Talk:International Society for Krishna Consciousness

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

@Xoocit,

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Xoocit,

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

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

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

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

Hello everyone,

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

Samakal

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

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

Daily Naya Diganta

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

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

Daily Inqilab

Frequently criticized for its sensationalist reporting and political bias.

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

General Concerns

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

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

Recommendations

I propose that:

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

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

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

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

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

@Jesuspaul502,

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

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

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

=== 1. Historical Controversies Matter ===

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

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

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

=== 2. Supporting Evidence ===

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

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

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

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

=== 4. Moving Forward ===

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

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

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

N

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

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

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

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

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

Hi @Cerium4B,

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

1. Allegation of AI Usage:

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

2. Verification of Claims:

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

3. Reverting Edits:

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

4. Personal Comments:

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

5. Moving Forward:

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

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

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

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

hrllo ratnahastin, what is your problem man? Amit Saha was never ever an iskcon member. It is a brutal lie from two extremists news media portal linked with jammat,shibir and hefazat e islam. Read this link and pls remove this line from this article https://www.sanatan-tv.com/2019/10/blog-post_23.html?m=1 PashantaPal (talk) 01:11, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

There is not much in this article about Radha, other than perhaps a few mentions in the name of temples or naming of temple deities. Radha is really important in ISKCON theology and bhakti, so I would like to add a section devoted to Radha on this page. If anyone has any issues with what I am adding including with the source or the content itself, please discuss here before removing or modifying significantly. I am more than happy to change or edit something to include different sources, additional information, and so on. Thank you, Hemmingweigh (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

@Chariotrider555, I saw that you have removed the couple of sentences I have added about Radha. What Wikipedia rule or policy requires specific credentials for authorship of a secondary source? Thanks, Hemmingweigh (talk) 13:23, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:HISTRS. Chariotrider555 (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I am adding further information about Radha that are in complete consonance with the policies you've outlined. In the event that you have a question or concern, discuss it here before deleting work that I have taken pains to create. Hemmingweigh (talk) 14:44, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

No. See WP:BRD. You are welcome. - Walter Ego 14:47, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

@Roxy the Dog why have you reverted the one very short sentence I have written adding Radha? I am trying to create a section, which requires time. After this sentence, I am hoping to add another. Chariotrider and now your reverts make editing this page impossible. Hemmingweigh (talk) 15:04, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

What is Radha? I have no access to your source. please explain how source supports your proposed entry. Thanks. - Walter Ego 15:11, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Can you please refer me to the Wikipedia policy, rule, or cultural norm that requires editors to explain something (someone) well-sourced and well-documented before adding it to an article? What you are asking appears to be in direct contradiction to WP:BRD that you yourself insisted was the reasoning for reverting my edit. Allowing me to make the edits is a great way to learn "what" Radha is. I was bold in making my edit. "All editors are welcome to make positive contributions. It's how new information is added to Wikipedia." But you reverted it without explaining why you disagree. Surely, saying you do not know "what" something is on Wikipedia is not reason enough to revert it.

Revert an edit if you disagree with it and cannot immediately refine it. If you revert, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary or on the talk page. BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reversions happen. Try to revert only when necessary and always follow the editing policy.

Hemmingweigh (talk) 15:23, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

What is Radha, I ask again. You should read WP:BRD. It explains my revert. - Walter Ego 15:32, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

For all editors interested in "what" (who) Radha is, please read here: Radha

Hemmingweigh (talk) 15:32, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Ah. We already have an article for Radha. Why does she need inclusion here? - Walter Ego 15:37, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

If I was to take your comment seriously, I would ask in response: Krishna already has a page, why include him here? A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada already has a page, why include him here? As your question stands, I struggle to take it seriously since you reverted my very simple and straightforward sentence on Radha without knowing who she is. For reference: "In ISKCON, Radha is worshipped alongside Krishna." Hemmingweigh (talk) 15:43, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

It does not make sense to provide a one-sentence summary that amounts to an exceptional claim. To make this easier for everyone to evaluate, please quote or reference the entire paragraph you are summarizing on the talk page first, before adding the section to the article. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 17:00, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

@Jeraxmoira, I notice Radha is mentioned extensively elsewhere in the article and on related pages. Could you help me understand how this particular mention differs from those? Radha is listed as a consort in the info box at the top right of the page. At the bottom of the page, where it lists "links to related articles" Radha is included in the category "Theology." This inclusion means that "In ISKCON, Radha is worshipped alongside Krishna," in the Theology section is not an exceptional claim. This is the TLDR version.

Worship of Radha alongside Krishna is mentioned numerous times throughout the article itself. Here are some examples:

"...Rādhā-Kr̥ṣṇa is considered the ultimate esoteric reality and receives the highest worship by Gauḍiya Vaiṣṇavas."

