This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Few points which I would like clarification on :
Jay 17:57, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
"Srila" is an adjective of the noun "sri."
"Sri-la" means one who possesses wealth (i.e rich), opulence, beauty, etc. "Sri" also means the three Vedas. So "srila" means learned personality who knows the three Vedas.
As "sri" means Srimati Radharani, "srila" means one who possesses the lotus feet of Srimati Radharani is his heart.
As "sri" is the name of one of the six ragas or musical modes (masculine), "srila" means expertise in music, especially in the "Sri" raga.
Jan
What is this long chapter about "Shape and origin of the image of Christianity" doing in this article? Bhaktivedanta Swami did not preach Christianity after all, although he preached in English. I think the subject is not so important after all and one or two paragraphs would be quite enough. Lonehermit 20:57, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I removed following text from article. Its out of topic and very long. Are there any objections?-- 213.226.171.132 18:47, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"Issues" removed (verbatim copy from ISKCON). Jan
Shouldn't there be a section in this aticle about the controversy surrounding this figure? He has generated a lot of negative press with his claims of his translation of the Bhagavag-Gita being the only accurate version and his ideas of disciplic succession as well as his very fundamentalist interpretation of the Gita. This is substabtial enough that I think it should be included in the article.
IN REPLY: I would strongly disagree that Srila Prabhupada ever generated 'a lot' of negative press. After he passed away in 1977 there was much controversy within ISKCON, but obviously he was not physically present at the time. His translation of the Bhagavad-Gita was simply as the majority of Gaudiya Vaishnavas had described it in the past, and he quotes the previous acharyas throughout his work. Srila Prabhupada's books have been internationally praised for their detail and clarity, and for bringing Vedic culture to a worldwide audience. GourangaUK 16:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Why is this New Vrindavan ashram so relevant for Prabhupada? There are quite a lot of communities dedicated to the spiritual heritage of Prabhupada. Why mention only this one? This does not sound balanced at all to me. I propose to remove that section. Andries 22:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree, seems like a random inclusion Dwayne Kirkwood 23:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with this page re-directing to the 'Abhay Charan De' page, as Bhaktivedanta Swami is more popularly known by his religious title. This is the title with which he signed all his letters and books.-- GourangaUK 14:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I have deleted the link to "Krishna.org" because the site--at http: //books.krishna.org --extensively infringes on copyrighted material. In fact, it offers entire books online, in conscious and willful defiance of the copyright holder, the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust (BBT).
One can verify this with the rights and permissions department of the BBT.
In mentioning the infringer's URL above, I have deliberately added a gratuituous space so it won't be a clickable link.
--J. Swami, trustee, the BBT. 16 April 2006
Mel - don't do re-reverts without discussing. You do not seem to be an expert on the area. There are people here who have spent a decade studying the field. Thanks! -- Raga 13:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
[After edit conflict]
I'd add to Andries' explanation that "charismatic" is inherently PoV, and that telling other editors that they shouldn't edit an article because they're not sufficiently expert is both offensive and against the spirit of Wikipedia. It's also peculiar when the edits in question have nothing to do with knowledge of the subject, but concern Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
Oh, and I had discussed the reverts with the editor whom I reverted.
Regarding the list — it carefully doesn't say that the people listed are charismatic, but that they have been described as such; that's in line with NPoV. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 13:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
If the term is being used in the technical sense in the article, then that needs to be made clear. I'll do that now. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 16:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
The use of the term should be made clear, in order to avoid the appearance of PoV. Doing this using a link is akin to putting it in the small print. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 17:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
"Bhagavad Gita As It Is" is linked (in the section Mission to the West). As for the other link, it's not an issue of harm; "see also" means "see also" — every other article in Wikipedia follows that approach, why do you insist that this one be different? -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 10:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
See Also should include the most relevant page links to the subject. I understand they are present in the article, but the importance isn't implied as much so as if they are present in "See Also". Personally, besides re-adding the two removed entries, I'd also add ISKCON, as it is very relevant to the subject matter of this article Dwayne Kirkwood 22:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Mel, can you explain to me how the use of the word "passing" is a POV while "death" is not? -- Raga 22:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I have included a sample of appreciative quotations regarding Srila Prabhupada's books from the academic community below, but could not find these in electronic format. I am assuming the reference now inserted from the BBT will be enough to show where the information is coming from.
