Talk:Brahma Kumaris/Archive 4

Discussion now archived
Previous discussion has now archived as page grew beyond guideline size, see Article_size.
 * a) Would contributors please follow WIkipedia convention and always place new discussion points at the bottom of page. Use the + sign above if in doubt.
 * b) Would new contributors please learn a little bit about Wiki formatting, signing and dating your contributions. Failure to do so makes it very hard for other to follow or to fulfil admin tasks. See, Tutorial and especially, Tutorial_%28Talk_pages%29. If you are having difficulties, go find an admin to help you and have a play in the Sandbox first.
 * c) NPA tags belong on user's pages not discussion pages.

Thank you. 195.82.106.244 20:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Separate religion?
The Brahma Kumaris do not consider themselves a separate religion. All white people should stop making attempts to upset Brown people. However, other scholars refer to this movement as a religion[3] or as stated by Professor R. Kranenborg “Brahma Kumaris is in fact a new religion, originating within Hinduism but going its own way.” He is just someone who understands nothing of the Brahma Kumaris. The Brahma Kumaris practice karma and bhakti for the achievement of Moksha. They are a spiritual organization like the Hare Krishna that tried to spread their beliefs to the West. White racism will not be tolerated!

Requests for mediation
The sources have been provided time and time and your attentions have been drawn to them on many occasions. Please read over the discussion archive and check the references given on the topic page, the quotation is verbatim.

Please cut any pretense at what you people are doing, you are going to attempt ignore anything that does not conform to your POV whether it is referenced or not. You are playing blind to what has been provided.

'''I have put into for a "Request for Mediation" until we can resolve the issue of whether the institution's own published material and scriptures can be used as references. I argue that, of course, they can.'''

See here;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University


 * Thanks. 195.82.106.244 20:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear .244, Please Make sure you understand this policy:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_and_dubious_sources_in_articles_about_themselves. It means that if you are not a BK writing this article, this policy does not apply to you. You .244; you are not a BK. Your aim is not to inform the public with researched information but rather to discredit Brahma Kumaris. One more time, please make sure you understand this clearly. As always, best wishes for you. avyakt7 20:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The organizations own published material including teaching aids and scriptures are perfectly adequate sources for inclusion.


 * What ever, the Request for Mediation has been put in. Please waiting until matters are resolved by third party involvement. If you persist in making yourrevesion, I will report you for 3RR. I have left warnings on your user pages. 195.82.106.244 20:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear .244, the same 3RR holds true for you. So, be careful.. or I will report you. Best, 72.91.4.91 00:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC) avyakt7


 * Added BK supporter and Riveros associate searchin man to mediation party list. Luis, if you have a user name, please sign in properly, the use of all these IPs will leave you opn to sockpupperty and I am sure that you want the world stage to see you be above and aboard all criticism. 195.82.106.244 00:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear .244, Thank you for your kind advice. I am sure you know who i am, even though I may sign with different IPs. No reason to hide. BTW, I wonder what happened with user : brahmakumaris.info... perhaps you can shed some light into this, dear .244? Thank you. 72.91.4.91 01:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Requests for mediation in the efforts to intimidate by BKWSU TEAM
72.91.4.91, ET ALL Riveros, Avyakt7...etc...etc. I personally am feeling as though there is a concerted effort by the above member of the BK TECH TEAM under Bksimonb as on two occasions here on wikipedia page I have been threatened with having some thing written about me and told that that the attacking hadn't begun yet by searchin man. It would appear that anyone willing to participate on this article is RISKING being personally attacked by the organisation and their TEAM. They never provide written evidence that they do not believe these things, they stone wall, do not answer question posed to them and will debase a person. They also have done like wise to Green108 in an effort to intimidate, and keep members from participating here. They feel only their PR efforts should be placed here and that no information, regardless of how true it is be Deleted. As the most recent evidence shows, Avyak7 not only did the first sentence (which now looks like a listing of others with no content) but deleted other sections too. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University&diff=83828275&oldid=83729149 While admonishing others, as if we were small children in need of scolding, with a SUPERIOR TONE. I would also CAUTION others about having direct contact with them other than the discussion page, as they are seeking to find out who you are to intimidate and harrass. So, please don't contact them. As with any debate, do it out in the open. I for one would like to tell them here in public: I will not submit to anyone, by threats, intimidation, harassment or a concerted campaign.....and I do not believe you are DEITIES'''! Quote:I would rather die standing than kneeling.....With great regret/PEACE TalkAbout 18:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a similar situation going on on the PBK article:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adhyatmik_Ishwariya_Vishwa_Vidyalaya&diff=next&oldid=83787757 PEACE TalkAboutTalkAbout 18:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

BKWSU as dangerous Sect - citation
In November 1995, the German Embassy in Moscow issued a verbal note to the Russian foreign minister listing a number of "youth sects" which "represent dangers because their hierarchial, authoritarian structure often contradicts the commonly accepted democratic values: ... and because their underlying ideology and the claims to the absolute truth of their convictions about `the path to salvation' tempt people and fully captivate those who seek changes and new landmarks .... " The following groups are mentioned in this document: Brahma Kumaris, The Family, Iskcon, Scientology, Shri Chinmoy, Transcendental Meditation, The Unification Church, and some others in Missionerskoe Obozrenie, March 1996, N3, 8. Significantly, the note was published by the Missionary Foundation of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Citation : Marat Shterin, James Richardson, and Eileen Barker, "The Western Anti-Cult Movement in Russia," 195.82.106.244

Atrocities

 * I am still waiting to establish an acceptable level of citation for two incidents that I have sufficient evidence to present here but not yet on the topic page. Given the nature of the incidents and the sources mentioned, it will be very easy for BKWSU members to qualify these. I do not see that waiting for academic references are required where public or institutional records already exist.;


 * Agra incident. we have received a newspaper report about this incident, it related to the burning of a BK sister at the center in Agra. The neighbours saw smoke coming out of the center. The police reportedly found contraceptives at the site. Apparently some incident of a sexual nature took place before she killed and burnt within the center.


 * Delhi incident. I am informed that a surrendered BK brother committed suicide in one of the important BK centers of Delhi situated at a prime location (Raja Garden, Mayapuri). When the center-in-charge of that center, who is a Dadi Rukmini, found that BK's dead body in the room at 4am meditiation, she locked it from outside and continued all the programmes of the Thursday class, including offering food to God, serving and eating it while a corpse was lying at the center. After most of the students had left, she is said to have informed the other BKs who were reportedly very upset, informing the physical relatives of the deceased brother which led to public scene and the center being atacked. The sister was allegedly called to Mt. Abu by Prakashmani Dadi and reprimanded.


 * In both case Police were involved and so public records exist. At least the former was reported in the media. My question is, what degree of citations would the BK IT Team consider suitable for general inclusion in the article and are they willing in providing an institutional response? I was considering that sufficient evidence has been compiled here and elsewhere to establish a heading on Atrocities.195.82.106.244 00:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

.244 continues his discrediting campaign against BK
Dear .244, I wonder sometimes if you ever wrote a term paper? I mean, academia stuff, that sort of thing which is needed here.

What you added maliciously up there is not the complete truth. You see, you need the link: Here is the link to it: http://www.crusadewatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=96&Itemid=41

Also, let me add the first part of that article by James Richardson for our avid readers to be informed about... (including the admins who will "soon" come after reverting the first paragraph a couple more times...you have no "reliable source" of what you write, so why it should be there while we wait?)

"Russia's 1990 Law on Freedom of Religion constitutionally protected the free practice and state tolerance of religion but the law has inadvertently restricted many religious freedoms and exposed disturbing realities of Russian political processes. Provincial politicians and the Russian Orthodox Church feared the influence of new religions. Thus, outside of the major cities local laws have denied the Russian constitution and without official reprisal have banned many religious practices in these provincial regions." Now, you see why they call them sects, cults and all those names which you are very fond of?

Can we trust you? Best, 72.91.4.91 00:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC) avyakt7


 * As you well know, from the Brahmin point of view, based straight references to the Murlis and BKWSU publications you know I am 100% correct and it is you that are attempting to distort the truth based on ad hominen attacks. What you are writing is entirely contrary to what you believe and Shiva Baba says. I wish you would just get over it and working on adding the positive side and that which you can from your position within the BKWSU, e.g. document the charitable giving.


 * According to the UK charity Commission, the BKWSU was set up to alleviate poverty. Can we please document how much poverty in 30 odd years? Accounts speak much more surely than academics. From my reading, it appears that they have alleviated no one else's poverty except for their own.


 * What you are demonstrating to the world is the face of a BK teacher/recruiter/BK IT team trying to cover things up and it is all being document here. Please bear in mind with your edits that the topic should also be clean and read well. Its not merely a point scoring exercise. Thanks. 195.82.106.244 04:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear .244,


 * Get over it. Would you? This is Wikipedia. This is not your bkinfo site.
 * Here you can collaborate as long as the information is researched by experts in the field. If you have information like that, please feel free to discuss it and post it. It doesn't matter what you think or what I think. Just your references matter. All the other documents and things that you are requesting are completely off topic. You can go to http://www.brahmakumaris.info and post everything you want there and ask for documents too. Wikipedia is not the place to voice your animosity... oh yeah.. time to revert the page... Best, avyakt7 12:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Independent academic references could be the way forward
Given the level of reaction that bkSimonb encountered from Green108, 195.82.106.244 and BrahmaKumaris.info, when he attempted to challenge the accuracy of a small section of the article, by citing a bk publication in support of his argument []. And given that the Bkwsu have been studied in detail and at length by a number of independent academics. It would then seem obvious to me, that the study, comparison and citation of these reputable 3rd party resources is the best way to ensure mutual agreement on future development of the article.

Sincerely searchin man 20:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Wiki policy allows the use of an individual's or an organzations own published materials where the source is clear and the material non-contentious and non-self-aggrandizing Personally, I considered God Shiva and Lekhraj Kirpalani's Murli scriptures likewise acceptable which is what the mediation request is for. 195.82.106.244 00:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Requests for mediation on Avyakt7 and TEAM Removing the Reference heading from Bibliograpy/References
By placing the References heading only under his favorite items he is implying that the other are therefore not even though they include academic reports and the BKWSU's own material. I think this is poisoning the well in logic terms and very under handed. I am requesting that it be placed back and that his submission be BK References is he so chooses. Other wise you are creating a system of inequalities, Deity rules for them and shudra rules for others which is unfair and not proper. No other article has such a system and I for one see this similar to racism since part of their philosophy is to think of themselves as superior to others. I don't think this should be a wikipedia policy. So, I am going to combine them. PEACETalkAbout 21:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Please get acquainted on how to write a research paper
Dear TalkAbout, Good to "see" you here again... Please spend some time here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism and even the one in Christianity. You will see two distinct sections: One is for references (notes) the other for Bibliography. Do you see the distinctive bullets in each one? No wonder both of you (talkAbout and .244) do not/cannot understand what is a reliable source... Please don't make changes if you do not know what is correct. Check in other pages... Your argument about "deity stuff" and "inequalities" is completely irrelevant. Best Wishes, avyakt7 01:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear .244, Do not try to go around the " I can use BK materials for this article" Read the WIKIPEDIA policy completely. You cannot use it because this article has not been written by a BK. It has been written by individuals like yourself and TalkAbout which are clearly against BK. How many times do I need to write this? I will revert that article because you have not provided a single reference (now, you know that reference is different than Bibliography, right?) nor a reliable source according to Wikipedia to support the paragraph which has been replaced. In this way, readers of the BK page in Wikipedia at least have the chance to read something that has been quoted from experts in the field. You are heading to a 3RR and vandalism as far as I am concerned. Show your reliable sources quoted in your article. Best WIshes, avyakt7 01:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

hi searching man, welcome, i only challenged simonB because he was using text from an old book written by jagdish who is as you know or was a full time surrendered member of the bkwsu, so it hardly seems likely that his work would be unbiased let alone accurate, I have nothing against simon, to me he seemed a nice bloke who genuinely wanted the article to be accurate, unlike this avyakt 7 fellow who seems intent on just creating a straight piece of bk propaganda rather than a balanced article. It seems only right that this article should be written by bks and ex bks, otherwise how can it possibly ever be a clear picture. The article avyakt keeps deleting and replacing with pro bk material was actually written by bks and ex bks, contrary to what you might think, it has evolved over time and it would be a shame for it to be white washed over with bland pr driven material.Green108 10:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Green108, thanks for the welcome. Actually I’ve been popping in every so often for couple of months now. Maybe we’ve just missed each other. Anyhow I’ve already conducted my own analysis of the document's evolution. You’re welcome to catch up with it by checking out my comments here.[] searchin man 21:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Confluence age - response to now-archived discussion []
Hi 195.82.106.244,

Unfortunately the citations you provided do not meet Wikipedia's standards since they are sourced from bramakumaris.info and shivbaba.org.pl which are not reputable sources and it is entirely possible that the pictures and text linked to could be altered or invented to say just about anything. Also only one statement is addressed by these links. Here is a breakdown of the claims made in the paragraph.

