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.

Archives
Nov 2005 - July 2006
July 2006 - Aug 2006
Aug 2006 - Sept 2006
Sept 2006 - Oct 2006
early Oct 2006
late Oct 2006
early Nov 2006
late Nov 2006
December 2006
Late Dec 2006 - Feb 2007
Current

The start of the article

Currently, the opening of the article is a real mess. I'd like to invite opinions of ALL editors on what they see as being important to include in the opening paragraph to the article. Currently - in my humble opinion - there is far too much prominence of words and themes like "mediums" and "channels". I think it's fair to include this stuff somewhere in the article, but not as the opening lines of it. I would prefer using a more academic approach to the intro - which gives a more neutral description of the BKs, based on who they are and what they actually do. Any thoughts greatly appreciated. I'll then take a crack at it myself. ~~Appledell (for some reason, my auto-signature doesn't seem to work)

Appledell,

The first paragraph is rather small and to the point. Might I add that the entries have been given citations and they do serve to state the truth:Dadi Gulzar is the medium that channels Bapdada (this can be explained at length later) and in addition I did provide an academic book on religions that Channel as the Brahma Kumaris do (rather unique) and so it is of great notation. As you know Avaykt7 was even quoting the murli spoken to the IT TEAM on 10/31/2006 in a posting here. I am aware of :IT TEAM:There will be opposition, but when you are firm in your own position, the opposition will end. So, I am at a little disadvantage in that I am alone, regardless of what Avyakt7 may say and I am respectful of the fact that the latter message was channeled via the mediumship of Dadi Gulzar. So, being that the faithful travel during the Season when the trance messages are channeled/recieved via the mediumship of Dadi Gulzar, removing it would be like removing the annual pilgrimage to Mecca for Muslims or removing Easter for Christians.PEACETalkAbout 06:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I haven't said the opening paragraph is without citation. What I am saying is that to what extent does it give appropriate/due weight to the identity of the BKs? A fully citated opening paragraph could say that the BKs are an organisation that have pioneered solar energy in India - but that would give undue prominence in the opening paragraph. By the way, I am not part of the BK IT Team, so I don't see the relevance of that assertion to the point I'm making. If you have an issue with Avyakt7, you can take it up with him on his talk page. ~~ Appledell

Hello all. I've made an attempt to recast the first paragraph. I make a distinction between the origin of the BK knowledge of its version of Raja Yoga and its practice, associating the spirit possession and channeling with the origin. Some argue that the practice also involves channeling. If citations can be found that support this I will certainly agree to reflect this. I also mention that the BK Raja Yoga emphasizes mental attitude with less emphasis on physical exercises. Having jumped in with this edit, I accept and welcome further edits that improve the clarity/accuracy of this introductory paragraph. I have also made minor corrections to the footnotes to correct spacing and punctuation. Duality Rules 00:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Duality Rules. Thanks the start of the article is more readable now. Appreciate the effort. Doesn't the first para already refer to "mediumistic channeling" with references provided? Regards Bksimonb 17:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Duality Rules,

Bksimonb is correct "mediumistic channeling" with references provided?'. I did provided the references and might I add they are from academic sources, not an easy task I might add. So, yes, they have been classified as a religion that is associating with spirit possession, mediums, trance messengers and channeling. So, depending on the citation one may see any one of these used by the person writing. I don't know if we have Chariot in via Adi Dev though. That seems to be a reference more within the context of the faithful and the murlis I do believe. Perhaps you or Bksimonb can put your two pennies in. Oh, Duality Rules thank you for putting the words in to give it more style/clarity. As, I have said, I do not question what you experienced and it does help to have someone with your knowledge base. PEACETalkAbout 19:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

BK SimonB,

It can be debated how central "mediumistic channeling" is to the organization. Or where we can find an academic to decide what are the most central characteristics of the group. I know that the source and history of the revelations that have resulted in BK's cosmology and spiritual path are usually left till late in the seven-day course because of the controversial nature. Most spiritual knowledge is either re-interpreted by a wise or holy individual, or revealed through some sort of mysterious process involving God or spirits. To me as editor, and former member, the mystery of the BK beginnings--especially in light of the belief (and experience) of God's descent--are central characteristics of the group's mental environment. The miracle of God's descent at the present time and its implications are discussed at length in the Sakar Murlis that are read in morning class almost every day in every BK center worldwide. Based on this emphasis, I would advocate being inclusive of this character of the group. Nevertheless "spirit possession" and "mediumistic channeling" are not the only ways the BK knowledge has been revealed. Perhaps we could soften the tone by amending that sentence to include the others, i.e. "revelations based on visions, trance, spirit possession and mediumistic channeling." That would seem to be more correct. Regards, Duality Rules 23:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Duality Rules,

Yes I do agree with what you are saying. It has always struck me as a bit of a jarring way to describe it. To me, "spirit possession" is the most misleading since it tends to conjure up images of Balinese rituals or even "The Exorcist"!

I support the changes you propose.

Regards Bksimonb 08:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The changes here were reverted by Green108. If someone has the references at hand, it would be worth investigating if they state that the meditation taught by the Brahma Kumaris is tied into the practice of spirit possession and mediumistic channeling. I know that in the murlis, at least, it is frequently stated that "yoga is a completely different subject from trance" (and by extension channeling and spirit possession.) So if someone with the references at hand can weigh in, perhaps we can re-edit this sentence. I recall that Babb (which I last saw in 1986) did state that Lehkraj's teachings radically re-interpreted Hindu cosmology. Regards, Duality Rules 21:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality warning

I am re-inserting a Neutrality warning box to reflect the current state of the article and the concerns raised by Appledell. Just quickly scanning through I can see quite a few contentious statements and weasel words such as "It is claimed that women control men". Exactly who is making the claim? Bryan Wilson? Does he actually use the phrase, "Misandry- It is claimed that women control men in a complete role reversal". Words like "Misandry", "control" and "complete role reversal" are a bit strong unless he used them himself. Is that just an interpretation of what he said? This needs to be clearly specified in the sentence especially since it is a contentious claim. Also, how about this classic, "but rather declines birth after birth until its lowest 'fag end' at the end of the 20th Century". "Fag end" is in quotes. Who is it quoting exactly?

Also there seem to be some factual errors, "Following this opposition, which curtailed their activities, the gathering moved from Karachi to their current location in Mount Abu, Rajasthan [23]". We discussed this a long time ago. The reference given does not cite opposition as the reason for the move to Mount Abu. Also, "The Murlis are no longer available for sale or to the general public and one must complete the Brahma Kumaris foundation course in order to attend morning murli class.", when were they ever on sale to the public and where is the citation?

OK. I've run out of lunch time. Will add some tags to the article soon, hopefully.

Regards Bksimonb 13:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Bksimonb,

Thank you for alerting me to the above. I checked and it wasn't within the citation and so I removed it. Yes, agreed in that it was not appropriate indeed. As to the other yes, it is within the academic book. I didn't feel the need to add their long findings as we don't need the term "housewives" in the article when addressing the roles of male BKs. To much expanding is not too beneficial. Short and to the point is clear enough. If you would like I can provide the passage here on Friday. I did add the to the part of Appledell's addition as it is not part of the citation. Thanks again..PEACETalkAbout 00:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear TalkAbout,

Yes if you could post the reference on the discussion page that would really be appreciated. One part of being NPOV is that when a contentious claim is made then it has to be written in a way that does not give the impression that Wikipedia is saying it. So it is OK to say something like "Bryan Wilson, Emeritus Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford, claims that women control men in a complete role reversal..[ref]" etc but to make the statement, "women control men in a complete role reversal..[ref]" is appearing to take what this guy says to be an indisputable fact Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#A_simple_formulation. I know it adds to the word count but I guess that's the price of NPOV in this case.

Thanks & regards, Bksimonb 12:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Bksimonb;

Yes, I will look at that, and will change/adjust as other citation offer similar but not so clear views on this. Will put on my to do list.PEACETalkAbout 17:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

What will it take to be able to determine that a neutrality warning is no longer needed? The article is reading more neutral to my ears (especially after my stylistic burnishing :-) and lacking in... uh... shrillosity. Thanks to all for your painstaking citations.Duality Rules 05:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Like the word, "shrillosity" :-) I would also like to thank those who contributed to all the references. Clearly a lot of painstaking research and diligence has gone into this.

In terms of the NPOV warning, there are a few issues to clear up first. I will read through more throughly later as I have to go out in a minute. An example that immediately spring to mind is the unresolved first sentence of the Christian view section "Contrary to the beliefs of Christianity," which is discussed elsewhere on this page. I have some concerns about undue weighting, fairness of tone (although much improved now) [1] and some of the external links may fail WP:EL [2].

Bksimonb (above comment not signed),

Duality Rules,

We are awaiting the reply by Faithinhumanity and as soon as I get the book I will see how we can can convey the thought without it having to much bearing. In essence the sentence in the begging of the article edited by Duality Rules could relay some of that just by adding the citation. But alas until the book arrives or a reply is given with a workable objective we shall wait and see. PEACETalkAbout 20:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

References

I noticed some dodgy references. There are some murli references which are internal documents and so not easily verifiable by the public. One thread on the arb com workshop indicates that they may not be used [3] but only with regards to proving contentious points. If other editors feel strongly about this issue I can post a "request for clarification" on the arb com noticeboard. There was one reference simply labelled as "An early BK textbook states". Hmmm. Regards Bksimonb 12:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Bksimonb,

First, as to:"An early BK textbook states". Please feel to remove it as that is not a citation. As to the murli's I don't think they can be cited outright but if they are cited in books, with proper citation then I do believe it is a yes (many are within academic books). I will go back and look as this was one of my questions and I do believe they didn't say "no" I couldn't use them if within books. Please note the "dodgy references" were not made by me. PEACETalkAbout 17:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Talkabout. I never thought that it was you that put in the dodgy references. If the murlis are reproduced in a publicly available book or reputable website such as Hinduism Today in a non-"tabloid" context then I guess that is fine since they are easily verifiable by the public at large. As far as I can tell the murli quotes that were used in the reference section referred to documents and books that were only indented for BKs. Regards Bksimonb 18:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Misandry?