I do not intend to add any of these quotations into the article, maybe the one from Dr. Lawrence Shinn could be suitable? GourangaUK 11:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Regarding: Bhaktisiddhanta (Sanskrit: One who has both devotion and knowledge) I thought that Bhaktisiddhanta mean that bhakti is siddhanta, and this is what people giving and reveiving this title had in mind. Same for bhaktivedanta etc. -- 195.252.126.73 01:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I added the neutrality disputed tag because this article reads like an ISKCON promotion article. Certain claims are made which are only supported by ISKCON publications which have no statistical backings whatsoever.
PietjePrecies 11:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Dear GourangaUK,
I understand that your and O Govinda's point of view may differ here, since your usernames suggest you are ISKCON members. PietjePrecies 16:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you,
PietjePrecies, for contributing your thoughts on this article. Addressing your original points:
Apart from the BBT, the press known for the largest-scale distribution of literature on Indian religion and philosophy is Gita Press, Gorakhpur. Their website is down just now. But. . . .
A blog says about Gita Press, "The press has published over 37 crore books so far." (That's 3,700,000.) At another site someone says, "They have published about 56 million Gitas by this time." And at a site at IIT Kanpur someone says, "Founded in 1923 to propagate the Gita, over the years, the institution has made available more than 300 million copies of the Gita, Ramayan, Bhagvat, Durga Saptashati, Puranas, Upanishads, and other books in Sanskrit, Hindi, English, Gujarati, Tamil, Marathi, Bangla, Oriya, Telugu, Kannada, and other Indian languages."
Whichever of these numbers we accept, the Gita Press has been vigorous in distributing low-cost Indian scriptural literature on a mass scale.
Meanwhile, since 1989 one ISKCON member, as a service, has diligently kept track of the "scores" for ISKCON's distribution of BBT books. In January 2002 he reported that between 1989 and 2001 ISKCON had distributed 420,075,089 books, plus 420,075 periodicals. (This doesn't include books distributed since then or through non-ISKCON channels, such as bookstores, online outlets, and so on. Nor does it include audio publications or database publications.)
Statistics on a year-by-year basis are also available.
This information, I believe, will appear in the doctoral thesis of the late Tamal Krishna Goswami, which is awaiting publication.
These numbers, I believe, more than justify the statement that the BBT is "the world's largest publisher of books in the field of Indian religion and philosophy."
(In electronic publishing, by the way, at www.aleksa.com you can check out the statistics for the BBT's website, Krishna.com. This too helps make the BBT the "largest publisher" in its field.)
Adding this much information to the article, even as a footnote, seems too much. Do you agree that these statistics are sufficient? (If not, what *would* be?) And how would you suggest we deal with presenting this information?
I think your critical comments have contributed to making this a better article. Thank you again for participating.
Respectfully, O Govinda 05:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Dear O Govinda,
Thank you for contributing to the discussion. In reply to the points you addressed:
In addition you removed part of my comment claiming it was a personal attack. In addition Prabhupada was well aware of the fact that in his organisation temple of presidents beating their wives and child-abuse, against which he did nothing. There is no mention af that in this article. How can this be a personal attack according to
Wikipedia:No personal attacks? It isn't directed at the contributor and as such doesn't fit in any of the following category:
* Accusatory comments such as "George is a troll", or "Laura is a bad editor" can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom. * Negative personal comments and "I'm better than you" attacks, such as "You have no life." * Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor. (Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.) * Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme. * Profanity directed against another contributor. * Threats of legal action. * Threats of violence, including death threats. * Threats of vandalism to userpages or talk pages. May be direct or indirect. * Threats or actions which expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others. * Posting a link to an external source that fits the commonly-accepted threshold for a personal attack, in a manner that incorporates the substance of that attack into Wikipedia discussion. Suggesting a link applies to another editor, or that another editor needs to visit a certain link, that contains the substance of an attack.
This is ofcourse unless you regard a statement about Prabhupada as a personal attack.
Since the discussion is still going on, I returned the Neutrality disputed tag.
In addition since neither you nor GourangaUK has any comments on the text I think should be added, I will add them shortly.
Glad that the discussion has contributed to a better article.
