If you search any site for debates between Bhagavatams, Shaktas and some shaivas say Srimad Bhagavatam is created text and Vaishnavas say Devi Bhavatam is created text. These arguments are there from long ago. What OP posted there are arguments from Shakta/Shaiva side.

" everyone was jumping on the poster to be respectful," Yes, moderators included.

That is fine on a particular sampradaya site. You are fine with that mudslinging on here?

@Ambi IMO, Nature of question is such that it invites such kind of arguments.

@Sarvabhouma true. Hence my callout. All it took was Swami V posting one comment for everyone to join the chorus. I am not saying it is wrong, but shouldn't the yardstick be for everyone?

@TheDestroyer so basically then the mod team is fine with this type of questions and this type of responses. Correct? If the poster wanted to say DB was authentic, he/she could have just as easily done that without all the nonsense about intent of Vaishnavas and such.

@Ambi "then the mod team is fine with this type of questions and this type of responses. Correct?" No. It is not okay. but if you call some other Purana a finely grained story created by some people. Then log off, you will find your answer in red. This happened in the past. I can't find the link though.

@Sarvabhouma so you are basically saying mod bias exists? That kind of defeats the point of having a mod?

@Ambi Then we should first discuss should we allow such questions or not. If such questions are allowed, we get such responses from users only, be it any side. We need a meta discussion for questions first. Community here decides policy.

@Sarvabhouma Saying a purana has interpolation is different thing even when question has nothing to with interpolation and that is not correct way of answering. Nature of question is which here creates debates. Don't mix up unrelated things and show your prejudice on Mods here.

@Destroyer The policy already exists. Disagree, but be respectful. That answer is NOT anywhere close to being respectful. Let the answer be, but need to remove sections of it which unnecessarily brings in intent of Vaishnavas and such.

The problem here is not the question or its responses. The words used in the answer. The argument used is demeaning and insulting to Vaishnavas especially which said it was created to demean Shiva. No side makes that type of argument.

@Destroyer Nature of question here was to ask if both can co-exist. Not to discuss imaginary intent or if one is imaginary and the other is on solid facts. That mudslinging is ok for personal private blogs. Not here. Hence my flag.

@The Thanks Finally I got a reply from moderators on meta after a long time. I hope there will be some replies in other policies too. Prejudice or opinions form when there's nothing from the other side. I didn't get any replies from your team when I asked clarification. Replies I got are very late after a month or 2. Some of you even make allegations on me. So, do you expect me to have a good faith on moderation? No. I already said it's not the question but the language used in the answer is causing problems.. but as usual, you declined it by saying I have some intention. What can I say more?

@Ambi " if both can co-exist. " not "how it can co-exist" Answer can be yes or no. OP answered it as No providing his perspective. The main reason here for such strong content is question itself.

@TheDestroyer I was saying about an answer which used the same type of language that Shiva Purana is a created text by Chola king and the original Shiva purana is not present now. But that was deleted by users with red flags. I am not talking about the issue which added the texts had interpolations. Even that was taken offensively and users made personal comments on the answerer. I am not talking about "Note of cautions" matter. I am talking about another issue. It is about red flags I am talking about.

@Sarvabhouma if you see we accepted answers which said "Shaiva sect is anti Vedic" as here. So if we have to remove such "strong language" we have to remove from many answers. I accept such language is strong, but we allowed such language in past too and that's my only point. We have to make a new policy to not post such strong content answers.

@TheDestroyer ok so we are in to semantics. Alright, here's what. Tell me that this answer will not be modified and this is policy now that these type of questions and language is perfectly fine. Tell me that, I will stop right here. I am sure there are enough places where I could find better engagement. And from what I have seen, this cordiality is anyway superficial. The chat rooms are rife with vitriol on certain topics. What say we do away with the pretense and let the jolly good times roll on to the board? Good grief, and we are wondering why we are still in beta.

@Ambi See my above comment to Sarvahoma.

@Destroyer if you are saying there is no distinction between strong language and outright outrageous and baseless claims coupled with targeted mudslinging, there is nothing more to discuss here.

