Talk:A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada/Archive 3

Article tone is non-encyclopedically praiseful

I've just run across the article after seeing the documentary Hare Krishna! and doing other research, and I think to any disinterested eye that this article is incredibly one-sided and written in a tone of respectful awe rather than neutral tone. Nowhere, for instance, is there a mention about his frequently expressed racism and antisemitism. To ignore this aspect of him is whitewashing. For example, in a speech in Melbourne on April 21, 1976, he praised the concept of "the Aryan":

The best form of human life, the Aryans... Aryans. Aryans means those who are advanced. So the Aryan family, the history of Aryan family... From Central Asia, Caucasian ranges, they divided, the Indo-Aryans, Indo-Europeans. This is the history of mankind. So the Europeans, they belong to the Indo-Europeans, and some of the Europeans, not the uncivilized, the civilized, they came from that side, eastern side, when there was a threatening by Paraśurāma to kill the kṣatriyas. So most of the kṣatriyas, they came to Europe, and some of them settled in the middle, the border of Europe and Asia, Turkey, Greece. There is a big history, Mahābhārata. Mahābhārata means the greater history of India. So on the whole, the conclusion is that the Aryans spread in Europe also, and the Americans, they also spread from Europe. So the intelligent class of human being, they belong to the Aryans, Aryan family. Just like Hitler claimed that he belonged to the Aryan family. Of course, they belonged to the Aryan families. [1]

And during a morning walk in Hyderabad on April 20, 1974: "That Central Park, nobody can walk there. I have heard from many women that they rape. The negroes, they capture and rape."[2]

He also felt gays were "abominable" and inherently unspiritual, writing in a May 16, 1975, letter to Lalitananda dasa, "I am very sorry that you have taken to homosex. It will not help you advance in your attempt for spiritual life. In fact, it will only hamper your advancement. I do not know why you have taken to such abominable activities. ... Even though you are in a very degraded condition Krishna, being pleased with your service attitude, can pick you up from your fallen state. You should stop this homosex immediately. It is illicit sex, otherwise, your chances of advancing in spiritual life are nil."[3]

These are just a few examples. It's unconscionable that an encyclopedia article is being used as promotional material and disrespecting the subject by not presenting him as a full human being with a range of traits. These are not examples of trivialities, but of major components of who he is as a person. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

It sounds like you disagree with the subject of the bio's religious views. There are many religions that are critical of gay people, most notably fundamental Christianity (Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind it is abomination, neither shalt thou defile thyself with any beast, Leviticus), but I don't see POV tag bombs in the articles on Christianity. There are also religions which are critical of people of African ancestry (mormons claim in the Book of Abraham that black people were cursed by god for joining Satan's rebellion in the pre-existence and were forced to be born "of the accursed lineage of Cain" and were subsequently denied the priesthood in the mormon church until 1978). Some religions, like Islam, claim that all non-believers deserve to be killed ("all infidels must die" is written in the Koran in 109 separate verses). I don't find the tone all that promotional. The religious beliefs of any group are not strictly POV from an editing standpoint they simply are what they are, and we should write about them in an impartial tone. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I added your suggested content and removed the tag. I will refine the content so it complies with WP policies. Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

The material about Prabhupada's views on homosexuality should be removed, per WP:PROPORTION: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." Prabhupada's views on homosexuality are a very, very, minor aspect of his work and writings, the overwhelming majority of which have nothing to do with homosexuality at all. Unless you can show that secondary sources have discussed Prabhupada's views on this topic, they simply do not belong in the article. Note that adding the claim that Prabhupada's views on homosexuality "garnered significant public controversy" without any citation to back it up is completely inappropriate; see WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Some envious people always have objection to Prabhupāda's work. Polytope4D (talk) 14:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

not a word about his work-life.

and it will be nice if someone has an old map of his parents house. 11:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:7C0:2041:1AA:0:0:0:DB (talk)

His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada

@Octoberwoodland: It seems that this edit was not accompanied by a supporting reference. Can you furnish one? LeadSongDog come howl! 23:15, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I will locate a source for this. I have attended the Krishna Temple we have here locally for many years, and a large number of their books state this. He is referred to in their writings as "His divine grace A.C. Prabhupada" indicating that adherents to the movement consider him divine. Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:22, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I added the references and reverted the edit from an anon IP who removed this content. Prabhupada's followers consider him an incarnation of Krishna himself. In the ISKCON religion, all men and women have the capacity to achieve "Krishna Conciousness" through the practice of bhakti yoga, which means they can manifest the supreme personality of God and become divine avatars of Krishna. They teach that Krishna is inside everyone and that is where the greeting phrase "Namaste" originates -- it literally translates as "I honor the God within you". Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

None of those four sources cited support the statement "Adherents of the ISKCON movement view Prabhupada as a divine avatar and messenger of Krishna." The first doesn't even mention it. The other three use the "Divine Grace" honourific in the voice of their institutional editors, but make no assertion about whether adherents believe it as literal truth. Reading between the lines is outside the scope of a Wikipedia editor: see wp:NOR and wp:SYN. We need reliable sources that make clear statements. We simply paraphrase. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

All of those sources refer to him as "His Divine Grace". If you feel that strongly about it, then feel free to remove the statement. You can call any of the Krishna Temples and they will tell you he is viewed as a divine avatar of Krishna. Here's a phone number for one - (801) 798-3559. If you are unable to ascertain that from the sources, feel free to get some better materials to quote -- They will be happy to provide them. Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:48, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I think my point was not clear enough for you. The encyclopedia should not adopt the voice of adherents from any particular point of view, whether that is published by ISKON or the Vatican. The best sources to use for subjects like this are comparative religion textbooks or journal articles. Anything published within a faith system is inherently expected to carry that faith's POV.LeadSongDog come howl! 20:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

The article does not have an encyclopedic tone. It has unnecessary details that make the article too lengthy. This is an encyclopedia, not a biography. N K Srikanth (talk) 02:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually, this is a biographical article. If you have issues with the tone, please suggest some changes are make some yourself. Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:50, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

explaining the name

I read in the article: His later well known name, Prabhupāda, is a Sanskrit title, literally meaning "he who has taken the shelter of the lotus feet of the Lord" where prabhu denotes "Lord", and pāda means "taking shelter." end of quotation

As you can easily check, pada in Sanskrit means "feet". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.252.211.62 (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Improving the "views on other religions" section

Ravi Sandesh (talk) 05:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC) Ravi Sandesh Aug 18, 2018 I made two edits which were reverted. I had originally suggested these edits because I believe they improves the quality of this article on the Swami by presenting the views of the Swami on other religions as they are. I have studied the teachings of the person thru his books and thru his lectures, and I can give ample references from them that - 1. He presents both ISKCON (which is the institution created by the person to institutionally impart his teachings) and its teachings as non-religious, and that 2. Any person from any religion can follow ISKCON teaching. I believe that the proportion in which he stresses again and again the views as I have presented in my edits is almost 100%, meaning that he has hardly presented even any other view, and I believe that the proportion in which he talks about the religious position of his teachings is also large.

