Talk:Ramakrishna/Archive 6

Circular Arguments

Argument 1

1. Goethean says, "Muller, Rolland, Isherwood, Neevel" are outdated
2. Goethean also says that according to his jstor analysis Muller, Rolland, etc., are very notable and he writes, "Muller and Rolland in particular are scholars of giant historical importance"[1]

All the above statements are self-contradictory and how can they be "outdated" and be of "gaint historical importance" :-) and as per wikipedia guidelines, Muller, Rolland, Isherwood, Neevel, etc., surpass the requirements for WP:RS.

We need to go by Wikipedia's guidelines, and pay no attention to self-contradictory statements. According to Wikipedia, Muller, Rolland, Isherwood, Neevel are all highly reliable.

Argument 2

1. Goethean says, "Neevel is obselete"
2. The same editor Goethean had added Neeval (1976) under the title "Views on Ramakrishna". But now suddenly they become "obselete".
3. Goethean's favourite contemporary scholar Jeffery Kripal, acknowledges Neeval as Here I am building on the thesis of Walter G. Neevel, who in his seminal essay "The Transformation of Sri Ramakrishna"...(Chapter 2, Page 86), so does Amiya P. Sen, Chaterjee, Sarkar in their essays.
4. So calling Neevel obselete is WP:OR

Argument 3

1. Goethean is not clear if it is "last 30 years" or "last 40 years". And there is no such guideline in wikipedia.

Argument 4

1. Goethean writes, "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), ... Something the size of the first section (between the header "Biographical sources" and the header "Datta's Jivanavrttānta" would be fine." and wants to write a summary.
2. Goethean also adds the mergeto tag![2]

There is no question of merging, that article is big and going to expand in future.

There is no question on the reliability on Muller, Isherwood, Rolland, Neevel, etc., Now the current discussion is on Biographic Sources section whose summary should be added to the section. --Nvineeth (talk) 06:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

To summarize the above, you continue to refuse to use reliable, contemporary sources per Wikipedia guidelines. Instead, you use 100 year old sources because they reflect your POV. And when I insert reliable sources, you revert my edits, calling it "original research". — goethean ॐ 15:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

See Goethean, you have acknowledge the 100 year old sources as of "scholars of giant historical importance"[3] and at the same time you challenge their presence... --Nvineeth (talk) 07:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, duh. They are important as figures in the historical reception of Ramakrishna. But you deceptively quote them as if they are contemporary scholars. The goal here should be to inform the reader of the article, not to decieve him or her. — goethean ॐ 15:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

"contemporary scholars" is WP:OR and I cannot find it in Wikipedia's guidelines. The question to be asked --Is it right to "deceive" the user with Original research, One sided POVs... 1? When the situation demands, a scholar becomes "notable" but again in another couple of months, they become "non-notable"! --Nvineeth (talk)

Stop the personal attacks, incivility

Goethean, This is neither a discussion group nor a blog:

• stop personal attacks.
• stop blaming other editors, if you did not participate in the discussions before when changes were discussed by the community, its not the fault of the community.
• stop using incivil edit summaries, directed towards other editors
• From the archives and the discussion its is very very very clear that you have a hatered towards some religious organizations, and you attack anyone who try to add anything related to this organization.
• stop adding tags[4] claiming about century old sources. You did the same thing during GA Review, stop this, NOT AGAIN. A work does not become unreliable just because it is century old. I had given the example of Darwin before just to put this across.
• We can discuss about this in the Administrator's Noticeboard, Shall we?

Nvineeth and Goethean, both of you stop digging up old edits and diffs, concentrate on the present article. --Bluptr (talk) 10:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

We can discuss about this in the Administrator's Noticeboard, Shall we?

I love it when you threaten me, especially when its the same, hollow threat you've made before with no result. Yes, please do. Go for it. The more attention that is shown on this article, the more this article will be improved. The problem here is a lack of attention, which is allowing unscrupulous editors to get away with dishonesty. If you think that neutral administrators are going to defend the style of editing that has dominated this article's revision history, you got another thing coming.

Your example of Darwin is laughable as I outlined above. Darwin is no longer a reliable source for for contemporary topics in biology. Similarly, Muller is not a reliable source when we have had 108 subsequent years of work by historians and religious scholars. Why on earth would you use a 108 years old source when there are a variety of contemporary sources available? POV editing, that's why.

Why should I stop digging up old diffs when they show exactly what is wrong with the article as it currently stands? Why doesn't this article ever mention the kathamrita, the single most important primary biographical material on Ramakrishna? Why was all mention of the title removed? When I tried to re-insert the biographical materials section, why did User:Priyanath edit war with me to remove it? The fact is that this version of the article from April [5] is more neutral than the current revision of the article. That's an ugly fact, and it points out some ugly things that are going on here. But its true, and I am confident that a neutral admin will see that. — goethean ॐ 13:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Goethean, Bluptr is correct regarding your personal attacks and incivility. Devadaru also alluded to your behavior. These are two neutral outside opinions. Do you really think that's the best way to make progress on the article? Priyanath ^talk 20:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The best thing would be for you and Nvineeth to stop reverting everything that I do, stop removing reliably sourced material, stop calling reliably sourced material "original research", and to start using reliable sources rather than outdated material like Muller, Rolland, Isherwood, Neevel and other sources favored by the Ramakrishna Mission religious organization. In sum, you should begin to follow Wikipedia policy. Bluptr has taken your side on every content issue as well as complaining about my supposed "incivility", and his argument (that using outdated sources is appropriate) was, to be extremely kind, completely fallacious. So I'm not sure that he's the most neutral editor that we can find. Devadaru has also edited in a manner similar to you and Nvineeth. As I have said repeatedly, I do hope that Bluptr makes good on his threats — the more people that start looking at this article and examining your and Nvineeth's behavior, the better off this article will be. — goethean ॐ 21:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

For Bluptr: We are quited used to Goethean's "supposed incivility" and don't take the personal attacks, circular arguments (see below) seriously and dont waste your time. Goethean, from above you mean that every other editor is against your :) ? even when you blatantly write hate speech and you yourself have acknowledged this above -- "I apologize for having made this talk page a hate-fest." and "hate-fest" is incivility. --Nvineeth (talk) 06:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was pretty busy and could not edit wikipedia, so I missed out all the fun!--Bluptr (talk) 10:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Biographic sources

"Something the size of the first section (between the header "Biographical sources" and the header "Datta's Jivanavrttānta" would be fine."

Around 2 Paras should be fine. --Nvineeth (talk) 10:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Goethean, Thanks for violating the wikipedia policy and adding the biographic sources with failed reference checks, original research, One sided-POV.[6] We all clearly remember the way you tried to revert the article to an month older before[7]. Moreover, you yourself have acknowledged the problem with the biographic sources you added above, "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 apparently you added the identical section! This will be removed, and this has to built in a neutral way. --Nvineeth (talk) 07:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Goethean, you are using using wikipedia to illustrated a point. By trying to revert and add back the disputed content with OR, failed reference checks again and again, I feel that you are unnecessarily instigating other editors like Devadaru pointed out. For Ex: Other editors can easily illustrate the point, "Kripal’s personal experiences (somewhat “dark” and presumably “pathological” or, to quote his own expression, “psychosexual”) at that monastery may have something to do with his understanding of Ramakrishna’s ecstasy via what some psychologists would call “projective introversion.”" and this has been published by a neutral publisher ( Antonio De Nicholas ) and even Sil acknowledges this., and mind you, no balancing POV exists for this. But I feel that there are other important improvements that needs to be done in other articles rather than wasting energy on trying to illustrate a point...Pls think about it. This is an example I wanted to give. Pls avoid WP:POINT --Nvineeth (talk) 07:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Pls think about it

You have a lot of nerve asking me to think about anything. Your contributions to this article have been consistently vandalistic. You should think about whether you can succeed indefinitely in suppressing the academic material from this article and replacing it with religious material. You go think about whether you want to begin to be a responsible Wikipedia editor. — goethean ॐ 15:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

