Talk:Dada Lekhraj

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject India (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Article for deletion?[edit]

Given the UN article got merged away, I thought a similar fate might be appropriate here. Most of the RS I've consulted estimates the 2 founders of the group only had a membership of 1000 at the most in 1969 when the 2nd founder died. So given it was like a local football club at that time, it makes more sense to me for there to be a separate article on this 'Dadi Prakashmani' or one of the women who really grew the organisation. Does anyone have any thoughts/concerns about me putting forward deletion for this article - just total lack of Notability would be my reasoning. The article also has a few factual errors and doesn't seem to add anything much to the main article - at best there could be a section for the founders, Mr Lekhraj and Ms Pokardas in the main article? Regards Danh108 (talk) 19:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Birth year[edit]

The "Lekhraj's date of birth is 1884, not 1876" conspiracy theory is popular among BKWSU critics, and this topic has been discussed many times, on multiple talk pages (a couple of examples - 1, 2). Users like Green108 have been blocked in the past, and now we have a spate of IP addresses pushing for the birth year 1884 again.

The results of the past discussions has been that the vast majority of reliable sources state the year of birth as 1876. See above links for a list, or try a simple Google Books search ignoring sources that don't use Wikipedia as a source:

  • 1884
    • There are exactly 3 sources that mention the date of birth as 1884. One of them Religion by PediaPress is a Wikipedia mirror.
    • The other two are Prophecy in the New Millennium (2013) and the Spanish-language 40 Anos De Estudos Religiosos (2015), both of which are passing mentions.
  • 1876
    • ~30 sources that are not Wikipedia mirrors; many are more than 1-line mentions.

If I recall correctly, at the time of past discussions, there were no reliable sources that mentioned the year of birth as 1884. Since then, we have two new sources that mention the year of birth as 1884. Still, there is no justification for changing the year to 1884 given that the vast majority of the sources mention the year of brith as 1876. At best, you can try adding something like "The year of birth is debated. ABC says its 1876, XYZ says its 1884", but even that is debatable considering both the books contain trivial mentions. utcursch | talk 15:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in this matter you are ill informed and the given reference does state that the date of birth is 1884.
Moreover, if we look at the Brahma Kumaris own research website,,
we discover it used here,, and
the question of the date of birth controversy is answered here,
from there, a copy of the birth certificate is to be found. I cannot publish the address here because it is on Dropbox.
It would appear your knowledge is out of date and it has now been corrected in academia. The authors of the website is a Brahma Kumari adherent with a PhD.
-- (talk) 19:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
First of all, I'd request you to read WP:BRD - if you introduce a change, and someone reverts it, please don't simply add it back especially when there are multiple reliable sources contesting that change. Also, please don't undo all other changes with that.
Secondly, Tamasin Ramsay's website is not "Brahma Kumaris own research website". The Brahma Kumaris own website still stands by 1876. (It doesn't really matter though, per primary sources.)
I'm not affiliated with BKWSU or their critics -- I have zero problem with the birth year being changed to 1884, provided there are sources that actually substantiate your claim about this 'error' being corrected in academia. Prophecy in the New Millennium only includes a passing mention of the subjects. It refers to reader to Babb, who states "Dada Lekhraj was a wealthy jeweler who was born in 1876". From what I see, Tamasin Ramsay's findings about this alleged error have not been published in any scholarly source.
As I said earlier, given the current sources, at best, you can try adding something like "Sources differ about the year of birth". Even that would probably not survive at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests, given that it's only a passing mention.
If there are better sources, I'd gladly agree to the change. utcursch | talk 20:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
It's 1884 as per the certified birth certificate.
Honestly? Use your brain. The reference given is the latest one, hence now corrected. -- -- (talk) 11:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
First of all, "it's 1884" isn't a reason to add original research, POV, self-published tags and deprecated personaldata to the article.
Secondly, like I've said before, my concern is not whether it's 1884 or 1876. My concern is that the lack of non-trivial reliable sources. A birth certificate is a primary source - it's not acceptable unless there are reliable secondary sources backing up its' validity: anyone can create a fake one. The other source is a just a passing mention - not even 5 words about the subject; "The reference given is the latest one" is not a valid argument - Prophecy in the New Millennium from 2013. This is from 2014, and this is from 2015 -- both mention the birth year as 1876.
Find a better source, and I've zero problem with the change.
utcursch | talk 14:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
OK, before you start any conversation, follow the link I gave you above to the copy of the authorized birth certificate and then come back and confirm whether or not it says 1884.
I don't want to hear anything else until you do so. At this point, I am not concerned by anything else you are saying, I just want to make sure you have read it.
I would appreciated that. Once you have done so, I take up some of the point your have made. -- (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I've already read the 'authorized' certificate. And I've already pointed out that primary sources are not acceptable here. And please don't add bogus tags to the article. utcursch | talk 20:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
And what does the birth certificate say? -- (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
It says 1884. But wait, we have got another certificate which says Lekhraj was born in Kenya in 1880. Which one should we believe? utcursch | talk 21:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the non-fake says, 1884.
Now, take the references I gave Prophecy in the New Millennium: When Prophecies Persist (2013) edited by Sarah Harvey, Suzanne Newcombe, p.117.
What year does it say? (I am not finished here). -- (talk) 21:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
What do you mean by "non-fake says, 1884"? It clearly says 1876. It's even certified as original and genuine.
And Sarah's reference is from 2013. 2014 and 2015 references say "1876". To quote you: "Use your brain. The reference given is the latest one, hence now corrected." utcursch | talk 23:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Are you faking these up or is someone else faking these up for you? Please answer me.
Either way, you are discrediting your own integrity by confusing the issue and distracting conversation in this manner which is concerning for someone with administrative powers.
Let's progress this discussion logically and reasonably step by step. What does it say in 'Prophecy in the New Millennium: When Prophecies Persist' (2013) edited by Sarah Harvey, Suzanne Newcombe, p.117 ? -- (talk) 13:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Please note the reference you give was written by "Sister Chandrika Desai" who is a leading Brahma Kumari publicist for the BKWSO and so would therefore fail as a "reliable source". Given your presentation of falsified evidence and that you failed to notice, one has to questions your motivation and conduct here. -- (talk) 13:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Good point, I've removed the Chandrika Desai reference, even though it's published in a volume edited by four third-parties. It'd be helpful, if you can maintain some consistency with this logic. Earlier you were arguing that we should trust "Brahma Kumaris own research website".

