Talk:Klaus Klostermaier

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

Philosophy: Philosophers / Religion Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophers
	Philosophy of religion

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 04:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reception section

@Bladesmulti: If you have the interest, please make the reception section give a good summary of the reviews, the positive first and the criticism at the end in a separate paragraph. I was only trying to document the non-scholarly aspects pointed out by the reviewers. Witzel's polemic needs substantiation. That is why I gave him two sentences. But if you make a longer reception section, the weightage would be fine. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 10:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Positive first and criticism in next paragraph. Current weightage of this section would work anyway. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Winged Blades of Godric and Klostermaier

WilhelmBenjy (talk) 23:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)Winged Blades of Godric (WBG) has made unsubstantiated and biased edits on Klostermaier.[reply]

The pattern in WBG's edits is to somehow introduce something by Michael Witzel in articles on individuals or subjects. Most often the citation is irrelevant or ambiguous, introduced to confuse the amateur reader, and this has been done in this article as well.

If WBG is doing it on his own, it is not helping Witzel's reputation for the citations are not appropriate or are not balanced by other material that presents another scholarly POV.

If WBG is Witzel's own handle, then it is clearly unethical and it is cheap way of getting noticed. Witzel would be much better off spending his time in rebutting Klostermaier in scholarly journals and not do it sneakily as here. WilhelmBenjy (talk) 23:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide diffs of where he has done so. You should also read and understand WP:Aspersions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]