Talk:Anantanand Rambachan

status
Speedy deletion was requested because "This page has been the subject of repeated vandalism and was used as a frame for a false, defamatory facebook profile. It is in the best interest of Dr. Rambachan for this page to simply be removed ".

As reviewing administrator, I declined to delete. As for vandalism on our page, we can deal with it; I have in fact dealt with it by semi-protectedthis page to prevent editing by unsigned-in and new editors for the next few months. The vandal-inserted material in the prior revisions can be hidden, & I shall do that also. But the damage outside has already been done, and nothing we do here can help that, except by maintaining an accurate and unvandalized page. It is possible to ask for deletion at AfD, but I strongly suggest otherwise, as it will only call unwanted attention.  DGG ( talk ) 07:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Anantanand Rambachan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070705131403/http://library2.nalis.gov.tt/Default.aspx?PageContentID=199&tabid=121 to http://library2.nalis.gov.tt/Default.aspx?PageContentID=199&tabid=121
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070705131403/http://library2.nalis.gov.tt/Default.aspx?PageContentID=199&tabid=121 to http://library2.nalis.gov.tt/Default.aspx?PageContentID=199&tabid=121
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071228185624/http://www.stolaf.edu:80/depts/religion/faculty/rambachan.html to http://www.stolaf.edu/depts/religion/faculty/rambachan.html
 * Added tag to http://fusion.stolaf.edu/news/index.cfm?fuseaction=NewsDetails&id=3174

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

SPS
The content you just restored is essentially all sourced to Rambachan himself. As such, those sources are all self-published. Their use is therefore problematic, and the content they are used for is rather promotional at this point. Please find secondary sources for the information, else I'm afraid I will have to remove it again. Vanamonde (talk) 09:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I undid a section blanking by for want of proper citation. The editor used this to remove the citation which made the citation garbled up and then this was where the section blanking was done. Crawford88 (talk) 09:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The criticism section is not primary. Crawford88 (talk) 09:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I didn't say primary. I said it was essentially Self-published, because that is Rambachan writing about himself. That is a problem, and if you don't understand why, you need to go read WP:NPOV carefully. Vanamonde (talk) 09:28, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, actualy Vanamonde wrote that he removed "excessive use of quotation in a biography," and then he removed the section on "Studies of classical Advaita," because "There is nothing here sourced to independent sources: the one source that seems independent is a broken ref, with insufficient information for retrieval." But I don't agree with this rationale for removal; it's a relevant section, because it provides relevant info on Advaita Vedanta. And I don't see why the author's work shouldn't be used in a biography; the author's has attracted attention because of it's criticism by Rajiv Malhotra; the author's works are a proper, that is veriable, source for an accurate presentation of his standpoint.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   10:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The references in question are: Rambachan is a notable "established expert on the subject matter." Calling publications by the University of Leeds and University of Hawaii Press "self-published" stretches beyond my imagination. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   10:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * JJ, the sources would be reliable in a different context, but we cannot use a subject's work work so extensively in their own biography. Perhaps I was incorrect to link to SPS rather than WP:INDEPENDENT, but the point remains the same. We cannot weight the views of the subject of a biography equivalently with that of critical commentary from RS. Whether Malhotra qualifies as such is also debatable, which is why I removed them both. Vanamonde (talk) 11:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * These publications are not about Rambacharan himself, but are his scholarly works. I see no problem in summarizing them.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   12:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, let me put it a different way to see if that makes any sense. In judging notability for scholars, we explicitly say that works they are authors of do not count towards coverage in secondary sources, even if, as with most scholars, those are highly reliable publications. In this case, we are not talking about notability, but due weight: and I believe the approach should be similar. We should cover those aspects of the subject that have received coverage in reliable, independent sources. At most I would use his own works to provide a brief summary of what he works on. And I would apply the same standard to Malhotra's work: I am not certain that the criticism has been substantive enough in reliable enough sources to cover so prominently here. Vanamonde (talk) 13:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand your point about Malhotra, though he probably attracts more 'general readers' than Rambachan himself does. But Rambachan's work is relevant apart from Malhotra; he provides a (surprising) critique of Vivekananda, who is without question a highly relevant author. Regarding coverage in reliable, independent sources:
 * Accomplishing the Accomplished: The Vedas as a Source of Valid Knowledge in Shankara: 60 citations in Google scholar
 * The Limits of Scripture: Vivekananda's Reinterpretation of the Vedas: 47 citations in Google scholar
 * But soit, the bottomline is that the quotes are there because of Malhotra's criticism, to provide some facts for Malhotra-readers.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   14:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * But that's precisely my point! If he has been referred to 60 times, then those 60 sources should form the substance of what we say about his work! And if they are there because they are referring to the criticism by Malhotra, then even better: we can use independent sources for Malhotra's criticism as well! Vanamonde (talk) 14:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Can
any watcher provide some good secondary sources covering him\his works? &#x222F; WBG converse 08:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * A one-paragraph review over.
 * A one-paragraph review over
 * A two-paragraph review over.
 * A one-page review over
 * A one-and-a-half-page review over
 * A one-and-a-half-page review over