Misplaced Pages

Talk:Ramakrishna: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:47, 19 February 2009 editRedtigerxyz (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers69,090 edits →Cherry Picked Quotes: +← Previous edit Latest revision as of 18:22, 25 September 2024 edit undoRasnaboy (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users56,173 edits Undid revision 1247709304 by 2409:4061:4E43:7E2B:0:0:AB48:100D (talk)Tag: Undo 
(637 intermediate revisions by 72 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkheader}} {{Talk header}}
{{FailedGA|16:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)|topic=|page=1}}
{{WPHinduismOldpeerreview}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 80K |maxarchivesize = 80K
|counter = 5 |counter = 10
|algo = old(7d) |algo = old(20d)
|archive = Talk:Ramakrishna/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Ramakrishna/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{Article history
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
|action1=WPR
{{WP India|class=B|importance=high|nested=yes|history=yes|history-importance=}}
|action1date=09:04, 4 October 2008
{{WPBiography|living = no|class = B|needs-infobox = yes|needs-photo = no|nested=yes|peer-review=yes}}
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Ramakrishna
{{WikiProject Hinduism|class=B|vedanta=yes|nested=yes|importance = high}}
|action1result=reviewed
}}
|action1oldid=242917210


|action2=WPR
{{archive box|auto=yes}}
|action2date=06:29, 24 October 2008
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Hinduism/Peer review/Ramakrishna
|action2result=reviewed
|action2oldid=246862644


|action3=GAN
== Sources section ==
|action3date=16:26, 27 January 2009
|action3link=Talk:Ramakrishna/GA1
|action3result=not listed
|action3oldid=266765815


|topic=philrelig
Goethean, creating a blank section to start an article, just to protest a perceived wrong, is a violation of ]. If Nvineeth removed that section from the lead, he was correct. Articles don't begin with a discussion of sources. I couldn't find a single biography that does so. If you do find one, there will be fifty more that do it the typical way. When there is a discussion of sources, it's at the end of an article. More often, there is simply a list of sources. Either way, it belongs at the end. Putting it at the beginning to make a point, or to push a point of view, are both incorrect. ]&nbsp;<i><sup>]</sup></i> 04:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
|currentstatus=FGAN
:Have you ever read a book? All scholarly books begin with a discussion of the primary documents. Why are you hiding the discussion of primary sources? First ], in blatant violation of ], moves the section to another article as well as inexplicably (apart from blatant POV, pro-Mission editing) removing the publication dates for the Kathamrita, and then you move the link to the end of the article. And there is, of course, no summary section per ]. It's almost as if you want to use a traditional, non-scholarly biography of the saint and remove all scholarly materials from the article. I guess that's what you would call "a perceived wrong". &mdash; ] ] 04:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
|otd1date=2018-08-16|otd1oldid=855054200
:::''"moves the section to another article as well as inexplicably"''
|otd2date=2020-02-18|otd2oldid=941231327
::Goethean, did you read ] + ]? When these things were discussed, you did not even participate, None of the articles begin with a lengthy discussion of the biographical sources, esp like the ], failed reference checks section that existed before. But I do feel that a small section overview without original research, and editorial comments like "highly problematic" will be a good addition. Can you find the FAs or GAs or biographies which begin with a very lengthy discussion like it existed before? --] (]) 06:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
}}
::Another question, have you seen a ] for a Bibliography ? (Check the category for the books article). When the discussions were made and the article was made into a bibliography, your did not even participate...the allegation of "blatant violation of ]" is false. --] (]) 10:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
{{Indian English}}
:::As is completely bleeding obvious to everyone here, what we are discussing is not a bibliography. It is a discussion of the primary source texts upon which a scholarly biography of Ramakrishna would be based. Of course, those interested in suppressing scholarly information and replacing it with religious texts from swamis might not care so much about that. &mdash; ] ] 12:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
{{WikiProject banner shell |living=no |collapsed=yes |class=B|vital=yes|listas=Ramakrishna|1=
::::''Goethean, did you read archived discussion + Peer review?''
{{WikiProject Biography|old-peer-review=yes}}
:::Actually, I ''wrote'' most of the archived discussion. And even if you got the pope to approve of this article, that still wouldn't make it neutral. By the way, why did you remove the publication dates for the Kathamrita? They are in , but have mysteriously disappeared . Was it just an innocent oversight? Or were you deliberately suppressing information <s>again</s>? &mdash; ] ] 13:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
{{WikiProject India|importance=high|history=yes|history-importance=high|bengal=yes|bengal-importance=high|assess-date=April 2012}}
This is beyond. No specific proposed changes are listed in this entire section. You are all just arguing with eachother because you like arguing on the internet, right? Could you take this somewhere else? This is an encyclopedia. ] (]) 14:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
{{WikiProject British Empire|importance=high}}
:I propose that the discussion of primary documents, now located at the vaguely-titled ] ] be returned to beginning of the biography section in the main Ramakrishna article, as it was in . To clarify, the discussion of primary biographical documents does not have to be identical to how it was in that version (obviously improvement is always good), but to remove the scholarly material in order to make way for a traditional hagiography is outrageous. Something the size of the first section (between the header "Biographical sources" and the header "Datta's Jivanavrttānta" would be fine. That material has been completely deleted by User:Priyanath and User:Nvineeth from all Ramakrishna-related articles in their present version. &mdash; ] ] 16:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|importance=Top}}