"You should think about whether you can succeed indefinitely in suppressing the academic material"--The question to be asked is, whether an editor can succeed in suppressing the so called "religious material" published by WP:RS in the name of "notability".

and this has been published by a neutral publisher ( Antonio De Nicholas ) and even Sil acknowledges this

Are you joking? Rajiv Malhotra, who bankrolled Invading the Sacred is a right-wing ideologue with zero academic credentials and the furthest imaginable thing from neutral. The book has never been reviewed in any academic journal --- for good reason, since it is an attack on scholarship itself. It is a non-academic book by a non-academic publisher which attacks academic work as illegitimate. So your endorsement is unsurprising. However, since Wikipedia is not a branch of the Ramakrishna Mission or any other religious organization, the book should be ignored. — goethean ॐ 17:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice WP:OR, do you know who is Antonio De Nicholas, Rosette etc.,? Wikipedia policies does not give credence to the WP:OR above. "the book should be ignored. "--yes as expected anything which speaks for Hinduism and Ramakrishna should be ignored as "non-notable" according to you.... which is not possible here.--Nvineeth (talk) 05:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Few problems

To highlight few of the problems in the biographic sources section recently added:

• Not all of these documents have been translated into English and scholars find some of those translations to be problematic.--very ambigious references, and you have not mentioned the other POVs. And who says that "all of these documents" as "problematic"? This is WP:OR
• There are four major sources of information for the life of Ramakrishna -- is WP:OR, which scholar says this? So is the next line.
• Regarding Jivanavrittanta, the information that it has been published in 10 editions, and this POV is not even mentioned. Also the date 1885 is wrong, failed verification check.
• Although Vivekananda loved the 1894 edition, he also offered editorial suggestions for future editions of Sen's poem.--how can this make it problematic?
• he substantially altered Gupta's text, combining the five parallel narratives into a single volume, -- This should "Kripal argues", and there are other views which also oppose this which are not even mentioned.
• Brian Hatcher noted that a passage in the Kathamrta.... -- does not mention the context (tantra) which has been clearly explained by Somnath Bhattacharyya. (See also the discussion ) Also in the Gospel section, the other POVs of Lex Hixon, Tyagananda, Bhattacharyya to mention a few are not even mentioned!
• It has been clearly discussed above that articles begins with Biography not "Biographic sources", check the encyclopedias and also the link you posted.
• This section relies heavily on Sil and the other POV of Openshaw[8] is nowhere to been seen!
• Let me quote from NPOV Faq, "there are legitimate reasons for removing text because of bias"

--Nvineeth (talk) 08:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The section has been put online by Goethean here : Ramakrishna/Biographical documents and I have marked the issues, let other editors see the issues. This section is not going in without these POVs, ORs, failed reference checks being addressed. --Nvineeth (talk) 10:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I just can not understand why "Books on Ramakrishna" must have a section. Ramakrishna's biography should be the focus of "Biography", not which books? which authors and why a book is better or worse than others. Biographical sources is WP:UNDUE in this article, add more info in [Books on Ramakrishna]]. Also, if a fact is disputed and included in one biography not other, sometime like "According to ABC, (Fact)...., but XYZ disagrees OR but other scholars like ... dispute this claim." can be used. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 07:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment Redtigerxyz. It's not really a section on "Books on Ramakrishna". That's the poor title that was given by Priyanath/Nvineeth when they removed the section from this article. I believe that there should be a section in this article on biographical materials before the biography section. Ramakrishna is like Socrates or Jesus insofar as we don't have his works, but we only read about him through the works of others. We either read Plato's, Xenophanes' or Aristophanes' Socrates. Similarly, our image of Ramakrishna has been shaped by which sources have been emphasized by posterity. So to me, this section is of critical importance for the reader. Scholars Walter Neevel, Narasinga Sil and Jeffrey Kripal have all written extensively on the role played by various parties in shaping the portrait of Ramakrishna that has been passed down to us. I think that readers should be aware of this dynamic. Ramakrishna's biography is not the simple, naive, unsophisticated, uncontroversial thing that some editors would have us believe. — goethean ॐ 15:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

What about others?? A.P.Sen, Lex Hixon, etc., Were they ignored again because they are "religious organization" friendly? --Nvineeth (talk) 05:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes this is a very valid discussion, but there are other POVs to it which are removed saying that they are non-"notable" and "religious organization" friendly... the other POVs should always be presented. --Nvineeth (talk) 06:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

This section relies heavily on Sil and the other POV of Openshaw[14] is nowhere to been seen!

As you know, Openshaw has only written two short book reviews on books on Ramakrishna. She is not a notable scholar on Ramakrishna and she has no place in this article or the related articles. — goethean ॐ 15:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

As expected, anything that supports Ramakrishna is "not a notable scholar". I want to ask another question, you had added Openshaw to the article before, was she notable then and suddenly became non-notable? --Nvineeth (talk) 05:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

This section should be "Quite a few problems", not "Few Problems"! --Bluptr (talk) 10:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

More vandalism

I just noticed that all of the scholarly material has been stripped from the "References" and "Further reading" sections. The sections are completely dominated by works which uphold the Ramakrishna Mission religious perspective. At one time, these sections had scholarly works listed. This is vandalism. The editors who vandalized these sections should be blocked from editing this article. I'll begin to repair the damage. — goethean ॐ 01:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Pls "repair the damage"; I wonder what should be done with the editor who tried vandalism like this? Do you know as per WP:EL, we don't link to self published works like the wikinfo.org? If there is any other way to justify the self published work at wikinfo.org pls let me know because I see greater avenues in which this can be used in various other articles. To quote,

"Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research." and "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors."

--Nvineeth (talk) 05:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Another question, can any editor justify the presence of "npov" tag? I have justified my removal of the original research, one-sided POV above. --Nvineeth (talk) 06:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Since you specifically ask, I'll answer. Not one contemporary scholar of Bengali religion, let alone the most notable scholars, is referenced in the entire biographical section. Instead, outdated 25-, 50-, 100-year old books favored by the Ramakrishna Mission religious organization are used exclusively. This is because recent scholars tend to discuss Ramakrishna's eccentric sexuality, discussion of which the Mission, as well as certain Wikipedia editors, actively suppress. These editors have been assisted in thier censorship of this article by the neglect of Wikipedia administration. The article used to be something a scholar might approve of. In clear violation of Wikipedia policy, you removed the references to contemporary scholars and transformed the article into something a right-wing religious advocate would approve of. The article is about as far from neutral as is possible and your edits have been outrageously, vandalistically one-sided, among other things. The article should be reverted back to the last neutral version and then improvement on that version should begin. — goethean ॐ 17:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Disregarding your personal attacks, I would like to point out the missing POVs in your one sided additions : Dr. Jean Openshaw, Somnath Bhattacharyya, Tyagananda, Huston Smith, Atmajnanananda, Gayatri Spivak, Antonio De Nicholas, S.N.Balagangadhara, Vrajaprana, Alan Roland, Radice, Arvind Sharma, Amiya P. Sen to mention a few. And pls stop spamming wikipedia. There is clearly a guideline in WP:EL which prevents this. Also as per lead, "Well-publicized recent events affecting an article subject, whether controversial or not, should be kept in historical perspective. What is most recent is not necessarily what is most notable: new information should be carefully balanced against old, with due weight accorded to each.". --Nvineeth (talk) 06:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

"The article should be reverted back to the last neutral version and then improvement on that version should begin."

