Talk:Gopi Krishna (yogi)

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Positives only?

From what I recall, Gopi Krishna wrote extensively about a time around 1937 when his kundalini went up the wrong channel and he experienced a lot of problems. Although it seems he later corrected the matter (or it righted itself naturally), I find it odd that there's no mention of this in the article, especially if people could be inspired by it to experiment with their kundalini without appropriate guidance or training. Meltingpot (talk) 05:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Buddhipriya (vide infra) seems to labor under the delusion that notability means "have I heard of him?" and that any publisher he's not familiar with is a vanity press. Typical Wikipedia haberdashery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.65.9 (talk) 09:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article appears to be an advertisement

I am not clear on why this person is notable. Is he mentioned in any books written by academic authors? All of the sourcing appears to be from self-published vanity press publishers. Are there any books published under the imprint of an academic publishing house? Buddhipriya 04:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to provide some links, allthough I do not believe "being notable" as a Wikipedia guideline is to have references in scientific/academic publications. He is however notable enough to have a google link count of circa 428.000 hits.

I believe you are in the assumption that I am trying to push the correctness of Mr Krishna's views, I am not. I simply believe that if a view exists it should be noted, all persons approving this view should be noted, all persons disapproving this view should be noted.Teardrop onthefire 12:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making an effort to find sources that would establish that he is notable. I think there may be some difference in our approach to what would be considered a WP:RS in this matter. Your compilation above, while interesting, is really more along the lines of WP:OR rather than citation of what someone who would be acknowledged as a reliable source has said. I have been assisted in locating what I would accept as a WP:RS in the book Offering Flowers, Feeding Skulls Popular Goddess Worship in West Bengal by June McDaniel (Oxford University Press, 2006, ISBN 0195167910) where on p. 280 she mentions a bit about him, saying "Western interest at the popular level in kundalini yoga was probably most influenced by the writings of Gopi Krishna, in which kundalini was redefined as chaotic and spontaneous religious experience." it then goes on to directly quote his account of kundalini awakening. This book is a strong source because it is published by a respected academic publishing house (Oxford University Press) and the author would qualify as an academic expert on at least one Tantric cult. A reference like this can be safely quoted, in my opinion. Buddhipriya 04:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am most grateful for your reference! It really is damn hard finding good references, but that is what keeps up the standard I guess. I will continue my search. Do you have a good way of quick searching these kind of references, or are you just that dedicated :)? Teardrop onthefire 13:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I got that reference by asking for strong references related to Gopi Krishna on another article and another editor found it. If you want to make a point in an article but do not have a strong reference for it, one approach is to post the issue on a talk page first and specifically ask for help in locating strong references. People can then check the books they have on hand (often by just looking in the indexes) and if they find something they may post it to the talk page. This method of finding strong references also has the advantage of alerting other editors to what point you are interested in, so if they object or have a different perspective, they can say so on the talk page. Then only the resulting agreement, properly sourced, can be inserted into the article and there is no edit war as the issues have been ironed out in talk. In this case, the reference given actually does not support the statement as written in the article, but it makes a general point about notability. I will adjust the article to make use of a strong inline reference format that follows WP:CITE. Buddhipriya 18:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Standard reference formats

The only two books which are used in footnotes appear to be these, so they appear in the References section. The rest of the items are not used for citations. Why are these books WP:RS?

  • Tom Kay. Out of the Box New York: Xlibris Corporation, (October 2003) ISBN-10: 1413417574. Amazon citation data: Paperback: 220 pages Publisher: Xlibris Corporation (October 2003) Language: English ISBN-10: 1413417574 Out of the Box (Paperback) by Tom Kay. A user review of the book describes it as: "Out of the Box is a modern coming-of-age story for the new millenium, of an adventurous seeker who has never lost his sense of child-like wonder, always searching for an ever-deepening understanding of himself, consciousness and the universe. Out of the Box is always engaging, and contains both funny and poignant anecdotes, a testimony to the author's very colorful and often magical life and journey. He has had many incarnations - as an activist (for peace, the environment and social justice), as a musician, painter, poet, founding the environmental site EcoMall.com, solar energy inventor and advocate - the list goes on. All of his life he has always been called to use his artistic and professional channels to further messages of greater awareness and enlightened consciousness. His calls for the support of solar energy, and a scientific investigation into mystical experience and the evolution of the human brain, are ideas whose time has clearly come. His interview with pandit Gopi Krishna contains many inspiring, important messages for humanity, and his flowing, lyrical poetry reveal an artist passionately inspired by nature's beauty, love and spirit."
  • The Dawn of a New Science, New Delhi: Kundalini Research and Publication Trust, 1975. Amazon citation data: Paperback: 214 pages Publisher: Institute for Consciousness Research (January 1, 1999) ISBN-10: 0917776143.

Use of standard layout and reference formats

The article does not use the standard reference setup specified by Wikipedia:Guide to layout and WP:CITE. In the standard setup, books that are cited in Notes go into the section called References, which becomes a list of works cited in Notes. This allows the reader to quickly see what sources are actually relied on for footnotes. Once a book is in the Reference list, it may be cited in a note using a short form of the type: "Doe, p. 23" with the details on the book by Doe appearing in the list of works cited. I am going to change the article setup to conform to this arrangement, as I do not think this change is likely to be controversial, is supported by the policies mentioned, and does not affect semantic content. Buddhipriya 19:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sources

there is a fact tag on the top of the page, but no fact tags for specific citations. Please place specific fact tags for the statements in need of resource, or provide a source yourself! If no suggestions are presented, I will remove the tag as of 17/07/2007 Teardrop onthefire 15:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please review Wikipedia:Verifiability which says that "Articles should only contain material that has been published by reliable sources. Editors adding or restoring material that has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, or quotations, must provide a reliable published source, or the material may be removed." Placing a fact tag on something is a polite call for references. Since nothing has been produced, the next step is to remove the challenged material, not the fact tags. If citations can be found in the future, the material can be put back in as sourced content. Buddhipriya 02:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the name change appropriate?

The article was moved today from Gopi Krishna to Pandit Gopi Krishna. None of the references refer to him by the Pandit name, so why should the article use this name? Pandit is usually an honorific, but for Kashmiris it seems to have tradition as a surname. But again, He is not on the list of Kashmiri Pandits either. __meco (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think something like "Gopi Krishna (yogi)" would be far more appropriate. K2709 (talk) 21:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It strange that references do not use this name. While honorifics are gen. not okay, in this case one needs to keep it. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Wikidas© 09:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. DrKiernan (talk) 14:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pandit Gopi Krishna → Gopi Krishna (yogi) – I am creating a sub section here using h3 header because the above discussion in exctly on the same topic. Pandit is an honorific title. We are not using honorific title in Wikipedia (eg. Jawaharlal Nehru, Ravi Shankar etc). We can move to Gopi Krishna (yogi) (as requested above) or something like "Gopi Krishna (Kundalini promoter)" (per dab page description) Tito Dutta (talk) 23:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Blacklisted Links Found on Gopi Krishna (yogi)

Cyberbot II has detected links on Gopi Krishna (yogi) which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.om-guru.com/html/saints/gopi.html
    Triggered by \bguru\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Gopi_Krishna_(yogi)"