"The theologies of the Vrindavan goswamis were brought to Bengal in the late-sixteenth century and consolidated the teachings of Radha-Krishna worship in madhura rasa..."

"Besides weekly gatherings, devotees within the ISKCON movement celebrate a diverse array of Hindu festivals, including Janmashtami, Radhastami..."

"ISKCON Bangalore has six shrines:

1. Main deities is of Radha-Krishna"

I could go on, but it is extremely clear from the 6 examples I have just provided that the sentence I added is not exceptional in any way. Worship of Radha alongside Krishna is extremely common in ISKCON, and consequently is already explained and sourced in this article in a variety of ways. This aspect of worship is not yet explained in the theology section, and it would be unnecessarily if not oddly limiting to exclude it. If you and others are opposed to including Radha on the page, are you also proposing removing any mention of the same from the ISKCON page? If the worship of Radha alongside Krishna is still in your view an exceptional claim, will you be addressing it on the Radha article? Krishna is mentioned there approximately 324 times. Please let me know.

It would be helpful for me if you could elucidate which of the criteria from the policy you have specified makes "In ISKCON, Radha is worshipped alongside Krishna," an exceptional claim:

• Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;
• Challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest;
• Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character or against an interest they had previously defended;
• Claims contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions—especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living and recently deceased people. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them. Please note that any of the sources on the ISKCON page that already mention Radha-Krishna worship would be great starting points to learn more about the topic. However, if you would like to examine the source I have used for the sentence "In ISKCON, Radha is worshipped alongside Krishna," you and any other editors should feel empowered to do so, as I already provided the page number in citing the publicly available source. If you have any concerns about the source, it can be easily exchanged with any of the sources which mention Radha-Krishna worship that are already on the page. In my view, the source is irrelevant since this is a well-documented and uncontroversial fact about the theology and worship of this religious group. However, I would be happy to copy and paste the paragraph if you could please refer me to the Wikipedia policy, rule, or cultural norm that requires editors to submit a paragraph from a source to a talk page for evaluation, given the fact that worship of Radha alongside Krishna in ISKCON is not surprising, challenged, out of character, or contradicting the prevailing view within the religious group or the academic literature about the religious group.

Hemmingweigh (talk) 07:02, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

It will be difficult to reach a consensus if your responses continue to be a wall of text that is not remotely relevant to what was asked.

Challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources, or by sources with an apparent conflict of interest - Few editors here are clearly questioning your claim, so if it is well documented, you should not have any difficulty outlining it here. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:54, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

@::Jeraxmoira:: I already provided the page number in citing the publicly available source. If you have any concerns about the source, it can be easily exchanged with any of the sources which mention Radha-Krishna worship that are already on the page. In my view, the source is irrelevant since this is a well-documented and uncontroversial fact about the theology and worship of this religious group. However, as I previously stated a couple of times, I would be happy to copy and paste the paragraph if you could please refer me to the Wikipedia policy, rule, or cultural norm that requires editors to submit a paragraph from a source to a talk page for evaluation, given the fact that worship of Radha alongside Krishna in ISKCON is not surprising, challenged, out of character, or contradicting the prevailing view within the religious group or the academic literature about the religious group.

Hemmingweigh (talk) 09:19, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

@Jeraxmoira I wanted to clarify the source I used: it's published by NYU Press and authored by a professor from Middlebury College. Based on Wikipedia's policies, this would be considered a secondary academic source rather than primary or self-published. Does this address your concern, or were you thinking of a different aspect of the sourcing? Hemmingweigh (talk) 09:28, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

There are no page numbers in the source you cited. By not mentioning the paragraph here, you are making it unnecessarily difficult for others who are trying to help. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:22, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

I see discussion here, and want to give my thoughts (without considering whether the content being added is due/undue) - not quite sure why Hemmingweigh's edit are getting reverted here, but based on the discussion here, I noticed few things that needs clarifications:

• It seems Chariotrider555 reverted Hemmingweigh's edits saying "Satayraja Dasa does not hold the proper academic credentials (i.e. PhD in a related field) to be a sole reliable source on Wikipedia", but I think Satayraja Dasa is (Steven Rosen), a Vaishnava Scholar who is cited in many articles.
• Looks like maybe Hemmingweigh is/was in process of adding content related to Radha in a separate section, but due to reverts, they have not been able to do so. After Chariotrider555's revert, seems they tried to use another source, but that was also reverted, and seems the citation includes a page number (11).
• Also, not sure why "In ISKCON, Radha is worshipped alongside Krishna" is considered dubious / an exceptional claim. ISKCON follows Gaudiya Vaishnavism and that article e.g. states "This theology emphasized the devotee's relationship to the Divine Couple, Radha and Krishna".

