Talk:Brahma Kumaris/Archive 9

Spirit Possession

 * I think spirit possession is pushing it too far and reflects a Western bias. It's clear the group does medium channeling and the sort they do seems consistent with many Eastern traditions.


 * Where the evidence is contradictory from reliable citations, I suggest removing whatever is being claimed and refer people to the contradictory pieces of evidence. For example, "BKWSU advocates celibacy, vegetarianism, and XXX..." should be more than enough said about sex.  The quotations on sex are POV (selectively chosen to make spiritual celibacy look strange).  Many spiritual traditions advocate celibacy (Roman Catholic priests come to mind first).  Renee      --Renee 16:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * First you write that "spirit possession" that should be removed and then you write that we should follow what reliable sources have stated. This strikes me as contradictory because the term is mentioned in reliable sources. Andries 20:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * From my read of the source, which does appear reliable, the author is doing a type of post-modern analysis of gender roles and power (and as a former university professor, I've reviewed many papers like this). The basic gist of her article is that even though women appear to be in positions of power, they possess their power only through the male voice speaking through them (showing that the power is still male).  If you read what she says, she's not speaking of the common meaning of "spirit possession" (in which the common, connotative meaning usually is "demonic possession"), but of mediumistic channeling.  So as I said above, it appears the group definitely says they are involved in mediumistic channeling, but the words "spirit possession" are not neutral and have a lot of connotative meaning for English speakers.


 * Also, when I edited it, it didn't seem right to put it in the lead paragraph, because it's not THE central core belief or practice. I think it should be in the article, but not in the lead, and it certainly should be written in a neutral manner.


 * Best wishes, Renee --Renee 20:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * p.s. remember our goal is to have an article that everyone can live with, though it may not be exactly how each person wants it.  For example, I doubt if the pro-BKWSU group wants "mediumistic channeling" in the article because frankly, most Westerners would run for the hills at that statement.  But, spirit possession really seems to be an intentional "anti" provocation, so I hope that the phrase "medium channeling" is a reasonable compromise.  Renee 20:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Also the reference used is in itself misleading. It implies there are more than one medium delivering the murli in the present tense. This is simply not the case and if necessary I can show other references that show otherwise. It also seems to give the impression that these mediums (in plural) are in some kind of competition for prominence on account their mediumistic capability to do this. This is also patent nonsense. It's a very clunky and strange citation to be using, as it was, out of context, for a first paragraph. Some degree of care and common sense is needed when using Western academic citations to explain Eastern religion because sometimes it's clear they profoundly just haven't got it. Regards Bksimonb 20:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I consider the question of mediumship to be open. Compromise is required not deletion. The centrality appears to be well argued. Faithinhumanity 19:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The misreprentation that this misinterpretation belongs in the lead violates the policy of not giving undue weight to a minor point or a single source. IPSOS (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * May I ask Renee what her knowledge of this organisation is to make such pronounced statements about what is and is not central? I found the supporting evidence deleted from this page convincing. Mediumistic channelling is the name of the wikipedia topic. There is no such as "medium channeling".


 * There was an outstanding question regarding the age of the founder also removed. Faithinhumanity 13:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Faithinhumanity, I am a neutral, outside editor brought in by the Rfc. Accusations cannot be included because they are not verifiable. --Renee 20:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Faithinhumanity, I notice that "channeling" is highlighted in the opening paragraph and it leads to a link called "Channeling (mediumistic)," so this sentence conveys what you want it to. Is the age of the founder contested? Maybe a line could be put in saying, "The exact year of birth of the founder is unclear, with estimates ranging from XXXX to XXXX." Renee   --Renee 14:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The age is indeed contested but not by any reliable source as yet. See this thread. Regards Bksimonb 15:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've just read the thread and it seems all opinions might be accommodated with a line like,
 * "Most published sources give the year of Lekhraj Kripalani's birth as 1876 (insert references 1-5 below), though one early book (insert ref 6 below) suggested it was 1884, and still others suggest birth years of 1887 or 1888 (insert appropriate ref)."

If the latter numbers are just speculation appearing on talk boards in the internet, then they can't be included here and the last clause should be cut. Again, we can only post verifiable evidence.

References for statement above:

1. Hunt, Stephen J. (2003). Alternative Religions: A Sociological Introduction. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 120. ISBN 0754634108.

2. Clarke, Peter Bernard (2006). New Religions in Global Perspective: A Study of Religious Change in the Modern World. Routledge, 248. ISBN 0415257476.

3. Macgregor, Ronald Stuart (1992). Devotional Literature in South Asia: Current Research, 1985-8. Cambridge University Press, 302. ISBN 0521413117.

4. Woodhead, Linda (2002). Religions in the Modern World: Traditions and Transformations. Routledge, 31. ISBN 0415217830.

5. Doktór, Tadeusz (1999). Nowe ruchy religijne i parareligijne w Polsce: mały słownik. Verbinum, 37.

6. Radhe, Om (1938). Is this justice? Being an account of the founding of the Om Mandli & the Om Nivas and their suppression, by application of the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1908. The Phermacy Printing Press, Karachi, 154.

--Renee 20:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Renee. The Radhe reference only implies the date rather than stating it. Some maths is required to reach 1885 and so, strictly speaking, it is original research. I guess at some point we need to address the article on Lekhraj Kripalani since it now differs from this article. Regards Bksimonb 12:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Renee, could you clarify what accusations I made? Faithinhumanity 16:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm...not quite sure what you're referring to? I recall the article being full of accusations (even using the word, i.e., X was accused of Y) and my making the point that that type of text or write-up is entirely inappropriate for Wiki (or any scholarly or journalistic article) -- I can accuse George Bush of being an alien invader but it doesn't make it so.  I don't think it was in relation to you?  Renee   --Renee 21:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Renee
 * I would like to point out that celibacy within Brahma Kumaris cannot be compared to Catholic Priests. Celibacy within the Brahma Kumaris is all encompassing and if you negate that fact then you ignoring all the cited sources. This has been a practice of the IT Team, which is here and which has even been mentioned by their Medium/channel "Chariot" Gultzar in the murlis and whom Riveros11/Avyakt7 AKA Riveros (and other multiple IPS)has even quoted on his talk page.


 * I also question the removable of "spirit" possession as that was what has been cited in many academic books? Are you being fair. As to "MouthPiece", please don't take to the histrionics of the IT Team to heart, as one of the main Abrahamic religions had a "MouthPiece". So, if they are trying to hide this, it is only because their medium has channeled a combination and even Bksimonb has acknowledged that others (many other BKs) also channeled in the early years but it was stopped.  I have even come across pictures of BK yogis, sitting across from their medium while she channels. The BKs even produced a video which I still have that shows their founder being "Possessed" as recorded in many academic texts and which they don't want seen  even though they created the master piece.
 * Finally, families facing celibacy (without joining) find it very difficult and I say to you, to please not try and hide the honest truth. To do so only serves deception and is not to informative to others seeking to learn about the practices of this group. A celibate life style is just that, and their group practices that without exceptions, unless you are a VIP which the average person is not. So, celibacy is a daily reality and thus its importance. If it were not, and if they didn't place such a high Priority you wouldn't see suicides of those who partake in sex, and who jump off 5 stories or who live daily with suicidal ideations (often for years). See, they are told this, this of course is still a secret as no academic has placed it as a priority. So, please be fair and leave that which has citations in. PEACETalkAbout 04:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Please avoid use phrases like, "Riveros (and other multiple IPS)". While you were away we just had a right telling off for making sockpuppetry accusations and am ashamed to say I was also partially guilty of also making such accusations and also didn't follow the correct procedures for reporting (however I turned later out to be correct on some of them). Anyway, Riveros, as far as I can tell, has never done anything more than edit logged out and he has never pretended he was someone else. Otherwise, please use the formal suspected sockpuppet procedures that exist if you think otherwise.


 * Also, what's "please don't take to the histrionics of the IT Team to heart" supposed to mean? Hmmm?


 * Please list the academic books that actually mention, "spirit possession" in those exact terms. And, even if they do, the point that it has a negative connotation in the west has to be taken into account. Those references have no requirement to be neutral whereas Wikipedia has a strict WP:NPOV policy we are expected to follow. Also some sense is required to choose references that are actually saying something useful and in context to the article. That particular part of the Puttick reference doesn't on both accounts. I'm not rubbishing everything in the Puttick chapter, some of it is correct and useful, but her analysis on "spirit possession", "mouthpieces" and "prominence" is factually incorrect and can be contradicted by other secondary references.


 * I'm not sure what you are suggesting in the last paragraph of your post. That celibacy=suicide? That is clearly an extreme POV that does not reflect reality. What reliable references prove a link between celibacy and suicide and does that belong in this article. I believe there is an article on Celibacy, maybe it should be there. Also note that Sigmund Freud was celibate later in life and put forward the principal of what he termed, "sublimation". This more accurately describes what those that practice celibacy, including BKs, are aiming to achieve and why they don't necessarily try and kill themselves from terminal frustration.


 * Regards Bksimonb 07:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Bksimonb.
 * I had always stayed out of the frey and frankly find it distasteful. As to the suicide issue you are well aware of what I am referring to (5 stories and all) and I don't go into it as you are currently pressing the individual. So, yes, I will be truthful that no academic has come across that well hidden secret and so I never attempted to place it in the article. As to the IT TEAM, Bapdada even mentioned it in the murlis, would you say that was a faulty transmission in the murlis? I have always known and you even stated when you arrived that you were representing the organisation. As to Riveros11/Avyakt7, it was well documented and all his harassment too. I just wanted to stick to the information at hand and didn't want to get personal. It would seem that lodging complaints is a way to get rid of the editors as even I now stand accused of being Green108, because I was simply keeping a record of all the complaining and removal of edits. Plume, I am declared a centrewasi? Hemmmm.
 * So, rejoice in knowing your tactics have proven useful, so perhaps the ends justifies the means. Maybe I should just go off and work on my project. I even noted you tried to have tried to have the Reachout Trust article deleted and have lodged complaints as usual there.
 * All I want is the truth with good citable material, not a hit piece but not a glowing Advert. One shouldn't practice things and then try to hide them. The agony we go through to finally get the facts in is rather painful, have you not thought maybe Bapdada wants the truth out there? Oh, FYI do you remember Avyakt7 telling someone to go and set up a website as he did? See, you plant the seeds then complain? I honestly thought we had come a long way but I guess we have regressed. I do hope if I decide to stay that you, will be civil as I actually thought we had made some progress. PEACETalkAbout 08:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * FYI yes I was in Shantivan at the time of the said transmission. However there was no one else who was there that you will find on Wikipedia. Just please address me by my username as I address you by yours. The "agony" is what one gets when one tries to pull an encyclopedic article beyond its scope of being a one-page general, balanced and neutral overview of a subject. Thanks and regards Bksimonb 12:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Whew! Sounds like there's been a lot of baggage on this page. Reading this is like listening to an old married couple bicker...⊂( ﾟ ヮﾟ)⊃...

Regarding the celibacy issue I understand that one of you thinks it's good and the other thinks it's bad and that's not really relevant here. I think it's prominently represented in the article now because it's in the lead, and then there's a simple explanation of the extent of the celibacy (i.e., even "in marriage"). Anything beyond this gives it a value judgment which is POV.

Regarding the spirit possession issue, I really think the mediumistic channeling more accurately covers what the group does and the words are more neutral and balanced. Also, the way that "spirit possession" was used in the article cited for the claim was in a gender/power analysis academic paper that had nothing to do with the colloquial understanding of spirit posseession, so I think it's a misrepresentation to use that site to justify the words. The mediumistic channeling is explained in depth here and those who are interested in more information can click on the anti-BKWSU groups and get their slant on what mediumistic channeling is. But, to put it here represents a POV.

Best, Renee --Renee 14:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yup. OK. Right on all accounts there. Ahem. Bksimonb 17:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest a section on the use of mediumship within the BKWSU.
 * Faithinhumanity 14:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * But there is a whole section on mediumship in the article already. Please clarify. Regards Bksimonb 15:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Edits?
Per the discussions above, I'd like to take a crack at streamlining this article where issues are contested (just give a neutral statement and retain the cites) as well as neutralize the language a bit. Feedback welcome. --Renee 14:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Help!! I edited the first two sections (as well as streamlined some of the later text) but lost most of the references. Everytime I tried to retain them they would either move everything to a footnote or highlight everything.  So, I figured it was easier to write the text, and then have someone knowledgeable about how to do references go back in and add the references.


 * So, can someone please re-insert the references where they belong?


 * Also, if someone could please refer me to a reference tutorial, I'd appreciate it. This is just a start to the revamping of this article.


 * Thanks! --Renee 14:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well it definitely reads with less of a sting now :-) I will see if I can re-insert the references now. Otherwise congratulations for a much needed cleanup of the language. And there's me thinking it would take another rfc to get that through...


 * I just managed to re-insert one reference OK. I'll try an put others back as required. I just copy and pasted from a previous version everything between and including the relevant tags.


 * Best regards Bksimonb 15:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for working on re-inserting the references. Remember, we're not trying to make the article nice or pleasant (just like we're not trying to make it negative or hostile), but neutral and balanced.  Thanks.  --Renee 15:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "neutral" and "balanced" is all I've ever hoped for. I was referring to the atmosphere on this talk page rather than the article.


 * What references need to be re-inserted other than the one I tried? I tried to tie-up the other refs to the text and from what I can tell the others are redundant now.


 * Regards Bksimonb 15:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. I think some third-party references are needed after the last sentence in the first paragraph.  Do you know of any academic or journal citations that might be appropriate?  Also, if possible the Barrett reference should be re-inserted after the second paragraph (starting "Some members...") in the Early History section.  Thanks.  --Renee 16:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * OK I've re-inserted the Barrett reference but it seems to be referring to something else. The Om Radhe reference cites the problems with the community but is a primary source. Is that the one you meant? If so then there are secondary sources that say the same thing. Will look into it tomorrow. Regards Bksimonb 21:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm...I was just re-inserting sources basically where they appeared in the earlier version, trusting that the sentence was sourced properly. If there's a better secondary source saying what the line says, by all means please use that.  Thanks, Renee   --Renee 21:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Renee. The last sentence of the first paragraph is quite accurate but I haven't been able to find a reference that encapsulates all the four aspects (also known as four pillars) of BK life in a nutshell. Did you have any pointers as to where you sourced the info to narrow down the search?


 * I have added a sentence to the first paragraph to mention the "murlis" since these are quite a central part of the BKWSU. Regards Bksimonb 15:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Bksimonb,

Most of the references listed are hard copies only, so I didn't have access to them. What I did was review the BKWSU website, extracted out what appeared to be the essentials, and then reviewed the anti-BKWSU sites to see if any of these sites disputed that these were key elements (and they didn't, they were often critical of some of these elements). The problem is we can't use any of these websites as sources because they're either biased (the anti sites) or primary (the BKWSU site). So, I was hoping some journal article or academic book also outlined these key issues. If not, then we should probably delete the line, but I would imagine that several of the books listed would list these key things, if they are really the key foci of the group.

I think adding the murlis line is a good move, and hopefully addresses faithinhumanity's concern that the mediumistic channeling appears in the lead.

Renee  --Renee 23:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Renee. I'm not aware of any secondary sources that really encapsulate the "four subjects". However a primary source should be OK just for stating what the "four subjects" are as this is, as far as I am aware, not a contested fact. In which case we could cite Ken O'Donnel, Raja Yoga New Beginnings, 1987, ISBN 0-9637396-4-6, page 170 (Actually the copy I have has no ISBN, the 1995 version does, will have to do more research to check the page number is the same on the latest edition).


 * Regards Bksimonb 17:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * However a primary source should be OK just for stating what the "four subjects" are as this is, as far as I am aware, not a contested fact. Please note that you are entering into a precedent setting editing mode. So, don't complain when other use primary sources if that is where it can be found. Some of the the citation could be then cross referenced in:Is this justice? Being an account of the founding of the Om Mandli & the Om Nivas and their suppression, by application of the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1908, Brahma Kumaris Radhe, 1939,ASIN B00089UWHE and in Adi Dev: The First Man, Written by Jagdish Chander, Translation by Shanta Trivedi PhD, Edited by Robert Shubow 1981, ASIN B0006XWNQ0. The latter I do believe I requested during the Arb Committee and so, if you did these edits please state so for the record. PEACETalkAbout 04:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The precedent is the arbitration ruling which says,


 * ====Appropriate use of sources====
 * 10.1) Generally, material used in articles should come from reliable secondary sources, not from primary documents, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Types of source_material. Primary documents can be quoted in order to accurately describe uncontroversial items, but using them to illustrate controversial facts or conclusions is inappropriate.


