Talk:Jeffrey J. Kripal

Unusual structure

This article has an annotated bibliography which was called 'biography', then further bibliography sections. The structure needs to be tidied up. All bibliography info should be under one general bibliography section with subheadings if necessary. I will begin to tinker with it, but could use some help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdevans (talk • contribs) 14:50, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

External reference

This article is discussed at the History News Network[1]. Samw 04:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Too few opinions

This article has too few opinions and needs to be expanded. The recent opinions of scholars like Gayatri Spivak, S.N. Balagangadhara, Antiono De Nicholas, Renuka Sharma (University of Melbourne), Arvind Sharma, to mention a few is missing. --Nvineeth (talk) 08:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} Hipocrite (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello Hipocrite, good that you removed the tag "Toofewopinions", as of now I dont want to waste my energy on this nor do I have much time, but if required, we can write in detail on the contemporary reception and even you can help in reviewing/fixing this. Thanks. --Nvineeth (talk) 09:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Article is not neutral

Showing a lack of restraint that is completely typical, Nvineeth has expanded the section on the reception of Kali's Child and removed the material on the book itself. We now have 3 times the amount of material on the reception compared to the book. Totally out of balance. — goethean ॐ 17:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The tag was expected :), I dont think editors improving the article should be WP:PA, anyway I does not matter with me. --Nvineeth (talk) 07:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Kripal has been the victim of a smear campaign on Wikipedia by conservative Hindus for far too long. The existing Wikipedia article on him is completely unbalanced. Dr. Kripal nor I object to dissenting viewpoints, but all expression of his viewpoint has been deleted over time because no one has been paying attention on Dr. Kripal's behalf. Giant jones (talk) 01:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed sections

The removed information is as follows:

1. Kali's Child's primary thesis is that a great deal of Ramakrishna's mystical experiences were generated by the lingering results of childhood traumas, and sublimated homoerotic and pedophiliac passions.
2. Kripal never claims that Sri Ramakrishna actually molested children.

Could you find quotes from the paper that substantiates these statements of fact? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 19:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hipocrite, this journal will be helpful. --Nvineeth (talk) 07:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Kripal has commented on this article at his Rice University FAQ

Question: "What's up with your Wikipedia entry?"

Answer: "My Wiki entry often reads oddly because it has generally been controlled by the harshest critics of Kali's Child, who appear to think, for some odd reason, that this is the only book I have written. They have even monitored the entry for any changes in order to delete, immediately, anything posted on it that is balanced or positive. Basically, they want to control who people think I am and what I have written.

"There is a silver, if not golden, lining here, though. Kali's Child is largely about the cultural, religious, and historical processes by which the saint's astonishing 'secret talk' (guhya katha) in the Bengali texts was systematically censored and suppressed by the tradition as it passed into the English translations and Western culture. Of course, these same censorship processes continue into the present (witness the two ban movements), and they can easily be seen again now on Wikipedia, on the 'Talk' pages of the entries involving Ramakrishna, Kali's Child, and me. Just go and look. But don't read the Wikipedia entries. Read the 'Talk,' that is, the 'secret talk' behind the Wikipedia entries. As with the original Bengali texts behind the English bowdlerized texts, or the unconscious behind the conscious surface ego, the truth is not what appears on the surface to the public. The truth is what does not appear, what has been erased and suppressed.

"On the humorous side, one could thus say that reading a Wikipedia entry for accurate information about 'Jeffrey J. Kripal' is a bit like listening to Rush Limbaugh for accurate information about President Obama. If you agree with Limbaugh, it's great stuff. If you don't, it's a lesson in bad logic and grossly distorting rhetoric."

