Irs Offer In Compromise Fresh Start

photo src: rtaxgroup.com

photo src: www.taxdefensenetwork.com

Maps, Directions, and Place Reviews

sexuality - fresh start

No comments about editors in this section please.

Gothean, please post the sources you want to add again, and tell us (in general) what they add to the article that you think is important. let's see if we can find a compromise. --Ludwigs2 18:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Then your "knowledge" -- from sources undisclosed -- contradicts peer-reviewed research. Goldman says that SRK's desire to be a woman 'was one of the most noteworthy themes of SRK's life'. But you would rather that the article omits this fact, because you feel that academics are sex-obsessed and that their publications on SRK's sexuality are basically untrustworthy, and are best described as a "fringe theory".

What you really have an issue with is Wikipedia's WP:IRS poicy, from which I quote:

I suggest that you take up this debate at the WP:IRS talk page, since that is the source of your irritation. I don't see much room for debate here. My proposed content uses far more reliable source material than any section of the currently existing article. But you oppose its inclusion, because you personally disagree with its contents. This is a striking example of putting the interests of the readers last. -- goethean ? 06:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, appreciate your initiative. Thanks. A quick comment on Goethean's draft: The material feels dated, and WP:CHERRY. Kelly Ann Raab seems to be misrepresented. Much of what needs to be said is already in the article. Detailed analysis later. --TheMandarin (talk) 06:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

But there's not a whisper of it in the section marked "biography". Why not? Is Ramakrishna's sexuality part of Ramakrishna's biography? -- goethean ? 07:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Analysis

Goethean added this new section, few things to ponder:

• First, its imp to note that there is already a section : Ramakrishna#Psychoanalysis_and_sexuality. Another section on sexuality with similar sources is clearly WP:UNDUE
• The sources fall in the period of 1983 & 1993-1998, just a small period and does not encompass the vast amount of scholarly views put forth later on, including the recent 2010 book Interpreting Ramakrishna on which a panel discussion was held at 2010 American Academy of Religion conference. see : [1] and http://www.danam-web.org/DANAM%202010/DANAM%202010%20Draft%20Agenda%20for%20website%20[4].pdf

WP:IRS specifically tells : "However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternate theories, or controversial within the relevant field. Try to cite present scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications." ( Emphasis added )

Before we begin, its easy to note that material has speculation and innuendo: "apparent homoeroticism..." , "may have masked homosexual..", "perhaps related to sexual trauma..." ( further analysis below ) On the other hand, the word usage fails WP:NPOV, "notes", "found" which promote a POV. See : WP:SAY.

Other scholarly views to consider on the works cited:

The cited PhD dissertation is unpublished, and WP policy talks about published material, if you have secondary source pls use them. McLean's thesis has been disputed in the Interpreting Ramakrishna pp.75-80 However, McLean's name can merged with the discussion on this interpretation of "attitude towards women" already present in the article.

Narasingha Sil's writing of "apparent homoeroticism..." is heavily disputed. A quick look what others have written on Narasingha Sil's works (already referenced in the article):

• William Radice writes, "What makes one ultimately distrustful of his book, entertaining though it is, is his willingness to manipulate his sources" and "If Sil can misuse Vivekananda's writings to support his hypothesis, can we trust him to use the Kathamrta fairly"[2]
• Jean Openshaw of Open University writing, " Apart from the compulsions of contemporary academic life, this sleight of hand should perhaps be seen in the light of the furore caused in India by another psychoanalytically based book, Kali's Child ...", "..heady mix of tendentious argument, speculation and innuendo." ( she also discusses "Vivekananda's Ramakrishna" )Crucifying a Saint-Times Higher Education
• Gwilymm Beckerlegge of Open University questioning Sil, "Sil casts himself as an intrepid and fearless historian, offering the first detailed psychobiograpy of Ramakrishna, although the reader is left feeling that Sil's own admitted disenchantment with 'godmen' colours his work."( The Ramakrishna Mission, Oxford University Press, 2000, pp.40-41 )
• Tyagananda & Vrajaprana make interesting points, apart from disputing the psychoanalytical interpretations, they write that Sil "consistently uses a catch-all approach, replete with the habitual usage of "possibly," "quite probably", "most likely", "most probably," while suggesting highly sexualized scenarios without providing corroborating data to back up his theses... ex: "hemp-smoking sadhus" whose potential actions "could very well lead to his physical abuse"..."( Interpreting Ramakrishna, 2010, pp.88-90)

