text:
Talk:DNA polymerase

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 May 2020 and 22 June 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cstaheli. Peer reviewers: Mkalarobinson, Km86867. 20:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

DNA Polymerase α
In the article it says that it acts both as the Primase enzyme and the Polymerase. According to pg567, World of the Cell (Becker et al, 2006, Benjamin Cummings) although the Primase and the Pol α are closely asssociated they are separate proteins. I've looked through some other literature but its mostly older stuff so is fairly ambiguous.GiollaUidir 08:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Infact, I've found another source that says they are separate: Figure 4-36, pg136, Molecular Cell Biology, Lodish et al., 2004, W.H. Freeman and Company. I'll edit when I get a chance. (Guess who's in the middle of an essay!? :P)GiollaUidir 09:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Made the edit. Primase actually combines with the PriS and PriL subunits, with the subunits active in creating the RNA primer, and Pol alpha extending the RNA primer with DNA for 20-30 nt. This is a source from 2006 and is what I was taught this year so it should be fairly recent. Jimhsu77479 (talk) 08:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Confusing sentence
"Nuclease is a great advocate for DNA replication." ... maybe it's just today, but I have no idea what that is actually trying to say. Nuclease CLEAVES DNA strands so I don't think you want too much of it around during replication. Jimhsu77479 (talk) 06:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed this makes no sense. Get rid of it or replace with meaningful sentence.

Primer removal
Any idea what actually removes the RNA primer from the DNA strand? Pol I in prokaryotes as far as I can see but I can't find what removes it from eukaryotes.GiollaUidir 08:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes, I'm talking to myself. 'tis Proliferating Cell Nuclear Antigen-Replication Factor C-DNA Polymerase δ (PCNA-Rfc-DNA Pol δ-a complex formed to stabilise Pol ’s binding to the template) from: Figure 4-36, pg136, Molecular Cell Biology, Lodish et al., 2004, W.H. Freeman and Company.GiollaUidir 09:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/34/6/1772

As far as I know, DNA pol delta displaces the primer, which creates a flap removed by flap endonuclease. Ligase seals the resulting nick. (I don't have a particular reference in mind). Jimhsu77479 (talk) 08:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Introduction
You introduced what the enzyme does, but should have also mentioned the different types in prokaryotes vs eukaryotes. There should be a reference to the possibilities of mutation and what could happen if that takes place. Referring to its importance in lab procedures is not important to the wider audience that may be trying to understand holistically what a DNA polymerase protein is and does. Arjbajarj (talk) 05:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Strand nomenclature?
I've always thought that "leading" and "lagging" refer to newly synthesized strands, not the template strands. As such, it would seem to me that pol δ and ε are mislabeled.--Estelahe 20:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought that technically it doesn't matter: the leading strand is simply the one that can replicate continuously in a 5'->3' fashion without stopping. But yes, the title of that reference for Dna pol epsilon directly conflicts with the statement in the article. Maybe more references are needed, or it should be labeled "ambiguous"? Jimhsu77479 (talk) 08:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Nomenclature
There seem to be lots of different ways to link to pages about individual polymerases used in this article. What is the standard nomenclature / page list? --Dan|(talk) 14:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Catalytic mechanism?
Can someone point me at good references describing the active site / catalytic mechanism of the polymerase? Is it a single domain, or do several domains need to work in concert in order to catalyse the addition of a base? Structural differences between the (presumably conserved) catalytic domains of the different enzyme types must be fascinating, so I'd like to start a section on that topic. --Dan|(talk) 14:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for updates/edits
Below is a justification of why our group for our Molecular Biology course chose to update this article: We have chosen to edit and update the DNA Polymerase Wikipedia article due to the “High Importance” placed on this article by the MCB WikiProject. Currently, the status of the article is rated as “Start Class” meaning that it has an overall grade below a C on the quality scale. The DNA Polymerase page has more information than a stub article but it lacks flow, clarity and numerous references. Finding and adding references should be a quick fix that will greatly enhance the article and the article’s credibility. A good starting point will be to investigate further the suggestions from the talk page and implement those changes where appropriate. At first glance, we have also identified that the article lacks information on the functionality of the various DNA Polymerase subunits. In addition, there is significant information and research that can be added about the holoenzyme complex. We have also just learned about processivity of DNA Polymerase when interacting with clamp proteins and this vital information is missing from the article. The sections outlining the DNA Polymerase families lacks references, flow and connectivity. Additionally, these sections can be expanded to elaborate on the similarities, differences and research performed on the different families. While we do not want to duplicate the sections referencing Prokaryotic DNA polymerase and Eukaryotic DNA polymerase on other Wikipedia pages, we feel that sections could be included that outline any similarities and differences between the two types of polymerases. We think that the DNA Polymerase page will allow us as a group to not only expand our knowledge on a very important subject in molecular biology, but the different needs of the page allow us to work on various functions within Wikipedia that will expand our overall knowledge of Wikipedia.

Below is our suggested new outline for this article with the possiblity of merging Prokaryotic DNA polymerase and Eukaryotic DNA polymerase pages with this main page as they are short pages:

 * 1. History
 * 1.1 purification
 * 2. Function/Action
 * 2.1 Catalytic Mechanism 2.2 Processivity
 * 3. Variations among species
 * 3.1 Prokaryotic Polymerases
 * 3.1.1 pol I
 * 3.1.2 pol II
 * 3.1.3 pol III
 * 3.1.4 pol IV
 * 3.1.5 pol V
 * 3.2 Eukaryotic polymerases
 * 3.2.1 Polymerase beta and lambda
 * 3.2.2 Polymerases alpha, delta and epsilon
 * 3.2.3 Polymerase eta, iota and kappa
 * 3.2.4 Polymerase Rev1 and polymerase zeta
 * 3.2.5 Polymerase sigma
 * 3.2.6 Telomerase
 * 3.2.7 Polymerase gamma
 * 3.2.8 Polymerase mu
 * 3.2.9 Polymerase theta

Does anyone have any suggestions, concerns, or any feedback on our ideas? We would greatly appreciate any feedback that anyone has to offer. Thanks! Abenson9 (talk) 03:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This article would greatly benefit from some sustained attention, and I'm excited about the work that Johns Hopkins University is doing with WikiProject MCB.  The proposed article restructuring sounds reasonable to me.  Here are a few suggestions:
 * I would add an "Evolution" section to specifically discuss the evolutionary origins of DNA polymerase and its variations, and a "Technological applications" section to discuss, e.g., the subject's use in PCR and DNA sequencing.
 * Keep in mind that accessibility is important. When introducing technical jargon, a small amount of context goes a long way.
 * I'll be available to give feedback if wanted -- just leave a note here or on my talk page. Best, Emw (talk) 15:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for your feedback. We will keep you posted on our updates! Abenson9 (talk) 00:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm from group 83D and I like the work you are doing on this article. When you say History do you intend to speak to how and where the first DNA polymerase was discovered? I think the article could benefit from more information on the active site of DNA polymerase. What metal ions, interactions, and residues are important for the reaction to occur. Katesee (talk) 23:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, Kate we do intend to speak to how and where the first DNA polymerase was discovered. I have added a section on that just now.  I also like your other suggestions and will work to incorporate that. I was thinking it might potentially fit in the function section following the newly added structure description.  Let us know what you think as we progress.  Thank you for your input.Aehall47 (talk) 14:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merger of subsections into this article
Please post any suggestions surrounding the merger of Prokaryotic DNA polymerase and Eukaryotic DNA polymerase to the main page of DNA polymerase Abenson9 (talk) 03:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, I think, what you meant was, that you want discussion to take place right here. Klortho (talk) 03:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I favor the merger. It seems logical for this article to discuss general features of DNA pols and provide an overview of the different individual polymerases (pol alpha, pol I, etc), and then link to pages specific to the individual pols. I don't see the point of maintaining separate articles for eukaryotic and prokaryotic pols, since each of those enzymes (e.g. prokaryotic pol I, II and III) are as different from one another as they are from the eukaryotic enzymes. And then there are further complications, such as (1) whether the mitochondrial and chloroplast DNA polymerases are actually eukaryotic or prokaryotic, (2) where to put the archaeal enzymes, and (3) where to put viral and bacteriophage polymerases. --John Mackenzie Burke (talk) 03:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Consolidation/Movement of Information
I moved the information below and categorized it by Prokaryotic vs. Eukaryotic polymerases like mentioned above. I am going to delete the sections below but wanted to preserve the information below somewhere so that if someone disagrees we have a point of reference. Abenson9 (talk) 18:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Family AFamily A polymerases function as repair and replication polymerases[3]. Replicative members from this family include T7 DNA polymerase, T3 DNA polymerase and T5 DNA polymerase. Additional polymerases associated with replication are the eukaryotic mitochondrial DNA polymerase γ and DNA polymerase θ. The repair polymerases are DNA polymerase υ, Escherichia coli DNA pol I, Thermus aquaticus pol I, and Bacillus stearothermophilus pol I. These repair polymerases are involved in excision repair and processing of Okazaki fragments generated during lagging strand synthesis.

[edit] Family BB family polymerases are involved in nuclear DNA replication. These include; Pol II (bacterial), Pol B (archaebacterial), and Pol α, δ, ε, ζ (eukaryotic). Pol α consists of four subunits, two α and two-subunit primase. Once primase has crated the RNA primer, Pol α starts replication. Pol δ takes over the lagging strand synthesis and Pol ε takes over leading strand synthesis from Pol α.[4] Pol ζ another B family polymerase, is made of two subunits Rev3 and Rev7 and is involved in translesion synthesis. Pol ζ is unique in that it can extend primers with terminal mismatches.

[edit] Family CPolymerases in Family C are the primary bacterial chromosomal replicative enzymes with no eukaryotic equivalents. DNA polymerase III holoenzyme is the primary enzyme invoved in DNA replication in E. coli. It consists of three assemblies: the pol III core, the beta sliding clamp processivity factor and the clamp-loading complex. The core consists of three subunits - α, the polymerase activity hub, ɛ, exonucleolytic proofreader, and θ, which may act as a stabilizer for ɛ. The holoenzyme contains two cores, one for each strand, the lagging and leading. [5] The beta sliding clamp processivity factor is also present in duplicate, one for each core, to create a clamp that encloses DNA allowing for high processivity. [6] The third assembly is a seven-subunit (τ2γδδ′χψ) clamp loader complex. [7] Recent research has classified Family C polymerases as a subcategory of Family X. [8]

[edit] Family DPolymerases are still not very well characterized. All known examples are found in the Euryarchaeota subdomain of Archaea and are thought to be replicative polymerases.

[edit] Family XContains the well-known eukaryotic polymerase pol β, as well as other eukaryotic polymerases such as pol σ, pol λ, pol μ, and terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase (TdT). Pol β is required for short-patch base excision repair, a DNA repair pathway that is essential for repairing alkylated or oxidised bases as well as abasic sites. Pol λ and Pol μ are involved in non-homologous end-joining, a mechanism for rejoining DNA double-strand breaks. TdT is expressed only in lymphoid tissue, and adds "n nucleotides" to double-strand breaks formed during V(D)J recombination to promote immunological diversity. The yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae has only one Pol X polymerase, Pol IV, which is involved in non-homologous end-joining.

[edit] Family YY Polymerases differ from others in having a low fidelity on undamaged templates and in their ability to replicate through damaged DNA, known as translesion synthesis (TLS). Members of this family are hence called translesion synthesis polymerases. Depending on the lesion, TLS polymerases can bypass the damage in an error-free or error-prone fashion, the latter resulting in elevated mutagenesis. Xeroderma pigmentosum variant (XPV) patients for instance have mutations in the gene encoding Pol η (eta), which is error-free for UV-lesions. In XPV patients, alternative error-prone polymerases, e.g., Pol ζ (zeta) (polymerase ζ is a B Family polymerase a complex of the catalytic subunit REV3L with Rev7, which associates with Rev1[9]), are thought to be involved in mistakes that result in the cancer predisposition of these patients. Other members in humans are Pol ι (iota), Pol κ (kappa), and Rev1 (terminal deoxycytidyl transferase). In E. coli, two TLS polymerases, Pol IV (DINB) and Pol V (UmuD'2C), are known.

[edit] Family RTSome viruses also encode special DNA polymerases, such as Hepatitis B virus DNA polymerase. These may selectively replicate viral DNA through a variety of mechanisms. Retroviruses encode an unusual DNA polymerase called reverse transcriptase, which is an RNA-dependent DNA polymerase (RdDp). It polymerizes DNA from a template of RNA. The reverse transcriptase family contains examples from both retroviruses and eukaryotic polymerases. The eukaryotic polymerases are usually restricted to telomerases. These polymerases use an RNA template to synthesize the DNA strand.

[edit] Prokaryotic DNA polymerasesMain article: Prokaryotic DNA polymerase Bacteria have 5 known DNA polymerases.

[edit] Eukaryotic DNA polymerasesMain article: Eukaryotic DNA polymerase Eukaryotes have at least 15 DNA Polymerases.[10]

 * Hi, Amy. It is a good sentiment, to want to preserve this text, but completely unnecessary!  The way the wiki software works is that all the prior page revisions are all preserved.  It's actually much better and more robust to rely on the wiki software, than copying text here into the talk page, because no one could ever really know, without a lot of work, which version of the page this text that you pasted belonged to.  Just click "View history" on the page, to see what I mean. Klortho (talk) 22:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Citation suggestion
If you haven't seen this yet, please check out User:Diberri's Wikipedia template filling tool (instructions). Given a PubMed ID, one can quickly produce a full citation that can be copied and pasted into a Wikipedia article. This tool can save you a lot of work and ensure that the citations are displayed in a consistent manner. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 11:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing the reference. You were correct in assuming that it was the confusion between the two ids.  The paper that is referenced now is correct.  Thanks again! Abenson9 (talk) 02:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Final week mini-review
Hi, guys. Here's a final-week mini-review of your page. It is just a few random notes, that I jotted down while skimming the page, and is not intended as a comprehensive review.

 * In the introduction, you have "generation of antibody diversity", which links to the page Terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase. I can't figure out whether this is correct, or what it's supposed to mean.
 * Under "Function", in the second paragraph, you make mention of the fact that one of the two strands is synthesized in a directionality opposite to that of DNA Polymerase, but you never discuss how this problem is resolved. A little more explanation there might be in order.
 * I am a little bit confused by "processivity". You say, "DNA polymerase’s rapid catalysis is due to its processive nature." But then it seems as if you are defining processivity to be the number of nucleotides added per second.  This is circular.
 * Again under "processivity", the second paragraph could use a little work. Try to introduce new terms, like "sliding clamp loader", for example, before you use them.  Also, those terms might be able to be linked to relevant wikipedia articles.  For example, "sliding clamp loader" could link to Replication factor C.
 * Under "Structure", you could improve this a bit, I think, by explaining and/or linking the terms associated with the chemical reactions as you go. For example (this is just one example) what is the "phosphoryl transfer reaction"?  That hasn't been described anywhere in this article prior to that point, and it should be introduced.  You could break this "structure" section up into separate paragraphs for each domain.
 * Why is "structure" under "Variation across species"?
 * Starting with "Conserved structures usually indicate ...", this text doesn't seem to have anything to do with structure anymore. A little reorganizing of this content would help, I think.
 * I was confused by the concept of "family", and then I realized that this line, "Based on sequence homology, DNA polymerases can be further subdivided into seven different families: A, B, C, D, X, Y, and RT." explains it. But I think it is not good enough.  Throughout the article, you refer to families, and it is not easy to see how they correspond to Euk. Pol I, II, III, and the various prokaryotic polymerases.  I see that the version of the article when you started had the categorization broken down by family, and that you reorganized it.  Nevertheless, I'd suggest that maybe a table summarizing the families would help the reader understand what is going on.

Klortho (talk) 01:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

 * Hi Chris! Thank you for your review and feedback. I think it helped a lot in shaping the article and organizing it better.To address your points in order:
 * I made reference to the page terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase as the polymerase used for generation of antibody diversity.
 * I added some clarification to second paragraph of function, mentioning how DNA polymerase requires a free 3’ OH group to initiate synthesis.
 * I think I may have addressed the third point by clarifying the definition of processivity.
 * Following your suggestion, I referenced the replication factor C page, and clarified the role of the clamp loader.
 * We will discuss how to address the structure section to improve and expand it.
 * I also think it is more appropriate for the structure section to be either under function or as a new header. I moved it under function for now until we discuss its location.
 * Moving the structures section addressed this point.
 * I provided a table summarizing the different families. Please let us know whether the information is sufficient for readers to understand.
 * I hope I addressed everything you mentioned. Your feedback is of great help and is appreciated. Thank you. Aahmed25 (talk) 05:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

 * Okay, I'm glad you addressed these points. I probably won't have time to look at this article again this week, though, since I have my own class final exam to worry about, but keep in mind what I wrote at the top, that my review wasn't intended to be comprehensive.  I'd urge you to go through the entire article, as much as you can until Saturday (which is the last day of the semester, right?) and critique it yourself using the same "eye" that I used, and see where you can make further improvements.  Cheers!  Klortho (talk) 13:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions
Please Wikilink POLH, POLI, POLK, POLG, POLQ and Pol ε (epsilon) to POLE (enzyme).

crated fedility insterter look like typos

Please wikilink Xeroderma Pigmentosum Variant (XPS) to Xeroderma pigmentosum#Types, perhaps reference with. The two sentences referencing XPS could probably be consolidated.

The section Polymerase Rev1 and zeta section is lacking refs The PubMed search review[pt Polymerase zeta] gives 42 review articles

From a quick look at the abstracts maybe (guessing) Cell Res. 2008 Jan;18(1):174-83. DNA polymerase zeta (pol zeta) in higher eukaryotes. PMID: 18157155

Cell Cycle. 2010 Feb 15;9(4):729-35. Epub 2010 Feb 23. Multiple two-polymerase mechanisms in mammalian translesion DNA synthesis. PMID: 20139724

http://diberri.crabdance.com/cgi-bin/templatefiller/index.cgi?ddb=&type=pubmed_id&id=&add_text_url=1 will format refs based on PMID http://diberri.crabdance.com/cgi-bin/templatefiller/index.cgi?ddb=&type=pubmedcentral_id&id=&add_text_url=1 and on PMC RDBrown (talk) 12:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the suggestions. I thought I had linked back to XPS, but I will definitely do that.  I am currently working on updating the families section and I haven't made it to Rev1 and zeta yet.  What is there currently is what was there originally.  Thanks for the article suggestions as that should make my life a little easier!  I will also link back to the genes of interest as well.  Thanks again for the feedback and hope you think everything is starting to take shape. Abenson9 (talk) 00:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Polymerase Family C
In the table summarizing DNA polymerase families, it says family C is only found in eukaryotic species. Yet it (correctly) lists Pol III as an example, which is a prokaryotic enzyme. Shouldn't the Species column be changed from 'eukaryotic' to include prokaryotic, or even to just prokaryotic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.55.140.186 (talk) 03:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

When I read in the article that "recent research" had indicated that Family C DNA polymerase was really a subfamily of Family X DNA polymerase, I decided to check out the cite to get a sense of when that "recent" research occurred. The current reference [Footnote 11] is to a source that does not cite research but rather cites this Wikipedia article as its source of information. Thus, currently, the citation is completely circular. I assume that at some point someone had in mind some actual research supporting that claim. If that research could be ascertained and substituted as the authority for the claim it would be very helpful. In the meantime, I suggest the "citation" be deleted as misleading, since in its current form it merely reiterates this article. That would produce the result that the article contains an important claim without citation of authority. That often happens and when it does occur, the problem is flagged and people are invited to find some authority to support the statment. In my view, that is the current state of affairs and it would be best to make it explicit by deleting the citation.120.192.27.83 (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2014 (UTC)Ray Glock-Grueneich

Please update with: "Polθ reverse transcribes RNA and promotes RNA-templated DNA repair"
Please update the article with info on this paper's findings. It may also be relevant to other articles (I'm only adding some info to the article POLQ).

It's featured in 2021 in science like so:

Biologists report that DNA polymerases, long thought to only transcribe DNA into DNA or RNA, can also write RNA segments into DNA. Polθ was found to promote RNA-templated DNA repair, with large implications for many fields of biology.

--Prototyperspective (talk) 10:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Adv Molecular Bio Bass-FSU-Fa23
— Assignment last updated by Hcs22e (talk) 22:41, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:DNA polymerase


text:
Janica Kostelić

Janica Kostelić (born 5 January 1982) is a Croatian former alpine ski racer. She is a four-time Olympic gold medalist. In addition to the Olympics, she won five gold medals at the World Championships. In World Cup competition, she won thirty individual races, three overall titles, three slalom titles, and four combined titles. Kostelic's accomplishments in professional skiing have led some commentators, writers, and fellow ski racers to regard her as the greatest female ski racer of all time.

Biography
Kostelić is the only woman to win four gold medals in alpine skiing at the Winter Olympics (in 2002 and 2006), and the only woman to win three alpine skiing gold medals in one Olympics (2002).

Kostelić was the World Cup overall champion in 2001, 2003 and 2006. On 15 January 2006, Kostelić became the third woman in World Cup history (after Swede Pernilla Wiberg and Austrian Petra Kronberger) to win World Cup races in all of the sport's five disciplines. On 5 February 2006 Kostelić became the second female skier (after Petra Kronberger) to win all five disciplines in one season.

In the summer of 2006, she decided to not compete in the 2007 season, due to chronic knee and back pain. She had endured ten knee surgeries and thyroid surgery during her career. Following a year away from competition, Kostelić announced her retirement from racing in April 2007, at just 25 years old.

Since 2016, Kostelić has been the State Secretary for Science, Education and Sports in the Croatian Government.

Early years
Born in Zagreb, Croatia, then part of Yugoslavia, into a winter sports family, Kostelić's father Ante was also her trainer. Her older brother Ivica is a ski racer in his own right, the 2011 overall World Cup champion. She started skiing at the age of three and began training at nine years old, and quickly became successful and won several junior competitions.

At the age of 16, Kostelić was selected for the Croatian team for the 1998 Winter Olympics in Nagano. Her best result was 8th place in the combined. She competed in all five disciplines. She won her first World Cup slalom in December 1999. Kostelić then suffered knee ligament damage which kept her out of competition until late 2000. She won the World Cup overall title that 2001 season with eight further victories.

2002 Winter Olympics
At the 2002 Winter Olympics she won three gold medals and a silver, the first Winter Olympic medals ever for an athlete from Croatia. No other female alpine racer has ever won four medals or three gold medals at a single Olympics.

Kostelić chose not to compete in the downhill and concentrated on the combined. She performed well in the downhill run and then won the gold medal after the two-run slalom. She then won a silver medal in the super-G, just behind Daniela Ceccarelli. The next race was the slalom, in which Kostelić won her second gold medal, narrowly beating Laure Péquegnot. Her final victory was in the giant slalom, a substantial 1.32 seconds ahead of silver medalist Anja Pärson.

Later career
Kostelić won the World Cup overall title again in 2003, but missed the following season due to knee surgery in October, her fourth in ten months, and thyroid surgery in January 2004. This caused 2004 to be the only year from 1998 to 2006 that she was not recognized as "Croatian Sportswoman of the Year."

After more than 18 months aways from competition, she returned to World Cup competition at Sölden and finished eighth in the giant slalom in October 2004. At the World Championships in February 2005, she won three gold medals, despite being in ill health. She won the downhill and successfully defended her world titles in slalom and combined.

In the 2006 season, Kostelić won the World Cup overall title for the third time, but also was in Top 5 in all 4 disciplines, including number 1 in slalom. She won her first World Cup races in giant slalom (2), super-G and downhill in 2006.

At the 2006 Winter Olympics in Torino she won a gold medal in women's alpine combined. That was her fourth Olympic gold medal, making her the most successful female skier in the history of the Olympic Games. This record was set on 18 February 2006, only half an hour after Norway's Kjetil André Aamodt, winner of the men's super-G, became the first Alpine skier in men's competition to win four Olympic gold medals.

She also became the first alpine skier to win the "Sportswoman of the Year" award at the Laureus World Sports Awards in 2006, in part for her accomplishment of winning races in each discipline during the year.

Due to recurring injuries, Kostelić has not competed since the conclusion of the 2006 season. As expected, she announced her retirement a year later on 19 April 2007, citing persistent pain from her injuries.

World Cup
She won 3 overall World Cup titles: 2001, 2003 and 2006. In 2005 she was second overall, just three points behind winner Anja Pärson – the smallest difference between 1st and 2nd place in women's World Cup history. (In 2011, Maria Riesch beat Lindsey Vonn in the overall world cup by a margin of three points as well.)

Kostelić also won the slalom season title three times, the same years that she won the overall titles. She also would have won the season trophy for the combined discipline four times (2001, 2003, 2005, 2006), but the discipline trophy for the combined was not awarded to women during her career, being added only in 2007.

She won a total of 30 World Cup races, including at least one in every discipline: 20 in slalom, 6 in combined, 2 in giant slalom, 1 in super-G, and 1 in downhill.

Season titles

 * 6 titles – (3 overall, 3 slalom) plus 4 combined (unofficial)

Race victories

 * 30 wins – (1 DH, 1 SG, 2 GS, 20 SL, 6 K)

Personal life
On 1 January 2019, Kostelić gave birth to her first child.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Janica Kostelić


text:
User talk:03shirleyleung

could u tell me where is the sentence "placing the credit directly below the information or media clip in the following format: "All information and media copyright © Bay Area Cantonese Opera" ??

title: User talk:03shirleyleung


text:
Talk:A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2023
The place where Abhay Charanarvinda Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada met his spiritual master is Ultadanga, Kolkata. Not Allahabad. Fake information.

And Views on slavery and casteism and racism are picked without knowing the context of the talks or lecture. It is just picked from the words not conversation. Thank you 009Priyanshusharma (talk) 05:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I have changed the place where they met from Allahabad to Kolkata. Thanks for pointing out that error.
 * On the matter of his remarks about race and caste, you have not said what changes think should be made, so it isn't possible to make them. However, I do think there's a good case for rewriting the relevant sections, for two reasons:
 * 1) A mere list of quotes is not, in my opinion, an entirely good way to indicate his views, and it might be better to have a prose text outlining his views and giving them some context.
 * 2) Checking published sources I have found much more of the same; the snippets quoted considerably understate the extent of his negative remarks about people of what he regards as inferior races. It would therefore be a good idea to write a more extensive account of the things which he has said on the relevant subjects, to give a more accurate impression of the extent to which he has expressed negative views on such people. JBW (talk) 20:33, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2023
The "Views" section of this section includes extremely cherry-picked statements from the individual the article is about. A more comprehensive article is required to paint an accurate picture of the individual this article is about. Edit the following in square brackets after considering the followings quotes.

["Hitler and Jews Swami mentioned Hitler to provide an example of a notorious villain, comparing him to Vedic demons, and using the term "hero" to describe one who has many gifts but squanders them for evil purposes:

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.[12]

He held Jews to be responsible for Holocaust:

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." Therefore Hitler decided, "Kill all the Jews."]

Quotes: [So asura, to kill the asuras, however powerful they may be... We have seen. There were so many asuras in this world. There were Lenin, there were Stalin, there were Hitler, there were Hiraṇyakaśipu. So many. But they could not survive. It is not possible. They'll be finished. So asuras, to kill him... Paritrāṇāya sādhūn..., vināśāya...(BG 4.8) To kill the duṣkṛtām, these asuras, Kṛṣṇa does not require to come. He comes only to give protection and pleasure to the devotees. That is his aim." (Lecture on SB 1.8.20 -- Mayapura, September 30, 1974)

To the atheists who are guided by the animal qualities of passion and ignorance, physically powerful men like... Ravana, Meghnad, Jarasandha, Hitler, Mussolini, etc. are considered as Mahajans. (Srila Prabhupada)

(Hitler is compared to likes of ‘Demons’ of mythological and current times. Ravan, Mussolini.

The whole history of the world, you just study, is a history of sense gratification. Just take, for example, some twenty years ago one Mr. Adolf Hitler came in the scene, and there was great upheaval as war in Europe and America. From 1933 to 1947 or something like that, the whole world was in trouble. But he is gone, finished. And what did he do? Sense gratification, that's all. (Bhagavad-gita Lecture 3.6-10. Los Angeles. 68-12-23)

No, the greater power is Krsna. If you take shelter of Krsna, they cannot do anything. Just like Prahlada Maharaja, he was a five years old boy. He took shelter of Krsna and his father was a great demon, very powerful. He wanted to chastise his boy. He could not. This is the proof. So you take shelter. Krsna says, sarva-dharman parityajya mam ekam saranam vraja, aham tvam sarva-pape... [Bg. 18.66]. "I give you protection." So people have no faith although He's God. He thinks God is less powerful than Hitler. That is his nonsense. If he takes actually shelter of Krsna, what this rascal, Hitler, can do? But he has no faith in God. He thinks Prabhu Hitler is greater than Lord. Prabhu Hitler. That is the difference between the crows and the swans. The crows think that we have got food in the garbage. And the swans think that we have got food in nice garden, in the clear water. And that is difference even in the birds kingdom." (Room Conversation with Dr. Christian Hauser, Psychiatrist. Stockholm. 73-09-10)

Just like in your Western countries there was Napoleon, there was Hitler, there was Mussolini, here also, big, big leaders, but what they are? Big, big servants of the senses, that's all. Big, big servants of the senses. Therefore Bhāgavata has said, sva-viḍ-varāhoṣṭra-kharaiḥ saṁstutaḥ puruṣaḥ paśuḥ (SB 2.3.19). Puruṣaḥ paśuḥ: "These big, big leaders are big, big animals, that's all." Saṁstutaḥ puruṣaḥ paśuḥ. So there are many instructive verses in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Therefore Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam should be your life and soul to remain constantly in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, yes, the unique gift of Śrī Vyāsadeva. (Lecture SB 07.09.40 MAYAPUR - March 18, 1976)

An example can help us to understand the inconceivable potency of the Supreme Lord. In the recent history of warfare the Supreme Personality of Godhead created a Hitler and, before that, a Napoleon Bonaparte, and they each killed many living entities in war. But in the end Bonaparte and Hitler were also killed. People are still very much interested in writing and reading books about Hitler and Bonaparte and how they killed so many people in war. Year after year many books are published for public reading regarding Hitler's killing thousands of Jews in confinement. But no one is researching who killed Hitler and who created such a gigantic killer of human beings. The devotees of the Lord are not much interested in the study of the flickering history of the world. They are interested only in Him who is the original creator, maintainer and annihilator. That is the purpose of the Krsna consciousness movement. (Srimad-Bhagavatam 4.11.9 Purport)

..defect of the modern politicians. Here at the present moment, their philosophy is that one must be very cunning diplomat, then he's successful politician. This is their philosophy. The most crooked man, like Cāṇakya. But our philosophy is that the political head should be like Mahārāja Yudhiṣṭhira, Lord Rāmacandra. That is difference. Here Churchill or Hitler or similar man, crooked man... Without being crooked one cannot become politician. Lloyd George, the British Prime Minister, he said that "Consistency in politics is the qualification of an ass." Consistency. You must change.

Now we have got our great personalities, leaders. They are praised, eulogized, our, these political leaders. "Our Hitler," "Our Gandhi," "Our Churchill," "Our Nixon." But sastra says these leaders, those who are not spiritual leaders, those who cannot give our life, they are worshiped by these classes of animals, animals. These so-called leaders, politicians, they are eulogized very much by whom? By these class of men: dogs, camels, asses and.. (Srila Prabhupada)

Disciple: Nietzsche believed that everyone has a “will to power,” but that the weak seek power vainly. For instance, in his will to power, Hitler sought to subjugate as much of the world as possible, but he was ultimately unsuccessful, and he brought disaster upon himself and Germany. Instead of trying to conquer himself, he attempted to conquer others, and this is the will to power misdirected or misinterpreted. Srila Prabhupada: Men like Hitler are not able to control the force of anger. A king or national leader has to use anger properly. Narottama Dasa Thakura says that we should control our powers and apply them in the proper cases. We may become angry, but our anger must be controlled. (Beyond Illusion and Doubt. 12. Nietzsche)

Prabhupada: Well, foolish men cannot accept any logic. Their logic is stick. "If you don't accept, I shall kick on your face. Accept it." That is the... That is wanted. Karandhara: Like the example when Hitler killed the Jews. They will say, "Well, what should we do, just let Hitler go on killing the Jews because the Jews were sinful? Or should we try and stop Hitler?" Prabhupada: Well, Hitler was imperfect and everything was imperfect. That you cannot compare Hitler's action with God's action. God is all-perfect. That is first proposition. God is all-perfect. (Morning Walk. Los Angeles 73-12-16)

Just like in the history of the world there were so many big, big men - Hitler, Napoleon, this Churchill, Gandhi, Nehru. But all their powers, position, in one minute it becomes vanquished. There is no question... They are so proud, they do not believe in God, but when the death comes, they cannot argue anything. The death orders, "Immediately vacate"—finished. You have to vacate. At that time their power, opulence, position—nothing can help. So Kṛṣṇa says, therefore... The atheist class of men who do not believe in God, decry the authority of God, for them... Of course, everyone dies, but for them, mṛtyuḥ sarva-haraś cāham (BG 10.34): Kṛṣṇa comes as death and takes away everything in their possession. But foolish persons, they do not see, still. God says, Kṛṣṇa says, that "This death I am." Still they'll not. And it is a fact. When Kṛṣṇa comes as death, as Hiraṇyakaśipu... He was atheist, did not believe in God, but when God, Nṛsiṁha-deva came, then he was vanquished, everything, within a second. Nirastaḥ. Sa tu te nirastaḥ. (Lecture SB 07.09.23 Mayapur- March 01, 1976)

Prabhupada: Is that rational, that another living entity like me should be killed for my benefit, for satisfying my tongue? Syämasundara: Their idea is that the animal is not in the same category as myself because it has no... Prabhupäda: So that's alright; then might is right? Hitler is right? When Hitler, Hitler kills the Jews, he's right? He thinks that they are not in my category. Syämasundara: The animal cannot understand philosophy. Prabhupäda: What does he understand of philosophy? He is mad; he is less than an animal. He does not understand philosophy. He does not know that the animal has also a soul, the animal has also life. Then he should be killed first. (Dialectical Spirtualism - Hegel)

This nationalism, this nationalism also the same mistake, but they are fighting so much. Great, great, big, big men. In this country, Napoleon fought. In Germany, Hitler fought. And so many others, in our country Gandhi fought. But he is in ignorance. All these big big leaders, they are ignorance, andha, blind. Blind. They do not know that he is not this body and neither this land belongs to him. But they fight. The whole history of the world means this mistaken idea. "I" and "mine." Therefore Kṛṣṇa says, yat taj jñānam. Kṣetra-kṣetrajñayor yat taj-jñānaṁ mataṁ mama. Kṛṣṇa is giving, that one should know what he is and one should know what is his body, then he is in knowledge. The matter cannot understand this. The dogs, cats, cannot understand this. But a human being can understand this. Bhagavad-gītā is meant for the human being, not for the cats and dogs. Therefore, the human society should take care of this knowledge. Then his life will be successful.(Lecture on BG 13.3 -- Paris, August 11, 1973)] All.glories (talk) 09:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Read WP:WALLOFTEXT. Then, try again: write here what you want to change in the article, but short and structured and with reliable sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 21:16, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Expanded and updated
The article is expanded and updated with new WP:RSs, images, and media. Tried to preserve, develop and build upon all the previous contributions and sources. Looking forward to feedback, corrections, and contributions. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 15:45, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

 * You left me a message to review this page. I'm not really involved. More than a year ago I completed the list of his works in what is now titled "12. Bibliography", although it looks like someone reformatted it and added the "Posthumously published" section. The numbered sections seem odd.
 * The "Controversial statements" section appears to give a lot of coverage to what looks like a WP:QUOTEFARM of one-off "minor" (unpublished by him) statements. If it is to be kept, then maybe move it under the "Challenges and controversies" section.
 * Not sure if the "Principal writings" and "Critical assessments of Prabhupada’s writings" sections should be merged? That's all I have at first glance without reading everything and checking references. Jroberson108 (talk) 16:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Cinosaur There're issues with MOS:PEACOCK. I'll try to find some time to review. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 17:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the edit. Per WP:PEACOCK, peacockish are words "used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information". Contrary to that, in the passage in question the words are 1) directly quoted and clearly attributed to 2) notable people (Prime Ministers of India) 3) from reliable sources. They are not used to promote the subject, put to include relevant information on his perception and recognition. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 18:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

 * Fancruft cannot be tolerated at any cost especially for a highly controversial figure like this subject. Ratnahastin  (talk) 18:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Please present WP:RSs for the claim that the subject is "highly controversial" before reverting. There are plenty of sources to the contrary cited. Thanks. Cinosaur (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Ratnahastin, you have reverted a version of the article backed up by reliable sources by arbitrarily labeling it "fancruft". Please present your evidence for your claim or else revert your edit. Thanks. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you give an example of this fancruft? I don't see it, though it's possible I've missed some, given the size of the additions to the article. If you have an issue with specific passages, please list them here, rather than simply reverting wholesale. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 18:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

 * Hi, please stop edit warring. From the start, it's clear as day it is not improvement. Your revision puts the Indic text after the infobox (incorrect), puts a quote before the lead (not appropriate) and the first bit of the lead reads: A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada (IAST: Abhaya Caraṇāravinda Bhakti-vedānta Svāmī Prabhupāda (1896–1977) was the twentieth-century spiritual, philosophical, and religious teacher from India who spread the Hare Krishna mantra and the teachings of “Krishna consciousness” to the world. Born as Abhay Charan De and later legally named Abhay Charanaravinda Bhaktivedanta Swami, he is often referred to simply as “Bhaktivedanta Swami”, "Srila Prabhupada", or simply “Prabhupada”. That's not an encyclopedic tone and a proper way to start an article. Please work on the article in your sandbox and not here. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 18:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Soetermans, thank you for your suggested improvements of the lead. Could you please introduce them in the actual text of the lead rather than asking for it to be worked on in sandbox? The Indic text template placement was copied from the previous version, the quote is inserted automatically by the Hindu leader template used, and the lead otherwise strictly follows Manual of Style/Lead section by proportionately representing the article's content in a succinct form. So, unless I am missing something, the rationale given above does not warrant the revert. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 19:09, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It is clear here that your revision isn't wanted. So no, I am not going to do your work for you. Use your sandbox. You already broke the 3RR rule. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 19:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Additions here are governed by Wikipedia guidelines rather than by individual editors' preferences. I have addressed your concerns above about the lead. Do you have any other? Regard, Cinosaur (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe Cinosaur means well. If you check their sandbox, they have been working on that major revision since December. I realize it can be frustrating if you spend a long time writing an update for an article and it gets removed. A lot of the content this user added was reliable, the mistake they made was their re-writing of the lead which came across as too promotional. I would support adding the content back in without your edits on the lead. If you had not interfered with the lead your edits may have been accepted. I have gone over a lot of the references you added, I can't find any faults with the sources. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes there are people who spent thousands of $$ for getting article on their non-notable subject. But how are we supposed to pay for their agony? I don't see anything productive in any of the edits of Cinosaur. Nobody can tolerate sentences like "but his teachings and the Society he established continue to be influential", "Scholars have commented, however, on the contrast between such controversial statements and the full picture of what Prabhupada actually taught and did", "and arousing interest in them worldwide, Prabhupada made a lasting contribution", and much more. They read like advocacy and puffery, but Wikipedia is not for promoting agenda. Ratnahastin  (talk) 02:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Ratnahastin, what is or isn't notable content fortunately doesn't depend on individual opinions here. And you don't and can't know _everybody_. If _you_ can't tolerate something, then change it or improve it using rules. What happened to cooperation, the basic idea of Wikipedia? Cinosaur, you made a huge improvement, though smaller steps would be preferable. 94.142.239.127 (talk) 13:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)J
 * Consider not doing it all in one huge edit. Do one section, wait a few days to give people a chance to react, repeat. And save the WP:LEAD for last, when the rest is done. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Btw, if this pic is from 1974, and this pic  is from 2017, one has to say the guy ages well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks for all your comments. My apologies for overreacting to reverts of the updated revision. As has rightly noted above, I did act in good faith while replacing the current article with its expanded iteration. It was through such single edits that I previously updated two closely related articles on Bhaktisiddhanta (+44318 bytes) and Bhaktivinoda (+64138 bytes), both expansions accepted at that time by the community as improvements. So I did expect (somewhat naively) that the proposed revision would also be dealt with in terms of WP:PRESERVE rather than given short shrift. Still, I should've known better than to engage in edit warring, and I do apologize for the lapse of judgment and decorum on my part. The 48-hour block (my first to date) served me well. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Moving forward
Again, thank you all for the above comments. As suggested by, I've placed the draft back in my sandbox and:

 * preserved 's initial formatting and wikilinking edits: diff;
 * updated the draft's list of sources with academic works from the current article: diff1, diff2;
 * tried to address 's and 's concerns with some statements as peacockish by either toning down/paraphrasing them in terms of WP:NPOV or properly sourcing them to WP:RS: diff;
 * added "Further reading" and updated "External links" sections: diff;
 * kept the draft's lead as requiring further discussion, per and ;
 * left 's suggestion about merging "Principal writings" with "Critical assessments of Prabhupada’s writings" and placing "Controversial statements" under the "Challenges and controversies" section for a separate discussion.

Would you please suggest how to best proceed with the proposed revision? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 13:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

 * Hi! This conversation has been interesting to read through. I took a look at the article right now and the version you are drafting in the sand box. I'm not commenting on how to move forward; however, I was reading through mass editing and  Good editing practices where (as per the discussion above) incremental changes are recommended. Thought it might be useful.
 * Thanks! Whitestar12 (talk) 15:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It's probably best to add in one section at a time. I would leave the lead until last. It's probably best to start from his early life and move forwards. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. So, the consensus seems to be towards adding sections in increments, starting with Early life and finishing with the lead. I will also have to add Sources in toto from the start, as the draft has ~10 times more sources that the current article, and did not find any issues with them. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 12:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Update: Early life
Per consensus above:
 * updated "Sources" — diff (do not get alarmed by the sheer size of the addition at 75,600 bytes, as there are 156 academic, 37 media, and 43 ISKCON-related sources);
 * fixed errors in citations —diff;
 * replaced part of section "Biography" with "Early life", restructured and renamed second-level section titles under "Biography" — diff;
 * added appropriate Maintenance templates to "Sources" and "Early life" sections. Cinosaur (talk) 13:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

 * Go ! Thanks for your work on the article so far. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 14:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . I hope you and other editors will be willing to review and, if needed, revise the updated section (and all other upcoming sections) for possible issues. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 14:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Update: Midlife

 * updated "Midlife (1922–1965)" — diff;
 * fixed multiple targets error for Bryant & Ekstrand 2004 and Rochford 2007 references — diff;
 * moved Maintenance template from "Early life" to "Midlife"; Cinosaur (talk) 03:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * added an image of the meeting site — diff. Cinosaur (talk) 07:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Update: Later years

 * updated "Later years (1965-1977" — diff;
 * moved Maintenance template from "Midlife" to "Later years";
 * re-added several statements and citations from the previous revision — diff. Cinosaur (talk) 03:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Update: Philosophy and teachings

 * added "Philosophy and teachings" — diff;
 * moved Maintenance template from "Later years" to "Philosophy and teachings". Cinosaur (talk) 03:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * copyedited, rearranged and updated images and caption — diff;
 * replaced the infobox with the Hindu leader template, updated — diff. Cinosaur (talk) 18:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Update: Principal writings and Critical assessments
suggested above to consider merging "Principal writings" and "Critical assessments of Prabhupada's writings", the latter naturally falling under the former as a subsection. On the other hand, since "Critical assessments" is so developed and voluminous — and potentially growing ever larger as more scholarly reviews of his writings emerge — it might be more justified to keep it as a separate major section. Any thoughts? To facilitate the discussion, I added both:

 * added "Principal" writings" and "Critical assessment of Prabhupada's writings" — diff;
 * moved Maintenance template from "Philosophy and teachings" to "Principal writings".

Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 04:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

 * , good point, it may grow. To clarify my original point, I was thinking more in terms of here is one book, then reviews follow, then repeat. I suppose some will cover more than one book, so it might make sense to keep those separate. But putting them together might also help keep the section focused. Jroberson108 (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Update: Challenges and controversies and Controversial statements
also suggested earlier to place Controversial statements under Challenges and controversies and, per WP:QUOTEFARM, to shrink or demote some of Prabhupada's isolated quotes in the context of the scholarly sources cited. With Jroberson108's suggestions in mind, I: Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 07:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * added both "Challenges and controversies" and "Controversial statements" (the latter replacing "Views") — diff;
 * moved "Religion" from "Views" to "Philosophy and teachings", commented out for possible future use — diff;
 * moved Maintenance template from "Principal writings" to both new sections — diff.

 * The section looks better, although the entire section still looks like a lot of WP:UNDUE given to minority views based on one author that is apparently viewed as too biased. It just looks like one author said this and others say that. What are the majority viewpoints, which should be prominent? Are there any sources on this topic from unbiased historians/scholars? Does the section give undue weight to minor aspects per WP:PROPORTION? Anyways, just something to consider. Jroberson108 (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree, the controversial quotes, albeit documented by Lorenz in a Columbia University publication, are hardly mentioned as accurately portraying Prabhupada's views by the scholars who studied ISKCON and Prabhupada for decades. As such, the way they appear now, they do seem to stand in violation of WP:DUE, which clarifies:
 * If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with references to commonly accepted reference texts;
 * If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
 * If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true, or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
 * Judging by the scanty number of academic sources in its support, the viewpoint that the quotes in question accurately represent Prabhupada's views on race, women, Hitler, etc. falls somewhere between 2 and 3 (closer to 3) on the WP:DUE prominence scale above. Still, they are published in an academic book and inspired a few scholarly reviews — so, unless there are some other proposals or substantiated objections, I have moved them to a footnote. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 19:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

 * I have restored the last good version of his statements. You don't have to cite pro-ISCKON sources to dispute the criticism about his controversial views. CharlesWain (talk) 12:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Two essays by Ekkehard Lorenz in The Hare Krishna Movement: The Postcharismatic Fate of a Religious Transplant[o] compile controversial statements made by Prabhupada on slavery, lower castes, Hitler, Darwin’s theory of evolution, the moon landing, and women is a vast improvement compared to actually quoting his statements, which are pretty much all either ignorant, dumb, primitive, or reactionary, or all of the above. Wikipedia is not anybody's megaphone for crazy ideas. See WP:FRINGE: Fringe sources can be used to support text that describes fringe theories provided that such sources have been noticed and given proper context with third-party, independent sources. Without the context, those quotes do not belong here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Could you please specify what you mean by, in your revert edit summary's wording, "the entire section has been white washed to core"?
 * Here is the section in question before your revert. May I ask if it's the language that you think is too sanitized or vague? Or the scholarly sources used to contextualize the quotes seem too "pro-ISKCON" to you? Or were any significant (per WP:PROPORTION, WP:DUE and WP:RS) scholarly critiques of Prabhupada’s views left out? Anything else that I am missing?
 * I tend to agree with assessment, already made before, in that Prabhupada's quotes from Lorenz's essays do not belong on Wikipedia:
 * either because the entire Lorenz’s exposé as representative of Prabhupada’s actual views is WP:FRINGE. As quoted from WP:DUE above: “If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true, or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article”. If you know of any other academic sources that cover allegedly racist and antisemitic views of Prabhupada that are reliable and independent of ISKCON, please add them. Personally I couldn’t find any.
 * or because ripping the quotes out of Lorenz’s essays and laying them bare here constitutes WP:OR in that it ignores:
 * the context of the essays themseves;
 * the nature of the volume in which they appeared. It was authored mostly by former or active ISKCON members, of which Lorenz is one, and the editors, on their admission, lowered the bar of academic rigor to facilitate an “interplay between detached analysis and passionate advocacy"; and
 * opinions of the scholars who reviewed Lorenz's essays and who tend to concur with Prof. Fred Smith's observation: “[as an] ex-ISKCON member, Lorenz is clearly vengeful, perhaps to the point of misusing his source material”. (Smith 2004, p.189)
 * On the other hand, there is plenty of academic coverage of Prabhupada’s pseudo-scientific and anti-evolutaionary views, of the criticism he received from the orthodox Hindus in India, or the criticism of his views on women. These are the topics to cover in the article, and not his alleged racism and antisemitism, which received little to no scholarly attention. If the situation changes in the future, and new sources emerge that analyze Prabhupada’s antisemitism, racism and pro-Hitler stance, we will have to reconsider — but for now there seems to be no sufficient academic coverage of those views.
 * So, any way you slice it, the quotes do not belong on Wikipedia, either as WP:FRINGE, or as WP:UNDUE, or as WP:OR — unless you provide some strong WP:RSs interpreting them as an accurate portrayal of Prabhupada’s major views and teachings.
 * Also, in retrospect, this understanding also seems to be shared, one way or another, by many editors here. To name a few:
 * pointed out back in 2017 that similarly discriminatory yet marginal pronouncements have never been an issue in articles on other religions or religious figures;
 * similarly reminded there of 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”;
 * , likewise, pointed out that, to present the quotes as Prabhupada’s views, there needs to be coverage to that effect in other WP:RSs;
 * : while agreeing that the volume is a WP:RS, called for the balancing of the quotes with Prabhupada’s other statements and views, per WP:RSs;
 * here, concurred, writing that “the characterization of these particular points as “views“ in this article … is giving them far too much prominence, as though they are the main pillars of his teachings” and thought “this constitutes a bias.”;
 * most recently, commented that, even in the context of relevant scholarly assessment, the quotes constituted WP:UNDUE and WP:QUOTEFARM.
 * Finally, could you please specify who you think to be the “pro-ISKCON sources” among the scholars whose less than flattering assessments of Prabhupada’s statements are cited in the version that you reverted — yet who did not support Lorenz’s portrayal of Prabhupada as racist, misogynist, antisemitic, etc. on the basis of them? Kim Knott,  Angela Burt, Fred Smith,  Mans Broo, or Larry Shinn?   reviewed the sources and found no issues with them.
 * My apologies for the length of my reply — but I thought it might be helpful to provide a wider context with the hope to finally move past this self-perpetuating Quotes Issue. If in 20 years (since Lorenz published those essays) no scholars unaffiliated with ISKCON paid any attention to it, why should we?
 * Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 21:05, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The quotes can be easily found to be representative by reading one of ACBSWP's own books. They are full of the same sort of shit. The quotes do not belong in the article, but not for the reason you give. And please do not pretend that seven people agree with you on the reason when all they have in common with you is that they do not want the quotes in the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for you comment. Isn't this exactly what I tried to show above: "the quotes do not belong on Wikipedia ... this understanding seems to be shared, one way or another, by many editors here."? In other words, as you say, their stated rationale (cited for each) may vary, and strongly — WP:FRINGE, or WP:UNDUE, or WP:OR, or WP:PROPORTION, or WP:SHIT, or whatever — but their conclusions concur: the quotes must go. Correct? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 09:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not need pings, I have a watchlist.
 * You omitted the part unless you provide some strong WP:RSs interpreting them as an accurate portrayal of Prabhupada’s major views and teachings between the quotes do not belong and this understanding. So, bad wording that suggests that all those people agree that the statements would be due if RS said that ACBSP actually thought like that. Well, I don't and I am not happy about being misrepresented. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. To be precise, you were not listed among the six editors after that introductory clause, but, regardless — we agree the quotes do not belong here. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 11:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Let's look at the sources in that section . Ekkehard Lorenz, Ravi Gupta, Måns Broo are all reliable scholars and should be restored. As for the content not reliable. I personally wouldn't cite anything by Steven J. Rosen or in his Journal of Vaishnava Studies or Ravi M. Gupta. I suggest that Rosen and Gupta are removed. In general, I believe most of the sources Cinosaur added are reliable. There are a few Hare Krishna sources that should be removed because they are not neutral. We are never going to get a neutral commentary from Prabhupada's followers about his controversial views. It's best to rely on neutral religious scholars here who are not associated with ISKCON. I would support re-adding Cinosaur's section with Steven J. Rosen's journal and Ravi Gupta removed. Psychologist Guy (talk) 11:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your suggestions. I agree with the need for some tweaking towards WP:NPOV and WP:RSs. Just to clarify, though — do you propose to restore Ravi Gupta or to remove him? Unless it was a typo, you seem to have suggested both above.
 * As for Rosen's JVS, Fred Smith's valuable review of Lorenz's essays was published there, yet Smith is an established scholar with no connection to ISKCON: "The non-ISKCON reader, such as me..." (Smith 2004, p.189). I propose that JVS be cited for such verifiably neutral scholarly opinions. Otherwise, by the same token, should we also forego Byant & Ekstrand's volume altogether since most of its contributors, starting with the editors themselves, and including Lorenz, are either former or current ISKCON members (Smith 2004, p.179; Bryant & Ekstrand 2004, pp.ix-xiii) — and thus by definition cannot be trusted as neutral and objective?
 * Also, the the section quotes LN Das and R.Gupta almost exclusively when they themselves confirm the veracity and problematic nature of the quotes and/or paraphrase them — as Gupta does: "[The quotes] depict Prabhupada as 'racist, sexist, intellectually dishonest, ungrateful, unethical, unsophisticated, and unaware of the norms of the societies in which he lived' and blame his teachings 'for condoning abuse of children, abuse of women, and abuse by leadership, while promoting dictatorship, intolerance, and autocratic rule by the guru'." For one thing, it's much more balanced than including the quotes themselves, as Hob Gadling wrote above. For another, in my view, coming from ISKCON members-scholars, this further reinforces the quotes' critique. But I'm not opposed to removing them, if that's the consensus.
 * Lastly, the volume introduces Lorenz on p.xii as "a student of Indology with focus on medieval and ancient Sanskrit", which calls into question his reliability as a scholar at that time — as expressed by Smith: “[as an] ex-ISKCON member, Lorenz is clearly vengeful, perhaps to the point of misusing his source material”. (Smith 2004, p.189) Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 12:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Cinosaur Regarding your dilemma about "Otherwise, by the same token, should we also forego Byant & Ekstrand's volume altogether since most of its contributors, starting with the editors themselves, and including Lorenz, are either former or current ISKCON members (Smith 2004, p.179; Bryant & Ekstrand 2004, pp.ix-xiii) — and thus by definition cannot be trusted as neutral and objective", reading NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content and Reliable sourcesmight help clear up things. I think in general, we should not be making judgements about scholarly works based on personal assessment of their credentials. If it is a work published by a good academic journal or press, it should be considered as such, unless there are scholarly critiques of the work pointing out flaws for such published works. Asteramellus (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * All good points, thank you. Your invoking Reliable sources seems especially relevant in assuaging 's concerns with several sources he considered unreliable due to their actual or perceived affiliation with the subject of the article. In the context of your comment, what is your take, if I may ask, on citing Ravi M. Gupta or Journal of Vaishnava Studies in the article?
 * As for assessing Lorenz's credentials, that was not my assessment, but a scholar's (Smith's) — so should it be factored in in deciding if and how Lorenz's views are to be presented in the section?
 * Finally, about the volume in question — its main purpose, stated by the editors in the Introduction and lauded by its reviewers, was to present juxtapositions of differing voices, mostly from ISKCON-related authors, on the same contentious issues — rather than to provide conclusive academic analyses of the issues themselves. Lorenz's was one such voice, which was then reviewed by scholars, and not very favorably. So, that should perhaps be taken into account when allotting his views space in the section. I would say, either his views should be cited but then counterbalanced with their scholarly critiques, as you suggested above — or relegated to a footnote. Would you agree? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 19:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

 * This whole article has become a puff piece with pro-ISCKON sources. But I am not going to bother fixing the whole article and I will only ensure retaining the section about his views as per the reasons I have already provided above. CharlesWain (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Of the ~160 academic sources used here, could you please identify those you consider "pro-ISKCON" and explain why? If they are indeed WP:BIASed, as you say, they have no place in the article. Alternatively, would you agree that, if the sources cited are indeed reliable, arguing against them would be pushing a personal WP:POV? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Most of the sources are not written by ISKCON, the issue this user may be complaining about is the use of Tamal Krishna Goswami, he is cited over 30 times on the article and Satsvarupa dasa Goswami is also cited around 30 times. The latter book was published by the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust. However, these books contain useful information that is probably not found elsewhere so it might be problematic entirely removing them. Psychologist Guy (talk) 09:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. As pointed out here, Tamal Krishna Goswami's work is published by Oxford University Press and edited by Graham Schweig — so, an academic publication by any consideration. I agree, though, that Satsvarupa dasa Goswami's Prabhupada-lilamrita is much less of a WP:RS, yet it's profusely quoted as a reliable biographical source and commended for its factual accuracy by a number of respected non-ISKCON scholars. However, as  said, per WP:GA standards, citing Prabhupada-lilamrita is not desirable. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree with Asteramellus. This user has basically said any source published in a respectable journal or publisher is suitable for Wikipedia. This isn't the case. If that was the actual case Wikipedia would have been destroyed a long time ago with fringe quackery. We need to take into account WP:Fringe and WP:NPOV and not present a false balance. Creationists, intelligent designers, alternative medicine quacks, opponents of the Big Bang, low-carb diet gurus, so called academics from new age religious movements have all published fringe and pseudoscience in mainstream published books and even under peer-review. We wouldn't cite any of these in mass on Wikipedia. Just because a fringe proponent has managed to publish their content in an academic journal or by a decent publisher doesn't automatically make what they are saying valid or give them automatic pass to cite their content in detail on Wikipedia. We do not need to be citing these pro-ISCKON sources on his controversial views. One or two books (biographies) is acceptable per balance but the journals by Steven J. Rosen we don't need to cite that. CharlesWain's may have exaggerated but their concerns are valid, we do not want to turn the article into a pro-ISKCON promotional piece. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. So, I guess, we should judge sources on a case-by-case basis. Cinosaur (talk) 14:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You have already done a lot of good work on the article. The only dispute on this article right now which has existed for a long time is the "views" section. A couple of users in the past including an ISKCON employee have been blocked because they removed it all. As stated I was generally supportive of what you added minus a few sources to this section. Unfortunately I doubt any consensus is going to be reached on this section anytime soon, and it will very likely be a stale-mate. If you start restoring your content you will probably be reverted by specific users. I appreciate your edits on this article you have made significant improvements but there is probably a limit to how much you can do. I don't think a consensus is going to be reached anytime soon on this section so there is nothing else I can add here. Other users can weigh in on the topic. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi @Psychologist Guy Totally agree with your points about WP:Fringe and WP:NPOV. I actually did say "unless there are scholarly critiques of the work pointing out flaws for such published works.", which definitely includes such biased and fringe views. My point was that just by saying Tamal Krishna Goswami's association (I actually have not read any of his books) with ISKCON should not be the reason to dismiss his scholarly work published by reputable publisher in the field.
 * Also, was wondering why you think Rosen's JVS should not be used - is it JVS itself, or some of the work published there. Asking because I have read few very good articles from well known scholars in JVS. Asteramellus (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Checked in on this to see where it is at after my earlier comments. You can always start  to gain a consensus. I recall from 's version of the "Views" section prior to the revert, it mentioned Ekkehard Lorenz was an ex-ISKCON member, which if members are being dismissed as reliable sources due to association, I would think the same should apply to Lorenz based on past membership. Obviously both sides will hold biases, even if they try to remain neutral in their writing. This is why I asked earlier if there are any "sources on this topic from unbiased historians/scholars". If there aren't, then it might be best to remove those parts, which may end up being all or most of that section. As it is now, the entire section looks to be a WP:QUOTEFARM trying to give WP:UNDUE weight to a minority opinion on what appears to be a WP:MINORASPECT of the entire page. Jroberson108 (talk) 22:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Drawing upon the individual feedback, comments and suggestions (sometimes polar) and collective sense of direction, I've attempted a revised version of the section. Changes: Hopefully, this version will help resolve the impasse and give us a fresh start towards further improvement of the article. Please feel free to edit the revision in terms of enhancing its WP:EV. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 16:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * paraphrased Prabhupada's quotes, cited — per WP:QUOTEFARM, WP:FRINGE, WP:PROPORTION;
 * removed academic (Ravi M. Gupta) and other sources (Steven J. Rosen, Lakshmi Narasimha Das, etc.) deemed WP:BIASED — per WP:RS;
 * added two more academic sources — Amanda Lucia and Akshay Gupta;
 * shortened and paraphrased quotes by scholars, especially Kim Knott's — per WP:QUOTE;
 * tried to balance criticism with scholarly reviews — per WP:DUE and WP:BALANCE.
 * I've also placed this section as a subsection under Challenges and controversies, where it naturally belongs. Cinosaur (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your efforts. A creationist not believing in evolution doesn't seem worth mentioning in my opinion. Will see how others respond. Also, the topic's mention in the lead sounds very one sided and should probably be more neutral. Jroberson108 (talk) 18:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. Could you propose here or introduce there a better revision? Cinosaur (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Your change to the lead seems like a better version. Thanks. Jroberson108 (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Could you also make your proposed edits to the section (now demoted to under Challenges and controversies)? Cinosaur (talk) 19:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If you are referring to my evolution remark, as of now it's just my opinion. If other's agree that this is a common belief with creationists and/or unimportant, then it can be removed. It's pretty common: rejection of evolution by religious groups. Jroberson108 (talk) 22:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Good point — there is nothing particularly controversial about Prabhupada's anti-evolutionary views that would warrant their mention here. Unless someone else makes a strong case for keeping it, I am going to remove the passage. Cinosaur (talk) 09:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I've removed the part about "ugly-looking", as Lorentz clarifies that it's no longer found in the officially published commentary. (Lorenz 2004, p.388) Cinosaur (talk) 09:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Page 125 of the cited source doesn't support "Prabhupada dismissed reports of the 1969 moon landing, speaking in support of moon landing conspiracy theories." I see nothing there saying anything about supporting conspiracy theories, so it looks to be WP:OR. What I do see is a quote of him dismissing it based on what is said in Srimad Bhagavatam. There is no analysis from the author, just a quote, so it's pretty meaningless in my opinion. My interpretation would be that he doesn't support a conspiracy theory, but is a literalist in his faith, like many other religious figures. The other references in that section should probably be verified too. Jroberson108 (talk) 18:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for spotting the error in attribution, it's actually page 113. I agree that speaking about conspiracy theories on the basis of this citation alone is far-fetched. He did speak about them elsewhere, but not in the passage cited. Fixed and removed. Looking forward to other good catches. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 18:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Update: Also, Lorenz footnotes his statement about Prabhupada's dismissing moon landing reports with the actual quote on page 125: “Recently they have said that they have gone to the moon but did not find any living entities there. But Srimad-Bhagavatam and the other Vedic literatures do not agree with this foolish conception.” (Bhaktivedanta, Srimad-Bhagavatam: Seventh Canto (Los Angeles: Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, 1987), 804) — it looks that Prabhupada, based on the Srimad-Bhagavatam, dismissed as "foolish conception" reports of the Moon being uninhabited, not of the moon landing itself. Either case, does not belong. Thank you. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * From prior discussions, I'm wondering why the academic Ravi M Gupta was removed and Lorenz kept as sources? Both either have current or former ISKCON membership. Preferably it should all be neutral sources. Jroberson108 (talk) 20:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Editors and  suggested to remove "pro-ISKCON" sources from this section, particularly Ravi M. Gupta and Steven Rosen's JVS, and I complied - especially because Gupta wasn't quoted as saying anything particularly indispensable here. Maybe they could say why, in their understanding, Lorenz shouldn't be removed by the same token? Cinosaur (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I asked because in your bulleted list above you mentioned those individuals as being biased. It wasn't clear you were talking about the Journal of Vaishnava Studies and not the individuals, which as far as I can tell the journal isn't discredited and is described positively by Edwin Bryant and Maria Ekstrand at the bottom of that page. I don't know which article from that journal is in question, but use of biased sources is acceptable per WP:BIASED. The different viewpoints just need to be presented on Wikipedia in a neutral manner. Jroberson108 (talk) 12:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I said "deemed biased" — meaning, by other editors. I personally would use both Ravi M. Gupta and JVS as far as Reliable sources allows, but am willing to winnow them from the rest for consensus. Ironically, among the remaining nine authors cited in the section, the closest to its subject — and, arguably, the least objective at that and with the thinnest academic credentials (none) — is Lorenz. However, he is cited by four others, so he stays. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 12:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If they are needed to cover the viewpoints, then use them. Now you have two editors in favor of citing them, and if I recall there was a third in favor mentioned above somewhere. Suggesting otherwise appears to go against guidelines. Jroberson108 (talk) 13:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * May I ask if, in your view, there is anything substantial missing in the current version and not covered elsewhere that'd warrant the use of the excluded sources? Here is the previous draft in my sandbox. I may well be mistaken, but the current version appears sufficiently balanced in its scope and sources and, as mentioned above, the so-called "biased" sources have little, if anything, to add to the balance and scope. However, if I'm wrong, you may want to add and cite whatever you think would improve the section's WP:EV. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * As mentioned before, I don't know which article from the JVS journal is in question. That being said, I don't know if all the viewpoints have been covered with the current version. You would know better since you wrote pretty much all of it. If they are needed for the viewpoints, then I don't see anything wrong with using the journal or Ravi M. Gupta in giving those views in a neutral manner. I really don't want to spent too much more time on this article. As I recall, the extent of my contributions years ago was completing the list of works. I will say this and your sandbox version are better than the previous WP:QUOTEFARM, so thanks for that. Jroberson108 (talk) 16:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much again for your very helpful suggestions. Will keep them in mind as the article develops. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

The section about his views is still far from any improvement. I am sure that there is absolutely not need to clarify his views by the sources that are close to the subject. Ratnahastin (talk) 07:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

 * Thanks for your comment. Could you please specify who of the nine authors cited in the section — besides Lorenz, an ISKCON ex-member — you consider to be "close to the subject" and why: Kim Knott, Angela Burt, Amanda Lucia, Fred Smith, Mans Broo, Akshay Gupta, E. Burke Rochford, or Larry Shinn? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 11:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Might be better for me to append this to the bottom. Even though I want to step away due to other things on my plate, this stuck in my head as "when are political views not controversial". Prabhupada called democracy "the government of the asses", "nonsense", and "farce", at the same time praising the monarchial form of government and speaking favorably of dictatorship. It appears to be pieced together from various republished quotes without any of the author's conclusions, which would constitute WP:OR: any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources. We want the analysis and conclusions of published authors.
 * On page 383, the author says that Prabhupada believed that changing from a modern democracy to a varnashram-based monarchy would be more ideal for a perfect society, and tried to model his schools (gurukula) around that to try to convince the intellectual elite. This sounds less of a controversy and more of an extension of A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. How Prabhupada said it might be controversial, but I don't see anywhere where Lorenz states that it was controversial.
 * There's mention on page 382 of two disciples publishing a relatable book (four years after Prabhupada's death) that Lorenz states was controversial, which some (who, ISKCON leaders?) felt it overly fanatical and could create public relations problems, and others felt it faithful to Prabhupada's teachings. It continues to describe the public relations problems it created with the anticult movement and the Orthodox Church in Russia, although no elaboration was given both on their agendas or the outcome. I'm also not sure if it is saying the anticult movement in Russia or in general. It sounds more like a new "Obstacles in Russia" section if elaboration can be found, although more relatable to the International Society for Krishna Consciousness article and less so to this bio.
 * I recommend verifying the rest of that same paragraph and the one prior on this article to remove similar issues. Jroberson108 (talk) 03:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * as far as I understand, it's not the job of Wikipedia editors to clarify anything (WP:NOR) but to present all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. (WP:NPOV)
 * IMHO, Lorenz fails big time for WP:RS -- I couldn't find any kind of academic profile, CV, or anything for this guy. Who is he? Why is he being quoted on Wikipedia? As nicely pointed out, Wikipedia is not anybody's megaphone for crazy ideas. See WP:FRINGE" Baalseeker (talk) 04:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I know what I wrote and I do not see the point in pinging me, even if I had no watchlist and needed pinging. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry -- noted. Baalseeker (talk) 08:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Update: Influence, Recognition, Commemoration, Bibliography

 * Since the four remaining sections are rather short and straightforward, I have added them together — diff.

Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 07:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Update: Lead
Now that, thanks to many editors' feedback and contributions, the revised and expanded article's final part has been posted, I have also updated the lead in compliance with WP:LEAD. Looking forward to your comments. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 08:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

 * I have updated the lead to try and incorporate more detail about his criticism and also scholarly recognition of his impact, per Manual of Style/Lead section and the discussion above. I also removed a reference to "advocacy of Hitler's crimes", because 1) the source previously cited (a movie review) is not WP:RS enough to support this claim; 2) no academic WP:RSs in general document Prabhupada's pronouncements about Hitler, much less see them as indicative of his "advocacy of Hitler's crimes", and 3) per WP:UNDUE and MOS:LEADREL, such marginal facts do not belong in the lead anyhow. Please revise it as you see fit. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 19:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Cause of death
The article states "On November 14, 1977, at the age of 81, after a long illness, Prabhupada passed away in his room at the Krishna Balaram Mandir", do we have any references telling us what this long illness was? I have personally found some sources that say it was from diabetes.

Some of Prabhupada's die-hard followers like Nityananda Das are saying there was a conspiracy theory to assassinate Prabhupada by poisoning, whilst others such as Satsvarupa dasa Goswami have dismissed this. None of these sources would pass WP:RS and Nityananda's conspiracy theory is definitely WP:Fringe that is not supported by any medical evidence. There was a statement by a surgeon Andrew J. McIrvine who operated on Prabhupada who stated "He was in obviously poor health and showed signs of renal failure and was found to be diabetic". It would be useful to cite McIrvine but I doubt a reliable source documents this information. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

 * Thanks for bringing up this issue. Yes, it seems that there are very few, if any, WP:RSs for the cause of Prabhupada's death in scholarly sources. Prompted by your inquiry, however, I've just found this reference for "diabetes and complications following a stroke" as the cause of his death in Eastern Mysteries. Still, being the only source we have, and non-academic at that, it might be prudent to place it in a footnote to "long illness" until a more reliable source is found. I've just done that, but please feel free to change it as you see fit. And, like you, I wish some reliable sources published McIrvine's statement. If memory serves, it was reprinted in a GBC's rebuttal to the poison issue titled "Not That I Am Poisoned", but I don't have a copy to verify. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 20:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Disappointing that no academics or scholars have touched the cause of death. Most sources just say he died of an illness, there are is no specific detail in the academic literature. I have spent a long time looking on archive.org, Google Books, JSTOR, Hathitrust there is absolutely nothing. The best source I have seen to cover the topic is but again this wouldn't be considered a reliable source so we can't cite it on Wikipedia. The Eastern Mysteries book you added it probably the best source that we have for this right now. Hopefully some other sources come to light but this is doubtful because I have looked in a lot of places. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Suggestions
As requested by Cinosaur, providing my suggestions here. I am evaluating the same as per WP:GA standards. Redtigerxyz Talk 13:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

 * MOS:OVERSECTION: many sections like Midlife (1922–1965), Philosophy and teachings, Principal writings, Views, Commemoration have very short, 1-2 para sections
 * WP:QUOTEFARM:
 * Views is plagued by this issue. The quotes can be converted to prose.
 * Quotes by his guru in Midlife (1922–1965) can be converted. Removed a quote by Sumati.
 * References
 * Tamal Krishna Goswami, being a disciple and an ISKCON functionary, can be considered as non-WP:NEUTRAL.
 * I would suggest that he be replaced as references for claims such as "Thus the honorary title acknowledged his scholarship and devotion", "a respectful epithet that “enjoys currency with devotees and an increasing number of scholars”"
 * His parents, Gour Mohan De and Rajani De, named him Abhay Charan, meaning “one who is fearless, having taken shelter of Lord Krishna’s lotus feet”. Abhay as Sanskrit word only means Fearless. The italicized phrase is not encyclopedic and reads like "devotee literature".-- Redtigerxyz Talk 14:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Satsvarupa dasa Goswami, another disciple and ISKCON management
 * "With great effort and struggle, he finally succeeded to translate, produce, raise funds for, and print the first of its twelve cantos." - questionable neutrality, probably WP:PEACOCK
 * "Abhay would carefully hear from his spiritual master." - PEACOCK
 * I am not the best copyeditor, but this article needs a copyedit for encyclopedic tone.
 * Removed "of course a ticket", "It was at this time also,"

Thank you very much. Will work on these and other issues. Could you please add your point about overquoting in Views in this thread on this exact topic? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 10:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:PEACOCK: "To leave India, Bhaktivedanta Swami had many hurdles to overcome", "After significant difficulties he managed to secure the needed sponsorship and approvals".
 * Images -
 * File:Prabhupada_in_Moscow_1971.tif - proof of release in public domain needed, unless the uploader is the author. see Volunteer Response Team.
 * File:1974 PAR B CT006213 adj.tif, File:1924_ALL_BP807_1_Lilamrita-1_photo_12-TangoDrum_Full.tif, File:1973 PAR V CT005157 DRUM.tif, File:BWneg 336 y21A-22.tif: proof not received yet.
 * Initiation vows is already covered in Beginnings in New York City.-- Redtigerxyz Talk 15:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Redtigerxyz very well written suggestions. Just one question - I was not sure regarding the point for:
 * - His parents, Gour Mohan De and Rajani De, named him Abhay Charan, meaning “one who is fearless, having taken shelter of Lord Krishna’s lotus feet”. Abhay as Sanskrit word only means Fearless.
 * I agree italics is not encyclopedic, but the quote has cited source "A Living Theology of Krishna Bhakti", which is by OUP - an academic publication, edited (with intro and conclusion) by Graham M. Schweig - not sure why it would be considered as non-WP:NEUTRAL Asteramellus (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Asteramellus Though it is OUP, it is an academic account by a disciple of Prabhupada about his guru. He is indeed a "scholar practitioner", an RS on Prabhupada. "Lord", "lotus feet" are characteristic sectarian references, which will not be found in book on Prabhupada by just a scholar. However, I will suggest non-sectarian references by unrelated neutral third-parties for claims like “enjoys currency with devotees and an increasing number of scholars”, Thus the honorary title acknowledged his scholarship and devotion. For lotus feet reference, I am okay if the italicized phrase is rewritten in encyclopedic tone.  Redtigerxyz  Talk 16:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Redtigerxyz yes thanks - definitely agree about things like “enjoys currency with devotees and an increasing number of scholars”. Regarding the italicized phrase, I think someone already have made it non-italicized and since it is a quote (I didn't read the book to confirm if it is there), can't rewrite the quote itself if we keep the quote. Asteramellus (talk) 20:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)