Talk:Brahma Kumaris/Archive 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 5 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 15


I make a note about Golo. The initiative for the trust and the solar energy stuff did not come from BKWSU. The BKWSU did not set out to do what happened and instructed it, it just accepted it with open hands when it came about. I do not see why he should not have credit. I will dig out the references, they exist within technical discussion, e.g. non-cultic renewable energy websites/papers.

Again, if the BKWSU wished to assert their version, please show us the evidence for it. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I checked. Wolfgang Scheffler (Scheffler concentrator) is not a BKWSU member and it was his concept/design. Neither were ICNEER, Gadhia Solar (Deepak Gadhia), or HTT GmbH (Guenther Schmitt). The German government gets a credit too for funding (from GATE) ... To be honest, I think this whole issue is moot. To suggest that the BKWSU is "about" promoting renewable energy is ridiculous, they just lucked out with a near to free cooking system donated. So, do we credit everyone involved?
Appledell, can you tell us how much money the German and Indian Governments have put in by now? I read the Indian Gov is funding at a rate of 50% now. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 15:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh look - more anti BK taunts. There's a surprise. Maybe you've forgotten that your (or my) opinion doesn't mean squat on wikipedia. You're welcome to rant away on your website. There is a perfectly good BBC reference connecting Golo and the BKs. The ref will therefore stay. Appledell (talk) 19:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
No, Appledell, I was being entirely genuine. Let's document things fairly and accurately. Find and stick to facts. The solar system was designed and constructed in partnership with the inventor and funding was from public sources.
Is there any disagree with the facts, e.g. individuals and entities that I have present above? All I am arguing is, no to overworking the PR angle and, yes to crediting those due credit. Is that unreasonable? --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 20:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
You seem to be unwilling to give the BKs any credit in this - which is the *angle* I object to. Appledell (talk) 16:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Give them the due they deserve but only that due. Document the whole story. Why exclude the others credit? It was a partnership. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 05:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Did we have any objections to naming the inventor and funding partners in this aspect? --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


Reachout Trust

The link to the ReachOut Trust report currently comes under the banner "non BK". Their report of the BKs is critical - unsurprising, considering the aim of the trust is to "Examine in the light of the Christian gospel the beliefs and spirituality of people within the cults, occults, new age and all not upholding to biblical truth". If a link to their report is to be kept (I'm not entirely sure why it should), should it not be made clear that the link is to a Critical site? Can an admin comment on this? Appledell (talk) 17:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Rick Ross article

Further to Reachout Trust link above, the Rick Ross link would be more appropriate if it was under the header "Critical links", rather than just "non BK" - which give them the veneer of neutrality. Again, based on the Rick Ross website's own aims, which say it studies "destructive cults, controversial groups and movements" - it's hardly a website without an agenda (again, I query the pretty flimsy article of the BKs that is actually linked to as being given undue weight). Again, would appreciate the thoughts of an admin or other neutral editor. Appledell (talk) 17:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

One of the issues Cult free world, who I have been directly but politely critical of their choice in username, did bring back to the article was that the BKWSU had unmistakably been listed as a cult or even destructive sect in a number of governments' documents. I make no judgement on that but it is a fact of public record.
Therefore, the individuals can quote this fairly as a reliable source and not personal opinion. I have no prejudice against the Christian religion and the testimony of the individual appears to me to be reasonable enough.
I am sorry but in general I think your edits are being deliberately discrediting of any non-BK sources be they newspapers, individuals or other groups rather than chosing the neutral option.

I attempted to find a balance between the two POV on The Daily Mail, neuutralising it to newspaper and allowing the reader to decide. I tidied up a few formatting errors and returned the URL to one quote.
  • As a historical note to new editors, one of the reason that this article is so heavily and explicitly referenced is the vigor that the pro-BKWSU side has put in to challenge all and any statements that have made on this topic. It has appeared to non-BK editors that working in tandem one would remove a quotation and then later the statement would be removed as well because it was not supported. Diffs by request. Although I am not suggesting this was conscious nor orchestrated, the end result has been the same. Hence their existence.
And whichever BK editors you are referring to have ensured that this article is far better for their persistence. Remember the days when the innane ramblings of 244 created a heavily anti-BK article? Maybe you weren't around then :) You see to be completely ignoring the vigor of the anti-BK editor/s here. I wonder why that is? Appledell (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Again, I think "non-" is fine, or have no sub-sections. Give the independent reader the credence to make up their own opinion. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Again, I'd like the opinion of a neutral editor/admin on this. But thanks for your thoughts on this. Appledell (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, all (may be most of them!!) non BKWSU site's are critical, as per BK standard, it does not make any difference, as long as links to those sites are present in the article. if they are non BKWSU or anti/critical to BKWSU, wikipedia is not going to decide that, let reader's decide it.--Cult free world (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Like I said, I'd like the view of a neutral editor on this, Cult Free World. :) Also, can someone explain why the Rick Ross article has been decided upon as being worthy of inclusion? Appledell (talk) 17:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

And why not ? --Cult free world (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, the question should be "Why should it?". The external links policy on Wikipedia says external links have to be justified - no-one has done that as far as I can see. The onus isn't on me to say why it shouldn't be linked. But as you ask: the article is not a news report, but contains lots of personal (derogatory) commentary from the writer. Appledell (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

If you feel there is something which is added in the article which is not as per WP:RS kindly point out the variation, it should be removed, but i feel input from a well know (and respectable for its neutrality) source, does comply with wp policies, and still if you feel that statement from a third party source is not acceptable for Brahma Kumari article, you need to place sufficient convincing arguments for its removal, till that happens, third party view should be present in an encyclopedia article. --Cult free world (talk) 06:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I have no objection to having a third party article being linked to. My issue is why this article? The person who originally put up the link to it did it without any explanation on this page. That is required as part of wikipedia links policy, as I understand it. As for neutrality - the Rick Ross institution is clearly not "neutral" (it's a 'cult' bashing organisation - read its own explanation on the "about us" bit of their website). But like I said before, I'd like the view of a neutral editor on this issue, but thanks for your opinion. Appledell (talk) 07:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Can we link both these objections together as, say, "BKWSU objections"'. It makes more sense than to post to the same person on different parts of the page.
I read the article and also looked at the definition of tabloid on the Wikipedia, which I think is very well reasoned. Interestingly, whilst Le Monde, The Guardian and other are featured, the article makes a point of the form of "compact" newspapers, as mentioned above AND separates the "blacktops" (naming specifically The Daily Mail) from the "redtops" which is what people think of when one writes tabloid, see; [1]. It has an ABC1 readership of 66%, case closed I think. The compromise on the topic looks terrible. Its typical of the type of compromise one reads on the wiki. "Newspaper" is the neutral option, the topic is not about the Daily Mail.
With regards the Pete Daley article, which I read for the first time, I think it is a very comprehensive article, perfectly accurate and highlight a number of important issues. In fact, the BKWSU themselves released a note about the erroneous claims being about leader Janki Kripalani (most stable mind in the world etc) telling centers not to do so.
You have a real person reporting in their own name for accountability, a site with expertise in the specialist field albeit representing one side of the debate, you have a named newspaper, you have positive quotes from the subject themselves, e.g "Mr. James did admit to exaggerating his resume in the past", and a quick search on google suggests that Lee james is an internationally important individual within the BKWSU organization.
Honestly, I think it is time to let go, leave the article be and start work on subsidiary articles going into depth on specific areas. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 11:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
*Sigh* Can I repeat - let's have the view of an impartial editor on this (this is not an attack against you, I'm glad orderinchaos lifted your ban). You are mis-reading the wikipedia entry on tabloid - it is clear in that entry that the Daily Mail (and the Express) both come under the journalistic reference of a tabloid even though they are "black tops". Also, check out the first line of the wikipedia entry for the Daily Mail. Appledell (talk) 14:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Rick Ross is neutral as far as Bramha Kumari is concerned, till one does not accept, that it is indeed a cult.!! They do not bash any or all organization's, till it is not proven that the group is involved in mind control and other form of psychological terrorism, such as brainwashing etc. their study is well established and is based on some hard facts and un-deniable proof's, in essence, opinion of a group which deals with similar kind of organization and has a proven track record about the subject (cult's) cannot be omitted from an encyclopedia article, is BK a cult ? well, WP:RS say's it is, hence Rick Ross view about BK is paramount to this article.--Cult free world (talk) 12:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm aware of your view - thanks. Now, can any neutral editor post their thoughts? Appledell (talk) 13:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who is not in sync with your POV is non-neutral, otherwise are !! :)--Cult free world (talk) 15:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
My sentiments exactly ... can you deal with the tabloid issue Cult free? I am finished for the day. "Tabloid" is just deliberately misleading. The Mail is not equal to The Sun. I am not stupid Appledell. There is the technical use of the word tabloid, i.e. to describe the size of the paper and the pejorative use of the word, to describe a different sort of paper to the Mail, e.g. National Enquirer, The Sun etc. You are confusing the first to ascribe the values of the second.
If there is a disagreement over the Daily Mails status, then why can we not restrict ourselves to the utterly neutral without the slur? At least we are agree it is a newspaper. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 15:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Whether you are stupid or not is not for me to say. Let me repeat - for the final time for anyone who still doesn't get it - neither me, nor the two of you (Lucy, Cult) are really neutral. I was hoping for someone like Orderinchaos to take a look at my objections and give some comments. It's not unreasonable. I honestly accept I might be making a lot out of nothing - but I think I have a point and I don't think the two of you are the best people to adjudicate on it (and just to be clear, neither am I). This article is looking pretty good - we're nearly there...hang in there :)Appledell (talk) 19:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Input from everyone should be considered, there is no point in rejecting one view, just because of user name, i understand, it is diffi(cult), but give it a try ! --Cult free world (talk) 05:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I haven't rejected your view, I've just said I wanted a neutral view. Try and keep up. :) Appledell (talk) 10:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


it's not just tabloid in format - as the wikipedia entry on tabloid itself makes clear

Justify this.--Cult free world (talk) 10:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Read the wikipedia entry for "tabloid". You might also want to read the wikipedia entry for "daily mail". And if you don't understand, then there's not much more I can do - other than wait for a neutral editor to come along. Regards Appledell (talk) 11:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It appears as if you are not even willing to discuss the matter with anyone who is not in sync with your POV, (i.e non-neutral!!), anyway, i will stick with the rules, I have already gone through with wp articles you have referred, and came up with that solution, that Daily Mail is a tabloid in format only, you need to provide some reference in accordance with WP:RS which justifies your stand that Daily Mail is not just tabloid in format. --Cult free world (talk) 11:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I refer you to the previous answer I gave you. Appledell (talk) 11:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok kindly allow me to put what is stated there...
1. tabloid:- A tabloid is a newspaper industry term which refers to a smaller newspaper format per spread the image used in that page has Daily Mail !!!
2. The Daily Mail:- The Daily Mail is a British newspaper, a tabloid, first published in 1896 - Britain's second biggest-selling daily newspaper.
Now kindly explain where to find the reference and verify the claim, that it is not just tabloid in format --Cult free world (talk) 12:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
If you look under the section that says "As a sensational, gossip-filled newspaper" in the Tabloid wikipedia article, you will see that it includes the Daily Mail and the Express as examples of tabloid (in journalism style) newspapers that are "black tops". One of the criteria of qualifying as a tabloid (in journalism style) is to what extent a newspaper has an entrenched political position that has a heavy influence on its news agenda. The Daily Mail is one such paper. Orderinchaos says that both our versions are acceptable - so it comes down to how entrenched we are in terms of keeping the term "tabloid" or not. I'm clear it *has* to be inclulded as it gives context to the other quotes that are referred to in the article under that section. Appledell (talk) 14:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Read that page again! :) --Cult free world (talk) 14:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts on it are that both versions are acceptable and neutral enough (the first line of the Daily Mail article says "tabloid" quite clearly, so it's not strictly necessary to say it in the BK article, but to use it to provide context isn't a problem especially as we're only talking about one word). The issue here is really only whether it's duplication to have it here or not. Personally I think it's helpful to have as international readers might not know what the Daily Mail is and not be interested enough to click the link to find out, but either with or without is entirely acceptable. Orderinchaos 12:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks - based on that, is everyone ok if we keep "tabloid" in? I know Lucy is a firm internationalist :) By the way, Orderinchaos, it's my version - rather than "the BK one". I only speak for myself. I'm sure you wouldn't say "the anti-BK one" when referring to Lucy or Cult's version. :) Appledell (talk) 14:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood - I was using BK as shorthand for this article. Fixed the wording to clarify. Orderinchaos 14:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Got it...gosh, how sensitive must I sound? :) As you are here, would you also be able to contribute your thoughts on the external links discussion (Rick Ross, cult institute) above too? Appledell (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Would really appreciate if you can add FREE also when you are referring to me, you can omit the "WORLD" however, as of now. ;) --Cult free world (talk) 15:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
No problem, Cult Free :) Appledell (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I rather prefer "faux broadsheet", as used in the "barf" edit, which captures its essence far better. But having said that, surely any Texan IP address editing on the BKWSU topic is definitely not a reliable source! I fixed the confusion over formats on the Daily Mail page as well and added a reference. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 16:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
"faux broadsheet" is just a bit poncy, isn't it? :) Appledell (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Posh, perhaps. Like I said, it captures the essence of the The Mail. I mean, it does city and international news, it aspires to being conservative and "British". Actually, it is does more reporting/promoting of alternative health/therapy type subjects than other papers. But it is a distinctive cut above the red tops, aka tabloids. There is really no need to be constantly diminishing everything non-BKWSU. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 14:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Erm, thanks. But we'll stick with tabloid. Appledell (talk) 09:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

