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.

Feedback on images[edit]

I'm keen to get feedback on the images inserted - feel free to improve the captions or give feedback about their placement/size. I'm still learning....hopefully it's okay. Regards Danh108 (talk) 21:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)Anti

Anti-Om mandali picture shows the picketing but the associated article in Early history section makes it look very biased- most of the section highlighting early history pertaining to anti-Om mandali is only using BK authors' sources that is making it skewed. I am not sure whether using BK sources is appropriate but if it is then equal weight should be given to the source from anti-Om mandali book that Januarythe18th was using. Changeisconstant (talk) 22:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
There isn't actually that much use of BK sources, most of the content comes from the legal cases and the correspondence with different government agencies at the time - it's just that I'm accessing that material through 'is this justice'. That work isn't a book by Om Mandali (except for the intro blurb), but rather a compilation of a lot of neutral factual material - correspondence, the judgements, the membership list, etc. Based on what the judges said, there is certainly a level of bias inherent in the events themselves - i.e. there is clear evidence of a 'victim-perpetrator' style of relationship where one group has actively persecuted another.
I agree with you about the Anti-party source, however I think the use of affidavit material is not only an unreliable source, but unethical and unprofessional. If there was a way of removing the offending content that would be great - because there is some really excellent historical content in there. The "book" was actually read thoroughly, but I found alternative sources for the pieces I used because of the ethical problems. Regards Danh108 (talk) 01:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Even if we really came to the conclusion that the anti book should be used, which I don't think we will, let's remember that the only place it's available is the site, and typed by the admin of the site. We don't have any guarantee that the book is even real to begin with. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 15:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
To make my point more clear, majority of the sources used in Early history section barring first paragraph are from BK or BK associated authors namely work from Jagdish Chander, a BK leader; Liz H, ex wife of Neville a BK leader(I am not so against using this one though); Is this Justice etc. This is the reason I suggested that we may be towards the boundary of reflecting BK bias therefore balance it with the anti-om-mandali book as it shows some press from those days which would be hard to find now. Incase this is an issue, then try and use more of the reliable sources that have been used elsewhere to balance. Changeisconstant (talk) 19:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Danh, how does "Is this Justice" material become reliable or verifiable if by the same definition Anti-om-mandali book is not- can you clarify please? Changeisconstant (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Quoting from WP:ABOUTSELF: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves". But they do give conditions for that, for example describing non-controversial events or information about itself. The BK published material pass these conditions, while the anti book, even if real and verified, doesn't. However, please note that one of the conditions is: "(as long as)the article is not based primarily on such sources." If you want to be sure, please read the guideline fully.
While I'm just pointing out what I read in a guideline, it doesn't mean I am in favor of any specific source. If you are not sure, there is always WP:3O and WP:RSN to ask a user or admins whether or not to use a source. If it be that some source, e.g., BK published, are unreliable, then what about making the "early history" shorter, with only the information considered reliable? GreyWinterOwl (talk) 20:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Hi CiC, perhaps when I get time I can trace the original sources i.e. the Judicial Commissioner of Sind reported cases etc and site that directly rather than 'care of' Is this Justice. As far as I'm aware Is this Justice doesn't contain affidavit material of allegations that were never proven in Court. Presumably if there was a case to answer they would certainly have taken it against Mr Lekhraj as that would have been the easiest way to stop the movement. Like our conversation with the Hindi newspapers earlier, allegations aren't encyclopedic and can have a highly prejudicial affect on people's minds (and Om Mandali alleges they intentionally leaked these materials to the media which is what ignited public opinion against them in '38). There were some inflamatory allegations by Om Mandali against the 'anti-party' about force feeding pig flesh, rapes, beating with weapons, public naming shaming and being walked through the city, and torture - in 'Peace and Purity' and some primary source material given to me. In the interests of fairness and keeping the 'encyclopedic feel', I didn't specify these details. I hope that clarifies. Best wishes Danh108 (talk) 23:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC) as controversy[edit]

Thank you, Graeme, you made exactly the edit I was going to make. No RS mentions the site, much less characterizes it as persecution. Saying so would be OR, a position not assumed by any RS. Until a reliable source mentions it and assumes a position towards it, there is no point in including the site. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 19:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Let alone a link to a single discussion on a Wikipedia talk page as an example of their activities. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Good to know more experienced people are keeping a caring eye on the content. Of course I thought it was okay to put up, particularly as one thing I don't agree with the BKs about is there silence towards the activities of disgruntled ex-members. I must say one small complaint - so much more poorly referenced content was allowed earlier/not reverted, where as I make one dud addition and it's gone in a few hours....maybe because you all know I'm a soft touch :-)
I think the comments were fair, so will poke around for some RS...but admittedly it's not a priority and I'm neglecting my other Wiki-interests a bit at the moment. Thank you for leaving comments on the talk page though, that helps me. Regards Danh108 (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

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)