5

This answer, besides using Irawati Karve's book, has also used a quote of Mahatma Gandhi as a reference. Is that even allowed?

My question to Mods, which is that FAQ that you have framed with such a big loophole in it that's been exploited to the maximum now a days? Isn't it the time to fix that hole?

3

No. I strongly think Mahatma Gandhi has nothing to do with Hinduism. Yes, there is a loophole. Even I am not sure how to fix this. @mods?

My response to @sv's answer above:

I see you have vast knowledge unlike me or many on this site. I could be wrong but let me try to explain. This site mainly deals with Hinduism. The main valid answers should come from scriptural references which are the pillars of Hinduism. It is fine to have side references from modern gurus and authors but if those references are used as main ones in the answers then as time goes by the Hinduism site will be full of answers from a lot of gurus than what it really stands for (the pillars). On another thought, even allowing side references from modern gurus and authors make the site deviate. So, better to avoid them. So, the best is not to use them, okay to use them as side references, bad to use them as main references for answers. If a question can’t be answered from the main scriptural references then it is highly likely to be an off-topic one but on another hand existing of such questions can’t be possible if any Hinduism expert can mend it to show scriptural references (if they feel it is on-topic).

This site does not deal with one's belief, it deals with Hinduism. One might have knowledge in related areas in Hinduism and they might feel it is better to share here. But let me be clear, this is not the place to share such beliefs or understandings.

Even if an SE site did maintain such a list, I think it'd be inherently discriminatory towards those authors/publications and may break the SE Code of Conduct in some way

It won't be discriminatory if we are defining the scope of this site.

6
  • 1
    What you are asking for is unenforceable. At least on SE. A question such as, 'What did Swami Vivekananda think about Sati?' is essentially asking the opinion of a modern guru which cannot be answered using scriptures. If you make such questions off-topic, the site will lose most followers of Vivekananda. They will go to more welcoming sites like Quora which doesn't place any such restrictions. I think this FAQ as it is currently worded needs no changes for another 10000 years. – sv. Sep 24 '20 at 20:35
  • I feel such questions should be off topic. Suppose another question - "What did xyz think about Sati?", "What did abc think about Sati?". Though I got your point that opinions of all gurus matter, I still feel that should not be the case. – Mr_Green Sep 25 '20 at 3:54
  • It won't be discriminatory if we are defining the scope of this site ---- Exactly .. we have guidelines regarding what sources are allowed and which are not .. that does not mean we are discriminating .. that's just another failed attempt to mislead SE, has happened in the past too but all failed .. I don't know if it's intentional or due to lack of understanding of things. @Mr_Green – Rickross Sep 25 '20 at 6:18
  • 1
    The mods appear to be maintaining a studied silence on this topic. it would vastly surprise me if a site-specific whitelist/blacklist policy did not run afoul of SE CoC/policies. – iruvar Sep 25 '20 at 15:28
  • 2
    @iruvar The active mod left a message here saying he's going to be away for 2 weeks. Also, some mods have already stated their opinion on this here and here. I don't think they are going to repeat themselves. One mod has even answered a question citing a tweet of a modern guru. Imagine deleting all such Q & A - not going to happen. – sv. Sep 25 '20 at 18:21
  • 1
    Thanks, the above comment is helpful. Yeah I can just downvote if I disagree with the answer. – Mr_Green Sep 25 '20 at 20:18
-4

First off, neither this nor any SE site that I know of maintains a blacklist of authors/publications that cannot be used as reference. Even if an SE site did maintain such a list, I think it'd be inherently discriminatory towards those authors/publications and may break the SE Code of Conduct in some way.

As for Mahatma Gandhi, he was a practicing Hindu and even wrote a commentary on Bhagavad Gita, so that gives him a right to comment on any aspect of Hinduism and also the users of this site the right to use his material.

If some users don't personally like Mahatma Gandhi or don't consider him an authority on Hinduism, they are free to downvote answers that cite him.

