Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form:.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by 195.82.106.244
I moved my request regarding Policy to the workshop page, here;.


 * So far, no one has responded to or acknowledged this.

I will wait a little longer before I can make any comment here. 195.82.106.244


 * To date, still no reference, response or acknowledgement of my policy question. I am afraid this is going to mirror what has happened on the discussion page where voluminous personally targetted attacks take precedent over discussion and alternative view points just ignored on a "never confirm, never deny" basis.


 * I really don't want to become involved in incrimination and counter-incrimination where the issue is a simple acknowledgement of existing written policy. 195.82.106.244 08:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Still no response, discussion or even acknowledgement to the policy issue . Thanks. 195.82.106.244 00:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Repeated removal of well-sourced information by User:Riveros11/avyakt7 without good explanation
I had inserted information from the following source
 * Lochtefeld, James G. Ph.D. The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Hinduism Vol. I ISBN 0-8239-3179-X, entry "Brahma Kumaris" New York Rosen 2002

User:Riveros11/avyakt7 removed information from this source with the motivations "undiscussed" 01:23, 11 December 2006 16:07, 11 December 2006 and "no concensus".14:36, 12 December 2006, again 15:58, 13 December 2006, and again 14:31, 14 December 2006 He or she did not comment on the quality of my edits or the source in talk page. Andries 19:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The changes that I made were non-substantial. I never made the alleged agrement to discuss changes first before making them. This alleged agreement by the way contradicts generally accepted Wikipedia practices. My changes continued to be reverted after they were discussed. Andries 06:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments on list of additional sources prepared by Jossi
With regards to Jossi's list of sources in his evidence section hereunder, I think that the sources by Whaling and Walliss are fine, but I do not think that the rest of the titles (except may be Hodgkinson) will yield additional substantial information. This is not the first time that Jossi has listed more or less useless souces in an arbcom case (he also did this in arbcom cases Sathya Sai Baba and Sathya Sai Baba2). I do not think that enouraging contributors to spend money and do effort without good reason is okay. I do understand that Jossi's list may be okay for somebody who has an academic library around the corner, but this is not the case for me and probably not for most contributors in Wikipedia. I request Jossi to be more careful in suggesting sources to prevent wasting money and time. Andries 11:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Evidence of sockpuppet accounts by user 195.82.106.244
Dear Sir/Madam, There are 2 points which I would like to bring to your attention: 1) User 195.82.106.244 has been using different sockpuppets accounts and modifying in greater extent archives, posts and editions of the Brahma Kumaris article (BK) User Thatcher131 acting as clerk mentioned:""None found. The BKWS and ex-BK members could be coordinating their efforts but they are not traditional sockpuppets." I would like to offer proof of the contrary. There is a sockpuppet activity with the following accounts: 195.82.106.244, brahmakumaris.info, bkwatch and the IP 212.18.228.53. This shows that user 195.82.106.244 has been behaving in a dishonest fashion just to fulfill his own objective which is to defame Brahma Kumaris by abusing the visibility of Wikipedia and the power of the internet. 2) Due to this user animosity towards Brahma Kumaris, his editions have been bias and his interpretation of Brahma Kumaris literature and Wikipedia provisions have been likewise strongly biased. User 195.82.106.244 is the main user /owner of the antagonistic website: http://www.brahmakumaris.info Please note that even the domain name was taken by him from Brahma Kumaris as soon as it expired to gain greater visibility and to add confusion. and This user has denied all along his membership in this site.However, He is the main editor and this in itself proves that his editions will naturally be strongly biased. User 195.82.106.244 version of the article has damaged the visibility of the institution which I belong to. I see this article content as being the main problem. User 195.82.106.244 originated this article. However, being the aim of Wikipedia to inform in a neutral fashion, I believe you may find that the article in reference was not written with this important premise in mind at the beginning of it. User 195.82.106.244 is an ex-member of Brahma Kumaris. The problem then is that user 195.82.106.244 and user Talkabout (another ex member) were the "sole proprietors" of the Brahma Kumaris page for a long time (until October 2006) There is one other IP which comes from England and belongs to an EX-BK supporter. Perhaps, this diff could be a good starting point. Note the IP address: 212.18.228.53 It reverses to: host-212-18-228-53.static.mailbox.co.uk If a reverse lookup is performed on 195.82.106.244 it results in: host-195-82-106-244.dynamic.mailbox.co.uk. In other words, both IPs are coming from the same service provider. The following diff will show the relationship between user 195.82.106.244 and sockpuppet brahmakumaris.info