{{WikiProject Swami Vivekananda|importance=High|assessed=September 2013}}
:I apologize for having made this talk page a hate-fest. I just cannot sympathize with what seems to me to be a clear suppression of academic material in favor of religious material, material which appears to me to be false. User:Nvineeth's refusal to admit that he deleted the publication dates of the ''Kathamrita'' is a clear example of this. And I'm saddened that Misplaced Pages administrators don't seem to care about the integrity of Misplaced Pages content. &mdash; ] ] 16:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
{{WikiProject Hinduism|vedanta=yes|importance =Top}}

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

{{WikiProject Mysticism |importance=Low}}
*''"As is completely bleeding obvious to everyone here, what we are discussing is not a bibliography. It is a discussion of the primary source texts upon which a scholarly biography of Ramakrishna would be based."''-- Your were nowhere to be seen when the changes were underway and discussed and even the pope can verify this :), and ''another'' editor in the peer review suggested to make it a bibliography, so your allegations are untenable, to quote from Peer review: ''""Notes on Biographical sources" can be merged with "Bibliography", ..."'' All this was done with good faith, and proposed by a neutral editor.
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Top|NRM=yes|NRMImp=Top}}
*''"Actually, I wrote most of the archived discussion"''--The archives tells a different story. When specific were made related to the biography sources, you did not comment. And remember silence means acceptance according to wikipedia terms.
{{WikiProject Saints|importance=high}}
*''"I propose that the discussion of primary documents, "''--So do I, but definitely not at the begining, nor in greater depth. As an example you can check the encyclopedias listed above while discussing about Kali's Child. In fact, the very same encyclopedia article you have begins with the biography and not with the discussion on biographic sources.
{{WikiProject Yoga|importance=high}}
*''"User:Nvineeth's refusal to admit that he deleted the publication dates of the Kathamrita"''-- :-)) what do you want prove by this? The dates are :"1902, 1905, 1908, 1910 and 1932." On the similar lines I can say that even you are refusing to admit the failed reference checks, original research, personal comments in the article.
}}
*''"As an example of how ludicrous the situation is, the word "kathamrita" appears one time in the current revision of the article."''-- :) , did you check the references to, "Sri Ramakrishna, the Kathamrita and the Calcutta middle Classes: an old problematic revisited"?
*''"And I'm saddened that Misplaced Pages administrators don't seem to care about the integrity of Misplaced Pages content."''--Editors who are concerned about integrity refelect the same, for ex: trying to the article to an month older completely sacrifices the "integrity"..
Thanks!--] (]) 06:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

:::''And remember silence means acceptance according to wikipedia terms.''
::Sure. Please point out where that is spelled out in Misplaced Pages policy for me, would you? What I remember Misplaced Pages policy saying is that articles can always be improved no matter what obviously flawed "peer review" process this article has gone through, and that those improvements should be embraced and encouraged rather than fought by groups of sectarian editors through edit warring.
:::''did you check the references to, "Sri Ramakrishna, the Kathamrita and the Calcutta middle Classes: an old problematic revisited"?''
::Yeah, I saw that. I'm talking about the body of the article. The word '']'' never occurs, except in an image caption. The title of the primary source document for Ramakrishna's life has been removed from the article, along with all other discussion of the source documents. You have clearly and plainly worsened the article with your edits. &mdash; ] ] 13:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
:::''what do you want prove by this? ''
::The dates of the publication of the primary source documents for Ramakrishna's life are obviously the first fact that a scholarly article on Ramakrishna would start with. And my version of the article included it. One of the first things you did was to remove those dates. Then you began to fill the article with cant from the Ramakrishna Mission about how Nikhilananda's translation is so accurate. Cant which every contemporary scholar rejects. You removed my scholarly text and replaced it with falsehoods. That's why you keep citing sources from 1898 and removing my more recent scholarly references. That's why you have worsened the article with your edits. That's why the article is not neutral. That's why the text that you moved to other daughter articles needs to be replaced. &mdash; ] ] 13:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