Raab has be misrepresented by partially quoting her speculative arguments on p.333, where she is merely stating the doubts. The actual conclusion is to be found later on p.338, where she states the contrary--"In this essay, I have offered an example of the creative and transformative effects of Ramakrishna'vs isions on his subsequent spiritual insights and behavior. Through exploration of philosophical understandings of his devotional mysticism and tantric underpinnings, I have shown how Ramakrishna's visions and behavior were in keeping with his culture and tradition. Coupled with a psychological analysis of his behavior as an internalization of Kali, I have demonstrated that in dressing as and imitating a woman, Ramakrishna broke through dualistic thought patterns defining gender, humanity, and God; at the same time he retained dualism to the extent that his devotions to Kali were as a child to his mother, he experienced her in various forms, and he retained his anatomical maleness. This behavior in turn expressed the spiritual insight found in his writings that dualism, qualified monism, and absolute monism are all aspects of and paths to truth."[3]

Oslon's psychoanalytical book has been characterized as "applied psychopathology and cultural misinterpretation...the author seems blind to the fact that the Bengali cultural heritage is radically different from the Euro-AMerican model and there has to be assessed on its own terms...". (Interpreting Ramakrishna, 2010 pp.80-83), which needs to be discussed as well per WP:NPOV. Amiya Prosad Sen writes opposite to that of Oslon in ( Three Essays on Ramakrishna IIAS 2001 p.126 )--"Bhadralok biographers or devotes of Ramakrishna were not always shamefaced about the saint's association with Tantra..." [Sen (2001), p.126] Tyagananda and Vrajaprana in 2010 Interpreting Ramakrishna write--"Olson's essay "Vivekananda and Ramakrsna Face to Face"...places blame squarely on Vivekananda for allegedly expunging certain events from his portrait of Ramakrishna. Olson makes this astonishing claim based upon Kripal's speculations in Kali's Child, which are unsupported by any of the source tests. For Olson, this lack of evidence does not point to the questionable nature of Kripal's conjectures, ... That there is no evidence for this suppression other than the claims made in Kali's Child does not seem to have disturbed Olson."(p.172) But such lengthy discussion are not a part of Biography.

There is reference to a 1994 journal, not even the 1998 edition. The 1995,1998 book has the 1994 journal as a chapter + some alleged corrections still under dispute. I suppose the 1998 edition is already referenced in the article and Kripal's views are already discussed here

This journal is 1997, before the second edition, already present here . There we important views proposed later, by John Hawley : Hawley, John Stratton (2004). "The Damage of Separation: Krishna's Loves and Kali's Child". Journal of the American Academy of Religion. 72 (2): 369-393. doi:10.1093/jaarel/lfh034. PMID 20681099.  , S.N. Balagangadhara : Balagangadhara, S.N. (Spring 2008). "Are Dialogues Antidotes to Violence? Two Recent Examples From Hinduism Studies" (PDF). Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies. 7 (19): 118-143. 

I dont think Goldman's psychoanalytical essay deserves a special mention in the Biography and may be, belongs to Psychoanalysis and Sexuality section

We see several scholars raise serious doubts on psychoanalysis:

• Gayatri Spivak in Other Asias (2006) p.197 she writes Freud as "occupational hazard of psychoanalytical cultural criticism."
• Renuka Sharma, of University of Melbourne and a psychoanalyistwrites (2001), " A strange motley of scholars in North America invariably jump to the defence of the author on rather spurious grounds. Among the reasons advanced are: the inexorability of the connection between 'sexuality and spirituality' ... the need to use the new-found strategic template of psychoanalysis ... and the as-it-were constitutional right of the outsider-scholar to interrogate the workings of (an)other's cultural productions....The imperialistic use of some outdated dogmas of psychoanalysis perpetuates a kind of psycho-orientalism that, indeed, Indian feminists such as Tanikar Sarkar, Kumkum Sangari, and Gayatri Spivak argue are a construct of masculinity as a well-known colonial ruse, as is the feminization of poverty and the infantilization of so-called primitive peoples. From Ramakrishna to the 'brown boy, Gandhi', threatening Indian icons stand 'elfeminized' and turned into 'intimate enemies', reinforcing the ambiguities and ambivalences of the post-colonial purloined self....The question of the relevance of psychoanalysis to race and cultural issues is an old one. However, there has been a recent acceleration of pace in discussions around this area. From the vantage of a psychoanalytic-trained psychiatrist, I am able to observe that the growing reflection from within psychoanalysis of its own doubtful status as a science" (emphasis added.) She goes on talks about "1920s and 1940s was the universalizing tendency of psychoanalysis." ( emphasis added )
• Rajat Kanta Ray writes, "...his psychoanalytical proceedings with the text, without the verifications psychoanalysts derive from patients under the 'free-association method', fills me with doubt, especially as regards his identifications of some Tantrik symbols. Psychoanalysts let patients talk free, and follow the links from one thing to another, in order to be certain that they interpret the symbols correctly. The free-association method is not possible with a text like the Kathamrita, so one must be sure that the identifications are generally accepted in the given culture."