 * So for describing the BK's beliefs, as they are now, not 1939, using primary sources is OK if no secondary source describes it clearly. However using primary sources to demonstrate or imply some perceived failing of the BKWSU, or draw some novel conclusion, is definitely not acceptable as per WP:NOR.
 * Regards Bksimonb 08:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm with TalkAbout on this one. Using primary sources sets a precedent I think you'll regret. Soon people will be pulling out topics and quotations at random to make their case for or against BK. This group has been around long enough and is large enough to find a secondary source. If your decision rule for any claim on the page is that it has to be verifiable through a reliable secondary source, then you'll save yourself loads of grief. Renee   --Renee 14:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes using primary sources is challenging and risky for the reasons you state. However we are discovering that some basic concepts aren't really covered well by secondary sources, especially the basic beliefs, as evidenced by our discussion on the "God" paragraph. Also, other editors may well say, "I've read the arbcom ruling and it says it's OK. Who's making the rules here?". How do we deal with that scenario? I suggest if we do have a secondary-sources-only rule then we will have to rethink how the article is put together, for example, it may not be possible to convey the basic beliefs any more, except in gobbledygook. It may result in a drastically shorter article, but that might not be such a bad thing. Regards Bksimonb 16:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ever work for a major book house publisher? Their mantra, when in doubt, cut it out. I think the discussion on God is way too much detail for an article like this.  If the facts are uncontested, you might get away with saying, "According to the BKWSU website, the four principles...." but any sort of detail leads to problems (in my experience, just trying to save you future grief).    --Renee 19:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk Archive proposal
In the interests of making this a "nice" article to be involved with I am proposing we archive the talk with the exception of the above "Edits?" post. Although a lot of the threads are live they have become huge and are full of civility and other issues.

We can restart any important threads as required. Let me know if you have any views otherwise I will perform the operation tomorrow.

Regards Bksimonb 15:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for asking, I'd say go for it Simon. Best, Avyakt7 18:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * OK I've made the archive in the absence of any objections. I copied the end part of the thread on mediumship but left the first part only available in the archive due to WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL issues with it. I moved some posts in this "Talk Archive Proposal" up to the "spirit possession" thread since that is what they were discussing. Best regards Bksimonb 15:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Meaningless statistic?
"According to a 2004 study, only 18% of BKWSU followers felt that the movement was effective in raising its voice against atrocities against women[33]."

If there is no objections I propose to delete this statement from the article tomorrow because it is not relevant. The BKWSU are not a campaigning lobbyist or activist organisation which probably explains the low result of the survey.

Regards Bksimonb 19:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree that this line seemed a little random to me but I figured it did no harm in the article. It's kind of a 'so what' line.  --Renee 23:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Further proposed changes
Looking through the article there are a few things that stand out that I would like to change if there are no objections.

1) Under the activities section, the paragraph starting, "On the periphery, the terminology " does not really explain what the activities are. It is juxtaposing three references to make a critisism. There is nothing wrong with this valid critisism except that Walliss has written whole papers on it so it can be stated without the synthesis from three references. It is also duplicated in the Controversies and Critisim section starting with the sentence, "Dr. Walliss notes that while the BKWSU was, "originally a reclusive...". I suggest we delete the paragraph in the Activities section leaving the one in the Critisism section.

2) Expansion section. There is a sentence in it, "On 16th January 1969, the BKWSU...", which is a detail that is unreferenced and seems to have little to do with "expansion". I suggest re-writing this paragraph. I propose the following text as the end of the first paragraph of the Expansion section.

From 1964 to 1969 more sophisticated methods of outreach began involving exhibitions, seminars and conferences in different parts of India (Frank Whaling, Journal of Contemporary Religion Vol.10 No.1 1995, p10).

Also the figures attributed to the BKWSU website need updating, the website currently claims, "...825,000 students and over 8,500 centres in 100 countries and territories."

4) Use of Mediumship. The last sentence, "Academics note the prominence", uses the same problematic Puttick reference. I suggest this is attributed if it is to be kept since it is a different account to that put forward by other reliable sources.

Thanks & regards Bksimonb 16:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like to propose to change the tone on the 'celibacy issues.' Brahma Kumaris practises celibacy. All the different reasons in the article are not accurate as far as our belief is concerned. It is not only about liberating "women" as a paragraph mentions, because men are part of the movement as well and men practice celibacy likewise. Celibacy is mentioned in the opening paragraph, in the "life style" paragraph and there is a whole paragraph about "attitudes towards sex." One of the references is in Hindi I believe, (why not use english references?) the other one calls Brahma Kumaris a "sect" which is not consistent with the term already used to refer to it NRM. Best, Avyakt7 20:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Bksimonb,

This is too much for me to digest at once! (especially on a Sunday!) Maybe we can focus on 1-2 things at a time?

1. yes, having these sentences in one section without redundancy sounds right.

2. I think "sophisticated" should be deleted (by who's estimate was it sophisticated, if this is allowed then so are other descriptors, better to be simple and neutral). e.g., From 1964 to 1969 outreach efforts expanded to include exhibitions, seminars and conferences in different parts of India (Frank Whaling, Journal of Contemporary Religion Vol.10 No.1 1995, p10).

3. To be honest, this seems like way too much detail for Wiki. Also, if I were a gambler I'd bet that the sections "View of Christianity" and "Attitudes toward sex" were put in by those against BKWSU to make their case that it's strange. When topics like this are pulled out of a whole practice it seems suspicious and has a great possibility of being out of context. I would recommend cutting these two sections.

4. I agree that the last sentence can be cut (it seems like another 'so what?' line). By the way, when you click on this reference there's nothing there? same for 18.

Dear Riveros11 or Avyakt7, yes, I think it's best to just simply say "Brahma Kumaris practises celibacy."

Renee  --Renee 22:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Renee; could you clarify as far as the extent of that change? I feel the "attitudes towards sex" paragraph should be erased since Celibacy has been mentioned enough.I feel that the word "celibacy" already contains enough info about our "attitude towards sex." Warm regards and Thank you. Riveros11 22:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think the attitudes toward sex paragraph should be cut. Celibacy is highlighted in the intro paragraph and explained further (i.e., even in marriage) in the lifestyle section.  Simple and clear and NPOV.  Best, Renee     --Renee 22:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * p.s. Per the discussion here, I deleted the "View of Christianity" section. Very unclear and convoluted.  If it's central to the group's beliefs and practice then please rewrite before re-posting.  It really was a mess.  --Renee 23:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * With regards to the Whaling reference, the word "sophisticated" was used in the reference but you are right, it isn't NPOV, and so it should be excluded. Regards Bksimonb 06:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not agree with the pruning of "very important" teachings, in the effort to make the IT Team happy. It is mention in the Opening paragraph but need to be explained in full as this is a primary teaching that you must follow. Next, why not delete that they don't eat food prepared by others. Renee would they (IT TEAM) eat food prepared by you? If they would then you are a BK, because they wouldn't eat mine. PEACE TalkAbout 04:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi TalkAbout. Point of order. Would you kindly stop referring to all and any BK editors as "The IT Team". There is only one member of the "IT team" here, me, as documented here, and I have a username you can call me by, Bksimonb, as it happens. Generalising BK editors in this way can foster a sense of some kind of conspiracy or collusion taking place, which is really not healthy for the community and may be seen as a tactic to discredit editors with different views.


 * The references we use in the article were not written with the same requirements for NPOV that Wikipedia has. Therefore, they may use shocking or obtuse words. There is no need for the article to follow suit, in fact, it is a non-negotiable requirement that the article is worded in a neutral and balanced way. The first paragraph also doesn't have to explain everything in full. There are separate sections later in the article for that. What you personally may find to be shocking about BK life is not a view that would necessary be shared by the wider community of editors and readers.


 * Thanks and regards Bksimonb 05:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Bksimonb
 * Quote:Would you kindly stop referring to all and any BK editors as "The IT Team". There is only one member of the "IT team" here, me, as documented here END QUOTE
 * Fine, since you are stating that as the gospel truth I will quote you on it and from here on I will recognise that only "you" Bksimonb are here on official capacity. So, we are in agreement that when the IT TEAM went before Bapdada that Bapdada was mistaken and should have said it was only you here on the wiki article? OK, just want to make sure I have this correct as I do not want any ill will. I have always been accepting of you as the Chief IT for the BKs world wide. I have never been outright disrespectful, but I have several concerns as to the on-going pruning of the article regardless of citations. PEACETalkAbout 08:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm hardly the "chief" of the IT team. In fact, I'm a member of several teams. If you like I can represent, to some extent, the London sound team, video dept, literature department, media dept, PR (but not in a promotional role) and even translation headset department. Take your pick :-) As I recall Bapdada didn't specifically mention Wikipedia, only "opposition". I took it to mean Wikipedia, others in the IT team took it to mean something to do with the projects they are involved in. If the hat fits, then wear it :-)


 * Also notice that the most substantial changes to the article are made by editors with no connection to the BKWSU either as BKs, Ex-BKs, friends and family of, PBKs or anything. In fact I had no prior contact with them. What is happening to this article is that it is finally, after so long, becoming an encyclopedic article. Regards Bksimonb 12:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear TalkAbout, well, even my kids have a hard time eating the food I prepare since I tend to burn things so no problem if the BKs don't want it as well.


 * Both of you, can you please take the IT talk and personal stuff elsewhere? (maybe your talk pages?)

For the article to be encyclopedic we need summary statements of beliefs or practices, but not detail. This prevents edit wars because if you look at the history, people are arguing over minute detail because it's presented as either positive or negative. Since the goal of Wiki is to be balanced and neutral, simple and streamlined and fully referenced summary statements are the way to go when material is contested, because then people can go read the references or websites themselves and make up their own minds (we're not planting positive or negative seeds). Best, Renee  --Renee 14:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "Both of you, can you please take the IT talk and personal stuff elsewhere?" - Sorry! I do appologise. Bksimonb 17:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

British or American spelling?
Hey guys, are you using British or American spelling here? I just made one paragraph consistent with American (it had "internationalisation" and "programme" with "centers") but then as it was saving another flashed before me in British spelling. Please advise. --Renee 23:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That is a good question. A couple of us (editors) come from the USA. The others from UK. They can tell the time, I tell time... tea or coffee? they don't mind... I don't care..Haven't a clue on this one...or perhaps "have no clue..." Best, Riveros11 01:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I live in London, but I am quite happy to standardise (oops!) standardize on US spelling :-) If you see me slip up on the article by all means correct what I type.
 * Regards Bksimonb 06:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This was discussed at length before and there are more BKs within the UK than the US so it is logical to have the British English. Thank you very much.PEACETalkAbout 04:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * OK I don't mind as long as we all agree. It's easier for me since UK is my native language if that's the way we go. Regards Bksimonb 04:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. Someone will have to go back in and change everything to UK spelling since I had changed everything to American spelling.  I have absolutely no preference -- let's just be consistent.  Thanks, Renee    --Renee 14:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The Atman foundation
I would like to bring this link to your attention: It comes from Cesnur (Center for Studies on New Religions) Please note that Dr. Heide Fittkau-Garthe was found innocent of all charges. Moreover, the article clearly states:"A leader of the German branch of the Brahma Kumaris, she left the Indian movement (or was excluded from it) and eventually became one of the most prominent self-help motivational speakers in Germany, organizing her activities into the Atman Foundation." I wonder what is the reason of that paragraph then? what is the message that is trying to convey? Best Wishes, Riveros11 11:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The fact that she was found innocent of all charges only emerged from a reliable source recently. All the news article before that had the news about the incident and Brahama Kumaris prominently in the same paragraph. I suspect this had propaganda value because of the simple word-association between the two that people may have made when reading it. The news articles at the time seemed to be quoting the same source. I reported the fact that this incident had been pushed into a number of different articles on Wikipedia at the time of the arbcom case.


 * Unfortunately with news incidents like this it is only the initial charges that get reported, not the outcome of the case. Especially if it embarrassing to the media outlets that they were led up the garden path by someone as in this case.


 * So the question remains, is this incident even notable, and, if so, is it notable enough for this article? I suggest not.


 * Regards Bksimonb 12:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's only notable if the charges were proven; otherwise it's just malicious gossip that has no place in an encyclopedia. --Renee 13:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Deleted "Atman foundation" paragraph per discussion. Best Wishes, Riveros11 14:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I object, as the charges were dropped only for fear of the the members and what happened to the money? Jet fuel for the spaceship.PEACETalkAbout 04:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:OR. --Renee 14:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Huh? What source is this coming from? Regards Bksimonb 04:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Kripalani vs Dada Lekhraj & Brahma Baba
Just want to float this issue again. It does seem a bit strange that a founder of an NRM should be called by his pre-NRM surname name all the way through the article. As an example of why this may have been done, take a look at this edit made to the Patibha Patil article recently by an IP account. Here it seems obvious to me that Brahma Baba is being derobed of his status as a founder of an NRM and reduced to a mere Sindhi merchant. I suspect the intention of going against the WP:COMMONAME guideline is the same here and also in the Lekhraj Kripalani article. I get the impression the underlying message is something along the lines of "You ain't special! You ain't nothin'!". Comments? Bksimonb 12:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What is an NRM? I think we need to just be consistent throughout the article.  It seems that it is important to know his given name, and then when/why the name change occurred, and then refer to him consistently throughout.  I don't think we should attach a particular value or meaning to calling him one over the other.  --Renee 13:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * p.s. I just re-read the article and now know what an NRM is.  Regarding the name issue, there are so many names given, that I think we should stick with Kripalani throughout and put Brahma Baba in parenthesis behind it (so all parties are accommodated).  I understand the rationale of using the different names at different times, because when it goes through the history it has to refer to Kripalani in 1937 (for example) because his name hadn't changed yet (so you couldn't call him Brahma Baba here).  I honestly don't think it reflects a value judgment to call him one or the other; it's just a matter of following a systematic protocol.  --Renee 14:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem I have right now is that the article refers to him differently to any of the references. So I guess the question is why is Wikipedia doing it differently to everyone else? I seem to be whistling into the wind on this issue so perhaps, unless there is any support for it, I guess I'll park it for now. I'll have to think how I can articulate my concerns better.


 * Just some background, this is the article after Utcursch cleaned it up initially . And this is how it was undone (note the edit comment). Utcursch's initial response was "As for "Dada Lekhraj", it is not "cultic language" -- Lekhraj Kripalani is known as "Baba Brahma" among his followers, not "Dada Lekhraj". Kripalani was better known as "Dada Lekhraj", just like "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" was better known as "Mahatma Gandhi":"   an explanation that I strongly agree with.


 * Regards Bksimonb 14:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yikes, I'm so confused now. I just went through the article up to the beliefs section and made it consistently refer to "Kripalani (Brahma Baba)..." throughout.  Is this acceptable to you?  (or did you prefer "Dad Lekhraj"?  I think you have a good point regarding Gandhi's name.  --Renee 14:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well it's a step in the right direction :-) I don't want this small issue to detract from the fact that I really do appreciate your effort on this article. A concern with the name is that if anyone reads about the BKWSU or comes into contact with them or anything they are never going to hear the name "Kripalani" except on Wikipedia. So why add a layer of complexity for people to wade through? So at least referring to the the most common name also is an improvement. Usually, he is "Dada Lekhraj" before the establishment and "Brahama Baba" after. I suggest the best way to deal with the article is to call him "Dada Lekhraj Kripalani (later known as Brahma Baba)" when he is first introduced and then just Dada Lekhraj thereafter. That seems the best way to keep the name consistent and not confuse the reader with different names. What do you think? Regards Bksimonb 14:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've re-edited up to Tree of Humanity section and changed the name accordingly. There are currently two places where the courses are referenced (under beliefs and I think under activities).  Shall we merge these together so they're not redundant?  Please feel free to do so.  Thanks, Renee    --Renee 15:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What consensus did we reach reagrding the naming. I think we should follow normal historical characters reference not adopt the sect's name for their guru.


