Talk:Ramakrishna/Archive 8

Book Review and Statements of Opinion

The recent addition references to a book review of Kali's Child by McLean. From WP:RS, "Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact ... When discussing what is said in such sources, it is important to directly attribute the material to its author " I will be attributing this to Kripal directly. Also this material comes from 1997, and in 1998 when Kali's Child second edition was published, Kripal writes in the Preface that he "overplayed" this, right? Pls stop sneaking in book reviews favourable to Kali's Child and ignoring the more critical ones.. perhaps it is a good idea to reread the archived Outside opinion and also read the excerpts from WP:RSN above instead of edit warring. This part needs to be fixed. --TheMandarin (talk) 05:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The material that you removed — with the dishonest edit summary of "attribute to original author per talk, per WP:RS" — correctly attributed McLean's opinions to McLean. Your removal of well-sourced content constitutes vandalism. — goethean ॐ 17:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The use of book reviews should generally be limited to discussion of the book, as was previously discussed on this talk page. They are not a reliable source or a notable one in regard to the subject of the article - and should not be used to introduce material that is not published in reliable sources. This was discussed previously and consensus was reached. If you want to try to reach a new consensus, please do so on the talk page before making controversial changes w/out consensus. This was previously discussed and confirmed by a number of Outside Opinions requested and received here. Priyanath ^talk 18:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

You have removed the well-sourced words of a major scholar on Ramakrishna. The content was well-sourced and highly notable. There is no defense in Wikipedia policy or common decency for your actions. — goethean ॐ 18:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me of not having common decency Goethean - no personal attacks and no incivility are two core Wikipedia policies. I do believe that the opinion of one scholar is undue, except for arguably one sentence. Let's discuss, not attack, please. Priyanath ^talk 19:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to come up with a rational explanation for your consistent and flagrant violation of Wikipedia policy in order to remove the considered, researched, published, documented, reasoned, well-argued, and highly notable opinions of every single contemporary scholar of Bengali literature from the article, including Malcolm McLean, Brian Hatcher, Narasingha Sil, William Radice, Jeffrey Kripal, John Hawley, David Haberman, James Gerald Larson, Sudhir Kakar, Hugh Urban, Walter Neevel, and Wendy Doniger. There is a very simple explanation for your actions. — goethean ॐ 21:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

No, you're making disparaging comments about the editor and not the good faith edit — that's a personal attack (Wikipedia:No personal attacks). Your incivility and attacks here have been a constant violation of that Wikipedia policy — read it. It's certainly the worst abuse I've ever received from a Wikipedia editor. You seem to consider this some kind of holy crusade, and yes it is on a subject that I don't have any involvement with. I'll quite happily give you the last word here on my own conduct, and sincerely wish you and your loved ones a cheerful and blessed Christmas season, Priyanath ^talk 18:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

If I had succeeded in damaging an article to the extent that your edits had, I would expect some abuse from my peers. It's a funny kind of "holy crusade" which unsuccessfully attempts to replace myth promulgated by swamis with academic scholarship. — goethean ॐ 22:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend you to reread the [opinion] and to quote User:RegentsPark, "an overemphasis on the homoeroticism theory is out of place in this article. ", "BTW, book reviews do not make reliable sources. They are neither peer reviewed nor vetted by the scholarly community". --TheMandarin (talk) 06:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no over-emphasis on sexuality in this article — on the contrary, there is a no mention of such topics in the main biographical section of the article. For the most part, the article does not contradict the hoary myths promulgated by the Ramakrishna Mission, which has no interest in historical fact, only in praising their guru's name. Among contemporary secular scholars, Ramakrishna's eccentric sexuality is a major topic. But here at Wikipedia, a group of editors have succeeded in limiting discussion of Ramakrishna's sexuality to a tiny section at the end of the article. The source which cites McLean is obviously completely reliable for McLean's opinion. It is a published book review in an academic journal. I have supplied a lengthy quotation from McLean, showing that his words were not taken out of context. — goethean ॐ 13:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Most of the material ( and scholars ) you try to add comes from Kali's Child and reviews., and "eccentric sexuality is a major topic" is not justified either, anyone who read Talk:Ramakrishna#Other quotes will know this. --TheMandarin (talk) 08:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Unacknowledged and POV use of obsolete sources