User 195.82.106.244 has denied his affiliation with the site brahmakumaris.info. Here is some supportive evidence of his undeniable affiliation to this site: User 195.82.106.244 mentioned: "I have absolutely no representative powers over any other contributor nor the website http://brahmakumaris.info..." Please note that user TalkAbout has been working closely with user 195.82.106.244. and here a copy of user 195.82.106.244 own words:"Thank you for the best advertizement that we have been given in a long time, Luis. Would any individuals interested in reading BK Raja Yoga teachings in their original form called the Murlis, please log in anonymously and download them from the address given above before the BKWSU tries to shut the server down. I expect our traffic to increase significantly. 195.82.106.244 00:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC" Please take a look at this link: and this  this is a strong proof of user 195.82.106.244 sockpuppet with brahmakumaris.info and bkwsuwatch. Finally,  you will see the comments below the video in Spanish. Take a look at "bkwsuwatch" (bkwatch) endorsing brahmakumaris.info site.
 * 1) wiki administration of site and installation,
 * 2) talk page and history of brahmakumaris.info which shows the relationship between the account brahmakumaris.info and the site www.brahmakumaris.info
 * 3) user 195.82.106.244 is a very heavy editor of brahmakumaris.info site. search on his IP address in this site for contributions:  however, he has denied "a team effort."
 * 4) bkwsuwatch IP address: 195.82.106.244 Note the content of article and his IP 195.82.106.244 endorsing brahmakumaris.info site.
 * 5) installation of wiki software:
 * 6) bkwatch account endorsing site brahmakumaris.info
 * 7) user 195.82.106.244 own IP address being directed to www.brahmakumaris.info. His IP was an FTP site offering Brahma Kumaris materials for download,,, ,

As you can see there is proof of his sockpuppet accounts. Finally, his interpretation of any type of materials will be according to his animosity towards Brahma Kumaris. He would like to use Brahma Kumaris materials even though they are not considered primary source. User 195.82.106.244 does not belong to Brahma Kumaris thus he uses these articles to tarnish our notability, to support a contentious atmosphere with Brahma Kumaris members, and he is far from "serving" our own purposes (BK) but rather defaming us. I would like to request that user 195.82.106.244 inmediately terminates his campaign of defamation of Brahma Kumaris in Wikipedia. This user has done enough damage as it is and the only repercussion to his actions so far was just a "block" for a few days. I am more than willing to discuss any reliable source that this user could provide; however he usually paraphrases authors and never presents the article copy (As I have done by suppling a pdf file) for others to read. It is very hard to rely/trust on him based on his past activities.

Best Wishes, avyakt7 02:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Defamation, deletions and threats by user 195.82.106.244
I will present some diffs of user 195.82.106.244 character and past deeds: Best, avyakt7 02:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Exposing my name and former employee and threatening me to contact them.
 * Taunting
 * Defaming Brahma Kumaris without presenting evidence.
 * Defaming me
 * Removing NPOV tag without previous discussion
 * Using brahmakumaris.info sockpuppet account to disable the "sprotect tag" to be able to post again with his IP address.
 * "Forest fire" with brahmakumaris.info account ,,, ,,, , please note the different headers he used for the articles; however all of them are related to Brahma Kumaris.
 * personal attack to me someone answered  User 195.82.106.244 deleted the post
 * mistreating user:in other wikipages.
 * This one is a recent one modifiying text to defame Brahma Kumaris

Andries "Evidence"
Andries claims that Riveros has engaged in "Repeated removal of well-sourced information without good explanation."

What Andries failed to report is that on the talk page, we reached consensus to make no substantial changes to the page without disucssing first- and at least the changes Andries made (which were reverted) were not disucssed first.