Apparently this word means "hatred of men". Should this be under "lifestyle"? It certainly isn't encouraged or considered to be a core BK belief. Hatred of any sort is defintiely a no-no. If Bryan Wilson is of the opinion that this takes place in the BKWSU then perhaps it should be under the "controversies" section and attributed to him.

Talkabout, did Bryan Wilson actually use this word? The reason I ask is because the word "Misogyny", meaning "hatred of women", was originally used and corrected to "Misandry" by Septegram.

Regards Bksimonb 07:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

OK in the absence of any response I have moved it to the Controversies section. Hope that's OK. For NPOV we also need to point out somehow that there are also men in senior roles within the organisation. Perhaps links to their bios would be OK as references (TODO). Regards Bksimonb 11:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Bksimonb,

Yes, the move for now is OK with me, since I miss placed the book. I am planning to place it in your talk page(your request..once I find them). As to the senior men do you mean Ken O'Donnell, Charlie Hogg, BK Karuna, Nirvir(wir...spelling, Brian Bacon,Lee James and you? Now, my understanding is that all have women, senior sisters above them (Sisters in Charge), with the exception of Ken (because he is special....but he too has a Sister in Charge:-( ) and that the one to take over from Dadi Janki is Senior sister Jayanti or Mohini and not a male brother. So, with ken being the one and only...and then Charlie being the lecturer that is still "primarily" run by women, wouldn't you say? When I get my second source I will put it back. But the bios would be great.

BKSimonB, I also want to start a section of BK BOOKs....I have several that have arrived and will begin to enter them as it would give it a missing part that other articles have.PEACE and thanksTalkAbout 00:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Bksimonb,

OK, I think I entered enough of Dadi Janki in the books section and most of the BK books. Do you have some other books to start Bios for the men? I will start the bios on Saturday provided there is enough material. I think Jagdish Chander deserves his own page/article, being the official scribe and so widely cited by academics even in non BK subjects...(quite a yogi that one). PEACETalkAbout 07:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi TalkAbout.

As you probably guessed I've been a bit maxed-out this weekend (organising a house party!). Certainly the university is run primarily by women in that virtually all centres, especially Indian centres are, but Madhuban itself is a notable exception since it consists almost entirely of men with just a few senior sisters. I would say that most prominent decision-making figures in M'ban are Dadi Prakashmani, Dadi Janki (in the months when she is there), BK Nirwair and BK Karuna (that's two men already!). Then there is Dadi Manoher and Dadi Ratanmohini who look after sections of the complex and Dadi Gulzar, who is based in Delhi, but obviously very prominent. There is also BK Ramesh in Mumbai. These are probably the most notable in terms of featuring them in the article. I had a look around the internet and found that there is virtually no bio data on some of these, except for the three main Dadis. I've raised this as an issue with the web team since it struck me as an important missing resource. The only BIO I could find for BK Nirwair was in Portugese [4].

Perhaps we can limit those mentioned to those who are full-time in service of the BKWSU. Mainly because some of them work in environments, such as working with hard-nosed business types who are not known for their religious tolerance. Certainly some jobs I've worked in I felt I needed to keep a very low profile, whereas now I work in a multi-cultural place along with Muslims, Hindus, Jains, BKs and Ex-BKs and we can all be quite relaxed about discussing our various paths. Not sure if Wikipedia even has a policy in this regard, and all the ones you mention are certainly citable. I can only suggest on compassionate grounds but it's your call :-)

Certainly I wouldn't say I was a prominent BK! Wikipedia is the first public exposure I've had and it isn't much of a task compared to the years of service others have put in. Perhaps, as Mr Green commented on the BKI forums, I should just stick to showing people how to operate the FM translation headsets ;-)

Not sure about the list of BK books. Do you think maybe that's making the article into an advert? Perhaps a section on books about the BKs, but not published by the BKs, would be useful and then just we could just include a link to the BK Publications website [5] rather than duplicating what they do. What do you think?

Thanks & Regards Bksimonb 08:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Bksimonb,

The book section is not an advert but fact that the BKs publish these books and lists, the books by author, year, and ISBNs for said books (nothing beyond that). Please see Margaret Singer and other articles that list books produced by organizations or individuals.

As to the members I only included the ones that use the Brahma Kumaris in their PR, do PR for the organization, are public about their roles and use it in their activities. I will remove the actor since I don't have a link. I do believe that the others are/were prominent figures and did so in a public way. No, I do not intend to put you in, I merely asked since I saw the role you play within the BK IT TEAM as the senior for the UK and English speaking countries if I am not mistaken (so no worries..I respect you and glad we can communicate peacefully). No, I don't intend to upload anything, that is why I asked. As to the headsets (:-) often hard to do...), well you know he does have that dry homour and I am sure you both were fond of each other when he was still a surrendered brother. I must state that I do have the highest regard for BK Jagdish as he was heartfelt in his work and has been cited by many authors/academics. Did you place the link to Nirwair? Regards/PEACETalkAbout 05:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes I am OK with the books if that is standard practice on articles. I will add the link to Nirwair later since there is some disruption taking place on the article right now. Certainly Jagdish Bhai may be notable from an encyclopedic point of view for the reasons you state. A few years ago he visited London for an extended period of time for health reasons and would lecture almost every day. It was a great chance to get to know him. He had quite a sense of humour and would often reduce us all (including himself) to hysterical laughter with way he told the stories the early days.

Regards Bksimonb 22:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Bksimonb,

Yes, I have heard some of the stories from a couple of sources and yes he is by far the most notable yogi (Kumar/jagdish). Have you seen the picture of him in the BKinfo site? Would you object to having that large group photo in the article? I think it is a lovely photo and also has Nirwair too. I still have not heard back from the bot as to the protection of the page. So, take a look and see if you agree. I honestly have not seen a color photo that is that nice of the group. PEACETalkAbout 08:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

See new topic "Pictures" below. Regards Bksimonb 21:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Controversy Section

There seems to be a section on beliefs in the Controversies section. I am assuming this is a mistake. Perhaps we can either combine this with the existing beliefs section or just decide which one is best referenced to keep.

Also the Sunday Mail stuff is overblown and treated as if it were a reliable source for information, which is isn't. Surfice to say that the BKs get some negative press in tabloid newspapers and link to it as an example. I found a link to the citation by Walliss used here [6]. It appears to be from abstracts to a lecture held in 2000 at the University of Exeter [7].

Regards Bksimonb 11:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Bksimonb,

Yes, some beliefs are in the Controversies section. I will check and move them. Please move back any that you feel should stay there or lack citations. I will place the Daily Mail piece in Media Controversies....PEACETalkAbout 00:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's much better now. Thanks :-) Bksimonb 08:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Bksimonb,

I have been busy at work and so my reply was delayed. I have requested the protection be placed on the article again as it was removed by a bot and not an Admin.PEACETalkAbout 05:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Section on "people associated with"

This is in my personal opinion a pretty dodgy section to keep...where does it end? There are thousands of people who are associcated with the BKs - what parameters are being set for this? Just people that certain editors might want to include for their own agendas? I of course appreciate that this section may well have been started in good faith, but it is wide open to abuse from banned editors who no doubt will be popping up again in a new incarnation - or people associated with them. I propose deleting this section in a week unless rigorous arguments can be given. By the way...hello to the new editors! See if you can play nice and discuss matters here first - it would be v helpful to maintaining the conducive relations that have formed here of late. Appledell 20:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC) Appledell

Appledell,

I think these individuals are in the public view, use their affiliation in their work (for benefit) and use the UN connection too. They write books, do interviews and are high ranking within the organization. So, by that very nature they are in the public arena. Now, the ones I started were quite good and I was working with Bksimonb on fixing them up. I will say that Jagdish Chander should have his own article at some point as he did write many books and is widely cited by academics. As for the other, they could go on an info box like the ones for Sai Baba so that it looks all tiddy. I am willing to work on fixing this but I do not agree that removing them is a correct solution. PEACETalkAbout 07:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Talkabout - you mention the three criteria you are using...can you make sure that each name has a reference alongside it for each criteria (they are in "public view", "use their affiliation in their work" and "use the UN connection")? I take it that you think only people to whom all three criteria apply to should be used and not just one of the three? I'm not in principle opposed to having names like the Dadis and senior brothers associated with the section, but there have to be very clearly defined criteria - what does being in "public view" and "using the UN connection" actually mean? I'm not clear, for example, why Lee James is on the list - or Robert Shubow (who I'm guessing 99% of BKs have never heard of). Please can you clarify. Thanks v much. Appledell 10:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Appledell,

I just made points, not that one has to meet all points (just hitting on in a prominent way). Yes, the links or information will be placed next to it or expanded on it. Lee James (actor...right) will be removed. Robert Shubow, is important to note as he is a "former/past" member and he was the Editor of Adi Dev, and Author of Voyager. So, he is important as even today students (met one that read his books, was very faithful and was surprised to learn he left....shock!) read these books, and the BK publications still have these books for sale. So, it is significant to point that out, and my research shows he was with the BKs for many years and was quite a prominent figure. So, when one makes ones self available in a public way, one is quite aware of the full ramification of that and well having played in that arena myself I can say that is why there is "NO COMMENT" available for those that do not want to make any statements public. Today the archiving system is much wider and accessible than in past years so things catch up quick and items are even archived in the big box of the internet even when removed from the original source. FYI I will also be listing the former member that wrote a doctoral thesis, as soon as I get my hands on the thesis. BTW the thesis covers the Brama Kumaris, is already in publication, but I am waiting for the English copy. PEACETalkAbout 15:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

There are many other ex-BKs that had prominent roles within the organisation...are you proposing to list all of those too? You still haven't answered the main thrust of my concerns either: 1) what is your definition of an individual being in "public view", 2) People who "use" their BK affiliation, 3) People who "use" the UN connection. It would have been nice if the parameters for who to include and who not to include had been discussed here first before the section was started, but never mind - as I said, I have no objection in principle to such a section. On a separate note, if you could also explain why it is significant to point that Shubow is no longer a BK? Is it to imply that what he wrote (Adi Dev, Voyager) is to be seen in a different light? Thanks again. Appledell 19:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Appledell,

As to the past members I think it has been stated above and no I don't think it changes what he wrote, only that he is now on another path as are others who were members for many years. I think it is valuable information from a "freedom of Information/accessible information" perspective. And thank you for stating that you have no objection to the section.:-) PEACETalkAbout 04:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

Hi Talkabout. I'm all for adding some pictures to the article where appropriate. Certainly it seems appropriate to show the main seniors and/or main buildings. The only concern I have is with Copyright, however such images may be covered under Fair_use. I have some concern about any image sourced from the BKI site since I am quite sure that no attempt would have been made to get permission from the author to upload it there, however if the image is non-contentious to all of us here, and it is covered under fair use, then we are in the clear.

Would you be kind enough to post a direct link to the picture? Let me see if I can trace it to source so we can be sure of the copyright if that turns out to be an issue.

The safest pictures are ones where the person that took the photo is happy to release it under GFDL. I took some of M'ban buildings last October such as Om Shanti Bawan, Madhuban Courtyard and Diamond Hall that I would be happy to upload under GFDL. I already uploaded one of them to a non-related article [8] just to see how the process worked. Also, you may know Ex-BKs who have pictures they kept and would be willing to release for use here.

Thanks & regards Bksimonb 21:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Bksimonb,

This is the photo [9] I am speaking about and no need to track it as it was a gift to all, to share as it is by far the best one I have come across and the photographer has no issues. Don't you agree that it is by far one of the best! I think it shows everyone in good form, Kamarka, Janki, Gulzar, Nirvair, and Jagdish too...etc. I would love to see the ones you have. As you may know I love to document things and love to see good historical photos. Yes, Diamond Hall would be good, Om shanti Bawan too, and the Courtyard would be good too as it seems to be the topic of discussions (memories of some). So, out of curiosity since I am just beginning to sort my books, what is the meaning of the bees in BK religious philosophy? Do tell! I will ask about one that I have seen that has not been released but did get a glimpse of. Did you notice in the gallery (BK.info site) there is a picture (black and white...old) of a very young Kamarka....she looks radiant in the photo, with a big smile. PEACETalkAbout 07:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the captioning of photos is important - that it is done in a fair and impartial way. Whatever photos you decide to upload, we need to make sure the caption is something the editors are happy with (I don't need to explain to you how a person with an anti-BK agenda might wish to caption the photo you linked to!). Thanks. Appledell 10:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Appledell.

I am assuming here that you agree that it is a lovely photo and of great historical value. So, in good faith let us put forth the captions for consideration. I will wait for Bksimonb and you to put forth captions for the next step in this process. The photo is of classic style and should receive a good caption...I am fully in agreement here (especially since some are deceased). PEACETalkAbout 15:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree it is a lovely photo! However, if the intention is to use a photo to show the seniors, then I think it is better to use a photo with *just* the seniors (as it is they that need to be identified), rather than other people too. In this photo, there are other people identified - have they all given their permission for this? It's not necessarily an issue about Wikipedia rules on this, it's just common courtesy. Appledell 19:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Talkabout. I will attempt to upload the images I have. Of course, we don't have to use them since I'm hardly a pro photographer, or we can replace them later. I only have one remaining concern with the proposed group picture, and that is with regards to the non-seniors also pictured. Being an 80s picture, there may be some ex-BKs amongst them. Do you think they would object to being shown on Wikipedia in their BK days? Otherwise I'd say my concerns have been addressed.

Next issue is how many pictures and how and where to place them. I did think of putting up a gallery but it seems that Wikipedia discourage that on bandwidth, storage and load-time grounds except when an article absolutely screams for it, such as an article on world flags Wikipedia:Galleries. We could perhaps model our approach on similar articles covering religious topics. Some examples being Ghost_Dance , Confucianism and the Bahá'í_Faith.

BTW there is no spiritual significance with bees in the BKWSU as far as I know! There is one building, Harmony Hall in Gyan Sarovar, that features an overhanging roof which this particular type of bee just love as a site to make their hives. It's fascinating to be able to watch them so close from the other side of a window so naturally I just had to photo them :-) Will try uploading images now. Regards Bksimonb 20:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Diamond Hall, Shantivan, Rajesthan, India

Madhuban, the Brahma Kumaris headquarters

Om Shanti Bawan, the main hall at the Brahma Kumaris headquarters

OK. Here are the proposed images. Regards Bksimonb 20:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Appledell,

As far as permission goes, I think that there were many photographers and everyone knew that they were being photographed that is why they were on the VIP stage [10](please note others taking photographs). I always wear sunglasses when out to big public events that I don't want to be photographed in, but that is just a way of saying I haven't posed for them. As stated I think this shows a historical view and I am sure you would concur that the others such as Nirvair, Jagdish are just as important and truly show the BK Family together. To not show them would also be wrong as the fact remains that they were all together, perhaps today they only allow the Didis (continuing to just put forth the female administrators) on stage but in the past it was a BK Family affair...all seen as very valuable. From a PR point I would say it would be a good move forward. If your concern is for Jayanti or Mohini not being there, that can be fixed by placing a photo of them too. PEACETalkAbout 02:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Talkabout, this photo was not of a public event. Regardless of other photographers being there (and whether people were wearing sunglasses or not), the people on stage would have no reasonable way of knowing that the pic would be used on a public forum, let alone for the whole world to see on wikipedia. As good as the photo is, I would be uneasy using it. What is the purpose of such a photo? If it is to show the main players, then it should be a photo with *just* them in it. It might be nice to show a photo of a gathering of people on stage, but it serves little editorial purpose. Appledell 15:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Bksimonb,

I vote for this one as the main feature [11] and the MadhubanBKSUOmShantiBawan as it is very nice and shows the front of the Building with similar colors to the first one Madhuban_Stage. Thanks for the explanation about the bees as I was busy looking already. PEACETalkAbout 02:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi TalkAbout. I'm OK with that then :-) The reason I raised a concern about the people in the picture is that we currently have this big thing in the BKWSU about photographing our programmes and making sure everyone in the images is happy for us to use it. This may or may not be an issue here. I'm prepared to just use the image on the basis that we can always pull it if it gets flagged as a problem. If Appledell feels strongly about it then I guess he/she can raise an Rfc.

Regards Bksimonb 09:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I refer you to the answer I gave Talkabout above. Pics of buildings are rarely going to be contentious, but when you use the one of people on the stage, I think there is an abuse of privacy (unless permission from all those who can be indentified is sought and given). If you *have* to use the picture (and I don't see why we can't wait until a better, more suitable, one is found), then let's do it as a temporary measure until it can be replaced by a better one (that features *only* the people that the article wants to identify). Appledell 15:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Or we could pixelate/blur the other faces? Bksimonb 15:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, that's a reasonable short-term compromise. Although I think we should make sure that if a better pic is found, the existing one can be replace and that it is not "set in stone". Appledell 15:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Appledell and Bksimonb,

I still insist that this is a historical photo[12] and like stated above it is by far the most positive one I have seen, akin to "High Mass" in significance to Catholics. This is some thing of great value to folks like me (that have never been to Mt. Abu), new BKs, and academics. Truly I think it would be a missed opportunity and the public may begin to wonder about the objections? And with Jagdish no longer with the living, I think it would be a tragic missed opportunity and even an act of "erasure" (modifying the past). Thank you for your cooperation and good will.PEACETalkAbout 04:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I think my objections have been pretty clear - identification. I am happy to go with Simon's compromise of pixelating the pics of those who are not the prominent members of the organisation that are in that picture. And in that form, I'm happy for the pic to go up - as a short term measure. Yes, the pic has historical value, but so do hundreds of others. Let's be clear what the purpose of putting up a pic is, as your aim already seems to have shifted a bit from something that identifies all the main leaders of the organisation to one that has "historic" value. I hope you take these observations in the constructive manner they are meant. Thanks. Appledell 08:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Appledell,

I would like to say that your argument although well intentioned does not merit tampering with the photo. First, I give the example of the late Pope John Paul II, whose image the Brahma Kumaris post widely and for self serving PR purposes. I am sure when he received the flowers he did not intend for his image to be used as a PR piece on your website as some implied support or endorsement (in fact based on the position...he is not facing the camera...he was not even aware that his photo was being taken. To use a photo in this manner is not in good practice nor in good faith.). Keep in mind that he took flowers from everyone and even advocated for death row prisoners and so he was always kind and never turned anyone away. So, I am beginning to see that what we have here is certain rules for you, while you use others images without any consideration to those involved nor the impact upon the faithful (Catholics), image being used for a positive marketing/PR spin and little to no consideration for the individual (who was in no way associated with the Brahma Kumaris or any individual in the organization). Please keep in mind that the photo has been released and so it may be used by others in reference to the BKs, also it has been well over a decade if not two I think. I make it a point to tell folks I collect historical photos. I even travel to take some myself and will travel to obtain them too. I can recall a governor attending a private party with a group (not a positive PR group) and a photo being printed on the front page non the less, the point being that he was posing for photos for the organization and therefore there was implied consent. They even made a political cartoon about the incident which I still keep. PEACETalkAbout 15:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's try and stick to the point at issue here, rather than talking about pics of the Pope (the pic of the Pope was taken in a public place, by the way...so your objections are moot at best). I have already said that I don't mind the pic going up with non-prominent members of the BKs being pixelated. Whatever dislike you have about the BKs and what they do is irrelevant to what we do about *this* pic. It doesn't matter if the photographer has "released" this pic, my concern is about identification - not whether the photographer has given permission. Thanks. Appledell 19:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Appledell("the pic of the Pope was taken in a public place, by the way...so your objections are moot at best"), yes, one can have ones picture taken in a public place (in this case it was the UN I believe) but as a Head of State it is a clear violation to use his image as a marketing/PR tool on a "daily" basis. So, this gross disregard confirms my points above. If the picture was distorted tampered with, I would say it would lead to all kinds of speculation and prove to be a negative. I still hold fast to my previous point, that being that the Brahma Kumaris are anti men otherwise why the fuss. As to the internet being developed, well pictures exist in many venues prior to the internet and if you believe in the cycle why would you deny the Brahma Kumaris family a look at the photo. So, being that I refuse to tamper with someones work, I vote that we leave it out.

