Talk:Ramakrishna's influence

Influential effect
The word "impact" is informal, colloquial slang. Would it be better for the article to be titled "Ramakrishna's influence"?Lestrade (talk) 19:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)Lestrade
 * Agree with you, influence is a better word and this is also the term used by most studies. Good observation.--TheMandarin (talk) 14:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That is the least of this laughable article's problems. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 19:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Go through this when you get time, it will help to go beyond your incivility and apologies which don't last. --TheMandarin (talk) 06:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The image you linked to recommends that editors state their disagreements clearly. This article is not neutral. It does not use scholarly sources. It uses sources published by the Ramakrishna Mission, a dishonest religious organization interested only in propagating "a certain image of Ramakrishna", to use Bengali scholar Malcolm McLean's words, words which you quickly deleted from the Ramakrishna article. It propagates the beliefs of a religious group. It is a sham, a fake, and an insult to the mission of Wikipedia. Please let me know if I have not expressed myself pointedly enough for you. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 12:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, you must learn to not to add "sham", "fake", and stop "insult to the mission of Wikipedia". Here is the previous question about "fake" stuff you had added and I ask you again--"What is the need to add failed verification and later fight for it by abusing others? For ex : I recently discovered while cleaning up Kakar's article. This edit by you which makes controversial claims is not available in the source cited at all. And what's more, you have argued for the inclusion of this false information." ;" Where on earth did you find it in the citation? I just can't find it! Your allegations of McLean are equally untenable, before you push POV go through the articles like those from Gayatri Spivak, Rajat Kanta Ray. This article which was carved out of some old version of main article contains material added several editors and by you as well (diff ) and there is always scope of improvement. --TheMandarin (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please discuss article content, not irrelevant comments from other article from months or years ago. You may want to consult the image which you condescendingly linked to earlier. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 21:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Note from a bystander: TheMandarin is like Tim, the singing cowboy who smiles and wears a white hat. Goethean is like Boss Kincaid who scowls and wears a black hat, drinks whiskey, and smokes a cigar.Lestrade (talk) 00:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)Lestrade
 * What does that make Lestrade &mdash; the town drunk? &mdash; goethean &#2384; 15:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Try to add any scholarly material to an article on Ramakrishna. TheMandarin and his fundamentalist friends won't seem quite so facile. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 15:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Still can't go beyond name calling? Still can't go beyond hollow arguments and accusations? Do you stand by your failed verification edits above as "scholarly material"? --TheMandarin (talk) 16:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You removed scholarly material from Ramakrishna because it conflicted with your religious dogma. That's a verifiable fact, not a hollow accusation or name-calling. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 18:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)