Anyone who reverts for that reason is following the ONE thing the page has been able to agree on. Sethie 04:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Andires calls the agreement "an alledgeded" meaning in his mind he isn't even sure that it exists or not. For Andries, or anyone else, who is unsure whether this agreement exists or not, I invite them to read the tag at the top of the talk page, and the disuccsion here []

Andries says the "alledged" agreement goes against Wikipedia policy- yet why is he saying this in the evidence section against Riveros? Did Riveros create the agreement? No, I tallied a vote and I put it in place. Sethie 16:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to acknowledge that there is one component of Andries testiomny which is accurate and not skewed- Riveros did not engage in the dialogue after the reverts, which I concur with Andries shows poorly against him. Sethie 18:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Record of User 195.82.106.244’s opinion on BK authored materials as reliable sources.
My own involvement in the article’s discussion page was initiated partly in reaction to the response user bkSimonb encountered when he questioned the accuracy of a small section, citing a BK publication as the source of his proposed revision.

Given the degree of contempt user  195.82.106.244 and his sock puppet user Brahmakumaris.info subsequently displayed for a BK authored source, , I would urge the sole use of well researched secondary sources in the development of the article.

Should this be agreed, I would also ask for 244 to be strongly encouraged to respect the controversial tag consensus, rather than carrying on regardless with his ‘bold’ editing policy. 

searchin man 23:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by third party
I came across this article when one of the involved editors posted a message on my talk page requesting assistance on November 11. I tried to offer assistance, particularly encouraging editors to look for and utilize secondary sources (see Diff). Unfortunately, both sides of the dispute are more interested in editwarring and accusing each other of violation of policies related to the use of primary sources, than editing an encyclopedic article.

Note that there are no lack of god quality secondary sources. A list of sources I found (not comprehensive, I only spent one half an hour researching sources) yielded this list of books and encyclopedias:


 * 1) Peace and Purity: The Story of the Brahma Kumaris a Spiritual Revolution, book by Liz Hodgkinson
 * 2) Understanding the Brahma Kumaris, Book by Frank Whaling
 * 3) The Brahma Kumaris As a Reflexive Tradition: Responding to Late Modernity , Book  by John Walliss
 * 4) New Religious Movement in Global Perspective: A Study Of Religious Change In the Modern World, Book by Peter Bernard Clarke
 * 5) America's Alternative Religions, Encyclopedia by Timothy Miller
 * 6) Alternative Religions: A Sociological Introduction , Book by Stephen J. Hunt
 * 7)  New Religious Movements in Western Europe: An Annotated Bibliography, Book by Elisabeth Arweck, Peter B. Clarke; Greenwood Press, 1997
 * 8)  Religions in the Modern World: Traditions and Transformations, Book by Linda Woodhead, Paul Fletcher, Hiroko Kawanami, David Smith; Routledge, 2002
 * 9) The Politics of Religion and Social Change: Religion and the Political Order - Vol. 2, Book by Anson Shupe, Jeffrey K. Hadden; Paragon House, 1988
 * 10)  A Handbook of the Sociology of Religion, Book by Michele Dillon; Cambridge University Press, 2003
 * 11)  The Study of Religion, Traditional and New Religions, Book by Peter Clarke, Stewart Sutherland; Routledge, 1991
 * 12)  Children of the New Age: A History of Alternative Spirituality, Book by Steven J. Sutcliffe; Routledge, 2002
 * 13)  South Asian Religions in the Americas: An Annotated Bibliography of Immigrant Religious Traditions, Book by John Y. Fenton; Greenwood Press, 1995
 * 14)  Odd Gods: New Religions and the Cult Controversy, Book by James R. Lewis; Prometheus Books, 2001
 * 15)  Explorations in Global Ethics: Comparative Religious Ethics and Interreligious Dialogue, Book by Sumner B. Twiss, Bruce Grelle; Westview Press, 1998
 * 16)  Freedom of Religion and Belief: A World Report, Book by Kevin Boyle, Juliet Sheen; Routledge, 1997

This is by no means a comprehensive list of sources as I did not search for journals, or other types of publications.

