Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:20, 10 October 2013

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Brahma Kumaris article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 30 days

The Arbitration Committee has placed this article on probation. The principals in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris are expected to convert the article from its present state based on original research and BK publications to an article containing verifiable information based on reliable third party sources. After a suitable grace period, the state of the article may be evaluated on the motion of any member of the Arbitration Committee and further remedies applied to those editors who continue to edit in an inappropriate manner. Any user may request review by members of the Arbitration Committee. Posted by Srikeit for the Arbitration committee. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Yoga This article is within the scope of WikiProject Yoga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Yoga, Hatha yoga, Yoga as exercise and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YogaWikipedia:WikiProject YogaTemplate:WikiProject YogaYoga ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. India Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Spirituality This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirituality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spirituality-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpiritualityWikipedia:WikiProject SpiritualityTemplate:WikiProject SpiritualitySpirituality ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Hinduism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion: New religious movements Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as High-importance).

Template:WP1.0

Archives

Nov 2005 – July 2006 July 2006 – Sept 2006 Sept 2006 – early Oct 2006 late Oct 2006 – late Nov 2006 December 2006 Late Dec 2006 – Feb 2007 March 2007 – June 2007 July 2007 – August 2007 Late August 2007 Sept 2007 – Feb 2008 Feb 2008 – Mar 2013 July 2013 –

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Article Tags

I think it's important that potential readers have their attention flagged that there is currently a consensus the article in it's current form is not of encyclopedic quality. I am re-instating the tags for COI and Cherry picking that J18 had removed. Regards Danh108 (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Is the "conflict of interest" tag for you people, seeing as you are all Brahma Kumari followers and being guided as a tagteam from a Brahma Kumari discussion forum?

I don't think they are necessary as the topic is highly accurate. Indeed, you've never even disputed it's well referenced accuracy. It's impossible to remove your repeated actions from the actions of the other Brahma Kumari meatpuppets, e.g. rather than just developing a sandbox version as you have been politely requested and facilitated, you keep inserting them to provoke a conflict, while another new user goes off and an accusation.

Why not avoid conflict and just develop the sandbox? --Januarythe18th (talk)

Good point J18 - it would seem which ever side one comes from, both agree the tags should be there!! So it is safe to say that if someone keeps removing them unilaterally, they really are NOT that sincere in their accusations Danh108 (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I suggest leaving the tags for now, as I've indicated, well-referenced is not a synonym for encyclopedic. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 20:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry but there's a lot of euphemistic language and Misplaced Pages jargon being misused on this page misleadingly by individuals whose lack of commitment to the Misplaced Pages as a whole makes me doubt they even fully understand how they are used here.

Wikipedian's consensus should be to the facts, not to the hive mind of the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University's public relations interests.

Let's be honest about what it going on here and what you are really saying, Danh108.

Why not save us all the grief and just show us your alternative version in the sandbox? You never respond to that obvious suggestion. --Januarythe18th (talk) 06:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually I did already respond directly to your suggestion. For the benefit of your memory, I was concerned that if you are struggling to discuss the lede, why would increasing the volume of content to be discussed improve your attitude? The second point I made was that I was following Vecrumba's editing suggestions, not yours, due to neutrality concerns. For that reason, your sandbox ruse was flatly rejected. Danh108 (talk) 09:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Which I answered, to refresh your memory, because the lede is a summary of the article.

Therefore, show us the article you want first - even in a rough form - and share with us the overview of where you want to take it. Else, how would we know what the lede fits?

I've created a sandbox version for you, please just quickly knock up a rough edit as a starting point. --Januarythe18th (talk) 09:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Reading the article and the discussion on talk pages over last few weeks, I am also convinced that Article Tagging is important here

looking at the condition of the article and views from various editors here some of which are clearly non-adherrents and neutral.

@J18, Please respect this general view. Tags do no harm here as article is still unchanged except that they will bring more

passers-by to pitch in and thereby bringing diverse views towards a long term resulution over disputes over this article. Rather

than getting into editwarring, I strongly encourage you discuss why these Tags are not needed here on talk page. Changeisconstant (talk) 13:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Anti-BK POV

As far as I have been following the talk on the article, it seems all editors, except Januarythe18th, agree that the article, as in its present form, is tendentious towards an anti-BK POV, being guilty of Confirmation_Bias. It carefully ignores any positive view given by references and chooses only the ones that sound most odd. Users tried to place tags to inform readers about it, but those tags were removed by Jan18. I suggest those tags to be replaced, as per WP:CONSENSUS. I think it's the opinion of 5 editors against the opinion of 1. If Jan18 editwars, I will report his behavior. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 23:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Adding a {{POV}} tag doesn't normally require consensus. Normally all that's needed is an explanation of how the article is slanted. —rybec 23:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Rybek, followed your advice and added tag. I am assuming the explanations on the bias throughout the talk page are enough, if you don't think so, please let me know and I will exemplify clearly. Any reverts by Jan18 will be understood as editwar and reported. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 01:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

No, that's really not what Rybec said, please don't use them in your summaries that manner. Having put in your second admin complaint (having made no more than 3 minor constructive edits to the Misplaced Pages to date), you're now merely trying to set me up. We call that WP:GAMING. The Misplaced Pages is not chess, perhaps you should read up on the rules first? You've got to establish how you think it is slanted, and perhaps you could start off by underlining any factual inaccuracies within the referenced material.

I'm sorry but given the recent history I am going to have to step in and underline past conversations. I am unrepentant about flagging up at what is going on here which is WP:MEAT, pure and simple. There is a tagteam of BK editors coordinating with one and other and being guided not just in their edits but also questionable strategies, such as invoking and using others. For example, with zero editing experience, we're expected to believe that GreyWinterOwl has the knowhow to construct complexly formatted accusations, and admin complaints.

A way forward has been proposed but soundly ignored by them. That is to prepare a their organization's preferred sandbox version of the topic, to show us what it is they want, and to discuss it from the overview, rather than carrying on this wasteful war of irritation and attrition. They have also been requested to list which references they consider to be factually inaccurate but not done so. They cant. The topic is factually accurate and very well referenced.

Please save everyone the waste of time and energy and just develop the sandbox version of BKWSU topic. Let us see it and then discuss. --Januarythe18th (talk) 02:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Jan18, am I the one WP:GAMING, or are you? Let me quote the description of WP:GAMING and anyone who reads can decide which one is doing that: "Gaming the system means deliberately using Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines in bad faith to thwart the aims of Misplaced Pages. Gaming the system may represent an abuse of process, disruptive editing, or otherwise evading the spirit of community consensus. Editors typically game the system to make a point, to further an edit war, or to enforce a specific non-neutral point of view." (emphasis mine). GreyWinterOwl (talk) 12:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, the article is highly factual (no one disputes that), well referenced and neutrally objective. It's just that you are not used to objective, inclusive views involving some criticism and, I suspect, want to turn it into a WP:ADVERT.

Therefore, good faith for editors of your experience would be to accept the help offered and develop a sandbox version of BKWSU topic. Let us see it and then discuss. I'll help you with references and formatting etc. Please note, your own total of 3 very minor content edits were instantly reverted, showing that you are also inexperienced in this area and so the sandbox would be the place to start.

Where there is a tagteam operating, policies such a "consensus" take second place as the very purpose of a tagteam or meatpuppets is to manipulate it. This is nothing new to the Misplaced Pages. --Januarythe18th (talk) 13:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

YES, the factuality of the article IS disputed. It contains claims of sexual abuse by the religious founder which are NOT supported by any reference. The current article IS ALREADY a WP:ADVERT, but only an anti-BK advert instead of a pro-BK one. What I want and observe that other users here want, is bring the article to NEUTRALITY by consensus. I'm NOT part of any tagteam, nor do I see evidence on the talk page or edits that there is one, and no admin has demonstrated to agree with your conspiracy theory. I do not know ANY of the other editors on this page. Consensus is NOT secondary here, it's a basic guideline of Misplaced Pages and you are aggressively violating it. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 14:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Adherents of a religion contributing to topics on it

For the record, there is nothing wrong with adherents of any religion contributing information to a topic on it if it is it a mature, reputable religion with responsible academics operating to established standards. Indeed, for the sake of accuracy, it could even been beneficial. However, BKs have been requested to develop other pages on specific elements of it, such as their beliefs and yet they have not done so.

Why?

Because other editors are not under your command, have the same rights as editors as you have and are bound by the same guidelines as you are. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 10:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University lacks that solid academic foundation in logic and objectivity. It is not a real university. It does not operate according to academic norms; quite the opposite. It is merely the name of a young, rapidly evolving religion comprised of devoted followers who have been highly indoctrinated into a set of beliefs, often based on factually incorrect elements, by formally uneducated leaders.

As a group, they have not contributed anything of value to the topic, nor the Misplaced Pages on the whole, and yet wasted endless amounts of other editors' energy.

What they are experiencing is some kind of negative psychology reaction coming out from a highly controlled and closed environment into the light of day, another world operating by different rules. It is an unfair burden to expect the rest of us to cope with that. What counts are the references, not what their PR department wants. --Januarythe18th (talk) 02:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure you read the post of an admin on the admins noticeboard which said that you do NOT have the right to remove the right from editors of editing because of your opinion about their religious affiliation. If you think any editor here is mentally retarded and brainwashed by an evil cult, that's YOUR opinion and POV. Each editor here has the same importance, some of us are not from BK, and the consensus reached by all the other editors except you is still a consensus, and Misplaced Pages guidelines do NOT support you editwarring against it. Your point of view is NOT neutral, you are an ex-member of the organization which leaves you in a not better position than those who are members. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 10:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you are entirely skewing and misrepresenting my position. Every individual has the right to their own faith so far as it does not hurt or harm others; however, faith alone does not trump academic standards or in this case Wikipedian policies. I wrote the above to respond to the obvious response regarding adherents of a religion editing on their own original and to point out how I agreed with but with reservations. If we look at the great religions of the world, they have all produced great scholar who have done great scholarly work on their religion. Unfortunately, that is not true in the case of the Brahma Kumaris so far and so normal conditions do not apply.

I don't need to say any more. This is merely a tagteam WP:CIRCUS. On one hand, we have Danh108 goading with his provocations on my talk page; on the other hand we have you as a brand new editor, apparently able to make three complex admin complaints having made only three instantly reverted topic edits.

You're all ignoring the obvious, non-controverious, non-combative way forward which is to develop a sandbox copy of BKWSU topic and allow us to discuss in the overview where you want to take this topic.

You need to be cautious and do more than just cry wolf. More than anything, you need to develop a sandbox version. --Januarythe18th (talk) 11:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

edit request 2013-09-07

Could the maintenance tags at the top of the article be enclosed in {{multiple issues}} please? —rybec 17:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Seconded. Or just remove them until it is properly established just why they needed. --Januarythe18th (talk) 21:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The tags are consistent with the accusations being made by both camps. I would expect both sides would be in favour of maintaining the tags until an article that neither camp likes much (but that strikes a fair balance) can be drafted. Regards Danh108 (talk) 03:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

How best to resolve this dispute

The article has been locked by Admin seeing the dispute and edit warring going on. I believe this may be good for the article. Request all

editors to pitch in on how best to resolve this dispute. @ J18, request you to collaborate and respect Wiki Admin's direction to resolve

this dispute rather than just attacking all the editors. Changeisconstant (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The way forward is simple.

You people develop your sandbox copy of BKWSU topic and show us where you want to take the topic. Then we can discuss it as a whole.

In you wish, you could also make a simple, logical and detailed list of which references you consider to be factually wrong, e.g. BKWSU factual errors. I suggest you do so on a separate page from this one, to avoid it becoming too long and buried in banter.

Please note, some people find the use of "you people" to be offensive but I am at a lost how to address you in the plural in any other way. I am not for one minute going to entertain the illusion that you are not a hivemind operating at least partially as coordinated meatpuppets or a tagteam and being supplied with instructions and information off wiki.

You have the opportunity on the sandbox copy of BKWSU topic page to demonstrating to us that 'you' are able to collaborate together, handle complex referencing, formatting and so on, as none of you have demonstrated any serious commitment to the Misplaced Pages or learning about it so far.

Please save all your personal attacks and doublespeak for elsewhere. There's a difference between "collaboration" and a tagteam railroading their agenda through. Thank you. --Januarythe18th (talk) 21:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it's better I don't respond to the flaws and WP breaches in J18's comments above. I prefer the way forward Vecrumba had suggested, going through the article piece by piece on the talk page. He had drafted a sample lede for us to consider. The reason for this preference was that Vecrumba was neutral to the article and has more experience on Misplaced Pages than all the other present editors combined. Regards Danh108 (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The simplest, quickest and easiest way is if you work together and write your own version of article, and then let us see it.What parts are acceptable, can then be used. As new users, you all need the experience in a sandbox copy of BKWSU topic first because you are likely to break many things.

I think a simpler and more obvious explanation is that having been seeded with almost identical accusations by another member of the BKWSU tagteam, 2 years ago ( Riveros11, here ), Vecrumba was then cherry picked by you a month ago as a useful device or distraction.

How else would you, as a new contributor, have known to go to Vecrumba out of all the other Wikipedians at random?

Either you must think we are stupid or naive, or you have to admit you are working together.

Vecrumba is not the first editor or admin to be set up and used in such a way. --Januarythe18th (talk) 19:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I do refute and take issue with pretty much every point January18th is making. January18th is ascribing motives and intentions to others without evidence, simply projecting his own weird conspiracy theory onto everything others do. His posts breach even the most basic religious freedoms that are typically afforded by Western democracies. 'You people' is derogatory, so are comments like 'hive mind' and it's just unhelpful if January19th can't maintain basic levels of civility.

Just one example of how ridiculous the above accusations are. Re contacting Vecrumba - he has independently commented at the top of this talk page, and I clicked his name there. Januarythe18th already know this, but just continues with making allegations....

In my view the sandbox suggestion is wasting everyone's time. If January18th won't allow even one section or sentence to be edited, I hardly think he is going to change his attitude for the whole article. January18th, I have heard you - it's about the 15th time you have suggested this (no exaggeration!). Danh108 (talk) 22:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

So any editor who focuses on this article, is according to Jan18, a tagteam member, and each editor who is not focused here, but also wants to edit the article, has been "set up by the tagteam". I don't know about other editors, but what my brain translates from that is Jan18 meaning: "the only person who can edit this article is me and I will revert anything by anyone else".

In my opinion, the way forward is just to follow wiki guidelines, act according to them. WP:BRD describes a simple process of editing, discussing and consensus. Pick up a line from the article or from a reference, discuss first, reach a neutral (and substantiated) point about it, then edit according to that.

Clear discussions about content have been difficult in this talk page, specially by lengthy and repetitive accusations: "tagteam", "SPA", "they want to turn the article into an advert." Despite the active editors here having already said, they want to bring the article to neutrality, wikipedic/encyclopedic standards. The article now is already an WP:ADVERT, but an anti-religious one. The article should not be an advert either to the religion nor to the haters of the religion.

I suggest the following: Whenever a thread is open about something of the article, we could agree of not making any accusation to each other inside that thread. Let's at least separate the threads which are to discuss content, from the ones discussing editors, it's the only way we will be able to discuss with clarity. And let's all remember the Talk_page_guidelines, a beautiful page which explains good practices within a talk page. For example: discuss content, the pyramid which shows which arguments are the best, stay on topic in each thread not to confuse the focus of the discussion, avoid unnecessarily lengthy posts. These are all main points on the Talk_Page_Guidelines. If we act by them, we can create, one by one, threads with specific ideas of the article and then come to a consensus aiming neutrality... never a pro-BK or anti-BK view.

I also suggest keeping the tags, they just tell the article needs to be neutral, which is the standard of Misplaced Pages. If no one here wants to advertise, the proof is accepting the tags. The idea of improving the article and bringing it to neutrality and encyclopedic quality, implies not being hurt by the tags, they only remind the necessity of neutrality. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 22:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Getting on with Content: Article structure

Hi all, I'm interested to hear what people think about what basic content should be included in the article. This was suggested in earlier discussions. I now intend to completely ignore repetitive allegations/unkind/negative comments and get on with being a Wikipedian i.e. address content. Any elaboration on the suggestions below?

-Lede

-Early history

-Brahma Baba and Mateshwari (or Lekhraj Kripalani and Radhe ________ ) That is, if others think the other old article on the founder is better :abandoned and amalgamated into this article.

-Expansion (some sort of map/picture?)

-Brahma Kumaris at the United Nations

-Brahma Kumaris and Health Care (e.g. the Global Hospital, the Village Outreach Ambulance, the expansion of this to another hospital in Mumbai, the aFoundation, values in healthcare program etc).

-Brahma Kumaris and the Environment (e.g. the use of solar power (incl currently under construction world's largest 'solar farm' 1 Megawatt Power :generation plant), attending in an official capacity all the recent major climate change conferences, green policy etc)

(as these are all some of the main areas of 'expansion')

-Other Activities and recognition

-Brahma Kumaris Core Beliefs

-Criticisms of the Brahma Kumaris

I don't think there is a need for separate sections on 'Mediumship' or the mis-described 'legal action against critic'. The former would fit in core beliefs and the latter in the Criticisms section. Regards Danh108 (talk) 22:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

My view is that the core beliefs should come before the other activities like BK at the UN etc. Readers should get a view of what does

Brahmakumarism mean early in the article. The section on legal action is certainly an advert for brahmakumaris.info and it should fit in

to criticisms. Last section can be named as "Controversies and Criticism" just like it stands today. Another suggestion is to include

activities like UN/healthcare/environment etc in one section (each can be subsection). Else it would appear as an advert - clearly

Brahmakumaris key focus is not on healthcare or environment  ! Changeisconstant (talk) 10:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The topic structure already follows similar models. It's perfectly good as is. All I can do is repeat previous encouragements to go develop the separate topic on Brahma Kumaris beliefs and practices which I have just moved and corrected (wrong capitalisation) as per other comparables, e.g. Scientology. The Dadi Janki Foundation which is an entirely separate organisation. Ditto, so is the J Watumull Global Hospital & Research Centre. Separate organisation, separate topic, separate page. Please go ahead and develop them.

Your lack of experience shows, and this remains my biggest concern, e.g. a) Radhi Pokardas Rajwani is a non-notable individual, b) the Misplaced Pages does not report on future events (..."currently under construction"), despite its frequent advertising of it, the BKWSU has a non-notable status within a minor department of the UNO which is pretty much limited to handing in opinion papers, and why bury the beliefs right at that end? They define the religion.

You're underlining what we already know and that is, what you want is a WP:ADVERT that follows the religion's own websites and PR martketing, e.g. . Your outline makes it look like it will be a cackhanded advert riddled with policy problems. We've also not got any examples of your quality of work and ability to handle formatting and references etc, because none of you have done any substantial work on the Misplaced Pages at all.

That is why a sandbox version is your only way forward. --Januarythe18th (talk) 14:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

@J18, There is no need for a seperate BK beliefs Wiki page- you are contradicting yourself by saying that beliefs should be stated

upfront which was my point as well; lets focus on content here and no point endlessly repeating your sandbox suggestion and wasting

others' time. Beliefs are fundamental to the organization and should be part of this article. Changeisconstant (talk) 15:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't origins be a better section name than "early history" and "doctrine" rather than "core beliefs"? GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Graeme's suggestions seem good. Or possibly just "beliefs"? Although "doctrine" seems ok too. A suggestion could be the beliefs coming first, before history, as BK is a religious movement, therefore beliefs are most relevant and what defines it the most. I'm ok with "origins", would also like to point out the possibility of simply "history". GreyWinterOwl (talk) 21:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

If one looks at other comparables, e.g. Jehovah's Witness, Mormons, Scientology, ISKON etc, it's history and beliefs. "Origins" is somewhat different from "History", e.g. it would lead to a discussion of the environment and culture from which the religions arose. I'm fine about dropping "core".

Brahma Kumaris beliefs and practices already exists, so you're too late, Changeisconstant. With only 3 small edits, it's too much to expect you have a broad understanding and objective view of how the Misplaced Pages works. The purpose of having a summary on the main page and a second page, as per other religions, is to stop main page becoming too long and allow for more depth and detail on the second. Please go develop it further.

The good reason for the BKs to develop a sandbox is because whilst they may share a consensus amongst themselves, none of them have sufficient editing or Misplaced Pages experiencing and have already demonstrated elementary mistakes, e.g. formatting or non-notability. If they continue to refuse and ignore this option, and refuse to gain more experience over a wider range of topics and learn policies, then it'll be proof of their bad faith and a clear agenda.

Much of this has already been discussed. It places an unfair burden on other editors to have to go over it time and time again every time another BK follower comes forward to champion their religion, or have an admin make word by word changes on their behalf. This latest wave even admits it's being supplied with information and coordinated off wiki.

There's no other way forward but a sandbox copy in the short term for very good reasons. It's a sign of their lack of experience that they do not even understand what those reasons are. --Januarythe18th (talk) 22:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Chico (Change is constant). I had put the practical things first hoping it would be less contraversial/easier to get consensus on, plus some might say 'actions speak louder than words', and are also very defining, however I think you are right - extra care needs to be taken with this article. I also agree with your point about not needing a separate beliefs article, as was Vecrumba's view. Thank you Greame for your suggestions. I don't have a strong view re doctrine/beliefs. However I would agree with Januarythe18th about the word 'origins' giving a much wider scope, where as 'history' or 'early history' seems more appropriate/specific to the intended content. I really liked the owl's suggestion about keeping separate threads for content versus bagging/criticing each other. I find I can easily miss some good points about content if they are mixed in with somewhat repetitive jabbing at other editors.

• My intention is to now start going through the article piece by piece, reaching consensus for each part that we are looking at. If any particular editor just can't cope with the consensus reached, the usual arbitration process is available for them.
• I think it's good to take up Vecrumba's suggestoin, which was a 'fresh start' approach - to completely jettison the old article (albeit one piece at a time). I think this is in line with the sandbox suggestion too.
• I think it would be good to include some of the various other random related pages that are littering Misplaced Pages - J18 found the one on "Mama", there is also a random page listing BK members that seems fairly pointless, as well as the beliefs page, the page for the founder etc. For such a small fairly non-notable organisation with about 70-80 years of history, one page should suffice.

If the majority are happy with this, the only question is where to start. I would suggest NOT the lede, only because we might end up in arbitration straight away, and this content focus has been quite refreshing. Where do others think we should start? Sorry for my delayed response. Regards Danh108 (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

You are right about the lede not being the place to start. The lede should summarise the article content. Once there is agreement on article content, then that content can be summarized down into the lede.

Talking of summaries, even if sub-pages are not incorporated back into the article, a summary of them should be included in this article WP:SUMMARY. Likewise where content is detailed, it may be hived off to a sub-article. At the moment the beliefs and practices sub-article looks very much like it duplicates most of the section of this one.

On "origins" - probably better for if/when the history needs sub-sectioning. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, not starting on the lede was my point.

Dan, you have a deceptive habit of putting into others mouth what you yourself want to say. Please don't. It's you and the other BKs who want to jettison the current topic.

Graeme, the second page would make sense in a normal topic area which had been allowed to develop reasonably and logical. A brief summary of beliefs is sufficient for the primary page. The second page can go into more depth. My feeling, from past experience, their lack of engagement with it and the proposed structure is that they don't because they don't want to detail the actual beliefs and practise but develop a facade inline with their religion's PR. Hence all the usual emphasis on things like the environment and UN which they are either non-notable for or are of little real world significance.

The problem we have had in the past is that all the focus of the BKs' conflict has been on attempt to gain control, influence or fight over this page leading to it being locked up as it is now whilst other pages are neglected. None of them have any Wikipedian experience, it makes sense that they develop their skills on other pages. Therefore my persistent encouragement to develop a sandbox version first and, if they are unwilling to edit on other subjects, then at least they could edit on other pages relating to their religion. However, I don't expect they will as that is not why they are here.

As a number of the BKs are being coordinated central as a tagteam from off wiki, I tend to consider their "consensus" as merely a single opinion with a strong conflict of interest. It's not consensus as is understood on the Misplaced Pages, it's insincere, disruptive and meatpuppetry. A perpetual war of attrition which has distracted from genuine and perfectly reasonable improvements as your own.

Because of this, I'm digging my heels in as far as them developing their preferred sandbox version first and allowing us to look at it. Looking through the talk page archive, this has been going on for years and the Misplaced Pages is no better off for any of their involvement.

Part of the reason is simple their lack of experience, part of it is due to their agenda. It's unfair to waste other people's time and energy going over every word which has already been gone over so many times with other BK followers in the past which I can put into context from my own experience.

I'd like you to acknowledge this suggestion and give me a chance to make it work. They need experience, to show themselves and their agenda, and the Misplaced Pages ought to get something out of their involvement too. Please don't be sucked into it all until they are willing to show some good faith in this way. Thank you--Januarythe18th (talk) 09:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

(Ignoring Jan18 repetitive accusations and addressing the content...) I think to have a secondary page for beliefs in an article about a NRM is the same as having a secondary page for biography in an article about a person. Beliefs are absolutely primary and what defines a religion, if you want them to be detailed in another page, that's something else and I'm not even sure that's the role of an encyclopedia, but the first page must contain a comprehensive description of the main beliefs and there is no reason not to detail them, aiming clarity, which will probably make a secondary beliefs page redundant. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 11:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, without wishing to cause offence, what you think in this context is not worth very much because you have so little experience on the Misplaced Pages. I say that because if you spent a few minutes researching it, you'd discover separate pages on religious beliefs are a common norm. Otherwise pages become too long. There's plenty of good referenced material to develop another page on beliefs and practises. If you stopped wasting my time, I'd work on developing it even if you wont.

(Excuse me if I sound a little tired at having to explain to every new BK supporter that comes along to chip away at this topic. It's becoming unreasonable.) --Januarythe18th (talk) 16:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

"I'm digging my heels in as far as them developing their preferred sandbox version first and allowing us to look at it" - comes across as a siege mentality and dangerously close to OWN. Working through issues and suggested changes to text on the talkpage is the usual and most open and above board method of sorting issues. Sandboxed versions have their place with a radical overhaul of an article text but I don't see that being proposed here. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

You may not have a radical overhaul in mind, Graeme. They clearly do. This is not a "usual" situation. It's a case of coercive meatpuppetry, with a clear agenda, being coordinated 'off wiki'. If you want to prove whether things are all "above board", ask them if that is true. I think you'll be shocked of the scale of the unmatched efforts being put in.

As said, I not only suggested the sandbox, due to their lack of experience as in the past there have been numerous tagging (references) formatting problem, but also to detailed a list of any factual errors they see in the references. That's not been forthcoming either.

I would suggest that those two elements are the most logical and "above board" ways forward.

It's simple and far less time consuming of others.

All they have to do is show, a) this is what we would like (and why), b) these are our concerns about these factual errors. Then we can discuss and consider the best way forward.

At present the article is well referenced and follows a fairly standard structure. It's hard for me to believe that completely inexperienced editors, with a particular agenda, are going to miraculously improve it. This has been going on for years, it's about time they were straightforward and open about their aims.

Does that not seem reasonable to you? I think they have to prove some good faith. --Januarythe18th (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

@J18, Sorry but apart from endlessly repeating two things i.e. "This article is well referenced/ accurate" you are dangerously close to OWN as Graeme highlighted and by

"You are all inexperienced" you are close to violating WP:DNB. This mentality is so opposite of what an experienced editor on Wiki would never resort to.

