Talk:Bibliography of Ramakrishna

Failed Verification?
I have found the text to Kripal's admissions on Jivanavrttanta in the reference and have removed the tag. --Nvineeth (talk) 06:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * He withdrew his claims of a conscious concealment. That's all he withdrew. The article is written as if he withdrew all of his arguments in the preceeding paragraph, which is not true. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 17:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge??
Oppose merge. This was clearly discussed in the peer review, and none of the articles have a huge discussion on the "books". This is a bibliography, which is still expanding. Nvineeth (talk) 05:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of pertinent information, or business as usual
Why have the publication dates of the Kathamrita been removed from this article? &mdash; goethean &#2384; 16:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Chronological order?? The date of the jivanavrittanta is wrong and not in the citation provided. Let me ask the same question, "is this business as usual"? --Nvineeth (talk) 07:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Why did you remove the publication dates for the kathamrita? &mdash; goethean &#2384; 12:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Nvineeth using "scholars" from 1898
With this edit User:Nvineeth reverted my attempt to inform readers of this article that he has a tendency to use "scholarship" which is over a century out-of-date, without informing the reader. User:Nvineeth will refer to "scholars" in the text. However, those scholars will turn out to be the long-dead Max Muller, Romain Rolland, and/or Christopher Isherwood, and their thesis will be something that no quailfied scholar has believed in several decades or more. He removes the findings of contemporary scholars, and replaces them with 19th century theses from Max Muller. This is his misleading and dishonest technique for attempting to give a thin veneer of respectability to the religious proclamations of the swamis of the Ramakrishna Mission and enshrining these religious proclamations in this article. When I attempt to inform readers of his deception, he reverts my edit. He is enforcing the lies of a religious organization on this article. Let the reader beware. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 18:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * According to jstor.org, Max Muller the Indologist, Nobel lauriate Romain Rolland, and Isherwood are reliable sources, and they even surpass the requirements for WP:RS. The tag is untenable. --Nvineeth (talk) 06:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh gee, you're using my JSTOR analysis now!! I thought that was terrible original research which should be fought tooth and nail for weeks! What happened? &mdash; goethean &#2384; 13:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Exactly what I wanted to say, if your JSTOR analysis is "accurate", then you cannot add tags claiming "century old" sources and if you think that your JSTOR analysis is "original research", we need to rewrite the Ramakrishna/Reception, both cannot hold true at the same time.. read more here : Talk:Ramakrishna --Nvineeth (talk) 07:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You are just engaging in transparent dishonesty now. It is obvious that there is a difference between a history of the scholarship on Ramakrishna and what scholars believe now. The body of this article should reflect the latter, but there's nothing wrong with reporting on the former, which is what the reception section does. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 15:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "transparent dishonesty"? Isn't it "dishonest" to add stuff with failed reference checks, blatant single sided POVS? "century old" does not make the work unreliable, you are opposing only because it supports "ramakrishna mission organization", which is evident in the talk pages. --Nvineeth (talk) 08:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Books on Ramakrishna → Bibliography of Ramakrishna – Name change for consistency of topical bibliographies across WP per advice of WikiProject Bibliographies Since this is a list of books about Rama, not by Rama, this is a topic bibliography. Mike Cline (talk) 15:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section.