Asteramellus (talk) 20:26, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

This is a straightforward BRD situation. All Hemmingweigh needs to do is specify which paragraph they are summarizing, since the source does not have page numbers. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 21:27, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

yes thanks. Not questioning the process, just trying to understand different arguments made here e.g. questioning the source / author, the claim being exceptional etc. And not sure if I am misunderstanding you, but I do see that the source has page number 11 noted - "Rochford, Burke (2007). Hare Krishna Transformed. NYU Press. p. 11. ISBN 9780814776889". Asteramellus (talk) 22:17, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

At this point we are talking past each other and you are only repeating what they said. In the edit at 10:22, 25 December, I mentioned that the source does not have any page numbers listed, so I asked them to specify the paragraph. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:35, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh I see - you did ask them "To make this easier for everyone to evaluate, please quote or reference the entire paragraph you are summarizing on the talk page first," I missed that response between all the other responses questioning the source/author/claim etc. At least for me, My point regarding source is based on their edit, where they are clearly citing a book (I assume a print book) with page number. But I do understand now - you are referencing an online "version" of that book, and seems that is the cause of misunderstanding when you mention "source does not have any page numbers" - meaning the online source you are reading don't have a page number. Asteramellus (talk) 12:05, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

@Jeraxmoira, here is what you requested. I apologize if I have misunderstood your request. With this now provided, I hope we can return to the substance of the discussion and consider my earlier comments, in which I addressed the evolving issues raised with the sentence I added to the theology section.

@Asteramellus, I appreciate you taking the time to weigh in. If you have a moment, could you share any policies or cultural precedent on Wikipedia for discussion of a specific paragraph for a well-known cultural phenomena (ie: worship of Radha alongside Krishna.) This is the first I have encountered this, and I am on unsure footing.

The relevant sentences are on page 11 but the paragraph continues to page 12. I have included the full paragraph here:

Although no longer mandatory, many ISKCON members continue their early-morning worship (4:30 a.m.) at a local ISKCON temple, but nowadays devotees more commonly worship at home with their families. Devotees worship marble or brass deities of Krishna and his consort Radharani on the altar, the spiritual plant Tulasi, and ISKCON’s founder Srila Prabhupada. Music accompanies this worship, with a male or female leading others gathered in singing various Sanskrit and Bengali verses to the beat of mrdanga drums and karatals (small hand cymbals). Between morning ceremonies, or during the day as time allows devotees busily chant their daily rounds. At the end of morning worship in the temple, a class is held on Prabhupada’s commentaries on the Vedic scriptures. The ritualistic routine performed by devotees inside or outside the temple is meant to maintain individual and collective purity by focusing the mind first and foremost on Krishna.

Hemmingweigh (talk) 04:43, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

One neutral way of summarising this is - “E. Burke Rochford Jr. notes that devotees worship marble or brass deities of Krishna and his consort Radharani on the altar.” Your wording is very similar and also correct. When a claim is challenged, it is better to support it with multiple reliable sources, even if it discusses a well-known cultural phenomenon. Wikipedia's content is determined by published information rather than editors' beliefs, experiences or assumptions about what is commonly known.

If the other two editors do not engage in discussing the issue, feel free to restore the section. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:31, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

@Jeraxmoira, thanks for your suggestion. I will include it in the theology section now and when I have time to gather up more sources I will remove the author's name so that it is clear that this cultural phenomena is well-known and doesn't need to be attributed to a specific author or perspective. Hemmingweigh (talk) 05:45, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

@Hemmingweigh Any edit can be challenged. As I have explained before, not quite clear about the content specific concerns, but Jeraxmoira's request for quote is a good way to resolve them. Thanks for being persistent in explaining your thoughts here. Asteramellus (talk) 18:03, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

@Asteramellus thanks for your input. I wasn't sure how to respond the talk page posts of the first two users in this conversation, since their concerns seemed to evolve. As soon as I addressed one they raised another. And then I contextualized the third user incorrectly with the first two. But thankfully I think we can all move forward from here. Hemmingweigh (talk) 05:50, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Total outsider here but this article does not read like it was written by an objective third party. Maybe this will just be ignored, but it gets into extreme detail on the history and beliefs and then the controversies are limited to a line or two apiece. I'm not claiming to have any expertise here but as a random wikipedia consumer passerby it just feels like it was written by a member of the organization rather than some unbiased third-party. ~2025-34332-33 (talk) 20:17, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, which controversy only has a line or two? Thanks, Hemmingweigh (talk) 13:32, 4 December 2025 (UTC)