Jump to content

Talk:Kailasa Candra Dasa

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Orphan

[edit]

This article is no longer an orphan as I have included a link to it from the Henry Doktorski page. Henry Doktorski (talk) 07:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

[edit]

Who decides which articles are notable enough to stay on Wikipedia? For example, there are many articles which are very short and have hardly any references. On the other hand, on Wikipedia we can find biographies of various famous criminals, which means that I could write an article on some famous Serbian criminal (since I am from Serbia) and that it would possibly get approval. Moreover, this author has a few noteworthy books on Jyotish and Indian philosophy which are available on Amazon and mentioned in newspapers such as The Daily Illini and Indian philosophy websites such as The Sampradaya Sun, etc. Therefore, he has more credibility than some other people to warrant an article on Wikipedia. Goranper18 (talk) 17:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of the things you mentioned are reliable independent sources. Per WP:NBASIC, "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The author's own books, ISKCON-connected websites such as the Sampradaya Sun, and student newspapers are independent and/or reliable. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 06:25, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ, maths is an exact science. So let’s count here:
1. 11. Amazon.com, an independent source which sells 6 books from the author.
2. 14, 15. The Daily ILLINI, Sheppard Robert, an independent source.
3. 1, 3, 9, 19. Mr. Henry Doktorski, an independent author whose books are also sold on Amazon.com, an independent source.
4. 5. Academia.edu, an independent source.
5. 4, 7, 10, 16. Sampradaya Sun, an independent source.
So regarding notability, I see at least five different independent sources and a total of 13 citations from those five sources. So the conclusion is that the statement that this biography has not enough notability is incorrect or a highly subjective opinion, since you can find biographies on Wikipedia with less independent sources and no one complained there regarding notability. Standards should be the same for everyone, otherwise you have double standards, if not even discrimination. Goranper18 (talk) 10:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) 1. Primary source, 2. A student newspaper (hardly indicative of notability for an encyclopaedia entry), 3. Yes, 4. self-published, 5. questionable source that takes submissions from anyone, 6. dead link but looks like it was established by the Vaishnava Foundation, Kailasa Chandra's group. Doktorski's book and, at a push, the 1970s student newspaper articles, are the only reliable sources (which has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia with which you should familiarise yourself) as it stands.
If someone nominated this article for deletion now I'm 99% sure it would be deleted. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 11:44, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dāsānudāsa, your motivation here is tainted and you display double standards. You are supporter of ISKCON inc. cult leaders. Recently you made significant effort to prevent the deletion of Sivarama Swami's page, one of the prominent ISKCON inc. cult leaders; your username also hints that you fall in that line. Kailasa Candra dasa is a heavy critic of those ISKCON inc. cult leaders so you came here after him. Your motivation is tainted and your arguments should be judged accordingly. Djangomango1 (talk) 12:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also supported the deletion of articles about Hridaya Caitanya Dasa, Hanumetpresaka Swami and Urmila Dasi, among other non-notable ISKCON figures. Do you want to strike out your personal attack on me? Or shall I ask an admin to look into why there are two brand-new accounts suddenly interested in this page, one of whom apparently knows how to look at my contributions despite only having made a single edit? Dāsānudāsa (talk) 15:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has added five new notable links with significant coverage.
1. 9. Johanson, Eric. "About Us". The Krishnaites.
2. 10. ^ Constance Jones, James D. Ryan (2006). Encyclopedia of Hinduism. Google Books: Facts on File. pp. 287–288. ISBN 0-8160-5458-4.
3. 13, Krishnakant (March 4, 2008). "Kailasa Candra's Ritvik Concoction". Iskcon Revival Movement.
4. "Student publication of the university of wisconsin-milwaukee". THE UWM POST. September 27, 1974.
5. B. BARR, PATRICK (October 11, 1974). "Noise Prompts Soglin to Close Mall Festival". Wisconsin State Journal.
These are secondary sources and one of them is Encyclopedia of Hinduism. In my opinion, based on fact that we are speaking about an author of six remarkable books and a philosopher and a man of knowledge, who for sure benefited a lot of his readers, and that now there are enough notable citations, the issue is resolved and red flag should be removed.
I also suggest upgrading the status of this article from B to GA. Goranper18 (talk) 07:29, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Encyclopedia of Hinduism entry on Kailasa Chandra's organisation (the Metamorphosis League for Monastic Studies) is a good one, and the newspapers are OK for coverage from his ISKCON years. Eric Johanson is obviously not at all independent, being a student of KC's, and his organisation is not notable. Being mentioned by the IRM is also not a good indicator of notability.
We now have two good-quality sources (Doktorski and the Encyclopedia). I didn't add the notability banner, but I don't think notability has been clearly established based on the above. @Justlettersandnumbers:, thoughts? Dāsānudāsa (talk) 15:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the author of six books that are sold on Amazon.com, Walmart, Discover books, etc. and the author of 21 philosophical articles is included in the printed Encyclopedia for Religion is more than enough when we speak of notability .
Of course, other sources like Mr. Doktorski’s book and a few newspapers like Wisconsin State Journal, as well as a few other independent sources provide additional notability.
Any neutral and expert reader will agree with these facts. But if someone has some personal issue with this author, that is another thing, and for sure the opinion of such a person cannot be taken in serious consideration while making a decision regarding notability.
In the Wikipedia Standards for Notability, there is no requirement that an article must have a certain number of notable sources. That means that even one good notable source is enough. The printed Encyclopedia of Religion fits that description.
Otherwise including biographies of different low class criminals or 3rd class footballers, tennis players and other sports persons, actors, etc. on the pages of Wikipedia and excluding important authors and philosophers of 20th and 21st century indicates serious bias in selection of those who make such absurd decisions. Goranper18 (talk) 10:36, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The fact that [he is] the author of six books that are sold on Amazon.com, Walmart, Discover books, etc. and the author of 21 philosophical articles" is completely irrelevant here. They are primary sources.
The relevant guideline is WP:GNG -- see particularly the parts about reliable, significant, independent sources, and what those definitions mean:
A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
  • "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
    • The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM.
    • Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.
  • "Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
  • "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
  • "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.
  • "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
But like I said, I didn't add the tag, so I'll wait for a second opinion. If none is forthcoming, we might consider a request for comment or similar. I'll also post to Wikipedia:WikiProject Hinduism. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 10:54, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the following entries can all be counted as secondary, reliable independent sources:
Kailasa Candra dasa is notable enough to be referenced in Facts on File’s 2007 “Encyclopedia of Hinduism”, (part of its Encyclopedia of World Religions series) under the entry for the organization he co-founded: Metamorphosis League for Monastic Studies. See pp. 287-288 https://u1lib.org/book/610123/81abc5
Kailasa Candra dasa was notable enough that ISKCON inc. passed a special resolution about his activities: "1. Resolved: That the
yearly GBC secretary will write a letter to all ISKCON centers warning about the poisonous activities of Kailas Candra Das" (GBC RESOLUTIONS 1979. MARCH 1,1979.) http://gbc.iskcon.org/1979-2/
Kailasa Candra dasa is a historically significant person due to the fact that he was the editor for Sulochan das’ whistleblowing publication “The Guru Business” [online here https://harekrsna.org/pada/guru_biz.htm] You can see a tribute to Sulochan
das with statements from Kailasa Candra dasa at Henry Doktorki’s website here: http://www.henrydoktorski.com/Killing4Krishna/Tributes.pdf
Kailasa Candra dasa is also mentioned in many places in Henry Doktorsky’s books “Killing for Krishna” & “Eleven Naked Emperors”.
Kailasa Candra dasa is a contributing author of several articles on an independent online Vaishnava newspaper VAISHNAVA NEWS NETWORK http://vaishnava-news-network.org/world/9808/26-2074/index.html
Kailasa Candra dasa was interviewed by PATRICK B. BARR Of The Wisconsin State Journal: https://www.srilaprabhupadalila.org/read/SPFNPC_0635
Kailasa Candra dasa (Jerould Goodwin) is a founder, secretary and chief financial officer of "METEMORPHOSIS LEAGUE FOR MONASTIC STUDIES: THE VAISHNAVA FOUNDATION, INC" https://businesssearch.sos.ca.gov/Document/RetrievePDF?Id=01604609-32175461 Modern Aussie (talk) 13:19, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did mean an actual other person, rather than a third brand-new account which is clearly either the same editor or someone associated extremely closely with them and/or KC Das. You might want to read WP:CANVAS and/or WP:SOCK.
Also, did you read the discussion/notability guidelines above? If so, why have you rehashed some of the exact same non-sources, when I've already explained they are not WP:RS as needed for a Wikipedia article? The Sulochan book won't cut it either: "Harekrsna.org"/PADA is not a reliable source, and if Sulochan is not notable enough to have an article, why would his editor be? Dāsānudāsa (talk) 16:36, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Dasanudasa, my account is not brand new. It is at least one year old. You can see that I made small contributions to some articles a few months ago. As for the other two accounts, they are not mine, but you are right that they are obviously concerned about this article. On the other hand, I am not overly concerned about it, but I find it curious that you are complaining about this article which has a lot of references, some of which are very good secondary references, when articles such as those on Jayananda Prabhu and Vishnujana Swami have hardly any references and are rather short. Perhaps that is because Kailasa Candra is very critical of ISKCON (as well as Gaudiya Matha and ex-ISKCON Swamis who founded their Maths and various ritvik groups). There is a gulf of difference between him and Sulochan. Sulochan was not that much into philosophy nor an author (if we exclude that one book), whereas Kailasa Candra is an author of several books. There are not that many people who can write a book on Vedic astrology, for example, and who are also well acquainted with various Indian philosophies. Therefore, we can conclude that he is not just some obscure author who wrote a few totally unimportant books. Goranper18 (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
His claim that "if Sulochan is not notable enough to have an article, why would his editor be?" makes no sense. If somebody does not have a Wikipedia article does not necessarily mean that he is not notable enough. Sulocana das (Steve Bryant) can be found all over the Internet in mayor newspapers like NYTIMES, LATIMES etc. There was also a documentary about his assassination "The Krishna Killers"(https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7873956). It just means that nobody created his Wikipedia page, yet. Djangomango1 (talk) 07:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please excuse me if my notes and formatting are not standard. It's been some time since I edited any Wiki pages. I wish to give my reasons why Kailasa Candra's Wikipedia page should not be deleted. He is an important figure in Hare Krishna history, for several reasons: (1) He wrote the position paper for the reformers who debated the eleven ISKCON gurus at the Vrindaban, India temple in February 1979. (See Henry Doktorski, "Eleven Naked Emperors," Chapter 8: Crushing the Opposition.) [1]

In addition, (2) Kailasa Candra served as editor for Sulochan (Steven Bryant) for his book, "The Guru Business," [2] a book which attempted to expose the corruption of ISKCON gurus such as Kirtanananda Swami Bhaktipada. Sulochan was assassinated by a disciple of Kirtanananda in May 1986. (See Henry Doktorski, "Killing For Krishna," Chapter One.) [3]

(3) Kailasa Candra co-founded The Vaishnava Foundation, a forum dedicated to presenting “the philosophy of Krishna consciousness as it was presented most recently by our spiritual master, His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada,” with a special focus on “the need to discriminate between sentimentally-driven Krishna consciousness and Krishna consciousness which is actually based on the instructions of the previous spiritual masters.” [4]

(4) Kailasa Candra is the author of "Beyond Institutional Gurus, Initiations, And Party Men," his personal, and I believe accurate, commentary on the history of the zonal acharya era of ISKCON. [5]

(5) And last but not least, Kailasa Candra served as editor and consultant for two of my books about Hare Krishna History, "Killing For Krishna" and "Eleven Naked Emperors." (Citations given above)

In my opinion, Kailasa Candra is a notable figure in the Hare Krishna movement. Henry Doktorski (talk) 03:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Henry Doktorski[reply]

Another solid independent reliable source was added: Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions; Gale: 8th edition (February 13, 2009) https://vdoc.pub/download/encyclopedia-of-american-religions-7th-edition-2003-3slru30pgd7g Djangomango1 (talk) 10:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To all those who have contributed to this Talk page concerning the “notability” of Kailasa Candra dasa: @Justlettersandnumbers @Dāsānudāsa @Modern Aussie @Djangomango1 @Henry Doktorski …
Thank you for your efforts to improve Wikipedia. I see and judge from the many recently added references that the “notability” of Kailasa Candra dasa has been firmly established. I am therefore requesting that the questionable notability banner be removed from the top of this article.
NOTICE: If no feedback from Wiki admin is given or action taken in regards to this notability banner, then after 5 days I will remove the banner myself.
Anyone familiar with the history of Srila AC Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada’s Krishna Consciousness movement after his disappearance is fully aware of the significance of Kailasa Candra dasa. I will not regurgitate the many references appearing in this article, but merely highlight a few of the most important.
The Metamorphosis League for Monastic Studies: The Vaishnava Foundation, Inc. is the organization which Kailasa Candra dasa co-founded & in which he has served as co-director since the late 1980s. Entries on this organization can be found in reputable encyclopedias of religion. Melton’s Encyclopedia of American Religions is published by Gale, a highly regarded academic publisher. Facts on File is another reference publisher whose materials appear in, I dare say, nearly all English-language schools and libraries. And they include Kailasa Candra dasa’s organization in their Encyclopedia of Hinduism, which is part of their larger Encyclopedia of World Religions series. Henry Doktorski, one of the most well-known scholars on the history of ISKCON who has his own Wiki page, references Kailasa Candra dasa in many of his books. He has also chimed in on this Talk page to substantiate Kailasa Candra dasa’s notability even further.
Many of the Gauidya Vaishnava reform groups which emerged well after Kailasa Candra dasa’s organization have their own Wiki pages. To remove Kailasa Candra dasa’s Wiki page would be unfair targeting of one Gaudiya leader, a censoring of Gaudiya history, and a disservice to the entire Wiki community. Goranper18 (talk) 20:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. The editor who added the template hasn't chimed in so I think you've waited long enough. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 09:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC) [reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.amazon.com/dp/1079561374
  2. ^ http://www.harekrsna.org/pada/guru_biz.htm
  3. ^ https://www.amazon.com/Killing-Krishna-Danger-Deranged-Devotion/dp/154460727X/
  4. ^ https://www.therealexplanation.org
  5. ^ https://www.amazon.com/Kailasa-Candra-dasa/e/B081WZP832%3F
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kailasa_Candra_Dasa&oldid=1207893343"