New editors also valuable to Misplaced Pages community so enough of you demeaning others when the fact is that you have also pretty much spent most of your time on this single

article inorder to control it. I am sorry to bring this up here but its becoming tiring to see J18 trying to dictate terms as if its his copyright. I would propose that we move all such

accusations somewhere else so that this section remains focussed on content. If you want to develop a new page on beliefs, go ahead with it and let rest collaborate

to improve this article. I refute your allegations of meatpuppetry and I am going to challenge BKs as well to ensure neutrality Changeisconstant (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Back to Content

As only one editor doesn't agree, I feel it's fine to continue as suggested. I propose we start moving through the article as per the topic headings put forward, as per the order suggested by chico and pasted below. Does anyone want to redraft the history section and paste below? Regards Danh108 (talk) 19:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

   -(Early) history
   -Brahma Baba and Mateshwari 
   -Brahma Kumaris Core Beliefs
   -Brahma Kumaris at the United Nations
   -Brahma Kumaris and Health Care 
   -Brahma Kumaris and the Environment 
   -Other Activities and recognition
   -Controversies and Criticisms of the Brahma Kumaris 

Danh108 (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest that in an article that the aspects such as environment and healthcare should appear within the history in an appropriate chronological order. If environmentalism is a natural extension of the BK belief system, then that would also be the appropriate place to mention it. I presume in fact that all activities are directed in part if not whole by their beliefs and should be mentioned alongside them as illustrative. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I think Graeme's idea is nice. The current history seems to be written by someone with a negative bias, and contain only controversies. As Graeme suggested, that's the right place for the activities like health care and environment. Another comment I would like to make about the history, is that 50% or more of it is speaking about a splinter group, which is absolutely non-notable. I think this is very unbalanced, and it doesn't actually fit history at all, it could be briefly mentioned in "controversies". What do you guys think? GreyWinterOwl (talk) 22:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Danh108, I am sorry but persistently ignoring my input, and the reasonable suggestions made, is just attempting to railroad through what you want, without actually fully disclosing what it is you want. You're wasting all of our time and energy.

Much of what you are proposing again, I say again as other BKs have also done so in the past, has been covered in previous discussion, e.g. the use of the founder's real name. The use of devotional names is out, especially in the case Rajwani.

As I stated, Radhi Pokardas Rajwani is a non-notable individual from a historical and Wikipedian point of view. You'll not find sufficient resources to substantiate her inclusion outside of hagiographic representations by the religion itself. You may believe she is the Mother of Humanity and number 2 soul, but you won't be able to support the assignment of a religion title and status such as "the consort of Mateshwara" (Mateshwari), from any sources.

You've ignored (again) my comments regarding the UN, and are pushing (again) to reflect BKWSU own hagiographic PR websites in your structure, and presumably yet to be revealed content.

Although worthy of inclusion in a sentence here and there, the BKs are really not notable either for their environmentalism (they still teach this world must be destroyed in an imminent nuclear war which they will inspire in order for heaven on earth to exist) nor for healthcare. What you are pushing for is how the BKs want to be seen in the West today, rather than how the BKs are, especially over the bigger picture of their existence worldwide. Consequently, it's non-Wikipedian.

The scale of your diverge from Misplaced Pages principles and towards devotional propaganda, on top of your ignoring of other questions or suggestions, is so great that it destroys your credibility completely and cannot be taken seriously.

GreyWinterOwl, the current well referenced history is objective. You cannot expect the same hagiographic treatment one will find on the BKWSU own books or websites. If, objectively, that history includes controversies, then the Misplaced Pages page will reflect that where they are well referenced.

What you are all experiencing is a sort of personal discomfort at the dissonance between your faith based indoctrination and reality. The Misplaced Pages deals in realities, not religion and not PR. Have you actually read any of the major references to see how the world sees you? If so, which ones?

I've often asked you, to the response of silence, to list what you believe are the factual inaccuracies. There basically are none. The only one I would say, as I did not write it, is that the Brahma Kumaris teach they will rule the world for 2,500 years, not 1,250 years. The rest of highly factual.

Once they built their big solar cooker, we can mention it but not before.

a) Sandbox version.

b) List of inaccurate references.

c) Go start and edit other pages, BK related or not.

d) Help and interact with other Wikipedians (in a non-complaining manner) and learn more about the values of this community.

I would advise against wasting any more admin time and energy by putting any more complaints to achieve your ambitions as I think they will go against you. --Januarythe18th (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

In all Jan18's lengthy post, I see absolutely no encyclopedic explanation to why a very small splinter group should occupy half of history of a NRM. All your arguments are ad-hominem. See WP:Talk_page_guidelines and also WP:Notability. It says the amount of details of the content in an article must follow WP:DUE. WP:DUE says the amount of space given to each viewpoint over a subject must be proportional to how wide that viewpoint is supported. It's wikipedia saying that, not me. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 03:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, on the basis of 4 edits, 3 of which were instantly reverted because they were such a mess , and accusing me of "polluting a clean page" when I answer your purely technical question, I don't think you have sufficient credibility to throw around all that policy talk.

The question of the splinter group has never been raised in this discussion but is the persistent focus (and ire) of BK supporters coming to edit this page. Therefore, to find you raising it again it no surprise. However, please don't wrap it in an accusation against me.

Was Martin Luther insignificant to the history of Christianity? The number of Protestant were also very small. Schisms, and the way the religion responds to them, is a very important part of the development of a religion. It's not in the history, it is expansion and it is probably there because other BK editors fought over it. I suppose we could have a separate section for splinter groups?

As usual, it would help us all very much if the BK tagteam would just sit down together and write their sandbox version and show us what other material there is that exists instead of wasting time arguing over everything.

Why would you not? None of you have much experience editing, you need the practise. You also need to gain more experience on the Misplaced Pages as a whole. --Januarythe18th (talk) 02:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Ad-hominem doesn't help to justify undue weight as per WP:Talk_page_guidelines, WP:DUE and WP:Notability. Please explain, why half the history should talk about a very small splinter group. Protestantism has absolutely nothing to do with that as they are a very widely spread branch of christianity and therefore their weight is not comparable to the splinter group we are talking about, being undue and False_analogy. Please avoid dispersion and vague accusations and address the content objectively. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 03:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments not related to Content

Here is the section for discussions that don't relate to content. I thought I could kick if off by mentioning to Januarythe18th that you don't have much experience on Misplaced Pages either, actually you only really became active on Wiki in December 2011, and the vast majority of your activity is on one page, so as a SPA already considered by admin to be a fan or follower of an advocacy group, probably a good idea to pull your head in. Regards Danh108 (talk) 19:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we actually do need a section for having a go at each other. So I think we should consider this section closed. If anyone feels the need to express their negative opinions of another editor, I suggest they do it offline with their friends over a cup of tea. And having purged, return to the article with a clear head and a reliable source to hand. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough comment Greame - it's a bit tongue and cheek. But I think the purpose is a really good one - so much of the material being posted is not related to content, and it really slows the editing process down. It would be good to do something to focus attention on content rather than accusations/conspiracy theories etc. How would you feel if I named it "Legitimate WP Policy based concerns about editors"? You've been around by the far the longest of the editors on this page - any suggestions how you've seen this managed on other articles? Your feedback is much appreciated Danh108 (talk) 00:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

In my experience, for a start assume good faith and remain polite, try to find common ground, on matters explain your own POV and at the same time try to understand the other editor's (or editors') position so that you can minimize friction when you propose changes to content.

In the case of content dispute between a pair of editors there is seeking a third opinion on the text.

You can try and engage editors from the wider community - eg from related wikiprojects or on the noticeboards for tackling specific issues. Requests on either should be neutrally worded to avoid accusations of canvassing.

If you genuinely believe it's the other editor who is the problem there a process for discussing that behavior. If there are clear infringements of specific policies you can seek administrator intervention for a remedy.

But at any stage in a conflict with an editor there is the possibility that it will turn out that you were blind to your own failings and the whole thing will blow up in your face.

Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution is the policy on dealing with issues between editors.

I would say try to avoid drama, a lot of to-and-fro adds little but extra words on the talkpages. Your greatest assets are a reasoned argument based on Reliable sources and taking time choosing your words - whether in the article text or on the talk page. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

And WP:DICK. Stop wasting the time and energy of non-BKs Wikipedian editors and admins to try and get what you want. --Januarythe18th (talk) 20:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for using the appropriate section January. Much appreciated. Danh108 (talk) 21:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Greame, Much appreciated. A nice thorough surmise. You didn't comment on the strategy of a separate section for non-content for trying to keep posts focused on content - I get the impression that is all talk pages are ever really supposed to be about, unfortunately there has been some digressions here which I think most of the editors just want to shake off/cut away so we can get on with building a cool encyclopedia.

For my own conduct, I will be focusing on content and just ignoring any of the repetitive issues we've been having on the page. Thanks again. Danh108 (talk) 21:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

That struck out title you just did, here would be considered WP:DICKish. I would suggest not doing so, and not misusing the edit summaries sarcastically to make a point. I don't think you're taking these matters seriously enough.

Before changing any well reference content, you're going to have to put up a strong argument and consensus based on references for it, and not just vague, undefined claims of "unencyclopedic" etc.

Your way forward is to develop a sandbox version first. By all means collaborate with other followers. Gain more experience on the Misplaced Pages. If you'd done so at the very beginning, you'd be finished a long time ago and we could discuss it. Consensus building cannot be based on ignoring. --Januarythe18th (talk) 01:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Greame for the advice - it will be good to follow it and better to ignore endless repetitions and personal attacks of an editor to focus the talk page on content.

Thanks J18, you have also mentioned to focus on content here so lets bring the focus back to content. Changeisconstant (talk) 08:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

As the 2 mature editors (Vecrumba and Greame) have recommended the current course of action, the sandbox suggestion has been rejected. January, perhaps when you have more experience like these editors, you will understand their point - I feel safe to assume their 8 years each of editing Misplaced Pages is more valuable than your 18 months spent over one article. If you don't like their suggestion, feel free to edit somewhere else for a while and pop in to see how we are going later. If you have feedback about content, your thoughts won't be ignored - I already preferred your suggestion about not using the word "origins". Regards Danh108 (talk) 17:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe either of them specifically did and what is clearly emerging from both yourself and GreyWinterOwl is a strategy of using other Wikipedian's names to express your own rejection and opinions. This is, of course, a strategy directly from your puppet master, used in the past, and utterly transparent.

--Januarythe18th (talk) 23:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

An alternative route forward

It may be that no one has time at present to re-draft particular sections of the article. Also given the current editing environment, it might be better if the changes planned are small and very specific i.e. removal of the smallest and trashiest parts of the article. At this stage the main concerns that have been repeated are:

1. The BOL issue with re Dadi Janki

2. The unsubstantiated sexual misconduct claims in the history

3. The use of "secretive" in the lede

4. The dedication to a splinter group in the history

5. The mis-reporting of the domain name dispute and promotion of the .info website in the final section (at best this should be in the controversies section).

I propose that we start with number 1. If there is consensus for it's deletion, then it will be deleted. If it is re-inserted, then the matter will be escalated. I have concerns that this section lacks verifability: "Since 1978, the BKWSU is accused of falsifying claims internationally that its current leader and relative of the founder Dadi Janki Kripalani is "the most stable mind in the world". Journalists quoted archivists at the University in question and "found no mention of the experiments performed on Dadi Janki in 1978". Indeed, they could not even "find any University of Texas organisation called the Medical and Science Research Institute.""

Problems with the so called 'published journalist'....This journalist openly goes under the handle "Captain Porridge".

1. This individual has posted on Misplaced Pages requesting other editors to help him in writing his anti-BK article/s .

2. He participates in the advocacy group run by the disgruntled John Allan, respondent in the Arbitration dispute mentioned in the BK Wiki article reference , and

3. He also openly names the people supporting the Applicant in the Arbitration dispute in what appears to be an attempt to injure their reputation .

4. He writes for a student university gazette (Keimyung is the correct spelling) - hardly a credible source in itself

Consensus shouldn't be needed to delete in these circumstances, but in some ways we are pandering to January's strong emotional involvement....anyway, are other editors in support of this section being deleted? Regards Danh108 (talk) 20:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

"Captain Porridge" doesn't sound like a reliable source, so I guess a claim which is not substantiated by any reliable source shouldn't be part of a wikipedia page, as per WP:REF, WP:Source, and WP:NOTRS, the last link describes exactly what is a non-reliable source and "Capt. Porridge" fits precisely there. --GreyWinterOwl (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

My immediate concern is that the statement "Since 1978, the BKWSU is accused of falsifying claims internationally that its current leader and relative of the founder Dadi Janki Kripalani is "the most stable mind in the world"". is not supported by the references. The journalist only makes the claim that it is false in 2007 and refers to a website that wouldn't have existed in 1978. That is enough to my mind to say that the statement ought to be removed, or rewritten.

A better statement, bearing in mind the BLP issue, would be "In 2007, a journalist alleged that the BKWSU through its website was fraudulently claiming that its leader had in 1978... etc etc".

But I think you are actually asking two questions here - 1) is the source a reliable one for the accusation of a fraudulent endorsement, and 2) is the inclusion of the accusation NPOV, UNDUE etc

For the former, I would recommend that you cast the question of reliability to some uninvolved parties to give an opinion on - the Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Note that the introduction to the board says "and the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy" and the instructions on how to frame the question. You could draft the question here so that it can be seen that there is an agreement that the question is properly framed and fairly represents the issue before actually putting it to the noticeboard for consideration.

For the 2nd, that's a trickier one and something I will ponder upon.

Lastly, a person's identifier online is no indication of their competence: some influential bloggers go under colourful names (Jack-of-Kent and Guido Fawkes are examples in the UK) and I see some non-de-plumes in action on this very page. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The sentence could be written clearer. I understand it to mean that since 1978 the BKWSU have claimed Dadi Janki Kripalani is the most stable mind in the world and, latterly in 2007, they have been found to have falsified that claim. That would be factual, accurate and confirmed. The "most stable mind in the world business" and 1978 comes from numerous quote. They are still using it in India despite being official refuted by the international headquarters.

Just because something is bad PR does not mean it contravenes WP:BLP if it is factual, referenced and reasonable written. It's an important detail.

I dismiss your excuses for re-drafting the article either in entirety or in part because you are clearly going to waste far more time and energy on attempting to achieve incremental changes. Indeed, I'll go further to state that it is your shared and chosen strategy.

Secretive sticks. What other religion have you heard of that does not publish it's core scripture, does not encourage followers to share it, and even demands followers to attend their places of worship to read it? Only exceptionally secretive or occult ones. Show me where they are freely available and published like the Torah, Bible, Koran or Dhammapada, and I believe you. --Januarythe18th (talk) 23:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Graeme's suggestion on confirming reliability of "Capt. Porridge". However, please check if for example it's the case that he fits on WP:SELFPUBLISH, or somewhere else on WP:NOTRS, for example being a non-expert, then it may not be necessary to bring it to the noticeboard. I think the points and links shown by Dahn may exemplify quite well that his POV is non-neutral. Specially using internet forum posts from ex-members of the movement as the information to base his article, used as source for the claim. That violates WP:NOTRS quite a bit. I'm sure Graeme understands well about NPOV, so let's wait for his conclusion about it. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 23:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Graeme, the "protestant church" reference is in Walliss which is stated at the beginning of the sentence ("Walliss states that as ..."). The actual quote is, "The Advance Party. In many ways the ‘Advance Party’ (Adhyatmik Ishwariya Vishva Vidyalaya or AIVV) may be envisaged as the Protestant reformers to the Brahma Kumaris’ mediaeval Catholic Church." p. 98 in my copy. If you want to read a copy of it, just ask me and please ask in advance because it's all ground which has been gone over before.

Is there any good reason to remove a download link for a paper when it is available , or did you move it somewhere I cannot find it?. Thanks.

GreyWinterOwl, please stop misusing summaries and provoking edit warring, and putting words into other editors' mouths or attempt to play off them.

There is no advocacy group, and no consensus for its requirement. Indeed, there was no discussion for its inclusion. It's patently clear that it is just an effort on behalf of your tagteam to discredit a well referenced topic and exactly how previous meatpuppets warred. "Neutrality" you can have, as it is dispute but not yet proven. It covers everything, however, I still don't it is required.

The topic is highly accurate and objective. The problem is one of your own perception and agenda. The journalist uses his real name in publication (Peter Daly). How he styles himself in private is his own business. --Januarythe18th (talk) 23:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

You are the only editor who thinks the topic is accurate and objective, Vecrumba said it's not encyclopedic, he was in favor of the tags, so were every other editor except you. The points Danh raised hardly illustrate a neutral article, Confirmation_Bias is a real issue here and so is the advocacy group, as many points in the article, including claims on sexual abuse and the sentence we were talking about a few moments ago, came from brahmakumaris.info, which is an anti-BK advocacy group. There is more than enough reason for each of the tags. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 00:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

January, "Unsubstantiated accusations of tag teaming are uncivil. Care should be taken to frame assertions in an appropriate way, citing evidence in the appropriate venues, following our dispute resolution process." That is from the section you keep quoting but never following - I appreciate that as a new editor, you are still getting your head around these things. But please do follow the guidelines or refrain from what is bordering on diatribe.

@ Greame - thank you very much for your presence on the page - it's a very welcome contrast to the hostility I'm getting for being mis-identified as a BK follower etc etc. My main concern relates to your first point - whether a student newspaper is a reliable source, particularly when the 'journalist' openly discloses his fairly abysmal primary research that supposedly backs up his claim. January refuses to substantiate his claims of a retraction by the BK's, so I can't put much weight on that. I suggest the following question is posted: "Can a student gazette article be considered a reliable source for the purpose of accusing a living person of making fraudulent endorsement? In particular, when the articles author has a demonstrated conflict of interest" Regards Danh108 (talk) 01:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you going to deny that BK followers or supporters are being centrally coordinated and a BKWSU IT leader has invested large amounts of time and energy into databasing non-BK editors, their edits and discussions, and is advising and encouraging BK supporters on strategies to gain control of this topic?

That is meatpuppetry pure and simple and not acceptable on the Misplaced Pages.

The topic does not accuse the living person, it accuses the organization of falsifying claims about her. The organization has admitted it that it did and has instructed its centres to stop doing so. So have other leading individuals within the religion (I don't offer that as a reliable source, merely as part of the discussion as supporting evidence). It's common knowledge, it's evidenced, therefore it is safe.

The original quote actually came from 'God's Plan' (1981), Streitfeld, Harold Ph.D. Therefore, twist it as you wish, there is no problem with it. The journalist in question has no connection with the Brahma Kumaris at all, are going to start claiming that every non-BK follower who does not agree with you has a conflict of interest? What conflict of interest?

For a University, let alone one with a relationship with UN, to make false and unscientific claims about its leader is most certainly note worthy.

As far there being an advocacy group, tell us what it is called, how many members it has, where it is based, and so on. Substantiate your prejudices. --Januarythe18th (talk) 02:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

"It's common knowledge, it's evidenced, therefore it is safe." - Except that you didn't present the evidence you claim to exist. Self-published websites are not "evidence". You calling it common knowledge doesn't magically make it encyclopedic. You either have a reliable source to back it up or you don't. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 02:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I clearly stated that I did not present that website as evidence.

a) You cannot deny it is a fact.

b) An independent journalist, quoted an archivist at the University of Texas A&M and published it in a university gazette. That's is good enough. I think you should take your unhappiness back to who ever made the false and unscientific claims and stop aggressively creating conflict. --Januarythe18th (talk) 03:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Returning to an earlier question 1) quoted text should always be followed by a specific reference to its origin. So you are welcome to add Wallis p98 to the end of the sentence where I put the cite needed 2) in reformatting the reference, the link to Custodians_of_Purity_An_Ethnography_of_the_Brahma_Kumaris was retained and is still there. GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Whatever the deal is with this 'storm in a tea cup', what I found most interesting is that the disputed testing took place in San Francisco, but the journalist phoned a Texan University....ummmm, hello! No wonder the archivist was struggling. Danh108 (talk) 10:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

@Jan18: a) Is shifting the burden of proof. I cannot deny Barack Obama is actually from mars, but since no reliable source says that, it can't be stated in his WP article. b) We raised several reasons to classify him as non-neutral and non-reliable and you haven't proven them wrong. "That's good enough" doesn't magically eliminate the fact he is not an expert, is involved in an advocacy group, and used primary sources (forum posts) from that group as basis for the reference itself. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 23:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Januarythe18th, your argument about secretive doesn't hold good. You asked "What other religion have you heard of that does not publish it's core scripture, does not encourage followers to share it, and even demands followers to attend their places of worship to read it? Firstly you can not compare a relatively new movement Brahmakumaris with well established religions from centuries as for many religions, the scriptures evolved over a long period of time. Secondly, most of the religions also recommend followers to come to church, temples, mosques etc regularly; that doesn't make them secretive. Thirdly, just with some research, I was able to access the core of BK teachings "Murlis" available online on Brahma Kumaris Murlis. I could download the full version and even see it being spoken. Latest spoken ones that they call Avyakt Murlis are also available online on Youtube and elsewhere. Therefore Secretive in lede doesn't stick. Would you agree? Changeisconstant (talk) 22:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Having not heard back from J18 on this, I propose secretive is deleted from the lede. Vecrumba is not active here but did mention this as grossly judicial. Questions from J18 have been answered above. Do any of the other editors disagree with this deletion? Changeisconstant (talk) 09:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

You heard. You just had no intention to listen.

It stays because it comes in a number of verifiable sources, Miller says, "The Brahma Kumaris are both secretive and hierarchical in relation to organizational and teleological matters." That's a fact. Beit-Hallahmi notes "information is generally hidden from outsiders", that means the same. Walliss notes other information is "hidden from those who came after 1976". That's a repetition. Musselwhite writes, "not published for public consumption". It all adds up the same thing ... secretive.

Where, for example, are their publish accounts? They're a secret too.

Show me where on any official website the BKWSU tells the world about the forthcoming and imminent End of the World called Destruction, and any official document where it admits its God's predictions have failed on numerous occasions and I'll believe you that it is not secretive.

If you want to change the topic to say, "The BKWSU generally hides certain information from outsiders and newcomers to the religion, especially that relating to its End of the World predictions and their failures", I'll accept that as a compromise. --Januarythe18th (talk) 09:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The lede of a NRM is supposed to be a resume of the most important and relevant information about the NRM. The catholic church also hides the books on the Vatican library, but that is not enough for "secretive" to be an adjective in the lead of its article. Something in the lede describes the NRM as a whole, not a detail carefully chosen from a line in one reference. "Secretive" is a heavily undue WP:Weight. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 14:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

No, the lede of a topic is supposed to summarise the topic WP:LEAD, but forget wikilawyering, you don't have enough experience on which to base your arguments and are just using wikilawyering as a cover for your tagteam's own agenda.

If I want to read what Catholics believe, I can walk into any bookshop and buy a Bible. I can even buy and read a copy of every generation and translation of the Bible going back to the Dead Sea Scrolls, whereas with the Brahma Kumaris, we have adherents refused to have copies of their scripture to take home, being demanded to have to come to their centres to read them in designated areas, encrypted servers and instructed not to spread it around, and all that is available are heavily revised versions. That is very unique for any religion. Most stuff their beliefs down other people's throats and could not be happier than having someone interested in it. Hence it is due.

If I want to see various annual financial accounts and reports from their organisations, they are widely available online. Do the BKs publish theirs or hide/keep it secret?

Have the BKs, to offer another key example, told the United Nations that they are going to inspire the scientists to use the nuclear arsenal for Destruction, to kill off the rest of humanity. Or do they hide/keep that secret too, and call it "Transformation" to outsiders?

Do they tell other religions at interfaith rallies that "God has come" in person and is speak to them? That only they will inherit heaven and all other religions are merely "the paths of ignorance" or "stumbling in the darkness". Or do they hide/kept that secret too?

Do they tell the corporations and organisations they go into what they really believe? Or do they hide/keep it secret laced in euphemistic language.

I could go on. The Brahma Kumaris have quite fairly gained a reputation for secrecy, and this has been commented upon by verifiable sources. It is a defining factor. If you are not happy with that, then go change the religion. The difference between them and, say, the Catholic Church is that the Catholic Church is a mature religion which has done much more of the other stuff religions do, like feeding the hungry, tending for the weak, educating the poor, historical and philosophical research, sponsoring the arts etc.

The Brahma Kumaris as a very young religion is still in its cultic phase. It has done very little to serve anyone except for its own interests, or the interests of its leaders, and it is done so with an extremely and unethical millenarianist philosophy (which is why it keeps it secret for the most part). The topic reflects that. Indeed, I think you are lucky that the topic is not even more critical, and that at present it is as neutral as we can be.

There's no point pretending. Even when it does something good, it is for ulterior motives, e.g. this solar energy business happened not because they care about the environment but because it was paid for by governments and saved them money. It's also been noted, from verifiable sources, that when a BK wanted to start something truly charitable, e.g. the Village Project, they did so against the will of the leadership. And extreme rare it is too. --Januarythe18th (talk) 09:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

You also please stop pretending being owner or Admin or super expert of Misplaced Pages patronizing others when clearly you are violating the guidelines of Misplaced Pages at many junctures and most of this is your loaded POV and not even worth commenting. There is no hierarchy on Misplaced Pages. This is not Brahmakumaris.info forum; If you want to convert this as a forum to argue and reach nowhere, please use brahmakumaris.info forum and don't waste resources here. All you are doing is to deflect attention of editors all the time. Comparing a 2000 years old religion with something that started in 1930s and not even a recognized religion in any county in the world is a fallacious argument. Similarly repeating all the questions that you raise like on the bkinfo forum is useless and will not take us anywhere. What is the accounts disclosures to do with being secretive? Can you call an organization secretive if its not bound by law to disclose its accounts to public? Show us evidence that Brahmakumaris is bound by law to disclose accounts to public and not doing it then we will take it onboard else this is all fallacious. They do it to the authorities like Income tax deptt and not required to disclose it to public. Period. You can not cherrypick from references like you are doing to skew an article to the extent it is now. What appears to you as a worldview is not necessarily a world view and its just your point of view. Its better to get inputs from other editors as I know you are just going to continue all tactics to keep WP:OWN this article which itself is violation of Misplaced Pages. Changeisconstant (talk) 10:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, "What has a religion 'not publicly disclosing its wealth and income' got to do with being secretive?"! Are we on the same planet?

You're throwing a bit of red herring here and I should not take the bait ... but try asking 10,000 people, "if a new religious movement does not disclose its wealth and income to its adherents or outsiders, do you think it is being secretive?".

It's not really for me to question why the authors and academics have reported that the Brahma Kumaris were secretive. It's more for us to ask, are these authors and academics work verifiable, and they are. They are genuine academics at the top of their fields. From the context of their papers, I take it that their comments are more to do with how the Brahma Kumaris hide their actual teachings and intentions from outsiders and slowly and subtly encult individuals than their shady financial activity.

I am sorry. I can admit there are areas where the content of this topic, and the sub-topics relating to it, could be cleaned up and developed further but, from a Misplaced Pages point of view, I think it is actually very well developed and highly referenced. I think it is highly accurate and objectively encyclopediac, and that its clarity and objectivity is what upsets you. It's just not PR whitewash. If you only want to edit Brahma Kumari pages, I just wish you'd go and develop more sub-pages instead of fighting over this one all the time.

For example, Brahma Kumaris beliefs and practices would be a good one, and then we can summarise that section here. If you think there is mileage in pages on their hospital projects or solar cooking projects, then please start them too. I won't stop you.

But, until you are willing to lay your cards on the table and show us your alternative of this topic in a sandbox, all of this discussion, and especially all of the personal attacks and conflict creation, is disingenuous. There is really little more I can write. "Put up or shut up", as they say.

In the meanwhile, I encourage you to edit and interact more widely on the Misplaced Pages to gain more of an understanding in its values and how it works. Thanks. --Januarythe18th (talk) 11:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for admitting some areas where the content of this article needs cleaning up. Atleast that's a bit accomodating. So rather than getting into subtopics and your other repetitive points which will be a waste of time, lets clean this article, make it more neutral- please don't keep repeating that its accurate etc as you are not the judge of Misplaced Pages. When we collectively work on this and establish consensus we can all move on and spend our time worthwhile. Comparison with established religions is not correct nor is the finance part linked suitably to an NRM being called secretive in the Lede. One way out is to state what the references say about secretive aspect in controversies section Changeisconstant (talk) 20:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Be careful not to misinterpret my words. I mean simply to the extent of grammatical changes and formatting, or splitting and develop other topics as I wrote. I don't think this topic needs much more work done on it and I am cautious of your euphemistic and warp use of language here.

If you have a problem with several academics and a senior journalist calling your religion secretive, take it up with them, or make it more transparent. --Januarythe18th (talk) 08:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

To my reading, most of the references to the Brahma Kumaris secretiveness related to their use of a belief in an imminent Destruction or End of the World scenario, after which they will exclusively rule the world for 2,500 years. Nothing to do with finances

If any of the BK adherents can show me where on official websites they inform the rest of the world and the United Nations about this, a Destruction they are going to inspire, then I guess I could accept they have reformed and are no longer secretive. I await your response with interest. If the official websites do not inform the rest of the world, then perhaps you could explain why? --Januarythe18th (talk) 08:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Catholic

I found this, might be worth including in the controversy section, or developing the controversy section into a separate page, as per Scientology controversies.

