Talk:Satsvarupa dasa Goswami/Archive 3

comments

• who is the Goswami in the infobox img, the left one or right? --Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

On the left of the image (other persons right). --Wikidās ॐ 16:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Remove the quote from the lead, the lead must summarize the whole article.
• Overlinking problem, throughout the article. Once an article is linked, another link to same article is not needed. Overlinking, in case of ISKCON and Prabhupada.
• for Consistency, use only one word for "Prabhupada", not "Bhaktivedanta swami" and "A.C. Bhaktivedanta". Replace all other names of Prabhupada by simply "Prabhupada".
• find the real name of Satsvarupa dasa Goswami
• Eliminate short 1-2 paras in "Literary contribution" and "Brief history in ISKCON", against WP:LAYOUT
• Remove external links in the text, last section.
• Title in infobox must be "Satsvarupa dasa Goswami", not "Sannyasi"

--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the Title in infobox to "Satsvarupa dasa Goswami", not "Sannyasi", but at the second look, it is the title of the Latest posting (ie in his case is Sannyasi). I do not have any other way to justify it being his name, ie it is not the title of the infobox, its the title of the posting in religious order. I have to work a bit more for WP:LAYOUT comments above. In some cases one should note that Prabhupada is title used after 1968 not before. I agree that consistency matters more here, so will revise.Wikidās ॐ 09:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I will look into the rest of the changes shortly. I had combined sections at the end to make a continuous read. More to follow. Wikidās ॐ 13:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

'His writings are often misunderstood' - improperly cited

The link attached to this does not offer a citation, but rather an apology in which Maharaj seems to imply that he didn't realize the nature of his writing('Sanatorium'). This is not an effective citation as it does not present or correct any misunderstanding. If we are going on this citation alone, a better sentence may denote that he has since apologized for the overtly sexual nature of his writing. You may notice an edit on that section, but I simply corrected the English (inclusion of the letter 'A'). I suggest that an effective citation be found if this sentence is to be included in this article at all, failing which perhaps a 'controversy' section may be added, to reflect what I understand to be the feeling of many devotees. This is after all, an encyclopedic article.

My humble obeisances, Haridasa

Hello Haridasa. Thank you for the correction. Please go ahead and correct the section as you desire, bear in mind that the explanation should be neutral. Wikipedia does not support censorship and does not favor a religious dogma, even if it forbids certain things or expressions. If encyclopedic by nature, the material should be included. It should verifiable and based on reliable sources that can include in this case authors own website]. Thanks you for your edit. Besides this there are a number of improvements that this article is desperately in need. I will remove in the meantime material that you have questioned. Wikidās ॐ 12:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

PAMHO, Wikidas prabhu, I'm afraid I have no new material to add, I was merely suggesting that we reform the current material, rather than breaking away from it completely. My suggestion would be to replace the part I quoted above with, '...free writing, much of which has sparked controversy over it's nature, for which Maharaj(?) has since apologised.[previous citation]', or words to that effect, If you think this would be appropriate. (Unsigned)

I am afraid that your suggestion will constitute something that is called 'poorly sourced material'. There are no reliable and appropriate sources as to such controversy. The source that was used is an unreliable 'blog' site ie this source (dandavats blog site) was never ever accepted anywhere on Wikipedia as a reliable source, especially to any controversial claims.

The policy under WP:BLP is as following:

• • • Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space

Haridas, (please sign your posts by typing ~~~~) Based on this I would appreciate if you can go over the article and remove any material that is poorly sourced. The source that you have spotted is to be deleted. In fact I suggest removing elements of the history of the page that contain this. I assume good faith on your part but I will ensure that policy is followed here, all such unsourced material will be removed from this article, at the moment its the best action that can be taken to ensure we comply with the policy please read: WP:BLP. Wikidās ॐ 10:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I went over the article and added appropriate tags. Please feel free to remove material as you see fit. Wikidās ॐ 11:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect information

"Post: ISKCON guru from July 1977" - This is wrong, right? I mean, he didn't start acting as Guru until after the departure of Srila Prabhupada. If this is in referral to the ritvik letter, of course, that refers to him taking the position of a priest, rather than guru. Chopper Dave (talk) 21:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I always took it that Prabhupada had selected number of gurus to act when he was getting ready to leave. At the time when Prabhupada was present the gurus he selected were acting as his ritviks in terms of initiation, but were clearly pointed out as gurus. Thus the date of posting starts from July 77 appointment. As per Prabhupada's earlier words: "When I order you become guru, he becomes regular guru." I run it by the quotation by Ron Rhodes: 2001 - "Before Prabhupada died in 1977, he selected senior devotees who would become gurus." Of course the topic was made controversial, and thus if any other date, rather then from July 1977, it needs a document to support it. It could be March 1978 (the date of first initiation in India), but I do not have any reliable source to this effect, the letter of appointment is a reliable source. Any suggestions? Wikidās ॐ 21:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

This article needs a complete re-write

It reads like an advert "of special mention" - massive block quotes advertising his books etc etc. I have to go out for a couple of hours but will be turning the flamethrowers on it later. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

As a writer, some commentators have called his disciplic lineage, Chaitanya Vaisnava Sampradaya, the "Sampradaya of the Book".[23] The writing is done following a line of teachers. Srivatsa Goswami appears to suggest a similar view with a reference to the "path of the Six Goswamis":[24] "Many other Vaishnava teachers, after them, wrote many hundreds of other treatises as well. It is not the work of fanatic sentimentalists". Satsvarupa dasa Goswami's writing[25] represents a contemporary variety from commentaries on scriptures to a free flowing poetry and prose.[26] His writings were translated in over forty languages by Bhaktivedanta Book Trust and Gita Nagari Press. He was also requested by Bhaktivedanta Book Trust to complete a number of works[13][27] [28], started by A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada.[29]

Can someone make this clear, I've read it a number of times and it still makes little sense to me.

As a writer, some commentators have called his disciplic lineage, Chaitanya Vaisnava Sampradaya, the "Sampradaya of the Book". - what does this mean?

Srivatsa Goswami appears to suggest a similar view with a reference to the "path of the Six Goswamis":[24] "Many other Vaishnava teachers, after them, wrote many hundreds of other treatises as well. It is not the work of fanatic sentimentalists". - same with this. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It have been rewritten. Some statements were dropped because they made little sense or did not have any sources to back them up. Wikidās ॐ 13:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

SDG's Falldown

Can NOT be ignored! It is a major component of his identity. Mark Sanford, Bill Clinton, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Newt Gingrich all have their "special friends" listed with considerable detail. This is mild in comparison, despite the fact that it is far more significant that a Vaisnava sanyassi has a sex and drug problem that it does for a politician.

WikiDas should not use Wiki tricks to avoid the reality of this issue. HelloVPN GoodbyBlock (talk) 21:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I'm not really familiar with this subject; but the people you mentioned all had their personal issues covered rather widely in the press. If this is equally important, I assume it was covered equally widely in the press; you just need the best of the newspaper articles that wrote about it to confirm the importance of this. There's no conspiracy here, just Wikipedia's usual rules regarding verification. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why reference to Satsvarupa's sexual liaison was removed from this page. If you look at the archive, there was discussion on this topic. Key point: celibate monk = no sex. He had sexual contact with a woman. We don't need a wet and messy play by play about what was up (or not up as the case may be), but some reference needs to be there. As has been said, it's a key point in his life. This whole page reads like a glossy brochure. It needs some real.

I'll put a version of the edit up in a few hours if no rational argument against it shows up on this page. As was noted in the discussion archive, it's on his own web page! Why all the subterfuge to obscure this well known and fundamental fact? ZipaDeeDooDa (talk) 23:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

If the 'fundamental fact' can be supported by verifiable sources, then it can be included in the encyclopaedia. Nja²⁴⁷ 23:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It's been on his own website. It's also on an official Iskcon (the central organization) website. Since he's not Bill Clinton, it's not in the New York Times. What more do you want? ZipaDeeDooDa (talk) 00:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

For you to meet the same requirements everyone must, ie WP:V and WP:CS. Nja²⁴⁷ 00:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Speak human please. ZipaDeeDooDa (talk) 00:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

In human- if this is truly significant, then someone other than himself will have written about it, like a newspaper or magazine. If he is the only one who has written about it, then it is probably not an important part of a biography about him. There are many interesting things in my diary, but since no one but myself has written about them, they probably aren't a useful part of an encyclopedia. In addition, it's important that you stick with one user account; creating multiple accounts is against the rules and is likely to result in the blocking of all of your accounts, which won't allow you to accomplish what you hope to. All you need to do is share even one article about this in a published source. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Multiple Accounts: Why are you assuming bad faith? And "reminding" me with unenforceable threats?

To the issue at hand: There are hate websites all over the internet deriding SdG in glorious detail. He's a fallen member of a significant, but now failing religious movement that had a significant impact on world culture. To his credit, he has picked himself up and is attempting to move on and contribute in his own way. Yet, to a person in a renounced order, known sexual activity becomes part of their personal portfolio. Assuming they do actually pick up and move on, there's no particular reason to overly dwell upon the fall down, however nor is there to obscure it. People can choose to weigh it as they please. But they need the opportunity to make that choice in an informed manner.

If your financial planner is a convicted embezzler, that would be something you should know prior to hiring him/her to manage your money. You may employ him anyway, because he's straight about his past, he's good at his work, or maybe he has good and recent recommendations. Or maybe you're stupid. But you were informed.

There are organizations, regulating agencies and government entities that manage financial planners and inform the public about them. The organization that manages and regulates standards and memberships for the International Society for Krishna Consciousness is the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. If a Swami gets a special "performance" from one of his followers, the society will act. Not surprisingly, the New York Times may not cover it. If the society's website and the individual's website both acknowledge the issue, why should it be erased by Wikipedia mob rule gobbledygook?

A specific question: why does his own website, and a official website of the society not qualify as adequate reference? Why does it need to hit the newspapers and magazines to be valid? 174.131.115.125 (talk) 03:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The above was me. I just forgot to login. ZipaDeeDooDa (talk) 03:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I have a hard time following your logic, but to answer your question for at least the third time now: inclusion into an encyclopaedia (which Wikipedia is, it's not a blog) requires everything in human speak that was explained above by FisherQueen, ie reliable and verifiable third-party sources. This policy applies to everyone so please stop acting like you're unduly put at a disadvantage. Further this is not a general discussion forum so please think carefully before reposting the same question over and over again as it's not getting anywhere and is a waste of time. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

You ask why, but I though I already explained. An encyclopedia isn't the first place where information is published; it's just a collection of important information that has been published elsewhere. If you think this is really important, and want to spread the word about it, I completely respect that - but Wikipedia isn't the right place to start. Start by going to the newspapers, the religion magazines, or the major online sources that write about Krishna Consciousness. Write a few articles about this and submit them for publication to those sources. Write a book about him, and submit it for publication to a significant publisher. That's the way to spread information through the world. Wikipedia isn't the place to do that; we just report what has already been published here. If my financial planner were a convicted embezzler (your example), I wouldn't expect to learn about that on Wikipedia; that isn't something that is within the limits of what an encyclopedia writes about. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Just kissing a girl is not notable event to be included in reliable sources, that could be a reason why no reliable source would even consider mentioning it. I suggest that the way it is described now is sufficient and punishment was disproportionate and is described in detail. If every such instance was needed to be recorded in reliable sources and then reflected in Wikipedia, you will have a mess (is that what you really want?). Wikid^as© 11:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The way it is described is a whitewash and is wrong by omission, as is the "just kissing a girl" comment. Sounds almost cute and innocent, like we're all 12 in the schoolyard. It was more than kissing (may have started that way, graphic details can be found elsewhere), a grown woman he had known for many years, she was married (I was at the wedding, SdG performed the ceremony), and the event precipitated a crisis of faith for thousands worldwide. I've experienced Wiki mob rule in the past with the "groups referred to as cults" page. An absolutely ridiculous page that took years to get rid of despite it's obvious and naked POV. It oddly had the opposite problem, just because it was in the New York Times, the information could be listed.

I think it absolutely ignorant to say that the only way to get this information included would be to rally some newspaper to write about it and make it legitimate. That is of course how real encyclopedias do it right? Why should Wiki be any different? Sorry about the logic, maybe read a little slower and look up some words.

So I'll break down and actually read the rules. If it's a fact that information can only be listed if it's in a media account, I will happily strip all information not in the NYT, the LA Times or the Guardian out of every Wiki page in existence. I'll start with this one. ZipaDeeDooDa (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)