"Therefore their knowledge has become modified according to necessity in order to sustain their faith."

The allegation that the BKs modify their knowledge to sustain their faith is actually libel since it makes a negative statement about the organisation with an unverifiable statement about their motive. How can the article make any statement about someone's motive unless mind-reading is considered a valid form of citation? Thankfully it isn't and I don't believe whoever wrote it is a mind-reader. It looks more like someone's own POV being presented in the article as if it were a fact.

"At first it was taught 50 years for destruction" - This was addressed in your last post but the citations were not up to Wikipedia's standards of verifiability for reasons explained above,

"and 50 for creation" - Not addressed yet

"then 60 / 40" - Not addressed yet

"now the Brahma Kumaris tend to try and avoid the issue" - This is another unverifiable claim. It is clearly someone's POV being stated as if it were a fact.

I should point out that I am not accepting or denying the claims in the paragraph in question. I am asking for citations to match all the claims made to the standards expected in an encyclopedia otherwise the paragraph will be deleted. As the claims attempt to show the organisation in a negative light they will be considered libel if not cited adequately.

Making further allegations such as the tape over the poster in Delhi is pointless in this context since it is yet another unverifiable claim and so doesn't prove anything here unless there is a reputable citation to prove it.

Regards, Bksimonb 15:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh Shanti Bhai, can I kindly be pointing out that the brother has posted material published by the Prajapita Brahmakumaris Vishva Vidyalaya, that is the BKWSU to you. It is accurately Godly version and it does not matter where it is stored.


 * Brother, you are being dishonest about godly knowledge.


 * Baba tell us to have a clean heart always.


 * Dear anonymous user, first of all, please sign your posts with four tildas ~ so that we can address you as a name or number.


 * The website holding the information does matter because it is so easy to alter text and graphics stored digital form. I am asking that any claim made on this article be backed up by a source that meets Wikipedia's accepted standards.


 * If you need any further clarification please read Verifiability.


 * I realise you are a new user but I must caution you against using direct accusations such as "you are being dishonest". This is considered a "personal attack". Please become acquainted with No_personal_attacks.


 * Regards Bksimonb 04:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

History
Now that the references match the opening paragraph and the "origin" header, let us focus on the section which I named "History" to avoid having two "origin" headers. Under History, user .244. please submit your reliable sources which should be easily verifiable under Wikipedia rules to support that paragraph. Look forward to reading them. I am particularly interested in this statement: "Dada Lekhraj, known then as "Om Baba", in turn denounced the Congress as "Kansa" or wicked and under pressure of Hindu public opinion, the Sindh government reluctantly banned the Om Mandali, which went to court and had the ban order quashed." Sources?

and this one: "spending their time in intense spiritual study, meditation and alleged self-transformation. During this time, mediumistic female followers known as "Sandeshputris" or trance messengers helped add to their spiritual knowledge through psychic visions and allegedly direct contact with God." Sources? Note the use of weasel words.

and of course, i find this very interesting: "the community moved to Mount Abu, mainly due to the religious resistance to its activities in Pakistan." Sources, please?

BTW, both of your links about the "history" of BK do not have all the extra "flavor" (for lack of a better word)that you have added. Without sources to back this up, those links will be deleted as well.

Now, back to the drill. 3 days for 244 "et all" to present "reliable resources" which need to be used as references. Otherwise, I will publish a version fully supported by researchers, experts in the field which will be published instead.(Of course, unless someone else presents reliable sources.)

While we are at this, how about presenting data (reliable sources) to back up the header under "global expansion"? Whithout this important piece of factual information, I am afraid that paragraph will need to be deleted as well. '''PLEASE READ THIS. The article will continue to be modified if you do not present reliable sources. 3 days. Please remember the key word: Reliable Sources under Wikipedia''' .... As always.. Best Wishes, avyakt7 14:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Avyakt7 and BKWSU TEAM acts of intimidation on new contributors
Here is proof: (Reverted page vandalized by IP from Indonesia. Please intorduce yourself in the article talk page before making changes, otherwise your IP may be blocked.) This is a clear violation for allowing people to participate anonymously. Wikipedia improves through not only the hard work of more dedicated members, but also through the often anonymous contributions of many curious newcomers. All of us were newcomers once, even those careful or lucky enough to have avoided common mistakes, and many of us consider ourselves newcomers even after months (or years) of contributing.

New contributors are prospective "members" and are therefore our most valuable resource. We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience &mdash; nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility or elitism. While many newcomers hit the ground running, some lack knowledge about the way we do things.

The Avyakt7(Riveros ET ALL) and BKWSU TEAM are trying to intimidate people from participation by trying to suss out who they are, where they are from (what centre) in an effort to stop participation. What average person has at their disposal a Tech TEAM at the ready to trace, IPs, e-mail headers, and other such activity. They will go to no end to intimidate people. There is a clear pattern developing here. TalkAbout 17:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality reprise
I've been a contributor to this article for more than a year. I'd like to weigh in on the current discussion on neutrality and verifiable sources. These discussions are associated with editing of the introductory paragraph, with which I have also been involved.

I begin by quoting the changelog:

16:21, 27 October 2006 Riveros11 (Talk | contribs) (Last edit was faulty. Green108, 244 and TalkAbout, submit your reliable sources, otherwise what you are doing is vandalism.)

Hi Riveros11,

Sounds like you are new here. What I think you should know is that some of the authors here have invested tens, hundreds, even thousands of hours over years of their lives at the Brahma Kumaris headquarters at Mt. Abu and at the organization's centers in many countries. In my own case, I have years of firsthand experience, more than ten years of firsthand experience to draw on.

So to just overturn the prior introductory paragraph and write a new one that is bland, with a couple references, then to say 'reverting this page is vandalism'... well wait a minute. The pages were there for a reason, had been developed cooperatively by all of us over years, including many people with firsthand sources.

Many of us have witnessed a phenomenon similar to channeling or mediumship in the BKs in the person of Dadi Gulzar and other trance messengers. That is factual, a part of the Thursday bhog ceremony for many many years, and still ongoing at Madhuban and its adjunct facilities.

Whether it is central to the Brahma Kumaris religion or not need not be argued. That it is a significant and important reality of the group is a fact, and it was in the prior introduction.

To many people it is a significant aspect of the group. I think we can all agree that having direct access to meet God, the Father through the eyes and voice of a medium, and for a few lucky souls, to be fed a sweet morsel by the Father of Jesus, be touched by the desireless hand of love, a divine hug, is an extraordinarily distinguishing aspect of the Brahma Kumaris spiritual life.

So, Riveross11, by wholly replacing the collaborative introductory paragraph by current uninformative version, without consensus of the many collaborative authors--many of whom are first-hand authorities on the group, I consider that you're edits are the vandalism attack.

Rather than argue about it (pointing the finger) I would propose to incorporate both versions, combining the content, not deleting any of it. I think all sides will have to agree that the older version is the more lively, and much more informative.

To everyone, I want to say that we would expect neutrality at issue. Everyone has to some extent, their point of view. But let us not deny facts: the BKs spiritual practices do involve channeling and trance states of some members. Trance visions connected with the founder and the institution play a part in many members joining, From today right back to the beginning. So it is a matter of fact that they believe in such spiritualistic phenomena.

It is especially significant in that the spiritual revelations from this source justify suppressing sexual urges, which the group believes to be acting on destructive impulses that should be transformed. Because when you tell someone that a normal biological function is bad, it is a way of shaming a person.

Shaming is a big issue with the BKs, because people have become severely depressed, both attempted and committed suicides, out of shame that has come for many failing to follow the disciplines in the way the BKs teach will be a pure life. Shaming a child is a form of abuse.

The authority for many of these disciplines of diet and lifestyle derives from accepting the veracity of visions (as of destruction, to give one example) and spiritual channeling (especially Shiva Soul descending into the body of the founder Kirpalani.)

Although belonging to this group and accepting its beliefs and practices brings subjective spiritual richness to many, others experience cultlike behavior among BKs and their student/followers, with many cases of severe psychological consequences among those who have left.

For these and other reasons, Riveros11, I don't see you can justify wholesale replacing the introductory paragraph. I think you should add on your stuff and not replace, which I offer you an opportunity to do. The old version was the "gold" version. If you want to change it, first put it back how it was and let's work sentence by sentence. That is collaboration. That is how we arrived here.

Best to you Duality Rules 06:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Duality,


 * Thanks for dropping by, I think you’ve hit the crux of the matter, neutrality or the complete lack of it, is hampering the article’s development. Which is why I personally have been suggesting that both bk and ex-bk try and reach agreement through the analysis and appropriate citation of the research work of independent academics.  To me at any rate, it seems the problem at this stage is the reluctance of the ex-bk contributors to consider working with these references, therefore Avyakt7 is left with his own interpretation.   I also can't help noticing that the last time you attempted to influence the direction of the section in question  [], you too, despite citing all the independent references you could muster in a protracted argument, ultimately found no joy.


 * For me, as someone who considers themselves an associate rather than a more committed member, it is the tone and emphasis of the document that I object to. -It is in the nature of religious movements to have some sort of millenarianism attached to their theology, however I do not for instance see the book of revelation being précised on the opening pre-amble of the wiki entry on Christianity.


 * With regard to your subsequent comments regarding cult like influence, I believe the decision to develop a strong faith in any organised body, whether religious, socio-political, or economic, depending on individual circumstance, inevitably runs the risk of psychological disorientation following any subsequent loss of that faith.


 * With regard to the BK in this matter, my own observations and it would appear also from academic research, is that relatively speaking, Bk ‘membership’ is favourably heterogeneous and fluid.
 * Infact since joining this discussion I have felt a need to conduct my own field of enquiry, and it seems that currently, not only are we 'associates' free to access BK services entirely to suit our own agendas, but that many of those who regularly attend the murli class, conduct their relationship with the BK core theology largely on their own terms.


 * Anyhow to return to your plea for neutrality I really do welcome this, but I also hope I’m making sense, when, whilst acknowledging there is plenty of ‘hands-on’ expertise around, I suggest to both sides of the chronically deep divide, that the best way to make progress on this, is to collectively agree to basing future article development on the extensive fly on the wall research of impartial academia.


 * sincerely searchin man 14:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Duality Rules,

I sincerely appreciate your note. I believe it is well thought out and I understand your view as far as the amount of time which has been placed to build this page. Likewise, as you point out you have experienced BK at one point in your life for many years perhaps as some of the other authors in this page.

Duality Rules, I am concerned about portraying a neutral article here. Wikipedia's aim is to be an "on line encyclopedia." I believe the the main editors of this article did not consider that when writing this article. An encyclopedia traditionally has researched material (reliable sources) in it and it is written in a "non bias" neutral tone which could reference the experiences of members; however, reliability of that information becomes of paramount importance.

As far as I can see, this article does not comply with what have been explained above. Your experience with BK is yours to keep, it may have been not that good for you. Mine is completely different and I have no problems in sharing that, however; Wikipedia is not the place to voice my good experiences with BK.Thus, I keep them for myself.

Even though experiences are important, by itself those do not make a reliable source. Hope you can see my point here.

If you look at the archives, you may be able to see that some BKs and myself included, have been trying to make our voices heard and included is this page as well. It has been an on-going struggle to convince some of the ex-Bk members to place their differences aside, to provide reliable sources which will meet Wikipedia standards and to collaborate in this article.