CATHOLIC STUDENTS WANT BRAHMA KUMARIS OUT OF THEIR SCHOOL

Is it considered reliable enough?

--Januarythe18th (talk) 00:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Reliable for reporting that there was a student protest at the SLU? Possibly Yes. But the link is only reporting a single incident some 20 years ago and not the full story of what happened, and the outcome of the incident. So I would say it's a case of Undue to include it as some adherents of one religion protesting about the presence of non-believers is tending towards the "dog bites man" category of news. GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Apart from Greame's fairly apt observations, I would note that your suggestion doesn't seem all that consistent with removing the cherry picking tag i.e. you are trawling the internet for every little thing you can find to bolster a POV loaded section of the article, and then removing a cherry picking tag...ummm...is it only me who finds that strange?

I would suggest the tags be kept on the article due to admins findings in the sock investigation: I can't tell if its Lucyinthesky or just another follower/fan. I read this as "Januarythe18th may not be a sock of Lucy, but has sufficiently similarly behaviours and preconceived ideas to be considered a follower/fan of Lucy/Lucy's advocacy group. Maybe I've missed something....but I was presuming that was why admin initially locked the tags on.

Do any other editors want to comment on the tags so we can dispense with any 'tug of war'? Thank you Danh108 (talk) 10:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Apart from the Sock investigation, there are lot of similarities between the group running anti-BK web-site brahmakumaris.info as reported earlier on this page and the tone of this whole

article. There is also clear cherry picking from references to show only a one sided view of BK organization, take for example reference

10 from Hinduism today which shows a lot of neutral aspects about BKs but only the odd ones are picked in the main text. Edit warring on Tags is futile when there is no harm in keeping the tags and focus on resolving disputes and improving article. Changeisconstant (talk) 20:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The answer is easy, then show us your sandbox version and prove there is another side to the BKWSU. But you need to be careful because PR whitewash will not work on the Misplaced Pages. A topic needs to be what the subject actually is, not how it wants to be seen.

I think you need to be careful about expressing strongly partisan POVs. One people's terrorists are another people's freedom fighters. What you call an "anti-" site may well be another people's truth seeking (I would be more neutral and call it "pro-truth"). Generally, the more a religion become established the more conservative and suppressive it become, as Walliss noted about the aggressive threats made to him by the BKWSU when he discussed speaking to the breakaway AIVV.

If you want your religion to appear better, then the answer is to go off, work to resolve its internal problems, and make sure it does more good things in the real world; not fight over the Misplaced Pages about and try to control its appearances. You cannot control how the rest of the world sees you. If you don't like the bad or crazy things the world sees in your religion, remove or change them.

It strikes me you really should be taking up these matters with your leaders, not us here. --Januarythe18th (talk) 09:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

More eyes on the article?

Greame, I was having a read of the probation material at the top of the talk page. I find January hard to manage as every post has some accusation and a refusal to focus on content. I feel if there are a one or two more neutral people there will be much more hope of progressing this. Is there any rule or etiquette that prevents me just posting a request on some of the old editors talk pages that have their comments on the probation material? At least they will be familiar with the article to? Regards Danh108 (talk) 10:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Read WP:Canvassing for an understanding of the issue and the appropriate ways to invite other editors to a discussion. Of particular importance is "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions" - you need to, and will add be seen to, give both sides of the argument a fair chance. The Arbcom case is now several years old and it might be better to start afresh through eg the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Religion talkpage. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Greame. I would have thought to focus on other religious pages could also be perceived as biased as they would be more likely to be sympathetic to this kind of harassment than 'Arbcom'... and the article is still on probation for a reason....I will keep in mind your advice and look into both options. Regards Danh108 (talk) 10:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Until you answer or address the accusations of acting as centrally coordinated tagteam (see SPA report above), your persistent personal attacks are not going to carry much credibility.

Please note that engaging third party editors to confuse matters is a specific strategy the BKs or their puppet master have decided on.

Again, I welcome Danh108 or any of the other BKs to go on the record and deny this. --Januarythe18th (talk) 07:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to refute this (again!). I also remind you that repeated unsubstantiated accusations are uncivil, and as far as I can see it's simply a device/pretext for you to disregard consensus. Regards Danh108 (talk) 11:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Why the tags are precisely accurate

Cherry picking refers to taking from the references only information that represent a specific POV while carefully ignoring all others. This is present in the whole article, undue weight being given to a specific POV which is obviously not by accident. Conflict of interest is also a very real issue, because the current article was written by a lineage of socks of an ex-member, whose legacy Jan18 keeps carrying on, being an ex-member himself, and clearly showing the interest of keeping the article as a display of only what seems controversial and spitting on WP:DUE. Even if that means picking little phrases from references and turning those in apparently big deals, while vastly ignoring the general focus of references, just because it doesn't fit his POV. So for that reason, the 3 tags as were before, widely agreed and widely explained in the talk page, have no reason to be removed. And a question I suggest to be pondered on is: If Jan18 is not here to advertise a POV, then why does he feel so bothered by the tags?

Another question I leave for each one to ponder on is: Why does Jan18 call the tags a "provocation", for any other reason than being personally involved with the subject? GreyWinterOwl (talk) 10:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

From WP:EDITWAR - "Note that an editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, whether or not the edits were justifiable." And that cuts both ways; it takes two to editwar. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Graeme. Since you have more experience, I am open to your suggestion about this. I actually tried to follow the instructions on WP:EDITWAR and discuss in the talk page. I presented arguments that show why the tags are appropriate, Jan18 offered no argument against them. If he can revert without explanation, but anyone else can't even though supported by consensus and evidence, then it's clear that the page is under WP:OWN and I don't know what else can be done about that. Allowing Jan18 to have the last word over everything has proven to achieve no result in the past, and if reverting him also represents a misconduct, then I feel my hands are tied. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 14:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Folks, in this lovely little edit war over tags, you've been re-adding the {{pp-dispute}} template that was originally removed here on the 14th by an admin with the edit summary "remove protection template". This template is used ONLY when the page is protected. The page IS NOT protected at this point so PLEASE stop trying to force this template back onto the page. If you don't know what a template does or is for, please read about ir first before adding it back it. You may now return to your regularly scheduled squabbling. Ravensfire (talk) 14:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know about that tag. Thank you for being so polite and sorry for wasting your time with such insignificant matters. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 14:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for the tone I took - fun Monday at the office already. The request certainly could have been a bit more polite. As a fairly disinterested party, I think there's been far, far too much time spent on these tags. Both sides are at fault - you can't have an edit war with just one side. At some point in time, all of you are going to have to figure out a way to work together, here. Is there a non-controversial section that you both could work on improving and maybe develop some basis for future editing? I'll be honest, the recent history, both talk page and article, does not present the main editors in a good light. Ravensfire (talk) 15:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Raven, I really appreciate your guidance. If you have enough time to take a look at this page whenever you feel like, and briefly point out suggestions coming from your experience, that would be greatly appreciated. But it's totally up to you, as far as you try to see what route will lead to a neutral and not WP:OWNED article. Currently the owner refuses to discuss content, instead basing his arguments on unsubstantiated ad_hominem as the basis for having the right to revert everything he wants. Working together towards neutrality, which is your suggestion, would be wonderful but when one single editor has the final word over everything, and a very clear agenda, I can hardly see how that would be possible. Since you and Graeme are obviously neutral and experienced editors, I at least, and hope the other editors here, would be more than satisfied in following your suggestions on how we can walk towards neutrality, focus on content and respect for the guidelines. The tags may sound a childish concern right now, but the power Jan18 has to revert them represents the authority he has given to himself, bypassing the talk page, consensus and guidelines, it's not just the tags. It's the confirmation that his word weights more than everyone else summed up. Do you then believe he will magically be willing to work together in the content? GreyWinterOwl (talk) 15:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me but you're the ones who are refuse to list factual errors or present a sandbox of your preferred version to discuss it. I have been encouraging you to do so.

You are racing headlong into a yet another personal attack attempting to discredit me there.

The content is fine, it's neutral enough, highly accurate and well referenced. It's time to start developing other topic pages on the religion as per Category:Scientology. I think you don't understand the Wikipedian concept of "neutrality" . Unfortunately events and even controversies are included in a neutral topic. There is nothing particularly not neutral about the topic.

On the basis of no experience on the Misplaced Pages, you're being very weaselly with Wikipedian words here, and using them to a completely different meaning. My feeling is that your discomfort with the topic is merely due to its objectivity, and your aims are to whitewash it or make it flattering.

The only way to avoid such as accusation is to show us your preferred version in a sandbox. Not to do so is to admit it that is what you are up to.--Januarythe18th (talk) 07:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

"It's neutral enough" doesn't magically make it so. Arguments were raised to demonstrate the whole article is WP:Undue, and you haven't responded to any of those arguments. Instead you keep repeating ad-hominem to disperse the content discussion. "It's neutral enough", "It's good enough" are not valid arguments. I suggest content to continue to be discussed as per WP:Talk_page_guidelines and Jan18 dispersive lengthy posts to be ignored. If a change is agreed based on consensus and guidelines, and reverted by Jan18, we could take the matter to admins. I suggest all editors to read WP:BRD, section "edit warring". It says "do not editwar", but it also says "don't get stuck on the discussion. Try to move the discussion towards making a new, and different, Bold edit as quickly as possible." I want to remind that every editor has the same right to edit, if the edit has a good encyclopedic reason. To discuss an aspect of the article in detail, but be stuck there and don't use the right as an editor, to edit, is a passive attitude which keeps Jan18 with the power of continuing to own the article. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 10:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Then show us what you consider to be a "neutral" version in a sandbox, and stop talking abstractly in a quasi-Wikipedian fashion.

I am sorry, on the basis of your extremely limited Wikipedian experience, and especially your actions in accusing me of "polluting" a page by explaining to you the technical reason your edits were reverted by another editor and then reporting me for "hounding" you for doing so, do not lend credibility to your opinions, understanding of the policies, or position. On a scale of 1 to 100, that was about 400 times off the register.

Unless you show us in advance, there is no way anyone can tell what it is you are talking about. The topic reflects the references. --Januarythe18th (talk) 22:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Owl, I appreciate your sentiments about editing. But as I see it, January is able to successfully play on a general paranoia/suspicion people have about spiritual groups and though it may be unintentional, to just keep glued on the attack button is proving an effective strategy in blocking anyone from changing content, and if you or I do edit, he can revert, and we will just get told "it takes 2 to edit war". If other editors like Greame made bold edits (and I'm not suggesting he should) like removing the unreferenced allegations of sexual misconduct against the founder, they would soon know how much fun it is to edit here and why Vecrumba wrote "no sane person would edit here". In my opinion we need other independent editors who know enough about the content to realise it is substantially a projection of one editors unique psychology. Otherwise no one can tell who is telling the truth and who is lying. Due to work and family commitments I can't check the page every day - so there is also an aspect of 'the one with the most free time wins'.

If editors want to figure out who is telling the truth, they can ask themselves: what could be the motives of Januarythe18th, who knows Wiki policies quite well, to add content "immoral and intimate behaviour between the founder and the young women who attended his ashram" without any supporting reference? (and to revert me when I deleted this). The entire content is being skewed. Regards Danh108 (talk) 09:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hodgkinson on p22 of the version I found I can preview on google books does note that the Anti-committee formed in 1938 accused the Om Mandali of immoral actions (specifically the leader) and her view it was a reaction to his support of women's celibacy. p19-20 note a personal animosity between an Anti leader as his wife had taken the vow. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Graeme, don't you think there is a difference between a reference stating that a claim was made by a person, and stating that the claim is actually true? No reference supports that claim to be true. It was made by people who, as you said, carried a heavy animosity towards the organization for social reasons. There was a legal case and the anti-comitee lost. There is no other mention about it except in the claim made by the anti-commitee. On what basis could you then consider sexual immorality by the leader to be a reliable fact? GreyWinterOwl (talk) 19:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Fair point Graeme and a very important one which in my view is why the tags should stay. The original text of the article was "Some members of the local Sindhi people reacted unfavourably to the movement because of immoral and intimate behaviour between the founder and the young women who attended his ashram". This is clearly a skewed representation from the reference- can it be proven to be "verifiable"? The reference you quote is about accusations which surely were made but it also shows the genesis of such controversies which even exist today. The reference has many other interesting aspects about the organization which can make this article more balanced but they haven't been put in. This shows cherry picking and misrepresentation to make every accusation appear as being a "fact" about organization. Changeisconstant (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

"The Truth" often depends on your point of view. Misplaced Pages requires that information is sourced to independent, reliable sources and if there's a question, that the information in the article states who said it. If other independent sources challenge the reliability of the claim, that's something that might be included. See also WP:WEIGHT. Ravensfire (talk) 22:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree Ravensfire, "Truth" is very much about POV. What concerns me here is that an editor who is well aware of Wiki policies, has dropped out that something was an allegations, stated it as fact, and removed the surrounding context provided in the reference, completely changing 'the flavour' of the comments. These are not the motives of someone who is genuinely engaged in building an encyclopedic article on the BK's, which was exactly what Vecrumba picked up on, and described the article to Januarythe18th as an "uneasy aggregate of he said/she said when it comes to the legitimacy of BK as a religious movement. It's not very readable and needs a good deal of work. I appreciate you're invested in machinations, as I've already indicated, they are irrelevant". Danh108 (talk) 00:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Just a thought following Raven's point on WP:Weight: What percentage of the reference text actually describes odd controversies? (10%? 5%?), and why is "Early History" and "Expansion" carefully choosing only the controversies from the references and carefully ignoring everything else? Is that encyclopedic? Is that due weight?

Also following Raven's point: "Who said it"? Is the reference saying that so and so controversy happened, or is it just stating that a third person claimed it, in just one single line or paragraph? And why that paragraphs or phrases were specifically chosen to compose the whole article? Why does the article follow the rule: "What's odd is in, what's nice is out?" Is that encyclopedic? GreyWinterOwl (talk) 01:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

With regards the immorality issue, it comes up in a number of references and is most clearly documented in the "Panchayat" reference which is based on court affidavits. If you accept, we can go into details of the witness statements to establish the degrees of immorality, e.g. the breast rubbing, the half naked bathing, the young Om Radhe sitting on the married founder's lap being fed titbits mouth to mouth. I think even by today's standards if a cult leader was to be engaging in such activities, it would be considered immoral.

The problem you are having with the objectivity of the article is on a personal level. You've been indoctrinated into believing in a hagiographic version of the history your religion, are being too highly defensive of it, and are simply intent on whitewashing this topic to match your religion's PR.

It's called a "belief disconfirmation paradigm", a sort of cognitive dissonance. If you don't know what that means, please look it up and consider it.

That's why it's too much to demand that we become involved into a point by point wrangle over each and every point yet again, and it is insincere of you not to show us your sandbox version. Much of the argument on this page is disingenuous.

Danh108, explaining why a tagteam of Brahma Kumaris editors has suddenly appeared and, without any Misplaced Pages experience or commitment been able to dive straight into making complex accusations and so on, I asked you to deny that BK followers are being centrally encouraged and coordinated off wiki.

You have not done so. Do I accept that as an admission? --Januarythe18th (talk)

I don't think you explaining in detail what kind of immoral accusation is being made helps you any better to prove they are reliable fact. They were a clam made by the anti-commitee in a case that was lost. There is no other mention of the things like "breast rubbing" or whatever other kind of sexual misconduct by the founder. No reference states it happened, instead it states the claim was made in a single lost case. Do you have a reference that says it happened? Yes or no? If a reference says "John Smith claimed he was abducted by aliens", is the reference stating a) John Smith said something or b) he was indeed abducted by aliens? Picking up "he said" "she said" from small excerpts from the references and presenting as main facts in the article - is that due weight or encyclopedic at all? Is it ok to present "she said in a single lost case and no other mention whatsoever", as fact, while the facts stated by most references, are ignored? GreyWinterOwl (talk) 10:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

January, Vecrumba advised me not to crap on protesting my innocence as it's a sign of guilt on Wiki. So I have stopped - you are welcome to reread my user page. I stand by the statements I have made there. I have a lot of respect for the community service I see the BK's doing here in Australia, and the 'on the ground reality' of this organisation bears no resemblance to the article you have crafted. I'm sorry you have some sort of grievance against the organisation there in the UK, but your motive in creating this article is NOT to present an encyclopedic view of the organisation. And what is your motive in detailing the allegations on the talk page? I presume it is your usual strategy of deflecting everyone's attention away from you.

So why would someone who knows all the rules be intentionally skewing references? And do dedicate this much time to the article...the editor must have some personal investment that is motivating them... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danh108 (talk • contribs) 11:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

PS Greame, I do concede I must have overlooked the partial supporting comments you have found. I'm not sure if this reference has been added later without me noticing or I just missed it. However my claim above is overstated and would be better phrased as 'substantial misrepresentation of a reference', rather than 'no reference'. My apologiesDanh108 (talk) 11:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of who is saying the truth, ad-hominem from both sides is distracting from content. See WP:Talk_page_guidelines. As Graeme suggested in the "non-content thread", let's leave personal exchanges for somewhere else, not the talk page. Focusing on encyclopedic arguments on content is the hope we have to get to any result. It has been difficult to achieve and let's treat this constructive discussion that is going on with care, not burning it with personal statements. Most important for me right now is to hear the opinion of Graeme and Raven, as experienced users who understand the principles of WP:Weight and WP:Reliability. Do they think "immoral intimate behaviour", based on a single claim, by the losing side of a legal dispute, and never mentioned anywhere else, is a reliable fact? GreyWinterOwl (talk) 12:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Danh108, the BKs at your local centre may or may not do "community service", whatever that might mean. Unfortunately, it does not appear notable enough for any academic to have quantified it or documented it. I am not sure how notable any "community service" would be.

I think we confront a dissonance in your own mind between how you see your religion in your locality, against how the world sees your religion. The Misplaced Pages has to look at it as a whole and from a world point of view. For the most part, it is an Indian religion and practised in a far more fundamentalistic manner (this is address by a number of academics).

Brahma Kumarism is clearly differentiated from other religions by its extreme beliefs (the 5000 year Cycle and End of the World etc), which are accurately documented on the page, its demanding lifestyle, and the controversies it raises.

Again, for your own sake and benefit, this is why accepting to develop a sandbox version would help you, as much as us, see what it is you are trying to achieve because until you do, we have no idea what it is you are really talking about and I am starting to think that neither do you. You are reacting at an emotional level. (When I wrote 'you' above, I meant it in the collective form)

GreyWinterOwl, your comments are not even true, your understanding of legal process is non-existence, and your knowledge of the history incomplete (there was no "case" to fail, you refer to an official investigation). The immorality issue is raised in numerous references, including papers of the time, any one of which is sufficient. You yourself are attempting to bias opinion, e.g. in interview and on the record, Om Radhe admits to the lap sitting, kissing and other activities. --Januarythe18th (talk) 12:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

As I have written before, one of the BK tagteam's deliberate strategies has always been to engage and use less formed third parties due to the likelihood that they will first turn to references which others BKs themselves have already doctored, or pickled to match their own official PR, e.g. 'Peace and Purity' by Hodgkinson, Liz or 'Understanding the Brahma Kumaris' by Whaling, Frank. In such cases we have to stringently cross reference them with non-BK sources to gain a more neutral or objective view.

At first blush, both Hodgkinson and Whaling might appear to independent and reliable sources, and they are for general or non-controversial information, however, under close scrutiny they fail in other areas. Caution is also required where the academic is also an adherent and prone to bias or having been misled themselves, e.g. Ramsay or Nagel. This is why a deeper knowledge of all the sources and their background is required, e.g. Hodgkinson was the wife of the primary BKWSU PR man in the West and a part-time follower. Her account is hagiographic.

A typical example of this is the founder age, which is a source of great controversy within the religion that has spilled onto these pages. As with Janki Kirpalani being "the most stable mind in the world", they claimed falsely for decades that Lekhrak Kirpalani was "60 years old in 1936" when in fact he was only 52 and all the academics trusted what they were told. An uninformed third party might turn to those now out of date sources and the BK will have successful create a conflict around such an issue.

We know now from a birth certificate he was 52. We also know that the reason for the conflict is that in their mediumistic messages it says the original "chariot of god" was 60 years old, which excludes Kirpalani, and that the PBKs or AIVV claims that this is evidence of another earlier and more true medium in the religion, Kirpalani's business partner, as documented in Walliss. (Even to this day, the religion still falsifies his age in their official publications ).

This is an example of why the BKs cannot be trusted, and why they are so deeply effected by the dissonance between what their trusted leaders tell them, and reality. --Januarythe18th (talk) 12:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

You did not address my argument, instead tried to invalidate it from personal speculation about me (ad-hominem). Sitting on lap and kissing (not in the mouth) was said by Om Radhe as a relation there was towards Lekhraj as a father. Calling it "immoral" is purely arbitrary and judgmental. Om Radhe denied all the claims considered immoral and won the legal case. If you have some evidence that proves the reliability of "immoral intimate behavior", please present them, instead of only claiming they exist. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 12:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Read what I wrote, there was no "case" to win.

As an experiment, you suggest sitting a 19 year old girl on the lap of a married 50 year old man who is not a relative and have him put his hand on her lap, kiss her and feed her food from his mouth to hers in India today, never mind India of the 1930s, and see what moral reaction you get. It sounds like Sai Baba "raising the kundalini" of the young boys all over again. Old men bathing in the same tank as young women would clearly be considered immoral in India even today. So was Kirpalani's defiance of his caste and community's marriage laws. I could go on, but it's so blatantly obvious. --Januarythe18th (talk) 12:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

"Bathing in the same tank" is part of the anti-commitee claims, not Om Radhe's. "Sounds like" is not a valid argument. Whether it is called "case" or "official investigation", the anti-commitee lost it. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 13:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I say it once more, politely, purely to point out that a) you don't understand the legal system you are referring to, b) you have been indoctrinated into a false history and promoting it, and c) to demonstrate that you don't listen to what is being said to you when it is right. There as no case to win or lose. It was a tribunal. Kirpalani was not accused of any crime but civil offences. ::::: The Om Mandli had legal restrictions placed on it and then, in essence, skipped town to Karachi to avoid further attention. I am not suggesting the following for inclusion in the topic but clearly many of the characteristics of the Brahma Kumaris have arisen from such external criticisms, e.g. the separation of males and females which only due to the influence of concerned members of bhaibund.

Your use of the vernacular and pejorative term "anti-" party rather than its proper title betrays your own prejudices. On the Misplaced Pages, we would tend towards proper titles.

I am sorry, I am still smarting from your accusation of me being a "pollutant" and being reported for helping you understand basic formatting, for which you have not apologised, and so I find it hard to take your POV seriously. --Januarythe18th (talk) 13:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I have just taken a closer look to the document we are talking about. I just now realized it's a self-published book by the Anti-Committee itself. That classifies it as WP:NOTRS and WP:SELFPUBLISH right away. It's unverifiable, plus, the only place it's available is the anti-bk site brahmakumaris.info. It doesn't even stop there: The whole book is typed by brahmakumaris.info as well. So forget the reliability of even what it states as Om Radhe's words. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 14:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

GreyWinterOwl, which document/source are you specifically referring to as being from the Anti-committee? It may be Not Reliable in general but it probably is verifiable (since the text can be checked) and remember that for accounting for a organization's opinions about itself or others it may be reliable: eg for saying that " described Y as ....". GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Graeme. I am referring to "A reply to is this Justice", you can download it from brahmakumaris.info. That's what Jan18 claims to be the justification for "immoral intimate behavior". Please note that at WP:NOTRS, it says "Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see below. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others." (emphasis mine). You may also find the following links helpful: , .

The original book, if it exists, is virtually unobtainable and I believe there is no route for an independent editor to verify the accuracy of the book supposedly reproduced on brahmakumaris.info. But even if it was possible to verify, it can't be used in controversial points as the links and WP:NOTRS point out. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The transcription is what is available - personally I think the rather rabid tone of some of the text illustrates what a "stir" the Om Mandli caused. The text is though selective - I presume the authors felt as it was a counterblast to an Om Mandli text their opponents had already had their say. I have no problem with careful use and appropriate attribution. The book/pamphlet they were responding to is Is this Justice?:

Being an Account of the Founding of the Om Mandli & the Om Nivas and Their Suppression by Application of the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1908 Om Radhe 1939. That is available as a large pdf of the scanned pages. Which I have added to the Further reading section. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I would agree with Graeme that such transcription be used here. As per other references as well Om Mandli indeed caused a lot of stir. Imagine married women having little say in society in 1930s taking on celibacy and denying sex to men who were away for weeks for business on their return? However, what I would request Greame is to also have a look at the use of "immoral and intimate behaviour of the founder" in the original text of the article and whether an accusation can be stated to be a fact as has been the trend in this article. Changeisconstant (talk) 21:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Graeme, whether or not some uses may be justifiable, I hope you agree that to use it in controversial points (such as "immoral intimate behavior") would be inappropriate as per WP:NOTRS. Right now we have no reliable source that can justify that excerpt (which is in other words "sexual abuse"). It's a very serious claim, and where is the reliable source that justifies it? GreyWinterOwl (talk) 22:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Graeme, unfortunately, I have to respectfully disagree with adding the anti-committee book as reference. WP:SELFSOURCE and WP:NOTRS say clearly that a non-reliable reference can only be used as information about itself and as long as it's non-controversial and do not make extraordinary claims about others. The anti-committee book fails in all those requisites. It's non-reliable, self-published, controversial, directed to another organization negatively, makes extraordinary claims and, until the opposite is proven, the text itself is unverifiable. Not to mention brahmakumaris.info is a primary source, also focused on controversies and makes extraordinary claims of its own. Graeme, I respect your great experience and your work but I would like to escalate this reference to the reliable sources noticeboard, I'll be doing it a few hours later. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 11:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I thought that's what I said - that it is reliable for some things not others. It would be useful if the brahmakumaris.info had a pdf of the scans rather than a transcript I did edit the article text to use the phrase "accused of" which is borne out by the Anti committee's tract but currently the accusations listed in the article do not include "intimate". Since the person in question is deceased WP:BLP does not apply. I don't think it would be inappropriate to include that they were accused of something provided it was made clear who was doing the accusing, and the outcome of the accusations but which accusations go beyond the pale would be more to do with "undue" rather than the impartiality of those making the accusation. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your comments about the content, what I'm not so sure is adding the book as link. Being a controversial book by nature, and containing exceptional claims (WP:EXCEPTIONAL), plus being currently unverifiable, I think it might be inappropriate to link it inside the article.

About the history in general, it's currently a selection of accusations "he said", "she said" and says little about the neutral aspects of history as a NRM. Beyond that being "undue" as you said, I was wondering if some or most of the accusations would be more appropriate in "controversies" section instead of history. But in my opinion we could first take from reliable, secondary references the most important historical aspects before moving what is out of place. I have some secondary books and will see if I read them the next few days. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 12:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Past controversies are best introduced in the historical narrative so that they appear in context. In some articles a separate section or even subpage for a long-standing issues with a lot of content (eg Nestle and milk powder would make sense). A bullet point list of items is never as satisfactory as running text so it would make sense to group related items together if possible into a couple of paragraphs. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, but there is a difference between what a secondary source says as fact, and claims made by someone, not by the source itself. They have different weights. Anyway, maybe better to first introduce neutral and reliable facts in the history first, to later think about which controversial points are reliable and which are just "he said", "she said". I'm reading secondary books and later will post my thoughts on the content.

Have you decided about the link to the anti-committee book? Do you agree it's not appropriate or better to ask RS noticeboard? GreyWinterOwl (talk) 15:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry but this entire argument is so disingenuous I am not going to engage very deeply with it.

The book in question is in a number of university and national libraries. The BKWSU itself has copies (and has suppress copies from the public domain). It is composed primary as records of court affidavits and the original legal papers also still exist if anyone wants to check their veracity. This all adds to its credibility.

GreyWinterOwl, you clearly do not understand what "primary source" or verifiability means by Misplaced Pages terms. I am sorry but given the strength of your passion, its bias, and you lack of experience on the Misplaced Pages, your arguments do not have very much credibility.

