This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Danh108 (talk | contribs) at 21:55, 13 August 2013 (→Disingenuous use of edit summaries). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 21:55, 13 August 2013 by Danh108 (talk | contribs) (→Disingenuous use of edit summaries)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| 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. |
|
| 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, 16 |
|
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.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Note to new users
This page is a mature, stable and very well referenced topic. It has reached this point through the collaboration of many individuals.
I am very concerned when a new user such as EGBlanchett comes along and makes a statement like "Reviewed references in first paragraph and made more precise and clear", e.g. unsupported claims that the BKWSU teaches according to "a re-interpretation of the Bhagawad Gita", makes erroneous changes to quoted material, e.g. changing a quote from adherents.com to the religion's official site, makes misuse of editing tags and seriously misplaces a reference which are already referenced elsewhere. I am sorry but none of that is "more precise and clear".
Some basic advice.
Please discuss changes first.
Experiment using your Sandbox, not an active page. (If you don't know what or where your Sandbox is, seek advice.
Learn how to use the editing tools, and how Misplaced Pages works.
Thank you. --Januarythe18th (talk) 19:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- I do think personal quotations about the cost and accessibility of dental X-rays are not particularly encyclopedic, however, generally, the article has much improved since I first saw it. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Recent wave of Brahma Kumari (BK) editors
We've recently wave of single purpose Brahma Kumari editors come along.
There is also off Misplaced Pages evidence to suggest that Brahma Kumari adherents are coordinating (or looking to coordinate) in order to take control of the topic directly (as per WP:TAGTEAM), by engaging non-informed editors to add inaccuracies and make the topic more ambiguous on their behalf, or by using personal attacks. Their aim is to bring the topic in line with the religion's own self-promotion (WP:ADVERT), even if it means removing non-BKWSU references as they have done.
Most of these BK supporter appear to target the paragraph in the lede, . Now, let's be honest about this, it is absolutely true. If the BKs could at least admit it was true to begin with then it would be more possible to trust in their intentions. I think it is necessary for them to establish evidence of goodwill and at least discuss their intentions first, as suggested to Danh108 already.
The 1,250 years refers to their rule of the earth during a predicted "Golden Age" on earth which they claim will come in 2036 after an imminent and unavoidable nuclear holocaust they called Destruction "purifies" the world and kills off the rest of humanity. A heaven on earth that only 900,000 of their followers will inherit.
As a starting point for discussion, would any BK care to confirm or deny this was true? If there is any doubt, I'd like to be able to refer to primary sources to do so.
Thank you. --Januarythe18th (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- As advised on previous occasions, there are numerous issues with this article. I note that you have only reverted one edit, so I take this as acknowledgement these were unjustified, unencyclopedic comments - comments without referencing or relying on primary source material....and then you wonder why you are attracting SPA pro-BK editors! If you worked with me to clean the article up I'm sure you would reduce the number of people making changes. The biased content is attracting them.
- Can we focus on one issue (for now) - the last paragraph of the lede. As you state, it's attracting attention. I state "there could be a reason people aren't happy with it". From my perspective, it is heavily biased as the same Musslewhite book gives a range of 'aims' and 'aspirations' for the BK's. However it is only the most unpleasant one that has been selected. This is bias. Other aims should also be mentioned, or focusing on this negative aim over the other quite pleasant ones should be justified. I have already asked you to justify this and didn't receive a response. This time please. Thank you
Danh108 (talk) 09:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- A Misplaced Pages page is not an advert for your religion. That's just the way it is. As stated before, in order to avoid wasting resources and conflicts, you should develop your own version of the topic in your sandbox. Once it is completed, please show us it and then we can discuss changes.
- Is the paragraph is question true? Yes.
- Is the paragraph in question referenced? Yes. (Not only in Musselwhite but Beit-Hallahmi, Harris, Walliss and many others. There is an overwhelming consensus which gives weight to it).
- Do the Brahma Kumaris spend considerable amount of time and effort attempting to influence the media and even academia to promote themselves as they wish? Yes, even using threats and coercion to do so (Walliss pp 98-99).
- In fact, in 'The Psychology of Death in Fantasy and History' edited by Piven, Jerry S. (pp 103-104) clearly states "the secret fantasy of world destruction which will wipe out all of humanity with the exception of Brahma Kumari adherents ..." and "... how it is secret from nonmembers".
- Therefore, if you and other BK followers come along and start removing or hiding well referenced facts, all we can presume is that you are acting in according with the agenda recorded above and wanting to coordinate what is reported on the Misplaced Pages with your own religion's self-publicity. --Januarythe18th (talk) 10:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- You have only partially addressed my concern. The paragraph in question makes it's statement as if this is the exclusive focus of the entire organisation. Obviously it's not, as the literature states various other aims. So we shouldn't take things out of context as has happened here. Why not state multiple aims? That would be balanced and show neutrality.
- If possible, please stick to the content. For example, it's not relevant that you state "it's true". I'm interested in the reference material, not statements of bias based on your personal beliefs about what the BKWSU believe.
- I also note the following text: "Some members of the local Sindhi people reacted unfavorably to the movement because of immoral and intimate behaviour between the founder and the young women who attended his ashram". This was included in the history section without anything to back it up...so accusations that my editing is "whitewashing" is without substance. The reality is there is a clean up job, where this type of unreferenced negative content has been included....and what is the motivation of an editor to intentional self-generate this kind of content?
- Anyways, don't get too upset - you know I don't have as much time or obsession/dedication (please indicate your preferred description) as you to work on improvements. Thanks for the quotes though. Regards Danh108 (talk) 02:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- Please don't try and provoke edit warring by reverting reasonable edits - I'm happy to discuss the lede, but the on what basis can you revert the edits where you are making unsubstantiated claims or relying on primary resource material? Regards Danh108 (talk) 05:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- Please read the given reference, it's very clear. As per WP:NOT etc my responsibility goes as far as to include a verifiable reference not spoon feed you. You'll have to request the references from a library or your own religious headquarters who must have a copy, and then read them. --Januarythe18th (talk) 14:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Disingenuous use of edit summaries
I am sorry but I cannot afford to spend too much time on responding to you, Danh108, but you clearly don't understand how the Misplaced Pages works and I must flag up your disingenuous use of edit summaries, e.g. here
"Lack of verifiability - which of the 9 Texan universities did this guy even ring? ANYWAY, primary resources should not be used AND this is about a living person!"
The reference comes from a reliable source, this "guy" is a published journalist on whom the Misplaced Pages relies to verify sources. He would not have to have telephoned " 9 Texan universities" because the Brahma Kumaris named the one they claimed made the statement which then stated clearly they knew nothing of the unscientific claim nor even the alleged department.
Since this was exposed, the Brahma Kumaris have official instructed their centers not to make the fraudulent claim and so I think we depend on the accuracy of the statement.
I am sorry but this example alone underlines your unsuitability for editing topics relating to your religion.
Further more, a newspaper or journal is not a "primary source" as you state, it is a verifiable source. Please do not use that excuse again. --Januarythe18th (talk) 13:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- Hi J18, sorry for the delay. Did you have anything to back your claim about this journalist? These days there is a wide range of places someone can be 'published', so that doesn't establish much credibility for me. I also don't find a single phone call to an archivist particularly definitive proof, particularly when it relates to something over 30 years ago. Regards Danh108 (talk) 22:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- Your point is immaterial. The BKWSU themselves published a statement saying no scientist ever made the claim. Therefore we can be assured it is true.
- Please allow me to help establish credibility for your agenda ...
- Is it or is it not true that the Brahma Kumaris teach that they will exclusively populate and rule over a heaven on earth (Golden Age) for 1,250 years after an imminent "end of the world" scenario which they call "Destruction" and which will kill off the rest of impure humanity. -- Januarythe18th (talk) 13:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- (And, please, no disingenuous responses about how 'Destruction' is not the end of the world but a 'Transformation'. A simple yes or no will do).
Use of Bogus/dodgy references
- Hi J18, thank you for that. If the BK’s themselves have published something then at least include that reference as well and I will be satisfied.
- I don’t feel the purpose of the talk page is for us to try and hash out our personal views – that is more something to do over coffee at a cafe. As stated earlier, what you have just said confirms my concern that you have sifted through the available literature with the aim of collecting quotes and information that support your own preconceived ideas and unbalanced understanding of BKWSU. In my opinion you are at least equally guilty of ‘blackwashing’ as the BKWSU is of ‘whitewashing’.
- Now, regarding your 'published journalist'....thank you for raising this as I have really enjoyed a bit of online research. Your reliable 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 .
- It would be hard to find a more disreputable/conflicted piece of supporting evidence.Danh108 (talk) 21:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Lede
I've restored the simple stable lead prior to all the goings on here. I suggest using sources specific to Hinduism, religion, specialists on apocalyptic movements, and religious movements which centric on the role of the female, not male. I started to put context around "rule" since it's not "rule" in the sense implied as spot-quoted but it just got worse, not better, and so I've removed that. Please don't reinsert, let's keep contentions of post-apocalyptic world domination (implied as written) to the body of the article. The Encyclopedia of Hinduism says NOTHING of that, meanwhile, "female" -- a central feature -- is still missing. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Categories:- 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