Talk:Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Stop.png The Arbitration Committee has placed this article on probation. The principals in Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris.

Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

New Photo's[edit]

Hi Staphysagria, Maybe you were part way through your work, but the photo's inserted didn't correspond to the content, where as the photo you deleted did, and you also kind of mucked up the layout. I note that these are your very first edits on Wikipedia, so it would help if you explain yourself. Thanks Owl, I was thinking a similar thing. RegardsDanh108 (talk) 06:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Merging Brahma Kumaris beliefs and practices[edit]

This article covers everything the "beliefs and practices" do. Unless there are any objections, I will propose deletion of Brahma Kumaris beliefs and practices. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 16:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea. Earlier talk page discussions also showed a broad level of support for the suggestion. Thank you Owl. I remember Greame mentioned for completeness the associated talk page needs to be deleted too. Apart from being a duplicate, the size of the Movement/group hardly warrants having so many pages on Wikipedia. Regards Danh108 (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I have proposed deletion, but I also thought of the alternative of turning it into a redirect. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 16:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Given the size of BKWSU following, it makes sense to delete and make sure that the content is covered in the main article itself. Changeisconstant (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Merging List of Brahma Kumaris[edit]

Following the same reasons for beliefs and practices, I am proposing merger for List of Brahma Kumaris. Unless there is any objection, I will propose deletion. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 16:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The way the "List..." article is built, why is it even needed? Brahma Kumari is a term for the follower so is the list intended to list all the followers? And if not and is meant for BKWSU leadership, then there can be a section for key people in BKWSU within the main article and the "List.." article deleted. Changeisconstant (talk) 21:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

This page reads like an advert[edit]

This page reads like it has be written by Brahma Kumari followers to promote the religion. Has no one been discussing the changes on this page? It's become like an advert.

It's ridiculous. Where do I start? Where do I find the box that says so? Peace,

It's OK. I found it.

There are so many falsehoods or exaggerations on it I don't know where to begin. They have not even got the right date of birth for their leader! --Truth is the only religion (talk) 18:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that we've an advertisement here that clearly isn't being maintained to WP:MOS or our other basic content policies/guidelines. Lots of work to be done! --Ronz (talk) 19:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
To clarify, I'm just commenting on the state of the article. I've not looked at any editor's contributions to the article. --Ronz (talk) 16:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Most of the edits made didn't relate to advertising concerns. They deleted RS - lede content primarily lifted from other encyclopaedia's. Good if edit comments are directed towards content issues or Wiki policy. This page has also suffered from ongoing skirmishes between WP:SPA editors committed to the BK world view and WP:SPA editors who seem to have an aversion to that. Unfortunately User: Truth is the only religion you may have innocently walked into an article with a bit of history. Hope you understand. Please also read WP:JDL. Really, if you have legitimate concerns you should be able to identify the offending text and put forward your preferred rewording. Just wholesale deletion of RS doesn't make much sense. BTW, if you can find RS on the founders birth date that would be great. I tried to change it but got reverted and all the RS was stacked against me. Apparently the birth certificate isn't any good because it's not in a published source! Regards Danh108 (talk) 08:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know where to start regarding it being an advert.

Look at the beginning, "often references its association with the United Nations".

What does that mean in plain English? Firstly, the religion does not have an association with the United Nations, it has a consultative status with one office of one to two departs of UNESCO etc. That's a gross exaggerated the Brahma Kumaris like to make. So "often references its association with the United Nations" means just that, "the Brahma Kumaris often exaggerate their relationship with the United Nations".

Now, that is true but is it an important and notable enough to warrant being in the first paragaph? Of course not. It's only there because the BKs want it there for the PR value and to hide the rest of their beliefs and activities.

Then we look at their beliefs, to the bit you restored McGeddon.

There are the Brahma Kumari beliefs and there is how the Brahma Kumaris want their beliefs to be seen. Now, is that actually full, complete or accurate? The fact it is not. If we look at their beliefs, actually they think that all other religions are impure and degrades and all other human beings are "Shudra" (lowest caste), only they are Brahmins (highest caste). Therefore the advertising the BKs have insert is their PR version of their religion.

For the lack of discussion or opposition on this page, the Brahma Kumari followers have turned the article into a vague, misleading and inaccurate PR job.

I believe that is their intention. Ask them if it is true. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 18:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Truth is the only religion, it is great if we can focus on content. You have mentioned one point regarding the UN reference. My recollection was that banned User:Januarythe18th advocated for this reference as he/she held a firm view that the BKs were the ones referencing themselves to the UN (hence the way it's worded in the lede), so making a similar point to you. But now you are having a different take on that, so I have removed it. If you want it re-inserted with a more specific wording about the particularly departments etc the association relates to that's fine with me. I will reinstate the large volumes of RS that was deleted without explanation. Regards Danh108 (talk) 22:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Shocked at the state of this article. It's a puff-piece. Work to be done on it that's for sure. Gefetane (talk) 16:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Although I strongly disagree with the edits of TITOR, which bring the same kind of content of the previous blocked user Jan18 (fringe views, OR, etc.), I do agree that the article in its current state seems to have an excess of content that is possibly irrelevant or undue. Although I find irrelevant whether the excess of content is praising or cursing the subject, what I do find relevant is that we must identify what is due/undue weight and bring the article to a more encyclopedic state based on secondary sources. In my humble opinion, I think this article should be much shorter and more objective. Gefetane and McGedon, please do discuss here and/or edit the article if you think you can help with that. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 12:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Gefetane. Actually it's even a really badly written puff-piece. It's awful. But perhaps all you will say is that Gefetane must be Januarythe18th too? You're just trying to distract from the fact.
I have another concern. Many of the references are from Brahma Kumari followers. Basically, what you have are Brahma Kumari followers quoting other Brahma Kumari followers about their own religion. This must be a conflict of interest. It is distorting the objectivity of the topic. They have removed many of the third party references because they are critical of the religion but perhaps given their extreme beliefs, those criticism are valid? --Truth is the only religion (talk) 15:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think Gefetane is Januarythe18th because he doesn't make identical edits, comments and accusations like you do, nor is he a brand new account that all of a sudden has intimacy with the content of this article and understands how to edit WP fairly well.
Also what you call "third party sources" that have been removed, are primary sources, non-verified documents written by anti-BrahmaKumaris groups and published by an anti-BrahmaKumaris website. Those documents were only supported by Januarythe18th and were considered inappropriate by many users and admins. And it seems now you want to bring them all back too. It surely must be just a coincidence and I must be a mad zealot. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 23:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Confusion and inaccuracies[edit]

I cannot afford the time to go through everything today, but the BK followers have littered the topic with factual inaccuracies and misleading content that do not reflect the references given.

They have also added exaggerated elements which are not referenced.

In addition, they are using references written by other followers and their direct, often long term supporters.

It is nothing less than conscienceless and deliberate self-promotion. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 18:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The principle that articles should be based on independent sources seems to have gone out the window here. Needs addressing. Gefetane (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I as someone who has looked at the existing material in a number of reference sources on this topic have to say that many or possibly in some cases most of the references they provide are to BK literature. I wish that were not the case myself but it seems to be and unless good independent reliable sources are produced it isn't unreasonable for us to effectively duplicate the substance of the material in highly regarded reference books using basically the sources they use. I can and do wish that were not the situation but my wishes unfortunately aren't enough to bring such sources into existence.John Carter (talk) 23:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.

I also have to underline the bad faith involved with the current editors.

The date of birth of founder was 1884. Everyone knows that now. It's on his birth certificate. So why do they keep reverting it to 1876?

If they cannot admit his date of birth, and they are not committed to allow a simple accuracy over such a simple issue, how can they be trusted with the rest of the topic? What is their intention?

The thing is, left to their devices, the topic now reads terribly bad. It's full of uncomfortable constructions, unreferenced and fairly meaningless statements most relating to how they want to be seen not how what the religion is. It's a poorly attempted PR job.

Please start with an honest questions to the followers. Was your founder's date of birth 1876 or 1884. If the answer is 1884 then they credibility is zero. They are only here to confuse, distract and control it plain and simple. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why others revert the birth date but the reason I revert it is because all secondary sources say it's 1876. There is a document published by an anti-BK website that says 1884, but I can't see any particular reason or wikipedia guideline to support that document here, even if it's true. It basically classifies as WP:OR and no secondary source has ever refered to it. It might also be worth checking out the guideline WP:NOTTRUTH, so even the discussion about whether or not it's true is meaningless in Wikipedia. But even if that document is true and that alone mattered for WP, it says "Dada Lekhraj", and I don't think only one Lekhraj has ever lived in India, so it could easily be someone else with the same name. There is no reliability whatsoever for 1884. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 23:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)