User talk:Tathaataa

Re your question as to why it is wrong, at that position in the text, to give the alleged age and gender. The answer is simple. As our friend would have it read, there is the ambiguity that, somehow, the fact that Sangarakshita's are male is in some sense part of, or indeed the whole of, the criticism. This is homophobic. The criticism is that S is alleged to have misused his position as a teacher to gain sexual advvantage with his discliples. Their gender is irrelevant to this.

The details of the issues are further down the entry.

IMO, a more pressing issue is the repetitions of the new name, and also the subtitutions of FWBO with this name in historical contexts, which is wrong. Bluehotel (talk)

So there are two issues here: the issue of factual accuracy, and the intent of our mutual friend. Surely the two can be separated, so that the gender of Sangharakshita's sexual partners is presented in a NPOV way, without it being intended as a homophobic jibe. Of course some people will react in a homophobic way to such information, just as some people would react in a racist way to information that a particular person was black. But we can't control how people react, and beyond avoiding provocative language I don't believe we have a responsibility to protect people from information that might reinforce their prejudices.

Yes, but the information is in the piece. The first paragraphs are meant to summarise the entry, which they do. All the additional information is further down. We can invite other editors to get involved, I suppose, but, to take the example you raise, information about someone's color wouldn't be given in that context unless it was relevant. If, for example, one man shoots another their races wouldn't initially be stated unless it was relevant. "Dentist shoots black intruder" for instance. Or "Black man shoots dentist", or "Man shoots black dentist", or even "Man shoots male dentist". This is racism. Thus, to say Sangharakshita was criticised for having sex with men in this context is homophobic. It carries the implication that the situation might be ethically different if a women was involved. That's the point, at this location in the narrative, and which is why the other editor wants to make that change. There is no legitimate criticism over Sangharakshita having sex with men, and I don't believe wiki editors would permit it. People are entitled to have sex. The legitimate criticism - at least for some people - is that he had sex with members of a group over which he was the guru. Personally, I'm not hugely convinced, even over that. For me, it's the unskilful way he went about it and the fact that he won't discuss the issue is the issue. Bluehotel (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC).

I have concerns about the article as well. I take your point about the anachronism of referring to the FWBO in the past by its new name. However I'm more concerned about some inaccurate citations and also the fact that the introductory paragraph includes only negative comments on the FWBO and not a balance of critical and appreciative perspectives. Addressing those issues is my first priority, but I support you in addressing the issues you've raised. Tathaataa (talk) 18:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Sangharakshita

Hello. In September 2009 you added a citation to a book from the "Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases" series published by Icon Group International to this article. Unfortunately, Icon Group International is not a reliable source - their books are computer-generated, with most of the text copied from Wikipedia (most entries have [WP] by them to indicate this, see e.g. [1]). I've only removed the reference, not the text it was referencing. I'm removing a lot of similar references as they are circular references; many other editors have also been duped by these sources. Despite giving an appearance of reliability, the name "Webster's" has been public domain since the late 19th century. Another publisher to be wary of as they reuse Wikipedia articles is Alphascript Publishing. Fences&Windows 01:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I was fooled by the Webster "brand." Tathaataa (talk) 02:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)