Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:31, 24 October 2008

Suppressed Literature

Kripal admits:

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. (see: .)

So in the second edition of Kali's Child, I would imagine he no longer makes this claim. The article could be adjusted to note that he made the claim in the first edition, or that portion could be deleted. Devadaru (talk) 11:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Controversy/Bibliography

Brian Hatcher's review essay in the International Journal of Hindu Studies 3,2 (Aug 1999) has a largish biblio (though for some reason he missed Urban's and McLean's reviews) with citations of other literature. Directly relevant reviews and articles (and one exchange, Larson vs Kripal) listed:

• Swami Atmajnanananda, IJHS 1,2 (1997)
• David Haberman, Journal of Asian Studies 56,2 (1997)
• John Hawley, History of Religion 37,4 (1998)
• Gerald Larson, The Journal of the American Academy of Religion 65,3 (1997)
  • (reply) Kripal, JAAR 66,3 (1998)
  • (rejoinder) Larson, JAAR 66,3 (1998)
• Carl Olson, IJHS 1,1 (1997)
• Jean Oppenshaw, Times Higher Education Supplement (15-Sep-1995)
• André Padoux, Archives de sciences sociales des religions 41 (Apr-Jun, 1996)
• William Parsons, Religious studies review 23,4 (1997)
• William Radice, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 61,1 (1998)
• Rajat Ray, Indian economic and social history review 34,1 (1997)
• Narasingha Sil, RISA-L (mailing list) (10-May-1998)
• TG Vaidyanathan, The Hindu (4-May-1997)
• Pravrajika Vrajaprana, Hindu-Christian studies bulletin 10 (1997)
• George Williams, Hindu studies review 2 (e-Journal, 1997)

Sil's and Williams' articles may not be available - The RISA-L archives are closed to non-members, and the Hindu Studies Review has disappeared from the California State Univ Chico website (Williams has retired). rudra (talk) 09:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Update: Sil's 10-May-1998 post to the RISA-L was also archived elsewhere. rudra (talk) 10:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That's some great stuff if anyone was wondering just exactly how much Narasingha Sil hates fags. Good luck finding that certain someone. — goethean ॐ 17:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Update 2: Williams' article, cached at archive.org. rudra (talk) 21:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Update 3: The date of Oppenshaw's review in Hatcher's biblio is wrong. It should be 15-Dec-1995. Also: Oppenshaw's review of Sil's revised book. rudra (talk) 23:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The Intro., and POV.

After a scathing review written by historian Narasingha Sil was published in The Statesman, the book caused intense controversy among both Western and Indian audiences which still persists unresolved — None of the references indicate this cause and effect mentioned in the intro. In fact, urban says in the journal, "in the short time since its publication....". and the review appeared two years later.

Could somebody pls explain me, how a POV can be claimed by saying — " please stop using Misplaced Pages for religious prosyletizing "

-- vineeth (talk) 04:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

"Scholars"

There is a serious reoccuring error in this and the other Ramakrishna articles. Nvineeth writes: "Scholars indicate x...." It should be "Alan Roland argues y" or "In his 2001 article, Jeffrey Kripal says z" There is no scholars in the abstract. There is one or two people who have writen a particular thing, which was published in a particular place. I will remove all instances of referring to abstract scholars "indicating" whatever. It is highly POV, and an amateurish tactic. — goethean ॐ 16:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes indicate is not correct (my mistake), but so is allege (which was introduced later).

• According to the NPOV tutorial, Misplaced Pages:NPOV_tutorial#Bias_in_attribution:_Mind_your_nuances - "Neutral ways of expressing a statement -- "said," "wrote," "stated" -- are the safest".
• According to NPOV:Words to avoid — "Argued" is neutral and useful to paraphrase how someone has promoted a view or idea.

Thanks for corrections involving argued, but the allegations will be removed. -- vineeth (talk) 10:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Huston Smith fragment --- needs context

This edit re-introduced a decontextualized sentence fragment after I removed it and requested a larger context. If we can't even obtain the entire sentence, the quotation is usless. A larger context would be better. — goethean ॐ 16:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, Priyanath fixed it here. — goethean ॐ 16:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

"Arguments on"...

There is no need to mention "Arguments on" in each title. I have fixed this. Bluptr (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)