 * Faithinhumanity 19:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Miscellaneous
Thanks for fixing the "fard"! --Renee 15:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem :-) I think they meant "food" rather than "fare". Bksimonb 15:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Meaning of Brahma Kumaris
Hi Folks, I'm reading and re-reading this article and just realized that no where does it define what "Brahma Kumaris" means. From what I've read it means "daughters of Brahma" and is based on the belief that women have an important spiritual leadership role to play in today's world, because of their feminine qualities such as patience, kindness and love. Is this statement accurate?

If yes, I think it should go in the lead paragraph, because it explains a basic essence of the group that's not currently reflected in the piece.

Thanks, Renee   --Renee 19:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Renee. Yes "Brahma Kumaris" literally means "daughters of Brahma". Male BKs are referred to as "Brahma Kumars", or "sons of Brahma". Can't comment on the exact reasons why, I'll have to do some asking around & reading. Regards Bksimonb 19:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is my take on the name issue. It will not be easy to explain the signifcance without going into a bit of expansion...The actual name is "Prajapita Brahma Kumaris Ishwariya Vishwa Vidyalaya" which loosely means something like: "university of godly knowledge of the daughters (and sons) of the father of the people, Brahma."  Prajapita means the "Father of the People." it is the equivalent of the "Adam" in christianity. As such, the whole humanity is Brahma Kumaris/Kumar (daughters and sons of Brahma.)However, as one Murli explained "we," "Bks" have recognized God when others (brothers and sisters) have not. Thus, the term is inclusive to all humanity. In the Hindu tradition there are 3 aspects which occur eternally in the universe; there is creation, sustenance and destruction, which in turn will originate a new cycle of creation, sustenance and destruction.. ad infinitum. Brahma is the name of that first part/act of the "trimurti"(3 aspects) namely,"creation" or establishment.
 * In other words, God "creates" the new world, through Brahma. Note that "Kumaris" rather then "Kumar" is being used for the utmost respect of the role of a woman at this point in time. (before women had a second class role throughout history and thus the "role reversal" that some religious experts note, but now God "Himself" is uplifting women at their due time ) There is a difference between "brahma" and "prajapita brahma" and the understanding of God creating/acting through others....but that is beyond the scope of this simplistic explanation...That is why, the name has been simplified to Brahma Kumaris. Warm regards, Riveros11 22:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Riveros11. So far it seems the two references that might cover this are "Peace and Purity" by Liz Hodgekinson and "Is this Justice" by Om Radhe. Obviously the former reference is preferred as Om Radhe is a primary source. I can't seem to find a copy of Peace and Purity right now. Do you have it? Otherwise I'll just buy another copy. Regards Bksimonb 07:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello bksimonb, I am traveling, so I will not be able to get a copy from the center which I normally attend. Will be out of the cyberworld for a couple of days as well...Thank you for pointing out the references. Best Wishes, Riveros11 14:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Chapter on God
This chapter is a mess. There's some funky synthesis going on with at least three different references to make a completely misleading paragraph.


 * "Dada Lekhraj (Brahma Baba)did not claim himself to be a guru or avatar". Correct - but he did claim to be Brahma.
 * "but the members of the Om Mandali believed he was the incarnation of Brahma." - and this is from a different reference. Synthesis? It also implies a rift between what Dada Lekhraj thought and what other BKs thought, otherwise why use the word "but"?
 * "Some of his followers believed that a spiritual being (Shiva) entered his body and spoke through him[8][27] to teach humanity verbally." So there was a rift between the BKs too? Some thought one thing some thought another? Why juxtapose these statements in this way? It is also mixing phases in history. This paragraph is supposed to be in the present tense.

I suggest the following paragraph to replace it with. BK ideas about God are a marked departure from Hindu concepts. God is an eternal and conscient being of light, the ‘All-Highest Soul’, ever-pure and good. Although having all knowledge and in that sense being omniscient, he is not omnipresent. Not only is God eternal—an eternal power or energy—but matter and human souls are also eternal; neither are they created by God nor do they emerge from God.

This is referenced to Reender Kranenborg. It is also the same text as the Citizendium article but since I uploaded it I hereby dual-license it for use here too if it is useful.

Regards Bksimonb 19:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm...this sounds pretty esoteric to me and gobbly-gookish to me (sorry! must be my simple brain!).


 * Is there a simpler way of putting it?


 * Also, I think we should leave the descriptors out, like "marked" departure and just simply say "departure" because otherwise it sounds like POV. (e.g., I just read the CESNUR article and I think the author would agree that BK departs from Hindu but "marked departure" might be a stretch.)


 * So, the only line that reads clearly to me in the above paragraph is the first (after deleting the word "marked").


 * Thanks, Renee  --Renee 19:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It was an attempt to paraphrase Kranenborg which doesn't give us much to work with. Do you think we should maybe use a more primary source in this instance? If so we could possibly use Ken O'Donnel, New Beginings however it would take me a day or so to distill the whole chapter into one paragraph. In the meantime I just visited the "Plain English Campaign" and suitably inspired, will now attempt to explain the BK concept of God free-from in plain English.


 * God is believed to be a the form of a point of light residing in an infinite expanse of golden-red light referred to as the "Brahm Element" or "Nirvana". God, referred to BK's as being "Shiva", is neither omnipresent nor the Brahm Element itself. Human souls are also points of light living in the Brahm element. The difference is they visit earth and take human forms and reincarnate whereas God stays at home. All souls are initially pure, that is, only having a nature of virtues such as love, bliss, wisdom, peace etc. however God has these to an infinite degree and never loses these qualities. God's role is then to instruct the souls who have by now forgotten their original form, and are completely depleted and caught up in worldly matters, how to become pure again in order to return home. This is done through the medium of Dada Lekhraj (Brahma Baba) and more recently Dadi Gulzar.


 * I can think of other stuff to include but it's already a long paragraph. Now I just need to reference it to something.


 * Regards Bksimonb 07:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've condensed the Kranenborg chapter into a brief paragraph in plain English. It doesn't encompass all of the BK concept of God but it encompasses all the non-esoteric points that I could pick out from the Kranenborg article. Regards Bksimonb 14:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

so what about the Prajapati God Brahma stuff? no mention of shiva there.......i know it is primary sources but it seems non-contentious and easily verifiable Green108 20:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus
Faithinhumanity I have reverted your latest edits because they are adding serious undue weight to the first paragraph and are clearly not NPOV. There are three active editors who are in agreement over what the first paragraph should be and, just as importantly, should not be. If you feel strongly enough otherwise then please raise an Rfc to get more input but please do not just overrule the consensus that was reached here and the consensus that WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV represent. Also the Puttick reference was found to be not entirely accurate where cited nor used in context. You're cooperation would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks & regards Bksimonb 18:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Faith

in case you have not notice, they have put in a sockpuppet complaint about you and me

two of those making up the consensus are both BK members and part of the Bkwsu Internet PR team, and the other one does not know anyting about the Bkwsu..............so i dont think it really counts

this is what they will do, they will grind you down with all sort of accusations which are really just excuses their pov or Pr......trying to block you if they can , it has been going on for a year and has happened beforeUser:Green108


 * Posted logged out while blocked. Reported. Block extended. Bksimonb 12:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

People associated with
Given that there is some controversy with the movement, and given that this page has been a battleground for over a year, I have removed all the people who did not have citations.

I also propose that the whole section goes, except for those people who are very notable. I an unclear what is encyclopediac about knowing the name of the person who is "responsible for BKWSU activities in Spain?" What is the importance of reporting that "Brother Nirvair is a trustee?"

In most wiki articles the people associated with is a section for famous people who are associated with the organization.

If someone wants to start a seperate article about the history of the BKWSU or something, that would make sense, but if they are not notable enough to make it into the article, why do we need a list of them? Sethie 22:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds great. Informative, Straightforward & Streamlined.   Renee    --Renee 23:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've never really understood what the list was for. It's not something I've seen in other similar articles. Bksimonb 06:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sethie,
 * The reason to list them is precisely due to the fact that this religion is considered a number wise religion and those listed are considered (were) to be number wise (The 8 ala the apostles if you would, the 108 etc). Dare I say our Bksimonb is considered within the "Inner Circle" and thus too number wise (important). So, out of those listed, would come the next Administrative head with the recent passing of Dadi Prakashmani. Sethie, so Sethie, this had been discussed in prior sessions and unlike other religions this is important. Also, do you understand that Dadi Gulzar is the "mouthpice" (their medium thatchannels Bapdada) for Godly transmessages? She is their current transmessenger and even the current president of India consulted the "Spirit" (Bapdada).
 * So, I think it is clear as to the importance of the people listed and it is important as they are in contact with world leaders too. In case you missed it, their religion seeks out important VIP's that will carry their message to the world and impart the Knowledge (Gyan)...that was the chat I was having with Bksimonb about "Mike". Mike being a very important person that will do the afore mentioned.
 * So, in all humility I will say that when I was told about "Mike" I didn't even understand this. So, I am learning and I even went off to study religions to better understand this. So, I will do a compromise, I will create the other article with access as per others I have seen with wikipedia. Would Catholicism leave out the Pope and apostles?
 * Oh, just as a tid bit, I recently found out that even those that come into contact with the Brahma Kumaris are seen as receiving benefit...but perhaps not me. PEACETalkAbout 01:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No, however there are clear sources saying "These are the apostles, this is the pope!"


 * A lot of what you are saying sounds like OR and inside information. So if you want them mentioned in the article, I suggest you find some sources which says the things you just said above. Sethie 02:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sethie,
 * Dadi Prakashmani’s and Gulzar's positions are well documented. Please note the links . As for the "Mike" thing! Yes, that was not for my little ears as it is only for the "inner circle". Lord only knows what they told me that I didn't catch.  Thank you as I will get a recorder for sure now. But for the record all the books list them, as they are very prominent Brahmins.  So, Dadi Prakashmani, Gulzar, Janki are considered part of the 8, as per their teachings, of the 8, the 108 etc. I thought you knew this bit. So, this is why I try to be polite to the editors per their beliefs, are considered one of the 108 or other numberwise (very important...in other words). You do know Bksimonb is in charge of IT Team, and that the spirit spoke to them about their work here. We were mentioned too, as the "opposition".... So, Sethie these are higher stakes, but in the end, we must look at the fact that a reader coming here needs to find the information.  I have been amazed at what has come to be, which was vehemently denied at first until the necessary citation were provided. I note that you too made this argument here and thus I set out to re-insert citation that were removed and to provide others. I hope I have clarified this some. PEACETalkAbout 02:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

My first move was to remove all uncited ones... and then it dawned on me, why is this here? So we talked about it here and removed the whole thing.

I have read your above statements and I am still wondering, why is this here? The links your provided mention a couple of the leaders... not sure what this has to do with the whole 108 thing nor why an article about a NRM ought to have an exhaustive list of "people associated with the movement?"

I am open and thus far I am not seeing a single reason for including such a list, nor have I seen anything on wikipedia like that for a NRM. Sethie 02:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * TalkAbout, I am not "in charge" of an IT team. In an IT Team, yes, and also other "teams". Would really appreciate it if my affiliations weren't used as part of the article discussion. Thanks. Bksimonb 06:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sethie, it seems a new article has been created with the comment, "As per Sethie's suggestion, created List of Brahma Kumaris". I don't feel too strongly about it except that someone tried to insert celebrity names without refs which is obviously a WP:BLP violation, but do agree with your reasoning that it is not normal for a NRM to have a list like this and if I have a preference it would be to whatever is right for Wikipedia. Regards Bksimonb 07:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The idea that it was "my suggestion" is utterly delusional and has no basis any reality of which I am aware.... All I said was I saw no basis for including it in this article! :)


 * Wikipedia is full of lists- so my feeling is- whatever... I see no point in it- nor do I see a point in contesting it's existence. Sethie 07:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sethie
 * "If someone wants to start a seperate article about the history", please also see:List of former members of the Black Panther Party & List of Scientologists. So, it is a very common and efficient way of doing things within an enclyclopedia. So, I will place back as if you don't understand that the aforementioned above are of importance than might I suggest that you read some of the books listed in the bibliography confirm. PEACETalkAbout 00:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * ! Nice partial quote! :) "f someone wants to start a seperate article about the history of the BKWSU or something, that would make sense, but if they are not notable enough to make it into the article, why do we need a list of them?"


 * More convincing then your misquoting of me is that there are other lists like this in wikipedia.


 * This sentence makes no sense to me " So, I will place back as if you don't understand that the aforementioned above are of importance than might I suggest that you read some of the books listed in the bibliography confirm" Sethie 00:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The BKWSU Plain English campaign
Love the plain english campaign site! (though I noticed I spelled "gobbledygook" wrong in my message above)  For what it's worth, I think everybody can save themselves grief, edit wards, and reversions by putting in very simple, summary statements. When we start to go into detail then people will quibble with the interpretation (i.e., no, that's not how they see God, he's not a pin-prick, it's a beam, he's not a he, he's a she, the color is yellow, not golden-red...)  This is why I think simple summary statements are best. Anyone who wants to go into real detailed explanations can click on the websites at the end of the article.

Regarding God, I would ask, is a section on this necessary? If yes, then how about something like: "Brahma Kumaris believe there is an infinite expanse of golden-red light referred to as the Brahm Element. Within the Brahm Element God is an infinite point of light and human souls are also points of light, coming to earth to reincarnate and "remember" their original form." yikes, I have to say that this sounds pretty esoteric and again ask, is this level of detail really needed? I would suggest cutting this. In fact, when I read the article now even though it gives a sub-heading "God" it really talks about the guru. I'm going to replace that sub-head (Guru for God) and then you folks can decide if you want to add a section on God back in.

Regarding the definition of BK, how about something simple like this in the third sentence of the opening paragraph:
 * "Brahma Kumaris (i.e., "daughters of Brahma," named such to elevate the status of women in spirituality) focus on what they call four main principles of life..."

Did I get this right? If yes, then I think there needs to be a section called "The Role of Women in Brahma Kumaris" under the beliefs section, because this seems to be an important and central belief in the practice.

Simply yours, Renee   --Renee 23:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Renee. I would like to invite all the editors gathered here on this fine day to take a close look at the "Guru" paragraph, particularly how the references are used and the sentences constructed around them. I've previously suggested that there is some synthesis, undue weight and bias going on here.


 * When we describe the beliefs I suggest we focus on the present tense. It is known that the beliefs crystalised over some time, which in itself is interesting, but makes for one hullava muddle if we try and weave 1939 beliefs and 1960s onward beliefs both into the beliefs section. The current belief is that Brahma Baba was not a guru, but a role model and medium, and that Shiva is the "Satguru".


 * I fully support your initiative to use plain English, even if I'm not entirely successful at it myself! I wonder how un-esoteric we can make the chapter on God if it remains, given that it is, indeed, an esoteric subject ;-) Still, full marks for trying.


 * For the first paragraph I suggest a compromise of just saying, perhaps, "Brahma Kumaris (literally: "daughters of Brahma)" (not sure if I've correctly used punctuation here) and then maybe expanding on that later in the the article in the proposed "Role of Women in the Brahama Kumaris section. What do you think?


 * Regards Bksimonb 06:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Simon, Re the first paragraph. Sounds good.
 * If you think the beliefs section needs revamping please go ahead and do it. I don't know anything about the group so I think it's good to have a knowledgable person draft the beliefs section (actually, please just finish the rewrite).  There seem to be plenty of outside editors (Sethie, IPSOS, myself) who will seize on a POV adjective like a dog on a piece of red meat (sorry, can't think of a comparable vegetarian saying; a locust on a dewy field of grain? doesn't have the same bite...).
 * I'd like to finish up my work on this article and move on to other things. Thanks, Renee    --Renee 09:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms Section
Shall we tackle this section? According to Wiki policy we cannot use POV websites as sources. Also, sources should have some sort of fact-finding or vetting process for accuracy. Extraordinary claims need to be especially scrutinized to see if they're taken out of context or represent an extreme minority view. Based on these criteria, I suggest that any claims made by cult experts, cult books/websites, etc. be cut immediately. They're by definition biased. Any negative quotations need to be examined in context of the whole article. (For example, on the flip side, we wouldn't pull out glowing rosy praises of the group of an article either because it looks like PR; we shouldn't do anti-PR either.)

Sethie -- if you're around it'd be great if you could carefully examine any edits I make in this section as an outside editor too.