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

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

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

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

Removal of Malcolm McLean material, edit warring

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

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

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

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

Request for comments

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

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

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

Example

Before the text was : In 1995, Kripal argued that argued that the Ramakrishna Movement has manipulated Ramakrishna's biographical documents, that the Movement has published them in incomplete and bowdlerized editions, that the Movement has suppressed Ram Chandra Datta's Srisriramakrsna Paramahamsadever Jivanavrttanta.[122] These views were disputed by Swami Atmajnanananda, who wrote that Jivanavrttanta has been reprinted nine times as of 1995.[123] In 1998, Kripal wrote that he had "overplayed" the suppression of Jivanavrttanta and "the Ramakrishna Order reprinted Datta's text the very same summer Kali's Child appeared, rendering my original claims of a conscious concealment untenable."[124] In 1997, Malcolm McLean of Otago University[125] argued that the Ramakrishna Movement has manipulated Ramakrishna's biographical documents, that the Movement has published them in incomplete and bowdlerized editions, that the Movement has "virtually suppressed" Ram Chandra Datta's Srisriramakrsna Paramahamsadever Jivanavrttanta, which he says "presents an altogether different picture of Ramakrishna," and that the Movement has "present[ed] a particular kind of explanation of Ramakrishna, that he was some kind of neo-Vedantist who taught that all religions are the same..."[126] (Note that this part gives a wrong impression that Atmajnanananda's comments do not apply to McLean's and McLean's comments are undisputed, while it is actually not so. Also the book review applies to 1995 ed, the same arguments were altered in 1998. I argue that using book reviews, it can be projected as if the same material is professed by "most scholars of Bengali" as Goethean argues above ( while there is one scholar + book reviews ). for ex : Similar RSN discussion ) After : In 1995 in the first editon of Kali's Child Kripal and in the book review of this edition (1997) by Malcolm McLean of Otago University, both argued that that the Ramakrishna Movement has manipulated Ramakrishna's biographical documents, that the Movement has published them in incomplete and bowdlerized editions, that the Movement has "virtually suppressed" Ram Chandra Datta's Srisriramakrsna Paramahamsadever Jivanavrttanta, which McLean says "presents an altogether different picture of Ramakrishna," and that the Movement has "present[ed] a particular kind of explanation of Ramakrishna, that he was some kind of neo-Vedantist who taught that all religions are the same...". These views were disputed by Swami Atmajnanananda, who wrote that Jivanavrttanta has been reprinted nine times as of 1995 and the translation of Kathamrita were not "bowlderized" and considered western decorum into consideration. In Kali's Child (2 ed) 1998, Kripal wrote that he had "overplayed" the suppression of Jivanavrttanta and "the Ramakrishna Order reprinted Datta's text the very same summer Kali's Child appeared, rendering my original claims of a conscious concealment untenable." Amiya Sen wrote that the projection of Ramakrishna as a Vedantin by the Movement is "testified" by "no less than Ramakrishna himself" and the Kathamrita.

I would like to request for comments on the following:

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kripal has commented on this article at his Rice University FAQ

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

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

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

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

— Jeffrey J. Kripal FAQ Rice University Religious Studies department

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

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

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

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

Meaning of "paramahamsa"

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

You don't understand. This article is managed by devotees of the Ramakrishna Mission and doesn't need to abide by Wikipedia policies, principles or values. It exists essentially as a marketing arm of the Ramakrishna Mission, a religious group. — goethean ॐ 12:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Goethean, why did you reintroduce the word "Paramahamsa" if it was not required in first place? "Paramahamsa" comes as a part of WP:COMMONNAME, however, the lede can be edited to clarify the meaning of this word per Jorge Stolfi. I have made the change per usage in other encyclopedias.--TheMandarin (talk) 05:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I figured that that point was not worth getting in a big fight with the local zamindar. — goethean ॐ 12:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• Do you dispute that Motilal Banarsidass is not a WP:RS
• Do you dispute that Tyagananda is not "notable"? He is a Chaplain at Harvard University and a panel member at AAR discussion[2]
• How come that the book is unreliable only for this article, I see it is being used in at least 3 other articles.
• Your arguments on book review are discussed here, and to quote, "Whether a source is reliable doesn't depend on reviews."

--TheMandarin (talk) 04:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Motilal is a publisher. It doesn't make sense to call it an WP:RS. But I'm quite used to dealing with veritable nonsense on this page and in the main article.

You claim that anyone who was ever on a panel discussion at AAR is notable? I'm an inclusionist, but that's even more generous than I would endorse.

I don't know who referred to this apparently unreviewed, uncited, and unnoted book in three articles, it was probably another marketer of the book.

It would be surprising indeed to find that a completely unnoted book should be mentioned here. I recommend that you stick to the sources available. But Wikipedia policies never seem to apply to Ramakrishna Mission marketers. — goethean ॐ 00:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you read "identifying reliable sources". Even other editors here are quite used to edit warring, incivility, circular arguments,... Few exs: Talk:Ramakrishna/Archive_6#Circular_Arguments

Talk:Ramakrishna/Archive_7#Outside_opinion. You are telling that Tyagananda is not notable, so Kripal bothered to write a lengthy reply ("...read with a mixture of embarrassment, sadness...") to answer the questions raised and yet fail to satisfy other scholars?...makes little sense. for ex read: Prof. Arvind Sharma's:Hindus and Scholars, and Jack Hawleys' The Damage of Separation. Try to go beyond name calling and ad hominem.(File:Graham's_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg). Best wishes. --TheMandarin (talk) 06:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

makes little sense

You can say that again! — goethean ॐ 19:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see that after requesting advice at the reliable sources noticeboard, you have done the exact opposite of what you were advised to do, and reinstated an advertisement for the Mission's latest diatribe. Very good. Your sense of ethics is precisely in line with that of the Ramakishna Mission. — goethean ॐ 01:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

To quote from the discussion--"It clearly is a reliable source ...." The discussion was to avoid writing about the book vs supporting the actual content of the article. And the material added does support the content of the article. Speaking of "ethics", have you managed to find the references to the failed verification you had added? Best Wishes. --TheMandarin (talk) 06:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

And the material added does support the content of the article.

No it does not. It supports material that you just added to the article after I pointed out that you are using this article to promote a book. You created material for the reference to the book to support. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for you to pimp the Mission's latest offerings. Please follow Devadaru's advice and hold off until the book is reviewed. — goethean ॐ 01:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Pls read WP:IRS, WP:NPOV or refer to numerous WP:RSN discussions. "pointed out" eh? It was edit warring. For a editor who alleges others of "...pimp the Mission's latest offerings", these questions should have been answerable. --TheMandarin (talk) 03:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You edit warred when you violated WP:BRD, not I. — goethean ॐ 19:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Please wait, wait a bit. The book has just been published; that is, in the last few days I believe. Probably no one has even read it yet. Let some people get it, read it, review it, comment on it, ewtc. Then we'll know how it is received by the academic community and the devotee community, and we'll have some support to our claims that it is either reliable or not reliable. Devadaru (talk) 13:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice point Devadaru. It usually take few months to several years for reviews to appear. However, book reviews--either favorable or unfavorable--don't count much when it comes to WP:RS. This has been discussed at the RSN previously or see this discussion. --TheMandarin (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

According to the publisher, the book in question was reviewed (favorably) by a professor at Harvard Divinity School. By a cozy reviewer? I don't know, but Harvard is Harvard: there is no mercy for academic missteps. Goethean, you have a serious attitude problem regarding the Ramakrishna Mission and you should consider removing yourself from this scene until you can regain some sense of perspective on this related academic topic. Jack B108 (talk) 20:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Um, I have an attitude problem? Assuming that your above comment was not sarcstic (The intellectual powerhouse credentials of Swami Tyagananda, critiquing Kali's Child, are not good enough for WP, Goethean? LOL.), it seems that you are not the most objective of observers. And although TheMandarin has learned to be more circumspect, his actions speak quite loudly.

To repeat myself yet again, in what publication was the book reviewed? If you cannot answer this very simple question, then there is no evidence that the book is at all notable. — goethean ॐ 18:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

To repeat myself yet again, You are inventing new rules, show me where the policy WP:IRS says about "book review" and "notability"? Just answer this very simple question. Feel free to seek WP:RFC on this new rule you are trying to enforce on this particular article. The book is clearly a WP:RS. So you do not have attitude problem at all? You accuse every other editor here of bad faith and as some marketing from the mission!--at the same time you are yet to provide a justification for adding failed verification. You plainly refused to remove a WP:BLP violation against Francis Xavier Clooney ( [3] ) who has written a blurb for this book. There are plenty more for ex in this archived discussion. --TheMandarin (talk) 04:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Inaccurate addition

Older discussion:Talk:Ramakrishna/Archive_7#Outside_opinion

Goethean, This edit has following problems:

• WP:WEASEL : ( "number of western scholars" )
• WP:SYNTHESIS
• WP:NPOV
• WP:COATRACK & WP:CHERRY
• WP:V

Just a customary glance of the references you give, present a different picture, and you are not giving a accurate and neutral presentation of sources. Few quotes from the sources you cite--which ironically present a different picture:

• Larson writes, "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![4]

• Radice writes, 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 himself.[5] More importantly, William Radice writes that "Sil argues..." and does not present it as a fact in this citation.

