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.

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)

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)

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)

Thanks Graeme. I will leave it then - if another editor agrees with me that it's a pretty boring controversy, I will support it's deletion. Danh108 (talk) 22:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for dropping off the radar for a bit - the usual competition from other commitments. Assuming editors were fine with this, so implementing it now. Danh108 (talk) 08:26, 2 November 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)

As per the points above, I propose amending the lead to:

The Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University (Prajapita Brahma Kumaris Ishwariya Vishwa Vidyalaya) or BKWSU is both a new religious movement and an NGO with general consultative status to ECOSOC at the United Nations [1] . The movement originated in India during the 1930s.[1] The Brahma Kumaris (Hindi: ब्रह्माकुमारी, "daughters of Brahma") movement was founded by Dada Lekhraj Kripalani, who later took the name Brahma Baba.[2] It is distinctly identified by the prominent role women play in the movement.

It is something distinctive about this organisation and no doubt something that can be better developed in the article after the merger with 'Brahma Kumaris at the United Nations'. If people have preferred wordings or views about this, please to add them here. Regards Danh108 (talk) 09:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

You need to prove with RS that the view that BK is primarily an NGO has due weight. Certainly BK is a NRM much more than an NGO. Let's suppose the Catholic Church has participation in the UN, does that make them an NGO? I'm just trying to understand. This article suffered and maybe still suffers from content of promotional nature, and this proposal is likely to classify as yet another one. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 11:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I have explained why it's significant - this isn't the catholic church, it is a small pokey little group of maybe 800,000. There are only 146 NGO's of 2,700 registered NGOs that have the same level of whatever commitment/involvement it is with the UN organs. You can't register as an NGO if you're not one. I think it's incumbent on you to rebut the reasons for significance I have already stated. I posted this weeks ago and you didn't comment. Please see WP:lead. Please also explain how a basic fact - that the organisation operates as an NGO and has relationship with UN organs, is 'promotional'. To be be very frank, one troll editor drumming up peoples paranoia is still having far too much influence. i get that your intentions are good. If you really think this is a problem, let's use one of the 3rd party opinion noticeboards or see if McGeddon would like to comment?. From the RS it seems that in the last 15-20 years this movement has increasing expanded it's "social work' functions i.e. the healthcare, environmental and various UN activities, as per the article. I also note this article didn't receive any comments about it being promotional for 8 months, until the troll editor came back ranting (however I do agree there were mistakes made in the article (like the linkfarm), and I was responsible for that)Danh108 (talk) 16:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn't ask for evidence that BK is an NGO. I asked for due weight from RS describing BK as an NGO, which is what matters on WP. Until then, I think you are not right to revert. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 18:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Concerns about promotional tone/content

As the editors participating here must already be aware, many editors have expressed concern that this article appears promotional. For that reason, although I wish the consensus was more specific and actually described the parts of the article that appear promotional, and although, unfortunately, some editors have even jumped to accusations that include myself before they even attempted to edit the article directly or use the talk page, and after I have supported edits that removed promotional content, I will of course follow this consensus and search for everything that seems promotional about this article and delete it.

I must remind everyone once again that I never made a single edit to this article that added promotional tone or content. And until the contrary is proven, I want to assume good faith towards the ones who did, that they did so unintentionally.

I must let it clear, though, that in no way does this mean I agree with User:Januarythe18th's claims. I saw how this article was when he owned it (and anyone can see on the history), a festival of WP:OR to say the least. Even though I agree and never denied that this article at the moment appears promotional, I believe that to be, for Jan18, just an excuse to cover his real propaganda, and the reason why he made big reverts to try to insert contentious content without discussion. To all other editors, I sincerely respect all of you and am here for the purpose of Wikipedia, not any agenda as Januarythe18th exhaustively and falsely accused me. I hope there will be no doubt about my good faith based on my following edits and that they will please those who expressed the concerns. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 22:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I looked at the article and found that the part most likely to be promotional was the "Achievements and Recognition" one, and I decided to delete it completely. If anyone sees something else I missed, please express your concerns or edit the article yourself. I hope this addresses the concerns previously expressed. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 23:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It looks alright to me as there weren't any noteworthy achievements in-line with the practice and beliefs as such. I checked for some others like "Art of living" and while it didn't have an achievements section, it was still promotional in highlighting social services. Changeisconstant (talk) 17:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I never created the 'achievements' section either - that was there when I arrived. I get your point about its impact on the over all 'tone' of the article. I will try and fix up the early history soon. Please do give faster feedback if you consider any language 'flowery' - it's best to get these comments direct and at the time, about the specific text alleged to be 'offending'. Otherwise I can't use the feedback to learn. Danh108 (talk) 16:39, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Expansion section

The expansion section is extremely brief. However I don't propose to address that at present. I note that it states the movement started to expand overseas in the 1950's, then states later it spread first to London in 1970....these statements can't both be true. Plus 'international expansion program' sounds a bit weird. Any thoughts?Danh108 (talk) 11:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)