Talk:Brahma Kumaris

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Stop.png The Arbitration Committee has placed this article on probation. The principals in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris are expected to convert the article from its present state based on original research and BK publications to an article containing verifiable information based on reliable third party sources. After a suitable grace period, the state of the article may be evaluated on the motion of any member of the Arbitration Committee and further remedies applied to those editors who continue to edit in an inappropriate manner. Any user may request review by members of the Arbitration Committee.

Posted by Srikeit for the Arbitration committee. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris.

Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7 (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
Checklist icon
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Note icon
This article is within of subsequent release version of Philosophy and religion.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The RfC expired without any comments from other editors. I am now requesting the tag is removed via a COI edit request if a reviewer is satisfied that the article is now OK. Bksimonb (talk) 10:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it has. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:48, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I would be grateful if you could point to any specific issue that could be addressed. Thanks Bksimonb (talk) 14:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
as per wiki statistics [[1]] of this page, multiple editors have been working on this page. It would be difficult to assert that all the top editors are working in together. Recommend removal of the COI tag. Prodigyhk (talk) 18:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Prodigyhk. Sorry I only just discovered this response. Since this is the only opinion with any explanation with it I will take it as contributing to a consensus, whereas the previous "I don't think it has" comment from Joseph2302 is only a vote. I will wait a week for any other comments then remove the tag if consensus remains for that action. Regards Bksimonb (talk) 08:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

"missing girl" story[edit]

Here is the whole article in question quoted from the Hindu.

Produce the missing girl by May 5: HC

The Orissa High Court on Wednesday directed the State police to trace, rescue and produce the missing Dalit minor girl from Pipili in Puri district before the Court by May 5 positively.

The girl reportedly went missing on a pilgrimage to Farrukhabad in UP in November last year.

Adjudicating over a habeas corpus petition filed by the girl’s father, a Division Bench comprising Justices Indrajit Mahanti and Biswanath Rath gave the direction to the Pipili police.

In his petition, the girl’s father had stated that his daughter had gone on a pilgrimage to a spiritual centre with two followers of Prajapita Brahma Kumaris :Ishwariya Vishwa Vidyalaya in November last year. The two followers have already returned but his daughter has gone missing, the petition said.

And here is the text in the article.

A petition has been filed in Orissa high court by a father that his daughter has gone missing after going to a brahma kumaris center in Farrukhabad, Uttar Pradesh.

Here are the reasons I removed the item.

  • The Brahma Kumaris centre is cited as the destination of a "pilgrimage", not as a culprit to any crime.
  • There are more ways for someone to go missing than to be as the result of a crime e.g. accident, animal attack, getting lost en route, medical event etc
  • If there is any controversy cited then it is inaction by the police, not any wrongdoing by the Brahma Kumaris.
  • There are no reliable sources that say that the Brahma Kumaris cause people to mysteriously disappear any more than any other destination in India. A single, isolated, inconclusive news item does not define the character of a 70+ year old organisation.

Best regards Bksimonb (talk) 07:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

This incident could have happened:
1) during traveling to centre
2) in the centre
3) during return journey
If any incident other than crime happened during journeys, other two followers would have known about it because she was traveling with them, but they don't know.
Also if any crime happened during journeys, other two would report it but they haven't, this leaves us with only place that incident could have happened i.e brahma kumaris center.
Evidence clearly points towards my conclusion. If other two followers also don't know what happened, then it means she had been abducted or something seriously wrong happened with her secretly. Abduction could also have happened during the journey but that does not remove the possibility that she could have abducted in the centre.
This is the text which is added to the article:
"A petition has been filed in Orissa high court by a father that his daughter has gone missing after going to a brahma kumaris center in Farrukhabad, Uttar Pradesh."
That is totally true and written in accordance with evidence.
My point is that incident is included in controversy section and it should not be removed until evidence suggests Brahma Kumaris have nothing to do with this case. Current evidence suggests Brahma kumaris is involved in this case. - Supdiop talk 11:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Any number of things could have happened but the news source doesn't say that they did. We also don't know what the other followers did or didn't say since the source doesn't quote them. You seem to be inferring a lot from an absence of information. That is not "evidence".
Please check WP:VERIFY, "Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it".
Of particular concern is this comment, "...should not be removed until evidence suggests Brahma Kumaris have nothing to do with this case". That's a complete reversal of the burden of proof. Not only in Indian or Western criminal law but also on Wikipedia WP:BURDEN.
Even ignoring the shortcomings of the source, "controversy" about an organisation would typically be an issue that is widely reported that is a prominent part of the organisation's history, or a critique from a peer-reviewed academic source.
If you are still not in agreement then I suggest we invite outside comment via WP:THIRD.
Best regards Bksimonb (talk) 12:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
As of now, there is no indication that Brahma Kumaris have anything do with this incident in the Hindu's article. In future, if there are any further news reports on this case confirming the involvement, then it might be worthy of inclusion. - Supdiop talk 19:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Supdiop. Much appreciated. Best wishes Bksimonb (talk) 07:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Suggested page move[edit]

To all intents and purposes the name, "Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University" is a bit of a mouthful. I suggest moving the page to "Brahma Kumaris" for the following reasons.

  • The full name after "Brahma Kumaris" is different in different countries. For example, it is BKWSU in the UK, BKIVV in India, BKWSO in the US. The only part of the name that is common is "Brahma Kumaris"
  • Most of the references refer simply to the "Brahma Kumaris", just a quick look at the reference book titles shows that
  • The full name, "Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University" sounds long a precocious. I have a feeling that whenever this page is flagged up for outside attention editors take one look at the name and think "Ugh!". A simpler name may actually help get more editors to drop by.

Would be interested in hearing thoughts from others. Regards Bksimonb (talk) 14:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Support: Yes, current title is long and unpopular. I support the move. Supdiop talk 00:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Supdiop! Bksimonb (talk) 13:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
OK. Posting request for move.

Requested move 14 July 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Unopposed for over two weeks. Jenks24 (talk) 15:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual UniversityBrahma Kumaris – 1) Most references refer simply to the "Brahma Kumaris", 2) The organisation has different full names in different countries e.g. BKIVV in India and BKWSO in US. Only the name "Brahma Kumaris" is common to all countries, 3) The name as it is too long if a shorter common name is available. The request is potentially controversial only because of my WP:COI status. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 00:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC) Bksimonb (talk) 10:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Thank you. Much appreciated. Bksimonb (talk) 04:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Use of primary sources[edit]

Hi Sudiop,

There are some cases where the use of a primary source is useful and appropriate. Some of the text you removed in [this] is actually useful to a reader.

Let's start with the statement:

the BKWSU website reported over 8,500 centres in 110 countries. [2] These...

This information is useful to the reader but may not be reliable because some organisations tend to exaggerate their numbers. However, there isn't really any other source for this type of information so it is presented in a qualified way, "...BKWSU website reported...". This alerts the reader, in a neutral way, to the fact that the source is primary and they can make of that what they will. Simply removing the statement doesn't really improve the article. I would be grateful if you could put it back.

It is also useful to know about Sakar and Avyakt murlis and what the difference is. In this case not only was the source primary but the link was also dead (the website has no content). A more constructive approach in this instance would be to find a reliable secondary source to illustrate the difference. Or at least remove the dead link and signal that a citation is required, since the text isn't, as far as I am aware, controversial.

I fully support you removing the stuff about the UN. It is unsourced and looks promotional. Thank you for spotting it.

Regards Bksimonb (talk) 07:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bksimonb, we cannot know how many centres are there in the world unless there is a reliable source. We should not add things which are unreliability sourced. I've added the murali text back. Supdiop 2 (talk) 16:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Sudiop. I will see if I can find a secondary source. All the other edits look fine.
One secondary source we could use is Wallis, "The Brahma Kumaris as a 'reflexive Tradition': Responding to Late Modernity", Jan 2007, ISBN 8120829557, 9788120829558, page 41: "...according to the University there are currently around 450,000 members attending 4,000 centres in 77 countries managed directly From the Mt. Abu. Headquarters".
Of course, it's a bit out of date now.
Best wishes Bksimonb (talk) 17:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
It is a secondary source but the information is still from the primary source which is unreliable. Supdiop (T🔹C) 10:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
The source would not be reliable for a statement like, "There are currently 450, 000 members attenting 4,000 centres..." etc. It is reliably sourced to say, "According to the University there are currently around 450,000 members...". Do you see the distinction?
Please look at other NRM articles where the number of centres/members is quoted, an attributed, to the organisation itself such as, The Salvation Army "The organization reports a worldwide membership of over 1.5 million", and also Jehovah's Witnesses "he group claims a worldwide membership of more than 8.2 million adherents involved in evangelism,[4] convention attendance figures of more than 15 million, and an annual Memorial attendance of more than 19.9 million.[5]".
If you disagree with this practice on this article then the same principal would surely apply on the other articles too.
Regards Bksimonb (talk) 15:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I will allow one week for further comments otherwise I will assume that there are no further objections and the attributed use of a primary source in this instance is acceptable and restore the original text. Regards Bksimonb (talk) 07:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Motion[edit]

The Arbitration Committee are proposing to combine the discretionary sanctions authorised for this topic area with those authorised in several similar areas. Details of the proposal are at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Motion: New Religious Movements where your comments are invited. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz Read! Talk! 21:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

"It is also often characterised as a cult."[edit]

Hi Sudiop,

I just checked the reference you used for that statement. I doesn't seem to support it. I only found one mention of "Brahamkumaris" in the book and this is the context.

Ramayana, and the numerous religious texts with continuous refining movements over many centuries attempted to perfect Hinduism as an equalitarian religion.

Consequently a plethora of 33,000.000 Gods, cults and sects have emerged adding to the intricacy and simplicity at the same time. Cults like Shakti cult Krishna cult Brahmakumaris, Bhakti cult, Aiyyapa cult besides sects like Shaivism, Vaishnavism Vira Shaivism, Trika Shaivism, Brahma Samaj, Arya Samaj are part to it. Shankaracharya, Madhavacharya, Ramanuj, Vittal, Tukarum, Mirabai, Namdev, Ramananda, Trilochana, Tulsidas, Guru Nanakdev, Shirdi Sai, Ramkrishnaparumhansa, Dayanand Saraswati, Vivekanand, Aurbindo are a few revered icons. In one sentence our capacity to adjust and accommodate all streams, offered adequate space to individuals to practice what they believed and at the same time it is also not easy to reconcile contradictions arising out of such baffling involvedness.

There are a number of issues here,

  1. The phrase "often characterised" is a weasel word expression. You have only found one source and that source does not say that the Brahmakumaris are "characterised" as a cult, nor that this happens often.
  2. Context. You appear to be using the word, "cult" in the pejorative meaning. The author is listing Brahmakumaris in a long list of examples he is giving as examples of "refining movements" of Hinduism. That list also includes many well known groups and branches of Hinduism and it is clear that he does not give the word the same meaning as the statement you are making from it. Also he doesn't use the word after "Brahmakumris", only after "Krishna". He omitted some commas in the list however it is certainly not clear that he labelled the Brahmakumaris a cult in any capacity.
  3. In India, the word "cult" is freely used without any negative connotation. This is the English Language encyclopaedia and the intended audience will certainly interpret the same word in a negative way in the main English-speaking countries.

Kindly revert this edit.

Thanks Bksimonb (talk) 12:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Cults like Shakti cult Krishna cult Brahmakumaris, Bhakti cult, Aiyyapa cult besides......
That statement clearly says Brahma kumaris is a cult. The context doesn't really matter. We can use the word 'cult' when reliable sources use it. I've reworded it and added another source. Supdiop (T🔹C) 13:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
The context does matter if you are using a reference to prove a controversial point that the author was not making. If you have a problem with this then we can invite a third opinion.
The other reference you used is not suitable either, at the bottom of the article it clearly states, "Editor's Note: Offstumped Report is a Digital Persona for aggregating Opinionated Center Right Commentary by Niti Central Staff" (emphasis mine). It is "opinionated" and "commentary". Certainly not a reliable source for the claim you are making.
Thanks Bksimonb (talk) 14:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, we can take a 3rd opinion. I found two more sources which say bk is a cult. Supdiop (T🔹C) 15:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Of the two new sources, one of them is from an anti-cult source, David Love "Cult Examiner" who tend to call anything a cult. The other is probably used in a light-hearted way. In fact Will Hodgkinson has even visited the Brahma Kumaris to talk about his book. So it couldn't have been that damning.
Please see how the word "cult" is used in other NRM article such as Prem Rawat "...attracted substantial adverse publicity when it was thought to be a cult", ISKON "ISKCON has also been scrutinised by some anti-cult movements", Sathya Sai Baba (no mention). Notice the quality of references used. Also notice that the articles are not saying, "XYZ is considered a cult".
I was going to request a 3rd opinion but since you brought up two new references I thought it would be best to respond and hear your response first.
Regards Bksimonb (talk) 16:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
See Scientology, it is mentioned that Scientology is often characterised as cult. Brahma kumaris is also often characterised as cult. All the refs I provided are acceptable except the niticentral. I don't know about other articles. As per the policies, we can use word "cult" if reliable sources use it. I think we need to go to the next step i.e 3rd opinion. Supdiop (T🔹C) 18:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
If a reference "uses" a word that is non-neutral then it needs to be reworded into something that complies with WP:NPOV for the article. Using a reference to bypass WP:NPOV is not an acceptable use of a reference.
In the case of Scientology there are multiple reliable sources that describe how the subject is characterised as a cult. That is not the case here.
To say that it is "considered" or "characterised" as a cult without attribution is a clear case of WP:WEASEL.
None of the references are making the central point that the organisation is a cult. They are merely using the word in a sentence. They are also not neutral authorities on the subject to make such a declaration even if they actually did. Any old Joe can write a book and get it published. They don't meet the requirement, "widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject", as per WP:LABEL.
If I was not under WP:COI restrictions, and this was any other article, I would have just reverted the offending text with an edit comment since it is quite basic. I will request a third opinion. Regards Bksimonb (talk) 05:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Searchtool-80%.png Response to third opinion request:
This is a bit of a tricky one. We do have good references stating that this practice is a cult, so technically it can be added to the article. However I don’t believe that it should be for the following reasons:

1) It’s giving undue weight to the concept. Neither of the sources provided area actually ‘’about’’ this group being a cult. They only mention the fact in an offhand fashion in the middle of other sentences. This is in stark contrast to groups such as Scientology, where there are entire books discussing whether the group is a cult. Even of the group is a cult, the references don’t suggest that being a cult is central to its functioning or public perception, therefore it certainly doesn’t belong in the lede. 2) It is prejudicial. As the cult article notes, in the English speaking world, the word often carries derogatory connotations. As such it is prejudicial and unencylcopaedic. We should avoid prejudicial terms wherever possible. If we mean that this religion has “socially deviant or novel beliefs and practices” then that is what we should say, which the article already does. However it’s not obvious that is what the references to cult mean because… 3) It is ambiguous. Wikipedia alone has an article titled Cult and an article titled “Cult (religious practice)” along with a hat-note for no less than four other possible subjects someone searching on the term is likely to be interested in. The article titled “Cult” notes that “a precise definition [is] problematic” and that the word is often prejudicial in the English speaking world (I would add that in my experience outside the Anglo-Saxon English speaking world the word is also often not derogatory). The “Cult (religious practice)” article notes that a cult is essentially the acts of devotion to a god. It is far from obvious what context the references cited were using. Since the term itself is highly ambiguous and the meaning in the context of use in the references is unclear, we shouldn’t include it. Edits on Wikipedia should aid understanding of a subject. Usage of the word cult here is unlikely to make the status of this group any clearer to most readers. None of these reasons by themselves would be enough, IMO, to exclude the word. However the fact that all three apply makes it a deal breaker. Adding a prejudicial term to an article is something we should always think carefully about. When we have no reliable sources to indicate that the application of that term is widespread or relevant then we probably shouldn’t be including it. When the definition of the term is inherently ambiguous and the usage in the references is not in any way apparent from context, we really don’t have enough information to include it. We would be adding a fringe, prejudicial term when we don’t have any indication what the sources actually meant when they used it. Mark Marathon (talk) 06:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for a detailed and well-thought-through response. Much appreciated Bksimonb (talk) 07:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

RFC for adding the word "Cult"[edit]

I am closing this RFC. Thanks to all those who have participated in this RFC Supdiop (T🔹C) 07:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There are reliable sources which say Brahma Kumaris is a cult. Based on a third opinion, it was removed that "Brahma kumaris is considered as cult". Please write your opinion in "Support" section if you want to re-add it (with suggested re-wordings) or write it in "Oppose" section if you don't want to re-add it. There is also a discussion section. Result of the RFC will be based on strength of the arguments not on the number of votes. Thanks Supdiop (T🔹C) 16:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)



  • BrahmaKumaris is not a cult. It is a spiritual organization that is known to be doing excellent work. Prodigyhk (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, there are many reliable sources saying the opposite. Supdiop (T🔹C) 17:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
List the sources for review to determine if meets the criteria for inclusion. Prodigyhk (talk) 18:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
[3] Supdiop (T🔹C) 18:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
See list of cults in india, this is not a reliable source but it will show you how Brahma Kumaris is seen by the public. Supdiop (T🔹C) 18:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose based on my comments below, objecting both to the lack of information regarding specifically where the material is to be added and the problem of such a simple declarative statement being rather specifically contrary to WP:LABEL. John Carter (talk) 18:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree largely with John Carter's comments below. If any mention of "cult" is to be made it needs to be directly attributed to the people making the claims. (Also, it needs to be a significant viewpoint in order to mention it at all...nearly every religion has at least somebody calling it a cult.) Also, the link above is not a good seems to be somebody with a self-hosted website writing in to a program and calling BK a cult. The link didn't work for me. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Did you see the google books ref? Supdiop (T🔹C) 19:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I followed the link to the Google Book. It doesn't seem to be a book about religion, cults, or Brahma Kumaris, and it only seems to mention BK once in passing. I don't think that book is a good source for what you're trying to say. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


I would definitely not use phrasing which says in wikipedia's voice that the BK's are a cult. It would be useful to know exactly where the proposed addition is being considered. Also, while I would not necessarily object to seeing phrasing along the lines of "The BKs have been counted as a cult by..." or "The BKs have been argued to be a cult based on [relevant perceived characteristics]," even for such attributed discussion of the cult claim, it would be useful to know exactly where in the text the proposed material is being considered. John Carter (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

It should be in the lead. "The BKs have been counted as a cult by several sources" is good. What do you think? Supdiop (T🔹C) 18:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Or Brahma Kumaris is characterised as a cult by many sources Supdiop (T🔹C) 18:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Under the circumstances, I think it might be best to withdraw the current, clearly flawed, RfC and maybe a bit later start a new one with more clearly defined options. For myself, I might first start by creating a draft of a more fully fleshed out lead, because the existing two paragraph lede seems insufficient. Perhaps version with, basically, one paragraph per extant major article subdivision might work. Also, I would definitely not just say that it has been characterized as a cult in the lede, but provide some degree of useful information, perhaps indicating the specific "cult"-like characteristics it has displayed which have motivated others to call it a cult. John Carter (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Birth year[edit]

I know this topic has been discussed to death in the past, but recently, a few IP addresses have brought it up again at Dada Lekhraj. The broad consensus from the past discussions was that all the reliable sources mention the year of birth as 1876. But since then, there are a couple of new books (2013 and 2015) that state the birth year as 1884 in passing mentions. Since this article also states the date of birth as 1876, contributors here might want to take a look at Talk:Dada Lekhraj#Birth_year. utcursch | talk 15:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Long story short: The actual birth year is more likely to be 1884 than 1876 but as far as I know there are no RS to say so yet. If any such sources are published then I would be happy to go with the new date. The Prophecy in the New Millennium just states the birth/death date in passing as you say. If it was the only reference that ever existed for this fact I would say it was fine but since it contradicts all previous RS then I guess some justification for the revised date is required to demonstrate that it isn't a misprint. Bksimonb (talk) 13:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to adjust article content content to new article title (BKWSU -> Brahma Kumaris)[edit]

Recently the article name changed from Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University to just Brahma Kumaris since this is how it is most often referred to in references, the fact that the full name varies in different countries and that a shorter name is easier for the reader to deal with.

The article still refers to the name "BKWSU" without any explanation and needs to be changed the "Brahma Kumaris" throughout for consistency. I suggest one sentence explaining the different names. Unfortunately I was unable to find a reliable reference that explains that the organisation is known as the BKWSU in most places, BKIVV in India and BKWSO in the US. The best I could find was Kranenborg, "It is important to give a broad overview of the movement that is known internationally as ‘Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University'".

I will wait a week for comments.

Regards Bksimonb (talk) 05:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Should common names be used instead of original full names or just surnames?[edit]

I would like some other views on this since I have a declared COI that could be seen as predisposing me towards promoting honorifics.

The article refers to the founder and various members of the Brahma Kumaris by their full original names. However they are not known these names now. The founder and some other members assumed new names in the early days of the organisation.

Lekhraj Kripalani is not usually referred to in sources as just "Kripalani". Usually, after the initial introduction in the text, it is "Dada Lekhraj Kripalani/Kirpalani", " or just "Lekhraj". He also assumed then name "Baba".

From my personal experience, which is original research so don't take it as in any way authoritative unless reliable sources back it up, I notice that "Dada Lekhraj" is used in the context of the organisation's early history and and "Brahma Baba" is how he is known in the context of the fully-established organisation. Certainly that is how he is known within the organisation.

Probably more easy to resolve is Janki Kripilani vs Dadi Janki. Dadi Janki is almost never known by her original name.

Hirdaya Mohini is not referred to in sources without the prefix "Dadi" or "Rajyogini" or similar and is more universally known by her assumed name Dadi Gulzar.

I propose the following changes.

  1. "Lekhraj Kripalani" just becomes "Dada Lekhraj Kripalani". The name "Brahma Baba" is only mentioned once in this and his own article since most references in the articles are about his role in the establishment of the organisation.
  2. "Janki Kripalani" becomes "Dadi Janki Kripalani" on first mention and then "Dadi Janki" thereafter as per WP:Article_titles#Common_names.
  3. "Hirdaya Mohini" becomes "Dadi Hirdaya Mohini (Dadi Gulzar)" on first mention and then "Dadi Gulzar" thereafter on the same grounds.

I will wait one week for comment. If no input or consensus is reached in that time then I will fire an Rfc.

Bksimonb (talk) 08:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)