External Links

Whilst I still question a couple of the links - would still like neutral editor/admin comment on them - I have amended the wording on the external links. It now matches the links wording in the Scientology article, which some editors here are so fond of referring to. I personally think it makes the nature of the links clearer. I also think there is an argument for having a third category - neutral/independent articles/sites. I wonder if some of the academic papers that are cited as refs could be pointed to for this? Maybe it's not necessary. Appledell (talk) 10:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It does not make sense. Surely "a BK source" is a BK source and means it is from the BKs whether it is propagandistic or critical. Ditto you cannot say all of is critical because a large part is purely informative and it has a strong, or regular, BK and PBK following.
Again, readers are not stupid, so let them decide. "Official" and "Independent" or "Third Party" would be non-POV (but perhaps third party is 'too high' again for general readership? I am not sure it is in common use in the USA? Why not just leave things as they are now? I think it is fairly complete now and representative. You cant argue that either "The Gyan" (knowledge) or details of the lifestyle is incorrect or unreferenced. And with the Rick Ross link, it is a good counter point to the "official" publicity. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 14:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Let neutral editor/admin make changes in the article as well. --Cult free world (talk) 05:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Cult Free...I'm happy to abide by the thoughts of neutral editor/admin on this issue. If a reader is looking for critical information (and that of course is a v legitimate thing to want to know), then it's helpful to make it easier for them to find it. While appreciate you may have links with, while some of the information on it is undoubtedly useful, it doesn't negate the fact that its editorial line is critical (even leaving aside the forum, which is only one part of the website). I wouldn't waste your time trying to dispute that. But I'm sure you will :) Appledell (talk) 09:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I was asked for my opinion on my talk page, and I think the section is alright as it currently is (I just renamed "External Links" to "External links", per WP:EL#External links section). And I apologize for reverting, I was using huggle, and it's sometimes hard to differentiate between large scale changes and vandalism. I'm sure the same happened to Voyagerfan. · AndonicO Hail! 10:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks for coming by. Appledell (talk) 11:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Please, keep it neutral and non-POV. Let the readers decided. I was not sure why we kept the Peace Village link. In an earlier incarnation Bksimonb nominated its own page for deletion as non-notable etc. That does not seem to have changed. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 08:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
No problem about Peace Village link. But the links wording we don't agree on. One neutral editor says they preferred the version where it said "critical links". I can ask others to come along a comment too if you like. But the two of us won't resolve it (as usual). Appledell (talk) 09:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem is, "critical" is POV. They may actually be objective. To constantly label them as critical smacks of persecution complex. Again, I think keep it neutral and allow the read to decide.
I mean ... how would you feel it I labeled the BKWSU ones as "Propagandistic" or "PR" sites? --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 10:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Critical is not POV - it's actually informative to the reader in this instance. Don't worry...hopefully another neutral editor/admin will come along for their thoughts. Again, I accept I might be making too much of it, but I don't think I am. Appledell (talk) 12:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

In that case start thinking ! --Cult free world (talk) 13:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I think "critical" is fine, but the term "critical links" makes little sense. (To an English purist it sounds like the links are criticising the sites to which they belong! :) I looked over at Sc. and their editors seem to have found a better solution, so I copied theirs. I also copied "Official" from that article, but I note others have a range of things.

  • Pro - "Authorised", "Official"
  • Anti - "Critical resources", "Alternate views", "Dissenting views" (don't really like that one due to the normativity implied by it), the ubiquitous "Other sites".

(IMO "views" in this context is confusing, as sites don't have a view, rather the expression of their owner's view in a particular way - be it through source documents, writings, a forum, etc - so I think "sites" or "resources" is better.)

Some sites don't distinguish at all and have all links under "External links" (Transcendental Meditation and Seventh-day Adventists). Orderinchaos 00:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Great - thanks for pitching in again. Appledell (talk) 11:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I notice Lucy and Cult Free are still not happy. Your versions will not stick, as much as you might want to try. Two independent/admin editors have already said they think "critical" is acceptable. If you don't like it - bring in other independent editors to add to the discussion. Otherwise, it's just our own POVs, which clearly won't get us very far. Appledell (talk) 13:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

How b'ut Alternate informative views ? sounds neutral ? critical is a POV push, mostly cult member's want to advertise any neutral information as critical which it is not !! (Experience on wikipedia!!) have a look at my contributions for proof's. :) this is generic (neutral=>critical) what makes u feel that I am not neutral as for BK’s ?

--Cult free world (talk) 14:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Critical is not POV in this instance as I have explained earlier. Your message makes is perfectly clear where your POV lies. Appledell (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

May be you would like to explain more about my POV, from my side, just authentic information!! btw what is your objection to Alternate informative views i have stated mine to critical links, it discredits the information and label’s it as critical which it may NOT. i feel Alternate informative views is more balance and just. --Cult free world (talk) 14:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, for a start, you've just alluded to me being a "cult member". I've already stated my views on why it should stay as "critical" - feel free to read further up. We both have POVs on opposite sides to this issue - which is why I brought in independent editors to give their views. They both said critical was acceptable. That is how we are going to proceed. Bring in other independent editors if you like. If they have other views, I'm happy to listen to what they have to say. Appledell (talk) 14:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

One editor whom YOU called changed L to l, and other presented options, out of which I feel Alternate informative views is best. It is we who disagree, and anyone who come up with an option should vent in some time here in discussion, so that, concerns of all parties involved is considered, reach a conclusion and then edit the article. I have read you argument in support of critical and i disagree... :), so there is no consensus as of now, lets stick to the rules and keep our options of common sense open. BTW where have I alluded you to be "cult member" I agree labeling information against the cult as critical, is symptom of that disease (cult control) only, which i have noticed as per my experience of wikipedia but this is very personal view and is highly ignorable. :) Do you feel BK is a mind controlling cult ? please present your argument as why Alternate informative views is not acceptable to you ? --Cult free world (talk) 16:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Because I don't think "informative" is an acceptable term in reference to those sites. What is common about those sites is that they all have a critical editorial line against the BKs - whether they are informative or not. Naturally, I am biased. I'm happy to admit it. That's why I asked for independent, neutral editors to come in and give their opinions. Two of them have. I'm not stopping you from doing the same. The more indepedent editors that get involved with this article the better. I don't consider you to be in that category (neither is Lucy - and I'm happy to repeat again - am I). Appledell (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you mean "uninformed" editors rather than independent, don't you? They all see quite objective to me and there is no need to push slurs on others ... --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 08:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
No, I mean what I said - independent editors. I can admit my bias and am taking constructive action to try and negate it. Thanks Appledell (talk) 08:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

When you admit that your edits are not neutral, why are you editing the article ? Please refer WP:NPOV --Cult Free 08:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cult free world (talkcontribs)
The problem is on a topic like this that most neutral editors (myself included) aren't going to be able to contribute to any great depth, simply due to a lack of understanding/knowledge of the topic (my expertise is in politics and geography generally...) So most editors will be non-neutral, it's whether a balance can be effected between them that is always the issue. Orderinchaos 10:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
As orderinchaos says, it's next to impossible to find any genuinely neutral editor to work in depth on an article like this. I'm trying to foster a sense of reality about this by admitting my own bias. Hence, I am tring to get the help of admin/non-involved editors to come by and help out. With the issue of the wording of the links section, I think it is something they can help with (as with the "tabloid" issue) as it does not require in-depth knowledge of the subject matter, just a good overview of best practise for wikipedia. Appledell (talk) 19:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

At times we need to be brutally honest, especially when we are in public domain, as whatever we say, will be scrutinized thoroughly, and lies cannot remain hidden anymore, as in case of murli’s, I had the opportunity of listening to some of them, for example, in one such talk (video available!!) it is stated that “bapdada” teaches “Raja Yoga”, for those who are under hallucination they will not find any thing absurd in such statements, but for someone who is student of science and has explored ocean of Hindu philosophy and has analyzed critically thoughts of great philosopher’s like Kapil muni, BK’s thoughts will sound childish to say the least. But everything has a reason for its existence, evil exists only to make us realize the divine. But if due to intoxication or hallucination, evil appears as divine, no-one can help, what these cults claim, does exist, a thousand fake cannot deny one truth. Manipulation is wrong.

Once again i put forth my concern in labeling informative links as critical, they are not critical for neutral observer's, but informative, just change your plain of vision, you will feel the difference, those links are not critical but informative, and hence labeling them as critical is wrong!! --talk-to-me!! (talk) 06:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent job of revealing your POV...well done Cult free/Talk to me :) Appledell (talk) 07:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

So now, can we replace the critical sites with informative sites ? --talk-to-me! (talk) 12:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Critical is not a POV - it's simply an observation in an article about the group that the articles or sites take a critical stance towards BK. Worth pointing out here that critical does not necessarily mean negative - I once did a Philosophy unit at uni called "Critical Thinking" and on this site by UNSW, one can see a similar use of it. It *can* mean negative, and is quite able to accommodate both. Informative is ambiguous in this instance and could be easily mistaken for a content judgement or rating. (I can see what you mean by it though - as in a site which provides information, which is not inherently a judgemental observation - it's just it would confuse even me if I were to see it without knowing the context of this discussion.) Orderinchaos 14:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If we cant agree on an entirely neutral heading, then I am going to sit this one out. As stated, my position is to take an entirely neutral position on the links and allow the readers to make their own minds up.
I do not think that the intent of the non-official sources is "criticism" and I do think, on the basis of the history between the groups and others, that the intention of the BKWSU here is to discredit others. Sadly, only a minority of individuals are at an 'academically critical' level or thought, e.g. prepared to think the unthinkable, without position, in order to achieve a greater understanding of the whole.
I am always deeply saddened when discussion is dragged down to a subjective level, or "the subjective" is used as a argumentative ruse, e.g. "that's you way you see it" or accusations of "POV". We should set aside personal interest and allow objectivity to rule as much as possible. Such argument 'is' at a tabloid level where a lie told a thousands times becomes a truth and followers are fed a language to use.
In this case, objectively, I have always underlined that the confusion over the use of the term Raja Yoga is damaging to both parties, those following the classical path and the BKWSU by usurping its title. If you start something new, give it a new name. Its not quite moral that the leaders now go about registering what they consider their own trademarks but purloining others that, due to ancient traditions or spiritual principles, do not trademark. You could add all of the Hindu terms that they have taken such a list. It is unfairly confusing to non-adherents and individuals without any background in Vedanta. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 06:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that. But "critical resources" stays. The rest is just noise. Appledell (talk) 12:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally i came across another version of Raja Yoga, which an Indian court says promotes incest behavior. Now imagine thoughts of a person who has understood only classic Raja Yoga of Patanjali. Wikipedia is an open forum, where *just* information should be presented which is authentic, promoting a groups version must not be allowed. labeling any information as critical is not justified to say the least, it is informative and should be stated such. --talk-to-me! (talk) 07:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
There does not seem to be any mention of Raja Yoga or "Marga" in the topic or linked court paper ... I think that making broad unreferenced inferences does not help your position, nor this discussion and you are headed way off the topic with this line of thought. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 08:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I am referring to the reference provided for sahaj marg, if you view the groups website, it also teaches Raja Yoga which is in absolute contradiction to BK's version of Raja Yoga as well as patanjali's Raja Yoga. What do they get by these antic's ? --talk-to-me! (talk) 12:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Subtle link change again

I am watching the subtle change made on the link to

Isn't "Shivbaba" the name given to the individual who is making them? I mean, it is just HIndi for 'benevolent father' and the BKWSU has not have applied for a trademark on that yet. India is full of Shivs and Babas, e.g. he works at Stanford [2] and is incorporated in Jackson, Florida [3].

So why downgrade this one? Isn't a little POV yet again? Am I wrong to say, let the reader decide again? --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 07:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I changed the link wording to make it clearer what it was pointing to. The original wording wouldn't have made much sense to an ordinary visitor to the page. I fail to see how it is POV. It's simpler and clearer. In actual fact, it will probably get more "click-throughs" because of it.Appledell (talk) 10:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Moved section.

I am grateful for the new editor for highlighting the "God" section which, for such a central section, reads pretty poorly ... and definitely off into Hindu bhakti territory. I suggest it needs some work. There are duplications without other sections, contradictions to the given sources, non-BK language, inaccurate reflections of BK philosophy, non-referenced material and a mix up between between deities ...

This was how it was ... I cut it down to a minimum in the meanwhile.

" God (Shiva), addressed by most BKs "Shiv Baba" is considered to be an eternal soul, a personality like human souls, but the Supreme One (Paramatma) and "knowledgeful". His purpose is to awaken humanity and restore harmony, giving power through the Brahma Kumaris' practise of Raja Yoga, eliminating evil and negativity. He is not the creator of matter which is itself considered to be eternal.[6] He speaks through the mouth of Dada Lekhraj.[3] God is the destroyer of evil[38], or Ekambaranatha as He is usually called by BK and non-BK devotees. Like Lord Shiva, the BKs attempt to become great yogis as The Lord is Mahāyogi.[3] Lord Shiva is also known as "Shankara" meaning auspiciousness.[39] There is a BK faction known as the "Shankar Party". Although Lord Shiva is God Almighty in the BKWSU, Dada Lekhraj, the Brahma Baba is said to have had visions of Lord Vishnu also, one in of which, Vishnu says, "Thou art that", a well-known verse from the Chadogya Upanishad. [40] Brahma Baba further taught that everyone should visualize themselves as a "tiny star, a minute point, of invisible luminous energy that is the soul."[41] Those starts centered around Shiv Baba, who is the brightest luminary. Nearest of Shiv Baba, is Lord Krishna, followed by Goddess Laxmi. The superior beings wanted to 'explore' the physical world; Krishna and Laxmi went first, followed by other superior beings. The BKs believe that as Shiv Baba destroys the world through the Shankara avatar, through his Vishnu form He sustains it.[4] There is also a BK faction named the "Vishnu Party." " --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 17:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the above version did not read very well - I'm happy with your changes. Appledell (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Flagged up Special:Contributions/Auto Correct as a possible sock of Special:Contributions/Maleabroad (I know about these things) and reverted their edits. Misspelt summaries don't match edits, edits to match either BKWSU or academic opinion. Usual misplaced classical terminology and neo-Hindu propaganda. I think it is agreed that the BKWSU do not project themselves as "Hindu". They certainly have no rational connection with Patanjali etc. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I was searching for God in another cult and could not find it there, so i had to drop that section altogether, explaining God, as per definition of any group can be cumbersome exercise, just wanted to let you know about the challenges you might face while defining God. :) --talk-to-me! (talk) 09:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Defining God may well be problematic. Defining the BK view on God is easier and not that difficult. Appledell (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I replaced the karma section in the obvious position with a formatted reference. It was really an oversight on my behalf to remove it. I think more could be said about the BKs particular implementation but do not have any suitable references at hand. I removed "Hindu" because, strictly speaking, BK do not consider themselves Hindu per se.
Added references re funding and extended solar energy section. Hope it reads fair too. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 04:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC).
I've added a line to it. Think that bit reads well now. Appledell (talk) 19:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Two "pioneers" in one line reads very 'clumsy' and unnecessary. The previous statement reflects the truth better. "It has been the beneficiary of pioneering work ..." is more accurate.
May be after the bit about Golo's et al pioneering work, add "which was adopted by the governing body" or something. The impetus came from outside the trust/leadership/god. The funding and cash savings more than likely swung the deal. Would they have adopted it if it was NOT funded or cost more ... I doubt it. It is run by the accountant, isn't it? Is the BKWSU "about" clean energy or saving the planet? ... no way. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 06:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks - as always. But, in case I've not made it clear in the past, your opinion has never held much interest for me :) Lets stick to what's verifiable. Happy with your amendment - I've added one word to the start of it "work". Appledell (talk) 10:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmmn, I read back over the edits I made and, no, those look like fair objective and well-referenced statements. And I am proud to give the individuals in question their credit due. Do you have any evidence to suggest the opposite? --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 05:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Like I said, I'm "happy with your amendment". I've added one word, that's all. Take a chill pill. Appledell (talk) 08:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

External Links wording

I've amended wording slightly on external websites that are being linked to. I think they changes better reflect what is being linked to. Appledell (talk) 10:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone want to check what the policy is on this? My guess it is that links alone are fine without the spindoctoring or attempts to play them down. But I fixed one and made them all the similar in the meanwhile. Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 05:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
If in doubt, accuse of spindoctoring and PR whitewash, heh? I guess some things never change. But I agree - more than happy for other neutral editors to give their views on this. The wording of the links is not subjective, but informative and accurate - in my humble opinion of course (I'm aware of the irony of that last statement). And thanks for fixing and making similar - credit where its due. Appledell (talk) 08:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

"Critical" links

This has been discussed above - I've put it back as it fits the description of all the websites under that sub-heading. We've had this discussion before and had valuable input from impartial, independent editors/admin and lets stick by the result of that (which was that "critical links" was indeed acceptable). Appledell (talk) 08:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we settle with Other Links, not defining the nature of links and allow, those who wish to follow the links take it as critical or informative or what-ever!! It sounds much neutral to me. --talk-to-me! (talk) 09:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
"Other" is a little meaningless. We've had this debate about "critical links" before - see discussion above. Feel free to bring in other neutral editors for their thoughts though, they are always welcome. Appledell (talk) 09:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it matters much though... but i still feel Other is more neutral then Critical, we should not feed meanings but state that what is available, Critical sounds more of a POV, Other's does not !--talk-to-me! (talk) 10:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Great - if you dont think it matters much, then we can stick with the result of the earlier discussion. Thanks Appledell (talk) 10:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I will not push in for that, but will state for sure, that it is not as neutral as Other would have been :)--talk-to-me! (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
"Critical" *is* neutral. Added to that, it accurately describes each website that is linked to. That helps the casual reader. That's a good thing. Appledell (talk) 16:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I at least agree with talk-to-me, so the consensus is not with you Appdell. It is for me to judge? My vote is leave is to neutral. ––Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 02:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not surprised you agree - as it was you that made the change without discussion in the first place (knowing full well it had been discussed already). Bring in other neutral editors for their input then. That's what I did originally - and they said critical links was fine. So it stays until you can find others to chip in to the debate. You are not railroading this through, sorry. Regards. Appledell (talk) 10:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately i do not see any railroading, Critical is judgmental, while Other is more open, this is how we can move closer to WP:NPOV--talk-to-me! (talk) 16:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
No, you're wrong. Re-read the earlier discussion. In fact, re-read the message Orderinchaos directed at you specifically about this. "Critical" IS WP:NPOV. BTW, I used "railroading" because Lucy made the change without discussing it here - knowing it was a contentious change and also knowing that it had been discussed before. Appledell (talk) 23:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The Beliefs they hold

Religious Members Argue that their religion is beneficial or great as their thought process has been swayed to think so.

When someone says anything with enough passion or has authority or is able to teach one to think in an irrational manner this can change ones thought process. Low self esteem can make this persuasion easier.

If we lived a life of where we think everyone is nasty then our manner feelings and response will change according. If you have ever user the London underground, people avoid eye contact. why ? prob because when we were younger we were told "never to talk to stringers!!" in a way which we thought "Yes ok i must never do that" at least in some shape or form it was taken on board.

Most times people are actually okay to have a casual conversation. However sometimes people give you the look that your after their life.

Bks have certain believes, such as eating food prepared from non-member or spending time with non-members will influence them and make them "impure". Bk members talk about their "stage" this refers to become 16'oC pure("stage" to normal people refers to mental health & wellbeing). They keep their "stage" good by "Doing" (or in most cases Not doing) X Y Z. e.g eating food made by jo blogs will make their stage go down. however this is just a belief instilled that will result in them feeling depressed.... then they will say see this is proof, my experience was such so it must be true, which is associated learning / classical condition. you can make a dog salivate to a Light bold. with enough time and practise a philosophy/ believe can become reality. This is why bks say it take time to "understand".

I have tried to make this as Rational and friendly as possible, i don’t know if i have done this correctly. This is not an argument for or against. but demonstrating that we can be taught and be introduced to Concepts into our lives that does not allow harmony with society and ourselfs. Fluctuation of “stage” is in your hands not in the hands of a universal law. As bks tend to believe.

This is something which is generic to control mechanism, association with outside people lead to information from external prospective, which will eventually lead to a broader view point about the subject, and hence is condemned inherently in cultist methodological concepts.--talk-to-me! (talk) 19:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Relative to Hindu belief, I replaced an edited and clean up-ed version of the edit removed by Appledell regarding the use of Hindu concepts and the entirely different meaning because this is a point supported broadly in the literature written about the BKs. Of course, to the BKs, their interpretation is the right one.
There is considerable conflict between, e.g. the charity registration documents which state they were constituted to "promote Hinduism" and the channelled messages/belief system which says the intellects of all the Hindu bhagats are all "impure" and "unself-realised", there is no benefit but only downfall within Hinduism etc ... and so I think it is entirely valid and fair comment to include within the controversy section of the article. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 07:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"Critical sites"

Orderinchaos asked someone to step in and look over the latest issue (should it say "critical links" or "other links"?) Based on the above discussion, and, yes, my own review of the sites within the section, I have changed it to "other sites". Critical can have two meanings - the meaning Orderinchaos mentioned above (as in "critical thinking") or the more common negative way - "critical" implies "opposed to". A quick review of the sites within the section doesn't suggest they exist solely to oppose BKWSU in some way. They may contain such content, but not exclusively. Given the negative implications of the term "critical", "other" appears a more neutral term to use. Neıl 11:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Each of the links you talk about goes to a page that is critical of the BKs - in both senses of the term. It is surely irrelevant what else is on those sites if the *actual* page being linked to is the one that is at issue and being referred to (eg the article hosted on the Rick Ross website)? Am I missing something here? But anyway - I appreciate you dropping by and making the change. I'd be interested in your thoughts on the actual sites in question - do they all deserve to be linked to? I have my own thoughts on this, which are a little irrelevant due to by inherent bias, but would be interested to hear what you have to say (and orderinchaos for that matter). Appledell (talk) 17:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Seems fair enough. I think the IP editor ( did not get that the consultant term for Rick Ross was not so much a judgement on his standing (which should be argued out on that topic page) but merely a link to a specific article. Not sure it needs to be explicitly spelt out either. Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 01:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to re-word it, just that this defination was something that we agreed upon on RickRoss page!! and i agree that we don't need to explain RR here, a link is enough. --talk-to-me! (talk) 06:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I went for the 'compromise' position and toned it down just a little. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 09:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Skbhat's edit

I am replacing Skbhat's edit removed by Appledell. I am perfectly aware as a BK supporter, Appledell is going to pretty much remove or challenge anything I support or add. This ding-dong takes us right back to the start of the BKs involvement where all and every word was basically challenged by them, even thought it was all true. (Hence the extensively referenced article we have now). But I think it is also fair that other voices have some input, will defend them where accurate and consider the persistent revision deliberately provocative.

The comment is accurate, especially related to the Indian experience of BKWSU, and supported in the writing of Kranenborg, Babb and to some extent Walliss, e.g. "The ideas concerning Shiva deviate considerably from what we encounter within Hinduism as a whole." --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 07:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

A short clarification for non-BK editors; the root of this dispute lies in the beliefs taught by the Brahma Kumaris that all of existence is limited a single, yet identically repeating, 5,000 year cycle renamed after the traditional Hindu "Kalpa". According the the BKs, Hinduism of the past 2,500 years is merely a limited and corrupt remembrance of their religion of the last 70 years, that the deities the Hindus worship are memorial of the Brahma Kumari leadership. This is not opinion, it is verbatim and well documented in the literature.
Obviously, to a traditional Hindu, this is ridiculous and the Brahma Kumaris are some offshoot development or corruption of Hinduism. The Brahma Kumaris use many of the major names, terminologies and titles of Hinduism but have entirely different meanings for them. Meanings which to the BKs are the correct ones whilst the Hindus are in "ignorance", "impure", or "unself-realised". Again specific terms are used.
In my opinion, the article should reflect a secular not the cultic view and, given that the Wikipedia is international (and India is widely English spoken), it is fair to include the traditional Hindu POV, and what might be considered controversial from it, where supported by the literature. I hope this clarifies my defence of the other editors contribution.--Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 09:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, just popping in briefly to say that my time here is over. You are free to do as you see fit Lucy. Appledell (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Its nice to see the topic free from edit warring and allowed to be polished by normal wikipedians. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 03:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD for Advance Party (religious movement)

Just a note to say that the article on the Advance Party is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advance Party (religious movement). Knowledgeable input would be highly welcome. Thanks,John Z (talk) 07:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "Lawrence_Babb_Redemptive" :
    • {{cite book | last = Babb | first = Lawrence A. | title = Redemptive Encounters: Three Modern Styles in the Hindu Tradition (Comparative Studies in Religion and Society) | year = 1987 | page = 112-113 | publisher = [[Oxford University Press]] | isbn = 0706925637 }}
    • {{cite book | last = Babb | first = Lawrence A. | title = Redemptive Encounters: Three Modern Styles in the Hindu Tradition (Comparative Studies in Religion and Society) | year = 1987 | publisher = [[Oxford University Press]] | isbn = 0706925637 }}
  • "Lib" :
    • {{cite book | last = Lalrinawma | first = V.S. | title = The Liberation of Women in and through the Movement of the Prajapita Brahma Kumaris | series = ISPCK | year = 2003 | publisher = Cambridge Press, Delhi | isbn = 81-7214-771-6 | pages = 13 | quote = }}
    • {{cite book | last = Kelegama | first = Keerthi | title = Year 2000 doomed: Mankind destroyed' [Exclusive report on imminent world destruction] | series = | year = 1998 | publisher = Cambridge Press, Delhi | isbn = 955-95823-3-X | pages = | quote = 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". "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." "Brahmakumaris also expect the world destruction to take place immediately followed by the birth of Krishna once again". "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 }}
  • "Bryan_Wilson_NRM" :
    • {{cite book | last = Wilson | first = Bryan | coauthors = Eileen Barker, James Beckford, Anthony Bradney, Colin Campbell, George Chryssies, Peter Clarke, Paul Heelas, Massimo Introvigne, Lawrence Lilliston, Godeon Melton, Elizabeth Puttick, Gary Sherpherd, Colin Slee, Frank Usarski | editor = Bryan Wilson | title = New Religious Movements: Challenge and Response | year = 1999 | publisher = Routledge | isbn = 978-0415200493 }}
    • {{cite book | last = Wilson | first = Bryan | coauthors = Eileen Barker, James Beckford, Anthony Bradney, Colin Campbell, George Chryssies, Peter Clarke, Paul Heelas, Massimo Introvigne, Lawrence Lilliston, Gordon Melton, Elizabeth Puttick, Gary Sherpherd, Colin Slee, Frank Usarski | editor = Bryan Wilson | title = New Religious Movements: Challenge and Response | year = 1999 | publisher = Routledge | isbn = 978-0415200493 }}
  • "John_Walliss_Cycle" :
    • {{cite book | last = Walliss | first = John | title = The Brahma Kumaris As a Reflexive Tradition: Responding to Late Modernity | year = 2002 | quote = "This is part of a lengthy answer to the question of how the University could claim that Raja Yoga is the precursor to and influence of world religions that historically predate it often by a few thousand years. Again, 'Baba' is cited as the source of ultimate authority" | publisher = Ashgate Publishing | isbn = 978-0754609513 | pages = 105 }}
    • {{cite book | last = Walliss | first = John | title = The Brahma Kumaris As a Reflexive Tradition: Responding to Late Modernity | year = 2002 | quote = "The final evening classes that I attended, at which the core content of the murli was the Destruction ... during one part of this an eclectic user asked 'so, you're an end-of-the-world cult then?' to which the center co-ordinator replied, no, we believe in world '''transformation'''. In response, the questioner asked 'well, surely the "transformation" you're talking about is Destruction? The whole population is going to shrink almost to instantly down to a couple of thousand, whole areas of the world are going to be flooded, nuclear bombs are going to be going off.' 'Well, replied the co-ordinator, 'it depends on how you look at it'." | publisher = Ashgate Publishing | isbn = 978-0754609513 | pages = 107 }}
  • "Enc_New" :
    • {{cite book | last = Whaling | first = Prof Frank | title = Encyclopedia of New Religions; New Religious Movements, Sects and Alternative Spiritualities | series = Edited by Christopher Partridge and Gorden Melton | year = 2004 | publisher = Rosen, New York | isbn = 0-745-95073-6 }}
    • {{cite book | last = Howell | first = Julia Day | editor = Peter Clarke | title = Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements | year = 2005 | publisher = Routledge | isbn = 978-0415267076 | quote = The "Brahma Kumaris" are a world-wide millenarian movement. Drawing on Hindu religious culture of its founder, the movement has nonetheless distinguished itself from Hinduism and projects itself as a vehicle for spiritual teaching rather than a religion }}

DumZiBoT (talk) 12:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

External links

Added {{No more links}} to EL sect. Cirt (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

These are not links to pages of brahmakumaris. They are for so called advanced party. The founder of this advanced party had personal ambitions over organization so he left threatening organization that he would strip away all its followers. That's why he continued name given by Dada Lekhraj. Otherwise if somebody else was medium, why he continued this name. When dada Lekhraj donated all his money & started organization, first advanced party founder enjoyed all previlages. Later on he started resisting. All these links are for that party & it doesnot have any connection with BKWSU whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Requesting a revert to a previous version

(This was an RFC) I have a declared COI on my talk page.

This article has been subject to POV editing and as a result it's basically a hatchet job on the subject with WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:RS, WP:SYNTH and WP:OR issues. I have started to document the issues, as I see them, with the article here and here. I've only just begun the task and it looks like its going to take some time.

A while ago I worked with other editors using RFCs and building consensus to improve the article. Unfortunately the article has since fallen into a POV state due to aggressive and determined non-consensus editing mainly by a user who has since been indefinitely blocked.

I propose that, as a quick fix for a broken article, it is reverted to the last version I personally consider to be the "consensus" version which is the version as of 25 December 2007 before the article was lost to POV editing.

Please let me know if you think the proposed version is an improvement on the current article and if so, please revert to it. If unsure, then perhaps we can ask the question as an RFC to gain a consensusI have now raised this question as an RFC in order to gain consensus. I realise the edit is quite major but I personally think that it is better to work forward from an article that is at least fair to the subject and add stuff that may be relavant to it than to try and untangle an article that is agressive towards the subject.

Thanks & regards, Bksimonb (talk) 14:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

  • That seems too big a revert which would have too many other effects on details such as birth year of the founder. It seems better to tackle the controversial issues specifically. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Colonel. Thank you for taking the time to compare the articles. With regards to the birth year, the current date is based on original research and creative use of primary sources instead of the secondary sources used in the version I am proposing. See this previous discussion with Utcursch, an uninvolved editor who helped clean up the article on a previous occasion.
Actually, I just noticed an oops in the proposed version. The ref for the birth date is still pointing to Hardy (the source of the original research by implied date). An example of an academic secondary source that directly states the birth date is Wallis, "From World-Rejection to Ambivalence", p33, "Lekhraj was born in Sindh in 1876 into the Kriplani family who were devotees of the Valabhacharya sect."
Bksimonb (talk) 06:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • (RfC Comment) I wouldn't support such a reversion. Looking at some of the individual edits and the diff between the current version and the proposed revert, it seems that there have been a lot of additional source material provided and other perfectly reasonable editing done to the article in the intervening two years or so. Yes, some of the edits may be problematic or POV, but that doesn't justify rolling back to a much older version, which has problems of its own compared with the current version. Looking at the RfC requester's analysis of the article I see some points where improvements are needed, but these corrections mostly seem to be of the nature of small adjustments to phrasing or focus, rather than something that requires a large-scale reversion of the article, and some of them are changes that should be debated. Many changes made to the article in the intermediate versions do not touch upon the fixes to the article that the requester proposes. It's not apparent from looking at diffs and history that most of the edits from the proposed version constitute vandalism or POV pushing; as such, I think the problematic parts of the current article should be dealt with on their own merits as they stand now, rather than throwing out good changes with bad ones. --Clay Collier (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
OK it looks like so far what I am proposing is not acceptable for the reasons stated above. If we are at least agreed that the article as it stands has problems, would either of you be kind enough to tag the article as having NPOV, OR, RS, COI and UNDUE issues as you see fit?
Also, as I no longer edit the article myself for COI reasons, would either of you be interested in helping to improve the article? Failing that, I'd be interested in any suggestions you may have as to I could engage other editors in the task.
Thanks & regards Bksimonb (talk) 12:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Propose to tag article

I am proposing to tag the article to highlight issues I see with it in order to flag it up for attention. I would appreciate more eyes on the article to resolve the issues. Unless I hear otherwise, I will do this in a couple of days. Bksimonb (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

OK I have tagged the following issues. Below I give one or two examples of each issue I am tagging. There are more instances in the article, some of which I have highlighted here, and I would be grateful for the attention of experienced editors to improve the article. I can not make any significant changed to the article myself due to a self-declared COI (see my user page).
If someone is able to fix any of the problems below. Please check the rest of the article and post and all-clear check with time-out on this talk page before removing an issue from the tag. Thanks.
  • biased - "This high status is achieved by supporting the movement, obeying its rules, engaging in proselytizing activities", as an example of a cynical interpretation of the subject's beliefs.
  • citations missing - "The Brahma Kumaris teach their own version of the 'law of karma'". Really? Says who?
  • COI - Principal editor is the admin of website and is actively campaigning against the BKWSU. See arbcom case evidence [4] and recent sock puppet reports [5].
  • confusing - See the second part of the activities section
  • criticisms - Large criticism and controversy section containing irrelevant items such as Pratibha Patil, poorly sourced items such as a sensational tabloid news article and the contentious MIVILUDES report, and original research using a reference concocted by Wikipedia editors in the Keinnyung Gazette.
  • external links - Links to the website which I propose is unsuitable. The Rick Ross and Reachout trust ACM sites and the PBK main websites all belong to their own article pages, not this one.
  • jargon - words like bhogis, shudras. This isn't a Hindi lesson.
  • original research - Keinnyunng Gazette and key dates [6].
  • recent - Pratibha Patil incident is a small blip in context of the subject's whole history. It only got included as it appeared in the news during this article's lifetime.
  • tone - "In America the Brahma Kumaris were not allowed to call themselves a university"
  • unbalanced - History focusses almost entirely on the unfavourable reaction of the local community. If one reads any of the reliable sources such as Walliss, Liz Hodgkinson, or Kranenborg, they don't treat the subject so harshly.
Thanks & regards Bksimonb (talk) 11:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry to write this but this is just a repeat of the Scientologists trying to own their Wikipedia topics ... and a repeat of the BKWSU episode of two years ago. The tag is simply the biggest and most obtrusive tag the Brahma Kumaris could make in an attempt to discredit article.
The fact remains, the topic is one of the most heavily and well referenced articles on the Wikipedia ... simply because it was obstructed at every step by adherents of this religion attempting to whitewash it. The topic is also highly accurate.

For examples:

  • Kranenborg has not even written a proper paper on the BKWSU
  • Hodgkinson is an ex-adherent whose husband is a long term member and leading PR adviser to the organization's leaders.
  • Judge Hardayal Hardy was not just a Chief Justice of India but also the sect leaders advocate ... surely his autobiography is a "reliable source"!
  • Why is Keinnyunng Gazette "original research"? It is a verifiable source. That is what journalists do ... research ... and check facts.
That the adherent feels the need to seed doubts in the minds of others by making statements that they either knows are false, inline with the sects current PR, or is entirely capable of checking by themself, (e.g. why cast doubt the organization's public articles of constitutions!?!).
Surely, this all has to cast doubt on his intentions? -Emperor of the Golden Age (talk) 03:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I will respond to some of the points raised above for the benefit of other editors. Otherwise this is a re-incarnation of a blocked user so there is no real editor to respond to.
  • Why does Kranenborg need to write a proper paper on the BKWSU? What he wrote was useful as a reference since it is quite informative and neutral. He is not being used to source any controversial claims.
  • So what if Hodgkinson is an ex-adherent? Her book is sufficiently researched to be used as a reference for non-controversial information.
  • OK, so a minute ago it was a problem if an author was in some way connected with the BKs and in the case of Judge Hardayal it actually adds credibility to his work. Maybe it depends on what suits Emperor of the Golden Age at the time. Also the problem with the reference was that it didn't directly provide the date of birth. It only inferred a date. To draw a conclusion from that is original research. It disagrees with the date provided in all the reliable sources that give a direct date.
  • The Keinnyunng Gazette article was worse than just original research. It was actually concocted by Wikipedia editors intent on pushing a POV. I have provided a link to the evidence above that shows the paper trail to prove this. It is also being used to make controversial claims that would require a much more reliable source.
As for the other claims about PR, Scientology, discrediting the article, control....etc All I can suggest is have a look at the article history and check the user page of the editors who have made the most contribution to it. Bksimonb (talk) 11:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

My edits

I've repaired the POV reverts to re-instate User:Spasemunki's corrections. I am making these edits on the basis that it is uncontroversial to revert the edits of an indef-blocked user. I kept the parts regarding Walliss's ref that appeared to be constructive. Bksimonb (talk) 07:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit wars - please talk here first

I noticed the edit wars over the banners on this page and was surprised to see no discussion. It appears that "Fear based teachings" suddenly joined and came aboard and deleted these banners with edit summaries like, "I am sorry but someone has to draw a line on this nonsense...", and making is sound like just because someone is a follower that they can't edit, which is untrue.

If "Fear based teachings" would like the banners deleted and BKSimonb doesn't, the proper protocol is to discuss it here.

Thanks, Renee (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Renee, good to see you are still around and thank you for undoing the damage.
In this case the user is a sockpuppet of User:Lucyintheskywithdada who is indefinitely blocked; effectively a ban. This means that it is appropriate to revert any edits he makes, especially when he is making contentious edits and taunting other editors. I regret reverting too often this afternoon and will wait a while before taking further action, should he disrupt further, so that there is less chance he is online at the time.
The time for Lucy to use proper protocol and discuss edits was before he got banned. I know that he has plenty to say to protest about the tags on the article, since he himself wrote most of the article, however this just clutters this talk page with anti-BKWSU diatribe and personal attacks against other editors (usually me) when he is allowed to do so. For this reason I suggest reverting anything he posts here as non-involved editors may find his presence and behaviour somewhat intimidating.
Contrary to what Lucy would have us all believe, I am not trying to control the article, he is. I am trying to keep the article free of his bullying so that other non-involved editors can address the issues he has left it with. I am restricted by the rules of WP:COI so I have not actually made any content changes to the article other than highlight that it does have multiple issues.
I have filed a sockpuppet investigation and am awaiting the result. The reason I am so convinced that it really is a sock of Lucy is because the taunts and edits are exactly the same as his other recent incarnations and consistent in style with his off-wiki forum posts about the article and me. This is just another in a long line of nuisance accounts he has created.
Best wishes Bksimonb (talk) 20:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

A simple question for the Brahma Kumari editor BK Simon ... what is factually wrong with the topic?
There is nothing factually wrong with the topic. It is very well referenced.
This is nothing but an attempt at damage limitation but a secretive and deceptive cult. --Fear based teachings (talk) 07:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys, before unilaterally removing tags and the like, let's discuss it and get consensus. It seems true that an editor (actually both of you -yes?) does not think the article is neutral and believe it is biased? Why would you remove those tags then? Where is the original research and unsupported claims? We can talk about that.
Also, Fear, what sentence would you like to include? Can you please post that here with your rationale and let's talk about it?
Thanks, Renee (talk) 13:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Renee, I outlined the reasons for the tag and identified original research and unsupported claims, among other problems earlier on this talk page. I would be interested in discussing how to move things forward with any genuine editor. However there is no benefit in mediating with a banned editor such as Lucy. Unfortunately this time around the SPI is taking longer than usual to process. I am confident that the result will be that his currently active accounts, User:Mitsu and User:Fear based teachings will be indefinitely blocked as they are clearly socks of Lucy as per WP:DUCK. Regards Bksimonb (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Speaking as someone who has no stake in this, I would day that the giant tag is excessive. If there are that many problems with the article, it's a better idea to simply add {{article issues}} without additional parameters, and detail the specifics on the talk page, which has already been done. However, it should also not be removed entirely until a rough consensus has been reached that there are no more major issues. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oh yeah, I forgot to mention, cut it out with the edit war or the page will be protected from editing and/or blocks will be handed out. Pursue dispute resolution if needed. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I think Beeblebrox has a good point. Some of the tags say the same thing. Perhaps the editors here can offer some ideas about which can be combined (e.g., does "Jargon" = "Unclear"; does "biased" = "not neutral"?). Regarding the last one, "Its external links may not comply with Wikipedia's content policies or guidelines," I have to agree here. I took a look at the Scientology article, which I think is probably the best example of what appears on a contested page, and they include only official links or scholarly links. With that in mind, I think the "Other sites" section should be discarded. Or, perhaps you can add a CESNUR link as that is a scholarly site. Anti-blog sites should be removed. Renee (talk) 22:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Issues and discussing changes


I add the tag according to the blocking admin's suggestion but I state this clearly.

  • The article is an accurate reflection of the Brahma Kumaris. There is nothing factually wrong with it.
  • It is very well referenced and use citations from every expert that has commented on the religion. Its stability ... beyond the stupid brought on by the Brahma Kumari adherent BK Simon B ... is testimony to that.
  • Discussion with the Brahma Kumari adherents is pointless. Their intentions, or agenda, regarding this topic are contradictory to the intentions of the Wikipedia.
  • Their involvement, which largely exists of game playing, has been the cause of one long resource wasteful battle which we see continuing to this day.
  • All progress with the article was achieve at a high time consuming cost against their every effort and ploy, their initially attempt being to maintain as an advert for their religion.

--Ex-oneatf (talk) 10:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear Ex-oneatf, Again, as others have noted above, let's discuss changes first and reach consensus before making changes. I agree that the tags at the moment are excessive but let's discuss neutrally which ones can be combined. Also, given this article is on probation, let's discuss additions/deletions first.
So, which tags can be removed? I propose that biased = neutral, so one of those can be removed. Also, I propose that jargon = unclear, so one of those can be removed? If we can begin to get agreement on these small issues perhaps we can lay common ground for bigger issues like adding paragraphs. Renee (talk) 12:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Renee, I am happy to leave it as {{Article issues |biased=August 2009}}. The reason for this is that casual viewers are unlikely to check the talk page and at least need to be made aware that the article is biased. Potential editors will (hopefully) check the talk page to discuss the other issues.
I decline to resond to Ex-oneatf because (1) he is a banned editor (2) he appears to be "always right" and (3) his comments appear to be more of a propaganda campaign than a serious attempt to work with us.
Regards Bksimonb (talk) 13:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, how's this. I deleted duplicate tags and added an external link that is scholarly. What do you think? Renee (talk) 16:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that good. Thanks. I forgot to comment on the external links but agree with that also. If need be I am happy for all remaining tags to be removed except the biased tag. Bksimonb (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Is there some OR in it? There appear to be some self-published sources and I guess I'm concerned that they are cherry-picked to represent a viewpoint? Not sure how to get around this unless we can list the beliefs that appear on the CESNUR site (the academic paper). Renee (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Certainly there is OR in the article. I've highlighted some examples of this. My main concern is that Beeblebrox suggested that we remove all the issues from the tag leaving only just the tag and we are doing something less that that. So we are kind of moving away from a consensus unless Beeblebrox is also in agreement.
Also if we use the CENSUR article we can link to it but not quote it since there is a warning on their web page at the top forbidding quoting. I am sure it is OK to refer to it since other articles on CENSUR forbid even referral but the BKWSU article doesn't go that far. I emailed CENSUR and they told me this was because the articles were pre-release articles and as such the authors had requested restrictions so that people refer to their finished work instead. I know that CENSUR get some rap for being too NRM-friendly, which may or may not be justified. I guess it is safe to use the article for non-controversial facts only, but it is still useful. Bksimonb (talk) 07:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed action plan

Hi Renee & any other "legal" editors,

I think I have been far too timid and cautious since I returned in terms of what we can do about the article. Just before I left for a year and a half me and other editors were accused of being "meat puppets" because we appeared to act in concert against an editor who is now recognised as behaving disruptively. I don't think that is an issue any more. After all, if I go to an article where there are a number of editors acting in consensus and I start acting like a WP:DICK and aggressively pushing POV then of course the editors there will act "in concert" against what I am doing. Basic.

I did propose (see top of this talk page), by Rfc, reverting to the last known "consensus" version of the article before Lucy walked all over it again. This didn't fly, although at the time I should have pressed those that commented to explain how the present article is so much better than what I was proposing. Maybe they were just suspicious that I was trying to do a PR job on it, or that there must be something fishy going on if I felt I had to ask, rather than having any specific reasons regarding how the two versions of the article were better or worse than each other. Maybe we could revisit this possibility as I think the proposed version of the article is a much better starting point as it contains no serious issues. I think filing an Rfc was inappropriate since normally this is to resolve disputes where no consensus can be reached between what, at that stage, are assumed to be good-faith editors.

If we have to live and work with the article as it is then I propose the following course of action.

  1. Remove any WP:OR, poor WP:RS, WP:SYNTH or WP:POV statements especially where it is trying to make some controversial point.
  2. The article has always been written to highlight controversy and is structured accordingly. It needs a rethink to present things in the order in which a reader would be interested. For example, the history section is right at the beginning, probably because the early history of the BKWSU was surrounded in controversy and can be presented that way. I suggest the first part of the article explain who the BKWSU are now, today, followed by beliefs and lifestyle with the history somewhere near the end. There should be no specific "controversies" section, as this is recognised as being problematic for producing a neutral article. Controversies should certainly be presented, but where appropriate to the section they are in, in the section they relate to.

Bksimonb (talk) 09:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh Lord! This seems overwhelming to me. Can you give one specific example to start with? Also, it would be nice to have one other neutral editor (maybe OrderinChaos or Beeblebrox -- if you're out there listening) weigh in on these too so everything's on the up and up. Renee (talk) 22:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Don't panic! There's no deadline. I think think the first thing to establish is can we revert to the last known consensus version of the article because it will save an awful lot of work if we don't have to go through the same process we went through last time around to improve the article.
Certainly we can invite the editors you mention above. In addition we can invite maybe Cirt and Utcursch. Since other editors may be very busy and I have been so far unsuccessful in attracting non BKWSU COI editors to clean up the article, I suggest we just ask them to keep this article on their watchlist and keep an eye on us while we work on the article and raise any concerns they may have along the way. I think then we are following due process with regards to the article probation.
Could any editors watching this page let us know you're here?
Regards Bksimonb (talk) 06:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm trying to understand your rationale for choosing this as the last "consensus" version? I searched the history and it looks like you're choosing the article that was stable before Lucy and his/her socks came aboard? Please clarify why this is the best version (representing both sides). Thanks, Renee (talk) 11:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Correct, it was the last stable version before Lucy and subsequent socks came aboard, however they were always present. After that date Lucy started making substantial changes to the article. The reason for preferring the version I put forward is because it was the product of a consensus between a number of editors: you, me, Appledell, and IPSOS. I can say that we all had a level of respect for article policies and guidelines and for consensus that was clearly not honoured beyond that point. The result is a version of the article that does not have serious issues, at least that I am aware of.
I have highlighted some of the issues I found with the present article in the article analysis I started [7][8]. I suppose a question could be asked, what actual issues exist with the proposed version that make it least preferred? Regards Bksimonb (talk) 12:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm okay starting with that version if others are. Is Rumiton still around? I see he was one of those editors back then. As an aside, I want to make it clear that I have never been affiliated with BK and know virtually nothing about it besides reading a few of the sources listed at the end of the file, so I can't really make any expert contributions here, but I can view it with an eye towards balance. Renee (talk) 13:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
p.s. can you archive so we don't have to scroll down so far? Renee (talk) 13:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I suggest one solution is to wait one more week for editor comments then act. Since most of the discussion on this page concerns the proposed revert perhaps we can hold off archiving until then. Rumiton is still around. Bksimonb (talk) 15:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
That sounds perfect. Renee (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The article may or may not have issues but it would seem quite accurate. The BrahmaKumaris.Info website remains the most useful site for original documents on the BKWSU, far more so thant he organization's own.

As a matter of interest Renee, what do you actually know about the religion and what is your expertise in the field on which you base your POV?

Thank you --The Golden Circle (talk) 08:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The above post is another sock of User:Lucyintheskywithdada and a report has been filed [9]. Not only has be repeated an identical edit to his previous incarnation but he is promoting his own website and re-inserting the link to it into the article. I recommend other editors against engaging with this account while we await the appropriate block. Bksimonb (talk) 09:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Article revert

Following from the archived discussion [10] and a week's notice, the article will now be reverted from the current version [11] to the proposed version [12]. The rationale is that this version has far less issues than the current version and it will be more manageable to add material, if it is balanced, reliably sourced and represents a neutral point of view from the current version to the proposed version than to try and untangle the current article. The current version has multiple issues, some of which I have expanded upon in the archived discussion [13] and an article analysis [14] I started. The proposed version is at least free from stuff like concocted references, tabloid newpaper article references, cherry-picked quotes used to unbalance the article and bypass the NPOV requirement. Bksimonb (talk) 14:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The revert is now carried out. For clarity, in the above post "current version" now means as it was before today and "proposed version" is what it is based on now. Bksimonb (talk) 14:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. Does it still need any tags? It'd be nice to get a review of it by a Hindu expert. Renee (talk) 00:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Renee. I have added the FAO Project Hinduism tag. Bksimonb (talk) 06:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

involves spirit possession?

This is what intro said : "It teaches a form of meditation[1] adherents called Raja Yoga, but which differs from the classical Raja Yoga described by Patanjali [1][4] and involves spirit possession. [5]"

Lot of christian propoganda here. Removing the line. -VJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The reference are from academics who spent years with BKs. One of them is also a BK follower. Pass as reliable sources. Januarythe18th (talk) 16:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Pro-BKWSU bias

I have no problems with this topic or related BKWSU topics remaining objective but non-involved editors and admins should release that what is going on here is and attempt at a persistent POV whitewash of the cult's related topics by an adherent, Bksimonb, whose purpose on the Wikipedia appears to be solely to act as guard dog to this article.

One has to ask questions about the ethics of this and the framing of any dissent as "bullying, harassment, drama" etc as Simon does.

The Brahma Kumaris have invested considerable resources into convincing media control, historical revision and hagiographies over decades. This is nothing new ... merely a new environment.

What is being attempted here is the moulding of "fact", as presented by the Wikipedia, to fit the current PR of the organization.

The call to "independent" editors, or even miscategorized "experts" (in Wikipedia terms ... the BKWSU is Indian not Hindu), is really just a ploy, an attempt to introduce inaccuracy into the article, as much of the media presentation of the BKWSU has been highly doctored by the BKWSU.

We should go back to the previous, pre-cultist edits.

It is just their intention is to control any topics relating to their cult or cult financiers for the sakes of their own PR and to match their own PR which is somewhat revisionary. That would seem to be against the greater aims of the Wikipedia.

Thank you. --Every 5000 Years (talk) 02:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

As I said elsewhere - I think a much better approach would be to look at the article rather than the people involved. A large part of the fighting which periodically breaks out at this article and its talk page comes down to both sides having personalised the dispute a long time ago. A focus on content would expose areas where the article needs assistance - a focus on editors would more likely than not see your standing block reinforced as those in opposition can simply say "That person is personally attacking me and is a sockpuppet" and most admins don't investigate beyond first impressions if the matter seems straightforward enough. (I've been guilty of that elsewhere.)
If you could identify issues with the article - particular areas of bias, omissions etc - as against the diff you have provided, in fairly specific terms, that would be of great assistance in trying to resolve the issues here. Once the issues have been identified then we can get some neutrals to look at it (and if the content is or is argued to be defensible, then we actually get to hear the defence of it.)
As you can understand, something that simply looks like a pitched battle between two permanently opposed sides is something neutral people are very unlikely to wade into, and I think more eyes is exactly what this environment needs. Orderinchaos 04:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I certainly would welcome more eyes on the article. However it would be helpful if they could demonstrate a genuine commitment to respect other editors, consensus and an aim to produce an neutral, balanced and informative article. I have always been prepared to do that but in this environment I really don't have that much space to breath. I have reported the latest incarnation as more of the same abuse that this page, and I personally, simply don't need any more of. If Lucy wants to resume editing then the correct way to go about that is to post an unblock request on his own user page and convince the admins that he will not repeat the pattern of behaviour that resulted in him being blocked and that he has pursued in defiance of his block ever since.
If this page is really biased in some way then there are enough other editors in the world to discuss it with.
Bksimonb (talk) 07:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
It's obvious to me that if this editor is blocked, they'll just, as they have numerous times in the last 2 years, come back and make essentially the same complaint again. This doesn't aid resolution of the matter. If we make a good faith attempt to find out what this editor believes the issues are, without the personal hostility, then they can be addressed in an analytical fashion, with some accepted, some rejected, and others adopted in some modified or limited form. Goes without saying that if no attempt is made to engage with the process I am proposing, then I can do little or nothing to assist and it'll be another admin with a lot less time dealing with this matter. (I should note that although I am semi-retired per my talk page, I've taken on this matter separately as I'm sick of seeing it lingering on my watchlist.) Orderinchaos 10:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I think there is an unethical attack against the Brahma Kumaris by antigroups which is the most unfair. Take for example the "Controversies" subsection is purely biased and is only present in for the BK article. Why don't we have similar sections for other articles like Islam, Hinduism, Christianity etc...? Does this mean that we don't have "controversies" with other religious groups(with all due respect). All these debilating comments under "controversy" should be transferred to PBK articles. I think that some parts of the articles need to be removed(sp. the "controversy" section)since it is very clear that it has been edited by individuals who wants BK bashing. |||| — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vish75 (talkcontribs) 11:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

You unblocked this editor on a previous occasion and his behaviour did not improve. In fact, he went on to cause widespread disruption before being blocked again. If you believe there may be a problem with the article then let's bring more eyes on to it and work together. I don't see how rewarding, or caving in to, persistent, abusive and disruptive behaviour solves anything. Bksimonb (talk) 10:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Admittedly, that happened after I left the scene because I was busy studying offline - I don't intend to do so on this occasion. Having seen heaps of disputes in my time on here, I think a lot of these things happen through things spiralling out of control - if someone is around, things tend to stay within certain boundaries. Also, as I've already indicated, I'm not averse to letting the situation be dealt with in a more standard way if the guidelines I've set down here re the nature of discussion aren't adhered to - I can only help if people agree to be reasonable. In a way it's a last chance to solve the problem the way it should maybe have been solved years ago, and I don't even know if it can be done, but it's worth trying. Orderinchaos 13:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Anti BKWSU bias

This is patently ridiculous. Any religion can be framed as a cult. Any wild assertion can be made against any religious group.

As an information source, Wikipedia should be neutral, unbiased, and present verifiable information.

"Verifiable" means that an independent, disinterested party can corroborate.

If you're going to call something a "cult" you need to show proof of cult activities considered credible. A story carried by AP or UPI, for example, would generally be considered credible and verifiable.

That being said, I'm seeing anti BKWSU bias in the article.

Zd93bah (talk) 06:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Colin Slee

Needs wikilinking in the main article when this page is unprotected. Neddyseagoon - talk 10:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


Till some days back, the section Controversies and criticism with citations served the purpose of keeping the article nuetral. The uncited things could be removed and others can be kept in the section. I hope a consensus can be reached soon here. -- Aarem (Talk) 08:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. Included some of the better referenced ones. --LevenBoy (talk) 02:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi LevenBoy,
Thanks for dropping by. The intro section is good and the reference in the "Expansion" to Wallis is sound, although it kind of adds a lot of weight to the section which may be better placed in the AIVV article.
Please review and respond to the following issues with some of the material you have re-inserted.
  • The institution uses Hindu terminologies such as Raja Yoga and Bhagavad Gita to attract people but what is taught in the organization is completely different from what there original meanings in Hinduism.
The reference for this is Kranenborg. Please indicate where he makes this claim and, if such a claim exists in the reference, it is cited as being a "controversy". I couldn't find it.

  • Followers are encouraged to undergo a ‘death-in-life’ and ‘die towards the outer world’ renouncing their families and thus be ‘divinely’ reborn in the ‘divine family [62] consequently, the Brahma Kumaris have been accused of breaking up marriages and families since the 1930s.
I have highlighted the word that shows that the above point is a synthesis. Please find a reliable source that makes a connection between the first statement regarding "death-in-life" and the accusation of marriage break ups.

  • In 2007 Graham Baldwin, a former university chaplain...
The reference for this is an Independant article, the link for which is now broken. I found it in and also in the Independent, here. There is no mention of the Brahma Kumaris at all in the article.

  • Ian Howarth of the Cult Information Centre, was further quoted...
The two references are trashy tabloid articles in the Daily Mail. The articles are clearly sensational and not suitable as a source for an encyclopedic article.

  • The Brahma Kumaris have featured in the 'Wissen schützt' reports...
There are several references being used here. It is not clear exactly what the "critisism" is of any one particular source, or as a combination. The MIVILUDES report is no longer used since it had such a low threshold of inclusion. In this case the Brahma Kumaris were tagged for having "apocalypitic" beliefs. Some of the other references are in different languages. Please explain what these references are about and how they all fit together without synthesis to make a point of critisism.
  • Since 1978, the BKWSU is accused of falsifying claims internationally
The reference used here was actually written by a Wikipedia editor. Please see [User_talk:Bksimonb/BKWSU_Article_Analysis_2]] for evidence.

Thanks & regards,
Bksimonb (talk) 14:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I cannot be editing this article yet but I can be seeing no problems in the edits and the article. Too much diservices has been done on this homepage by fanaticals and we should be accepting how the world see us and using the language of the world to explain our beliefs.

-- I am Baba's child. (my talk) 09:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that what has been re-inserted into the article doesn't represent what the "world" sees at all because the references have been misrepresented or are from obscure or unreliable sources as per my previous post. Bksimonb (talk) 11:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

We are not splinter group we are all original children and part of same family. BrahmKumari Christian fanaticals attack us and remove from this homepage that is clear message.

-- I am Baba's child. (my talk) 16:09, 5 March 2011

Please explain who you consider to be "BrahmKumari Christian fanaticals" and why. It's not clear. Can you give a specific example of said culprit "removing from this homepage" some information you consider should be there? Also can you outline what changes you intend to make to the article once you are able to edit it? Thanks Bksimonb (talk) 09:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Best to attend a course to take the Advance Knowledge bhatti to be understanding. This is not a place to be discussing such things. (Januarythe18th (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)).

There is a great mistake in part of meditation. Base of meditation "Raja Yoga" of BK is to look at Shiva who is represented by "a point of radiant light" (reproduced in logo of BK that is in the article). To stare to the point produces a state of deep concentration and great happiness. It can be made with a repeated affirmation that says Mahanmanavad, meaning "Be mine with your mind". The practice to see the other students and the teacher in the forehead (it os over Anja, the third eye center), is to give them Dristi, meaning "sight", that transfer to others the energy of Shiva in form of compasion. -- (talk) 17:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, put in wrong place (Januarythe18th (talk) 02:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)).

Controversies in the lead

Hi History2007,

I have some WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:DUE concerns and questions over this edit and would appreciate your comments.

I agree in principal that if there is a major and recurring criticism about a group that frequently appears in reliable sources then it should be in the first paragraph. However I don't believe the criticism cited fits that description. The BKWSU's inclusion in some government black-lists is not their main claim to fame. Most of these lists are politically or religiously motivated and have a low threshold of inclusion. In particular the French list was later revised in 1999 and 2006 and does not list the BKWSU in the revised versions.

Also, if inclusion in these government lists should be mentioned in the first paragraph BKWSU article, then surely the same should apply to the Wikipedia article of every other group mentioned. How many such articles contain any mention of this at all, let alone the first paragraph?

I can't comment on the "Enemy of the state" issue regarding Greece as I was unable to trace find more than the first 10 pages of the book on-line, "Cults, religion, and violence by David G. Bromley, J. Gordon Melton 2002 ISBN 0521668980 page 113". I did, however find the article on David G. Bromley and it appears he is opposed to "witch hunts" against NRMs. In view of this I am wondering if the reference was really as damning of the BKWSU as it has been made to appear. I would be most grateful if you could quote the passage from the book so that I can see it in context.

I did have more luck finding the Poland reference, "On the margins of religion by Frances Pine, João de Pina-Cabral 2008 ISBN 184545409X page 175" [15].

The Polish Brahma Kumaris women stress that women who transcend this
model are persecuted by society Therefore. they see It as their task to empower
other women and lo help them to contribute to the transformation of the male-
dominated world.
Aspects of their endeavour to transform the male-domainated world have led.
perhaps Inevitably to conflict between the Brahma Kumaris women and the
male authorities of the local Catholic parish. A very Important factor
determining development of the Brahma Kumarism in Poland is that the
movement built their main meditation centre in very close vicinity of a Catholic
church. The parish priest of this church took advantage of the anti-cult
atmosphere in Poland (Koscianska 2004) to organise an anti-Brahma Kumaris
campaign. Thus. the Brahma Kumaris have been labelled ‘a dangerous sect'
and accused. among other things. of abnormal sexual behaviours. kidnapping.
contributing to ecological pollution, and so on. These accusations, publicised by
the priest. local newspaper and anti-cult organisations. limited the activity of
the Brahma Kumaris.

So the incident in question concerns a Catholic priest who "took advantage" of an anti-cult atmosphere to "label" the Brahma Kumaris with a bunch of accusations. The reference does not imply that there was any substance to his accusations. If you read the book in the wider context then you can see that this appears to be a reaction to the Brahma Kumaris promoting celibacy for women in a culture where women are (quoted from the same page)"expected to take care of their families and be subordinate to men".

In fact, this is the main controversy surrounding the Brahma Kumaris that occurs frequently in reliable sources, that they advocate celibacy as a lifestyle choice for women and this doesn't sit well in societies that do not normally give women that option. If anything this is what should be mentioned in the first paragraph. An important distinction here is that the controversy is a public reaction to this lifestyle choice for women and not some cult-like atrocity being committed by the organisation itself.

I look forward to your comments. Bksimonb (talk) 11:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

So the long and short of your point is this:
  • You think there is controversy.
  • You think controversy should be mentioned in the lede.
  • You think the controversies I mentioned are not the main ones.
As for other Wikipedia articles having to include lists of organizations declared as enemies of state and dangerous, that is other articles, not this one. The question then is what are the main sources of controversy? Celibacy may be one, but I do not see celibacy as the only one in these references. The fact that historically they have been listed, is an issue in itself. The French list may have been revised, but the fact that they were on it is part of their legacy. The other ref clearly lists them on those lists. I think the fact that they were on the list is not disputed at all anywhere. In other sources they get mentioned along with sects etc. I will add a modifier to that anyway. And the fact that the Polish papers accused them, is in the Polish papers. Whether the priest took advantage can be a modifier, but that is a question of opinion, what the papers published is a matter of what the press said. Whenever the press write something like that there is always "controversy", and that is what controversies are about: disagreements and accusations. There are no "nicely packaged" controversies in which all parties love each other. The controversies section should probably be expanded with those anyway if you like. I watch this page, so you can just leave messages here.
And I must say I find it really "unfathomable" to say that an organization had been considered controversial by various governments because they advocate celibacy. The Discalced Carmelites sisters are all celibate, and that does not create controversy in a male dominated world does it? And there are at least 1,000 more totally celibate religious orders in the so called male dominated society which were never put on any such government lists and which have not had much controversy to speak of. So the statement that they are controversial just because they are celibate is just not logical at all. History2007 (talk) 12:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi History2007,
"that is other articles, not this one" - The same editorial polices and guidelines apply equally to all articles. This article doesn't exist in a bubble where normal editorial standards don't apply. If you feel that an NRM listed in these reports should have the fact mentioned in the lead then why only do that to the BKWSU article?
"And I must say I find it really "unfathomable"...". Did you have a chance to look at the Frances Pine, João de Pina-Cabral reference? If you read the context of it then you can see that that was the area of concern that gave rise to the parish priest's campaign. I don't know the exact reason why the BK were included on government lists. Perhaps you can throw some light on the matter by quoting the reference you used.
"Whenever the press write something like that there is always 'controversy'", what a incredible justification for inclusion! It sounds to me like a personal opinion.
The controversies section needs to be cleaned up before it is expanded. The content recently re-inserted was problematic because the references were cherry-picked, used out of context, of misused completely. Some of the links don't even work any more. A better approach is to either chase each claim to source and find re-write it in a neutral way that better reflects the reference being used where the references are actually reporting something that is actually a controversy.
Also keep in mind WP:DUE. Is piling loads of criticism and controversy on the article really what it needs right now? The article should reflect what the majority of reliable sources say about the subject in the proportion in which they say it. This requires reading the sources not just cherry-picking paragraphs that happen that suit a POV. Have you had a chance to read any of the main academic sources yet?
I would still like you to address my WP:DUE concerns. For something to be in the lead paragraph it would need to be a substantial issue reported by a number of reliable sources. Currently we don't have that. The minor change you made to the article doesn't really help that much.
Thanks & regards Bksimonb (talk) 13:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
First let me get something straight: I saw the conflict of interest item on your page, so I have to ask. Are you typing here as a PR representative for that organization to keep their page in line with what they like? Is it part of your job to type here? Please clarify this first, then we go on? History2007 (talk) 15:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
No I am not a PR representative to keep the page as they like. I am a member of the organisation and my concern is in common most other members of the organisation that I don't have to suffer undue prejudice because of an unfair and misleading Wikipedia article that most of the public will probably take at face value. I would have a conflict of interest if I wasn't prepared to settle for an article that meets Wikipedia's own editorial standards. However, I am prepared to settle for that. I get treated fairly by the article. Wikipedia gets a good quality article that is free from bias. That's what I'm aiming at. I'm prepared to give ground to achieve that but I think what you've put in the lead is not something that a consensus of editors would agree with.
Perhaps you could also disclose your potential conflict of interests. I notice that you edit a number of Christian articles. No problem with that, I've worked successfully with Christian editors before and I come from a Christian family so I can relate to them. Do you have any strong views about Indian-based NRMs that might affect your editing priorities?
I am reluctant to edit the article directly and either discuss changes with other editors or time-out if no response before changing anything. That is how I address COI concerns. There is no rule that says a COI editor can't edit at all, only that one needs to be very careful. That's what I do.
Also, could you please address my requests for citations and previously raised concerns. Bksimonb (talk) 16:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Ah, please give me a break. This discussion is going nowhere. We can talk about this until the 2,500 year cycle is over (or is it 5,000 years), then I guess we can start it again. I do not know how to address a conversation in which claims are made that "the only controversy here is celibacy". And given that the controversies continue to change, I think it is best just to say in the lede that "there are a number of controversies" without giving specifics and refer to the section which may change every month. In the section the controversies will be listed and given more space. However, the fact that there are controversies must be mentioned in the lede per WP:LEAD. I will change it that way, then I will take to you again in 2,500 years, so we can do it again. History2007 (talk) 17:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

5,000 Years, Brother. The Baba teaches Kalpa Cycle repeats identically every 5,000 Years. 2,500 heaven for Brahmkumaris souls, 2,500 hell when other religions come.

Their Baba says Destruction comes and washes away old impure world and impure religions. Pure deity religion must be starting again in 2036. Brahmkumaris teach only salvation is to surrender to them man, tan, dan. (mind, body, wealth).

In fact, we been having the same problem with these fanaticals in India, isn't it. They are given their Dada's eyewash and believing anything. Then they become addict to pomp and show of self importance and attacking others like snake.

In India Brahma Kumaris become stinking rich taking properties and gold jewelry from poor villagers. You can be reading this about them too. (Januarythe18th (talk) 08:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)).

This is insane. These are false claims that Brahma Kumaris are despots. How do you explain then that the UN, UNESCO, UNICEF, NGOs and governments worldwide approve and acclaim their community based projects. How do we explain that their CAD regression program is making wonders around the world( . These so called "controversy" happens with ALL religious groups; but do we have a controversy section in Islam, Hinduism, Christianity etc... So please, remove these dustbins claims from this article and that would fit more in PBK or Anti articles in Wikipedia. Vish75 (talk) 11:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


The following "An independent resource accurately documenting the beliefs and lifestyle of the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University, including many of its channeled messages" was changed to a less biased, less flowery and more accurate: "Ex-Brahma Kumaris website." Reason: A bit too presumptuous to believe that their viewpoint is the "accurate" documentation of the BK movement. Also, they are not "independent" but rather "dependent" for it is documented by Ex-BK members. It could be "independent" if the individuals running that website didn't have an involvement with the BK movement at all other than sheer curiosity.

Riveros11 (talk) 19:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you another Brahma Kumari adherent? Why is the site offending you?
It has best collection of academic papers on the topic, here [16]. Most useful. --Januarythe18th (talk) 04:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

the external link

J, You know perfectly who I am as I know who you are. The issues I have with adding the link are as follows: 1) It is your personal website. It does not belong to an institution, corporation, non profit organization, etc. It is mainly a forum led by you, of ex members of the Brahma Kumaris institution who had a negative experience with the institution as whose main concern is to discredit the BK movement. There is proof for this. 2) It is mainly a forum with "original research " by its members. Your site, is covering up its lack of scholarly /neutral research capability by merely gathering papers by known researchers in their field, papers which have been used in writing this article anyway. Those articles are being quoted as you see fit, meaning; as long as there is a negative connotation against Brahma Kumaris. 3) Your edits now, are mainly about the controversial section of the article, which support the objective of your website, However, you fail to understand that many of those issues, if verifyable, are common and isolated issues in big institutions, such as any religious group. I said , ANY. That is the main concern of your website, the site, to become some sort of "watch dog" for Brahma Kumaris. That is not what a researcher nor a research does. 4) Your website has been used to insult some Brahma Kumaris editors. Your website has been used to insult some Brahma Kumaris leaders. That is against Wikipedia policies. 5) Your website and you, make efforts to be known as "authorities" on the Brahma Kumaris life style and beliefs; however you nor anyone in your group that I am aware of, has any terminal degrees in religious studies or sociology. You think that Brahma Kumaris is a negative "cult" while the United Nations think otherwise. You are just an ex-member who thinks that "knows it all, " and think that things are the same as in your time in the Brahma Kumaris movement. Conveniently ignoring  that there are members such as myself, who has the opposite viewpoint and experience, as many others have. 6) Your website link is not providing an accurate information, for you do not have the authority to believe that you can "accurately" inform about the Brahma Kumaris belief or life style. It is merely an opinion.  7) If your link is to be considered for this article, I suggested to add the accurate label "ex-bk members" and also to add the Bk open forum, which describes the life style and belief of their current members, in that way wiki readers will gain a full view of the Brahma Kumaris under a balanced perspective. 

I submitted the link to a wiki place to check the validity of that external link and it was deemed not worth to include your linksite in this article. As you are aware, your link has been excluded by admins in the past. Wikipedia suggests not to put a link while controversial until discussions are over.

Riveros11 (talk) 19:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

user:"January 18" keeps deleting supportive evidence

(Personal attack removed) For the record: User "january 18" has deleted without previous discussion my contributions. On the other hand, I am trying to engage in a healthy discussion which he suggested. [17]. January 18" has added a paragraph is the article titled:"legal actions against critics." [18]

January 18 statement:"In 2007, the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual Organization started legal action to shut down an independent website called Brahma Kumaris Info which allows critical views of its activities to be published on the basis it was breaching its trademark rights." That paragraph is not accurate. If we read the website which actually recorded the facts: [19] Brahma Kumaris merely wanted the domain name "Brahma" to be returned to them, for the name "Brahma Kumaris" belongs to "Brahma Kuumaris." The reason why that name wasn't returned to Brahma Kumaris as explained in the website, is because Brahma Kumaris is not a "trade mark".

Please don't play the game of only allowing information which is convenient for your agenda and make Wikipedia another source of your personal agenda.

Riveros11 (talk) 10:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Please note which personal attacks are consider most serious. [20]
With regards to your comment, "Brahma Kumaris is not a 'trade mark' ". The Brahma Kumaris own 4 live US trademarks mainly relating to "online shopping" facilities reflecting their commercial activities; 77313590 for 'BRAHMA KUMARIS' [21], 77212561 for 'BRAHMA KUMARIS WORLD SPIRITUAL UNIVERSITY' [22], 77212547 for 'BKWSU' [23], and 77212153 for 'BRAHMA KUMARIS' [24] UDRP cases are decided according to trademark rights.
In the linked to UDRP cases, the Brahma Kumaris claimed the disputed domain name was identical to their BRAHMA KUMARIS mark.--Januarythe18th (talk) 22:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

No personal attacks off wiki.

(Personal attack removed)

Quite frankly, neither of you should edit here in keeping with WP:COI policy. That would also keep off-Wiki spats off-Wiki. PЄTЄRS J V TALK

January 18 reversed this talk page to a previous version

For the record: I have compromised by asking January 18 to just delete the whole paragraph about "legal actions" so name will not appear at all as per January 18 wishes.

January 18, will not discuss this suggestion and will not follow this advice to obtaing what he wants. Rather, January 18 will continue deleting my contributions. I have given January 18 a good opportunity to come to an understanding. Will look for other remedies per wiki policies.

Riveros11 (talk) 15:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the "legal action" section to what's relevant and deleted the rest which had no bearing on the matter (unless you were out to discredit a website regardless of the lack of domain name arbitration findings against it). PЄTЄRS J V TALK 23:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Fairly satisfied with your editions. The only thing under "legal action" that may need to be revised is that Brahma Kumaris did not want to "shutdown" the critical activities of, but rather to take ownership of the domain name. Thank you. Riveros11 (talk) 03:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
You're not suggesting the BK would have continued to serve the same web content. Domain name arbitration is agreed to by parties as part of normal domain name conflict resolution, so going into the arbitration, making the site unavailable would have been the practical objective. Of course, someone could register a different domain name but all prior links anywhere to their content would no longer function—a major setback. Once a website disappears people usually assume it's gone, not that it had to be renamed. PЄTЄRS J V TALK 03:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Sure, by taking back a domain name, a new one will need to be created, but "the critical activities" will not be practically "shutdown." They can go on by a simple google search and a temporary "re-direction." Riveros11 (talk) 03:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I've been on the Internet since before browsers existed. Once a domain is lost it takes a long time for the content to recover elsewhere. "Redirection" needs to be set at the receiver end (that is, at the original domain redirecting to the new domain) so it's not the solution. PЄTЄRS J V TALK 04:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I use the world "apocalyptical" because it seem correct in both means. Meaning hidden and unveiling plus end of the world. BK dont follow the Maryadas (it is Sikh term they borrowed) in preparation for general calamities like earthquake, flood and so on. Not even for End of World. BK follows disciplines to become a high status in Golden Age after end of world. They say it is becoming pure and royal like holy swan ( हंस).

We cannot imagine what someone thinks or does not think. How does he know what org thinks? It is official? Everyone know why businesses use SLAPP law suits. Let us not pretend. From Wikipedia,

A strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit that is intended
to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal
defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.

I have no more to say on the matter. --Januarythe18th (talk) 07:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Explanation for some changes

I will try and make some changes to straighten some of the bias out. As I'm just learning about Wiki, feedback is most welcome. Even the intro to this article raises some concerns: 1. To reference the controversies and criticisms part in the introduction gives undue weight to that. And that section itself needs a real clean up as it makes comments on actual living people with "Original research" etc. So I propose to delete it from the intro. 2. The next paragraph jumps straight into detailed belief content that fits better in the controversies and criticisms section (or somewhere else if someone prefers) rather than an intro. Anyway, it's a bit of a strange statement because if there is an Apocalypse, there won't be any world to rule anyway. Any feedback to me is welcome. Danh108 (talk) 04:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I also added some material on Meditation. I never realised how slow I would be - lots more ideas...but another time. Danh108 (talk) 05:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


This article is heavily Anti-Bk bias and being managed/deformed by their agents. Request for close monitoring! Does not give a true picture of the BKWSU at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vish75 (talkcontribs) 15:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Arbritration for Anti-BK bias

Phil, please refer to history in the talk page and you'l find "January 18th" simply behaving as the owner of the article, as opposed to a normal user. Reverts back amendments without warning and acts as judge & party at the same time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vish75 (talkcontribs) 14:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Bogus Article

How do you explain that January_18th find no point to justify the following post: "The Times of India has reported that the Government of Haryana's financial commissioner, Shri R.R. Fuliya, IAS, is seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation inquiry into the sect for 'criminal' activities involving cases of murders, rapes, scapegoating and police cover ups. At a press conference in Mount Abu, the commissioner gave the names of accused and deceased. ...."

,which was not given any suite by a court of law or police (Controversy section); AND at the same time justifying why he deleted posts in the Activities section.... The "Controversy" section is a dustbin of hearsay allegations or opinions....what are the intentions? - except bad faith to bring disrepute to BKWSU. We don't need to be a fortune teller to know the agenda of January 18th[18th] . God bless, BK organization remains unaffected by these bogus initiatives. Vish75 (talk) 06:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources not Brahma Kumaris fortune telling. --Januarythe18th (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Good luck to your mud-throwing activity J18. I sincerely hope you don't waste up your entire lifetime on your hatred for BKs.... its not worth it! Say hello to your PBK friends and pray that, you all know what to answer GOD if ever it turned out that you were wrong all these years. Just beware - 'the fire of hatred is very harmful' - reliable quote "Bhagavat Gita"! Vish75 (talk) 17:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Look, I am being very patient with you here. You cannot do what you are trying to do.
a) you are breaking reference tags and leaving them
b) you are adding duplicated information
c) you are adding NPOV claims such as "An Anti BK Group" without a reliable source to support it (the PBKs see themselves as complimentary part of the BK movement.
d) you are removing information which is reliably referenced merely because it is critical.
I left an introduction to the rules of the Wikipedia on your page. Please read them. --Januarythe18th (talk) 02:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Funny comments/Edits by new user

I reverted some recent funny comments; [25], [26], [27], [28], [29].

The BKs Living Values Education Programme is already mentioned and the given reference is not reliable and independent one [].

Ditto, the section on heart disease below. It may well be true but the reference is just its own PR.

  • A Multidisciplinary Study on Coronary Artery Disease Programme(CAD Project) by the Brahma Kumaris Health Wing and International Health Organizations showed that regular Raja Yoga Meditation sessions can decrease and/or eliminate Coronary Artery Disease(CAD) through The Mount Abu Open Heart Trial and Abu Healthy Heart Trial - a randomized controlled study in more than 500 angiographically-documented CAD patients. These studies included psychologists, spiritualists, physiologists, endocrinologists, cardiologists, clinicians, dietitians and fitness experts, who have been working hand in hand, since February 1998. The results of both the trials were presented at Asia-Pacific Congress of Cardiology 2004 that was organized by World Heart Federation at Singapore and Diamond APICON 2005 at Mumbai. These results were accepted and widely appreciated by top cardiologists and clinicians from all over the world [30]

- Januarythe18th (talk) 04:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

New user Vish75 making basic errors such as changing content within quotes from reliable sources.[31] etc. Reverted. --Januarythe18th (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Removed item "... has initiated ..." [32]. Wikipedia is not a fortune teller.
Removed item "... sounds amazing but the volunteers of Brahma Kumaris Ishwariya Vishwa Vidyalaya claim" [33]. Religion's own PR is not reliable source.
Scribid/Wordpress etc ... not reliable sources.
--Januarythe18th (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't really feel it is necessary to explain at length the remove of the Brahma Kumari Press Release but may I point out that the work is not peer review and the doctor in question relies of references from both the American Biographical Institute and International Biographical Centre which are both vanity biography publishers whose awards are frequently denounced as scams by politicians, journalists, and others according to the topic articles.
Any paper [34] which makes equations such as:
can hardly be classed as "scientific". The bottomline is, it is just nonsense.
Sorry. -- Januarythe18th (talk) 21:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed changes

I'm asking user Danh108 to discuss their proposed changes here first.

Please note proposed changes were noted at the top of the talk page. If you could comment about the feedback given, that would be appreciated. Otherwise is it safe to presume you agree?Danh108 (talk) 04:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Please note, the Wikipedia represents a world view and not an individuals experience or opinion of them, and any changes should be supported by reliable sources. As academics within the Brahma Kumari movement are current creating positive references in support of their religion, I'd be cautious about accepting any of them.

Danh108, you've be honest enough to highlight on your user page [35] that you are an adherent of the religion to some degree. Please be aware of the Wikipedia's guidelines on that.

I would prefer to stick to content, but FYI I don't consider myself an adherent to any particular religion.Danh108 (talk) 04:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

It might be easiest if you answered under each point and I've made a mark for you to do so.

Will do, thank youDanh108 (talk) 04:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. --Januarythe18th (talk) 15:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Specific changes

  • "started as" - although there is some merit to this it raises the question, "what exactly is the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University?" The headquarters of the cult or the entire movement. As this topic has been given the title of ... University rather than "The Brahma Kumaris Movement" I would argue that the core of the movement is still according to the references.
The issue was more that the description given fits the movement when it began, but as per Mr Wallis, the movement is reflexive and responsive and has evolved into something else as part of its response to Modernity. --Danh108 (talk) 04:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I think you're missing my point. The topic is about the University itself which, I understand remains loosely "monastic" in its disciplines, not the entire movement surrounding it. The problem with extending the remit of the topic is, where do we draw the line of what is out and what is in? --Januarythe18th (talk) 05:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • "mediumship and spirit possession" - mediumship and spirit possession is supported by a reliable source. It is also true. Those may not be the terms the Brahma Kumaris use themselves in their publicity material but they are the technical terms for the phenomena being claimed by the Brahma Kumaris, i.e. that their founder and one of the current leaders are mediums who are possess by a spirit entity which they claim is the god of all religions. If you are a BK, you will know that this still goes on at their headquarters.
As you are an adherent, and indeed the "season" for the mass seances at which "god" possesses the leading BK medium is happening right at this time, your edit raises question about the impartiality of your intentions and whether you are just here to whitewash the topic.
I think I had left this as part of the intro, it didn't get removed. However I do think this is another example of structural issues this article faces where the introduction can too quickly leap into detailed content that is more appropriate in the later sections. The later sections even have specific headings relating to this content. --Danh108 (talk) 04:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the lede on Wikipedia is a summary of the topic which highlights the outstanding characteristics. It's not an advert for the organization. If you have any doubt about the structure, I would have a look at some of the other topics on New Religious Movements, Cults, and Sects. I have added an infobox to the page to help you navigate to them. --Januarythe18th (talk) 05:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • "removal of controversies" - again this is supported by references and underlines the concern I have mentioned above. The Wikipedia is not an advertisement, you must expect a balance of factual and critical material.
Same issue as above - also see my comments at the start of the talk page. To mention specific sections like this in the introduction isn't good writing style and it uses the structure of the article to place undue weight on this content....and the content is weak in this section and needs a thorough clean out. --Danh108 (talk) 04:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
See comment above. It's not an advert for the organization. Are the comments factually accurate and supported by references? Are they key defining elements? I think the answer is definitely yes. ––Januarythe18th (talk) 05:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • "survival of forthcoming apocalypse" - I am not sure why you would move this to "Controversies and criticism" section. It's true and non-controvesial.
If you mean last section of the articles introduction, then this has the same problem as above. It goes straight into belief content. As well as that some of the other articles I've been reading state that the BK's believe in a future new world where their organisation/movement no longer exists, which is inconsistent with the view expressed here...but as you may have seen, I'm struggling a bit to insert references, but I'll get there. Danh108 (talk) 04:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Let's review what the BKs actually teach to see if we agree on that. The article does not state that the organization will survive. It only says that the individuals will survive and go on to become the rulers of the world.
This seems to me to be inline with the BKs' teaching which state, briefly; the religion exists now, Destruction kills off 7 billion non-BKs and most BKs, some BKs live on to become the "Advance Party" and physical create a Golden Age on earth with palaces and flying machines, then 900,000 BKs come back down from heaven to inherit and rule the planet alone for 2,500 years until other religions start again. Do we can agree on that?
If so, I would say the topic reflects that accurately and there is no need to add any confusions. If you think it should be clarified that only individuals who were BKs in this life will inherit the Golden Age, then I suppose that would be fair. I'll have to re-read the article to see if that is covered.
It think you mean BKs not BK's. --Januarythe18th (talk) 05:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Uses of Brahma Kumari generated sources - Danh108, you've mention the use of a Mike George reference on the topic and your Sandbox refers to a Tamasin Ramsay thesis. Both these individuals are prominent promoters of the religion and so I think, in line with Wikipedia policy, we have to err on the side of caution if using them. --Januarythe18th (talk) 05:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

::Hi J18, very the top of the this section you are going on about how well referenced "mediumship and spirit possession" is. Then at the bottom of the section under 'Brahma Kumari generated sources' you are telling me "Tamasin Ramsay" is a BK promoter and we shouldn't use her material...well I got that bit in my sandbox from your intro in this article! You use Tamasin Ramsay's publications to support your mediumship ans spirit possession comments. Therefore "in line with Wikipedia policy" and your very own comments today, can you please delete those references! --Danh108 (talk)

Partly, it's supported by other references (it's also true) and, partly, you have to see it in the context of the editing wars of other BK followers coming along before you.
Previously BK followers have wanted to whitewash the language of the topic into something more vague or matching their organization's PR material just like you but, from memory, that was a useful example of a BK academic using that precise language. It was a while ago and so I would have to re-read what went on myself.
Unlike Mike George, she does have some academic credentials. However, in my opinion, her accuracy and intention are questionable hence the need for cautious use. --Januarythe18th (talk) 08:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
So in summary, you concede that you cherry pick academic references to suit your own agenda and concealed conflict of interest because you are the sole authority on whether someone is a reliable source, or has proper intentions. I also note some of your pigeon English from 2010 is coming back: "she does has some academic credentials" and yet I do appreciate the advice you have given me about proper use of the apostrophe. --Danh108 (talk)
What is important is that it is accurate, supported by reliable sources, and it is reasonably well formatted.
This is all ground and strategies that we have gone over with other Brahma Kumari adherents in the past.
Are you suggesting that it is wrong to say that according the religion God possesses their psychic medium Guzlar in Mount Abu and speaks through her?
No, that is what the BKWSU teaches. Then what is the problem? WP:NOTADVOCATE
Be careful, you are starting to engage in personal attacks which will count against you. --Januarythe18th (talk) 04:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Further Changes

Hi all, as advised earlier, the controversies and criticisms section has some non-Wiki bits that have found there way in there. I've got some time so I'll take the chance for a spring clean. I'll put the rationale in my edit summary. I'll just do the really obviously wrong ones so as not to make too much of a stir. Also as time goes on I would like to flag that I plan to add content. Research is still in progress, but I wanted to add some practical things to this article. It is a bit heavy on the philosophy side and I've been learning a lot about different projects and activities of the BKWSU that are quite noteworthy. Thank you and as always, your feedback is really appreciated. Danh108 (talk) 04:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Just reading the "Early History" section. It appears that the author of this section has stated a number of claims as fact without references, or where references only refer to allegations and accusations that were never proven. If no one gives me a good explanation for this I plan to go in there and clean it up.

Best wishes, Danh108 (talk) 05:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest you discuss changes in advance of making them, see above. --Januarythe18th (talk) 05:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Consider yourself advisedDanh108 (talk) 07:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
You will find you won't get very far telling people on the Wikipedia. Propose, discuss, edit.
And please learn a little about the editing tools, how to intent discussion and so on. There are a number of places to start learning, e.g., here: Wikipedia:Tutorial/Talk pages, Wikipedia:FAQ.
I am sorry but you're starting to exhausting my goodwill now. Please apply yourself to learning more first. --Januarythe18th (talk) 08:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Serious Concerns About Article Quality and January 18th

Hi January 18th and other editors/admins. I wanted to note my concerns about this page and to be clear that I want to work towards resolving the issue. At this stage the content is being totally dominated by one user and perhaps because it's a fairly unknown topic with little public interest it has been able to continue like this. J18 in particular, I am putting you on notice that I won't just stand by and do nothing. As per my userpage, maybe it's the Wikipedian in me, but the material is meant to be fair, neutral and balanced. So please be on notice that I will be adding factual and well referenced positive content, not because I'm a "religious promoter", but because you have the negative side fully covered. If you continue to revert all content I will have to use the processes Wikipedia offers to resolve the following:

  • Control of the page - Wikipedia is a collaborative project where multiple editors are meant to work on articles to improve the content. Unfortunately January 18th appears to be sitting on this page, scaring off any would be contributor by reverting any changes and labeling them "adherents" and "religious promoters".
  • Talking about proposed changes proved fairly futile - even reasonable edits are being blocked.
  • I will concede I'm not very experienced in editing Wikipedia, but I have a good nose when it comes to undisclosed conflicts of interest...there is something extremely fishy when someone knows a topic so well, and Wiki so well....

Kind RegardsDanh108 (talk) 02:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

See latest comment above. I think you have to learn a lot more about the Wikipedia, how it works, the editing tools and templaes before you go diving into a topic where you have a clear conflict of interest.
It would be better if you gained some more experience on other topics where you do not have a conflict if interest first.
Like I have said more than once, my advice to you would be to work uninterrupted on a version in your sandbox until it is complete, and then let's discuss that. Otherwise you are going to waste a lot of time and energy in pointless discussions covering ground which has been gone over. --Januarythe18th (talk) 08:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Fixing up Cherry picking

Having a read of some of the reference material provided, I noticed how some of the quotes selected were inconsistent with the resources as a whole. I have attempted to balance this by including other information from the exact same reference material, giving the article more neutrality and credibility. I note that January 18th unilaterally removed tags about cherry picking and conflict of interest. This is a significant concern as this editor is in my view seeking to control all content to portray views of his own organisation/group. Please discuss here BEFORE seeking to make any changes. Regards Danh108 (talk) 07:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree we should discuss first before changes and have asked you to do so before.
I consider that as a follower of the religion there are biases in your edits confusing how the BKWSU wish to be seen as to how they actually are.
For example, it might be fair to claim the BKWSU wish to be seen as good managers but there is no evidence to prove that they actually are. Do you have any that state that?
Also the quote says "cult busters" have given them a "relatively clean bill of health", not a "clean bill of health" as you wrote, so that would suggest bias again. I am not sure how academic the idea of "cult busters" is, nor does the source determine who exactly they might be. I don't know what slur you are attempting, or who you think I am, but I have no "organisation/group".
Nor am I the original author of the section you are re-working.
Thank you. --Januarythe18th (talk) 10:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
If you wish to insert the word "relatively", please do. I agree with your points about the resource, however it is from the exact same paragraph that is used earlier in the introduction, so the concern being expressed also reflects on that edit/usage.
Re Musslewhite part of intro - If you look at the reference provided, it gives a quote from the exact some guy - Musselwhite - expressing the content you have just reverted. It is unclear to me why you would revert content which is supported by evidence from the exact same resource. Otherwise there is a risk that an independent person may misconstrue that as cherry picking. I prefer the version I inserted because at least it reflected content from both quotes. Do you have any valid objection to me reverting it back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danh108 (talkcontribs) 11:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Danh108 (talk) 11:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Looking at the controversy section, I cannot see that any of them have any specifically "Eastern" cause. They're just plain old fashioned universal corruptions or millenarianism and so on, Therefore I must consider that your own primary research (WP:PRIMARY) and not important enough for the lede.
Unless you were to offer good faith edits my cautiousness regarding your whitewashing of the article would be based on WP:CONFLICT. In the first place, you were not clear about your long term involvement with the religion and since then you have not offer any substantial additions. Unfortunately, we have suffered from a tide of BKWSU editors doing just the same. --Januarythe18th (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Can I just confirm with you that the final paragraph of the lede is objectively accurate, i.e. re End of the World and 1,250 years ? Of course, one could argue it should be 2,500 years of exclusive heaven on earth. Thank you. --Januarythe18th (talk) 16:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
With respect to "objective accuracy", all we have to go off is the supporting reference materials. The reference used in the final paragraph of the lede is inconsistent with other material/quotes in the same resources and therefore lacks neutrality - please explain why that quote is being used in preference to the other? If both are not included, the basis for selecting one quote in preference to the other reflects personal bias. With respect, I have raised this concern with you several times already. Please answer - on what basis have you made your selection? The paragraph itself is only partially supported by the reference.
Please answer points 1 & 2 - 1.Why will you not allow other editors to make any changes to this article?
In relation to the "a tide of BKWSU editors" wanting to make substantial changes to the page - had it ever occurred to you the article could be attracting this because it is biased and lacks neutrality? (no answer required)
Actually, when the account "January 18th" started editing, that person (you) held themselves out as being a BKWSU editor. 2. Can you please explain why this is?
Kind Regards Danh108 (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I asked you a simple and direct question to see if you were willing to sincerely discuss matters, and to see whether you are basing your edits on objective truths, or attempting to whitewash the article.
Is it true to say the BKWSU believes it leaders are going rule the world following a forthcoming nuclear apocalypse, that 900,000 BKs will be reborn and go on to enjoy 1,250 years of a Golden Age on earth which only BK followers will experience, and that the teachings tell BK adherents to earn a high status in that future heaven by surrendering and donating to the organization? Yes or no?

What matters are two things, firstly references but also sincerity or 'good faith' at how the references are being used.
I think the reason the article has stabilised is that it is very accurate, complete and well referenced. The reason it is very well referenced is that an army of BK followers, sometimes working as a team, have from time and time again challenged, removed or made more vague what we know are clear, objective truths.
From time to time we have a BK follower come along and delete it all, try to re-write it as an advertizement (see: WP:NOT), or attack the PBKs etc but, apart from that, it is difficult to see what more could be added until some factual change comes along, like the head of the organization dies.
Are there any hard, factual elements which are incorrect? No.
Why not work on some other pages, or work on your own version in your Sandbox and when it is complete, let us see it for discussion? --Januarythe18th (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)



I think you are using incorrect or misleading tags and so have removed them. Please discuss this first.

With regards conflict of interest issue, see WP:LUC. --Januarythe18th (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I would have thought that the purpose of tags is to notify people there is an issue with the page that is yet to be resolved, and to leave the tags alone until Wiki admin have given you the all clear - considering the scope of your admission and abuse of Wikipedia, I'm amazed that you would remove the tags. However it is consistent with other disruptive behaviours being exhibited.
I had a look at WP:LUC, but didn't see it's relevance.
Kind Regards Danh108 (talk) 08:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
You've started off on a bad footing and are digging yourself a deeper hole. You're making false statements and a throwing around lot of unsubstantiated allegations in order to further your goals, rather than discussing the content.
I've made a number of suggestions to you;
Use your sandbox to experiment, create an alternative and work on it first
Gain some experience on topics that you do not have a vested interest and
Discuss edits first.
That's the way things are done.
Thank you. --Januarythe18th (talk) 03:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)