Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Hare Krishna

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was  deleted all. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 19:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Portal:Hare Krishna
This new portal has been created by an inexperienced user. It does not have much content and some of what it does have seems inappropriate. It would seem to duplicate part of the remit of Portal:Hinduism, which is a well developed and maintained portal covering all aspects of Hinduism, presumably including Hare Krishna.

Is there a case for Hare Krishna (or rather the International Society for Krishna Consciousness) to have its own portal? I do not think so but I am not familiar enough with the subject to be sure. That is why I didn't just slap PROD on it. Is there any scope for developing this into a good portal or is it fundamentally misconceived? DanielRigal (talk) 16:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions.  —DanielRigal (talk) 16:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as a non-sustainable recently created portal whose main cocontributor retired. I suggest to the creator that he/she put it in a subpage somewhere; this article does not warrant an entire portal as of yet. :| TelCo  NaSp  Ve :|  18:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per above; underdeveloped and stillborn portal. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

This new portal has been created by an inexperienced user (experienced/inexperienced... We have all experience for millions of lifetimes in this material universe, and now you say I need more material experience??? Very funny...). It does not have much content (yes, because people like you remove it again and again... Just like with article on cosmology - somebody says - oh, that is wrong, oh, that are sentiments, oh, that is vandalism etc... So thus they show their great ignorance...) and some of what it does have seems inappropriate (we are all imperfect souls... Well, make mistakes, so what??? Does it mean we cannot do anything? It is nature of soul - to be active - so have to do something - either material or spiritual. But this is process of purification - first we act imperfectly, then we can be purified in process of devotional service...). It would seem to duplicate part (well, there must be articles with right names with diactrics. Some articles which are present now - they even have wrong names - missing letters in hindi-spelling style etc... So that looks not nice at all. So Hare Krishna must be one where articles are named properly, and all those hindus might not say anything against - let them believe impersonal Brahman and commit spiritual suicide - we don't mind. or let those materialists/atheists reborn in material world life after life - let it be - if they pleasure in experiencing old, disease and death again and again... And there are vaisnavas - yes, they may also have some misconceptions, but that is ok if they say something backing up from scriptures. That makes faith stronger.) of the remit of Portal:Hinduism, which is a well developed (ha, what is hinduism now?? hundreds of impersonalists who say that Vishnu is product of matter? Or those who who say that Krishna is not even person, like those few PH.Ds or philosophers/yogis like RamakrishnaRamakrishna and Radhakrishnan Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, they are blind themselves and leading innocent with them into darkness or to impersonal Brahman. Ok, but we are not interested even in Paramatma/Supersoul concept, becasue there is no Supersoul in spiritual world, and one can see Supreme Godhead face to face... Unfortunately, they do not accept this, these so-called yogis, so-called jnanis/philosophers... So another portal is necessary... And name like Hare Krishna is good one.. Or it can be called Krishna consciousness, but Hare Krishna is good, so one can remember to chant Hare Krishna everytime he sees name of portal...) and maintained portal covering all aspects of Hinduism, presumably including Hare Krishna (No-no. Hinduism is perverted Krishna consciousness. Many 'hindus' are not even vaisnavas, thinking that Vishnu or Krishna is as good as Shiva or Brahma... You see what they did - they write about Brahman (read - spiritual suicide) as more important than Paramatma (yoga/meditation) or Bhagavan, Godhead... So they are not even Vaisnavas... They simply collect some speculation, but that is no more than jnana, which may lead to impersonal Brahman. Yes, they may be transcendentalists, but majority think that Hinduism includes Vaisnavism, Krishna consciousness. So that is wrong., Term hinduism is of foreign origin. Well, one can try to change articles in hinduism portal, including those 'hindu myhtology' portal, but that faces many problems, because they are simply so-called scholars, thinking Vaisnavism is just a myth, not reality... This is problem... So some another portal is needed... Why those rascals or fools have portals on atheism and we cannot have portal on Hare krishna, Krishna consciousness??? That is nonsensical and suicidal...).

Is there a case for Hare Krishna (or rather the International Society for Krishna Consciousness) (no, it is not just ISKCON, but there are many organizations. Actually, Krishan consciousness includes other Vaishnava sampradayas, including hinduism... But this might be hard to understand for non-devotees. Anyway, we do not want to mix much with the, as they spoil our philosophy.) to have its own portal (yes, why not? christians have, even different denominations. buddhists have. And so many materialistic articles have their portals... So we have so many scriptures - Vedas, Puranas, Srimad-Bhagavatam, Bhagavad-Gita, Caitanya Caritamrita and so on - and that is great philosophy, science of God. And it is said that this movement cannot be checked/stopped. So this is ok that someone like you try to delete this, but anyway, we'll make separate portal sooner or later. Because otherwise wikipedia disinform so many people about Vedas, and so people think that there is no God in Vedas or only some impersonal Brahman... This is what hinduism portal, and also that of 'hindu mythology' portal are doing. They have their errorneous ideas in names of their portals, so conclusions of their speculation is something different from Krishna consciosuness. Well, I can agree that this portal may be called 'Krishna consciousness', or alternatively even 'vaishanvaism', but something different has to be... Many times people contribute, but someone says that this is not bonafide... How come??? This is bona-fide sampradaya, disiciplic succession. How come that atheists have their portal??? No, that is not fair and would challenge them with our portal...)? I do not think so but I am not familiar enough with the subject to be sure (yes, if you are not familiar - you don't have to make your imperfect conclusions... You can say something about 'form' - on how articles are presented, and help portal to grow, but not something about its content - unless you know at least something about it from bona-fide sciptures...). That is why I didn't just slap PROD on it. Is there any scope for developing this into a good portal (definitely yes!) or is it fundamentally misconceived (atheists are mislead, what can I say. So we must have something to oppose them, and this effort is aimed for that.)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.132.246.112 (talk)

Hare Krishnas are not Hindu Can it Be That the Hare Krishnas Are Not Hindu? ISKCON's Srila Prabhupada's edicts on religion are clear

There is a misconception," wrote His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada in 1977 in Science of Self Realization, "that the Krishna consciousness movement represents the Hindu religion. Sometimes Indians both inside and outside of India think that we are preaching the Hindu religion, but actually we are not." In chapter three of the book [available from Bhaktivedanta Archives, P.O. Box 255, Sandy Ridge, North Carolina 27046 USA], this startling point is made several times: "The Krishna consciousness movement has nothing to do with the Hindu religion or any system of religion.... One should clearly understand that the Krishna consciousness movement is not preaching the so-called Hindu religion."

Followers of Srila Prabhupada have assembled all of his letters, books, lectures, interviews and conversations on the Bhaktivedanta Vedabase [also available from Bhaktivedanta Archives]. This CD-Rom database yielded 183 references to Hinduism, which were compiled and analyzed to understand Srila Prabhupada's point of view.

Often Srila Prabhupada would simply deny the existence of a religion called "Hinduism." He attributed the improper designation to "foreign invaders." At other times he acknowledged the existence of the faith, but considered it a hopelessly degraded form of the original Sanatana Dharma of the Vedas. In his April, 1967, New York lectures he remarked, "Although posing as great scholars, ascetics, householders and swamis, the so-called followers of the Hindu religion are all useless, dried-up branches of the Vedic religion." ISKCON, he believed, was the only true exponent of the Vedic faith today. In an interview given for Bhavan's Journal on June 28, 1976, he said, "India, they have given up the real religious system, Sanatana Dharma. Fictitiously, they have accepted a hodgepodge thing which is called Hinduism. Therefore there is trouble."

The Guru frequently explained his position, and acted upon his beliefs in establishing his dynamic society. At a 1974 Mumbai lecture, he declared, "We are not preaching Hindu religion. While registering the association, I purposely kept this name, 'Krishna Consciousness,' neither Hindu religion nor Christian nor Buddhist religion."

Srila Prabhupada was aware that the Indian community had a mistaken impression of his Hinduness. In a 1970 letter to a temple administrator in Los Angeles, he wrote, "The Hindu community in the West has got some good feeling for me because superficially they are seeing that I am spreading Hindu religion, but factually this Krishna Consciousness movement is neither Hindu religion nor any other religion." That remains the case today, for Srila Prabhupada left no successor with the authority to change his spiritual edicts.

So why does the general Hindu community mistakenly believe that ISKCON is a Hindu organization, when it never describes itself as such? Well, it sometimes does. During the recent ISKCON temple openings in New Delhi and Bangalore, where newspaper reports frequently identified the grand temples as Hindu, the ISKCON press releases, such as that of April 15, 1998, never used the H word. Yet, when Indian devotees serving at each of those temples were asked in late July by journalists for this article, they said it is a Hindu temple. The discrepancy between public perception and internal policy is further confused by the group's official exceptions to the non-Hindu position. Faced with difficulties, ISKCON leaders have appealed to the Hindu community to back them up, as in a dispute over the Bhaktivedanta Manor in the UK or when being hassled by Christians in Russia and Poland. In appeals to judges and governments, the word Hindu is openly used. In other legal cases, including one to the US Supreme Court, ISKCON has attempted to counteract the "cult" label by claiming to be a traditional Hindu lineage, and asked other Hindus to affirm this in the courts. Other organizations who parted company with Hinduism, such as Transcendental Meditation and Brahma Kumaris, do not compromise their position under any circumstances.

What also sets ISKCON apart is its open repudiation and criticism of Hinduism, especially among members. There are reports of Hindus who joined ISKCON only to be taught to reject their family's religion. "Previously we were Hindus. Now we are Hare Krishnas," some said. At the same time, the organization often appeals to the Hindu community and businessmen for financial support of its social programs and political help to protect ISKCON from detractors.

Considering ISKCON's appearances--member's dress, names, bhajana, festivals, worship, scripture, pilgrimage, temple building, and so forth--it's little wonder that so many have assumed they are Hindus. To find out they are not will certainly surprise many--Hindus and non-Hindus alike. It may even surprise a few Hare Krishnas themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.132.246.112 (talk) 18:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry if anybody was confused by the above. Its author was trying to refute me line by line and copied my signature in so it looked like I wrote it. I think it was a genuine mistake rather than a deliberate attempt to cause trouble.
 * Anyway, good luck to anybody trying to parse some sense into it. I have only skimmed it and think it probably can be summarised as a "keep" !vote predicated on the claim that Hare Krishna is not Hindu and hence outside the remit of the Hinduism Portal. This claim is plainly contradicted by the very first sentence of the article on Hare Krishna so I can't see it carrying much weight. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is written : "The International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON), also known as the Hare Krishna movement, is a Hindu Vaishnava religious organization."... just like if one would write: Christianity is jewish organization etc. Or that Buddhism is asian religion organization... This sounds quite strange, right??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.132.246.112 (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * More like you would write "Roman Catholicism is a Christian organisation" actually. Anyway, it is referenced and that is how Wikipedia works. We write what is supported by reliable references not our own opinions. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. This isn't a portal but more like a poorly written article. See Portal guidelines and Portal/Instructions on how to make a portal. MER-C 02:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It was pretty much blank when I sent it here. Since then the author has added a load of stuff making it more of a POV essay than anything else (and then he got himself blocked for a week). I think that seals its fate. --DanielRigal (talk) 09:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Per all above. This doesn't even seem as though it is a portal.  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 04:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, User is attempting to use this page to convert the reader to Hinduism, as is clear from their edits on Talk pages. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think this comment on my talk page would support your theory. P. D. Cook  Talk to me! 14:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete '''Delete Portal and subpages - I can see no need for this portal in the first place. Aren't portals supposed to be about very broad topics? Won't the Hinduism portal suffice? Furthermore, this portal is so POV that even if it's to be kept, it needs to be completely restarted. Aren't portals subject to the same policies and guidelines as the rest of Wikipedia in that they shouldn't contain OR and POV? P. D. Cook  Talk to me! 14:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - What a mess. Jusdafax  16:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion, be it of a product, service, or religion. &mdash; Train2104 (talk· contribs· count· email) 20:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - The user has made several subpages for this portal such as Portal:Hare Krishna/Selected picture/1, Portal:Hare Krishna/Selected article/5, Portal:Hare Krishna/Things You Can Do, and many more. I'm not sure how the software works. Do those automatically get deleted if the Portal:Hare Krishna gets deleted, or do they have to be deleted individually? P. D. Cook  Talk to me! 05:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The software doesn't delete things automatically at all. Deletion is done by an administrator manually submitting a WWW form for each individual page to be deleted.  But you can ask the editors who commented prior to the sub-pages being created whether their opinions apply equally to all of the sub-pages as well, in which case they should explicitly note that in this discussion. Uncle G (talk) 10:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Portal:Hare Krishna/Wikimedia
 * Portal:Hare Krishna/Selected picture/1
 * Portal:Hare Krishna/Selected article/5 ‎
 * Portal:Hare Krishna/Things You Can Do ‎
 * Portal:Hare Krishna/Related Wikimedia
 * Portal:Hare Krishna/WikiProjects ‎
 * Portal:Hare Krishna/Wikimedia ‎
 * Portal:Hare Krishna/Related Portals‎
 * Portal:Hare Krishna/Things you can do ‎
 * Portal:Hare Krishna/Topics
 * Portal:Hare Krishna/Wikiprojects ‎
 * Portal:Hare Krishna/Did you know
 * Portal:Hare Krishna/Selected article/2 ‎
 * Portal:Hare Krishna/Selected Hare Krishna/6‎
 * Portal:Hare Krishna/Selected picture/6 ‎
 * Portal:Hare Krishna/Categories
 * Portal:Hare Krishna/Selected Quote
 * Portal:Hare Krishna/Selected Personage ‎
 * Portal:Hare Krishna/Selected Picture ‎
 * Portal:Hare Krishna/Selected Deva ‎
 * Portal:Hare Krishna/Selected Article ‎
 * Portal:Hare Krishna/box-header
 * Portal:Hare Krishna/Did You Know? ‎
 * Portal:Hare Krishna/box-footer


 * Delete page and subpages: unhelpful; looks like an attempt at an article, but no encyclopedic content. Johnuniq (talk) 07:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Also delete the subpages. Oy vey! They author of the subpages (almost certainly a sock of the creator of the portal) got himself blocked indefinitely for vandalism and abusive behaviour (and that has got to be bad Karma!). Nothing he has done shows any understanding of NPOV, proper sourcing, or any respect for other editors or the project as a whole. Anybody else who wants to expand our coverage of Hare Krishna in a constructive way is very welcome to do so in the article space but clearly there is no scope to do anything useful with any of this rubbish. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Also delete the subpages - The author, I assume, came to my Talk page with various insults. Agree with Daniel that they show zero ability and/or desire to understand how Wikipedia works and what it is. A new broom sweeps clean. Jusdafax  19:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete all and make sure to sever any ties related to the portal. :| TelCo  NaSp  Ve :|  19:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the only things in the article space linking to the portal are currently at AfD: Vedic Cosmology and Krishna consciousness philosophy. P. D. Cook  Talk to me! 19:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete the entirety... & agree with TeleCom... that ties need to be cleaned up as well. Skier Dude  ( talk  05:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete including all subpages. It's just unstructured incoherent rambling, bearing no resemblance to encyclopedia content whatsoever. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

If this is true: "The atheist Jimmy Wales was a lead founder of Wikipedia. Please feel free to contact the atheist Jimmy Wales" - that founder of wikipedia treats himslef as atheist - then I understand why here are so many atheists... Anyway, let's find out if he is theist.. It is said that there is no atheist in this world... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.132.239.216 (talk) 17:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I really don't know why you keep banging on about Atheists. Statistically there are very few Atheists in the world and there certainly is no Atheist conspiracy on Wikipeida.
 * The really great thing about Wikipedia is that people of all religions (and Atheists) are all able to work together to write an encyclopaedia that we can all use. The way we do this is by adopting neutral point of view. We are able to explain what different religions believe without endorsing or denigrating any particular belief. We stick to the facts and avoid shouting our own opinions. That way we avoid getting into arguments.
 * You seem to think that your stuff is up for deletion because we disagree with what you say. This is not true. We can barely understand what you say anyway. Your stuff is up for deletion because it is confusing, incoherent, badly written, unsourced, opinionated, hectoring, misplaced and duplicative of existing, better, content already on Wikipedia. This really isn't about anybody's religious views, or lack of them. This is about us trying to write an excellent encyclopaedia with solid factual content that the readers can actually understand and use. Thus far, you have not been helping us to do this. You have been selfishly perusing your own agenda and bullying people who try to prevent this. You will note that other Hindus and Hare Krishna followers are able to contribute here without any problems. This is about your inappropriate behaviour as an individual, not your religion as a group. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.