Regards,
PietjePrecies 12:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Dear O Govinda,
I agree with you that Hinduism and Sanatana Dharma are a complex set of meanings. A few simple quotes don't fully explain Prabhupada's meanings. Still it remains a fact that Prabhupada did not look kindly on views which differed from Gaudiya Vaishnavism and that ISKCON distinguishes itself from "mainstream Hinduism" (if I may put it so bluntly) that:
For example calling them 'a dead religion' with 'no philosophy' (72-02-04.VAI) or 'a cheating religion' (731006BG.BOM). (from Folio database 'The Complete Works of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada' (n.d.) and the Folio database 'The pre-1965 works of His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada', Version 1.0, March 1995.) In India Prabhupada himself walked out of a Bhagavad-gita conference in Indore in 1970 when he heard Mayavadi interpretations of Bhagavad-gita (Lilamrta, Vol. 4, 147-150). Mayavadis are offenders to Krsna (CC Madhya 17.129) and hearing from them causes 'everything to become spoiled' (CC Madhya 6.169).
To complete the section Views on other religious traditions I feel Prabhupada's clearly had outspoken views on "mainstream Hinduism" should be added.
Respectfully, PietjePrecies 01:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Dear PietjePrecies,
Your original statement read as:
"In addition Prabhupada was well aware of the fact that in his organisation temple of presidents beating their wives and child-abuse, against which he did nothing."
I would describe the above as an inflammatory statement and also an untrue one for various reasons. Firstly the term 'child-abuse' is so ambiguous that it could mean anything from a whole spectrum of actions - it sounds very sinister in this context wouldn't you agree? - What you actually discuss in the above account (be it 100% correct or not? I don't know?) is in particular reference to physical discipline, and if this became physical abuse in some cases within a large schooling organisation, ultimately headed by Prabhupada some thirty years ago in a time wherein physical discipline had still been prevalent in English state schools not so many years beforehand.
In the evidence you give Prabhupada himself instructs : " [C]hildren should not be beaten at all, that I have told. They should simply be shown the stick strongly. So if one cannot manage in that way then he is not fit as a teacher . . . [H]e must have two things, love and education." So to say that Prabhupada 'did nothing' is untrue, even in this piece of evidence. Here he is instructing that the problem should be fixed. Now wether you feel that his instructions and later actions were sufficient enough or innapropriate is a personal viewpoint, and would probably be determined on which secondhand accounts and stories you have heard from people, or read throughout the years. I don't know what exactly Prabhupada did in this regard, and neither do you - It is very speculative. But certainly to say that he did nothing is untrue even by the evidence you have given. I don't see the role of Wikipedia as attempting to 'find the truth' in such matters. Definitely we can say that Prabhupada did not promote such harmful and un-loving activity. Can we really justify using an encyclopedic article to judge a man who lived some thirty years ago and who was managing an organisation of some many thousands of people over a period of 10 years? Who could do that 'perfectly' without anything negative ever ocuring by any one of the thousands of people involved? Wouldn't it make more sense to just stick to verifiable factual statements and descriptions on the person as a whole. What he stood for and what he tried his very best to promote? Ys, GourangaUK 08:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
This article is part of the NPOV backlog. I see there is still a discussion going on, so I'll check back later. Remember to reach consensus, se WP:CON. In the mean time, I've tagged a few places in the article for missing citations. This article could use even more cites in my opinion, see WP:VERIFY and WP:NPOV.
Additionally, I've changed the sentence The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, established in 1972 to publish his works, has thus become the world's largest publisher of books in the field of Indian religion and philosophy. to: The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust was established in 1972 to publish his works. The original claim does not cite a credible external source, but instead cites Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, and there's no cite for the claim there. Further, the sentence: In India ISKCON has become a highly respected organization. Srila Prabhupada has been honored by the Government and praised by the highest leaders of the country., here, both claims should be cited or the sentence rewritten in a more neutral tone.
