Talk:International Society for Krishna Consciousness

Opening comment

I switched the order in which the Bhagavata Purana and the Bhagavad Gita were mentioned in the very beginning of this article out of respect for the Bhagvatam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.99.134 (talk) 09:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The 'Maha Mantra'

Under the contents section of the article "The 'Maha Mantra'" it has a link from the word 'Hare' to an article on 'Hari'. In my understanding 'Hare' is the feminine potency of Krishna, and 'Hari' is a masculine name of Krishna, so it seems misinformation? Perhaps an article on 'Hare' could be started and the link set to that instead? This also goes for the "Hare (disambiguation)" page which says that it is the Sanskrit vocative? Maybe I am wrong.

Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 121.72.11.194 (talk) 21:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC).

Hare now links to the Hara disambiguation page (which is what becomes Hare in the vocative). Thanks for pointing it out. Ys, Gouranga(UK) 12:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

ISKCON and Religious Survey of 53 Clergy

Hello Smeelgova - although I appreciate your adding to the ISKCON article, I genuinely feel that a survey of mainly Christian (and one Jewish) clergy about their opinion of so-called 'cults' is irrelevant in this instance. I say this not because of personal bias (there is significant negative but relevant material in the article), but on the following grounds:

• 1) Are Christian clergy expected to be a neutral and well-informed source for information on other religious groups who they are in philosophical disagreement with (in terms of their own theologies) and with whomn they have little or no dealings with on a regular basis? I cannot imagine anyone answering with solid evidence to the positive. If it had been a survey of 'neutral' academic observers then the findings would give a very different story.
• 2) The very notion of 'cult' when studying religious movements gives a negative bias to begin with. See [1]
• 3) I believe the conclusion given to be grossly incorrect. The following quote from a non-Iskcon scholar who has spent time investigating the movement gives (IMO) a much more accurate version : "Simply put, ISKCON has been present in the West for twenty five years. If it was, in fact, a danger to society, we would have long ago discovered that threat and dealt with it. Rather than a danger, ISKCON has shown itself capable of raising up a religious community which turned a number of people alienated from society in the 1970s into substantial law-abiding citizens who have in turn developed a program of service to the community through its efforts to feed the poor and other acts of charity. ISKCON does not threaten any Country's constitutional freedoms. Quite the opposite is true. In a series of cases it has been demonstrated that ISKCON's constitutional freedoms have been continually threatened by its having to repeatedly defend itself on issues which have previously been considered by Courts and discarded."

I am not simply reverting your edit for the sake of it, and am happy to discuss the matter further should you so desire. Best Wishes, Gouranga(UK) 17:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S - (as just reminded by the fireworks) Happy New Year for 2007.

I would like to hear what other frequent editors of that article have on the subject - it might be well for us to move this discussion to that article's talk page. Happy new year to you as well! Smeelgova 00:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

Comments from other editors

• This was the sourced survey of 53 religious clergy that was removed from the article, twice:

In 1993, Rev. Dr. Richard L. Dowhower conducted a survey of clergy to assess their opinions of cults, entitled "Clergy and Cults: A Survey". The 53 respondents were from the Washington, DC area and included 43 Lutheran clergy and seminarians, one Roman Catholic and one Jewish clergyman, and an Evangelical minister. Eighteen percent of those questioned about "The cults I am most concerned about are", gave the answer of "Unification Church, Hare Krishna"
Referenced Citation
(removed from ref formatting to show editors location/citation)
Clergy and Cults: A Survey, The Rev. Richard L. Dowhower, D. D., Cult Observer, Vol. 11, No. 3 (1994).

• So, what do other editors think of adding this information to the article? User:GourangaUK has written his opinions in the section above. Smeelgova 00:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

The proposed addition offers precious little relevant factual information. Most of the text concerns the survey itself, and especially the composition of the sample of clergy surveyed. The survey sample is terribly small--53 people out of. . . how many members of the clergy are there in the United States? As far as I can tell, the sample is so small as to be essentially worthless: that is, one can't properly use it to form a broader understanding of the opinion of "the clergy in general" (or even any meaningful subset of the clergy).

The composition of this small sample is odd--43 out of 53 are Lutherans, we've got one Jew, one Evangelical, and one Roman Catholic, and as for the rest we're in the dark. And even if we weren't--what in the world is such an odd sample supposed to represent? What are we supposed to learn?

It's also clear from the original source article that the person who conducted the survey is a partisan, not a sociologist or a neutral poll-taker. And it's also clear that the language in the survey (e.g., "I have had the following personal experiences with destructive cults") is loaded.

With all these exceedingly unprofessional features, how useful is this survey supposed to be?

The content relevant to ISKCON boils down to the fact that about 10 members of the clergy in Washington, D.C., say that Hare Krishna is one of the two cults they're "most concerned about." That's not terribly enlightening, is it?

This material seems unworthy of inclusion in a serious encyclopedia. I suggest we reserve the article for more worthy content.

Cordially,

O Govinda 14:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Scandals and Controversies

These people were in EVERY major American airport in the '70s--my brother and I (chidlren of airline pilot, we traveled a lot) joked about them all the time and knew to avoid them. The airports were literally crawling with the Krishnas, hence the endless jokes about the phenomenon in movies like Airplane! There was even a lawsuit, although I don't remember if the Krishnas or the airports won. Why is there no mention of this--of the lawsuit if nothing else?

64.132.218.4 (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of the poison controversy

This issue needs to be included in any history of ISKCON. The evidence, particularly the evidence that Srila Prabhupada repeatedly brought up the subject justifies its inclusion in this article. Anuttamadasi (talk) 23:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

kind attention GaurangaUK from Myshriam-Musiris

I do think it is necessary to highlight scandals and controversies of an organization and that too a religious one, under the misguided assumption that it is an intrinsic part of the organization, and in the interest of neutrality (of all things) one should feel compelled to air it.

There is a crude Punjabi proverb: “If you stick a finger up your anus, it’s bound to come off smelling of stool.” The point is: everybody has got a real end, and its smells. But if you think that its something the world at large is waiting with baited breathes to get a whiff of, and that too it its encyclopedia, then you are wrong.

Sir, I have no wish to read of controversies and scandals in a publication that poses as an encyclopedia. Its here I seek relevant information that pertains to the organization, learn what it stands for and hear what it has to say about itself. In other words, I want and am looking for here is clean information. Dirt, I can always get that at other places.

So an encyclopedic article on Nazism should only help you "learn what it stands for and hear what it has to say about itself" and leave out "controversies and scandals"? And no, before you get upset, I am not comparing ISKON to the Nazi party, I am simply pointing out the weakness in your argument. In fact, I would say your opinion on protecting the image of ISKON by hiding information simply because it is not "clean" is the definition of POV. I think currently this article presents a safe, clean, honest view of ISKON, and even paints the organization in a good light by crediting it with accepting its flaws and dealing with them in a positive way. In this example, without bringing out the 'dirt' you can't bring out the 'clean'. 190.10.1.35 (talk) 17:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

However, if you insist on carrying on, by brute force, I will not stop you. Indeed, I find the entries in the Wikipedia a joke. It seemed obviously swamped with the ill-educated, the unpublished and warped.

If you have anything personal against this organization, I suggest that you create your own blog and air your complaint to your hearts content. Let the Wikipedia be; it’s too good a thing to spoil with petty points of views.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.95.236.82 (talk) 12:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

All wikipedia pages must conform to the wikipedia guides, including NPOV. It's unfortunate ISKCON went through so many problems, but they must be presented here as not to make the article bias. Chopper Dave 17:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me see now, Mr Chopper Dave, would a neutral point of view of, say, yourself, include what one odd person thought of you? “Mr. Chopper Dave is an unemployed looser who pretends that he is someone important by having taken on an active role of a wikipedian.” Would that be an unbiased, neutral POV? The rest of the world might think, “Mr. Chopper Dave is a scholar, a Brahmin, one who likes nothing better to do that harmlessly, quietly disburse knowledge towards which he would gladly devote countless unpaid hours.” The second, I imagine, would be the more accurate and unbiased view of your good self. 59.95.202.194 19:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If the first were true and verifiable (has references and so forth) then that would be fine. But since it's not, then obviously not. What happened with ISKCON is true, and verifiable. Many people were affected, and thus the information is deemed important enough to 'print'. Chopper Dave 20:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Scandals, controversies, in any organization, are caused by inimical persons, misguided individuals, with ulterior motives. The organization is the victim of such vicious attacks. By including such tainted information on the organization, or for that matter on anybody, merely because you have the power to do so, and on grounds of pseudo neutrality, you would be guilty of bearing false witness. That's the bottom line. But, “Thou shall not bear false witness” is the commandment. So, you really don’t want to be inadvertently breaking that commandment--and that too for absolutely no gain! 59.95.202.194 19:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You make it sound like the organisation and the people within it are completely separate entities. Absolutely no gain? Honesty is gained by it's inclusions, deceit is gained by it's removal. To say that ISKCON hasn't had it's fair share of problems would be to lie. To represent ISKCON without representing those within ISKCON would be deceit. Feel free to be honest about some of the glories of ISKCON (and it's people) within the article, to throw in some counterbalance if you feel necessary. Chopper Dave 20:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mishriam (I'm assuming you are the same user but not logged in?) - Please also refer to my comments on your user talk page which you would be noted of each time you log in to your account. I believe the issue here is more a misunderstanding of the purpose and Wikipedia than anything else. Please also see Wikipedia:No personal attacks in regards to your statement made above to Chopper Dave which came dangerously close to such in my opinion. Ys, Gouranga(UK) 10:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No, my response to Chopper Dave was not a personal attack, but merely a demonstrative one to prove a point. Even so, I offer my apologies.

As regards the Neutral Point of View clause, I think its being seriously misunderstood. NPOV is not a licence to slander, put out the dirty linen. Rather, NPOV should serve to keep out such trivalries. NPOV would immediately discern such titbits as thinly veiled attack and immediately disallow it.

I do not find the Encyclopaedia Britannica or the other established knowledge banks so forthcoming with bold titles that scream ‘Scandals and Controversies.’ Indeed, such title smacks of naivety and immaturity. It along the lines of, “Hey, what to hear some juicy trivially?” What’s that title doing in an encyclopaedia, you wonder, and steer clear off.

Yes, wikipedia has quantity, but in an encyclopaedia, it has always been the other word that matters. Quality. And in its shadows stands the other key operative word: Restraint. Together they make the golden standard for an encyclopaedia. Sadly the Wikipedia lacks both.

And, that seems to have finally gotten through to the Wikipedia boss. For in today’s newspaper, I read him saying that he is planning to change the model. It’s no longer going to be freely editable. Your changes will be peer-reviewed, and only if it passes, will it be published. Personally, I think its popularity is because it provides a forum for a lot of unsung scholars out there to make their lives a little less drab. Mishriam-musiris 18:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no good reason to remove 'negative' information from the article. Sure, it may make ISKCON look bad in the eyes of some, but the truth is those things happened and shouldn't be hidden from those who want to know. Chopper Dave 20:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, its exactly this kind of stubbornness that is ruining the wikipedia. How can you satisfy me that your opinion is not biased, that you are not using the NPOV stance, its perverted interpretation, to conveniently air your personal views. There are a numbers of people out there who, for their own profit, would not hesitate to malign ISKCON. This is a know fact, and anybody in the know will tell you that its a power struggle. How do we know you aren't one of them? You should reveal your identity and let others decide if you are clean on this issue.Stop hiding behind the NPOV clause, if indeed that's what you are doing. Mishriam-musiris 05:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Who I am has little to do with this. My point is that there is no good reason to remove the information. It's verifiable and considered important. Your thoughts appear to be "Why not just have good stuff about ISKCON - why the dirt?", please correct me if i'm wrong. Chopper Dave 05:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I also believe it is important to keep the information in the article but have amended the title and introductory sentance, as maybe 'scandal' was not the best word to use in this instance? Regards, ys Gouranga(UK) 12:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much Gauranga. That title edit was expertly done. It does take the rawness from the whole section! I have dared to change 'death' from the earlier title, to 'Disappearance' and I hope none of you have reason to object to that minor edit. (Be grateful I am not lopping off entire sections!) It's the correct terminology here and the edit does not really change anything. Vaishnava acharyas appear and they disappear. Gauranga, will vouchsafe for that. As for Chopper Dave, here is a promise: You become an Vaishnave acharya and upon your death, We'll say that you disappeared! Thanks once again Gauranga. And, Hare Krishna! Mishriam-musiris 16:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

We will have to stick with 'death' rather than 'disappearance' in regards to Prabhupada. It's Point of View to say that somebody 'disappeared' in that sense. Regards, ys, Gouranga(UK) 17:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Mishriam-musiris, i'll try. Chopper Dave 18:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Notes on details of abuse: In the now-repeated revision of my details, there seems to be some pains taken to maintain a relatively unthreatening picture of when abuse occurred (supposedly mainly just "1978-1988", a period that conveniently starts after the founder's death and ends almost 20 years ago), and of who was responsible for uncovering it (even as I write, the article makes it sounds like the gurukula-abuse story was first revealed by ISKCON in its own publication in 1998, whereas in fact it had been reported, though not in as complete detail, by others years previously.)

While that may be a comfortable belief for some admirers of ISKCON, it has the drawback of not being supported by the facts. At the very least, an encyclopedia article should give enough facts for people to come to their own conclusions and dispel any prevailing misconceptions. I am therefore attempting to provide this factual basis by including a sufficiently detailed picture of the time-frame for readers to understand and investigate the unfortunate story of abuse within ISKCON. I am trying to stay concise, only adding a few sentences, but I think it's quite reasonable to state briefly the full time period of the Robin George case (which I've attempted to do, but it's been reverted twice), name the sources cited (which has also been reverted), and mention earlier reports of abuse allegations (which I'm about to do, and would rather not see reverted.) I also plan to delete the "from 1978" summary starting point, since the cases mentioned in the articles do not support the assertion that things were generally fine before then. (Though I will agree that the problems reported in the article don't seem to continue past 1988, so I'll leave in "before 1988".)

If anyone has any objections to this, please state them here, rather than just reverting. Thanks! 130.91.116.49 16:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Anon, I appreciate your desire to clarify the details on this subject. In reply to your points:

The decade 1978-1988 is the time period wherein the vast majority of abuse cases and other internal problems took place. The Robin George case in 1976 was a totally different issue to that of the gurukulas. Robin testified to joining the movement voluntarily and the court case had a lot to do with ISKCON being incorrectly perceived as a dangerous cult by her parents. See this article for example.

I agree we should not give the impression that the stroy of child-abuse wasn't reported until 1998. I'm sure this was not intended in the article and will ensure it is clear that it came to light during the 1980's.

The reference you gave (New York Times article) were not removed (that I am aware of) and I have checked again and could not see anything else which had been added?

Regards, Gouranga(UK) 18:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Folks , I am an orthodox vaishnavite, and an admirer of ISKCONs efforts. But foremost , i am an honest human being and hence i do feel that the section abt scandals should remain. It is fact, and admitting it doesnt dramatically reduce ISKCONS stature. Among millions of devoted, elevated souls - to find a few deranged individuals and to report them out is not a disgrace - its honest. So what if someone feels low abt ISKCON because of this section - i would rather someone hate me for who i am than to love me for what i am not. All that ranting apart, i have been to several ISKCON temples around the world and have seen several posters of all the good work that ISKCON is doing - distributing food in ethiopia etc. i think we should have a section on ISKCONs contributions to world society via such programs. I opine that absence of these programs are more demeaning than the presence of the scandals section.

God bless and protect us all with peace, satisfaction, tolerance and happiness. Upparna 09:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC) Jayaram Uparna 3 Jul 2007

Thank you for your honest advice Upparna. I agree that this part of the movement was not shown in the article, and have since added a summary section in regards to the food distribution with a link to the main Food for Life article. Best Wishes, Gouranga(UK) 08:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Gauranga. Now that i have read the FFL article, I am amazed at the depth and reach of this program ... just HAVE to donate to this cause ! Thanks for expanding my knowledge on this FFL programme. Now that it is there in wiki-iskon , i hope it gets more coverage and thus, more funds etc.Peace.--Jayaram Uparna 06:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Besides all the lovely back and forth on a simple issue such as the fact that the entry is very lean on presenting 'criticism' and when it attempts to do so, it either immediately runs to defend it or lets it glide into oblivion, there are some gaps in thoroughness. A good example is the line '...and the remaining four were all expelled from the movement by the Governing Body Commission during turbulent times in the 1980s' where is the bit about that? the reader would want to know about that. It points to the fact that what we are reading is not the whole story. A presentation of facts, such as a discussion, no matter how brief, on what happened after the death of the founder, etc. If we write an entry about a political party, would we write about the critical issues that may have render it asunder? no need to go on gossiping or stating unverifiable facts, just letting the reader know the history of the organization. The article is far too apologetic (no, I am not saying that we launch into scandals, but if there is controversy it should be presented for what it is, the article fails to do that (Diabulos (talk) 19:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC))

ISKCON Activities

Should there not be a more specific reference to kirtans as they relate to ISKCON -- importance vis a vis Sri Chaitanya, how often, and different types or instruments, and so on? Is the kirtan not an inseparable part of ISKCON daily life?

Also curious as why no mention of George Harrison or the popularity of "My Sweet Lord", as it references the historical growth and cultural penetration of ISKCON, and demonstrates what is meant by Srila Prabhupada's wide rendering of Sankirtan. Article also seems light on referencing use of public open-house meals and summer festivals.

Would think it not accurate to say they have "restaurants" without specifying the serving of prasadam, or else at the very least say "vegetarian restaurants" so it doesn't read like they own a few BurgerKings.

If no objections or changes made I'll fix a couple of these tomorrow Joevanisland 23:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Any edits and content you can bring to the article are appreciated. "My Sweet Lord" is mentioned in the article "Hare Krishna in Popular Culture". Chopper Dave 23:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

See also Sankirtan, which is linked in the current article, but maybe not prominently enough? Ys, Gouranga(UK) 08:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem to me is that the article doesn't seem to inform as to what ISKCON entails to those within it. In other words, the impression I get from this article is not synonomous with the impression I get from observing or experiencing devotees and ISKCON temples, thus it seems ... incomplete. You have history, philosophy, and scandal, but no section in your Contents for activities outside of preaching activities. Or better put, you seem to me to have written about ISKCON more vis a vis belief than practice. I would think (and forgive me for the unavoidable problem that many of you may find it offensive for a non-devotee to "sum-up" your dear Prabhu), having known devotees and been in ISKCON temples, that the nature of Srila Prabhupada's example and message is vaishnavism as practice, not philosophical talk. Is my view here incorrect?

Further, the Sankirtan link is fine for evangelical Sankirtan, but not the overall idea to an outsider of the importance of singing and music to ISKCON. Such would allow a better distinction between ISKCON and other more private activity based practices, such as some Buddhist or Hindu methods of meditation and so on. Perhaps I am mistaken and kirtans are not or are no longer part of daily ISKCON life separate from evangelical activities. It simply always seemed to me that kirtan in all it's forms allows for one to see ISKCON as not sharing other religions' focus on self(ish)-enlightenment but on glorifying God for others to hear, including for oneself to hear. I realize I may be failing to explain myself in this space. I realize also that most of this is solved by the Vaishnav articles, so some of this is discardable as nothing more than my personal idea that ISKCON should have a contained explanation of it's own practices on the idea that it is a specific english language movement not always accurately defined merely through links to general and historical vaisnavism articles.

Lastly, how does one help with an article such as this? How would someone like me write a sentence on prasadam? By virtue of NPOV and being a non-devotee, I would have to write things like believed to be influenced by the person preparing, and so on. Will this cause objections? This must be difficult for devotees, as it must feel sacrilidge for you to write lines that do not state such things as fact. If I can provide any service as to getting around this problem, advise me further and I shall help all I can. Joevanisland 20:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hare Krishna. I suggest you write a practices section on a sandbox page (eg. here ) and GourangaUK and I can help work on it and edit it to a NPOV section. Let me know when you start and we'll jump in :) Chopper Dave 21:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Forgive my poor explanation then, as my own perspective is not that of a devotee and would be (hopefully) NPOV from the start. I'm more trying to grasp how articles come about when the need for NPOV seems to be offensive to the people/position being explained and would thus seemingly trigger objections. Perhaps I've met too many devotees! I can't help but feel guilty describing things such as prasadam and reincarnation as simply theories, even if I personally believed them to be so! It's more a problem with who am I to write about ISKCON. In truth, I'd be happy if the section "Preaching activities" was renamed simply "Activities", with the current preaching info plus a little bit more about devotee life. I'll try something in sandbox as soon as I can. Joevanisland 21:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Joe, Wikipedia is based upon the ideal of encyclopedic, informed, neutrality in it's articles. Any additions should be written with this in mind, with objections/debates being beaten out via consensus on the discussion pages. Best Wishes with your edits, Gouranga(UK) 11:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

ISKONISKCON: Followers of the Vedas?

Ok, I know that Swami Prabhupada translated the Vedas and other legendary Hindu scriptures. But does ISKON actually perform rituals in the vedic scriptures ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ne0Freedom (talk • contribs) 22:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The focus within Gaudiya Vaishnavism (including ISKCON) is on the teachings of Bhagavad Gita, Bhagavata Purana and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. As a tradition it is more closely connected with the Puranic texts, and some of the Upanishads, rather than the three Vedas. Still, I suspect that there are some rituals that could potentially be connected to the rituals in the Vedas - at least in some form, or which are taken directly from them directly. The fire sacrifice during initiation and deity installation is the one that first springs to mind. Would have to find a GV priest who performs temple rituals and know the background behind them. Gouranga(UK) (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

ISKCON is based on the essential Vedic message - matras given in diksa include Rg Veda's himn and the main chant is Upanisadic maha-mantra. Thus Vedaantic roots of the movement are hard to ignore. Number of rituals are performed, such as angihotras, but majority of the rituals are based on the Vaisnava Pancaratra system.Wikidās 21:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

"Non-sectarian in its ideals"

Why is a statement from ISKCON own source given as a fact? 217.198.224.13 10:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Because it shows that ISKCON is non-sectarian in it's ideals. To what extent it does or doesn't meet it's own ideals is a totally different question, but the source clearly illustrates this as an ideal of the organisation. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 10:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

But nevertheless, ISKCON's ideology clearly puts it under the Gaudiya Vaishnava sect and it promotes bhakti yoga so I don't get what it means by being non-sectarian.Domsta333 (talk) 13:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

According to ISKCON it does not promote a particular sect, but adds.Wikid^as© 03:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Rath Yatra Controversy

ISKCON arranges Rath Yatras in India and around the world at different times. These Rath yatras were objected by the Jagganath temple of Puri as being against tradition. [2] Adding a note of the issue in img cap.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I have heard the story, which to me sounds largely political, and wouldn't see it as being noteworthy enough to add into the article. Ratha Yatra's have been happening around the world since the late 1960's. Think why are people objecting suddenly? Jagganatha is free to go where and when He chooses. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 13:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

IMO, this should be added as per NPOV. Giving a sense of the criticism faced by ISKCON (which can be regarded new Vaishanavism) by the old guard.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that NPOV really comes into it. It's a story created for political purposes. By adding it here we are simply letting Wikipedia be used as a political soapbox. The history is that the Jagganath temple doesn't allow Hindus into the temple of non-Indian origin, or who are not from traditional Hindu families. It has had this rule for hundreds of years. One of the founder acharyas of the Gaudiya tradition known as Haridas Thakur (from 1400's) is one such example. Gaudiya Vaishnavas who were born originally in Muslim families, or from outside of Hinduism have in the past, largely tolerated this and got on with things (at least I don't know of any past protests). In recent years a lot of members of ISKCON when visiting Jagannath Puri for pilgrimage have felt it wrong that pilgrims who are racially African, Caucasian, or Chinese etc... are not allowed entry to the temple, even though they are practising Hindus. I don't know all the details, but especially in December last year, a number of articles appeared in the Indian press which were critical of this no-entry to foreigners rule. Now, shortly afterwards suddenly some members of the Jagannath temple are creating news stories which are critical of ISKCON. Does this not sound like a strange coincidence? The simple facts are that the members of the Jagannath temple have the responsibility to decide who is permitted into the temple and who isn't, and members of ISKCON have the responsibility to decide when they have their festivals. In my humble opinion this whole tit-for-tat scenario has no place in Wikipedia. Sincere regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 12:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry to say this but the reasoning above is WP:OR. If Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh has a criticism section. An article devoted to criticism of Hinduism. Why can't this article ISKCON have the section? --Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This article includes plenty of criticisms (see: internal problems & controversy), but the above is a story being distributed for political reasons. How is it WP:OR for me to say that on a talk page? I really don't see it being notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 14:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think. Lets wait for somebody else' comments rather I and you (GourangaUK) having a fight. I still think atleast a 1-liner be added in controversy then. The Internal problems and controversy does not discuss view of organisation by other Vaishanava or HIndu outfits.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Given that the Jagganath temple is not funded by ISKCON and **its** rules and policies of not allowing non-hindus to enter the temple is much much older than ISKCON iteself, what is your (ISKCON's) basis for demanding that they open their doors to ISKCON members? Desione (talk) 08:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

There are many organizations (such as Jagganath temple) who restrict their membership and the right of private organizations to restrict membership has been well recognized in modern legal courts throughout the world. So again, what basis does ISKCON has in demanding that Jagganth temple open its doors more than it has Desione (talk) 08:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Desione, your above comments are innapropriate and off-topic. The question is in regards to the notability of the story for inclusion in this article. This talk page is not for people to air their own personal views or have a general debate. As I stated above "members of the Jagannath temple have the responsibility to decide who is permitted into the temple and who isn't". Who are you arguing with? Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 12:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

GourangaUK, I probably didn't phrase is right. What I was saying was that the event is not only notable but should be fully discussed. What needs to be discussed here is basis on which an organization (ISKCON) that does not even consider itself Hindu (or not sure if it is Hindu) is demanding that Jagganth temple allow entry to its members. Jagganath temple has full legal basis for denying entry to anyone it pleases. Do you see why this event is very notable and should be discussed at length? Thank you. Desione (talk) 10:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

GourangaUK, I waited for a third party to comment. Desione supporting the inclusion, readded Referenced material about the controversy. The controversy reflects IMO the view of other Vaishanava (Hindu) organisations towards ISKCON.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

If it's 'referenced' material about a controversy, stick it in the controversy section, not in an image caption. Personally I feel this controversy is of little significance and disappear overnight, not worth mentioning in the article Chopper Dave (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

With all respect, Desione's opinion is hardly neutral - and the above comments are again an attempt to become involved in a general argument, which is not the proper use of a talk page (see WP:TALK). Especially considering the current debate we are both involved in on the Hinduism talk page, I can hardly take that as a concensus. I'm not convinced that NDTV is a reliable source, and as Chopper Dave has stated, even if we do include the information, it should be in the controversy section, not within the image caption. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

GourangaUK, I don't have an intention to argue out with you on this at length. But since you question my neurality allow me to respond. Common sense (as opposed to bias or neutrality) dictates that the basis on which a self-proclaimed non-hindu organization disrespected and agitated against one of the most well respected Hindu institutions (which has acted well within its rights) should be discussed in detail in the ISKCON article. As per common sense (as opposed to bias or neutrality), this is an unusual act not just in the scope of Hinduism but in scope of any religious institution. Thank you Desione (talk) 03:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Adding in controversy as per DAve. Though the online link to the incident on The Times of India website seems to dead (TOI had publishd the story in the newspaper), i found this [3] which says "Earlier last week, the priests had criticised ISKCON for holding "untimely" Rath Yatra".--Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Redtiger, the TOI link is better, and the way you had written it out makes more sense now within the article. I have made some changes to the general wording and added some additional links on the subject. It is something that was building up in 2007. My view is still that it is too small affair to make much notice of, but if it has caused a stir within India then I understand your point. Best Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I just made some minor modifications, removed racial/foreign references (both from Jagganth temple and ISKCON) and added Jaganth temple POV. Desione (talk) 08:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the controversy will go away in time (if something similar doesn't happen next year). However, from what I have seen it has been building up for years. Desione (talk) 08:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Desione, I have reverted your changes on the grounds of WP:OR. It is not so simple to say that ISKCON is not a Hindu organisation, nor is that the reason why ISKCON members were not let into the temple. Members of ISKCON of Indian parentage have been allowed access for many years. It has only ever been people of non-Indian parentage that were not allowed. When they say 'No-Hindus allowed' it incorporates the belief that in order to be Hindu, you have to be of Indian stock. Have you ever visited the temple with non-Indian pilgrims? I have. This is how it works. I havn't got any particular problem with it, but we shouldn't change the facts.[4] Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources for ISKCON related articles

• I have added some ISKCON related websites to the reliable sources notice board at Reliable sources for ISKCON related articles. Please feel free to post any reference you are considering using for ISKCON related articles and biographies. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that a reference to the entire Direction of Management is appropriate rather than just the sections that are currently being followed.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anuttamadasi (talk • contribs) 19:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources are discussed and presented on WP:RSN. Most of websites and all blogs are not Reliable. I have not seen a single good reliable source for DOM in a decent secondary source. Stop adding references to blogs and websites that are unreliable. See Google books and Scholar: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Wikidās ॐ 19:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

ISKCON work group

• There is a discussion concerning an ISKCON work group located at, ISKCON work group or subproject. Any thoughts you have would be appreciated. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Changes to wording

I have reverted some changes today based on the following logic:

1. It is better to use the word belief where a belief is being mentioned, rather than describe it as an 'understanding', it's just more straightforward.
2. Linking the same word a number of times within the same article is discouraged in Wikipedia, and so I have removed duplicate links. I have also removed links which come back again to this article, either directly, or through another disambiguation page (i.e Maha-mantra).
3. The term Gauda in Gaudiya Vaishnavism specifically refers to where the branch of Gaudiya Vaishnavism began, or was first recognised, and thus mentioned other places such as Rajastan in the sentence complicates the meaning. The reference to Mathura, obviously includes Vrindavan.
4. 'Disseminated' sounds like more of a medical term. Whereas, at least to me, 'popularized' sounds more straightforward.
5. Details of the Maha-mantra's connection with the Kali-Santarana Upanishad are given in the main article.

Hope this clarifies my edits. Best Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 23:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

One should not use word that means: A religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof - to the the concepts that have huge logical, sastrical, historical and practical support. Please refer to any rules to the referencing a number of times. Please refer to WP:CITET. Prabhupada did not "cater to popular taste to make popular and present to the general public" anything. His presentation and way of spreading was different, while some of his followers, to whom you may belong, may not appreciate it. Please re-examine. Wikidas (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Wikidas, please could you describe exactly what you meant to say in that last statement? It is against WP:NPOV to describe a belief as an understanding. We need to discuss changes fully before going any further. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 18:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Verifiable information should not be called a belief. If Caitanya Vaisnavas say 'it does not depend on belief' it falls within verif source. I agree with you that changes needs to be discussed before just undoing 20 edits by other editor. Lets make some sense here. Wikidās 02:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Wikidas,

I attempted to begin a discussion, but you appeared to ignore the above points? In your recent edits you have, amongst some good edits I must add, also :

1. Added a reference to back up an argument that ISKCON's philosophy goes back to the time of the Greeks. - This is clearly original research, and too much of a point of view statement to include in the introduction. To say that ISKCON follows the philosophy of Gaudiya Vaishnavism is surely detail enough for the introductory paragraph?
2. Removed words such as "belief" because you seem to believe that use of such words to describe a religious movement is out of place? Please note that we need to write from a neutral perspective as much as possible. To describe a religious belief as a religious belief is plain common-sense.
3. Replaced the link to Mathura (which includes Vrindavan) as pointed out already above.
4. Added links to the words ISKCON and Maha Mantra, one of which re-directs to this article (this is the ISKCON article), the other of which goes to a disambiguation page, from where you would then have to go to the Hare Krishna article, which is already linked. Therefore neither of these links is required.
5. Added a point of view that ISKCON was evangelistic. No, it is still an evangelistic movement. It actively seeks converts. This is a fact. The extent of outreach preaching within the movement is another issue. It is incorrect to say that ISKCON only was evangelistic. It's a point of view.
6. Added citations, some of which are very useful, granted, one of which (i.e the first one) seems out of place, or a more suitable reference could be used?

As much as I appreciate your beneficial changes and agree with keeping some of the recent citations I will have to revert the other changes. Unless you can explain good reasons for the above? As a general note, I have found it is often very helpful to discuss things on the talk page before making several changes of this type to articles which involve a lot of general activity.

Best Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: GourangaUK points 1-6

If you narrow your point to the above 6 points I think we can arrive to an agreement. It however requires some consideration.

1. Introduction allows to a (not very well ref.) statement that some consider ISKCON to be NRM. The point has to be addressed in the introduction itself with sufficient refs. Monotheistic Vaisnavism existed and is recorded from pre-christian era. That is an important consideration. Just locating a particular sect to a particular place "Gauda" is a weak point and does not sufficently address the issue of it being a NRM or a sect. In fact the purpose of ISKCON and presentation should be different and that is not POV statement. I do think that references to initial (not so sucessful) attempts to spread Vaisnava monotheism and the same specific message are needed in introduction.
2. I will propose a neutral wording that may satisfy your dislike of the wording and at the same time will not stress subjectivity of belief.
3. I agree that places that you suggest can be listed and do not object exclusion of Rajastan, However its true that Rajastan (that is part of Vrajamandal) is clearly not Mathura and is currently in a different state:-) So maybe worth considering..
4. Links ISKCON should be removed. However some detail reference to the Upanisadic background of the mahamantra seems to be essential.
5. Its important to understand the dynamics of ISKCON today when its preaching strategies are presented. There is no reason to pain 1980s picture that does not reflect the reality. Its clearly not as evangelistic as it was and more community oriented. I will propose a re-wording for your consideration. Please let me know what you will consider reasonable. It will require a NPOV review.
6. I will work on a better reference to replace the first one. If you find any let me know.

Wikidās 21:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Wikidas, in regards to point 1, I don't think this article is the place to discuss the ancient origins of Vaishnavism. I've often read scholars making the point that in a general comparison to Gaudiya Traditions in India "the only really new thing about ISKCON was its move to the west". Maybe that could be a useful way forward? In Hinduism by Ian Jamison, 2006 (ISBN 1-84489-420-7), he writes on p177: "It is only ISKCON's activity in the West that is 'new'". I've heard that said in another book which assessed which movements were suspected as being cults or not. I forget the lady author's name?

In regards to point 4, I wonder if an accurate assessment of ISKCONs current global preaching strategies is a bit out of scope for this article. We can say for sure that most temples have historically focused on sankirtan and harinama as forms of preaching, and this is also what is stressed in most of Prabhupada's literature. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 22:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Categories

Category:Vaishnavism is an important category and should not be removed Wikidās ॐ 07:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

ISKCON is already a sub-category of Vaishnavism [in Wikipedia], and thus the article should not be in both categories.--Editor2020 (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It should then be in Vaisnavism. It makes not sense to put ISKCON in the category ISKCON for navigational reasons. Wikidās ॐ 17:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It is in Vaishnavism, that's what I just said. You can't seriously be saying that the article "ISKCON" should not be in the category "ISKCON", so I am going to assume a breakdown in communication.

We are discussing two different things, articles and categories. The article ISKCON goes in the Category ISKCON. The category ISKCON is a Sub-category of the Category Vaishnavism.--Editor2020 (talk) 18:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I have reviewed and added appropriate cats. To compensate for the fact that ISKCON is labeled as a separate denomination different from Vaisnavism. There should be discussion on it. I will add it to Vaisnavism Project page. Wikidās ॐ 19:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you discuss categories you want to remove here: - Category:Krishnology appears to be quite on topic. Also Category:Bhakti movement]] Category:Hindu traditions]] You can be more consistent and since you kept Bhakti movement]] first time around keep it again. Why do you think that Hindu traditions is not a right category? Wikidās ॐ 20:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent move

Three references where moved from LEAD to section on internal problems,[5] I wonder how come external criticism belongs to internal problems of the group ?--talk-to-me! (talk) 13:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't belong to the lead of the article.Gaura79 (talk) 15:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The lead section acts as abstract of the article, and more often then not, it consists of both views, one advocating the group, other negating the group, only statement that I added was ISKCON has been a subject matter of discussion with anti-cult movements, and three references were provided, now why was that removed from the lead ? What is the understanding of lead section (introduction part) ? Kindly explain if my addition is wrong!.--talk-to-me! (talk) 11:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Regrading this revert [6], waiting for your input. :)--talk-to-me! (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Your references were not academic and POV type. It is balanced and placed in the appropriate section of the article, that deals with problems, of which anticult is not the most important one (unless you screen name is Cult free world). Wikidās ॐ 20:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

How do you propose to incorporate the other half, in the lead section, to complete the picture ? If you refer the Anti-cult_movement page, you will find Stevan Hassan there, hence it is not a POV type, I linked it, you removed it.--talk-to-me! (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sure that there is hardly any place for it in the lead. Its just a few words and there is no controversy about it, its a fact of life. If it was a current problem, maybe it would come into lead, but since its not current, 20-25 years old, there is hardly any need to have in the lead. If you get a consensus of other editors on putting it in the lead, I can not see it as a problem, but at present it should stay where it is. Regards. Wikidās ॐ 13:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

As i am busy with some other stuff, i request to hold this discussion for sometime, once free, will return back !--talk-to-me! (talk) 10:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Cult free world add biased sources

User:Cult free world add very biased sources, no meet WP:Verfiability and WP:Reliability. Rick Ross is anti-cult activist -- not neutral source. Freedomofmind is blog, anti-cult POV. CESNUR site no say is cult, say is sect, and say yoga is sect too. Did User:Cult free world read article? User:Cult free world do original research. Please give 3rd party sources. No add bad sources. Thank you very much. 123.242.230.164 (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikidas and Gaura79, sorry if change referecnes. Please fix. sorry. 123.242.230.164 (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that that sources should meet WP policy. Please see WP:CITE for info and links to other policies. The statements themself are fair and there are sources to support it.Wikidās ॐ 17:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Stevan hassan (freedom of mind) and rick-ross institute, both are considered experts for cults. An encyclopedia article should contain information from all quarters about the subject. It can be discussed further, just that i noticed that article was missing these critical (important) section, which should be incorporated in the article, how and where, we can discuss that. Article needs some help for sure. :) --talk-to-me! (talk) 19:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No, these men no cult experts. They anticult activists. This their purpose. You need professors or universitys as neutral sources. Thank you very much for listening. 123.242.230.164 (talk) 20:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I disagree with that, since all opposition against a religious movement could be reinterpreted as anti-cult. I think that it is necessary to allow some of the "activism" that can be interpreted as anticult, if the arguments they present can be supported by other sources. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 16:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

While they are controversial, they are also considered leaders and in the field and they are used as citations all over wikipedia.

Anyway they aren't being cited as experts. All the text says is that ISKON has been discussed within the anti-cult movement. Here are two examples.

Reverting the removal of the text. Sethie (talk) 03:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Please note that original references were added by Cult_free_world who has history of similar actions [7]. NPOV should be addressed in this case by providing alternative readings.

Wikidās ॐ, this is very common with cult member's, that case of SSP, is not isolated one, here is another such case [8]. It happens, but as far as ISKCON is concerned, its more spiritual, hence does not lead to that path, which Sahaja Yoga[9], or Sahaja Marg [10] lead to, we can work together with this article, keeping in view the WP:NPA policy. :) is it possible here.. I hope so..--talk-to-me! (talk) 11:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No, sources no good, not 3rd party, from selfwebsites. Sentence okay, just no good sources. Find good sources. Thank you very much. Agree with Gaura79 no lead (WP:UNDUE), but here good. 67.167.134.79 (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The sources are fine. The lead is another question. Sethie (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Indian Scriptures

The oldest scriptures of Classic Indian Culture are the four (or three) Vedas, the oldest of them being the Rg-Veda the oldest core of which is generally dated to some time not before 1800 BC. The Bhagavad Gita is included in one of the two great epics of India, the Mahabharata which is generally dated to the time from 200 BC onwards, the Bhagavatapurana to the 10th century AD. None of the scriptures mentioned in the first part of the article are - considered even the most generous datings - older than 2,500 years.

(cf. Encyclopedia of Hinduism, C.A. Jones, J.D Ryan - Facts on File inc.

Dictionary of Indology, A.K. Roy, N.N Gidwani - Oxford & IBH Publishing
Wikipedia Article)

Akimboa23 (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

As a newcomer to this article, I feel the above comment raises a valid question: The first section of the article reads, "While some classified it as a new religious movement, its core philosophy is based on traditional Hindu scriptures such as the Śrīmad Bhāgavatam and the Bhagavad-gītā, both of which date back more than 5,200 years." According to its Wikipedia entry, the Bhagavad-gītā is 2 or 3 thousand years old. So how does the "5,200 years" figure apply? Macduff (talk) 05:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Garbled discourse

This sequence of sentences in the section Issues within the society does not make sense

1. ISKCON has been subject matter of discussion in some anti-cult movements.[53][54][55]

(OK, good so far)

2. The ISKCON was described by academics as "the most genuinely Hindu of all the many Indian movements in the West",[56]

Eeeh! What is the discourse here? Does "the most genuinely Hindu" imply the interest of "some anti-cult movements"? If then, how? Worst interpretation first: Is the essence of "the most genuinely Hindu" the same as "cultic" per western thinking, or better: does "the most genuinely Hindu" evoke the fear of the presumedly irrational anti-cult movements? Or second (and most benevolent) interpretation does the "the most genuinely Hindu" disprove that ISKCON is "cultic", then the question is a giant How?!

3. and as to its fortieth anniversary in America, as "having being successful on the basis of longevity", having "undergone changes to its goals and identity".[57]

Is this some kind of advert admission that: "OK, then, it was cultic, but isn't anymore"? ... said: Rursus (bork²) 17:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I've surfed around and can answer by myself: the sentence is very biased an formulated to prove a certain view, namely:

'ISKCON has been subject matter of discussion in some anti-cult movements.

true, f.ex. Rick A. Ross and that cite claims that Prabhupada claimed that ISKCON is not Hinduism, so

The ISKCON was described by academics as "the most genuinely Hindu of all the many Indian movements in the West",[56]

I'm going to ignore some opinions above, insert a sentence with Rick Ross in order to explain the formulation "the most genuinely Hindu". ... said: Rursus (bork²) 08:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you are confused about the fact that image of the movement as well as Hindu faith changes with time. From 1990s Hinduism is very open to conversions and ISKCON is part of the general cultural stream. Are you arguing with a direct quote? Wikidās ॐ 19:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a serious issue with neutrality. I knew nothing of ISKCON before reading this article, but it is clear that all objective statements have been drowned out by believers. The cult criticism (as mentioned above) is clear example of this. The discussion page, likewise, constantly devolves into a discussion of tenants of the religion. I have nothing against the faith. I would just like some bias to be curtailed in the interest of factual discussion. It is clear the primary authors and editors are not disinterested parties. Grant (bork²) 4:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.110.139.53 (talk)

Inclusion of the July 9th letter and Direction of Management

This article needs to be factually written. Saying that the Direction of Management was a "letter" when in fact it is legal witnessed document is untrue. In addition quoting the parts that are being followed and then deleting any reference to the parts that are currently being ignored by the GBC is untruthful.

Regarding Srila Prabhupada's appointment of the "eleven", the July 9th letter clearly names them as "ritviks." That is truthful. After his passing the eleven became "Zonal Acaryas" by appointing themselves to that post. That is truthful.

Anuttamadasi (talk) 23:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Srila Prabhupada created the DIRECTION OF MANAGEMENT, which was signed, witnessed and notarized. This document created the GBC, and gave the EXACT DIRECTION AS TO HOW THE GBC SHOULD ACT ...Importanly, the GBC was to be ELECTED FROM THE BODY OF TEMPLE PRESIDENTS. The Temple presidents were instructed to hold elections every three years, and either re-elect existing GBC members, or elect new ones from a ballot of candidates chosen from the body of Temple Presidents.

Srila Prabhupada also wrote several letters stating that the temple presidents were to be elected by vote by the congregations of the individual temples, and that the GBC would have practically no AUTHORITY over the individual temples.

The devotees who live in ISKCON temples should be educated so that they understand the full extent of their constitutional powers. By the constitution of the ISKCON temple corporations, the members have the legal right to elect a new leadership. This is a little-known fact, but it is a law.

They also have the right to vote to impeach that leadership if they lose their qualification as leaders. Legally, they have voted to accept the appointed leaders by failing to vote them out. That is, unless the members assert their right to vote it is assumed they wish to follow the appointed system.

Because the GBC assumed dictatorial powers NOT PROVIDED in the DIRECTION OF MANAGEMENT, they were in a position to "cover up" crimes committed by each other, and to terrorize the temple presidents by threatening to "kick them out" for insubordination. Since they were not authorized to do either of the above, we can see that their pattern of abuse followed the typical pattern of abuse in "rogue states" and other dictatorships and oligarchies that ARE NOT ANSWERABLE TO THE PUBLIC. It would have been almost impossible for the molestations of the children in the Gurukulas to have taken place if Srila Prabhupada's DIRECTION OF MANAGEMENT had been followed.

The only thing that can be said in our (congregational member's) favour is that the GBC VERY CAREFULLY HID THE TEXT OF THE DIRECTION OF MANAGEMENT UNTIL THE 1990'S. (Over twenty years!) So that NO CONGREGATIONAL MEMBER OF ISKCON REALIZED TO WHAT DEGREE THEY WERE (AND SITLL ARE) BEING RIPPED OFF!

The devotees should assert their rights under the law, at least in the United States, and immediately hold elections to force the GBC to resign as managers and trustees of all ISKCON properties. This is the only chance to save Srila Prabhupada's legacy from total destruction. If after the prosecution and defense presentations in the court, where all the details of the GBCs' intransigence will become public knowledge, the jury finds the defendants culpable, and if they did not resign when the case first began, this arrogant attitude will influence the judge and jury to increase the penalty.

Urdhvaga das —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.116.175.87 (talk) 00:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not your blog site. Read WP:ENCYC, use WP:RS do not spam this talk page or the pages of Wiki with your links. Disruption to Wikipedia is a serious problem. WP:DISRUPT. Wikidās ॐ 11:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, your mantric recitation of WP policies irrelevant to this comment in an attempt to push your own POV and silence this balanced critique shows your cult-promoting agenda. The comment to which you responded seems to me by far the most informative on this page. Enon (talk) 10:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikidas is entirely correct in stating, regardless of the views given in that comment, that it does not belong on the talk page. The comment was a polemic, discussing the issue in general, NOT a suggestion for sourced additions or changed to the article. The Talk page is NOT an open forum for discussing the topic...it is only for discussing referenced changes to the article. ONe's personal opinion or view is irrelevant. The comment mentions no sources, nor specific changes, it is, for all I can tell, a rant about the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.34.246 (talk) 23:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Krishnaism vs Hinduism in ISKCON

I invite editors to formulate a statement of consensus on the position of Hinduism in relation to ISKCON. At one occasion the founder said it was not Hinduism but Krishnaism. On the other hand there are prominent scholars who define Hinduism differently. Flood, G. "Hare Krishna: Hinduism, Vaisnavism, and ISKCON: Authentic Traditions or Scholarly Constructions?". www.icsahome.com. Retrieved 2009-04-20.. Your views are welcomed backed by reliable sources that not biased. Do not just pile up primary sources here, it has to be WP:SECONDARY or at least from a Tertiary source. It appears the most acceptable to all definition of Hinduism is Sanatan Dharma, it appears ISKCON supports this definition. ( "Hinduism". www.iskcon.org.uk.), ("ISKCON Scholar Greets Pope on Behalf Of US Hindus". news.iskcon.com.). I suggest the above links are added to the links section of the article. Wikidās ॐ 09:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The first thing that comes to mind, personally, is that the founder's opinions were those of a source who would not necessarily be considered reliable. In cases like these, it is the opinion of neutral outsiders which take priority. Prabhupada seems to have himself, based on what I remember, had a dim opinion of those he called "Hindus" and might have wanted to dissociate himself from them simply because of that opinion. Also, it I think is not unreasonable to think that "Krishnaism", which so far as I can tell from the above quote wasn't defined in terms of usage, might be what we think of as a more specific term for a group within that field, perhaps similar to "Roman Catholicism" and "Christianity". While the RC fall within the larger group "Christianity", they are separate enough that some might want to use the more specific term as an identifier.

For the larger issues of how to structure the content, I would think maybe filing an RfC and additionally leaving messages on the talk pages of the various relevant national, topical, and other projects, like Hinduism, India, Religion, and the like might be the best way to go. No objections to adding the links as proposed above. John Carter (talk) 14:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

This is more like saying if someone starts an organization called Jesus-ism, it shouldn't be confused with Christrianity -- of course, Krishna is a primary figure in Hindu Religions and any -ism related to it will automatically fall under Hinduism.chughtai (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed move to ISKCON

International Society for Krishna Consciousness is better known as ISKCON in abbreviation. It is more popular and common name thus proposed a move, unless serious objection is mounted. Wikid^as© 19:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• I would say it best remains at what it is - the full title, with ISKON as a redirect. A good example is Mahatma Gandhi - best known as that but his article title is Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 22:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  • There are so many Gandhis, it is his surname after all, (See: Gandhi (disambiguation); International Society for Krishna Consciousness is way too long to type in the box and it is 5 times less popular then ISKCON in the Google test.‎ Wikid^as© 22:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

ISKCON is the better known name. Support move.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

What evidence is there that one name is more popular than another? In this type topic, I don't know that Google is the best gauge.   Will Beback  talk  05:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

International Society for Krishna Consciousness temples are better known as simply ISKCON temples. The Times of India newspaper uses ISKCON repeatedly here, while gives the full form once. In this article simply ISKCON is used.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 07:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the Times of India uses "Iskcon" in one of the articles, which I don't think anyone is proposing to use here. Is our sole evidence for the predominance of one term over another two articles from the same newspaper?   Will Beback  talk  22:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Certainly ISKCON is the proper name. It is also used for a number of existing categories. In fact the redirect is measured much more then any other redirect normally measure. In other words it is ISKCON that is the most popular and used spelling for the organization. Wikid^as© 22:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Evidence?   Will Beback  talk  22:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• 'Keep where it is per International Society for Krishna Consciousness' web site. The other term they use there is Iskcon.com. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 18:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Color me surprised - in the 'what do other encyclopedias call it' search there is "Hare Krishna (religious sect)" in Encyclopedia Britannica,[11] and just "Hare Krishna" in Encarta.[12] A Google news search for "Hare Krishna" finds countless uses of the word referring to a "Hare Krishna temple" or a "Hare Krishna restaurant", etc., along with the use of the phrase as a chant/mantra. I'm not proposing that name, in fact I disagree with it, but just saying. As someone who is not a big fan of acronyms and abbreviations, I'm in favor of the current name, but that's just an uninformed personal opinion. Priyanath ^talk 04:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I apologize, in reverting the move I called it "undiscussed", but I see it has indeed been discussed here. I still see nothing in the above that would present a good rationale, let alone a consensus, for the move. It is undisputed that ISKCON is popularly known as "the Hare Krishnas", which is why this article has had a disambiguating hatnote pointing to ISKCON for years. --dab (𒁳) 12:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Bhavananda Das

"Bhavananda Das" (or Charles Bacis) redirect here - yet there is no mention of him. Maybe there should be something under 'controversy'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.145.210.235 (talk) 00:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

you are right. the article was redirected in May 2008 following this deletion discussion. But if the redirect is to make any sense, Bhavananda Das will at least need to be briefly mentioned here. --dab (𒁳) 12:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Any relevant sources?Wikid^as© 03:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Historical Logo of ISKCON

It is a notable logo, and is actually being used by many centres (British). So called "new logo" did not really take off and is copyrighted/licensed in a way that does not allow reproduction in Wikipedia. So the original historical logo is to be displayed. This is not business directory and there is no need to have the "current" logo displayed. The original logo has some meaning (which newer one does not have it seems) and it was designed by the founder of the organization, which makes it more important, notable and interesting for the purposes of the encyclopedia WP:ENCYCLOPEDIA. It is not a business directory WP:NOT, nor does it have to have the latest logo displayed, thus removal of historical logo shall be treated as disruptive and a vandalism. Wikid^as© 21:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I think your edits are disruptive. This is not the current logo of ISKCON and we have to accept it whether we like it or not. You can place the historical logo in the History section of the article instead.Gaura79 (talk) 10:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Since "current" logo, that can change at any time, can not be reproduced on wikipedia there is nothing wrong in trying to show a design of the founder acarya and the logo that is based on his instructions. What is disruptive in showing a historical logo? Why do you think it is not appropriate for the Wikipedia? Removing valid content is disruptive [13] and listing AfDs in retaliation to deletion of Paramadvati [14] in a knew-jerk reaction is disruptive [15], [16], [17], [18]. It is upsetting when it is not clear to you, that purposeful removal of valid historical material from the page is disruptive. Wikid^as© 13:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind if you place the historical logo somewhere else in the article, but the placement suggested by you is misleading. This is not the logo of ISKCON.Gaura79 13:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

A photo of a young Benito Mussolini or the old one is not misleading, it is not a dating game it is Encyclopedia, it is not the "current" but most important logo that has to be shown. Wikid^as© 13:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on International Society for Krishna Consciousness and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: There has been substantial debate over the question of whether prior logos of organizations can be used here at all, but there seems to be substantial agreement that if they can be used, the fair-use guidelines do not support the use of a prior logo merely because it is of interest simply as a prior logo. There must be some discussion in the text of the article about the logo (other than a mere mention that the organization had a prior logo, but changed it) or which the logo serves to illustrate in a necessary way. Without such discussion, inclusion fails to satisfy #8 of the non-free content criteria: "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." In this case there is no issue or discussion in the text for which the prior logo is a necessary illustration and the logo should not be included in the article (or on this talk page, thus I have removed it).

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Hare Krishna propaganda

This whole article is NPOV propaganda. Issues---even serious crimes---are glossed over. Esoteric cult issues are given fawning attention. Someone besides shaven-headed traveller-annoyers needs to rewrite this.

Not even a single mention that---for decades---the face of Hare Krishna seen by most was a persistently annoying beggar in an airport, pestering people to buy religous tracts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.180.83 (talk • contribs) 05:33, 11 June 2011

Whilst your choice of language may not be very diplomatic, i agree with your broad point. I fully expected there to be a seperate page on the controversies surrounding this organisation and was surprised to find it merely a subsection. I was further surprised to see that most of the critisisms section has been given over to doctrinal issues, and where there is talk of the genuine controversies such as child abuse, brainwashing etc. it is presented very much from the point of view of ISKCON, going more into what the organisation has done to counter these allegations than the allegations themselves.

I noted after going back through some of the edits that there was a section on financial irregularities which was removed from the article apparently with no discussion as to why? And why does it include "The ISKCON was described by academics[vague] as "the most genuinely Hindu of all the many Indian movements in the West"" if not for defensive reasons?

Given the notoriety of this organisation and the publicity it has recieved, i am amazed that there is so little regarding these issues. Mankrik (talk) 17:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I changed the vague "academics" to the Klostermaier source only. Pyrlights (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Verification failed

Under the heading 'Influential leaders since 1977': the sentence regarding Ramesvara, Bhagavan das and Harikesa: none of these three are mentioned in the reference supplied. No mention is made of expulsion of members by the GBC. This is an article about the GBC and various controversies within ISKCON, and it may well be worthwhile to include in this article somewhere, but it does not belong at the end of that sentence, and that sentence is otherwise unsourced and contentious. Elizium23 (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Request Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

International Society for Krishna Consciousness → Hare Krishna movement – I don't want to be acussed of WP:OR here, but I'm pretty confident that very few people refer to these folks as the "International Society for Krishna Consciousness". I think there's a pretty strong WP:COMMONNAME argument here to have this page moved. NickCT (talk) 12:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is primarily about the organisation, isn't it? Not the general socio-religious phenomenon or movement. If there is a need for a separate article on that, let one be made – just as there are separate articles for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (an organisation) and Mormons (a socio-religious phenomenon or movement). Noetica^Tea? 21:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

But we already have an article on "the general socio-religious phenomenon or movement".Gaura79 (talk) 22:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Fine. All the more reason to stick with this present title, which has to do with the organisation, not that movement. ☺ Noetica^Tea? 03:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

In 99 % of the RS the term "Hare Krishna movement" is used to designate The International Society for Krishna Consciousness, not Gaudiya Vaishnavism. So your comparison of ISKCON with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (an organisation) and the Hare Krishna movement with Mormons (a socio-religious phenomenon or movement) is not valid. Gaura79 (talk) 09:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you suppose that people referring to Mormons are not 99% of the time intending to refer to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? If so, why are you supposing it? Anyway, even if what you say is true ("in 99 % of the RS the term 'Hare Krishna movement' is used to designate The International Society for Krishna Consciousness"), that is not evidence that it is the more common name. And anyway, even if it were the more common name for the organisation, that would be only one consideration among several. There is also the matter of the organisation's official name, for example. Finally, I am puzzled by your raising Gaudiya Vaishnavism at all. What point did you want to make by doing that? Noetica^Tea? 11:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Please take a look at WP:COMMONNAME

Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article.
The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name. Other encyclopedias may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register as well as what name is most frequently used.

Gaura79 (talk) 15:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Gaura, I took the liberty of fixing your markup. Now, you are right of course. The official name also is just one consideration among several. An important one. Given the topic of the article, and its own present usage, the official name seems pretty well justified as the title. I note that you choose not to respond, so far, to my remarks about your Google searches, which as they stand are without any utility (see below); but thank you for at least showing what you want by voting (see below also). ☺ Noetica^Tea? 03:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. GNews hits for "ISKCON": 35; "Krishna Consciousness": 40; "Hare Krishna Movement": 13 (top result is this article). Did you do any research before nomination? Elizium23 (talk) 22:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

  Not really. But as I'd said, the term "Hare Krishna" seems wildly more common than the term "International Society for Krishna Consciousness". Also, I'd dispute your google news finding. I get 118 for "Hare Krishna" and 7 for International Society for Krishna Consciousness. NickCT (talk) 03:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

A properly constructed Googlenews search on "Hare Krishna movement" gets just 4 hits. One on "International Society for Krishna Consciousness" gets 7 hits. A properly constructed Googlebooks search, restricted to English-language books of the last twenty years, on "Hare Krishna movement" gets 344 genuine hits (you click through to the last results page to get that). An equivalent search on "International Society for Krishna Consciousness" gets 437 genuine hits. Let's all learn how to do these correctly, for accurate evidence in RMs. Noetica^Tea? 03:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Why are you checking the books for the last 20 years only? ISKCON has been around since 1966. Before 1966 the term "Hare Krishna movement" was not used at all. Properly constructed Gogglebooks search yields following results:

• Hare Krishna movement 13,100 hits
• Hare Krsna movement 1,320 hits
• International Society for Krishna Consciousness 14,800 hits
• Hare Krishna sect 1,040 hits
• Hare Krishnas 9,620 hits

Google News search:

• Hare Krishnas 3,830 hits
• International Society for Krishna Consciousness 2,360 hits
• Hare Krishna movement 1,130 hits
• Hare Krishna sect 3,190 hits

I didn't include search results for "Hare Krishna" because the term is also used to refer to Hare Krishna mantra Gaura79 (talk) 10:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

First, I restricted my searches to the last twenty years because we are interested in current usage, so recent publications are clearly far more relevant than older ones. We get a sufficient sample from recent publications in this case, so there is no need to go further back to survey the less relevant items.

Second, your Google searches are not done properly at all. The figures you report are only Google's estimates: characteristically wild ones, at that. It is necessary to click through to the last results page (as I have already told people, with underlining) for any hope of an accurate count. Try that for your search on Hare Krishna movement, for example, and you get not 13,000 or so, but just 204. (A handy hint: go to "Advanced Search" and set the number of results per page to 100. Shortens the work.) Test what I say, by searching on "Hare Krishna movement was" instead. You get 71 hits. That looks plausible as a subset of 204 for "Hare Krishna movement", but not as a subset of 13,000!

Third, what are you arguing for? I oppose the move. Do you? (More interested in Advaitism, myself. ☺.)

Noetica^Tea? 11:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, well look. I think it's been demonstrated that the full exact term "International Society for Krishna Consciousness" (ISKC) might be more common than the full exact term "Hare Krishna movement" (HKM). I still think though that "Hare Krishna" (HK) is a term that gets bandied about regarding these people far more than ISKC. By that reasoning I'd still contend that the title should include HK, if not in HKM then in some other form. NickCT (talk) 12:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support move to Hare Krishna movement. Although the full exact term "International Society for Krishna Consciousness" (ISKCON) is the official name of the organization and might be more common than the full exact term "Hare Krishna movement", in academic publications, in the media and in other encyclopedias (see Britannica for example) ISKCON mainly goes by the name "Hare Krishna" or "Hare Krishna movement". Besides, the term "Hare Krishna movement" is not used in RS to designate anything else but this particular religious organization (ISKCON). The name "Hare Krishna movement" is clearly much more recognizable than "International Society for Krishna Consciousness" and if we are to follow WP:COMMONNAME this is the name that should be used.Gaura79 (talk) 15:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: In fact, move it to ISKCON, which is more common. All temples read boldly as ISKCON temples. You will also find same name used on signboards. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 16:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

What you say maybe true for India but not for the rest of the world.Gaura79 (talk) 18:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Doubt: What do the signboards elsewhere read? "Hare Krishna movement Temple"? & the article doesnt say this, hence asking... Where is the follow of ISKCON more?? In India or abroad? Follow by number of people. Dont give stats about donations they collect & estate they own to prove which one is main. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 16:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: ISKCON seems more suitable actually. "Hare Krishna movement" is too generic. Lynch7 15:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ovo-vegetarian?

The diet describes a no meat, fish, or eggs. Immediately afterwards it has a link to ovo-vegetarianism (which would include eggs). I'd fix it, but I do not know which of these mutually exclusive items to change. 71.110.67.231 (talk) 03:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)