The photo has men in it, lord have mercy save our soul! "my concern is about identification"?!? OK, Buildings are in and men are out!PEACETalkAbout 01:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The Pope is a public figure in a public place, receiving flowers from the BKs - that's what the BK "PR" shows. Anything else is simply *your* interpretation - nothing more. I am not debating this aspect further - we both have biased opinions on it so we're not going to convince eachother. If you have pics of the leaders of the organisation *only*, then that's fine (whether it's men or women). I repeat again, my concern is identifying the other people in the pic. Appledell 08:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've added the one image that we agreed on, the picture of OSB, to the paragraph where Madhuban is mentioned. Is there really any need for things to get heated here? If one picture causes a problem then let's just look for others. There's plenty around it's just a case of getting them released under a suitable license for Wikipedia. I am working on this issue behind the scenes FYI. Regards Bksimonb 10:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't find anything in the Wikipedia:Image_use_policy about this concern. I'm sure that something would be there if it had ever come up before. Assuming that we are on unchartered territory here perhaps we could raise a Request for comment. I'm a bit puzzled as to why I can't find anything in Wikipedia about this issue. In a way in kind of makes sense to take the privacy of people in a picture into account if they thought their picture was only destined to a life in someone's photo-album only to find that 20 years later this internet thing got invented and they ended up being seen by every being on the planet ;-) Perhaps we could use some outside comment here. Just a suggestion. Bksimonb 19:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Bksimonb,

I like this one [13] but could live with the others too. It would be nice to have another info box below for quick reference. Thanks for looking around as some thing pleasing visually always makes for better reading.PEACETalkAbout 05:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

POV and Totally Disputed tags

Template:TotallyDisputed Bksimonb, Can you place the above tag above the area you are "Totally Disputing" rather than the whole article. This will give us a working point and we can then remove the tags as the clarifications go forth.PEACETalkAbout 02:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi TalkAbout,

The "Totally disputed" tag was there before all the disruption. First 244 kept removing the tag altogether then started changing it to a "POV" tag. When Thatcher131 sprotected the page it was on a 244 version that Bsroiaadn reverted to by mistake thinking I was vandalising the page [14].

To demonstrate that the article is now in its correct form before the disruption, here is a diff between the last edit you made and what it is at the revert time [15]. The only change is the Sprotect tag and a change that Tovojolo made. I didn't find Tovojolo's edit contentious but I have no strong views if you disagree. Also worth noting that the Sprotect tag is just an information tag. The actual act of protecting the article is invisible, expect in the history. You can see that Thatcher131 does this as a two-step operation. One step is the "admin op" of protecting the article, the other is the tag to indicate it. Thanks anyway for correcting the missing tag.

I've just scanned through the article and cleared up what I know are factual errors. On this basis I have downgraded the tag to an NPOV warning tag. I have a bit of a dilemma in terms of perceived Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest. Normally, if an editor sees stuff that is obviously wrong or original research they can just delete it. However if I do that then it would appear that I am "whitewashing" the article so I tagged it as a concern in the hope that other editors could attend to it. In terms of actual COI, I obviously have a biased viewpoint but at the same time I strongly believe in, and support, the ideals, policies and community of Wikipedia, even if that means the article contains critical information. After all an "interest" is a personal thing, it can only really be demonstrated in action. I am sure that will become clear in my working relationships with other editors over time. I hope you find the edits I just made to be acceptable, otherwise I am happy to discuss any outstanding issues.

I am aware that some of the edits that 244 made were non-contentious and useful. 244 is definitely a very intelligent and skilled writer, I'm not denying that! The problem is that he/she made all the "vandal" edits first so it isn't easy to do a simple revert and sift out the useful stuff. For example, the list of prominent BKs was augmented with some useful references. If you see any edits that you support then by all means use them if they are trivial and propose them if they are substantial. The only reservations I have is that,

• Most of the article is still 244's work and we dis-empower ourselves by relying on 244 to supply all the material and never really become more proficient editors ourselves (note: I don't necessarily include you as needing to become proficient since I know you already edit many other articles)
• Often the bias is subtle. I can feel that it's in there, and I am aware of the agenda behind it, but it takes some time and editorial skill to identify it and put the whole article into a fair context. In other words the text is somewhat tainted.
• It sends a clear message that using brute force to evade a ban and overpower consensus, admins, arbitration and other editors works. If 244 really, really wants to edit the article, and it appears that he/she is just itching to jump in, then we should provide an acceptable solution that we can all live with. That is why I suggested emailing suggestions in the edit comments, although I am probably not the first editor 244 would trust, but I can't propose on behalf of anyone else. I have set up my personal page to enable emailing a while ago but so far no one has used it from Wikipedia.

Regards Bksimonb 05:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Bksimonb,

I am Ok with what you did (recent edits) and yes if I go back and find some useful edits I will re-insert. I also will shore others up with additional citations if need be. I am glad we are moving forward as it is not a personal thing with me. If ever I write a book on the subject I hope I can contact you for a photo and an interview. Glad to see you recognize your "post BK family member" there as I take it .244 is still churning things even as an ex-BK and I have logged .244 in as an "orthodox" BK during .244's time there. Funny, for an outsider looking in.

• I want to command you for your civility. See, life is still continuing, and everyone is OK with learning/confirming some facts here on the article.
• Thank you for breaking it down with points for me (you must have read Milo's recent diagnosis of me.lol). I am a details person.
• So, am I reading this correctly, you want .244 to e-mail you? Good luck to you and might I add bring along some garlic for protection or at the very least an onion.lol Just kidding...:-)

PEACETalkAbout 04:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear TalkAbout, thank you for your kind words :-) I don't think me & 244 know each other personally since it seems he was a bit before my time. It's always good to make new friends, though. I just realised that if he did try and email me before today it would have probably got blocked as spam (he's been spamming all our centres). I've changed the email address it goes to now to a personal account so it should work from today onwards. I don't know if he will send anything. Let's see.

244 isn't somewhere in that picture by any chance, is he?

I couldn't find Milo's diagnosis of you. Could you post a link?

Thanks & regards Bksimonb 20:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Bksimonb,

It is a joke of sorts, not an authentic diagnosis.lol So, you mean to tell me that the objections are coming from .244 and not Appledell? I must get me a magnifying glass and look again. Does your intel report say he/she is on stage?

I don't do spam, so I can't help you there....don't know the story.

From an arbitration point, I do believe it would nullify the intent of their decision (allowing him to edit via you) and you would be placing yourself on a higher standing. So, I wouldn't be in support of that. If however you want to submit a statement to that effect into the arbitration record then you can do so. I frankly enjoyed his/her views, considering that once the academic books arrived it turned out he/she was telling the "truth". So, in an odd way all his/her jumping up and down was really a state frustration due to the denials. He really should have been placed on probation with editing allowed once per week, from 4-6 am UK time (so we could confirm the observance of amrit vela), but then I don't make the decisions, just a little Ole person. Que Sera Sera.:-( PEACETalkAbout 00:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi TalkAbout, I was just trying to be accommodating. Today was the first day I looked at my personal email inbox with a a feeling of dread! I was sort of relieved nothing was there. If we are all happy with "banned=banned" then let's leave it at that. It keeps things clean and simple.

As for "denials", that's a tricky one. Personally, I am quite happy to talk about stuff like celibacy, destruction and other aspects that are covered by the academic books and am quite happy to see them in the article, in context, with appropriate weighting. Allot of the "denial" stuff is projected by 244, IMHO. And they'd be presented in a "shock/horror" kind of way. Currently I stand accused of denying that murli books were on sale to the public in the 80s, the reasons for the move to Pakistan and perhaps the events around 1976.

There are some topics which sound alarm bells and so they need academic or other reliable 2nd party references to end up in the article. As an example, apparently Wallis has claimed there were a bunch of "failed predictions" of destruction, so it's cited, so it stays in the article, unless we find he has been misquoted.

In the background I have asked around on these issues and, believe me, there are BKs to ask with MUCH more experience than 244 could possibly have. So at least at a personal level I know what the score is on these issues. Also, I asked BKs were are not senior and couldn't possibly have any perceived motive to cover anything up. I am based in London, after all. The only reason I try not to get drawn into this stuff is that Wikipedia isn't really interested in what "biased" sources think a fact it. That includes me, 244 and anyone else with a connection with the BKs.

One thing I know an academic has reported that is misleading is Wallis on the "Advance party". To a BK the "advance party" is a group that build and populate the new world in advance. They are the considered to be the next incarnation of some deceased BKs. They are not the PBKs. Sure the PBKs call themselves the "advance party" but they are just rewriting BK concepts into their own concepts. What we are left with in the article is an ambiguity. Not sure how to resolve it since there are no other academic references to clarify it. A "wikitruth".

The bit about 244 being on stage was a joke. After all, the picture was taken in the '80s, which was 244's time, so you never know ;-)

Regards Bksimonb 08:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Bksimonb,

Sad to hear that John Wallis is no longer a favored academic in your circles. I know he was in communications with Riveros and he allowed his work to be used on the Godhascome.com website. I would like to state the following, even though I was a bit suspicious of John Wallis being overly friendly to your camp.

• "Wallis has claimed there were a bunch of "failed predictions" of destruction, so it's cited, so it stays in the article" On this I will have to say he is correct. Perhaps you are very young in terms of BK history. I have had a chance to speak to some of the earlier batch and yes they too confirmed this very point of "failed predictions". I promise you the ones that I spoke to are even considered/regarded by your kin in a positive way. Yes, they confirmed the original 1976 date and others confirmed the 1986, 1996 etc. I frankly was a bit shocked, as it is a very well kept secret. When the thesis comes out and I read through it I think it too will be revealing. So, although I am not a big fan of John Wallis, I will defend that part of his work. You do know he came onto the wiki to make sure we were spelling his name correctly!
• As to the "Advance Party", once again John Wallis is correct in that they are called that. Now, when many souls(including the one that fell down the stairs...I forget her name, I am told she was very nice) left a several of months back I did hear someone say that many were needed for the Advance Party (I presume in your heaven....to do work there). So, I guess John Wallis is correct and so are you. It would seem it is a case like Om Shanti....to Hindies it means some thing totally different than what it means to you.