You might also consider having a Criticism or Controversy section to address some questions, provided they are about the person and not about work of his covered elsewhere in WP. Please leave a comment if you want, and keep up the good work!. -- Steve Hart 19:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada → A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada – Naming conventions - Justin (koavf)· T· C· M 15:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
this is messedrocker
(talk)
06:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Add any additional comments
For reference, can someone cite similarly named articles as the proposed new name? Thanks Dwayne Kirkwood 00:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
It took me 20 minutes to even see the difference: OCD? Jiva Goswami 02:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I still wonder about an extended discussion over a space, but Bhaktivedanta Swami himself used no space between A and C. Jiva Goswami 02:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
It deserves a mention by the mere fact it exists. What is the problem? It makes no pretention that it is based on reality, mereley that speculation exists regarding this issue... Sfacets 14:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
The mere fact that a speculative rumor exists does not justify its inclusion in a serious encyclopedia. O Govinda 12:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Lmao, Wikipedia is a "serious encyclopedia"? That's hilarious. Back to reality please. Wikipedia is nothing but a whitewasher. It has censored out so many truths on so many different subjects. Archival McTannith 13:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Sfacets 00:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that this should deserve a mention, just to show that this theory exists, even if people do not believe it. After all, if we did not include it, it would be biased against the theory. Midnightblueowl 26 September 2006
Why did User:Thijs!bot remove the Japanese transliteration for this article? I have studied Japanese, and to my knowledge, "シリラ バクッティー ヴェダンター スワミ プラブパード" is a correct transliteration. The bot information claims to understand a number of languages, Japanese not being one of them. Siyavash 15:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello Siyavash. I surely don't understand Japanese, however, I understand that the article on the Japanese wikipedia does not exist. We only add interwiki-links to existing pages, not to possible future articles. That's why I removed the link. Every bot which is authorized to remove links by their owner, will do the same. Thijs! 19:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
According to the policy on Fair Use, the image of a stamp must only be used to "illustrate the stamp in question (as opposed to things appearing in the stamp's design)". This does not mean that it can be used to illustrate the fact that the Govt. of india made a stamp in his honour, because in that case it is still illustrating the "things appearing in the stamps design". Sfacets 12:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Great follower of Varnashrama dharma and best example for every born Shudra Hindu to become a Brahmin. Brahmin-gaand-maaru 21:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Gaurangaji, can you justify removal of this info? I'd expect some finetuning but why don't you consider it relevant to Prabhupada? Wasn't ushering in this era his greatest contribution to the history? --Jan/VEDA —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.208.2.214 ( talk) 21:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC).
Could we please have a translation of his name? Badagnani 05:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Would the anonymous user please comment on his/her recent edits, and explain them here? Sfacets 05:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Few points which I would like clarification on :
Jay 17:57, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
"Srila" is an adjective of the noun "sri."
"Sri-la" means one who possesses wealth (i.e rich), opulence, beauty, etc. "Sri" also means the three Vedas. So "srila" means learned personality who knows the three Vedas.
As "sri" means Srimati Radharani, "srila" means one who possesses the lotus feet of Srimati Radharani is his heart.
As "sri" is the name of one of the six ragas or musical modes (masculine), "srila" means expertise in music, especially in the "Sri" raga.
Jan
What is this long chapter about "Shape and origin of the image of Christianity" doing in this article? Bhaktivedanta Swami did not preach Christianity after all, although he preached in English. I think the subject is not so important after all and one or two paragraphs would be quite enough. Lonehermit 20:57, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I removed following text from article. Its out of topic and very long. Are there any objections?-- 213.226.171.132 18:47, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"Issues" removed (verbatim copy from ISKCON). Jan
Shouldn't there be a section in this aticle about the controversy surrounding this figure? He has generated a lot of negative press with his claims of his translation of the Bhagavag-Gita being the only accurate version and his ideas of disciplic succession as well as his very fundamentalist interpretation of the Gita. This is substabtial enough that I think it should be included in the article.
IN REPLY: I would strongly disagree that Srila Prabhupada ever generated 'a lot' of negative press. After he passed away in 1977 there was much controversy within ISKCON, but obviously he was not physically present at the time. His translation of the Bhagavad-Gita was simply as the majority of Gaudiya Vaishnavas had described it in the past, and he quotes the previous acharyas throughout his work. Srila Prabhupada's books have been internationally praised for their detail and clarity, and for bringing Vedic culture to a worldwide audience. GourangaUK 16:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Why is this New Vrindavan ashram so relevant for Prabhupada? There are quite a lot of communities dedicated to the spiritual heritage of Prabhupada. Why mention only this one? This does not sound balanced at all to me. I propose to remove that section. Andries 22:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree, seems like a random inclusion Dwayne Kirkwood 23:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with this page re-directing to the 'Abhay Charan De' page, as Bhaktivedanta Swami is more popularly known by his religious title. This is the title with which he signed all his letters and books.-- GourangaUK 14:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I have deleted the link to "Krishna.org" because the site--at http: //books.krishna.org --extensively infringes on copyrighted material. In fact, it offers entire books online, in conscious and willful defiance of the copyright holder, the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust (BBT).
