Talk:Brahma Kumaris

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.

Revert explained.

• While I personally support the DOB date change to 1884, there is an issue with all the RS stating it's 1876. Somewhat like Jimbo's birth date being incorrect on Wiki....them's the rules.
• Apart from that, no other grounds were put forward for deleting 20% of the article in one shot. As per my comments on ANI, I'm not 100% confident in User: Truth_is_the_only_religion yet. But if he/she can find RS to support their date, I will definitely support that edit.
• Tags removed as no consensus. See comments/discussion here
• There is no doubt content to add to this article. The lede has relied primarily on other major encyclopedia's to ensure the Wikipedia article is of a similar standard - not that more obscure information about the group gets stuffed into the lede and littered randomly through the article (as was the situation previously).
• It would be really useful if talk page comments related to content rather than making accusations that turn the page into a battleground (incidentally, that was the reason User:JamesBWatson declined User:Januarythe18th unblock requests. I am happy to collaborate with other editors to improve the article.
• It would also really help if talk page comments corresponded to the edits made and could specifically identify text that people think should be changed. Just general assertions and accusations is the real 'puffery' that is presently happening on this talk page, and unfortunately accusations without evidence can be very influential....especially when Wikipedia can sometimes be a bit skeptical about anyone who edits pages on small religious/spiritual groups.

Regards Danh108 (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

TITOR, if you are genuinely interested in bringing back this article to Wikipedia standards, why not follow Wikipedia guidelines on taking consensus please. Deleting 20% of article in one go will not improve it. Please discuss changes here supported by sources Changeisconstant (talk) 09:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

It is inappropriate for an editor with a personal connection to the Brahma Kumaris group to decide that the article has no COI issues: under WP:COI such a person should not be editing the article directly at all. I have restored the {{coi}} template, and also the {{advert}} regarding the concerns raised above. --McGeddon (talk) 17:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry, I have been on holiday. And I am editing from a public internet connection today.

This article is awful. It is badly written. It is factually inaccurate. It has clearly be re-written by followers of the religion like an advert whether boasting about having an office at United Nations or this whole business about being a "spiritual organisation"? What is that?

It is a clear act of bad faith for one of them to deliberate provoke matters by reverting the topic to a version with specifically wrong facts.

I need more time to look at it but at present it is an embarrassment. That is the way I feel. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

You gave no argument at all for your 4000 characters bulk delete, except that "followers wrote it". Please explain what exactly is factually wrong based on secondary sources, and please follow WP:TPG to understand what are valid or invalid arguments about article content on WP. By the way, I have given multiple arguments why the only encyclopedic date of birth is 1876, you haven't answered any of them, yet you use DOB as a summary for your bulk delete. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 21:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

You all have a strong conflict of interest. The article reads like an advert and needs re-writing as I explained above. I have only started. The fact you revert to inaccurate facts on this and other topic is bad faith. Thank you --22:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes of course, now all other editors have a problem, except the editor who keeps deleting 4000+ words to change someone's date of birth - he's is the only sane one....ironically I disagree with User:GreyWinterOwl on this and would happily back you, but we need some RS behind us. Empty accusations are not really that helpful to getting this fixed. Regards Danh108 (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

It is true that all three of you have Brahma Kumari connections?

And that Brahma Kumari followers are coordinating their campaign on the Wikipedia?

I developed the article to be more accurate and put emphasis on the notable elements. The BKs are reverting to their advert version.

If the BKs would care to confirm or deny my first two questions, then I am happy to continue a discussion of why I think the changes are justified. I would like to suggest that their revision of facts which even they know to me truth is deliberately provocative and its intention is to provoke the appearance of a conflict which they can then use to promote their agenda and discredit anyone that questions them. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 17:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

If you want to prove that any number of editors here shouldn't be editing the article, then certainly the talk page is not the place to do that. I have asked you many times, but I'm going to ask again: Please read WP:TPG, it's a guide that says how a talk page of an article should be used, which is to discuss the content of the article. You don't discuss any content, you just spray accusations and personal attacks for which you have no evidence, and even if they were true, this is not the place for them. Your edits directly contradict all reliable, secondary sources about the subject, and are themselves based on no reliable source, just your assertion that they are true, and that what you don't like is an advert written by followers. Sorry, but that's not how Wikipedia works. Bring the reliable sources and valid arguments and see if they support your edits. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 20:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The beginning of discuss is simple. Please answer the two questions above first.

Thank you. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 19:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

No preconditions. You say you have problems with sections of the article. Say which bits and where the content is wrong. Propose alternate wording with sourcing. That's the way it's supposed to go. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Content Focus

The massive oscillations are getting a bit mundane. There are 'puff' allegations. Please substantiate something e.g. advertising tag has been used. WHAT IS THE TEXT THAT IS ALLEGED TO BE 'ADVERTISING' in this article. If anyone cares to read the RS used, the article is very much in line with other major encyclopaedia's. My understanding is that Wikipedia isn't meant to be a soap box for 'fringe views' and rolling out the cherry picked quote collection to try and portray the BKs as a "bunch of whacko's". This appears to be what User:Truth_is_the_only_religion wants to do. And yes, this page suffered an identical problem last year....until that user was blocked. Danh108 (talk) 21:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks McGeddon - in my view, these were fairly good edits. I relocated one piece of text from the lede to lower down in the article. I think it's a bit a more obscure aspect of the group and fits more appropriately in the detailed explanation of the groups teachings. This is the risk when using very detailed reference materials to try and write a more 'generalist' article - or at least this has been a challenge I've faced in giving a fair appraisal of the group. Regards Danh108 (talk) 10:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Everything. The fawning tone. The repeated revision of known false facts. Conclusions being draw about legal decisions not found in the original sources (which were self-published BK defences). Accusations of criminality which has never been suggested or proven.

BK followers using BK published materials written by BK authors.

It's outrageous. At what point does "conflict of interest" step it?

I believe we have passed that point a long time ago, that is why the first step towards discussion is for a disclosure. That is why I asks the questions

It is true that all three of you have Brahma Kumari connections?

Are Brahma Kumari followers are coordinating their campaign on the Wikipedia?

If they deny it, progress will be impossible because what they are doing is not playing by the Wikipedia's rules but using the Wikipedia and manipulating other editors to serve their own religion.

To editors or admins who are not Brahma Kumaris, please trust me on the importance of this and allow me explain why after they answer.--Truth is the only religion (talk) 17:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

This time you removed 15000 characters in one edit without explanation, instead of your usual 4000. I also noticed that you re-established many parts of the old version of the article, when it was owned by User:Januarythe18th.

Regarding content: As per WP:TPG, you need to be more clear about your concerns with the content, because your points that are supposed to justify the edits are vague and don't provide any basis from reliable sources. And I haven't seen you come up with any reliable source, despite you claiming that most of the sources are published by the subject. As John Carter said, the sources are the ones present in the article, and many of them were provided by him. If you know better sources, bring them to the article, but without them, you just have your own opinion, which is either WP:OR or WP:FRINGE. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 19:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I removed stuff like "In interfaith dialogue the BKWSU is often considered a spiritual organisation rather than a religion." because it is unreferenced and fairly meaningless. Same too, "sees itself as a vehicle for spiritual teaching rather than as a religion". It's also how the religion want to be seen (future), rather than how it is seen. Obviously it is a religion. As the edit was written by a follower, I suspect a conflict of interest or behind the scenes coordination of how the religion wants the page to be. To me, it is as if the followers are just turning the page into an advertising article about their religion.

Also, there is a problem between how they define the word "education" and how the rest of the world defines education. It think to the rest of the world it would be evangelism as they are not teaching real skills, such as reading and writing or subject.

I removed flowery irrelevant stuff like "one of the most popular and revered religious texts in India" because it is irrelevant and misleading. A simple like to the Gita is enough.

The Karma section needs to be re-written as it is unreferenced.

I removed "they consider these to be projections of body conscious thinking - trying to force the universe to fit the human life cycle" and "The primary enlightenment was the innate understanding of the self as a soul" as it is unreferenced and using cultic language which is unclear.

There are problems with the Education section as the education work it refers to is done by an organization which claims it is separate from the Brahma Kumaris Living Values, as is the governmental work which is done by Oxford Leadership Academy. This page is about the BKWSU, not them. Simple links will do.

There is a question how notable the organic farming section is as the Time of India article is a copy of a BKWSU press release.

I removed all links to retreats as advertising. No references, no notability.

There's also a problem with the way the BK followers have interpreted the conflicts the religion faced in its early period. Some of it is clearly unimportant, e.g. kids throwing stones. Some of it unproven, they claim it was coordinated by anti- leaders. They have also left out the original accusations against the Satsang, of the leaders breaking up families, encouraging minors to run away join the religion and of improprieties, sexual and other wise, between the elderly founder and the young women under his influence.

There is another problem with the word Paramdham and Nirvana. According to 'A Dictionary, Hindustani and English' by Duncan Forbes, Paramdham in Hindi refers to paradise not what the BK followers are saying. Nor does it equate to the Wikipedia page on Nirvana.

--Truth is the only religion (talk) 17:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Some of your many concerns trown at a time may be true, but even if all of them were true, they are far from justifying a mass-deletion of 20,000 characters. I suggest you slow down a bit. Wikipedia is a collaborative project based on discussion, reliable sources and consensus. I don't want to be against all of your ideas, but you could give each of your edits enough justification, instead of a general justification for a half-article deletion. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 01:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I've looked back at the points raised above, the majority of which seem reasonable and entirely justified, and have implemented the following edits:

• removing that others consider BKWSU to be a "spiritual organisation" as unsourced and redundant after introducing it as a new religious movement earlier in the paragraph;
• cutting that the Bhagavad Gita is "popular and revered";
• editing the Karma section to read as "BK believe" rather than a statement of fact;
• rewritten the "Cycle of time" more plainly and flagged the undated "present";
• copyedited and de-WP:PEACOCKed the environmental and achievements sections;
• cut the meditation retreat WP:LINKFARM;
• copyedited Dadi Janki and removed the award sourced only to a press release;
• flagged the Nirvana sentence as disputed.

Would suggest starting new talk threads for the education and conflicts issues. --McGeddon (talk) 09:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Worth noting that User:GreyWinterOwl has just said in an edit summary to my comments there that "BTW I fully agree with your edit, thanks.". --McGeddon (talk) 14:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

As long as we start editing from the neutral version. Not the advert version.

But I would still like an answer from the three BK editors; GreyWinterOwl, Changeisconstant and Danh108 whether they are being coordinated off Wikipedia to control this topic and no more accusations. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 15:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Calling your version that changes 20,000 characters the "neutral version" doesn't magically make it true.

About your accusations, as per WP:TPG, they should never have been made on a talk page of an article in the first place. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 16:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter where we start from, it's where we end up. (I'm not sure your reverting and attempting to reapply subsequent edits has helped, here; you've restored the "Peace Manifesto-2000 in the International Year of Culture of Peace −2,000 as proclaimed by the UN General Assembly in the year 2,000" mess I rewrote earlier.)

GreyWinterOwl has said "I fully agree" to the eight edits I made based on your concerns. If you're clear about the edits and people are clear about their objections (or are forced to agree that no, they have no objection to that bit because it's undeniably a contradiction or a self-published source or whatever), we can clean up the bulk of the article and discover the (possibly only two or three) issues that editors actually disagree on, and then focus on those issues in detail. This "oh, it's all advertising" "oh, you're just saying that" back and forth isn't getting anywhere, and just leaves other editors (with less interest in the subject) to do the actual cleaning up. If you care about getting this right, be scrupulously clear about each edit (even to the point of making small incremental edits with a full edit summary for each one), and those that deserve to stick will stick. --McGeddon (talk) 16:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, I'm trying to fix problems in the article myself, and it's a bit disheartening to come back every day to find all my changes wiped out in this edit war. Please, let's move on out of this mass reversion stage. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The easiest way to do so is not start from the version the BKs keep reverting to because it is so full of such glaring problems as I have documented and addressed. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 17:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with McGeddon here. Having flicked back to your earlier version to check...I'm sorry, but it's just so poorly written. Sentences jumping everywhere with hardly any structure. BTW, it's WP:Personal Attack and Uncivil to keep referring to other editors based on religion, particularly when some may not even self identify as that. Thanks Danh108 (talk) 17:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Adjwilley,

I don't want you to be offended but I disagree with your recent summary and edits many of which are unsubstantiated or contradicted by references, for example the claim Om Mandli attention was focused on education. In fact, one of the reasons for public criticisms of Om Mandli was that it was not educating the children at all. The old version of the BKWSU topic is just too full of some problems.

I welcome reasonable edits to develop the topic, but not such mass reversion as are going on. I've included most of your recent edits. Thank you. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 18:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The issue I have with the bulk reverts you are doing User:Truth is the only religion is that you are really just using it to smuggle in many contentious changes and ignoring the fact that about 4 editors just asked you not to do it....is it possible you could try and work other people and follow consensus? Danh108 (talk) 18:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

And look at the lede now - it mentions the founding of the organisation twice, has poor gramma, or the caption under the new photo....how do I know they're the 'leading medium' - stop trying to POV load the article.Danh108 (talk) 19:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The photoshopped glowing egg...

...happens to be the religion's representation of God, I don't think removing it is right. There are Christ pictures on Christian articles, Buddha pictures on Buddhist articles, etc. etc.

The reason why the Brahma Kumaris article can't have a picture of their believed God is because...?

BTW I agree with most of the other recent edits by McGeddon and Adjwilley, I think they have improved the quality of the article and removed some promotional tone, thanks. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Universal_Light.jpg was captioned as "showing the universality of the belief that God is a being of light", but this wasn't clear at thumbnail size, where the quotes about religions were illegible, and the image had an unencyclopedic poster style to it. I didn't realise it was meant to be a particularly literal illustration of a particular point of light. The German Wikipedia article uses File:Das_Bild_der_Höchsten_Seele_als_Lichtpunkt_TR.jpg, which is just a burst of white-orange light on a red background - perhaps this is more appropriate? --McGeddon (talk) 16:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the german one you suggested is actually better. I thought the text under the picture could be something like "Brahma Kumaris believe God to be an incorporeal point of light". What do you think? GreyWinterOwl (talk) 16:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure, sounds good. I've added it. --McGeddon (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Recent changes to article

It's quite nice to see some good editing happening that makes sense. In particular thanks to Adjwilley and McGeddon. There were a couple of things that seemed a bit funny to me:

1. I thought the world map pictorial was actually really helpful to give a snapshot impression of the groups origin and expansion. it's basic NLP that many people need a range of sensory modalities to be satisfied to understand something (so I don't think the suggestion it's 'redundant' helps). Was there some other reason for deleting it?

2. Some content being deleted is from RS e.g. in the lede it talked about the belief that God is the source of goodness. If the group has some kind of 'happy la-la' type beliefs, then I don't think that's advertising for those to be in the article. It's a statement of fact, based on RS. It's also a primary distinguishing characteristic of this groups theism.

3. BKs seem to like the word 'students' for their participants. I thought 'member' is a bit of a 'happy medium' in between students and 'adherents'

4. The article is about the BKs in general and their beliefs. If we write "BKs believe" in every paragraph, its a bit redundant, repeatedly states the obvious and makes it a bit clunky to read.

There could be good reasons, and these are minor compared to the over all tone of the changes i.e. these questions shouldn't detract from the feedback about the good editing. Thanks again :-) Danh108 (talk) 17:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

My opinion:

1. Since I don't commonly see religious articles with expansion maps, I don't consider that picture of much significance. I also doubt someone will look the little lines to understand where the BKs have gone to.

2. IMO, God being the source of goodness is ok to be on the lede, because it's an essential belief.

3. Why not see how the other religious articles call their members and use the same term?

4. Within "BK beliefs", could be redundant to say "BKs believe". Again, I suggest seeing how other religious articles describe beliefs and do the same. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

1. The article says that the group has centers in 100 countries. A map of arcing lines adds a very broad sense that those countries are distributed over several continents, but is otherwise difficult to read at thumbnail size (do they have any centers in North Africa, or are the lines passing over it?). If some aspects of the group's range are important, we should just name a few countries in the text.
2. I can't see what deletion you're talking about there - can you give a diff link?
3. I wasn't aware of the preference, but we should generally try to avoid WP:JARGON; if "students" is used, the term should be explained.
4. As with any religious article, statements like "All souls originally exist with God" and "God's purpose is to spiritually re-awaken humanity" shouldn't be stated as plain statements of fact. We could tone some of it down to a simple "it is believed" if we're clunkily repeating "BKs believe" too much. --McGeddon (talk) 17:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

How about using "followers" and not "students"? BTW, the article is getting in the right direction with McGeddon's and Adjwilley's experience- thanks! Changeisconstant (talk) 04:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

1. Maybe I'm just a more pictorially inclined person. My vote would be to keep it. But I take the points being made. User:GreyWinterOwl, I think only NRM's are relevant to contrast as these movements have recent expansion. It seems to me less relevant for well established (old) groups.

2. Here was the previous version of the paragraph I was referring to:

The BKWSU teaches 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 BKs 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.

I prefer the cut back lede that has been created - i just think some RS has been cut. What if it read:

The BKWSU teaches a form of meditation that focuses on identity as souls (as opposed to bodies). They believe that all souls are intrinsically good and that God is the source of all goodness.[4] The university teaches to transcend labels associated with the body, such as race, nationality, religion, and gender, and aspires to establish a global culture based on what they call "soul-consciousness".

I know transcend is a bit flakey...but I think it does the job (I have not read 'rejection' anywhere...could be wrong). The "human family" ref is straight from the Encyc. of Hinduism, but maybe can be put in somewhere lower down in the article?

3. It sounds like everyone might be okay with 'members'. I agree 'students' is more part of the 'spiritual university' theme, a bit jargon-ish and implies a level of educational formalities that may not be present (i.e. courses, curriculum's, qualifications etc).

4. Agreed. Danh108 (talk) 09:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

You need to remove the references from your comment, it's messing up the talk page at the bottom.

If anyone is thinking of 3RR the page to the BK version yet again, could they please justify why so many factual errors, advertisement for retreat centres, self-published quotes, and missing or outdated references are being used before reverting yet again?

It strikes these are all against the Wikipedia's rules and so should clearly not be used. To keep 3RR the topic in face of such observations is becoming irrational. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

But by the definition of 3RR, it is your edit history that comes closest to it. You've done three in 30 hours or so. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

As User:McGeddon explained to you very patiently on your talk page, identify the specific problem you are referring to and lets go through the issues one by one. It does not help the process AT ALL to have you make bulk edits with bogus edit summaries and sneaking in POV laden statements. Danh108 (talk) 19:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Heaven on earth only for BK followers

The aims of the religion are stated in a too vague manner. BKs believe that Sat Yuga or heaven on earth is reserved for only 900,000 BK followers and that Europe and America (and the rest of Humanity) will be destroyed by nuclear war and sink under the oceans.

I found one references to support that which has their leaders quote and so it can be accepted at the religion's own view. Does anyone have any others, or is that good enough? TIA. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

So many religions believe heaven is only for them. Are you also going to propose a phrase on the "Christianity" article that says "Christians believe heaven is reserved only for them and everyone else will be tortured for eternity in hell"?

Try to go to the Christianity article and propose that and I'm sure you won't succeed. The reason being that religious beliefs, just as everything else in WP, should be described from a neutral POV. There are lots of context for the beliefs of each religion and the current article describes the beliefs you just mentioned, but within context and NPOV. The way you want to put it makes BKs seem like maniacs, just like the same style of phrase for other religions would have the same effect, but that's a POV style that shouldn't be used in WP.

Another important observation is that this article, which has been a festival of anti-BK POV in the past, had exactly what you want to highlight right on the lede, added by User:Januarythe18th. So many coincidences, right? GreyWinterOwl (talk) 16:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

COI Concern

User:Truth_is_the_only_religion I also note when I raised my COI concern on your talk page your response has been to blank the whole page. I am taking this as evidence you have something to hide. Danh108 (talk) 20:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

No idea what you are talking about again. I had a load of old messages and removed them to leave a message explaining to others what is going on.

It strikes me you are just trying too hard to blacken the character of any one who is not a BK that comes along to edit your page without actually addressing any of the problems with it.

BTW, if you want to remove a comment, why not just remove it rather than leave it for everyone to read? I think your actions are transparently attempting to prejudice others against me. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 18:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Am I allowed to remove something once it's posted? Sorry, I would have done that but thought there was some rule against it. btw the other editors you accuse of being BKs said they weren't, and my only problem is with editors who can't follow the Wikipedia behavioural guidelines - if you edited normally and behaved in a civil way, I would be quite happy to collaborate with you in building this article...it's not too late to start. Regards Danh108 (talk) 05:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• But if you are concerned about your character, why not openly state what your previous editing account was called. That will clear everything up.Danh108 (talk) 05:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposing Changes to Early History

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)

Controversies Section

1. I think McGeddon suggested dropping the bullets. Makes sense to me - WP:Prose was referred to.

2. Ditching the 'historical' vs 'contemporary' distinction. It doesn't seem to add anything.

3. Is this a controversy? "In the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Howell reported the Brahma Kumaris protected itself from the practice of families 'dumping' their daughters with the organisation by requiring a payment from the families of those wishing to dedicate their daughters to the work and services of the organisation. The payment was to cover the living expenses incurred during the trial period"Danh108 (talk) 10:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Re 3 - it would be a controversy if anyone made a big fuss about it. From some angles it might be comparable to parents complaining about high school fees. If it ran counter to some other part of BKWSU doctrine, there might be a controversy there too. If it blocked access to the disadvantaged - again a possibility. But if there's no significant noise/protest about it - is it a controversy? GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed inclusion of UN/ NGO role in lede

I was doing some homework on this, and it appears it is an interesting and distinguishing feature of this group. According to the UN website while there are over 2,700 NGO's associated to UN/UN departments, however there are only 147 that have general consultative status with ECOSOC. Flicking thru the list, it's not full of NRMs. It is interesting that the BKWSU has NGO functionality. While the UN itself is prone to being criticised as largely bureaucratic etc., the BKWSU must meet whatever the reporting requirements are to get to participate as an NGO. It's also given significance in the RS.

Incidentally when I was looking for diff's I found this post about BK related resources. In particular this one is written as a University text on the BKWSU by a Professor of Religious Studies who is not a BK. Given some of the earlier talk page commentary, I will seek to rely upon this a bit more. Regards Danh108 (talk) 17:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)