Thanks, Renee   --Renee 09:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * A careful read of this section reveals that it is almost sole-source from a John Wallace. Thus, what is one critical party is made to look like several.  Also, any "accusations" cannot be included, nor can his interpretation of a Newsweek article (the original newsweek article would be fine to include if someone wants to hunt it down).


 * I suggest creating a summary statement of his criticisms, not using direct quotes, because these were obviously taken to prove a point. Then, people can be referred to his article if they want his perspective.


 * Cult experts are not neutral resources, so this section needs to be struck.


 * In fairness, I wonder if someone can come up with a neutral criticisms section? It seems the celibacy issue and the focus on women are the two biggest controversies.


 * Thanks, Renee   --Renee 19:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * p.s. I also cut the tabloid newspaper article as it focused on Cherie Blair (Tony Blair's wife) and was a sensational effort to show she was into a cult.  (The article reads like the U.S. National Enquirer, and apparently that's what this source is, i.e., a tabloid newspaper with little oversight or reliability beyond doing what one can to sell the next newspaper.)
 * The last citation wasn't a criticism or controversy, just a belief that appears earlier in the article.
 * --Renee 19:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Renee. Thanks for cutting the tabloid article. I always thought it was gratuitous.
 * Agree that a summary of Wallis would be good although I'm a little bit puzzled about use of primary/secondary sources here. Normally we rely on the secondary sources and the conclusions they draw from the primary sources. How would we be able to use primary sources without using WP:OR to describe what it's relevance is in the article? There has recently been a lot of pressure recently to insert prehistoric documents and drag the whole article back to 1940. Do we want to encourage more of the same?
 * As I haven't yet ventured much past this article, could you please point me at some similar articles that you consider present critisism in a neutral, proportioned way? Thanks & regards Bksimonb 19:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it is perfectly okay to use biased sources on religious subjects, because no sources on religious subjects are without bias. Partisan sources are a different matter though. Noted controversies and well-sourced accusatiations can be included too. Andries 19:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Andries, According to Wiki:Verifiability we have to use sources that are verifiable, and biased sources are by definition not.  Also, see WP:SPS, WP:questionable sources, WP:V, WP:REDFLAG, WP:R.  I left in all of the academic citations but we have to be cautious if we want a balanced article and not report biased articles (like tabloids or cult-websites).  These are available for those who want to seek out information and there's even a section at the end of this article that lists ex- and anti-BKWSU persons for those who want negative information.  Best, Renee    --Renee 20:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * All sources are biased one way or another. And this applies to science, politics, religion, culture, and any other subject. WP:NPOV advises us to be judicious in the use of sources, in particular about undue weight aspects, but that is all. In Wikipedia we describe the significant published viewpoints. Any minority viewpoints only if these are significant and do not raise redflags, and non-significant minority viewpoints we do not describe at all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Jossi.


 * Simon -- I think the Transcendental Meditation article does a nice job on it's controversies section (only secondary sources, balanced with opposing viewpoints).  It's still a work in progress but I thought it was pretty well balanced.  Best, Renee   --Renee 20:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Renee. I've read through it and will read further since there are some issues there that strike me as strange such as the Christian views of TM which I would say are not unique to TM but common to Eastern religions in general.


 * ≈ jossi ≈, it's good to see you back after so long! To Jossi and Andries, in the light of the issue you raised regarding the use of biased sources, is there any recommendation that either of you have regarding the criticism section. Are you both happy with the edits or is there something that either of you feel needs changing? Regards Bksimonb 04:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we should move more slowly. You should allow others a voice. Renee you are doing more than your summary states. From the literature, you are making mistakes and needless removing supporting quotations. I need some time to go over your edits but I think they suffer from not having read the literature. Especially if you have no experience of the organisation.


 * What makes Walliss critical rather than analytical?Have you read his book?Faithinhumanity 14:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have asked Jossi and Andries for input. Please hold off reverting over different editors wholesale until we reach a consensus here. If necessary we can then re-introduce elements back in. Regards Bksimonb 14:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

New Edits
Faithinhumanity,

Can you please discuss edits on the talk page first without making them? Otherwise you're acting unilaterally when these other edits have been reached by consensus.

Does anyone else agree with Faithinhumanity's attempt to spread out Wallis' criticisms over several items? It seems to be WP:UNDUE. There's no problem having these sentiments expressed in a summary paragraph but it seems biased to spread them out over many points when it's a single source (and technically, when "extraordinary claims" are made, one is supposed to have multiple citations).

Also, the words "accused" and "proselytizing" are not neutral. There's no place for accusations in an encyclopedia. Please do not insert these words to give a negative slant. (Just like please do not insert words that give a positive slant.

Remember our goal is to have something that everyone can live with that is balanced.

Once I here from other editors (if they agree) I will resummarize this section.

Renee   --Renee 17:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

p.s. though you didn't ask (but should have reached consensus with other editors first), I think the line in the intro reads neutrally except for the word "claim." (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid) Can you live with, "...known as the 'Murli,' said to be from God."?


 * Hi Renee. As far as I can tell Faithinhumanity is simply reverting to what was there before. I left a note on his talk page. I prefer the new of the Criticism version on WP:UNDUE grounds but would like to hear from other editors also. Perhaps we can raise an rfc otherwise.


 * I can live with "...known as the 'Murli,' said to be from God." but the repeated insertion of POV statements into the first paragraph after being warned gives me a sense that a compromise isn't being sort from some quarters.


 * Regards Bksimonb 19:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Simon, In that case I'll put it back to what we had all agreed to on the talk page and I didn't realize it was a reversion back.
 * Dear Faithinhumanity, How about posting suggested changes here first so editors can discuss?  Also, if I've made factual mistakes then please can you and other editors let me know?  That would be appreciated.
 * THanks, Renee  --Renee 20:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Renee. I didn't realise the claim>"said to be" was a change from Faith's version. I thought it was an addition to what was there before. To me, "The study is based on channeled messages, known as the 'Murli' said to be from God.", sounds much more plain English than, "The organisation's philosophy is based on mediumistic messages, known as the 'Murli,' said to be from God". Both are true but "study" connects to one of the four subjects, and is quite accurate, we "study" the murli every day. Also "mediumistic messages" sounds kind of Victorian, with connotations of hands-around-the-table type seances, than "challelling" which to me sounds a more neutral description. Regards Bksimonb 20:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * hmmmmm...I actually perceive channeling to be more of hands-around-the-table thing based on US movies. I have no preference so it's up to you guys. You can even say, "The organisation's study..." but that does sound more wordy.  --Renee 20:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh well, and I thought channeling was more like this. Each to their own :-) Bksimonb 09:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Very cool picture. I actually think of that as revelation.  (as in revelation from God)  Sounds so much nicer doesn't it?  (Can you imagine in the Bible if they substituted "channeling" for "revelation"?  Create quite a stir...)  --Renee 12:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Writing as a Christian. I can assure you that the Bible is clear in is position toward mediums, mediumship and spirits. There is no comparison to make. Unlike claims made by followers of this organisation.
 * This organisation claims that God enters their mediums in India and speaks to its followers. Could I suggest that you became more informed in these topics before exercising your opinion. Some of us take these matters very seriously. Faithinhumanity 15:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Faithinhumanity as you say that your are a Christian, I have to say it is very strange that your interest, as indicated by your contributions have never extended beyond this article. What you are saying about the "organization" is also quite loaded and inaccurate. I notice you mention "mediums" in the plural. Even the on-line references are better than what you are saying in terms of accuracy, weighting and context. Regards Bksimonb 08:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Renee, if you actually read the article on the use of the word claim , you will read that it is perfectly acceptable WHERE it is correctGreen108 02:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Bksimonb, as you stated that you were from a Christian family, you will be quite conscious of the Christian opinion of mediumship and spirits. As I stated, I have come to know of two families that have been broken up by this organisation at a great cost to the remaining parent.
 * The sources state Lekhraj Kirpalani was a medium. Sources also state that his spirit, the original possessing spirit and the spirit of other dead leaders are channelled by another medium within the organisation. That equates to "mediums" and so mediums is inarguable accurate. There appears to be no possible dispute over the practise of mediumship by a number of mediums within the BKWSU organisation. The centrality of it. And the channelling of male spirits by females.
 * To put it into plain and simple language. Whether your organiation wants to downplay this aspect of your religion or not, this is all a matter of fact.
 * Faithinhumanity 17:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry Faithinhumanity I just don't buy your story that you are from a Christian background. The comments and edits you make seem to me to be trolling. I will not spend more energy in these pointless discussions. Bksimonb 15:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Is that not the defense of someone that knows they are beaten and can only win by ignoring and accusations of others? If that is your only answer, then I suggest "mediums" is as we know correct.


 * You replied to me that you came from a Christian family. Does you family share your faith that the mediums of the BKWSU are channelling God? To my knowledge, no other religion does. Faithinhumanity 18:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it's the reply of someone who knows that getting engaged in a stone-walling circular argument with a single-purpose account is probably not the best use of time. The only reference you have that mentions "spirit possession" is Puttick which has been used repeatedly completely out of context and that particular paragraph is contradicted by reliable secondary sources. You are repeatedly trying to portray BK Raj Yoga as something crazy and dangerous and seem to make no secret of your extreme POV against the organisation, even to extent of justifying your actions by it. Regards Bksimonb 07:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms section for faithinhumanity
Dear Faithinhumanity,

I'm trying to be responsive to the changes you want in the criticism section, so I'm outlining them here.


 * For this one, I made more neutral (took out word "accused"): "BKWSU's stance on celibacy was found to cause conflict within some families of followers."

-> I moved some of the quotations you put back in into the footnotes. So, they're still there (though I still think it's WP:UNDUE to pack the article with this one person's viewpoints) so please don't re-add them. Also, please note that there is full disclosure in the Wallis sentence where it says "please see reference for details."
 * Regarding the added Wallis quotations, I already summarized his points in the lead opening paragraph so I'm not sure why you're adding quotations here (e.g., re-writing Murlis, prophetic failures). Putting them in 2 or 3 times is definitely undue weight.  Also, if you look, some of the quotations you re-inserted were already footnoted.

Renee   --Renee 20:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Renee. I attributed the critisism to the sources including Kościańska's credentials. Regards Bksimonb 09:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Renee,


 * I asked you a question regarding Walliss's. You laballed him a critic. Have you read his book?


 * And what is your actual knowledge or experience of this organisation?


 * Let us not for one moment validate the process that this topic is current going through as a consensus process. I am happy you wait until you have finished your edits before I make my own. Please indicate when you are finished.


 * Faithinhumanity 19:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As I said previously when you asked, I am a neutral outside editor brought in by the Rfc. I have read enough excerpts of Wallis' book to see that his remarks are critical, but if  you object to the word critical, let's just say, "Critic Dr. John Wallis wrote an article about the group where he...."  That's what you call people who analyze groups and have non-neutral things to say about them (i.e., a film critic, a movie critic).  It seems to me and the other editors who are actively discussing things before posting them that we are getting consensus (and you'll notice, I keep trying to incorporate your ideas though your reaction seems hostile on the talk pages).
 * If you make changes in the article without getting consensus they're just going to be reverted so it seems like a better way to go is to try and get agreement for your ideas on the talk page first. Then your changes will stick.
 * Renee --Renee 20:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I asked you two question. If you had actually read the book by Dr Walliss. You appear to be answering no. I asked you what your actual knowledge of this organisation was. You have not answered.
 * What is your actual knowledge of this organisation?


 * If this article is to be accurate, I have to question whether your opinion and judgement is informed or not. If it is not. I have to question your input where it strays beyond basic issues and into points of view.
 * Faithinhumanity 15:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use?
The fair use rationale of the seems a bit suspect. It claims, for example, "This is a low resolution reproduction..." when in fact it is 1200 × 1706 pixel which I would have thought is a very high resolution. The same seems to apply to the other posters. Also some of the rationale doesn't make much sense e.g., "Where there is disagreement between editors, or indeed published commentors, on the subject of the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University it is correct to present illustrative materials that provide without any doubt contested dates or facts."

Should I challenge the fair use rationale? Regards Bksimonb 07:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Technically speaking. For the apparent size of the posters. 72 dpi is a very low resolution.


 * I would consider 300 dpi as being high resolution. I do not think this is the real reason for your wish to remove them.


 * Faithinhumanity 19:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 72 dpi is low resolution for a sheet of A4/Letter. Not for a poster! Also 72 dpi for A4/letter may still be too high for the purposes of fair use.


 * Can you also explain to me how you know it is 72dpi since you didn't upload them? Green108 did. Bksimonb 20:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I downloaded it and opened it up. It is 72 dpi. That is low resolution.
 * Faithinhumanity 15:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Faithinhumanity I just can't take what you are saying seriously. I get the impression that it is just playing at being obtuse in order to be disruptive. Of course the resolution is high, or will this take an rfc to decide? I have also analysed the JPEGS and there is no information in them regarding the dpi setting of the scanner, not that it's even relevant in this case. Here is the JPEG meta-data...
 * As you can see, no dpi information. The only information with regards to resolution is the x/y pixel counts which are clearly quite a lot for a so-called low resolution picture. Regards Bksimonb 06:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As you can see, no dpi information. The only information with regards to resolution is the x/y pixel counts which are clearly quite a lot for a so-called low resolution picture. Regards Bksimonb 06:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Do as I did. Download the image. Open it in a graphics applications. Check the image size. Its 72 dpi which is very low resolution. Not good enough to print. Faithinhumanity 17:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Image resolution in this case is based on number of pixels, not DPI. I have a hunch you already know this though. I have tagged the images as being in violation of fair use. Bksimonb 08:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Ummmmm
Why is the mediumship not mentioned in the "early history" section nor in the article about Lekhraj?

If the movement was started because of message recieved via these medium sessions/trance/channeling/revelation/whatever you want to call them... mentioning that in the early history (i.e. where did this movement come from) is pretty important.

I know there is a lot of debate here around how much/too much/not enough/what do we call it.... and if the organization came from that and we have citations saying so, then I think to not mention it in the early history clearly violates npov.

It would be like writing a Christianity article and not mentiong the "Son of God" idea till 3/4's in... it just doesn't make much sense!

Correct me if I am wrong and this entire movement is based around a set of ideas that began/were discovered/were revealed via revelation/channeling/vision/spirit possesion/oujie board :)/whatever. Let's just say it outright. Sethie 19:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Sethie, A while back Bksimonb had put a line in the lead that the study of BK was based on the Murlis, which states up front the basis of the practice.  Faithinhumanity changed it slightly and said something that the Murlis were "claimed" to be from God, which is a wiki word to avoid (because it gives a negative tone).  I changed the word "claimed" to "said to be from God," and then IPSOS deleted the whole line because I don't think he nor Bksimonb thought the tone was neutral.  So, I propose putting back in this line that Bksimonb originally had, adding the clause "said to be from God" (so that Faithinhumanity's perspective is in there in a neutral way), and then hopefully that addresses your concern above.  Here is the line (would be the last sentence in the lead paragraph:
 * "The study is based on channeled messages said to be from God, known as the 'Murli.'"
 * What does everyone think? (Then, there's a whole section on mediumistic/channeled messages in the article later.)
 * Best, Renee   --Renee 20:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * My first response is, I don't think it needs to go into the lead. I think it could... and given all the debate over that, I say leave it out.


 * As for the claim/said to be, let me sit with that....Sethie 20:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sethie,
 * Very cogent point you raise of "Why is the mediumship not mentioned in the "early history" section nor in the article about Lekhraj?"
 * The reason is because there is an attempt to hide this, just as there was an attempt to hide mediumship/channeling and the recent spirit possession which is well document in the "early history". But since I have gone back to school I have not had the time to raise objections to the constant removal of well cited and relevant information. It is like taking out the crucifixion out of Christianity, on the mere whims of those that want to re-write history for PR value. Wikipedia is not an avert and I regret that the end product in a couple of weeks will be some NEW AGE RELIGION ADVERT on wikipedia. Same as their claim to Dadi Janki being declared "THE MOST STABLE MIND IN THE WORLD" by scientists in Texas:''' "Dadi Janki, now around 90, had many good things to tell. She recalls her 1978 experience at Texas University, USA, where after a thorough research on her for more than seven hours by top scientists, she was adjudged as the one with the most stable mind. At that time, Janki said, she did not know much of English language, yet she was able to give convincing answers to the flurry of questions asked by the Americans.