Ditto for your other argument. We have still got two references - both of them from 2014: 12. Again, by your own logic, these are "the latest one, hence now corrected". It'd be great if you can come directly to the point, and explain why we should ignore two other sources (from 2014), and consider only Prophecy... (2013), which contains literally less than five words about Lekhraj or Brahma Kumaris.

As for the certificate, I'm just trying to show you why primary sources are not acceptable on Wikipedia. There is no reason why we should trust the certificate image labeled 'Genuine' and 'Original'. Similarly, there is no reason why we should trust the certificate issued to "M/s Wanda Babansky & David Sheard" of "247, Staff Line, Fatima Jinnah Road, Hyderabad" (FYI: there is no such address in Hyderabad - 247, Staff Lines, Fatima Jinnah Road is located in Karachi, and is the address of Dar-ul-Khushnud, a charity managed by the Church of Pakistan's Karachi diocese).

I'm not saying that the "Wanda Babansky" image is necessarily fake, but it's worthless as a source on its own. Like I've stated earlier, I don't have any problem with the year 1884 -- I'll myself remove 1876 from the article, when a reliable source confirms the validity of this birth certificate.

Frankly, I'm getting tired of repetitive arguments. If this were a purely content dispute, I would not have problem discussing it more. But your consistent removal of other references and addition of bogus tags to the article is not constructive. I'm not going to explain again why you shouldn't even mention the birth certificate in this discussion. So, let's stick to this: why more weight should be given to Prophecy... (2013) than the other two sources? utcursch | talk 16:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I never argued on the topic that the topic page for using the certified birth certificate. I argued the use for the 'Prophecy in the New Millennium' for the correct date.
I'm taking you through the logic of why we should use the correct day, how the falsified date came about, and why the BKs resist correcting it so you can understand the situation clearly.
Did you fabricate those fakes or were you supplied them and other information by the BK followers? -- (talk) 20:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Please WP:AGF. The same accusations could be made of you, but that sort of behavior is unproductive. The information is disputed and that can't be fixed simply by saying "my information is more correct than yours". That sort of argument goes nowhere fast. Given that there are (apparently) reliable sources for both dates, the article should have both as a compromise. Or, the issue could be taken to the reliable sources noticeboard for more opinions. clpo13(talk) 22:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm OK with this being taken to WP:RSN or another noticeboard.
And to the anon: You continue rambling endlessly, or stick to the point: why should Prophecy... be given more weight than other sources? (And no, please don't mention the certificate again unless you can find a secondary, reliable source that says it's valid). utcursch | talk 02:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
My questions or comments are short and to the point, Utcursch. Please stop distracting from the line of conversation and allow me to progress it.
Did you fabricate those fakes or were you supplied them and other information by the BK followers? -- (talk) 13:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Yawn. I'm not wasting time here. Feel free to take this to WP:RSN or any other noticeboard. utcursch | talk 17:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I share the opinions of Utcursch above and oppose the IPs idea that "1884 is the correct date supported by references [and] the 1876 date is wrong" (Diff of User talk:Sam Sailor).

Rather contrary, 1876 is well supported by reliable sources, and 1884 is not.

IP refers to "Brahma Kumaris own research website" a website made and maintained by adherents and thus not an independent, secondary source. Let me point out what appears to be just one mistake these women make in their research of their own organisation and its founder. They write: "... memories of local politicians (Hardy 1984) of the 1930s declare that he was 54 years of age in 1938 making his birth year 1884." Hardy 1984 is

From the little I can see in a Google Book search, the age of Dada is not stated as "he was 54 years of age", but "... Dada Lekhraj was about 54 years old" (Search).

Let me expand a bit on Utcursch's remarks above to give the anon editor insisting on 1884 a better understanding:

Dada Lekhraj 1876–1969

When searching on Dada Lekhraj 1876 I get:

  • Accessions List, India. 13. July 1974. pp. 428–. Biography of Dada Lekhraj, 1876–1968, founder of the Brahmakumari sect of Hinduism. ... 
  • Arxiu d'etnografia de Catalunya. 9 (in Spanish). Departament d'Antropologia Cultural, Facultad de Lletres. 1992. pp. 68–. ... Dada Lekhraj (1876- 1969), també anomenat Prajapita Brahma o més carinyosament Brahma Baba, fundador de Brahma Kumaris; ... 
  • Mohan B. Daryanani (1999). Who's who on Indian stamps. Mohan B. Daryanani. pp. 60–. ISBN 978-84-931101-0-9. ... 1876 - 1969 Cat. ... Dada Lekhraj, better known as Prajapita Brahma was the founder of the Prajapita Brahma Ishwariya Vishwa Vidyalaya, with its ... Around the age of 60, however, Dada Lekhraj suddenly underwent an inner transformation. ... 
  • Tadeusz Doktór (1999). Nowe ruchy religijne i parareligijne w Polsce: mały słownik (in Polish). Verbinum. pp. 37–. ISBN 978-83-7192-074-5. BRAHMA KUMARIS Początki Uniwersytetu Duchowego Brahma Kumaris (Brahma Kumaris Iswariya Vishwa-Vidalaya) sięgają 1936 r., gdy zamożny, sześćdziesięcioletni jubiler Dada Lekhraj (1876-1969) z Hyderabadu doznał serii objawień, ... 
  • George D. Chryssides (12 November 2001). Exploring New Religions. A&C Black. pp. 193–. ISBN 978-0-8264-5959-6. However, they are recent, having been established by Dada Lekhraj in 1938, and having reached the west in 1971. ... Origins of Brahma Kumaris Dada Lekhraj (1876–1969), the organization's founder-leader, was a wealthy jeweller, who lived ... 
  • Stefan Rademacher (2003). Religion in Berlin: ein Handbuch ; ein Projekt der "Berlin-Forschung" der Freien Universität Berlin (in German). Weißensee-Verlag. pp. 413–. ISBN 978-3-89998-003-5. Geschichte Gegründet wurde die Gemeinschaft von Dada Lekhraj (1876 - 1969), einem Juwelier aus der damals indischen Provinz Sindh, die heute zu Pakistan gehört. Dieser hatte 1936 göttliche Visionen von Shiva. Diese Offenbarungen ... 
  • Stephen Hunt (2003). Alternative religions: a sociological introduction. Ashgate. pp. 120–. ISBN 978-0-7546-3410-2. Dada Lekhraj (1876–1969) originally lived in Hyderabad and grew to multimillionaire status by specializing in the diamond trade. In his late sixties, he had a series of visions which were so significant as to lead him to abandon his business in ... 
  • Christopher Partridge; Linda Woodhead; Hiroko Kawanami (2 September 2003). Religions in the Modern World: Traditions and Transformations. Routledge. pp. 37–. ISBN 978-1-134-60273-5. Founded by a man, Dada Lekhraj (1876–1969), it is run by women, and while expecting the end of the world to be followed by the rule of the god Rama, its members are active in many welfare projects. Celibacy is advocated, and a form of ... 
  • Phyllis G. Jestice (2004). Holy People of the World: A Cross-cultural Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. pp. 505–. ISBN 978-1-57607-355-1. Lekhraj,Dada ... (1876–1969 C.E.) Hindu sect founder Dada Lekhraj was founder of the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual Organization,a ... 
  • Peter Clarke; Reader in Modern History and Fellow Peter Clarke (1 March 2004). Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements. Routledge. pp. 342–. ISBN 978-1-134-49970-0. LEKHRAJ, DADA (b. 1876; d. 1969) Dada Lekhraj (born in 1876 in the Sindh community of what is now Pakistan) founded the Hindu-derived millenarian movement (see Millenarianism), the Brahma Kumaris. At the age of ... 
  • Nigel Scotland (2005). A Pocket Guide to Sects and New Religions. Lion Books. pp. 24–. ISBN 978-0-7459-5159-1. The Brahma Kumaris ('the daughters, or girls, of Brahma') was founded by Dada Lekhraj (1876–1969), who was brought up within the traditions of Hinduism. The son of a village schoolmaster near Hyderabad, at that time in the British Indian ... 
