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.

Proposing Changes to Early History[edit]

Okay, while there some good independent editors attention on this article I thought to do some tweaking. I propose the following modifications the early history section:

1. In the early history it states the founder was known as "Om Baba". This was a name specifically connected to the beginning of the movement, so I will clarify this/remove the ambiguity.
2. He 'claimed a series of visions'. Changing to 'reported'.
3. Inclusion of allegations against founder
4. Escalate allegation against 'anti group' - RS that Anti-group forced daughters to eat raw pigs flesh and public paraded them to try and stop them attending the satsang. 'Domestic violence' doesn't seem to be adequately capture this kind of treatment...bit more 'tribal' than that.
5. Om Radhe's compilation (not book) was in response to the Tribunals findings, not it's formation. Adjust accordingly

Danh108 (talk) 10:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I can't understand what you mean on the #3, can you explain? Also, #4 is about accusations back and forth, but what is the source from which you are taking those? GreyWinterOwl (talk) 10:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
In the article on the founder (which I think should be deleted or merged per this comment) there are allegations against him that should also be mentioned in the Early History. The RS for the other allegations is the Om Radhe compilation and 'Peace and Purity'. The allegation is coroborrated. Danh108 (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Can you specify which allegations you are talking about? And is that actually relevant to the article? Maybe it's just relevant to the founder's page? Also, the reference you mentioned, as I recall, is a self-published source, so should we really give weight to it? Also, I am sure people have called religious founders they don't like all sort of things, I've read about a priest that said Sri Krishna is the devil, and people from a given religion often claim that followers/saints/leaders of another religion to be possessed by evil spirits, etc. But I don't see WP articles on religions giving much weight to that kind of he-said she-said comments. And that's most of what constitutes the "huge scientology-like controversy" Januarythe18th had filled the article with. But that doesn't mean I am against your idea, if you explain better and more specifically, I might have a different opinion. BTW I will comment on your merge proposal on the Dada Lekhraj page, I'm still not sure if I agree with it. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Another error created by recent editing is the incorrect impression given that on 21 June 1938 an opposition group formed. That's wrong. As originally written the date relates the picketing and rabble rousing which was also the date of police involvement, commencement of Court proceedings resulting from that, which lead to the first 'ban'. The opposition group formed prior to this date. So I will edit to fix this up now. Danh108 (talk) 22:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Re the allegations - I will put them in as a stand alone edit and see what you think? Danh108 (talk) 22:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

0. This "movement" operates as a cult. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Have any reliable sources used that description? --McGeddon (talk) 16:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Adding some more beliefs[edit]

Many beliefs are not mentioned in the article.I like to propose to add some beliefs.

1)Brahma kumaris say theory of evolution and big bang are wrong. 2)They say earth is flat and does not move.

Please view this video. [1]


Supdiop (talk) 05:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)supdiop

You've been told that you can't use that video. It's not considered a reliable source. Unless you can find a reliable source that supports the material you want to add, you can't add it. BTW, that video is almost one and a half hours long. Just out of curiosity, where on the video does it say what you're talking about?--Bbb23 (talk) 06:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Earth is flat and static at 38:00

Evolution and big bang are wrong at 48:25

why isn't that video reliable? It is official Brahma kumaris video and it is from bk member. Supdiop (talk)supdiop — Preceding undated comment added 07:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

It's a WP:PRIMARY source; we'd have to be very careful not to "analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate" what the source was saying. (Does the source literally say that BK as an organisation "opposes scientific theories such as evolution and big bang", or does it say something vaguer that you're interpreting?) Wikipedia typically uses secondary sources that have reported on a belief - this also confirms that it's a significant enough part of a belief to be worth writing about. --McGeddon (talk) 09:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Did you watch the video? It clearly says evolution is wrong and big bang is also wrong. It says earth is only 5000 years old which also adds to the fact that Brahma kumaris clearly opposes evolution and big bang.

The video is from website which is run by official bk members. Brahma kumaris say that everything in universe repeats itself every 5000 years(You can find that in wikipedia article itself) which is itself denial of evolution and big bang. Supdiop (talk) 12:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The video isn't working for me. Can you give us a quotation? If all we've got is a primary source, we should usually present it in the exact context (rather than saying "BK opposes X", say "in a 1994 lecture, Mr Z described BK as being opposed to X"). If the BK view of the universe is fundamentally incompatible with evolution, the big bang and a spherical earth, though, it should be easy to find secondary sources that mention this. --McGeddon (talk) 13:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I want article to reflect real beliefs of BKs and I want you all to do the same.

The video may be not working for you but it clearly says Brahma kumaris denies theory of evolution and big bang,it also says earth is flat.

why do you need secondary source when I provided primary source? The video is as reliable as any other source in the article. thank you Supdiop (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Supdiop, I also think there is scope to increase the content in the article, particularly in the activities area. Wikipedia needs reliable sources published by independent third parties. This video seems to be self published and as you say, from a members website - it lacks impartiality. So your statement just above is incorrect. Introducing this kind of content can mean a wide range of views get construed as belonging to the group when it's actually the views of different members. I would have thought it's already obvious from the beliefs section that any group who believes in a repeating 5000 year cycle of time can't possibly subscribe to other theories like the big bang and evolution - they are mutually inconsistent and unreconcilable. Usually belief's sections focus on what is believed rather than all the things that are not believed, otherwise it would be endless.
I would be interested to get your opinion about adding this content - whether you would support that or not.
If you are interested in improving the article I am happy to suggest some of the resources I have found online. Cheers Danh108 (talk) 16:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay I am focusing on beliefs rather than non beliefs.brahma kumaris believe in flat earth.Actually there is very less information of bk in Internet.On official website we don't find any information.

Can you provide links in which it shows brahma kumaris believe in flat earth?

I found a conversation in which brahma kumari say earth is flat and conventional science is wrong.

Is this enough?

Supdiop (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

No, your source is to a blog post in which one person expresses that opinion. That is hardly enough to impute to the entire movement.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Supdiop, have you read messages on your talk page? Sorry if that's a dumb question....there is content there that is relevant. As Bbb23 is saying, sources need to be credible otherwise WIkipedia will lose it's credibility.Danh108 (talk) 05:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


Hi everyone. You probably all know me from the article history. I can see that the conditions here are thankfully very different to when I retired a few years ago. I would like to help, if I can, to move the article to a state where there is a consensus that it is well written and doesn't have any remaining issues. I will be operating under COI restrictions. Bksimonb (talk) 11:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

It would be very useful if you are able to help this article grow. I have been trying to find extra eyes in the Wiki projects but they seem very sleepy and haven't lead to any interest in the page. There are a couple of really good old Wikipedians watching as well...McGeddon was okay (correct me if your view has changed) with this piece being inserted, but didn't consider just the 2 of us to be an adequate consensus to allow the edit...this would be a good place to start i.e. if you could give your view on this. Regards Danh108 (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Dan. My view is that one non-COI editor may be enough in most situations to approve the constructive edits of a COI editor but this article isn't a typical situation. I have some suggestions on how you can attract the attention of other editors to build consensus that I will post on your talk page later. Bksimonb (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Does the article still "require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies"?[edit]

From what I can tell from the recent history, there was a consensus that the article recently had a promotional tone and an appropriate Conflict of Interest warning tag was applied.

It seems some clean up has taken place since then so my question is; has the article reached a point where it is sufficiently cleaned up such that the warning tag is no longer required? I am unable to contribute to that consensus myself since I also have a conflict of interest so this question is directed towards experienced editors with no particular association with this article.

I will leave this topic open for a week then, if no consensus is reached locally, file an article Request for comment. Regards, Bksimonb (talk) 07:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Is the article COI tag still necessary?[edit]

Has the article improved to the point where the "conflict of interest" tag dated August 2014 may now be removed? If not, what else is required to clean up the article? Bksimonb (talk) 07:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)