeating again : Go through the discussion archives and peer review before making allegations. To repeat , "religious material" is WP:OR. --Nvineeth (talk) 05:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources section

Goethean, creating a blank section to start an article, just to protest a perceived wrong, is a violation of WP:POINT. If Nvineeth removed that section from the lead, he was correct. Articles don't begin with a discussion of sources. I couldn't find a single biography that does so. If you do find one, there will be fifty more that do it the typical way. When there is a discussion of sources, it's at the end of an article. More often, there is simply a list of sources. Either way, it belongs at the end. Putting it at the beginning to make a point, or to push a point of view, are both incorrect. Priyanath ^talk 04:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you ever read a book? All scholarly books begin with a discussion of the primary documents. Why are you hiding the discussion of primary sources? First User:Nvineeth, in blatant violation of WP:SUMMARY, moves the section to another article as well as inexplicably (apart from blatant POV, pro-Mission editing) removing the publication dates for the Kathamrita, and then you move the link to the end of the article. And there is, of course, no summary section per WP:SUMMARY. It's almost as if you want to use a traditional, non-scholarly biography of the saint and remove all scholarly materials from the article. I guess that's what you would call "a perceived wrong". — goethean ॐ 04:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

"moves the section to another article as well as inexplicably"

Goethean, did you read archived discussion + Peer review? When these things were discussed, you did not even participate, None of the articles begin with a lengthy discussion of the biographical sources, esp like the original research, failed reference checks section that existed before[10]. But I do feel that a small section overview without original research, and editorial comments like "highly problematic" will be a good addition. Can you find the FAs or GAs or biographies which begin with a very lengthy discussion like it existed before? --Nvineeth (talk) 06:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Another question, have you seen a WP:SUMMARY for a Bibliography ? (Check the category for the books article). When the discussions were made and the article was made into a bibliography, your did not even participate...the allegation of "blatant violation of WP:SUMMARY" is false. --Nvineeth (talk) 10:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

As is completely bleeding obvious to everyone here, what we are discussing is not a bibliography. It is a discussion of the primary source texts upon which a scholarly biography of Ramakrishna would be based. Of course, those interested in suppressing scholarly information and replacing it with religious texts from swamis might not care so much about that. — goethean ॐ 12:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Goethean, did you read archived discussion + Peer review?

Actually, I wrote most of the archived discussion. And even if you got the pope to approve of this article, that still wouldn't make it neutral. By the way, why did you remove the publication dates for the Kathamrita? They are in this version, but have mysteriously disappeared in this version. Was it just an innocent oversight? Or were you deliberately suppressing information again? — goethean ॐ 13:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

This is beyond. No specific proposed changes are listed in this entire section. You are all just arguing with eachother because you like arguing on the internet, right? Could you take this somewhere else? This is an encyclopedia. Hipocrite (talk) 14:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I propose that the discussion of primary documents, now located at the vaguely-titled POV fork Books on Ramakrishna be returned to beginning of the biography section in the main Ramakrishna article, as it was in this version. To clarify, the discussion of primary biographical documents does not have to be identical to how it was in that version (obviously improvement is always good), but to remove the scholarly material in order to make way for a traditional hagiography is outrageous. Something the size of the first section (between the header "Biographical sources" and the header "Datta's Jivanavrttānta" would be fine. That material has been completely deleted by User:Priyanath and User:Nvineeth from all Ramakrishna-related articles in their present version. — goethean ॐ 16:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for having made this talk page a hate-fest. I just cannot sympathize with what seems to me to be a clear suppression of academic material in favor of religious material, material which appears to me to be false. User:Nvineeth's refusal to admit that he deleted the publication dates of the Kathamrita is a clear example of this. And I'm saddened that Wikipedia administrators don't seem to care about the integrity of Wikipedia content. — goethean ॐ 16:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

As an example of how ludicrous the situation is, the word "kathamrita" appears one time in the current revision of the article. It is in the caption of M's picture. In other words, this article never mentions the title of the major biographical source material of Ramakrishna's life. It did when I was working on the article, but our two helpful editors have removed all mention of it. This is extremely bizarre if you assume that they are editing in a neutral manner. For this and a blizzard of other problems, this article should have an NPOV tag affixed to it as a warning to readers that the article content has been severely compromised. — goethean ॐ 17:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• "As is completely bleeding obvious to everyone here, what we are discussing is not a bibliography. It is a discussion of the primary source texts upon which a scholarly biography of Ramakrishna would be based."-- Your were nowhere to be seen when the changes were underway and discussed and even the pope can verify this :), and another editor in the peer review suggested to make it a bibliography, so your allegations are untenable, to quote from Peer review: ""Notes on Biographical sources" can be merged with "Bibliography", ..." All this was done with good faith, and proposed by a neutral editor.
• "Actually, I wrote most of the archived discussion"--The archives tells a different story. When specific discussion were made related to the biography sources, you did not comment. And remember silence means acceptance according to wikipedia terms.
• "I propose that the discussion of primary documents, "--So do I, but definitely not at the begining, nor in greater depth. As an example you can check the encyclopedias listed above while discussing about Kali's Child. In fact, the very same encyclopedia article you have listed begins with the biography and not with the discussion on biographic sources.
• "User:Nvineeth's refusal to admit that he deleted the publication dates of the Kathamrita"-- :-)) what do you want prove by this? The dates are :"1902, 1905, 1908, 1910 and 1932." On the similar lines I can say that even you are refusing to admit the failed reference checks, original research, personal comments in the article.[11]
• "As an example of how ludicrous the situation is, the word "kathamrita" appears one time in the current revision of the article."-- :) , did you check the references to, "Sri Ramakrishna, the Kathamrita and the Calcutta middle Classes: an old problematic revisited"?
• "And I'm saddened that Wikipedia administrators don't seem to care about the integrity of Wikipedia content."--Editors who are concerned about integrity refelect the same, for ex: trying to revert the article to an month older completely sacrifices the "integrity"..

Thanks!--Nvineeth (talk) 06:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

And remember silence means acceptance according to wikipedia terms.

Sure. Please point out where that is spelled out in Wikipedia policy for me, would you? What I remember Wikipedia policy saying is that articles can always be improved no matter what obviously flawed "peer review" process this article has gone through, and that those improvements should be embraced and encouraged rather than fought by groups of sectarian editors through edit warring.

did you check the references to, "Sri Ramakrishna, the Kathamrita and the Calcutta middle Classes: an old problematic revisited"?

Yeah, I saw that. I'm talking about the body of the article. The word kathamrita never occurs, except in an image caption. The title of the primary source document for Ramakrishna's life has been removed from the article, along with all other discussion of the source documents. You have clearly and plainly worsened the article with your edits. — goethean ॐ 13:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

what do you want prove by this?

The dates of the publication of the primary source documents for Ramakrishna's life are obviously the first fact that a scholarly article on Ramakrishna would start with. And my version of the article included it. One of the first things you did was to remove those dates. Then you began to fill the article with cant from the Ramakrishna Mission about how Nikhilananda's translation is so accurate. Cant which every contemporary scholar rejects. You removed my scholarly text and replaced it with falsehoods. That's why you keep citing sources from 1898 and removing my more recent scholarly references. That's why you have worsened the article with your edits. That's why the article is not neutral. That's why the text that you moved to other daughter articles needs to be replaced. — goethean ॐ 13:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Goethean, no biography begins with the biographical sources, either here on Wikipedia or in other encyclopedias, for anyone. I've moved it to the end of the "Biography" section, where it may belong. It certainly doesn't belong at the beginning of the article. Wikipedia is written for the readers not the editors. Readers want a biography to begin (which is why all biographies are written that way), not an academic discourse about sources. Nobody is trying to hide anything. There will be a biographical sources section, done appropriately and in the right position. Priyanath ^talk 20:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see Socrates. — goethean ॐ 21:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see the FAs : Adi Shankara, Nostradamus, Hubert Walter, John Calvin... BTW did you check the encyclopedia link you had posted? --Nvineeth (talk) 06:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that means. Did I check the Socrates page? Yes. It contains a duscussion of biographical sources before the biography, as this article did, before you deleted it. — goethean ॐ 16:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)