  • Arvind Sharma (2005). Modern Hindu Thought: An Introduction. Oxford University Press. pp. 63–. ISBN 978-0-19-567638-9. It traces its origins to Dada Lekhraj (1876–1969) who was a lifelong vegetarian and teetotaler. Around the age of sixty, however, he had a series of revelations in which the imminent destruction of the world was an important theme. He felt that ... 
  • Mangesh Venktesh Nadkarni (1 January 2006). Hinduism, a Gandhian Perspective. Ane Books India. pp. 321–. ISBN 978-81-8052-110-2. It was started by Dada Lekhraj (1876–1969), who hailed from Sindh, Pakistan. The institution had to move after partition of India. Though they initially tried to remain there, there was no alternative, but to move in 1950. Brahmakumaris are a ... 
  • Constance Jones; James D. Ryan (2006). Encyclopedia of Hinduism. Infobase Publishing. pp. 33–. ISBN 978-0-8160-7564-5. Birth of Dada Lekhraj (1876–1969), Hindu founder of Brahma Kumaris, an international social reform movement led by women that stresses meditation and... 
  • George D. Chryssides; Margaret Wilkins; Margaret Z. Wilkins (10 May 2006). A Reader in New Religious Movements: Readings in the Study of New Religious Movements. A&C Black. pp. 15–. ISBN 978-0-8264-6168-1. ... picture of its founder, in whom members see God present. The movement started in the 1930s in the prosperous and conservative Hindu Bhaibund community in Hyderabad in Sindh (now part of Pakistan), when Dada Lekhraj (1876–1969), ... 
  • Peter Bernard Clarke (January 2006). New Religions in Global Perspective: A Study of Religious Change in the Modern World. Psychology Press. pp. 248–. ISBN 978-0-415-25747-3. The purpose of life, upon which the mantra focuses the mind, is to develop soul consciousness which body consciousness, particularly that kind promoted by sexual acts, obstructs. Although founded by a man, Dada Lekhraj (1876–1969), who ... 
  • John Walliss (1 January 2007). The Brahma Kumaris as a 'reflexive Tradition': Responding to Late Modernity. Motilal Banarsidass Publishe. pp. 33–. ISBN 978-81-208-2955-8. ... Kumaris begins with their founder, Dada Lekhraj, who is seen by members world-wide as 'the incarnation and descent of God, the World Father, into the corporeal world' (ibid., p. 13). Lekhraj was born in Sindh in 1876 into the Kriplani family ... 
  • Carl Olson (6 September 2007). The Many Colors of Hinduism: A Thematic-Historical Introduction. Rutgers University Press. pp. 345–. ISBN 978-0-8135-4067-2. In contrast to the guru-centric movements of recent time, a more prophetic type of movement is represented by the Brahma Kumaris (Daughters of Brahma) founded by Dada Lekhraj (1876-1969), who was a wealthy jeweler. He began to have ... 
  • J. Carlos Vizuete Mendoza; Julio Martín Sánchez (2008). Sacra loca toletana: los espacios sagrados en Toledo (in Spanish). Univ de Castilla La Mancha. pp. 22–. ISBN 978-84-8427-566-4. El siguiente personaje nos conduce a la India, o mejor dicho al actual Pakistán, donde nació Dada Lekhraj (1876- 1969), conocido cariñosamente como Brahma Baba. Fue un rico joyero que en 1937 fundó la Asociación Espiritual Brahma ... 
  • Susan Hill Lindley; Eleanor J. Stebner (2008). The Westminster Handbook to Women in American Religious History. Westminster John Knox Press. pp. 23–. ISBN 978-0-664-22454-7. The Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual Organization started in Hyderbad (now in Pakistan) when its founder, Dada Lekhraj (1876–1969), had visions about the nature of the soul and God. Women have played a central role in 24 Brayton, ... 
