Talk:International Society for Krishna Consciousness

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the International Society for Krishna Consciousness article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Hinduism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Guidelines: Manual of Style - Naming conventions How you can help: Notice board - Discussion board
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance for this Project's importance scale.

Archives /Archive 1 /Archive 2

Contents 1 The 'Maha Mantra' 2 ISKCON and Religious Survey of 53 Clergy 2.1 Comments from other editors 3 Scandals and Controversies

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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)

[edit] Scandals and Controversies

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.

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)