— Jeffrey J. Kripal FAQ Rice University Religious Studies department

References on Kali's Child controversy

Right now there are two references supporting the statement that Kali's Child was controversial. However they are both earlier than the 2nd edition and the controversy proepr. Perhaps we should replace them by two more recent ones, one pro and one against.
For the latter perhaps Tyagananda's EVAM paper?
What for the former? There is Hatcher's 1999 "Kali's Problem Child: Another Look at Jeffrey Kripal's Study of Sri Ramakrishna," but it is still rather old. Kripal cites Rajagopal Chattapadhyaya, "Jeffrey Kraipaler Kalij Caild," [sic] Manboman 42/1 (2003), 67-73; has anyone read it?
Methinks it is fair to include also an explicit link to Kripal's website on Kali's Child; after all this article is about him.
All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 19:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Your are right in pointing out the older journals. One of most recent reference I could find was this : 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. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Now the article mentions about the prize... but this warrants a line on the controversy as well, as per WP:NPOV. --TheMandarin (talk) 03:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest using a paper (or better, a book) by a scholar which was vetted by and published in an academic journal describing the controversy rather than a paper by Swami Tyagananda, a religious figure with a overwhelming conflict of interest and who has no concern for neutrality whatsoever. There are scholars that are critical of Kripal. Thus both sides can be presented without recourse to using the writings of a religious figure who is actually a party to the controversy. Using writings by Tyagananda to describe the controversy is like quoting Kripal to decribe the controversy. — goethean ॐ 16:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that fairness demands that we give the reference that each side finds most representative of their views, whether it is scholarly or not. My reading of Kripal's website is that he is recommending Chattapadhyaya. My reading of the edit history is that the critics would recommend Tyagananda, or perhaps Invading the Sacred. By the way, isn't EVAM a journal? All teh best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 19:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Primary sources

Folks, please note that the blurb about primary/secondary/tertiary sources in the Wikipedia "policies" pages (like most anything else in WP:*) is just an *opinion* by *some* editors who set out to write that page. The word "consensus" in those pages means absolutely nothing; it certainly does not mean "official Wikipedia policy", nor "consensus among all Wikipedia editors", much less "consensus of all Wikipedia users". The opinion of those editors is no more important than yours or mine. In any case, a blanket rule cannot be allowed to take precedence over common sense when dealing with a specific case. In particular, for a statement about the *contents* of a published book, no source can be more reliable than the book itself. Any other source, including the publisher's catalog summary, is an interpretation that is, more often than not, partial, biased, or just wrong. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Balagangadhara

[2] Could User:TheMandarin provide a quotation from th referenced paper which describes the controversy so that other editors can evaluate how the source was used? Surely a less obscure source can be found (The Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies?!) — goethean ॐ 16:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, Here is the exact quotation, "Having received an award from the American Academy of Religion for the best first book of the year, it has been dogged by controversy ever since its initial publication in 1995." (p.123) I am quoting S.N. Balagangadhara, who heads the research centre Vergelijkende Cutuurwetenschap (Comparative Science of Culture)"[3] I dont know how this is obscure ( are we running into systematic bias ?? ) --TheMandarin (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes we are --- on your end. — goethean ॐ 17:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Goethean. This is what I was referring to, Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Anglo-American_focus_and_systemic_bias without pointing fingers at anybody ( probably was not evident above ). To quote , "An article on the effects of globalisation that notes the views of European academics, but does not note the views of African academics, when their views differ substantially from those of their European counterparts, suffers from a POV problem that is rooted in systemic bias." , replace "African" with "European" & "European" with "American" above and we have a situation similar to the current scenario. --TheMandarin (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, at the Kali's Child article, you've been relentlessly dumping reams of material into the article without any regard for, frankly, any principle whatsoever. The article essentially consists of every bad thing anyone has ever said about Kripal. Apparently, that's your idea of a balanced article. You've got a tremendous amount of gall complaining about systemic bias against your position. What a fucking joke. — goethean ॐ 00:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Gents, please calm down. Every editor has the right to have opinions about other editors, but article "Talk" pages are not the place to express them. If you cannot avoid it, and you have no other channel than Wikipedia, at least please do so in your "User talk:" pages, not here. Personal comments will never convince anyone of anything; they will only make it more difficult to achieve a reasonable consensus. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jeffrey J. Kripal. 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/20120929062351/http://www.realitysandwich.com:80/blog/jeffrey_j_kripal to http://www.realitysandwich.com/blog/jeffrey_j_kripal

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jeffrey J. Kripal. 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/20090907190143/http://www.authorsoftheimpossible.com/ to http://authorsoftheimpossible.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:01, 24 November 2017 (UTC)