I am sure you are aware of the www.brahamkumaris.info site. It has been proved (please see archives) that one of the main editors here has been consciously misrepresenting facts, and writing materials on that site and in other public forums (links which I can provide) with the aim of discrediting Brahma Kumaris. Duality Rules, please see that. Once you find that some of the authors are willing to go to extremes irregardless of how damaging their actions are just to keep their views in this page, then any sensible person will realize that there is a problem.

Duality Rules, It is unfortunate that I didn't exchange with you before.. I did not see you around... by any means I am not the keeper of this page; however as you heard before; please provide those reliable sources. After all, these sources are written by individuals who are completely detached from having a bias opinion in this. As you can see in the first paragraph, I have added information which is available to anyone by providing the sources and which have not been written originally by a BK. I invite you to post your reliable sources, so we can collaborate in writing a neutral article. Needless to say, I agree with Searchin man's suggestion, it is the most sensible way to go according to Wikipedia's rules.

Best Wishes, avyakt7 19:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Riveros11 and Avyakt7,


 * Thanks for your replies. Just because academic links are not supplied from statements contained in the prior introductory paragraph doesn't mean that the statements are false or unsuitable for a wiki article. I gave one example at length in my posting above: the fact of the BK belief in Shiva's descent and the role of mediumship/channeling in the organization's beliefs and spiritual practices. I gave this example as a relatively certain fact about the BKs. Neither you, Riveros11, nor you Avyakt7, acknowledged this fact, its central role in the BKs, its undisputed nature, which appears to provide ample justification for being included in the introductory paragraph. Your new introduction is not an improvement and not an addition: it is a wholesale replacement of what appeared before. Do you acknowledge this?


 * Regards 221.191.248.194 00:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC) (Duality Rules,... apparently not logged in)


 * Duality Rules


 * “The BKWSU teaches of a form of meditation involving spirit channeling it calls Raja Yoga”


 * Above is the previous reference to channeling in the opening paragraph. I admit to being no expert, but having practised Raja Yoga meditation as taught by the BK for some time, my own personal appraisal of it, is that it does not involve spirit channeling [], neither in principle or practise. However as previously suggested, reference to impartial research rather than subjective opinion is a much better form of analysis in the wiki environment.  Sincerely searchin man 13:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Practice
"Donations are generally not accepted from non-B.K.s as their money is considered as "impure"."

As I am aware that anyone can give donations, i think this is why they have donation boxes and as far as i know people are not guarding to check whom is giving. its quite odd, people from the BKWSU explain what they teach/preach in one way, "non-BKWSU'ers" say that the bkwsu got it all wrong and what they mean is... lol. Can u imagine if this happen to Buddha or Jesus. it would be so funny.

JP

The quoted above will be edited (in the main page) as this is inaccurate and does this does not apply to this time now.

Meaning of Om Shanti has been changed, it was not accurate, close but not close enough.
 * Jesselp,

Please see discussion about this on the archives and discussions under Fundamental Beliefs and Practices in the current discussion. Please provide a statement via the organisation of via Bksimon saying it is not the case, was never the case, but until then it remains contested. PEACETalkAbout 20:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Response to Duality Rules
Dear Duality Rules,

My account name is riveros11, someone (it wasn't me) took the "initiative" to add a nickname to that account, thus; avyakt7. It is the same account.

I will repeat what Bksimonb explained before. It is not a matter of discussing whether what it has been written is the truth or not. What matters is this (from Wikipedia's site): "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." We are in WIKIPEDIA. We need to follow WIKIPEDIA's rules. If what you consider to be "truth" has any reliable resource behind it, please let me know. "My new introduction" can be considered anything you want: bland, not an improvement, etc.. BUT, it has reliable sources behind it and it is verifiable. Do you acknowledge that? thus suitable for Wikipedia. Best Wishes, avyakt7 13:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

History "to be" unless reliable sources are offered
Your input is appreciated as long as you have reliable sources. Otherwise, without support this paragraph will replace the current one, tomorrow. As you can see 99% has been cited from researchers experts in this matter. In turn these researchers have cited Chander which is allowed coming from an expert source (Professors). Thank you. Avyakt7/Riveros11 72.91.4.91 02:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The story of the Brahma Kumaris begins with its founder Dada Lekhraj, a retired diamond merchant, who had frequent visions "most importantly the destruction of the world and its population through war, strife and natural calamities and the emergence of a post-apocalyptic paradise to be populated by the chosen few. Understandably disoriented by these visions Lekhraj decided to sell his business to his partner and retire." The movement led by Lekhraj moved from Hyderabad to Karachi and then to their current location in Mt.Abu.

''"it is unquestionably [the case]that from the very beginning of the life of the organization its male founder, Dada Lekhraj, gave special encouragement to women to develop their spiritual lives and take leadership positions. Not only did he devolve his fortune and the responsibilities of administering it upon a trust of nine women as the very act of foundation of the Brahma Kumaris, but when, some few years after his life transforming visions, he came to believe that celibacy was necessary to achieve salvation, he rejected the Hindu practice of restricting the elevated status of celibate seeker to men. Indeed much was made in the early life of the organization of the failure of so many Hindu men to live up to their traditional roles as "gurus" to their wives; correspondingly women enjoyed much appreciation as the ones who so often demonstrated their capacity for virtue as required by traditional family life (Chander 1981: 23). Anyone, regardless of sex, who was prepared to adopt chastity and follow purity rules concerning diet and alcohol was eligible to join Lekhraj and be a full member (a brahmin) of the organization. As it happened, a high proportion of early members were women and their children.

''In the 1950s when Dada Lekhraj (or "Brahma Baba") judged the time right to send people out from the home community (by then in Mt. Abu, India) to open te aching centers elsewhere in India, it was young women he chose to spread the Brahma Kumaris teachings (cf. Chander 1981: 156). Today the leadership of the BK movement in India remains heavily female."

Brahma Kumaris World Outreach As expressed by Nesbitt and Henderson, "Whaling (1995) and Walliss (1999, 2002) summarise the historical development and content of BK outreach in meditation classes, conferences and work in prisons and homes for the elderly and hospitals; and they show the BKs’ increasing internationalisation and links with the United Nations and UNICEF (Walliss,1999). The meditation practice, of verbalised reflection with one’s eyes open, is supported by a disciplined way of life (Howell, 1997, p. 151) and in the West this practice is linked with opportunities for empowerment and success in life (Skultans,1993, p. 58; Walliss, 1999.")

References 


 * I think a little more detail about the specifics of BK outreach might make this a little more clear. Walliss for example clearly delineates between local/national outreach and international initiatives.


 * Suggested revision:


 * Brahma Kumaris World Outreach As expressed by researchers Nesbitt and Henderson: "Whaling (1995) and Walliss (1999, 2002) summarise the historical development and content of BK outreach at a local and national level in terms of the development of meditation, stress reduction and self-esteem classes, and associated work in prisons, homes for the elderly, drug clinics and hospitals; and they show the BKs’ increasing internationalisation and links with the United Nations and UNICEF, through their central role in such international projects as ‘The Million Minutes for Peace’, ‘Global Co-Operation for a better World’ and ‘‘Living Values: An Educational Initiative’ (Walliss,1999). The meditation practice, of verbalised reflection with one’s eyes open, is supported by a disciplined way of life (Howell, 1997, p. 151) and in the West this practice is linked with opportunities for empowerment and success in life (Skultans,1993, p. 58; Walliss, 1999.")[7]  searchin man 15:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your input Searchin man. I see that you are supporting your suggestion with reliable sources. Any opposition to this suggestion? If not, the day after tomorrow (11/03/06) it will be replacing the current one.

Best Wishes, avyakt7 18:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Fundamental Beliefs and Practices
Please submit your reliable sources in relationship with this header. I would like to put them together if not enough material is found to support them of being separate.

Best Wishes, avyakt7 15:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

hi, about donations. It is true that Babas box in the centre can be accessed by anyone, and money can be put in there quite easily, but the maryadas of the bks are clear that money shouldn't in general be accepted from shudras or 'impure souls' meaning those who have not completed the 7 day course. The idea being that the yagya should be built upon pure money only, please ask if you need further clarification Green108 18:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you Green108 for you input into telling the honest fact/truth.  I for one would say you are accurate as I have respect for all former centrewasi's who gave years of service.  Thank you Sir for stating the truth. This is the second time this is discussed and was resolved I thought: shudras or 'impure souls' meaning those who have not completed the 7 day course. I can live with the bolded sentence. Thank you. TalkAbout 01:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me remind you this rule from WIKIPEDIA: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."

Best wishes, 72.91.4.91 02:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Green108. I think I’ve attended most of the available public courses run by the BK and I don’t recall completing one where anything about the appropriateness of donations was mentioned.  On the contrary, I found that I had to enquire about making donations myself, which I first did after attending only a couple of evening lectures. As I recall, I was reminded that the service was free, but that if I felt it appropriate,I was welcome to use the clearly located donation boxes. I have very recently discussed this issue with a number of other associate users, and not one has had an offer of donation refused. However if you can cite a reputable source that suggests otherwise, I’d be very interested to see it.   sincerely searchin man 14:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Suggested wording by "searching man" replaced the current one under "Global Expansion."
 * In order to continue with the pattern of editorial changes in this page, we will go back to the 3 day drill starting ::Saturday, thus next Tuesday we will have new content under "Beliefs and Practices" supported by reliable sources. Your input is :: appreciated.


 * Best Wishes, 72.91.4.91 12:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC) Avyakt7/Riveros11

Practices
Donation box's are freely available for anyone to place money in them. "Donations are generally not accepted from non-B.K.s as their money is considered as "impure"

BKWSU are a registered Charity - they run on donations.

On their website also they state " Suggested donation : £85 for accommodation only ... ..Donations welcome... ...There will be a donation box at the retreat." http://www.brahmakumaris.org.uk/sites/event.asp?detail=21070&id=6249 (half way down the page)

Also see the bkwsu FAQ page http://www.bkwsu.com/whoweare/faq then > How is the organisation funded?

Names or Front Organizations
Regards to the The following "Names or Organizations", The BKWSU have no Legal say in the running of them. the SML is a product of the Oxford Leadership Academy. Members of the the BKWSU have created there own personal business by adopting aspect of the BKWSU philosophy.

* Living Values Education Program ( http://www.livingvalueseducation.org/ )+( http://www.livingvalues.net/ ) * Oxford Leadership Academy * Self Management Leadership (SML)( http://www.oxfordleadership.com ) * Relax Kids ( http://www.relaxkids.com ) * Relax 7 ( http://www.relax7.com ) * Soul Power Seminars ( http://www.soulpowerseminars.com )

Plus there is no evidence that they are front names of the Organizations. There websites has no Reference to the bkwsu or are they Registered to the Bkwsu*.

JP
 * oxford leadership academy has the global retreat center web address present.
 * Jesselp,
 * As the sites refer back to the association with BKWSU it seems then the heading should be Active Associates of BKWSU. As you once alluded here that John Paul II was associated with BKWSU (which is not the case), in name dropping which seems to be a trend ala "Under the auspices of the UN" which is a frequent thing within the BKWSU I think it is only fair to note that they are Associated.   See, like in all governmental bodies one can not lobby an organisation without having been out of that area for a given time (time varies by country). So, it is of public interest that they be named as associates, as it would be in par with the public interest in disclosure, since the BKWSU is still listed as an NGO with the UN.  Meaning that these individuals then can not go within one body for connections, then proceeding onto another using said access.PEACETalkAbout 20:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

the listed bodies mentioned above all make Money for themselfs not the bkwsu. they have nothing to do with bkwsu. the people who run them yes are active members but that does not mean that there business has something to do with the bkwsu. like there is also active members who have started up a holistic health company, and sell raw chocolate bars. Would they also be considered apart of the bkwsu bodies too?

And you have not given any evidence for bkwsu not taking cash from other people as there is clear evidence for the contrary jp

Reliable Sources
As we are approaching the day to assess the validity of "practices and fudamental beliefs," let me remind you that only researched materials considered as "reliable sources" need to be considered. When offering your reasons as to why something needs to be changed, please add the citations to it and the source where it could be easily accessed. Best Wishes, avyakt7 13:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Below is the suggested article concerning "beliefs and practices" which will be posted tomorrow unless reliable sources are provided otherwise. Note that reliable resources are quoted when appropriate.

