Talk:ISKCON/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

The Clean Up

Hey, I've just put a cleaned up version of the ISKCON page over. I'd appricate that if anyone wants to make any major changes that they first spoke on talk, as i've spent a bit of time getting the page much nicer :) Thank you Dwayne Kirkwood 18:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi dwayne, you say( Based on Srila Prabhupada's statements in letters, most agree that it was right that the system stopped upon Prabhupada's passing) Can you please address the issue of "who" these "most people" were? And a link to where they were given the authority to make such a change. Its all well and good to say "most people thought", but thinking something and having been given the instruction or authorisation to do it, are two totally different things. You also state that this was based on Srila Prabhupada's letters, exactly which letters were these, and where in the letters did it state that the ritvik system should stop,or if most people think it should stop then it should stop? If you cannot back these statements with factual information,then you should remove that content as it is misleading information. Thanks Chaitanya dasa

Hey. I didn't write that section so where you have put "you say", actually it's whoever wrote it, you'll be able to find that tracking back through the history. My speculation however would be that the basis of the dropping of the ritvik system was the situation of which it was initiated, while Srila Prabhupada was no longer able to travel. The letters i'm guessing that are being referred to are the one where he mentions his disciples becoming Guru's after he has left his body. But, i'm only speculating and i'm sure you'll be given better answers if someone else see's your questions. Dwayne Kirkwood 07:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion the current version from Dwayne's recent edit gives a balanced view. The changes have been made regarding the physical presence etc... Most people who come to this page won't be interested in the minute details of the Ritkvik situation, and will be looking for an overview of Krishna Consciousness. GourangaUK 10:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV? I wouldn't say this is an 'ongoing discussion', it's been dead for 5 days... Reasoning? Thanks. Dwayne Kirkwood 02:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV because there uis still content which is clearly POV.

Sfacets 05:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you could give some indication to what content, so that it could be fixed, rather than speculated on. Dwayne Kirkwood 07:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the NPOV because it's ubsubstaniated.GourangaUK 08:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The Maha Mantra and Srila Prabhupada's purports

From what I can see on the Hare Krishna page, the scriptual references for the Maha Mantra all refer to it as this name, and it's not just ISKCON who call it this. So, unless you have counter-evidence, please stop editing the article.

On the side of Srila Prabhupada's translations and purports, what is wrong with the current description?

Thank you Dwayne Kirkwood 07:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Maha Mantra can refer to any number of mantras in many different Hindu and non-Hindu sects, therefore referring to the Hare Krishna mantra to 'Maha Mantra' is too general a term.

The point I am trying to make with Srila Prabhupada's version of the Gita is that it is a translation from Sanskrit, a highly complex language into english, a comparatively simple language. With this translation, alot of the original meaning is lost, and therefore Srila Prabhupada needed to elaborate on the message, in effect making it his rendition of the Book. Sfacets 11:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

In regards to the Maha Mantra, Perhaps we change the title of the area to "Hare Krishna Mantra (Maha Mantra)", and include your change of "within the organisation". Sorry about the rv, but as stated they were for a valid reason. In regards to Srila Prabhupada's purports, are you happy with what is there now? Thanks Dwayne Kirkwood 18:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with including the line about purports - The philosophy of Iskcon IS based on the Bhagavad-Gita and Srimad Bhagavatam, fact. To say 'a lot of the original meaning is lost' is clearly a non-neutral & very personal opinion. The Hare Krishna mantra is known as the 'Maha-Mantra' by a large number of people around the world (both in and outside of Iskcon) I don't see a problem with it being labelled in this way. Just because two people may both be called Harry, doesn't mean the one person's name is any less valid than the other? GourangaUK 19:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It isn't a non-neutral opinion. The fact that there exists different translations of the Gita shows that much is lost on translation, and is therefore interpreted by whoever translated the text.

The 'Maha Mantra', approximatinhg "supreme Mantra" refers to a Mantra to Lord Krishna. There are many religions which posses 'Maha Mantras' which do not refer to Krishna... why then should specification not be introduced? Sfacets 00:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sfacets - you're right there are many translations of the Gita, and this is discussed in the Bhagavad Gita page. If another mantra gets an entry in Wikipedia under the term 'Maha Mantra' also then we can create a disambiguation page to include them all, but I don't think we need to change the name in this page. Hare Krishna, ys, GourangaUK 07:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The maha Mantra cannot be 'claimed' by a single organisation. there are many Mantras considered as Maha Mantras out there to list just a few,

• Pancha-Tattva Maha Mantra
• Meri Maiya Maha Mantra
• Maha-mrityunjaya mantra
• Nrsimha Maha-mantra

... And the list goes on. Sfacets 01:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Wait, so you 'correct' the Maha-mantra information, but reinstate the NPOV tag afterwards? Again, what is the NPOV content? Dwayne Kirkwood 03:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I correct it because I know from past experience that it will be reverted. When I first put up the NPOV tag, it was on the reverted version. What is your point? Sfacets 04:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

My point is that the apparent NPOV content is corrected, so why did you re-add the NPOV after correcting the so-called POV content? Dwayne Kirkwood 04:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

From above:

Maybe you could give some indication to what content, so that it could be 
fixed, rather than speculated on. 
Dwayne Kirkwood 07:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the NPOV because it's ubsubstaniated.
GourangaUK 08:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I was making my point. I have time and time again (well at least twice anyway) made the same edits, only to have them removed without reason. So I added a NPOV template, which was promptly removed. So there you go. There is a dispute. Sfacets 04:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

After just discovering that the Maha Mantra page is already in existence I'm now at a loss as to seeing what issues may remain to discuss? I've amended the description of the mantra on this page as best I can without taking away the meaning. GourangaUK 15:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of text?

I am fairly new to Wikipedia.

Yesterday (May 18th, 2006), I added the following portion of text to the "3.2 The Guru and the Parampara" section: "The book Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link provides an additional perspective on the process by which the student is linked to the parampara."

I see this statement as factual and valid. Today (May 19th, 2006), I found this portion of text gone.

I will be adding the text again today. I feel that the text gives readers additional factual information, as well as a valid third perspective on the issue, and is relevant to understanding the topic of guru and parampara. It's not fully clear to me at this time what is the justification for removing this particular portion of text.

More information about the book that I mention can be found here:

http://www.chakra.org/discussions/SuccFeb4_03_02.html

--AlexandreJ 11:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Off topic: The book Srila_Prabhupada:_The_Prominent_Link may not be notable enough to merit its own article in Wikipedia. I will put it on Wikipedia:AFD. I do not mean to say that all books by or about Prabhupada have no place in Wikipedia. For example, I voted to keep the Bhagavad Gita As It Is which is a notable book. Andries 11:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Andries, thank you for your response. I appreciate the communication. I would be grateful if you would be willing to share with me a little bit more about what criteria would render a book notable enough to merit its own article on Wikipedia. Thank you for your time and attention.--AlexandreJ 11:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Alexandre, there are certainly a great number of notable books regarding Srila Prabhupada & Iskcon, but as I understand it, the point of a Wikipedia article is to give a clear and concise overview of a topic. Not to give all available information on all aspects - Otherwise as you could imagine the page would become gigantic and largely irrelevant to the general reader. To a follower of the Ritvik system the book may be very notable, but to the majority of people within Iskcon, let alone people outside of Iskcon, the whole issue will not be viewed with anywhere near the same amount of significance. Discussions regarding Srila Prabhupada's succession are already mentioned with numberous links on this page for anybody who wishes to investigate the matter further. Hare Krsna, ys, GourangaUK 13:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear GourangaUK, thanks for your feedback. I appreciate the dialogue. I see the issue as follows. The book seems to me to provide an additional perspective on initiation/succession, rather than "Ritvik" vs. the ISKCON organization. The book also includes contributions from a number of persons who are, or were, in positions of prominence within the ISKCON organization. It is not at all clear to me that these persons would self-identify as "followers of the Ritvik system". These include a leader like Bhaktimarga Swami, Krsnadasa Kaviraja dasa, Ambarisa dasa, Suresvara dasa and Naveen Krishna dasa (who is, I believe, a former member of the ISKCON organization’s governing body). In addition to this, it is the first time that I have come across a major statement on initiation/succession in Srila Prabhupada's movement presented as exploratory rather than as supposedly conclusive. I added one short sentence to sub-section 3.2 of the Wiki ISKCON page, so as not to be verbose.--AlexandreJ 16:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It's one among many books by Srila Prabhupada's followers and disciples - if we mention this one then we should mention them all, which you must agree is impractical in this instance. If the book had caused a significant revolution in the movement then it would be a different story GourangaUK 18:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Gauranga prabhu,