  • Dr. Hiro G. Badlani (30 September 2008). HINDUISM: PATH OF THE ANCIENT WISDOM. iUniverse. pp. 226–. ISBN 978-0-595-87961-8. Dada Lekhraj (1876–1969) started the Brahma Kumari organization as a socio-religious movement in Sind, now in Pakistan, in 1937. Following the independence and partition of India, the organization moved to Mount Abu, in Rajasthan, India ... 
  • Marianne Rankin (10 February 2009). An Introduction to Religious and Spiritual Experience. A&C Black. pp. 40–. ISBN 978-0-8264-9821-2. It was, however, initiated by a man, Dada Lekhraj (1876–1969) who became known as Brahma Baba. He was brought up a Hindu and made his fortune as a jeweller. It was not until he was 60 years old, that his spiritual revelations began, ... 
  • James A. Beverley (17 May 2009). Nelson's Illustrated Guide to Religions: A Comprehensive Introduction to the Religions of the World. Thomas Nelson Inc. pp. 168–. ISBN 978-1-4185-7746-9. Dada Lekhraj is the founder of the Brahma Kumaris movement. He was born in India in 1876 and became a prominent businessman, but in 1936 he experienced a ... 
  • Paul Oliver (28 May 2010). World Faiths - An Introduction: Teach Yourself. Hodder & Stoughton. pp. 123–. ISBN 978-1-4441-3072-0. Dada Lekhraj was named Lekhraj Kripilani at birth in 1876, and was brought up in a Hindu family. Most of his life he worked in business and was very successful, becoming, by the age of 60,very wealthy.It was around this time,in 1936, that he started ... 
  • George D. Chryssides (2012). Historical Dictionary of New Religious Movements. Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 60–. ISBN 978-0-8108-6194-7. A Saivite religious organization founded by Dada Lekhraj (1876–1969) and sometimes known as the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University. Dada Lekhraj was a multimillionaire jeweler who began to experience visions late in life and is ... 
  • Denise Cush; Catherine Robinson; Michael York (21 August 2012). Encyclopedia of Hinduism. Routledge. pp. 460–. ISBN 978-1-135-18978-5. LEKHRAJ, DADA (1876–1969) Dada Lekhraj was the founder of the Brahma Kumari movement. A wealthy jeweller born ... 
  • Roshen Dalal (18 April 2014). Hinduism: An Alphabetical Guide. Penguin Books Limited. pp. 368–. ISBN 978-81-8475-277-9. The founder of the BRAHMA KUMARIS. Lekhraj Khubchand Kripalani, later known as Dada Lekhraj, was born in Hyderabad in Sind in 1876, to a schoolteacher father. When he grew up he started his own business as a wheat ... 
  • The Moment That Changed My Life. Contento De Semrik. 14 May 2014. pp. 88–. ISBN 978-965-550-033-2. Dada Lekhraj was born in 1876. He was one of India's richest diamond merchants, His spiritual journey began in the city of Karachi, in the year 1936. It was nighttime. Lekhraj's family and guests began searching for him. In the living room of ... 
  • Klaus K. Klostermaier (1 October 2014). A Concise Encyclopedia of Hinduism. Oneworld Publications. pp. 53–. ISBN 978-1-78074-672-2. Brahmā Kumāris ('Daughters of Brahmā') A religious order of celibate women, founded in 1937 by a Sindhi businessman, Dada Lekhraj (1876–1969). Their headquarters are on Mount Abu; they have centres in all major Indian cities and in ... 
  • Jonathan H. X. Lee; Fumitaka Matsuoka; Edmond Yee (1 September 2015). Asian American Religious Cultures [2 volumes]. ABC-CLIO. pp. 221–. ISBN 978-1-59884-331-6. Brahma Kumaris was founded in 1936 in Hyderabad, Sindh (now part of Pakistan, but at that time part of colonial India), by Dada Lekhraj (1876–1969), who believed that the core feminine attributes—patience, tolerance, sacrifice, kindness, ...  Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