 * Citing an example, she said they asked her to pronounce 100 minus seven, which is 93, then further minus seven, 86 and so on. She could do this with ease and perfection. Then they asked her a host of other questions. Finally, they bestowed on her this rare honour.. With such assertions out there and attempt to remove factual information here, well even I am beginning to think of the old saying: If you repeat some thing often enough, and long enough it will soon be accepted as the truth. Such is the case with Dadi Janki's assertions, to the point where she even believes it. PEACETalkAbout 20:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * When you repeat something enough in bold it's even better! WP:SOAPBOX. FYI you are completely misrepresenting Dadi Janki. I wonder if WP:BLP applies to talk pages too. The "most stable mind in the world" claim came from a newspaper that misquoted the scientists.Bksimonb 20:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, let me start over....Forget the why- let's remedy it.

Renee proposes re-introducing a sentence into the lead.

I propose putting a few sentences in the early history.

Any other thoughts, comments, suggestions? Sethie 20:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't care if it's in the lead or early history. Early history is fine too.  Renee    --Renee 21:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I propose moving the first 2-3 sentences of the mediumship section to the "early history." :) It is already worded for the section with "established" and "early days!"

"The BKWSU is believed by its members to have been established by Shiva Baba (God-Father Shiva, described as the Supreme Soul and conceived as the one God of all religions) through the medium of the group's founder Lekhraj Kripalani. From the beginning, the group has used a number of mediums and trance-messengers[54] to receive messages from disincarnate beings or deceased members[55]. According to founding members, followers in the early days, including children, would commonly go into trances, having visions of Krishna and Vaikunth (Golden Age Heaven) and engaging in ecstatic dances for as long as 7 days" Sethie 00:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Sethie 00:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. Go for it. Although the "the group has used a number of mediums and trance-messengers[54] to receive messages from disincarnate beings or deceased members[55]," bit is not exactly mainstream practice. There are odd stories of this stuff happening at the begining and up to the 1960s. Definitely not what you will find at your local BK centre. However, I can live with it. It makes the BK sound more exiting! Regards Bksimonb 05:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed, go for it. --Renee 13:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Just one question. I just looked at the diff and noticed what might be some OR. The article says, "From the beginning, the group has used a number of mediums and trance-messengers" but this is referenced to what appears to be an account of one particular instance in Hinduism Today where trance messages were relayed through "the medium" (singular, not plural) and that the final message was delivered directly through the body. How can the statement in the article be based on that reference without OR? There is no statement about the "begining" nor any statement that suggests this type of event happened more than once. Regards Bksimonb 18:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry Sethie. I didn't mean to torpedo the inclusion of mediumship in the early history but I noticed that the references were being jazzed up to say more than they were saying. Not blaming you for that, it was just a copy and paste from what was in the Mediumship paragraph. I have nothing against saying that there were other mediums at the begining of BK history but we will need reliable references that actually say this. I know of one notable medium from that time and have heard other examples of direct body manifestations but these are stories I've heard from eye witnesses and have not, as far as I know, been documented by reliable sources. Regards Bksimonb 06:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't feel attached to there being a lot of the medium material in the intro, it just, to me seemed like a FREAKIN HUGE gaping hole to have none. Sethie 06:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources say that Dada Lekhraj was a medium at that time and that there were also trance messengers. Anyone else being a medium at that time is only known about from the stories that those around at the time tell from time to time. It hasn't, as far as I know, been documented by a reliable source. That's what we have to work with right now. Maybe one day someone will trawl through all the audio cassettes of these related experiences and make a book or essay from it. Bksimonb 08:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to say
I come to wikipedia as a more a cleaner-upper and a fixer, so my attention tends to maybe focus on what is negative and lacking.

I'd like to say that this page is 300% better then it was a year ago, both the article itself and the atmosphere here on the talk page. Sethie 19:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Sethie. It just shows that it is possible. I really appreciate the sanity and consensus that uninvolved editors have brought in. Best regards Bksimonb 05:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * One of the problems I have about this Sethie is that because you do not know anything about the subject, some of your edits are entirely inaccurate.......for example, you say "... He began recieivng messages from what he ..."


 * this actually isn't true....the legend goes god shiva entered into him and them spoke through him, that is a very big difference


 * i think that if you have not actually study the Bkwsu you shouldnt really alter the article significantlyGreen108 01:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is that once you have studied the BKWSU, it's probably v difficult for you to remain neutral. It's precisely for this reason that neutral editors that don't know much about the BKs SHOULD get much more involved. Otherwise it's just a bunch of obsessives wasting huge amounts of time and energy (and maybe money) not getting very far. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Appledell (talk • contribs).


 * I agree in that you don't need to know a subject to know that the article quacks like a biased, top-heavy duck and needs attention. However I don't subscribe to the view that affiliation always compromises neutrality. Association is a problem for a judge involved in a court case but for mere editors of an online encyclopedia that "anyone can edit" then it is more down to understanding and respecting what Wikipedia is aiming to achieve and being able to work with other reasonable editors. Bksimonb 10:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Raja Yoga section is now misleading
Though a citation is probably easier to read than a quote I notice that it now makes Raja Yoga sound like some spooky, ritualistic pointless exercise. Which it isn't. If the change doesn't make an improvement can we please revert back to the quotation until we can come up with something more descriptive.

"Members are encouraged to purify their minds by the practise of Raja Yoga. This can entail sitting tranquilly, in front of a screen which Dada Lehkraj's picture projected, then making a number of "affirmations," regarding the eternal nature of the soul (atma), the original purity of one's nature, and the nature of God (paramatmā Shiva). The Brahma Kumaris believe that practice of Raja Yoga enables spiritual progress as well as having pragmatic benefits, for example, business success. Brahma Kumaris frequently organize seminars on business management and on developing personal life skills"[34].
 * Before

The Brahma Kumaris teach a form of meditation teaches a form of meditation[1] called Raja Yoga, which according to Reender Kranenborg may not be the same as classical Raja Yoga as described by Patanjali[34]. The practise taught by BKWSU involves channelling and mediumship where women are the instruments of a male spirit which is the subject of their meditation.[35][22] through which members are encourage to purify their mind by sitting tranquilly, in front of a screen which Dada Lehkraj's picture.[36]
 * After

Ugh. Bksimonb 20:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd say this is the exact opposite of what I am complaining about above in my ummm section.... putting the medium info in the WRONG place. :) Sethie 20:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The before statement is much better. More neutral and balanced.  Go for it.  (respondingn to Bksimonb, not Sethie who's raising a completely different issue from the previous post)  Renee  --Renee 21:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No... I agree completely Sethie 21:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. Done. Bksimonb 05:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of quotations
I would like to note the removal of quotation during edits. I do not think this is entirely honest or ethical. The quotations given support the article's contents.

Faithinhumanity 15:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Please be more specific. What quotations? If your latest edit was anything to go by all you did was re-introduce stuff that was not in the references being used. Bksimonb 06:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There seem to be a number of references that lack the original quotation and context. I will need more time to go back and identify which ones you and others have removed. They look to be quite deliberate edits. I note from previous discussion pages one editor has removed the quotation and then another editor removed the quotation or related text.


 * I think somebody should give this some attention. Unfortunately, I do not have sufficient time online to do so. Faithinhumanity 17:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Critical websites
I notice that there are no websites either critical or counter-critical listed on the Sathya Sai_Baba or Prem rawat articles. What's the latest policy/guidelines on this? Some of the links on this article link to very negative sites that feature articles critical of Wikipedia editors (such as me!) including personal information. I have listed concerns I have about these sites in an article analysis I did on a June version of the article. Comments are in red.

Would appreciate comments from wider community as to whether any of these anti-BK site links should remain in the article.

Regards Bksimonb 08:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sai Baba and Prem Rawat are living persons, so the rules are more stringently applied. On the other hand, so are you. If you are being unfairly criticised on a particular site I think you are on strong ground to delete the link. Rumiton 13:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, living people! Hmmm. What articles do you think would be more suitable to compare with in that case? Do sites that consist of forums and anonymous self published POV articles pass WP:EL even on non-defamatory grounds? Actually, it does seem to have WP:BLP issues against living people from within the BKWSU. Certainly the article about User:Riveros11 seems to give away quite a lot of personal information. For myself I would say perhaps this forum post is a tad attacking . Regards Bksimonb 14:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Are the two sites you list above linked to the article? If yes, they should be deleted immediately -- they are nothing but opinion blogs with no place in a Wiki article.  Renee   --Renee 14:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes the brahmakumaris.info site I highlighted absolutely is in the article! What do you think regarding the other sites listed under "Critical" in the External Links section article? Here's the list from the article...


 * Critical:
 * Brahmakumaris.info, run by ex-BKs, serving ex-BKs, PBKs and non-BKs, claiming to be neutral and impartial and recognized by three cult awareness organizations
 * A guide to life after leaving the Brahma Kumaris
 * Time and Eternity "Inner Dialogues" by Paul Brocklehurst 2003
 * Overview of Brahma Kumaris, Reachout Trust report


 * Regards Bksimonb 15:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I have no problem at all with the positive sites also getting the chop if they don't meet WP:EL. Regards Bksimonb 15:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Bksimonb,

I checked with some other Indian-based meditation group websites and really the only things listed regarding external sites are the official website of the group and that's it. (See the job IPSOS did on the Sahaj Marg site -- he did a really nice job getting it to be a neutral stub with secondary sources.)

I've done the same here -- deleted any POV site (positive or negative) and left just the links to the organization itself.

best, Renee   --Renee 15:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fine by me :-) Bksimonb 15:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Looking at "further reading" section (other publications), I'd like for editors to notice the following suggested reading materials:


 * 1."Beam them up, Heidi - Remembering the Las Cañadas suicide sect scare. Interreligious Insight."
 * 2.(1997) "Altered States of Consciousness (ASC) Induction and New Religious Movements". Sociology of Religion 58: 141-164.
 * 3.Shaw, William (1994). Spying in Guruland: Inside Britain’s Cults. Fourth Estate, London.


 * deals with the paragraph which already was deleted in relationship with Heidi Fittakau-Garthe. She had her own group. She was found innocent. She had no relationship with BK at the time.
 * I am not quite sure why "induction in NRMs" is related with a Brahma Kumaris article.
 * clearly uses the term "sect." BK was defined as a NRM.
 * I would like to delete those titles if there is consensus. Thank you, Riveros11 01:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sect is harmless. BK has been and is defined as many things, including cult.
 * You cut the Atma splinter group
 * ASC is a properly cited academic paper
 * Spying in Guruland is properly cited research


 * I am sorry Riveros11, your conflict of interest is too strong.


 * As far as the critical websites go, if you look at other comparable groups such as the Scientology topic, the FWBO, Swami Muktananda  , they all have either critical or ex- members sites listed for the sake of balance.


 * At the article has been too twisted out of shape....it is becoming too much like PR for the organisation by the organisation . I am sorry, I have been watching this go on for a year or so. now the references were all brought together, it has to be put back into shape a bit


 * since you Bks so love wikilaws, "On the other hand, the removal of reliably sourced critical material is not permitted." Conflict_of_interestGreen108 01:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The Atma group is not a "splinter group" of BK. Again, take a look at this link by CESNUR. There is no mention of Atma being a splinter of BK.
 * ASC could be a properly cited academic paper. That is not my point. My point is that it is not related with BK at all. As a matter of fact to state that "altered states of mind" deals with Brahma Kumaris is showing a strong bias from your part.
 * Lastly, This article should show consistency throughout. The name used to refer to BK was a NRM. It is not a "cult."
 * I do not appreciate your comment about this article:"it is becoming too much like PR for the organisation by the organisation."specially after counting with neutral editors for the first time. I noticed that you have reverted the article to something suitable for your interest without giving the chance for feedback, thus; I will revert it back the way it was before.
 * It seems that you didn't read the following in your COI wikilaw: '''"If you do write an article on area in which you are personally involved, be sure to write in a neutral tone and cite reliable, third-party published sources.
 * If an administrator advises that you appear to stand in a conflict of interest, take that advice seriously and consider stepping back, reassessing your edits, and discuss the problem with the community." Please note Neutral Tone and Take the Advice and consdier Stepping back. Moreover, "COI edits are strongly discouraged. When they cause disruption to the encyclopedia in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, they may lead to accounts being blocked and embarrassment for the individuals and groups who were being promoted'''.[1] Merely participating in or having professional expertise in a subject is not, by itself, a conflict of interest." It seems to me that you have experienced your account being blocked several times already. Does it ring a bell? Best, Riveros11 03:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Mediumistic chanelling
i'd like to open us the conversation about mediumistic chanelling again that was so quicky erased as soon as simon managed to have be blocked again

i disagree with any suggestion that just to mention it at the top is POV or undue weight....its a fact. each day as a Bk we get up at 6 in the morning to go and listen to a channelled message, each day we get or got up at 4 in the morning to meditate and the object of our yoga is the channelled entity , we go on one holiday a year if we can and it is to go do madhuban to see the channelling and mediumship go , for most the organisations history every thurday , they performed trance mediumship, the do for all sort of other things such as service plans, building , after leaders died , privately for advise so on

what i am emphasising is that channelling and mediumship ARE utterly central to the Bkwsu in a way that it is in no other "yoga". I want to copy in the rest of what i wrote for those editors that do not know what goes on in the Bkwsu

its also wrong to say that the Bkwsu teach a variant of Raja Yoga Bks practise is nothing to do with classical raja yoga. this also needs to be emphasised to be accurate Green108 01:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Focus. First paragraph.
Could we please have the full citation and context for the claim that the BKWSU "focus" is on 4 subjects? All we appear to have is the book title.

Babb, Lawrence A. (1987). Redemptive Encounters: Three Modern Styles in the Hindu Tradition (Comparative Studies in Religion and Society)

Thank you. Faithinhumanity 17:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

How do I make a straight up and down line for linking? Faithinhumanity 17:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * On my keyboard (american) it's the key right below the backspace and above the enter key on the right side (you have to shift to get it, it looks like two up and down dashes). --Renee 16:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

New tactics by some editors
Some editors are now adding things with relatively minor importance in order to make their "big" changes of the article. By doing this, it makes it harder to revert a page since there is a need to go back and add those minor changes in order to avoid being accused of deleting someone else's contribution. This "trick" comes with an unrelated post in the discussion page to ignore previous legit requests for feedback of editors. It would be appreciated if those editors propose their changes before reverting and/or deleting/changing sentences. Please do not change the subject, i requested to take a look at the "further readings" section first (I requested this first). I wrote a rebuttal to green108. I am awaiting his response. Thank you, Riveros11 22:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I feel exactly the same. I ask editors pertintent questions regarding their knowledge of the organisation and whether they have read any of the literature and they are ignored. Naturally, one presumes that is because they have neither.


 * So what is the basis of their point of view? Faithinhumanity 13:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have now attempted to ask two editor what knowledge of the topic they have and whether they have read any of the literature. I do not calculate websites or Google as a proper sources.


 * Both have declined to answered.


 * As far as I can see two other contributors have a clear Conflict of Interest and are acting on behalf on the organisation and are engaged in an edit war to revert and remove other editor's contributions and references. Faithinhumanity 13:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Faithinhumanity, You admit that you are a biased editor, that you have studied this group and know a lot about them. Why do you persist in pushing a POV? Please let neutral editors who have no axe to grind, nor are they interested in PR, move this article into a balanced state. You don't need to have a Ph.D. in the subject to be a neutral editor. Think of newspaper editors or book editors who know nothing about the topic but can recognize biased edits and clean up an article. that is our role. Please respect that. --Renee 14:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * In a journal or academic publishering house, one would be required to have a Ph.D. I asked you if you had any knowledge of the topic or if you had read any of the references. You told us you had no knowledge of the topic and left us assuming you had not read any of the references. How can you make informed decisions about what is and is not accurate or what is or is not biased or POV? You cannot.


 * Equally, it is possible to recognise propaganda and whitewash in a field (new religious movements) awash with deception.