Do you have any plans of vandalism like this? Sorry this is not possible in wikipedia, nor are the one sided POV additions, with WP:OR. --Nvineeth (talk) 06:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

"This is because recent scholars tend to discuss Ramakrishna's eccentric sexuality, "

This is what a "recent scholar" Hawley wrote : "neither the gopis’ torment nor Ramakrishna's must be allowed to devolve to a bodily level that could be indiscriminately shared—either between religious communities, or between the erstwhile colonizers and their erstwhile colonial victims, or between communities of people who respond to different sexual orientations. Eros is too dangerous."[9] but the one-sided additions did not take this into account. Speaking of "Censorship", this is what Kripal writes, "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." Again the one-sided POV additions did not take this into account. --Nvineeth (talk) 06:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Goethean, the question to be asked is who is indulging in Vandalism? The other editors have presented very valid wikipedia guidelines to justify their actions, and on the other hand, Goethean continues to indulge in incivility, add tags indiscriminately. Your description of outdated 25-, 50-, 100-year... is not supported by any guideline of the wikipedia community. The deletions of one-sided POVs by other editors are justified. I have spotted more vandalism, which should be reverted. Bluptr (talk) 11:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Goethean, you have things against some religious organization, does not mean you indiscriminately try to revert and remove content from the article. Bluptr (talk) 11:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Why dont you guys try dispute resolution? Bluptr (talk) 11:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Claim that discussing sex in lede is undue

User:Priyanath removed my extremely well-sourced material from the lede paragraph, claiming that mentioning Ramakrishna's sexuality in the lede paragraph is "absurdly undue weight". Of course, as we all know, most of the literature produced on Ramakrishna in the past 30 years by academics has focused on Ramakrishna's sexuality. Since I take my queues from academia rather than from a religious organization, I do not see mentioning Ramakrishna's sexuality as undue weight. Instead, I see the long paragraph in the lede dedicated to discussing how many locations etc, the Ramakrishna Mission has as inappropriate. This is a biographical article on Ramakrishna, not promotional literature for a religious organization. My version fixes both of these problems. — goethean ॐ 14:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the language was too strong there, making outright statements of the opinions of a few scholars. Please rewrite it to reflect that these points are not established "facts" but opinions. Devadaru (talk) 15:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me. If you take the time to look at the references, it is the majority of top scholars of Bengali religion whose views are represented. Additionally, one of the references says that this view is the consensus view among academics. If those references are not enough for you, I can easily add more. — goethean ॐ 15:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Just so that no one is deceived by Devadaru's words, the "few" "opinions" of scholars who are represented here include: Narasingha Sil, William Radice, Jeffrey Kripal, John Hawley, David Haberman, Malcolm McLean, James Gerald Larson, Sudhir Kakar, Brian Hatcher, Hugh Urban. This group constitutes the majority of the most important writers on Bengali religion. — goethean ॐ 15:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Plus, the Kripal quotation mentions the following additional scholars, and includes citations and page numbers, which could very easily be quoted in the article: Isherwood; Masson; Sarkar; Neevel. — goethean ॐ 20:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

My apologies for the uncharitable remark in the edit summary. Why did the language suddenly become so strong in the intro? Just because a handful of western academics say something doesn't make it true. There are plenty of opinions to the contrary available from reliable sources. I dare say, Goethean, that your thinking seems a bit clouded by your evident dislike, or is it hatred? of the Ramakrishna Mission, and you seem to suspect that the rest of the editors associated with this article are mere stooges of the Mission. This dislike seems to color all your comments on this talk page. Do you think you need to step back for a while? Because the constant snide comments, sarcasm, and insults to the Mission seem to be not so helpful here; rather, as I explained before, they tend to anger. Today, alas, I too got angry, and made a snide comment myself. Well, I apologize for that. Devadaru (talk) 15:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It may surprise you that I have very sincerely attended services at the Vedanta Society in Chicago. That was before I discovered the Mission's antagonistic relationship to any facts regarding Ramakrishna's biography, their bullying tactics, and deep dishonesty.

I ask you to put yourself in my shoes. Imagine if the facts were absolutely clear that Jesus was gay, or something like that. And that the vast majority of academics on the subject supported that view. And I opposed you editing the Jesus article, simply because I felt that Jesus being gay would ruin my Christian faith (which is a slightly bigoted view in itself). Imagine if I was able to successfully keep the relevant facts out of the article for months and years simply by joining with other fundamentalist Christians and edit warring. Imagine if you weren't even able to tag the article for neutrality. You might be slightly peeved at the Christian organization that I represent.

That is my position today. Despite many months of effort, I have been prevented from adding blatantly clear, well-supported, obvious facts to the article by a gang of religious believers, because they think that those facts contradict their faith or sensibilities. It is an outrage, and the only reason that you have been able to get away with it is because most Wikipedia editors and administrators don't know these facts and don't care. If you have read the same articles that I have (And I know that at least Nvineeth has), you know that I am merely representing academic facts. And suppressing them is dishonest. And you all have been doing it with glee for months. — goethean ॐ 16:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, your frustration is evident. You have found material to convince you that Ramakrishna was gay, and that the RK Mission is actively trying to suppress that fact. But the material which convinces you doesn't convince me; there are legitimate scholars as well who are not convinced. Anyhow, it may be relevant to re-read this part of Wikipedia:NPA:

---

There is no bright-line rule about what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion, but some types of comments are never acceptable:

• Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.
• Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream.

• Pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest is not a personal attack, though speculating on the real life identity of another editor may constitute outing, a serious offense. ...

These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all.

The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user. Wikipedia encourages a positive online community: people make mistakes, but they are encouraged to learn from them and change their ways. Personal attacks are contrary to this spirit and damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia.

---

This line: "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream." may be relevant to some of your comments. Devadaru (talk) 16:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that I have no way of knowing whether any of you are Ramakrishna Mission monks, which would possibly constitute a conflict of interest. — goethean ॐ 16:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You have found material to convince you that Ramakrishna was gay

"Gay" is a poor descriptor for a pre-modern Bengali villager. But sexually eccentric, yes. Unusually attracted to young boys, yes. Enough so to create a scandal in the villages where he lived. That's part of his biography. — goethean ॐ 16:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Just because a handful of western academics say something doesn't make it true.

First of all, it's a bit racist to say that someone's culture determines whether their ideas should be dismissed. Second of all, Sudhir Kakar is an Indian, and I doubt that Narasingha Sil was born in the US. — goethean ॐ 23:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

section break

"Imagine if the facts were absolutely clear that Jesus was gay"--is that a good "descriptor"? "Gang of religious believers"--that strikes me as "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream." Devadaru (talk) 16:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

it would be nice if someone posted some diffs of the passages in question. however, I'll put out the blind comment that I find Ken Starr tactics distasteful as a rule. Sexuality is an easy way to defame, discredit, or embarrass people, but except in extraordinary cases (such as Lord Byron or Leopold Masoch, where sexuality is central to their lives and notability), it's pretty much irrelevant. --Ludwigs2 17:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Diff, but you can more easily read the references here. I am not trying to discredit anything except for falsehoods. The vast, vast majority of the academic discussion of Ramakrishna for the past 30 years has centered on his eccentric sexuality. There have been three monographs on Ramakrishna by academics. Two by Narasingha Sil and one by Jeffery Kripal. All three concentrated on his sexuality, and came to similar conclusions, which I am trying to add to the article. Additionally, there was McLean's PhD dissertation, which was the first uncensored translation of the Kathamrta (the Ramakrishna Mission's versions are all censored). It included a 50-page explanatory introduction, which also discussed Ramakrishna's sexuality extensively (and concluded that he was homosexual). And then there is Sudhir Kakar's psychological writings, which are also about Ramakrishna's eccentric sexuality. It is a central issue. Only the religious organizations and devotees claim otherwise. — goethean ॐ 18:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course, a reader of this article would be totally deceived about all of this — by design. Even the word Kathamrta has been deleted from the article, except for a photo caption and Kakar's sentence. This article is a triumph of denial and disinformation. — goethean ॐ 18:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Goethean, the conclusions of those few scholars is still a minority view, and WP:UNDUE clearly applies to the lede. There is no consensus to override WP:UNDUE here. Only one mainstream encyclopedia article even mentions this subject. Consensus and policy are both against you on this. Priyanath ^talk 18:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that academic consensus is considered a minority view on Wikipedia. Evolution is a minority view, too. But Wikipedia grants extra weight to the opinions of the scientific community. Where are your examples of notable scholars of Bengali religion who think that Ramakrishna's sexuality was non-existent, or not worth discussing? My proposal has 12 quotations, all from major peer-reviewed journals of religion, all published by major university presses. If my views are such a tiny minority that they are not even worth mentioning in the article, you should have no problem coming up with at least that many quotations which indicate that Ramakrishna's sexuality is not an issue. I expect these quotations to also be from notable scholars of Bengali reilgion, and in major peer-reviewed journals of religion, and published by major university presses. Like Oxford. — goethean ॐ 19:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

"My proposal has 12 quotations"

These are cherry picked, for ex other editors can pick quotes from Radice who calls Kali's Child as "Mansion of Fun", S.N.Balagangadha, Renuka Sharma, Spivak, Openshaw, Huston Smith, Hawley (2004), Kelly Aan Raab, Somnath Bhattacharyya, Tyagananda, Atmajnanananda, Amiya P. Sen, Alan Roland, Neevel, G.C. Ray. The lead is not the place for cherry picked quotes. And all these scholars are academic backed. --Nvineeth (talk) 07:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is another quote from "from major peer-reviewed journals of religion, all published by major university presses", — The book under discussion has the well-crafted veneer of scholarship in the fashion of the Chicago History of Religions tradition. It is understandably guarded against how much sensationalism it can afford to indulge in so as to sustain the reader's interest in a mystery tour. It would not risk closure on the issue of an unassailable 'proof' of the unflinching latent tendencies towards homosexuality on the part of the famous nineteenth century Indian iconoclast and mystic, Sri Ramakrishna Paramahansa. See also WP:BIAS, "Wikipedians, as a class, tend to over-represent intellectuals from academia or members of subcultures. More university professors and computer programmers edit Wikipedia than do mechanics, firefighters, plumbers, miners, electricians, et cetera. This leads to a bias against full coverage of blue collar subjects, employment, and practical skills, while obscure academic theories and minority subcultures are well covered."

Gothean, are you seriously contending that a long passage which begins with "Sil argues that Ramakrishna was too mixed-up, too uneducated, too erratic, too freakish, too sexually obsessed to have any serious claim to reverence as a spiritual leader" is somehow neutral? please...

I don't know whether RK had sexual issues or not. considering that he practiced celibacy (unless you have grounds to dispute that) I don't see what difference it makes. Hindu tradition (unlike Western faiths) has a long history of working with sexual energy as a means of spiritual attainment, and there is a well-defined understanding that young men have an advantage in that regard because of their strong sex drives. so unless you're willing to accuse the entire hindu faith of being somewhat homoerotic, you might want to let that argument go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludwigs2 (talk • contribs)

Here is another article, Views_on_Ramakrishna#Gayatri_Chakravorty_Spivak. Goethean has used extensive quotes from psychoanalyitical perspectives, related to castration, decapitation, transvestitism, ...blah blah, but this very psychoanalysis has been questioned by majority of academic scholars, as an example read the spivak's section --Nvineeth (talk) 08:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

you might want to let that argument go

It's not my argument. It's the consensus among academics. It's not me that you have a problem with. It is the academic community. — goethean ॐ 11:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

That Spivak text has no bearing on my proposed passage. It does not say that Ramakrishna's sexuality was not eccentric. It does not say that the Mission has not suppressed material relating to Ramakrishna's sexuality or tantric practices. — goethean ॐ 13:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The only mainstream reference work that even mentions Kripal, his followers, and those opinions in their article is Gale's, and they don't put it anywhere close to the lede. Putting minority views in the lede is about as clear a violation of WP:UNDUE as there is. The only neutral way to determine what is Undue Weight is to look at other mainstream reference works, not by a 'he said, she said' list of academics. The addition of the hypersexualized POV in the lede would require a strong consensus among editors here in order to override WP:UNDUE. That consensus doesn't exist, and doesn't appear imminent, to say the least. Priyanath ^talk 18:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Putting minority views in the lede is about as clear a violation of WP:UNDUE as there is.

It's not a minority view. It is the consensus view among notable scholars in the field.

The only neutral way to determine what is Undue Weight is to look at other mainstream reference works, not by a 'he said, she said' list of academics.

Where's the "she said"? Your side hasn't offered a single citation to buttress your views. Nothing. I have extended quotations from each of the 12 top scholars on Indian religions, all from peer-reviewed journals published by major university presses, and I can easily add more quotations. You offer nothing. nada. Not a single citation. At least have a little integrity and admit that you oppose the proposal on purely sectarian religious grounds. — goethean ॐ 19:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

If your view is so prevalent and obvious, and my view is so absurd, so bizarre, so non-mainstream, so "hyper-sexualized", so undue, it should be an extremely simple matter for you, Nvineeth, Bluptr, and Devadaru to find reliable sources (preferably notable scholars in peer-reviewed journals published by major university presses) which buttress your views. I easily composed my list in about two hours. You've had 24 hours. Where is your list? If you can't produce one, an objective observer might be inclined to think that it's because your views aren't quite as widespread, and my views aren't quite as crazy, as you claim. — goethean ॐ 19:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you check Talk:Ramakrishna#Problems_with_lede, Talk:Ramakrishna#Cherry_Picked_Quotes? --Nvineeth (talk) 07:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

What do you want me to "check" it for? I've read everything you've written and I have yet to see the first relevant comment. — goethean ॐ 13:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Problems with lede

Goethean, here is a list of problems with the lede, more specifically the last para:

1. As per WP:LEAD, "Well-publicized recent events affecting an article subject, whether controversial or not, should be kept in historical perspective. What is most recent is not necessarily what is most notable: new information should be carefully balanced against old, with due weight accorded to each." and the lead revolves around only Kali's Child and its reviews.
2. It does not cover other POVs : Dr. Jean Openshaw, Somnath Bhattacharyya, Tyagananda, Huston Smith, Atmajnanananda, Gayatri Spivak, Antonio De Nicholas, S.N.Balagangadhara, Vrajaprana, Alan Roland, Radice, Arvind Sharma, Amiya P. Sen, Lex Hixon, Kelly Ann Raab, Beckerlegge to mention a few. So the last two paras are WP:UNDUE
3. To give a simple example of npov, Dr. Openshaw writes, "At any rate, Sil's understandable attempts to distance himself from Kripal's portrayal of Ramakrishna as a homosexual are vitiated by his own emphasis on the saint's "homoerotic" tendencies, albeit related by him to repressed heterosexuality, which in turn is attributed, on no evidence whatever, to sexual seduction or abuse in childhood....This inferred trauma is used to account for Ramakrishna's alleged obsession with sexuality. However, this and other traits are more plausibly viewed from a shared cultural repertoire, that of rural Bengali gurus, a world with which Sil clearly has little familiarity."
4. Wikipedians can attack this as Cherry-picked quotes. For Ex: Its strange that other quote of Hawley was not mentioned, "...neither the gopis' torment nor Ramakrishna's must be allowed to devolve to a bodily level that could be indiscriminately shared—either between religious communities, or between the erstwhile colonizers and their erstwhile colonial victims, or between communities of people who respond to different sexual orientations. Eros is too dangerous."[10] and Kripal's quote on "concealment" was avoided, "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"
5. Does not reflect the overall view, just check the years, they all fall in the range 1995 - 1999, And all are related to psychoanalysis and Kali's Child.
6. From Wikipedia:Quotations, "Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited."
7. The edit summary, "SRK's sexuality is a major topic in contemportary academic discussions" is WP:OR; I think you forgot to look into other major topics such as growth of organization, medical viewpoints, etc., and the "academic discussions" cited all revolve around Kali's Child.
8. The sentence, "Ramakrishna had a highly eccentric, homoerotic sexuality which was related to his mystical realization" is not neutral.
9. So is the sentence "The Ramakrishna Movement has suppressed, and continues to suppress information related to Ramakrishna's sexuality and to his tantric practices"; Read the Kripal quote above and "continues to suppress information" is a WP:OR, to which even Kripal does not agree.
10. cherry picking is not allowed in lead, for ex: another editor would cherry pick the quote from Kali's Child review,

    Might the tome be actually autobiographical, while the publishers and untutored readers have taken it to be simply about Sri Ramakrishna's life? The question suggests that there may be an intriguing novel genre (call it fliction) at work here, where an author seeks to work through his own pains and personal misgivings - about his own uncertain relations to the church, to the other sex, to the Virgin Mary, perhaps also to his mother. And this auto-analysis is enacted through the medium of the construction of the hagiography of a well-respected, though possibly equally troubled saint (sant) in another tradition, but whose own pursuits may well stand sanctioned within the mystical chambers of that more sophisticated and exotic or exoticized culture. Thus, the story (elaborated in Kripal's lecture presentations) appropriately begins in a Benedictine monastery in a small-time Christian town in the U.S.; in the account, the writer confesses to being haunted by religio-mystico sexuality which was so much, as it were, in the holy air, compounded by the attitude and conduct of the priests towards the altar boys. Redeemingly, the assuring images of Teresa ofAvila, Eckhart, are briefly insinuated.[11]

11. Another example of how "deceptive" the lead can be is the example of the "castration" quote from Larson. Spivak very nicely addresses this, see Views_on_Ramakrishna#Gayatri_Chakravorty_Spivak. And I am sure that your "deeds" will match the "words" as you say above, "The goal here should be to inform the reader of the article, not to decieve him or her."
12. I also saw couple of quotes from Isherwood, I would like share this quote also from Isherwood, "Actually, Ramakrishna was completely simple and guileless. He told people whatever came into his mind, like a child. If he had ever been troubled by homosexual desires, if that had ever been a problem he'd have told everybody about them. He said in the most completely calm, uninhibited way of Naren (...), "when I'm with him, I feel as though he were my husband and I was his wife, " and then again he said, " I see him entirely as a woman." ... His thoughts transcended physical love-making. He saw even the mating of two dogs on the street as an expression of the eternal male-femal principle in the universe. I think that is always a sign of great spiritual enlightenment...Another thing, related to this, which the Hindus feel, and indeed you find this in the Christian tradition too, is that God can be worshipped in all sorts of different ways; you can look at him as though you were his mother or father, you can look at him as a friend and as a lover--the whole Krishna thing came into that, you see. And you can also look at him as your father or your mother or your master."Conversations with Christopher Isherwood (Univ. Press of Mississippi)

Goethean, I don't see anything "religious" in my arguments above, I suggest you to read WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:WEASEL, WP:LEAD, WP:PA. The addition of one sided POV, weasel line is not possible in the lead.

Here is another quote,Reunka Sharma's Review of Kali's Child

In the end, the question is not whether Ramakrishna was homosexual or not gay rights has rightly halted preoccupation with this closet-hunting attitude - but how one goes about the issues: Why did this question even come up? What motivates one to fly cross thousands of miles away from home to probe this matter? Is the agenda controlled from elsewhere or by an over-drive within a particular mode of late (still de-orientalizing) Western scholarship? The probing becomes a cultural habit, a fetish, and soon enough the ill-educated mediawallas parrot these gestations and project them onto other Godmen.

"The goal here should be to inform the reader of the article, not to decieve him or her." --Nvineeth (talk) 06:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

the lead revolves around only Kali's Child and its reviews.

My proposal has 2 lines out of 15 which address the single most-discussed issue in Ramakrishna studies in the past three decades. It is not undue, if anything it is unduly short. — goethean ॐ 11:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a long list of objections with no concrete proposals for change. Are you opposed to any mention of sexuality in the lede? Hipocrite (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I am always any mention of sexuality in lead as the lead should encompass the person' important works and contributions and explain who he was, which is already done. Allegations and contested views on sexuality should not go in the lead. Views on sexuality can be included elsewhere in the article, allegations on Ramakrishna Movement are WP:UNDUE in this article. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Its not contested by scholars, only by swamis and devotees. — goethean ॐ 12:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh so all those scholars , who contest the theory and Nvineeth has written about, are swamis. I can't believe that. Sadly "Its not contested by scholars, only by swamis and devotees" will need references to prove that very scholar who has quetioned the theory, is a swami. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Where are the scholars? Where are they? What I'm asking for is very simple. Scholars in academic journals who support your view of Ramakrishna's sexuality. If my views are so insane, this should be extremely simple. — goethean ॐ 13:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh so all those scholars , who contest the theory and Nvineeth has written about, are swamis

If you are buying what Nvineeth is selling on this page, then you have lost all claim to objectivity. You need to read what I have added to the article and read what he is adding to the talk page. Is it really too much to ask you to read the material before you remove it from the article? — goethean ॐ 13:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Please read Kali's Child criticism section and count how much are swamis? Even Sil, who Kripal thanks, criticizes him. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, use talk and drafts, not edit warring

The last time this broke out, we came to a mutually agreeable solution by having individuals who wanted to make changes to the article post a draft of their changes, take comments, reach agreement and then incorporate the draft into the article. Please do so again.

Goethean, could you please compost a concrete proposed change to the article for everyones review, and then post it on this talk page? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 14:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. I put it at a sub-page because the long reference section will make a mess of this page. — goethean ॐ 15:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Any comments from the other participants? Try to be concise. Hipocrite (talk) 15:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The last para presents as undisputed fact statements which are in fact hotly disputed. It seems to me that if the material even belongs in the introduction (which I don't believe), it should at least reflect this dispute. But do hotly disputed facts belong in a lead para?

Though I admit that there are western academics who accept such statements, they are not undisputed. Moreover, many of the citations seem to go back either to Kali's Child, to Kripal, or to some review or comment about Kali's Child. It's a very small circle that thinks Ramakrishna was gay; so small, in fact, that I consider it a fringe belief. But enough for today. Devadaru (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It's disputed by religious devotees and monks, not by academics who are notable on the subject. — goethean ॐ 16:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you make the proposal clear as to whom makes the claims? Hipocrite (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. — goethean ॐ 19:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Not to step into the shoes of either party, but I suspect the other side of this dipsute will challenge your statement of "most scholars." You could use "x, y and z, among other scholars..." or "x and other scholars" or "scolars, notably x." You should also attribute the second statement about the Movement, unless it is undisputed fact. Hipocrite (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

If they can't come up with a significant number of quotations of comparable provenance and import (see my comment above) which question my theses, I'm not sure I agree with you on that. — goethean ॐ 19:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

To restate for clarity, I'll first let them dispute it, with references which are comparable to mine. Because I don't think they exist. — goethean ॐ 19:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

See the above section, there is no question of "use talk and drafts" for now, especially with one sided POVs, and cherry picked quotes. See also Ludwigs2's comments--Nvineeth (talk) 06:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

If you want to be taken seriously, I suggest that you start working on your list of quotations from notable scholars of Bengali religion which were published in peer-reviewed academic journals of religion and published by major university presses which specifically say that Ramakrishna's sexuality is not an issue. Because I have about 15 which say that it is. — goethean ॐ 11:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Only 15? I cherry picked quotes from around 15 different scholars, from different studies, journals and I have 4294967295 quotes.:) --Nvineeth (talk) 06:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Did you read Talk:Ramakrishna#Problems_with_lede and Talk:Ramakrishna#Cherry_Picked_Quotes ? --Nvineeth (talk) 06:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Gadadhar versus Ramakrishna

My neutral version of the article, following normal usage by historians, used Ramakrishna's given name, Gadadhar. In the current hagiographic version of the article, this has been changed to Ramakrishna, following the normal usage of hagiographers. This change should be reverted. See Gandhi, which uses "Mohandas" throughout, and Adi Da, which uses "Franklin Jones" until he changed his name. This article is about a historical figure first, and an object of worship second. — goethean ॐ 22:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, and this was pointed out in peer review as well. The problem here is, we dont know when the name Gagadhar got changed to Ramakrishna and there are at least 3 to 4 theories related to this, so a uniform name of Ramakrishna was used. --Nvineeth (talk)

I forgot to say that the claimed neutral version of the article had serious problems. --Nvineeth (talk) 08:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Impact

I saw this sentence added in the Impact section:

"Scholars^[119] contend that the Ramakrishna Movement has suppressed, and continues to suppress information related to Ramakrishna's sexuality and to his tantric practices.^{[120] [121] [122]][123] [124] [125][126][127]"}

IMO, this sentence is WP:UNDUE in this section: allegations of suppressing material is attributed to Ramakrishna Movement NOT Ramayana, not worth discussing here. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you care to explain yourself, or you just going to let that unsupported, untenable assertion sit out there? — goethean ॐ 12:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This is article about "RAMAKRISHNA", assuming you may know, not Ramakrshna Mission or movement. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No kidding. My added material, obviously, is ALSO about RAMAKRISHNA, namely, the fact that the Order has squashed any discussion of his sexuality and tantric practices. — goethean ॐ 12:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Cherry Picked Quotes

Goethean writes above that,

Just so that no one is deceived by Devadaru's words, the "few" "opinions" of scholars who are represented here include: Narasingha Sil, William Radice, Jeffrey Kripal, John Hawley, David Haberman, Malcolm McLean, James Gerald Larson, Sudhir Kakar, Brian Hatcher, Hugh Urban. This group constitutes the majority of the most important writers on Bengali religion.

Now I will cherry pick the quotes from Goethean's "Contemporary scholars" and present a different picture.

Gerald Larson

• "When I indicated in my review essay that many aspects of the problem of the relation between Ramakrishna's mystical experiences and his severe emotional disorders were "old news," to use Kripal's idiom, I was not referring to the homoerotic material. I was referring to the general discussion of the relation between mystical experience and psychopathology that has been discussed and analyzed at least since the time of Romain Rolland's work on Ramakrishna over fifty years ago."^{Polymorphic Sexuality, Homoeroticism, and the Study of Religion Revisited: A Rejoinder}, so now read this cherry picked quote, "Moreover, from the time (1942) of the publication of Swami Nikhilananda's English translation and version of Mahendra Nath Gupta's Ben- gali SrT srTraImakrsnakathamrta entitled The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna, the eccentric sexual fantasies and practices of Ramakrishna have been well-known, including transvestitism, transsexuality (longings to become a girl widow), oral and anal sexual fantasies (both heterosexual and homosexual), castration fantasies of one kind or another, and what psychoanalysis generally refers to as the "polymorphous sexuality"" -- its clear that Larson was referring to general discussion on psychoanalysis. And moreover WP:PROFANITY clearly addresses its exclusion. See also Views_on_Ramakrishna#Gayatri_Chakravorty_Spivak.

• When I suggested in my review essay that Kripal's book would have been much more balanced and would have avoided reductionism had he allowed his manuscript to be "vetted," that is to say, critically assessed by some represenatatives from the Ramakrishna community as well as some professionals within the psychoanalytic community, I did not mean any sort of "public" debate or confrontation. I meant simply that he might have selected one or two Swamis within the Ramakrishna order and one or two practicing psychoanalysts for some critical feedback prior to the publication of the manuscript.Such persons, I am persuaded, would have alerted him to the serious problems of lack of balance and reductionism that are readily apparent in his "Conclusion: Analyzing the Secret.^{Polymorphic Sexuality, Homoeroticism, and the Study of Religion Revisited: A Rejoinder}

• disagreement. Kripal claims that I have lifted a few lines out of context in a twelve-page explanation that shows that his concluding analysis is not a "reductionistic reading." Here I beg to differ, and I invite any reader to read the book's conclusion in order to determine whether the final analysis is reductionist or not. In my view, the concluding analysis is doubly reductionist^{Polymorphic Sexuality, Homoeroticism, and the Study of Religion Revisited: A Rejoinder}

• but to then conclude that one has found a "homoerotic saint," that the "homoerotic energies... not only shaped the symbolism of Ramakrishna's mysticism; they were his mysticism" (Kripal's italics), and then to go on, beginning with the unambigu- ous statement, "Let me be very clear ..", and to comment that "without the conflicted energies of the saint's homosexual desires ...." ". .. there would have been no 'Ramakrishna,"' is not only doubly reductionist.^{Polymorphic Sexuality, Homoeroticism, and the Study of Religion Revisited: A Rejoinder}

• Now, however, when the informed reader would like to see how what has gone before is to be integrated with everything else that one knows about Sri Ramakrishna, especially the other dimensions of his sexuality or sexual fantasies (the transvestitism, transsexuality, and so forth), but more than that, how the sexual complexity of the man relates to the mystical and/or spiritual complexity of the man, the book takes a disappointing turn.[12]

• At this point, alas, as indicated above, the book falls into what can only be characterized as a monocausal reductionism.[13]

• "Ramakrishna's homosexual tendencies ... deeply influenced, indeed determined the manner in which he created his own self-defined 'states' out of the symbols of his inherited religious tradition," is thoroughly implausible and does not follow from the evidence presented in the book. 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![14]

• By ignoring this larger framework of evidence Kripal ends up with a monocausal reductionism that is nearly a classic example of what White- head (409) called "the Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness," that is, focusing on only one abstract dimension of an issue and thinking that one has then given a concrete explanation.[15]

• Nor has there been any shortage of articles and books that make clear Ramakrishna's syncretistic Gaudfya Vaisnava, Saiva, Sakta and Tantrika predilections. For anyone even casually acquainted with Bengali spirit- uality and cultural life many of the symbolic visions and fantasies of Ramakrishna, which appear bizarre and even pathological when construed only in isolation or individually, become much less so when one relates the visions and fantasies to nineteenth-century Bengal[16]

• My impression is that Kripal did not let his final draft be read outside of the context of his teachers at the University of Chicago, the readers brought into the review process by the University of Chicago Press, and the various close friends and colleagues in the academy (many or most of whom are mentioned in the Preface)[17] (this is why the book reviews are unreliable)

• I am also inclined to think that the book would have achieved greater balance and would have avoided reductionism had it been vetted by professionals within the psychoanalytic community. Even Freud, with all of his reductionist tendencies, would have been highly suspicious and critical of much of M's "secret" material.[18]

Hugh Urban

• Kripal's work also bears some rather troubling problems. Perhaps the most pervasive of these is Kripal's tendency toward sensationalism and at times an almost journalistic delight in playing on the "sexy," "seedy," "scandalous," and shocking nature of his material (e.g., pp. 27 ff.). Indeed, with section headings such as "Cleaving the Bitch in Two," "The Tantric Latrine," "Ecstatic Diarrhea," and the "Pansomatic Orgasm," it is not surprising that many Indian readers should have taken offense; nor is it difficult to understand why some Indian critics should regard Kripal's work as yet another example of neocolonialism and the West's exploitation of the "exotic Ori- ent" in the form of "slickly produced paperbacks."^{Hugh Urban review}

• ...A second problem arises from Kripal's understanding of "Tantra" and his identification of Ramakrishna as a "Tantrika."^{Hugh Urban review}

• Kripal lapses all too often into a very popular misconception of Tantra as something "scandalous, seedy, sexy, and dangerous" (p. 32),^{Hugh Urban review}

• However, perhaps the most problematic aspect of Kripal's work is its lack of attention to social and historical context. ... Moreover, Kripal fails to place Ramakrishna and his disciples within the political context of late- nineteenth-century Bengal.^{Hugh Urban review}

William Radice

• The begetter of the storm was Sil himself, in a lurid review for the Calcutta Statesman (31.1-1.2.97) in which he carefully concealed the fact that his own book had been an out-and-out attempt to debunk the saint.^{William Radice Review}

• The occurrences and distribution of the secret talk are set out in an Appendix, and it is striking-after reading such a lengthy analysis of them in the book itself-how few occurrences there are: only 18, if one adopts Kripal's strict criterion that only those passages actually designated by Ramakrishna or M. as guhya should be counted as such. Has Kripal made a mountain out of molehill? Not if one accepts his view that these passages take one to the core of Ramakrishna's mysticism, and are therefore a lens through which one can validly read the whole Kathdmrta-especially if one takes into account certain passages that are not technically ' secret' but which touch on similar themes.^{William Radice Review}

