Talk:ISKCON

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"ISKCON Bangalore has six shrines:

1. Main deities is of Radha-Krishna "

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article is *way* too long. ~2026-17090-40 (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

Yes I agree - some sections are quite extensive with a lot of granular detail and needs cleanup. I think WP:NOT (WP:NOTPAPER) and WP:NOTEVERYTHING seems relevant here. Asteramellus (talk) 22:02, 18 March 2026 (UTC) Reply