 * In this case it has been illustrated that the other contributors are agents of the organisation itself. Or equally uninformed. Faithinhumanity 18:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If this was say, Encyclopedia Britanica, and an editor started saying stuff like, "I think this NRM is really evil and I feel that it is my moral duty to use this Encyclopedia to inform the world what horrible people they are. As a Christian I am deeply concerned about these issues", do you really think they would assign that editor to edit an article on that subject? Probably not. Bksimonb 06:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a wholly exaggerated and typical polemic as I have come to expect from you. Who is saying the BKWSU is "evil"? Faithinhumanity 19:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes you are correct. It was a comic exaggeration. However the point I was conveying still stands, that is, the reasons you state for your edits are entirely POV based, biased, and increasingly unbelievable. Regards Bksimonb 06:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Diclosure
Disclosure - I have no affiliation with the Brahma Kumaris or any related teacher or organization. I have no affiliation with any anti-Brahma Kumari individuals or groups. My edits are based solely on what I personally see as the most neutral way of stating the information in the article. Period. Any further accusations of conflict of interest will be treated as a personal attack and reported as such. Please stop trying to game the rules by attempting to discredit editors by implying conflict of interest on the part of neutral parties. If you take a look at my edit history you will see that I edit a broad range of articles and have in fact edited 2098 unique pages. Compare that with Faithinhumanity who is clearly a single purpose account who has edited only this article, its talk page, and my talk page. IPSOS (talk) 15:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Welcome. This article has been crying out for a genuinely neutral editor with a bit of commitment to it for a long time. Please stick with it. (By the way, in the interests of disclosure, I'm a BK part-time editor). Appledell 21:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

My opinions
Looking at the current state of the article, the section on AP should be split to another article. Unless the "Use of mediumship" section is supposed to be part of the controversy section, it should be moved up just before the controversy section. Otherwise, the heading level should be changed so that it forms part of the controversy section. Finally, all critical or convtroversial material which is well cited to reliable sources belongs on the controversy section. Material based on poor sources doesn't belong in the article. I've suggested before that problematic sources be discussed one by one, but I'm not sure whether this has happened or whether people are actually observing the conclusions about the sources. The article does seem much better than when I originally observed it. '''Please make small changes, one at a time. Don't do as described above and revert plus add a small change. If that is done, the article may certainly be reverted to correct it. That method generally loses many small formatting changes and rightly makes the editors who have made those minor improvements mad.''' IPSOS (talk) 13:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * IPSOS, Thanks for your work on this. I think your edits sound reasonable.  And yes, I agree that the sources need to be gone through one by one to assess quality.  --Renee 14:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * IPOSOS Used BK sources. This goes against the arbcom ruling. Andries 14:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but I've not used any sources. I have added no material to the article, but rather am choosing which of the other additions and deletions by other editors to support. You accusatory tone is not at all helpful, since you clearly are not paying attention to what is actually going on. Also, I was not a party to the arbitration. If other parties are bound by arbitration, you should take the time to determine precisely who made the disallowed addition before flinging around accusations. IPSOS (talk) 15:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Andries. Can you specify where in the article you see this as a particular problem? The arbcom ruling states, "except with respect to information which is not controversial" . Bksimonb 15:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ipsos re-added a BKWSU source in a revert and I think the arb com ruling applies to all editors working on this page. Andries 15:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please show in what way the material is controversial. IPSOS (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is the burden of proof on me? Is there statistical data that proves that what BKWSU states is true or secondary sources giving the same numbers? Small religious movements tend to exaggerate the number of people involved. Andries 15:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Which is why it is very clearly attributed. Bksimonb 16:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand, but so what? The arbcom ruling did not mention anything about it. Andries 16:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe the usual process is to present some sourced counter-evidence. As you say, everyone knows small groups tend to inflate their membership figures. This is frequently not really intentional, however, as most groups have no formal process for revoking membership and have no way of determining what members are still active. The same problem afflicts mainstream churches. So? IPSOS (talk) 16:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Andries, Here are some other articles that quote the organisation's claimed membership.
 * Scientology - "The Church of Scientology claimed to have 10 million members as of 2006"
 * Sai Baba - "and followers cite 50 to 100 million"
 * Bahá’í - The official international website claims to have "more than five million Bahá’ís resident in some 100,000 localities in every part of the world."
 * "Jehovah’s Witnesses count as adherents the number attending its meetings, which as of 2006 is some 16.5 million."
 * Church of World Messianity - "The religion currently claims 800,000 followers"
 * So it is not such an unusual thing to do. Also, the context of the Arbcom ruling was that primary sources were being used to make outright unattributed statement of facts, if you look at the article circa last December, or even as recently as begining of July. Thankfully we are over the worst of that now. Regards Bksimonb 17:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I was aware that some other articles do the same, but they do not have an arbcom ruling about this. Andries 21:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And I don't believe the arbcom ruling intended to apply to this sort of thing which is done elsewhere. It was a qualified ruling an intended to prevent the peacock phrased presentation of BK teachings from only the BK point of view, not to limit mundane statements of membership or size when clearly qualified by source so readers know to take them with a grain of salt. IPSOS (talk) 23:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * When you read the wording of the arbcom ruling then I think there can be little doubt that this a violation. I do not know about intentions. I cannot read the minds of the members of arbcom. Andries 23:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it is better to use the adherents website http://www.adherents.com/Na/Na_83.html#584 Andries 23:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It is better to use both. Which I said right at the beginning of this exchange. "I believe the usual process is to present some sourced counter-evidence." If you add sourced information to the article without removing other sourced information, I doubt anybody would object. IPSOS (talk) 01:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see any problem with using both sources either. One problem with membership figures is that no one outside the BKWSU will have ever done an independent census. That would take considerable resources to do without relying on the organistation itself for figures. So on one hand there is a mistrust of NRMs to accurately report their membership figures and on the other hand who else is counting and how? Solution - report both.


 * Actually, the figures for 1993 are quite close to what I was told were the figures by the BKWSU itself in 1994. So when using these figures it is important to present them in context of the date reported. Another factor is whether the figures include India or not. The 35000 figure specifically seems to exclude India. Regards Bksimonb 05:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I've added the stats from adherents.com. Regards Bksimonb 06:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * On what grounds does the BKWSU decide whether an individual is a member or not? How does it estimate its membership? Are those estimates verified by any external body? If these questions cannot be answered, then I think the figure is unreliable. Faithinhumanity 18:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, it is based on the number of people who attend their murli classes. It estimates its figures from an annual census it conducts with all its centres (granted this is not done in a sophisticated academic way, but at least they do it). These estimates are not verified by any external body - although census stats from some countries might give an indication (although certainly in the case of Indian-origin BKs, they are more likely to just put "hindu" so even census figures are limited in their reliability). Appledell 21:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Andries would you please point to the portion of the Arbcon ruling which says NO BK sources can be used, I am not seeing that anywhere Sethie 18:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * what is section on AP?


 * IPSOS, you were not around for the arbcom decision........it said clearly no such primary sources.


 * but fine, if the Brahma Kumari followers can use primary sources , and this one has no verification at all , then others can to.........Its got to go two ways sethie.


 * I used to be a teacher and a surrendered BK, I know what the problem is here . There is no "membership" and are no such thing as "members" at all...........No official figures, they just make things up , even the figures copied by academics are just copied directly from what the Bks said earlier


 * something that would be acceptable would be gevernmental census figures, and these do exist with the Bks marked on them. I am sorry but there is too much doubt on Bkwsu sources and the intentions of Bk editors right now , so it must be external sources ........Green108 19:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If it so clearly says "NO primary sources" then please clearly point to that. Sethie 20:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There are official figures (as in figures officially used by the BKs) - there is an annual census conducted via all the centres. I don't know if you ever ran a centre, if you did you should know about this. You might think that the process used to collate these figures is baloney, but that's a separate issue. Appledell 21:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Other publications section
I will go ahead and delete the following references tomorrow unless someone has a legitimate (reasonable) objection. So far, green108 presented his objections and i responded without further reasonable objection from him. (see above) The entries are:

1."Beam them up, Heidi - Remembering the Las Cañadas suicide sect scare. Interreligious Insight." This one has no place in this article, since the person involved was found innocent moreover, she wasn't related with BK at all at the time. See link above to CESNUR. 2.(1997) "Altered States of Consciousness (ASC) Induction and New Religious Movements". Sociology of Religion 58: 141-164. I can see a title like this in an article about NRM in general, but it demonstrates a negative bias (Altered states of consciousness) if it is only used for BK.

3.Shaw, William (1994). Spying in Guruland: Inside Britain’s Cults. Fourth Estate, London. The word "cult" has a dreaded connotation, specially since it is referring to a NRM. Moreover, this article it is not about UK cults, it is about the world wide organization BK.

Best, Riveros11 09:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * reg. 2. No, I do not think that removing it is a good idea because the BK is used as an example. In Wikipedia we follow what reputable sources have stated, regardless if some editors think that these sources demonstrate a negative bias. Also, I think that altered state of consciousness is a very neutral term and now I will drink some coffee that will bring me in an mildly altered state of consciousness. Andries 09:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Easy on the sugar, Andries. You know how you get. :-) Rumiton 10:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * reg. 3 I read that the book was quite symapthetic to NRMs in spite of its title. And additionally, even if it were not, mere bias of sources is not a reason to disqualify it as a reputable source. All sources about politics and religion are biased to some extent, even by the selection and space they devote to certain topics. Andries 09:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * But does it mention BK? If not, it should be removed regardless of other considerations. IPSOS (talk) 13:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does . Andries 13:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1. Redundant now I guess. No strong feelings either way with the Heidi article.
 * 2. I don't personally think "altered states of consciousness" is negative. In fact, it's an plus point :-)
 * 3. This book is about several NRMs. It seems the BKs aren't it's main focus. If it belongs in this article then it should be equally included in the articles of all other NRMs it mentions. Is it? I'm in a meeting and don't have time to check right now.
 * Regards Bksimonb 13:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think if there's an actual description of BK in any sort of way it's legitimate to include. For example, it should be a real reference for people who want to learn more about BK, so it needs to actually have some substance about BK (and not just an off-hand mention once or twice) -- doesn't have to be the focus but needs more than being included in a list.   --Renee 16:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well it includes an interview with a "confused former BK" so I guess it qualifies to stay in. Regards Bksimonb 17:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I've beamed up the Heidi link since there seemed to be no objections to that. Regards Bksimonb 06:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks "Captain"...on my way to other things warp 5... Best, Riveros11 09:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

BK want to remove images
Just to point out, the BKs want to remove the images

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wdivinedecree.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cycle_and_Trimurti_A4.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Brahmakumaris-cycle.jpg] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Woriginaltree.jpg

i uploaded them.......they are 72 dpi, which is low resolution. i dont see any problem and i have stated openly that i do not believe this is the reason that the Bkwsu wants them removed

if it just a matter of size, they can be made smallerGreen108 20:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have [replied] on your talk page. I also find your choice of heading, "BK want to remove images" somewhat inappropriate. Also I don't think what you are saying about DPI will wash with the wider community here. An image that is over 1000 or even 2000 pixels in each direction is high resolution. Do I really need to raise an rfc to establish that? Regards Bksimonb 06:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Folks, What's the issue with the pictures? Can someone please explain the support and objections?  Thanks, Renee  --Renee 11:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It's the fair use rationale. This is the rational used for each of these pictures...


 * Fair Use rationale


 * This is a low resolution reproduction of poster published by the Brahma Kumaris Godly Vishwa-Vidyalaya during the 1970s and is offered for critical commentary in support of the facts within the topic.


 * Where there is disagreement between editors, or indeed published commentors, on the subject of the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University it is correct to present illustrative materials that provide without any doubt contested dates or facts. The item can have have no negative economic affect on the title holders, if they can be identified and any applies, as it was never a commercially marketed item and was widely distributed .


 * Firstly, "This is a low resolution reproduction of poster...", is it? What do you think? I would say 1702 × 2379 pixel is quite high resolution.


 * Secondly, "Where there is disagreement between editors, or indeed published commentors, on the subject of the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University it is correct to present illustrative materials that provide without any doubt contested dates or facts.". What is this statement saying? These are primary sources and they are being used to prove "contested dates or facts". This is interesting because the arbcom ruling stated that, "Primary documents can be quoted in order to accurately describe uncontroversial items, but using them to illustrate controversial facts or conclusions is inappropriate." . If "disagreement between editors" is anticipated then it would seem that the fair-use rationale being used here is completely at odds with the arbcom ruling.


 * Thirdly, why use such old documents anyway. This article is about the BKWSU in the present tense, not as they were in the 1940s. The pictures are course material and presenting old course material is like writing about a present-day school in terms of the text books they used in the 1940s. I have a really neat fold-out pamphlet from about 10 years ago I could scan that shows the whole Indian-style BK course in pictures. I could easily get this scanned as high-resolution as you like since I could acquire the permission to use it. Quite colourful they are too :-)


 * Regards Bksimonb 12:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm somewhat familiar without copyright law. This is simply not fair use. IPSOS (talk) 12:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your insight. Would you be kind enough elaborate on where it falls down wrt copyright? I'm curious more than anything so that I can more accurately address these issues. Thanks Bksimonb 13:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I simply don't have time right now. I'd suggest finding the copyright discussion page and ask there. Sorry but I don't have time to track that down right now either. IPSOS (talk) 13:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * OK I kind of sensed that you might not be able to expand on the subject due to more pressing concerns. No worries :-). Regards Bksimonb 13:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 72 dpi?? "The size of the image in pixels is all that matters on any video screen."what is defined as "high res" pic in wiki? (using pixels, of course) Best, Riveros11 14:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The first person is correct but what they are really speaking about is "spatial resolution". An image depends on a number of properties set by the application creating the image. For practical purposes the clarity of the image is decided by its spatial resolution, that is the number of dpis, not the merely the number of pixels in an image.


 * So a very big image, or an image of a very big thing, 10,000 x 10,000 pixels could still be "low resolution" if its properties were set as such. Likewise, a small image could also be high resolution if its properties were set at 300 or 600 dpi. I actually know a little bit about this stuff. Its simple, try printing a 72 dpi image and compare it to a "high resolution" one. Lwachowski 17:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The images are very interesting and support the article well. The article includes the history of the organisation and is not just about the present. Lwachowski 17:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * DPI is used for printing resolution (dots per inch)properly. As far as wiki standards I believe most of the pics you have posted violate the following wiki policy Best, Riveros11 14:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Receiving messages
I have a question about the historical section. Its says, Brahma Baba started "receiving messages". This is not what we were taught at our center and I think it gives a wrong impression, as if he was a psychic medium or something. What we were taught was that God starting speaking through him.

Should this not be corrected? I will give it a go. Lwachowski 17:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well..... you need a source which says that, and private teachings you recieved at a center don't count. Sethie 19:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is mentioned in a number of the books and articles included on the page. I would not have said so if it was not. --Lwachowski 05:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Village Outreach Programme
Can anyone tell me what this "Village Outreach Programme" or how notable it is? I looked on Google and the only links I could find were both from the org itself. Also, who funds this stuff? Thanks Lwachowski 18:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a programme that is operated by the Global Hospital in Mount Abu. It's funded by the hospital. As I understand it, it serves at least a hundred villages in and around Mount Abu. The programme gives free consultations and check-ups, instruction in hygiene and primary healthcare. Hope that helps Appledell 18:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * In terms of notability we are not writing a whole article about it. To mention it in the article just needs as source to confirm it exists and is connected with the BKWSU. The story of Global Hospital is covered in some detail in "Peace and Purtiy" by Liz Hodginson Chapter 7. Walliss mentions it briefly in his 2002 book at the bottom of page 41. It is also mentioned on these non-BK web pages here and here. From these sources (even excluding the Hodginson source) it is possible to establish that there is an "outreach programme", it offers health check ups of needy and senior citizens and children and it is established by the BKWSU. That should be enough for the one sentence in which it is mentioned.
 * Regards Bksimonb 19:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Use of the word "claims"
The use of the word "claims" is almost never correct. See NPOV tutorial which among other things say Whenever "said", "wrote", or "stated" are options, they are usually the safest. IPSOS (talk) 13:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm so glad to hear other editors point this out! The word "claims" casts doubt on the sentence and creates a point-of-view.  Look at the difference in these two sentences:  "Lwachowski claims he is not Green108" vs "Lwachowski says he is not Green108."  The first subtly suggests that the writer does not believe Lwachowski's claim, while the second merely states what Lwachowski says.  --Renee 14:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I see that in Dr Walliss's book, claim is used and so can be used as a direct quotation. To remove 'claim' and state that their guiding spirit 'is' God creates an even bigger POV.