• Kripal also has five main chapters, which move forward in terms of biography, but which also playfully and timelessly circle round a central image: that of the sword- wielding, tongue-protruding Kali on top of the prostrate Siva. His book itself is a majar kuti ('mansion of fun') in which the reader often finds himself back in a previously visited room. Occasionally one stops to ask if one has not been hoodwinked by the charm of his arguments. (...) But if this is indeed a game, not a serious argument, it is no more playful than Ramakrishna's own earthy banter.^{William Radice Review}

• The Fathers of the Christian Church had a similar problem. And while granting the importance of the 'secret talk' passages, and concurring with Wendy Doniger's praise for Kripal's thorough know- ledge of the whole Kathdmrta, may we also hope that he will in future give equal attention to the vastly greater proportion of it that was not secret? The erotic-Tantric lens is not the only one through which the Kathamrta can be read.^{William Radice Review}

• What makes one ultimately distrustful of his book, entertaining though it is, is his willingness to manipulate his sources with a merry abandon worthy of Ramakrishna him- self.^{Radice Review of Sil}

• Sil knows perfectly well that Vivekananda often made provocative, throw-away remarks that were at odds with the main lines of his thought. It is just as possible to quote passages showing his undying devotion to his master. If Sil can misuse Vivekananda's writings to support his hypothesis, can we trust him to use the Kathamrta fairly?^{Radice Review of Sil}

• Another weakness of the book is that his ridicule of Ramakrishna's ' ecstasies ' his view that his frequent states of samadhi were patholo- gical rather than spiritual is not supported by any clear view of what would be a genuine state of mystical ecstasy. He quotes definitions by Eliade, as well as Indian authorities, but the drift of his argument is towards dismissal of any kind of mysticism as self-hypnosis or insanity.^{Radice Review of Sil}

• Narasingha P. Sil has debunked the saint so thoroughly and glee- fully that it is hard to see how he will recover, once Sil's book becomes widely known.^{Radice on Sil}

Jeffery Kripal

• I read with a mixture of embarrassment, sadness, and hope Swami Tyagananda’s Kali’s Child Revisited. I will pretend no full response here. That can only come with a third edition of the book, for which there are no immediate plans. Until such an opportunity arises, however, I can say that I am eager to resolve these issues in a friendly and open-hearted spirit that can be as faithful as possible both to academic standards of free inquiry and intellectual honesty and to the felt needs of significant segments of the Hindu community, whose religious sensibilities I am all too painfully aware I have offended.

• "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."

Goethean your cherry picked quotes are not neutral and one-sided. Your own contemporary scholars do not agree with each other! --Nvineeth (talk) 05:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You can add the stuff back with changes and in a neutral tone, without weasel and peacock words, provided they are balanced with other POVs, in this section and Talk:Ramakrishna#Problems_with_lede. If required we can go for dispute resolution, like Bluptr said. We also discuss on WP:WEASEL, WP:NPOV, WP:PROFANITY, WP:CHERRY policies here. Also from the NPOV faq, "there are legitimate reasons for removing text because of bias", so unless there is co-operation and a balanced view is presented, other editors are free to remove the one-sided cherry picked material. --Nvineeth (talk) 06:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

As anyone familiar with Wikipedia policy can tell you (please ask someone), there are no weasel words or peacock terms in the material that I added. There is also no cherry-picking of quotations, because the quotations are lengthy enough and the scholars professional and careful enough that they surely reflect the author's intent. Also, your opposing quotation should be specifically about Ramakrishna's sexuality and how totally normal and not strange it was. It should be a simple matter to find since your views are so mainstream. — goethean ॐ 12:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Tell me which of these statements you can prove is false:

• Sil believes that Ramakrishna's sexuality was eccentric.
• Radice believes that Ramakrishna's sexuality was eccentric.
• Kripal believes that Ramakrishna's sexuality was eccentric.
• Urban believes that Ramakrishna's sexuality was eccentric.
• McLean believes that Ramakrishna's sexuality was eccentric.
• Hawley believes that Ramakrishna's sexuality was eccentric.
• Haberman believes that Ramakrishna's sexuality was eccentric.
• Larson believes that Ramakrishna's sexuality was eccentric.
• Kakar believes that Ramakrishna's sexuality was eccentric.
• Doniger believes that Ramakrishna's sexuality was eccentric.
• Neevel believes that Ramakrishna's sexuality was eccentric.
• Hatcher believes that Ramakrishna's sexuality was eccentric.

— goethean ॐ 13:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, you are presenting quotations which argue for things like:

• Urban thinks that Kripal's understanding of tantra is inaccurate
• Radice thinks that Kripal's book has major problems
• Larson thinks that Kripal shoud have talked to Swamis before publication
• Kripal is sorry that he offended people
• Radice thinks that other interpretations of Ramakrishna's mysticism are warranted

Do you see how these latter group of statements have no bearing on the material that I added? It is the first 12 theses that you need to worry about. — goethean ॐ 13:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Many of assertions (statements) above and about "According to many scholars of Indian religion, Ramakrishna had a highly eccentric, homoerotic sexuality which was related to his mystical realization." are WP:OR and possibly false. To point a few problems:

• Problem; "many" is WP:WEASEL word.
• Sil believes that Ramakrishna's sexuality was eccentric.: maybe, maybwe not. Homoerotic as the whole statement says it. Certainly NOT. NO explicit mention of homoerotic --> WP:OR indulged in
• Radice believes that Ramakrishna's sexuality was eccentric.: maybe, maybe not. possiblly FALSE RAadice says "Sil argues that Ramakrishna.." "Kripal thanks Sil in his acknowledgements and agrees on p. 298 with his suggestion that Ramakrishna...." NO I agree thing
• Doniger believes that Ramakrishna's sexuality was eccentric.: maybe, maybe not. "His [Kripal's] analyses are right on target." no explicit mention of homoerotic. WP:OR
• Brian Hatcher and Walter Neevel says "the possible homoerotic dimensions of his spiritual life". If they were certain, they would not use the word "possible"
• Urban says " Kripal sheds new light on the saint's relations....Finally, Kripal engages Ramakrishna's own profoundly ambivalent attitude toward Tantra, his "shame, disgust and fear" about his homoerotic " Urban talks about Kripal's views, NOT Urban's views.
• McLean in his review of Kripal's book echoes Kripal and does not talk about homoerotic. He is NOT presenting McLean's views, but Kripal's views. That is what reviews of books are supposed to have. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

"Many" is not a weasel word, because in the footnote I specify which scholars. Besides, you could have improved it rather than engaging in edit warring, if you had been interested in improving the article beyond being an annexation of the Ramakrishna Mission.

Your statement on Radice is clearly false. Radice clearly states: "The saint's homosexual leanings and his horror of women as lovers should not be the issue: there was plenty of biographical evidence before the exposure of the guhya katha" It is Radice's view that there was plenty of evidence for Ramakrishna's homosexual leanings.

Your statement on Doniger is clearly false. She accepts Kripal's analyses of the mystical and the erotic in Ramakrishna's as "right on target", therefore, she believes that Ramakrishna had homoerotic impulses.

Your statement on McLean is clearly false. McLean says: "His sexual behaviour, in fact, was so unusual that it became the source of much speculation, and many theories have been put forward to explain it, and to see how, if at all, it might be linked to his strange religious behavior" This is McLean's view. A scholar who did not believe that Ramakrishna's sexual behavior was unusual would not write this.

Your statement on Urban is clearly false. Urban says, paraphrasing: Kripal engages Ramakrishna's shame, disgust and fear about Ramakrishna's homoerotic impulses. You think that a scholar can write this and not think that Ramakrishna had homoerotic impulses. You are being deliberately obtuse.