One can verify this with the rights and permissions department of the BBT.
In mentioning the infringer's URL above, I have deliberately added a gratuituous space so it won't be a clickable link.
--J. Swami, trustee, the BBT. 16 April 2006
Mel - don't do re-reverts without discussing. You do not seem to be an expert on the area. There are people here who have spent a decade studying the field. Thanks! -- Raga 13:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
[After edit conflict]
I'd add to Andries' explanation that "charismatic" is inherently PoV, and that telling other editors that they shouldn't edit an article because they're not sufficiently expert is both offensive and against the spirit of Wikipedia. It's also peculiar when the edits in question have nothing to do with knowledge of the subject, but concern Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
Oh, and I had discussed the reverts with the editor whom I reverted.
Regarding the list — it carefully doesn't say that the people listed are charismatic, but that they have been described as such; that's in line with NPoV. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 13:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
If the term is being used in the technical sense in the article, then that needs to be made clear. I'll do that now. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 16:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
The use of the term should be made clear, in order to avoid the appearance of PoV. Doing this using a link is akin to putting it in the small print. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 17:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
"Bhagavad Gita As It Is" is linked (in the section Mission to the West). As for the other link, it's not an issue of harm; "see also" means "see also" — every other article in Wikipedia follows that approach, why do you insist that this one be different? -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 10:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
See Also should include the most relevant page links to the subject. I understand they are present in the article, but the importance isn't implied as much so as if they are present in "See Also". Personally, besides re-adding the two removed entries, I'd also add ISKCON, as it is very relevant to the subject matter of this article Dwayne Kirkwood 22:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Mel, can you explain to me how the use of the word "passing" is a POV while "death" is not? -- Raga 22:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I have included a sample of appreciative quotations regarding Srila Prabhupada's books from the academic community below, but could not find these in electronic format. I am assuming the reference now inserted from the BBT will be enough to show where the information is coming from.
I do not intend to add any of these quotations into the article, maybe the one from Dr. Lawrence Shinn could be suitable? GourangaUK 11:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Regarding: Bhaktisiddhanta (Sanskrit: One who has both devotion and knowledge) I thought that Bhaktisiddhanta mean that bhakti is siddhanta, and this is what people giving and reveiving this title had in mind. Same for bhaktivedanta etc. -- 195.252.126.73 01:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I added the neutrality disputed tag because this article reads like an ISKCON promotion article. Certain claims are made which are only supported by ISKCON publications which have no statistical backings whatsoever.
PietjePrecies 11:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Dear GourangaUK,
I understand that your and O Govinda's point of view may differ here, since your usernames suggest you are ISKCON members. PietjePrecies 16:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you,
PietjePrecies, for contributing your thoughts on this article. Addressing your original points:
Apart from the BBT, the press known for the largest-scale distribution of literature on Indian religion and philosophy is Gita Press, Gorakhpur. Their website is down just now. But. . . .
A blog says about Gita Press, "The press has published over 37 crore books so far." (That's 3,700,000.) At another site someone says, "They have published about 56 million Gitas by this time." And at a site at IIT Kanpur someone says, "Founded in 1923 to propagate the Gita, over the years, the institution has made available more than 300 million copies of the Gita, Ramayan, Bhagvat, Durga Saptashati, Puranas, Upanishads, and other books in Sanskrit, Hindi, English, Gujarati, Tamil, Marathi, Bangla, Oriya, Telugu, Kannada, and other Indian languages."
Whichever of these numbers we accept, the Gita Press has been vigorous in distributing low-cost Indian scriptural literature on a mass scale.
Meanwhile, since 1989 one ISKCON member, as a service, has diligently kept track of the "scores" for ISKCON's distribution of BBT books. In January 2002 he reported that between 1989 and 2001 ISKCON had distributed 420,075,089 books, plus 420,075 periodicals. (This doesn't include books distributed since then or through non-ISKCON channels, such as bookstores, online outlets, and so on. Nor does it include audio publications or database publications.)
Statistics on a year-by-year basis are also available.
