Talk:Satsvarupa dasa Goswami/Archive 1

WP official policies - guide to editors

Please note that it is the policy that editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to the law in Florida, United States and to our content policies.WP:LIVING

Please also see:WP:LIBEL - all contributors should recognize that it is their responsibility to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory.

Probably most important rule is: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm".WP:LIVING

Any discussion on poorly sourced material: see relevant editors talk pages - also see:WP:LIVING WP:BLP WP:LIBEL Wikidās ॐ 10:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Please note that 'any page' in the above policies also relates to this page. Wikidās ॐ 10:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SDG Affair and Wikidas Bullying

Wikidas: Discussion pages are for discussions, not a place for eraser bullies to post slogans. Why is writing something against your sensibilities vandalism?

SDG was a prominent leader in a institution that has celibacy and purity as a main thrust. He accepted a position as sannyas and guru that requires celibacy as a basic minimum. It's not a difficult, esoteric or controversial thing. It's step one. He failed, throwing the spiritual lives of thousands into turmoil. He had sexual contact with a woman. It's not libel (would need to be false), and is well documented. It's on his own frickin website!

It's not sensationalist tabloidism. Mentioning all the sordid details would be sensationalist.

There's no harm in contextualizing his falldown with his large and varied body of work. Quite appropriate in fact. Yet even Bill Clinton gets several mentions of his dalliances, Newt Gingrich gets references to his own sleazy ways (divorcing wife in her hospital bed, having an extra marital affair while a leader in the fight to impeach Clinton over a similar situation), yet sexual purity isn't a cornerstone of their life and work. In fact, the opposite is the expected norm (appropriate or not).

However celibacy is a cornerstone of SDG's life and "work", and when he fails at that basic thing, it becomes notable. Good for him that he picked himself up and is moving on, but it's not a lifestyle choice, like using a Mac or a PC. Or woops, there was soy sauce in this ekadasi subji. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.117.52.108 (talk) 15:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Alachua comments from 75.117.52.108 (talk)

to: 75.117.52.108 - I accept that because the letter was published on the personal website, your contribution does come under exception. I would however reinforce your referencing with WP:reliable_sources in order to arrive at NPOV here. Your should note that as far as international English goes celibacy has a different standard to a sannyas. Whereas sannyas standard is higher, because celibacy in the common understanding was not broken I suggest rewording of the article to the following:

Satsvarupa dasa Goswami began suffering from headaches resulted from an anxiety disorder in the early 80s. In 2004, he agreed to stop initiating disciples after an intimate affair was uncovered. GBC has confirmed that, after considering the issues in the case, he shall retain his Goswami title and continue in the Sannyasa order. [19][20][21] In the letter to his disciples and friends, he discusses his 2002 deviation from the strict sannyasa standard, his current status, and requests that the readers accept "this news in a thoughtful, forgiving spirit" [22] Over the years many devotees have taken the opportunity to focus more upon their relationship with him, appreciating humility of both his life and his writings.[23]

Please confirm and we can call it an agreement. Please note that in order to not be mistaken as vandal, you should register your account and use a screen name. Please also sign your posts with ~~~~ to avoid further problems. Wikidās ॐ 17:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get your point on celibacy and sannyas. There was sexual activity. That's getting a bit on the hair splitting side. Does this depend on what the meaning of the word "is" is?

I'll accept "intimate" vs "sexual". He decided to keep his title and ashrama, and the GBC agreed but not without dissent. Why all all the word convolution?

How about: In 2004 he stopped initiating disciples after an intimated affair was uncovered. With GBC consultation, he decided retained his Goswami title and continued in the Sannyasa order. [19][20][21] On his website, he discusses his 2002 "falldown", his current status, and requests that the readers accept "this news in a thoughtful, forgiving spirit". [22]

GBC would be wikified. The "suffering from headaches" is fine, but the "Over the years many" looks weasel wordy to me, but I won't belabor the point right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.117.52.108 (talk) 18:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a little better: In 2004 he stopped initiating disciples after an intimated affair was uncovered. With GBC consultation, he retained his Goswami title and continued in the Sannyasa order. [19][20][21] On his website, he discusses his 2002 "falldown", his current status, and requests that the readers accept "this news in a thoughtful, forgiving spirit". [22]

"Falldown" is an ISKCONism and his own word choice. 75.117.52.108 (talk) 18:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no obligation on a user to register an account - there is an obligation on other users to assume good faith in relation to all users, both registered and unregistered. _GB^T/C 17:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page should comply with the guide:

Article talk pages should be used to discuss ways to improve an article; not to criticize, pick apart, or vent about the current status of an article or its subject. This is especially true on the talk pages of biographies of living people. However, if you feel something is wrong, but are not sure how to fix it, then by all means feel free to draw attention to this and ask for suggestions from others. WP:TALK

Please use your right to revise the comments, legitimate comments may be retained.Wikidās ॐ 19:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help to Stop Wikidas Bullying

I'm not a Wiki servant like Wikidas. How does one protect a page from Wikidas "true believer" type of protectionism? I don't know the Wiki tricks that he does. 75.117.52.108 (talk) 16:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:BLP "Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article" It's SDG's own website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.117.52.108 (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]