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

::::Please see ]. &mdash; ] ] 21:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

:::::Please see the FAs : ], ], ], ]... BTW did you check the encyclopedia link you had posted? --] (]) 06:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

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

== 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 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. --] (]) 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 ] edit war with me to remove it? The fact is that this version of the article from April 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. &mdash; ] ] 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? ]&nbsp;<i><sup>]</sup></i> 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 Misplaced Pages 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 &mdash; the more people that start looking at this article and examining your and Nvineeth's behavior, the better off this article will be. &mdash; ] ] 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. --] (]) 06:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

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

== Circular Arguments ==

=== Argument 1 ===
# Goethean says, "Muller, Rolland, Isherwood, Neevel" are outdated
# 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"

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 ].

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

=== Argument 2 ===
# Goethean says, "Neevel is obselete"
# The same editor Goethean had Neeval (1976) under the title "Views on Ramakrishna". But now suddenly they become "obselete".
# 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.
# So calling Neevel obselete is ]

=== Argument 3 ===
# Goethean is not clear if it is "last 30 years" or . And there is no such guideline in wikipedia.

=== Argument 4 ===
# 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.
# Goethean also adds the mergeto tag!

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. --] (]) 06:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)



To summarize the above, you continue to refuse to use reliable, contemporary sources per Misplaced Pages 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". &mdash; ] ] 15:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

:See Goethean, you have acknowledge the 100 year old sources as of "scholars of giant historical importance" and at the same time you challenge their presence... --] (]) 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. &mdash; ] ] 15:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

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

== 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. --] (]) 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. We all clearly remember the way you tried to revert the article to an month older before. 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. --] (]) 07:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

:::Goethean, you are using using wikipedia to ]. 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 ]...Pls think about it. This is an example I wanted to give. Pls avoid ] --] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages editor. &mdash; ] ] 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 ] 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? ], 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 Misplaced Pages is not a branch of the Ramakrishna Mission or any other religious organization, the book should be ignored. &mdash; ] ] 17:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::Nice ], do you know who is Antonio De Nicholas, Rosette etc.,? Misplaced Pages policies does not give credence to the ] 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.--] (]) 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 ]
* ''There are four major sources of information for the life of Ramakrishna'' -- is ], 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 ] ) Also in the ''Gospel'' section, the other POVs of ], 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 is nowhere to been seen!
* Let me quote from NPOV Faq, ''"there are legitimate reasons for removing text because of bias"''
--] (]) 08:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

::The section has been put online by Goethean here : ] and I have marked the , let other editors see the issues. This section is not going in without these POVs, ORs, failed reference checks being addressed. --] (]) 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 ] in this article, add more info in ]. 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. --] <sup> ] </sup> 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. &mdash; ] ] 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? --] (]) 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. --] (]) 06:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

::''This section relies heavily on Sil and the other POV of Openshaw 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. &mdash; ] ] 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 Openshaw to the article before, was she notable then and suddenly became non-notable? --] (]) 05:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

This section should be "Quite a few problems", not "Few Problems"! --] (]) 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. &mdash; ] ] 01:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
:Pls "repair the damage"; I wonder what should be done with the editor who tried vandalism like ? Do you know as per ], 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,{{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."''}} --] (]) 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. --] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages editors, actively suppress. These editors have been assisted in thier censorship of this article by the neglect of Misplaced Pages administration. The article used to be something a scholar might approve of. In clear violation of Misplaced Pages 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. &mdash; ] ] 17:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
::::Disregarding your ], I would like to point out the missing POVs in your : 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 wikipedia. There is clearly a guideline in ] which prevents this. Also as per ], ''"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 ] accorded to each."''. --] (]) 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 ? Sorry this is not possible in wikipedia, nor are the one sided POV additions, with ]. --] (]) 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."'' 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. --] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 11:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

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

== Claim that discussing sex in lede is undue ==

] 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. &mdash; ] ] 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. ] (]) 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. &mdash; ] ] 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: ], , ], , , , , ], , . This group constitutes the majority of the most important writers on Bengali religion. &mdash; ] ] 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. &mdash; ] ] 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. ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages 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. &mdash; ] ] 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 ]:
----
There is no ] about what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion, but '''some types of comments are <u>never</u> acceptable''':
*Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other ]s (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'' ] is not a personal attack, though speculating on the real life identity of another editor may constitute ], 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. Misplaced Pages encourages a ]: 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. ] (]) 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. &mdash; ] ] 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. &mdash; ] ] 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. &mdash; ] ] 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." ] (]) 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 ] 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. --] 17:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