This information, I believe, will appear in the doctoral thesis of the late Tamal Krishna Goswami, which is awaiting publication.
These numbers, I believe, more than justify the statement that the BBT is "the world's largest publisher of books in the field of Indian religion and philosophy."
(In electronic publishing, by the way, at www.aleksa.com you can check out the statistics for the BBT's website, Krishna.com. This too helps make the BBT the "largest publisher" in its field.)
Adding this much information to the article, even as a footnote, seems too much. Do you agree that these statistics are sufficient? (If not, what *would* be?) And how would you suggest we deal with presenting this information?
I think your critical comments have contributed to making this a better article. Thank you again for participating.
Respectfully, O Govinda 05:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Dear O Govinda,
Thank you for contributing to the discussion. In reply to the points you addressed:
In addition you removed part of my comment claiming it was a personal attack. In addition Prabhupada was well aware of the fact that in his organisation temple of presidents beating their wives and child-abuse, against which he did nothing. There is no mention af that in this article. How can this be a personal attack according to
Wikipedia:No personal attacks? It isn't directed at the contributor and as such doesn't fit in any of the following category:
* Accusatory comments such as "George is a troll", or "Laura is a bad editor" can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom. * Negative personal comments and "I'm better than you" attacks, such as "You have no life." * Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor. (Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.) * Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme. * Profanity directed against another contributor. * Threats of legal action. * Threats of violence, including death threats. * Threats of vandalism to userpages or talk pages. May be direct or indirect. * Threats or actions which expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others. * Posting a link to an external source that fits the commonly-accepted threshold for a personal attack, in a manner that incorporates the substance of that attack into Wikipedia discussion. Suggesting a link applies to another editor, or that another editor needs to visit a certain link, that contains the substance of an attack.
This is ofcourse unless you regard a statement about Prabhupada as a personal attack.
Since the discussion is still going on, I returned the Neutrality disputed tag.
In addition since neither you nor GourangaUK has any comments on the text I think should be added, I will add them shortly.
Glad that the discussion has contributed to a better article.
Regards,
PietjePrecies 12:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Dear O Govinda,
I agree with you that Hinduism and Sanatana Dharma are a complex set of meanings. A few simple quotes don't fully explain Prabhupada's meanings. Still it remains a fact that Prabhupada did not look kindly on views which differed from Gaudiya Vaishnavism and that ISKCON distinguishes itself from "mainstream Hinduism" (if I may put it so bluntly) that:
For example calling them 'a dead religion' with 'no philosophy' (72-02-04.VAI) or 'a cheating religion' (731006BG.BOM). (from Folio database 'The Complete Works of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada' (n.d.) and the Folio database 'The pre-1965 works of His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada', Version 1.0, March 1995.) In India Prabhupada himself walked out of a Bhagavad-gita conference in Indore in 1970 when he heard Mayavadi interpretations of Bhagavad-gita (Lilamrta, Vol. 4, 147-150). Mayavadis are offenders to Krsna (CC Madhya 17.129) and hearing from them causes 'everything to become spoiled' (CC Madhya 6.169).
To complete the section Views on other religious traditions I feel Prabhupada's clearly had outspoken views on "mainstream Hinduism" should be added.
Respectfully, PietjePrecies 01:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Dear PietjePrecies,
Your original statement read as:
"In addition Prabhupada was well aware of the fact that in his organisation temple of presidents beating their wives and child-abuse, against which he did nothing."
I would describe the above as an inflammatory statement and also an untrue one for various reasons. Firstly the term 'child-abuse' is so ambiguous that it could mean anything from a whole spectrum of actions - it sounds very sinister in this context wouldn't you agree? - What you actually discuss in the above account (be it 100% correct or not? I don't know?) is in particular reference to physical discipline, and if this became physical abuse in some cases within a large schooling organisation, ultimately headed by Prabhupada some thirty years ago in a time wherein physical discipline had still been prevalent in English state schools not so many years beforehand.