I can find a better quotation from Sil, but I think that it is not worth my time. Based on your comments here, I think that you will continue reject every quotation for what are prima facie unreasonable reasons. Thank you for saving me the time and effort that it would take to gather more quotations and citations. I understand the reason for your opposition now. — goethean ॐ 14:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

To clarify I am NOT AGAINST adding the homoerotic theory, but it should be added in a neutral way and respecting WP:OR and WP:CONSENSUS. IMO, It should read something like "According to Kripal, Ramakrishna had a highly eccentric, homoerotic sexuality which was related to his mystical realization but the theory is disputed." --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You've made your feelings, your beliefs, as well as your sense of ethics and honesty very, very clear. Thanks. — goethean ॐ 14:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• Reply:
  • "many" is WP:WEASEL because many is vague for example I consider "many" as 100, but XYZ may think "many" as 1000, ABC may feel "many" is 10.
  • Reviews do sum up the book and it's theories that does not mean that the reviewer agrees to the points. The extract provided ("Sil argues that..", "Kripal thanks Sil in his.. " etc.) are summaries of the theory, DO NOT show any sign of agreement or disagreement. Also, reviewers of books need not be experts or researchers of the topic (Ramakrishna), may just be expert of the subject (Hinduism). Views on Experts on Ramakrishna are needed, not Reviewers of the Kripal book. The quotes added are better suited in the Reception section of Kali's Child, NOT here.
  • "You are being deliberately obtuse." is a violation of WP:Assume good faith. Please do not violate it again and retain WP:CIVILITY. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

"To clarify I am NOT AGAINST adding the homoerotic theory..." Actually the homoerotic theory is already in the article "In this psychoanalytic study of Ramakrishna's life, Kripal portrayed Ramakrishna’s mystical experiences as symptoms of repressed homoeroticism." , no party has removed it. So I assume even Nvineeth does not mind it because he wrote that section by summarizing the Views on Ramakrishna article. A repetition is not needed. All reviewers of Kali's child are just echoing Kripal, and not formulating new theories. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I should have let your words speak for themselves, they are more eloquent and damning than any personal attacks that I might make.

Actually the homoerotic theory is already in the article...

The most-discussed topic for the last three decades has one line in the article. The rest of the article is dominated with falsehoods from the Ramakrishna Mission religious organization, using 50-, 75-, and 100-year old books as sources because the consensus of editors here is against using reliable sources from academia. It is contrary to Wikipedia policy, common sense and basic honesty.

The extract provided...are summaries of the theory, DO NOT show any sign of agreement or disagreement.

A clearly false statement. No competant scholar would say "There was plenty of evidence for Ramakrishna's homosexual leanings" if he didn't believe that there was, in fact, plenty of evidence that Ramakrishna had homosexual leanings. This is the same format as with all of your pitifully transparent objections to my sourcing. — goethean ॐ 16:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

So I assume even Nvineeth does not mind it because he wrote that section by summarizing the Views on Ramakrishna article

I wrote the reception section. It was accepted into the article, after being heavily censored by Priyanath, because it had about ten times as much material reflecting the POV of the Swamis over the POV of academia. That's just the way we roll here. Nvineeth's modus operandi is to spam the article with gobs of material from non-notable swamis which is published in non-academic books which are bankrolled by right-wing NRIs. It is shocking what you, Nvineeth, Priyanath, and Devadaru have gotten away with. — goethean ॐ 17:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong in using 100 yr old books, whose authors would be considered contemporary then, for a man who lived 100 years ago? They will reflect the man's life better. Ramakrishna is not Alexander, whose life can be better constructed by archaeological discoveries. No new archaeological revelations are possible in Ramakrishna's life. The contemporary (100 yr old) accounts of his life are still available. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

"I wrote the reception section.": Sorry for my erroneous assumption. Reply to "The most-discussed topic for the last three decades has one line in the article." a para existed then and even does now. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Um, yes there are new discoveries. Swamis have been suppressing primary suorces for decades and the jivanavrttant has never been translated into English. No scholar has been allowed to access Mahenranath Datta's diary, which is under lock and key in the Mission. People who have read up one the subject know all this, but devotees do not. — goethean ॐ 17:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that you would get taken seriously if you started adding the views of a historian writing in 1895 to the Alexander article. There is a reason for that. It is because academia does make progress on debates and does come to consensus on some issues. I'm not sure why I have to explain the basics of writing research papers here. — goethean ॐ 17:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

And it is very clear why editors here prefer to use old sources here like Muller, Rolland, etc. It's because the recent sources contradict the points of faith of the swamis, like that Ramakrishna was a sexless ephebe. — goethean ॐ 17:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand why Max Müller, the founding father of Indology (if I may say so), is doubted. IMO, Max Müller is a WP:RS in general and a contemporary of Ramakrishna, thus a RS in this matter. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand why Max Müller, the founding father of Indology (if I may say so), is doubted.

Then you do not know how to write a research paper. The article should not be sourced to 100-year old texts when we have much more recent and reliable studies available. Muller is more of a primary source than a secondary source, and using him is more akin to WP:OR than WP:RS. — goethean ॐ 17:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

To say Max Muller is a primary source is WP:OR. --Nvineeth (talk) 05:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Muller can not be considered as a primary source. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

"Nvineeth's modus operandi is to spam the article with gobs of material from non-notable swamis which is published in non-academic books which are bankrolled by right-wing NRIs. It is shocking what you, Nvineeth, Priyanath, and Devadaru have gotten away with."

Thanks for your personal attacks and incivility, if you are still not convinced about this, I suggest you to look at edits like this, edit summary or this section . Indeed what you say above, "It is shocking what you (...) have gotten away with." :-) We are not going to be disturbed by these things. Also in future pls dont use incivil titles like "sex in lede". I am perfectly fine and undisturbed by these titles, but wikipedia caters to a larger audience, and everybody may not think so. OK? --Nvineeth (talk) 05:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

"(Mr.Scholar) believes that Ramakrishna's sexuality was eccentric."

Do you know that book reviews state the summary in the beginning, and are not necessarily "believ"ing? To prove that "sexuality was eccentric", I see only WP:CHERRY picked quotes. To give a simple example to refute this, Hawley, the same person you have claimed to see Ramakrishna as an "eccentric" in 2004, in an independent study writes, "...neither the gopis' torment nor Ramakrishna's must be allowed to devolve to a bodily level that could be indiscriminately shared—either between religious communities, or between the erstwhile colonizers and their erstwhile colonial victims, or between communities of people who respond to different sexual orientations. Eros is too dangerous"[19]

I am quite taken aback by the ugliness of the discussion above, is it really important to waste precious time of your life to argue over someone's sexuality, when there is so much inspiring worth learning?? I am also surprised that so many authors missed the point about Ramakrishna all together. It is Bhakti that helped me transcend, above anything, may we learn that from this life, if nothing at all! --Ekabhishek (talk) 05:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Goethean, I am telling you in advance pls do not to personal attack the above good faithed editor, who is not exposed to the psychoanalysis and neo-colonialism of the materials published in "major academic peer-reviewed journals and university presses" (which are but a handful of book reviews and psychoanalysis). Dont attack editors like Devadaru. Did you ever wonder why you see edit summaries like "Removed material added by a fanatic" from Devadaru? Do you know how it feels for innocent editors not exposed to psychoanalysis to see edit summaries from you like this : "+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."?? If you have anything related to psychoanalysis, scholarly materials from "major academic peer-reviewed university press journals" argue with me. Dont use incivil edit summaries and foul titles like "sex in lede" on the talk page. OK? --Nvineeth (talk) 07:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Another thing, I see you have cherry picked quotes related to Isherwood and "censorship" , and about "locked dairies", which are clearly addressed in Kali's Child Revisited (Evam journal). And don't argue saying that this is not "notable", because Kripal "read with a mixture of embarrassment, sadness, and hope Swami Tyagananda’s Kali’s Child Revisited." Other editors can do further cherry picking related to Isherwood, dairies and project a completely different picture. --Nvineeth (talk) 10:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I am quite taken aback by the ugliness of the discussion above, is it really important to waste precious time of your life to argue over someone's sexuality, when there is so much inspiring worth learning??

Oh, you'll fit right in here. Consensus has decreed that academic sources should be ignored and suppressed in favor of Ramakrishna Mission-approved sources. That clearly violates Wikipedia policy, but nobody cares about that except me. The article has become an extension of a religious organization at the demand of User:Priyanath and User:Nvineeth. The article is, essentially, a pack of lies. — goethean ॐ 17:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)