That's 30 {{cite book}}s in support of 1876 as birth year.

Dada Lekhraj 1884

There is, as noted above, three current book sources found through a Google Book search that has 1884 as the year of birth:

1. Religion. PediaPress. pp. 89–. GGKEY:ZC3QLDN75FX. 

Comment: The book is a mirror of Wikipedia pages from PediaPress and is not a reliable source.

2. Octavio Da Cunha Botelho (3 June 2015). 40 Anos De Estudos Religiosos (in Portuguese). Clube de Autores. pp. 115–. PKEY:90187276. Esta onda de novas oportunidades para as mulheres também alcançou uma instituição indiana, a Brahma Kumaris (Filhas do Deus Brahma), a qual, apesar de ter sido fundada por um homem, Lekhraj Kripalani (1884-1969) 

Comment: Octavio da Cunha Botelho is a staff member at the Federal University of Uberlândia. He does not explain from where he gets the 1884 birth year. If my understanding of other sources is correct, then when considering Botelho writes that Brahma Kumaris "was founded [...] in 1932 in Karachi" I think he can be dismissed as a reliable source.

3. Dr Suzanne Newcombe; Ms Sarah Harvey (28 May 2013). Prophecy in the New Millennium: When Prophecies Persist. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. pp. 168–. ISBN 978-1-4724-0061-1. The Brahma Kumari movement, founded by Dada Lekhraj (1884–1969), considers that we are in the transition between the Kali and Satya yugas (Babb 1986: 113 ff.)26. 

Comment: The quote in its entirety is the above, i.e. a passing mention. We can't see footnote no. 26 in Google Books, but doing an in-book search like this it appears to be

With an inauthor:Babb search restricted to 1986 like this we can be pretty sure that the only work by any author named Babb published in 1986 and containing the word "dada" is the above Redemptive Encounters: Three Modern Styles in the Hindu Tradition.

What does Babb write then? Here it is:

Browsing forward to p. 113 there is nothing regarding the birth year. Whatever the explanation for this is, I would not know. But bottom line is that there are zero independent, reliable sources as far as I can tell that convincingly support the 1984 birth year. I am going to boldly remove this claim from the article. Should anyone wish to re-add it, observe WP:BURDEN and present sources accordingly. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 21:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