Best Wishes, avyakt7 17:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Beliefs and Practices: It is important to recogize that Brahma Kumaris as a Spiritual University has a variety of membership patterns thus, there is a different type of "identity negotiation" (term coined by Wallis) beliefs and practices engaged in by individuals in relationship with the University. Wallis in his article "Reflexive Traditions NRMs and the 'Negotiation' of Identity" recognizes four different types of members in Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual Univeristy:

1) Instrumental users: Individuals drawn to the University through what they perceive as tangible benefits through their life in the "here and now" usually emotionally or physically related issues.

2) Eclectic users:individuals looking for "self development" or "self-spirituality", there is a spiritual quest behind their association.

3) Spiritual searchers: Individuals who feel belong to the spiritual path, however; their involvement with the University grew out of sense of disillusionment with conventional religiosity.

4) Interpretative drifters: Individuals originally involved due to instrumental reasons, however; "gradually discovered that the ideas [behind the belief] are true." (Luhrmann, 1994:124 as quoted by Wallis.)

For this topic, the outline given by Professor Kranenborg will be closely followed: In his article "Brahma Kumaris: A new Religion?" (1999, reproduced with author's permission) Kraneborg points out 6 different areas:

1) Ideas about God: "The ideas concerning God deviate considerably from what we encounter within Hinduism as a whole. Not only is God eternal, the eternal power or energy but matter is also eternal—it is not created by God. But the souls that we encounter in human beings are also eternal. They do not emerge from God and are not created by him. God is seen as one of the souls, even though he is the ‘supreme soul' or the ‘all-highest soul'. He therefore has all knowledge and is in that sense omniscient, although he is not omnipresent. Traditionally, Hinduism speaks of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva, and these three are seen as a unity. In Brahma Kumaris, however, Shiva stands above the trimurti and the third aspect is termed Shankar. On the one hand, this notion of trimurti is understood in line with the traditional Hindu view, namely as creator, preserver, and destroyer. But on the other hand the movement gives a more specific content to these terms. The meaning of the ‘creator aspect' means that God, whenever humanity is at a low point, will come into the world, awaken humanity and thus restore primal harmony; such an act of creation will preferably occur via a messenger, whereby one can think of someone like Lekh Raj. Shiva's ‘preserver aspect' becomes visible in the energy that he gives through, for example, the power of the raja yoga and through the knowledge that is derived from him in this last period, through which one can develop a balanced personality. The ‘destroyer aspect' is expressed in the fact that evil and negativity will be eliminated, particularly by the meditative activities of those who walk along the way."

2) Ideas about Human Beings: ''"The human being is essentially an eternal soul. In the beginning all souls lived together, with the All-Highest Soul in an non-material world, but because of the law of karma the souls left this world for the material world and entered into human bodies. All souls play their own roles in the material world and therefore assume a body in order to give expression to their original positive qualities. Only in the body is the soul able to experience life. Apart from the connection to the physical, the soul has three aspects: intellect, conscious mind, and subconscious mind. The intellect is the guiding and determining part of the soul; it determines the thoughts and the condition of the human being, with the intention that it become independent of the human being and does not allow itself to be influenced by external factors. The mind is that part of the soul that produces thoughts and ideas; emotions, feelings and experiences are also located in this part of the soul. It is of great importance to discover how and why thoughts are created, for if they are determined or created by external negative influences, the individual becomes spiritually darkened. It is very important to understand the origin of thoughts. The unconscious mind contains the so-called sanskars, i.e. the impressions or consequences of everything that one undergoes or has undergone in this life or has undergone in previous lives. It is in particular this unconscious mind that primarily bears on the origin of the thoughts. It is the intention of Brahma Kumaris that the origin of thoughts and thinking itself become increasingly determined by the orientation to the All- Highest Soul. If this contact exists, people will become freer and the sanskars will be purified." ''

3) Ideas about the World Cycle: "In accordance with classical Hinduism, there is within Brahma Kumaris the doctrine of the four or five world ages: the golden age (sat yuga), the silver age (treta yuga), the copper age (dvapar yuga) and the iron age (kali yuga). Within this last age, however, as a kind of preparation for the new golden age, there is the diamond age (samgam yuga). The content of the ages is about the same as in Hinduism; the most striking difference is that for Brahma Kumaris the whole cycle lasts 5000 years in total. At the moment the world is now in the kali yuga, although this age is near its end. After the kali yuga the world will be completely different and transformed into a new golden age."

4) The Practice of Raja Yoga: ''"Above all, raja yoga has to do with meditation, whose content consists in that one is occupied with the understanding that the soul is on the way to God. The meditation strengthens this understanding, increases one's knowledge and strengthens the connectedness. The meditation and the knowledge leads to the formation of character and to service. Meditation makes a person internally and personally stronger and leads others to be inspired to follow the way and to become purified as well. Raja yoga also entails a ‘spiritual lifestyle', which includes that one be a vegetarian, seek good company, be regularly occupied with study and have as many fixed moments as possible during the day for meditation and live a life oriented towards celibacy. The meditation practice of the raja yoga consists of sitting properly, eyes open but directed internally, possibly listening to a text or music, preferably under the supervision of a (female) guide. There are different stages in the meditation: first, the preparation within which visualization plays a role, followed by the initial meditation in which one is conscious of one's soul and of God, next is concentration in which one experiences the purity and directness of the One and finally, realization, in which the unique connectedness of the soul with the Supreme Soul is attained."''

5) Different Activities: ''"Brahma Kumaris has been active, primarily in recent years, in many different areas. A number of these activities need to be mentioned. Of course, courses are given which are connected to raja yoga. One should mention here the course ‘Positive Thinking'. Related to this is the course, ‘Stress-free Living' which is also concerned with developing a proper way of thinking and a proper tuning in to one's most profound nature. Courses such as ‘Self-Managing Leadership', ‘Secrets of Self-Esteem', ‘Self-Management for Quality of Life' have a similar orientation: the emphasis continually falls on understanding who the human being is at bottom is how the human being is connected with the All-Highest and how rest, power and balance can be brought into life. Another category of activities is more global in nature. Brahma Kumaris has been involved in the activities of UNO, UNESCO and UNICEF, it has supported human rights, the importance of a good education, and defended more equality among people. Within this framework there are a number of connected programs, such as ‘The Million Minutes for Peace' (in which the intention is that for a few minutes every day several people think positively of world peace), ‘Global Cooperation for a Better World', ‘Sharing our Values for a Better World'. The latter project has been continued in the still existent ‘Living Values'. The ‘interfaith' projects should be mentioned in this same context: the unity of all religions is sought and members are active in organizations that promote or pursue this. Finally, the attempt is made to be active in different sectors of social life. Thus there are programs dealing with art, organization of academic conferences (it is not for nothing that Brahma Kumaris is called the Spiritual University), contacts within the world of medicine, and programs for working with prisoners, etc."''

6) The Murli: ''"Formally, the movement does not have any ‘holy book'. Nevertheless, there is the so-called ‘Murli', a work that has originated since Lekh Raj received his messages. It contains the words of the Highest Soul itself. These messages have been written down and are largely to be found in the Murli. The work is thus to be used for teaching and study. This material is therefore extremely important, for it provides the truth and true knowledge. The truth content of the book also has a continual effect in the experiences of the disciples: one does not accept the words in a purely intellectual way but learns in one's own life that the knowledge is completely true. The Murli is read and studied carefully. Nevertheless, the Murli did not close with the death of Lekh Raj. Messages continued to be received from the other world via one person, Dai Gulzar. The messages are becoming increasingly more rare, but they still occur. The knowledge that has been passed on also appears in the Murli.

''It has become an important text. Brahma Kumaris does not discuss it right away in courses and the text is not available for sale, but in later stages it plays an important role. In the course of time the book is discussed in advanced courses. It is not discussed until this point because a certain certain spiritual level has to be attained before one can work with it. The adherents are to take it very seriously and study it carefully. The degree of seriousness with which it is to be studied is apparent in the fact that the participants are engaged in study of this text for a long time from six o'clock in the morning.  As Dr. Howell points out to underline the uniqueness of the University: "Through the channelled messages it became clear that Shiva was not to be understood as one of many Hindu gods, but in monotheistic terms as ‘The Supreme Soul.’ In this and other respects the movement distinguished itself from Hinduism, and indeed from all religions. Its knowledge, gyan, the true knowledge, was thus identified as ‘spiritual’ rather than ‘religious,’ and the movement as a whole was cast as a ‘university.’''

References: 

Beliefs and Practices
Page has been modified as per discussion. Jesselp, your additions are welcome. However, without reliable support(citations) what you added will need to be removed. Please produce those citations in this page.

Thank you and Best Wishes, avyakt7 10:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

7 day course, achievements, controversy, names of front organizations, splinter groups, etc
If you have any reliables sources for the above mentioned topics, now is the time to produce them in this talk page. Otherwise, those headers may need to be removed as well. I have not seen a reliable source explaining in detail about the 7 day course, except for a BK publication. The controversy part of it it does not have any ground to stand by itself unless a reliable source is shown. I have not seen the Christianity page dealing with issues of child abuse and their priests, for instance; even though this issue is part of public knowledge. This page is about Brahma Kumaris, even though a link and a brief explanation could be added in relationship with "splinter groups," unless a reliable source is shown (which I have not seen yet) it may need to be removed as well.

Same holds true for "achievements" and "names of front organizations." Reliable sources are needed according to Wikipedia policies.

Best Wishes, avyakt7 10:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

3 Day Drill
'''As performed before, 3 days to submit your reliable sources in support of the headers stated above. Failure to produce these supports (citations) will result in deletion and, or replacement of the current text on the ground of being improper for Wikipedia standards due to lack of reliable sources.''' Best Wishes, 14:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC) avyakt7

The BKWSU IT team's response to Mediation request
I put in a | request for mediation over the issue of using the BKWSU's own published material as being citable and referenceable. There appeared to be no point in entering into discuss or editing until this matter was resolved by a third party. I, of course, see no objection in using BKWSU produced material and indeed have requested the BKWSU IT team to produce even more for inclusion - only for the request to be ignored.


 * The Request for Mediation has been rejected due to the other editors refusing to participate. Could we just clarify what is going on here? Is it correct to say that none of the Brahma Kumaris that are engaged in re-writing this topic article in line with the organization's current PR were willing to accept third party mediation?

So, having tried that, the next step I am going to take is to put in a Request for Arbitration over the same issue.

In the meanwhile, there seems to be no point in engaging in repeating the citations and references already given on both the topic article and discussion page when the Brahma Kumaris editors are going to continue to ignore them. But, thank you Luis for confirming the channelling issue in the archived discussion, am I correct to say that gives others the green light to re-institute it into the topic?


 * Given your quoted academic use of Jagdish Chander's book "Adi Dev", does that mean that it is accepted by the other editors as a citable reference?

Thanks. 195.82.106.244 11:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear .244,
 * Glad to see you are back!
 * It is interesting to note how none of your ex-bk supporters did not post their agreement. I wonder what is the matter with your team...


 * I would suggest next time to request for input in this page before you decide to do something. You are no longer the only one with unlimited access to this page, thus if you want to go on your own without requesting support or input... Be my guest.


 * As far as Chander. I have not quoted him. Walliss and other experts in this area with Ph.D degrees have. I have quoted them in turn. That is the way academia works and the way Wikipedia would like us to cite our reliable sources.


 * Be careful with your words about BK "PR." This is a fully researched material, non bias, written by experts in the field. One last thing, It seems that there is a tendency here to endlessly repeat what was stated before. I do not belong to the IT Team and... you cannot use BK material because: a) It is non reliable source (unless used by researchers) b) You are not a Brahma Kumaris member but antagonist to this organization and thus using it for your own purposes (to defame the institution)as stated by the Wikipedia policy about Reliability. c) You are not an expert in the field. Hope I will not repeat this again.


