Talk:The Satanic Verses of Bhagavad-gita

I tagged this for being off mission. It seems itself to espouse a fringe position. Not sure how much hatin' on Krishna furthers the stated goals. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think it oughta make a difference if a book is critical of Hinduism or Christianity. Notability may be a concern in this particular case, but in general skeptic anti-Hinduist positions should be just as much embraced as skeptic anti-Christian or anti-Islamic positions, IMO. Octo8 (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there's no way criticism of a religion isn't missional. Now, if it's insignificant and/or stupid criticism or a terrible article, that's a different problem - David Gerard (talk) 19:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't go all that deeply into the linked texts themselves, but one of its largest points seems to be that Krishna demanded his followers to become yogis without being one himself. This struck me as less a piece that said "Krishna's religion is false because it teaches X, which is scientifically false, and Y, which is morally undesirable."  It seemed to be more like a piece by a Catholic condemning Jehovah's Witnesses for not believing in the Trinity, or the other way around. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Criticisms of religions based on moral grounds are missional, too, aren't they? I think we have plenty of those regarding Christianity and Islam. (E: Forgot sig) Octo8 (talk) 00:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The reason I wrote this page is that the article The Satanic Verses of Bhagavad-gita was the first one to appear in Google search for Criticism of the Bhagavad Gita, and, as far as my understanding of the Gita goes, it seemed to have a shockingly thorough, deep and radical analysis, especially if you delved into the Endnotes. It appeared to have received quite a few positive reviews here and there too. But I don’t think it has any Wikipedia-like notability. If you guys only keep articles on such notable stuff, maybe you should delete this one, though I, for one, don’t think that would serve your mission, and you don’t seem to have such high notability standards anyway, this one looks like just one of many good examples. — Pnavig (talk) 08:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * We have no notability criteria. The question is does it fit the "mission" - does it further what we are trying to do.
 * To be honest the article tells me virtually nothing as I know next to nothing about the religion in question. So saying: "Krishna was a terrorist and the Bhagavad Gita is a work of Hindu terrorism" and  "Krishna, the preacher of yoga, was not a yogi" are meaningless to me and probably to most of our audience.  Why should we care about these claims in respect of the RW mission? If the answer is "we don't" then we don't need the page.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 08:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I’m sure there are quite a few people around the world who are interested in the Gita (of which so far there have been around 200+ English translations) or know a lot about that religious text, and an article providing systematic criticism of such core and important holy book would be meaningful for them and thus would not be off-mission. — Pnavig (talk) 08:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * In other words, though you, and maybe most of you here on RW, know next to nothing about the religion in question, a lot many people on the planet know quite a lot about it and RW has a whole category on that religion; no way this page is off-mission! — Pnavig (talk) 09:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)