Talk:Ramakrishna's samadhi

Neutrality
This article reads as religious literature written by a believer. Other views must be reported too. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the situation with all of the articles on Ramakrishna. The devotees rule them with an iron fist. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 14:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

There are other views, which argue that the Samadhi is pathological, present here Views_on_Ramakrishna, and its a good idea to move it back, with other contrasting views. --TheMandarin (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merge to Ramakrishna
I propose that this article should merge to the main article Ramakrishna. This article is a relatively small content fork of the main article and does not appear to warrant its own article when alternatives such as Samadhi are a more useful discussion.—Ash (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it is doubtful that the addition of this content will make the Ramakrishna article any worse than it already is. The Ramakrishna article is dominated by religious dogma of Ramakrishna devotees rather than historical fact. A group of editors have blocked me from adding any contemporary scholarship to the article. It is a disgrace. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 16:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ash : In the first place, this article was created from Views on Ramakrishna, and I don't think this topic warrants a separate article and can be merged there. Above there is a question about "Neutrality", the other article discusses other views, favourable and unfavourable.
 * goethean : as far as your personal attacks go, perhaps its a good idea to read the opinions of neutral admins, for ex: outside opinion --TheMandarin (talk) 17:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point, the section Views_on_Ramakrishna looks like the most appropriate alternative merge location.—Ash (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The "Ramakrishna" article is already way too long, and the contents of this article (largely medical testimonies about his samadhi) is too detailed to fit into it. It would break the flow and make the "Ramakrishna" article even worse for readers than it is now. I presume that the "Views on Ramakrishna" article was originally created precisely for this reason, namely to offload some of the detail that was too specialized and "boring" to stay in the main "Ramakrishna" article.  I split off the "Ramakrishna's samadhi" section to a separate article because its topic was quite different from the rest of "Views on Ramakrishna", which dealt with scholarly views on the philosophical, religious ad social aspects. Each Wikipedia article should have a well defined topic.  In fact, this principle says that the rest of "Views on Ramakrishna", too, should be split and merged into articles on "Ramakrishna's religion", "Ramakrishna's philosophy", "Social impact of Ramakrishna" (or whatever). I don't think it is appropriate to merge this article into "Samadhi" either (unless samadhi is somehow specifically or predominantly related to Ramakrishna --- is it?). IMHO, the current organization is best: "Ramakrishna" should be a general overview and biography, while details on specific aspects or Ramakrishna and the movement (like this one) should be in separate articles.  This is the normal arrangement for any major topic in Wikipedia. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 20:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)