Talk:Klaus Klostermaier
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
WikiProject class rating
editThis 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)
Reception section
edit@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)
- Positive first and criticism in next paragraph. Current weightage of this section would work anyway. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Winged Blades of Godric and Klostermaier
editWilhelmBenjy (talk) 23:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)Winged Blades of Godric (WBG) has made unsubstantiated and biased edits on Klostermaier.
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)
- 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)