I suggested in the first edit to remove references that show ISKCON as Hindu. but it was rejected on ground of too many quotes. Then I again suggested an edit with only one additional quote, but it was rejected on ground of NPOV and RS. I am new here, but I believe that I satisfied both NPOV and RS. the source for my edit was https://vanipedia.org/ and https://vanisource.org/wiki/731111_-_Lecture_SB_01.02.06_-_Delhi. This website has all the audio that was recorded as well as transcripts of audio that the Bhaktivedanta Swami spoke in his lifetime. It also has his books, and it also has his letters thru which he managed the institution over the world. I believe that this contributes as a reliable source. So can anyone suggest what is happening. Maybe I have misunderstood the scope or nature of edits, whats allowed in an edit and so on, or maybe the person who has reverted my edits has misunderstood. No offense taken from anyone.

Thanking everyone for the contributions, Ravi Sandesh. Ravi Sandesh (talk) 05:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC) Ravi Sandesh Aug 18, 2018

Sorry, Ravi Sandesh, but Vanipedia cannot be considered as a neutral, reliable source, because it is written and edited from within that belief system. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Edits are seemingly being removed to maintain non-encyclopedical praise

Some editors are seemingly reversing edits of mine and others to maintain the non-encyclopedical tone of this article. I added details to the "Creationism" subheader and removed the "citation needed" template. I do not see why further citation is needed to substantiate Bhaktivedanta Swami's creationist beliefs when in the book and source Beyond Illusion and Doubt he explicitely outlines his creationism and criticisms of evolution. This article is also by Bhaktivedanta Swami. The reason given for a citation supposedly being needed was: "Cites a website owned by [Bhaktivedanta Swami's] group as interpreted by one person. Also cites a primary source. If no secondary neutral sources exist, remove it. Use reliable neutral published sources." Reminder that citing a primary source is not necessarily "bad". It is not necessary to remove the information simply because a secondary source is not provided. The sources used are literally the words of Bhaktivedanta Swami on creationism and evolution. What more do you need?

My edits were once again undone, this time supposedly because my citation lacked page numbers. I added page numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SyrianCamus (talk • contribs) 06:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Please learn to cite better and be less sensitive about others changing it. Editing is open to the public after all. Uncited statements won't do and just appear as your POV. Citing an entire book or an entire chapter for a statement is also not good enough as it becomes difficult to double check. Give exact page numbers from the book(s), preferably not from a primary source but rather a neutral secondary source that has at least reviewed all his writings. The book you quote is this one: [4]

What are the page numbers for these statements? "He posits that all life that exists today has existed for millions of years, citing the Bhagavad Gita as evidence." "He states he believes in evolution of the spirit rather than the evolution of the physical body." A secondary source would provide more incite as to the source of this belief and not limit it to "Bhagavad Gita" as you have done with your statement.73.76.94.240 (talk) 06:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

The exact page numbers for "He posits that all life that exists today has existed for millions of years, citing the Bhagavad Gita as evidence." are 102 and 104. The exact page number for "He states he believes in evolution of the spirit rather than the evolution of the physical body." is 101. They have been added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SyrianCamus (talk • contribs) 07:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

You should finish the discussion before publishing statements that may or may not be true. I have looked at your statements in this book: Beyond Illusion & Doubt. On page 101, there is no mention of the word "spirit" or the evolution of it. In the summary, there is mention of "transmigration of the immortal soul from body to body" which simply means reincarnation. On page 102 and 104, there is no mention of life existing for millions of years. Instead their is a discussion about whether or not "chance" exists with Bhagavad Gita quoted in favor of God being the brains behind everything. This same point is mentioned in the summary on page 101: "the overseeing intelligence of God". It appears that you are misquoting and/or taking things out of context. I will revert the changes again so there is no misunderstandings. Please finish discussing with the group before publishing anything.73.76.94.240 (talk) 09:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

It seems you are using a different version of that book than I am since the page numbers do not correspond.

On page 102 in my book, Bhaktivedanta Swami says: "Therefore our first charge against Darwin is this: He says there were no human beings millions of years ago. This is not a fact. We now see human beings existing along with all other species, and it should be concluded that this situation always existed. Human life has always been there. Darwin cannot prove that there was no human life millions of years ago."

On page 104:

"Disciple: But you said before that millions of years ago on this planet there were horses, elephants, civilized men—

"Śrīla Prabhupāda: Yes, yes"

Bhaktivedanta Swami then goes on to explain that all 8,400,000 species mentioned in the Bhagavad Gita, including man, have always existed for millions of years.

I found that your page 102 corresponds to page 109 of the archive.org edition. This chapter was short, so I read it and found that your statement may not be entirely accurate: "He posits that all life that exists today has existed for millions of years, citing the Bhagavad Gita as evidence". First, he does cite Bhagavad Gita, but he also cites Vedanta (p. 104) and Padma Purana (p. 108). In the corresponding texts of his Bhagavad Gita 10.8, he further cites other Hindu texts such as Atharva Veda and a few Upanishads. Second, it appears that he isn't saying that life exists but rather 8,400,000 species exist, and that this fixed number of species exist across millions of universes (pp. 110-111). It does leave room for interpretation, especially since this is a conversation with his disciple who may be privy to certain info.

As I mentioned earlier, just using a primary source isn't very encyclopedic and leaves room for interpretation and personal opinions. Primary sources can be used to support secondary sources as long as most of the citations come from neutral secondary sources who have reviewed all his works and not just this one book. You can read more here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. Since there is some interpretation in our trying to decipher this conversational transcript, this is relevant: "We publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves". I did find another primary source, Life Comes From Life, which again appears to be a conversational transcript, but couldn't find a secondary source. Do you know of any reliable published secondary sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.76.94.240 (talk) 11:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Book: The Hare Krishna Character Type

This book might be a good secondary source for some of his earlier life details:
Tommy H. Poling; J. Frank Kenney (1986). The Hare Krishna Character Type: A Study of the Sensate Personality. Studies in Religion and Society. Vol. Vol. 15. The Edwin Mellen Press. pp. 6–7. ISBN 0-88946-859-1. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

ISKCON's founder, A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami (often referred to as "Prabhupada" by members), was born Abhay Charan De on September 1, 1896, in Calcutta. As a child, Abhay was instructed in the Krishna faith by his father, a cloth merchant. In 1920, Abhay graduated from Scottish Churches' College, but refused to accept his degree in keeping with Mahatma Gandhi's call for noncooperation with the British. After graduation, Abhay, now married, took a position in a pharmaceutical company owned by a family friend, Dr. Kartich Chandra Bose. In 1923, Abhay decided to go into business for himself; and from then to 1950, he launched five pharmaceutical laboratories in various Indian cities, all of which failed. In 1923, Abhay was initiated into the Gaudiya Math, and thenceforth devoted more and more time to the religious activities of the sect. By 1953, he had abandoned his business interests and his estranged family in favor of his religious mission. He lived alone in temporary residences in Delhi and Vrindavana, and edited a journal called Back to Godhead, which he sold on the street. On September 17, 1959, Abhay was formally initiated as a celibate ascetic (sannyasi) at the Kesavaji Gaudiya Math in Mathura, and took the name "Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaja." Convinced of his mission to bring Krishna worship to the West, Abbhay, now Swami Bhaktivedanta, persuaded Mrs. Sumati Moraji, head of the Scindia Steamship Company, to give him free passage to the United States. On August 13, 1965, Swami Bhaktivedanta sailed from Calcutta on the Jaladuta, arriving in New York on September 19. After a short stay in Butler, Pennsylvania, the swami returned to New York and, in June 1966, opened his first "temple", a storefront on Second Avenue. Three months later, he initiated his first 11 American disciples. Jroberson108 (talk) 23:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Interesting. I hadn't heard of this book. Thanks. He was never "Swami Bhaktivedanta", though – "Swami" is Prabhupada's sannyasi name. If anything he was "Swami Swami". Dāsānudāsa (talk) 13:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I just typed out what the researchers put in their book. Someone can add it and/or the info that follows if they find that it improves this article. I did find his name changed five times in his BTGs, depending on initiation and honorifics. I found an explanation about prepending "Tridandi Goswamis" here [5]:

• 1944: "Abhay Charan De"
• 1952: "Abhay Charan De (Alias Abhaycharanaravinda Bhaktivedanta)"
• 1956 & 1958: "Goswami Abhay Charan Bhaktivedanta"
• 1960: "Tridandi Goswami Abhay Charan Bhaktivedanta Swami"
• 1966–1969: "A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami"
• 1970–present: "His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada"

Jroberson108 (talk) 20:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Not Kayasth but a Suvarna Vanik

I have seen this mentioned in a number of places. See for example "Srila Prabhupada has stated in various places that his family belonged to the suvarna-vanik community who were gold-merchants." https://gosai.com/writings/the-sarasvata-parampara-and-the-caste-brahmana-guru

"Abhay’s father, Gour Mohan De, was a cloth merchant of moderate income and belonged to the aristocratic suvarna-vanik merchant community" https://back2godhead.com/biography-pure-devotee-15/

Malaiya (talk) 02:54, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

The article currently cited also says Suvarna Vanik and not Kayasth. Malaiya (talk) 05:08, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Historical interest

It would be interesting to note that three world-famous Hindu spiritual leaders, Swami Vivekananda, Paramhansa Yogananda, and Bhaktivedanta Swami, all had studied at Scottish Church College, established by British Christian missionaries. Oliver Puertogallera (talk) 02:58, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Oliver Puertogallera. Sounds like something that could be added to the Scottish Church College page's "Alumni" section, which does have a link to List_of_alumni_of_Scottish_Church_College where all three of them are listed. It is similar to what is done here: University_of_Oxford#Notable_alumni. Jroberson108 (talk) 08:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Promotional content being restored by some users

@Dāsānudāsa You are edit warring and repeatedly restoring promotional content sourced from unreliable sources to promote the subject. Please check WP:PROMO and WP:CHALLENGEVenkat TL (talk) 08:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I am reverting to the stable version which has been that way for months, if not years (I'm not trawling that far back through the page history). You need to re-familiarise yourself with WP:BRD and then get consensus for your changes. You've been here long enough to know how this works. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 09:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

You are neither required nor entitled to restore promotional and edit war over it. If I report this now, you will be blocked for edit warring and using Wikipedia for promotion. Venkat TL (talk) 09:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Did you read WP:BRD? Once again: the onus is on you to make a case and achieve consensus for your edits to the long-term stable version of the page. Please at least try and learn the basic tenets of Wikipedia if you're going to continue editing here. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 10:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I removed the sentence since I couldn't verify it from source (I am not sure whether sources meets RS criteria).[6] Cinadon36 10:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Article renamed

@Anthony Appleyard and Venkat TL: Recently, this article was renamed from "A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada" to "A. C. Bhaktivedanta" without discussion on the assumption that "Swami" and "Prabhupada" are honorifics that should be removed from his common name. There is already an archived talk on this topic: Talk:A._C._Bhaktivedanta/Archive_2#WP:Honorifics. Although "Prabhupada" is an honorific added by his disciples in the 1960s and found on all his publications since then, "Swami" is apart of his sanyasa name, as indicated in the article and this letter: "The end 'Swami' is necessary because it is my Sannyasa name." With the "Swami" honorific, it would be "Swami A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami".[7] At the very least, "Swami" shouldn't be omitted from his sanyasa name of "A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami". He is commonly known with the "Prabhupada" honorific suffix, which should probably be kept; similar to how the Mahatma Gandhi page keeps the "Mahatma" honorific because it is what he is commonly known as. Jroberson108 (talk) 07:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jroberson108 The article has been renamed following Policy of WP:NPOV, WP:COMMONNAME and the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic)#Titles and honorifics. Article title are Common name instead of full name or WP:OFFICIALNAME. The current article title is using same title as Britanninca sans the Honorifics, Swami and Prabhupada. These words are honorific, it is a fact and this is not up for debate. If you are asserting that they are an essential part of his common name and not just flowery honorifics then you will need to present reliable sources from third party not connected to AC Bhaktivedanta or his affiliated organizations. He is god for his followers who write that in their books, Wikipedia cannot write that. The honorific suffix you mentioned is already included in the infobox and the lead section. All that need not be in the article title. The example to Mahatma is not valid here, because Third party sources called him Mahatma Gandhi. In this case, it is only his Org and followers. As a better example, notice that Ravishankar is at Ravi Shankar (spiritual leader) and not Sri Sri Ravishakar, even though that is how his follower refer him everywhere. Venkat TL (talk) 08:02, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL: "Sri Sri" is a bad example since it is obviously an honorific unless stated otherwise. Your assumption that "Swami" is always an honorific is incorrect since it can on occasion be included in given names if stated, same for "Goswami" and "Sri". Your assumption that Britannica's title is his common name is unfounded. In regards to his sanyasa name, it only says "He received the title of swami in 1959". It doesn't distinguish given, sanyasa, or common names nor honorifics and doesn't cite any sources, so it isn't a good source for your argument. They use different style guides than Wikipedia, so don't just copy what they do. You conclude that "Mahatma Gandhi" can use the "Mahatma" honorific because of its use in third party sources making it common. Apply the same logic here and don't base it on one source, Britannica, before changing the status quo. Here is a search for "A. C. Bhaktivedanta" in relation to encyclopedias.[8] Most include "Swami Prabhupada" with some including only "Swami", and rarely without.You can also look through this page's references. Jroberson108 (talk) 10:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jroberson108 Please clarify your conflict of interest. Followers of every Guru add these kind of honorifics and on Wikipedia they will claim that such honorifics are part of the name. I am sorry, unless you have third party evidence for your claims, there is nothing to argue on. Books and links from followers and self published sources do not count. Encyclopedia Britannica is not associated with ISKCON. They use the same title that is also in line with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic)#Titles_and_honorifics. If you have good evidence from NEUTRAL THIRD PARTY you may present that and I will respond. There should be strong reasons for Wikipedia to deviate from its policies in naming an article by adding honorifics. The belief of his followers is not one of them. Venkat TL (talk) 10:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jroberson108, And here are more sources not using swami. It's a bit disingenuous to compare Gandhi to him. This discussion has happened at various places (like Nithyananda, for example; where he's claimed to have changed his name to include Swami) and there's more than enough consensus that it shouldn't be in the title. Hemantha (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I only just noticed this article had been moved and have moved back pending discussion. This should never have been done without discussion and building consensus first. As Jroberson points out, "Swami" is part of the name, and "Prabhupada" is used by the vast majority of reliable sources. He is almost never called "A. C. Bhaktivedanta", primarily because that's not his name.

Please build consensus for this controversial move while the article is at the title it has been at for years, rather than an invented title not found in the sources. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 07:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

The statement that "it is only his Org and followers" who use "A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami", "Bhaktivedanta Swami", or even "A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada" (with the honorific Prabhupada), is complete nonsense. It is far more his common name than the invented "A.C. Bhaktivedanta", which is neither common nor correct.

