Talk:David Godman

Sourcing

This article looks like yet another corner of the walled garden that exists in relation to many yoga etc related articles. The sources are almost entirely based on Godman's words and where not actually published by him they appear to be distinctly lacking in independence. Is this chap even notable? The article has previously been deleted - see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Godman - and I'm doubtful whether this latest version is any better than the previous one. - Sitush (talk) 17:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush: I think it would be rash to delete this article. It does need tidying up and better sourcing, I completely agree, but as a biographer of various recent Indian spiritual teachers, Papaji, Lakshmana Swamy, Annamalai Swami and as one of main modern exponents of Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta Maharaj's teachings, I think the article stands and is valid as a notable, much like: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Arthur_Osborne_%28writer%29 or http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Paul_Brunton ...The best thing would be to simply make it tighter. Bodhadeepika (talk) 10:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Your examples might just confirm the walled garden. There are very few independent secondary sources that mention Godman and as such he would fail WP:GNG. I really don't care how many books he has written, especially given that he is obviously a hagiographer. We do not exist to feed the vanity etc of sects. - Sitush (talk) 16:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

That's pretty strong. Well, go ahead and delete him then, and also delete most of the Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta Maharaj articles as well, given he is a hagiographer. Best, Bodhadeepika (talk) 16:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Every subject of human interest is a "walled garden". This is another of those arbitrary Wikipedia concepts (like "no personal research") that are meaningless if you examine them carefully. (For example, on Wikipedia, I can put a false sentence if it has a "reference" to a book that is also largely false. But I cannot make a true statement, even if I explain right there why it is true. But if I paste the same comment in a web page anywhere on the web, then it is a "reference" (oooh) rather than "personal research".

To an atheist, all of religion is a "walled garden" and should be deleted from Wikipedia forever. Neutral Point Of View is probably the only objective principle that makes Wikipedia better, all the other ones are entirely subjective (such as "notable") - of course, there are "guidelines" which makes it look objective, but the process of chosing the guidelines is not only entirely subjective, it is also entirely "political" (small p).

Ramana Maharshi was unique amongst modern spiritual teachers in that he lived his entire life without privacy, so therefore there are no scandals. He did not do any "personal" activities other than taking walks and reading the newspaper. So, any objection to him can only be about the philosophy and practice that he taught. Since he taught " do not take my word for it, but instead try it out for yourself ", then there is no "controversy". Adherents of some other religions - especially fundamentalists - will be unhappy with everything he taught, but they are unhappy with all other Hindus as well.

Godman is an author. He is notable because of the large volume he wrote about Ramana Maharshi and similar teachers. As a scholar, his life is notable only because of the notability of his subjects, and so there are not any sources writing about him. It's interesting to contemplate that his page here might be deleted, while many sportswriters who write about things that are defined to be meaningless (that is the whole point of sports), will continue to have pages simply because some other sportswriter was paid to write about them.

So, is there a size limitation for Wikipedia? Do we need to delete pages that are informative? 162.205.217.211 (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

How to refer to Ramana Maharshi in the article

Crossing out 'Ramana' in 'Ramana Maharshi' is the equivalent of crossing out 'Smith' in 'Mr Smith' and just referring to him as 'Mr' in subsequent appearances. "Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi" is too long to keep repeating in its entirety throughout the article. Ramana is too casual. The best seems "Sri Ramana". (Iddli (talk) 02:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC))

I'd prefer "Ramana Maharshi"; that seems to be the common name (or at least that's how my mind refers to him). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, "Ramana Maharshi" seems like an excellent way to go on this. Thanks, Joshua J. (Iddli (talk) 02:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC))

Oxford

Also Oxford, just like Osborne. Did Godman graduate? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

No (as he mentions in interviews of him). 162.205.217.211 (talk) 20:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Personal Life

He has live in Tiruvannamalai, South India (near Ramana Maharshi's ashram) since 1976.

He has been married twice, once to "Vasanta" (prior to an interview that appeared in 2008 where he describes her as his former wife), who lived in Cambridge, Massachusetts, at one point, and more recently to travel writer Elizabeth Huesing of Boulder, Colorado - they were married in Boulder in 2012 (there is an announcement on a web page) and seem to have separated or divorced in 2015 (in a 2015 blog posting, she refers to herself as a single woman living in Lahore, Pakistan). 162.205.217.211 (talk) 21:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)