In the evidence you give Prabhupada himself instructs : " [C]hildren should not be beaten at all, that I have told. They should simply be shown the stick strongly. So if one cannot manage in that way then he is not fit as a teacher . . . [H]e must have two things, love and education." So to say that Prabhupada 'did nothing' is untrue, even in this piece of evidence. Here he is instructing that the problem should be fixed. Now wether you feel that his instructions and later actions were sufficient enough or innapropriate is a personal viewpoint, and would probably be determined on which secondhand accounts and stories you have heard from people, or read throughout the years. I don't know what exactly Prabhupada did in this regard, and neither do you - It is very speculative. But certainly to say that he did nothing is untrue even by the evidence you have given. I don't see the role of Wikipedia as attempting to 'find the truth' in such matters. Definitely we can say that Prabhupada did not promote such harmful and un-loving activity. Can we really justify using an encyclopedic article to judge a man who lived some thirty years ago and who was managing an organisation of some many thousands of people over a period of 10 years? Who could do that 'perfectly' without anything negative ever ocuring by any one of the thousands of people involved? Wouldn't it make more sense to just stick to verifiable factual statements and descriptions on the person as a whole. What he stood for and what he tried his very best to promote? Ys, GourangaUK 08:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
This article is part of the NPOV backlog. I see there is still a discussion going on, so I'll check back later. Remember to reach consensus, se WP:CON. In the mean time, I've tagged a few places in the article for missing citations. This article could use even more cites in my opinion, see WP:VERIFY and WP:NPOV.
Additionally, I've changed the sentence The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, established in 1972 to publish his works, has thus become the world's largest publisher of books in the field of Indian religion and philosophy. to: The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust was established in 1972 to publish his works. The original claim does not cite a credible external source, but instead cites Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, and there's no cite for the claim there. Further, the sentence: In India ISKCON has become a highly respected organization. Srila Prabhupada has been honored by the Government and praised by the highest leaders of the country., here, both claims should be cited or the sentence rewritten in a more neutral tone.
You might also consider having a Criticism or Controversy section to address some questions, provided they are about the person and not about work of his covered elsewhere in WP. Please leave a comment if you want, and keep up the good work!. -- Steve Hart 19:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada → A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada – Naming conventions - Justin (koavf)· T· C· M 15:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
this is messedrocker
(talk)
06:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Add any additional comments
For reference, can someone cite similarly named articles as the proposed new name? Thanks Dwayne Kirkwood 00:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
It took me 20 minutes to even see the difference: OCD? Jiva Goswami 02:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I still wonder about an extended discussion over a space, but Bhaktivedanta Swami himself used no space between A and C. Jiva Goswami 02:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
It deserves a mention by the mere fact it exists. What is the problem? It makes no pretention that it is based on reality, mereley that speculation exists regarding this issue... Sfacets 14:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
The mere fact that a speculative rumor exists does not justify its inclusion in a serious encyclopedia. O Govinda 12:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Lmao, Wikipedia is a "serious encyclopedia"? That's hilarious. Back to reality please. Wikipedia is nothing but a whitewasher. It has censored out so many truths on so many different subjects. Archival McTannith 13:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Sfacets 00:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that this should deserve a mention, just to show that this theory exists, even if people do not believe it. After all, if we did not include it, it would be biased against the theory. Midnightblueowl 26 September 2006
Why did User:Thijs!bot remove the Japanese transliteration for this article? I have studied Japanese, and to my knowledge, "シリラ バクッティー ヴェダンター スワミ プラブパード" is a correct transliteration. The bot information claims to understand a number of languages, Japanese not being one of them. Siyavash 15:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello Siyavash. I surely don't understand Japanese, however, I understand that the article on the Japanese wikipedia does not exist. We only add interwiki-links to existing pages, not to possible future articles. That's why I removed the link. Every bot which is authorized to remove links by their owner, will do the same. Thijs! 19:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
According to the policy on Fair Use, the image of a stamp must only be used to "illustrate the stamp in question (as opposed to things appearing in the stamp's design)". This does not mean that it can be used to illustrate the fact that the Govt. of india made a stamp in his honour, because in that case it is still illustrating the "things appearing in the stamps design". Sfacets 12:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Great follower of Varnashrama dharma and best example for every born Shudra Hindu to become a Brahmin. Brahmin-gaand-maaru 21:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Gaurangaji, can you justify removal of this info? I'd expect some finetuning but why don't you consider it relevant to Prabhupada? Wasn't ushering in this era his greatest contribution to the history? --Jan/VEDA —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.208.2.214 ( talk) 21:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC).
Could we please have a translation of his name? Badagnani 05:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Would the anonymous user please comment on his/her recent edits, and explain them here? Sfacets 05:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)