The ArbCom could consider encouraging involved editors to first use materials from secondary sources, adding later on useful primary sources to provide the viewpoint of the organization itself, while implementing some kind of probation on involved editors (that are mostly single-purpose accounts) to limit reverts wars while encouraging useful contributions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

{Proof of an official effort by BK IT TEAM Exhibit A}

 * I offer as proof of a centralized effort to control the content of the article via the new murlis (their medium/channelled messages) from Bapdada=combination of Brahma Baba and the Supreme Being:

Via Free the Murlis Campaign:Omshanti. I have received a photocopy of the Hindi version of the first Avyakt murlis of the season narrated through Gulzar Dadiji on 31.10.06. While speaking to the IT group on the fourth page Avyakt BapDada says, Quote:"It is good that the news that spreads due to the work that you people are doing, brings joy to the hearts of everyone because it is a family, is not it? So, the family becomes joyful by getting the news. So, you have done a good thing. ‘’’The task was no doubt going on, but now you are doing it in an organized way and as per rules.’’’ you are taking the task ahead; this has been made very nicely and even taken ahead. There would be opposition, but if you are steadfast in your position, then the opposition would end. If there is opposition then only will you get the enthusiasm that we should do this, we should do this ... So opposition takes the position ahead and one also gets success and you would keep getting success. This is definite. If anything happens any time do not get afraid. Success is with you. It is not with the opposition; it is with those who are in position."End Qoute

In essence these here proceedings are being monitored by their “Supreme Being” and the “Supreme Being” has given them instructions to proceed. That said I think it is clear that the “IT Team” is here, apart from my assertions, murli quote from Mt. Abu, India and by their own account. They are being instructed to get the job done and by the state that the article is in I would say they have done a pretty good job of removing information, placing only promotional material they approve of and in the process created a mess of which even Bksimonb has complained about.

{Evidence that Jagdish Chander’s work is widely cited by Enclycopedias and Academics, Exhibit B}

 * Cults and New Religious Movements, Edited By Lorn L. Dawson, Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of Waterloo, Ontario, 2003: ISBN 1-4051-0181-4 Citation of Chander, Adi Dev 1981


 * New Religions in Global Perspective, Peter Clarke, Professor Emeritus of the History and Sociology of Religion at Hing’s College, Univerisity of London, 2006, ISBN 0-415-25748-4 Citation of Adi Dev, Chander 1983:262-3


 * Millennium Messiahs and Mayhem/Contemporary Apocalyptic Movements, Thomas Robbins, independent sociologist of religion, and Susan Palmer, teaches at Dawson College and Concordia university specializing in new religious movements. 1997, ISBN 0-415-91648-8 (hb) Citation pg 170 Chander 1981 Adi Dev, First Man.


 * From Politics Past to Politics Future, Alan J Mayne, Honorary Secretary of the British Association for the club of Rome. Library of Congress Cataloging, British Library Cataloging in Publication Data, 1999, ISBN 0-275-96151-6, Citation Chander 1993, Visions of a Better World.


 * The Study of Hinduism, Edited by Arvind Sharma, Birks Professor of Comparative Religion at MCGill University in Montreal, Canada. Taught in Australia and the US. 2003, ISBN 1-57003-449-4 Citation Gita Jagdish Chander pg 266


 * Encyclopedia of Millennialism and Millennial Movements, Religion & Society Enclyclopedia, Richard Landes, Editor, Associate Professor of Medieval History at Boston University and cofounder and Director of the Centor for Millennial Studies. 2000, ISBN 0-415-92246-1, Jagdish Chander, Adi Dev pg 439.


 * Redemptive Encounters (Three Modern Styles in the Hindu Tradition), Lawrence Babb, 1986, ISBN 1-57766-153-2, Citation of Chander in this book and his academic reports. Babb’s is also the mosted cited by other academics.


 * Devotional Literature in South Asia, A reinterpretation of bhakti theology:from the pustinmarg to the Brahma Kumaris, by R.K. Barz 85-88, ISBN 0-521-41311-7  Please note citations of Jagdish Chander 1984-5, 62-3, and Citations of Avaykt Bapdada murlis.

{Use New Beginnings by Ken O’Donnell… Exhibit C}

 * New Beginnings, Raja Yoga Meditation Course, 1995, ISBN 0-9637396-4-6
 * Voyagers, by Rob Shubow, Editor on Adi Dev

{Life Positive Article as Third Party Source, Exhibit D}

 * Suma Varughese. " Satyug is as Sure as Death ". Life Positive ,1998 Where she documented some of the Hidden Practices which are not discussed with outsiders.


 * The Psychology of Death in Fantasy and History, Edited by Jerry S. Piven, BRAHMA KUMARIS AND THE HIDDEN DOCTRINE OF THE APOCALYPSE, Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, 2004 ISBN 0-275-98178-9

{Heidi Fittkau-Garthe, citations, Exhibit E}

 * News BBC.


 * TIME.

ISBN 0275978672
 * The Psychology of Terrorism: Theoretical Understandings and Perspectives (Psychological Dimensions to War and Peace Series) by Klaus Schwab (Foreword), Chris E. Stout (Editor), 2003

{Current BK books and books by ex-Bks Exhibit F}

 * "Brahma-Kumari Radhe, Om Mandli & the Om Nivas and their suppression, by application of the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1908” 1939,Pharmacy Printing Press, ISBN B00089UWHE


 * Organizations that list information on the Brahma Kumaris and their practices, including but not limited to present day Anti-Party (organization) movements i.e., which the B.K.Karuna Chief of MultiMedia and Global Public Relations for the Brhama Kumaris has sought to shut down.


 * New Beginning, Raja Yoga Meditation Course, 1995 ISBN 0-9637396-4-6


 * In the Light of Meditaion, Mike George, 2004 ISBN 1-903816-61-0


 * Sex is not compulsory, Liz Hodgkinson, 1986, ISBN 0-86287-229-4


 * Peace and Purity, The Story of the Brahma Kumaris, A Spiritual Revolution, Liz Hodgkinson, 2002, ISBN 1-55874-962-4


 * Adi Dev, The First Man, By Jagdish Chander, Translated from the original Hindi by Shantal Trivedi, PhD, Edited by Robert Shubow, J.D. PhD, 1983, First Edition Published in San Francisco 1981, ASIN B000JXGFWK

{Journalist books and others within this scope Exhibit G}

 * SPYING IN GURU LAND, William Shaw, Quote by "Brave" Prof. Laurie Taylor, 1994, ISBN 1-85702-329-3


 * From here to nirvana, Anne Cushman (Has a degree in comparative religion from Princeton University) and Jerry Jones (business man), 1998, ISBN 1-57322-086-8


 * The Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects, and New Religions: Second Edition, Edited by James R. Lewis, 2002 ISBN 1-57392-888-7

{Claim by Avyakt et. Al that I am an Ex-BK. Exhibit H}

 * I take the wiki Oath and once again state that I am not an ex-member of the Brahma Kumaris, I take his assertions that I am as compliment to my researching and verifying skills as a wikipedia member. PEACE

Former BK forum related involvement with article
Many of the links in this section are to the www.brahmakumaris.info website. If any of the links go dead then I have saved all the web pages locally and can supply them on request.

There is some evidence of a link between members of the now-defunct X-BK Chat forum and the current www.brahmakumaris.info forum. The X-BK Chat forum is fully archived on the new forum.

The start of the current article can be traced back to 2nd November 2005 by User:195.82.106.134. It is worth noting that the IP address 195.82.106.134 and 195.82.106.244 trace back to the same ISP. This ISP is not very well known in the UK.

On the very same day a post was made on the X-BK Chat forum by user ex-london. This user sometimes signed his posts "ex-l" and is believed to be user "ex-l" in the present brahmakumaris.info forum. The timing of this post suggests that the poster may be 195.82.106.134. In terms of time-zones, the X-BK Chat forum seemed to be based in the USA.

The post encourages other former BKs to participate in creating the article. It is sometimes possible to match a forum username to a Wikipedia username by noting the timing of the post or the things being said. I will not share my thoughts on who's who unless I am requested to do so by the arbitrators, since only ex-london is relevant as a possible link to User:195.82.106.244. Here are some other posts where the Wikipedia article is discussed.

I am unable to comment on the claims that the article was deleted five times before the present one. I have no idea who was doing that, if that was the case. It is certainly nothing the team I am a member of is aware of. Nor do we know who was uploading a version of the article that was branded by the forum posters as "PR" at that time. I understand User:Riveros11 was aware of the article before me and may have edited as User:70.119.13.124 at the time before signing up with a username.

User:195.82.106.244 starts posting on 27th March 2006 and this is where substantial additions are made to the article and the discussion page becomes more active.

A neutrality dispute was launched by User:70.119.13.124.

The neutrality tag was soon removed by User:195.82.106.244 simply because User:Green108 claimed that he used to be a teacher and that in his opinion the article was accurate. This is spite of, amongst other things, the article at that time making constant references to "their god" which, in my opinion, is an unnecessary, provocative and derogatory way of documenting any religion's concept of God, new or old.

Up until October the article was pretty-much owned by User:195.82.106.244 and other users who can be traced to the forum posts listed above. There are some cases of valid edits being reverted on the grounds of being "vandalism". It has been claimed in the discussion that BKs contributed to the article up until this time but I can find no evidence of that. I would be interested if anyone else can find any diffs of edits thought to be by BKs that weren't immediately reverted.

If User:195.82.106.244 really is user "ex-l" on the brahmakumaris.info forums then it is interesting to note some of the things said by this user. Particularly, "'If I can flood the search engines with a counter balance to their PR spin, so that the World starts asking questions, then may be we will see some overdue change from within'". I would suggest that this is not in alignment with the aims and objectives of Wikipedia.

It is also interesting that there are two articles in the "News & Articles" section of the brahmakumaris.info website concerning the Wikipedia article.

Update: Now Riveros11 is being defamed, complete with mugshot, on the same website.

Repeated allegations
Repeated allegations of wrong doing have been directed at me personally, the BKWSU IT Team to which I am accountable and the BKWSU in general. The following diffs contain examples of allegations being made by User:195.82.106.244 and User:TalkAbout: 

The allegations seem to imply one or more of the following,
 * There is a PR attempt to whitewash the BKWSU.
 * The BKWSU engages in suppression of free speech.
 * I am personally assuming responsibility for the actions and co-ordination of other editors.
 * The BKWSU is avoiding taking responsibility for the perceived failings of the organisation.
 * The BK IT team is conducting a dirty tricks campaign.
 * The BK IT team is intimidating other editors.
 * I am engaging in personal attacks.
 * The BKWSU is a "cult".
 * The BK IT team and the BKWSU are responsible for just about everything else that happens that they don't like!

Suffice to say I strongly refute all the above accusations. They seem to be an attempt at "truth by repeated assertion".

Campaign across other Wikipedia articles
There seems to have been a campaign by 195.82.106.244 and TalkAbout to ensure that Brahma Kumaris is associated as widely as possible with "cults", including suicide and destructive cults . Often the addition is given undue prominence in the article under its own new section. In the case of Dr. Fittkau-Garthe, the link is tenuous with the BKs. Her apparent beliefs at the time bear little, if any, resemblance to anything the BKs teach or practise and the news report linked to only states the initial allegations against her. What was she actually found guilty of? There is some doubt about this. Regards Bksimonb 15:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

“Activities” section is inaccurate
Arbitration Committee: please make note of the following:

Section currently states: “Service requires active support of the movement, especially by participating in its many proscelyting activities. Great emphasis is placed on the value of bringing converts into the movement, particularly converts who stick.”

The following 3rd party source states otherwise:

Exploring New Religions, Book by George D. Chryssides; Continuum International Publishing Group, 2001.

Direct quotes from “BRAHMA KUMARIS” section of this book:

Page 192: “They [Brahma Kumaris] have avoided aggressive proselytizing, stating clearly that they have no wish for seekers to leave their own religion{if they have one} in order to become a BK.”

Page 195: “… I know several BK members who simultaneously belong to some other religious community.”

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.