I find it strange that you called the book, "Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link" a "ritvik" book. My guess is that you haven't read the book otherwise you wouldn't be stating what the GBC has tried to make the public beleive. Please, I would recommend that you read the book for yourself. Then you will find that it is not a ritvik book. It is a very logical book accepted by a great number of leaders and devotees alike. You also said that if we mentioned this book, then you should mentioned them all. But you might not know this, but this book is not one of many. There aren't other books like it, not about the same topic at least. It is a major book because it clearly speaks for the majority and it is approved by the majority. When the book was being written, most devotees that heard of it agree with the concepts. Even gurus such as Hridayananda dasa Goswami, Bhakti Marga swami, and Ganapati Maharaja approved of it. There were many other leaders and devotees that are very prominent who endorsed the book. So this book is definately not a minor book. bhaktin Miriam

Dear Prabhus - I don't want to get involved in any Iskcon politics here - quite clearly Wikipedia is not the place for book advertisements, no matter how great the book may or may not be. If it was a famous books which had made a notable impact on society then it should be included in the article. As it is, I believe a link to it in the links sections is mention enough (as already exists). Hare Krishna, ys, GourangaUK 14:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Gouranga prabhu,

Sorry for being such a pest. But the fact that you said that the book Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link is a "ritvik" book is a political statement. The only ones who say that are the leaders of ISKCON. I am just curious, are you an ISKCON devotee? If you don't want (I am assuming you are a moderator here)the book mentioned in the main text, then I won't insist. But, yes, there should be a link to the book since it clearly is about succession. bhaktin Miriam

Dear Miriam Prabhu, I agree with there being a link to the book on the links section of the page. I was assuming the book was promoting the ritvik agrument due to it's title. My main argument was regarding it's relevance to the article, not it's content. I'm simply a servant of the servant... and not a moderator of any sort. Hare Krishna. Ys, GourangaUK 19:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear GourangaUK, the book Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link (PL) has created substantial waves. The Governing Body Commission of ISKCON, directly and through it's Sastric Advisory Council (SAC), has devoted much energy to addressing it, including a major paper dealing with the issues raised in PL. The SAC's paper can be downloaded here:

http://www.dandavats.com/wp-content/uploads/SACRespo_FINAL.doc

There is an active, dynamic PL conference sparking much thought on issues of succession in Srila Prabhupada's movement. Thousands of persons associated with the ISKCON organization, and with other parts of Srila Prabhupada's movement, are affected by the ideas in PL.--AlexandreJ 16:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

In connection with the topic of the PL book's impact, I'd like to share some excerpts from a section of the 2nd edition of the PL book, entitled 'Support for PL and Apprehension to Express It':

"Typical comments that I’ve received, at places like ISKCON leadership meetings and Sunday Feast programs, from devotees serving in all capacities within Srila Prabhupada’s movement, including top-level leaders in ISKCON, include statements, delivered in hushed tones, such as 'I really liked your paper, The Prominent Link. You wrote just what I’ve been thinking for many years.' Concurring with the statements of Ambarisa Prabhu and Balavanta Prabhu in the Foreword and Preface, many Vaisnavas emphasize the straightforward common sense of the concepts in PL."

(...)

"Many devotees have expressed disappointment and sadness that these principles have been neglected and overlooked by the leadership of ISKCON.

"Tones tend to be hushed in such conversations due to an apprehension that expression of such views is discouraged in the organization, and that such expressions would incur the disfavor of members and leaders of the institution. There is a perceived culture of fear and repression in the ISKCON organization, masked by a pretense of openness to frank discussion of issues.

"Ostensibly ISKCON wants innovative, thoughtful members who boldly apply their intelligence, within the framework of guru, sastra and sadhu, for gaining a deeper understanding of devotional principles. In practice, as experienced by many, if one does not conform to the organizational line on issues such as those addressed in PL, then the institutional leadership, without rational discussion or genuine attempt at understanding, often condemns the dissenter and discourages members of the organization to honestly look at issues from unorthodox perspectives. The implied message is 'We have already thoroughly considered these issues. So you needn’t apply your intelligence here, because we’ve thought it through for you.' Such a stance is unlikely to attract and retain independently thoughtful members. There is in the organization a veneer of broad-mindedness, accompanied by an implicit assertion that views such as those espoused in Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link are not to be found amongst persons in good-standing in the organization. If someone in the organization advocates such convictions, they are then branded and condemned, and pressured to leave the institution. Once they have left, it is again safe for the leadership to declare to the members that no one in good-standing would hold such views as expressed in essays such as The Prominent Link, and anyone who thinks that way is deviant, and so you’d do better to not even consider thinking in that way.

"Authoritarian dynamics, wherein the leadership is fearful of permitting subordinates to analyze and discern for themselves, may be somewhat prevalent in today’s religious institutions, but they are not conducive for Vaisnava society or relationships. Such reluctance to allow members to fully utilize their cognitive faculties may stem to a substantial degree from a benevolent desire to protect. The ISKCON organization may also benefit, however, from introspectively looking at other motivations for this authoritarianism, such as fear that members, upon analysis of facts from an alternative perspective, may realize that they are being, in some ways, misled.

"We understand that this imperious leadership style is not extant throughout the organization, but it is manifest with sufficient regularity and pervasiveness that many, perhaps most, of Srila Prabhupada’s followers, both inside and outside the institution, feel alienated and stifled. Thus, for the purpose of attracting and maintaining satisfied, intelligent members, it is, we believe, imperative for ISKCON leadership, especially at the top levels, to seriously assess its mode of addressing issues and concerns. As Balavanta writes in the Preface to PL, spiritual matters in Srila Prabhupäda’s society must be resolved through 'open and frank discussion amongst mature devotees whose voices are not suppressed.'

"Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link provides an opportunity for the movement to integrate and incorporate a new, attractive, and sastrically sound paradigm for carrying Srila Prabhupada’s legacy deep into the future. It is the opinion of many, including this author, that ISKCON needs to reexamine its paradigms, with fearless detachment, on issues including the guru issue, to avoid remaining a relatively insignificant cult, and to become a substantial player in the institutions of society at large. We understand that there are many fears, ranging from loss of important personal relationships to loss of legal battles, associated with implementation of the PL model. We contend with confidence that Srila Prabhupada’s movement possesses the strength to handle the challenges that will arise with the PL paradigm, and that the movement will undoubtedly be strengthened by accommodating and encouraging the PL model."--AlexandreJ 16:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Alexandre, as stated previously: there are certainly a great number of notable books regarding Srila Prabhupada & Iskcon, but as I understand it, the point of a Wikipedia article is to give a clear and concise overview of a topic. Not to give all available information on all aspects - Otherwise as you could imagine the page would become gigantic and largely irrelevant to the general reader... Discussions regarding Srila Prabhupada's succession are already mentioned with numberous links on this page for anybody who wishes to investigate the matter further. Best Wishes, ys, GourangaUK 20:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleted pirate link

I have deleted the link to "Reform group" (www.krishna.org), for several reasons:

1. Though placed under the heading of "Succession issues," the site is not specific to those issues, nor even largely dedicated to them.