• Larson further writes, "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 spirituality 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. [6] ( BTW, Gerald Larson--provided in the citation--in 2010 is one of the blurb contributors for the book Interpreting Ramakrishna [7].)

• John Hawley--whom you have cited--says later in 2004 [8]: "...Neither the gopi's torment nor Ramarishna'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." Just shows how outdated the references are.

• Failed Verification : I am tempted to ask, have you read the Foreward of Kali's Child? even Wendy Doniger does not use the word "eccentric" at all, let alone discuss about how "marriage" and "eccentric sexuality" are related. She infact writes "alleged/apparent sexual abberation" (note that she also uses "alleged") and discusses Kripal's methodology and generic discussion about Freud, psychoanalysis, but ironically you have referenced the word "eccentric" with Doniger. I dont remember Gale's encylopedia authors:Brian Hatcher and Walter Neevel, use the word "eccentric" and then linking it with marriage. I dont remember reading "eccentric" in Haberman and explictly linking it with marriage in David Haberman's review, why dont you recheck? This edit is plain WP:SYNTHESIS. BTW there is already a section on sexuality, which discusses in context.

Presenting a view as a fact is out of place, and this has also been discussed before esp when several scholars--western and indian--plainly refuse to agree with homosexuality theory and link Sexuality and marriage together., Few examples:

• Rajat Kanta Ray' review : [9]: What Kripal cites as evidence leaves open another possibility: "Finally, Ramakrishna brags that even in his illness he is not deluded by maya. To prove his point, he notes that his mind no longer dwells on his wife or his home... Before jumping to the conclusion that this reveals a latent homosexuality, Kripal might have considered the question whether this might not indicate an effort on Ramakrishna’s part to transform an instinctive attraction towards a woman into a deliberate preference for disciple."
• Prof.Bhaskar Mukhopadhyay of Goldsmiths University writes: The problem with Kripal’s method of ’sexualisation’ of Ramakrishna’s body is that he does not take culture into consideration. Kripal’s scholarship goes on to establish that Ramakrishna was attracted to men and repelled by women. But this does not mean that Ramakrishna was a ’homosexual’, especially since everything Ramakrishna did had a mystical aura ... I demand that Ramakrishna’s visions be taken at their face value and not interpreted as some kind of a confused expression of his sexuality. What if I interpret Kripal’s book as expression of his (perverse) sexuality? Obviously, it won’t be fair on Kripal just as Kripal is being unfair to Ramakrishna by asserting that all he said or did were mere metaphors of his sexuality. A person’s sexual orientation does not explain the person’s oeuvre and Kripal, for all his insights, misses this rather obvious point. There is another point that deserves mention. There is an obvious glee in Kripal’s tone which sometimes verges on flippancy. This is not befitting of a scholar.[10]
• see also : Gayatri Spivak in "Moving Devi". Other Asias. Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 195–197. writes about problems in applying Freud.
• More quotes: Talk:Ramakrishna/Archive_7#Other_quotes

I am reverting your inaccurate additon. Before edit-warring and reintroducing it, pls see that it satisfies the Wikipedia Guidlines highlighted above. --TheMandarin (talk) 18:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to my edit. You are progressing — previously, you would simply gang up on me with other Ramakrisha Mission followers and force my contributions out of the article through edit warring. I'm glad to see that after forcibly dominating the article for several years in habitual and flagrant violation of core Wikipedia policies and principles, you've decided to acknowledge that other editors have the right to edit the article. Thank you for that.

You bring up some relevant points. However, the solution is not to simply remove content from the article. The solution is to improve upon the text that I have added. Ramakrishna's sexuality, it seems evident to me, is a part of Ramakrishna's biography. It is not a "view and study" any more than any other part of his biography is a "view and study". Unfortunately, this article is organized so that the opinions that the Ramakrishna Mission dislikes are designated "views and studies" and are relegated to the end of the article, where, presumably, it is hoped that no one will read them.

The text that I added can be improved upon. Unfortunately, you chose to remove it completely. I assume that you removed it because you have some type of personal issue with Ramakrishna's sexuality being mentioned in this article. However, I hope that you can understand these are not valid grounds for the removal of material from Wikipedia articles. To remove well-sourced material is a disservice to the readers of Wikipedia. I suggest that you undo the removal of well-sourced material. Please add the material back in and improve upon it. Thanks. — goethean ॐ 04:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to the comments. But, you are yet to progress beyond name calling^## and the self attested hatred you have towards "mission" and addition of inaccurate information. What you say as "well-sourced" actually has failed verification, is grossly inaccurate, outdated ( The official guideline clearly talks about "...scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternate theories..." and we have new RSes..one as recent as 2010.) and there is no way a responsible editor will allow this kind of false information to go into the article and cause disservice to the readers of Wikipedia.

Being a defender of Kripal, I think you are the one with "personal issue" not me--introducing inaccurate and failed verification. BTW this article has section on "sexuality" and your theory of "no one will read them" is dubious when there is a big title asking the readers to read it. BTW, the Gale's encyclopedia you misrepresented keeps the discussion in the section "Interpretations of Ramakrishna." (p.7613, Vol. 11) See also: Springers encyclopedia of psychology and religion.(p.753), they base the biography on facts not obscure controversial theory.

Simply appending references does not make it accurate but for the editor who is not aware of the subject or who does not verify the references, they seem as "well-sourced". More importantly stop introducing stale information of book reviews. ( BTW, you are prompt in removing the book reviews from the scholar you defend — Kripal's article here and support our "claim"! and apparently you introduce the same reference in this article--sort of tendentious). I suggest you to use a draft and achieve consensus and more importantly achieve accuracy, neutrality, provide due weight age. Unless these are met, the material will be challenged by other editors. Feel free to seek WP:MEDIATION Thanks. --TheMandarin (talk) 07:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The editor who, through edit warring, replaced recent scholarship with Max Muller's earlier 19th century material because the Muller material better suited the Ramakrishna Mission religious dogma now claims that a single book, written by a Swami of the Mission, renders obsolete all of the scholarship published in academic journals and university press publications in the last thirty years. Your arrogance and dishonesty really have no bounds, do they? — goethean ॐ 21:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Gothean, you've been pushing this bit of highly POV material for years now, and the talk page discussion on the issue has devolved to mere pointless insults. it's time for you to take it up the ladder. try one of the following:

• wp:NPOV/N or wp:RS/N
• wp:DR. preferably mediation

If you don't choose one of those yourself, I will take it up at wp:FRINGE/N, because that's where I think ythe discussion belongs. either way, we will get some broader veiwpoints on this matter before such highly inflammatory material goes into the article. --Ludwigs2 22:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The material that you have removed is well-sourced to academic journals. Please improve the wording of the material rather than removing it from the article completely. I would encourage you to discuss this matter at any forum of your choosing, because the more eyes that see this frankly hideous situation, the better. — goethean ॐ 22:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Gothean: first off, you have not addressed the issues given above (that the sourcing you are using is dated, does not reflect mainstream opinions of Ramakrishna, and has been worded in ways inconsistent with the sources' intents). You cannot dismiss criticisms of your sources by accusing the editors who object of being part of some cabalistic movement.

Now, if and when you do address those concerns, we can discuss modifying your added text, but please note that your added text (as given) represents a fairly extreme ad hominem attack on a significant religious figure. This is on a line with the occasional efforts to assert that Mohammed was a pedophile or that Jesus was having an out-of-wedlock affair with Mary Magdelene. There may be cause to include the material, but if it is included it can not be done in that kind of language. so, address the sourcing concerns and we'll see what we can do with the rest. --Ludwigs2 02:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Outdated? Have Haberman, Radice, Sil, etc retracted their views? No, I didn't think so. The views which they published in academic journals stand. The views are not ad hominem arguments, they are based on textual analysis. And they aren't attacks either, any more than saying that King Solomon had more than one wife is an attack. They simply state the facts of Ramakrishna's biography, facts which have now been removed from the article. If biblical scholars argue in academic journals that Mohammed or Jesus did such-and-such, then that information, attributed to the scholar, may be added to the appropriate articles. You should revert yourself. Improve the material if you can, but you should not have removed it especially under the rationale of these obviously invalid arguments. — goethean ॐ 12:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