 * Again it comes down to whether you have read the material that has been written on the group. Claim can be used where correct. See []. Its a very small issue. The problem is we are trying to get away from using 'believe' too many times.


 * There are alternatives; profess, view, consider, speculate, hold but where we are dealing with The Divinity we should be cautious. It would appear to a timewasting application of one interpretation of policy that best be discussed on the policy page and not here.


 * BKs believe the spirit that enters their medium is the God of all religions and that their deceased founder is the Father of Humanity. No other religion does. If we state "God" as an abstract term oni ts own, then we are creating confusion over what is and what is being said. We cannot say their Shiva BapDada is God. We cannot use the term God for BapDada without it being accurately qualified as a claim, or a belief, or a speculation.


 * Is that not logical? --Lwachowski 16:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "I see that in Dr Walliss's book, claim is used and so can be used as a direct quotation." As you mentioned that is Dr. Walliss's bookhere, is Wikipedia. He can write whatever his heart desires in his book.In wikipedia there are things like "POVs," "NPOVs" and such acronyms. The use of some words may indicate a strong bias. Best, Riveros11 17:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Introduction of factual errors. Stay Cool.
IPSOS

you are introducing factual errors in your edits that display a lack of knowledge in this organisation. You are placing requests for citations where they have already been given which suggest that you have not read any and cannot recognise them. Your revisions are becoming increasing aggressive which suggests it is not entirely rational but that you are engaging in some abstract battle of wills now. Please stay cool.

It would appear overly pedantic to make a revision of 'BK' to 'they' or 'referred to' instead of 'call" but I have incorporated some if not all and tempered by own edits to find a middle way between the two.

I have also incorporated your changes where they are accurate but where they go outside of what has been written, I cannot do so. I also dispute your attack on the fair use of images.

Note of channelling and mediumship does not provoke undue weight where there is no valued judgement placed upon it and is accurate. --Lwachowski 16:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I am not. I am making the article correspond to the reference where there are differences. IPSOS (talk) 16:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, please don't simply make blanket statements like this. Stop changing the article and discuss on talk page. You are the new editor here. Please discuss changes with older, established editors who are aware of prior consensus before proceeding. IPSOS (talk) 16:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * BKsimonb added this line to the first paragraph on August 4.  It says the word "channeled" but in reference to the "Murlis," which appear to be central to BKWSU and belong in the intro.
 * The study is based on channeled messages, known as 'Murlis'. 
 * What would you think about re-adding this back in? It might solve (some) of the edit wars.  --Renee 18:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Its not possible to come to a consensus with editors that obviously do not know the subject.--Lwachowski 05:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Your attitude is completely unacceptable.


 * And your edits show that attitude- massive amounts of controversial changes with next to no discussion.


 * If you are going to edit from that place and discuss from that place, please leave, now.


 * Before you showed up, this page was enjoying more harmony and stability, and actual discussion leading to decisions, leading to changes then it has since I have seen it, and I have had my eye on the page for over a year now.


 * Slow down. Sethie 06:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Amen! Bksimonb 16:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 3 times a charm! Riveros11 17:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Notes of edits

 * Line 53: If we are to use the acronyms BKWSU and BK, we need to define it early on.
 * I personally disagree with your use of the acronym BK. Out of respect for the subject, this abbreviation should not be used later in the article. IPSOS (talk) 07:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It is the organisation's own prefered acronym, appears widely across the written media and confer authority and status to followers. As with any other group, it is useful and accurate --Lwachowski 17:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Line 59: Mediumship and channelling (both) are utter central and defining of this religion it is not POV to state that. It is POV to exclude it.
 * Except that it's not excluded. It's covered in depth later in the article, and there is a consensus that that is the right way to present it. Please don't run ramshakle over other editor's decisions. IPSOS (talk) 07:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Your POV. The organisation's COI. The outstanding use of channelling and mediumship, I am specific in the use of both, is primal and central to the organisation's practise and activities. It also qualifies the difference between the organisation's practise called Raja Yoga and Classical Raja Yoga with which it has no relationship and is not a variant of. This position is suported in the references and would be support by the organisation themselves. I suggest you ask them --Lwachowski 17:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Line 78: It is correct and according to the references given to state God entered the medium and spoke through him. It is incorrect to state the knowleedge (Murli) came through the sisters. Primary source. Reads like advert.
 * The reference link links directly to a specific section of the reference. What you are saying is not in that section of the reference. Please include new reference or specific link to the section which verifies your new content. IPSOS (talk) 07:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I will do but largely such a pedantic obstruction of accuracy is disingenuous where it is clear contradicted elsewhere in the article. We have to aim for both consistent accuracy as well as sustainability. --Lwachowski 17:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Line 102: Does not require defence. It is accurate, explicitly referenced and set the background for later developments.
 * It's not referenced. If the reference covers the part you are adding, move the reference to the end. Also, the way it is written seems to have a POV tone. Try a more neutral tone and try supporting each statement with a citation with a page number. Make sure the reference actually says what you are saying. Make sure the other editors agree with the tone. IPSOS (talk) 07:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not worth sacrificing detail and accuracy. It is generally expected in an encyclopaediac context that any sincere reader would take the time to read the references the article provides. You comment suggests that you have not actual read either of the books on the subject. --Lwachowski 17:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Line 264: Quote is clear that soul-aware yogis refers only to BK followers and bhogis are non-BK. This is also correct according the organisation's teachings where the dichotomy is often made. The quote does not refer to other yoga followers who would be referred to as bhagats and not considered soul-conscious or gyani company.
 * I object to the use of the abbreviations BK and non-BK. Find another way to state it, using for example, member and non-member. IPSOS (talk) 07:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no specific objection to this as long as the statement is an accurate reflection. I do however think that it is necessary to define BK, as so many references in the media are made to it, and it is fair to use.--Lwachowski 17:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Line 238: "The Sould World" is correct, it is a proper name. "A soul world" is incorrect. There is only one "Soul World" according to the BK.
 * That should have read "The Soul World". I correct myself. --Lwachowski 17:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Line 238: The problem with the use of the word Nirvana here is that it is used in a different sense to the manner in which it is commonly used by Buddhist and hence needs qualifying.
 * I disagree with your distinction. Do you have a source which specifically states that? IPSOS (talk) 07:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * How acquainted are you with both Buddhist and Brahma Kumari usages? It would be impossible for me to explain without understanding. It would be wrong of us to allow the topic to be use by the organisation to proselytize its faith. Writing on any topic requires some specialism in that area which I have. If you follow the link to the page on Nirvana, a Buddhist concept adopted BKs, you will discern contradictions. The term they generally use is "Paradham". A better compromise would be to remove the contentious terminology which I will do. One problem we have in cultic studies is that the group general develop a language of their own using terms taken form elsewhere. --Lwachowski 17:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Line 349: This is correct as state. No need to introduce a POV. There is no benefit to introducing one author unless you are going to introduce all authors.
 * Sorry, where there is disagreement on the topic, who says what is important. Leave it in. If you have additional opinions to introduce, do so. IPSOS (talk) 07:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Where is the disagreement or contradiction between the quoted authors? It is factually accurate.--Lwachowski 17:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Line 413: This is correct and is what happens. BapDada as we have stated is two souls (Shiva Baba and Brahma Baba) not one. They communicate primarily by entering (possessing) and speaking directly through the chariot (body) not having messages relayed by a medium (although this does also happen).
 * This sounds like synthesis. What source specifically says this. The source cited earlier, as I pointed out, did not. IPSOS (talk) 07:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine. I will change the references and remove the contentions. Which source are you most acquainted with and I will use it? --Lwachowski 17:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Line 494: This proves your lack of exposure to any of the cited references many of which contain this detail. Don't slap tag just because you do not know. Please read the books or ask another editor first please.
 * Line 518: Ditto.
 * Any editor may request a citation. Don't be bloody rude. IPSOS (talk) 07:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There were two pleases in one sentence. I also have a right to expect you do put in some work at your end, otherwise your action can be interpreted as uninformed vandalism. --Lwachowski 17:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Line 518: Too many believes. Not good written English. Profess is correct.


 * Line 559: Walliss's paper is actually an extract from his book "Brahma Kumaris as a Reflexive Tradition". It is not overtly critical even though it cannot help observing extreme belief that extist within the movement. I suggest the book as a good starting point for any scholar interesting in this religion.


 * Line 603: Replaced controversies. No good reason has been given for the removal of these clearly cited references. They are accurate.


 * Line 603: Replace stub regarding AIVV. To exclude a brief mention of the PBK would be equivalent to writing a topic on Christianity and excluding Protestants, to paraphase Walliss on the subject. The stub is accurate link to main article.


 * Line 609: PBK relates to PBK reference above.


 * Line 1,171: Title reverted as it is overly pedantic and not in accordance to the example given on the Wikipedia page which do not follow the author's assertion.
 * The actual title of the website in the title bar should be used. IPSOS (talk) 07:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not the example as it is given on the Wikipedia page on this matter. Whoever wrote the policy does not agree with you. --Lwachowski 17:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Please appreciate that I have taken my time and studied these matters closely and accurately. I am aware of the teachings of this organisation and the literature on them. --Lwachowski 05:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not discussion. IPSOS (talk) 06:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I assure you this this is very much like discussion within an academic environment.


 * I refer to the message left on my user page. I am sorry but I must consider it to be a further example of aggressive and disingenuous misuse of Wikipedia policy in order to support your own edits.


 * Please assert your position based based on your knowledge of the references I have used and study what I have done. I spent a considerable time make small corrections. By all mean raise issues of contention but do not undo good work. Thank you. --Lwachowski 17:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:DEADLINE Slow down!!!!!!! Sethie 06:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No such policy. --Lwachowski 17:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * However, consensus is a policy. You have not achieved it. And attribution is also a policy. You must provide sources which match your changed. You may not change the text with a citation in such a way that the citation no longer supports it. As a newcomer, you have a lot to learn about how Wikipedia works and should defer to more experienced editors about what is and is not required. If you don't provide satisfactory references and don't achieve consensus that your changes are both verifiable and neutral in tone, then you are wasting your time. All your changes will be repeatedly reverted until you begin to comply with the requests of other editors and Wikipedia policy. IPSOS (talk) 17:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * [I have] "studied these matters closely and accurately." Are you an expert in religious studies? just curious. Best, Riveros11 14:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It is difficult to discuss if you will not allow for it on your discussion page Ipsos and you will not answer. If you study the edits I have made, you will see that they are progressive and corrective. My all accounts raise your issues and provide your references but please do not blindly revert good copy. --Lwachowski 17:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, if you are going to play this by the letter of the law instead of the spirit of the law, as I read it; "consensus is not immutable", "the consensus process does not require posting to the discussion page", "minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns" and no answer means consensus given. See notes on edits above. --Lwachowski 21:37, August 28, 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like to see the re-insertion of the Reachout Trust link. And the references to the breaking up of families. There also used to be a reference to their concept of other religious leaders. Faithinhumanity 17:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There is already a reference for family conflict, "According to Kościańska, of the Institute of Ethnology and Cultural Anthropology, Warsaw University,[61] the BKWSU's stance on celibacy was found to cause conflict within some families of followers.[62]". The problem with the Reachout Trust link and BK concept of other religious leaders is that in both directions you have one religion commenting on another. This is an article about the subject in question only. Bksimonb 19:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like to suggest we remove Nirvana which is misleading because of the prior, established and far more widely spread, Buddhist understanding; and replace it with Paramdham which is more accurate. References to be supplied.--Lwachowski 08:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest just using the term "soul world" since it is more much easier to reference. I did a brief text search through Walliss and whatever I have that's text searchable and kind find Paramdham mentioned in any useful way. "Soul world" is the expression used in Walliss's book on page 55.
 * "Within Raja Yoga it is called the `Soul World' or the `Home of Souls' and is characterised by `light', `silence', `peace', `liberation', `stillness' and `complete purity' and is experienced as `golden-red, divine light' (op. cit., p. 33). ". Regards Bksimonb 16:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

External links rfc
Talkabout, please explain why you are re-inserting external links that were removed after as a result of an rfc]. I only closed the rfc a couple of days ago since there was no further input and it seemed to be resolved. You certainly visited this page during the time it was open so why didn't you comment then? Please do not go against this decision again. You may consider raising another rfc to reconsider this outcome. Thanks and regards Bksimonb 06:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It was a unilateral decision on Bksimonb's behalf, and not a formal RfC. It goes against the examples given on other pages such as comparable movements such as Scientology, Moonies, Eckankar, Siddha Yoga, Children of God and so on which all contain comparable links.
 * If the author is not engaged in removing all such links from all new religious movements then it would confirm a personal interest. --Lwachowski 17:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Lwachowski, I guess you were not informed that we had a previous discussion about these issues. They were resolved sometime ago.FYI. I understand that you are the "new kid on the block here," I respectfully suggest for you to get acquainted with whatever is going on here...otherwise, it may seem that "re encarnation" is taking place in the green vineyards.. Best, Riveros11 17:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Lwachowski, very stubborn for a beginner! Hope you know what is 3RR. Best, Riveros11 17:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The purpose of an Encyclopedia is to further our collective knowledge. It also requires an attention to written skills and composition. Thank you for your welcome but it appears that your intentions are obvious very different from mine. Please do not revert corrected copy. --Lwachowski 17:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Lwachowski, if I wanted to make unilateral decisions then raising an rfc is probably the wrong way to go about it. How can an rfc that appears on the appropriate rfc noticeboard inviting all editors for input not be "formal"? Live with it. Regards Bksimonb 17:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, lawachowsky..as you said my intentions are different than yours. I am aiming for consensus.. and you? Please post here your suggested changes before making the unilateral desicion to change the article as you want. Thanks, Riveros11 18:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I made my comment above. Reinsertion of copy errors is vandalism. --Lwachowski 18:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Reinsertion of copy errors is surely vandalism.
I make my point again. Reinsertion of copy errors is surely vandalism. By all account raise the issues you wish to or remove the elements you think are contention. But please do not blindly reinsert of copy errors. This is surely vandalism.