2. The site does not belong to a "reform group" but to one single person. It's a one-man site.

3. Above and beyond that:

The site, Krishna.org, knowingly and persistently bootlegs copyrighted artwork and book-length copyrighted text.

Examples appear at "books.krishna.org" (not preceded by "www"). There you will find stories for which the content is bootlegged material, hosted on "krsnabook.com" and "asitis.com." All three sites are run by the same webmaster.

Further information is available from the rights and permissions department of the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, www.bbt.info.

The relevant Wikipedia policy appears in Wikipedia:Copyrights, in Section 4.3, "Linking to copyrighted works."

O Govinda 14:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Guru Article

Hare Krishna!

The Guru article features a large section criticising Gurus of all religions and faiths. It seems intent on criticising any religions based in or based upon South-Asian religions, and implies that any person called a Guru is likely to be a fraud. A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada is featured in the article.

It has been proposed that the article be either:

• Separated, the criticisms directed at each Guru be placed under the article on that particular teacher

• Merged into a new article such as 'Criticisms on religious teachers' or similar which would show less bias on South Asian religions.

However, concensus needs to be reached for any action to be made, so I encourage you to discuss the options on the Talkpage of the article. Talk:Guru Sfacets 20:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I consider the above announcement by Sfacets an inappropriate use of the article talk page. I see the announcement as off-topic and as an attempt to recruit contributors sympathetic to his POV to push his or her POV on the article guru. I filed a request for comments regarding this use of the article talk page and several other article talk pages. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Religion_and_philosophy. The dispute about such use of the article talk pages is further discusses at talk:Sikhism Andries 08:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinions, you are so good at giving them. How is it off-topic since Gurus are an important part in the different religions, the talk pages of which I have posted my request for peer review, a system which editors of larger religion-based projects (Such as Hinduism) have integrated into their project portal. I am asking for peer review, and that is all. Sfacets 08:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

External links on child abuse

I've deleted a link to a "zero-tolerance on child abuse" petition, added on 16 June by user 172.162.1.127.

Whether we sympathize with the petition or not, it sends the reader to one item out of many in the midst of a complex topic. Does this serve to inform the reader, as an encyclopedia should?

Moreover, the link addresses a particular issue, mainly concerning one person, that is hot as of June 2006. Yes, this also involves larger issues. But then we ought to see a link to a site that addresses those larger issues, in a helpful, informative fashion.

We already have links to three sites offering extensive info about the larger topic. This ought to be enough.

O Govinda 09:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

O Govinda is wrong concerning his facts. He says deleted the link to "Zero-tolerance because he says that it mainly concerns one person. But that is false. There are many leaders and Gurus in ISKCON who have committed child abuse and they are still playing a vital role in the institution. Dhanurdhara Swami is one of them, but there is also, Bhakti Vidya Purna Swami, Lokanatha swami, Vakresvara Pandit and others. The three gurus mentioned are current initiating gurus and have disciples who recite daily prayers to them and have their pictures in their home altars. Besides these gurus, there are other child abusers such as Vakresvara Pandit who sexually abused a girl and still gives classes and holds kirtans. Many if not most of the ISKCON leaders have been actively protecting these child abusers by letting them hold positions of authority. Unti recently, Vakresvara Pandit was the GBC Representative for Puerto Rico and the president of the Puerto Rican temple even though the ISKCON Child Protection Office prohibited him from holding such offices, giving classes and holding kirtans. O Govinda you need to get your facts right before posting here and deleting things that you consider offensive to the institution. Otherwise, you are doing disservice to the public by trying to protect ISKCON at the expense of truth.

Yasodagopala.

Thank you, Yasodagopala, for your courtesy in bringing this up on the talk page, rather than simply reverting the deletion. Much appreciated.

I believe it's fair to say the petition was sparked mainly by concern about one person. That one person, you may know, has, since the time the link was deleted, stepped away from ISKCON. To my knowledge, Vakresvara Pandit is not (and never was) an initiating guru in ISKCON. And in fact he is banned from giving classes and leading kirtanas in ISKCON. Also, by the way, he has been out of authority in Puerto Rico since 2003.

Also since the time I deleted that link, the GBC's official web page has posted more than one response to the proposal for "zero-tolerance." And other ISKCON members and non-members have elsewhere posted several other responses (pro, con, and neither). So, as I wrote, this one link "sends the reader to one item out of many in the midst of a complex topic."

Child abuse, how to respond to it, and how to prevent it obviously constitute an issue of the utmost importance for ISKCON. That issue deserves attention on this page, and so has received it, by the presence of three links to extensive information. Merely adding one slice from one aspect of a complex ongoing dialogue about that issue does little to advance a user's understanding of that issue, or of ISKCON.

That's why I deleted the link.

Respectfully, O Govinda 21:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

O Govinda prabhu, The reason why the Zero tolerance petition was placed is because current leaders in ISKCON have committed child abuse. Gurus are also considered leaders. Dhanurdhara Swami says that he'll step out of ISKCON and do his preaching else where. That is good. But ISKCON still has two current gurus who have committed child abuse. [personal attack removed]. These two gurus have disciples and both are receiving woship as we speak. They don't belong in that position because they have abused children. Vakresra Pandit has been banned from giving classes and leading kirtans as of July 26, 2002. But since then he has given numerous classes and has led many, many kirtans, including in Ratha-Yatras. Bhakti Tirtha Swami personally asked him to give classes and lead kirtans in Gita-Nagari. [personal attack removed] Vakresvara Pandit to this day is still giving classes and leading kirtans. So as you can see, there *IS* Tolerance for child abusers in ISKCON. It is very much part of ISKCON's history and it should be told.

yasodagopala

Personal attacks removed, as per WP:NPA. GourangaUK 19:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yasodagopala--

We agree on the importance of child protection and agree that the history of past abuse is relevant to this article.

My point when deleting the petition was that it added "one slice from one aspect of a complex ongoing dialogue."

Addressing your concerns, in the main body of the article I've added further info about the suit, have mentioned the petition, and have included a link to it.

How does that seem to you?

Respectfully, O Govinda 14:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear O Govinda prabhu,

Would you kindly tell me where exactly did you add further info about the suit, mentioned the petition and included a link to it? I couldn't find them.

your servant, Yasodagopala

Under "ISKCON after Srila Prabhupada's death" / "Scandal and controversy." The petition is mentioned and linked to in paragraph 4.

Yours, O Govinda 14:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear O Govinda Prabhu,

I must be blind, prabhu, because under "ISKCON after Srila Prabhupada's death" / "Scandal and controversy." The petition is not mentioned and linked to in paragraph 4.

This is what paragraph four says. Am I reading the right paragraph? All the other paragraphs in that section do not mention the petition or have a link to it.

This is paragraph 4: In 1990, US Courts pronounced Kirtanananda Swami, the leader of the 'New Vrindavan' religious community (which was expelled from ISKCON for ten years between 1988-1998) [1] guilty on charges of racketeering and conspiracy to murder for his role in the death of two devotees who had threatened his control of the community. He was sentenced to 20 years in prison on the racketeering charge, but was released in June 2004 for health reasons. Another notable case, involving a woman named Robin George and her parents, went all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States. [9]

This is the first time I read the scandals and controversy section. I was shock how sanitize it was! I guess Iskcon doesn't want the public to know the whole truth. What a shame!

Dear Sir - please see the following paragraphs quoted below from the article which include the zero-tolerance petition. You may have to re-fresh your Internet browser as it could be pulling an old version of the article from it's recent page cache instead of the current one. Click on the numbers to go directly to the linked websites. GourangaUK 08:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC) :

In 1998, ISKCON Communications Journal, the society's official publication, ran an article that detailed the physical, emotional, and sexual abuse of children in India and the U.S. during the 1970s and 1980s. The group received praise for its candor but later was sued by 95 people who had attended the boarding schools.

Facing the fiscal drain likely to ensue from this legal action, the ISKCON centers involved declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy. This allowed them to work out a settlement of US$9.5 million, meant to compensate not only the former students who had brought the suit but also any others who had undergone abuse but not sued. About 430 such people responded to newspaper advertisements seeking to identify them. Individual victims are expected to receive between $6,000 and $50,000, depending on the nature and duration of their abuse.

To guard against further abuses, ISKCON has established a child protection office with teams worldwide, meant to screen out actual or potential abusers, educate children and adults on child abuse, and encourage due vigilance. A petition circulating (as of July 2006) among ISKCON members calls for "zero tolerance" for past offenders.

Thank you for mentioning the petition, prabhu. ISKCON members put up this petition as an outcry against ISKCON because there are still leaders and gurus in prominent positions who abused children. The way you worded does not convey that and it doesn't tell the whole story.

Since the main goal to make ISKCON look good to the world, the whole story cannot be told in Wikipedia.

Yasodagopala

Deccan Herald & other links

I've deleted the link to a Deccan Herald article, added on 17 June 06 by 124.176.236.238. Articles critical of ISKCON have their place, but this one reads like a textbook example of gross journalistic error and incompetence. Names are wrong, facts are wrong, wild allegations are accepted and published. The article shows no evidence of fact-checking. Nor even a mention that the newspaper contacted an ISKCON spokesman to get "the other side of the story." It seems the newspaper received a press release from the "ISKCON Reform Group" (which the article quotes as its main source) and published the content without discrimination.

We already have links to the ISKCON Reform Group, and links to information on child abuse issues. The deleted link added no useful information and introduced an unacceptable amount of junk.

O Govinda 09:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

That may be so, however it is still a link to a published source of information, and as such a valid source to back up claims made. If you wish to refute it, please do by providing a valid source explaining the points you have raised above.

Sfacets 09:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Sfacets, for your response. I appreciate that the link is to "a published source of info," but I have a hard time with the idea that anything "published" thereby becomes "a valid source."

Though I can understand your request that I back up my statements with a valid source, asking me to refute the varied claims made in the article places upon me the large burden of showing that something *isn't* true--along the lines of "Can you prove that you don't beat your wife?" And in this article it's not only one untruth that would stand in need of disproof, but several.

Let's make short work of this. At http://www.spj.org/ethics_code.asp you'll find the Code of Ethics of the Society of Journalists. According to the first two items, journalists should:

"Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. . ." and

"Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing."

The article in question shows no evidence that either of these two principles were followed, and for a person familiar with ISKCON they show much evidence that they were not.

Testing of accuracy? Care to avoid inadvertent error? Just to pick one simple objective "fact": We hear of one "Bhavanand Swamy Nad Swami Kriti Anand." Anyone familiar ISKCON history--including ISKCON's most vehement critics--knows that no such person ever existed. The reporter has merged and mangled two names, thereby creating one nonexistent person. And any reliable ISKCON source could have told him so. This in no way disproves the broader claims made in the article. It simply shows that the reporter (violating Code of Ethics item 1) neglected to check even the most basic and testable particulars of what he reported.

The entire article cites only two sources, both of them members of the "ISKCON Reform Group." And the article makes no reference whatever to any attempt to seek out a response to what are obviously "serious allegations of wrongdoing." This gives us every reason to believe that the reporter failed to "diligently seek out" the subject of his story, and thereby also violated Code of Ethics item 2.

These two violations are sufficient to make the article junk. And junk should have no place in a serious encyclopedia.

Thank you again for responding.

O Govinda 11:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

At 11:56 on 18 June 2006, Sfacets restored the link and commented, "(rvt - please contribute to the discussion before removing disputed content)."

I might well have deleted it again and said, "Please contribute further to the discussion before restoring disputed content."

I believe I have adequately shown that the article violates the most basic codes of journalistic ethics. Sfacets, do you think Wikipedia should link to content that is unethical?

There is no indication that the content is verifiable, and every reason to believe that even the reporter didn't bother to try to verify the content.

Also, by the way, despite the headline, the article offers only two sentences about alleged child abuse.

I could have deleted the link again, but I am being patient.

Quoting the first of Wikipedia's five pillars, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information."

Absent good reasons not to, I will again delete the link as being unsuitable for a serious encyclopedia because its content is (a) unethical, (b) unverified and unverifiable, (c) full of errors, and (d) given the three links above it, unnecessary.

O Govinda 06:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

In reply to your first statement, Wikipedia is not here to tell its readers what is and isn't true. Wikipedia's purpose is to present all noteworthy points-of-view in a neuutral tone, and let the readers decide for themselves what is true. The link to the petition does in fact send someone to a single viewpoint, but I fail to find anything wrong with that. -- The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake ^{Prophesize) 12:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the link not because it presents a point of view--which would be fine with me--but for the other reasons I mentioned when I deleted it. O Govinda 06:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I have seen no evidence that the article is unethical - and as a valid published source, giving information which has been distributed to a large group of people. The content it provides doesn't have to be verified, just negated, but this cannot be done by yourself, it requires backing by other published sources. It is not up to me and you to say what is fact or fiction, it is upto the proof provided.

Sfacets 06:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you make of the fact that the article shows no evidence that the reporter tried to get "the other side of the story"?

Why is it that in The NY Times, The LA Times, The Guardian, and so on, you'll often see sentences like "XYZ could not be reached for comment" or "Calls to XYZ went unreturned"?

It's because these papers strictly follow the ethical requirement to "diligently seek out" the subjects of their articles "to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing." That requirement is so strong that even when these papers can't rech the accused for a response, they make sure to let you know they tried.

We can safely presume that if the author for the article in question had made a good-faith attempt to reach a spokesperson for ISKCON the article would have offered some statement regarding ISKCON's response.

In the absence of such a statement, or any other evidence that the author met this ethical requirement, it follows that the author failed to meet the requirement and the article is therefore unethical.

Unless I see such evidence, or a good argument why we should not presume this to be so, I will delete the link.

O Govinda 10:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Further:

Sfacets, I commend you for having posted, at Talk:Guru, these excellent "Rules to follow when posting external links":

From WP:EL links should:

• [be] proper (useful, tasteful, etc.)
• Contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article.

and should not:

• Contain factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, unless it is the official site of the article's subject or it is a notable proponent of a point of view in an article with multiple points of view

You write on that page: "I will remove any links not complying to these rules."

May I claim the same privilege here?

Respectfully, O Govinda 10:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

But of course! If you can find any such link. A newspaper article is 'proper', and as I said earlier contains factual information, meaning it is neutral and accurate (unless you can prove otherwise?). Sfacets 10:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I suspect we've both lived long enough to have seen more than one newspaper article that was biased, inaccurate, or nonfactual. I can't bring myself to think, "Whatever I see in a newspaper I must accept as true and fair, simply because it's in the newspaper."

Newspapers with integrity demonstrate, in each article, that they're true and fair. How? By telling both sides of the story, citing sources for both sides as they go along.

My assertion that the article in question has failed to do this--and has thus failed to meet the published professional code for ethical journalism--still goes uncontested.

Do you wish to contest it?

Respectfully, O Govinda 10:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

In what way is it being unethical? It bases all it's content on quotations and factual information. Does it make assertions?

there are other articles in other newspapers on the same stories... *The new York Times]

• ABC news]
• Independant News]

even Glamour Magazine!

So you cannot claim that this is all made up.

A newspaper article doesn't have to be fair - it has to portray a side of a story. That's it's function. It is not required to show "both sides of the story". Sfacets 11:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You say "A newspaper article doesn't have to be fair."

But you yourself have cited the rule that links must give us material that is "neutral"--that is, fair.

And even if we somehow accept that it's fine for an article to be unfair, to meet the minimum standards of ethics its author must at least "diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing," a standard the author of this article shows no sign of having met.

That an article "bases all its content on quotations" does not demonstrate neutrality or fairness. Do the quotations come from reliable sources? And has the newspaper, when recording allegations of wrongdoing, offered balance by giving quotations from the alleged wrongdoer? These are the minimal signs of fairness.

You say the article "bases all it's content on quotations and factual information." Though some of the information in the article must surely be factual, the article does nothing to demonstrate that "all" its content is based on "factual information." And of course that something is based on "quotations" tells us nothing more than "someone said it."

Does the article "make assertions"? It certainly does. For example, paragraphs 4, 5, 6, and 7 consist of serious allegations--for which the article cites no sources at all.

That other articles in other publications report some of the same stories does nothing to rescue the ethics of the article in question. (Note too that the articles from the NY Times, ABC News, and Glamour uphold my point about ethics by observing the necessary requirement of reporting what the accused party said in response.)

I have never claimed "this is all made up." What I have asserted (apart from other points I'll skip here) is that the article fails to meet the basic standards of ethical journalism.

I repeat that assertion, for the above reasons.

Respectfully, O Govinda 12:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

After reading throught the above comments I am in agreement with O Govinda. Also, as there are already three other links in that section it seems sensible not to add any others, unless they are better than those there currently and they could then go in as replacements. GourangaUK 14:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Would anyone else like to comment on what course of action to take? Obviously Sfacets and I have committed ourselves to opposite points of view. I'd like to see this face-off cordially resolved. Would anyone like to make a helpful contribution? Thank you. O Govinda 12:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Systematic Bias

There has been an issue of bias and non-NPOV when editing this article, in that critical links and content is systematicaly removed or hidden. Please improve the article so that it includes all significant viewpoints. Sfacets 14:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sfacets, I can't help but think you have a personal issue with anything concerning Iskcon? Just because I removed one link from the page which was being debated about you give the whole page a Systematic bias tag? There is already a link from the 'Rickcross' website. Which viewpoint is not being given? GourangaUK 10:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no issues with Iskcon - the tag is to address the systematic removal and obstruction of content critical to the organisation, thereby presenting a non-NPOV issue.

The Rickross site contains mirrored articles of different articles. Sfacets 11:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This page (the Wiki article) clearly mentions a number of issues in detail which are quite clearly critical - i.e Child Abuse, Succession issues etc... But to insist on the inclusion of yet another link with such personal endeavour defies logic? Does it add anything to the issue? I'm simply trying to keep the number of links down to a common-sense number, what's it got to do with bias? GourangaUK 11:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as I've seen, the handling of external links has generally been thoughtful and responsible. Contributors systematically deleted a host of ISKCON links and "vanity links." Meanwhile, we have preserved links to

• two ISKCON news sites, unaffiliated with ISKCON, that often tend toward ISKCON criticism
• a site that criticizes the editing of ISKCON literature
• a site condemning ISKCON on theological grounds
• three critical links detailing child abuse
• two links critical of ISKCON's attitude towards women
• two sites claiming that ISKCON's guru system is heretical (one of them, while they're at it, slamming every ISKCON leader they can think of),
• one link to whatever dirt "cult expert" Rick Ross has been able to collect
• and finally a link critical of ISKCON's statements about Hinduism

Does this represent a pro-ISKCON bias?

As for my own contributions in regard to links, I've:

• Removed two links to pirate sites
• Removed one link to a hyper-irresponsible "rant" site
• Changed two or three links in favor of their original source material
• Removed one official ISKCON site
• Removed a child-abuse petition (for several reasons, explained on this Talk page)
• Removed the link to the Deccan Herald (for reasons I've explained here at length)
• Moved one link from "Theology" to "Miscellaneous" (for reasons explained in my Edit Summary: The link offered no content regarding Theology. And I placed the link next to an existing one on the same topic.)

Yes, I personally have a bias and a point of view. Have I allowed them to so impair my editorial judgment that I've "systematically removed or hidden critical links"?

I invite other contributors to let me know.

Thank you. Cordially, O Govinda 14:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Rickross link spamming?

Like several other articles on Wikipedia, this one has had several external links to Rickross.com anonymously bestowed upon it.

Though perhaps the anonymous users are simply too lazy to look for the original source material, or don't recognize the extra value of original sources, we might suspect at least a mild case of link spamming.

The links generally bring one to articles mirrored on "rickross" from other sites. I have lately replaced two or three such "rickross" links with links to their original source. Nothing lost, except Google points for Brother Rick.

I suggest this as a good practice for the strength and cleanliness of this article (and others). Better to favor the original source.

This suggestion has nothing to do with my recent difference of opinion with Sfacets. Articles whose subjects he seems to view favorably have also had critical links to Rickross anonymously bestowed on them.

Cordially, O Govinda 13:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Deleting another pirate link

As I have just discovered, the site Harekrsna.com knowingly and persistently bootlegs book-length copyrighted text.

At <harekrsna.com/philosophy/acarya/writings.htm> (prefix that with "www") you will find more than 50 volumes of copyrighted books the site has no right to publish.

I didn't notice this till I saw an article bootlegged from www.jswami.info at <harekrsna.com/sun/> (full article: <harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/06-06/editorials427.htm>.

Further information is available from the rights and permissions department of the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, www.bbt.info.

The relevant Wikipedia policy appears in Wikipedia:Copyrights, in Section 4.3, "Linking to copyrighted works."

I am therefore deleting the link.

I am deleting the site not because it is critical but because it is a pirate.

O Govinda 19:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Since Sfacets has recently stressed the value of including diverse points of view, I know this is a sensitive time in which to delete a link. If only out of respect for him, I'd have left the link alone. But piracy is something I feel strongly about. My apologies, Sfacets, and I hope we'll be able to continue working together to improve this page.

O Govinda 21:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Radha Krsna Temple on Apple Records

Hello. Over at Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles we would like to create an article on the Radha Krsna Temple who recorded an album on Apple Records with the support of George Harrison. We'd also add a section here and link to the main article using {{main}}. We've found a few sources and we believe that the Temple was a forerunner of ISKCON but, really, we don't know very much about it. Therefore any help you could provide would be most welcome. Indeed, why not make this a cross WikiProject effort? :) Please respond at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_The_Beatles#Radha_Krshna_Temple. --kingboyk 13:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

We have a stub in place at Radha Krshna Temple, and your help filling in the blanks would be appreciated. Please see Talk:Radha Krshna Temple first. Thanks again. --kingboyk 12:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

External links

There seem to be quite a lot. Are there any that anyone feels are particularly valuable according to the guideline at Wikipedia:External links? - brenneman ^{L} 12:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

ISKCON Ireland

The official ISKCON website for Ireland, www.krishna.ie, has been removed on more than one occasion. I fully value the need to keep distantly related links to a minimum however under no way could this extend to the official website of ISKCON, which this entry is about, for a particular geographic region.

The reasoning behind the removal is that otherwise we could end up with a list of centres so long the article becomes a links page again, which is not what Wikipedia is about. There is a direct link to the same website (Iskcon in Ireland) from the main Iskcon UK website already listed. It is not a negative comment about the quality of the site. Yours Respectfully, GourangaUK 15:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

And in turn the Irish national website contains a link to the UK one so why not just contain this? I agree about links to individual centres but when there is a national official ISKCON website which acts as a portal to all the centres and policy for that area I feel it is very necessary that it is included here. The only exception to this is if ALL national offical websites are removed and there is one link and one link only left which is in itself an official guide to national official sites.

With due respect - The Iskcon.co.uk page contains a map on the front screen from which anyone can easily navigate to their local area if required. This is not on the website for Ireland. Iskcon USA is listed on krishna.com, there may be an argument to include a link to Iskcon in Australia as another major English speaking country for the article but the main iskcon.com is enough to cover anything else. Regards GourangaUK 10:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Controversy Section: Ambiguity

The following paragraph:

In 1998, ISKCON Communications Journal[4], the society's official publication, ran an article that detailed the physical, emotional, and sexual abuse of children in India and the U.S. during the 1970s and 1980s[5]. The group received praise for its candor but later was sued by 95 people who had attended the boarding schools.

Is obviously missing some information. I know next to nothing about the subject, but I did notice the ambiguity in the article. Zerobot 01:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)]

Fixed. Thank you, Zerobot

--O Govinda 22:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for new WikiProject

At Wikipedia: WikiProject Council, I have made a proposal for a new WikiProject - WikiProject Mysticism. I wonder whether any readers of this article would be interested in joining this WikiProject? Vorbee (talk) 18:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Inline citations

The last sentence in the lead of the article states:

• ...and despite the "relatively small number of followers in the West (around a few thousand fulltime practitioners)", it has been described as influential.

The lead-in is quoted from page Number 33 of the source but the full content is:

• has a relatively small number of followers in the west (around a few thousand full-time practitioners). It is a small religious group, popular with its own followers and a larger number of people (tens of thousands) who are interested in the ideas, philosophies, and practices associated with it..

There is no page number with only the chapter. The entire concept of inline citations are so other people can check where the information came from and not have to read twelve or thirteen pages to determine that paraphrasing was overlooked. "Influential" is not a synonym for "Popular". It can be seen as an attempt to elevate popular to mean something it is not. While popular can become influential we can't state what is not backed by a reliable source and we shouldn't paraphrase with poor choices that when checked appear as weasel words. I am assuming that I did not miss the wording or equivalent in one of the other pages in the chapter, or possibly in the body of the article with proper attribution, when I stopped looking so is the reason I placed relevant tags. Otr500 (talk) 16:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Sri Sri Radha Govinda Hari at ISKCON Nepal.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Identification of Courts

I'm making the following changes to clarify the following assertions about court cases:

(1) "In a landmark 1976 case, People vs. Murphy, the Supreme Court of New York found that "'the Hare Krishna religion is a bona fide religion with roots in India that go back thousands of years." Although the parents of two Hare Krishna members claimed ISKCON had brainwashed their children, the court found they had not and that their children had freely followed the tenets of their chosen faith."

I'm editing to clarify the identity of the court.

Referring to "the Supreme Court of New York" is misleading at best. First, there is no such court with that name. Second, the real name of the court that issued the judgment is "Supreme Court, Criminal Term, Queens County." That court is a court for criminal trials - despite its name, it is NOT the highest court in New York State. The highest court in New York State (and the state-level equivalent of the US Supreme Court) is called the "Court of Appeals." In New York State, any court titled "Supreme Court" is a trial court and not an appellate court.

Because most people do not know the intricacies of New York's confusing court nomenclature - including that "Supreme Court" is not an appellate court - it's completely misleading to refer to the court as anything other than a criminal trial court.

(2) "A brainwashing lawsuit filed by an Orange County mother and daughter, Robin George, in 1977 led to numerous appeals reaching the Supreme Court."

I'm editing to remove reference to "the Supreme Court."

First, there is no citation to this alleged "fact" and the sentence is unclear as to exactly which court it refers to. Second (assuming this refers to the USSC), one does not usually appeal to the United States Supreme Court; instead, the correct procedure is a "petition for certiorari." Third, merely petitioning the USSC for cert is legally meaningless since the vast majority (~99%) of petitions are rejected without expressing any opinion on the matter and that rejection cannot be cited as precedential by any other court.

If, in fact, the justices of the USSC provided some meaningful opinion or other statement about this case, I would be willing to reconsider. But as is, and without citation, this statement is legally meaningless.

Techielaw (talk) 23:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I'm finding more information about the second case I refer to above and I will edit because I think the description of the case is also misleading. The current article text about this case correctly describes the dismissal of all claims filed by Robin George (the daughter) but completely leaves out the fact that the court affirmed judgments in favor of Robin's mother against ISKCON. I think it's inappropriate to only include half the outcome of a court case with a mixed verdict. I'm updating to include a citation to a later court decision that provides much more procedural history and discussion than the current citation does. (I'm also incorrect with my prior statement about the USSC in this case, but the citation I'm providing does give the whole procedural history up to that point.)

I'm also removing the words "landmark" and "long-awaited" in reference to these two cases. There's no citation showing a basis for either of these adjectives; again, I'm open to reconsidering if somebody can find a citation showing that these cases are considered groundbreaking on religious liberty.

Techielaw (talk) 01:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Possible inclusion of the term "iskconite"?

Up until today I had never heard of ISKCON, so apologies if I am way off base here-- but someone in the comments section of a video I was watching earlier referred to one of the video's subjects as an "iskconite" (noting the individual's "tutsi mala"). Typing the term "iskconite" into a search engine yielded surprisingly few straightforward results, so I ended up having to do quite a bit of clicking and skimming of random articles until I finally realized it was actually a derivative of an acronym (being, ISKCON). "Iskconite" was all lowercase in the comment I orginally read it in, so that probably didn't help matters much.

Anyway, if "iskconite" is indeed an acceptable term to use to describe ISKCON devotees (and not just that commenter's faux pas), would there be any objections to adding the term somewhere in the article (e.g., "sometimes referred to as "iskconite(s)" or something along those lines so that when typed into a search engine, this article will show up higher at the top of the results list?

My thoughts behind this addition would be to possibly help direct future users who stumbled upon the term with minimal context and had trouble finding out what it meant (as was the difficulty I encountered as one who is generally unfamiliar with nearly everything ISKCON and ISKCON-adjacent topics).

Albeit, even after reading the article I am still a bit confused as to exactly what ISKCON's beliefs are. (Perhaps shifting the temple locations section lower on the page in favor of moving up some of the other sections that contribute more toward the answer to the fundamental "what is ISKCON?" question?)

Again, I had never heard of ISKCON before until today, so I apologize if I have misspoke in my ignorance. (I am an American who admittedly does not have much interest in organized religion beyond casual curiosity (as well as an overarching desire to acquire knowledge/educate myself in general).

I fixed a few punctuation/grammar related typos as I saw them while I was reading the article, but as I obviously am very unfamiliar with the topic in general, I wasn't sure if the term "iskconite" would be an appropriate inclusion. I hope that all makes sense. KryptonKestrel (talk) 08:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

new scholarship on ISCKON school abuse

There is a great deal of interest among scholars of religion today in the prevalence of sexual abuse scandals in religious organizations. I plan on adding relevant insights from that scholarship to this page. I hope that these insights add context; it's not as if ISCKON is the only community dealing with this.

Ziegenbalg66 (talk) 16:49, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Inappropriate stuffing of WP:LEAD with unreliable sources

@Skylord101: It's been brought up with you several times now, about your POV pushing with unreliable sources, can you start engaging without reverting it all wholesale? You've made some shockingly damning edits so far with only primary sources in some cases.. FutureFlowsLoveYou (talk) 09:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Religion?

they describe themselves as specifically not a religion

https://content.iskcon.org/icj/7_1/71srd.html

"In common with many followers of Vedantic tradition, devotees of Krsna distinguish between Krsna consciousness, or pure love of God, and what is commonly understood as religion. In his introduction to Bhagavad-gita, Srila Prabhupada explains: Sanatana-dharma does not refer to any sectarian process of religion. It is the eternal function of the eternal living entities in relationship with the eternal Supreme Lord.The English word religion is a little different from sanatana-dharma. Religion conveys the idea of faith, and faith may change. One may have faith in a particular process, and he may change this faith and adopt another, but sanatana-dharmarefers to that activity which cannot be changed.[8]" 2603:8080:B400:5D2B:0:0:0:13B5 (talk) 23:31, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

This is clearly a religion. What you are quoting is an ethnocentric attempt to say “our religion is deeper than other religions”, which is what all religions do. You don’t always have to follow selfID, especially from a scientific, anthropological or sociological point of view. 82.36.70.81 (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Swami Prabhupada krishna movement integral part is cow protection

Cow protection is the business of the vaisyas and along with our preaching, this is the most important work. Sunitipatelvithalani (talk) 16:04, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

New York Court Decision

Here's one article of interest by Massimo Introvigne at Bitter Winter:

• "New York Court: Secular Judges Cannot Second-Guess Decisions of ISKCON (Hare Krishna) Authorities in Internal Matters"

Take the article what you will; thanks for reading. -- Apisite (talk) 08:36, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Review of wording

The aricle uses the word "ecclesiastical" in reference to the movemenet. I suspect other non-appropriate terms are in use and the article needs review from someone with a backgroud in religious terminology. References might also use weak terminology themselves that imho should be addressed when imported.

Gabriele Dini Ciacci (talk) 13:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Kirtan

Hello,

In the section about kirtan, it is described in the first sentence as "mantra meditation." This sentence does not have a source and the hyperlinked Wikipedia page for kirtan does not include the phrase "mantra meditation" anywhere. I would like to change "mantra meditation" in the kirtan section here to "mantra chanting and devotional singing" or something similar. Does anyone have any objections?

Thanks,

Hemmingweigh (talk) 12:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your proposed change. Thank you for catching that. 23impartial (talk) 11:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

23impartial thanks for your response. I've made the edit. Best, Hemmingweigh (talk) 08:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Monotheism vs Henotheism

Hi @P77.35.6R.S4, I noticed that you reverted my edit without providing an explanation. The original lead referenced ISKCON to be a monotheistic Hindu denomination. The article expands, under the section "Singular Worship of Krishna," how the denomination is monotheistic and provides a reference. You updated the lead to say "henotheistic" in lieu of "monotheistic" without provide any reference or expansion on this later in the article.

Without an explanation supported with a reliable source, I plan to revert the sentence back to it's original verbiage.

Thanks!

Whitestar12 (talk) 03:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@Dāsānudāsa - Just saw your edits on the page and looks like that addresses this concern I had (since my original revert was reverted by the editor). Thanks!

Whitestar12 (talk) 14:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome, thanks for flagging it! Dāsānudāsa (talk) 12:56, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

"Hare Krishna movement"

This article lists "Hare Krishna movement" in bold as a synonym for ISKCON specifically. I am not sure this is correct. I think "Hare Krishnas" can also be members of other modern Vaishnava groups (Sri Caitanya Saraswat Math, the International Pure Bhakti Society, Swami Tripurari's sangha, etc.) and suggest it belongs on the Gaudiya Vaishnavism article instead, perhaps specifically in the 20th century section. Thoughts? Dāsānudāsa (talk) 13:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Concerns Over Unverified Claims in the Chattogram Clashes Incident

@Cerium4B: The claim about protesters chanting "Jai Shri Ram" during the Chattogram clashes is problematic due to the absence of credible references explicitly supporting this detail in the cited sources. References such as those from Daily Bangladesh, bdnews24, and The Business Standard discuss the unrest, the involvement of ISKCON members, and the violence but do not verify the use of this slogan. Including such a claim without reliable evidence introduces bias and may misrepresent the event by framing it as predominantly religious in nature. To adhere to Wikipedia’s verifiability and neutrality guidelines, any unverified claims or potentially inflammatory details should either be sourced from credible, published accounts.or omitted entirely to maintain the integrity and impartiality of the article.

Secondly, I also agree that the clash can be categorized under both persecution and criticism and controversies. However, why did you remove the sourced content, such as the statement that the unrest was triggered by a Facebook post from Osman Ali, a member of Jamat-e-Islami and a local shop owner, advocating for a ban on ISKCON? You removed references from The Business Standard, ThePrint, NDTV and Livemint which are treated as reliable sources according to the Wikipedian community.

Aryan^{Talk} 05:12, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Please link the statement and sources you mentioned in the last paragraph, it certainly warrants attention. Aspweb (talk) 14:17, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

References

The murder of Abrar Fahad

The article says: "Amit Saha, who was given life imprisonment for the murder of Abrar Fahad was a member of the organisation" (ISKCON).

But Wiki also tells us that Amit Saha was also Deputy Law Secretary of the BUET Chhatra League.

All the other participants in the murder were members of the BUET Chhatra League and by name (but for one) were certainly not members of ISKCON.

Mehedi Hasan Robin, the Organizing Secretary of the BUET Chhatra League Amit Saha, the Deputy Law Secretary Mujtaba Rafid, the Deputy Office Secretary of BUET Chhatra League Khandaker Tabakkharul Islam Tanvir, a third-year Mechanical Engineering student Muntasir Al Jemi, a second-year student from the same department Shamsul Arefin Rafat, a second-year Mechanical Engineering student, Anik Sarkar, the Information and Research Secretary of BUET Chhatra League and a fourth-year Mechanical Engineering student Mujahidur Rahman, a third-year Electrical Engineering studentMujahidur Rahman, a third-year Electrical Engineering student

Thus, the murder is connected with Amit Saha's membership in the BUET Chhatra League and his membership in ISKCON is as irrelevant as his library membership, or the fact that all but one of the other culprits are members of Islam. Arun (talk) 14:20, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

That is part of the criticism and controversy. You will only find these mentioned there. If you go to the criticism section of Chatra League, you will find them there too. Nothing extra is mentioned here. Saadi095 (talk) 16:07, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm saying that Amit Saha's ISKCON membership is irrelevant here, and should be removed. Putting it in some other article makes this one misleading. Might as well mention Amit Saha's library membership, the color of his hair and other such irrelevancies if you insist on it. Arun (talk) 01:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

If multiple sources have mentioned his ISKCON membership then it is worth mentioning here. It is not irrelevant. - Ratnahastin (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussion on removing bullet points for better reading as a prose.

Started this discussion after User:Cerium4B's edit history comment, please continue the discussion by reasoning your revert edits. Xoocit (talk) 10:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

@Xoocit,

I requested you to discuss this before reverting my edit, but you didn’t respect that request. However, experienced users reviewed the changes and decided to keep the previous version, as it’s more detailed and better written. Let's move forward with that. - Cerium4B • Talk? • 15:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

You did not request me to discuss this, I said to start a TP discussion before reverting my edits. More details give WP:UNDUE weightage to the incidents that are isolated. Bullet points are not suitable for the said section, the section is also bigger than other major sections of the article which does not go with the due weightage of the critisms and controversies section.

Moreover, the sources used for the Murder of Abrar Fahad are not reliable sources.

The current section is too long, it violates WP:TMI and WP:INDISCRIMINATE as the incidents are too small to given this much detail on this page, you might consider making a separate page if WP:Notability is fullfiled for the aforementioned incidents. Xoocit (talk) 15:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cerium4B Tagging you again, this article's controversy section is a perfect example of WP:RECENCY and WP:PROPORTION, with individual events having their own articles, there is no need for them to be covered here again on the context of ISKCON as a whole. Isolated incidents do not due weightage in context of ISKCON as a whole.

Do not ignore TP discussions and continue editing the article in discussion. Xoocit (talk) 10:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

@Xoocit,

Why don’t you check the edit histories before starting discussions about this article? The issues you are talking about have already been solved by the admins. There is no need to discuss the same issue again! — Cerium4B—Talk? • 11:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

The usage of UV to fix disruptive editing by @Voorts does not solve UNDUE and Recency issues with the criticism and controversies section. These are two separate issues. Xoocit (talk) 11:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I seen nothing wrong with the controversy section. Recency is not a grounds for removing them after all prohibition of recentism is not a policy. - Ratnahastin (talk) 11:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I meant to say WP:RECENCY, not recency in general. Xoocit (talk) 11:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Concerns About the Reliability of Sources: Samakal, Daily Naya Diganta, and Daily Inqilab

Hello everyone,

I’d like to raise concerns about the use of Samakal, Daily Naya Diganta, and Daily Inqilab as sources for content on this page, particularly in sections related to controversial topics. All three outlets have been associated with multiple controversies that cast doubt on their reliability and neutrality as sources for Wikipedia. Below, I’ve summarized some key points regarding each publication:

Samakal

Murder of Journalist Gautam Das (2005): Samakal was involved in an incident where one of its investigative journalists, Gautam Das, was murdered after exposing local corruption. While this highlights the risks of journalism, it also raises questions about the organization's vulnerability to external pressures.

Defamation and Lawsuits (2014): Allegations of false reporting have led to legal challenges, such as a defamation case involving a former lawmaker.

Daily Naya Diganta

Known for a strong ideological leaning, particularly aligned with specific political or religious groups, raising concerns about potential bias in reporting.

Accused of publishing unverified or exaggerated claims in politically sensitive contexts, which undermines its credibility.

Daily Inqilab

Frequently criticized for its sensationalist reporting and political bias.

Involved in incidents of publishing misleading information, such as fabrications during politically volatile situations in Bangladesh.

General Concerns

All three publications have a history of biased or politically motivated reporting, especially on contentious topics.

Their controversies make them unsuitable for use as reliable and neutral sources for Wikipedia, particularly on sensitive topics like religion or communal matters.

Recommendations

I propose that:

1. Content sourced from these outlets should be critically reviewed and removed unless corroborated by more reliable, neutral sources.

2. A consensus is established to limit the use of these publications for contentious claims unless backed by additional high-quality references.

3. Editors ensure adherence to Wikipedia’s guidelines on reliable sourcing, especially for controversial topics.

I welcome everyone’s input on this matter. If there are any counterarguments or justifications for using these outlets, please feel free to share.

Thanks, JESUS (talk) 10:02, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@Jesuspaul502,

Your entire argument is based on your personal narrative without any evidence. Samakal, Daily Naya Diganta and Daily Inqilab, these are reputable medias. Claims of older controversies and isolated incidents from years ago are irrelevant to assessing the reliability of sources today. Where is your evidence? You’ve provided no secondary sources to prove your claims, yet you’re making disruptive edits, reverting edits (that i made to align the lines). This behavior violates WP:V, WP:POV, WP:RS and WP:EDITWAR.

If you cannot prove your claims or justify your actions, stop removing valid information, your personal claims without verifiable evidence hold no weight here. — Cerium4B—Talk? • 16:18, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I understand your concerns and appreciate the opportunity to clarify my reasoning. My position is not based on personal narrative but on documented controversies and issues that cast doubt on the reliability and neutrality of the sources in question.

=== 1. Historical Controversies Matter ===

While older controversies may not always directly affect the current reliability of a source, a pattern of biased or sensationalist reporting raises legitimate concerns. Wikipedia’s guideline on reliable sources (WP:RS) emphasizes that a source’s reputation for accuracy and fact-checking is key. If a publication has a history of fabrications, lawsuits for defamation, or politically motivated reporting, this significantly impacts its trustworthiness.

Here are some examples of concerns about Bangladeshi media reliability that apply to *Samakal*, *Daily Naya Diganta*, and *Daily Inqilab*:

• Samakal:
  • The murder of journalist Gautam Das highlighted external pressures faced by the publication. While not directly their fault, it raised concerns about their editorial independence.
• Daily Naya Diganta:
  • Known for ideological bias, particularly in politically charged situations, which undermines its neutrality.
• Daily Inqilab:
  • Frequently criticized for publishing sensational or misleading content, such as fabricated stories during times of political unrest.

=== 2. Supporting Evidence ===

The following sources discuss the reliability and challenges of the Bangladeshi media landscape, including concerns about editorial independence, sensationalism, and ideological biases:

• A report from Disinformation Index discusses disinformation risks in the Bangladeshi media landscape, highlighting challenges in ensuring accuracy and neutrality. (Link)
• USAID's assessment of the Bangladeshi media sector highlights issues with ownership, bias, and external pressures on journalistic practices. (Link)
• A study by the Center for International Media Assistance (CIMA) analyzes how media ownership influences editorial independence and reliability in Bangladesh. (Link)

=== 3. Valid Information and WP Guidelines ===

While I respect your edits, the burden of proof applies to the content being added. Content from publications with a history of bias or sensationalism requires additional verification or corroboration from independent, high-quality sources to comply with WP:V and WP:NPOV.

=== 4. Moving Forward ===

To avoid an edit war (WP:EDITWAR), I propose the following:

1. Let’s pause on edits involving content sourced from *Samakal*, *Daily Naya Diganta*, and *Daily Inqilab* until we’ve reached consensus here.
2. The provided sources can serve as a starting point for understanding the broader concerns with Bangladeshi media reliability.
3. If you believe these outlets are still reliable, I encourage you to present evidence or arguments in their favor.

Our shared goal is to maintain the integrity of this article and ensure compliance with Wikipedia’s policies. I look forward to your input. JESUS (talk) 17:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

N

You’ve used Artificial Intelligence to reply, which is not acceptable for discussions as it does not support the principles of WP:V, WP:NPOV, and human oversight.

I also noticed that you have used AI to reply on your talkpage and added a topic on my talkpage.

Additionally you couldn’t verify your claims. So, your edits will be reverted.

Try to improve your English and join discussions directly. I’m also suggesting u to familiarise yourself with

Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. — Cerium4B—Talk? • 18:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Cerium4B,

Thank you for your feedback. I would like to address your points directly:

1. Allegation of AI Usage:

I categorically deny using AI to draft my responses or edits. All my contributions are written by me with careful consideration and in line with Wikipedia’s policies. Such accusations are baseless and irrelevant to the discussion. Please focus on addressing the content and sources rather than making unfounded claims about my methods of communication.

2. Verification of Claims:

I have provided multiple secondary sources to support my concerns about the reliability of Samakal, Daily Naya Diganta, and Daily Inqilab. These sources include reports from the Disinformation Index, USAID, and CIMA, which highlight credibility issues in the Bangladeshi media landscape. If you disagree, please provide counter-sources or evidence rather than dismissing the discussion outright.

3. Reverting Edits:

Reverting without proper justification or consensus violates WP:EDITWAR and WP:CONSENSUS. If you have concerns about my edits, the appropriate action is to engage in constructive dialogue on the article’s talk page, allowing others to participate and reach a resolution collaboratively.

4. Personal Comments:

Critiques of my language or communication style are unhelpful and irrelevant to the content being discussed. Wikipedia values contributions from editors of diverse backgrounds, focusing on the quality of sources and adherence to policies rather than personal abilities.

5. Moving Forward:

Let us return to the central issue—evaluating the reliability of sources—while adhering to WP:RS and WP:NPOV. I encourage you to engage constructively on the article’s talk page to ensure we reach a consensus based on evidence and policy, not personal disagreements.

Thank you, JESUS (talk) 19:02, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

+1, This is a B-class article with Top/High importantance in multiple categories, it should not be edited and written with the help of sources that have exhibited bias in the past. If possible, I would propose replacement of these sources with WP:RS/PS sources which can help improve the NPOV in the article. Xoocit (talk) 10:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing to support that these sources or media houses are biased and even if they were, it would still be acceptable to cite them per WP:BIASEDSOURCES. Godi media sources however are not reliable for this subject. - Ratnahastin (talk) 10:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)