That is because, if you read the reference, you would know it relates to the comment about cosmic ages and not his date of birth.
Utcursch, a simple relevant question.
Did you fabricate those faked references or were you supplied them and other information by the BK followers? If you could answer and then we can pick up the thread again.
Thank you. -- (talk) 00:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
@ Please respect your block. Please also stop arguing if you have no reliable sources to back up your claims. Nobody is taking your baits here. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 00:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry but it's important to establish what is going on here. Did the admin Utcursch falsify evidence to confuse and distract the discussion, or were they acting on behalf of the Brahma Kumari followers who had supplied the falsified evidence? I think we're due a straight answer instead of all the conspiracy theories and accusations.
The way it breaks down is this.
Lekhraj Kirpalani's date of birth is 1884.
Birth certificates are accept as accurate information [1], especially when used by reliable secondary sources [2]. We have the birth certificate and both the early reliable sources and latest ones confer, e.g. court affidavits in "Is this Justice?", early newspaper reports, Hardy (as above); and latterly Newcombe etc.
Hardly the "zero" as you state.
What happened in the middle period? I will answer that so you understand, although it is not necessary to do so in order for the correct date of birth to be included. I am doing so for your information, only so that you can understand what is going on. I am not doing so to justify any point. It is highly irrational to have to justify a knowingly correct date.
It appears that the Brahma Kumaris (BKs) has had a dispute with a splinter organisation called the PBKs (this is referred to in Walliss, 2007) regarding the interpretation of the mediumistic messages their religion is based upon since the 1970s. In those mediumistic messages, an individual is referred to as being 60 when God allegedly entered them. The BKs believe that individual was Dada Lekhraj Kirpalani. The PBKs point out that Kirpalani was not 60 at the time and believe it was another individual in the religion's early history, a relative and partner of his.
Since that time, and especially since their expansion into the West where there was no PBK representation, the BKs have employed their resources to re-write the history of the religion including their founder-gurus date of birth to match the predictions. This was then taken from granted and repeated by the media, specifically their historical revision of his date of birth from 1884 to 1876. It related to a failed End of the World prediction in 1976.
Until recently, very little academic study and especially no historical study of the Brahma Kumaris had been done and the religion's own publicity was depended upon, consequently 1876 became the established date. The reason for the falsification was not known. Latterly, we had also had the complication of the religion itself entering into the academic realm to promote it's version of events in a partisan manner and so one needs to be cautious of the sources.
Now it appears that is being corrected and the religion itself is admitting the error. It does not make sense that we must use an incorrect date merely because it has been vigorously promoted by one party in a dispute of faith.
I came onto the Wikipedia to make a simple correct correction and was immediately assaulted by an administrator, Utcursch, and a hail of irrational and erroneous accusations regarding conspiracy stories, critics, and using falsified evidence who is clearly colluding and taking directions from the BK side of this dispute or being played by them.
This is why it is important to establish who falsified the evidence he presented and who is poisoning the well. As an admin, I would have expected that he was required to be impartial. -- (talk) 23:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Although Ramsay is an BK adherent, she is also a PhD anthropologist and this issue is touched upon in 'Custodians of Purity - An Ethnography of the Brahma Kumaris' (2009) where the 1884 date is concurred with. It would seem to be unreasonable to have to accept the knowingly falsified 1876 date. -- (talk) 23:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


(Don't want to feed this sock, but leaving this reply for others) You've already been given the answer here ("I'm just trying to show you why primary sources are not acceptable on Wikipedia"). The "falsified evidence" you keep blabbering about was an obvious joke to show why the supposed "birth certificate" presented by you is worthless unless validated by a reliable source -- nobody has offered it as "evidence" for the birth year being 1884.

The page you're referring to (the one that talks about birth certificates being an acceptable source) is a portion of an essay added by a random user, not a policy or a guideline (it says right there at the top). And it assumes that the "birth certificate" is unanimously accepted as genuine.

As mentioned in the same edit, your certificate is issued to someone at an address that doesn't even exist. And that name ("Wanda Babansky") returns exactly zero results on search engines, apart from this discussion. Unless validated by a reliable source, it's as good as a certificate that states Kenya as Lekhraj's birth place.

Neither me, nor anyone else here, has any problem with 1884 being mentioned as the birth year, provided acceptable sources are provided. I actually added 1884 as one of the possible years of birth to the article -- it was removed by Sam on the grounds that the only reliable source for it (Prophecy..) was a trivial mention.

It'd be great if you could come up with acceptable sources instead of repeating the same arguments, indulging in theatrics ("immediately assaulted") or coming up with conspiracy theories ("acting on behalf of the Brahma Kumari follower"). utcursch | talk 23:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

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

See discussion on Brahma Kumaris talk page.