If you wish to comment, I have clarified every edits except for the simple copy edits above. Thank you. --Lwachowski 18:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I for one don't find your clarification useful. You are changing text based on citation to text that can't be verified to that citation. You can't do that. And you haven't replied to where I've explained that you can't do that. And you are making no attempt to achieve consensus with the several established editors of this article. IPSOS (talk) 18:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, and you are quite welcome to fix the errors without reverting to your version, which you have not yet done. You only revert and fix, wasting everyone's time. IPSOS (talk) 18:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Lwachowski now that you have been blocked, would you consider behaving properly? Best, Riveros11 19:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have missed you guys lately, working on mundane stuff like Discount Tire Company. What an exciting life you lead! Rumiton 11:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What is meant by "returning to the world"? Is it possible to leave it? Or do you mean the everyday world, or the world of family life, or something like that? Rumiton 11:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Good of you to drop by :-) Where is "returning to the world" used? I can't find it anywhere else on this page. Is it in the article somewhere? And yes, we are not short of action here recently. If you're hanging around you might want to wear some protective clothing! Regards Bksimonb 12:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the welcome and the warning. I am, of course, protectively clad in my cloak of transparent virtue and helmet of invincible otherworldliness. :-)   "Returning to the world for girls who have such dowries paid for them, is difficult." ??  Rumiton 09:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah that 'ol chestnut! That means that having chosen a life with the BKWSU and no longer having a dowry, later trying to re-integrate with the traditional expectations, systems and customs of Indian society would be difficult. No dowry means marriage would not be an easy option. I would say the issues are with a lack of women's rights and options in general in traditional India rather than with the BKWSU. In effect the BKWSU is providing a way out for those who would prefer to live a spiritual path rather than a family life. I am also cautious of generalising Indian social norms because I am aware that the landscape is changing rapidly there and there are now many women working in the new industries such as IT. Hope that helps clarify. Regards Bksimonb 09:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hhhmm. Maybe you need to expand this slightly in the article. As it stands, the reader may sniff an odour of spiritual superiority (we are not of this world) from the line, which from your explanation may be quite unjustified. Rumiton 10:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Would you be able to suggest an alternative line since I don't understand quite where the concern is myself? I accept I may be a bit myopic on this one so I appreciate an outside view. It seems the last line is a direct quote from the reference. Maybe it needs to be re-phrased to make sense in the article. Regards Bksimonb 10:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I may well be a little over-sensitive, but having been around a number of spiritual groups it raises a flag for me when I hear groupists refer to themselves and their culture (no pun intended) as being better than, or separate from, the rest of humanity. Returning to the world smacks of this. It is the kind of pride that goes before a major fall, from what I have seen. If you can find references to expand on it the way you just did for me I think it would be a lot better. Rumiton 12:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Guess we have a bone to pick with Julie Howell then! How about something like, "Returning to a life outside the institution for girls who have such dowries paid for them, is difficult." Is that more neutral? Regards Bksimonb 13:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you are going the other way now, with institution. Pretty negative connotations. I think the way you explained it above makes it understandable, but you will have to support it with refs of course. Rumiton 13:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What about "Returning to a life away from the organisation"? I can't see how that has any other negative connonatation - it is just factual, based on the ref. Appledell 20:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Rumiton. You would be correct to say that the Brahma Kumaris think themselves and their religion to be superior to all others. Not only do they think they are superior but they think that all other religions, including Christianity, are a partial offshoot of their own religion. This is and should be reflected in the topic. Faithinhumanity 17:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Faithinhumanity, When someone starts to make pronouncements about what other people "think", to me, that immediately sounds alarm bells. Also the discussion is about the way Julie Howell phrased something, you appear to be making a false association here. The belief that "Raja Yoga is the precursor to and influence of world religions" is already in the article and referenced to Walliss. Raja yoga also entails becoming free from ego and arrogance, which would by definition excludes any type of negative superiority complex. Me thinks the above post maybe intended to create divisions. Bksimonb 08:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * To believe that BK is "superior" than any other religion is a gross misinterpretation of the knowledge. There is a concept in BK, "numberwise" and also the view of actors playing a role according to their own nature (sanskars), (which indeed is predestined however paradoxical when free will comes into the picture) We are equal but different. These are concepts which are hard to grasp if your trend of thought is linear.. a "black or white" type of guy...Sometimes I wonder about the ex-bk claim of "expertise" in gyan. Best, Riveros11 13:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Lwachowski is back!
Welcome back Lwachowski. I trust that you are a sensible individual and that you will discuss here before making changes in the article. I see that new editors are showing up all of the sudden doing the same trick; not a good strategy. Best, Riveros11 01:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Also I note that the "new" editor has created a WP:POVFORK article, History of the Brahma Kumaris movement. Hasn't this been tried before with the very same (or very close) title? In any case, I've nominated it for deletion. There would have to be a consensus to split the article in this way, and I don't believe there is any such consensus or need. IPSOS (talk) 01:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't believe this is the right time to make a new article on the history. It's a "peace time" concern and best done by editors who have not acted in such a way as to challenge the good faith of the community. I am also concerned about the motives of this fork. There has been a lot of pressure until recently to insert original research into the article especially regarding the organisation's history, and it appears to be done in bad faith, that is, to show the BKWSU in a negative light as evidenced by the unreferenced comment at the end of this diff.


 * I know the background to some of these facts and figures and can say that they are being somewhat misinterpreted. There is no need to discuss the details here because OR has no place on Wikipedia in the first place and also I've found that trying to discuss it turns the Talk page into a discussion forum. Those that have documented the history such as Jagsish Chander and Liz Hodgekinson interviewed eye-witnesses from that time to get the context of the various events. The secondary sources are based largely on what they have written. That may be considered to be biased, but as an encyclopedia with strict rules regarding original research, that's all we have to work with. Regards Bksimonb 07:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * By now it should be evident that there are some user accounts which every editor here nows about, who are forcefully trying to discredit the BK movement, anyway they can. It is sad to see Wikipedia being used to endorse their highly biased views. I wonder if there is a need to go through another type of "arbitration" to see the obvious? I mean, will this "back and forward" thing last til the end of times? Is that the aim of wikipedia? why not delete the whole thing and get it over with? To be honest rather than an on-line encyclopedia, for the most part it seems that this is an "on-line battleground." ..but i will play the game while it lasts... Best, Riveros11 13:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've found it is best to narrow my focus to policy, articles, and specific events and actions of editors (with diffs). Speculating on the motives of editors is something I've found to be counterproductive, as is lamenting about the perceived shortcomings of Wikipedia. Also I believe we can solve the issues around this article without arbitration. Arbitration is for when there is no consensus even after rfcs and mediation. Here there is now a clear consensus regarding what is and isn't disruptive editing. It's not something that just looks to outsiders like an edit war between two rival factions anymore. Just hold on in there :-) Regards Bksimonb 15:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Speculating about motives of editors? sounds a little odd to "hear" that coming from you. Lamenting? isn't that speculating? We went through arbitration before, without RFCs and without mediation, the outcome? not much...(perhaps another speculation or lamentation?) policies, lawyers, specific events and such things take the "humanness" out of something created by humans, IMHO... Best Wishes, Riveros11 15:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The unreferenced comment would appear to be that taken from Dr John Walliss. We always have the choice of adding references where we know they exist and see them instead of deleting them.
 * IPSOS, how much do you know about the history of the organisation on which to make a judgement? --Lwachowski 23:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

afd
To whom it may concern: Articles for deletion/History of the Brahma Kumaris movement Sethie 04:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Walliss quote. Removal of content without seeking consensus.
IPSOS,

I am sorry but you are plain and absolutely wrong about the Walliss quote.


 * Have you actually read the book?

I have to underline that unless you have it is impossible for us to discuss this topic and I am not going to be intimidated by your avalanche of acronyms.


 * a) In Walliss book he makes no references to the teachings of Patanjali's Raja Yoga
 * b) Raja Yoga is one of the term that BK followers call the path they are following. When the author refers to "Raja Yoga" in this context, he is referring to the BK "religion".
 * c) The discussion with the BK follower he is referring to SPECIFICALLY refer to the BK Raja Yoga belief of teaching which is accurately reflected in the quotation. Due to the cyclic concept of time, BKs believe that this is the time when God comes to earth and all religions are establish from their founders, e.g. the reincarnated Buddha, learning from Him and the BKWSU. This is self evident from the quotation.

This also perfectly underlines WHY the difference between BK Raja Yoga and Classic Patanjali Raja Yoga. Please note, no other major world religion preceded Patanjali's Raja Yoga by 2,000 years as he writes. Please check your history! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lwachowski (talk • contribs) 05:58, August 30, 2007 (UTC)


 * Removal of significant content and working to consensus.

I have no idea what your intention of stripping this article of content and references and I have no idea how far you wish to go but if you demand of me that I work to consensus, then I think you have to as well.

If you think the article requires more clarification, then flag it up with a fact tag. --Lwachowski 05:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Look, the only thing I took out was named references which HAD NO CONTENT. Look at the notes after you revert the article! References [7], [22], [24], and [39] are empty, there is no text in the reference. It is not a citation, it is blank. I am removing NON-FUNCTIONAL named reference because they have no content. Don't put them back unless you FIX THEM. IPSOS (talk) 12:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Second, I don't have to get consensus to revert a change you made without consensus yourself, as evidenced below.


 * Third, I've asked you repeatedly not to post on my talk page. You've repeatedly done this attempting to cut other editors out of the loop. This is not about you and me, this is about your refusal to discuss your changes and insertions first with ALL the editors of this article and get consensus for them. None of the concerns I've brought up about your edits have been address, they have been brushed off. You persist in making the article say things that your quoted references don't actually say. You are outnumbered and cannot possibly succeed in changing the article in any way without compromising with other editors to form a new consensus. IPSOS (talk) 12:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I placed by discussion in detail above. You have ignored or refused to respond to it. As state clearly, your action have gone beyond just this page and I was requesting an answer to the points raised above.


 * Without quoting the entire book and papers, which I can if you wish, how would you know what the they say? Do you have copies?


 * With respect to the BKWSU being the precusor to all world religions, that is accurate both to what the BKWSU teaches AND to what Walliss is saying. --Lwachowski 14:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Lwachowsky, there is "no precursor" in a eternal predestined cycle.. Did you know that? Best, Riveros11 14:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * To Lwachowski, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bksimonb (talk • contribs) 13:08, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
 * The Walliss reference says, "University could claim that Raja Yoga is the precursor to and influence of world religions", what the article now says is, "...of the group, focusing on its recruitment methods, the issue of celibacy, failure of end of the world prophecies, re-editing of the messages it says are from God and its claims to be the precursor to all world religions, including those that historically predate it" (emphasis added). However blindingly obvious it may be to you, you can't say something the reference does not. Walliss is saying that the BKWSU claim Raja Yoga is the precursor, you are saying that the BKWSU claim to be the precursor. It is as if you are cutting out the words, "that Rajyoga is the" and replacing it with "they".
 * If you read the reference, the "re-editing of messages" is Walliss quoting the views of the Shankar Party, not his own views.
 * There is no reference for "failure of end of the world prophecies". Regards Bksimonb 08:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe it is time for a user conduct RfC. IPSOS (talk) 12:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I will be happy to assist. But how do we deal with the uncertainty of who we are dealing with before the result of the SSP? If the SSP comes up +ve then does that automatically extend any sanctions from the rfcu to the socks? Regards Bksimonb 13:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What ever turns you on, Simon, the world is watching you.


 * Walliss DOES reference the failure of predictions of "Destruction". This is a purely literary observation. When you use SPECIFIC technical terms such as "Murlis" and "Destruction", especially those that have alternative meanings, those words have to be defined or put into plain English. As you well know, what BKs call "Destruction" is what the rest of the world understand as "End of the World" predictions and, yes, the organisation has issued false ones as he documents.


 * Do you actually have a copy of the book at the BKWSU? --Lwachowski 08:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes I have a copy of the book. Now, about your statement, "the organisation has issued false ones as he documents". Please provide the exact citation. Regards Bksimonb 11:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Lwachowski, if you were an "expert" in BK gyan, you should now that BapDada has never given a date of "destruction." (I like the term transformation better from an unlimited vision of the cycle which is eternal.) Now, that some people have interpreted and added their own stuff, is not part of gyan. best, Riveros11 14:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Disingenuous use of policy
I have asked many times without any response, especially from IPSOS, if individuals editing this article have read the references given and have the source material in front of them. There has been a gradual and persistent stripping away of both content and the references to support it.

When this is pointed out, those individuals doing so react violently and invest an inordinate amount of time in brewing up accusations based on various elements of policy. Given that their attention is NOT focused broadly on the content of the Wikipedia as a whole, one can only presume the intention is clearly based on control of this article.

It is very clear that this is being done in an attempt to intimidate and suppress other users.

Removal of references
The references given in this article are well researched and there for a reason. If individuals have not read them, I find it hard to believe they can know what is or is not relevant. There has been a history of individuals removing references and then other individuals removing content and unreasonable demands for others to supply references, which have all been supplied. It is noted that individuals will go about removing content rather than just putting in references they know exist.

IPSOS, in this case, it was use that reduced a number of controversies to one line. You are now attempting to remove the references that support them.

One rule for all
I agree that consensus must be sought. I have listed a number of points for consideration above which have been ignored. Indeed, I was told "it was not discussion". I have attempted to discuss directly with other editors and am waiting for a reply. What more can I do? There should be one rule for all. --Lwachowski 14:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have just read through this talk page and look through the various diffs. Your characterization of events does not appear to be accurate. There is no requirement that neutral editors attempting to mediate a content dispute must "read the references". The burden is on you, the editor attempting to make the changes, to provide quotes from your references that actually support your changes. In particular, you don't get to "read between the lines" or do other synthesis from the sources. They must say precisely what you are reporting that they say. This is an encyclopedia, not an original research paper.


 * Second, IPSOS responded above and is actually correct. The tags he removed from the article had no reference definition. That is, when you click the superscript to go down to the notes, the note is empty. Did you even try to understand his objection or look at the results of your edits in the footnote section? An empty citation does not support anything and therefore the material it cites my also be removed. See the verifiability policy which states "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."


 * As I suggested on your talk page, it is difficult to discuss twenty proposed changes at once. Pick one and discuss it, arrive at a consensus, then make the consensus change. The discuss the next proposed change, etc. You tactics look just as questionable as the concerns you raise about the other editors. Slow down, discuss points one at a time, and don't attempt to force your changes into the article without discussion and you will be more successful in your Wikipedia editing. GlassFET 16:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * GlassFET, the policy specifically states;


 * "Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references."


 * Likewise, its states;


 * "Articles can be supported with references in two ways: the provision of general references – books or other sources that support a significant amount of the material in the article – and inline citations"


 * No part of the policy specifically suggests removing references merely because they do not have a quotation in them. In this case, the article was VERY heavily supported by extensive references both general and specific.


 * Let us not be naive that this policy, the mass removal of content or the slapping of citation requests mid-sentence  when they have just been removed by another editor can equally be used to promote a POV, a war of attrition when supported with persistent personal attack and constitute unreasonable action. Especially when the individual knows and could perfect well provide citations.


 * But, I will follow your adivce and provide full quotation for those unwilling to read for themselves.--Lwachowski 08:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You are completely misunderstanding. No quotations have been removed from any references. There were named reference tags, like this,, which had never been defined, resulting in a completely blank footnote. That is not a valid citation. IPSOS (talk) 13:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Broken references
I've gone back to an older version of the article to find the missing reference definitions, and reintegrated them into the existing article (not a revert) and restored the small amount of material removed by IPSOS which was dependent on those references.

However, I don't know why those references were removed, if they were disputed, etc. I also changed a bit of text surrounding the references back to try to maintain consistency. Again, I don't know if the text was changed or removed due to a dispute about the text or the suitability of the reference. Please start to discuss changes now rather than revert and/or trying to force them in. GlassFET 17:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi GlassFET. Thanks for dropping by and helping out, and also for digging out some missing refs in the article. The article had serious OR and UNDUE problems until very recently. Fortunately some neutral editors were kind enough to drop by and clean it up. I know that some references were lost since they were used more than once and the original ref was deleted in the clean up leaving orphans. It's quite difficult for any of us to keep track of things right now because the article gets POV-bombed every day and then IPSOS miraculously manages to untangle it again. Regards Bksimonb 17:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I hope what I have done has helped. I had to go back to the 16:00, 27 July 2007 version which seems to be the last version before major changes and edit warring began. I suggest that it might be a good version to make comparisons to for finding other missing references or major changes. GlassFET 17:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Welcome GlassFET! a neutral editor is very welcome here. In the past, I placed a copy of the PDF file from Walliss (He gave me copies of his work)in my own website for everyone to look at. Unfortunately I decided not to continue with my website sometime ago. I suggested user Lwachowsky and Green108 and 244 (with different sockpuppets) to do the same. They fail to understand that the burden of proof is on them. It is surprising to me that something as elementary as this request is not even fulfilled by them. They have many sites to defame BK, why not ftp a copy of their "proof" there in pdf format? Best, Riveros11 18:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The majority of quotes refer to Walliss's book. Not the papers he presented at conferences. The book is far more extensive and detailed in its documentation of the Brahma Kumaris.


 * Can ANYONE confirm that they have a copy of the books referenced and have read them?


 * Yes, as you point out, there has been a trend of editors removing quotation from references and then content later Alternatively, the BKWSU editors who could actually provide references have instead progressed their own POV by placing citation requests or just plainly removing material altogether.


 * The purpose of an encyclopedia is to accurate document topics not act as advertisements. Not everything can or will be flattering. --Lwachowski 07:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not discussion. When are you planning to pick one of the more significant changes you want to make, describe why you believe it should be made, discuss the change with other editors to achieve a consensus as to whether it is needed, how to phrase it, etc? Or are you going to continue instead to simply make demands and accusations, which will not progress the article at all? IPSOS (talk) 13:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Besides, why should we buy the same book that you have? Earlier it was suggested that even we should select which authors to use. Evidently there was no follow up on this. Best, Riveros11 22:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

What is the RFC for?
I'm responding to the request for comment, but I don't see an indication in the table of contents about which section in particular is in need of third party comments. Please indicate what the RFC is supposed to target. VisitorTalk 23:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought I closed the rfc some time ago. Can you send me a diff of where you found it? Obviously missed something. Thanks & regards Bksimonb 05:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I just removed the rfc that began, "*Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University Request for involvment." That is quite old and has effectively been attended to now, though we would still appreciate if any neutral editor cares to add this article to their watchlist and keep an eye on things. This rfc was already buried in this article's Talk page archives which is probably why you didn't find it. Regards Bksimonb 09:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)