Here are some books/essays: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]

And newspapers for starters: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]

I understand it can be confusing because "Swami" is also a title, but in the tradition of Gaudiya Vaishnava sannyasa, both Swami and Goswami are also names (leading to odd constructions like Swami Swami and Swami Goswami with honorifics, as Jroberson describes above). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dāsānudāsa (talk • contribs) 08:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Dāsānudāsa, the community consensus is documented at MOS:HONOUR and WP:NCIN. There is no need to build more consensus here. As both Swami and Prabhupada say right in the first sentence, both are honorifics. Your move to honorific titles is explicitly against WP:MOS. As you can see here there's a lot of sources which use only the name without either honorific. Your claim that the longer version is the most used is baseless. --Hemantha (talk) 10:41, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

That is the community consensus for honorifics. I feel like I'm banging my head against a wall, but one more time: "Swami" (and "Goswami") are also names. This man's name is Swami.

Swami explained this in a letter to his disciple, Rayarama:

So far the title "Swami" is concerned, although this word is used generally for sannyasins, this "Swami" is my particular name as a sannyasi. ... So far the prefix "Swami" is concerned, every sannyasi has got to do that, but two ways "Swami" (Swami A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami) is not good looking. The end "Swami" is necessary because it is my sannyasa name."

As you can see in that article, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami used the honorific "Tridandi-Goswami" in front of his name for the reason I have already mentioned: That otherwise he would be the rather odd-looking Swami (A.C. Bhaktivedanta) Swami.

A similar case is another sannyasi, Bhakti Saranga Goswami (not in ISKCON), where Goswami is his name and not a title/honorific.

Does WP:HONORIFICS say people called Swami/Goswami are not allowed to use their actual names? Bad news for Subramanian Swamy and Arnab Goswami... Dāsānudāsa (talk) 11:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

What he explains is useless as it's self-serving. There are enough sources referring to him as 'AC Bhaktivedanta'. We should do the same. Hemantha (talk) 12:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

There are, however, far more not referring to him as "A.C. Bhaktivedanta". It actually looks like "Bhaktivedanta Swami" is the most common formulation, if I'm using Google Ngrams right.

I can't figure out how to run a query for "A.C. Bhaktivedanta" minus the "Swami" – "A.C. Bhaktivedanta -Swami" doesn't work – but as you can see, even just plain "A.C. Bhaktivedanta", which necessarily includes both the "A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami" and "A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada" versions, is only marginally more popular, even with the duplicated results.

Note also the frequency of "Swami Prabhupada".Dāsānudāsa (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

that ngram clearly doesn't work since "B S", being a substring, will always include all "AC B S" and "AC B S P". I don't think there's any way to settle this using Google numbers, unless you get some insider data. Hemantha (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Of course. Duh. I was hoping there was a way to exclude the substrings but I can't figure it out. Thanks. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 14:48, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Their documentation needs improving. It says the characters +, -, *, / require parentheses to be interpreted as a composition, so something like this: "(AC B - S - P),(AC B S - P),AC B S P". See query. Jroberson108 (talk) 16:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I tried that but then you still get the "Ngrams not found" error. It doesn't like "A.C. Bhaktivedanta" on its own. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

It's basically subtracting the "swami" and "prabhupada" ngrams from the "A.C. Bhaktivedanta" ngram and probably doesn't like the dots (.), which usually means any character in regular expressions. The documentation doesn't say how to escape special characters. Removing "A.C." gives a similar result set without any notices: query. You can also just remove the punctuation. query. Jroberson108 (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

What's the value of Honorifics section?

Heavily repetitive and seems like a catalog. It's mostly unsourced, but even with sources, what purpose does it serve to repeat name formats from lead ? Hemantha (talk) 13:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree. I've never understood these honorifics sections on some gurus' articles. The text should be incorporated into the article (if necessary) and the section deleted. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 13:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Goswami 2003

This book, written by a student of his and published by his own publication, is neither independent nor reliable. The subjective tone of the book is made clear in the preface As such, Śrīla Prabhupāda-līlāmṛta is not written from the mundane or speculative viewpoint, nor can ordinary biographers comprehend the significance and meaning of the life of a pure devotee of God. Were such persons to objectively study the life of Śrīla Prabhupāda, the esoteric meanings would evade them. Were they to charitably try to praise Śrīla Prabhupāda, they would not know how. But because Śrīla Prabhupāda-līlāmṛta is authorized through the transcendental process. This book simply can't be used as a source for anything apart from absolutely non-controversial facts. As such, I'll be removing anything sourced to this book that falls foul of WP:PRIMARY. Hemantha (talk) 13:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll add Back To Godhead too here. It's his own magazine, so WP:PRIMARY as well. Cannot be used as source for self-serving statements. Hemantha (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, please remove inappropriate references to self published sources. The primary source maintenance tag cannot be removed until these sources are here. Venkat TL (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Works restored

This edit deleted a lot of this author's published works under the "Works" section, which included his major works. I restored them and omitted the summaries for a simpler list. This content removal should not have occurred without discussion first (WP:REMOVAL). Jroberson108 (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

• Prabhupada 2021 b.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Content dispute 4th through 18th July 2022

The history tab 4th through 18th July 2022 shows a content dispute with addition and reversion of a large segment of text. This dispute needs to be solved by consensus, not by continuous reversion and re-addition.

Please try to form that consensus here, otherwise there are formal dispute resolution mechanisms which need to be followed

May I remind all parties of WP:3RR. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Original research repeatedly re-added by User:Venkat_TL and User:CharlesWain

The said users repeatedly add a section consisting entirely of original research. Please desist from re-adding it until you properly support the section by reliable secondary sources. Quoting exclusively primary sources of your own choosing does not constitute WP:RS. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 07:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Using his quotes does not amount to WP:OR. I am not using my quotes. @Cinosaur Do you see the difference ? Venkat TL (talk) 12:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Apparently, you do not understand what constisutes original research. Let me try and help by asking you: Whose opinion is that the quotes added by you indeed accurately and comprehensively represent Bhaktivedanta Swami's entire teachings on women, caste, and homosexuality? Cinosaur (talk) 13:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Not svarbanik (sonar) he is kayastha and his father name gaur mohan Dey he is kayastha and Swami Shila prabhupada is belonging to kayastha caste he is born in Kulin Kayastha family of Bengal

Not svarbanik (sonar) he is kayastha and his father name gaur mohan Dey he is kayastha and Swami Shila prabhupada is belonging to kayastha caste he is born in Kulin Kayastha family of Bengal. Yashdeep453 (talk) 02:15, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Provide a WP:Reliable source and it can be changed. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 10:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Views on evolution

Swami Prabhupada's anti-Darwinian views are found here [25] and printed in his book Life Comes from Life [26]. These are primary sources so they are no good for the article but a handful of academic books have picked up on his anti-Darwinian views such as "Asian Religious Responses to Darwinism", page 122 and "Science and Religion Around the World", pages 204-205. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

These academic papers may be of use, I will check through them [27], [28] Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:07, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks I will look forward to incorporate them. Editorkamran (talk) 03:01, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Another detailed source in the journal Approaching Religion describing Swami Prabhupada opposition to evolution [29]. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:56, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Name inconsistency

On the article there is some name inconsistency throughout, either Bhaktivedanta or Prabhupada is being used. I would suggest using only using one. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:50, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Bhaktivedanta is the correct choice. See this. Changed here for consistency. Editorkamran (talk) 03:07, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

"Bhaktivedanta" is not the correct choice, as it's not his name. His name was Swami; Bhaktivedanta and Prabhupada are both honorifics. Calling (Bhaktivedanta) Swami "Bhaktivedanta" is like calling Swami Bon "Bhakti Hriyada" for short, Sridhara "Bhakti Rakshak", Keshava "Bhakti Prajnana", etc. Note also that there are other Bhaktivedantas, most prominently Bhaktivedanta Narayana and his lineage. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 10:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

If Prabhupada is a honorific too, then why did you just revert the last change and reinstall Prabhupada [30]? --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, it should be Swami, really, but at least Prabhupada is largely unique to him, whereas literally every Pure Bhakti sannyasi, for example, is called Bhaktivedanta (BV) Something Dāsānudāsa (talk) 11:45, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I replaced both by Swami. If you have a problem with that, do not revert the whole edit again but talk about the problem here. We are not janitors who do your work for you while you do only vetoes. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:06, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Completely unnecessarily hostile tone, but OK. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 10:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Isn't the title "swami" an honorific bestowed by a community of religious believers? It seems to me that referring to him repeatedly as swami is akin to referring to Jesus as "the Christ" - not particularly encyclopedic.... PurpleChez (talk) 03:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@PurpleChez: Yes "swami" should be removed. It is not used by quality sources.[31][32][33][34] Editorkamran (talk) 05:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

So what is his name? His actual name, devoid of honorifics? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

His birth name is "Abhay Charan De". Editorkamran (talk) 09:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Surely that settles the name inconsistency. All else can he handled within the article provided it is decided what name should be used throughout the article, with removal of all honorific.

The article title should reflect WP:MOSNAME and redirects can handle the remaining variations

The honorifics may be described, certainly. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

It's a bit confusing because Swami is of course a title, but it is also (along with "Goswami") a name used by sannyasis in the line of Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati. The man in question's name, without honorifics, is "A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami". Rendered with Swami as a title, it'd be something like "Swami B.V. Swami", which is obviously very confusing and so he avoided doing so.

It's explained in this letter:

So far the title Swami is concerned, although this word is used generally for Sannyasins, this Swami is my particular name as Sannyasi. ... So far the prefix "Swami" is concerned, every sannyasi has got to do that, but two ways Swami (Swami A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami) is not good looking.

Dāsānudāsa (talk) 09:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Dāsānudāsa @Editorkamran @Hob Gadling @Psychologist Guy @PurpleChez,

It is unclear to me how "Swami" was the consensus that was landed on in this discussion. Through my research, I am not entirely convinced that the name Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada can be considered an honorific, but even if "Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabupada", (as @Dāsānudāsa eludes), MOS:HON states that "Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found in English-language reliable sources without it, it should be included. For example, the honorific may be included for Mother Teresa."

All four sources that @Editorkamran referenced use the names "Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada, A.C Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, or A.C. Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada" interchangeably. In my own research, I found that "The Hare Krishna Movement: The Post Charismatic Fate of Religious Transplant", published by Columbia University Press, uses several variations of his name, but all include "Bhaktivedanta" (nearly 800 times) to identify him and "Contemporary Hinduism Ritual, Culture, and Practice", published by ABC Clio, also name him as "Bhaktivedanta." So, I'm not understanding how just "Swami" was deemed appropriate for use, when it is clear that atleast "Bhaktivedanta" is most commonly attached to him.

I am open to discussion, so please let me know your thoughts on this discrepancy. RealPharmer3 (talk) 16:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you that it's absolutely fine to refer to him as Prabhupada, as per the guidelines you linked to above (it's an honorific very much associated with him). But I think others disagree. My main point was that "Swami" in his case is not an honorific, and that it's incorrect to refer to him as "Bhaktivedanta" only. Cheers, Dāsānudāsa (talk) 16:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

@Dāsānudāsa I see you point on why you would be hesitant to refer to him as Bhaktivedanta only. I believe that because his fame and recognition in academic texts and the media is so closely tied to his name - Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupad, and variations of this name, he should be identified in the article accordingly. Would love to hear others thoughts on this as well! RealPharmer3 (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi back at you!!! PurpleChez (talk) 23:44, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi @PurpleChez,

Can you please explain? RealPharmer3 (talk) 14:20, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I was just wondering if calling him "swami" is encyclopedic - is it like calling Jesus of Nazareth "the Christ"? Or is it more like calling Francis "the pope"? I'm not saying one way or the other... just raising the concern. PurpleChez (talk) 03:19, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

An easy way to solve this, is to always look at the person's own publications. All his books as published under the name A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. So you can just use his last name. Prabhupada is fine. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi @PurpleChez,

In my research, I have found that Swami actually doesnt seem to be an honorific like "the Christ" or "The pope", moreover, it is actually referring to an individual that is a renunciant, after taking becoming a sanyasi. When an individual renounces the worldly life, they are given a new name, generally ending with Swami.

Hi @Psychologist Guy, I've done some reading and found Prabhupada is not his last name. In page 22 of A Living Theology of Krishna Bhakti, published by Oxford University Press, the author explains how the subject's name came to be. I believe that it is totally fine to intermix the usage of Prabhupada, A.C Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, Bhaktivedanta Swami.

MOS:HON states that "Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found in English-language reliable sources without it, it should be included. For example, the honorific may be included for Mother Teresa." I found that "The Hare Krishna Movement: The Post Charismatic Fate of Religious Transplant", published by Columbia University Press, uses several variations of his name, but all include "Bhaktivedanta" (nearly 800 times) to identify him and "Contemporary Hinduism Ritual, Culture, and Practice", published by ABC Clio, also name him as "Bhaktivedanta" - amongst other literature.

It is very clear that his fame, contributions, etc. are tied with the name he upheld as a sanyasi ("A.C Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada"). In the same way Saint Nicholas is referred to as Saint Nicholas in his article, a consistent rule should be followed here. Thus, there should not be an issue for using his name as a renunciant in the article. If you disagree, please let me know why you do and we can discuss! RealPharmer3 (talk) 21:55, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Please see the discussion above re "Swami": in ACBS's case, Swami is his name as a sannyasi (renunciate), so if he used his Swami title he'd be "Swami Swami". I have no objection to including "Bhaktivedanta" or "Prabhupada" (both honorifics), as he is, as per the guideline linked above, commonly associated with those honorifics, but the "Swami" in "Bhaktivedanta Swami" is his name. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 09:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

@Dāsānudāsa

Okay, if am understanding you correctly - you agree with my stance (including the name should be fine in his case)? RealPharmer3 (talk) 00:13, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Views

I see many gaping issues with this area.

Slavery: The basis of Prabhupada's teachings and in fact of ISKCON's is that of the soul. Having read his books, it is quite evident to me that he strongly insists that the body and its characteristics are not representative of the soul within, and this can be seen in many of his writings and evidenced by anyone who actually knew him.

Lower Castes: I don't know why this is here. This statement is similar to saying "manual workers don't need much training, but doctors and skilled jobs do", which is true.

Hitlers and Jews: In the first quote, he mentions previous demons (Hiranyakasipu and Kamsa) in his definition of heroes. I can say with absolute certainty that here he means "heroes" as "people with great power", as in his writings he has also denounced these entities many times over as they were antagonistic towards Prahlada (a devotee of God) and Krishna (God himself). Therefore, this statement cannot be used as proof of him supporting antisemitism. Second quote follows same logic as the quote from slavery: against his teachings, so probably a false quote. Thechamp9002 (talk) 22:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia runs on reliable sources and that content is well-sourced. You are have not given any sources just your personal opinion. If you have reliable secondary sources presenting different views feel free to cite them but we do not cite primary sources or personal opinion. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

The whole "Views" section is full of bigoted, wrong, evil, and fringe ideas. They should not just be cited (slavery is great, Hitler was a hero, Jews need to be killed, evolution is nonsense, the moon landing never happened) but put in a mainstream context, just as we would do it in articles about other crackpots. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

So quote where prabhupad said hitler was a hero, or that slavery is gteay, or that jews need to be killed 82.6.61.201 (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Because those views generated more notability for him as clearly highlighted by the reliable sources. Editorkamran (talk) 06:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, none of them actually say that prabhupad "advocated for hitlers holocaust"...and by hero, is also refering to kamsa and hiranyakashipu who are demons. In fact in that very same convo prabhupad calls hitler a demon. The people who edited this page know this. They are just being so unbelievablely bad faith. 82.6.61.201 (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

That content was added by an experienced user Editorkamran so I doubt there has been misrepresentation. The source given for the content about Hitler is The Hare Krishna Movement: The Postcharismatic Fate of a Religious Transplant which is a reliable academic source, I have not read it yet but I have access to it, so I will check it tonight and verify the source. I plan on improving the article so will definitely check the book out later. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

"advocated for hitlers holocaust" is not mentioned anywhere but "He held Jews to be responsible for Holocaust". It is a well-known antisemitic trope to hold Jews responsible for the atrocities caused on them by Hitler. Editorkamran (talk) 16:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• I've reverted to the pre-war version of the article. Consensus shoud be reached first here on the talk page as per Wikipedia rules. Now about the problems with the information that several editors try to add to the article: 1. While The Hare Krishna Movement: The Postcharismatic Fate of a Religious Transplant is indeed a publication edited by indologist Edwin F. Bryant and published by an academic publisher, it is in fact a compilation of articles written mostly by current and former ISKCON devotees, most of them are not scholars. 2. The cource is improperly cited, on the pages cited there is an article by a former ISKCON member and Harikesa Swami's disciple Ekkehard Lorenz. 3. In the contributor's section it's stated that Ekkehard Lorenz is "a student of Indology with focus on medieval ancient Sanskrit at the Institute for Oriental Languages at the University of Stokholm, Sweden". In other words, the authot is not a scholar in the field, not a scholar at all (he didn't even have a higher education at the time of writing). Therefore his analysis of Swami Bhaktivedanta's teachings have zero weight and should not be added to the article. 4. I was not able to find any other source that mentions those controversial statements on race, Hitler etc. When (and if) such sources will be found, we can discuss here adding this information to the article.--Gaura79 (talk) 08:24, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Your last edit was not acceptable, you are deleting far too much. You have admitted the book is reliable published by an academic publisher, we do not need to be doing ad-hominem attacks on its authors as the publisher is a reliable source. I do not see any valid reason to remove that source. Psychologist Guy (talk) 09:32, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

The author of the article should also be reliable, not only the publisher. And it seems you have conveniently forgotten about WP:RSUW. I'm simply reverting to the last consensus version of the article. This is done per Wikipedia rules WP:Consensus. These statements are poorly sourced and I expalined above why. I'm not attacking the author, I'm simply stating the obvious: he's not a scholar and his take on Swami's views is not significant enough to be included in the article. If this information is so important, why can't you find a proper source that corraborate Lorenz's "findings" about Swami being a racist and an anti-semite? A source that is scholarly and neutral? And why should we omit other Swami's views that are really important and have tons of material written about them and include instead a biased Tabloid-style analysis from a person who is not even a scholar? --Gaura79 (talk) 11:52, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

You are falsely labeling Hollywood Reporter "not an RS in this subject"[35], stating "Ekkehard Lorenz is not a RS"[36] despite the book is published by New York University Press and you claim that "publication edited by indologist Edwin F. Bryant and published by an academic publisher" is ultimately not reliable.

These claims confirm that you are simply whitewashing. There are more reliable sources[37] which cover these statements from Bhaktivendanta Swami but we don't need them per WP:OVERKILL. Editorkamran (talk) 14:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, that article is declaredly just a journalist's opinion. Secondly, no it's not whitewashing -To pin up a single isolated statement, taken from private conversations and out of context, from a prolific author of dozens of books acclaimed by scholars and a lecturer of thousands of public lectures, and to call it his "view" is an unbalanced presentation to say the least, if not a grossly misrepresenting one. Thirdly, if you really want to get into the matter you would do well to research Bhaktivedanta Swami's style of writing and lecturing, and ultimately his philosophy and the philosophy of the Vedas. It is ignorance to interpret these quotes as discrimination on the basis of race, gender or caste. Lastly, it is ludicrous to deny primary sources, which would indeed, if given the opportunity, counter these misinterpretations, when all you've done so far is quote secondary sources that themselves quote primary sources. 188.252.164.203 (talk) 15:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

You are convinced that these quotes are "misrepresenting" Bhaktivedenata. Are there any secondary reliable sources which hold the same view? Editorkamran (talk) 16:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

To say that something is acceptable because it comes from a reliable source is also ad hominem. Therefore to counter that claim with another ad hominem argument is perfectly fine in debating. 109.60.92.224 (talk) 10:45, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Gaura79 has been blocked for sock-puppetry. I believe these IP addresses that all trace to the same place are him or associated with him, I have filed an SPI [38] Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me that the characterization of these particular points as “views“ in this article (especially in the absence of Prabhupada’s primary spiritual emphases) is giving them far too much prominence, as though they are the main pillars of his teachings. In my opinion, this constitutes a bias. Many similar articles on religious leaders Will offer one’s primary views under such a headache, and perhaps have a separate section titled “controversies” or “controversial views”. This would be far more neutral and balanced. Davidbgreenberg (talk) 11:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for the typo: “Headache” should read “heading”. Davidbgreenberg (talk) 11:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

These quotes are taken out of context. I ask that you please desist in the slander of Srila Prabhupāda. 2600:4040:2BDD:E600:A4E6:1DD3:A57D:4E9B (talk) 17:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:RS (and common sense) say that credentials of the author affect reliability, you say it doesn't matter. I think you should take this discussion more seriously:

When editors talk about sources that are being cited on Wikipedia, they might be referring to any one of these three concepts:

• The piece of work itself (the article, book)
• The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)
• The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)

Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.

Gaura79 (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

First find equally reliable sources which dispute these quotations. Just nitpicking reliable sources is disruptive. Editorkamran (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I clearly stated in this disscussion why this source is not good according to WP:RS and WP:RSUW. And on top of that the source doesn't support the statement you try to add to the article. This is all E. Lorenz says about Prabhupada, Hitler and Jews:

In a monarchy, a king with a prestigious position follows the great deeds of his forefathers.91

Gradually the democratic government is becoming unfit for the needs of the people, and therefore some parties are trying to elect a dictator. A dic- tatorship is the same as a monarchy, but without a trained leader. Actu- ally people will be happy when a trained leader, whether a monarch or a dictator, takes control of the government and rules the people according to the standard regulations of the authorized scriptures.92 Statements like the last one, in which Bhaktivedanta Swami declares that he fa- vors even dictatorship above democracy, are by no means rare: So monarchy or dictatorship is welcome. Now the Communists, they want dictatorship. That is welcome, provided that particular dictator is trained like Maharaja Yudhishthira.93 I like this position, dictatorship. Personally I like this.94 Bhaktivedanta Swami’s appreciation for dictatorship is further underlined by his generally approving remarks about Hitler. While he often mentions Hitler to give an example of materialistic scheming, he nevertheless calls him a hero and a gentleman: Why should our temples support or denounce Hitler. If somebody says something in this connection it must simply be some sentiment. We have nothing to do with politics.95 So these English people, they were very expert in making propaganda. They killed Hitler by propaganda. I don’t think Hitler was so bad man.96 Hitler knew it [the atom bomb] . . . everything, but he did not like to do it. . . . He was gentleman. But these people are not gentlemen. He knew it perfectly well. He said that “I can smash the whole world, but I do not use that weapon.” The Germans already discovered. But out of humanity they did not use it.97 Sometimes he becomes a great hero—just like Hiranyakashipu and Kamsa or, in the modern age, Napoleon or Hitler. The activities of such men are certainly very great, but as soon as their bodies are finished, everything else is finished.98 Therefore Hitler killed these Jews. They were financing against Germany. Otherwise he had no enmity with the Jews. . . . And they were supplying. They want interest money—“Never mind against our country.” There-

fore Hitler decided, “Kill all the Jews.”99

Gaura79 (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Sources are reliable for the information. You have not provided equally reliably sources which debunk the information.

Now dont shift goalposts. That quote about Hitler was correctly added. Editorkamran (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I have read through the book The Hare Krishna Movement: The Postcharismatic Fate of a Religious Transplant, especially the comments on Swami Prabhupada's comments on Hitler pages 369-370. The content on the Wikipedia article is accurate to the source. Gaura79's argument appears to be that the source is unreliable because Lorenz is a former disgruntled Hare Krishna. This is irrelevant because the source is being used to quote directly from Swami Prabhupada. Gaura79 appears to be embarrassed(?) about Prabhupada's pro-Hitler comments and wants them removed but this is not a valid reason, it is white-washing. This is a reliable secondary source published by a reliable publisher. We do not need to be doing 'personal researchers' into the author. We just cite what reliable sources say. We are quoting Swami Prabhupada directly. The quotes have not been taken out of context. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:04, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Just jumping in here to say @Gaura79: is quite right that only things discussed in reliable secondary sources should be included, and it seems like he left in the potentially embarrassing things that are properly sourced. I don't know about Lorenz specifically. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

All of the used sources are "reliable secondary sources". Ekkehard Lorenz has been frequently cited by other scholarly sources as well with regards to ISCKON.[39][40] Editorkamran (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

The actual problem is that ACBSP's beliefs are not put into context. We should not just say he believes X, but that he believes X, which contradicts the scientific consensus (or whatever is appropriate). If we do not have a source that says things like that, we should delete his wacky beliefs because of WP:FRINGE. Ignorant people (children, for instance) will otherwise give those ideas credit. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

That is fine, I will make sure the amount of sections have been lowered and more context has been provided with the help of sources mentioned above. It will be done soon. Editorkamran (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

There are serious problems with quotes taken out of context in the views section because the "reliable" secondary source(s) have themselves taken the quotes out of context. One would then have to comb through the works of Swami Prabhupada to get a better context. As it is now there seems to be a bit of a smear campaign going on. I wonder if attempts to provide context will be blocked by saying, "you can't quote from Swami Prabhupada's own works to provide context, you can only quote from secondary works." That to me would indicate serious malintent. van Lustig (talk) 10:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

"Even if some of his comments were taken out of context (as his defenders and apologists sometimes assert), the sheer volume and magnitude of his immense bigotry cannot be ignored nor sugar-coated." Editorkamran (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

You don't know that. You are basing what you have said on quotes taken out of context. It appears to me that even if exculpatory texts were provided you would block them. It strongly appears to me that you have a predetermined agenda that you want to see fulfilled. van Lustig (talk) 09:40, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

For example in the views section the following is written:

'Swami said that black people should remain in bondage.

"The blacks were slaves. They were under control. And since you have given them equal rights they are disturbing, most disturbing, always creating a fearful situation, uncultured and drunkards. What training they have got? They have got equal rights? It is best, to keep them under control as slaves but give them sufficient food, sufficient cloth, not more than that. Then they will be satisfied."'

That is one statement out of a whole conversation. Here is the more of that conversation to put it in context.

--------------------------

Prabhupāda: Revolution means they are dissatisfied.

Satsvarūpa: French Revolution, Russian Revolution.

Prabhupāda: These things were not going nicely. Therefore gradually it broke. But if things are going nicely, people will be happy. They will not revolt. You have to keep the citizens satisfied in all respects. You must know the necessity how people are satisfied. You have to arrange the government in that way. Then there will be no revolution. Mass of people, if they are satisfied, they will not revolt. But they do not know the process. The "demoncracy," the common man is allowed to vote. He has no knowledge, and he's voting. This is most condemned process. Camara-bhangi, a sweeper, he is voted to become Minister of Defense. His business is to cleanse the street, and now he's voted to become, because he has got number of votes. So many bhaṅgis, they vote, "Yes, he is our leader. He should be Defense Minister." You have to do that. This is democracy. His business is to sweep, and he's voted a defense minister.

Hari-śauri: But in, say in America, they argue that everybody's educated now. In America...

Prabhupāda: What educated? Educated means hippies. That's all. This is their education. They do not know what is meant by education. Education... University student was informed that "Next birth you may become a dog," so he said, "What is the wrong there?" This is education. Is that education, that he agrees to become a dog very happily? There is no education. Simply waste of time.

Satsvarūpa: But at least if there is extreme exploitation by a king or dictator, it can't be changed. But the people...

Prabhupāda: There cannot be exploitation if things are made in order. Just like kṣatriya should be trained up as kṣatriya. Then he is king. Not that a bhangi by vote becomes a king. This is education.

śauryaṁ tejo dhṛtir dākṣyaṁ

yuddhe cāpy apalāyanam

dānam īśvara-bhāvaś ca

kṣātraṁ karma svabhāva-jam

[Bg. 18.43]

He must be very powerful, very strong, strongly built. You have seen the picture, Rāmacandra? Sturdy body. You see. Lakṣmaṇa. Because kṣatriya. They should be trained up as kṣatriya. Therefore the varṇāśrama college is required to train people who is able to become a brāhmaṇa, who is able to become a kṣatriya, who is able to become... In this way division must be. And according to the quality and work there must be division for cooperation. There is a big scheme. They have lost. They do not know. All bhaṅgis, camara, śūdras, they are simply given vote. That's all. Where is the training?

Hari-śauri: But what is the use of having big strong body if now they're using airplanes and tanks and guns?

Prabhupāda: That is your useless waste of time. Why? Therefore the war does not stop, unnecessary war. And such a big war, Kurukṣetra, in eighteen days it is finished. This is... And this is going on, continually war, strain, politics, diplomacy, lecture, parliament. There is no finishing of war. There is no finishing. It will go on. Just like same example: if you keep the dogs as dogs, they'll going on barking. It will never finish. So this is the civilization of dog work. It is not human civilization. Therefore it is going on. War is not stopped. Where is stop? War is stopped? No. Going on. And it will go on, because they are dogs. You cannot stop their barking. There are so many things. If we follow the instruction of Bhagavad-gītā, then whole world will be... This is a fact. Now, how to implement it, that is another thing. But it is a fact.

Hari-śauri: Because even the yavanas and mlecchas were following the kṣatriya system in Kṛṣṇa's time. Just like Jarāsandha. He had all the chivalrous respect of a kṣatriya, even though he was a demon. But nowadays everybody's... No one is...

Prabhupāda: Everybody's śūdra. Nobody's brāhmaṇa, nobody's...

Hari-śauri: No.

Prabhupāda: Śūdra is to be controlled only. They are never given to be freedom. Just like in America: the blacks were slaves; they were under control. And since you have given them some equal rights, they are disturbing, most disturbing, always creating a fearful situation, uncultured and drunkards. What training they have got? They have got equal right? That is best, to keep them under control as slaves but give them sufficient food, sufficient cloth, not more than that. Then they will be satisfied.

Hari-śauri: If that's done, then how will those who have some potential to be educated, how will we recognize them?

Prabhupāda: Either educate them or control them. Give them facility of education. But there is no education at all. Even for the whites there is no education. So we are stressing on the point of education. You educate certain section as brāhmaṇa, certain section as kṣatriya, certain section as vaiśya. In that education we don't discriminate because he's coming of a śūdra family. Take education; be qualified. Then you talk. Not by votes.

https://prabhupadabooks.com/conversations/1977/feb/varnasrama_system_must_be_introduced/mayapura/february/14/1977

------------------

So when we see the whole conversation we find that Prabhupada is not endorsing slavery but actually stressing that instead of controlling through slavery that everyone including blacks should be educated in spiritual knowledge. And that there is no discrimination regarding their former background. This is the opposite message from what the quote taken out of context says.

So the question arises, why, when all his works are easily available to the public, do you stress one sentence that gives a negative view, but when put in context gives the opposite view? Is this fair minded? What is the reason? Do you see why one might have reasonable grounds to question the motivation of the person(s) who took the quote out of context? What picture are they trying to paint and why?

And this is just one point. The same can be done for all the others. You said "immense bigotry" and I agree, but it is not Prabhupada who is the bigot, but those who try to paint him as one by using using the fallacy of quote mining and taking them out of context. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quoting_out_of_context

This will not go away, I assure you. van Lustig (talk) 11:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for providing that racist comment from Swami Prabhupada, which proves the opposite to what you are saying. "Just like in America: the blacks were slaves; they were under control. And since you have given them some equal rights, they are disturbing, most disturbing, always creating a fearful situation, uncultured and drunkards. What training they have got? They have got equal right? That is best, to keep them under control as slaves but give them sufficient food, sufficient cloth, not more than that." It is clear from that quote that Swami Prabhupada had a very low view of black people and he was indeed a racist man. The quote has not been taken out of context. His comments were no different to what white supremacists such as Ben Klassen were saying at the time. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:53, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

More from Swami Prabhupada in 1975, "These groups of men are considered very fallen, kirāta, the black men. They are called niṣāda. Niṣāda was born of Vena, King Vena. So they are habituated to steal; therefore they have been given a separate place, African jungles" [41]. And from 1977 "And especially in your country it will be dangerous because these blacks, if they don't get employment, they will create havoc, these blacks. And they are not civilized. They want money, and if they don't get money, then they will create havoc." [42]. Swami Prabhupada disliked black people and he thought they were uncivilized. It's stupid to try and make up excuses about this or claim quoting out of context. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:14, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

More racist comments from Swami Prabhupada. Room conversation August 10, 1976, Tehran. "Jnanagamya: In America the Negro situation was very bad, and they made many films showing heroic Negroes and now the situation is much better. The people are not so much agitated by seeing Negroes. They think "Oh, now a Negro has some good qualities." Because of these films they have come to appreciate. So like that, if a devotee is a hero they will also appreciate. Prabhupāda: Do they? I don't appreciate. I don't think the Negro question is solved." [43] Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:19, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Is anyone denying he said racist things? The question is whether said racism has received significant coverage in second- and third-party sources. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 14:20, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes a fair number of sources have been already provided in this entire discussion that these views have been covered and described in several reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Editorkamran (talk) 20:46, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi all! @Thechamp9002: @Psychologist Guy: @Editorkamran: @Gaura79:

I have reviewed the ongoing discussion on the talk page and have taken a look at the primary sources and secondary sources that have been noted. After considering the discussion above, I would agree that the academic source should be retained in the article and also believe that the views section needs more work to make it more balanced.

First, I would like to address the academic source that has been utilized, namely "The Hare Krishna Movement: The Postcharismatic Fate of a Religious Transplant." This source is published by the Columbia University Press and is subject to a rigorous peer-review process. Academic sources like this undergo a thorough evaluation by experts in the field, so while there may be some hesitation regarding the author, Lorenz, who is a scholar, it is important to note that the information on his views are being presented through a secondary source. After taking a look at the source as well, it clear to me that Lorenz has accurately documented the words from the primary source. Therefore, it is reasonable to keep the source as it probably has not been misrepresented.

Moreover, it is worth noting that @Sam van lustig has directly extracted information from the primary source above, which further emphasizes the reliability of the secondary source. In this case, it is evident that both the secondary and primary sources align in their portrayal of the views being discussed. I think it is also important to acknowledge that scholars can occasionally make mistakes. However, in the context of this discussion, the primary source indicates to me that there is not any apparent error or misinterpretation. Therefore, it is reasonable to think the information being presented is reliable and should be retained in the article.

Lastly, I would like to discuss a concern I have about the current imbalance in the Views section of the article. It appears that only negative views that cast Prabhupada in a negative light have been highlighted. Considering the vast array of topics that Prabhupāda has expressed views on, it is likely that there are positive views that should be represented in the article as well. In order to maintain a neutral point of view within the article, I believe that it is warranted to bring balance to the characterization of Prabhupāda's views. I'm open to all of your thoughts! RealPharmer3 (talk) 19:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

If we ignore all his extremist and pseudoscientific views, the only positive thing he did was advocate for vegetarianism. I would like to add a section on his vegetarianism. I am sure there will be no objections to that. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:13, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Psychologist Guy,

If you could start incorporating those views in the article, I think that would definitely be a good start. I'll do some digging to see what i can find as well. RealPharmer3 (talk) 02:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Gaura79 is a sock-puppeteer and is indef blocked. Sam van lustig is repeatedly putting comments on here but they are personal attacks against me, per WP:PA this is not acceptable behaviour. This talk-page is not about me. If it happens again I will report Sam van lustig and he should be blocked by an admin. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi all,

I've seen the conversation that has unfolded here and I think it is in everyones best interest to remain calm, cool, and collected. @Sam van lustig You obviously have strong feelings about the subject matter, but speaking emotionally and taking hits at other editors will not help your case. No need to get too worked up, lets try to find a resolution and work together. If you have a specific desire to present material in the article, it would probably be in your best interest to present it and provide supporting evidence (ideally, they are high quality secondary sources, that is the policy). And @Psychologist Guy, I would love for you to help out with adding those views on vegetarianism! I think that would definitely broaden the scope of this article! RealPharmer3 (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Initiated Name

His initiated name was Srila Prabhupad, not Swami Prabhupad. 2601:645:900:480:93:13FF:FE53:81EC (talk) 19:29, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

His initiated name was (Bhaktivedanta) Swami, assuming you mean sannyasa initiation. (His previous initiated name was Abhay Charanaravinda Das.) "Prabhupada" is an honorific also used by other Gaudiya Vaishnava leaders. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2023 (UTC)