WP:IRS specifically tells : "However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternate theories, or controversial within the relevant field. Try to cite present scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications." ( Emphasis added ) I have above cited some of the recent material from 1997-2010 and its easy to see that how the landscape and views change. Going by Renuka Sharma, one of those "strange motley" scholar who would later change is view is John Hawley in his 2004 journal. We need to give importance to this aspect of changing scholarly consensus especially in the wake of Panel discussions on interpreting Ramakrishna was being held as recent as in 2010 American Academy of Religion conference around 2-3 months back.

An alternative look at Jesus whose sexuality has been debated ( and also termed as homosexual like Ramakrishna by Kripal in Serpent's Gift ) does not contain a dedicated section on sexuality at all in the main biography. The best way to go would be to discuss each of the scholar + associated alternative disputed views of other scholars, so that the reader is presented with the complete picture,--but for that biography is not the place. Some can go in the section Ramakrishna#Psychoanalysis_and_sexuality and a detailed discussion can be carried in related articles like Views on Ramakrishna.

Would ask Goethean to take seek RFC or discuss this at a appropriate noticeboard, before adding partial views --TheMandarin (talk) 15:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Irs Offer In Compromise Fresh Start Video

Inclusion of another sexuality section - Request for Comment

This article already has a section on Psychoanalysis and Sexuality. Is another section on Sexuality in the biography required? --TheMandarin (talk) 16:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

---

Comments;

• As I have explained above, I don't believe the current mainstream view will be accurately reflected through inclusion of a separate section in the biography on "sexuality". I feel that the current mainstream view will be accurately represented by the inclusion of a discussion of various scholars' views on Ramakrishna's sexuality in a section devoted to contemporary scholarship, as is presently done in the article. Devadaru (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• The article as it stands is not neutral. However, I have been kept from placing a POV template at the top of the article due to a combination of edit warring and threats by my opponents. The current organization, including the "Views and studies" section and the "Psychoanalysis and Sexuality", de-legitimizes scholarly work on Ramakrishna and features more prominently the work that aligns with the doctrines of the Ramakrishna Mission. It also removes any mention of Ramakrishna's sexuality from the main "Biography" section, relegating it to merely "Views". The sections should be integrated. The entire biography should be based on the work of contemporary scholars, religious as well as secular, and should be sourced to reliable sources, i.e., academic journal articles, which, as I have demonstrated, have had a lively debate over the teachings and life of Ramakrishna. This debate is missing from the Ramakrishna biography section. My opponents have produced a rationale to remove immediately every mention of Ramakrishna's sexuality that I have added to the biography section of the article. Their repeated actions flagrantly violate the Wikipedia core principle of NPOV. Highly reliable sources refer to Ramakrishna's interesting sexuality as one of the most prominent themes of his life. The article should reflect these reliable sources. -- goethean ? 18:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Introducing another section on Sexuality into the main biography--essentially leaves two sections on Sexuality in the same article with similar material. This is clearly WP:UNDUE A walk-through of the reputable encyclopedias : Britannica , Springer Encyclopedia of Psychology and Religion pp.753-754 , Gale's Encyclopedia of Religion ( Vol.11, pp.7611-7614 ) shows that the authors do not discuss Sexuality in the Biography. Gale's encyclopedia in particular has a dedicated section "Interpretations of Ramakrishna" to discuss sexuality, etc., A comparison with Jesus--whose sexuality has also been debated by scholars, including Kripal who alleges that Jesus is a homosexual in Serpent's Gift--reveals no dedicated section on sexuality in the biography. The "Highly reliable sources" you write come from 1993-1998 and are WP:CHERRY that promote a single view, there are more contrasting scholarly views later on as per my Talk:Ramakrishna#Analysis and per WP:IRS,"However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternate theories, or controversial within the relevant field. Try to cite present scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications." While some material can be merged with existing section, the rest is superfluous--TheMandarin (talk) 04:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• No, this article does not need more on the sexuality of Ramakrishna. Jack B108 (talk) 17:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• The sexuality section in [4] is a non-neutral section that concentrates only the views supporting Ramkrishna's alleged homosexuality. The current section "Psychoanalysis and sexuality" balances the views of the academics, who support the theory as well as those who disregard it. Mainstream encyclopaedia articles on Ramakrishna do not focus extensively on sexuality. Another section on sexuality is clearly an WP:UNDUE.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 08:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• No. Including even one more section, in addition to what's already present, would be too much, and undue. Biographical articles must focus on a person's work and what he/she is known for, not an obsessive level of detail on some fringe issue. Shreevatsa (talk) 15:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• No, another section on sexuality is not required. In India and Hinduism, Ramakrishna is known prominently for many other things; dwelling so much on the sexuality of a spiritual person of Hinduism would be giving in to the documented and well-known eurocentric bias that exists on Wikipedia. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