 * Best Wishes, avyakt7 14:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Read what it says and stop avoiding the issue, "given your quoted academic use of Jagdish Chander's book "Adi Dev", does that mean that it is accepted by the other editors as a citable reference?". I appreciate that you have no intention of discussing these matters but I want your response recorded.


 * I am sorry but you are plain wrong in your prejudicial interpretation. Self-published sources are wholly acceptable, see;.
 * Firstly, the issue is "verifiability" when dealing with facts. A source need not be singularly academic. In case of opinion, fine; state the opposing schools of academic thoughts. But reported facts stand alone as long as the source is reputable and verifiable.
 * Secondly, one does not have to be a Brahma Kumari to record what has been published by Brahma Kumaris and as the Brahma Kumaris state that they have no official membership any way, your position is entirely moot. Such primary sources can be used to make "descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge" (see policy notes).
 * 195.82.106.244 15:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear .244,


 * Please go back to the archives. There we discussed the same issue. Please read your link fully. You are against Brahma Kumaris. You use Brahma Kumaris materials to show your animosity.Your BKINFO site is proof of that.Please do not repeat again what we talked before.
 * You either provide reliable cited resources by experts on the field or you simply cannot edit the article here. It is very simple.


 * Your membership is ABK (against Brahma Kumaris.) That is not moot. Just citations please, citations... don't try to find "loopholes" here. You have until Saturday before changes take place.
 * Best Wishes, avyakt7 16:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Use of repeated organized physical violence by BKs against PBKs
OK. It has taken considerable effort but I have an increasing number of referenced hospital and police reports from the Indian States of Haryana, Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Karnataka. These are primary sources but verifiable by date and reference number. Although, I agree, secondary sources are preferable, as they refer to current affairs according to Wiki policy they would be acceptable.


 * Is this agreeable to other editors?

Thank you.195.82.106.244 15:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear .244,
 * It seems that your are back with your animosity again. S here I go one more time:
 * Could you provide your citations? Wikipedia is not an obscure newspaper where you can place your "juicy gossips"..As far as I am concerned you have never provided any type of reliable resource for absolutely anything in this article.
 * Needs to be researched data by experts in this field.


 * No, this is not agreeable unless you have reliable sources. Best Wishes, avyakt7 16:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Different page for PBK
This wiki page is about BKWSU, there does not need to have so much information on the PBK'S, it only needs to be mentioned. This section should be removed JP


 * Dear JP,


 * Absolutely right on that one.


 * Best, avyakt7 18:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Channelling and mediumship
I want to discuss the re-institution of the references to channelling and mediumship.

Reference of this appears in documents by Howells, Wallis and Whaling, and naturally in the organization's own literature and "scriptures" called the Murlis. But it has been removed by the BK operating together to re-edit this article.

I can understand why the organization and its members would want to whitewash this out of the article, it does not go along with the current PR, UN status etc and might put individual off from engaging with its practises; but in all fairness the article would not be complete if it was not mentioned.

There would appear to be 5 elements to this;


 * The direct possession of Lekhraj Kirpalani by the entity since named after the Hindu God Shiva, aka Shiva Baba.
 * The mediumistic channelling of this entity through Kirpalani by way of speach and actions
 * The mediumistic channelling of this entity through a BK follower called Gulzar by way of speach and actions
 * The mediumistic channelling of Lekhraj Kirpalani through a BK follower called Gulzar by way of speach and actions
 * The mediumistic channelling of Shiva through BK followers

With respect to the last, I refer to the easily referenced and verifiable Sakar Murli dated 11/02/2003 where it says, "If you are sometimes confused reading out the Murli, Shiv Baba will come and speak the Murli. Then children [ BK followers] don't reven realise that Shiva Baba came and helped. You can't even tell if it is Shiva Bab speaking or Brahma Baba speaking. You should realise that Shiv Baba came and spoke the Murli."

Looking at the experts we have reference to "someone entering" Lekhraj Kirpalani, the "incarnation and descent into", channelling via Gulzar, a different voice speaking. Looking at Walliss and Chander we have reference to Kirpalani's eyes and body glowing red which in case there is any doubt has been helpfully pictorized by the organization in a promotional video here,. The Murli references are endlessly clear, once we have an agreement on whether they constitute acceptable citations. This is all rather different, and more direct, than the fey "inspiration" the BKWSU are claiming in public now and the public has a right to know.


 * It is also an important difference to classic Raja Yoga and so central to BK faith and practise that it should be highlighted at the beginning of the article as before.

Luis, you have attempted to twist a fair and impartial statement regarding this channelled entity being "God" without providing any acceptable citation that it is actually "God" claiming that allegedly is a "weasel word". I wrote that the BKWSU "alledge" that the spiritual entity that is being channelled through Gulzar and Lekhraj is God. We cannot know that it is. Academically, it would not be widely accepted that it was. And so, I think that it is safe that we stick to "allegedly God" because the very specific concept the BKWSU has of God is so widely different from any other religion.

Your comments please. 195.82.106.244 15:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * re: meeting BapDada (the combined form of "God" Shiva and the spirit of the deceased Lekraj Kirpalani) via a medium at the organization's headquarters in India, I can also add Joachim Finger, 1999. As you know, the current season for BKs to personally listen and speak to "God" via the medium is currently going and so can one of you ask him what he thinks of this business and, especially, the PBKs? Thanks. 195.82.106.244 15:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to include the sentence about the difference between BK faith and classical Raja Yoga in the introduction. It can be mentioned under "controversies." HeBhagawan 13:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

40 years Confluence Age and the PBKs
I see someone has removed the reference to the predicated date if Destruction in 1976 taking place at the end of a 40 years Confluence Age. The references and clear, easily verifiable and so this should be re-instituted. I appreciate that it does not fit the current PR of the BKWSU which seems to exist on a rolling 5 to 10 years even since this failure, but it is a key element to understanding BK teachings and modus operandi.

The PBK section is fine. They also have their own topic page. It is worth noting that it is only the BKs that see the PBKs as not being part of the "Godly Family". The PBKs see themselves are being part of the same organization. We have references to this is the references you have provided. 195.82.106.244 15:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * user: 195.82.106.244. the pbks have nothing to do with the bks, they are much like some of the business's that were under Names or Front Organizations such as Relax kids etc. the pbk was started off by someone taking bk philosophy conducting a new rendition of it.
 * Jesselp 16:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Your opinion contradicts the quoted experts and is only your opinion. They are referred to as a breakway group in both the expert opinion and the topic. Acceptable self-published material state that they comprise of BK members, follow BK principles, believe in BK teaching and are part of the one and same spiritual organization. 195.82.106.244 16:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * if the expert said so then it is so. Jesselp 16:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Oxford Leadership Academy
Stop being be silly, just because the OLA was co founded by a Bk that does not make it a front. go to there website they are an management consulting company.

it will be removed... again....

http://www.oxfordleadership.com

Jesselp 16:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The section refers to fronts and business run by BKs. I think "there" in your comment should be written "their". They, the OLA teach so-called "Ancient Raja Yoga", although they mean BK Raja Yoga, at their courses and so the reference is fine.
 * 195.82.106.244 16:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * ello 195.82.106.244


 * Just did a search on there website, and there was no result for Ancient Raja Yoga. Why would they though, that are a management consulting company, they have clients like McD's BA, Massive international.
 * Jesselp  17:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Janki Foundation
Janki foundation will be removed it again created by a bk, however has nothing to do with BKWSU.

It was lunched at Royal College of Physicians, London, The Janki Foundation is about supporting research and awareness in the field of health and spirituality.

http://www.jankifoundation.org/about_us/index.php Jesselp 16:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It was lunched at Royal College of Physicians, London where Brahma Kumari Dr Sarah Eagger is the chairperson of the "Spirituality and Psychiatry special Interest Group". It supports the BK run and staffed GLOBAL HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE and it teaches and promotes Raja Yoga meditiation. The President Janki Kripalani, is an administrative head of the BKWSU and it is supproted by two BK run organizations, Point of Life Inc and India Care. Amongst its advisors, although misleadingly not listed as such, are other senior BKs such as Dr Hansa Raval. We are documenting the BKWSU and how it works. Its works through status by assocation and creating such fronts. Expert opinion quoted by BK Luis supports this.


 * How do you qualify it has nothing to do with the BKWSU? 195.82.106.244 16:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If more then one member of the bkwsu decided to start up something together this would count as a front?
 * JPJP 12:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In the case of the BKWSU, sure. If it was start specifically as a "service programme", sure. If BK present themselves at event misleading representing the so called other independent organization, even more so. Numerous citations to offer. 195.82.106.244 22:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The Mantra: Reliable Sources
Dear .244, I would like to invite you to read the current article, if you have not done it or to re-read it if you have. In reference to "channeling" reliable sources have been provided citing experts in the field which mentions about Dadi Gulzar and the way the messages are received. The words "channelled messages" is clearly spelled out to satisfy those with a predilection to it. As far as "attempting to twist a fair an impartial statement." Please submit proof of that, otherwise it will be considered defamation. 99% of the material in the current BK page is quoted from experts in the field. Same holds true about Patanjali. His name has been mentioned as well as the difference between Raja Yoga and his teachings (they are not the same.) Any reader who would like to obtain further information can go ahead and look up the words in wikipedia.

Best Wishes, avyakt7 17:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Rest of Article
As stated before, tomorrow around Noon EST, I will be changing the rest of the article UNLESS reliable sources are shown. That means: a) citations supporting what is currently stated in the article. b) documents which are easily downloaded by anyone to verify the contents.

Otherwise, this is the way it will look tomorrow:

7 day course

Wallis when referring to "world service" which was started in 1952, states:"Lekhraj had from the very beginning published numerous pamphlets and written a huge amount of letters to important national and international figures in which he interpreted contemporary events with reference to his revealed knowledge. Rather, this marked an intensification of the process, with seven-lesson courses in the group's teachings being offered to outsiders." An overview of the seven-lesson course can be found here:http://www.bkwsu.org/whatwedo/courses/fcirym under "Foundation Course in Raja Yoga Meditation." and here: http://www.brahmakumaris.com/Courses/index.htm under "foundation courses in meditation."

From World Rejection to Ambivalence:The development in Millenarianism in the Brahma Kumaris." by John Wallis. Journal of Contemporary Religion, Vol.14,N 3, 1999

The Advance Party (PBK)

Wallis mentions the advent of a movement which may be seen as an "internal response to the University's world ambivalence;" Wallis refers to them as the Advance Party. http://www.shivbaba.org.pl/ Visit site for further information.

Best Wishes, avyakt7 17:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * OK thats good.
 * Jesselp 17:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Changes made
As stated, changes have been made. I suggest we concentrate on the links as well. Links must reflect the material on the page. Obviously, there are quite a few of them which do not reflect that. Same holds true for Bibliography. Time to check those. Best Wishes, avyakt7 18:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Improving this article
I came to take a look at this article after one of the involved editors placed a comment in my talk page. I have tagged several sections with the unreferenced tag, as the material in these sections are not supported by any reliable source as required by our verifiability policy. I also tagged one section with the cleanup-rewrite as it consist of long quotes from a source without any narrative. The source's quotes need to be summarized rather than using such extensive quotations. Think of the reader: as it stands now this article is quite hard to read and too long. A better lead wold be also nice to have. See WP:LEAD for some guidelines. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 03:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

A point of clarification: Unless sources are provided for the unreferenced material within a reasonable amount of time, that material needs to be removed from the article. As per WP:V the burden is on the editor adding material. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 19:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Response to Admin Jossi
I will follow Jossi's advice on giving you (.244 and "bkinfo" and TalkAbout) some additional days to provide reliable sources.  As Jossi stated here it goes the "official" statement: '''Unless sources are provided by Friday November 17th. The material in section "controversy" and section "Names or front organizaions" and the section "splinter groups" will be removed."'''

Please be aware that plenty of days have been giving to you before. I have not received a single reliable source from you which supports any part of the article you have written.

I will leave the "7 day course" to the end... in the meantime, the section "beliefs and practices" will be re-written as per Jossi's instructions.

Best Wishes, avyakt7 02:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for stepping up and tending to this issue, both of you. Sethie 03:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Note that material from an organization's website and literature, can be used in an article about that organization providing that it is properly attributed, not unduly self-serving, and not defamatory to third parties. For example, a book published by an religious organization if available from stores, or online outlets, can be used to describe the views/beliefs/traditions of that organization (attributed to them and not asserted as fact, of course). Same applies for materials/statements/opinions, etc. described in that organization's website, under the same caveats of notability, of not contentious nature, and not unduly self-serving. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 15:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Jossi and Sethie,


 * As the talk page shows in the archives, users "195.82.106.244", "talkabout" and supporters would like to use materials which belong to Brahma Kumaris which by definition are not considered "reliable sources." Besides, even if these materials were used by user .244 and group of supporters, these materials were being used in a highly biased way, in a detrimental way towards the organization which they pretend to use to "inform" the public thus, it could never be considered "self-serving" but rather contentious.


 * There is a point that I would like to stress. Articles which belong to an encyclopedia must be non-biased. User 195.82.106.244 and supporters being the originators of this article do not fit this category. They were "ex-Brahma Kumaris" and by definition, biased. As a matter of fact, user.244 has a public website located at: www.brahmakumaris.info which notably portrays an antagonistic vision towards Brahma Kumaris. I thought, I should mention this to you Jossi and Sethie as a background for your help in keeping this article as non-biased as possible. That is the reason why academia has been highly quoted in the majority of this article. It is non-biased research.
 * Thank you and look forward to hearing from you.
 * Best Wishes, avyakt7 16:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * http://www.brahmakumaris.info is not a reliable source for this article, as it is a self-published source by a third party. If there is criticism of this organization and their beliefs, these would be reported on secondary sources. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 16:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Jossi, Thank you for your prompt reply and your willingness to take a look at this article from a neutral perspective. I have one more issue to bring up to make my point about the lack of neutrality of the article edited by "Ex-BKs" supporters. The header "controversy and "use of force" is out of context. I took a look at other religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, etc. (Brahma Kumaris as defined, it is a religion according to researchers as cited in the article.)The only one that has such a header is Christianity. Further, if we go into the contents it is not the "tabloid material" stated here. I don't know of any religion where human problems have not come up. Christianity and child molestation is an example.However, we do not see that malicious intention on those articles. Same about "Heidi Fittkau-Garthe." An ex-member. Would that give me the right to say that Pinochet (ex-chilean president) who was accused for crimes against humanity, and to use that and put it in the Christianity page, because he is Christian? or the "use of force," which I am neither denying nor accepting, I am just questioning: Is that considered encyclopedic material? In conclusion, I am looking forward to seeing reliable sources used as citations in previous work done by researchers in the field of religion. After all, that is the quality of resources this article currently has.
 * Finally, you may want to take a look at this link. It seems to me that there are several of those mirroring wikipedia.
 * http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University


 * This particular article is the one written by "Ex-Bks" supporters and the one published here before. Please note the lack of citations, the lack of knowledge about using "References" and "Bibliography" approprietaly, the lack of neutrality and the sheer number of "weasel words." Articles of this nature are obviously hurting the institutional image of Brahma Kumaris which as stated in the article quoted by researchers has dome quite a bit of good work for the benefit of our society.


 * Thank you for your attention to this. Best Wishes, 72.91.4.91 20:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC) avyakt7


 * There is nothing we can do about mirrors of WP. Some of these update their data once in a while by re-mirroring. As for your other comments, if there is controversy or criticism about the subject, that controversy will be certainly eported in reliable, secondary sources, that can be described in the article. An WP:NPOV article will include all significant viewpoints as described in secondary, reliable and published sources. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 20:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Jossi and Sethie,

Response RE:72.91.4.91,72.91.151.117, 72.91.28.223 AKA avyakt7,Riveros11 aka et all and possibly searchin man,

Is there some way to get the above member to stick to one ID as he posts various comments and even warnings to other members making it look like it is a different member when it is one person? I’ve noted that he will leave postings on his talk page as 72.91.4.91 which is a little odd.

First, I would like to address one thing. I will not say what my contact with the Brahma Kumaris is, as this is part of Avyakt7’s sussing, but will state that what he says is far from the truth here. Having served on a Board that is Nationally recognised for advocating religious freedoms and practices I find this statement an effort of poisoning the well. I think I was being very neutral until I started to get the “the treatment” by the TEAM once I was not willing to go on their team. If you see the history you can see that I have been engaged in discussion with my supposed team member and we do not always agree. My position is they are trying to change the article in to a report by this fellow he has quoted so widely without doing any original writing or editing.
 * I might point out that Avyakt7 uses his own website http://www.godhascome.com and a journal http://avyakt7.livejournal.com/463.html along with a host of other sites he frequents to recruit and present the beliefs, invite folks to his website and to BKWSU sites. As such his main website should be listed under the BK section as he is actively recruiting members on their behalf. I place it in and he removes it?
 * I would also like to say that on several occasions I have tried to gain back his membership via the contact page to the http://brahmakumaris.info/indexbb.html forum and in doing so was advocating on his behalf. There are other active BKs on the site that have not had confrontations with the bSysop or (sp), PBKs or ExBKs. I tried my best as that seems to be a sore point with him.
 * I also think that the BBC, Time and other journalistic articles are acceptable.
 * I can see that Avyakt7 and the Team do not realise that if the world at large only accepted “Academic Reports” that the world would be void of information.
 * Most of wikipedia articles accept what is written with citation by magazines, journals and newspapers.
 * In other cult related articles I note that the documents that have been obtained have been used and to suppress such information is simply not good public policy.
 * I have written about politicians and have not had such issues as a request to verify it with academics.
 * I travel and taken photos and have submitted some things that involved high profile individuals, checked sources and had them published.

Now, onto this: "talkabout" and supporters would like to use materials which belong to Brahma Kumaris which by definition are not considered "reliable sources." First, I am most intrigued by “Supporters of the Faith” in this new activity since this individual has been open in the public arena and cites the very documents/beliefs that he says should not be allowed here but is presenting it to the public as “Truth”. If in communications/Murli documents they admit to beliefs/practices yet deny them here, I say we have someone trying to suppress factual information. It is tantamount to don’t believe what I say is Truth to the public or to members, only accept what we approve of and what I tell you here on wikipedia. So, I pose the questions: Please keep in mind that they are using the very sources (magazines, journal and newspapers to do their PR spin and use them to gain members). I would also like to point out that some of what he cites as academic is by CESNUR which has no university affiliation and that CESNUR is seen by many as a Cult apologists organisation.
 * Is wikipedia going to apply the policy that only academic material sources be accepted?
 * If so will it also be applied to all other articles as well?

Please also note that some of the removed items had not been challenged once removed due to the waiting of the arbitration which is now nil. I have requested two-three days from work so I can review all the material cited as I already have found some items they removed which are within the very documents they cite. My apologies for the length of the reply. PEACETalkAbout 20:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * My only agenda is to provide all the information available so that individuals can make an informed decision, if upon that they decide to continue, I give them all my good thoughts and wishes.


 * I removed unreferenced tag as references and citation have already been given. Please read them first please. This article has been in develpment for ver a year now. The references are all give in the bibliography, discussion and elsewhere.


 * I am getting a bit sick of folks coming along, knowing absolutely nothing about the subject, 'UTTERLY IGNORING THE REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY and then slapping tags on the article because they are too lazy or disinterested to actually read them. Please do first and then come back with questions. Thanks.


 * An article does not require to be a slavish collation of copy and paste quotations! 195.82.106.244 23:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Self published Material from the BKWSU
OK. I'd like to start by quoting the admin's repetition of Wikipedia Pollicy;

'Note that material from an organization's website and literature, can be used in an article about that organization providing that it is properly attributed, not unduly self-serving, and not defamatory to third parties. For example, a book published by an religious organization if available from stores, or online outlets, can be used to describe the views/beliefs/traditions of that organization (attributed to them and not asserted as fact, of course). Same applies for materials/statements/opinions, etc. described in that organization's website, under the same caveats of notability, of not contentious nature, and not unduly self-serving. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)'

I am perfectly happy with that. I have always wholly accept that any conjecture from http://www.brahmakumaris.info may not meet Wikipedia until it is further further proven. I am sure that http://www.brahmakumaris.info will become a useful resource for professionals within the narrow field of "sociology of religion" in time but this topic covers various specialities and some non-academic, e.g. "yoga" and "mediumship", where expert witness must be also accepted from specific theological experts in their own fields if we are to avoid aan non-neutral Eurocentric or even racist view.

What is the situation where for the sakes of convenience - and Luis's non-wiki demand that it is an easily downloadable resource - a clearly BKWSU produced document, such a teaching aid poster, is linked to at a many third parties website, e.g.
 * here; http://www.shivbaba.org.pl/en/?name=galeria-3,
 * the same here; http://pics.livejournal.com/bkwsu/pic/00001s93
 * here; http://www.ballofdirt.com/media/3554/27112/202412.html (in a recent blog article on the BKWSU proving it is current)?
 * or here; http://www.brahmakumaris.info/w/uploads//4/4f/Kalpa-vriksha.jpg

The poster is inarguably BKWSU produced. It has been used publicly for many generations internationally. Permission has been granted to replicate it. To my thinking it makes no difference where the image is stored as long as it is clearly BKWSU. I can understand why Western BKs are embarrassed by statements like "Look! The Science proud European Yadavas will destroy one another in this international Atomic War (Mahabharata) like 5,000 years ago" BUT it is a fair, objective and untampered with BKWSU quotation and so I cannot accept the accusations of slander and libel when such statements are the organization's own. So;

My understanding of the above quoted Wiki policy is that quotations from;
 * Adi Dev,
 * Jagdish Chander's widely published works,
 * BKWSU and senior faculty members' websites,
 * any clearly referenced BKWSU Murli scripture

are also therefore acceptable.

It that clearly accepted by all contributors?

Thanks. 195.82.106.244 09:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

User .244 (alleged) misinterpretation of Admin Jossi's writing
Dear .244,

Wait a minute there, my friend! Let me copy what Jossi wrote and what is meant based on the questions I asked above:

'''http://www.brahmakumaris.info is not a reliable source for this article, as it is a self-published source by a third party. If there is criticism of this organization and their beliefs, these would be reported on secondary sources. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)'''

Which part of brahmakumaris.info as not being a reliable source you did not understand? Many of the posters and materials in this site were coming from your bkinfo site. Let me add this to the mix: Did Brahma Kumaris gave you permission to use its material? Wikipedia is very serious about this. Also, it may be possible that any other site is capable of modifying the picture to fit their needs. It is rather easy to accomplish that.Thus, you need to use pictures and materials coming from Brahma Kumaris site AND you need their permission to use it.

Now into the part which I think is the heart of the words you conveniently quoted from Jossi:

"not unduly self-serving, and not defamatory to third parties. For example, a book published by an religious organization if available from stores, or online outlets, can be used to describe the views/beliefs/traditions of that organization (attributed to them and not asserted as fact, of course). Same applies for materials/statements/opinions, etc. described in that organization's website, under the same caveats of notability, of not contentious nature, and not unduly self-serving. ≈ jossi ≈ t"

Your use of BK materials have been defamatory and they have not been "self serving." You need to use "materials/statements/opinions, etc." from the Brahma Kumaris site. As a matter of fact it is customarily good practice to request for permission before citing any material, as I have done when using extensive materials such as Kranenborg's and Wallis. In order to cite this you need permission from the source. The caveat of "non contentious nature" will be overlooked if you continue interpreting things the way you have done in the past.

Please concentrate on producing reliable sources by Friday for those sections which have been tagged by Jossi. You had ample time. I am so sorry to hear that TalkAbout requested time off from work to find citations for her writings. (hope I can use "her" rather than "his")Normally, when you write something, you do the research first, gather the citations, bibliography etc..It is not the other way around.. The "3 day drill" gave you plenty of time to produce those (If you 've done it right the first time...)

Finally, Who gave you permission to get rid of the NPOV tag? Who do you think you are? You did not place it there to begin with.. and without discussion in th e talk page ? Do you still think that Wikipedia is your BKinfo site?

Your question about using BK materials is strongly opposed. Ask about the NPOV tag too next time... we are just starting, my friend...please do not rush...Many more days off from work will be needed...

Best Wishes, avyakt7 17:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Placed NPOV tag again. The way it was before which originally was placed by admin RHOLTON.
 * Best WIshes, 72.91.4.91


 * I almost forgot to add the policy in Wikipedia about verifiability:


 * '''The policy:


 * 1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources.
 * 2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.
 * 3. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

'''
 * As it is so far none of the links added to the paragraphs in dispute do not meet the requirement of RELIABLE SOURCE.
 * All links to http:///www.brahmakumaris.info site should be removed, accordingly.


 * Best Wishes, avyakt7 72.91.4.91 21:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I will leave it up to the admin to decide what they meant Luis. Sorry, is not your own site http://www.godhascome self-published and so does not exclude any materials to be use from there?.


 * You seem to have a difficulty in understanding the difference between general material from http://www.bramakumaris.info and material from BKWSU. Just because material has been copied or quoted by other websites, it does not in some manner sully the original source! That is laughable.


 * '''≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ clearly states that according to Wikipedia policy self-published material is fine as I always said. What is the problem in that? e.g. what about this one? or this one ?


 * Please do not paraphrase me. Thanks
 * Self-published material in an article about the author is acceptable, but only is not unduly self-serving or defaming of third parties. If the material was published by the author, refer to the author, not to a copy of the author's material on an other site, unless that site is a reliable secondary source (or a book, a scholarly article, etc.)
 * Note that we are describing "author"; not the author's supporters. A personal website of supporters is not a reliable source for an article other than one about itself (if that website is notable enough to warrant its own article). Same applies to a non-notable website of detractors or critics.
 * Rather than spend so much energy in traying to cite websites from proponents and critics, the article will be better served if old-style research is done by looking into scholarly books and articles that must exist for this religion. If there are none, which I doubt, then the article needs to be reduced to the minimum or maybe deleted for lack of notability. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 01:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hope you follow this, .244. I don't have any material that I am using in my website godhascome.org. What I have done is to obtain pdf files of the reliable sources and place them there to be easily downloaded by anyone. I guess I could put them some pplace else, if that is an issue. These PDF files are copies of reliable sources which I have not made up.

Hope you get the point right this time about admin Jossi's words. Thanks 72.91.4.91 21:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC) avyakt7

Someone entering Lekhraj Kirpalani
Is this a citable reference? I think so. It follows BKWSU self-published material such as Adi Dev perfectly.

Hinduism Today; http://www.hinduismtoday.com/archives/1995/5/1995-5-02.shtml

" ... Pulled into a state of intense meditation, he [Lehkraj Kirpalani] felt someone entering him ... Taking over his physical senses, the Being started to speak ...".

'''Basically, I want to address this channelling / mediumship / possession issue. As the corportate notepaper clearly refers to Kirpalani as a "medium", there are the academic references and even Luis used the term channelling, I can see no wrong with it. This documents the moment when the so-called Shiva first possessed Kirpalani and started to channel through him. This is distinctly different from "inspired".'''

Any objections? 195.82.106.244 22:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Many objections 72.91.4.91 03:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Clarify what those are then Luis.

Dear .244, I have written several times the reasons why using BK materials are not proper. Why do you continue asking the same questions? Please refer to this page: "Non contentious material" and "self-serving." What you fail to understand or just want to oversee altogether, is the fact that you did not start this article in good faith. Thus your writings as I showed in the link above are not meant to inform the public in a aneutral fashion but rather to show animosity and revenge to this movement. You continue to paraphrase and interpret BK literature as you think it is meant to be. Moreover, BK materials are not reliable sources by definition. How many times do I need to repeat that?

Admin Jossi just suggested to keep our editions using '''"old-style research" ..." by looking into scholarly books and articles that must exist for this religion. If there are none, which I doubt, then the article needs to be reduced to the minimum or maybe deleted for lack of notability. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)" ''' Do you understand that? Hinduism times does not fit this criteria. Old style research is made by academia. You have to have a graduate degree. You have to have credentials. If you do not follow this, you are asking for trouble. Jossi's suggestion is the most sensible in this case. I hope you realized by now that going through neutral, researched, non-biased material is the way to do it. Authors need to have credentials...you know, a Ph.D or someone along those lines. Hinduism Times is not a researched material.

72.91.4.91 13:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC) avyakt7


 * There are two possible areas of objection here;


 * a) Whether Hinduism Times is notable enough as a reference. - I'd say it is and these are the University's own words.
 * b) Whether the quotation is accurately copied. - it is and it is concurrent with the same academic resources you are using.


 * So what is the problem? 195.82.106.244 09:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem was explained above. It does not fit in the concept of "old style research." You need to have a degree and expertise in the field. A newspaper writer does not fit that category.

72.91.4.91 13:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC) avyakt7

User .244 please stop modifying my written words in this talk page
Dear. 244,

You are modifying the article which has reliable sources. I will revert this back. You will be vandalizing this page by making changes before discussing it. I will request a sprotect tag again if you continue. Below is what Jossi wrote. Hope you understand this well enough. As you know there are plenty of scholarly books available. Please  take a trip to the nearest library before you attempt to modify anything in this page. Otherwise, you are heading for trouble.


 * 1)  Rather than spend so much energy in trying to cite websites from proponents and critics, the article will be better served if old-style research is done by looking into scholarly books and articles that must exist for this religion. If there are none, which I doubt, then the article needs to be reduced to the minimum or maybe deleted for lack of notability. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Best Wishes, 72.91.4.91 03:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC) avyakt7


 * I am happy to quote the very same academic sources that you are using with regards the mediumship and channelling. Another contributor adding additional references to a topic is not vandalism.

It is unless you discuss it previously. Otherwise, I have plenty of things to add myself too.Of course, plenty of reliable sources.

Best, 72.91.4.91 21:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC) avyakt7


 * Jossie also said


 * 1) Note that material from an organization's website and literature, can be used in an article about that organization providing that it is properly attributed, not unduly self-serving, and not defamatory to third parties. For example, a book published by an religious organization if available from stores, or online outlets, can be used to describe the views/beliefs/traditions of that organization (attributed to them and not asserted as fact, of course). Same applies for materials/statements/opinions, etc. described in that organization's website, under the same caveats of notability, of not contentious nature, and not unduly self-serving. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I added "alleged" to your accusation as it is not proven and otherwise prejudicial.


 * So where does that leave us?


 * As far as the channelling and mediumship, it is clearly stated in the academic papers your refer to and so I am happy to use those references as the involvement of channelled spirits and deceased members is central to BK practise, in contrast to Classical Raja Yoga, and being written out of the topic by you.


 * What is your object to their inclusion?


 * On a personal note, I think you should stop making prejudicial attacks on others in public. I reserve the right to render than neutral or remove them in line with policy.


 * 195.82.106.244 09:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear .244,

You are not supposed to modify anything written by anyone. Yes, I know that old habits are hard to break, .244. You have been warned by admin Rholton before about not changing other people's input. Are you willing to listen? (example of deleting his talk page with all warnings) Please do not try to drift our attention to other matters specially if they have been addressed before. Just Go to the library, be nice to the librarian and make a couple of photocopies of reliable sources, scan it, make a PDF file out of it and place it in your website bkinfo for easy download. Then add the pertinent references under the reference section which I started, so anyone can go to their own public library and get a copy of the article you quoted. Of course, you should get materials which support your writings. You do not need to revert this page to see what you wrote.. it is still out there being mirrored by other sites.

'''I hope this is clear: You are vandalizing this page. We went through a period of change before. Everything had been placed in the talk page for people to see and to make adjustments/suggestions. You and supporters failed at that time to provide reliable sources to your "original writings." (see last month archives.)

I will place a tag in your talk page warning you about "vandalism." Do not attempt to erase it as you have done in the past, because it is convenient for you. If you keep making changes without previous discussion I will request that your IP be blocked as a vandal. You have been warned. Please concentrate on presenting reliable sources on or before this Friday; otherwise those sections in question will be erased.''' Best Wishes, 72.91.4.91 13:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC) avyakt7

User .244 new tactic: to get other admins attention
Dear .244, How many admins do you need to side with you? You know that they need to be informed of everything that is going on here before they act on your one sided story. I have never refused your arbitration. A result was given before I had the chance to post. You need to remember that I have a chance to put everything I find important in less than 500 words, I need time. You do not run my time. See admin page of Fred Bauder. Admin Jossi has given already a path for us to follow. When are you going to understand that?

Best Wishes, avyakt7 15:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration
I think I may have erred in voting to reject the arbitration. But it was taken down rather quickly. I encourage all of you to seek reliable sources and use them appropriately. I think material published by the organizations may be used as a source for non-controversial material such as basic beliefs or well-known assertions. Fred Bauder 16:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for you input Fred Bauder. As you stated Reliable Sources is the way to go. As you can see in the article, citations have been used and those include "beliefs and well-known assertions." As wikipedia states in his policy for verifiability:
 * The policy:


 * 1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources.
 * 2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.
 * 3. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.


 * That is exactly what we have been trying to do. "Non-controversial" material could become controversial if it is interpreted by editors which display animosity towards the BK religion.( As it has been proven in the previous article)
 * Best Wishes, avyakt7 16:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, that is two admins against you BK Luis both stating the same thing that according to policy, self-published materials are fine.


 * "Basic beliefs or well-known assertions" are fine by me. Thank you. 195.82.106.244 17:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear .244, I can explain the wiki policy to you: 1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources. Can you read that? That is the wiki policy. then, take a look at this "I encourage all of you to seek reliable sources and use them appropriately." Finally: Rather than spend so much energy in trying to cite websites from proponents and critics, the article will be better served if old-style research is done by looking into scholarly books and articles that must exist for this religion. If there are none, which I doubt, then the article needs to be reduced to the minimum or maybe deleted for lack of notability. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Please .244 realize that reliable sources is the primary means of writing a good article. There are plenty of scholar works which you can refer to. Please go to your library and do a research. Friday is your last day to give any support to your previous writings. Best, 72.91.4.91 17:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC) avyakt7

Strange activity on pages linking to this page
User brahmakuris.info has edited all these pages [] on the 15th November that used to link to this page and replaced them all with identical text. I believe this is called a "forest fire". I request that this is looked into.


 * I suspect that user brahmakumaris.info is a sockpuppet of 244 based on the name similar to his website of the same name. Can this be confirmed?


 * Best Wishes,
 * avyakt7 14:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ughhhhh as someone who is mostly on the outside, watching, I'd say bramakumaris.info is up to no good. He/she archived a lot of live discussions, and changed the name of the article without going for concensus.
 * All this as the page is in the middle of going into arbitration? Sethie 16:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This is not accurate. 'Please note the name of the article has not changed. There is no discussion going on. Just a lot of pointless and repetitive accusation and counter-accusation. For discussion there has to be a willingness of all parties to take onboard other's point of view and work to a consensus. 20:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Then I am in error. In looking over the history I thought I saw this happen. I really wish I had taken a clearer look before I had said that. Now that I take a closer look, I see that there are two pages that are being edited. I jumped to a false conclusion. Mea culpa, especially in the current climate.


 * I agree that you believe that "there is no discussion going on. Just a lot of pointless and repetitive accusation and counter-accusation." And now I understand why you chose to archive pages while there was still activity going on. And so I would ask you to unarchive any material (whether you want to call them "pointless and repetitive...." or discussions) that has activity going on in the last 14 days. Sethie 21:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

'''Dear Sethie, I don't believe you are in error. I wasn't aware that those pages where about Brahma Kumaris world spiritual university as well. It seems that some of those pages are mirroring what user .244 and supporters had here before.

Am I supposed to discuss on those pages as well? Should those pages have the same content as this page? Look forward to your reply.''' Thank you. Best avyakt7 22:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I have reverted it back to the redirect. Sethie 23:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Sethie! Would redirect this one too? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BKIVV

Best Wishes, avyakt7 01:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. Sethie 01:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Its also not true to say the page is going into arbitration. I tried to get BK Luis Riveros11 to engage in Arbitration. He was informed. He refused. I tried to engage BK Luis is meditation. He was informed. He refused. So, I put the article up for RfC regards the self-published citations aspect. Noting that two admins have already repeated the clear written policy on this. Luis refuses. What can I do?


 * As the target of all these BKs' accusation and incriminations, I see BK SimonB putting in complaints without notice and behind my back too, for my part I agree to work with the academic citation and some BKWSU self-published sources within the limits stated by Wiki policy. I cannot be more fair than that. 195.82.106.244 20:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Is user .244 = brahmakumaris.info?
Dear .244, It seems that you like for me to repeat things "ad infinitum." Please do not defame me. I have never refused the mediation nor the arbitration. The mediation was never signed by anyone but yourself. No even a single member of your supporters. Next time let us know here what you are planning to do rather than informing us after the fact. As far as your arbitration petition as stated by an admin in the page you archived without letting us know, the desicion was taken rather quickly. Now, I hope you are happy with my lenghty explanation. I just have a very simple question for you. Actually it is a "yes"/"no" question: Ready?

User 195.82.106.244 are you the user brahmakumaris.info?

Looking forward to your reply. Best, avyakt7 22:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

User TalkAbout: following steps of .244
Dear TalkAbout, Please do not change the contents of this article without previous discussion. Your comments of "fixing mess with references." (history) it is not appreciated. No one has asked you to do that task. Please let us know in this page what you are up to before you do it. I will revert that and next time I will place a "vandal tag" in your talk page. You are being kindly warned. Also, Friday is the last day for yourself and .244 and supporters to present "reliable sources" for the headers in question. Here is a copy of the article: take a look at "controversy", "destruction", "virgin birth", "front organizations" and "splinter groups." Evidence means that a link to a "reliable source" supports the paragraph in question. You have selected words for those paragraphs. Some of those words are "weasel words." In your supporting material you should point out so there is no doubt that the researcher used those words. If you point to a site it needs to be a reliable source, researched material. I will be looking forward to seeing that by the end of Friday in this page. In the past I have placed the quoted material in this talk page before updating the BK page. I am expecting the same from you. One last question: There is an IP coming from California in the "history" it is 64.121.65.67 Is that You? It seems that this IP has been involved with user .244 in the past. That Ip had changed this article as well without discussion. I will place a warning in that IP talk page. To make you happy and to be fair, I will make every attempt to sign as "avyakt7." If I couldn't I will add avyakt7 after my IP. here is a link of contributions of that IP, FYI Best Wishes, avyakt7 14:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Bogus Vandalism accusations, dishonest revisions and revision messages by Riveros11
I am looking at the following revision made by Brahma Kumari Luis Riveros, aka Riveros11 or 72.91.4.91 here,.

The message he has left says, " (Reverted page- Vandalism again by user Maleabroad - placed a last warning tag in his talk page.) "


 * Now this is, a) not true and b) another bogus vandalism accusation

What he has done is remove all the contributions made by TalkAbout even though they were non-contention, referenced with clear academic or journalistic citations and positive. 195.82.106.244 01:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Time for changes
Dear All, As explained before in this talk page, I will go ahead and delete the material following admin Jossi's suggestion. There is not a single reliable source in this page which supports the tags left by Jossi in the article. Perhaps user .244 and supporters do not understand that their links are not reliable sources. Need to be researched materials by experts in the field. You have failed to provide those. To admins Jossi and Sethie: Please note the following: 1)I have asked a simple question to user .244 which (he) has ignored. Is he user brahmakumaris.info? Likewise user TalkAbout has not responded yet. 2) User .244 even though was blocked previously, still continues with his old behavior and is modifying this page without further discussion. 3)User .244 is using my real name instead of my user name. He is defaming me by labeling me a "recruiter." I would like to see his proof on this. He has posted my real name and location in the talk of "Maleabroad." 4) User .244 keeps defaming me. User Maleabroad has been blocked before for editing this page and insulting users. See admin Addhoc's reply 5)See this link about user .244 intentions: 6) User brahmakumaris.info has been creating several pages with different names which refer to Brahma Kumaris. I strongly suspect that user is a sockpuppet of .244. Is there a way to test this? (His unwillingness to respond to my simple question leads me to this request.) 7) User. 244 has blanked his talk page. He was advised by an admin not to do it before. He is not willing to listen. See admin Mer-c talk page 8) Finally, and I would like to bring this up to show his character. He has threatened me to contact my employers about using Wikipedia. He has published my personal information as well. 9) User .244 was caught misrepresenting (lying) about his membership to the antagonistic site brahmakumaris.info which he denied.

My question to both of you Jossi and Sethie is, how long do we (Brahma Kumaris) have to put up with an user like this? Thank you.. and now into the changes. I apologize for this lenghty explanation. Best Wishes, avyakt7 22:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, I am not an admin. I would speak with admin Jossi or Mer-c about some of these charges, specifically the defaming, threat and publishing your personal information.


 * I asked Jossi to look into the #6 and I have not recieved a response from him, so I think we need to look elsewhere for that specific action.


 * My experience with wikipedia is that those who don't play by the rules DO get stopped, sometimes it just takes awhile.Sethie 22:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Policy and progress

 * And just to be fair, both ways, how long do we have to put up with a user that refuses to listen or participate in a "middle way" discussion or involve third parties, e.g. arbitration or mediation? I am sorry Sethie but it cuts both ways, it takes "two hands" to clap.


 * The wiki is full of people screaming "vandalism", and using all sorts of methods to block or intimidate others, when someone else adds or changes what they have written. I have stated that I perfectly well accept to use the citable sources Luis accepts BUT also that self-published sources are also acceptable. Two admins have corroborated this policy. I am receiving a complete blanking from Riveros11 over this which is the source of dispute.


 * If an organization publishes extreme beliefs, and even academics report them in papers the other editors reference, e.g. their founder "glowing red" and a "different voice speaking through him", "God descending into him" then that is not defamation; that is objective, cited reportage. In such a central claim to the BK faith, of God incarnating into their founder only, it cannot be ignored - even if it does not fit into their current or Western orientated PR.


 * If we can come to a decision over the self-published material within the limits that Wiki policy sets, I will be very happy. This to me would appear too be the only bridge left to cross. That is hardly an unreasonable position. With Luis, we have faced two immense resistances, a) to the channelling issue and b) to the Destruction issue despite, again, both being referenced in academia AND he himself putting the points forward them on other website. Again, it comes down to whether the Wikipedia is PR for such organizations and individuals OR accurate reportage.


 * If there is going to be two dialogue instead of tit-for-tat attacks, I am happy to engage in it. What more can I state? 195.82.106.244 09:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I hear your pain and I don't engage in big abstract dialogues. Pick a specific point, and if I feel the pull I will discuss it. Sethie 16:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear I am not getting involved in 90% of the arguements going on here. If I see something clearly out of wack, like Bhramakumaris.info changing all of those mirror pages, I will change it, otherwise I won't get involved. Sethie 16:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Sect or Cult
The French source cited lists it as a cult, not a sect, hence I have changed it back to cult. Sethie 16:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sethie, Please note: That link is not a reliable source. It is not a researched document. Note that none of the authors have any academic credentials or demonstrated expertise in the article. And.. because a report comes from France, a particular location.. it cannot be generalized...unless the link is meant to be detrimental on the image of BK... as the editor is hoping to accomplish. Best Wishes, avyakt7 20:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome to argue all of the above, and welcome to do so with someone else. My only concern at this point is that those articles ARE cited and it was incorrect to say they alledge it is a sect, they don't say that.

I've done the whole "reliable sources" argueing back and forth thing and have no interest in debating that with you or anyone else. Sethie 00:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sethie, Thank you for clarifying. Let me ask you this. Since you are not an admin, what is your interest in this article? or in this discussion? Best, avyakt7 02:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I thank you for asking, and the only response I feel pulled to make in this moment is that I will let my actions speak for themselves. Sethie 05:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

To Sethie
Dear Sethie, The changes I have made after following admin Jossi's suggestion have been removed by user .244. Note that even the section which he tagged to be re-written by me (since I was the author) has been taken away by .244 in a forceful manner without discussion... The re-written version will be published this week. I am following Wikipedia policies and practices. A user who has been recently blocked comes back and does the same vandalism again and ... nothing happens to him! I am certainly looking forward to hearing about the 9 points above. I have never refused to go into mediation nor arbitration. However, I request the article be changed as it was yesterday when I changed it while we wait for mediation or arbitration. User .244 has nothing to lose with this request on the other hand Brahma Kumaris does. I feel this inmediate change by a recently blocked user fits the "clearly out of wack" statement you made.

Below is the exchange I had with admin Jossi, it is unfortunately that he is not here to follow up on this at this moment, but perhaps he will a bit later...  Dear Jossi,

Thank you for clarifying in the article. I need to point out that at least 3 days were given for a final attempt to provide reliable resources. Note "3 day drill" in the talk page for every single part of the article. Needless to say, the previous editors have never produce a single reliable resource. User TalkAbout and the IP address ending in .244 (user known as .244) were the main editors of that article. Since previous notification was given, when do you believe I should erase those parts without reliable resources? Thank You, avyakt7 21:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Three days is quite minimal. Be generous and wait a few more days. You can place a note that "unless sources are provided by such and such date, the material in secton X and sction Y will be removed." That way it is transparent and you give notice. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I have placed a note per Jossi's instruction in the talk page and performed the changes yesterday. I will wait for your answer on this, Sethie.

Best Wishes,

avyakt7 19:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

My answer is, find someone else to help out with this!

I will say that I like to give 1-2 weeks before erasing a sentence, and that is how I operate. Sethie 00:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your help and advice Sethie. Best, avyakt7 02:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

User .244 you asked for arbitration, why are you taking so long to respond?
Dear .244, I wrote in your talk page that I was willing to "negotiate" with you after I received an "invitation" from you. 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 brahmakumaris.info?) 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 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 that I have refused arbitration. You know it is not true. Here 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)

Controversy section
The controversy section is misquoting the source. Please take into account this information:

France's 1995 parliamentary commission report (Unofficial English translation), published a list of purported cults compiled by the general information division of the French National Police (Renseignements généraux) with the help of cult-watching groups.

On May 2005, former prime minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin issued a circular indicating that the list of cults published with the 1995 parliamentary report should no longer be used to identify cults.

≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 02:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

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.

I leave the edit to remove the non-compliant material in the hands of involved editors. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 03:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your timely visit, Jossi. USer .244 is probably waiting to block me as soon as I make the change. He has blanked his talk page with all the warnings he had, thus Will I need to start all over again from warning 1 on his page? My talk page on the other hand, has never been erased. I will follow up with your suggestions. Best wishes, avyakt7 09:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words in this article
I use the phrase "weasel words" as they are defined by wikipedia [], not expressing a negative attitude to the author myself. There appear to be several examples of weasel words in this article, which cannot be conducive to any apparent neutrality (which I notice is disputed anyway). Under Controversy, it states "Seen by many as a cult". Please can you justify that term - many. Only two sources have been cited (leaving aside the question of how authoritative they are). Surely, that can't justify the term "many"? I'll amend it to "some", unless further evidence can be submitted. How much time should I allow? I think a week is reasonable. More to follow...Appledell 21:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Appledell, Thank you for stoping by and participating. Changes have been made in the article following admin Jossi's advice. Those "weasel words" which you mentioned were removed. Best Wishes, avyakt7 03:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Changes in Article
Dear All, Note that changes have been made without making a revert to a previous version. Rather whatever version was in place was modified according to discussions and suggestions from admin. Took care on leaving out remarks related with Hinduism which user Maleabroad seems to find not suitable. I placed a warning in his talk page as well. If user Maleabroad finds something which needs to be changed, he must discuss that issue here. Also, the segment on "beliefs and practices" which was tagged by admin Jossi for a re-write, was fianlly re-written. I had valuable help to re-write this part, being careful of maintaining the substance in Professor Kranenborg's cited article. One of the paragraphs named "activities" inside "beliefs and practices" was moved into "achievements."

Your contribution to make this article a researched and neutral one is appreciated. Best Wishes, avyakt7 03:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

7 days course
As you can see, the seven day course was mentioned. However, it does not have a single reliable source in it. Any one willing to support this?(with reliable sources) Best, avyakt7 03:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)