::, but you can more easily read the references ]. 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 ] and one by ]. 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 ]'s psychological writings, which are also about Ramakrishna's eccentric sexuality. It is a central issue. Only the religious organizations and devotees claim otherwise. &mdash; ] ] 18:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

::Of course, a reader of this article would be totally deceived about all of this &mdash; 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. &mdash; ] ] 18:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

:::Goethean, the conclusions of those few scholars is still a minority view, and ] clearly applies to the lede. There is no consensus to override ] here. Only one mainstream encyclopedia article even ''mentions'' this subject. Consensus and policy are both against you on this. ]&nbsp;<i><sup>]</sup></i> 18:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

::::I don't think that academic consensus is considered a minority view on Misplaced Pages. Evolution is a minority view, too. But Misplaced Pages 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. &mdash; ] ] 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. --] (]) 07:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
::::::Here is another quote from "from major peer-reviewed journals of religion, all published by major university presses", &mdash; ''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 ], ''"Wikipedians, as a class, tend to over-represent intellectuals from academia or members of subcultures. More university professors and computer programmers edit Misplaced Pages 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. {{=)}} {{unsigned|Ludwigs2}}

::Here is another article, ]. 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 ] --] (]) 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. &mdash; ] ] 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. &mdash; ] ] 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 ] 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 ]. That consensus doesn't exist, and doesn't appear imminent, to say the least. ]&nbsp;<i><sup>]</sup></i> 18:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

:::::''Putting minority views in the lede is about as clear a violation of ] 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 ] 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. &mdash; ] ] 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. &mdash; ] ] 19:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

:::::Can you check ], ]? --] (]) 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. &mdash; ] ] 13:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

== Problems with lede ==
Goethean, here is a list of problems with the , more specifically the last para:
# As per ], ''"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.
# 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 ]
# To give a simple example of npov, Dr. Openshaw , ''"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."''
# 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."'' 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"''
# 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.
# From ], "Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited."
# The edit summary, "SRK's sexuality is a major topic in contemportary academic discussions" is ]; 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''.
# The sentence, "Ramakrishna had a highly eccentric, homoerotic sexuality which was related to his mystical realization" is not neutral.
# 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 ], to which even Kripal does not agree.
# ] is not allowed in lead, for ex: another editor would cherry pick the quote from ''Kali's Child'' review, {{Quotation|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.}}
# Another example of how "deceptive" the lead can be is the example of the "castration" quote from Larson. Spivak very nicely addresses this, see ]. 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."''
# 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."'' (Univ. Press of Mississippi)

Goethean, I don't see anything "religious" in my arguments above, I suggest you to read ], ], ], ], ]. The addition of one sided POV, weasel line is not possible in the lead.
Here is another quote, {{Quote|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." --] (]) 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. &mdash; ] ] 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? ] (]) 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 ] in this article. --] <sup> ] </sup> 06:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

:::Its not contested by scholars, only by swamis and devotees. &mdash; ] ] 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. --] <sup> ] </sup> 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. &mdash; ] ] 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? &mdash; ] ] 13:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

:: Please read ] criticism section and count how much are swamis? Even Sil, who Kripal thanks, criticizes him. --] <sup> ] </sup> 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. ] (]) 14:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

:]. I put it at a sub-page because the long reference section will make a mess of this page. &mdash; ] ] 15:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

:: Thank you. Any comments from the other participants? Try to be concise. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 16:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

:::::. &mdash; ] ] 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. ] (]) 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. &mdash; ] ] 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. &mdash; ] ] 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 ] quotes. See also Ludwigs2's --] (]) 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 ] 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. &mdash; ] ] 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.:) --] (]) 06:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::Did you read ] and ] ? --] (]) 06:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

== Gadadhar versus Ramakrishna ==

, following normal usage by historians, used Ramakrishna's given name, Gadadhar. In the current ] version of the article, this has been changed to Ramakrishna, following the normal usage of hagiographers. This change should be reverted. See ], which uses "Mohandas" throughout, and ], which uses "Franklin Jones" until he changed his name. This article is about a historical figure first, and an object of worship second. &mdash; ] ] 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. --] (])

:I forgot to say that the claimed had ]. --] (]) 08:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

