User:Dbachmann/Talk:Krishnology

Five Points on Krishnology

 * The only term used to discuss theology on the Hindu deity Krishna is Krishnology. It has been used to discuss the theological positions of Vaishnava denominations such as Radhavallabha and Gaudiya Vaishnava.


 * Although the term Vaishnava Theology is an appropriate application to all subjects within Krishnology, it is also too broad of a term. Krishnology, as an aspect of Vaishnava Theology, is a more specified term and is not aplicable to discussions on the role of other Vaishnava avatara such as Rama, Kalki, Budha, etc.


 * The most important aspect of this distinguishment is discussed in the article; "An important outcome of Beck and Gosvami's work is that they have demonstrated how Krishnology is intradenominational by engaging both Gaudiya Vaishnava Theology and Radhavallabha Theology."


 * Just as Christology is a universal term within Christian Theology, and Momonism is specific to a form of Christianity; Vaishnavism is a universal term within Vaishnava Theology, and Krishnology is specific to certain forms of Vaishnavism.


 * Specialized terms exist to clarify communications. The term Krishnology is a useful term in clarifying the specifics of Vaishnava Theology, as has been shown by recent scholarship.

VfD result
Please do not take this as a final judgement. If the article should be merged, arrive at an agreement to do so and then do it. --Tony Sidaway Talk 03:02, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Re-write
There were some unsources statments and possible independent research, I attempted to remove these and do a general clean up. Ism schism (talk) 04:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Additions
I acknowledge that Ragual Samuel Rahator, Guy Beck and Tamala Krishna Goswami are recent scholars from the last half of the 20th century. I realize that they do not represent the long and wide range of scholarship, so please, any additions would be appreciated. This is just a start. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 05:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies
The article used to claim that the OCHS has dedicated itself to studying "Krishnology" in some way. I find no evidence of this. --dab (𒁳) 08:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Notability issues
"Krishnology" is essentially a nonce coinage modelled after Christology. It implies the comparison of Krishna as an avatar to Christ as an incarnation of God. It is correct that it was coined in a 1952 academic publication (in fact, there is nonce usage in 1929) and was again used in a subtitle in 2005. This makes for a dictionary entry, but not for a standalone article. Google books yields 29 hits for the term, besides the two works mentioned (and references to them) including This establishes: consequently, we cannot have a standalone article on the term. This can very easily be merged into a brief paragraph at Krishnaism. --dab (𒁳) 08:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * a 1986 quote "In India, christology is possible only as Krishnology"
 * a dictionary definition in Webster's Quotations
 * a 1989 reference denying the existence of "'Krishnology' parallel to Christology" (note scare quotes)
 * a 1995 reference to " an incipient dialogue on Christology-Krishnology"
 * "Krishnology" has the very limited application of comparison of Krishnaism to Christianity, and drawing parallels to the concepts of avatar and the incarnation of the Logos as Christ
 * the term is extremely rare. it does not denote a "field", it denotes a single idea within the larger field of Vaishna theology
 * Comment This is one editors opinion, and not a consensus to merge. There has been no consensus to merge. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with "opinion". Whatever my opnion, if you cannot turn this into a coherent article on a recognizable topic, you have no business edit-warring over it. It is very simple: either fix it, or leave it. I don't care which you do. --dab (𒁳) 07:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

some material to start expanding the article...

 * Avatār and incarnation: a comparative analysis


 * Basics of Hinduism


 * Encyclopaedia of Indian philosophy, Volume 2


 * Dialogue and syncretism: an interdisciplinary approach

Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, it is not enough to google the term "Krishnaism". You have to establish this as a coherent topic. "Krishnaism" is an ad-hoc coinage, I suspect sometimes even humorously, and you cannot assume that all your hits for "Krishnaism" are talking about the same thing.

You have not done anything of the kind for eight months. So I would ask you to either sit down and write the article, or else kindly step aside and allow me to fix this mess until you can be bothered to do the job. --dab (𒁳) 07:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Logical thing is to do AfD and see what is the consensus. I do not think this article is qualified to be just deleted or merged without a consensus. While I understand some concerns about it from your side dab, but really it has to work. There are other reasons here and the unnoticed merge was there for a while. Wikid as&#169; 10:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you understand AfD? I do not wish to delete this title, so why would I submit it to AfD? All I have done is merely collecting what little real information is present in this page and condensing it into a short paragraph at Krishnaism, making this title a R to section. As long as you are not working and actively improving and expanding this article, there is simply no reason for you to complain about this, as it isn't about "opinion" but simply about cleaning up what content we have. So unless you propose to do something about this right now, I will merge this back again, pending your doing anything about it. You are welcome to come back here and start working at any time, but please just leave it alone unless and until you do so. --dab (𒁳) 12:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that you appear to be pushing a very recent neologism, apparent from about 2005 or so, and used extremely rarely (seven google books hits or so). What you take this term to mean is "Krishnaist theology" or "Gaudiya theology", or something along these lines. We have an article about this, it is at Krishnaism.

The fact that full 50 years earlier, the term has already been used in a completely different sense does not help your case (not that you would have any even without this).

Wikipedia is not the place to push neologisms. I can confirm that the term "has been used" in the sense you seem to prefer, but extremely rarely, and by all appearances only by authors personally involved with ISKON. This is just a case for wiktionary. --dab (𒁳) 12:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that Wikipedia is not the place to push neologisms. I just do not agree that the article should be completely merged into Krishnaism. Because of the specifics and the fact that someone can just delete it if it is a section -- that what happened. Maybe it should be a subarticle to Krishnaism, but push for neologisms is a good argument, question is what to do about it. I still think that AfD will make it more clear, it had survived one 5 years back as it seems. Merging does not seem to be a good option but working in WP:SS maybe. Wikid as&#169; 15:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The longer I look into this, the more it becomes clear that this term doesn't even exist, except for either case gives me a single-digit number of google books hits. This may or may not be enough for a Wiktionary entry, but it is certainly not enough for a standalone Wikipedia article.
 * scattered nonce coinages over the years
 * ISKCON related publications over the past five years or so

Because of this, I do think this can go to AfD. --dab (𒁳) 10:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well one possible explanation is that you actually see it only as a dictionary term. It is however a topic dedicated to a wider issue, and one should not focus only on the word (which has a number of spellings), but to the meaning it carries, eg Krishna theology. I am in the process of correcting that apparent deficiency of the narrow definition. Wikid as&#169; 00:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Please define "Krishnology". If it is a valid topic, I am sure we will be able to discuss it under a title that is not a five-year-old neologism.

I am sorry, I can no longer assume good faith on your part. I have repeatedly asked you to discuss whatever it is you want to discuss at Krishnaism. However, you insist on using "Krishnaism" even while consistently failing to provide any sort of justification of why you insist on doing so under this problematic title.

When you are saying that you are "correcting the deficiency of the narrow definition", you really mean you are consciously abusing the online visibility of Wikipedia to push your agenda. This isn't acceptable. If you want to discuss Gaudiya theology, do it at Gaudiya Vaishnavism or at Krishnaism. Thank you. --dab (𒁳) 08:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have answered your concerns on the AfD page that you started. Just to make sure it is clear here, it is not about a narrow field of the Gaudiya Teology, and yet it is not about Krishnaism (worship of Krishna) which was always a separate topic (to which you have objected at the time and you have made it clear why). I am open to move proposals, but want to hear from other editors, maybe Ism if he gets time. I'm very cautious about your tendency of deletion by redirect, you are a good editor but this tendency of deletion by redirect needs to be curtailed. Make your arguments on the current AfD discussion, and when it is over we can continue here. Wikid as&#169; 09:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I resent your obstinate "deletion by redirect" allegation, without any sort of basis in fact. I have made very sure that the term "Krishnology", and what valid material could be found on this page, was duly represented in the target article before I implemented the redirect.

Now I would be very interested in an actual definition of "Krishnology" based on actual WP:RS that would (a) vindicate your diffuse "it is not about a narrow field of the Gaudiya Teology, and yet it is not about Krishnaism (worship of Krishna)", and at the same time establish it as a valid and notable standalone topic. Of course, you should make sure that you have excellent referenced due to the obvious WP:REDFLAG situation with any topic with less than 20 google hits. --dab (𒁳) 13:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)