• The Anti Party has been documented in Adi Dev and a couple of other books too. The Anti Party I am told is the equivalent of referring to one as the "Devil" or perhaps wickedness at best.

So, for now I would say I most likely will steer clear of joining your definition of the term "Advance Party", although we all have to go some time. PEACETalkAbout 15:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Ahhhhh! I sense the limitations of the internet are hindering our communications here. All of the above points could be clarified in a normal conversation in minutes. Please bear with me on this. I'm not saying Wallis is wrong about "failed predictions", nor is he out of favour with anyone. Although I will have to read up on exactly what he says about "failed predictions" to understand why he came up with these dates (apart from 1976 which is famous).

Do you have a copy of "John Walliss: When prophecy fails: The Brahma Kumaris and the pursuit of the millennium"? I just got a copy and it doesn't state that the BKs "issued" any "failed predictions" of any kind in the way that the "Controversies" paragraph in the article suggests. Also the claim that these predictions are to encourage donations is not anywhere to be found. Hmmm.

However Walliss does cover the "controversy" at the beginning of the institution quite well, with regards to the "Anti-Om Mandeli Party", so we could include that.

The "advance party" I do know about. Yes, the PBKs call themselves the "Advance Party". If you ever read about the "Advance Party" in a BK murli, however, then it most definitely is not a reference to the PBKs. That's the difference. This doesn't contradict Walliss, it's more just a case of him not documenting the BK concept of "Advance Party" also. If you know any BKs please ask them independently to clarify. Thanks & regards Bksimonb 16:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

All I see there is the POV of one man, without a single quote or reference to any BK material to back up your assertions. The BKs have NEVER come out with a statement to say that the world will be destroyed in the year 2000 - or indeed 1996. There may have been individual BKs who believed that - but that is not good enough for you to claim that is/was the official BK position. Appledell 19:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Rv Banned user

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/195.82.106.244_%282nd%29

Point of Order

To anyone who comments on this TalkPage:

• I do not intend to entertain cheap talk about individuals sexuality. If in relevance to the practices/beliefs and if you can provide a citation then put it into a proper perspective for discussion.
• Secondly, when addressing others it would be proper to simply state the question/relevance of citation or point.
• Thirdly, I don't entertain "sexy" talk nor is this the place for it. I won't address any thing beyond the points that merit discussion.

PEACETalkAbout 15:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi TalkAbout. It's only a troll [16]. You are quite within your rights to delete such posts on site.

Regards Bksimonb 19:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Christianity

Hello.

I am from a Christian family and have observed the Brahmakumaris at a number of interreligious events. I would like to propose the following section on the Brahma Kumaris Spiritual University's view of Christianity.

The BKWSU's view on Christianity

"[Contrary to the beliefs of Christianity], just as far as God the Father was now sharing a body with Brahma Baba, in the same way Christ had entered the body of Jesus. [The BKWSU say] it was Jesus who suffered on the cross, not Christ. Christ, the pure Son of God left the body early and went to take rebirth to help guide his fledgling religion into maturity. [They claim that] many more secrets about Christ and the other religious founders have been revealed by Baba."

The quotation is almost word for word, except for grammatical additions marked above, from page 270 of 'A Reader in New Religious Movements' by George Chryssides and Marget Wilkins. Book number 0-80826-6168-9.

FAITH

Faithinhumanity 20:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I have added the suggested text to the article. I would appreciate it if you could quote the same text word for word without the grammatical corrections. Although the text is attributed in the article it isn't actually in quotation marks for this reason. I also come from a Christian family, so I would like to be more specific about the statement, "Contrary to the beliefs of Christianity", :::since I know that there are so many different views within Christianity it is a bit of a bold statement to make that no Christian holds a similar view. So what words did George Chryssides and Marget Wilkins actually use?

Regards Bksimonb 07:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I have done so as per request. Faithinhumanity 19:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

OK Thanks. Regards Bksimonb 20:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Faithinhumanity and Bksimonb.

I moved the entry to controversies as per the first words in the opening paragraph. I have ordered the book. Can you enlighten us as to who "they" are in the entry? Bksimonb, can you elaborated on the beliefs and since you are in it now. Also, can you add the other revelations that Baba made about other religious founders. Faithinhumanity, can you add some of the prior text before the opening line here to see under what context it was being referred to in the book. Many thanks to you both. Most interesting to know.PEACETalkAbout 23:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, for NPOV we need a attributed reference to make a statement such as, "Contrary to the beliefs of Christianity", since it is a generalisation. Also, the BK view of Christ may not be all that controversial since those of other faiths also have a view of Christ that is different to how a Christian may view it. For now I suggest we simply remove the words at the beginning since the phrase adds bias by suggesting controversy where perhaps there is none.

Regards Bksimonb 08:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I dont think so simon...........the Bible is pretty clear on Christianity and every one knows what they believe ,even if they dont. please answer what TalkAbout asked Green108 14:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Green108. Sorry, "every one knows what they believe" just doesn't cut it for an encyclopedic article. See reply further down. Regards Bksimonb 13:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you but I prefer it the way I wrote it. I do not wish to be party to any controversy. The Bible is authoritative enough about the Christ.

I would like to add one short line. "Devotees are encouraged not to harbout negative thoughts about Brahma Baba or the organization as this decreases spiritual power." This is from the 'Pocket Guide to Sects and New Religions' by Reverend Dr. Nigel Scotland, Publisher; Lion Publishing plc, 2006. ISBN 9780745951591. He is a Chairman of a School of Theology and Religious Studies. Faithinhumanity 19:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what that would add to the article. Is it good for Christians to harbour negative thoughts about Christ or the church they belong to? What effect would that have on their faith? Seems like a non-statement really. Surely having negative thoughts about the founder of any religion one belongs to is a sign of some kind of deep internal crisis, no? Bksimonb 16:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I am mainly interested in putting forward a Christian point of view. The article is about the Brahma Kumaris. Rev. Scotland is a professor at a theological college. He specialises in new religions. I am concerned by the teaches about Christ. I do not know about the other religions. Also about the nature of heaven. The Brahma Kumaris say there is nuclear power there and supersonic airplanes. I have another quote for this.

FAITH

Faithinhumanity 20:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Faithinhumanity,

I can appreciate your strong Christian beliefs, but this article isn't about that. Now, if there is an entry, that can be expanded with other religious beliefs/religions then fine. I am going to go and subsection your entry as I think it carries too much weight until you you bring forth some rather "LARGE" citation that brings them out of the Hindi realm into Christianity. As to the airplanes please provide the title, author, date and ISBN number. Thank you...PEACETalkAbout 21:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. It is from the same book. Page 306. Do I just put my comments in like everbody else? Or do we have to agree?

"The airplanes will form a line in your palaces, and will be very easy to handle. All work will be performed on the basis of atomic energy. It is for you that this last invention of science has beeb emeged. accha.

Just start the plane and you will reach faster than the speed of sound. The airplanes will be so fast that you will reach in the same amount of time as it takes to make a phone call. Therefore, no need for telephones. There will be family sized airplanes as well as individual ones."

What do I do about the other quote. It seems rather cult-like to me. Not to question the leader.

FAITH Faithinhumanity 20:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Faithinhumanity. The quote you show above says, "not to harbour negative thoughts". This isn't the same as saying, "not to question". Regards Bksimonb 21:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Regards Bksimonb 21:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Bksimonb,

Translation services please:"beeb emeged. accha." What does this mean in BKism.:-(

Also, are you saying that the "airplanes" are metaphors? If so there must be some easy way to do it in a brief statement rather than all this text, otherwise we will end up with a grand mess. We need to make it concise and clear, add the citations etc.

Faithinhumanity, if you can clarify please do. Also, with the Christianity edit, can you explain this in laymans terms to me. Christianity believes X, Bks believe Y. As, please don't take offense but it doesn't read well. FYI, I have ordered the book.PEACETalkAbout 22:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI "Accha" just means "OK". The above quote appears to be based on an Avyakt Murli. Possibly the author of the book quoted it. Regards Bksimonb 09:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi TalkAbout. This is the original text that Faithinhumanity kindly placed in the article as a reference,

"Just as far as God the Father was now sharing a body with Brahma Baba, in the same way Christ had entered the body of Jesus. It was Jesus who suffered on the cross, not Christ. That pure Son of God left the body early and went to and took rebirth to help guide his fledgling religion into maturity. Many more secrets about Christ and the other religious founders have been revealed by Baba". Chryssides, George D. and Margaret Z. Wilkins. 'A Reader in New Religious Movements'. p 270 IBSN 0-80826-6168-9".

Notice that there is no "Contrary to..." statement in it at all. This is why I removed the phrase. If it ever does get cited then it has to be attributed to who said it since it is an opinion.

Hope that makes sense,

Regards Bksimonb 21:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

isnt the Resurrection a little bit central to christianity???????????? do you have any christian citations to say there were two souls in jesus.....there is nothing in the bible that says god was in brahma baba either , so i think it should stay. Green108 23:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Whether it stays depends on if it can be cited from a reliable, preferably neutral and attributed source. No matter how blindingly obvious it may seem to you or me. Statements, especially opinions, are also "out" until proven "in" by a valid reference, not the other way around. From Wikipedia:Attribution, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true".

I have no problem including the statement once we reach that threshold, however, since it is an opinion, it will have to be attributed in the text to who said it rather than sounding like Wikipedia is saying it.

Regards Bksimonb 08:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi

I just wanted to say "hi".

I joined a while ago but I could not post on this page. I see the problems you have been having here. How can I help?

Omshanti.

Bkangel

Predictions of Destruction

let's get back to that bit we had in about the failed predictions of Destruction ,any BK that has been in Gyan more than 10 or 15 years knows about them. it seems like Simon has admitted up to the 'famous' 1976 one ,i can tell you that in the murlies they used to predict that Destruction would take place in 50 years and Creation in 50 years and that was taken from when Shiva Bab entered into Brahma Baba..........that changed to 50 to 60 and now we are at 70 years ....also in 2000 there was talk or fearmongering with centres preparing for it. ok; that is the inside view that is being covered up by all this Wikilawyering. Simon knows it ,Mauren knows it ,Jayanti used to read it out of the murlies in the morning for years.. .....by 'wikilawyering' I quote what the BKs have been doing here to control the article;

Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit;
Asserting that the technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the principles they express; and
Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions.

but anyway I finally found the book I knew existed that documented some of this ............if you add it to the others that talk about the chosen few ,i think it sticks now.

"Year 2000 doomed: Mankind destroyed" [Exclusive report on imminent world destruction] by Keerthi Kelegama 1998. ISBN 955-95823-3-X

"This World shattering report on imminent world destruction, examines scientific evidence, reports, prophecies, visions, scriptures, divine revelations etc. Its inevitability frightens the reader and prepares him to escape the destruction. ... How to escape destruction" is the last chapter. 900,000 people will be saved from it and you could be one of them."

Keerthi Kelegama is or was a reporter/editor for the 'Observer and Sunday Observer', state-owned premier newspaper company established 1918 in Sri Lanka and biggest selling english newspaper. its not a taboid.............what makes it more important is he says......

"I discussed with Dr. Nirmala Kajaria, Regional Director of Brahmakumari Raja Yoga Centres in Australia, New Zealand and Asia Pacific on matters connected with this book. She gave me her blessings to write this book for the benefit of the people. She wrote to me from Singapore and gave me encouragement."

Keerthi Kelegama has given evidence before the Presidential Commission, was National Organiser of the Union of Journalists in Sri Lanka and active member of the Free Media Movement. He has had books published by the Bar Association of Sri Lanka carrying the messages of the Chief Justice of Sri Lanka and The Netherlands ambassador, the latter sponsored the printing.

"The world destruction is impending, almost imminent. Religions, scientific research and reports etc. etc. confirm it. 
Christians believe that the world's end would take place almost immediately while Hindu-oriented Brahmakumaris who
runs over thousand Raja yoga meditation centres throughout the world, declare emphatically that the time is now ripe
for the world destruction to take place. The Christians belief of imminent world destruction is based on some signs which
the Holy bible speaks of, heralding the world destruction. Prophet Mohammed also talked of the emergence of major and
minor signs for the destruction to take place which are now apparent.

...

Brahmakumaris say that the world destruction takes place in every 5000 years and that 5000 years have already passed after
the previous destruction. Soon the new world order would be started with 900,000 people after destroying the rest. 

...

The year 2000 is very crucial, records an end of a historical millennium, and the 20th century has produced unimaginably vast
technological and scientific development threatening the nature itself. "

so ,there you have 500 years, imminent and 900,000 like this topic used to say before the Bks took it out as unverified. more ,quote:

 Brahmakumaris World Spiritual University affiliated to the United Nations Department of Public Information as a
 non-governmental organisation teaches that in every 5000 years world destruction takes place and now is the time for it.
...
World destruction is also part of the drama. That is why it is taking place regularly Kalpa after Kalpa that means in every 5000
years.

...

examining the facts and evidence before me, I could fearlessly declare that "year 2000 will be doomed and mankind annihilated." 
Read my research work and you will be convinced It is necessary to bring this vital fact of imminent world destruction to the knowledge 
of the broad masses. Those who believe and the chosen, may follow the divine instructions, found in this book too, in order that 
they may be saved from the destruction.

...

Brahmakumaris also expect the world destruction to take place immediately followed by the birth of Krishna once again. Brahmakumari devotees who went to their
headquarters in Madhuban, Rajasthan, India, in December last year, were told that time is very short. Even those who hold fixed deposits in
banks maturing in the year 2000 would not be able withdraw them. They were instructed to withdraw them at the end of this year. However what a
top figure of Brahmakumaris want me to write in this book is that in a very short time, the destruction would begin.

...

Lord Shiva take possession of her [Gulzar] at stipulated times and the knowledge passed on
through her, is given out to the Brahmakumari devotees calling it "Murali" almost every day at their centres, since the commencement of
their movement in 1937. Devotees listen to them in rapt attention, it being God's word especially given to them.

...

Some time back in Brahmakumari Muralis said quoting Lord Shiva that to begin with one news paper would first write about the world destruction and then all the
other papers would follow. This is the beginning and gradually more and more news would be repeatedly carried in books papers TVs, and Radios, 
more than all, by word of mouth till such time it would reach all the people when the definite coming events would become common knowledge.

...

Those with a far-reaching intellect who have achieved the blessing of all powers through Yoga and so on, wherever they may be, any suffering 
will be transformed into pinpricks. In other words, they will be safe. Most of the people see only the destruction but for those who are ready, 
they only see the establishment of a new kingdom, heaven on earth.

...

There must be 900,000 pure souls who are ready to take over the new world order (Golden Age) before the destruction would begin.
When the Golden Age [Sath Yug] comes after the world destruction, it would only be heaven on earth. People there would literally be deities. 
But again after another five thousand years they would deteriorate into present levels of morality by going through said four Yugs

...

A celibate to lead a house hold life is quite difficult. They should be vegetarians and not
eating onions and garlic which promotes sex. Others who eat these stuff only pretend to be celibates. It is biologically impossible to eat non
vegetarian foods especially with onions and garlic and remain celibate. They have to commit perversions at least.

...

Brahmakumari even conduct workshops for their devotees on the golden age that was to come. How it functions. 
About the rulers of the golden age and what were the governing principles then and so on, on
the basis of godly knowledge granted to them by Lord Shiva through Prajapitha Brahma or Sister Gurusal which are called Murlies 

...

Colombo Brahmakumari Centre plans to erect a hall before June 14, 1998, which could accommodate at least 500 people. Purpose is more than holding
meetings, they wanted to accommodate their devotees when the destruction begins. Because they know very well that Almighty God would protect these centres.

...

In one Murali of Brahmakumaris, Lord Shiva also said that he would afford a vision of good and bad acts each person has committed 
before the destruction.

...

Fact remains that wars too form a part of the destruction. People might not like to call it destruction instead it
may be called setting up the foundation to establish the new world order. Brahmakumaris who are basically responsible for spreading this
message have been inculcated with this knowledge by Parajapitha Brahama who was the founder of their movement. 
He did so on the instruction of Almighty God himself. About 900,000 people who take over the new world
are picked from those who lead pure life. At present the number of people ready to commence the Golden Age is only 400,000 to 500,000.

...

If each of them could help one more to evolve like himself to be pure, celibate and god- loving who is constantly in remembrance of God, 
then one year or so is enough for the destruction to begin. Pure souls who have died would also return once the new world order is established.

...

New world would be established only in India and the destruction could begin its beginning too from
India. Brahmakumaris' founder Guru Prajapitha Barama, became aware of the destruction through Almighty God himself who came to reside in his
body and spoke through him over the world destruction, the liberation of the soul, and soul world and heaven etc. since 1937. Brahmakumari
centres established throughout the world give out this message and also instruct people of what action they should take before such calamity.

...

Lord Shiva appears in Sister Gurzal on certain days for one or two hours when Brahmakumari devotees of Shiva remain in respectful silence in
their centres. Some goes to Madhuban to see Lord Shiva who is in the body of Sister Gurusal. Accordingly Brahmakumaris dole out the
Shiva-given knowledge to the devotees which is called Murali.

...

the chapters are on Warning before previous destruction, How Atlantis civilisation destroyed, Why world's end necessary, Importance of India, New World Order - Golden Age, How to escape destruction and so on.....................

i can tell you this is how it is ,the is the truth , these are the teachings and this captures the vibe ,especially with the bharatwasis. i have no interest in quibbling over which part of it to use or so on ,...............but I think that is is clear enough to put back the bits the Bks took out. YOU GOT DESTRUCTION, YEAR 2000, 900,000, BKS BEING TOLD TAKE MONEY OUT, and so on. there is a load more and it all confirms what the murlies and senior sisters were teaching. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Green108 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

All I see there is the POV of one man, without a single quote or reference to any BK material to back up your assertions. The BKs have NEVER come out with a statement to say that the world will be destroyed in the year 2000 - or indeed 1996. There may have been individual BKs who believed that - but that is not good enough for you to claim that is/was the official BK position. Appledell 19:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Green108. Welcome back!

OK. OK. There's no need to quote a whole book, chapter & verse, to prove one point! Just one relevant para is fine. No need to fill the talk page with spaghetti.

I'm not really sure what all the above proves here. Various BKs have always speculated about the date of destruction as their own opinion. If the BKs "issued" a date then that means that a press release to that effect was made or at least some kind of memo was sent to all centres. I am sure you know as well as I do that that didn't ever happen. If it did, you need to find a reputable source that says so.

This is not "wikilayering", this is a requirement of Wikipedia's polices. As this page is under probation, you can certainly ask one of the Arbcom admins for clarification if you still have any doubts about this. This is what Arbcom would like us to do [17], "The principals in this matter 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".

From what I see of the above quotes the author of the book you quote seems present himself as a bit emotional IMHO. I would not call this a reliable source of facts, especially contentious statements such as the ones you are putting forward. So any reference from that source must be fully attributed to the author. If any controversial statement is made then it should be clear in the article who is saying it and it should not ever be presented as a flat-out "fact".

Regards Bksimonb 13:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

it verifies the 900,000 for the start of the golden age , and the birth of krishna. as Bks you know this is what is taught as "fact", now we have the citation. so they can go back in. it correllates with the chosen few spoken about the other authors. likewise 'heaven in India'

so do we agree those are now verified facts ? i cannot see how they can be contentious , they are facts.

as far as destruction goes what classes as a "press release" brahma baba writing to king george of england (adi dev) ? was brahma baba too emotional or not good enough for you appledell ? why would a press release be considered a better reliable source than an independent third party that has investigated the BKWSU ? you are contradicting simon request for verifiable sources. Green108 21:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's leave the goading to one side - you have plenty of opportunity for that elsewhere on the internet. This article is not about what you or I think or believe - it requires good, citable material. What you have posted doesn't fit the bill. Appledell 21:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

.........................according to your agenda as a bk. its just your point of view. the gentleman's credentials are good and he has reported the way it was. if you are going to cut things out ,appledell dont make misleading statements in the summary Green108 22:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

He might have fantastic credentials in his normal journalistic field - but read what you have published (at length) on this page. It doesn't pass mustard as a citable ref. I'm happy to have a third party admin make a judgement on this as we clearly disagree. Once again, let's leave the goading about a "bk agenda" to one side. Appledell 22:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

so is there any argument about the 900,000 figure being the one Baba gives? Green108 23:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Appledell,

I think the entry seems legitimate and deleting it at this juncture would not be proper. Further more this individual seems to have gained access to the senior BKs and thus has sufficient substance. Now, if you argue that this one can not be cited but you want Liz's Peace and Purity in, it would seem like a pro-BK agenda as she was a BK and now the former wife of a centrewasi none the less. So, let's be fair in the matter without Green108 having to recite all the material. So, we are all in agreement of two dates:1976 and 2000.TalkAbout 19:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Talkabout, I'm afraid we are not in agreement about both dates - there has NEVER been anything even close to semi-official coming from the BKs about 2000 being the date when "destruction" would happen. The entry is certainly contentious as it doesn't stand up to any academic or journalistic rigour (regardless of the authors credentials in other articles he has written). He claims to have got permission from senior BKs, yet doesn't quote a single one. Any report that doesn't include a single quote from any source would not stand up to any journalistic scrutiny. You have found plenty of creditatable sources which you have included in the article, which regardless of my personal views on them, I have had no reason to contest. The article Green has dug up is simply not worthy of inclusion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Appledell (talk • contribs) 20:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

I don't have citations, but Anand Kishore Dada told us that in the earliest days Brahma Baba told the group, "You won't live to see another Diwali." So the urgency of impending destruction has always been a part of the group's mindset. The early teaching posters also mention a date, I think 1976. (Yes, that is self-published material.) I personally was convinced that destruction would come within month's of my joining, now that I was in a position to be revealed to the world. Happily destruction has not come (to me at least, Iraqis and Palestinians have been less fortunate) and sadly I have yet to be revealed (well I do reveal myself by my writings.) We can expect more detailed citations when Stephen Nagel's (AKA BK Surya's) PhD thesis is published in English translation,... should be in the next few months according to him. If anyone reads German, you may like to get an early start. Regards, Duality Rules 01:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Liz Hodgkinson

at the time Liz wrote her book you could say she was a Bk, or part-time Bk, and was still married to Neville Hodgkinson........a very important Bk. as such i think that any quote from her should be discounted because of an obvious bias. i took out appledells contribution also because every cycle time religion believes life goes on.

tell me , why is it OK for you as a Bk to put in a quote..........and one from another Bk............when it is not OK for for a non-BK to put in a quotation from a respected professional journalist?

i am serious..................why? Green108 22:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

No, you are simply wrong. Liz was divorced from Neville a long time before her book came out. She has never been a BK. The citation stays in on that basis, I can't see any reason why it shouldn't. Again - if you want to challenge this, I am happy for a third party admin to take a look at it themselves.Appledell 00:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

liz's book is sold by the Brahma Kumaris Information Service ,and the admins said no Bk publications. that is what simon says.

http://www.bkpublications.com/productdetail.asp?prodid=2823&redir=productlisting%2Easp%3Fcatcode%3DBooks%26searchstr%3D%26prodauthor%3D15%26prodlang%3D%26specialtype%3D0%26pagesize%3D4%26pageno%3D1.

on the BKs page it says........."A personal account of the birth and growth of a powerful spiritual organisation. "

how could it be personal is she was not involved? she got involved with the Bks in 1981 ,this is a conflict of interest.

you ignored my question again................why is it OK to use a book by a BK supporter writing a personal account when it is not OK to use a quote from a non-BK journalist? Green108 14:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Mr Green, you are wrong again - the BKs didn't publish her book. It was published by Rider. The BKs happen to sell it in their bookshops (which is not a crime and breaches no wikipedia or self-imposed rules for this article). The very fact that she has an insight into the inner workings of the organisation due to her husband's membership of the group (and the access the organisation gave her to its leaders) makes what she says even more relevant. I have no problems with using quotes from a non-BK journalist - such content already exists in the article via the tabloid Daily Mail content. It's just that *this* journalist that you have dug out does not have a single quote in his entire rambling article. It's simply a case of not being good enough to be included. Appledell 19:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

oh.....and I want to add , it says on Liz's website that she writes for "Sunday People, Daily Mail and Sun". that makes her a ,very tabloid journalist.

Can you please::: your entries and sign your entries too. Also, FYI to Appledell please keep in mind that this individual wrote other books and go back and read her book again to see what she wrote. When she was professing celibacy she wasn't tabloid? So, please do the above otherwise it looks like a tossed salad not a discussion.PEACETalkAbout 19:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Talkabout, she may well have written other books - but it is *this* book that she wrote (which is published by a well known publisher) which is up for discussion. I don't know if you have read it or not, but it provides some excellent primary sources, quotes and exerts of historical documentation. Appledell 19:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

TalkAbout, FYI the comment about her being "Tabloid" was made by Green108 [18], not Appledell.

Green108, I see that the book, although sold via BK Publications, is not published by them. It is also sold by Amazon [19] who site the publisher as being "Health Communications (Mar 2002)". You can check with the admins if you like but I doubt this would be considered a "primary source" since she is a non-BK writing a commentary about the BKs. Appledell, please take note also. Also, Green108, I would appreciate it if you could have a look at your talk page.

Regards Bksimonb 19:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Appledell,

My points above were not meant to antagonize you but to simply point out that she wrote some things while a BK that will come out and then put her "neutrality" into question when addressing the "destruction" beliefs (as there have been a couple). See, I have looked into the destruction aspect quite thoroughly. So, if you want to put that in, fine, but be prepared to have other entries by others who don't have a former spouse within the PR elite of the Brahma Kumaris. If you took notice I did ask the committee to allow "all" her work for use in this article. So, I am on agreement with you here. I showed the book to someone and they read a section and threw it back...shock! As it would appear she left some things out in Peace and Purity. So, I am aware that it is done in a fluffy way leaving many points out. I do have several copies of it and it was done in cooperation with the Brahma Kumaris. Yes, we should agree on this yes?PEACETalkAbout 20:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Talkbout, no please don't think I find your contributions antagonising - to the contrary, I think your contributions are valuable to this article. Liz Hogkinson isn't a "neutral" person - but that is not what is in contention here. The issue is whether her book is citable - I think it clearly is. You can of course choose to use whatever extracts from her book that you think are worthy of inclusion too. I don't know what other work you are referring to - if it has been published in a newspaper or book, then no matter what my personal feelings on it, I think it should be allowed. I am also in agreement that the book was done with cooperation with the Brahma Kumaris - that is precisely why it is so valuable, as she was given open access by the BKs to get whatever information and interviews she wanted. Appledell 21:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

i really dont want to get into get into word twisting debates......how many books does the BK Publications BKIS sell by nonBks? liz was a sort of Bk ,she just could not keep it up her relationship with Neville makes her too close to be objective. Green108 03:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm just correcting a claim you made which was simply not true. She was a "sort of BK" - that's a pretty weak argument, don't you think? Can I also just make it clear to an outside observer: Liz is DIVORCED from a BK. She has NEVER been a BK herself. BUT, she was given unlimited access by the BKs to their historical documents and allowed interviews with all the senior BKs in the organisation. That access is what is revealed in her book - which makes it an invaluable resource for citation. There are plenty of things in that book which I would find uncomfortable reading - feel free to dig them out and put it in the article if you want, as I won't object. Appledell 22:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

like i say below...........whats a Bk and when do you start and stop being a Bk? there is no official membership. they were still married when Neville came into gyan werent they? why did they divorce? liz used to dress up in white , sit on the guddi and get special attention from dadi , come to programs and so on........is that more or less a Bk than a hindi that comes once a week on sunday? why was she given unlimited access to the seniors when even junior Bks cannot when they are having problems? unfortunately that does not guarantee impartial truth. she a journalist writes for The Sun and The People that puts her in a different league from academics Green108 09:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Your *opinion* - and mine for that matter - are irrelevant on this issue. You have changed the goalposts from your original false claims. Who else she writes for doesn't matter, the issue here is whether *this* book is citable or not. It clearly is. Appledell

Green108,

Listen, the arbitration committee didn't say we "couldn't" use it and I specifically asked to use it and her other work. So, I have no problem with Appledell putting her quote in. You do remember she wrote the book on celibacy while in? Don't you? You do remember she is quoted in many other sources during that period (while wearing white...I agree)? And since the celibacy book cost me $150....I do intend to use it as it also has the diet in it and all the stuff of garlic and onions too. So, please, please just let this go as she did mention some things that are of value that help a an outsider get a picture of the Brahma Kumaris, while leaving others out (No Babb, but I can live with it as we have to reach a balance here. It is a little like having a former love, yes, we can say it was a terrible mistake but we also have to admit what Charmed us and for this purpose I think her book has enormous value!). I did see an article where they interview Neville and he seems surprised by the divorce. I guess writing about celibacy and the life style is one thing and living it is another. Not a path too many can walk on I say.PEACETalkAbout 17:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Om Shanti!!

Dear All, Just wanted to drop by and say "hello" to my wikipedia brothers and sisters on my way back from Madhuban. That "history hall" is filled with such an uplifting atmosphere that you got to be dead not to feel it...Similarly but not quite the same, are the vibrations around Baba"s room in GCH, London. Had some subtle experiences with God, which I am sure will nourish me for the rest of this year...Not a place like Madhuban in the whole world, I am sure. Not even the vibrations in Macchu Picchu, comes close. Accha... Blessings from the heart, avyakt7 09:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration review

Allegations of disruptive editing have been made. Unfortunately the form of article probation put in place by the Arbitration Committee does not allow direct action against disruptive editors (other than the banned 195 editor). I have asked the Committee to review the situation; you may wish to make a comment here as well. (Be reasonably brief and please don't argue over content) Thatcher131 15:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Murlis for sale

i just wanted to clear this up one up for once and for all , the Bks have said that murlies are not or have never been for sale or available to the public.........whatever.

then why did this one have an ISBN number?

The Spiritual Powers of the Soul: extracts from Shiva Baba's Murlis, Brahma Kumaris Ishwariya Vishwa Vidyalaya,1999, ISBN 0-9587230-8-7

i have a couple of others...........

the Song Divine II God The Supreme speaking with the Angel Brahma to his Brahmin Children in Madhuban during the 1979-80 Season and Avyakt Bapdada 1987-1988

these were sold and circulated as service to non-bk and you can still buy them now online now if you look , if anyone wants them i might even send you mine ,so that does end that conversation?

Green108 04:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No, that doesn't end the conversation. "Extracts" from the murlis are not the murlis. I repeat: Murlis have NEVER been sold to the public. The books you refer to have been put together using edited extracts. Not the same thing at all. Appledell 22:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

i am glad that at least we all agree that "some bits" of the murlies have been published and sold..........whats the difference between an extract of a murli and one that has been "revised" and had pages taken off it for reading in morning class?

Let's stick to addressing your original assertion: the murlis were sold but have now been withdrawn from sale. Yes, edited extracts have been sold (and are still sold). I repeat, that is clearly not the same thing as claiming that the murlis themselves were ever sold to the public and have been withdrawn (with conspiratorial undertones). You were wrong in your original claim. Appledell 12:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

the problem is.......whats a Bk and whos a member of public , are Bks no longer members of the public? now they are being sold on the internet

Green108 09:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Nothing wrong with quoting a book that is being sold, although I wasn't able to find anyone on that search link that stocked it. It's only a book of extracts. However that wasn't the issue being raised. I have seen murlis being sited as references that were not in any book sold to the public. And what's so special about the 1983 book, "A Song Divine"? That doesn't have any ISBN number and is only one of many books made for internal BK use. I have most of them from the 80's onwards as would most BKs. I have also seen supposed quotes from the early 70s regarding 1976. Supplied by the Shankar Party, I would say. Those definitely can't be used because they are at best a primary source being used to prove a controverial point, contrary to the arbitration ruling [20], at worst, and much more likely, completely fictitious. Regards Bksimonb 11:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I lucked out on the murlis. Thanks to those BKs across the large pond and their good will. Some of UK ones I am told are in some simple binding (leaflet fashion I am told) and I will work on getting those. Well, I would counter this:"edited extracts have been sold (and are still sold)", as no one said the complete version, as the trance messages continue, more like a living document per say. But the extracted ones (murlis) are seen to be the more relevant (not saying the others aren't special too), points for the faithful to churn. So, the statement the murlis were sold is actually correct. I could put in that it is an ever evolving master piece murli as the trance messages continue during the official season via the medium if need be to clarify. :::::Bksimonb, please give your input on the afore mentioned for clarification or can we leave it as is.

• FYI, I do recall asking the arbitration committee for permission to use them (in context of course), as I noted that some academics had access to the same and used them in their work. No, I am not intending to post sections, just that they exist and to re-inforce as citations for the academics that used them (one even noted the Avyakt murlis they used).PEACETalkAbout 18:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

(re-indenting)

Stephan Nagel has published four murlis in his 1999 German language book. Andries 21:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Then what is in his book qualifies is an easily verifiable source and is OK. Are the murlis in German? Regards Bksimonb 09:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Shankar Party

Bksimonb, I will let you and the others deal with Shankar Party, as I noted that the infogami is closed (dried up all the comments that I could research...darn)due to spamming by them. So, I would not want to show up here and find the Talk Page filled with that. Besides, I don't really know that they have provided enough evidence as to a relationship with the BKs. So, have fun with that one.PEACETalkAbout 18:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

tidying up references

i almost done putting back what the Bks took out because they said there were no citations.........the lack of citations was the only reason to remove them, the refences are pukka but they need put into the right form. I dont know if someone else can help with this. Green108 07:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Good work. I am considering removing the "Motto: Om Shanti" line in the organization box as it appears without citation. If informal agreement among editors to allow original research among current and former members to be included is not possible, then we might as well be strict.Duality Rules 23:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Go for it - I have no objection. Appledell 23:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

We have consensus on this one. I've just taken it out. Bksimonb 11:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection. I must say, I think we are gaining a good cooperative decorum here and I am very impressed. Thank you to all.PEACETalkAbout 18:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thats wot I did and they kept putting back in just cos it was me. I rather liked the sound of the spirit delivering a massage through the medium. LOL!! Shortskirtlonglegs

patanjali

patanjali raja yoga is mental too and not about physical exercise.............best leave that for the raja yoga pageGreen108 22:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I thot Pantanjali included the physical as well, Pranayama and Asana are listed on the page. BKs clearly do not teach the physical aspect at all. Perhaps the intro should say that directly, i.e. teaching "no exercises" instead of "little or no exercises". Duality Rules 00:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

So you think it inappropriate to distinguish between Brahma Kumaris Raja Yoga and Pantanjali's Raja Yoga while stating that the BK's teach Raja Yoga? Could you state your reasoning? Duality Rules 01:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

date

i changed the date to match the new citations i have provided..............its not really clear exactly which date should be used ,as Om Mandli could actually be 1937 or 1938 , will anyone check the originals? Green108 16:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Controversies

Why is the following sentence in the section controversies?

"Belief that procreation will soon be possible without sexual intercourse, and through the power of yoga."

Most people will of course treat such a statement with skepticism, but from my reading of Babb's "Redemptive Encounters" it is simply part of the faith and it is not an especially controversial belief. Andries 19:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Andries

I think the citation was of John Walliss and we were waiting for a second one to shore it up and then move it over to the beliefs section. If you have an additional citation, then I say lets put it in. Some of the more thorny issues like medium/channeling took this route and once the citations were brought forth everyone took a big sigh and accepted it, confirming what had been said for months. Thanks and PEACETalkAbout 21:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The cited source is Babb's redemptive encounters, not Walliss. I think having only one citation is not a good reason to keep this staement in the controversies section. If the statement is doubtful then it should be attributed to Babb explicitly e.g. by stating "The anthropologist Lawrence Babb stated in a 1986 book based on his research iof the BK in the New Delhi and Delhi area that the BK believe that procreation will soon be possible without sexual intercourse, and through the power of yoga. " Andries 21:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! PEACETalkAbout 00:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

andries...........bro , the quote is in the controversial section not because there is any controversy the Bks believe it...........there is none........but because of the belief itself

the Bks believe that for the first 2500 out of the last 5000 human being made babies without sex ,and that starting from about now.........they will start doing so again

it has to be now and not in 30 year times when the golden age starts because by now all krishna and the other golden aged souls should be getting born

if that is not a little controversial then i will have some of whatever you are drinking!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Green108 09:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Green108,

Well, it would appear that if it is their belief and it is documented then it should be moved to the beliefs section...period. The controversy would be if it were not believed, not citable etc., or say a sex scandal (that would be considered a controversy considering there is no sex.... or the child abuse report if it ever gets picked up by an academic or written about). In the mean time I don't know about Andries, but I will take Earl Gray with cream please or a Latte!:-)PEACETalkAbout 18:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

its fine as it is...............its a controversy , your period is of no interest to this topic

id just be careful in the meanwhile that simon or appedell do not try and get you pregnant by the power of thought because they need loads of baby krishnas to be born right now in order to make the golden age Green108 05:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Green108,

First my deep apologies to Bksimonb and appedell for having to read the above.

Now, I do believe you have been making good edits;however, your comportment does your edits injustice as they are mired by the arguments you set forth here (precisely the above ones)and perhaps you should have a look here[21].

• Now, what I was trying to convey to you is that the belief in question is simply that...a belief with citations to boot. So, like the rapture, the controversy is left to the reader unless you have a citation that indicates how that belief separate from the others caused some big controversy that was cited. If so, bring it forth, if not I am in agreement with the other editors. One can learn to work and work within the rules effectively without inappropriate humour. I note that you have a dry humour...which hadn't been an issue, unlike the above. Please, control what ever is motivating this type of humour and try to focus on the editing. PEACETalkAbout 22:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

References, bibliography, and further reading

• Can the references please start first with the surname name of the author?
• Ditto for bibliography and can it please be ordered under the surname of the author?
• Same request for further reading section.

Andries 18:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Visions of nuclear holocaust in 1937?

I do not understand the following sentence because the atomic bomb was a secret unitl 1945. Can somebody please explain here or in the article?

"Kirpalani was said to have had visions of the destruction of the world[17] through civil war, natural disaster and finally Nuclear Holocaust, one of Earth in a paradiscal state, and another of himself as the Hindu god Vishnu."

Andries 21:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I think he described them as such (atomic bombs) via his visions and later they were drawn by artist to represent Russia and the United States (I do believe these paintings are still there in Mt Abu... here is a book picture [22])as the two leading the conflict/arms race. A bit of Nostradamus I say!. Leaves one scratching ones head though? Alas, the above quote is correct. I will look for another academic quote that touches on this subject of destruction.PeaceTalkAbout 00:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

it was all made up at a later date ,none of it is true.......its all based on the publicity material the Bks churn out , they just wanted to make kirpalani look like arjuna from the bhagadvad gita.....it is correct that the heads on the cats were roosevelt and stalin because they thought that world war II was the end of the world........then around 1950.......then they had to change later etc.........unless the bk know something we do not the russian did not even have nuclear bombs in 1945!!!!!!!!!

looking at the older material from the 30s and 40s there is no mention of muclear bombs.........it is "gas" they were worried about

you might be right that we should make it clearer that this is what the Bks say now but it was not what the Bks said then , the history has all been re-written by the bkwsu Green108 10:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

person link

Lee James http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0416692/ jesselp 16:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

If anyone has any more info about Lee James, please contact me at captporridge@gmail.com He is giving a lecture at my place of work soon, and I am a little disturbed by that. Thanks ````CaptPorridge