This is no different than some people not liking modern gurus like Ravi Shankar and Jaggi Vasudev. I suggest you read the comments under this post. Especially this one:

This is my humble opinion: Some reference > No reference > Unknown reference :). If the answer mentions an answer and then adds the disclaimer that this is taken from the words of Saint X. Then at least you can decide for yourself whether you want to take it into consideration or not. If you feel its against the Hindu scriptures then you can always leave a comment. Because if we start removing the words of saints, then some would say Ramakrishna is not valid authority! Some would say Shankaracharya is not valid authority! Finally we will be left with Vedas, Puranas and Ithihasas, good luck! – Sai May 4 '16 at 18:47

12
  • Though I agree now, this answer is still deviating and pressing more on CoC and discrimination stuff, which isn't the case here. You might want to post your above comment as another answer. – Mr_Green Sep 25 '20 at 20:22
  • ruben's answer at one of the links from above is on point. Due to not wanting to pave the way for the downvote brigade whose attentions it seems to have somehow escaped, I will desist from linking to it – iruvar Sep 25 '20 at 21:09
  • 1
    No, it's not deviating. I'm stressing against keeping any white/blacklists. Old/Traditional gurus/acharyas vs. modern gurus. Initiated gurus vs. Uninitiated scholars (Western or Indian). A user can quote whoever they like or regard as guru as long as it addresses the question - it's a really simple rule to follow. I can even quote someone I don't like/agree with - it all depends on the context. Keeping any white/blacklist of any sort is inherently discriminatory. @Mr_Green – sv. Sep 25 '20 at 21:26
  • 1
    The CoC specifically says: "No bigotry. We don’t tolerate any language likely to offend or alienate people based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion — and those are just a few examples. Use stated pronouns (when known). When in doubt, don't use language that might offend or alienate." The title/tone of OP's post itself is discriminatory towards Gandhi. On any SE site, SE rules take precedence over site rules. @Mr_Green – sv. Sep 25 '20 at 21:28
  • You got it all wrong. The people above are users of this site not the famous "people" we, the people, are discussing. Meta is for discussion to define and refine the main site. Such regular discussions help to keep the site healthy. I don't see any tone in OP's question which could offend the personality and their followers. But if you did so, please flag it for the mods. – Mr_Green Sep 26 '20 at 2:08
  • "A user can quote whoever they like or regard as guru as long as it addresses the question - it's a really simple rule to follow" Though I agree with this and thinking about it, this is what we are discussing. Many users feel this is too broad and might open gates which could flood with posts, which could deviate from actual Sanatana dharma (not mainly Hinduism). As I see, this still need healthy discussion and ability to understand everyone's point of view than trying to cut the discussion with CoC and discrimination allegations, which clearly isn't the case here. – Mr_Green Sep 26 '20 at 2:18
  • "The people above are users of this site not the famous 'people' we, the people, are discussing." - Maybe it's you who got it all wrong? See this MSE post. CoC applies to everyone, both users of this site and public personalities. Just because some personality like Gandhi is no longer alive and cannot defend himself on this site doesn't mean users of this site start saying things like "Gandhi has nothing to do with Hinduism" @Mr_Green – sv. Sep 26 '20 at 2:30
  • Tomorrow I can say, 'Mr_Green has nothing to do with Hinduism'. Such kind of statements lead nowhere. It's not an healthy discussion at all. OP's title begins with "..even Gandhi..." - so what he means is, how come even a personality like Gandhi start commenting on Hinduism? 'Who gave him the right?' He further thinks it's a loophole to cite Gandhi. Basically he's trying to force his opinion of Gandhi on rest of the community. @Mr_Green – sv. Sep 26 '20 at 2:36
  • 'trying to cut the discussion with CoC and discrimination allegations' - who is trying to cut the discussion? Did I flag any of the recent comments or posts? See comments posted here and you'll know who's flagging whose comments and trying to censor an open discussion. And it's not just me, another user above also expressed the same opinion that blacklisting some authors without a legitimate reason may violate the CoC. @Mr_Green – sv. Sep 26 '20 at 2:49
  • "flood with posts, which could deviate from actual Sanatana dharma (not mainly Hinduism)." - THIS is the crux of the problem. It is not the job of this SE site to present the most authentic form of Hinduism to its readers. This is a Q&A site about Hinduism. That's all. A question can get multiple competing even contradictory answers. Users should decide for themselves which answer makes most sense. If someone doesn't like my answer/source, they can write their own answers instead of trying to get my answer deleted or ban the sources I used because it doesn't conform to their views. @Mr_Green – sv. Sep 26 '20 at 2:57
  • Let's try to resolve this in chatroom. – Mr_Green Sep 26 '20 at 3:13
  • "The people above.." I meant just in your above comment. If you felt offended by OP's post, flag it. " It is not the job of this SE site to present the most authentic form of Hinduism to its readers." - why do you think so? – Mr_Green Sep 26 '20 at 3:27

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .