Talk:International Society for Krishna Consciousness

Monotheism vs Henotheism

Hi @P77.35.6R.S4, I noticed that you reverted my edit without providing an explanation. The original lead referenced ISKCON to be a monotheistic Hindu denomination. The article expands, under the section "Singular Worship of Krishna," how the denomination is monotheistic and provides a reference. You updated the lead to say "henotheistic" in lieu of "monotheistic" without provide any reference or expansion on this later in the article.

Without an explanation supported with a reliable source, I plan to revert the sentence back to it's original verbiage.

Thanks!

Whitestar12 (talk) 03:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@Dāsānudāsa - Just saw your edits on the page and looks like that addresses this concern I had (since my original revert was reverted by the editor). Thanks!

Whitestar12 (talk) 14:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome, thanks for flagging it! Dāsānudāsa (talk) 12:56, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

"Hare Krishna movement"

This article lists "Hare Krishna movement" in bold as a synonym for ISKCON specifically. I am not sure this is correct. I think "Hare Krishnas" can also be members of other modern Vaishnava groups (Sri Caitanya Saraswat Math, the International Pure Bhakti Society, Swami Tripurari's sangha, etc.) and suggest it belongs on the Gaudiya Vaishnavism article instead, perhaps specifically in the 20th century section. Thoughts? Dāsānudāsa (talk) 13:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Concerns Over Unverified Claims in the Chattogram Clashes Incident

@Cerium4B: The claim about protesters chanting "Jai Shri Ram" during the Chattogram clashes is problematic due to the absence of credible references explicitly supporting this detail in the cited sources. References such as those from Daily Bangladesh, bdnews24, and The Business Standard discuss the unrest, the involvement of ISKCON members, and the violence but do not verify the use of this slogan. Including such a claim without reliable evidence introduces bias and may misrepresent the event by framing it as predominantly religious in nature. To adhere to Wikipedia’s verifiability and neutrality guidelines, any unverified claims or potentially inflammatory details should either be sourced from credible, published accounts.or omitted entirely to maintain the integrity and impartiality of the article.

Secondly, I also agree that the clash can be categorized under both persecution and criticism and controversies. However, why did you remove the sourced content, such as the statement that the unrest was triggered by a Facebook post from Osman Ali, a member of Jamat-e-Islami and a local shop owner, advocating for a ban on ISKCON? You removed references from The Business Standard, ThePrint, NDTV and Livemint which are treated as reliable sources according to the Wikipedian community.

Aryan^{Talk} 05:12, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Please link the statement and sources you mentioned in the last paragraph, it certainly warrants attention. Aspweb (talk) 14:17, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

The murder of Abrar Fahad

The article says: "Amit Saha, who was given life imprisonment for the murder of Abrar Fahad was a member of the organisation" (ISKCON).

But Wiki also tells us that Amit Saha was also Deputy Law Secretary of the BUET Chhatra League.

All the other participants in the murder were members of the BUET Chhatra League and by name (but for one) were certainly not members of ISKCON.

Mehedi Hasan Robin, the Organizing Secretary of the BUET Chhatra League Amit Saha, the Deputy Law Secretary Mujtaba Rafid, the Deputy Office Secretary of BUET Chhatra League Khandaker Tabakkharul Islam Tanvir, a third-year Mechanical Engineering student Muntasir Al Jemi, a second-year student from the same department Shamsul Arefin Rafat, a second-year Mechanical Engineering student, Anik Sarkar, the Information and Research Secretary of BUET Chhatra League and a fourth-year Mechanical Engineering student Mujahidur Rahman, a third-year Electrical Engineering studentMujahidur Rahman, a third-year Electrical Engineering student

Thus, the murder is connected with Amit Saha's membership in the BUET Chhatra League and his membership in ISKCON is as irrelevant as his library membership, or the fact that all but one of the other culprits are members of Islam. Arun (talk) 14:20, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

That is part of the criticism and controversy. You will only find these mentioned there. If you go to the criticism section of Chatra League, you will find them there too. Nothing extra is mentioned here. Saadi095 (talk) 16:07, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Discussion on removing bullet points for better reading as a prose.

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

@Xoocit,

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

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

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

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

Concerns About the Reliability of Sources: Samakal, Daily Naya Diganta, and Daily Inqilab

Hello everyone,

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

Samakal

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

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

Daily Naya Diganta

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

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

Daily Inqilab

Frequently criticized for its sensationalist reporting and political bias.

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

General Concerns

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

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

Recommendations

I propose that:

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

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

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

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

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

@Jesuspaul502,

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

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

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

=== 1. Historical Controversies Matter ===

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

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

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

=== 2. Supporting Evidence ===

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

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

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

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

=== 4. Moving Forward ===

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

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

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

N

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

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

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

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

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

Hi @Cerium4B,

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

1. Allegation of AI Usage:

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

2. Verification of Claims:

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

3. Reverting Edits:

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

4. Personal Comments:

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

5. Moving Forward:

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

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