==Ramakrishna's sexuality==
Here's a question for my opponents --- what '''''are''''' your views of Ramakrishna's sexuality? I assume he was celibate. You think that he actually ''had no'' sexuality? You think it wasn't very interesting? You think that his mystical realization excluded sexuality? That it transcended it? It starts to sound a little silly. And what have the swamis and monks written about it? What do they think about it? They just pretend that its irrelevant and are content with it remaining taboo, and threatening to excommunicate everyone who discusses it? That's a little weird, especially when we are studying someone who , who , and who was a . I'm sorry that some devotees seem to be uncomfortable discussing sex, but its not fair to our readers to exclude the academic community from the article. &mdash; ] ] 20:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

:Oh no, not all are uncomfortable about sex at least me, and I am extremely comfortable to talk about it. Instead of me saying something that is ], you can find your answers here, . And dont tell that Somnath Bhattacharyya is a non-notable scholar, because I have edits from you, in which you have added him. I have another question for you, why are you censoring and removing materials which throw light on Ramakrishna's sexuality? for example this removes openshaw and I also have edits from you in which you added openshaw before. Here is openshaw's answer, to your question, ''"The sexual orientation of this complex figure could not have been expected to emerge from the sources available in the first place. But in any case, does it really matter?"''
:Any more circular arguments / questions? --] (])

:Here is another answer from Jean Varenne; Derek Coltman from the book ''Yoga and the Hindu Tradition''. University of Chicago Press. p. 151. ''"we know that certain Tantric practices, condemned as shockingly immoral, are aimed solely at enabling the adept to make use of the energy required for their realization in order to destroy desire within himself root and branch"'' --] (]) 06:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

:Another answer, from Elizabeth U. Harding from the book ''Kali: The Black Goddess of Dakshineswar''. pp. 74-75. ''"Through the steadfast spiritual practice, the godlike aspirant rouses the Kundalini and makes her pierce the six centers of mystic consciousness.It is sheer nonsense and gross perversion to truth to brand it as gross egoistic hedonism or unrestrained sensualism. Rama Prasada, Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, Bama Ksepa, and other Sakta saints attained God-realization"'' or If yo prefer Hugh Urban's answer, ''"Kripal lapses all too often into a very popular misconception of Tantra as something "scandalous, seedy, sexy, and dangerous" (p. 32),"''<sup></sup> --] (]) 06:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

::To my knowledge, Bhattacharyya's essay was not published in a peer-reviewed academic journal. Surely that is not an accident. Varenne quotation is irrelevant. Openshaw, I believe, was not in a peer-reviewed journal. Your quotation from Harding is appropriate (although it doesn't really contradict my quotations, since Kripal's entire thesis was that Ramakrishna's practices were not hedonistic, but rather mystical and ontological, which would be completely obvious had you read or understood Kripal's book or its academic reviews), but the Urban one is off-topic, because it has no bearing on Ramakrishna's sexuality. Your quotations need to say that Ramakrishna's sexuality was totally normal. Don't you find it a little ''strange'' that you can't find anything like that when you claim that my views are so absurd, undue, and crazy? &mdash; ] ] 12:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

== Cherry Picked Quotes ==

Goethean writes above that, {{Quote|
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."''<sup></sup>, 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 ] clearly addresses its exclusion. See also ].

* 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.'''<sup></sup>

* 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'''<sup></sup>


{{Archive box|auto=yes|search=yes}}
* 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'''.<sup></sup>


== Obvious error restored by User:Gbohoadgwwian ==
=== 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."'''<sup></sup>


The statement about the Cohen paper was plain wrong.
* ...A second problem arises from Kripal's understanding of "Tantra" and '''his identification of Ramakrishna as a "Tantrika."'''<sup></sup>


the paper does not say this and by restoring an incorrect phrase, Gbohoadgwwian is taking the BURDEN to be repsonsible for adding mistakes to wikipedia.
* Kripal lapses all too often into a very popular misconception of Tantra as something "scandalous, seedy, sexy, and dangerous" (p. 32),<sup></sup>


i have read this paper, and this is not what the Martin Cohen paper says.
* 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.<sup></sup>


The paper is this
=== 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.'''<sup></sup>


Cohen, Martin (2008). "Spiritual Improvisations: Ramakrishna, Aurobindo, and the Freedom of Tradition". Religion and the Arts. BRILL. 12 (1–3): 277–293. doi:10.1163/156852908X271079.
* 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.'''<sup></sup>


See this https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ramakrishna&diff=833953063&oldid=833939069
* 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.<sup></sup>


== Tota Puri ==
* The Fathers of the Christian Church had a similar problem. And while granting the importance of the 'secret talk' passages, and concurring with ]'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.'''<sup></sup>