RFC outcome

From the RFC, 6 editors have suggested that another section on sexuality not necessary. If Goethean wants he can proceed with the next steps of WP:DR. Going back to this edit I have few comments:

• According to Gwilym Beckerlegge ( 2000 "Bibliograpy" p.209) and Tyagananda ( 2010 ), Malcolm McLean's Phd is unpublished. If you want to cite him, use a secondary source.
• Raab's journal is already present and also Raab has been misquoted, while she is merely stating the arguments and the conclusion is different.
• Sil, Kripal, Atmajnananada, Alan Roland : alreay mentioned. I also don't think we can give undue weightage to Sil's speculative sentence, disputed by several scholars listed above and also refer to Devadaru's reference desk discussion above.
• Goldman has be added, and also Oslon, with the other view that oslon bases his study on Kripal, for which there is no textual proof.

--TheMandarin (talk) 06:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

photo src: www.writeopinions.com

Adding Audio Pronunciation Of Ramakrishna Paramhansha's Name

I have added audio pronunciation of Ramakrishna Paramhansha's name. Thanks! --Tito Dutta (Talk) 06:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

photo src: www.youtube.com

Thakur Honors - Edit Undone

I have undone this edit. They wrote well in the synopsis- After studying books on Shri Ramakrishna, Devotees were used to call Shri Ramakrishna as 'Thakur' in respect. 'Paramhansa' is a spiritual stage that Shri Ramakrishna achieved. So Shri Ramakrishna's honourable name was 'Thakur'. But, they did not provide the name (source) of the book. So, the edit was unreferenced. I have undone it. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 03:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

So, anybody having doubt? Can I change Shri Ramkrishna's honorable name to 'Thakur'? --Ankit Shah (Send me a message) 7 May 2012 (UTC)

photo src: www.canopytax.com

I deleted the meaningless words "Located far from the railroad,"

I changed the line below because there were no railroads in India in 1836 when Ramakrishna was born. The first were built about 1850, and he left the village in 1853, so saying there were no railroads near it is meaningless.

I just deleted the words "Located far from the railroad,"

Ramakrishna was born on 18 February 1836, in the village of Kamarpukur, in the Hooghly district of West Bengal, into a very poor but pious, orthodox brahmin family. Located far from the railroad, Kamarpukur was untouched by the glamour of the city and contained rice fields, tall palms, royal banyans, a few lakes, and two cremation grounds.

photo src: www.thebalance.com

J. Kripal

I think there is undue weight to this author on this Biography page -- in fact an entire section for his viewpoint and then the counter views. He has written: When Swami Atmajnanananda advanced his textual criticisms, I publicly apologized for my mistakes, thanked Swamiji, and corrected them in the second edition. When Swami Tyagananda published his extensive rebuttal, I openly acknowledged the corrections that I considered legitimate, publicly apologized for them both on a Harvard Divinity School web-site and later in a prominent Indian journal, and promised to correct them in any future edition. Does any one know what was the discussion between them?

On a lighter note, this definitely does not deserve a mention: Question: "You mentioned in your professional bio that opened this website that you think you may be Spider-Man. Are you sure about this?" Answer: "I'm pretty sure." Jyoti (talk) 06:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+Please avoid WP:AOTE and follow WP:FOC. You have reverted thrice while I see only WP:REHASH on your part. Jyoti (talk) 16:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I find it difficult to agree that two sentences that are sourced can be considered Undue, especially if Kripal is a well known scholar on this article's topic. However, as the statement does seem to be making an implied accusation of homosexuality (with some negativity attached to the implication by my reading) it would perhaps be beneficial to add a quote either in the text, or as part of the citation that more directly backs that statement. Regarding Jyoti's argument about Kripal recanting his arguments - one would need to show that that recantation specifically applied to this statement not just that he had changed arguments about some unspecified things. If there are other well known interpretations of the phrase (as Jyoti has already linked to), they can be added here to further balance this interpretation. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment : I had edited this article months ago, and today I saw that it has been brought to WP:ANEW. I think that Goethean may have tried to make this page look less of a fan page. Page looks interesting, I don't think that there is any undue weight. There should be no particular objection as long as Kripal has been a huge researcher and writer concerning this subject. If Jyoti.mickey has better interpretation it can be attributed well, just like Gaijin42 has put. OccultZone (Talk) 01:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia