Talk:Brahma Kumaris/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Nov 2005 - July 2006
July 2006 - Aug 2006
Aug 2006 - Sept 2006
Sept 2006 - Oct 2006
early Oct 2006
late Oct 2006
early Nov 2006
late Nov 2006
December 2006
Late Dec 2006 - Feb 2007
March 2007 - June 2007
July 2007 - August 2007
Late August 2007
September 2007 - August 2009
August 2009 - March 2010
March 2010 - March 2012
March 2012 - March 2013


BK teaching posters

I notice that the links to the "BK teaching posters" in the article forward you to a site that doesn't appear to be recognised by the BKs. As they purport to be the teaching posters used by the BKs (rather than any splinter groups), can the author please provide evidence/verification that these posters are indeed official BK teaching posters - or that the site that they are hosted on is a recognised official BK site (as I may be mistaken). I understand a week is a reasonable time for an author to provide the requested information. If it is not forthcoming within that time, I'll delete the entry. Appledell 19:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I have now deleted the link as per my note above. Appledell 19:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, they are included in the books written by BK Jagdish Chander and published by the BKWSU which are referenced in the topic.
Have you actually read any of the references befor your attempt to ignore them!?! This is the problem with you BKs. All the references are given but because you have personally not read them, you think you have the right to remove elements.
Do you need to to give you actual page references or are you willing to go back to your Raja Yoga center and ask to read them there?
I will, of course, revert this. 00:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Its been discussed. You did not respond. There are no such rules.
You are a BK. You can easily check against the BKWSU's own records and those given in the referenced books as can any other contributor. That is the way the wiki works. 11:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism by Riveros11 AKA Avaykt7

Jossi, On November 17th Riveros11,avyakt7,,, All, reverted all my citations which were part of the discussion here. His claim was that citations were vandalism, which is what he was asking for which seems contradictory. Today he deleted several sections, including ones with citations by the BBC and Time[1]. I ask now in a most concerned way, is User Riveros afforded some special treatment in that I feel he should have been cited for vandalism for removing my items and for doing so with whole sections today saying that it was under your direction in the edit summary[2][3][4]. Please explain as I just spent over $1,500 in research material feeling that I would meet the challenge (since he wants numbers of pages etc) but now feel that fairness is not being afforded to those of us that seek a fair and equitable view of this organisation beyond what has now become a copy of a report/PR view by Riveros. Please note that the references were there in plain view and that not once has Riveros nor any of the IT Team said no they were not true. Using the system to gain what they sought the whole time. What we have here is a piece meal removal of all that their (BKWSU) via their PR Chief KarunaBK wanted removed and the PR spin put in place. See that the very sections that he removed are the very sections Karunabk wanted removed without discussion. Here Riveros is intimidating and busy placing big Stop signs on peoples pages yet feels he is beyond the rules that all must follow:[5][6][7][8][9][10]

As you may recall I asked for help on November 12th due to his multiple deletions [11]. He said he would cooperate but I see not such cooperation or good will given that he has gone and done the exact thing and removed the citations. I can understand he wants to defend his "Faith" but if he wants a PR point perhaps he can do that in his website http:/

  • I am requesting the items cited to be placed back.
  • I am requesting that Riveros11 whole deletions be placed back if in deed they were not under your direction.
  • His intimidation tactics have been dully noted on multiple occasions. He has even begun on Sethie. Sethie has done good work on wiki efforts to link to other pages for meaning as is common in all other articles.
  • I would like it said that upon the citation being noted that the material should be placed back with out further ado by Riveros since the only point of argument was that the citations were not next to the very entry

I will await your response. TalkAbout 21:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear TalkAbout,
Are you Please answer that question. All your so called "citations" were never discussed in this page and most important, they are not considered reliable sources (researched material by authorities in the field of study) Also, please note that you are using one incident which is unrelated to this artcile to give a bad impression of Brahma Kumaris. Admin Jossi pointed out about the "child abuse case." Another one is Heide. Just because she was a BK member at one time, just like yourself or .244 that does not make her a representative of BK. As I said before, many well know criminals are out there who profess christianity, and that does not mean that I can put them in the Christianity page as examples. Please be resonable. Your work should be discussed here. You are not an exemption. You had ample time to do so, other than the fact that you come into this picture, whenever user .244 cannot, will not or does not contribute here,that makes you a non-regular editor who only shows up to change things around without previous discussion.
Please submit reliable sources. Look forward to seeing them in this page before being added. Thank you. avyakt7 22:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I am trying to understand this dispute, and I would appreciate if it can be discussed one item at a time. [This diff shows the deletion of material that does not seem to be referenced to any source, with the exception of a subsection named "Heidi Fittkau-Garthe". The unreferenced material was deleted because no sources were forthcoming. The "Heidi Fittkau-Garthe" section I am not sure what is the relevance of one person situation in an article about a religion, unless these types of behaviors have been widely reported as part of the religion or beliefs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

External links section

The EL section needs to be pruned. Please read WP:EL for some useful guidelines on what to link to and what to avoid linking to. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Following Jossi's suggestion, I propose the following deletions from the external links: In the ex-bk section, deletion of - as it contains a lot of the unfounded assertions that Jossi termed not appropriate above (eg child abuse claims, etc). This is in breach of the links policy on wikipedia, which prohibits the linking to "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research." I would also question the reason for having links to "ex bk sites" at all. Would any other faith/organisation have links to ex-members of their wikipedia articles? What is the relevance? There may be relevant reasons that someone can provide for keeping this section - but if not, I will delete it. I also propose deleting all the PBK links - as they are an organisation that are not part of the BKs or have any official relationship with the BKs. For the same reason, I also propose the link to the "Vishnu Party" be deleted. I will allow a week for the author/s who put up the various links I mention to verify the reasons for them to stay. Appledell 10:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear All,
I would like to point out even the bibliography has some items that are not suitable and consistent with Jossi's and Appledell's input. Best Wishes, avyakt7 10:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Since this is an article about BK, not an article BY or FOR Brahma Kumaris, an ex-BK site is TOTALLY appropriate, if it meets wikipedia standards.
What people have said about BK, if they meet wiki standards, is what we use to write articles, whether they are "pro," "con" or neutral. Sethie 20:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
That is not totally correct. Only these sites that are considered reliable sources can be used in articles. Personal websites, blogs, anonymous websites and the like are not considered reliable sources for Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Jossi I am not seeing the difference between your and my statement. I said "if they meet wiki standards" it is appropriate to use a website. You said, "only these sites that are considered reliable sources" can be used in articles. Help me understand how what I said is different from what you said? Sethie 01:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I may have misunderstood what you said. But in reviewing the site in question, I doubt it meets the standards required. If there is material in that site that has been published by a reliable source, editors could link/cite these sources. All other commentary and OR, unless described on secondary/reliable sources, has no place in the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, that clears it up for me, my post was not about a specific site. Sethie 03:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I have now made made the deletions I suggested above - one week notice has passed without anyone challenging. Appledell 19:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Dear All,
Here are the wikipedia standards:[12] I would like to point out: "Self-published sources (online and paper)
Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.
Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." It is well know that it is an ex-bk site and user.244 (one of the main editors) is not an authority in the field and that site is his own site (archives back in october have the proof for this.)
Thank you. Best, avyakt7 23:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • There are two issues here you are working hard to override Luis. The policy also states;
Self-published and dubious sources in articles about the author(s)
Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources in articles about the author(s) of the material, so long as:
it is relevant to their notability;
it is not contentious;
it is not unduly self-serving;
it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it.
What that means is that material published by the BKWSU is perfectly acceptable within these guidelines; websites, Murlis, teaching posters etc. by whoever choses and, frankly, where ever it is referenced.
Just out if interest, why is it acceptable to have links and reference to material on your own site God has come? But not material on other sites such as the BKWSU produced material on Who is trying to reference any self-published material on anyway? 02:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Why on earth you spending $1000 on research. you take life too seriously. people like have a shorter life expectancy. this is the problem with ego it carries with no expense, trash your life and worry over nothing, Find a hobby that you enjoy doing.Jesselp 18:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Jesselp my request is that you do not include such personal comments on this discussion page. My thought is, "there is already enough tension here." It also goes contrary, in my opinion, to Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks Sethie 21:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Yup, and please learn how to sign into the Wiki, Jesselp. 02:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sethie, i am not here comment to create more tension, i do apologies if this has happened, but i feel health and safety advice should be given to individuals, as people can live in a way without knowing, can harm themselfs or develop symptoms which will result into something more tedious to resolve, which i am able to see in here. as a psychologist so i feel some what irresponsible if i can see issues that people are displaying and not give information/advice in how to deal with the situation. i made this comment public as he/she is not the only. And when i sign with the ~ it comes up with jp auto. again i do apologize things were taken wrongly.  ;) Jesselp 13:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey Jesselp - you know I felt that as I read your response, I really had the sense that behind your words was a place of caring and concern.
In terms of participating here, I'd ask that: a) you don't post such comments HERE on the discussion page and b)if you do place them on individual talk pages, to express yourself as you did just above: "Hey, I am concerned. I see this. I feel the need to express my concerns" and c) add to that expression: Would you like to here more? If you expressed yourself along that lines, it would not violate wp:No personal attacks or WP:civility. love, Sethie 15:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Ahh yes, and in terms of singing use four of those ~ in a row. :) Sethie 15:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
So, how do we square this with comparible topics such as the Moonies or Scientologists where what could be conceivably "self-published" sites are referenced to give a balance point of view? ,e.g. or
I am sorry, I don't consider this issue resolved. 00:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Given that the proponents behind silencing any impartial view are BKWSU members, can we adopt the format on the Moonies page?
Official links
Supportive views
Opposing views
Balanced views 00:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
The Moonies wikipedia article contains no criticism about the organisation, but does contain links to critical sites (without saying what the criticisms are in the Moonies article itself). Is that the model you are proposing? (IE, separating the links section to official links, supportive views, opposing views and balanced views?). If that is what you are proposing, I don't have a problem with that, as long as the links are in line with wikipedia guidelines of course.
Appledell 13:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

7 day course deletion

Dear All, On Nov. 22nd a post was made regarding the seven day course. We have not received any support on this as far as reliable sources to back up the explanations in it. As pointed out before, it will be very hard to find an expert explanation on it. However, there are a couple of links to the BK site which fully explain the expected content on these classes. If there are not reliable sources available then this content will be erased on Dec.7th. (Note that 15 days have been given). Thank you. Best Wishes, avyakt7 10:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

There was one clear reference already to the correspondence course published by the BKWSU. I have just added another to an earlier version of the same title by Jagdish Chander. This is self-published material by the BKWSU that meets Wikipedia standards stated above. Any contributor wishing to follow up these references can attend any of the 7,000 Raja Yoga centers worldwide or purchase copies online.
I must check exactly where your PR whitewash has got to but see no reason make significant changes to this section. 02:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Dear 244,I do not appreciate your comments about "my PR whitewash" You know that is not true. I have placed a "civil" tag in your talk page. There is no need to put down anyone efforts. Best Wishes, avyakt7 16:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry, "your" is not just singular but also collective in English. I was address to the entire BKWSU team working on this topic article. Even those not actively using keyboards. 00:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


Achievements were better in bullet point form. dont need an essay for it.

jesselp 19:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear JP, Thank you for your input. Would you re-write this paragraph maintaining the substance of it and post it here? Best Wishes, avyakt7 02:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
sure, jesselp 18:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
hi i don't think i can maintain the substance, its just a different form of showing achievements. see i am taking the view that people just need to have a quick glance to see achievements. so will leave it as it is.
jesselp 18:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Million Minutes not a UN project.


The Million Minutes of Peace was not a UN project as stated. It was a BKWSU project. Factual error. Removed running courses as achievement. Hardly ... 03:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

But the bkwsu were given a award for it by the it was an achievement.
or we could have a new topic called awards if it is not an achievement
jesselp 18:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
jesselpI note your insults on my talk page suggesting I need counselling. In all humility, do you also have a problem with English comprehension? Can you read what was written above? I said, "running courses" hardly warrants being listed as a notable "achievement".
I also stated correctly that the Million Minutes of Peace was not "a UN project" as written. It was entirely a BWSU and so this is a factor error which the BK contributor cannot possibly verify. Please read things through carefully before knee jerking. 03:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Removal of mediumship and channelling from intro

OK. I am challenging the removal of mediumship and channelling from intro and have replaced it as per earlier edits. The reason for this is plain. It is the one single element that so distinguishes BK Raja Yoga from Classical Raja Yoga and this has to be made clear. The academics all refer to it so there is no objection from that corner. It also highlights the issue that Shiva, the channelled being that is being mediumistically channelled through Kirpalani and Gulzar, cannot easily be referred to as "God" without qualification. One can state that the BKWSU believes that is it God but as the concept is so radically different from any other world religion, and would bring it into immediate conflict with all of them, we have to go cautious on this claim and not pander to BKWSU propaganda.

I am sorry but one can no more accept one sociologists view of yogic or psychic matters where they repeat BKWSU obfuscation of this matter, than one would accept Einstein's expertise in violin playing; because they are outside of their specialism. In preference, we have to rely on the organization's own original material. 05:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I note no objection to this being replaced as it is clearly referenced in the academic works chosen by Riveros11.
Thank you. 04:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Removal of links

I see Luis is wanting to remove third party links that expose or criticize the BKWSU.

I had a look at similar topic on the Wiki, e.g. Scientologists or Moonies, and I see that the topic include links to such critical/opposing or balance views and so I see no difference to why the BKWSU article should exclude them.

Ditto, to "Controversies" and so I am restoring that section as well. The references to these have already been discussed on these pages.

Thanks. 05:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the "controversy" section again - as per jossi's comments above. If you have a problem with that - answer Jossi's concerns. DONT just make edits without prior warning on this page. You have been extended this courtesy - try and do the same.
Appledell 10:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The references to these have already been discussed on these pages. 03:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes they have - and admin Jossi has deemed them inappropriate for use in the article (see his comments above). Unless you can provide more substantial reasoning, this section will be deleted later today - as per my 7 day rule warning (feel free to provide others this courtesy - as has already been suggested by Jossi and Sethie). Appledell 07:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Not all. If you go back into the archives of the Discussion pages you will find the further references. 01:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The admin's most recent advice on this subject is what should be used as our guidelines - as it supersedes and takes into account previous references. Appledell 14:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

removal of mediumship from intro

OK. Back to basics.

"FRONT" organisations

I propose replacing the word "front" with "affiliated" organisation. The use of the word "front" is clearly loaded and implies the organisation is trying to hide behind the identity of these other organisations. Better to just state that these other organisations are affiliated to the BKs - it's up to the individual to decide if they are "fronts" or just natural extensions of the BKs work. I also propose deleting the phrase: "At events promoted by any one of these entities, one might find other BKs present under the mantle of "representing" one of the other organizations rather than the BKWSU in a self-reciprocating manner." This is just commentary and contains sinister undertones, which is not relevant. I will amend within a week, unless a suitable argument can be put up. Appledell 10:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It is difficult. Most are not affiliated organisation in the true meaning of the words, except perhaps the hospital. They are wholly run BKWSU fronts or "trading names" the BKWSU uses for "service". I dont see that the word "front" has negative connotations.
And the statement of how BKs turn up at meetings representing themselves as representatives of other BK organizations is certain true. I'll have a root around the references to see how this is best documented. Thanks. 04:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
"Front" does have negative connotations - as it implies that the BKs are hiding behind the name (as you yourself clearly imply). I will replace it with "affiliated" unless you come up with a better, neutral, term. BKs may well come to events representing these different affiliated groups/fronts/wings. I don't see why that has any relevance. It is commentary. Again, I will wait until the 7 day limit for discussion I've put has been reached before I make the change. Appledell 08:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
And I will revert it beause the references have been given and I disagree that front is negative (just as academics disagree that the word cult is negative).
An affiliation is between entirely separate groups. These are groups, or service campaigns, raised entirely by the BKWSU and quite specifically in the case of Inner Spaces, "shop fronts" to the organization.
If we look at the Wiki definition; a front organization (or organisation), also known as a front group (if it is structured to look like a voluntary association); a front company, a shell corporation or simply a front (if it is structured to look like a company), is any entity set up by and controlled by another organization. A front organization may simply be a proxy that keeps the parent group's name out of the picture or it may look publicly as if it is set up to do one thing, but actually be set up to do something else on behalf of its parent group. Front organizations are also commonly used to shield the parent organization from legal liability; this is the most common reason for the creation of shell corporations. it would appear to be quite accurate.
If we look at the websites of these front groups we can inspect the stated relationship with the BKWSU and it is on occasions clearly obfuscated. 01:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Using the definition you yourself have used: "A front organization may simply be a proxy that keeps the parent group's name out of the picture or it may look publicly as if it is set up to do one thing, but actually be set up to do something else on behalf of its parent group." Can you identify is each case where the organisation/company/group has been set up to do one thing but is actually doing something else? On each website it states clearly what the aims of that organisation/company/group are. To call them "fronts" requires them to have other aims to the ones they state (as per the definition you quote). Can you outline - with citations - what these ulterior aims are for each organisation/company/group? If you cannot, I maintain that the term "affiliated" is a better and more accurate term to use. Appledell 14:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
No, I chose the first neutral definition. I suggest that the middle way is "Fronts and affiliated organizations".
References to date are the Soft Sell of Raja Yoga, "Living Values: an educational program"- Arweck & Nesbitt, University of Warwick UK I believe both were give ages ago but you people continue to choose to ignore them. 05:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Contributions by user

Dear .244, I am glad to see you back again! However, you know the rules of Wikipedia. You must discuss your proposed changes here before you attempt to change anything in this article. Note the ample margin which is given to you and supporters to come up with reliable sources. On the other hand, you just appear after a prolonged absence and change things around... Please act in a civil fashion. I will be more than happy to discuss things with you here. I have the time...plenty of time. I have posted a warning sign in your talk page, actually you deserve the "last warning" because you are recurrent, but deserve a chance.

I will revert the article back as it was. You have been warned. You know that we are following procedures clearly outlined to us by admin Jossi. One more time, please behave correctly. Best Wishes, avyakt7 13:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear- I do very much support talking changes over for this page first AND there is no official wiki policy that I am aware of that says we have to. See my discussion below for a proposal how can move this page closer to that! love, Sethie 15:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Luis.
  • You played a very clever trick of using intimidating vandalism warnings to have me blocked and during that time you pushed through your re-write.
  • You continue your intimidation of other editors by doing the same.
  • I offered you the change of mediation and arbitration, informed you and these page of such and you refused to engage.
  • I have attempted to engage you in accepting Wiki policy sources on many occasions and you ignored it as you do others concerns.
  • You have no intention of discussing matter and neither do the rest of the BKWSU team. What are you going to do next? We have even had senior BKs writing to the Mediawiki foundation making false claims and accusations. Knowing the BKWSU, I fully expect Jimbo Wales will be receiving flattering invitation to soem conference, VIP dinner or the BKWSU headquarters and to discover BK sisters in white saris camped out at the Wikipedia offices like they have done all across the Indian media controlling it.
  • OK, let's discuss. Why are we going to remove all mention of channelling and mediumship from the start of the topic and why should we obfuscate the BKWSU's belief that this channelled being is God with general opinions of what is God?
What do you have to say then? 04:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

To user Appledell

Dear Appledell, Once the article has been reverted by someone without previous discussion, that article will be reverted back again. Thus, whatever changes you made will be gone as well. I suggest if you could revert the article back to its version now ( containing Dr. Walliss correction of his last name, ver Nov 28, 2006 13:33) and make your changes there, if they have been previously discussed here. If you gave a notice on previous links and the time has elapsed without response, you may go ahead and make the proposed changes. Thank you and Best Wishes, avyakt7 13:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I did not know that - thanks. Appledell 16:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I am glad to discover Dr Walliss consistent interest in the actions of the BKWSU and BKs. You have no such authority to make statement such as "that article will be reverted back again " Luis. 04:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Controversy Tag

I have added the controvery tag to this talk page. Assuming no one objects to me placing it (if so, please discuss here), that does make it actual policy for this page that every significant change BE DISCUSSED HERE, after the change, and that you place descriptions in the edit summary field.

Given the current climate, I concur with Riveros that disucssion should happen BEFORE major change.... and this is the best I know how to move in that direction.Sethie 15:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sethie, Thank you for your constructive suggestion. Best, avyakt7 16:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

To user Maleabroad

Dear Maleabroad, I have placed a "last warning" tag for vandalizing this page and reverted the article. You will be blocked again if you continue. Best, avyakt7 21:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I want to change the subsection "Concept of God" as following:
"However this is nothing new, as Shaiva Hindus also worship Shiva as representing Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesh Himself. Shiva creates by entering the world through a corporeal medium, awakening humanity and restoring human souls to their original state of harmony (creator aspect). Because He is Mahāyogi (Sanskrit महायोगी) in Hindu Dharma He develops and sustains this balanced and complete human personality through the power of raja yoga and the knowledge he imparts to humanity (preserver aspect). He gets evil and negativity eliminated through the practice and lifestyle of raja yoga (destroyer aspect Ekambaranatha [Sanskrit एकम्बरनथ])."
If this appears fine, I will post it.- Maleabroad
Dear Maleabroad,
Can you give an explanation as to why your suggested change is needed in this article? What difference does it make if the belief is "nothing new"? Nowhere in the article does it say that the concept of God that the BKs have IS new. By your logic, does every aspect of BK belief need referring in the article as being new or old? It just seems to be over-complicating the article.
Appledell 22:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Dear Maleabroad, Thank you for following the guidelines. Your post is appreciated. Let me point out some things: 1)It appears to me that we need to provide reliable sources to back up our posts. 2) It was pointed out by admin Jossi that this article needs to be written having the "reader" in mind, which not necessarily may be knowledgful of Hinduism or a BK member, ex-member. 3)This article is about Brahma Kumaris. Brahma Kumaris is not Hinduism, just as Calvinism is not Christianity. Christianity is the root, but Calvinism is a colorful branch on its own right. I could make a similar analogy by introducing the concept of the "holy trinity" in Christianity (Father , Son and holy ghost) as well and compare it with the BK concept of the Trimurti. 4) Sanskrit is not used by BKs but rather Hindi. Would like to hear your side on these points as well.
Best Wishes, avyakt7 00:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
How is the Brahma Kumaris not a Hindu organization? A Hindu is a person who practices karma and bhakti for the achievement of Moksha. Obviuously you are not of Indian/Hindu background. You were not even born as a BK. Your attempts to create a wedge between Hinduism and BKs is vandalism and you will be reported! Just because the BKs prefer not to use Sanskrit does not make it non-Hindu. Several scriptures such as Puranas were written in Tamil and Tamil is said to be a holy langauge. The BKs are Hindus just as the Shias are Islamics.
Furthermore, I think it is necessary to add the Mahāyogi (Sanskrit/Hindi महायोगी) as the paragraph derscribes Lord Shiva as creating the raja yoga and I think it is also necessary to add Ekambaranatha [Sanskrit/Hindi एकम्बरनथ] because the paragraph also describes Him as destroying evil and negativity.
Dear Maleabroad, You are right, I am not Hindu. In this life, I wasn't born in Bharat. I am a Brahma Kumar. There is a difference here. You elect to become a Brahma Kumar, but yet it is in your fortune. There are many westerners who are Brahma Kumaris, but yet none of them Hindus. I am one of them. Best Wishes, avyakt7 20:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, so the Brahma Kumari is a spiritual group of which anyone can become a part of. It has a Hindu orientation but even a Christian or Muslim can be a part of it. if however the Westerners that become BKs practice both karma and bhakti for achieving Moksha, then by all means they are Hindus.
I will post what I previously discussed unless someone has an objection why it is not appropriate and a logical reasoning.
Dear Maleabroad, Thank you for your response. I do have an objection. I do not consider myself Hindu AND I do not practice bhakti, BUT I am a BK. As a matter of fact, in BK the whole aspect of devotion is replaced by knowledge. Physical devotion as when performing "puja" is out of the question. Thus, please do not jump in to posting yet. You need to demonstrate (hopefully with reliable sources)why do think that by practicing "karma" and "bhakti" for achieving Moksha makes a BK a Hindu. As a matter of fact, the state of Moksha is not permanently attainable according to BK knowledge, unlike the beliefs of other religions. Finally, according to BK knowledge; Karma is not something that you "practice" but rather is a mandatory requisite of experiencing life in the physical world. This is my logical reasoning. Best, avyakt7 23:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me explain to you what Karma is. Karma is a rule that souls have to practice good. If they practice good, the supreme nature (or "Brahman") will award them. If however, a soul dooes bad deeds, they are in trouble. Good Karma has to be practiced by a soul. You might not consider yourself a Hindu, but BK is based mostly around Shiva. Non-Hindu BKs do not have to accept Shiva but since He is focused around so much, I think it is necessary to mention Him. Maleabroad

I think Shiva SHOULD be mentioned as the Mahāyogi (Sanskrit/Hindi महायोगी) so that people understand that BKs are not making up things about Him creating the raja yoga as Hindus see Him as the perfect yogi. I think Ekambaranatha [Sanskrit/Hindi एकम्बरनथ] should be added because Shiva is a destroyer or evil and negativity as He is described in Hinduism.
Dear Maleabroad, What you mentioned about karma is not what BKs think of it. Karma means "action." Actions can be neutral, sinful or elevated. There is a very profound explanation of actions besides the more simple label of "good actions."
Shiva, the Supreme Soul is mentioned in the article as a quote by Dr. Howell. Shiva is the Father, Teacher and Satguru in BK knowledge. Shiva is not the destroyer. That aspect of the Trimurti is represented by Shankar. (There is another deep aspect here concerning God Shiva as karankaravanhar which could only be understood if we can grasp paradoxes.) As you can see there are many discrepancies which allow me to say that BK is not Hinduism.
Best Wishes, avyakt7 01:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry but BK Hindus believe that karma can be practiced. How can a person not choose whether to be good or bad??
Furthermoer, BK Hindus believe that Shiva is the Supreme, and that He Himself can represent the trinity as Shaiva Hindus do. Furthermore, they believe that Lord Shiva is the destroyer of evil as everyone believes.
How can a Westerner born far from India without any Indian/Hindu background (and further without BK background) say that BKs are not Hindus. BKs can belong to any religion. The founder was a Hindu and it would be a disgrace if you keep propagating. I recommend you find another groups if you will disgrace the BKs. Others reading this article have been angered by your comments and false warnings that you give when they put their contributions.
Dear Maleabroad, The founder of BK is the incorporeal Supreme Soul Shiva. As you mentioned: "How can a person not choose whether to be good or bad?" my response is: "How can a person not choose to be angry or not?" It is not my response what makes them angry.. It is them... It is their choice...their karma.
Thank you for your advice, but I am OK by being a BK. Best Wishes, avyakt7 01:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Heya Maleabroad how about if you keep the personal advice and opinions to yourself please. If you wish talk about how BK is right or wrong, whether someone should or shouldn't belong, please do that elsewhere. Sethie 02:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, karma is theirs, they can choose their karma. If you respect the Brahma Kumaris you will have to respect the Hindu Dharma, to which the group is oriented. The Brahma Kumari founder was a Hindu observing Hinduism and made His organization so that people of any religion can become close to God and even hoped to united all religions against irreligiousity. Whenever someone with no Indian/Hindu background makes bizzare claims, we Hindus see it as DISPICIBLE. I will post that Lord Shiva is the Mahāyogi (Sanskrit/Hindi महायोगी) and Ekambaranatha [Sanskrit/Hindi एकम्बरनथ]. In fact, it belongs in this article! I will also mention that His Holyness, the Brahma Baba chose Mount Abu as the BK center because it is a holy site, a pilgrimage for Hindus. - Maleabroad

Dear Maleabroad, I respect all religions. I am just stating that Brahma Kumaris is not Hinduism. The founder of Brahma Kumaris is not a Hindu. It is the Supreme Soul "Shiva." known to religions as the "Father," "God." through a physical "chariot." Please produce some reliable sources to back up your statements. Provide reliable sources which prove that BK is Hinduism. Otherwise, without consensus, whatever you write will be erased. It is very simple. Best Wishes, avyakt7 17:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
You are asking me to prove how BK philosophy is Hindu?
BK is not a religion but a spirituality of which a member of any religion can belong to!
How many times do I have to stress this?
Even if say, that the BKs are not Hindus, how are my posts describing Shiva as the Mahāyogi (Sanskrit/Hindi महायोगी) and Ekambaranatha [Sanskrit/Hindi एकम्बरनथ] not appropriate? By the way, BK Hindus are all named in Sanskrit. Shiva itself is either from Sanskrit Si meaning "auspicious" or civappu meaning "red."
A Hindu is a person who practices Karma and Bhakti for the achievement of Moksha. Then the BKs which do this are obvious Hindus just as the BKs that are Chrisitians are Christians and the BKs that are Muslims are Muslims.
A BK is a person who believes that Shiva is God, Brahma Baba is His messenger, Raja Yoga is the most auspicious yoga and that Moksha is the goal. Just because you do not practice Bhakti does not mean Bhakti was not intended by Brahma Baba.
How about you try to prove that they are not Hindus?
Dear Maleabroad, I will start form the end to avoid expansion. Very happy to present proof to you [13]"I have the inclination to say that in Brahma Kumaris we encounter in principle a ‘new religion' in the process of being born. A few decades are still needed to be able to make a good assessment. However, we can see that in a certain respect Brahma Kumaris has become more ‘Western' in recent years and also that it has gone more in the direction of the ‘psychological line', more or less joining the company of many modern New Age psychological movements. If this tendency continues it could become clear that Brahma Kumaris is in fact a new religion, originating within Hinduism but going its own way." This is Professor Kranenborg an expert in this field. This is what is called a reliable source. Now is your turn. BTW, there is no such a thing as "BKs being Christians" You are a BK, period. Best, avyakt7 01:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Of course, that's what some foolish Westerners believe (or want to believe) about the Brahma Kumari path. Go ask a BK Hindu if they are not Hindu. Simply to do raja yoga does not make someone a BK. They have a worship too. You are getting yourself in deep bad karma. You and fascists like "Sethie" has no clue what you are discussing.
Apart from being a Hindu by practiginc karma and bhakti for achieving Moksha, BKs ALSO USE MANY HINDU SYMBOLS. They use Durga Ma as She is slaying the buffolo Mahish. They use Sri Krishna. They also use the Swastika. And these are only a few examples. Please don't embarass yourself by claiming something stupid.
- Maleabroad
Dear Maleabroad, Where are your reliable sources? I gave you mine. Where are yours? Best, avyakt7 02:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
The following links that depict the BK celebrating Hindu festivals is my reference. "Brahma", "Shiva"-these are Sanskrit words they use. Your "reference," (if it can really be called that) is Westerners telling something about the BK. These people making such comments are not BKs and are certanily not Hindus! How can they know the truth about the BK path?? - Maleabroad

Your unspoken accusation that non-BK's have nothing of worth to add to wikipedia is ... well against the grain of wikipedia! If that is your deep-felt belief, my reccomendation is that you go somewhere else. And, would you be willing to sign your posts like everyone else, using 4 ~. Not only will it make the disucssion easier to follow- not signing like everyone else, at lease for me, and probably other editors as well lowers your credibility here. Sethie 18:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Sethie, a non-BKs saying who a BK is like a kafir saying who a Muslim is. What a kafir says that Islamilis/Druze are not Muslims?? Muslims will get offended. - Maleabroad

Riveros11 continued intimidation of other contributors by the use of wiki tricks such as screaming vandalism

  • While agree that Maleabroad's contributions are actually plainly inappropriate, if not just inaccurately placed, for the article on the BKWSU, I do not agree that his input in 'vandalism and have to caution you on your current tactics.

Luis, I appreciate that you are taking Shrimat on all this from your senior sister. It is clear that you are working for the BKWSU and so I appreciate your position BUT screaming "vandal" at an individual that is plainly a fairly inexperience newcomer is against wiki guideline of Please do not bite the newcomers.

Just stop Luis. It his opinion, it is different from your. It not vandalism. He just needs a polite word and help. Stop dumping vandalism tags on other contributor's talk pages, playing the game to supress others through intimidation.

I am perfectly happy to play by the rules and use the references provided. I am happy that we have now clarified the BKWSU's own self published sources as it will make my life much easier.

No angry mastodons either, eh? ... 03:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear 244, Please do not change my words around. Maleabroad contributions are always welcome. I do not think they are inappropriate, I think they are appropriate; however, they may need the elements which I stated before. I am glad you finally understood that we need reliable sources in this article and BKWSU literature do not meet this criteria. I do not appreciate that you are placing me as the "bad guy" to earn user Maleabroad's trust. [14] Please stop playing infant games and concentrate in the article. Best Wishes, avyakt7 14:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Changes to controversy

I removed the reference to UN relationship as at present it is uncited. What happened is that the BKWSU was cautioned by the UN for over use or over exaggeration of the UN relationship. I guess someone will have to write to the UN to clarify this or wait until an academic or media picks up on this. The rest are all adequately referenced previously.

I left in the child abuse stuff because I found this citation;

Church, A., Edwards, L. and Romain, E. (1990) Cooperation in the Classroom. London, Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University: Global Cooperation for a Better World.

Which substantiates the self-published author of the report on the senior sisters response to the child abuse incidents, Romain, E., as an expert in the field of child care within the BKWSU. Indeed a former representative of the BKWSU. 05:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Having taken a fair amount of time reading the report (as I clearly have nothing better to do), it seems to me that the author clearly doesn't take an academic approach (look at all the repeated personal commentary in it). I agree this person may well have published academic works in the past, but the report you refer to isn't an academic work. The report highlights two individuals suffering child abuse in the organisation's 70 years history. Can you explain why including this is fair to mention in the context of this article, bearing in mind the size of the organisation? This reference in the controversies section will be removed later today as per my previous note above. Just to remind you (again) are admin Jossi's views on the controversy section:
Also note that there are assertions made in that section that have no sources, or that are clearly not appropriate to include:
  • Documented incidents of child abuse within the organisation brushed ... the sources is a personal page and thus not a reliable source
  • Social and psychological problems faced by ex-followers including two suicides within one family.[24] ... The sources is a personal page and thus not a reliable source
  • Rape and physical violence from families and partners of Brahma Kumaris ... No sources. Should be deleted if a reliable source is not forthcoming
  • Questionable advertisement of relationship with United Nations Organisation ... That is an opinion and in violation of WP:NOR
  • All other bullet points are without sources, or the source provided is a dead link.
Appledell 08:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello Appledell, I'm a graduate student that's just joined Wiki. Nice to meet you. I just looked up the Brahma Kumaris on the United Nations website and came up with 10 pages of references to the Brahma Kumaris and their activities within the official UN website Is that not reliable information? I am still learning the ropes, but from what I understand that should make the connection between the BKWSU and the UN verifiable.

Page reverted (again)

OK, I've reverted the page as - again - user 244 has made wholesale changes withour prior discussion or warning on this page. That breaches the guidelines set out by admin Jossi and Sethie for this article. Appledell 09:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

At least for what I have brought to the disucssion, I do not believe that is wholly accurate. I posetd the controvery tag which basically says: a)read the discussion b)cite sources and use the edit summary field c) discuss changes here AFTER you make them. Maybe Jossi set things up where people were to discuss things first, I'm not sure. Sethie 15:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sethie, sorry to have misquoted you - I was referring to what you said above: "Just to be clear - I do very much support talking changes over for this page first AND there is no official wiki policy that I am aware of that says we have to.". I might have misunderstood what you mean't, but as a first principle for working on this particular article, I think it would be very helpful if people would discuss changes on this discussion forum FIRST so people are not endlessly reverting pages. Appledell 18:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I concur with you, Appledell. Once there is an agreement, then posting makes sense. Otherwise, readers will be baffled when looking at this article, with so many changes within a short period of time. This in itself takes away the value of an on-line encyclopedia.
Best Wishes and thank you for becoming such an active user in this page, avyakt7 20:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

User .244 keeps vandalizing this page and erased previous warning

Dear .244, You have been given warnings. There is a policy for this talk page which Sethie helped to set up to avoid further tensions. Admin Jossi as well has been very clear as to what is proper in this article and what is not. It is evident to me that you have other intensions besides informing the readers of wikipedia in a neutral way. Your activities leave me with no choice but to report you for repeated vandalism and for disobeying regulations clearly stated in this page.. and of course for removing a warning tag in your talk page. Hope you understand that using "force" rather than a friendly discussion will not take you any place. Thank you Appledell for reverting the page. Best, avyakt7 13:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

To user .244

If you want your edits to remain, you would be better advised to find good sources that report the criticism. If such criticism exist, it will be most certainly reported by scholarly articles, books on the subject, encyclopedias of religion, journals, etc. Do some research, find these sources and then develop a criticism section that is well supported by solid references, and then your edits will stay unchallenged. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Also note the aspect of WP:NPOV#Undue weight as it pertains to citing obscure and/or singular cases that have had no further implications and that have not been widely reported. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I have deleted link to the "child abuse report" from the "Critical" section of the links page. This is as per Jossi's comment about it when it was included originally in the Controversy section: " * Documented incidents of child abuse within the organisation brushed...The source is a personal page and thus not a reliable source" In addition to that, I sight the aspect of WP:NPOV#Undue weight. The report looks into two cases in the organisation's 70 years history. It gives too much weight to them in the context of the organisation's history and the organisation's size. The report that is linked to is not an academic work. Reading the author's personal commentary throughout the report makes that pretty clear. Also note that Jossi's comments about the link were made on 21st Nov - more than a week has gone by and no-one has given any adequate reason for maintaining the link. Appledell 23:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I am sure that, as any other religious organization, there must be some criticism that can be sourced to reliable publications, so one way you can demonstrate your commitment to NPOV, would be to do some research and find such sources for the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I disagree with this aspect of Wikipedia policy and am not the only. I have had some tiny influence in changing policy and must take this up sometime. I know how policy does and has changed through pressure but your point is valid and I have taken the time to forward the report to academics referenced and working within the field. Whereas child sex abuse in cults is old news and the BKWSU lightweight offenders - you would be wrong to limit it to two case on the basis of this report alone - the response of the group's leaders has interested the scholars. The author is a qualifed academic, expert witness and previously one of the BKWSU published specialists in child education.
I agree that verifiability must takes precedence over truth. The problem with depending on academia alone is that the truth is subject to the delays in the academic or publishing process, academic fashion (e.g. the NRM versus cult debate) and ultimately through financial influences, politics. And politics is manipulated by manipulators.
In such topics as the BKWSU, the subject matter strays far beyond subjects considered to be worth and possible of academic study, e.g. the entire psychic/mediumistic element. Although clearly referenced in the curent citations, it would be professional suicide for any academic to venture into such a field. The quoted "experts" may be academic but are mainly sociologists and not all knowing gurus - or even theologians. There are also other elements in which academics would not be recognised as experts, especially that of "yoga".
  • I wholly refute any expertise in the field of the quoted author Kranenborg re his comments on Raja Yoga which is why I remove it.
With Yoga, as with many schools of world religion, there are an entirely alternative/non-academic but utterly valid peer review system and "experts", through the 1,000+ year old schools of lineage. Personally, I find the Eurocentric and imperialist values prevalent through Wesern academia limited and offensive to non-whites which is why I think they should make room for those other expertises.
I know how certain elements within BKWSU work. But their own Murlis, they are religio-political cult and highly controlled. I bet that they will already be working to exert pressure on the Wikipedia Foundation and head hunting Mr Wales to work to silence critical exposure in the media. Just as they have done so across India. Let me know if you are pulled up by the hierarchy, it will be interesting to document.
Now, can you help me to hold the BKWSU team to discussion rather than blanket censorship and intimidation?
Thanks 00:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Reversion to earlier edit and more bogus vandalism warnings


  • the problem with your position is that you are reverting to the later edit, not the earlier edit.

I am reverting to the earlier edit, taking into consideration the recent citations/criticism that was changed without discussion.

'What happened is that Riveros11,

  • avoided any discussion,
  • ignored the arbitration and mediation I offered him and
  • managed to have my IP addressed blocked using bogus vandalism warnings. As indeed he is using the tactic of making bogus vandalism to intimidate other contributors, not just myself, outside of the team of BKWSU supporters naturally.
  • Please note, calling for bans or blocks of another contributor is considered Uncivil behaviour by wiki standards. Removing uncivil comments 23:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no way of knowing what you are saying is indeed accurate - as no doubt Riveros would contest it (and yes, I have no way of knowing if what he is saying is accurate, either). I leave this to admin to sort out (thank God!) :)
I'm not aware of ever calling for anyone to be banned or blocked or ever acting in any way uncivil. Can you point out where I do? If not, just for purposes of clarity, can you retract the inference that I do. Thanks. Appledell 01:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
The comment is clearly direct at Riveros11. 01:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks

To involved editors: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Please do not make them. It is your responsibility to foster and maintain a positive online community in Wikipedia.

Some suggestions:

  • Discuss the article, not the subject;
  • Discuss the edit, not the editor;
  • Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is;
  • If you feel attacked, do not attack back.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

.244 reverts page arbitrarily *again*

I'm not getting involved in a "reverting war". It's clearly not conducive to wikipedia ethics. But I have deleted various things from .244's reverted version that has been discussed above - including the controvery section, link to, link to BK teaching posters , link to PBK and Vishnu Party sites. All of these were done after having given 7 days notice to discuss them (look back up this discussion forum if you are unsure). Please do not revert back to your version by deleting my changes (which had also taken effect in Riveros's version on the same basis). Appledell 01:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd say arbitrarily was a prejudical. You are late in on all this Appledell. Much of it we have been round and round on many times. See above.
The posters are the Jagdish Chander books referenced. If you need to check they appear in unedited form. Have you seen these? Do we need specific page references or is this not enough. The accusation is that I have in some way doctored them but I have absolutely no connection with the website in question. 01:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not disputing if those posters are authentic or not - I do not know. But there are strict guidelines on what can be linked to. The website that is hosting the posters is not a BK site (unless you can show it is?), so there can be the danger that those posters are not genuine. Also, if the posters are genuine then it is likely that it is copyright infringement to to host them. Therefore linking to a site that has content which could be an infringement of copyright cannot be used under wikipedia links policy. If you have a problem with that, discuss it here first before re-imposing the links. Appledell 13:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Specific controversies

I was wondering about the "Rape and physical violence from families and partners of Brahma Kumaris." bit.

This refers to firstly, the time a high profile case that was reported in the Australian press of which my sympathies lay entirely with the sister victim; and secondly during beginning of the BKWSU when it was called Om Mandali. This was refered to in Adi Dev and Purity and, I think, the "world rejecting" academic papaer. I must did it out. It does seem to have been formative in the orgs world view about "anit-parties" and sex lust as violence.

Should it not be kept? Let's go thrugh these one by one instead of the blanket whitewash approach please. 01:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Rather than keep adding unreferenced material, that will obviously need to be deleted as per policy, it would be more useful if you move these to talk and discuss one at a time. You can do that to show some good will in this dispute. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Reverted page to Appledell's version with erased unreferenced material. User .244 keeps blanking his talk page from all warnings ignoring recent policy to discuss before changes. User was reported for vandalism. Best, avyakt7 02:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

He can remove any comments from his talk page, with the exception of warnings made by administrators. It would also really help of you stop from using the word "vandalism" in your edit summaries. It takes two to edit war, and you may be one of them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

To all involved editors: Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.. Alternatively, I will not hesitate locking the article if the edit warring continues. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Jossi, I will avoid using the word "vandalism" as you pointed out. I would like to remind you that the "7 day course" will be erased on Dec. 4th for lack of "reliable sources." (according to previous discussions) Normally, when there is a change like this, we had users reverting the page without previous discussion. At that time it would be helpful if somehow this is being stopped from happenning and the corrected version stays. Now is the time to discuss the 7 day course and to show reliable sources so it can stay. I will go ahead and blank some of the user warnings issued in my talk page as well. Best Wishes, avyakt7 15:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add that user 244 is making wholesale rip-and-replace edits of large sections of the article without prior discussion with text that is poorly cited and full of loaded statements, bias, weasel words and contentious claims [15] whereas the other editors are proposing changes in advance on the discussion page as per consensus. Best Wishes,avyakt7 19:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Pruning External Links and Bibliography

Can I suggest removing some of the External links, starting with the BK links:

  • is a personal website of a BK. It certainly isn't an official website. I don't see the need to link to this site in the context of the other links.
  • This does appear to be an official BK forum setup in Australia, but there is very little on the site that enhances what is in the wikipedia article. I don't see what the aim of linking to it is in light of all the other official BK links.
  • There seems to be some abiguity what exactly the relationship between the BKs and this website is - there is no mention of the BKs on the website. It is alleged that it is a BK "front". But no evidence has been forthcoming on that. I suggest deletion unless someone can establish some connection.
  • This is a dead link.

Under Bibliography, I suggest the following deletion:

  • Report on Child Abuse,Beliefs and Lifestyle[26]. This is a personal website and the "report" is not an academic one, but a personal commentary from the author about his views of the BKs. It is out of context with the rest of the wikipedia article. I will give 7 days to discuss the above suggestions, before I delete them. Appledell 23:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed the dead link and found a citation for the Living values, so I propose it stays. Sethie 01:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

There is an update link here and it is wrong to state that the Living Values program is a UN program. Details to follow. 07:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Riveros11 faking maleabroad to slap intimidatory vandalism warnings and using Sockpuppet?


so which Admin would like to take up this matter?

Riveros11 slapped another vandalism tag on me using the IP;, [16], here [17]. I removed it. Sockpuppetry and personal attack, or just a cynical and dishonest ploy to block other users to gain control over a topic for his group?

The user page for is faked up to look like; maleabroad, [18] complete with bad Indian-English speling

This is an important detail as we wil see later. It says;

" User: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How am I vandalising? I was deelteing anti-Hindu propangda trying to create a wedge between BKs and Hindus co-religionists. No racism will be tolerated! "

If you look at the user contribution for maleabroad, here [19], you will see the same anti-hindu proganda stuff used on the BKWSU page, here [20]

Revision as of 16:38, 21 November 2006 maleabroad m (deleted anti-Hindu propaganda user trying to create drift between BK brothers and Hindu co-religionists)

However, looking at the archive of maleabroad, Luis Riveros11 slapped a vandalism tag on maleabroad from the same IP address in Tampa; ( [ ]), [21] where Luis or Avyakt7 as he likes to call himself says;

" Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 03:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC) AVYAKT7 "

Luis is of course a teacher and recruiter for the BKWSU Raja Yoga center in Tampa. See documentation of his talks, here [22], [23] etc.

  • At 02:42 am 30 November 2006 as Riveros11 he made his usual revision/accusation (rv: vandalism - User changed article without previous discussion as stated in Talk page without obeying policies in talk page - vandalism - version from user Appledell) [24].
  • At 02:49, 30 November 2006 he made a Administrator intervention against vandalism, here [25]. *ipvandal Reported user this morning. Keeps reverting page without discussion and blanks all warnings from talk page.
  • At 02:54, 30 November 2006 [26].
  • At 02.57 am on 30 November 2006 he then used this sockpupet IP address on my talk page [27].

If we look at the user contribution for [28] we see that he has used it soley to attack me ... and once for maleabroad.

If we look at his own user page for ... we see that despite making all the edits to BKWSU he has not once used it to make an IP vandalism report [29] and only once a personal attack report.

If we look at the other IP address is uses [ ] also Tampa Verizon and used for making vandalism attacks on Maleabroad [30]

If we look at user contributions for Tampa Verizon; here, [31], we see they are again solely focused on the BKWSU, maleabroad and myself.

If we look at user contributions for71.251.88.110 = [ ] is also Tampa Verizon; here, [32], we see they are again solely focused on the BKWSU and myself.

From 25/26 October 2006 when he first engaged in editing, he has been a one track record [33] Vandalism, Vandalism, Vandalism, Vandalism and whole load of admin tricks to block others ... no wonder he has been to busy to actually discussion, mediation [34] or arbitration [35]. Except on others pages [36] where he seeks advice and attempt to discredit me and similarly hitting other first contributors, e.g. [37].

I have no doubt that this is not exhaustive but it is exhausting ...

I would like to point out that the same team are also at work on Google Answers having critical or even independent pieces about the BKWSU removed, e.g. [38] which is now, Yahoo and elsewhere. Yes, Wikipedia Foundation will be targetted next if they has not already done so. Scratch me and I will bleed citations.

  • I just wanted to add for the sake of completeness a Request for checkuser that Luis did under the user where he refers to himself in the third party, "He also reported user riveros11 ...". [39]. It is worth noting JUST for the amount of effort he puts into this. 05:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I would strongly recommend posting these allegations at Wikipedia:Requests for investigation if you would like an administrator to intervene. Its clearly a complex situation. Rockpocket 06:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


Both pro and con users need to learn that neither of you will "win" by attempting to game the system, if that is what you are thinking of doing. Sooner or later you will be either banned permanently, blocked for long periods of time, or put under a community ban to edit these articles.

The only way to resolve your differences is to accept the fact the neither of you will have an article which you would be 100% satisfied with. Best you can expect is having a article that "you can live with."

So, rather than using multiple IPs, making threats, reverting each other, etc. I invite you to collaborate and fix this article. If you cannot /would not do that, save yourself a lot of aggravation, stress and wasted time and stop right now as it will accomplish nothing beyond getting blocked/banned. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 12:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely. But we cannot allow any individual on any subject to attempt to intimate others into submission using vandalism warnings each time they make an edit (and it is not just me) and using blocking to achieve advancing their point of view
Let alone sneak around using different IP address to do so, Jossi. I went and removed similar intimidation from Maleabroad as he is a new editor and obviously not using his mother tongue.
What do we do? You have the guy's response below.
I can make clear and precise the balanced view that I think the article needs to accurately document the BKs. Will he engage? 06:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree Jossi. Some users have been using different tacticts in the past for such a long time (as could readily be verified in the archives) to throw "their weight around" and to "own" this article without providing a reliable source. It is a pitty, I must say; that the option of being entirely out of Wikipedia is not a choice, specially since BK did not started this article, but obviously it is an attempt of some users to demonstrate their animosity by using this on-line encyclopedia. A neutral non biased article worth to be placed in an online encyclopedia could never be expected out of an angry attempt by some to "get even" with an organization. Best, avyakt7 16:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

User .244 is resourcing to personal defamations

Dear .244, To even suggest that user Maleabroad is somehow related with me is a strong defamation.[40] look at this. Perhaps you did not have the chance to read the "talk" I am having with him just a bit above this under "To user Maleabroad."

User Maleabroad was blocked at one point as well, just like you. He was using several Ips coming from the university of Calgary in Canada. Please stop trying to make me "famous" here. You use my full name, my email to send me stuff from your site, my place of residence and no only that but places of work...So, who will be the admin that will take that?

Perhaps we should rather look into the and your account .244 as sockpuppet. You see, when are you going to answer my simple question? Let me repeat that for you in case you have forgotten: "Are you user" Hope to hear your answer on this. You are not the only one who can do a "nslookup" or "dig" on someone else's IPs...that is "basic stuff" my friend. You need proof... do not just defame me without it. You see, there is a difference. WHenever I use another IP, I signed beside it as avyakt7. FYI. Yes.. no everyone has a static IP with them to play with and the leisure to defame BK as well as you do and make it their life purpose. Best Wishes, avyakt7 15:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Ps: Perhaps we should look at this [41] here you are doing your "old" trick of a forest fire again... this time using phrases like: "I would like to point out that the same team are also at work on Google Answers" - Proof? How is this relevant to Wikipedia?
"Scratch me and I will bleed citations."
"Luis is of course a teacher and recruiter for the BKWSU Raja Yoga center in Tampa." (I wonder how am I a recruiter? and what this has to do with wikipedia?) Aren't you an ex-recruiter? Best, avyakt7 15:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

This page is to discuss the article. It is not a message board, a discussion forum, or a place to debate the subject of the article. If editors do not keep some basic talk-page discipline, I will enforce it myself by removing each and any off-topic comment from this talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I did not state that Maleabroad is somehow related to |Riveros11.
I stated that Riveros11 faked a page up TO LOOK AS IF IT WAS MALEABROAD, e.g. bad English, "Hindu Fatherland", from the same IP address that he uses to register persistent IPvandal reports and complaints to block me from contributing.
Of course, Riveros11 has used a different user/IP from his main Riveros11 account to hide his actions.
OK, this matters ≈ jossi ≈ because Riveros11 is intimidating others with bogus vandalism warnings and reports to block their contributions.
Yes, for years I used to teach and recruit for the BKWSU which is why I know what their teachings and modus operandi is, and where the citations are. I have agreed to work within the rules, attempted mediation and arbitration and do not depend on blocking other with bogus IPvandal reports. The relevance of the Google answers stuff is to show how the BKWSU team are working to remove critical articles - or even support groups for ex-members from off the internet. 05:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Please read WP:NOR. If you are an expert in the subject, you cannot describe your own expertise. You need to provide and attribute the text your add to a reputable/published source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

External Donations/achievements

Just to get back to the topic, I found a citation to back up external charitable giving of the BKWSU, it is here [42]. Relief to the victims of the Indian tsunami from The Hindu, Wednesday, Jan 05, 2005.

Actually, it is not great news for an NGO that pulls $2 million per year from one European country alone. All it says is that "Bed sheets, foodstuff, clothes and vessels "worth" about Rs.10 lakhs had been rushed to the different places in the last few days." 10 lakhs is about $20,000 but it does not state whether these items were new, second hand, theirs or pulled from third parties. So, I am not convinced that it is notable nor that the org engages in alleviating poverty etc as it claims. Sorry. Back to the BKs for an answer on this one. 09:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

As said many times before: Please do not use this page to discuss your opinions of the subject. You would be better doing that in your blog or personal homepage. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Dear .244, Fortunately, this is not about convincing you but rather about providing reliable sources to back up statements. BTW, tomorrow is Dec. 4th and unless you or any other editor provides reliable sources to back up the "7 days course" write up, it will be promptly deleted. Have a good weekend! Best, avyakt7 16:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Use of self-published sources (relates to 7 day course)

Before we proceed, we really have to address this issue which Luis has been blocking me on and ignoring, the use of self-published sources.

Now Jossi, you have stated that;

  • "Self-published sources can be used alongside other third party sources, with proper attribution of the self-published sources. Press releases if properly attributed, can present the organization's viewpoints on certain aspects that may be needed for NPOV. Remember that NPOV asks editors to describe significant viewpoints, and these include the viewpoints of the subject of the article."

The policy itself states;

  • "Material from self-published sources, and published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources in articles about the author(s) of the material, so long as:
  • it is relevant to their notability;
  • it is not contentious;
  • it is not unduly self-serving;
  • it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
  • there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it."

Now, I can go find more references but I feel that I have already provided them because Chander's and the BKWSU's later correspondence course are referenced on the article. [Or were before the BKWSU team got to work on it]. Luis is not denying that these are in any way false. I see no problem in leaving the section, it is utterly relevant to their notability and is not contentious. I think the BKWSU wants to remove it but it does not want it exposed, a bit like the Scientology folk react.

Jossi, Riveros is going to steamroller me on this one. You have seen the IP stuff that is going on, what do I do? 22:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

What are the sources for the "7 day course"? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
The only sources I see are two websites that seem official websites. If these are the sources, then use them and cite them. Summarize what these sources say, but do not add any other material that you may know about but that is not provided by these sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


May I make a suggestion? Rather than editwar, why don't editors spend some time at a good library and provide third-party sources for this article? I quick check on the scholarly sources databases I have available, shows plenty of third-party material about the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Jossi, I spent my time in the local library searching in diverse databases. The material which has been provided for this article qualifies as a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. If I can do that, I do not see why not other editors cannot/will not be willing to do it. Best, avyakt7 13:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

  • a) I am prepared to use the same souces and
  • b) the other sources are perfectly adequate. 09:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


A user named Bkwatch has archived a lot of "live" conversations. Jossi- any hint/clue how to bring them back?

To Bkwatch- would you be willing to not archive something in the future if it has been active in the last two weeks? Sethie 00:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Just go to the history and copy and paste back the deleted discussions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear All, BKwatch is another alias of user .244 FYI. See this [43] Best, avyakt7 02:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

7 day course

Dear All, The unreferenced material was deleted from the article as previously discussed and after a 2 week period. Best Wishes, avyakt7 14:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Bibliography link

Dear All,

I propose deletion of the following items under Bibliography.

  1. Dadi Janki, "Companion of God", 2003 ISBN 0-340-82915-X

Do not see the relevance of this book. It is a series of teachings by Daddi Janki which are not related with informing about BK and not used in this article.

  1. BKWSU. "World Drama", unknown date.
  2. BKWSU. "Easy RajYoga", unknown date.
  3. BKWSU. "The Seven Day Course" Pamphlet series, unknown date.

These 3 items do not have all required information to be considered under Bibliography. Date, edition, author, publishing house, pages used are not specified. Incomplete information.

  1. Near-Death Experience/Heide Fittkau-Garthe, 1998. [23]

As stated by Admin Jossi, this is non relevant information and it is not related with BK.

  1. A Critique of the BK Philosophy as presented in the 7 Day Course,By Andy Harangozo [24]

Do not know the relevance of this work as Bibliography. What are the author's credentials? Andy is an ex-bk.

  1. Report on Child Abuse,Beliefs and Lifestyle[25]
  2. Pamphlets Take a Closer Look,The Successful Subtle Soft-sell of Raja Yoga By CCG Training Insititue, Australia March 1989

Both of these are not relevant to BK as stated by Admin Jossi (child abuse case) and pamphlets are not considered Bibliography and I would like to know how this pamphlet was used to write this article.

Any thoughts? Best, avyakt7 14:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you do not quote me as saying this or that. My opinion is as valid as any other editor. If you believe my comments are useful, argue for them in your own words. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Dear Jossi, Sure. I'd like to point out this [44] user .244 has decided to further "clarify matters" even though your advise on dec.2nd requests that we do not try to "game the system." He went ahead and continued posting on dec. 4th. There is no "fair game" on his part. Best, avyakt7 00:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I think Jossi meant as far as this discussion page goes Luis, to get on with discussion instead of snipes, innuendos and allegations.
Please don't distract from the discussion regarding self-published materials. 01:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sources for "7 Days Course"

The sources that I originally refered to were the original PBIVV published 7 Days Course by Jagdish Chander. various editions, and then the revision "Correspondence Course" by Jayanti Kripalani published by the BKWSU. Additional materials/qualifications were taken from "Eternal Drama of Souls, Matter and God" by Chander, Mt Abu 1983.

None of these are "secret", or non-public, as with the 1990s teachers training manual that also referenced which includes identical details. All of them were purchasable by the general public. It is possible to still buy them. Copies are even held in major major libraries, e.g. University of Washington or British Library.

The important issue for me to establish here is that within the limits above, publications by the PBIVV/BKWSU are acceptable sources. 00:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear .244, Sorry to break the news to you but these sources could be acceptable to you but they do not make "reliables sources" which is the "bread and butter" of an encyclopedia. Chander is not considered an expert in the field by academia...and those books are published by BK itself. I have repeated this and showed to you how this does not fit the rules of wikipedia but you keep on trying. If it is that important for you, how come you are unable to find a reliable source in your local library? Why is it so difficult for you to search on databases? Please do not try to distract us with the same "old record" just show us your "reliable sources." Best, avyakt7 01:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Luis, it is not for you to dictate.
I am putting it up for others to discuss and agree. It is Wiki policy. Simple as that.
The strange thing about what you say regarding Chander is that most if not all of the academics consider him to be an expert and quote him; and BapDada seemed to think he was reliable too. What you are doing looks desperate. 09:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Dear .244,
Then, why is it to hard for you to produce a reliable source where the academics are actually quoting Chander? Why do you make things so difficult?
You see, (another repetition) you cannot quote Chander. A professor or a researcher can do that. Then... you quote the researcher in turn... you quote his article. Otherwise, if you start "quoting" Chander, the we end up with the article that was here before.. a .244 interpretation with a very biased animosity. I am sorry, but that does not belong here... Desperate? Sorry but that is not a Brahmin word. Best Wishes, avyakt7 14:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • " '... 'you cannot quote Chander ". Of course, I or anyone else can. And it does not require to be verbatim either. 01:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

User .244 you asked for arbitration, why are you taking so long to respond?

  • Sethie, please note I think it was a big mistake to re-introduce all the crapflood. There is no "discussion" going on here and no "two week policy" for live discussion. One's attention should be placed on length of page. BUT on that basis, I re-introduce this too so that it cannot be said this time that Luis did not see.

Dear .244,

I wrote in your talk page that I was willing to "negotiate" with you after I received an "invitation" from you.[45] You requested either arbitration or mediation. I answered to you that I was fine with it and selected Arbitration. I told you that I wouldn't revert the page, even though I could and I will unless I hear from you today. I am not willing to play your games anymore and even though I am showing that you have been quite tricky in your dealings with us (are you I have been patient enough by following admins advice however, with no support from them when the time comes. I would like to show you this page as well[46] What are you trying to do? You know that you will get some people upset with those comments about BK and Hinduism. Here is your complaint[47] that I have refused arbitration. You know it is not true. Here[48] 'user Thatcher is willing to restore the arbitration petition you made. Lastly, I requested to have the page reverted as it was before your revert.. while we wait for the process. Do not complain again that I am not willing to go the "middle way discussion or involve third parties, e.g. arbitration or mediation." As far as I am concerned it is you who is unwilling to do it. Perhaps you feel that you can continue "free and clear" now? I seriously doubt it.

Best Wishes, avyakt7 20:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Because I did not see this as it was drowned out in the general crapflood.
Its weird Luis, there is no user called Thatcher ... the user linked to is Fred-Bauder, above that, the link does not point to my complaint, it points to Dmcdevit's user talk page with no reference. But, OK, I will put it back in again. 10:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear .244, Now we see who is really "desperate"...Sure..and next time please review your talk page thoroughly... you don't want to miss my replies. Let me gather my extensive documentation on this...just when I started to like the article.. oh well! Best, avyakt7 14:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear .244, well it seems that user :Thatcher131 replied and is asking for, 244 I hope you can provide those. I need to put my thoughts together before I reply in 800 words or less. It appears to me that you are just complaining about me rather then the article in question. So, before I use my valuable time in writing something that may be denied, please provide your "diffs" according to user Thatcher131. Thanks! avyakt7 17:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
You have still not stuck to your word and engaged in the arbitration process for the second time. 10:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes.. I have. See, I follow up with what I say. Best, avyakt7 14:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed Maleabroad's changes to article

There is clear disagreement about Maleabroad's suggested changes (see discussion above) - but he went ahead and made the changes anyway. So I have removed his changes until a consensus can be achieved on these pages first. Appledell 19:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Maleabroad, can I ask you a question?
  • What are you thoughts regarding the use of the term Raja Yoga for the BK's practise?
Personally, I think the European goes too far in qualifying the BK's practises as Raja Yoga as they are entirely different as classical Raja Yoga.
Perhaps what you are suggesting is that more reference needs to be made on the relationship between the BKWSU teachings and classical Saivite Hinduism and to qualify them within the Hindu canon? In their registration documents, they state that they are founded to promote Hinduism. 01:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Quoting Chander

Luis, it is not for you to dictate.

  • Riveros11 said;

" ... you cannot quote Chander ".

Of course, I or anyone else can. And it does not require to be verbatim either. If it was published; complete, detailed and objective is not biased. Ditto other materials such as the teaching posters but we will leave that for later. Actually, I checked and they are in Chander too. 01:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear .244, Please review the protocol on how an encyclopedia is written. No one cares about your interpretations of Chander's writings. You are not an expert in this matter and your opinion is as valuable as mine. Just opinions. Everyone has one. That is why we rely on neutral writers experts on the field of religious studies to give their non bias input on these topics. This is not my "dictate" this is rather the way encyclopedias are written. Hope you can contribute to this article by giving a fully reliable source. Please visit your nearby library. That is all it takes. Best, avyakt7 02:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Ps: Still waiting for your "diffs." You do a good job trying to look like the "innocent boy" in your plead for arbitration. Good impersonation! avyakt7 02:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Reverted change by Maleabroad

Dear Maleabroad; You have not provided reliable sources for your claims. What prompts you to make those changes? We have not finished with our discussion yet... Best, avyakt7 02:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to stay neutral on issues of content, and this one is pretty clear. Makeabroad- without a source, in such a contested article you just can't add stuff in like that. It needs a reputable source.Sethie 06:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Let us be frank Sethie, there is no conversation going on here. I just noticed the Riveros11 has used Chander as a citation but yet refuses to allow anyone else to!
Maleabroad is nothing to do with me Luis, and I guess he is not a native English speaker. So let us give him a little extra leeway and some help rather than intimidating other contributors. His point is valid, since this dispute arose the Indian aspects of this article have not been you people's strong point. I think you should stop naming up in the titles and them down Luis. What you ask is a bit like asking some for a citation that "Friday, Saturday and Sunday" is the weekend. Perhaps he can be asked to help rather than frightened off.
I agree that more references about the relationship of Brahma Kumaris and classical Hinduism would be fair and also that the starting paragraph is a little too Eurocentric for an organization and a tradition that is by far Indo-centric. Whether a Kranenborg has PhD or not, the referenced artilce is NOT a proper academic paper. As BK Raja Yoga is only 70 years old at the most, there is little to no evidence of what sort of path it is and so we have to be more objective. , He might not have as much authority as an Indian commenator would and the latter sentences quoted are too POV.
The lead paragraph is also not very literary. Obviously, chosen as is it the nearest copy and paste quote to a BK advert, I do not think it says as much as it could using the same amount of words. We are not bound to slavish copy and pastes where there is no doubt over the content. I much prefered the old paragraph and am happy to work some more Indic relationship into the topic if Maleabroad want to suggest where it lacks them.
I think there is a reasonable point in making references that make it clear that there is a difference between BK raja yoga and classical Raja Yoga. However, lets be careful not to turn this article into a Hindu critique of the BKs. Appledell 11:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, according to guidelines I have been bold, tidied things up and put back some of the critical BK stuff. 10:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi 244...I'm not sure being bold on contentious issues is playing entirely fairly. We could all play that game, but where would that get us? Are you willing to post suggested changes here first and allow 7 days for rebuttal - a courtesy that has been accorded you on a number of occasions? Appledell 11:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

BK Teaching Posters (again)

I have deleted the teaching posters. As I mentioned above, there are strict guidelines on what can be linked to. The website that is hosting the posters is not a BK site (unless someone can show it is?), so there can be the danger that those posters are not genuine. Also, if the posters are genuine then it is likely that it is copyright infringement to host them. Therefore linking to a site that has content which could be an infringement of copyright cannot be used under wikipedia links policy. If you have a problem with that, discuss it here first before re-imposing the links. Appledell 11:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe this issue is part of the current abitration case. This is basic application of Wikipedia policy, not a matter of dispute. It is not acceptable to use links to material that may be violating copyright in an article. There is no way the BKWSU would ever grant permission to the website or the PBK website to host any BKWSU pictures, teaching aids, internal documents or any other material. These sites are not reputable and therefore not a valid source for citations, as has been stated before on this disucssion page by several editors.
Thanks & regards Bksimonb 19:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Simon, in truth it does not matter. The are contained within the Chander books referenced, widely publicised both on third party websites and as such they are citable under "Fair Use".
  • Are you stating that you are representing or working as the official voice of the BKWSU?
As I have seen ShivBaba has given permission for their use via the medium Veerendra Dev Dixit and he is ascribed as the original author by the BKWSU.
Whether a disincarnate spirit can exercise copyrights under any national law is another question but ... the BKWSU does not own the original copyright unles can be proven otherwise. I am sorry but you have to tighten your position unless you want to appear to be attempting to suppress information on behalf of the BKWSU in the public domain.
Please see Wikipedia Fair Use Policy which allows for the use of [49]
  • There are a few categories of copyrighted images where use on Wikipedia has been approved; promotional material, posters, film and television screen shots, paintings and other works of visual art, images illustrative of a particular technique or school. 01:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The posters should not be linked to on unverifiable third party sites. If you can scan a poster from a reputable published book, then do so and use it directly in the article by making a fair use claim. If another editor disputes the fair use claim, the appropriate action is to tag the image as either {{fairusereview}} or {{Fair use disputed}} and let independent third party editors and admins review the claim and decide what to do. Please do not disrupt the article by simply reverting back and forth. Let others decide and abide by that (either way). Thank you. Thatcher131 02:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I can offer direct page references, I agree to scans being used and uploaded. As stated, the original author is not the BKWSU, has given permission for use here, and in the public domain. 02:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
"As I have seen ShivBaba has given permission for their use via the medium Veerendra Dev Dixit and he is ascribed as the original author by the BKWSU." Yeah right! Though I admire your faith that ShivBaba speaks via the "medium Veerendra Dev Dixit" it is certainly not quite how I think the BKWSU and copyright law would see it. If the pictures were created by BKWSU then they belong to that institution. Veerendra Dev Dixit is not recognised as being a medium of ShivBaba by anyone not sharing the beliefs of the PBKs, or "Shankar party", as they are known by BKs. Also ShivBaba is not the author of the drawings, they were obviously drawn by human beings in terms of putting paintbrush to paper. The suggestion that an alleged channelled message from the head of another organisation, not affiliated with the BKWSU, can make degrees regarding the ownership BKWSU copyright literature is ridiculous.
Next is the question of authenticity. It is very easy to diddle any electronic document. Since the motive for including links to these pictures is to prove a point about the alleged failed prediction of destruction in 1976 I would like to draw your attention to these two examples documents, exhibit_A and exhibit_B. Note the funky new date at the bottom of exhibit B :-) That took a few minutes to do using the Gimp. This is why I have a problem with any stuff you, or the PBKs, upload to some website. Notice that on the document, exhibit A, before I modified it, the gap where the "40 years" date is filled in is suspiciously wide and also there are two spellings of the same word, "Raven" and "Rawen" in the same poster. I suspect the poster has, in fact, been tampered with already either electronically or by painting over.
Also, on what basis do the posters represent the exact teachings of the BKWSU officially? We need some proof of this link before it is accepted as fact. Many BKs have had many ideas about the date of "destruction" based on their own thinking or interpretation. It is entirely possible someone inserted what their own idea was at the time when drawing the picture and no one really objected after.
I suggest linking to some less obscure, less contentious, more easily verifiable pictures in the article.
Regards Bksimonb 12:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

  • The teachings are concurrent with those reported all through Chander's works, the academic references given and, of course, the Sakar and Avyakt Murlis.
Rather cast aspertions and attempt to create doubts in third parties that documents HAVE been diddled; can you look at them, compare them to the originals at your Raja Yoga center, ask your seniors sisters and then confirm back to us?
Additionally, can you provide documentation of who has copyright and/if that copyright was assigned to the PBIVV?
Just for reference, here is a third party confirmation from 2005 that proves the posters are still on display at the BKWSU headquarters [50], from [51]. Did you go this season Simon or are you still go to? You could check to see if it is still there and ask about the 1976 issues. Thanks, 02:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Please stop trying to turn the tables with regards to the burden of proof. If you want to include something in the article the onus is squarely on you to provide proof that you have permission to use the material or that the site you are linking to does. Please read this policy, from the 2nd paragraph Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works. None of the sites you have linked to have permission. I can assure you of that. Also none of the sites are reputable sources and there is no guarantee that the pictures are an honest representation.
I am not denying that the same or similar pictures exist however the way you appear to be intending to use them is contentious since you seem to me to be using them out of context to make a big deal out of details which, in another decade, culture and continent, look a bit silly with the apparent motive of discrediting the BKWSU. These pictures were painted by people based on the teachings, but also how they saw the world at the time and perhaps even contain some mistakes and their own personal views. This probably would not have been so obvious to others in the 60s. Yes, some parts of some of the pictures were made under what you might term "channelled directions", but as far as I have been able to ascertain from those around at the time, this did not extent to the details of the text surrounding the pictures.
Is it really necessary to push the article so hard in that direction at this time? Right now I think it would be more constructive to concentrate on material that we all can agree on and leave the contentious stuff until we have a constructive working team of editors, hopefully including you, and a well written article based on team consensus. Regards Bksimonb 09:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed deletions to personal websites

I'm proposing to remove links and references to and Both of these sites are personal websites. They are also not academic works. I'll allow 7 days for discussion before deletion. Appledell 11:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong objection: This is just the BKWSU attempting to suppress alternative discussion AND support for ex-members. See, commensurate wiki topics such as Moonies, Scientology, The Family etc. Actually, is a very fair and balance piece of work. You have to include some balance to the article. 02:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, I can understand you point about, but the child abuse report is clearly not a balanced article. Can you justify why a link to that should be maintained? Thanks. Appledell 11:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Not sure about I would welcome other editors opinions, especially Jossi's, on this. It doesn't state any sources. It seems to be just based on one former BK's personal experience and interpretation of the teachings. Much as I knew and will allways respect the author. Bksimonb 14:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Dear All, I wonder what is the expertise of that author to be considered as a bibliography? Perhaps ex-bks just rely on each other's websites as "reliable sources."? How come we do not see any input from academia to support their case?
Just a couple of thoughts. Best, avyakt7 14:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

  • When is the slur and innuendo going to end Luis? I have stated, and continue to state, that I accept using the references you have given and others. 04:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

To Jossi

Dear Jossi; As you can see the article has been changed by user .244 again. It is hard not to quote you when you have stated some rules and even user Sethie's input has been accepted (discuss before posting specially in major changes) I will not revert this page this time to honor what I believe is a "gentleman" agreement. Please note that changes by user .244 do not have a single reliable source. The paragraph about "Believes and Practices" was modified according to your suggestion so it is not a straight quote from Kranenborg.. now is not even there... even the credibility of Professor Kranenborg is doubted. It is very hard to deal with individuals who do not want to provide reliable sources and who have not added a single worthwhile reference to this article. User .244 claims that I have used Chander. He does not realize that I have quoted a professor or researcher who has used him. I do not know the level of education user .244 or Maleabroad have but certainly, I wonder if an encyclopedia could ever be written with such input. Best Wishes, avyakt7 14:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Its called paraphrasing. I used all existing source. Please cut the constant personal insinuations. See wiki policy etc ... ad finitum.' 02:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that "your" paraphrasing is very biased as we see every time you modify this article. Any way to improve that? Best, avyakt7 03:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Best is to avoid making any specific insinuations or editorializing the quotes. Stay as close as possible to the original when you summarize, without adding weasel words or slating the summary to support a certain POV. It is not that difficult. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, the only aspect that I could accept an allegation of "weasel words" is with regards the "god" issue. BUT ... in this case it is fair and accurate and I would refute it.
God for the BKWSU is not some general concept that is shared by any of the rest of humanity. It is a spirit entity/individual/personality that enters into and is channelled through a psychic medium called BK Gulzar at large ipso facto Séances in their headquarters in India. It only comes a few times a year, around this time, and some of IT team have met with him recently. I would say it is reasonable caution not to affirm that this spirit entity is God. It may or it may not be. Numerous citations include those given by Riveros11 refer to this channelling verbatim.
  • Ask the BKs to confirm or deny this.
I would accept Luis's comment IF he were to be specific rather than general. I have to disagree on NOT editorializing quotes. From an editorial point of view, quotation should be limited as much as possible. looking at benchmarks like the Encyclopedia Britannia, and most Wikipedia topics, they are not slavish copy and pastes. This whole chapter has merely been the BKWSU attempt to control the article by the misapplication of guidelines and the ignorance of policy. Quotes should be very sparing as an image would be.
I think the only way to progress on this topic is to limit matters as closely and tightly to inarguable, bare facts and avoid offending other traditions as Maleabroad raises hence my limiting of Krenenborg's Raja Yoga claims. I agree with Maleabroad that from the Indian point of view, Kranenborg is utterly wrong and goes beyond his authority. He exists at the cult apologist end of the debate and the paper is not a proper academic paper.
From the BKWSU's point of view, they cannot avoid bare facts and it is MUCH better for them to have a clean simple factual topic page rather than a warzone. 05:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Very interesting... But what we need for this article are good, solid, secondary sources that describe all of that fascinating stuff. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Jossi ... have you actually ready ANY of the given references? it would be disingenous of you to demand references, suggesting that references have not been given, when references have already been given many, many times.
I have stated clearly that I am happy to work with the references given by Riveros11, and in those there are multiple references to channelling etc., my query with arbitration is regards the acceptable use of self-published materials referenced by said academics to confirm details. The academics write not specific on the history or ogranization by one limited element of their interest. 03:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

<<<(outdent) I did a quick check on a few online databases of scholarly books, articles and journals, and found no lack of sources. I would suggest to look into these as a way to enhance the article with such secondary sources. Involved editors could also assist with the research by taking some time to visit their local libraries in search for such materials. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC) Some examples:

  • New Religious Movements in Western Europe: An Annotated Bibliography, Book by Elisabeth Arweck, Peter B. Clarke; Greenwood Press, 1997
  • Religions in the Modern World: Traditions and Transformations, Book by Linda Woodhead, Paul Fletcher, Hiroko Kawanami, David Smith; Routledge, 2002
  • The Politics of Religion and Social Change: Religion and the Political Order - Vol. 2, Book by Anson Shupe, Jeffrey K. Hadden; Paragon House, 1988
  • A Handbook of the Sociology of Religion, Book by Michele Dillon; Cambridge University Press, 2003
  • The Study of Religion, Traditional and New Religions, Book by Peter Clarke, Stewart Sutherland; Routledge, 1991
  • Children of the New Age: A History of Alternative Spirituality, Book by Steven J. Sutcliffe; Routledge, 2002
  • South Asian Religions in the Americas: An Annotated Bibliography of Immigrant Religious Traditions, Book by John Y. Fenton; Greenwood Press, 1995
  • Odd Gods: New Religions and the Cult Controversy, Book by James R. Lewis; Prometheus Books, 2001
  • Explorations in Global Ethics: Comparative Religious Ethics and Interreligious Dialogue, Book by Sumner B. Twiss, Bruce Grelle; Westview Press, 1998
  • Freedom of Religion and Belief: A World Report, Book by Kevin Boyle, Juliet Sheen; Routledge, 1997

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

These sources strike me as quite general without going into much depth reg. Brahma Kumaris, but may be I miss something. Andries 17:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe. In any case, editors should use the best secondary sources available, and the above list is by no means a comprehensive one. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Some more:

  • Peace and Purity: The Story of the Brahma Kumaris a Spiritual Revolution, book by Liz Hodgkinson
  • Understanding the Brahma Kumaris, Book by Frank Whaling
  • The Brahma Kumaris As a Reflexive Tradition: Responding to Late Modernity , Book by John Walliss
  • New Religious Movement in Global Perspective: A Study Of Religious Change In the Modern World, Book by Peter Bernard Clarke
  • America's Alternative Religions, Encyclopedia by Timothy Miller
  • Alternative Religions: A Sociological Introduction , Book by Stephen J. Hunt

There is plenty of material is one makes a little effort to look for it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, please note that the article by John Walliss had been used by [52] as source for this article but removed with the stated reason "undiscussed" by user:Appledell. I do not think that this is a valid reason. Andries 18:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I do agree. This article is now under arbitration due to involved editors inability to edit collaboratively. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Jossi. Please explain the strike-out of Andries posts. I'm puzzled. Why strike them out if you "do agree"? Is that a typo? I just want to understand where your coming from before I comment. Thanks Bksimonb 20:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
You should ask Andries for his reason to strikeout his comment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry Jossi, my mistake. Misread the history. Bksimonb 07:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Upgraded "Controversial" tag?

It seems we really need some hold-off before making substantial edits to the artilce. I get the impression the present situation isn't manageable. May I suggest we upgrade the {{Controversial3}} to a {{Controversial}} tag? It looks like this... {{Controversial}} Is this OK with everyone? Regards Bksimonb 19:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Look Simon, the article is getting better and going in a balanced direction. Relax. If there lies any blame for the state of it, is with the line BK Luis is taking. Your organization really ought to pull him off the case. 02:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
What I would like to avoid is the regular barrage of unannounced edits that are made which re-write large chunks of the article undoing changes that have been fairly discussed and timed-out on the discussion page, adding/re-introducing contentious and loaded statements and re-introducing sources already deemed to be not appropriate. For example, these edits, [[53]] [[54]] [[55]] [[56]].
Especially the last edit in the list. That is way too far-reaching.
Thanks Bksimonb 12:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Dear .244; Be careful what you wish for...I know you will miss me... Best, avyakt7 03:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Bksimonb I wasn't aware of that tag. I propose we put it up. I hear that .244 votes no, and let's hear in from other people. Sethie 03:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I am for it, of course. Best,avyakt7 03:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
That tag is not to be placed in the article. It can be placed in the talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I personally have never seen one of those tags placed on an article, so I had no thoughts of doing so. First though, I want to get some concensus on it before imposing it... it does make it a requirement to discus changes first. Sethie 05:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
It seems a sensible way to proceed to me too. Appledell 11:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I count four to one, so I am gong to go ahead and place it.Sethie 16:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Much appreciated :-) Bksimonb 14:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


Dear All, I just wanted to point out that I finally got the chance to post my side on user .244 request for arbitration. [57] It is an account on how I view this issue. I have also added several "diffs" which I hope admins will take a look at them. These "diffs" portray a pretty accurate account on user .244 activities, intentions and character. These "diffs" are factual. It is not my own "paraphrasing." Finally, perhaps I should have added this [58] as well, which emphasizes .244 feelings. I thought .244 was younger than me![59]...but then he calls me "young hot head." Such is the paradox... One more time, the seed of the problem in my view is content. We need reliable sources here. Best Wishes, avyakt7 13:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC) Ps: I noted that the way used here to find "sockpuppets" is by simple noting on which side of the world IPs and user names are coming (according to arbitration). I have not seen something about and yet... Are they coming from different sides of the world as well? or perhaps just England? Very curious about it. Om Shanti. avyakt7 13:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Proof of sockpuppet by .244, and bkwsuwatch

Below is what I have posted in the arbitration: Dear SimonP; please take a look at this link[60] and this [61] If this is not considered to be a strong proof of user sockpuppet with and bkwsuwatch.. It will really surprise me that the obvious cannot be seen. BTW, If you have the chance to read all of his writings in the above mentioned post, you shall see that the root of the problem is content alone. That kind of content is just wrong for an on-line encyclopedia. Thank you. Bestavyakt7 01:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Ps: Here [62] you will see the comments below the video in Spanish. Take a look at "bkwsuwatch" endorsing site... Let us see how is this being handled... Best Wishes, avyakt7 01:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

More on it: I just found out that user Thatcher131 removed my comments. Claiming that "evidence" should not be placed here... I wonder if he realized that user .244 is doing that and his comments are there as well...Anyway, here is the link [63] I would really like to know from user Thatcher131 how a "traceroute" is possible without IP addresses... Can you do that by using just user names? How is this performed? and most importantly : Is user .244 coming from the same place as Why it was so easy for him to find that appledell, searchin man and myself are in different places and he/she did not mention about .244 and Something just does not make much sense ...
Best, avyakt7 01:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think a talk page of a hotly contested article is the place to discuss this- would you be willing to disucss this elsewhere?Sethie 05:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
When is the slur and innuendo going to end Luis? I have stated, and continue to state, that I accept using the references you have given and others. The issue is regarding written Wikipedia policy.
Given, your CONFIRMED [64] use of a secret IP address used solely to block and attack me and another contributor [65], methinks thou "doth protest too much." 04:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Dear .244, I promise it will end as soon as you confirm that you are in fact, and you know, I keep my promises... Best wishes, avyakt7 11:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Luis, perhaps you need to add any additional information at the end of the "Statement by Riveros11" section of the Arb case. Probably this article talk page isn't the best place for it either. Regards Bksimonb 10:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Simon, I will go ahead and add that soon. Hope someone will read it. I just wonder why Thatcher131 did not do it? It seems strange to me that someone who is supposed to be neutral is beginning to favor (in my opinion) a certain side. Hope my questions are answered by him. Best Wishes, avyakt7 11:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Please stay cool and don't read too much into it. Bksimonb 14:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
The checkuser on and came back, [66]. Thank you. 06:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Really gotta hand it to you 244 - when it comes to denial no-one can brass it quite like you! searchin man 23:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Bold edits

The following extensive edits by User: seem to have been made without seeking editor consensus [67]. The version that maleabroad reverted to [68], although not such as easy read, was at least discussed, and given reasonable time, only replacing text which was deemed not to be adequately cited or not meeting Wikipedia's policy requirements.

I am not going to revert it myself straight away since I understand the situation here is a bit delicate right now. I would like to know what the other editors and admins monitoring this page think of the edit in question.

Actually, credit where credit is due, much of the "bold edit" looks quite neutral this time which is quite encouraging. However I feel that it is also really important to have a harmonious working relationship amongst the active editors on this article. We have agreed a "controversial" tag to acknowledge that bold edits are going to need discussion and consensus before being implemented. User:, could you please indicate if you are able to work with us on this?

Question to any admins watching this page: do you think it appropriate/inappropriate that I revert the page? I don't want to be tagged as "edit waring". Thanks & regards Bksimonb 09:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Dear All, Well, I don't "hear" any admins coming...I wonder what is the purpose of having a big and colorful tag requiring to discuss previous changes if editors will not follow the self imposed rules, our own protocol for this page? I will revert this page back on Monday if I do not hear anything about any admin by then.. please note that I am giving notice of my actions as due to acknowledge our agreement. Best, avyakt7 23:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Also Wanted to add what Thatcher131 wrote in my talkpage concerning .244 and "....By the way, traceroute shows that the web site is hosted in England, which is the same place the 195 editor is coming from, but I can't get more specific than that. Thatcher131 01:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)" Anybody can find that. All I need to do is run a traceroute and a Whois to do it myself...I have presented proof and I have links to pictures in the month of october about his site and the undeniable link to the IP address of .244. User Thatcher is overseeing this in my Statement. Moreover, user thatcher131 is not answering my question: Is the account coming from England? He did not have any problems with "searching man" or "appledell"...what is the problem with this one? Yes.. I would like to add it in my "statement" but then it will go over the 800 words. Best wishes, Avyakt772.91.169.22 23:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Ps: Here is the acknowledgement of user .244 that in fact is his site [69]
This individual is even bragging about how traffic will increase in his site.
Now , let us use some logic. It goes something like this: "If A=B and B=C then, A=C" Which means, if user .244 recognizes that is his site and BKWSUwatch and bkwatch endorse the site AND there is an account which obviously belongs to the site AND the IP points to the site (at least used to point, but I have pictures which I took knowing that sooner or later .244 will shutdown this) THEN, user .244 is evidently involved with those sockpuppet accounts. See the logic? Please see this collection of beautiful pictures depicting our friend's IP address at the bottom of my "fire fox" browser, for those of you not familiar with this site, this is a well known antagonistic site to BK who is even trying to get an article about them in this encyclopedia!
For your personal photo album: [70],[71], [72], [73], [74]
and here a copy of .244 own words of wisdom:"Thank you for the best advertizement that we have been given in a long time, Luis.
Would any individuals interested in reading BK Raja Yoga teachings in their original form called the Murlis, please log in anonymously and download them from the address given above before the BKWSU tries to shut the server down.
I expect our traffic to increase significantly. 00:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC"
Admins: Any further proof? What do you say Thatcher131?
User .244 has confirmed his involvement with and as you can see his IP address hosts an FTP site in
Best Wishes, avyakt7 01:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
If any new changes have been made without talkpage consenus, after the banner was up- revert them. And don't not revert for fear of being labeled something. Sethie 00:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Dear Sethie, My pleasure... Thank you for answering. Best, avyakt7 01:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry but I have to disagree. The previous edit was pushed through when Riveros11 had blocked me out from editing by putting in IPVandal complaints via a hidden IP user account. We have had a checkuser back to confirm that those IP acocunts WERE all Riveros11. See here [75]. That was unethical and the edits I am removing are academically unsustainable.
Dear .244, The only unethical actions here are the ones you perform. Sockpuppet, erasing other contributors posts, misrepresenting your affiliation to There is no such a thing as a hidden IP address.. and I signed my name after my IP so there is no doubt it was me. Now, please behave as what we agree in this page and discuss the item before making a change. Thank you. avyakt7 00:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
A stated, the only way I see this going ahead positively is if we stick to a barebones objective account without the PR.
If you want to leave some copy, we will have to pare it down to factual neutrality. 04:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd say too bad. Without getting into whose or first and what's on 2nd, by concensus, we agreeded that all changes had to be discussed first. Any significant change made without concensus, after I put the banner up, I support reverting. Sethie 06:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Right, I've reverted page back to the version before .244 made unilateral changes (again). PLEASE can EVERYONE discuss proposed changes here first. Thanks. Appledell 16:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Appledell, why did you remove information sourced to John Walliss which strikes me as good source? I do not accept a justification of a revert only because edits were undiscussed. What matters is not whether an edit is undiscussed but whether an edit makes the article better. Please explain why your removal made the article better. Andries 18:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear All, I reverted the page again. Before making changes we need to discuss here. New user making changes already. Our agreed policy in this article is to discuss before making changes. Best, avyakt7 00:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The generally accepted practice in Wikipedia is that new additions do not have to be discussed. Please cite policy to back up your statement that new additions first have to be discussed. I consider reverts of well-sourced new additions justified only by saying that the new additions were undiscussed disrputive. Andries 05:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for opinion, references re Mediumship and Early History

OK Jossi,

request for opinion on references already and other. I have more but we will take this slowly.

  • Hinduism Today,

It has an international print circulation of 100,000 plus, consultants to US President select committee, Ford Foundation sponsored and world's first desktop publishing network.

To start with, I would like to add to the references about the use of mediums within the BKWSU given by Howell, Walliss, Whaling and others for the channelling of the spirit they call God and their deceased founder Kirpalani. In the follow copy of a printed article, it is reported in the words of a Director of the BKWSU's herself how the deceased senior administrator Didi Manmohini came back from beyond the grave, was channelled through one of their mediums and gave messages about her experiences. Online archive of October 83 publication, here; [76].

  • The Sindh Story, by K. R. Malkani. Karachi, Allied Publishers Private Limited, 1984

A history of the Sindhi people of which Kirpalani and the BKs were members. To establish its credibility, K.R. Malkani was Lt. Governor of Pondicherry (i.e. Senator) and Vice-President of India's major center right political party the Bharatiya Janata Party from 1990 to 1995. Vice-President of the Deendayal Research Institute, New Delhi from 1983 to 1990. He was a member of Rajya Sabha (Senate) from 1994 to 2000. Born where Kirpalani started his movement at Hyderabad in the Sindh in November, 1921, he also served as editor of many newspapers, was General Secretary of the Editors Guild of India from 1977 to 1978.

I wish to use it to support the version of the early days of the Om Mandali and Om Niwas movement and the reaction from the families and Bhaibund community.

Please note that these references have been already but were removed because presumably the other editors have not read the book but frankly, racism towards the India point of view aside, Malkani is somewhat of an expert, the book is in English and as such any of his research is not primary reasearch on my behalf. The articles have been archived by third parties including academic facilities.

And I raise the suitability of the references added by Andries which I support and consider to be a perfectly adequate source.

  • Lochtefeld, James G. Ph.D. The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Hinduism Vol. I ISBN 0-8239-3179-X, entry "Brahma Kumaris" New York Rosen 2002 04:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, when I read the Hinduism today article I don't read "for the channelling of the spirit they call God." That sounds like your interpretation of that source. See if you can just stay with exactly what the article says. Notice how the article uses the word "Someone" took over the body and then "it began to say."
"deceased senior administrator Didi Manmohini came back from beyond the grave, was channelled through one of their mediums and gave messages about her experiences." Again watch how you interpret their words! The article does not say she "came back from beyond the grave." It does say that that after her physical death, "messages" came through about her experiences in the coma state.
It's great to have reliable sources, and Hinduism today easily fits that, now if you're going to use them, you need to be very clear and non-interpretive of what they say.Sethie 05:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
The word channelling is a new term esp. used for New Age. Its retrospective use is probably logically correct, though unusual. I do not consider this somewhat doubtful use of the term channelling a major thing. Andries 06:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I was concerned with that, however, more concerned with the "the spirit they call God." I am wary of using language to describe someone else's theology, metaphysics, etc. unless they use it or well-known scholar uses it.Sethie 06:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Sethie, thanks for the positive confirmation about Hinduism Today. No, we are not limited to slavish copy and pastes.
But please, read all the references and citations contributors have offered so that you know what we are actually discussing. Otherwise, how can we move forward in a positive fashion? Secondly, please read what I state accurately. I did not state that THIS source mentioned the channelling of the spirit the BKs call God. Actually, it is Howell, Whaling, Barz, Scotland and Walliss refer to it.
What I wrote is that this source ALSO reports the Director of San Franscisco BKWSU Raja Yoga center ADDITIONALLY refering to the channelling of the newly deceased chief administrator of the BKWSU and that this ADDITIONAL spiritualististic mediumship of deceased administrators can therefore ALSO incorporated into a single statement.
I think we have a problem with the BKWSU claim that it is "God" who enters into Lekhraj Kirpalani and Gulzar only and so that we should cover ourselves. I do not see the academics actually stating that this spiritual entity IS God, they report "call, claim, believe" etc and they are the best words we can safely use. What do you understand by a deceased "someone entered into" the medium Gulzar? It is not interpretion, it is the use of a techincal word. 08:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, there have been no refutations as to the early history and the use of mediums. No citable references to say that either sad history was untrue or that the BKWSU does not use mediums. I take this as an affirmative to restore said elements of the topic. 05:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This page agree on some guidelines

Heya Andries, please see that tag at the top of this page "controversial" and the disuccsion about the controversial tag. We've agreeded, as a page that all substantial changes will be disucssed first. I agree that 99% of the time, undiscussed is not a valid reason for reversion. However, this page, for the first time in.... months agreeded to something- that this is how we'd operate. If that doesn't feel right to you, would you be willing to disucss that under the controversial tag section?Sethie 05:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I never made that agreement and will not agree with this editing procedure that contradicts generally accepted Wikipedia practices. I will use reverts of sourced material only justified by saying that they were undiscussed as evidence in the arbcom case, because I consider them disruptive. Please discuss the quality of my edits and do not refer to non-existing mandatory editing procedures for justifying reverts. Andries 06:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I did not make substantial changes that first have to be discussed. I only made a few new well-sourced additions. Andries 06:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I will discuss substantial changes before making them but to revert a few well-sourced new additions with the only justification that they had not been discussed first sounds like a violation of WP:OWN to me. Andries 06:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
First off, I salute you for coming to the talk page instead of reverting. I also understand how you could see the reversions as WP:OWN.
3rdly, would you be willing to look at the controversial tag at the top of the page and let me know if you believe that your edits were not in violation of that?Another frequent participant of the page thought they did. When I look at then, I don't see them as being substantial either, especially the first 2 which look like just adding refferences. However I am so excited that we as a page agreeded on something that I feel kind of protective, not of the content of this article, but of that agreement. Sethie 06:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Dear Andries, Welcome. May I ask you what is your interest in this page? also, if you have a well documented article with reliable sources, why it is so hard for you to publish it here first, so we can take a look at it and discuss it.
I understand your willingness to "post" but some of us have been here sometime now and as Sethhie explained, we have a "gentleman" agreement. Hope you will acknowledge that agreement and share your reliable sources. Until then, I will revert this article back...and I have no problem in doing that as many times as it takes... Best Wishes, avyakt7 15:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
From Lochtefeld, James G. Ph.D. The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Hinduism Vol. I ISBN 0-8239-3179-X, entry "Brahma Kumaris" New York Rosen 2002
"Brahma Kumaris
Modern Hindu religious organization founded in the 1930s by a Sindhi jeweler named Dada Lekhraji. In 1947, after the partition of British India into India and Pakistan, the organization relocated its headquarters from Sindh (in modern Pakistan) to Mount Abu in the Indian state of Rajasthan. Although the sect has only about 100,000 members - minuscule by Hindu standards - it is noteworthy for several reasons. Unlike most Hindus, the Brahma Kumaris aggressively seeks out and converts new members, and thus it has a much higher profile than other religious sects. The organization preaches a doctrine foretelling the imminent end of the world, which must be prepared for by radical asceticism. It is also noteworthy that since its beginning, the majority of its adherents have been women. [..]"
Andries 17:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I am very much in favor of the changes Andries is propsing, the look well cited to me. I would like to include the piece about coversion being unusual to Hinduism, I had forgotten that. Sethie 17:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
User:Riveros11/avyakt7, could you please use next time the template {{Request quote}} in the article when requesting a verbatim citation before reverting. Thanks in advance. Andries 17:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Dear Andries, Thank you for your understanding on this. Sure, I will place the template when requesting for a quote. I need to add that I have provided a pdf file for anyone to read of the article cited. I would be very nice if that additonal step is provided for the sake of completeness and accuracy.
Let me point out a couple of issues I have with your quote. For that I will use Kranenborg's article:[77]
"If this tendency continues it could become clear that Brahma Kumaris is in fact a new religion, originating within Hinduism but going its own way." This is a reliable source and I am showing the website. Accordingly, the term "sect" should not be used. Firstable Wikipedia itself discourages it. See the archives with the link in it, since this issue was discussed before. Second, You added the following:"The movement agressively seeks new converts." Please elaborate what do you mean by "agressively." Is there any quotes regarding this term? Thirdly, 100,000 members is completely innacurate. BK has its own count on this and I wonder about the date of this quote. Above it states 2002 as the date for publication. Perhaps someone else could provide a number on this.
Fourthly, To state that Brahma Kumaris was founded "in the 1930s" is quite vague if nothing else. We are celebrating 70 years and provided a date for it.
Since you added in the article the "agressive" word, please justify it. Thank you and I finally appreciate being able to discuss about the article. Best, avyakt7 18:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Why should I justify what the source (Lochtefeld) says? We only report what the sources say. Of course if all editors agree that "aggressive" is incorrect then we can agree not to use the source. Andries 19:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I think the membership figure is old. Also, I'd be uneasy using the word "aggressively". Although having said that, I think it is an interesting and worthy point that the Brahma Kumaris are quite unusual in that they do have a high conversion rate for an organisation of its size and history. Appledell 20:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

"Unlike most Hindus, the Brahma Kumaris aggressively seeks out and converts new members"
Dear Andries, Since you are adding a quote it is reasonable to expect justification of it. Your option is to choose a citation. You could have picked another one.. but you picked that particular one. I am only asking for support of that word with another quote. "aggresiveness" is a loaded word which has a negative connotation. Best, avyakt7 19:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
It was information missing in the article. If you think that it should be voiced as an opinion then that is fine with me because I have to admit that the word aggressive is not clearly defined in this context. Andries 19:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
To all,
One of the reasons I haven't made any edits is due to this very tone(directed at Andries) of the users that want to keep information out. This is a bit of a stretch: "gentleman" agreement. First, off this agreement that I understood was that information was going to be removed not because it was not true but because it did not have the little number next to it, the citations were in the bibliography. So, I asked for some time and when I went in and started to place the information back along with the citations as requested and I was reverted with the excuse that it had not been discussed here? I hadn't done any thing up until then awaiting the arbitration that was rejected, a new one is under way and so I am waiting to see………………hope is eternal.
Sethie I value the work that you do editing, but feel I have to state my case before you on this now that it has been done to another editor. My bet is Andries won't get the information in, even though it is cited and brought here. I noted that Bksimonb wasn't happy with the state of the article even though it reads like a glowing PR job. Who can we thank for that? I watched as they removed information in chucker block style, yet they would like to revert even a name correction!
I now have spent close to three grand on books (those little academic books are not cheap), so that perhaps I can have a shot at placing facts in the hope of making this of some value to individuals that want to look this up for what ever reason. I also feel that some of the "discussions" are a bit like: "Me, myself and I don't agree it should go in because it is not academic enough!" Oh, it looks more official to cut and we all did so long ago. So, yes the article looks like a PRO Brahma Kumaris mess and I noted that one Academic' dropped by to correct his name yet didn't bother to verify some things that would prove to him that it was the not the UN that helped the organization to grow, it was those Westerners that opened centres in the London, Japan, UK (Germany), Australia, Guyana, New Zealand, South America. If he did he might have found that some that ran some of those centres had indeed been here! How easily they were discarded, attacked, their work (decades) given to the UN emblem and on towards a rewrite of the events.
I don't blame them for not coming back, after the thrashing they were given. The very books they used to "teach" were now being rendered non-academic! Sethie, did you notice that all the ExBK links are gone too? So, theoretically this group has no opposition and all is well and good in the world of Gyan. So, I won't hold my breath to see the entry by Andries in the article because I know it will be another verdict by "Me, myself and I". PEACETalkAbout 18:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Dear TalkAbout, So you didn't like the "gentleman agreement" phrase ? I wonder why... ;-) Best, avyakt7 19:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Gee, you are sounding like searchin man there....on a sexist twist. My objections are that the "gentlemen agreement" is not honored and rather used to obfuscate, rather than making any progress with the article. Please check your stage as it is beginning to show “brother”. PEACETalkAbout 20:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Look, can we try and cut out the sniping (on both sides). It seems a reasonable and perfectly workable aim to try and discuss changes on this page before they are made. Yes, it might take longer for the article to be written - but at least it will be done in a better spirit. If we can't agree on this basic point, then we all might as well just give up as this article will get nowhere. Appledell 20:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Nice to hear "cut out the sniping" from the person that removed all the ExBK links. So, now we can work and get along when there are no ExBKs left? Point of order...your mate started it, my gender should not come into play in any discussion.PEACETalkAbout 21:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Riveros11/avyakt7, regarding the word "sect" in the entry by Lochtefeld. This is clearly and neutrally defined in an Indian context and Brahma Kumaris fits the stated definition. To be fair, I have to say that I am one of the main authors of the article sect. Andries 19:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
The problem with terminology is that none of the words new religious movement, sect, cult have only one clearly defined generally accepted meaning. For example, the term NRM is often confined to movements that were founded after 1945 which thus excludes Brahma Kumaris. I see no easy solution for this. Andries 19:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Here is the following quote that would substantiate your entry:
  • “ …as a result of its ‘’’extremely energetic’’’ proselytizing, the movement has a visibility out of proportion to its size.”  :Redemptive Encounters (Three Modern Styles in the Hindu Tradition), Lawrence Babb[78], 1986, ISBN 1-57766-153-2
So, one could easily say the other is correct, although the above is more sophisticated and palatable. I could live with ‘’’extremely energetic’’’ if that is the only objection. I do believe that the membership was correct for that period time (78-79), below are more recent numbers and the year it was established.
  • Quote: “In 1937 he established the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual Organization or Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University (BKWSU) at Hyderabad.”
The Baker Pocket Guide to New Religions, Nigel Scotland, Chair of Theology and Religious Studies, University of Gloucestershire, 2006, ISBN 978-08010-6620-7
  • Quote:”Present estimates indicate that the University has about 600,000 students in several thousand centers in over 80 countries, with the majority of them in India.”
The Baker Pocket Guide to New Religions, Nigel Scotland, Chair of Theology and Religious Studies, University of Gloucestershire, 2006, ISBN 978-08010-6620-7
I hope this helps and moves this along. PEACETalkAbout 20:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi all, just dropping by, - good to see that the discussion seems to be finally moving in the direction of basing the article around scholarly secondary sources. However this section clearly illustrates that there is a real danger of the edit war simply being refined and continued along the lines of ‘my scholar carries more weight than yours etc’.
One way to avoid this might be for editors to agree to consider the works of certain authors only? And having done that, to then try and further agree on their differing areas of expertise. For instance a cursory glance reveals that the research of Wallis, Howell and Kranenborg is more recent than say Babb or Barz. This is not to discount or invalidate the latter, but with a rapidly evolving NRM such as the BK, more recent works are bound to offer a more contempory analysis. Sincerely searchin man 23:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
That's a good point and I think it would be a step forward to agree on certain academics. However, I think where academics contradict eachother, we should just say so in the article. Along the lines of: "X says Y about the BKs, but A takes a different view...". Otherwise, it can get tricky in working out how to decide how one academics view on a certain subject supersedes that of another one (except if its a matter of being most up-to-date, in terms of membership figures for example). Appledell 21:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

With all the BK contributors on board here, why;

  • is it still not possible for them to substantiate membership figures and what constitutes membership?

I asked for this ages ago. All the academics are depending on the so called 'official figures' as 'actually figures' have not been independently reviewed. On that basis, it is probably best to leave any figure out or qualify it as a "claim".

Regarding the founding, the BKWSU was not founded in the 30s. The precursor OM Mandali was. In truth, BKWSU does not appear to have been founded anywhere until the 70s. It is just a sort of trading name for a variety of Trusts. Name and date the trusts please. Again, with so many BK contributors, why;

  • can we not have references to citable legal documents and specific dates instead of vaguarities? 08:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fair to use the term "claim". Even the academic works have to rely on a guesstimate sourced from what the BKs say - so might has well use the most current figure that the BKs are using and attach "claim" to it.
Maybe we can say something along the lines of "the movement's history goes back to the 1930s, when it was initially known as Om Mandali"? I'm not aware of legal documents that state the start of the name BKWSU - but unless someone can provide that, we can say that "the organisation later became known as BKWSU"? Appledell 21:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I ask the same question, again, with so many BK contributors, why;
  • Can we not have references to citable legal documents and specific dates instead of vaguarities?
Ditto with the dates and documents of founding of the various stages.
With regards Kranenborg, he writes "If this tendency continues ...", that is future tense and predictions are not allowed on the Wiki. I also re-iterate that this is proper paper.
With regards to limiting to chosen scholars, there is no chance of that. The article has always been based on citable sources. As the later academics are largely dependent on what the BKWSU tells them, they are too subject to the institutional re-writes. Revisionism with regards to history is not the same as evolution which is why Babb, Barz or Chander are very useful. 05:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Kranenborg quote

I want to qualify my reservation on the use of the full Kranenborg quote in the first paragraph again.

  • Although he may have academic qualifications, it is not a proper academic paper.
  • The web reference offers no citations to where he found his assumptions and no evidence is provided to sustain them
  • It continues the obfuscation between BK practise and classic Raja Yoga.

In short, it may be good PR for the BKWSU but it is unsustainable until references are provided to sustain it.

The centrality of spiritual mediumship and the connection with the channelled beings the BKs call Shiva and Bapadada is on the other hand concurrent throughout many of the academics and their own literature. It is the most defining difference between their practise and others understanding of the terms. No BapDada, no BKWSU. The unchallenged reference to additional channelling carries additional weight in this argument.

Can I suggest a separate category within the article on "The BKWSU use of mediums" or mediumship? 08:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear .244, Funny that you do not like Kranenborg's link. Let me remind you that It was YOU who put it in the page.
I will revert the page again. We have not agreed on anything yet, 244. I believe Searchin man's statement is a good idea. We need to come up with a list of academic references and stick with them. I would like to hear any more thoughts about it.
Best, avyakt7 13:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for acknowledging that I provided references and citation useful to this article contrary to your other statements. I accept Kranenborg within neutral limits of accuracy where co-referenced with other material. He hs no more of a position to exaggerate his claims as we do ours. 11:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Dear .244, You provided it as a Bibliography. You have never referenced or cited it. There is a huge difference. Best, 20:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)avyakt7

Arbitration hearing

In case anyone has missed it, the BKWSU Arbitration case is open and here; [79] 08:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Article Cleanup Co-Ordination Point

  • Clean up, Clean up, is a good idea and as soon as the arbitration case is done I will get the mop and the bucket ASAP! PEACETalkAbout 14:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Whaling on lifestyle

There was a whole section on BK lifestyle deleted. It was concurrent with exact quotations from Whaling, e.g. 4 am ... 6.30am, strict acetiscism etc. Why was it removed?

As far as I can see it was accurate and non-contentious. 05:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


OK. Now the article has been re-written, what remains that is NPOV or unreferenced? Is it not time that tag is removed? 10:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

After a quick look I don't see anything particularly POV. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 14:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. My position entirely. The NPOV tag is merely discrediting for all of the article, Likewise all the ugly clean up stuff. 07:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Reverted Article changed by

Dear .244, Please discuss a bit here before making your changes. You know, some of us have a life besides Wikipedia.. patience is a good virtue...I have been very busy writing my little report on ".244 whereabouts and talkabaouts in a nutshell."- Limited edition. Thus, I apologize for not getting back sooner. I will revert the article again. Best, avyakt7 14:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is you are not discussing Luis. You are taking that old BKWSU tack of never denying, never confirming. Ignoring when I raise undeniable and central issues as per the mediumisitic stuff above.
Now, by the BK team now discussion matters with me, and leaving me to have to make edits on the basis on no obvious opposition, I can see how it is useful for you because you can then work up a case against me ... but life must go on and the topic was a real mess serving no one before. Third party opinion above states no obvious point of view and that is worth a whole lot more than your point of view. 07:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Latest and greatest "hit" of .244

Dear .244, Perhaps you could explain a bit about this:[80] Are you trying to "branch out" your field of influence? Isn't this page enough for you? That is a POV and libel unless you have proof. "Paraphrasing" has a different meaning when it comes from animosity. Best Wishes, 22:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC) avyakt7

Whoa!, -just did a bit more research in that direction [81], [82], [83], [84], [85]. Truly obsessive stuff and as you would expect without citation.
Can't we just get this article sorted out first 244? searchin man 00:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
You are wrong on the references issue as usual and, pelase, cut the personal stuff. Multiple references already given. No need for slavish copy and pastes. 07:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


The movement teaches the imminent "end of the world" that must be prepared fo...

The end of the world is a phrase used to most commonly refer to the death of all life on planet earth. When used, an individual could be explaining the result of a catastrophe.

This could be explained slightly clearer, as they don't teach that all life on this planet earth will end. they take about a "new world" on this earth, but not total death for everyone and everything.

jesselp 08:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The reputable source (Lochtefeld) mentions the term end of the world. I was only reporting what the source wrote. Andries 06:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
You said you blanked out your page because you were no longer egaged in these discussions. Please address my posting NPA [86] on your page as I believe it needs addressing. Also, the "Hidden Doctrine" is the "End of the World" or "Destruction" which is documented in two academic books and in the Life Positive article that Riveros11 removed but which is still listed in the Bibliography. So, Andries is correct.PEACETalkAbout 07:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


Dear .244,

Ok. Let us discuss. I took my 6 hours off now I am ready... 1) Mediums: The word is channeling. The article (which will be reverted) had mentioned this at least once. What is your issue with this? Any other problems? 2) issue with Andreas: The article pointed out the words NRM and Religion when referring to Brahma Kumaris. As far as I can see the word in discussion was" Agressive." What would you like to post? BTW, I asked a question which wasn't even acknowledge. What is your interest in this article? You do not seem BK nor Ex-BK, a little search about you in wikipedia gives an idea of your interests, however; whether you want to answer this question or not, at least say so. You want me to answer your questions, likewise answer mine. Otherwise, it will look "poorly on me." alone, as Sethie put it.

Will revert article again. Best, avyakt7 13:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I answered on your talk page. Please ask questions about me on my talk page. Not here because this talk page should only be used to discuss the article to improve it. Andries 19:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Medium is the word the BKWSU has used to describe Lekhraj Kirpalani.
  • Mediumship is the alpha and omega of BKWSU practise.
  • Without the mediumship of Shiva through Kirpalani there would be no BKWSU
  • The entity which is being channelled is the focus of BK medititation not what others consider to be God
  • Channelling is mentioned by most of the academics
  • The practice and process of channelling and mediumship is central to, consistent throughout and mention in the organization's own self-published material and websites including terms such as trance medium and trance messenger
  • A senior director of BK Raja Yoga centers clearly documents the mediumship of a deceased leader after the cremation of her body in a reliable and expert secondary source.
  • The Murlis specifically state that the said channelled entity works through BK Raja Yoga practitioners even if they are not aware of it.
All of the above are what differentiate BK practise from Classical Raja Yoga and specifically identify the BKWSU and its practises. Indeed differentiate it from most religions. It is simply the most identifying factor, hence its inclusion in the top paragraph. How many other Universities,never mind religions, do you know of that have been started by a channelled entity and whose canon has been developed by channelled teachings?
If you remove it, it is clear that you people in the BKWSU are just trying to cover this matter up and that your edits are not based on neutral reportage ... just like the fight we had with you over "Destruction". The other most central fact of BK teachings. 00:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I do not know the specifics of this case, but I strongly support the principle of giving emphasis to beliefs and practices that differ from mainstream Hinduism. In fact, giving emphasis of differentiating beliefs and practices is a guideline in the German Wikipedia for their Wikiproject religion that I intend to translate. For example, in the case of Christian groups the German Wikipedia recommends linking to the article Christianity and then only write down the peculiarities of that particular group. Andries 01:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

"This article reads like an advertisement"

I've taken off that tag from the article - it's not been discussed on this page. Also, I'd contest the claim that it reads like an advertisement - I can't find a single positive adjective in any of the wording. Unless the problem lies with the "Achievements" section - in which case that should also be discussed here. I can understand how that could be viewed as an "advertisement". Appledell 15:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Smeelgova in that it does read like an Advert and the contents are a cut and paste job. Also, you must refute with "evidence" that this is not the case, and offer cite other material within the current article 12.15.2006 that would not warrant the tag. So, I am placing it back. PEACETalkAbout 15:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Look, I'm not getting into reverting stuff again...but surely it's beholden on Smeelgova to show why the article reads like an advertisement before he/she puts the tag up? He/she has given no reasong why it reads like an ad - nor you, for that matter. Smeelgova is the one that made the change, not me. Appledell 15:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

New accounts

Dear All, All of the sudden we have this flux of new accounts wanting to contribute... Dear .244, do you have something to do with this? Who is Smeelgova? why a "cut and paste" from reliable sources become advertisement? without discussion, we cannot reach to any agreement... Smeelgova, please let us know about your contributions to this article first... Will revert article. Best, avyakt7 15:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

avyakt7Riveros et al,
FYI, wikipedia has a host of editors that work on articles, they don't have to come and be quizzed by you, they can edit any article and make contributions on any given topic. So, don't blame .244 for every thing be it negative or positive.
As to who is Smeelgova, well I don't think this is a good tactic as now you are promoting the sussing of wikipedia editors at large. This could be seen as an act of intimidation. Please stick to the discussion of the article not members!' "Will revert article." is not a good answer. As to the cut and paste.... it becomes an advertisement when you only place certain items while leaving others out, putting on blinders etc to the other items that other editors here have tried to no avail to place in. So, the tag is warranted and in addition this article has a clean up tag in the talk page which would support the Advet tag as well.
As to discussions, with whom Riveros, Ayakt and 72. et al? Me, myself and I? You Sir are not open to discussions. Also, your tone says volumes:"Who is Smeelgova?" PEACETalkAbout 17:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Dearest Sister TalkAbout, Wow!! Is .244 on vacation now? or busy buying gifts? So, you don't like my little quizzes? I was about to remind you about that IP from California as well. Simple question: Are you that IP?
Now about the article: The idea of just having some authors and stick with their writings seem like a good starting point to me. Otherwise, you will need to spend another couple thousand dollars to buy more books...Certainly, I would not want that for you... and then the time to read them will take valuable moments from your work duties and you may need to take days off as you have done before in order to defame BK here. See.. I am thinking about you.(ThoughtAbout)
A clean up tag has absolutely nothing to do with advertisement. What was here back in April to October was pure advertisement of .244 website bkinfo. Animosity at its best. Sister Talkabout, just enjoy the holiday season and wait for the arbitration committee to do their thing. In the meantime, PEACE. (As you like to say..) Best, avyakt7 23:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Objectively, I did agree entirely on the advertisement tag. The lengthy Kranenborg quotation at the top was entirely unscientific, unacademic and unsupported by him. Its placing disingenuous, a mere copy and paste of BKWSU publicity advertising. There was also a lack of critical balance in the article, as found in other similar topics, which has been restored. 01:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
avyakt7Riveros et al,
Please note that the tone you are using in the "Discussion" page is both sexist and harassing. You andsearchin man seem so similar?
  • Please note I will not engage in any "Discussions" that are filled with personal attacks or sussing. If you want to discuss a particular point do so, otherwise I will simply address your points to all and not to you as I so stated with your Alter ego searchin man.
  • Points raised:
  • "1. The idea of just having some authors and stick with their writings seem like a good starting point to me." I think any valid, source should be used just like in any other article.
  • 2. Qouting/citing is not defaming. Noting your hostility, and obsession in finding out where I could be, I will drop an e-mail to my family in the event I should turn up missing since you are under orders from the "Supreme Being" to get the job done! I believe the first trance message said to send good thoughts to the opposition and I still believe that to be the case. BTW While editing about the cult that used sarin in Japan, I didn't receive any personal attacks like I have here:-(! Think peaceful thoughts L.A.R. PEACETalkAbout 01:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sister, Please remember to post your adress and real name... without it I will not be able to find you. Perhaps you would like me to ask for TalkAbout? On the other hand, you are very welcome to come and visit me. You, .244, and everyone who wants to say "hello" to me. You know my name, my place of residence and where to find me at 6 AM... everyday. Thanks to .244!

Happy Holidays, Sis! and keep it light... Best, avyakt7 10:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


May I make a suggestion to involved editors? Given that most of you are engaged in an arbitration case about this and related articles, you may want to consider not editing the article until the arbitration case is completed. For those editors that are not engaged in the arbitration case, you may want to consider being very cautious with your edits as to avoid igniting more flames in this dispute, and to allow the arbitration case to proceed without extra burdens. Note that if any new editors become too involved with this article, they may become de facto parties to the arbitration case. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I will take the good advice and remain on the "Discussion" page. Also, Jesselp needs to be added to the arbitration case as he stated that he was blanking his talk page and no longer involved but has since returned. I am not sure how to go about adding him, but I do think he did a bit of a trick there. Please see his talk page.TalkAbout 17:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)PEACE
You can request that at the talk page of the arbitration page, or by contacting the arbCom clerk directly. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Dear Jossi, Sure. I agree with your suggestion. It seems sensible to wait. That tag however; needs to be removed since it was posted by someone who just showed up today without previous contributions to this article, with the sole purpose of adding more "gasoline to the fire"... hope this request is sensible. Best, avyakt7 20:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
They are perfectly entitled to. Anyone is. Indeed, a third party is more than welcome and more than likely to make a good judgement in my book. 00:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear .244, Watch out BKWatch careful what you say...It wouldn't surprise if "many third parties" decided to show up all of the sudden...Your book needs a revision...Best, 16:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC) Avyakt7

Neutral edit


I reverted to the neutral edit as a starting point, and I state stating point.

The main reason for this is really due to the underhand manner in which the previous edit was achieved. I am afraid that I consider this to discredit the previous article and, given the academics assessment of BK evanglism being aggressive, have to view such editing techiques as being equally aggressive by normal standards.

Specifically I am talking about the blocking out of other contributors by intimidation and the use of secret IP user accounts by BK Luis to make admin requests and complaints which doesnot seem to have been acknowledged or commented upon by other contributors. Clearly part of a greater attempt to silence my involvement all together.

We have a problem here because discussion is not going on based on policy. But at least all the bogus vandalism claims and threats have stopped now Luis has been unmasked and the arbcom case has started. So that, at least, is an improvement.

I actually think that the current edit is neutral, better written and entirely concurrent with the academics and factual. If not complete. So rather than just mindlessly erasing it, what are the issues the BKWSU team has with it? 01:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Sadly, I have to flag up BK Luis's continued, tireless efforts to continue and discredit me now prejudicing the arbcom discussion, with comment here; [87] on committee member Charles Matthews Talk page. I am sorry but this undermines the appearence of any discussion on this page. Please note there are no such Wiki users as bkwatch, bkwsuwatch. 02:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Dear .244, Perhaps Sethie could remind you about user bkwatch.. or if you prefer go back to the archives...Did you requested for the page to be protected? I have some reliable sources which I'd like to share as well and make some changes so, it doesn't look like an ad for your purposes. As you can see the "diffs" speak by themselves. There is nothing bogus about your unfair participation and animosity here. I think that I will wait until I hear from the arbitration committee. It is very easy to revert the page to any version. In the meantime, let me wish you happy Holidays! I'll be back...
Best Wishes, avyakt7 10:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
There are no such users to please, show us. One last time, cut the personal aspersions, Luis. 13:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear .244, Here FYI. [88] It surprises me that you do not recognize yourself... Courtesy of BKinfoWatch. Now, this will truly "undermine your name and appearance of any discussion on this page." How long are your planning to continue with your misrepresentations? Best, 16:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC) avyakt7

Replaced Vallabhacharya references

I replaced the Vallabhacharya references as I believe it is both a fairly innoculous fact whilst also putting into some context Kirpalani's and Om Mandali's later development. The justification for this is based on Vallabhacharya's identification between Krishna and Param Brahman, or Paramdham in BK speak, and all of the other gods of Hinduism as parts or aspects of his all-encompassing being. As a note, the Pushtimarg view of deities other than Krishna is not that they do not exist but that they are inferior to and dependent on Krishna's existence. After a someone is initiated into the sampradaya, Krishna is ideally the only god who is to be worshipped making Vallabhacharya essentially monotheist because of his complete focus on Krishna as deity (even to the the diminishment of Shiva). For more discussion on the BKWSU and this sect, please see Barz.

The BKs, of course, believe that Kirpalani and Krishna are the same soul as referenced elsewhere. 03:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Meaning of the mantra "~Om Shanti"

As far as I am aware the mantra "Om Shanti" does not mean "I am a peaceful soul". This is at worst nonsense and at best a very free interpretation of the mantra. May be the Brahma Kumaris believe that the mantra has this meaning but this should be stated as such. This meaning should not be written down as a fact without a reputable third-party source. Andries 14:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

What's your definition? "Nonsense" is a bit of an exaggeration. MY interpretation: "Om" means "I am", "I am the one", "my original, true self". "Shanti" means peace. You might feel that "I am peace" is a more accurate definition - which is fine. Although if its such a problem for you, I don't mind attributing it to what the BKs believe the mantra to mean. Appledell 19:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Attributing would be fine for me. Aum does not mean "I am". Source: The Encyclopedia of Eastern Philosophy and Religion Shambala Boston 1994. Andries 19:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Appledell, Andries is asking you for a source for this meaning, not to play with, interpret and repeat the meaning you have already given.Sethie 20:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Not necessarily a source. I have little problem with a sentence like, "Brahma Kumaris teaches that the mantra Om Shanti means "I am a peaceful soul." " Andries 21:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
As somewhat of a rare independent expert in BK matters, it is also not true of you to say, "MY interpretation: "Om" means "I am" ..." Appledell and I am sorry to see you slipping as I took you to honesty and integrity as a BK. Your given meaning is the BKWSU's meaning. Lesson One, Day One, taught and repeated 10,000s ... . Andries's resolution would in all fairness be accurate as, like the other nomenclatures, they are all taken from Classical Hinduism or yoga practises and used to hide new meanings. I appreciate that as a BK you will believe these meanings are the true meanings and Classical Hinduism is wrong, so please don't take offense at this but the Wikipedia has to come from a standard, objective point of view. 01:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Erm...that is "my" definition as that is what I believed it to mean - what's the problem? I've already said I'm happy to attribute it as a BK interpretation as per Andries' request. I don't appreciate you calling into question my honesty and integrity and can you stop labelling me as a BK as if its some sort of stick to beat me with - I have never referred to you as an ex-BK. Appledell 14:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


I've protected this page as per the request at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection. A Train take the 15:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Critical information???

  • I realize that this article is locked and in arbitration at the moment, but it seems very odd to have no information about criticism in this article at all. I must admit I am unfamiliar with the subject matter myself, but surely some of the information from those critical sites is valid and deserves a section of itself called "Criticism"? Or perhaps a fork to an article called "Criticism of Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University" ??? But not to have virtually anything at all in the main article on any kind of criticism seems really weird. Smeelgova 12:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC).
I suppose it depends what you mean by "criticism". There are plenty of aspects in the article which I'm sure the BKs would challenge for giving undue prominence and weight to certain of their beliefs, while not giving enough emphasis on other aspects. This might not be outright criticism, but it can certainly leave the reader with a negative view of the BKs. For example, the aspect of Destruction/End of the World...this is an aspect that is looked at near the end of the BKs' 7-day-course and not touched on at all in 99% of the talks/lectures/meditation seminars the BKs give. This is because it's not something the BKs obsess about. Yet, it is something that is prominently featured in this article - skewing the work of the BKs. There are plenty of other examples in the article of this sort of thing - but I'll leave it at that for now. Appledell 18:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)