Go and edit more widely on the Misplaced Pages, interact with the Wikipedian community. Come to understand how things work around here. This is not the BKWSU. Different rules apply. --Januarythe18th (talk) 19:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

You did not address any of my arguments, Jan18 GreyWinterOwl (talk) 20:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I have done so. You don't have enough experience on the Misplaced Pages to understand its policies and values and what you have done in your short time here demonstrates something extremely suspicious about your involvement, and that your own value are so far outside those of the Misplaced Pages that they do not fit here.

Specifically, I am speaking of accusing of another Wikipedian of "polluting" a topic (by answering a technical talk page question) and how with only three very minor and utterly erroneous edits to your record, you are able to construct complex 3 administration complaints, and threaten a 4th.

From a Misplaced Pages point of view, that is just so wrong that I am entirely within my rights not to get sucked into your pointless arguments.

The correct answer is, a) you need more experience more widely, and b) you BK people as a whole need to develop your experiences in sandbox environments before making a mess and consuming time and energy in the mainspace.

The fact you cannot understand or accept that that is the correct answer underlines how much you don't know about the Misplaced Pages. --Januarythe18th (talk) 21:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

All of that is just ad-hominem. See WP:Talk_page_guidelines. I'm here to discuss content. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Walliss

Graeme,

re your comments on sociology, Walliss did actual publish or present purely on the BKWSU separately from his book. From memory, there is actually a paper also quoted so be careful not to mix the two. You've chosen to quote from the publishers blurb, is it really necessary? The book is clearly about the BKs and not social theory. For example, I could write a Marxist critique of the Brahma Kumaris but that would not mean I was writing about Marxism. I think it's best to keep it simple.

I also think "most notable" should stick. Arguably, although there are other splinters, they are the only notable one in English language references although others do very briefly appear in obscure Hindi references.

For your information, John Wallis is a senior lecturer and director of the Centre for Millennialism Studies.

(Excuse me if I don't thank you for your more painstaking detailed work tidying up reference but I would not want it to appear that I was sucking up to you in a sycophantic manner). --Januarythe18th (talk)

The material came from the author's own foreword to the book, not the "publishers blurb". The references did not state that the group was the "most notable" which is the claim the text made. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Which edition are you using, the Indian or the British? Mine does not have a foreword and the two have different page numbers. Regarding "may", the references I see quickly relating to the "failed prophecies" are

"In addition there is the tension engendered between this negotiation and the critique of the University provided by the Advance Party and – at both the institutional and individual level – the methods utilised to discredit, marginalise or even deny the existence of the latter schismatic group. Likewise, within the Advance Party one finds the ongoing (re)interpretation and elaboration of Raja Yoga to suit their own purposes as well as, I would argue, an ongoing attempt to rationalise and spiritualise a series of failed prophecies", and

"In the first instance, the Advance Party claim that when the destruction did not materialize...many Brahmins left the because their hopes were dashed. Those who stayed had their faith reduced by half. They sacrificed their lives in this godly institution, left their families and invested all their wealth in this cause. How they go and where they go? They no choice but to stay because they were dependent on the institution for their bread and butter.

Next, they claim that any mention of the prophecy was removed from the murlis, becoming ‘hidden from those who came after 1976’, and members ‘were told that this was a test of faith’."

Around page 110. We probably don't need the name Walliss repeated 3 times or even to quote him directly. The comments stand on their own. --Januarythe18th (talk) 22:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

History page

It's worth mentioning for the sake of new and inexperienced editors that certain compromises have had to be made for the sake of keeping the topic short.

What would be most logical and best would be if the main page on the religion acted as a gateway summary to other pages where specifics could be developed, e.g. Brahma Kumaris beliefs and practices (which you are strangely giving no attention to). The other obvious contenders could be History of Brahma Kumarism (as per History of Christianity), Brahma Kumaris controversies (as per Scientology controversies) and so on.

One of the reasons I state without any fear of contradiction or censur is that on the talk pages in the past other members of your religion's tagteam have obstructed the development of these, in short creating the problem you are now complaining about.

This is why I say the BKs are being disingenuous.

Although I expect we will still face the same dissonance between the hagiographic PR version you have been indoctrinated into and an objective view, unless you can admit you have been indoctrinated into one and move beyond it to accept the worldview, I would suggest the best way forward would be if a sandbox version of the History of Brahma Kumarism is also developed.

However, I don't expect you will because I don't think your intentions here are to improve and develop the Misplaced Pages in any way at all, as proven by your lack of commitment to other articles and wasting of everyone's time, but rather that you are on some kind of damage limitation media control campaign for your religion.

Please prove me wrong. --Januarythe18th (talk)

Given the size of the article at the moment - and that there is dispute about content - moving stuff off to other pages risks content forking and yet more drama about what goes into the sub pages and how a summary of those appears in the main article. If you are concerned about the length of the article, I would suggest hiding some of those huge quotes in the references 1) because they don't aid readability 2) overquoting is borderline copyright infringeing (since the text is being repeated but not commented on)

And I don't think repeating the sandbox idea everytime is getting anywhere. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The space occupied by references is more than the article! Well actually the main article is not that long and there is no point in digressing to other pages as highlighted by Graeme. Even for simple changes where there is general consensus, one editor is adamant to keep control on this article, imagine how messy it will be with edit warring going on for 4-5 of linked pages. Best is to resolve the dispute on the main article. So far all editors including both more experienced and neutral ones have advised to improve this article and rejected the sandbox idea so J18 I hope you come out of the endless repetitions and focus on resolving dispute. Changeisconstant (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Answering Graeme, and I hope you can take this serious and as a neutral, objective appraisal.

The problem this page has suffered for a long is exactly the problem it is suffering at present, and this is the reason why, as you correctly point out, it is so over referenced.

That problem is that adherents of the religion have been indoctrinated into highly revised and hagiographic version of their own religion, a religion which is additionally conflicted between the public face it presents and its actual beliefs (this is mentioned in a number of academic references listed). Every detailed point has had to have been argued over and supported by those lengthy independent references as the BKs have fought to suppress a more detailed, objective view and turn it into a bland, superficial and inaccurate advert. This has been going on for years.

The page is detailed. The facts on it are correct. In any normal topic area it would be perfectly reasonable to develop a number of sub-pages to go into more detail and I do not think that the efforts of a tagteam should stop that. Their values are different from those of the Misplaced Pages. They have actually offered nothing to benefit the Misplaced Pages nor its readers and have only, for years, wastefully consumed time and energy which might be spent elsewhere.

I have no idea what remedy might exist for them?

I am trying to do the most reasonable thing which is to say, "just show us what you want" and we will see how it fits in. Show us in a sandbox and we can considerate it. It would be nice if they did. It would help them see what it is they want.

They are never going to get away from the fact that the Misplaced Pages does allow for things like controversies to be reported. Like the Scientologists etc, they just have to accept that it is beyond their organisation's IT and PR teams control. --Januarythe18th (talk) 19:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not an anti-religion or anti-cult website just as much as it's not an advertising platform. It's an encyclopedia based on reliability and due weight. Not a sensationalist broadcasting of only controversial information. If reliable sources directly describe something, and it's due weight, then whether you think it's "PR" or whatever, doesn't matter. Saying that, just proves you have a non-neutral POV. Positive information never was and never will be, forbidden in wikipedia. All we have to ask is: "Is it reliable?" and "Is it due weight?" GreyWinterOwl (talk) 20:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Independent experience/report

It might interest some other editors to read what one guest blogged after a weekend retreat: http://mymacandcoffee.com/2013/08/27/one-of-the-coolest-experiences-to-remember/

I would suggest the real dissonance being referred to is better attributed elsewhere. I personally don't live in text books, but I respect that the reason for verifiable third party referencing is to try and prevent people doing what Januarythe18th is doing here. And Greame, if you want some interesting reading, try the page archives and you will soon see why a sock was filed - once you've had your head in this page a while like you have, it becomes easier to join the dots - the tone, the sandbox perseverations, the constant attacking and conspiracy theories, along with brainwashing/indoctrination accusations....I mean, civility got chucked out the window about 3 days ago. For myself, I'm just trying to respond to the dislike with peace, to not get reduced to the same conduct, yet to try and keep the page going in a healthy direction (yes, for the latter point, I am failing miserably as the talk page has fallen in the gutter. I am sorry for this). Wishing people a good weekend! The working week has now finished here in Oz :-) Regards Danh108 (talk) 09:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you really think that meets WP:RS? No, really, that's a serious question. Ravensfire (talk) 12:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see it as forming part of the article Ravensfire. However I did think it was wise to post something in response to the comments about "how the rest of the world sees the BK's". As I have been mistakenly pigeon-holed as a "follower" of a cult which exists only in Januarythe18ths mind and his cherry picked article, I thought it more credible to google for something independent. Most of the content on this talk page is going to struggle with WP:RS.

Ravensfire, how can you tell if an editor is an admin or not? And have we done what Rybec suggested when he posted: Could the maintenance tags at the top of the article be enclosed in {{multiple issues}} please? —rybec 17:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)? I appreciate your question. Regards. Danh108 (talk) 20:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

It's soapboxing and I probably should have just hatted it. I frankly don't care about how some random blog views something w/ regards to a Misplaced Pages article and here you shouldn't either. You posted the utter antithesis of a reliable source. You should hold it up as something NOT to include or consult. Did I read it? No. Why? It does nothing to help the article here. Nothing. Of course, given the track record of this talk page of late it's perfectly fitting though.

For admins, one place is here, put in the user name to start the list at their name.

The "purity" issue within a historical and cultural context

I've just revert and clarified the cause of the initial opposition to the Brahma Kumaris on the basis of the early references and would like to clarify for non-BK editors who perhaps do not have an understanding of India traditions.

This clarification is not a justification of the edits and so I will not accept any WP:OR, WP:SYNTH or other accusations. It is just a small footnote in the discussion to introduce the values and customs of the culture from which the cult arose for those who have no introduction to it. It does however explain at length why the article is written as it is and why their multiple reversions by IP editors are reverted, e.g.

The BKWSU has considerably revised its history in order to present a facade to the world and promote the values it wants its adherents to follow and others to see as is its wont to do as much as any other religion (I am not criticising that here).

Therefore, it has accused its opponents claiming that they were bad because they were opposing the BKs "purity". Indeed, at the time, they accused their individual opponents as being devils or kans (a Hindu satan) and insulting just about every other authority in India at that time.

However, this is not a truthful account of what actually happened.

What actually inflamed the situation were two events that underlined an attitude that went beyond reasonable. The first was that their founder removed his married daughter from his in-law family whilst discarding her child with them. The in-law family being the head family (mukhi) of the local caste leaders or local government (panchayat). The second was he married a second daughter outside of the caste/their influence.

Beyond the simple offence of abandoning a child and removing its mother, perhaps why this was such a great offence needs explaining. In the Sind at that time and in the jatis in question, a marriage was not a simple single event. It was a contract between families that continued before, during and after the actual event. Therefore if it was not enough to remove a daughter and abandon a child, it was also the breaking of a contract and a flagrant challenge to the caste leaders of which Kirpalani, along with many personal insults, was doing. In the text I also mentioned that he then went to challenge their authority again by marrying a second daughter outside.

The Brahma Kumari leaders have deliberately suppressed and even destroyed its original teachings, history and other documentation in an effort to hide them and indoctrinated its followers into a highly whitewashed version. However, actual facts are clear from the what is left of them in public records and libraries beyond their control.

This offence was made much worse because Kirpalani was, in essence, nouveaux riche from a lower position in society using his wealthy to marry into the highest possible levels of his society; and then turned around to insult them all and behave highly erratically.

In addition, at the same time, he started claiming he was literally god (specifically the gods Krishna and Brahma) and that the women that he enculted were his gopis lovers or worshippers. The events we are discussing of Kirpalani taking baths with his half naked followers and being intimate with them were re-enactments of the bhakti stories of Krishna and the gopis.

A strange older male taking baths with non-relatives would be unthinkable even in India today. It would cause an uproar.

I relate and emphasis these things merely to give an overview to individuals who perhaps are not aware of Indian values and traditions.

The BKs have then re-written their history to claim that Kirpalani was not God but that God possessed him and started to speak through him in 1936. This is clearly not true. There was no mention of God Shiva in the Brahma Kumaris at all until the late 1950s. They claim that non-BKs have attacked them because they were devils (kans) attacking God. This is not true. They were dealing with a man who thought he was God Krishna and was living out religious fantasies, e.g. the fight between Krishna (Kirpalani) who then killed Kans, his brother-in-law the caste leader (Mukhi).

it is also clear from the references that the early Brahma Kumari had a different concept of purity. They believed anything they did was pure and free from karma as they were with their god Krishna. Their behaviour included intimacies, the mixing of the sexes and activities that would be unacceptable in the religion today, as it would be in Hindu society as a whole. Therefore while we might not agree with those traditional Hindu cultural values, the reactions toward Kirpalani and his cult were reasonable and understandable, e.g. in another event his leading female consort was driving a bus of young children whilst being unqualified to do so, had a serious accident in which one child lost an arm and the cult then were to cover it up from parents.

The Brahma Kumari adherents will fight tooth and nail to claim the world opposed them because they are now celibate (note change in tense) and this celibacy makes them superior. They will fight tooth and nail because they want the world to think think about them. They are not taught their actual history but heavily indoctrinated into a false one.

In short, they are attempting to re-write history and institute a re-written history as the "official" history and this is what is going on on this page. They are attempting to exploit sincere non-adherents lack of knowledge of them and their history, and Hindu culture behind a barrage of complaints, accusation, confusing arguments and edit warfare. --Januarythe18th (talk) 20:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Right, and just because you said it, all of that magically becomes encyclopedic. Tell me more. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 21:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

It my understanding of Hindu culture and values is incorrect, or I have misrepresented the original verifiable sources, then please correct it. --Januarythe18th (talk) 21:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

That is shifting the burden of proof. I can't disprove what you said just as much as I can't disprove Jesus bathed with the apostles in the same bathtub. Who makes the claim must be able to prove it with reliable sources. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 21:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I think we are not incapable of understanding why the Om Mandli scandalized their neighbours. But you do have to be careful to phrase it to make it clear why because modern-day readers - many of which will not be from the Indian sub-continent and most will not be of the Hindu faith - may have differing values. (Westerners may think that taking a daughter back into the family would be the right thing to do, or that society of that area at that time treated women as chattels.) And that context is largely missing from the article. Your last edit is also a bit garbled - " further inflamed when it founder challenged the authority of his local caste leaders during the marriage of one daughter and by taking back a second married daughter whilst leaving her child with the other family". Did you mean "...when the founder challenged the authority of the local leaders of his caste during the marriage of one of his daughters and by taking back a second daughter from her husband whilst leaving her child with his family"? GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you understand what I am trying to say, Graeme. Hindu values would appear almost directly opposite to modern Western values and without understanding them, one is unable to understand what all the fuss was about.

This gets back to a point made earlier about the difference between 'history' and 'origins', and how separate topics, e.g. History of Brahma Kumarism would allow for better clarification of these things.

My feeling is the BKs don't want separate topics, not because they would be the cause of additional conflicts, but because they don't want detailed discussion of their history, philosophy and lifestyles which their habit is to hide from outsiders until they are sufficiently enculted leading to their being called secretive.

That might appear to be a criticism but, again, it is quite common in India. Many jati keep their habits to themselves and Indians know not to ask or challenge authority where westerners might.

Again, BKs, correct me if I am wrong.

In a traditional Sindi bhaiband marriage the families would be contracted to do certain things before, during and after the marriage. For example, one of the BK woman had a contract that said she should always be able to walk on carpeted floors. They were badly treated. They were treated like princesses, which is what "kumari" really infers, not daughters. It was unthinkable to take a young mother from an infant child never mind to join what was at the time an End of the World cult. Along with Kirpalani literally being Krishna, they believe WWII was a caused by and reflection of their community conflicts and the final Mahabharata war which was to be the Destruction of humanity.

The debacle was a storm in a tea cup between a handful of families in a highly cloistered community, two in particular; the Kirpalanis and the Mukhi's Mangharams.

There is another element which is also referred to with reference to the Om Mandli case almost bring down the Sind government, and that is the British influence. Congress and any of the Mukhis were anti-British and pro-Gandhi whereas Kirpalani was pro-British, one presumes because of his business dealings with their aristocracy, and anti-Gandhi and Congress. This could also fit into a more detailed account of the movements history.

This discussion also leads us to see where there are numerous helpful and related pages missing from the Misplaced Pages. Otherwise, for example, reader might just think Mukhi is an Indian name (as it is also) and not understand the significances. --Januarythe18th (talk) 00:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

It's also worth mentioning that the community, unlike others, was strictly monogamous did not allow for re-marriage. Kirpalani would have known this and know how much conflict his actions were going to have. Therefore to copy the Brahma Kumaris own slight version of the events is to miss the full significances of them.

Therefore, no, the conflicts within the society were not caused by Kirpalani's demands that the women refrain from intimacies with other men except himself, many of whom spent long time abroad according to the nature of Sindi-work (another page which could be made), and his interference in their own private family matter. --Januarythe18th (talk) 03:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Your edits are not justified as you are choosing to present accusations as facts and that is an abuse in my view - Misplaced Pages is not about sensationalism. Its important to have due weight. I will support my edit that you reverted with another key reference that is certainly more reliable than the anti-om-mandali book typed in by a anti-BK web-site. You yourself have used reference 16, in the Lede from Possessing knowledge: organizational boundaries among the Brahma Kumaris and here is what it says about same topic showing clearly the reason for the stir (pg 26-27)

The organization was vigorously persecuted during its first two decades on suspicion of taking advantage of the women in the movement and for disrupting families by encouraging their female members practice celibacy. In 1936, women's lives in South Asia were generally tightly controlled by fathers and husbands, particularly the lives of young women – by their fathers if as-yet unmarried, and by their husbands if wedded. The involvement of young women in the Brahma Kumaris movement was thus upsetting to the fathers or husbands because abstinence from sex, meat, liquor, tobacco, and other vices inspired young Brahma Kumaris women to refuse marriages that had been arranged for them, or to terminate conjugal relations with their husbands.

Is the above not more reliable, verifiable and suitable for this article compared to the garbled edits from J18??????

@Greame, much of this history is worthwhile for an article however, currently its heavily loaded by POV of J18 and I am not surprised at all that he has copied most of the recent text on this talk section from the lobbying group brahmakumaris.info. As much as there is conflict of interest if BKWSU takes control of this article, it is the same if proponents of brahmakumaris.info, an anti-BK web-site retain control of it like it has been for years. Unfortunately, what some editors fail to see here is that J18 is able to deflect attention from content everytime a genuine improvement attempt is made. Personally, I don't care what has been the past of this article and BKs or others' involvement. I have a focus towards neutrality respecing Misplaced Pages and am sure both BKs and Anti-BKs would stay away from disrupting it when neutrality is established and that is the longer term resolution we should seek. Therefore, Greame may I request that having gone through the two relevant references, you propose or edit what you think is the right way of showing this in the early history, intimate behaviours and so on? I will abstain from editing further today hopefully receiving your feedback Changeisconstant (talk) 08:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd drop making insults in bold text, it's likely to go more against you than me.

I've corresponded with Richard Musselwhite and the only sources he used were those from the organization itself which are clearly referenced in his paper. He was unaware of the earlier history. Therefore, in essence, you are quote someone else to quote yourselves.

Musselwhite's paper is not historical. He only includes a very brief summary. The game changer in the history is the recent discover of documents, correspondence and published works from the 1930s through to the 1950s making public much of which the Brahma Kumari leadership has suppressed secretively. The majority of these are perfectly acceptable as verifiable resources.

On the Misplaced Pages, some onus is placed upon you to go and verify those sources yourself. We can tell you what they are. You can ask us for specific quotes. But you have to go to the library if that is what it takes.

I suggest you start by asking your own leaders, as I am sure they have their own copies hidden away somewhere, and by asking why they falsified so much of their history to outsiders and kept so much hidden, even from their donors, until it was revealed by others.

Neutrality does not exclude controversial elements. The article is detailed, well referenced and as fair and objective as one can be to religion which believes God speaks to them in person through an old lady, dinosaurs existed 2,500 years ago, and all of time fits into an identically repeating 5,000 years cycle.

(I am not ridiculing you here but those are statement of facts, as are references to multiple failed predictions of Destruction. I made the effort to give a reasonably intelligent introduction to the Sindi social mores of the 1930s and all you are doing is ignoring it and wanting to dollop on another layer of whitewash. If you want, I can give you an example of a non-neutral so you can make a comparison, but perhaps I ought save that for Uncyclopedia). --Januarythe18th (talk) 09:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

You basically expect every editor here to believe that your research is more reliable than secondary sources. Sorry, but that's not how wikipedia works. See WP:Exceptional. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

"Immoral intimate behavior" was considered unsupported on Reliable Sources Noticeboard

I asked the admins on Reliable Sources Noticeboard , about the book by the Anti-Committee. An admin gave the advice that, as the book is not a secondary, reliable source, and no secondary, reliable sources support any sexual misconduct by Lekhraj, he sees no reason for "immoral, intimate behavior" to stay. May I remind that WP:Exceptional says multiple high quality sources are required to support an exceptional claim, specially a controversial one. No high quality, reliable or secondary source, at all, supports a sexual misconduct by Lekhraj, therefore, as per the advice from the admin John Carter, I am removing those words from the article. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 01:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

This is highly appreciated GWO, however please look at the other sources like the one from Richard (University of Carolina) as the main stir was caused by Celibacy and without mentioning that, the information that Om Mandali was just encouraging women to leave the families is still a bit misleading. Anyhow, "immoral and intimate" behaviour has no place in this article clearly so thats a welcome change. Changeisconstant (talk) 12:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

CIC, may I suggest that you explain the change you want to be made, and most important it must be based on reliable, secondary sources, having in mind due weight, so we can see if we find a more contextualized way of describing that part of the early history. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 13:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I had made the edit earlier with this proposed change "Some members of the local Sindhi people reacted unfavourably to the movement because many young married Sindhi women attended his ashram and were being encouraged to take vows of celibacy. Om Mandali was accused of breaking up families and encouraging married women to leave their husbands and families. In addition, the Om Mandali was accused of encouraging minors to leave or disobey their families". This is well supported by two other references and . I have explained the second one already above on the talk page. Two quotes from Lawrence:

1. It is not clear when celibacy became one of Lekhraj’s teachings, but it was apparently very early in his prophetic career; what is clear is that this tenet provoked an immense uproar. Husbands would return from long stays abroad only to discover that their wives had made vows of chastity and wished their homes into “temples”.

2. These and similar confrontations created great and painful disruptions in many families. The result was a savage reaction. Husbands and their families frequently responded with beatings, wife expulsions and lawsuits for the reinstatement of conjugal rights. Changeisconstant (talk) 13:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Right now, I have no objection to your suggestion. BTW, Where can I read the source you mentioned - Richard (University of Carolina)? GreyWinterOwl (talk) 13:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Please click on ref- 41 in my note above and it will open- you can even download it as pdf. What you will find interesting about this is that there are many fascinating facts relevant to this article which are ofcourse left out by our friendly editor :-) Changeisconstant (talk) 14:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

There are a number of strands - January18th has also given the challenge to the authority of local caste leaders, and the pretensions to godhood (sacrilegious) as well as the accusations of other types of behaviour contrary to the social mores of that culture. These should all be addressed in the edit. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

As of now, I think rest of the text that follows my proposed edit doesn't need changed and already addresses this as per below:

"The situation was further inflamed when it founder challenged the authority of his local caste leaders during the marriage of one daughter and by taking back a second married daughter whilst leaving her child with the other family. In addition, the Om Mandali was accused of encouraging minors to leave or disobey their families. Kripalani claimed that he was the Hindu god Krishna reincarnated. The group was accused of being a cult and putting individuals into a trance by way of hypnotic or occult influences"

However, while Januray18th claims the above, the referenced anti-om-mandali book contradicts this on pg5. It shows that Anti-om-mandali actually didn't accept that the stir was caused by these marriages rather it quotes anti-om-mandali as follows "It was not the "personal differences" with Bhai Lekhraj of "some" important Members of the Bhaibund Community that led to an agitation being started against this teachings but the harmful teachings of Bhai Lekhraj followed by girls and grown up ladies, who in their respective positions in their families as daughters and wives took to abnormal courses of conduct: marriageable daughters declining to get married and married wives refusing to live with their husbands without any justification whatsoever; that led to the differences of their important Members with Bhai Lekhraj".

Any views based on this? Changeisconstant (talk) 19:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Just something to bear in mind, but if the self titled (not labelled "anti" by the BK's as earlier suggested) "Anti-Om Mandali Committee" report is considered reliable enough to use, then presumably the compilation it is responding to, "Is this Justice" (prepared by Om Mandli) must also be able to be used. This will be a bit tricky as the 2 resources don't have much agreed content. Regards Danh108 (talk) 22:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Graeme's point of Lekhraj considering himself to be God as "sacrilege": In India, it's very common for any guru to refer to himself as God - simply because in hinduism, the belief that everyone is God (Omnipresence) is normal and many mantras actually mean "I am God". The Om Mandli, in it's initial years, had the belief that everyone is God, and in India that's not unusual, so the reaction from society didn't come from there. By what I read from the reliable sources so far, it was rather the celibacy practiced by the girls and they refusing marriages arranged by their parents, that caused the reaction from society - specially husbands and parents.

Also, regarding sources, my suggestion is that we take information from reliable and secondary sources, rather than the anti-committee book. I have some books in my computer, and to anyone interested, I can send those I have (if it's legal to do so). GreyWinterOwl (talk) 23:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

If you look at Admin comment on this, there was interest in this reference because of the transcripts of the newspapers towards the end of the anti-om-mandali book- obviously it will be very difficult to find them on-line anywhere else. Personally I don't think the reference needs to be ruled out completely but rather than picking out controversial points and presenting them to be true (like being done in this article currently); we could easily have something like this for general awareness- Om Radhe claimed that the situations was inflamed by (refer to "Is this Justice") .......while anti-om-mandali accused Om-mandali of .......(refer to Anti-Om-Mandali book). I think this may still be of interest in the early history section. This case afterall was a key event in the BKWSU history and talked about in multiple sources. Any thoughts? Changeisconstant (talk) 05:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Your latest admin report, (what is it 4th or 5th?) was so biased, and factually incomplete and incorrect, that it lacks any credibility.

Although the Brahma Kumaris have done much to remove or destroy many copies of that book, copies still remain in archival libraries and private collections. I note you did not inform us of your latest report so the matter could not be decided after both sides gave their evidence.

Ask your own leaders for a copy from your "university". I have a copy and can upload a photographic version, what is the copyright law for India? It's almost 75 years old and might even be suitable for upload here.

It's mainly a collection of court records and other verifiable media of the day which are reliable sources.

I don't remember reading Lekhraj Kirpalani sexually abused young women, as you stated rather perversely and exaggeratedly. It was stated he was "intimate" with young women and the degree of intimacy and access to the young women, not only of him but other men in the Mandli, that arose strong feelings in the wider community. In court records, it is recorded that even his defenders, in one case his number two Radhi Pokardas Rajwani admitted it without reservation.

You stated (again) that someone "lost the legal case". This proves a certain doggedness to your obsession. Please allow me to state the facts, there was no court case to lose. You refer to an official tribunal. Remedies were applied to the Om Mandli and the issue subsided when Kirpalani skipped town to Karachi. --Januarythe18th (talk) 07:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll respond briefly to other false assertions and proposals you make. The early Om Mandli did not believe "everyone was god". Indeed they wrote that they and their guru were "superior to god". You're confusing God with gods and goddesses or deities which is a different matter as they claimed and still claim to be the reincarnation of Hindu deities. They believed their Kirpalani was God Krishna or Brahma in a practical sense (indeed they still do) not "as god" in the figurative sense.

This leads us to another problem. The Brahma Kumaris have heavily revision their philosophy and history, and purged older versions. Literally burying or destroying them. This is common knowledge now. In their current version, Kirpalani was not God, the author of the Gita, the Seed of Humanity etc, they claim that he was possessed by God in 1936 age 60 years old and acted as his spirit medium allowing God Shiva to speak through him until his death.

Most references have depended on the BKs' doctored version. In short, they have been deliberately deceived and misled by the Brahma Kumaris leadership about such matters who have wanted to make real an absolutely false version of their history. We cannot ignore this. Kirpalani was not 60. He was not the original spirit medium. There was no God Shiva in any of the early documents until after sometime 1955. The cult still hides, secretively, how and when the alleged incarnation of the new god actually happened.

All this raises problems of the credibility of BK sources. In short, they have none. Sources BK adherents have been indoctrinated into believing are provenly false.

What we have going on on this page is a continuation of all that. On one hand, attempts as media control and purging of "impure" or "polluted" knowledge or individuals. On the other hand, heavily indoctrinated individuals being confronted by reality, and their most intimate faith based beliefs challenged. Individuals who are, in essence, recruiters for the religion and promoters of this false version.

It's not in my nature to waste others time by making endless admin reports, however, I think that until the organization itself takes responsibility for its past falsehoods, and clarities the actual facts to its adherents, they are not really suitable as editors on this WIkipedia topic. It's just too difficult for them to be objective and neutral (and tiresome for the rest of us to deal with). --Januarythe18th (talk) 08:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Jan18 offered no argument to why an exceptional controversial claim from a single non-reliable, self-published source should, contrary to wikipedia policies and arbitration case, be stated as fact. You just use ad-hominem and expect everything you say to magically be accepted as fact. You obviously want the article to be just a sensationalist display of everything negative you can find anywhere being said about Brahma Kumaris. Well, it already is, just don't blame anyone for seeing the obvious and proposing changes. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 14:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

In addition, the above quotes from J18 is verbatim reproduction of typical claims from anti-BK lobbying group brahmakumaris.info and his POV. J18 mentions that BK sources are not credible and all the references used BK doctored references therefore what are you trying to say? That only the parts of the references cherrypicked by J18 are credible? Or only what you pick from Brahmakumaris info quotes are reliable. Remember Misplaced Pages is not about Truth, its about verifiability. On one end you say this article is well referenced, on the other hand you say they are not reliable. Cherry picking is very obvious on this article from what you are choosing to present from references and has been sunstantiated on talk page by many examples hence the justification of tag. I will re-insert this. Changeisconstant (talk) 07:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

In short, your exaggerated bias is doing you no favors. What you portray as a "self-published book" is actually a report by a respective committee of the local government, a committee headed by the leader of the local government. Government reports would be considered verifiable.

Your strategy here is an attempt to exploit the lack of background knowledge of third parties, few of whom are likely to have a working knowledge of Pre-WWII India or Sindhi society, see Panchayati raj, to cause conflict or distraction in order to gain some kind of advantage to push your own religion's point of view. A religion which seemingly has a habit of portray any concerned individuals or critical and revisionist movements within it as "anti-parties" for the last 70 years.

The proper title of the sub-committee is the "Om Mandli Bhaibund Committee" which was headed by the local Mukhi and his daughter, a justice of peace. The local representative of the government of India. We should refer to it by its formal title not exceptionally prejudicial ones. --Januarythe18th (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Multiple Issues Tag

Dahn, I believe when Rybec suggested the multiple issues tag, it had the objective of listing inside the tag what specifically are the issues, right? I see no sense in placing the tag without informing what exactly are the issues. See here: , it explains how to list the issues inside the tag, otherwise I suggest reverting to the tags themselves. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 08:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

That is correct- We had three tags which were generally approved by consensus here so those three issues need to be listed within multiple issues tag. At the least, we meed the neutrality and cherry picking issues clearly mentioned based on the current situation. I hope Danh108 you are making this change? Changeisconstant (talk) 12:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

If I misunderstood, by all means revert me/make the change. I asked about it above, but no one commented - but it was a bit hidden in the sea of comments, and not directly related to the title - under where I posted that blog link that got such a humorous response from Raven and J18. Regards Danh108 (talk) 20:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

No problem, Danh, it seems CIC inserted the issues on the tag, now it's ok. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 23:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Ahhh, now I see what you mean...didn't know you could do like that. Thanks Chico for sorting it out. Regards Danh108 (talk) 10:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Lifestyle

Under Lifestyle section of current article, there is a quote "Only having other Brahma Kumari adherents as companions as opposed to non-BKs given over to worldly pleasures known as bhogis." Can anyone help with the actual quote in the reference used from Lawrence's book? I am not able to locate it. Thank you. Changeisconstant (talk) 10:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I found something finally on what the reference from Lawrence says about this quote

One's companions should be good company (satsang)that is, company of the soul aware (Yogis) as opposed to Bhogis, those given over to worldly pleasures.

The current text in the article is

"Only having other Brahma Kumari adherents as companions as opposed to non-BKs given over to worldly pleasures known as bhogis."

I am not sure if this is the right presentation as it sounds as if its a dictate and reference doesn't restrict company to BKs. I propose to change it to

Ahderrents are advised to have company of Yogis (soul conscious) as opposed to Bhogis (Given over to worldly pleasures).

How do other editors view this? Changeisconstant (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

As you know, this comes from the religion's own teachings and "Maryadas" (or codes of conduct). The original states, "Good Company ... To enable easy transformation keep like company of your true Father and Friend as as much as possible, the company of knowledgeful and Yogi Souls".

We need to clarify the use of language here. In context, the use of the word "knowledgeful" and "yogi" clearly refer to one thing and one thing only, other Brahma Kumari Raj Yogis. It is not being used generally to mean association with other individuals doing, for example, Bikram Yoga. In context, the work yogi is being used for a BK raja yoga practitioner and bhogi for all non-BKs. BKs consider themselves and only themselves to be "knowledgeful" and all others to be ignorant (presumably of matters relating to their god and the soul).

But you know this, so please stop being disingenuous, wasting others time, and spreading your mess or carrying on conflicts as you did, here . --Januarythe18th (talk) 07:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't understand your argument above. I am inviting other editors for their views. From Misplaced Pages point of view we are only interested in what the reliable sources says and what is the best way to present it. It can not be mixed up with yours or my personal views about the subject. Reference is very clear about what Yogis and Bhogis mean and in my view the quote doesn't reflect that. If you want to justify your quote, please show us using secondary references. If consensus is to not change it, I will be happy to accept it. Thank you Changeisconstant (talk) 08:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

'Brahmakumari' raped for four years at Ishwariya Vishwavidyalaya in Patna

This looks valid for inclusion in the controversy section.

Can anyone provide a better reference from more reliable print media in India, and updates?

Thanks. --Januarythe18th (talk) 09:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

PATNA: County's one of the most well-known "Godly University", which offers courses that focus on the benefits of moral and spiritual approaches to life was defamed on Monday. In a shocking incident, a 22-year-old spiritual leader Brahma Kumari was allegedly raped for four years by a sewak on the pretext of marriage at the famous Brahmakumaris Ishwariya Vishwavidyalaya here.

Sewak Lallan has been accused of raping the spiritual leader. The shameful incident came to light on Monday when the victim along with members of Prem Youth organisation reached Mahila Police station and reported the matter. The victim alleged that she was not the only Brahmakumari to have faced the sexual assault, but there were also many other, who were going through the shameful act. Moreover, the brahmakumari was also threatened of dire consequences by the sewak. She informed that she had reported about the matter to Brahmakumari Anju, who heads the Fatuha located University but to no avail.

Whereas, Brahmakumari rubbished the allegations on Monday. "All the allegations are false," adding, "The 22-year old was accused of misconduct and expelled from the University sometime back."

Notably, Brahmakumaris World Spiritual University (BKWSU)is a well known spiritual value based educational institution that has gained global acceptance and unique international recognition. One of the most famous faces of Brahmakumari Sisters, "Brahmakumari Shivani" has given many speeches about 'Art of Joyful Living' at several reputed institutes including the Indian Institute of Management (IIM).

The question is whether this is a common practice or an uncommon practice and whether it comes from the way the BKWSU operates or not. Newspapers print abuse stories about other organisations but in each case the question is - is it one-bad-apple or institutional? GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

It could be me not understanding, but I'm not used to seeing encyclopedia's that are an agglomeration of newspaper articles....it seems more like trying to drum up a bit of controversy. It's actually quite amazing to me how few reported/verifiable issues there other given the size of the organisation.

January, perhaps the Court case the Owl is referring to is the application by the Mandali to the Judicial Commissioner of Sind (High Court Jurisdiction), 21st November 1938. It was in response to yet another Court case - that one taken by the 'anti-party' against the Mandali and heard at District Court level (pg126). Feel welcome to retract your comment: You stated (again) that someone "lost the legal case". This proves a certain doggedness to your obsession. Please allow me to state the facts, there was no court case to lose.

Even if editors don't share the same beliefs, I think it's possible to interact in a civil way, without these kinds of slurs.

As I understand this High Court decision found that the District Magistrate had no legal basis for making an order to ban the Mandali from meeting for 6 months. I think the Tribunal matter January is referring too then took place later i.e. if you lose in Court, the next step is political agitation. The government appointment Tribunal commenced gathering information in March 1939.

I can't help but appreciate one irony: The advocacy group January is a devotee/adherent of was successful in keeping the bk domain name on the basis of arguments or free speech and association, which were the basis of the Mandali's arguments both in Court and in the legislative assembly. Regards Danh108 (talk) 02:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Please also refer to "Misplaced Pages is not a journal of current news" . It reflects Greame's question as When editing Misplaced Pages to reflect current news, always ask yourself if you are adding something truly encyclopedic?? Changeisconstant (talk) 08:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Please keep on topic in each section. Frankly, you do not have enough experience of the Misplaced Pages to wikilawyer around. You don't even know the difference between an essay and a policy. The Misplaced Pages is a font of current news and is updated immediately by volunteers as new details are released.

The rape controversy has now reach a national level is being covered by the Times of India, India's newspaper of record.

Both the rape and abortions have been confirmed by medical examination. The Brahma Kumaris have moved on from denial, cover up and accusing the victim to admitting there were problems. --Januarythe18th (talk) 15:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

You haven't answered the questions and seem to be in a bit of rush on this. As far as I can see, it is still reported by Paper's local edition in Patna so not sure how you call this a national controversy! On the other hand, there are many articles and praise of Brahma kumaris for some of their initiatives in national media. Should we then add all of them to activities and recognitions- am sure you have no problems with it Januarythe18th? One example is the recent inter-faith initiative that was praised by President of India.

Januarythe18th seems to be interested in sensationalism and I will prove this by this revert today from J18 on Line 776 . Januarythe18th, please explain this revert and prove its accurate by the reference you have used for this. You have never answered my question whether you understand Hindi by the way? Can you prove us wrong on this as even word sex is not used throughtout the source you have used? If you need help in understanding hindi, please use the talk page before reverting edits. Changeisconstant (talk) 19:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

My view would be that this recent addition by January should be reverted for the reasons stated above. While Wiki can be a source of up-to-date information as January suggests, it is not a newspaper. The article itself present conflicting information as to how much this relates to the Brahma Kumaris i.e. members vs ex-members, betrothal between the parties in dispute etc. When the conflicting accounts are resolved and a Court has made rulings, I would think that newspaper report would be well worth including. I also think in the present climate it might be better to get other editors views rather than just chucking things into the article. Regards Danh108 (talk) 11:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

If no one comments, I will just delete this insertion for the reasons given in a few days time. Regards Danh108 (talk) 08:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

See below. The article and events are perfectly straightforward. The events happened at a BK centre and within the movement. Any rational person can see what is going on. It's the Brahma Kumaris who are deliberately attempted to confuse matters by inventing a 6 year rule retrospectively. --Januarythe18th (talk) 08:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

See what below? You have not addressed the concerns being raised by 3 other editors.

The source provided make no mention of where the alleged activity took place - is that your personal addition?

If it's rational, please actually explain/justify your position rather than inserting content without discussion/consensus. See WP:OWN.

If you achieve the above I'm happy to discuss reinserting. Regards Danh108 (talk) 23:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Contrary to January's argument above, there is a contradiction to this recent news in various news sources and event itself isn't clearly established yet whether this happened at the centre or outside between two followers. This particular source states that the person accusing was not a BK centre-in-charge or surrendered sister which requires one to practice all the rules of the organization stringently for 5 years before one can surrender to live in a BK centre which she wasn't able to. Please note this talks about 5 years and not 6 years stated by other news source. Therefore its too early to put such unclear and contradictory news items in an encyclopedia. It has been re-inserted by January though. Changeisconstant (talk) 21:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Sources

There have been concerns expressed above regarding encyclopedia articles that seem to be collections of newspaper and other periodicals. There are at least a few reference books of fairly high regard which have at least some reasonable content relating to this topic. One is Religions of the World edited by J. Gordon Melton and Martin Baumann, and another is Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions. I'm not sure how long the article in the first named work is, or how current the content in the second is, but they are encyclopedic articles, and could not unreasonably be seen as being among the better indicators regarding what content to include in our own. Looking over the second source, I regret to say that the five paragraph long article in the 6th edition, the one I have, lists six sources, all of which are published by the BK themselves. They would clearly be useful for matters of "official positions" and the like, and this article probably does need substantial material on that, but they would be less useful in providing really independent coverage from outside sources. This book, if anyone has access to it, might be at least a reasonable independent source, as might this one and this one. If no one has access to them, let me know with a message on my uer talk page, where I'll probably see it quicker, and I can see what I can do about getting some of them. John Carter (talk) 14:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

This point has really clarified something for me - when there are good quality resources available, why has so much reliance been placed on less credible ones?

The result is that rather than giving a broad encyclopedic overview of the topic, the article keeps rushing into minute detail and ultimately fails to be either a PhD or a good encyclopedia article. In my opinion it would be good to try and achieve the latter, with less focus on what someone aptly described as the rabid (Greame?) historical accounts. Thanks John Carter. Regards Danh108 (talk) 18:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks John Carter, its a pity that despite having such good sources, the article is still unbalanced and far from Misplaced Pages standards. It appears that by cherry-picking, sensationalism is being attempted here. I could see from the highly regarded references like "Religions of the world" how some of the significant aspects have been downplayed in the article. As an example, the role of women- Only few other spiritual organizations (not that I know of) would have been led by a group of women and it deserves a mention in an encyclopedia in the Lede. John, the challenge here is that all attempts to improve this article even by taking neutral and highly regarded references get reverted. Changeisconstant (talk) 19:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

This article is under ArbCom probation, as per the template at the top of the page. If problems like Changeisconstant talks about above, regarding regular reversion, do regularly take place, then it might not be unreasonable to seek ArbCom to maybe clearly impose discretionary sanctions or some other measures to reduce such problematic conduct. Possibly the easiest way to do so would be to file a request for clarification at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, should anyone be so inclined. John Carter (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

John, it's unreasonable of me to expect that you have followed the discussion on this page, but if you had, I might not have to to repeat this to you. You're demonstrating why in this case a certain amount of insight into the topic and its history is useful, and how easy it is to misdirect third parties.

Rather than Liz Hodgkinson being "a reasonable independent source", she was in fact the wife of the chief PR advisor and a frontman of the religion in the West and Worldwide, Neville Hodgkinson (see HIV/AIDS_denialism, and herself a devotee at the time. The book is a hagiographic rendition carefully guided and doctored by the Brahma Kumaris and used by them to promote themselves. Hodgkinson herself being a tabloid journalist. Therefore, I would have to add that in any controversial area we would have to lean towards truly independent and more academic or official (non-BK) sources. --Januarythe18th (talk) 16:18, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Thats a bit of redherring Januarythe18th. Firstly, John as shared a lot of references and not just Liz Hodgkinson's. Secondly, you have today made another revert here on line 291 using Liz's reference Changeisconstant (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I would also point out that the book Peace and Purity: The Story of Brahma Kumaris: A Spiritual Revolution, is one of only five sources included in the bibliography of the "Religions of the World" article on the BKs. The other sources included in their bibliography include Althea Church's Inner Space, published by the Brahma Kumaris in 1997, Ken O'Donnell's New Beginnings: Raja Yoga Meditation Course, published by the BKs, and John Walliss' The Brahma Kumaris as a 'Reflexive Tradition', published by Ashgate in 2001. FWIW, I also have gotten together at least a few articles from databanks on the topic of the BKs, and would be willing to forward them to anyone who requested them. The best way to do this would probably be to send me an e-mail through the "e-mail this user" button in the toolbox, which would give me the address to send the articles to. John Carter (talk) 15:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

January, I think you need to be consistent. On the one hand you have relied on Ms Hodgkinson's book to partially support allegations which you restated as facts in the article. Now you are criticising her. Are you suggesting that you can just use it when it suits you? Regards Danh108 (talk) 19:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting what happened. You don't understand. Frankly speaking, on one hand, you all have so little experience on the Misplaced Pages it's not really possible for you to understand and, on the other hand, your intentions so insincere and disruptive that I do not feel duty bound to answer your every distraction.

You've been given perfectly good advice; show us the BKWSU's preferred sandbox version of this topic, develop other topics on the subject of your religion, gain more experience editing more widely on the Misplaced Pages where you do not have an extreme conflict of interest.

There's really nothing more I can say to you. That you ignore all such reasonable advice says more than your realise to others. --Januarythe18th (talk) 08:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Well we get the answer J18 that you don't have the answer therefore you come back with your usual repetitive redherring - so thanks for that. From Misplaced Pages point of view, lets focus on content and I would request you to explain another series of revert done by you today here . Here are the three reverts from you:

Revert 1: You removed the multiple issues tag which has ben explained and supported by consensus on talk page for the issues prevalent - lot of senior and even more experienced editors had no objection to it and supported it. My question is how can one editor keep reverting this - on what basis does one editor gets to control this article?

Revert 2: Role of women in the early history. I had used the same reference for the statement; that you have used elsewhere and despite that you have removed it- why?

Revert 3: You have re-inserted "sex related activities of centre leaders" that I had removed. Let me challenge you once again on this. This is just sensationalism and so against Misplaced Pages policies to misrepresent a source. You haven't considered it necessary to discuss this on Talk page presumably that you don't understand Hindi in the reference used. Let me state again- there is absolutely NO MENTION of even the word sex in the source you yourself has used. The source only says about allegations that the person knew some secret of the local centre that he complained to the higher authorities in BKWSU. On what basis you keep reverting this on daily basis ? Changeisconstant (talk) 09:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi CiC, if you can read Hindi, I'm curious about the first item in the Controversies section (is this the section you are discussing above?). Is there some translation program others are supposed to be using to establish if this is yet another comment that is not properly supported by the reference provided...? Regards Danh108 (talk) 19:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dahn108, Yes I can read and write Hindi as I have origins in India. I am talking about the first item on controversies section inserted recently by Januarythe18th using some old Hindi news paper sources from India and more specifically the third statement with this reference . You can try pasting one paragraph each on Google translate- while its not accurate it will show you clearly no mention of "sex related activities of centre leaders" that Jaunarythe18th has been stating in article from quite some time and he has reverted my changes two times without any justification or answer to my above questions. This article is about a father who has been protesting against authorities to help finding his lost son. He is accusing local BK centre for this and also saying that his son knew some secrets of local centre that he complained to the BKWSU authorities and blaming the the local centre to be involved in his son's kidnapping. I am happy to translate this in full but not sure what Misplaced Pages says about using other language resouces. Please note that Januarythe18th has recently put whole load of hindi newspaper references right at the top of controversies section while I would have thought such new additions should have been put right at the end. The edit summary used by J18 during last revert above was "misleading and unnecessary tag" while this claim was put back. What does all of this say? Changeisconstant (talk) 19:33, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Google will do the whole page in one go see here although it's not easy reading. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

This is an example of where I am going to have to ask Changeisconstant for an example of good faith. The circumstances of the events are accurately reported. There are a number of reports about the events in Hindi. If the one given is not good enough for him, then please choose a different one.

Thank you. --Januarythe18th (talk) 03:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't understand Jaunary. Another redherring? Are you saying that I need to find an appropriate reference to support your claim in the text of "sex related activities of centre leaders" because it wasn't supported by the reference you had used!!!!?? Is this how you call a Misplaced Pages article accurate which has been your claim on this article? Changeisconstant (talk) 07:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you CIC and Greame - that's great. I think I must be reading that last post wrong CIC - I get the same meaning as you which makes no sense at all...January, can you clarify? Regards Danh108 (talk) 08:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Canvassing Request

FYI - https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Fred_Bauder#Canvassing_Request:_Brahma_Kumaris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danh108 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Fred's more or less declined on his talk page, I asked NYB who is currently on the ArbCom for any input he might have. John Carter (talk) 19:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you John. The Arbcom option is looking like it might be the better way forward. Regards Danh108 (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't actually thinking about ArbCom in terms of getting them involved in a big way, but it was on the basis of their ruling that the article was placed under probation, so I'm thinking that they might also be among those best able to find some way to get some help here. They have done so in the past for some other articles. John Carter (talk) 00:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The ruling relates to the use of reliable and verifiable references. The topic is now very well referenced. I don't see what the problem is.

Therefore, let's be honest about what is going on here, the methods and motivations of the BK tagteam; one of which is to specifically attempt to engage as many uninformed third parties as possible largely as a distraction.

This is why I say it will save everyone's time and energy if the Brahma Kumaris would just show us what they want in a sandbox, thereby gaining the experience they lack of laying out and referencing a topic, and allow us to consider it as a whole. Any other approach is unfair on others and wasting of resources which could be applied to benefiting the Misplaced Pages elsewhere. --Januarythe18th (talk) 04:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

May I suggest that you perhaps read WP:TE and WP:TPG. First, there seems to be an implicit POV in your comment in which you refer to these other editors, apparently, as the "BKs". If you have reasonable evidence to support that, of course, that would be useful to present - if you don't, then it is a rather clear attempt at maligning others without evidence, which is not generally accepted. And I believe that the attempt to apparently dictate to others what to do in the above comment, saying doing anything else would involve the waste of time of others, is also at best dubiously placed here. As I have indicated in my recent comment above, I am more than willing to forward to anybody and everybody who requests it information I have gotten on the BKs in independent reliable sources. This would, possibly, include transcribed copies of the articles in reference books on the topic. If anyone wants them, drop me an e-mail and I will forward what I have, but I might also suggest that anyone doing so leave a note on my user talk page, which would allow others to see that the request has been made and allow them to ask that copies of the material be sent to them as well. John Carter (talk) 16:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I can John, including the identifying the puppet master and their highly personalised motivations for doing so. However, if I was to do so at this point I would then be accused of making a personal attack and outing individuals, as DanH108 did. The evidence of coordination that exists, mostly online as of today, and matches the worst or most obvious the Misplaced Pages has seen.

The topic is high accurate and well referenced, that is not the issue here. It already contains all of the academic and reliable independent sources relating to the Brahma Kumaris. We're well beyond the obvious sources like Google books or simple compendiums of religions.

DanH108 has admitted his long term adherence. Perhaps, as a gesture of good faith, rather than me being accused of outing others, the other individuals would just simple to care to do so?

The way forward is just for the BK adherents to show us a sandbox copy of what they want and then compare the two. Not get dragged into argument over every word.

You make not like to read this but unless you accept that even the involvement of well meaning but uninformed third parties and admins such as yourself is a specifically stated strategy of the BKs and it is just that, a strategy, you will be blinded by the confusion being creates here.

Please, try it. Ask the BKs whether their religion or IT leaders have/are discussion this matter at length, are detailing and documenting contributors and contributions centrally, and developed strategies to gain influence or control. (They may quibble semantically about what constitutes "leaders" and between individual and collective responsibility, but ignore that). --Januarythe18th (talk) 15:04, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Cabals? As this article has been subject to ArbCom perhaps you could try and communicate with the committee and see if your concerns are addressable. Or you could ask for advice at the Adminstrator noticeboard about the correct processes or routes for your concerns. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:32, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

As I see it, you've more or less hit the nail on the head Greame. Nothing ever gets escalated because there is no reality to January's words. I wish he would escalate it asap and finish the empty accusations. But it is just a ploy, as Vecrumba called it, 'machinations' trying to create doubt and suspicion in the minds of others.

Evidence: After all the problems with the article, January is still saying it's highly accurate!! What?! And after you, I, Vecrumba, everyone has asked him to give up on the sandbox, on it goes....best I let people draw their own inferences about the psychological implications of this.

As I have said earlier on the page, and I know from my day job, sometimes it's extremely hard to figure out who is telling the truth, and motive is the most revealing evidence for it (in my experience). Anyway, it's back to the content for me. Regards Danh108 (talk) 05:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

On the other hand, I am intrigued Januarythe18th- in your accusations be specific which editors are you including? You have often mentioned that other "uninformed" editors even with extensive experience on Misplaced Pages (Vecrumba) and now even to Admin that they were being used by BKs or they would be blinded by confusion. Looking at the discussions on the talk page, I see no serious basis for this and editors aren't naive that they can not figure out right content from valid sources! Therefore, please present facts/ evidences or follow Greame's advise to escalate. Also your claim that this article is "accurate" has already been proven wrong at many places with inserted texts not cited by sources etc. If needed, I can summarize the list of such controversial content that's recently corrected or being debated on talk page. Thank you Changeisconstant (talk) 08:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I am very tempted to edit under my real name. My personal view is that anonymity can create a lot of problems. I will think about it. The main thing that puts me off is the page history. This advocacy group does not respect normal social boundaries.

I will emphasise January's words: "The evidence of coordination that exists, mostly online as of today, and matches the worst or most obvious the Misplaced Pages has seen". I very much look forward to the day of revelation! Danh108 (talk) 18:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

One other alternative would be to contact WP:OTRS and reveal to them your name, and, presumably be extension, any further identifying information you might wish for them to verify. They could then release the relevant information wherever appropriate, like perhaps this talk page. That would allow individuals who want to have information who want to have information on them verifiable by someone known, while at the same time allowing other data to remain privileged. I know of at least a few editors who started editing under their real names, and then changed their user names because of problems, so I think the OTRS option, where the relevant information can be confirmed, but all other information which might not be relevant and might present some privacy concerns, can remain privileged. John Carter (talk) 18:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Legal action against critics- an advert for Brahmakumaris.info?

In the current article- there is a separate section devoted to a domain name dispute which was resolved by National Arbitration Forum and the critical web-site brahmakumaris.info retained the domain name. Why is this a separate section when there is a controversies and criticism section? Only reason I can see is as per many examples on the talk page of this being an advert for lobbying group that controls this article- brahmakumaris.info web-site. There are even more serious accusations and controversies listed under controversies section! I am proposing to club this under controversies section. Any views on this? Changeisconstant (talk) 08:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Additionally to moving to controversies - As far as I know, the case wasn't a legal action against critics, it was a dispute for the name of the site, "BrahmaKumaris". I wonder why would Brahma Kumaris dispute that name?

The only reason BK lost is because "Brahma Kumaris" is not a trademark, it's as simple as that. So labeling as "legal action against critics" is a judgmental statement and how much it's highlighted indicates that some owner of the site put it there, and is maintaining it there as an advert. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 09:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

personally I don't think the claim that it was an attempt to quash criticism - as the text reads and the section title implies - is supported by the reference. The reference would support a claim that the BKSWU tried to assert trademark rights over the domain name but is that any different than any other "brand" and domain names held by others. I would change the line to read something neutral like "in 2007, BKSWU tried to claim ownership of the domainname used by , an organization that is critical of the BKSWU but were unsuccessful" and move it into the controversies and criticism section. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Graeme- thats a valid point and your presence on this page is really helpful to improve neutrality of the article. This to me was the best example that substantiates the importance of the Cherry-picking tag that keeps getting reverted Changeisconstant (talk) 12:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

My own view would be that this is even borderline for inclusion in the article at all - there is nothing much controversial or even interesting about domain name disputes - it's quasi-legal, an intellectual property issue, and usually about 85% of these matters are cyber-squatting (i.e. fairly mundane/boring). However given I think it means quite a lot to January (and may even be motivating his involvement in the article as his group probably were financially impacted as they elected to instruct lawyers in the matter), I won't object beyond this. Regards Danh108 (talk) 20:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Read the proceedings. The complainant Dr Hansa Raval of the BKWSU in Texas was using the case as a stepping stone in order to personally sue the respondents.

Please ask for clarification first (from those who have actually read the references), rather than making false or incomplete assertions based on assumptions. --Januarythe18th (talk) 08:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I think my edit covered all that adequately. But the proceedings say the claim "...was instituted as part of a personal campaign " and does not mention personally suing the respondents GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

January, please address the content - that would give clarification. There is only 1 respondent in the matter. I see NO evidence in the reference for your claim about Mr Allan being personally sued, nor do I see any support for the view that a domain name dispute can serve as a 'stepping stone' to other legal action - how?. In addition, if Mr Allan had broken law, then it would be perfectly sensible for Dr Raval or anyone else to 'sue him' - that is what the law is for.

Greame, perhaps you've found something I haven't. All I got was: "According to Respondent, it appears that this proceeding was instituted as part of a personal campaign by Sister Hansa Raval, who has objected to criticism of her medical claims". This doesn't appear to be any finding by the panel, rather it is simply a restatement of the respondents accusation, now being replicated by January. Regards Danh108 (talk) 10:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Improving the expansion - suggested inclusion

While I don't want the discussion to get splintered or spread to thin, I wanted to get people's feedback about including the following piece in the expansion section:

In 1980 the Brahma Kumaris became affiliated to the United Nations Department of Public Relations as an Non-Governmental Organisation. The relationship grew closer in 1983 when the Brahma Kumaris achieved consultative status with the Economic and Social Council at the United Nations. The BKWSU now have a permanent office space in New York for their work at the United Nations.

This was added in August but got reverted...Regards Danh108 (talk) 04:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Because it is already included in the 'Activities and recognition' section. --Januarythe18th (talk) 08:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

As it has a date context, I would take the appropriate amount of text out of the Activities section so there isn't any duplication and put it under Expansion or just add the briefest mention under expansion of the date it gained recognition.GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Greame. If other editors could give their view, I will (will not) make the change according to consensus. My view is that the history and expansion sections are very poorly written, and I need to start breaking down the J18 content stonewall. This detail, along with some others (as I think Greame may have suggested quite some time ago) is better included in the expansion section - it is a 'milestone' for the organisation.

Another example where it doesn't make sense is the second last paragraph in the History section which finishes with the organisation being banned. Then the next paragraph jumps across to the organisation relocating to India in 1950...what happened in the intervening 10 years? Was the ban ignored? etc. Regards Danh108 (talk) 11:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

One of the sources I flicked through online (google books?) had Om Mandli moving to a different region of India. Presumably out of the region in which the ban on assembly was enforceable, and the anti-Om Mandli committee being regional rather than national leading to less confrontation and less coverage in sources. The 6 (or 4 depending on viewpoint) years of war and the partition may have been led to historians focus being elsewhere.GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

There is next to no information and even less verifiable sources for this period. There are a few references from a congress of world religions in Japan around 1955/56, and then the history line picks up again in the mid-1960s, and mid-70s for Western expansion. In short, they waited for the world to end in 1950, it didn't; then they waited for it to end in 1976, and it did not again. After the first failure, they went into retreat and, as far as I know, did next to nothing as their money ran out, the numbers dwindling.

The primary reason for this is that at some point in the late 1950s, the cult did one of its major historical and philosophical purges, as they did in 1950 when they moved out of Pakistan, and introduce their version of god Shiva for the first time. No academic as yet has covered this era or these events, and the cult has been very secretive about the highly considerable re-invention of their history and philosophy as it has tied itself in knots publicising an entirely false version for decades.

Until it comes clean, we'll pretty much be stuck with a blank.

I am not adverse to a more detailed history but it should be separated off onto another page. I am also not entirely sure how notable its history actually is by Wikipedian terms. A follower might be interested enough to list "when this centre started, when that event happened" but it's not something I would invest my energies into. Especially when members of the religion are actively attempting to remove details and whitewash topics. --Januarythe18th (talk) 14:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Jan18 has an incredibly rigorous criteria that makes it virtually impossible to add any information about BK that he sees as "positive". But no criteria at all to add negative information - as long as it's negative, anything goes. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

What would you suggest is "positive"? Stuff like Brahma Kumaris Erect 40-ft Tall Giant Rakhi to gain a Limca Book of Records record? The problem with much of the Brahma Kumaris activities, being meditating mendicants, is that they are non-notable from a Wikipedian point of view. However, if you want to go ahead and make a page List of Brahma Kumari World Records, I won't stop you. You'll just have to support it with sufficient references to convince others.

We cannot include faith based statements such as "many people gain benefits" as they are immeasurable and we have to be careful to filter through the organization's own PR to ensure their claims are as possible objectively reported, e.g. the usual exaggerate relationship with the United Nations.

I think the topic contains all the major accomplishments to date and reports its beliefs accurately. Perhaps the problem is that there are just not very many positive practical accomplishments and, as an adherent, you are just a little too focused on the elements you don't like or are unused to reading? --Januarythe18th (talk) 04:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Your comments about "world records" are both mocking the religion and straw-man to what I said. Saying an activity is non-notable is an invalid argument as well, that may be an argument against creating a separate article for each of them, not for measuring their weight inside the article. Would you care to explain, while you believe BK is non-notable, then why do you strongly defend that a very small splinter group (thousands of times less notable than BK) must occupy half of the history? You clearly have different standards of notability where any line of controversial information you can find anywhere, automatically becomes "notable", but building a hospital to serve an entire state in which poor people suffer from health problems is "non-notable". GreyWinterOwl (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Not at all, the Misplaced Pages has many 'lists of ...' and even a category for . As far as the history goes, I've suggested we have a separate topic for it in which you can go into as much detail as exists.

Mention of the PBKs, does not occur in the history. It occurs in the Expansion section, and quite correctly so. Schism, such as the Great Schism that split the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church, or the Roman Catholic Church and Protestantism, are important events in a religion. I suspect that proportionately, there is no difference here, and that PBKism is equally valid.

As to the Global Hospital, the Brahma Kumaris did not build a hospital to "serve an entire state", which would mean Rajasthan. That is a gross exaggeration. They became involved in building and staffing a hospital to treat their own elders as there was none on Mount Abu. Again, you mistake the PR version with the reality.

I understand the hospital to be a separate trust called the J Watumull Global Hospital & Research Centre of which the BKs are just one component. If that is correct, it would have a separate topic page.

Again, I would not oppose the creation and development of such a topic. Good luck at finding verifiable references and filtering out the facts from the aspirations. --Januarythe18th (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTEWORTHY says "The criteria applied to article content are not the same as those applied to article creation. The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies." (the latter includes NPOV, verifiability, OR) So I think suggesting creating other articles and that they would not be notable is red herring. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I could see that there is a Misplaced Pages page on PBKs linked in BKWSU article. While its a small splinter group not much known, undue weight has been given to PBKs in the expansion section. Expansion section is infact dominated by a small splinter group and most of the text related to PBKs is actually already there on the PBK article . I see no point repeating all of that on the BKWSU article. It needs to be shown as an event as January mentioned but due weight needs to be given to BKWSU expansion. The fourth paragraph reads "The "Advance Party" offer a radicalised rendition of the BKWSU's original millenarian message....." - what does this have to do with BKWSU expansion? Its already covered under a separate article and that is the right place anyway. As a fascinating fact, BKWSU has expanded to 100 countries in ~ 40 years time when at the time of founder's demise in 1969 they had no presence outside India. If expansion section doesn't show this progression despite having good references about these, whats the purpose of the section? Changeisconstant (talk) 19:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

PBKs do not have the same weight related to BKs as protestants have to Christianty, because protestantism is very widespread compared to Christianity, while PBKs are a very diminute group compared to BKs. Jan18 offered no argument to support why they should occupy more than half of "expansion", or even a disambiguation at the top of the article.

Jan18 said: "They became involved in building and staffing a hospital to treat their own elders as there was none on Mount Abu. Again, you mistake the PR version with the reality." Who is mistaking POV with reality? The hospital treats poor residents of Mount Abu for free, when otherwise they would have no other way of medical care. Yet your POV is that the whole hospital is for personal use, and so I ask you to please show the reliable reference that supports your view. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 19:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The comment Owl is quoting is about as distorted as it gets. I've got a copy of the 2011-2012 annual report in front of me. The hospital is treating thousands of people for free every year. Somewhere I read that (so ref pending) that it is able to provide free and low cost medical because it has approximately 40% BK staffing who don't receive any income (I understand there is meals and accommodation, so I don't say they are working for 'free').

I have made the changes in the way Greame suggested at the start of this thread. Regards Danh108 (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Adjectives in 1st sentence

I was asked to come have a look at this article as an outside observer/new set of eyes. I'll admit I know very little about the subject, but I know Misplaced Pages policy fairly well. One thing that struck me was the 1st sentence of the Lead section: "...is a secretive, renunciate, Millenarian new religious movement (NRM) of Indian origin." This struck me as being extremely awkward, wordy, and inappropriate for a 1st sentence. Per WP:Lead, the Lead section is supposed to summarize the article, and the first sentence should be a very general statement. The current first sentence is incredibly specific, and I'm having a hard time finding support for it in the article. I only found one place where "secretive" was mentioned in the "criticism" section, and I couldn't find anything about "renunciate" (whatever that is). Might I suggest that the adjectives secretive, renunciate, and perhaps Millenarian be dropped from the 1st sentence? They can be moved elsewhere in the Lead if needed, or down to the body in the case of renunciate. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome Adjwilley :-) while I agree the lede is clunky and would add that it is POV laden, we had been deferring addressing this as there is one editor who has some very strong views, and this has caused some tension on the page....I'm happy to look at it. However there are a number of issues on the go at the moment. Either way, some extra eyes would be really appreciated. Regards Danh108 (talk) 11:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly the point frequently raised here and falsely labeled as "tagteam whitewash" by Jan18. The lead is undue, representing a very specific point of view and far from being a general or neutral resume of how the reliable references describe Brahma Kumaris. All editors who gave their opinion about it, except Jan18, think exactly what you just said, Adjwilley. WP:Exceptional describes the behavior of making exceptional claims (in this case undue), and accusing a "conspiracy" of wanting to "whitewash" or "suppress" it. It seems Jan18 extends his conspiracy theory to every single person except himself, and every reliable reference except some isolated sentences that suit his POV. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 14:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I think "renunciate" in this context just refers to asceticism and austerities, although I would welcome input on that. Regarding the other points, "secretive" probably is somewhat judgmental, and I agree probably doesn't merit inclusion in the first sentence. Describing the group as an ascetic/austerities type might, and I could see, maybe, not knowing the subject that well, possibly including millenarian in the lead sentence, if the group has a very profound view regarding the immanent end of the world, which I haven't been able to check myself yet. John Carter (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

In my view, Secretive reflects POV of those critical of the organization and quite judgemental. Ascetic or Austerity is probably associated with a spiritual life-style promoted by BKWSU. Group does have profound views on imminent end of the world however its also associated with start of a new world they call "Golden Age" - one of the sources for this Changeisconstant (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I would agree the use of 'secretive' is unjustified. The source used is more a non-fiction narrative account of someone's time in Delhi, and doesn't even explain why that adjective was selected. J18 has earlier sought to justify the use of secretive with unverifiable claims that were accurately demonstrated by Changeisconstant to be false claims (as the daily teachings are available online, on open you-tube channels daily etc, not protected and hidden - a claim that had no supporting reference anyway).

Ascetic seems unsupported.

I don't agree that the group has profound views about the imminent end of the world. It appears to me the BK's see themselves as the vanguard for a new world that comes about without any 'final destruction' - there is always a human population on the planet (they say). This is arguably a bit more cheerful than the natural science view that the sun will one day supernova annihilating all of us, however the BK view has imminence. Massive upheaval yes, and the BK euphemisms such as 'transformation' are too much of stretch for me, but so are words like 'apocalypse'.

I see on the Scientology page one way camped disputes/entrenched disagreements have been managed is to simply state both positions e.g. the third paragraph in the lede could read:

"The BK's maintain they have been criticised and caused some controversy primarily because the social reforms they have been advocating have challenged existing power structures and social norms (e.g. dominance of men in patriarchal India). However critics make a wide range of accusations, some of which don't fit this characterisation".

I appreciate this isn't perfect, but I find it helpful to exemplify the point I'm trying to make. At the moment, the article tends just to express one side of the debate. The article can be drafted in a more balanced way. Regards Danh108 (talk) 19:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, as per the Millenarianism article, millenialism doesn't actually mean "end of the world" as per my quote above directly, but rather an "end of the world as it exists today" or "major tansformation in society," which some might consider roughly equivalent to the first quote I give here. My apologies for my previous misstatement. But it does seem from the comments above that the BKs can reasonably be described as "millenial," although that doesn't directly address whether it is so important that it needs to be stated in the first sentence. John Carter (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Under that definition, my view would be that the word "millenial" works nicely. Thanks for clarifying John. Danh108 (talk) 21:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion is that, as BK is a NRM, what is most important as adjectives in the lead is what defines the most important characteristics or beliefs of it as a religion. In my opinion, it seems one of the most important beliefs is the belief in a single God, and I think the adjective "monotheistic" could be an accurate and relevant representation of that in the lead, as it is in many WP articles of religions. Even the belief of an inheritance of golden age is believed to be a spiritual consequence of a connection with God. Instead of describing this as a core belief, the whole article blurs it in the middle of confusing descriptions and controversial points thrown everywhere.

Another issue in the lede is "spirit possession". That expression is in religious context, always used to refer to demonic spirits and so it's obviously there from a critical POV and is not a neutral word. I think "mediumship" is enough of a neutral word to describe the believed process of religious revelation, "possession" being unnecessary and non-neutral word. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 02:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

"Mediumship" instead of "spirit possession" seems reasonable to me, as long as it works with the sources. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Both mediumship, defined as the voluntary and conscious mediumship of spirits, and possession, defining it as the involuntary and unconscious mediumship of spirits occurs in the religion and is part of its belief system (e.g. 'Spirit possession and purity: A case study of a Brahma Kumaris ascetic' Ramsay, Tamasin), hence it is accurately represented. It's not true to make a statement such as "always used to refer to demonic spirits". At best that's a statement of personal faith.

If we go down that path, others could quite likely argue from a point of their faith, that all the spirits possessing the Brahma Kumaris are evil, and who are we to judge?

I must pick DanH108 up on the 'final destruction' issue. As pointed out in 'Apocalyptic Dreams and Religious Ideologies' (Beit-Hallahmi, Benjaminin 2003), Walliss and elsewhere, "Destruction" is the word the Brahma Kumaris use for the death of 7 billion impure human beings which happens through nuclear war, civil war and natural disasters including the sinking of all over continents except for India. It kills off all other non-BKs and eradicates civilisation as we know it so that the BKs can exclusively inherit a purified heaven on earth.

Let's not be misled about it. For Danh108 to state, as a long term devotee, that "new world that comes about without any 'final destruction'" is extremely disingenuous. The references are clear. The Brahma Kumaris invoke a terrible (and scientifically impossible) destruction of all others.

Adjwilley, we have addressed the issue of secretiveness already on this page, it occurs in various references as secretive, hidden, lack of disclosure to outsiders, information control etc.

Renunciate religions or orders are rather common. --Januarythe18th (talk) 03:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I reverted your edit: Could you address the concerns I brought up in my original post (WP:LEAD saying that the Lead section should summarize the article...the body of the article says nothing about renunciate and little about secretive, so why should the 1st sentence of the Lead?) Also, as I mentioned in my edit summary, part of the reason I reverted was because of the unattributed claim. Is there a general consensus in the sources that BK is secretive, or is that controversial? If it's controversial, the writing should reflect that, or at least attribute the view to someone. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Where would you like me to start? Above you state you don't understand what the word renunciate means. Perhaps if you have a read over the various references and look at the lifestyle section it will give you an overview.

What is it you don't understand about the term renunciate or renunciation as it refers to a religion?

The Brahma Kumaris themselves pose their path as "unlimited renunciation". Ask one of the Brahma Kumari followers here if I am presenting that fact correctly, e.g. "You children have unlimited renunciation because you understand that this old world is to end. This is why you have disinterest in it". Sakar Murli 2003/02/18 Revised or as in Babb.

I understanding that some people do not like when I point this out, but this is where not having a detail knowledge of the topic is a disadvantage, and a burden upon others when it comes to defending the obvious. The Brahma Kumaris are a renunciate order. Their teachings are to renounce this entire world as it is to be destroyed. --Januarythe18th (talk) 05:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Januarythe18th, I think Adjwilley is saying something different. The question here is the Lead being the summary of the article rather than being composed of some isolated statements quoted from references. The irony here is that inorder to support a critical POV, you have shown two references above - one of them comes from a BKWSU literature which you have always strongly opposed to be used as a source because its not independent. The Babb reference shows Renunciation in a very different context of elderly people adopting celibacy and doesn't support your claim of "renoucing this entire world". Therefore before making edits or reverts against consensus on page, I would again request you to discuss the contoversial changes on talk page and seek opinions. Changeisconstant (talk) 07:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

That is correct: I'm not saying that BK is not renunciate, I'm saying that that particular detail is far to specific for the 1st sentence of the Lead, particularly when you consider how sparse the support for that is in the body of the article. The same goes for secretive: I'm not saying they're not, but it has not been demonstrated that this is an extremely significant aspect of the religion, and again, when the body doesn't support that, it shouldn't be in the Lead. Also, I don't think you should be reverting this when the consensus here is against you, and you definitely shouldn't be using deceptive edit summaries like "renunciate can stay" as you slip the word "secretive" back into the Lead. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

"Renouncing the entire world", even if present in BK scripture, does not make it a renunciate religion. "Renunciate" could only be an adjective in the lead for an ascetic religion that renounces society in general. Just being celibate, vegetarian and avoiding drugs is not enough for it to be considered a "renunciate" religion. By the same criteria more than half of the world religions would probably also be renunciate, but I think it's only the case with religions that typically isolate from society (Brahma Kumaris was renunciate in the beginning, but isn't so now). It teaches people to not abandon family and job, and unite meditation with a normal life in the city. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 09:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Jan18 said: "If we go down that path, others could quite likely argue from a point of their faith, that all the spirits possessing the Brahma Kumaris are evil, and who are we to judge?". I'm nobody to judge, but that's a very loaded POV and WP has a policy on neutral words. "Possession" is not appropriate for being a non-neutral, POV loaded word. Also, the mediumship BKs believe to be the source of their knowledge does not occur involuntarily, the Murlis have a specific time to be spoken, known beforehand, so even the meaning of the word is not accurate in " It teaches a form of meditation its adherents call Raja Yoga but which differs from the classical Raja Yoga described by Patanjali. and has been derived from teachings given through mediumship and spirit possession." I suggest the removal of "spirit possession" for being inaccurate and POV loaded. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 09:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

As soon as we enter into ideas such as spirits, mediumship and possession, we are discussing spiritualism. (Naturally, I am not suggesting that there is any any validity to the claims of spiritualists, just reporting the claims of the religion itself in plain but precise English).

Given that Lekhraj Kirpalani was unaware that he was possessed by another spirit until after 1955, and going along the BKs claims that their novel teachings arise from the possessing spirit, possess in that case would appear to be accurate definition.

Kirpalani was not trained and could not have given his consent, because he was unaware there was another spirit possessing him. Indeed, in a number of sources it describes how other adherents were possessed by the same or similar "spirits". How the spirit or spirits used to hop in and out of (possess) various adherents speaking through them or making them act in bizarre manners.

That is not mediumship.

Since the death of Kirpalani, the Brahma Kumaris claim their deceased founder and their god both possesses together a senior adherent, and speak and act through her. Again, it's not conscious as in mediumship, it's in a state of deep trance. I would say the term used for that in English is channelling, however, we don't know it came about.

The Brahma Kumaris are generally very secretive about their spiritualistic or mediumistic practises, however, Ramsay reports other aspects of possession and even exorcism within the religion.

In addition, I would disagree with you that all such spirits need be "evil". I think you must have been watching too much Buffy the Vampire. From memory, even the Maleficus Maleficarum suggests this, not all possessing spirits are misleading, some are true, some are mixed. Really, the issue is how to communicate in plain English what is being said in Hinduism and then the BKs own codified language, e.g. they might translate the original Hindi as "chariot", we would understand and write that as "medium".

Can you show me any links to the Brahma Kumaris own websites or materials etc where they discuss all their different mediumistic practises, how they train up their mediums and so on? Are they trained or possessed against their own will? That is the critical issue. --Januarythe18th (talk) 16:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Jan18, you showed no argument at all in your lengthy post, to why a heavily loaded word such as "possession", should be used in the lede, contrary to WP:LABEL. What you said is either ad-hominem or purely your personal interpretation of facts, which are irrelevant in an encyclopedia. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 20:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how "spirit possession" adds anything that mediumship doesn't cover, except the possibility of confusing people. Mediumship is much clearer. Dr Ramsay's work deals with a specific case study where someone was allegedly possessed by some evil spirit, and describes a possessive involuntary take over, which appears inconsistent with BK belief. Regards Danh108 (talk) 22:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Om Mandli on Wikisource

To assist with discussion, I uploaded a copy of OM MANDLI: A true authenticated story about its activities being a reply to "Is This Justice?" (1940) by Bhaibund Om Mandli Committee.

Interesting to note, Greywinterowl, contradictory to your assertion about "losing the case", THE SIND OBSERVER dated Friday May 19th 1939 reported "The Om Mandli has been banned under Section 16th of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1908". --Januarythe18th (talk) 09:41, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Janaury, I won't state as you did, that you haven't read the source. However, are the findings you are referring not arising from the government Tribunal? It is clear from the material I provided earlier that the 'Anti-party' did lose their case as per the reference I provided earlier - the whole judgement is produced, starting on page 126 of the document you uploaded. I am still interested to get your response to the incorrect statements you made earlier in this regard too. Regards Danh108 (talk) 10:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Page 126 is a copy of The Daily Mirror article of Thursday 18th May 1939 which notes, "It is a very thin line that divides real genius from stark madness ...".

There is no judgement reported in it.

Stop wasting our time. --Januarythe18th (talk) 13:41, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

My apologies. I didn't realise that all the copies going around would be different. It's page 126 on my copy. It has the whole decision by Eric Weston and Godfrey Davis. It is also page 73 in some other versions. I will check where it appears in the material you uploaded. Please note I consider the time wasting comments to be uncivil, particularly when you are the one who is being rude to another editor about there being no Court case when there has been several. If you had your facts right and I had my page numbers right, time would be saved. Regards Danh108 (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The judgement starts on page 143 of the version you uploaded. Regards Danh108 (talk) 00:59, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you possibly referring to Om Radhe's book? Do you actually have access to an original copy of the Bhaiband committee's book?

There is no page 143. There was also no "Court case" as was being referred to. It was a government appointed tribunal instead. Yes, there were a number of civil court cases relating to various families at various time etc but what was being referred to was a Tribunal. If they want to clarify which specific case I will accept it, but please be careful before you make accusations of having facts wrong. --Januarythe18th (talk) 03:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

January, I downloaded "Is this Justice" as per the document you uploaded from your website. It opened in my pdf viewer, which at the top states page 143. Of the original book (no I don't have a copy) it's page 126. It is a Court case, and you are wrong. If you now wish to say you really meant civil proceedings rather than criminal, that is unsupported by the earlier extensive uncivil edits claiming there was no Court case, and you are still wrong (there was also proceedings under s112 of the Criminal Procedure Code). The Judicial Commissioner of Sind heard an application by Jashoda Kripalani against the Crown. The first lines of the judgement reference another criminal proceeding that the present High Court application (the Judicial Commissioner of Sind is of High Court jurisdiction) relates to. So my position is unchanged. I can't offer any explanation as to why you can't find the judgement in your materials. As I earlier stated, the government appointed Tribunal came about because the Anti-Om Mandali party (a name that group chose for themselves) lost the case to have the Mandali banned. I hope that helps. Danh108 (talk) 08:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Asceticism and renunciation

Danh108, himself a self-disclosed sevadhari (or servant) of the religion states, "Ascetic seems unsupported".

With no effort at all, a quick scan of the references reveals the following examples:

Spirit possession and purity: A case study of a Brahma Kumaris ascetic

Urbanised Spirituality: The Brahma Kumaris as Social Ascetics

Marriage, Sexuality and the Female 'Ascetic': Understanding a Hindu Sect

The Brahma Kumaris as a 'reflexive Tradition': Responding to Late Modernity - John Wallis (numerous refs)

There are others.

May I politely ask that all contributors acquaint themselves with the given references first before making such statements to avoid appearing insincere in their suggestions?

(On a related issue, there's nothing negative about being classified as "renunciate" so I restored that. It is fair definition of a religion that requires adherents to renounce quite as much as the BKs).

Thank you--Januarythe18th (talk) 03:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I do consider referring to my volunteer work in a kitchen as being servitude to be quite uncivil (as well as irrelevant and factually incorrect).

As I understand it BK's definition of 'renunciation' is to consider the self a trustee - it's a bit like the Buddhist concept that ownership is impossible, because everyone will ultimately be separated from their property. So all a person really has is a temporary right of control over possessions. So the renunciation isn't an absence of property or clothing or connection to society. Rather it's about our consciousness.

Having read a bit more, ascetism is mainly ok. My apologies. I had hesitated because I think to some extent it misinforms readers because of it's close association to stepping away from the world and austerities, both of which are not features of BK. But in terms of advocating a life where sensual pleasure is abstained from in the pursuit of higher spiritual aims, it's very apt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danh108 (talk • contribs) 08:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The BK concept of leadership is to serve others (not to be a servant). This is another reason why the last paragraph of the lede is flawed - the BK's are not (as Vecrumba but it) "a bunch of kooks bent on world domination". Though effort is being made to caste the organisation in various negative lights. The Musslewhite resource being used to support the last paragraph in the lede also states in the abstract that

"The Brahma Kumaris aspire to serve the world as a model of good management and effective leadership".

Yet somehow this part wasn't selected for inclusion.....when I tried to fix this months ago and only January was around, everything got reverted. A couple more references have been tagged on since, but the problem remains the same.

Regards Danh108 (talk) 08:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Musslewhite resource on page 9 quotes "The Brahma Kumaris' teachings about the world cycle are important for

understanding the organization's objectives." After this author explains the BKWSU belief in cycle in detail and then mentions world rulership. This is why the current statement without context or being a fair summary of the main article is a bit misleading. Changeisconstant (talk) 08:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Disingenuous again. You can put on being offended for the non-BKs but Sevadhari is the term you yourself chose and, if we look at how BKs use the terms, there is nothing bad about it, e.g. , , , etc. I merely translated it for the others; "seva" means 'service', "dhari" means "one who adopts". I'am guessing it is taken from Sikhism?

Secondly, (see above) I don't own any websites and so I don't know what you refer to.

Changeisconstant, there is a difference between "aspiring" and achieving. I might tell people "I aspire to be an olympic runner", but if my practise is poor, I won't make it. Likewise with the BKWSU.

The BKWSU might advertise itself, and like to think of itself, according to its high minded aspirations; unfortunately the Misplaced Pages has to report on individual's or organization's realities. I think not understanding that is part of your group's problem.

Once the BKWSU has achieved its high mind goals, whatever they might be, we can report on them then; but we cannot recycle its PR in the meanwhile.

Does that help? --Januarythe18th (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Ascetic looks fine to me compared to renunciation and supported by references. However January, the translation you are trying to show above sounds like a mock towards the adherrents. Sevadhari doesn't equate to Servant and in this context its meaning is close to "those engaged in volunteer service". Volunteer service in an Indian religion context is not equated to servitude or being a servant. And sorry I don't understand what you mean by your comment on Aspirations vs achieving. My comment was related to objectives of the organization above and not the achievements. Changeisconstant (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

January, please don't keep trying to personalise things. It doesn't help. I never said I was offended, I said your comments were uncivil. You've implied I'm a sycophant, called me WP:Dick & Dick-ish a few times, a servant, an adherent/follower, unfit to edit Wiki...the list goes on. One of views that I share with the BK's is to always find something to respect about others and to resist any temptation to get reduced to the same kind of conduct. You don't make that easy. However I'm confident that in other contexts you're a nice fellow, you do have a very good sense of humour and I love that kind of 'dry wit' - when I first started editing you made a few very intelligent and entertaining remarks. Thank you for that. I think if you appreciated that I am a human being with feelings instead of just pigeon holing me as a BK adherent, you might find it easier to stop slugging me (and other editors). If I was able to 'adhere' to more of the BK's teachings than I do, I would in my view, be a better person for it. Apologies for diverging from content again. Danh108 (talk) 19:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Please, it's "BKs", not BK's. BKs is the plural of BK. We have to set some standards here.

The idea of "service" is not limited to India. The idea of being the servant of God or servant of humanity runs through Islam, Christianity and many others religious orders. A true sevadhari would consider themselves to be both as I am sure you would like to think yourself. You (the BKs) are deliberately making another storm in a tea cup here. And I am sure that your consider you are serving your religion here.

As to renunciation, references aside, all one has to do is look at the lifestyle. It's stating and summarising the obvious. It not even a bad thing. Dan, please keep your personal thoughts and projections to yourself. I am not interested. --Januarythe18th (talk) 06:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

January, you state I'm a self disclosed sevadhari. I have never made such a disclosure on Wiki. If you are relying on a LinkedIn profile as the source of your claim I would remind you of WP:Privacy, in particular: Dredging up their off line opinions to be used to repeatedly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment.

Please also see WP:WIAPA in particular: Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views= personal attack. I remind of this too. Regards Danh108 (talk) 22:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

As someone who has persistently attempting to speculate and identify me, published real names on both talk pages and the mainspace, and forced responsibility for others actions upon me, for which you have no evidence, you have no grounds to complain if information you have made public about yourself is referred to.

As the BKs are working as a tagteam, and have no commitment to the rest of the Misplaced Pages project as a whole, it does not matter them if they lose individual accounts through gross infractions such as this. Their wikipedia accounts are invaluable to them as they are serving their religion's interests, not the Misplaced Pages's.

Therefore certain BKs have always push the limits knowing that if their account is banned, there were always be others to take their place. Others adopt simple 'sniping' or harassing roles (WP:3RR) to generally provoke conflict. --Januarythe18th (talk) 15:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi January, I do appreciate there is some truth to your comments. The respondent in the domain name matter is public domain. At one point I tried to better describe the "legal action against critic" section that mis-stated the reference and I included this name. When you called that a personal attack I got worried that I was inadvertently outing someone, but you have since reassured me that is not the case.

I am happy to leave things with the status quo, as per admins finding, that you are a follower of Lucy's group and I assume you took the mentioning of your leaders name personally for that reason. I am simply restating this finding, not speculating on your actual identity. If you have an issue with the finding, you should probably raise that with the admin concerned.

If there is some reason that the respondents name (Mr Allan) shouldn't be mentioned on the talk page or in the article, please do advise me of the reason here so no mistake is made.

I don't think that the above would make you exempt from the rules and policies. Regards Danh108 (talk) 18:45, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

3rd Paragraph of the Lede

I propose changing the third paragraph of the lede to:

"The BK's maintain they have been criticised and caused some controversy primarily because the social reforms they have been advocating have challenged existing power structures and social norms, for example the dominance of men in patriarchal India. However critics make a wide range of accusations, some of which don't fit this characterisation".

There is a supporting reference for the first sentence in 'is this justice'. The second sentence can be referenced to the controversies section in the article if that's allowed. But I'm interested to hear what others think. I think it's important that gender gets introduced in the Lede as probably the most notable aspect of the BK's (as compared to other NRM's) is the role of women. millenarianism, belief in God, etc are fairly common. Regards Danh108 (talk) 21:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I would change BK's to BKWSU for clarity. I would agree that the role of women deserves a place in the Lede. What is missing however is what Brahma Kumaris means or origin of the term. I suggest adding the below supported by the reference suggested by John earlier "Religions of the world" . This addresses both origin of the term as well as the role of women.

"Brahma Kumaris are distinctly identified by prominent role women play in the movement ("Brahma Kumaris" means daughters of Brahma). While the leadership is primarily female, there is also a significant degree of participation from male members." Changeisconstant (talk) 08:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

It's also strange that the role of the President of Om Mandali and co-founder of the organisation, "Om Radhe" is almost completely ignored in the present article, as is the role of women in general. Regards Danh108 (talk) 10:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Danh, I agree in women being mentioned in the lede, but I would like to comment, notability is not based on "common" or "uncommon", but rather the lede is meant to describe the most relevant aspects of the subject. Brahma Kumaris is primarily a religion, more than a social movement, so I see no reason why "monotheistic" is not an essentially relevant adjective to be on the lede, giving a very clear religious definition, which is greatly lacking in the current version. By reading contentious labels like "spirit possession", it's not even clear whether BKs believe in one God or many "spirits" that go on possessing the members randomly, like some forms of spiritism, which is inaccurate as no such thing is practiced by BKs.

Another comment I would like to make about "spirit possession" is how the dictionary itself describes the word "possession" in a spiritual context, (link: ) which I quote here: "4. the state of being controlled or dominated by or as if by evil spirits", being therefore a very contentious word as per WP:LABEL, and inaccurate as no reliable reference supports the BK philosophy came from evil spirits, being mere personal POV. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 12:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I think monotheism is important, especially as many meditation practices are either atheistic or pantheistic. It's important to distinguish this aspect. As BK theism is so wrapped up with their meditation practice, perhaps both can be explained together.Danh108 (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

From a real world point of view, Radhi Pokardas Rajwani is utterly non-notable. She died in 1965 by which she might have had dealings with a few hundred non-notable individuals, mainly those within the cult. For most of that time, the cult did nothing notable either.

I appreciate that from the cult's point of view, they believe she is the second most important human being in the world and the Mother of Humanity, Eve and the reincarnation of Radhe, Lakshmi and Saraswati, however, perhaps that is just a bit of a typical Brahma Kumari exaggeration? And the real story of her life is being hidden. Evidence from the early history shows that she was clearly highly deluded if not suffering from some kind of Folie à deux mental illness. --Januarythe18th (talk) 08:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Fresh Perspective on the Lede

Some may not have seen, but a couple of sample lede's were drafted in earlier discussion on the talk page - see the contents headings with 'Lede' included if you want to see the original discussions. As Adjwilley precipitated a nice discussion on the lede, I thought to repaste what Vecrumba drafted and I modified. There could be some sections of this we might like to borrow.

Vecrumba had stated he found the Encyclopedia of Hinduism very helpful. Does anyone know a way of viewing this for free online?

Brahma Kumaris is a millenarian Hindu new religious movement founded by Dada Lekharj Kripalani ("Brahma Baba") in India in the 1930's following a series of visions. It is the only major spiritual movement headed by women: the builders of society, to be rulers in a new post-apocalyptic era after the end of the current Kali-yuga age (Iron age).

Brahma Kumaris (hereafter BK’s) made available to women a spiritual path which was traditionally open only to men. BK’s follow a lifestyle and meditative practice they call Raja Yoga, a simplified form based on ancient teachings. BK’s usually lead lives focused away from materialism and sensual pleasure (including celibacy), believing that identity lies in the soul, not the body.

In Meditation BK’s focus on their spiritual identity as souls, believing that this will allow the original goodness and virtue in the soul to become more expressed in their lives. The BK’s teach that identifying with labels associated to the body like race, nationality, religion and even gender, divides people and feeds human weaknesses like anger, ego, greed, lust and attachment. The BK’s aspire to establish a culture based on what they call ‘soul-consciousness’ and believe that the present world is predominantly ‘body-conscious’.

At the time Brahma Kumaris was founded, women had no say in their lives. Attacked for being radical, its adherents lived and practiced in seclusion for many years. The Brahma Kumari are still seen by some as secretive and have caused some controversy as the movement has expanded and exported itself to the West: Brahma Kumaris inverts the traditional roles of man and woman—men tend to the everyday, freeing women for spiritual pursuits. While celibacy has long been a respected option for men on their spiritual path, the celibate woman denies her ordained role of wife and mother thus challenging traditional social and religious structure.

While not considering itself feminist, Brahma Kumaris has taken on more of those pragmatic aspects in Eastern Europe, where, for example, it has come into conflict with Catholic values; the Brahma Kumari movement has also adapted—women adopt a celibate marriage and continue to live with their families. Active proselytizing has given the Brahma Kumari movement a high profile, generating distrust among mainstream Hindus. Nevertheless, the Brahma Kumari are also respected in India for the hospitals, schools, and outreach programs which they have established.

Sources vary in the estimate of followers, ranging from 100,000 to 450,000 worldwide.

Regards Danh108 (talk) 10:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

You can preview the "Encyclopedia on Hinduism" here online (pg 89-90) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Changeisconstant (talk • contribs) 10:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Fantastic, thank you CIC.Danh108 (talk) 19:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for providing yet another reference which confirms the religion is seen as secretive. However, I see from the references that the brief summary is based on Liz Hodgkinson work and, as we have discussed, we need to be cautious with it as she and her partner were adherents at the time it was written, her partner having a leading role in the religion's public relations. In short, what you are trying to do is use Liz Hodgkinson/BKWSU PR again via the back door of some other book.

Regarding the "destroy other religions" reference, the quote comes directly from the BKs' scripture, with other sources confirming it. Although on other religious topics scripture is acceptable, I am conscious someone might object suggest this is a primary source. I disagree with that, however, I am not going to use it on the topic. I just want to present it here to establish credibility here and demonstrate where accuracy lies.

Sakar Murli 2008/11/13 Revised

Essence: Sweet children, Bharat that was like a diamond has become poverty-stricken by becoming impure. You now have to make it as pure as a diamond once again. You have to plant the sapling of the sweet deity tree.

Question: What are the Father's tasks in which children have to become His helpers?

Answer: To establish the deity government over the whole world, to destroy the innumerable religions and establish the one true religion are the Father's tasks. You children have to become helpers in these tasks. You have to make effort to claim a high status. Don't think that you will go to heaven anyway.

Now, please stop provoking an edit war over that. --Januarythe18th (talk) 07:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Januarythe18th, sorry but we can not have double standards here. On one hand you keep affirming we should not use BK literatures like Murlis for this article which infact I fully subscribe to. On other hand, you use them to support your insertions in the article. I think we are very clear not to use BK scriptures. Regarding the new reference above, while you point out Liz's reference to be BK bias, please note that you have used Liz's reference in the article anyway (even to quote "destroy other religions" that I removed) and on the other hand, you haven't noticed that encylopedia of Hinduism also uses John Waliss's work as reference which you have used many times in the article. When there are questions here about validity of a quote in the article you have inserted, onus is on you to justify using reliable and secondary sources . Thank you Changeisconstant (talk) 07:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I would also request January to show what is the source of the BK scripture quoted above? I am asking because January has claimed before that BKs are very secretive and don't disclose their literature to non-followers. So I am curious about where January is getting it from then? Changeisconstant (talk) 07:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Seems a fair point January. Can't really keep claiming the BK's are secretive if you have easy access to the so called scriptures. I googled this youtube channel where the secret scripture can be listened to live each day or later downloaded and watched at your leisure. Perhaps January's point is more to do with the emphasis BK place on oral transmission of their teachings i.e. there is an emphasis on listening to things being read rather then reading scripture. I understand there is a wide range or reasons the BK's have for this. Regards Danh108 (talk) 19:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Brahma Kumari controversies

As per Scientology controversies, I think the thing to do is summarise the Controversies and criticism section and start a new page, Brahma Kumari controversies.

This should actually find favour with the adherents of the religion as it will alter the balance of this topic page. If there are no rational and reasonable objections, I will do so in a couple of days. --Januarythe18th (talk)

On a non-controversial point, I think it would be good to define the meaning and etymology of the term Brahma Kumari somewhere. --Januarythe18th (talk) 08:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Scientology has a lot of coverage and spin off makes sense, putting the controversies from this article in a separate one could be going the way of an content fork. Further the correct procedure is to create the spin off and summarise that which then feeds back into the parent article. IE that's my objection. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

"As per Scientology controversies" is a False_analogy and not a valid basis for content and POV forking this article. You have not proven that scientology controversies have the same weight as BK. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 12:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

In addition to the above concerns, I am also concerned about the timing of the suggestion. The more I'm here the more I'm finding this article is absolutely riddled with mis-stated and unbalanced referencing etc, and I think it's best to try and resolve the issues here first. I don't see how the above suggestion forms part of the solution to this articles woes. If anything it may interfere with the article getting the kind of scrutiny it needs. Regards Danh108 (talk) 19:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

For there to be a separate article on BK controversies, it would be required that the controversies have sufficient notability as a specific topic to meet basic notability guidelines, and at this point I haven't seen that notability established. John Carter (talk) 16:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

"In your opinion".

John, please remember the Misplaced Pages has a world view and although the Brahma Kumaris controversies in the West, where they have a very small membership, might not be as notable as Scientology controversies, in India it is a different matter.

For example, if we look at Scientology_controversies#Noah_Lottick, the article documents the sorry story of Noah Lottick who jumped from a 10th floor of a building. If we refer then to the Brahma Kumaris, we have the case of Ranjana Boles (née Patel) who jumped from a 5th floor of a building.

In Brahma Kumarism, the 5th floor has special significance because they consider that making love or having an emotional relationship is metaphorically like jumping from a 5th floor of a building as to the spiritual damage it does to one. Ranjana had fallen in love with another adherent and chose to end her life in that manner.

I would therefore argue that both cases were identical and if you are going to apply such a ruling on Brahma Kumarism, you would have to apply it to Scientology and any other such religion. Can you fault such logic? --Januarythe18th (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The amount of coverage the Scientologists and their controversies is probably the over-riding concern in spinning out the controversies into a separate section. The prose content - according to the prozesize tool - of Scientology controversies is about 5033 words, the entirety of this article is only 3028 words. And by eye at least, the the controversy section of the main Scientology article is about three times the size of the controversy section in this article. I suggest revisiting the question of spin off later once it does start to reach that amount of prose. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

January, did you have any link for the matter you are referring too. As past accusations/controversies you have mentioned have been misrepresented I would be interested to read about this one. Have you even included it in the article? Thanks Danh108 (talk) 05:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Reverting against consensus/without explanation

January, you didn't engage with the discussion section on the talk page and simply reverted the inclusion of UNO in the expansion section with the summary "UNO not expansion". It's obviously not the process Wiki follows and going to be contentious. So please give a descent explanation or it will be escalated. As already noted, you have literally dedicated 60-70% of the 'expansion' section to a different organisation with unknown significance (but understood to be a fairly tiny splinter group), yet you consider the inclusion of factual milestones for the organisation to be "not expansion". Danh108 (talk) 20:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

In addition to the above revert today, January has also re-inserted "secretive" in the Lede when the consensus is against it and Adjwilley had advised not reverting this change. For expansion section, I don't understand how can a small splinter group PBK occupy much of it when it has got its own dedicated page that is already linked. Changeisconstant (talk) 20:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Big numbers

re: 450,000. To the best of my knowledge, there are no more uptodate estimates from reliable sources.

Caution has to be apply to the cult's own claims, e.g. it generally claims "8,500 centres" worldwide but the vast majority of these are nothing more than adherent's homes or even apartments. If we are to believe their latest unsubstantiated claims of 850,000 or even 1,000,000 followers, then each home or apartment allegedly has more than 100 people attending it every day.

One of the reference, I don't have the time to check which right now, points out that many of these homes have no more than 1 or 2 individuals adhering so where are the rest?

We then get into the quagmire of who is a Brahma Kumari and who is not. The organization states legally and specifically in its constitution that it "has no members" and refers to its adherents euphemistically as "students" rather than followers or adherents in an attempt to bolster its image as a "University" rather than a religion or cult. In the most recent rape case, the Brahma Kumari spokeswomen stated that only after "6 years adherence does an individual become a member". This again will effect accurate reporting of numbers. How many BKs are more than 6 years in adherence? Howell offers some statistics in that area.

Unless the Brahma Kumaris can provide independently verified evidence that each of their 8,500 "centres" have 100+ adherents attending daily, I think we can safely discount their claims ... or report them to their local authority planning permission department if any do.

Please, no more public relations advertising. --Januarythe18th (talk) 08:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The reference provided by John ("religions of the world") puts this as "By the year 2008, with more than 8,500 centers in 100 countries, the movement claims to have more than 825,000 regular students.". Therefore it can always be presented as "movement claims" rather than a verified number. Changeisconstant (talk) 08:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Quote on controversies

This is an exact quotation from the Religions of the World article on the Brahma Kumaris, written by Eileen Barker, on page 383 of the first volume.

"In 1938 some aggrieved husbands and relatives founded the Anti-Om-Mandli Committee, resulting in sensational newspaper articles, persecution, and lawsuits. After about a year the furor died down, and a new organization known as the Brahma Kumaris was created."

That whole article is about 6 paragraphs long, and I am willing to forward a transcribed version to anyone who sends me an e-mail requesting it. But I believe this quote from an encyclopedic source may well be among the better indicators available regarding how to deal with the early controversies regarding Om Mandli. I am going to try to add other reference source articles to my computer for forwarding at request in the next few days. John Carter (talk) 16:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Barker's work is somewhat dated now and depended solely on BK sources, e.g. Hodgkinson and Chander. Historical research has moved forward since that time, even within the movement. The committee was appointed by the Bhaibund Panchayat and was headed by the leader of the Panchayat, the Mukhi, and his daughter.

As is their wont, the BKs have presented it in one manner in the past to suit their aims or agenda, e.g. portraying themselves a victims. We now have a bigger picture of the reality, and so should move with the times. --Januarythe18th (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

A proposed replacement lede

Seems like everyone has been enjoying a 'walk' from this article. I have taken the chance to take a step back and draft what I consider to be fair lede and have tried to incorporate all the different elements, as well as the change in direction I anticipate the article is taking. I am interested to get feedback before I attach all the references (is that ok?). The main difference in my view is that I have tried to avoid going into too much detail as I see the main body of the article as the appropriate place for that. I anticipate January will critcise this, however I am confident that the content related dimension of his feedback will be able to be included in the body of the article, without POV loading the lede.

Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University (BKWSU) or Prajapita Brahma Kumaris Ishwariya Vishwa Vidyalaya was founded by Brahma Baba (Dada Lekharj Kripalani) and (Om Radhe) in India in the 1930's.

The organisation today projects itself as a vehicle for spiritual teachings and values education and often references it's affiliation as an NGO with the United Nations in support of this view. In the academic domain the BKWSU is classified as a Neo-Hindu millenarian New Religious Movement (NRM). In the interfaith domain the Brahma Kumaris are often considered a spiritual organisation rather than a religion.

Brahma Kumaris are distinctly identified by the prominent role women play in the movement. While the leadership is primarily female, there is also a significant degree of participation from male members.

The BKWSU teach a form of meditation that focuses on their identity as souls, and that the soul is intrinsically good. They believe that all souls are children of one God who is the source of all goodness, and that we are one human family. The BK’s teach that identifying with labels associated to the body like race, nationality, religion and even gender, divides people and feeds human weakness. They aspire to establish a global culture based on what they call ‘soul-consciousness’ and believe that the present world is predominantly ‘body-conscious’ and therefore requires total transformation.

The BKWSU maintain they have been criticised and caused some controversy primarily because the social reforms they have been advocating have challenged existing power structures and social norms. Critics make a wide range of accusations, some of which don't fit this characterisation (link to section). However the BKWSU are well respected in India for the hospitals, schools, environmental projects and outreach programs which they have established.

Sources vary in the estimate of followers, ranging from 100,000 to 450,000 worldwide (I think this is old?? At least needs date).Danh108 (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The first sentence needs to state what the organization is so that the reader gets an immediate idea of the topic, see for example the opening sentence of Ford Transit "The Ford Transit is a range of light commercial vehicles produced by Ford Motor Company since 1965". GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Greame. I have tried to balance/off set this against one of the issues/controversial areas, i.e. that the organisation self describes/projects itself in a way that is different to the academic world, which is again different to the way other religions see the organisation. The present write up has tried to balance all 3, without placing undue weight of any particular perspective. Would this adjustment to the job:

The Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University (BKWSU) or Prajapita Brahma Kumaris Ishwariya Vishwa Vidyalaya projects itself as a vehicle for spiritual teachings and values education and often references it's affiliation as an NGO with the United Nations in support of this view. In the academic domain the BKWSU is classified as a Neo-Hindu millenarian New Religious Movement (NRM). In the interfaith domain the Brahma Kumaris are often considered a spiritual organisation rather than a religion.

The Brahma Kumaris was founded by Brahma Baba (Dada Lekharj Kripalani) and (Radhi Pokardas Rajwani) in India in the 1930's. It is distinctly identified by the prominent role women play in the movement. While the leadership is primarily female, there is also a significant degree of participation from male members.

Thank you Greame, and thanks also to John Carter for the resources. Regards Danh108 (talk) 18:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

It would be better to look at other commensurate religions for examples, rather than Ford motor vehicles, e.g. Iskcon, Jehovah's Witnesses, Scientology etc. Or perhaps an example like Brahmo Samaj.

Why?

The main difference between a Ford Transit and the Brahma Kumaris, except that one can get more work done with a Ford Transit, is the use of language and, in particular, the use of foreign or arcane language. Therefore, introducing the Brahma Kumaris requires a little more effort and clarification. It also uses many already established terms it has taken from Hinduism but given a new twist or meaning, e.g. Brahma for their guru, and so either they avoided, or clarified, as per WP:JARGON.

The Brahma Kumaris have a habit of highly exaggerating a very minor and insignificant relationship with "the United Nations", as Dan is doing above to give credibility to their teachings. In fact, they have been censured by the United Nations about this. Their relationship is not with "the United Nations" and so we must oppose such a suggestion due to its lack of accuracy. If this needs clarifying further, I will do so.

The founder's name is Lekhraj Kirpalani. While it is factually true that from the early 1930s to the mid 1950s Kirpalani and the Brahma Kumaris taught that Kirpalani was God, the Hindu deities Brahma and Prajapati (as well as the reincarnation of Krishna, Vishnu and Narayan which continue to do so, as well as adding Adam and a few others), I think that we on the Misplaced Pages should just call the man by his name.

Kirpalani gained no recognition in his life time from any religious authority. Indeed, he was criticised for his lack of religious knowledge (never mind his ridiculously exaggerated claims to an almost monopolistic divinity). All of his titles and styles are self-appointed. WP:NCP is quite clear.

Again, "we are not religious, we are spiritual" is another fairly meaningless and at best confusing PR spin the BKs often use. What on earth does it mean and who said it? What Dan is doing is is putting forward how the Brahma Kumaris want to be seen, specifically to avoid being seen as a religion or a cult. As stated in one of the reference quote above, the Brahma Kumaris are secretive of their true beliefs and agendas. They want to portray themselves as something vague and will claim that individuals do not have to leave their own religions to join them. But once an individual is enculted, it becomes absolutely clear this is false and they have every defining factor of a religion.

"Often ..." .

There is a further blur going on here. Against it's want to be thought of, as spiritual rather than the spiritualist religion they are, not what they are. They are a religion.

I have nothing against the role of women in the organization and, indeed, entered it recently. However, there are many religious orders absolutely run by women whereas in the Brahma Kumaris, the women have mainly played the role of the facade of the religion whereas senior brothers take more the serious responsibilities. In the beginning, Kirpalani used the women, the wives, daughters and relatives of his critics, as a tactical shield to hide behind putting his wealth into a trust to protect it when he risked losing it to various court cases against him. Again, there are a combination of references to substantiate this, including a feminist critique (Howell, I think) pointing out how the women spirit mediums gain authority by channeling a male spirit (allegedly the deceased Kirpalani) who still directs the organization from another world.

Therefore, rather than having women "leaders", it's more a matter of having lots of unpaid and subservient women servants and volunteers which is typical of the NGO/NPO sector.

The "values education" element, which correctly started off as a BK evangelist project is now a separate and we are told independent organisation and already has a separate topic Living Values which needs fixing.

Lastly, I will say it one last time. The plural of BK is BKs, not BK's. There are a number of other spelling errors at a similar level in your suggestion. Your obstinance towards correct such a small detail is concerning. It makes it obvious you have no interest in learning or aiming for a decent standard of article. --Januarythe18th (talk) 08:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Secretive and Renunciate

As was raised many times in the talk page, most editors agree, including one admin: Adjwilley, that "renunciate" and "secretive" are WP:Undue weight and not appropriate to be on the lede. Brahma Kumaris does not isolate from society, being non-renunciate, and "secretive" is cherry-picked from one or two phrases from references, being far from a general representation of the NRM. The only editor who defends those 2 adjectives is Januarythe18th. Despite the huge consensus, and warnings from the admin Adjwilley not to revert against consensus, Jan18 reverted both adjectives back into the lede without proving on the talk page that they are supported, as the most relevant adjectives to be on the lede and describe the NRM, by reliable references or much less, due weight.

All we hear from Jan18 is a conspiracy theory that the editors here are a tagteam trying to "use" all the other editors in their favor. In other words, Jan18 wants to affirm that no editor except himself is capable of editing the article. If that's not WP:Own, then please tell me what it is.

My suggestion is, unless Jan18 can show reliable support to justify the weight of placing those 2 adjectives on the lede, it could be escalated to the Neutral POV Noticeboard: . GreyWinterOwl (talk) 11:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

"Most editors" means the BKs. If it ever comes to an investigation, I will present my evidence, including the visa business. But until it does, I am not going to be draw into making accusations that will then be used against me.

As stated "generally hidden", "secretive" etc all mean the same time and clearly appear in numerous academic references. The Brahma Kumaris are just about unique amongst all religion for not publishing their core beliefs and teachings, keeping them hidden and highly controlled, not disclosing their belief in Destruction of humanity, pretending not to be a religion and so on.

The only other spiritual traditions that might also do are highly secretive occult traditions.

As for renunciate, there is nothing wrong with it. It summarised the lifestyle which is documented below. Many religious orders from Carmelites to Sanyasis are renunciate orders and so are the Brahma Kumaris, especially if we are to apply the "6 year rule for membership" that the BKWSU spokeswoman mentioned in the recent rape case. Most surrendered BKs own nothing more a few saris, many of which might be second hand, have no personal money and no private time. Their life is decided for them.

If you have a good argument to suggest that the Brahma Kumaris are Epicureans, then please make it. Otherwise, what are you trying to say?

Are the Brahma Kumaris promoting materialistic consumerism? I watched a video recently with Sister Jayanti where she was making exactly this point, that people need to renounce material things to find inner happiness. You have no case. --Januarythe18th (talk) 13:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

BK does not isolate from society so your analogy with sanyasis or carmelites is a false analogy. Vegetarianism or celibacy is not enough to label a NRM as renunciate, specially in the lede. Murlis are available all over the internet including official sites, and if that's the only argument you have towards "secretive", I'm afraid it's undue weight to be an adjective in the lede, plus it's also a contentious WP:Label. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 14:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The sources support "Ascetic" more than "Renunciate". If there is any controversy about keeping any aspects secretive , may be controversy section is the place for that - not Lede as per consensus. So far January's arguments have been contraditory- on one hand saying BKWSU keeps its scriptures secretive, on the other hand using them as references (and haven't answered what is the source of them!) when reliable sources don't support January's view. Therefore pushing "secretive" so much into lead and regular reversion against consensus and Admin view is more of POV pushing to make it appear biased. Changeisconstant (talk) 17:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

It's irrelevant how and where I got them, as they are not used in the article, but it certainly was not from the BKWSU nor with its cooperation. Perhaps you are unaware of the politics and controversy that are going on within the Brahma Kumaris leadership as we type about just this issue of secrecy over them. I don't expect them to be honest. It goes against 40 years of habitually dishonest and misleading behaviour in the West.

A number of fairly original and complete set exist outside of the revisionary control of the the Brahma Kumaris of Mount Abu, and it is on these that the truth of the Brahma Kumaris will be revealed. Just as it was on the basis of archival material in the British, Oxford University and Indian national libraries outside of their control which exposed the history that the Brahma Kumaris had been highly secretive about, including there being no God Shiva in their religion until after 1955 and believing that Lekhraj Kirpalani was God until then.

Now, please, your diatribes are becoming increasingly personalised. Go and read the latest academic and other sources. Dig a little bit deeper intellectually. See how the world sees you. Then ask your leadership why they covered it all up, falsified it, and misled all those sincere people in the past. Thank you.--Januarythe18th (talk) 19:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

While I don't understand what you are advising me here and all the background you are quoting without verifiable sources - do you mean to say, you have exclusive access to some BK sources that you intend to use to expose the truth of the Brahmakumaris using Misplaced Pages as a channel? I thought Misplaced Pages wasn't about that and supposed to be about verifiability as it exists today. Are we talking about investigative journalism here? Changeisconstant (talk) 20:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the topic because it is not being brought into question or used in it.

How much more straightforward do I have to make it? Collate and read all the academic work written about the Brahma Kumaris, and copies of other older original works, and try and understand how the world sees your religion, not try and "correct" the way the world sees your religion and tell it what to think.

Ask your religion's leadership why they have falsified their history and promoted that falsified version to the world. Ask them if it is truly ethical. --Januarythe18th (talk) 02:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Jan18 is simply pushing his own WP:OR and POV here without proving the due weight of "secretive" and "renunciate" in the lede being supported by reliable sources. "Secretive" comes from one or two sentences carefully picked, is not a predominant and general view given by any reference, to be used in the lede to describe the NRM. "Renunciate" is inaccurate as BK does not isolate from society, and if any reliable source supports it, I haven't seen any of that presented by Jan18. I just see strawman and ad-hominem. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 09:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. As per consensus as well as view from Adjwilley earlier, secretive should be deleted from lede (as its not summarizing the topic which is important in lede). I would put Ascetic rather than Renunciate. My view is that its well supported by references and also summarizes the article looking at the lifestyle and other sections in the topic. Changeisconstant (talk) 10:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Answered below. --Januarythe18th (talk) 11:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Spirit Possession

This is a link to a dictionary describing the meaning of the word "possession" in a spiritual context: , from which I quote: "4. the state of being controlled or dominated by or as if by evil spirits". This matter have been raised that the word "possession" is a contentious WP:Label and according to the policy, should not be used to describe the BK belief of mediumship. No argument was provided to justify the use of the word, so I suggest escalating this to NPOVN, together with "secretive" and "renunciate". GreyWinterOwl (talk) 11:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you could help us. What do the BKs call the process by which their god and their deceased founder possesses the body of their spirit medium, and is that the same term as they use when their spirit mediums are possessed by other spirits such as "Krishna" who "gain or exert influence or control over; dominate; influenced or controll the natural senses of the mediums so as they can dance, eat, converse and the mediums remember none of what happened?

I would call that possession because in mediumship, the medium is still conscious and reporting what they hear from the alleged spirit entities.

As to "evil", I guess that is still open to argument and depends on whether the god of the BKs is able to inspire the death of the rest of impure humanity through nuclear war and the natural disasters it will cause. If it does, it be far more "evil" that all of the world's despots combined. Ramsay, documents cases of actual "evil" possession in the Brahma Kumaris and exorcism, see her paper "Spirit possession ...etc ", which suggests the concept is common.

Please confirm I have represented actual Brahma Kumari beliefs accurately here? --Januarythe18th (talk) 13:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

So you do admit that in your POV, the God believed by BK is evil and should be documented in an encyclopedia as such. The current lede states, as per the meaning of the dictionary, that the BK knowledge came from evil spirits. Do you have any reliable reference to support that? GreyWinterOwl (talk) 13:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. I am just saying that the specific words the god of the BKs says it that the BKs will inspire or "give courage" (quote) to scientists to use the nuclear arsenal of the world to wipe out a humanity it believes is "impure" and "devilish". I leave it to others to decide whether that is what they consider is divine.

Please confirm I am quoting the god of the Brahma Kumaris accurately here. If you do not, or if you challenge me amd accuse me of misrepresenting the god of the BKs, I will provide the evidence to sustain the quotes. Please go ahead. --Januarythe18th (talk) 14:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

You are shifting the burden of proof. You affirm the God of BK is evil because of your interpretation of scripture and ask me to disprove it. But my question, and please answer it, is: Do you have a reliable source to support that the BK God is evil, yes or no? GreyWinterOwl (talk) 14:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

No, it is not my interpretation of the BKs' scripture, that is what the BKs' scripture literally says, and the channeled entity says at their meetings.

I don't need a reliable source to support that the BK God is evil because I am not suggesting such a comment goes in the topic. Do you or Liz and Neville Hodgkinson have a reliable source to say that the channeled being is actually the God of Islam or Christianity? You clearly don't understand what the Misplaced Pages is about yet.

Is inspiring or giving courage to scientists to use the nuclear arsenal to wipe out humanity evil? --Januarythe18th (talk) 19:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

If it is as you suggest a direct quote from the group's own publications, I would very much welcome seeing that exact quote clearly linked to here or otherwise reproduced, which I haven't yet. John Carter (talk) 19:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted that possession is not always used in the way indicated in the reference source cited. I believe Santeria and several other religions rather frequently believe that gods and other, non-evil, entities take control of or possess the bodies of humans. A lot of the content on these inter-religious topics is unfortunately among the less well developed we have here, and this is probably one example, but it is worth noting that the idea does not always imply evil, and I suppose the content to be made to indicate as much. John Carter (talk) 17:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, that is the point I was trying to make. Candomblé, some schools of Sufism and many other indigenous peoples practise it and it is also at the core of their spiritual practice. The BKs are not so unique and it is somewhat disingenuous from a Indian spiritualistic religion's point of view, to present it from a Christian fundamentalist point of view.

Read, Possessed and dispossessed youth: spirit possession of school children in northwest Madagascar by Sharp LA. Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley about how spirit possession is a common experience shared by many women in northwest Madagascar who are coping with the conflicts and contradictions that plague the shift from rural to town life, and from youth to adulthood, and further complicated by their community's educational policies. I suspect time will probably prove this to be the closest in experience to the BKs early experiences. The sociological similarities are notable.

Please note, what I have just written would be classed as original research and I am not intending on making any reference to it on the topic page. I offer it purely for discussion.

One can also talk about being possessed by anger, greed, the spirit of the moment, an aim or an object etc. --Januarythe18th (talk) 18:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Golly, I just read Puttick 2003 on the topic ... "Possession in the Brahma Kumaris is supported by solid cultural logic that sits in a receptacle of history and tradition (p281)" "As a result, their power is veiled...through the device of possession... Hence, the importance of spirit possession, where women are the instruments or mouthpieces of a male spirit."

Why are we even discussing this? It's a home run. --Januarythe18th (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Posession sounds fine to be used- I just checked another reference - a book written by ex-President of India "Ignited Minds". Pg 48 indicates that APJ himself attended a session at BKWSU talking about deity of BKs "Shivbaba" descension into one of disciples body. Changeisconstant (talk) 21:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't deny that "possession" may be technically right from a certain point of view. My point is that the general understanding of the word, also given by the dictionary, is that siprit possession refers, at least more usually than not, to evil spirits. That's why I find it a very contentious word to be on the lede, unless the aim of the lede was to affirm that the BK God is evil, or that evil spirits are the source of BK knowledge. I don't think "possession" adds any specific understanding that "mediumship" doesn't cover, it just adds confusion for readers, as the specific purpose/meaning it's used is not totally clear. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 18:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Answered below. Thank you. It getting close to an argument over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Logically, could mediums not also be channeling evil spirits? Does mediumship exclusively connote good spirits? I don't think so. Possession is the work Puttick and others uses, and that is good enough for us. --Januarythe18th (talk) 03:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not you think the spirits channeled by BK are or may be evil spirits doesn't matter. No reliable source says they are, so the encyclopedia should document the mediumshp as believed by BKs, not as you want it to be seen by people. Like it or not, spirit possession refers to evil spirits more often than not, and the only meaning presented in the dictionary in a spiritual context, refers to evil spirits. That makes it a confusing word at least, because it doesn't help to document BK beliefs, nor to make the article more understandable than "mediumship".

Mediumship is not a fact anyway and shouldn't be documented as a fact, but as a belief. The current lede gives no specification about it being a belief, it just states that the BK knowledge comes from spirit possession.GreyWinterOwl (talk) 09:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

GWO, will be better to look at the sources and quote exactly what the generally accepted view is in the reliable sources Changeisconstant (talk) 09:22, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok CIC, can you help me and point out what are the references that mention "possession"? However, the meaning of the word doesn't change regardless of it having been used by sources. My concern is whether or not the word helps the accurate understanding of what it is supposed to mean. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 09:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

GWO, you can see the references that are put in the current Lede where Posession is mentioned. I only checked Richard's thesis which mentions spirit posession on pg51. Changeisconstant (talk) 20:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Answered below. --Januarythe18th (talk) 11:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Controversial

Another adjective that is clearly stated in WP:LABEL as inappropriate is "controversial". Unless it is proven that the predominant view of reliable references is that BK is a generally controversial NRM, I see no reason to justify the weight of placing it in the lede. Picking a lot of claims and accusations and putting all together doesn't magically make the Brahma Kumaris an essentially controversial organization. It caused strong social controversies in the early history, but with that exception, I don't see any reliable source that can support the weight of "controversial" except a collection of claims carefully picked but which do not represent a general view. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 11:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Let's put aside the essential death of 7 billion impure human beings in order to rule a heaven on earth, since when was ... believing God comes to visit your headquarters in person by possessing a little old lady to eat cake, shoot water pistols and speak with you, that dinosaurs existed 2,500 years ago, that within our lifetimes human beings will be able to procreate through the power of one's mind ... not controversial beliefs? Let alone beliefs taught by a "university".

Please confirm if I have represented Brahma Kumari beliefs accurately here. Thank you. --Januarythe18th (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

You offered no argument to support "controversial" as a view predominantly and generally supported by reliable sources. Also no argument to support the use of a WP:LABEL in the lede. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 14:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

They are not called a cult in the lede, although they are in what would be considered reliable sources. I should count yourself lucky and not the push the issue.

Read the first line of that guideline, "there are no forbidden words or expressions on Misplaced Pages". Both "cult" and "sect" have specific, non-pejorative and non-prejudicial inferences, so does secretive. There are controversial stories about the BKs from all over the world. If we list 20 stories from 20 countries we do not need a 21st reference saying there are 20 others. We can safely say, "controversial".

I really don't have to waste my time with all this. Please go and bring some benefit to the rest of the Misplaced Pages and gain some more experience while you are at it, please. Get a feel for the Wikipedian value system rather than using its terms for your own ends. --Januarythe18th (talk) 19:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

So, your response to why a contentious word is used in the lede, plus without proper weight supported by references, is "be thankful that I didn't add even another contentious word (cult)"? Is that a valid argument? GreyWinterOwl (talk) 18:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it is contentious. I think it is highly accurate and technically (if one can use that word of spiritualism) correct. It is well referenced from more than one source, and that it is far more preferable that some confusing euphemism.

For example, unlike spiritualist churches, the Brahma Kumaris are not led by mediums who pass on messages whispered to them by spirits or deceased. The Brahma Kumaris are led by spirits and the deceased who possess their leaders and then speak and act directly having possessed all of their physical faculties even, one presumes, their brains.

You did not tell me what the BKs call this within their religion nor how the individuals are trained to be possessed in this way.

My personal opinions of the BKWSU is of little importance in the matter, therefore I am not making the argument you suggest. The Brahma Kumaris are clearly still going through a cultic phase of religious evolution and, perhaps, may even remain a cultic religion. Possibly, they are even becoming more cultic, based on an unquestioning personal cult surrounding at first their founder, who they considered to be God, and now their senior adherents based solely on their association with the founder. However, that is different from saying they are "a cult" though and as this is not something I know of discussed by other academics, I am not proposing it is used in the topic.

The words cult and Brahma Kumaris are used in more than one reliable source, e.g. numerous governmental publications and other academic works. For example, in 'New Religious Movements: Challenge and Response' by Jamie Cresswell & Bryan Wilson, they are described as extreme and uncompromising. One would be at liberty to use it in the topic if one so wished but I am not pushing the issue. --Januarythe18th (talk) 03:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

You don't think the word controversial is contentiuos, but wikipedia does: WP:LABEL. Instead of narrating your lengthy tale, why don't you prove that any reliable source considers Brahma Kumaris to be a predominantly controversial NRM? Because all you presented so far is your personal POV. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 09:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding me "pushing my own opinion", both of you are trying to make something irrelevant true by repeating it and are performing a sleight of hand. There's no mention the BK spirit guides being "evil" in the topic nor, to the best of my knowledge, is it even questioned by any of the references. None of the references even question why a "god" makes false predictions or does not know accurate details like how many human beings there are. Why bring it up at all? If it's not in the topic, it's not worth discussion.

The topic says, "historically ...". The Brahma Kumaris themselves emphasise the contentiousness of the early days, exaggerating it even further and portraying themselves as victims, and use it to define and separate themselves from their original cultural roots, e.g. Hindu, Sindhi or even specifically Bhaibund, whereas really Brahma Kumaris is based on and just more "Sindhiwork" but international trading in re-worked religion rather than trinkets and crafts.

Again, that last comment is not in the topic, and only Barz has made any references to their spiritual or cultural roots. He relates them to the Vallabhacharyan Pushtimarg sect and its influence, which is mentioned in the topic. Kościańska mentions the controversies arising more recently in Poland, news article about arrests and imprisonments in France, and the fact that they have been listed as dangerous or "destructive cult" on European governmental lists is more supporting evidence.

In short, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot make out your religion was contentious in its early phase (it almost brought the Sindhi government down), a pattern which has been repeated in most countries it has expanded to, and exploit that for victim sympathy; and then come here and try and pretend it was not contentious. What the problem? Truth and good things can be contentious too. It does not mean "they are bad". You seem to see life in a very black and white fundamentalistic manner.

As for renunciate, the lifestyle of a young women surrendering to the Brahma Kumari is well documented. She must renounce almost everything. Her life is equivalent to the strictest of religious orders. No sex (though some do), no drink, no meat, no eating food not produced by the cult, no personal belongings, no holidays, she is removed from her family and every hour of her existence decided for. I think you are confusing renunciation with sanyas ashram.

As you well know, she renounces the world and takes Brahmacharya, not sanyas ashram. There is a big difference. Brahmacharya is still highly renounced state and the BK take it even further than Hindus. They encourage their followers to renounce even their bodies.

Correct me if I am specifically wrong about that. Do your god and leaders tell you to renounce even your bodies and bodily relationships?

The only thing the Brahma Kumaris don't seem to renounce is eating, which is why so many of them are overweight (probably through suppressing sexual and procreative desires through overeating). --Januarythe18th (talk) 11:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

You didn't slightly address my point again. 1- "Controversial" is a contentious word as per WP:LABEL. 2- You haven't proved that any reliable source describes BK as a generally controversial NRM, and for that reason there is no due weight to support it being in the lede. And please respond about each word in their specific threads, instead of mixing everything in a lengthy post that doesn't answer any of the points raised. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 12:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:LABEL advises us to give readers information about relevant controversies which has been done from non-fringe points of view, e.g. from academic sources.

Are you suggesting that believing all of time and space is merely 5,000 years old, that dinosaurs existed 2,500 years and were mutants of heavenly creatures, and that all of this repeats identically every 5,000 years ... is not controversial? I think we need a reality check at this point.

And does no one thank me for moving the Splinter groups controversies down to the bottom of the page and out of 'Expansion', as you wanted, adding the nice photos and a bit more historic details?

I am sorry but, no. Basically, I consider you all as one voice, so rather than be drawn into all the confusing strategies, I'll just give you single answers at the end here.

The way forward is for the BKs to show us a sandbox version of what they want and then let us compare and discuss it as a whole. This is the Misplaced Pages. Subjects are recorded as they are seen by third parties, not how they want to be seen themselves.

When the BKs were writing to the military leaders of the world demanding that they impose martial law and enact scorched earth tactics against their people, what sort of "values" where its leaders displaying? --Januarythe18th (talk) 14:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Drop the sandbox idea and let it moulder in peace. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

@Jan18 Again, you didn't address my point. My point is that you haven't shown any reliable reference that considers Brahma Kumaris as a predominantly or generally controversial NRM. You just repeatedly states that I should accept that controversial is ok in the lede, but the only basis for that is your judgement. If no reliable reference considers BK a majorly, predominantly or generally controversial NRM, then there is no support for the weight of the word "controversial" in the lede, and that just accumulates with the fact that it is clearly referred to by a WP guideline as WP:LABEL. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 16:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Jan18, will you ever stick to the point? I don't know why you expect anyone to thank you when you are repeatedly uncivil and just clogging the talk page with accusations that don't relate to points reasonable editors are trying to discuss. This is not your personal blog. You have already been asked to take your accusations to the appropriate wiki noticeboards to present your evidence, otherwise repeating them is going to be taken that you don't actually believe in the veracity of your own accusations. Danh108 (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Owl, I'm interested to get your opinion about the replacement lede above. CiC's and Greame's suggestions have been incorporated. If everyone is fine with the content, then I will put the sources to it. Regards Danh108 (talk) 21:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Januarythe18th, I was actually considering you as having better experience on Misplaced Pages than some of us here however your comments such as above on overweight BKs are so off the track - Misplaced Pages is not a platform for you to keep expressing your personal views and mock a NRM (may be you had a bad personal experience with BKs?). You have been asked twice by Admin to read WP:TPG which you probably still haven't. I am going to take your two arguments and show why they are incorrect. Changeisconstant (talk) 22:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Firstly you say that believing in 5000 years cycle etc is controversial. All religions are essentially a set of beliefs and/ or practices so I don't understand how you can argue that if a religion belives in end of world, 5000 years cycle etc., it should be termed specifically as controversial. For a lot of world religions, when seen from outside their beliefs may sound bizarre but this doesn't mean that entire religion is a controversy! Take hinduism for example, they believe in 330 Million deities; Now you may as well not like it or consider it as a controversial belief but would you then call Hinduism a controversial religion on Misplaced Pages?

Secondly you say that BK is a renunciate religion because of the lifestyle adopted by the surrendered sisters at its centres. So you would call Catholics a "renunciate" religion because its nuns choose a renunciate life-style and take religions vows? Even if we accept that surrendered sisters adopt a renunciate life-style, what % is that of the overall adherrents of BKWSU? For the sake of explanation, if we take 2-3 surrendered sisters per centre and assume total centres to be 8500, it comes to ~21000. Out of total students claimed 850,000, even if I take half of that as a reliable number (425,000), it comes to just 5%. So there is no rational basis for calling this as a renunciate religion on basis of such arguments. Changeisconstant (talk) 22:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Look, let's just be honest here. Regardless of which or how many references are put in front of you, you're going to act like the 3 Wise Monkeys here, only in reverse.

One of will say, "I don't see it"; one of you is going to say, "I don't hear it"; and the other of you go, "I cannot admit that exists".

Brahma Kumarism is not old, mature and broad religion like Christianity. As far as I know, no comprehensive studies have been made of BK adherence and I doubt we could trust the BKs and individuals BKs to present one, (e.g. note of when the BKs refused to is made in one of the references). Walliss and Howell discuss membership patterns relative to the UK and Australia, there is discussion of Polish BKs. I don't know of any defining the vast majority of Indian BKs. However, the religion itself makes the definition of who is in or out is very clear, e.g. to be a BK you have to practice renunciation and live an ascetic life of no sex, no relationships, vegetarianism and not eating outsiders food and so on.

It's a monastic order but without the expense of the monasteries for the religion. They cut costs by having adherents live at home, at their own cost and turn their homes into churches. Brahma Kumarism is too young a religion to be able to afford a proper monastic system. Do the BKs even have the concept of lay followers? Do the BKs even have a word for lay followers? No. They call them "traitors", "shudras" or even "lower than the lowest of the low" etc.

Therefore, I think the degree of conformity to the monastic disciplines is very high and people who are not following are, by definition, not BKs. --Januarythe18th (talk) 14:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The lifestyle shown in the article can be best summarized (which is what the Lead is supposed to do) as Ascetic. Renunciate has other connotations -see here Renunciation for example being a neo-Hindu movement, it can be interpreted as Sanyaasa. That is why I am not asking that its removed, I am suggesting that its replaced with Ascetic which is clearly a better description of lifestyle and won't be misleading to readers. The number of adherrents is already indicated as an estimate on the article so I am only picking from what is there and not claiming its accurate. Hope that clarifies. Changeisconstant (talk) 19:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Managing Religious Bigotry

I'm observing a pattern of behaviour. If January loses an argument on the talk page he rushes to the article and makes his own changes. Any changes by editors he has pigeon holed as "BK's" get reverted. CiC and Owl, is this what is happening to you too? Edits by old Wikipedians are being allowed. In addition other editors use the talk page, where as J18 just does what he likes and doesn't discuss major changes on the talk page e.g. the new 'schism' section, again devoting the article to different and very small group that has it's own Wiki page. In my view that would be better dealt with in 1-2 sentences in the expansion.

@ John Carter or Greame, I would like to get your views about how to manage this situation. I'm not used to dealing with people who seem to just fixate on something (sandboxes, so-and-so is a "BK" and shouldn't edit here, the article is highly accurate and well referenced etc)...it's not rational. It appears to me as a mix of WP:Own and Personal attack(Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views). January has aleardy been warned quite a few times, but continues to block label three editors and control the article. No extra eyes seem that keen to come here, and I can hardly blame them.

Greame, I am repeated getting reverted for implementing the suggestion you supported regarding relocating the UN information to the 'expansion' section. Even based on January's own argument, BK's allegedly seek to agrandize themselves by labeling it as some special activity/recognition, so it would be much more neutral to place this in the 'expansion' section. However it appears the only way January will allow changes is if I ask another editor to insert it...is this really how Misplaced Pages is supposed to be? Regards Danh108 (talk) 15:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Removal of claim - reference insufficient

As per this advice the subsection has been deleted. Regards Danh108 (talk) 16:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Clarification of Hindi language text

I think a slight tweak of the lede might be in order and I wanted to check a couple of things. The lede says

"Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University (BKWSU) or Prajapita Brahma Kumaris Ishwariya Vishwa Vidyalaya....."

and "...Brahma Kumaris (Hindi: ब्रह्माकुमारी, pron. , abbrv. BK)... "

Can someone answer.

1. Is Prajapita Brahma Kumaris Ishwariya Vishwa Vidyalaya a direct translation (or vice versa depending on viewpoint) of "Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University"?
2. What is the meaning of "Brahma Kumaris"? GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

"Prajapita" is not included in the english text (BKWSU). Translation of "Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University" is "Brahma Kumari Adhyatmic Vishwa Vidyalaya". "Ishwariya" would translate to "Godly" in english. So you can see its not a one to one translation. If you see the reference "Religions of the world" , it provides for meaning of Brahma Kumaris as ("Brahma Kumaris" means daughters of Brahma). Changeisconstant (talk) 20:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of 4th Paragraph in the Lede

I see no justification for this paragraph being included. Based on WP: BRD I have removed it and state the following reasons (If these reasons can be faulted or an alternative justification provided, by all means re-insert it):

1. The concept shared by the majority of religions of 'apocalypse' is already covered by the use of the word 'millenarian'.

2. As per Adjwilley's feedback, the lede should reflect the article content, and there is nothing to suggest the BK's are bent on world domination in the article. This gives significant undue weight to something is not a major feature of the group.

3. This reference is cherry picked. As discussed elsewhere on the talk page, the reference used also states the BKs aspire to be example of good management.

4. It's not appropriate to launch into detail about specific beliefs in the lede. The years, numbers, etc can all be covered in the beliefs. This paragraph is also POV laden and mis-states what the BKs believe to cast the organisation in a negative light.

Feedback from independent editors is especially welcomed. Thank you Danh108 (talk) 23:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

PICTURES: More POV skewed content

My concerns relate to the newly inserted pictures.

1. I don't see the relevance/significance of the two venues - Mysore, and the other unspecified one.

2. The Universal light caption is POV laden, but is a good example to use:

a) For the BKs, this picture as used to explain the similarity between religions and a commonality in their faith, furthering the BK concept of "one human family" united under one God. All faiths having their own respectworthy path and teachings.

b) From a neutral perspective, the picture illustrates BK monotheism.

c) From the 'anti' point of view it is twisted to illustrate the BKs claim 'their God is the God of all religions'. The reason this is POV laden is that this could be said of every montheistic faith. It's axiomatic - anyone who says there is one God, by definition must believe their God is the God. But I don't think you will find that view being twisted on other pages the way it is here.

3. A more neutral statement under the 'Golden Age' pictures might be: "An artist impression of the Golden Age". Probably one is enough, but I don't really care if there is 2.

Regards Danh108 (talk) 23:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Editor blocked, some support requested

Hi all, Januarythe18th has been indefinitely blocked. A lot of very unkind accusations have been going on, and even though untrue, mud can stick for a while, so I have messaged User:Adjwilley and User:John Carter for whatever support/participation they can provide in the editing process to give the article repair job added credibility. Greame, if you are happy to stay with the article, that is great too.

My view would be as much as possible to rely on existing encyclopedic material. This was a comment Vecrumba made very early on. Regards Danh108 (talk) 06:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I saw the report and it was surely crossing the line so it is a good decision by admin. I have done a lot of research both on brahmakumaris and brahmakumaris.info, the critical web-site and the pattern of breaching privacy or its threat has been used in the past on brahmakumaris.info forum when the authority of the advocacy leader was challenged in the past. However keep in mind this user or follower has managed to continue to block editing using socks. Anyways, lets focus on the content and in my view its important to keep neutrality, not rush in making changes, use reliable sources and not BK POVs, and engage experienced editors which you have requested above. Changeisconstant (talk) 08:01, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Lede with references added

As submitted for everyone's consideration earlier, here is the new lede - I will keep adding in the references over the next day or so - any one who wants to help is most welcome, but hopefully we can stick to main encyclopedia's. Owl, everyone except you has provided feedback which has been incorporated. Please feel welcome to suggest. CiC, you had a good suggestion about the numbers - can you add that in? Thank you.

The Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University (BKWSU) or Prajapita Brahma Kumaris Ishwariya Vishwa Vidyalaya projects itself as a vehicle for spiritual teachings and values education and often references it's association with the United Nations as an NGO in support of this view. In the academic domain the BKWSU is often classified as a Neo-Hindu millenarian new religious movement (NRM). In the interfaith domain the Brahma Kumaris are often considered a spiritual organisation rather than a religion.

The Brahma Kumaris was founded by Dada Lekharj Kripalani who later took the name Brahma Baba, and Radhi Pokardas Rajwani in India in the 1930's. It is distinctly identified by the prominent role women play in the movement. While the leadership is primarily female, there is also a significant degree of participation from male members.

The BKWSU teach a form of meditation that focuses on their identity as souls, and that the soul is intrinsically good. They believe that all souls are children of one God who is the source of all goodness, and that we are one human family. The BK’s teach that identifying with labels associated to the body like race, nationality, religion and even gender, divides people and feeds human weakness. They aspire to establish a global culture based on what they call ‘soul-consciousness’ and believe that the present world is predominantly ‘body-conscious’ and therefore requires total transformation.

The BKWSU maintain they have been criticised and caused some controversy primarily because the social reforms they have been advocating have challenged existing power structures and social norms. Critics make a wide range of accusations, some of which don't fit this characterisation (link to section). However the BKWSU are well respected in India for the hospitals, schools, environmental projects and outreach programs which they have established.

Sources vary in the estimate of followers, ranging from 100,000 to 450,000 worldwide

Danh108 (talk) 07:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

We should define Brahmakumaris in the lede as was done by Greame yesterday. I will look at the numbers Changeisconstant (talk) 08:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

If I have messed something up, please insert it into the article CiC. The feedback Greame gave when I posted this was incorporated. Sorry if there was another discussion happening elsewhere. Regards Danh108 (talk) 08:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

CIC - I found something on numbers, but feel free to correct/improve/add if there is something else.Danh108 (talk) 08:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Its the same reference that I was going to use so the statement on numbers looks fine to me. Thank you Changeisconstant (talk) 08:21, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

1. Whaling, Frank (2012). Understanding the Brahma Kumaris. Dunedin Academic Press Ltd. p. 65. ISBN 978-1-903765-51-7.
2. Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements. Peter Clarke. Routledge, 2006, ISBN 0-203-59897-0 (Adobe e-reader format)
3. Religions of the World. A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Belief's and Practices. J Gordon Melton and Martin Baumann. ABC-CLEO, LLC 2010, ISBN 978-1-57884-203-6
4. Religions of the World. A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Belief's and Practices. J Gordon Melton and Martin Baumann. ABC-CLEO, LLC 2010, ISBN 978-1-57884-203-6

• All unassessed articles
• Stub-Class Yoga articles
• Unknown-importance Yoga articles
• Automatically assessed Yoga articles
• WikiProject Yoga articles
• B-Class India articles
• Low-importance India articles
• B-Class India articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject India articles
• B-Class Spirituality articles
• Unknown-importance Spirituality articles
• B-Class Hinduism articles
• Unknown-importance Hinduism articles
• B-Class Religion articles
• Mid-importance Religion articles
• B-Class New religious movements articles
• High-importance New religious movements articles
• New religious movements articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• World records