Talk:The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna

Deceptive editing
I have added the NPOV template to the article. This article gives an absolutely false impression of the Nikhilanda translation. The translation itself is inaccurate and highly deceptive, as any religion scholar can tell you. The template will presumably stay until I can correct the article's mis-statements. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 14:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "absolutely false impression "
 * Quote from reliable sources and prove your point, dont simply add the NPOV tag. Explain the relevant issues in detail. -- vineeth (talk) 18:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

"Making neutral" versus reality
I have a suggestion. Instead of "making neutral" why don't we just tell the truth? The Nikhilananda translaton is censored. He removed the naughty parts, and didn't tell his readers what he removed. It is not a scholarly translation. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 15:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

And by the way, this "Western decorum" phrase has got to go. What you mean is that the translation follows a Victorian sense of decorum, i.e., it removes the parts that may be seen by the sensitive as naughty. Bowdlerization. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 15:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In fact the dif you use above was making the article neutral - I changed it to read simply 'translation', rather than Nvineeth's 'virtually complete' or your 'incomplete'. I agree about the 'Western decorum' phrase. And let's remember WP:UNDUE for these articles. You can look at other encyclopedia or neutral third party articles to see how Ramakrishna and the Gospel are treated. You'll see little or nothing from either the Ramakrishna Mission or the conservative religion scholars in a neutral presentation. ~ priyanath talk 15:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You'll see little or nothing from either the Ramakrishna Mission or the conservative religion scholars in a neutral presentation. 
 * That comment seems to represent a change in your thinking since our last debate. No? &mdash; goethean &#2384; 16:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I didn't make myself very clear. Other encyclopedia articles about Ramakrishna make no mention of the attempts to turn him into a bright primate driven entirely by primal urges and psychopathology (as opposed to someone having spiritual realization and experiences). My use of the word 'conservative' was a pejorative, and is retracted. I've since seen that Wikipedia articles about religious figures do use the institution/publisher/followers as sources when appropriate, so I was mistaken there also. ~ priyanath talk 22:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * ...the attempts to turn him into a bright primate driven entirely by primal urges and psychopathology (as opposed to someone having spiritual realization and experiences).
 * On a personal note, if that is how you would describe Kripal's work, then you are quite wrong and I suggest that you do more research. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 16:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "He removed the naughty parts, and didn't tell his readers what he removed."
 * Appreciate your point now, because even I was under exactly the same impression before my research started! I will be addressing this in the Kali's Child article and later add the relevant parts here.... BTW, the phrase "western decorum" occurs in at least two journals referring to swami nikhil's., translation... this is not my invention :) -- vineeth (talk) 16:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I will be addressing this in the Kali's Child article and later add the relevant parts here
 * There's no need to build suspense. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 16:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What is the factual accuracy being disputed with the tag? And the neutrality? ~ priyanath talk 02:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The whole article is messed up. It is dominated by large quotations that have been cherry-picked by the Ramakrishna Mission and devotees. The consensus among contemporary scholars is that the translation is faulty. This article, using carefully selected quotations from as far back as 1943 and another which is undated and unreferenced, gives the exact opposite impression. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 15:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The relevant things have been added in Kali's Child. The accusations of Kripal are discussed in detail there, and I have linked to that section. I am removing the POV tag. -- vineeth (talk) 08:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Why would "the relevant things" be at Kali's Child, and not here? Kripal is not the only contemporary South Asian scholar who has commented on the Gospel. I will add Sil's comments on the Gospel, which I believe are largely positive, so there's no need for you to oppose them on the grounds that they contradict your personal religious POV, the clearly driving factor in the majority of your edits. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 15:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "so there's no need for you to oppose them … your personal religious POV, the clearly driving factor in the majority of your edits."
 * Thanks for the personal attacks, and yes, everybody's driving factor, attitude is evident in the discussion and talk pages and of course in the edit summaries. Pls do add the relevant things indicated by Sil. -- vineeth (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see that you've recapitulated the entire debate over there &mdash; at least one side of it. That's unfortunate. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 16:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Goethean, please stop the personal attacks. Accusing a fellow editor of a 'personal religious POV' and of 'vandalism' (for removing a tag that you had not fully explained) are both over the line. Discuss the reliability of the sources instead. Nvineeth is editing in good faith, as his removal of the questionably referenced passage showed. Clearly, there are academics on both sides of this debate, and in the discussions at Kali's Child and Ramakrishna. Both sides need to be presented. That's what Nvineeth has started doing, and he deserves alot of credit for refraining from responding to your personal attacks in kind, and in providing a wealth of reliably sourced material from leading academics that is greatly improving these articles. ~ priyanath talk 17:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I will endeavor to assume good faith. However, your conduct is not blameless. You should get serious about editing this article in a more neutral, even-handed way, rather than defending the insertion of transparently religious content.  You (and Nvineeth) One cannot copy and paste quotations from the Ramakrishna Mission promotional literature and seriously expect Wikipedia editors to accept it as encyclopedic content. Quotations from 1976, and two from 1943? You really expect editors to accept this as a neutral summary of the relevant scholarship pertaining to the subject? These tactics won't get far in any Wikipedia article. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 18:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Goethean, let us not argue about editing in a neutral, even-handed way, and tactics .... A little bit of wikianalysis will reveal these characteristics about any editor.... You are concerned about the year of publication? The truth doesn't change over years, and BTW, the contemporary scholars &mdash; Sil, Kripal have used The Transformation of Ramakrishna as reference. I repeat, I am not a devotee who will try to censor … pls add the relevant things, the truth will burn its way out. Thanks!!! -- vineeth (talk) 03:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * How is the totally disputed tag relevant, when the article is well referenced?? — Nvineeth talk 09:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Holmes
The Holmes quotation should be removed. Nvineeth has failed to provide a reliable source for the quotation (Amazon.com promotional literature is decidedly not a reliable source). And Wikipedia doesn't use marketing blubs as encyclopedic content anyway. And the guy died in the 1960s, indicating that this blurb, like the rest of the content that Nvineeth added, is seriously out of date. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 15:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Done! -- vineeth (talk) 16:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)