You are resorting to vague comments and I repeat, your references are misrepresented, fails verification check, why dont you seek a WP:DR or other noticeboards indicated by Ludwigs2 and prove that there is no misrepresentation, just like my point by point analysis? Few of the quotes above from your misrepresented sources/scholars provide a completely different picture. As has been already discussed now and also about more than a year ago, presenting misrepresented sources as a fact is out of place. Pls reread Talk:Ramakrishna/Archive_7#Outside_opinion. --TheMandarin (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Gothean, I didn't say that the sources were engaged in ad hominem attacks; I said that you're usage of them (in the way you used them) constitutes an ad hominem attack. Youre basically trying to use sources to assert that Ramakrishna was a "sexually obsessed homoerotic pedophile" based on questionable and dated psychoanalytic research. Few psychoanalysts today would rely on psychoanalytic profiles of that sort, particularly not ones based on writing about a person now deceased. As I said, the material might be usable, but the way you're using it is much closer to a mugging than any kind of encyclopedic writing.

If you want to add a dispute tag, I think that would be alright, but please tag the appropriate section, not the article as a whole. --Ludwigs2 18:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh I see. Now merely referring to an argument that a scholar made in an academic journal is an ad hominem attack, or a mugging, even. That is a ludicrous idea that Ramakrishna would probably find endlessly amusing and silly.

The problem with adding a disputed tag to the section is that the sexuality section doesn't exist ! It doesn't exist because you have removed it innumerable times. Maybe you can begin to perceive the problem here. — goethean ॐ 19:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

You can (obviously) tag the marriage section; don't make me think for you. Further, if you don't understand the difference between what a source says and how a wikipedia editor uses a source, then you are just not suited to editing wikipedia. I'm trying to work with you here, Gothean, but stick to content discussions and stop whining about some imaginary oppression. it's a non-starter. --Ludwigs2 20:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough Ludwigs2, agree with your edit summary. Thanks. --TheMandarin (talk) 09:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to note here that after Ludwigs2 scolded me like a child for pointing out that my past additions of a disputed tag had been repeatedly reverted, my addition of the tag was promptly reverted by User:TheMandarin, who would apparently prefer that I be kept from editing the article in any way. — goethean ॐ 15:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

And I've restored the tag for the short term, so taht we can have a reasonable discussion about making compromise changes. I'll ope a section below where we can do that. --Ludwigs2 18:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Goethean, before you add the disputed tags ( You have previously violated 4RR ), see WP:BURDEN--"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed"; The material you try to keep inserting ( for over an year now ) is completely inaccurate and misrepsentation of sources. WP:AD specifically tells: "If you are sure that a statement is factually inaccurate then remove it,..." Pls re-read WP:IMPERFECT, it talks about "incomplete or poorly written first drafts" and about article evolution, clearly not applicable here. --TheMandarin (talk) 05:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Anyone who has looked at the quoted material can see that my edits use sources in a professional and scholarly way. — goethean ॐ 12:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

To give one small example, anyone who reads the Ramakrishna article in Gale's encyclopedia or religion( Vol 11, pp.7611-7614 ) knows that your edits are misrepresentation of sources. The same with Doniger's Foreword. BTW edit warring about misrepresented sources/failed verification and adding a tag for the entire article is not appropriate, and this needs to be reverted. --TheMandarin (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Just a general question

Why is there no discussion of Ramakrishna's sexuality in the biographical section of the article? As some of you may know, I have added well-sourced material to the Marriage section 10-20 times over the past several years, but rather than improving the contributed material, it seems to have been quickly removed each time without a trace within a few hours. Is the implicit claim that no scholar worth noting has ever discussed the topic? Or that Ramakrishna was a human being who did not have sexuality? (Even that would surely be worth noting, if sources which meet User:TheMandarin's quirky ad hoc policies could be located.) Is Wikipedia officially endorsing Ramakrishna's status as a divine being? (It frankly wouldn't surprise me at this point.) Or is it that the biographical section is reserved for orthodox religious views only, with the dirty scholars being relegated to the "Views and studies" section? As always, I thank you for your guidance on matters scholarly as well as spiritual. — goethean ॐ 17:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The point is not about Ramakrishna's sexuality--which has already been discussed in detail with due weightage--but its about how you misrepresent sources; Just a quick analysis of your misrepresented sources:

• Wendy Doniger's Foreword does not talk about marriage and link it with sexuality. In fact she is careful and uses "alleged" when mentioning sexuality
• I dont think Radice makes any mention of marriage and link it with sexuality, in fact he ridicules Kripal's work is a "mansion of fun"; Radice tells that Sil's works are unreliable. Nor does he endorse Sil, and uses "argues".
• Hatcher and Neevel specifically write : "His marriage to Sa¯rada¯ was never consummated.." on p.7611 and do not link marriage and sexuality. They reserve the discussion on sexuality to the "interpretations on ramkrishna" section.
• Gerald Larson does not agree with psychoanalytic interpretations, let alone link marriage and sexuality.
• Hawley gives a diagonally opposite view to what you are trying to present later on.
• The list can go on with other scholars...Rajat Kanta Ray, Bhaskar Mukhopadhyay, etc., Even Gayatri Spivak in Other Asias by Wiley-Blackwell while discussing about freud, psychoanalysis and its application to Ramakrishna, does not link sexuality with marriage.

For something to be presented as a fact, it needs universal acceptance and your own references do not justify it--fails verification; Why dont you simply ask for WP:mediation if you are so confident and think that it is "well-sourced"? I will be more than happy to share the journals, articles.

As always, I thank you for the ad hominem attacks and sarcasm and which are readily ignored by all the other editors. --TheMandarin (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, you are dodging and evading my very simple, direct question. Why can't we discuss Ramakrishna's sexuality in the main biography section of the article? — goethean ॐ 18:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, you are ignoring what other editors, including User:RegentsPark, User:Ludwigs2, myself are saying from ages. Let me quote RegentsPark--"...Given all this, that a biography article should emphasize factual biographical material, that the article's primary focus should be on whatever makes the individual notable, and that the sexuality material is neither universally accepted nor wholly supported by writers on Ramakrishna..." and presenting it as a fact is out of question, esp when we have WP:NPOV--TheMandarin (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

No one is asking you to present it as fact. It can be presented as a hypothesis, as a point of view, as an argument, as a theory, as a topic of discussion, as a despised product of sex-obsessed American pervert professors. What you are doing is making sure that it isn't presented at all. Let's just agree on a policy formulation, so we won't have to discuss this anymore. How's this:

Under no circumstances are editors allowed to discuss Ramakrishna's sexuality in the biographical section of this article.

How does that sound? Definitive enough for you? — goethean ॐ 19:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

There is already a section on that in the main article, where the views are discussed with due-weightage and neutrally. Would you answer the question on encyclopedia below without further digressions? --TheMandarin (talk) 08:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Every time that I have added content on Ramakrishna's sexuality to the biography section, you have removed it, without the slightest attempt to improve on it or offer suggestions as to what would be acceptable to you. That is an undeniable fact, although somehow you still appear to be denying it. With this policy statement, I'm merely attempting to formalize and explicate the practical rules that you have imposed on me. (Who put you in this position remains an open queston.) Since you are still practicing evasion, avoidance, and deception, I don't feel particularly inclined to trek to the library during a snowstorm and locate a copy of an encyclopedia that I once cited in order to prove my good intentions to you, especially since that proof will certainly be immediately discarded. — goethean ॐ 15:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Pls stop your bad-faith accusations. The material that you "once cited" is completely misleading in the "eccentric" sexuality material you are trying to add. The burden to verify the sources before adding is on you according to the WP policy, even though this may include a "trek to the library" or buying a online copy at your expense. Thanks. --TheMandarin (talk) 15:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Let me ask you a direct question: Why do the scholars Brain Hatcher and Neevel--you have misrepresented--in their Gale's encyclopedia of religion vol 11 reserve the discussion on sexuality to the section "Interpretations of Ramakrishna" and not in the main biography ? Why is there no discussion on sexuality in the biography section of Britannica encyclopedia? Why is there no discussion on sexuality in the biography section of Springer Encyclopedia of Psychology and Religion ( p.753 ) --TheMandarin (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Mandarin makes good points here. Jack B108 (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Pardon moi, s'il vous plait. TheMandarin, a la "The Ohio State University". LOL. Peace, Jack B108 (talk) 18:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I placed a question at the help desk about controversial sources here. I find the admin's answer helpful:

“If information is controversial, cite the source explicitly so it is clear that cited text is not universally accepted. For example, say "According to John Doe, the earth is flat. However, Jane Smith states that the earth is more doughnut shaped". In other words, where there is NOT agreement in academic sources, Wikipedia should also not pretend there is agreement. Let the article be in the voice of the experts, since Wikipedia's voice is supposed to be neutral, if there is a genuine disagreement among academics, then make that explicit in the article. However, and I cannot stress this enough, do not give undue weight to fringe opinions. If the overwhelming academic opinion is that John Doe is a crackpot, and no one gives his opinion any serious credence, then don't bother reporting his opinion at all. Just make sure the Wikipedia article reflects the general, mainstream understanding of the subject. And if the mainstream understanding is split, represent that as well.”

It looks to me, frankly, that the mainstream understanding is that Ramakrishna was not conflicted sexually. While the opinions of the few scholars that he was are not entirely insignificant, especially considering how much controversy they have generated (and therefore they may merit mention in the article), the fact that they are strongly and convincingly disputed suggests that such opinions could best be mentioned in a separate section dealing with contemporary scholarship, as they are now. Truth has a way of coming out eventually. If these non-mainstream views receive more support, and become more widely accepted, that change would be reflected in the article. If on the other hand, in time such views become more disputed and discounted, they may gain the status of fringe opinons, which change would also be reflected in the article (by their removal). Alas, how much energy we are wasting with this argument! How much we could have improved the article with constructive edits, if we weren't arguing here! Now pressure of work prohibits me from participating more... All the best to all the editors here.—Devadaru (talk) 03:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Re-read WP:FRINGE. What you are claiming is that sources deemed the most reliable by Wikipedia's WP:IRS policy endorse fringe theories. Not that they discuss them, but that they endorse them. And that doesn't make any sense. — goethean ॐ 08:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit-warring in tagging

Previous ANI discussion : [11]

A brief look at the edit-warring in tagging alone in the article during the past few years:

• [12]
• [13]
• [14]
• [15]

• [16]
• [17]
• [18] ( IP:looking at the edits and contribs looks like Goethean )

• [19]
• [20]
• [21]

1. Now the burden is on Goethean to prove his additions are correct, either by taking to appropriate noticeboard or WP:mediation and I shall share every single relevant journal, article and relevant material from new 2010 book (still unindexed by Google books), since the policy WP:IRS specifically talk "some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternate theories, or controversial within the relevant field." Also Interesting to note that scholars like Gerald Larson used by Goethean support this new thesis.
2. Adding a POV tag when there is no clear justification--esp when the sources say the contrary--is invalid and will be challenged.

Before adding a POV tag: Give a point by point analysis, currently the sources used by Goethean themselves present no clear view as pointed above--in fact few of them present the alternate view. Thanks. --TheMandarin (talk) 08:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

TheMandarin: I've readded the tag. I don't agree with the tag, and I have serious questions about Gothean's edits, but I think allowing the tag to stay on the page for a while does little harm and acts as a gesture of good faith. Maybe we can have a calm, relaxed talk page discussion if Gothean doesn't feel like his viewpoint is just being suppressed entirely. Let's give it two weeks, which is a decent amount of time to go over things and see if we can reach some sort of compromise position. --Ludwigs2 08:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

P.s. I'll add (since I just read over that section for the first time in a while) that the writing there is not as encyclopedic as it could be. it reads a bit like a story rather than a history, and it has odd excesses and omissions. for one, I'm not sure we need statements like "Their marriage is now seen in India, to be one of the most spiritual and perfect unions between a man and a woman"; even sourced that's a bit of a stretch on NPOV. On the other hand, I'm really curious why there's no mention of the fact that their marriage was supposedly celibate - I mean, it's been a while since I read up on RK, but if I remember correctly that was an issue that came up with some regularity in writings about him. this section (and others written like it) really should get a good copyedit. --Ludwigs2 09:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough Ludwigs2, support you addition of tag for sometime; Yes, the biography section has problems and there are bits and pieces of incoherent information, few of them by inexperienced IPs.. I am considering a comparison with sources like : Springer encyclopedia, Britannica, Gale's encyclopedia, Partha Chaterjee's Nation and its Fragments and will be improving the tone and remove useless stuff. Thanks for your helpful feedback. --TheMandarin (talk) 09:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)