@The 1. You already got a reply why it was used from the user who wrote that answer. You also seem to be convinced with that explanation. The Shaivism and Shaiva agamas were condemned by some philosophers in their works. 2. That was a quoted portion citing some works and commentaries but that is not the case in this answer. No commentator or the other said Bhagavatam was created to demean Lord Shiva. It says he is very dear to Vishnu. Here, the user says it on their own. The verses cited in the answer don't demean Shiva. Saying it was created to demean Shiva is rude and wrong.

@Ambi See, it depends completely on perspective of users here. The above answer i quoted can also seen as mudslinging and baseless. But I still agree with your question here . We might need some standards for respectful and disrespectful.

@TheDestroyer and I am also saying an instance where an answer which used similar language was deleted using rude flags. Keshav's answer about Ramanujacharya is not I am talking about. The answer was not downvoted and moved as you suggested in the comment sometime ago. If this is ok, that should also be ok. All the rude flags should be removed from that answer also.

@Sarvabhouma I am obviously not fully convinced. My comment was posted in 2016 and this is 2019. Indeed, i can have different views in 2019. To know my exact opinion, see this message. So, please don't assume anything.

Too long comment thread, let me do what a reasonable moderator would suggest and ask that you fellas go to chat to sort this out. Thanks.

@SudarshanaSuri ji the tangential discussion to chat, yes. but this sorting out needs to happen here. i doubt it though.

@Ambi Given my experience on H.SE - I agree with your assessment - but as long as it is here, nothing will be sorted. That is possibly true even if dialogue shifts to Moderation chat as well - So I'm once again inclined to agree and yet, Hope and all that springs eternal I hear.

@Ambi Personally I think Sarvabhouma is objectively better equipped and has a cooler head on his shoulders to be the moderator over person(s) who are reluctant to admit hypocrisy (which is better acceptable) and instead blame it on kaalam (the passage of time)

"the word neovedanta can be deemed to be hateful" -- whether the word is considered hateful or not but the posts which contain it are still there ... they may be downvoted but not deleted... So I can not see ur reasoning here @Ambi

It would be better if mods try to bring some discussion rather than silently moving discussion and hence killing the arguments or inputs made here.

I doubt that there is anymore meaningful discussion possible since we are in whataboutery mode. I have clearly said it... I don't give a damn about the analysis itself. It is the idiotic claims that are very directly inserted to simply disparage the Vaishnavas as a whole.

@Ambi It is preposterous to say intention is to offend all vaishnavas and disparage Vaishnavism or something else.. In debates one party will be offended with arguments of others. If you don't want to get offended, don't participate in debates or allow such moot questions in first place.

preposterous? Alright @TheDestroyer. You are saying it intention is NOT to offend? What proof do you have? Your statements about debates and offenses etc are all fine except for the fact that those are against the rules of this site. Or probably not... given that You and several others have made many statements in the course of this exchange. Let's see if the other "debates" are treated the same way, which was exactly what my question in meta was asking for.

@Ambi But what else do you expect in debates? Any argument can be felt offensive. You found these arguments offensive and some other user might feel other arguments offensive.

Debates are never encouraged on site.

@TheDestroyer I was not aware this was a forum which allowed debates. Anyway, I am done with this discussion here. Nothing more from me. Certain things are very clear and am pretty sure that this site will continue to be lopsided as it is regardless of all the centeredness it is purported to have

This is just Q&A site. Even debates are not suggested in chat room. Only friendly discussions are allowed.

@Ambi As i said, We are planning to allow only Analytical answers citing Acharyas or Swamis. No opinions from users,.

Either question needs to be edited or closed to take action on answer.

@Ambi This site does not allow any debates. There is a Code of Conduct which applies for every thing.. i.e., messages, comments, question and answers. You can flag them for moderator intervention. When such happens, you can contact staff.

@TheDestroyer There is not even a single downvote or single close vote on the question. Suddenly the question became problematic? How?

@TheDestroyer Who are we? Mod team? Are they only one who decide what is allowed and what is not? What is the problem with current policy of citations (recently added to faq), CoC, Back it up? We already have them. Don't we? Are they flawed?

Are these not enough or unclear?