The section is WAY to much for Tota Puri. He was one of Ramakrishna's gurus, but has a massive presence in the section about Ramakrishna's sadhana. Need to move much (almost all) to a Tota Puri article. I've encountered this Toda Puri empathisis before, including claiming that Puri was his only guru, which runs contrary to RK's whole outlook on the various religions and teachers. Puri wasn't the first or last.
* 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.<sup></sup>


Any others feel this way? ] (]) 16:14, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
* 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?<sup></sup>


:Yes, I too feel this way. The section on Tota Puri blocks the reader from the rest of the article following it by it's sheer size. ] (]) 02:39, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
* 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.<sup></sup>
::I am also in favor for creating another article for Tota Puri as currently there is none. ] (]) 02:41, 12 October 2022 (UTC)


== Ramakrishna's Given Name ==
* 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.<sup></sup>


This is about a change to the birth name of Ramakrishna. I changed this:
=== 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.'''


::'''Ramakrishna Paramahansa''' (]: রামকৃষ্ণ পরমহংস, <small>]:</small> ''Ramôkṛṣṇo Pôromohôṅso''; pronounced ]] <sup>]</sup>, 18 February 1836 – 16 August 1886), also spelled '''Ramakrishna Paramahamsa''', born '''Gadadhar Chattopadhay...'''
* "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."


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


::'''Ramakrishna Paramahansa''' (]: রামকৃষ্ণ পরমহংস, <small>]:</small> ''Ramôkṛṣṇo Pôromohôṅso''; pronounced ]] <sup>]</sup>, 18 February 1836 – 16 August 1886), also spelled '''Ramakrishna Paramahamsa''', born '''Ramakrishna Chattopadhay...'''
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 ]. If required we can go for dispute resolution, like Bluptr said. We also discuss on ], ], ], ] 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. --] (]) 06:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


It is quite common for Bengalis to use nicknames - even various nick names for the same people. Research into original documents has brought forward information that was unavailable or overlooked before. Here was the line of thinking about the Ramakrishna birth name:
:As anyone familiar with Misplaced Pages 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. &mdash; ] ] 12:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


Most books just quote earlier books about Ramakrishna, that his childhood name was Gadadhar - but without a reference or primary source. A few books claim that the name Ramakrishna was given by Tota Puri during an initiation. Other's claim the name was given by Mathur Babu (the Rani's son-in-law and manager of the temple), again without primary sources.
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.
&mdash; ] ] 13:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


However, in M's ''Sri Sri Ramakrishna Kathamrita,'' he quotes a deed signed in 1861 by the Rani Rasmani (who owned Dakshineswar, the temple where Ramakrishna lived for over thirty years) that in 1858 "Ramakrishna" was paid a monthly stipend of 5 rupees and 3 pairs of cloth. Tota Puri didn't come to the temple until 1864.<ref>{{cite book |last= Chetanananda |first= Swami |date= 2003|page=311|title= Sri Ramakrishna and his divine play |publisher= Vedanta Society of St. Louis|isbn= 978-0916356811}}</ref>
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


In Swami Phabhananda's book, ''More About Ramakrishna'',<ref>{{Cite book |last=Prabhananda |title=More About Ramakrishna |publisher=Advaita Ashrama, |year=1993 |isbn=978-8175050778 |edition=1st |location=India |pages=23 |language=English}}</ref> the first chapter is titled ''Who Gave the Name Ramakrishna and When?,'' he points out that the family was devoted to the Hindu deity ] (the family deity was Sri Raghubir, an epithet of Rama), and the male children of Khudiram and Chandramani were all given names that started with Ram or Rama: Ramkumar, Rameswar, and Ramakrishna.
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. &mdash; ] ] 13:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


Also, Ramakrishna confirmed this himself, as recorded in the original "M" diaries, recently translated by Swami Chetanananda from copies of the hand written Bengali originals, "I was a pet child of my father. He used to call me Ramakrishnababu."


Note: Prabhananda was the historian of the Ramakrishna Order and for a long time was head of the Institute of Culture in Calcutta, where visiting scholars can study and access the archives of the Order.<ref>Biography of Swami Prabhananda</ref> For more than 40 years, Chetanananda has been re-translating key books of the Order's history and writing about Ramakrishna, Sarada Devi and their disciples, referring to the most authoritative sources in the original Bengali, adding to, and correcting, the Order's history.<ref>Profile of Swami Chetanananda and the St. Louis Vedanta Society in the St. Louis Post Dispatch </ref><ref>]</ref>
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 ] and possibly false. To point a few problems:
* Problem; "many" is ] 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 --> ] 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 analyses are right on target." no explicit mention of homoerotic. ]
* 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. --] <sup> ] </sup> 13:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


] (]) 08:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
== Impact ==


::Can anyone give any relevant reference about his birth name? Maybe from Kathamrita. I think it was Gadadhar which is commonly accepted.] (]) 11:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
I saw this sentence added in the Impact section:


:::The references are listed below. It seems that the Order is correcting the record, based on research and recent translations. Gadadhar was certainly his boyhood nickname. The male given names seems to back this up - Ramkumar, Rameswar, and Ramakrishna. And when Ramakrishna joined Ramkumar at Dakshineswar, he would have used his proper name, not a boyhood nickname. Thank you ] (]) 08:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
<blockquote>"Scholars<sup></sup> contend that the Ramakrishna Movement has suppressed, and continues to suppress information related to Ramakrishna's sexuality and to his tantric practices.<sup></sup><sup> </sup><sup> ]</sup><sup></sup><sup> </sup><sup> </sup><sup></sup><sup>"</sup></blockquote>


{{reflist-talk}}
IMO, this sentence is ] in this section: allegations of suppressing material is attributed to Ramakrishna Movement NOT Ramayana, not worth discussing here. --] <sup> ] </sup> 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? &mdash; ] ] 12:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


If "Ramakrishna" was his given name, what was his sannyas name?] (]) 07:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
:: This is article about "RAMAKRISHNA", assuming you may know, not Ramakrshna Mission or movement. --] <sup> ] </sup> 12:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


:In Hindu tradition, those gurus who are considered an ] have the same given name and sannyasa name. Thus Shankara and Ramakrishna who are considered as avatars had no name change, but gurus like Ramanuja (given name: Ilaiyalvar) and Madhvacharya (given name: Vāsudeva) who aren't considered as avatars had their names changed after taking up sannyasa. This is the reason which a Hindu scholar gave for the unchanged names of some gurus after taking up sannyasa. ] (]) 13:04, 24 July 2024 (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. &mdash; ] ] 12:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:22, 25 September 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ramakrishna article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 20 days 

Former good article nomineeRamakrishna was a Philosophy and religion good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 4, 2008WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
October 24, 2008WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
January 27, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 16, 2018, and February 18, 2020.
Current status: Former good article nominee
This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconBiography
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Note icon
This article has had a peer review which is now archived.
WikiProject iconIndia: West Bengal / History High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject West Bengal (assessed as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as High-importance).
Note icon
This article was last assessed in April 2012.
WikiProject iconBritish Empire High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconAlternative views Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSwami Vivekananda High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Swami Vivekananda, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Swami Vivekananda on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Swami VivekanandaWikipedia:WikiProject Swami VivekanandaTemplate:WikiProject Swami VivekanandaSwami Vivekananda
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article was last assessed in September 2013.
WikiProject iconHinduism: Philosophy Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Philosophy task force (assessed as Top-importance).
WikiProject iconPhilosophy: Philosophers / Religion / Eastern High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Philosophers
Taskforce icon
Philosophy of religion
Taskforce icon
Eastern philosophy
WikiProject iconSpirituality Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirituality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spirituality-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpiritualityWikipedia:WikiProject SpiritualityTemplate:WikiProject SpiritualitySpirituality
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMysticism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Mysticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mysticism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MysticismWikipedia:WikiProject MysticismTemplate:WikiProject MysticismMysticism
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconReligion: New religious movements Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as Top-importance).
WikiProject iconSaints High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Saints, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Saints and other individuals commemorated in Christian liturgical calendars on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SaintsWikipedia:WikiProject SaintsTemplate:WikiProject SaintsSaints
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconYoga High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Yoga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Yoga, Hatha yoga, Yoga as exercise and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YogaWikipedia:WikiProject YogaTemplate:WikiProject YogaYoga
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Archiving icon
Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10


This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Obvious error restored by User:Gbohoadgwwian

The statement about the Cohen paper was plain wrong.

the paper does not say this and by restoring an incorrect phrase, Gbohoadgwwian is taking the BURDEN to be repsonsible for adding mistakes to wikipedia.

i have read this paper, and this is not what the Martin Cohen paper says.

The paper is this

Cohen, Martin (2008). "Spiritual Improvisations: Ramakrishna, Aurobindo, and the Freedom of Tradition". Religion and the Arts. BRILL. 12 (1–3): 277–293. doi:10.1163/156852908X271079.

See this https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ramakrishna&diff=833953063&oldid=833939069

Tota Puri

The section is WAY to much for Tota Puri. He was one of Ramakrishna's gurus, but has a massive presence in the section about Ramakrishna's sadhana. Need to move much (almost all) to a Tota Puri article. I've encountered this Toda Puri empathisis before, including claiming that Puri was his only guru, which runs contrary to RK's whole outlook on the various religions and teachers. Puri wasn't the first or last.

Any others feel this way? Ellis408 (talk) 16:14, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I too feel this way. The section on Tota Puri blocks the reader from the rest of the article following it by it's sheer size. RamasSquirrel (talk) 02:39, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
I am also in favor for creating another article for Tota Puri as currently there is none. RamasSquirrel (talk) 02:41, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Ramakrishna's Given Name

This is about a change to the birth name of Ramakrishna. I changed this:

Ramakrishna Paramahansa (Bengali: রামকৃষ্ণ পরমহংস, romanized: Ramôkṛṣṇo Pôromohôṅso; pronounced , 18 February 1836 – 16 August 1886), also spelled Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, born Gadadhar Chattopadhay...

To this:

Ramakrishna Paramahansa (Bengali: রামকৃষ্ণ পরমহংস, romanized: Ramôkṛṣṇo Pôromohôṅso; pronounced , 18 February 1836 – 16 August 1886), also spelled Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, born Ramakrishna Chattopadhay...

It is quite common for Bengalis to use nicknames - even various nick names for the same people. Research into original documents has brought forward information that was unavailable or overlooked before. Here was the line of thinking about the Ramakrishna birth name:

Most books just quote earlier books about Ramakrishna, that his childhood name was Gadadhar - but without a reference or primary source. A few books claim that the name Ramakrishna was given by Tota Puri during an initiation. Other's claim the name was given by Mathur Babu (the Rani's son-in-law and manager of the temple), again without primary sources.

However, in M's Sri Sri Ramakrishna Kathamrita, he quotes a deed signed in 1861 by the Rani Rasmani (who owned Dakshineswar, the temple where Ramakrishna lived for over thirty years) that in 1858 "Ramakrishna" was paid a monthly stipend of 5 rupees and 3 pairs of cloth. Tota Puri didn't come to the temple until 1864.

In Swami Phabhananda's book, More About Ramakrishna, the first chapter is titled Who Gave the Name Ramakrishna and When?, he points out that the family was devoted to the Hindu deity Rama (the family deity was Sri Raghubir, an epithet of Rama), and the male children of Khudiram and Chandramani were all given names that started with Ram or Rama: Ramkumar, Rameswar, and Ramakrishna.

Also, Ramakrishna confirmed this himself, as recorded in the original "M" diaries, recently translated by Swami Chetanananda from copies of the hand written Bengali originals, "I was a pet child of my father. He used to call me Ramakrishnababu."

Note: Prabhananda was the historian of the Ramakrishna Order and for a long time was head of the Institute of Culture in Calcutta, where visiting scholars can study and access the archives of the Order. For more than 40 years, Chetanananda has been re-translating key books of the Order's history and writing about Ramakrishna, Sarada Devi and their disciples, referring to the most authoritative sources in the original Bengali, adding to, and correcting, the Order's history.

Ellis408 (talk) 08:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Can anyone give any relevant reference about his birth name? Maybe from Kathamrita. I think it was Gadadhar which is commonly accepted.Mikemarssss (talk) 11:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
The references are listed below. It seems that the Order is correcting the record, based on research and recent translations. Gadadhar was certainly his boyhood nickname. The male given names seems to back this up - Ramkumar, Rameswar, and Ramakrishna. And when Ramakrishna joined Ramkumar at Dakshineswar, he would have used his proper name, not a boyhood nickname. Thank you Ellis408 (talk) 08:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. Chetanananda, Swami (2003). Sri Ramakrishna and his divine play. Vedanta Society of St. Louis. p. 311. ISBN 978-0916356811.
  2. Prabhananda (1993). More About Ramakrishna (1st ed.). India: Advaita Ashrama,. p. 23. ISBN 978-8175050778.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
  3. Biography of Swami Prabhananda
  4. Profile of Swami Chetanananda and the St. Louis Vedanta Society in the St. Louis Post Dispatch
  5. Vedanta Society of St. Louis


If "Ramakrishna" was his given name, what was his sannyas name?Oliver Puertogallera (talk) 07:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

In Hindu tradition, those gurus who are considered an Avatar have the same given name and sannyasa name. Thus Shankara and Ramakrishna who are considered as avatars had no name change, but gurus like Ramanuja (given name: Ilaiyalvar) and Madhvacharya (given name: Vāsudeva) who aren't considered as avatars had their names changed after taking up sannyasa. This is the reason which a Hindu scholar gave for the unchanged names of some gurus after taking up sannyasa. Rim sim (talk) 13:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Categories: