Talk:Brahma Kumaris/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

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

Transparency and Neutrality

Hello everyone, I'm new to Wikipedia, so be gentle with me in my early stages. Whilst I am not aware of the full history of this article, there have clearly been some spicey exchanges! I am a graduate student who is researching the Brahma Kumaris as part of a larger study, therefore I have a particular interest in this BK site. For Wikipedia readers (many of whom are scholars) transparency and neutrality of information is integral to a solid knowledge base. At present the article, although good, could benefit from more detail. Given that a lot of work has gone into the current page, I would like to incorporate a little more depth and detail into the 'History' section while maintaining the content. Please advise me if I haven't referenced something correctly or adequately. I am learning the new wiki language as I go. All the best, Amasintay 10:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Good to have you on board! I'm sure you'll find your study an interesting experience. However, you will notice the article is currently going through arbitration and although that doesn't stop you making edits (I personally have no problem with new editors doing this), you might be received with greater warmth by some of the involved editors if you waited until the arbitration process is over. Appledell 11:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Amasintay, Welcome! I appreciate your input and certainly to know what your interest is in this article. Please feel free to suggest changes and make changes when previously discussed here.(It is our page policy) I would love to see some "reliable sources" here, as Wikipedia suggests. Best Wishes, avyakt7 14:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you read the top of the page you will get a feel of the controversy. May I ask;

• a) What consensus are you seeking for your edit?
• b) What is your actual experience within the BKWSU, is it personal or just purely academic?
• c) Specifically, what access have you had to Sakar and Avyakt Murlis?

Your first edits were to REMOVE depth and detail, add unreferenced and in places erroneous waffle (I am sorry, I cant think of a more tackful way of saying that), e.g. "It was frequent practice in the early to mid 20th century to adopt a new name when beginning a life of spiritual endeavour" and the stuff about Jains and head back into whitewash or obfuscation, e.g. "Regular" for "daily" mediation. I think that you are also misusing the <ref> tags and your use of the <br> tag suggests that you are using the same material as Luis.

The out of date "facts" such as the 200,000 figure quoted by Barker are not accurate and we have not established the use of self-published materials such as the BKWSU's own sites. Or rather, I am happy with using them by opposition has been voiced the by existent BK team here. Thanks.

• The re-editing of the "This small spiritual revolution ... which was one in which women were oppressed ... Following partition, the gathering moved from Karachi to their current location" section is all wrong.

You have removed the connection between the opposition and the reason for the move and constructed a misleading connection between it and women being oppressed. Indian women had been "oppressed" or not encouraged to be spiritual leaders for time immemorial ...

Can I suggest a little caution? 195.82.106.244 00:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear .244, Please be civil. At least give our new editor a warm welcome... It seems that you have started with your "little quizzes" as well? Perhaps Sister TalkAbout will complain about it ... Please there is no need to be so finical about simple edits with reliable sources behind it... "erroneous waffle"?? After all you asked for more editors to show up and change things around. Perhaps you should show some reliable sources which maintain the opposite view.. however; you should remember that academia has the first hand... Best Wishes, avyakt7 00:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

Well, thanks for your support Avyakt7 but my supervisor would probably do the same as 244 anyway! Let me respond to the comments.

a) Not looking for consensus, because people are people and even experts differ on their understanding of given areas. Also, my preference here is really for accuracy and not for a pro or anti site which is not very useful to anyone... there are enough of both. Wiki offers a unique opportunity here to co-author a precise, neutral and well-informed article. My primary interest is in helping with that, in any way I can.

b) As with most researchers, my academic interest comes from a personal one. However, my exploration is more into the role of spirituality in general rather than any particular path or dogma. I'm doing a PhD on three separate groups of people to determine the role of spirituality in creating resilience/ reducing suffering for people during events of disaster. In fact, I am researching three very diverse groups (to be confirmed). Brahma Kumaris (as a disciplined NRM), NY Firefighters (often secular/ atheist) and a more traditional religious group in Sri Lanka (Buddhist or Muslim perhaps).

c) I have attended murli classes and so am familiar with sakar and avyakt versions of them and also how they are distinct from each other. While the article mentioned 'murlis', which is a new word for most Wiki readers, I thought it needed some elaboration so readers can understand better what murli's are, how they are spoken and where they come from.

The note about adopting a spiritual name I thought was common knowledge (which often doesn't need referencing). Perhaps because I grew up in the 1970's and I know many people, particularly who have been to India, that have taken a new spiritual name (not BK's although I know many of them have done similar). I will remove it though - it's not that important, it was just a point of interest within the Indian culture.

Regarding the comments about Jainism perhaps I should remove those anyway, because it's not about BK... what does everyone think. Anyway, in response to the comments, the information about Jain practise is actually correct. Some comes from a great book by Dundas called "The Jains (Library of Religious Beliefs and Practices)" published by Routledge. The information is re-iterated on official Jain websites, one of them scholarly (http://www.jainuniversity.org/). I will post them up.

Regarding the section that mentioned meditation at 4:00am I'm seriously not looking to whitewash. Honestly, I don't have time for that. You should see the ocean of paper and books I am living in! Regarding the 4:00am comments though, "regular" may be less specific but it is in fact more accurate, as I have spoken to many that identify as BK's but don't necessarily get up every day at 4:00am. I even thought about changing the 4:00am to between 2:00am and 5:00am as it's more correct, according to their actual practice. What do you think?

I don't really know about the tags. It was my first edit so bear with me while I learn the ropes - or tell me how to use them accurately. That would be nice! I did cut and paste previous content into the new edit, but you'll have to explain the ref and br tags to me. I'm not clear on their use. How should they be used and does it matter if I use the same references as previous editors?

I'm happy to take the 200,000 out. That was one of those 'cut and paste' things.

Re the 'small spiritual revolution', that was from Peace and Purity by Hodgkinson. I will place that reference up too. Sorry, was a bit slack on the references in my 1:00am computer brain drain.

Can you explain a bit further what you mean about removing the connection between the move from Karachi and the oppression. How would you author it?

Phew! I hope this wasn't too long. You must all have lives other than the Wiki one. Thanks and I look forward to more... although I may have to follow 244's advice and 'exercise caution' otherwise I'll never get any studies done. Please send me some suggestions and I will look at them over the weekend... then I'm out of action for about a month.

Best to all

Amasintay 06:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

'Patterns of Membership' Section

Hi everyone,

I have a query about the 'Patterns of Membership' section on the Brahma Kumaris site. I have read Wallis's research article and, while it is the findings of one ethnographic study, it doesn't necessarily reflect the current patterns of membership within the BKWSU, particularly given that the research was undertaken approximately 10 years ago. When speaking with older members of the BKWSU, membership within the Brahma Kumaris has changed markedly since the mid-1990's and so this section just needs to be contextualised and re-worked. The 'patterns of membership' may not even warrant a section of its own. It could, for instance, be incorporated into the section on 'Expansion' perhaps. I'm interested in hearing your thoughts. All the best, Amasintay 13:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Amasintay, Do you have any recent reliable sources? [1] I was able to find scholars whose articles where published 10 or more years ago. Babb, is one of them, his writings about BK are probably out of date as he himself asserted to me. Particularly I like Wallis patterns of memberships because it clearly states that people interested in spirituality are not just looking for BK knowledge, but other type of meaningful experiences. That is why, this article in my view; should consider those patterns of membership. Not everyone is interested in hearing about BK philosophy; nevertheless, a neutral article will give everyone the chance to explore by themselves and to find out if BK is for them or not. Best, avyakt7 14:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that section could be cut entirely. It is not particularly defining of the BKWSU. It is generic and could quite easily apply to any NRM/cult. It does not identify the real membership pattern/requirements of what it means to be a BKWSU Brahmin rather than just a user of the services they offer nor the differentiation between established BKWSU Brahmins, e.g. senior sisters/juniors.

It does also not take into consideration any difference between different cultures/nations. Where are you coming from? 195.82.106.244 23:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear 244, It is not about "definition of BKWSU" It is about describing it. BKWSU is not a dictionary word. There are several level of membership in BK. You should know that. BK is a "Spiritual University" and that means that it is open to everyone...However, "everyone" could be neatly classified into different groups as Walliss has done. Best, avyakt7 00:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi everyone, What if we kept the section, because it is quite interesting and relevant to the organisations patterns, but framed it socially and historically... can you tell that I'm an anthropologist yet (medical anthropologist actually)!? Also, it is correct that the research we're primarily drawing on in our discussions only covers the main foreign centres of the UK and Australia, and it should be stated as such (although I recognise Babb's work in 1970's and early 1980's India). However, I do know that in reading the work of Howell, Babb and Walliss, membership patterns have altered significantly over the BK's journey of expansion outside of India. It could be useful to write a brief trajectory of membership: ie, that it was stricter in the 1970's and 1980's with a high rate of expansion, followed by a re-negotiation of identity from many members in the 1990's (when Walliss did his work) accompanied by little growth to current patterns which, from what I've witnessed and heard in informal interviews, is different again. The categories of membership currently seem to be quite blurred and 'elastic' if you like. What do you think about something along those lines?

Amasintay 05:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Amasintay; I am All for it! Thank you for adding your expertise on this..

A neutral article backed up by the most recent reliable sources is what it is needed. What do you think, dearest .244? Best, avyakt7 14:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

244?... hello there? ... Is "Rumpus" keeping you busy? or perhaps a wiki software "glitch"? Best Wishes, avyakt7 14:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Concerns over removal of references to criticism of Brahma Kumaris

I looked at this article some months ago and found it very useful. I had been attending a free meditation class run by BK and was already feeling a little unsettled at the direction things were going. This wikipedia article, as it then was, helped me make an informed decision over whether or not to continue my involvement with BK. Looking at this article is it now stands, I'm concerned that all discussion of whether the organisation is or is not a cult (or "cult-like") appears to have been removed. Clearly, Wikipedia does not need to take a position as to whether or not BK is a cult (with all that entails), but given the extensive discussion of this issue elsewhere on the internet - including some disturbing personal testimonies from ex-BK members, this article seems incomplete without some examination of the issue. Such an examination might present the arguments on both sides of the debate, and then leave readers to make their own judgement. As things stand, a casual reader would have no indication that such a controversy even exists.

Of course I can understand that those wikipedians who are currently BK members, and feel strongly that BK is a good thing, would want to present the organisation in the best possible light, and defend it against criticisms they believe to be unfair. But as things stand at the moment, the removal of all discussion of such criticisms seems to have affected the neutrality of this article, and seems to run counter to the spirit of wikipedia. Such actions could be perceived as an attempt by BK members to stifle criticism of their organisation, and manipulate wikipedia into presenting a one-sided view, which I'm sure is the last thing anyone would want to see. Can I suggest that we create an additional section in the article marked "Criticism and defence of Brahma Kumaris" or "Controversies"? To take an example more or less at random, this article does something similar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism. The entry on Scientology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology) has a "controversy and criticism" section, and a similar section exists for the article on ISKCON (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISKCON#Scandal_and_controversy). Rcameronw 22:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rcameronw,

Yes you do raise a valid concern. There has been critisism and controversy throughout the history of the organisation and the article is incomplete if this is not documented. As one of the BK editors of the article I can tell you that there has been quite some strife in the last few months and I think we are all agreed that we have a broken article at the end of it. Having said that, there is one crucial difference between a negative and a positive biased article, and that is, libel. The problem we (BKs) had with the article is that a lot of the negative statements were inadequately sourced and presented in a biased, even spiteful and malicious, way. Opinions were stated as fact. An article on Wikipedia that is actually libelous is needlessly damaging to the subject and their reputation. From what you are saying it seems to have even made an impression on you.

I've looked at other NRM articles and their talk pages such as Scientology and Prem_Rawat and the critism is, at least compared to what I have seen here, robustly sourced, cited and presented in a neutral way. It has to be. I have to say I know the BKs are very, very different to Scientology!

If you look at the arbitration case [2] evidence [3] you can see a list of suitable sources that Jossi has proposed can be used. I know that a lot of controversy is covered in our own literature too, although this would be considered a primary source. I'm sure it has also been covered in secondary sources.

The arbitrators have indicated they would like editors, who don't have a conflict of interest, to contribute to the article who are not associated with the BKs or former-BKs. Are you planning on staying around on this article? If so then welcome aboard :-)

Regards Bksimonb 21:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Simon,

rather than work up a little slur, could you substiate? "Inadequate ... libel ... negative ... biased ... even spiteful and malicious ..." That is a fairly heavy lean to one side.

From my position, all I want to see are fact. Are you will to get from your side official confirmation of such? You could make matters alot easier for us by just going back and checking facts and coming here with official confirmation. Why would you not do that?

And are you willing to admit that the organization is attempting to keep a more complete and detailed documentation out of the public domain because it does not fit in with current service plans in the West?

An awful lot of very basic, valid, neutral stuff has been removed needlessly and are missing mostly because the editors involved just had no awareness of the documentation and their own agenda, e.g. to de-Hinduise the BKWSU, the history, core Knowledge, Brahmin lifestyle etc.

195.82.106.244 16:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Conflict Resolution Proposal

Two new pages have been established by way of a conflict resolution plan.

This is allow opposing parties the opportunity to develop and complete their chosen edit without undue or unproductive conflict and needless interference by others.

Once the edit is complete, both versions can be compared and then a final definitive topic created. By allowing the resolution of both, it will allow third parties to make an impartial judgement over which are the best elements of both to include.

A copy of the current revision is here;

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University/Pro_BK_proposal

A copy of the older more complete and details revision requiring more extensive citation is here;

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University/Objective_proposal

"This time celebrate the month of January in such a way that you obtain the certificate of being obstacle-free.", Avyakt BapDada, 31.10.06.

Bkwsu proposal page 03:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi 195.82.106.244. I understand from your personal page this is an account you've just created.

I appreciate the thought to create a resolution however I think all pages on Wikipedia are expected to have an NPOV rather than having different versions of biased pages. I wonder if they also get indexed by Google. Also the arbitration case is intended to define what resolutions are appropriate to this article. I'm not sure if we (involved editors) might be doing more harm than good by inventing our own solutions.

The choice of sub page name is also interesting, "Pro_BK_proposal" and "Objective_proposal". This kind of implies that one is pro-BK biased and the other isn't biased and is "objective". Well, I can tell you there are some different views here on that :-) What parts of the "pro-BK" page do you think are biased? Can you quote example statements from it that you consider to be either not cited or POV? So far, we know that a Controversy/Critism section needs to be added, but is there any part of the article that is there already that you consider inappropriate for not being NPOV?

Regards Bksimonb 13:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

That is correct. It would seem to be the only way forward to create two entirely different sandboxes for the kids to play in so they stop fighting. Basic child psychology. After a while they will get over their differences, lonely, and want to start working together. It also follows others opinion above. That is all they are, sandboxes.

Better than discuss it, which has proven to be pointless as there is no resolve to come to a conclusion whilst, of course, Luis goes around instituting userblocks in the background, I will demonstrate it.

As an example of cruft

• I'd point out that extended version of Kranenborgs quote that used to be at the top of the intro paragraph. Unscientific, unsubstainable, unprovable. It was just a repeat of "highest of high" marketing PR. Can't be proven.
• I'd say that "patterns of membership" stuff instead of actual Brahmin Maryadas whas deliberately misleading. That is to say, defined how individuals "didn't join" the BKs rather the actually proscribed lifestyle of a BK Brahmin.
• anything that fudges the issue of who God is into general language that is misleading and inaccurate, e.g. the "highest" etc.

One of the problems with depending on a lot of sociological stuff is that when the -ists write their thesis or essay, e.g. membership patterns ... feminism within NRM etc, generally they are not writing about the BKWSU but about a sociological theory into which they want to fit or use the BKWSU as an example. This means that their work is not an accurate, direct documentation in the same way that a historian or historical theologian would.

Let's keep things cut to the facts without any hyperbole. 195.82.106.244 16:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Ummm this stance on sociologusts has no bearing here. If you think that sociologists research is not usuable as a reliable source, I would ask you to leave, now. If that is your stance, and you are going to argue against the inclusion of such sources, you do not belong here.

I'm not saying you are right or wrong, just that your modus operandi is vastly different then how we work here, and you could save us all a lot of grief, if you go elsewhere.Sethie 16:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Sociologists, theologians, historians, and other scholar's viewpoints are the basis for article such as this, regardless if these viewpoints are competing or converging. See WP:V AND WP:NPOV. 17:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

195.82.106.244, Reender Kranenborg is a not sociologist but a religious scholar. I have his 1974 Dutch language Phd. dissertation that he did in the theololgy faculty of the Free University of Amsterdam at home. However, I tend to agree with your observation that many religious scholars and esp. sociologists do no just want to describe beliefs, practices, demographics, controversies etc., but want to propose a new theory and use a certain groups as an example of their new theory. I think that the Brahma Kumaris are relatively uncontroversial. Andries 17:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

195.82.106.244, I hear your concerns about the PR job the Brahma Kumaris do, but alas we have to work with what is documented by those scholars that are not "charmed" by the PR. Frankly, my point of view after finding 5 books now that have information that the "scholars" seemed to have missed is that it will all come in due time. Once the information is placed in here, maybe those "scholar" may take off the blinders and have a look see. Until that time, we must work within those confines and give it our best efforts. I for one don't feel bad as the group has been successful in hiding their practices, beliefs and the "Hidden Doctrine" from the UN. I have found two English academics who's work is cited (by other academics) due to its in depth research (through actual cases...interviews, well researched) and a Spanish one (catalyst of the French government report) that also includes other groups and examines the causal effect of such groups (once again via cases......interviews, psychological reviews and well researched). As to Sethie's comments, well I for one wouldn't say “leave” ( I recognize the long term affects of the group and applaud the fact that you are still standing able to speak. I also, am cognizant of another that was 5 stories up ready to jump and since found the were with all to continue. Please, note that perhaps not all have read the personal stories, nor understand what the “orthodox” like you endured.), as we all have our good days and our bad days. One must looks towards the New Year with optimism, love, and good will. PEACETalkAbout 20:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi TalkAbout. Just curious about the edit summary of the above post, 'Please wait until the new "New Rules" to play together! Hope is eternal!'. If this is relavent to Wikipedia, then may I ask what "new rules" you are refering to? Thanks Bksimonb 16:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Bksimonb, That was in relation to the arb case and as of yet I haven't gotten any news on page. So, still waiting. PEACETalkAbout 22:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

OK thanks for the clarification & a happy new year to you :-) Regards Bksimonb 18:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear All, Happy new year! I was surprised to see how thoughtful 244 could be...proposing a page for "conflict resolution" Wow! About time... a bit too late 244, i am afraid. Arbitration is in place, you just have to be patient... in the meantime, and just to keep you busy, you can continue defaming me. I liked the write up you did on your site. I could have provided a better pic for you, something recent..with a " say cheeese" smile in the face... [4] I would like to thank you for allowing me to sharpen my computer skills...Still the brahmakumaris.info vs. .244 sockpuppet issue hasn't been resolved. I am looking forward to hear exactly how that is done. I can probably provide some help on it. Oh yeah, I would like to create another account as well to provide an accurate account of your latest defamations so we do not have to repeat the same things over and over every time you figure out how to delete the evidence. It could be: "bkinfowatch." A technical discussion on procedures to detect sockpuppet accounts could be added as well. The beauty of TCP/IP and open source. I'll be around...Very Best, avyakt7 02:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

"Let's keep things cut to the facts without any hyperbole." then, let us keep things to the "diffs." They talk by themselves. avyakt7 11:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

In response to 195.82.106.244. I had to trawl back a through the history to see where the extended quote by Reender Kranenborg. I agree, I'm no fan of using words like "the Highest" where the word "God" would surfice. If Kranenboug is going to be cited then the language would need some serious de-flowering. So do you have NPOV issues with the article in it's current form rather than the version you are refering to which, as far as I can tell, is buried in a hail of revert-bullets now? I'm a little puzzled since the article got frozen to a version to which you largely contributed. Regards Bksimonb 17:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you but, no.

a) the article has been torn to shreds mostly by folks who seemed to actually not know that much about the BKWSU, a whole lot of good stuff and accurate details were removed; the history and lifestyle details, for example.

b) we have a whole load more referenced and new stuff to add when it is opened back up.

c) we cannot confidently use the word "God". There is no evidence to suggest that the spirit entity involved here is "God", just that it is a spirit entity and that it is being channelled through mediums. The conception that the BKWSU has of "God" is so far at variance with all other world religions that it has to be clarified.

Sorry, but unless it is clarified, this has always been one of the whitewashed elements I have a problem with.

195.82.106.244 08:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

OK in response to each point above,

a) I am quite happy to see the article as it was ripped to shreds. As has been documented, there were serious issues with it in terms of uncited & contentious statements, bias, sensationalism and an overall ridiculing tone to it. May it R.I.P.

b) Good that you have some references now. I don't have a problem with criticism documented in the article as long as it is NPOV. That means, however, that the article isn't just made up of citations cherry-picked to back up a certain POV. The fact is that the BKWSU isn't really that controversial and an NPOV article will reflect that. I suspect you will disagree with me on this.

c) I've read with interest your view on the BKs and God both here and on your website forums. Interesting, but I think it is an opinion, and more than that, an opinion not shared by many others. You could say that the Christian concept God is "their God" since Christ is considered to be exclusively part of God in the sense of being one part of the Trinity. By the same argument, you could say that any religion that doesn't consider Christ to be uniquely part of God in this way must have a different God. Let's not go there. I suggest that God is universally recognised as being conscient and pure Light, Love and other spiritual qualities in their pure and infinite form (from a BK perspective, that's "infinite" in terms of depth, not space). In this respect the BKs do not differ from other religions. And they also do not differ in the sense that most religions believe God spoke to them via a medium such as the prophet Mohamed or a burning bush etc. Not intending to start any religious wars here but just to say that it is appropriate and polite to give any religion credit for having an valid concept of God and not to belittle their beliefs just on the basis of their differences.

Regards Bksimonb 17:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

07 is the year of wiki love and harmony.

Dear Jesselp; Yeah.. I can feel it....Soul conscious love is the one which brings harmony. With loving detachment, avyakt7 00:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Jesselp Happy New Year, attachment is a natural human condition, so keep spreading the wiki love. PEACETalkAbout 22:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

That image is disturbing, not to mention ugly... Happy '07! Sfacets 19:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The PM's wife, the Druid priestess and the no-sex guru

There has been a lot of press in the UK about how the British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his wife Cherie Booth have been out staying at the BeeGee Robin Gibb's, holiday house in Florida and associating with BKs there. The arrangements, a major newspaper reports, "having been made by Mrs Blair and Dwina Murphy-Gibb: erotic artist, one-time fetish-magazine model, part-time Druid priestess and bisexual [who has] a close involvement with Brahma Kumaris, a women-led spiritual organisation that, while striving for world peace, has allegedly used 'pernicious' methods to control its followers.".

• Would elements of this story be acceptable as citations? I note it is from the Mail on Sunday, reputable, upscale, right-wing family paper in the UK which has a circulation of over 2.3 Million. There is an online version for reference, here;

[http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23380710-details/PM's+wife+swops+best+friend+for+a+bisexual+Druid+priestess/article.do

"The PM's wife, the Druid priestess and the no-sex guru" - 06:01:2007 [5]. The article confirms the concern of cult watch groups, self-belief in being angels, problems created in family relationships and wrecked marriages and, financial controversies, the BKWSU spokesperson declining to comment (rather than deny) on allegations that it encourages followers to donate property and savings.

"Once asked what she thought of the "BKs', Dwina replied: "They are living, walking angels on this earth. They can help us become angels too."" It goes on to report that, "The group is led by 90-year-old Indian spiritualist Dadi Janki, a woman Dwina regards as her guru and whom she consults, according to a source close to her, 'about everything'. Both Dwina and Robin make regular donations to Brahma Kumaris.".

I note that these were all elements the BKWSU IT members have acted to remove. Feeling somewhat vindicated by this report, would the admins consider it fair now that they were reinstated?

Thank you. 195.82.106.244 08:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

( ... nice to read of just who the BKs are getting into bed with these days!)

There is one question to this, when did Robin and Dwina meet/marry before or after she was a bk?

jesselp 14:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you 195.82.106.244:-) That's all very interesting but this is not a news site nor a discussion page for news.

As the Evening Standard and Sunday Mail papers that published that article about Cherie Blair are considered “tabloids” it might be worth noting Wikipedia’s mention of tabloids as I don’t think that can be considered a trustworthy source for an encyclopedia:

"In its traditional sense, the term tabloid refers to a newspaper that tends to emphasise sensational stories and which is suspected of or prone to creating its news if the publication's management believes that the subjects cannot, or will not, sue for libel. In this respect, much of the content of the tabloid press could be said to fall into the category of junk food news.

Tabloid newspapers in Britain, collectively called the tabloid press, tend to be simply and sensationally written, and to give more prominence than broadsheets to celebrities, sports, crime stories and even hoaxes; they also more readily take a political position (either left- or right-wing) on news stories, ridiculing politicians, demanding resignations and predicting election results."

Regards Bksimonb 16:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Certainly a tabloid. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily, tabloid could very well refer to the format (597 mm × 375 mm) - and doesn't infer that it is less reputable than other published articles. Sfacets 19:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Not in this case. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree Jossi, where are you based? Sfacets is correct in this case. In the UK, a tabloid is like The Sun, The Star. It has a reading age of about 5 years old, with the requirement of a firm interest in breasts. So may be make that younger. The Mail is a proper newspaper and as such is governed by libel laws and duty of care. They could not print something with they had not confirmed and did not defend. You have the additional reported opinion of cult experts. It would say it supports the inclusion of a controversy section. Any one watching? 195.82.106.244 08:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Firstly I don't see anyone here disputing the need for a controversy section. Why does it need more support?

I would have thought the quality (or lack) of the article speaks for itself. The whole story is based on association. I'm sure there are plenty of "cult experts" around who are basically like hammers to whom just about any NRM you suggest to them looks like a nail. Actually I don't see why the BKs should be too bothered by the article. It's so overtly trashy that it can be safely filed under, "there's no such thing as bad publicity".

Why did you ask Jossi where he was based? Does he need to live in the UK to judge the quality of the journalism? Wikipedia describes the Daily Mail as a tabloid and "arguably the most right-wing" newspaper. That means they tend to support the opposition Conservative Party. Cherie Blair is the wife of the Labour Party prime minister. See any obvious conflict of interest there?

All newspapers carry the same risk of libel but a libel case is usually so difficult, risky and bankruptingly expensive that most people would rather just ride out the storm when they get a rough ride from the media. It's not like the Daily Mail is more at risk than the Sun. They just dress their sensational stories in more "grown up" English.

I am surprised that this newspaper article is being put forward as a reliable source given the proposed article probation. I would have thought that higher than usual, not less than usual, quality of sources would be put forward. All the allegations made against the BKs can be more adequately described and put into appropriate context using more sober and scholarly sources.

Regards Bksimonb 13:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

What is the problem with The Daily Mail? Some people believe 08:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

See above. Regards Bksimonb 13:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hope that helps balance the article ... Some people believe 08:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Err... debatable! Regards Bksimonb 13:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Attack site

There is an interesting arbitration principal from a previous case which I believe is applicable here [6]. Specifically,

Outing sites as attack sites 12) A website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to Wikipedia pages under any circumstances.

Since the website, http://www.brahmakumaris.info is revealing personal information (photo) [7] about editor Riveros11 I suggest any links to this site are removed from the article since it qualifies as an "attack site".

Regards Bksimonb 22:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Attacks/defamations/libel..."Some people believe" it is 244... Best, avyakt7 23:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I intend to delete the link to the attack site after one week if there are no compelling reasons not to. Regards Bksimonb 18:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Bksimonb, I intend to place http://www.brahmakumaris.info back as it is the only site that has the murlis (20 + years [8]),other documents[9],a wiki[10](although they are a bit touchy about non-BKs adding to it), photos[11] available to the public and current Brahma Kumaris as members[12]. So, if it were a true attack site the PR PBK along with current BKs would have bailed out to protect Avyakt7Riveros11 which they have not done. They site serves XBKs, BKs and PBK and some other off splinter group which I can't recall. I went over there and the things cited are not that alarming since the individual listed himself here early on, and in other places in a public way. All material cited is accessible via a public way. So, I challenge this as I see it as a way to keep up the fray which serves no one. Oh, the under dog is one of my main concerns and FREEDOM of INFORMATION(wothy cause). PEACETalkAbout 18:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox for you concerns about "freedeom of information". The definition quoted of an attack site is quite clear in that it, "engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants". Simply pointing to what else is on the site or saying that the information is also elsewhere does not excuse it.

Regards Bksimonb 19:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Bksimonb,

I don't want to go to how public this individual is, unless you insist and will provide it to you via some other method, rather than here for the sake of decorum. As to excusing any thing, please check your activities in tracing IPs and IDing Editor's locations "Japan" etc. Is this not trying to reveal private information? New Editors should be given a warm welcome and afforded civility as some times the mere "tone" scares them off.PEACETalkAbout 19:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Tracing IP addresses on Wikipedia is not a crime. Why else would wikipedia provide links to WHOIS tools on their counter vandalism pages [13] and advice on how to trace/contact the ISP? Linking to websites that actually attack Wikipedia editors, however, is a practice that arbitrators have found unacceptable as shown in the above quote. The article concerned not only reveals private information about Riveros11 but also attacks him at a personal level. I am going to revert your re-insertion of the link on this basis.

It is interesting to note that the article only tells half the story. It goes to great lengths to explain what are perceived to be Luis's shortcomings but completely fails to mention that 244 managed to get himself banned for making personal threats. If it is indeed 244 that is running that site and writing these articles then I guess that is not so surprising. Certainly the style seems quite similar to me. I notice an discussion thread about this issue has been posted already on the site (see bottom of page onwards) [14].

I would, as this point, welcome the comments of more experienced editors such as Jossi, Sfacets and Sethi. Otherwise I am prepared to do a RFc or ask the arbitration committee if we can't resolve this issue.

Regards Bksimonb 07:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Using quotes from the Daily Mail in controversy section

I'm uneasy about using quotes attributed to people from an article in the Daily Mail - a UK tabloid (which had an attack agenda against the BKs in the concerning article) in the controversy section. However, I'm not going to delete it myself as it may be taken as a "disruptive" move by me. I'll leave it for other editors to decide. However, I have added a reference in the section that the quotes are from the Daily Mail - so the casual reader can make their own minds up about the veracity of the quotes. (I forgot to log-on when I made the change. Appledell 22:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear All, I have added a tag for "Original Research." in the controversy section. I have attempted to contact the paper cited without a response from editors. There is no mention of author nor qualifications from that source. If someone could provide this information, it would be appreciated. Best Wishes, avyakt7 14:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we time out this paragraph and delete it within one week, that's on 20th Jan 2007. The article concerned has a clear agenda to try and make Cherie Blair look as daft as possible so obviously Dwina Gibb and BKs are made to look as dodgy as possible. They would obviously quote the most damning description they could find from the whoever would give it who could be presented as some kind of expert.

This is also an article in a series [15] [16], highlighting the Blair's association with the Gibbs. It is entirely possible that someone contacted the Daily Mail and suggested this interesting new angle to add to the series. I believe there is currently a campaign being waged against the BKs by contacting media and we sometimes come across other signs of this [17]. The nature of the accusations made and language used is always very distinctive even though the source is anonymous. I can read an article and get a hunch who's probably behind it.

I think we actually have an obligation and are "are expected to convert the article from its present state based on original research and BK publications to an article containing verifiable information based on reliable third party sources." I think a week is fair enough time to allow for objections to deleting the text.

Thanks & regards Bksimonb 18:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear All, I think a week is a bit too much. Hope an admin will give us some light on this to erase this malicious unreliable content ASAP. If we do not hear anything, I will erase it on the 20th as suggested. Best, avyakt7 22:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. It seems like someone out there likes to keep the paragraph just the way it was. It's an anonymous IP, 219.111.123.43 who has only ever made one edit. Originates from Japan & probably an anonymous proxy server. Bksimonb 10:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Simon, Perhaps it is time to request for a "partial protection" in that way , only users with accounts will be able to change the article...

In the meantime, I will revert the article...(time of placing the "ol' vandalism tag" around...) Did I do that before? Perhaps it is an old "sanskar"... Best, avyakt7 18:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Luis, but the edit summary you used was maybe a bit inappropriate. Summaries like that have got you some rap in the past. It is actually OK for an editor to make changes without discussion. The problem we have is with this particular edit was that it was by an anonymous IP posting for the first time and it was a seemingly calculated, nonconstructive and provocative edit. Regards Bksimonb 22:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, It was "rap"... and I like jazz... smooth jazz, anytime... Best, avyakt7 00:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

EL section

I have removed the geocites EL along with two links that basiclaly advertise two different retreat centers. I think some of the links that describe programs of the BK could be incorporated into the article... I may give this a whirl.Sethie 17:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Archived old discussion

Hope that's OK with everyone. I archived from before 20th Dec so that's conversations over 3 weeks old. I used the copy/paste method to archive so that live conversations can be kept on this page and also to be consistent with previous archives. Bksimonb 18:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Murli

Is it possible to start of this section with a definition of murli? Sethie 17:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sethie. Please clarify the request. Should that be "start a new section" or "start this section? If the latter then which section? Sorry to be pedantic. Just want to be sure I'm reading it right :-) Regards Bksimonb 18:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I mean within the section on murlis, under beliefs. Sethie 18:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Doesnt that section already explain what the murlis are? But feel free to propose a definition if you want...Appledell 20:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It does but in a round-about way. It really needs to be something that is clarified in the first sentence. Maybe we can re-write the paragraph from Kranenborg. Obviously we can't make statements like, "It contains the words of the Highest Soul itself", in an encyclopedia....

"g) The Murli

Formally, the movement does not have any ‘holy book'. Nevertheless, there is the so-called ‘Murli', a work that has originated since Lekh Raj received his messages. It contains the words of the Highest Soul itself. These messages have been written down and are largely to be found in the Murli."

How about, "The messages received from what is believed to be the Supreme Soul are known as the 'Murli'."

Regards Bksimonb 06:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Something that is a clear definition would be nice. "There is the so-called Murli" but what the heck is a Murli? Is it a book, a type of book, the name of a book? Sethie 08:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

...Or a link to Murti could br made to avoid clutter and duplicate content... Sfacets 09:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

But isn't "murti" something completely different to "murli"? As far as I am aware "murli" is a type of flute [18]. In the context of the BKs, the delivered messages are likened to Krishna playing the "flute/murli of knowlege". Now all we need is a reference to say this. It probably says so in Adi Dev, though this is a primary source. I'll have a look. Regards Bksimonb 09:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Controversy section

Dear All, This section has been deleted as previously discussed... and on the stipulated timeframe. Very Best, avyakt7 01:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

We have another new account from from Japan making contentious edits all of a sudden [19]. How does the article probation work in this situation i.e. who do we call when stuff like this happens? Bksimonb 11:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not in agreement in the removal of the Controversy Section since you archived the relevant points so as to leave the impression that there is no Controversy and you and your TEAM have in essence taken Ownership of the article. So, rather than getting into and editing war I will document all the changes as you Bksimonb are continuing with the same practices as before.Truth brings about PEACETalkAbout 16:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, please stop attacking the other editors by making accusations like, "and you and your TEAM have in essence taken Ownership of the article". If you read the previous discussion you will see that I am in favour of a controversy section however a sensationalist story in a tabloid newspaper probably isn't the best source for it. Please read the previous discussion for the reasons why. Regards Bksimonb 17:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Bksimonb,

First, I am not doing this:"please stop attacking the other editors by making accusations" as you have so stated. Secondly, upon viewing a cnn article I would point out the clear conflict of interest as stated in this article about Microsoft [20]. As I said I am documenting all the activity and may well write some thing about it at a later date. If this is your "Official Position" so be it! As to the ownership yes, my contentions are that it is the case. As to you making a case of me "attacking" anyone, rest assured that I have thought this through as I see it a ruse to get me banned. I have placed a request for protection of another page and see that, that requested was given "little" response yet yours tend to have garnered a quick reply. So, as I said I will continue to document every thing and when you seek to have me banned I will request an advocate.PEACETalkAbout 19:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

This has kind of veered off the article subject so I have responded on your talk page [21]. Thanks & regards Bksimonb 11:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:OWN

There is a bad case of ownership going on here WP:OWN. If you don't like other people editing your stuff. Don't contribute to the Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.5.192.100 (talk) 08:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

Feel free to contribute to the discussion page here in that case. Appledell 15:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Ignore it. It's another new account with an IP address based in Japan. My guess is that whoever it is will get more and more bold until it becomes more obvious who they are. As if we can't guess already ;-) WP:OWN indeed. It seems that some folks have such a bad case of the WP:OWNs that they even try to revert back "their" version of the article from beyond the grave! Bksimonb 16:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear All, Placed a request for semi-protection on this page.[22]

Also, it may be helpful to see Thatcher131 reponse to my questions[23]

Hope an admin will look into this. Best, avyakt7 17:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree totally with this being a case of WP:OWN and I don't recall any agreement from the arbitration committee stating that we had to get Bksimonb and his IT TEAM to approve of any editors contributions. If so, please cite here and advice.Truth brings about PEACETalkAbout 16:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the article history you will see that Smeelgova, Jossi, Sfacets, Wiki Raja and Sethie have all made recent edits to the article without having "to get Bksimonb and his IT TEAM to approve of any editors contributions". The WP:OWN topic was started by a disruptive editor who is using multiple IP addresses from different ISPs in Japan, probably anonymous proxy servers.

I suggest being a champion of more worthy causes.

Regards Bksimonb 17:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive Edits

We have a disruptive editor making daily edits with provocative summaries made by random IP addresses that have never edited before. The edits are disruptive in that they constantly re-introduce material that was deleted with good reason after sufficient time-out for other editors to comment. Specifically, they introduce material that 244 was known to champion. Also the style of editing is consistent with how 244 was behaving just before arbitration.

• Making a barrage of edits in succession which incrementally amount to a revert [24],
• Re-introducing material that was removed because it was not adequately sourced, made contentious claims, linked to attack sites or other good reasons why it was legitimately removed [25],
• Mixed with other edits so he can scream, "Hey! Look! They are reverting valid edits too!" [26],
• Taunting edit summaries [27] [28] [29] and discussion topics [30],
• Disruptive edits tend to follow a daily or twice-daily cycle.

I suggest that any editor about to make a constructive edit, please check the recent history of the article so that you don't inadvertently start editing a mangled version of the article. If necessary revert, then edit. This is also part of the game, to see if he/she can dupe anyone into reverting other editor's edits in the crossfire.

Page semi-protection has been requested by avyakt7. However there is a case of a suspected "submarine" sock-puppet log-in account where a user performed a number of incognito minor edits to unrelated articles [31] then suddenly flipped and made a contentious edit to this article based on a tabloid article that 244 was strongly promoting [32] [33].

Regards Bksimonb 06:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, semi-protected will solve things real quick. Sethie 07:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Protected

It looks like the IP editor is the banned 195 editor, based on the style and content of the contributions (complaints about the BK IT team, correcting descriptions of the practices based on personal experience). However, the edits are coming from Japan, where 195 was in England, so it could be proxies (human or digital), but the result is the same. I can't block 6 different Japanese ISPs so the only choice is to semi-protect the article. You do need to be aware that a fair and accurate article should probably contain some description of negative reports of the group, so protection is not a license to ignore such contributions. Ideally, links to external sites and inclusion of negative material would be evaluated by editors who don't have a vested interest in either direction. Protection will expire automatically, I won't say exactly when, but if the 195-like IP edits return, post another notification to WP:AE. Thatcher131 08:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response Thatcher131. Best, avyakt7 12:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher131,

I see that the article is now becoming an [34]{{Advert|date=December 2007}} for the Brahma Kumaris and protection serves only to allow them (BKs) control the article. Where is the controversy (removed), where is the mention of apostates (removed)? This must be the "only" organization to not have any problems...by viewing this article. I see no other article that lists current events/activities in wikipedia.PEACETalkAbout 22:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

In addition, the section on BK fronts was removed and this addition listing their events would seem to prove that they have many fronts, but the same players as that is Mohini(Mohini, Senior sister in charge of the IT TEAM[35] in the photo[36] in another BKWSU site just with another spin but the same players.PEACETalkAbout 22:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Dearest Sister Tete... I meant.. TalkAbout; Om Shanti! Glad to see you here! I understand that you have been busy here[37] I was wondering about the authors of those "resources" are they scholars? Sister, "The greatness project is a "great" activity going on in the USA. You see, Brahma Kumaris is not only London and India. You should know that the guest

list includes state senator Ms. Ann D. Duplessis and Ms. Gloria Powers,

Director of the Gambit Weekly among others... So much for a "cult" eh Sister?

Are you taking days off these days to spread your BK defamation around? Perhaps you need a Wiki "Vacation" as well? Don't worry. I'll take care of things while you take leave...

BTW, please send my regards to 244 and let him know that I was dissapointed with his article in his BKINFO site... He was doing a great job as a journalist but he did not finish it... Let me help you with a juicy header to continue: " EX-BK Banned from Wikipedia" he is good about the rest of the "blurb"..you know... or perhaps: "244 off wiki land for a year"... Sister, it will be an honor to be here contributing on this article with you...Best Wishes, avyakt7 23:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Riveros, unless user:TalkAbout has identified him or herself openly, please do not divulge what you believe to be that person's name (or make a game of going half way, as you appear to have done). Much of your comment is a borderline personal attack and is inappropriate. All editors need to work together in a spirit of mutual respect and cooperation, and playing word games and making insults does not accomplish this goal. I would also suggest you review Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2/Proposed decision. This was another case where activist editors to an article about a new religious movement were given advice and amnesty (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba) but couldn't put away their activism to become good editors. Most of them are in danger of being banned from the articles they care the most about. You were given a second chance [38]; you won't get a third. Thatcher131 23:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I will not get banned for activist editing, but for exhausting the patience of the arbitration commitee. Fred Bauder described my recent edits to the Sathya Sai Baba article as responsible. The arb com members have not produced not a single diff since the amnesty in which I made a disruptive edit, in spite of my show such a diff.Andries

Dear Thatcher131, Please take a look at this: [39]

the 4th or 5th post is the one which user TalkAbout has been defending as a source in this page even though, here it was dismissed as a reliable source[40]

It should be clear TalkAbout's attempt to continue with animosity towards BK here and in other wiki pages.

I am not disclosing TalkAbout's real name (It is her user name in 244's website) as you are disclosing my real last name in your reply, and certainly I am not insulting anyone as you mention. I have a user name in Wikipedia as well.

Thank you. avyakt7 01:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

avyakt7,

I do believe that you used the same tactics on .244 (trying to reveal his identity with great success in the end), attacking Green108[41][42] and even gave “Shrimat” to a young one on this current page regarding “detachment”. The wikipedia Admins are not aware of what you are doing but I am and it appears even a non-BK editor too. You knew Green had been 5 stories up, and from my vantage point you seemed to be willing to give him a push. Now, you seem fit to go after women and children! If you read the posts her only motivation was to protect her child and to leave a warning to other parents. Oh, that is her name you used! Go back and read again if you must to confirm this.

Oh, I did learn why you are trying to attack this individual which was already addressed to BKsimonb[43] . So, there is a Child Underground Protection Plan and most recently the messages were sent out to protect very small children from the practice of “DETATCHEMNT” (mother being told not to physically touch them). Young children can be permanently damaged by this sort of ABUSE and yes it is abuse. Young children do not understand they are expected to be yogis, they only know they want to be loved. I wonder how State Senator Ms. Ann D. Duplessis and Ms. Gloria Powers will feel when the truth is finally out of the box. So, if you must, go on and attack me if it keeps you from attacking others. So, please stick to the discussion points and leave the personal attacks out and check your stage. I am placing the link www.brahmakumaris.info[44] [45] back as I see it will serve to protect children (thanks to you leading me there) and that this ruse you have used about poor little me is merely to keep others from getting help and to suppress the truth. Truth brings about PEACETalkAbout 21:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the link to brahmakumaris.info *again*. You may think it serves to protect children - but that is *your* opinion. We have to stick to what is acceptable under wikipedia. It is already clear that the site is the work of 244 - who has been banned from editing this article. It is a self-published site by him. That website doesn't fulfil the criteria of what is acceptable to link to under wikipedia. I hope you can follow up on your indication that you have other, more relevant, sources of criticism - which this article certainly could do with. ~~ Appledell

Dear Sister "T": Wow! I didn't realize I was such a "bad" influence...On the other hand, you seem like a "super hero" willing to suffer for the "good of mankind." (spending lots of $$ in books about BK, taking time off from work in order to post here and... making sure that your relatives know about this "bad guy", avyakt7 who you think; may decide to give you a visit in California...) What a sister!

You are not a BK neither an Ex-BK, what is your business here? You truly go to lots of hardship to defame BK. Can't detach from 244 sister? Better check your stage. It is unfortunate that some people cannot understand the meaning of detachment. Interpretation is the mother of all evils...will not go into details on this here. Speaking about tacticts... May i suggest trying "reliable sources"? That may work here.... Best Wishes, Sister. avyakt7 01:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually this article needs editors who are neither BK nor xBK. So they are most welcome here. Having said that, an overtly pro or anti POV in itself about a subject can be a conflict of interest. Probably a lot more so than simple affiliation with the BKs. I'm as curious as anyone about what is behind the hostility I am seeing expressed here towards BKs but at the same time I would really appreciate more input from sober, "detached" editors :-) Regards Bksimonb 19:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Bksimonb, It would be nice to have that kind of input. However, historically in this article, you had one side (pro-BK) or the other (against BK) even editors self-proclaimed "non-Bks/non-ex Bks" are one sided and realistically I do not see anyone whithout a "vested interest" to spend the kind of time which is needed to contribute here. For that reason, I am very curious as well as to why someone like TalkAbout is so intent in defaming BK with such passion... I wonder.... Best Wishes, avyakt7 21:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Talkabout. May I request that we only discuss the article, not the subject here. I consider your view on detachment to be a gross, and seemingly provocative, misinterpretation of BK beliefs. That is, it appears to me to be flamebait. If you look at the talk history you'll see I almost bit the bait too! These ranting attacks are really not conducive to creating an atmosphere where any development of the article can take place. Wikipedia is really not the place for activist campaigns or for fighting battles. It's a time-consuming headache for the admins that are trying to manage this situation and the other editors that are trying to fend off the guerrilla tactics. Regards Bksimonb 11:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Bksimonb,

I have no trouble in any other article in discussing the points, perhaps it is all the sussing that goes on here. Further, might I point out that as to flame baiting you continue to use "guerrilla tactics" since you have checked that I work on articles of people of color. I find this offensive and baiting. As to sticking to the discussion points, please advice avyakt7 on this very issue too. As I have stated I am not an ExBK and will be civil.(please see my talk page for a full reply) Truth brings about PEACE.TalkAbout 19:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't get the bit about "people of color". What am I supposed to have done??? Please supply a diff that illustrates whatever it is because I can't think of any comments I could have possibly made about other articles you edit. Thanks & regards Bksimonb 19:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Talkabout is confusing "Guerilla" with the word "Gorilla", thinking it is a racist comment you are making. Talkbout: it isn't. These are two words with different meanings. ~~ Appledell

Appledell, I already solved this with Bksimonb and cleared the air. FYI it is a common thing to do:"Guerilla" is commonly used as code for "Gorilla". I wouldn't be that sensitive if it were not for avyakt7's incessant hostility towards me and (since you seem to be the only one that has hinted that he should settle down) I thought I should protest early so it wouldn't go further. Thank you and I did leave your entry in when replacing the cited material. PEACETalkAbout 02:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

TalkAbout, any registered user may make changes to the article. Anonymous editors may either register, or make suggestions here and post {{editprotected}}, which places a notification to admins that there is a request to have an edit made. I'm reasonably sure that the recent anonymous edits were made by the person, or at the behest of the person, who used to post from 195, and who is banned from wikipedia for a year. Protection seems a better response than getting the habit of reverting every anonymous editor. Reliable negative information should be inlcuded in the article. Jossi's list of sources here should be useful, and his comments were pretty smart, too. Chances are you can borrow those books at any reasonably sized library through interlibrary loan for a small fee. Thatcher131 23:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC) ~

Thatcher131,

Thank you for the above, I will do that shortly. And yes, I have begun to gain access to some good materials that will enhance the article. PEACETalkAbout

"Current Activities Worldwide" section

Is this section really needed? Once started, where does it end? I'm not sure if it adds much in terms of the sum of knowledge about the BKs and I can understand why it would just be seen as an ad for the BKs. Appledell ~~

Dear Appledell; Thatcher131 mentioned that "some negative stuff should be in this article as well." If that is the case, to make it a balanced article then positive stuff should be there as well. After all, this is about informing about BK to the public. If there is something recent, something which anyone can see by themselves, to make their own opinion, why not? Brahma Kumaris works in different countries as well, as I said before; this is not about India and the UK alone.

Besides, it is something which anyone could check with an internet connection. It is not a gossip from a tabloid nor a non-reliable source. If anything that looks positive is considered an advertisement, isn't "negative stuff" another form of an advertisement? Then, take away the negative and the positive. Best, avyakt7 21:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Err. Two wrongs don't make a right (three lefts do!). This is definitely a flyer. Consider the sentence, "This program is webcasted in order to assure greater participation." How relevant will this statement be after the event? I suggest that if we have a section listing projects that it just takes a list form and a link to the website concerned without saying any more about it. People can read for themselves and make up their own minds then.

Regards Bksimonb 06:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear All, That sounds reasonable to me. Will modify the section accordingly. Best, avyakt7 15:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Some people believe

Dear all, I will request a "check user" on this user ID and 244's IP.[46] It is evident that 244 is back with different sockpuppet accounts. "Some people believe" have been reverting the article. 244 proxy trick did not work any longer so he is forced to use another of his several accounts. Best, avyakt7 21:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest listing all the IPs used in the correct format for checkuser. See see previous request concerning the proxy attacks [47]. It is unlikely the 244 IP address you listed would be used. Regards Bksimonb 17:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet account belonging to 244 has infringed the 3RR [48] Is an admin going to block him? Best, avyakt7 18:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you again Thatcher131.[49]It seems to me that 244 will keep on trying with different user names and /or IPs if the door is open. Best, avyakt7 14:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

244 back with sockpuppet account Some people

Dear All, Please take a look at the history of the article. User 244 has been making several changes with his sockpuppet account. TalkAbout is no less.

It is unfortunately that Wikipedia will allow things like this to happen, specially after going through arbitration. It seems like the power to enforce is lacking.... and then you wonder: These same individuals are good about giving "shrimat" to others..."Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" ThinkAbout.... Best, avyakt7 00:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

avyakt7,

First, leave my "eye" out of it. Secondly, I did leave Some people a message on both his/her talk page (not too receptive) and mine. Thirdly, let me tell you how one time a bot came along after a vandal and did multitude of little corrections and I was stuck reverting the vandal and re-inserting all the little corrections. So, my point is that you should remove the edit in question with good reason and leave the others alone. I really wish you would stop being mean "TalkAbout is no less." as it doesn't bode well for you or me.PEACE TalkAbout 02:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

TalkAbout reverting

Dear TalkAbout, You are right .. you are not a sockpuppet account; however, please make your additions using a current discussed version. Do not wait for 244 to make his changes and then, you make your changes. That is dishonest. You know he is a banned user. Are you that desperate? "Tell me who is by your side and I'll tell you who you are.." I know you will get this (Spanish saying):"Anda con lobos y aprenderas a ahullar.." just ThinkAbout... Admins are you there?--You see the trick,right?.. 244 does the editing, TalkAbout gives the final touches and ... Presto! a new version to revert... and then she complains about people deleting her stuff....Neato mosquito... Best, avyakt7 00:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

avyakt7,

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Stop with the personal attacks as I am not a dog nor a mosquito! As to who is next to me? No one I am in my office working late. Now, my point to you is this. When editing and you disagree or find that there is no merit for a particular piece or editing, then take the trouble and remove that which is in question but do not remove "everyone's" work. See how other articles work!. I has been defending a piece of tabloid information whfrequently edit articles with up to 4 editing members and don't have these issues like I do with you? So, leave the personal attacks out. 'As to this:Are you that desperate? The latter is your continued sexist comments towards me which are neither necessary nor warranted. TalkAbout 01:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sister Double "T": Please do not be so touchy...stay relaxed, Ok? There are no personal attacks here. Firstable, it is obvious that user "some people" it is your old friend 244. That user have been banned. He is unwilling to comply with his "sentence." He is acting in a dishonest way. There is no obligation for us, editors to accept his changes. You are acting desperately and dishonest as well. Use a "good version" of the article. Do not wait for 244 to make all the changes and then you make yours, and use that opportunity to complain about me, when I revert to the last "good version" obviously your changes will be gone as well. As I said, use a "good" version... There is no need for you to go through so much pain and agony, sister... You know, 244 is "some people" do you? I am surprised admins have not taken action yet...Are you familiar with american and spanish sayings? No?? Look at the deeper meaning of those. Obviously, you are not a dog or a mosquito. You are a soul. Did you know that? Ok. dear Sister, PEACE to you and time to be detached... you see; detachement is a good thing... Best Wishes; avyakt7 10:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

If TalkAbout agrees with the edits made by 244 she can make them. Your behavior is also a problem. Here you reverted across over 30 edits by three different people, and here you reverted across 57 edits with almost no changes preserved. The best practice would be for TalkAbout to revert the 244 editor and then to carefully re-add those parts of 244's edits that conform to editorial policy. Remember that the key issues at this point include no original research. Adding material based on your own knowledge of the movement and your own interpretation of documents you have seen is original research. Clearly, people interpret the movement's documents differently. The 244 editor seemed to be interested in adding interpretations of the movement's documents that made them seem more dangerous or crazy. All editors must adhere to the policy of reliable sources. You may describe what other investigators, religious scholars, reporters, and so forth have said about the movement. If you do not have an outside reliable source (and not just someone's web site, either positive or negative) then you can't add the material. If 244 has some good sources then TalkAbout can use them. If 244 is just re-adding his personal determinations, then TalkAbout should not support them. If the editors here keep edit warring and can not learn proper use of reliable sources and the no original research policy, the arbitration case may be reopened and additional sanctions applied. Thanks. Thatcher131 12:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Thatcher131. I am concerned that allowing 244 to continue to edit via a sockpuppet if supported by a sympathetic editor is sending out the completely wrong message. The changes that 244 has made in the last few hours were very far reaching and it seems they have just been rubber-stamped. I would be disappointed if it is really this easy to circumvent the arb com ruling. I would feel more comfortable if banned from editing really did mean what it said. Thanks Bksimonb 13:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Thatcher131, I am afraid you are not behaving consistently here. User 244 has been banned. You blocked him for 24 hrs because he used his sockpuppet account "Some people" .. Now, He comes back again using the same account to make his changes and ... everything is fine!! The second edit which you claim is a problem on my behavior, it is my own revised change after we had a discussion here on this page. I am suspicious now that things are not being handled as they should. Yes, I will request for re-openning of this case if necessary and I will request for a member of the ArbComm to take a look at this. I wonder if there is any other admin here besides you. So far, all the requests we have made for checking 244 have been ignored or delayed. (and that is not only my requests.)

Briefly: 244 is not supposed to post here. Then TalkAbout cannot use his posts under "Some people" to add a new version of the article. See, it is logical.

Best Wishes, avyakt7 13:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher131,

I do not know, nor was I informed that Some People was declared to be .244. If this is the finding then I will adhere to your decision and monitor this. All I did in relation the the editing was checking what was being added and even left a message about the edits on the user's talk page. I would like to state that I am using my own sources/books which I am now able to read. My issue with avyakt7 is his blanket removal of my edits which are of well sourced and his continued personal attacks. Now, in fairness avyakt7 should be made aware that it is common for other editors to clean-up others work...there are even BarnStars for this type of editing. So, if some other user shows up, I will fix their edits until I know otherwise. I didn't remove the edits by Some People as I thought it was wiser to advice him of the arbitration and also the sourcing required. So, in closing it is official that Some People is .244? PEACETalkAbout 15:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I have indefinitely banned Some people (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). At the time of Riveros' first complaint about the IP editors I was not convinced about Some people, I have become more convinced over time. That's not "official" in the sense of Papal infallibility, for example. It is my best judgement of the situation based on his contributions and style being very similar to the person who used to edit from that IP. Someone could open an investigation at WP:SSP if they wanted a third party review. In general, banned users are not allowed to contribute, and the edits of banned users may be reverted by anyone. There is nothing against reinstating the edits of a banned user under your own name; if there was, lots of articles would be frozen forever. But, when you edit the article you take responsibility for your own edits, whatever they are. Riveros needs to be careful about his reverting, that he does not assume that every anti-BK editor is 244. That judgement should be left to an independent party. Also, Riveros should not revert other editors' edits; that's just edit warring and is subject to sanction if it goes too far. Discuss edits on the talk page, please. Edits that derive from unreliable sources should be removed, but it is better to discuss it first rather than start reverting. Edit summaries are not a substitute for discussion. Thatcher131 15:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Thatcher131, I will consider this paragraph:"Riveros needs to be careful about his reverting, that he does not assume that every anti-BK editor is 244. That judgement should be left to an independent party. Also, Riveros should not revert other editors' edits; that's just edit warring and is subject to sanction if it goes too far. Discuss edits on the talk page, please. Edits that derive from unreliable sources should be removed, but it is better to discuss it first rather than start reverting. Edit summaries are not a substitute for discussion. Thatcher131 15:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)"

1. Please take a look at the history of the article. It was totally reverted last night. Not even 24 hours ago. User "Some people" hasn't participated here since 244 was banned. You are not the only one who can get "convinced" over time by the "modus operandi" of 244 and "Some people." The only difference between you and I, is that you make the call at this point. However, as I said before if "some people" can make a revert with 30 + posts in 12 hours without sharing a word here...is that considered OK by your standards? 244 has deep animosity towards Brahma Kumaris. He has the time to post that here. It is his life quest. Any other sensible user wouldn't be here trying as hard as him. and No.. I do not think that every user who posts against Brahma Kumaris is 244. But certainly, "Some people" is him.(even you have suggested that) 2. I have made a post myself "Current activities Worldwide." I do not see that header now. Perhaps TalkAbout has some special powers with you which I am not aware of. She complains about her posts being erased, how about mine? How about the other editors? Neither TalkAbout nor "Some People" gave us the chance for rebuttal. 3. Edit war. You seem too loose here. TalkAbout has been doing that as well as "Some people." But for some reason you like to pick on Riveros. Consider that.

4.Consider this: "Discuss edits on the talk page, please. Edits that derive from unreliable sources should be removed, but it is better to discuss it first rather than start reverting." Did "Some people" and "TalkAbout" followed that? Or that is conveniently from "now on"?

5.Finally, the outcome is that the article has been totally reverted in the last 12 hours. "Some people", "Talk About" and even Andries were there, does it ring a bell to you? I request this article be reverted to the way it was yesterday, January 28th after I made my changes in the header (Current Worldwide activities) I added after discussing it here. TalkAbout could make her edits on that version and she could give us the opportunity to discuss here as you pointed out. 24 hours to do that is fair. Otherwise I will be forced to bring this issue to the ArbComm and perhaps request a review of this article and its new "players." Thatcher131, I trust in your sense of fairness and goodwill. Very Best, avyakt7 19:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

All editors are expected to behave themselves according to our standards of community accepted behavior. The fact that some editors do not discuss their changes on the talk page does not give other editors license to do the same. When you reverted Some people here, you also reverted several of TalkAbout's edits. One way to deal with the situation is, rather than reverting, try and remove poorly sourced content added by Some people without removing TalkAbout's. Another way of handling it would be to apologize to TalkAbout: I'm sorry that I had to revert your work as well, but Some people is a banned user, and it was too hard to separate your edits from his. Go ahead and add your stuff back." A third way of dealing with it would be to negotiate with the other editors on the talk page before making any changes. Try and propose compromise language, or point out sections that are original research rather than reporting what other reliable sources have said.

I see some good things and some bad things in the difference between Riveros' preferred version and the current version. [50] Good things include more use of academic published sources. Bad things include direct use of BK sources, and the possible reliance on Dr. Walliss' web site. (I would need to study this more). There seem to be long passages of church documents or scriptures quoted in footnotes without corresponding citations, I would tend to remove this. "He had a vision of XXX" should be footnoted with a source confirming this, it is not necessary and probably excessive to quote the vision at length). In general, using church documents and other original sources to make a new argument is original research and not allowed. If a reliable source has described the BK beliefs his description can be used as a source instead. No one should really add or remove stuff just because they don't like it. If material is acceptable per editorial policies, then it becomes a question of the judgement of the editors as to how far to go in any given situation, which should be worked out first on the talk page. Thatcher131 21:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. Regards Bksimonb 07:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Thatcher131, Thank you for your reply. I suggest you spend more time looking at the problem and the issues before responding so quickly. The issue here is that a user reverted a post I had for a week after discussion. Whether that post has BK sources or not is not the issue. The issue is: it was deleted whitout letting me know about it. It is obvious you have not seen the note I left to TalkAbout in one of my reverted versions:"01:06 29 January 2007 (talkAbout: You can add your links here. Do not be dishonest by using 244's versions. See discussion)" I am sorry I did not use such an apologetic language as you suggest, but the space in that box is not big enough sometimes. TalkAbout ignored the suggestion by pretending not knowing who I was referring to.

Perhaps a history of the page from the time it was changed by "Some people" could help to refresh our minds: 23:47 28 Jan Some people - 23:49 28 Jan TalkAbout - 23:56 28 Jan Some people - 00:00 29 Jan TalkAbout - She added her things for the next 20 minutes. until I reverted to previous version at 00:24 29 Jan - 5 minutes later TalkAbout reverted. 5 minutes later I reverted with a note to her. Evidently most of the changes had been done by "Some People" at the time of my first revert.

There is a concerted effort here to change things in synchrony, which the history of the article could easily show. There are some things which I do not understand in your post: "No one should really add or remove stuff just because they don't like it." Can you add stuff here that you don't like? - I don't recall using Dr. Waliss's website as well but rather papers he sent me via email which I posted for everyone to see.

Thatcher131, there is a lot to be desired about your neutrality here. It is unfortunate but I have no option but to do as I said I would, of course; backed up by the resources I have already collected. Will start working on it from tomorrow on. Very Best, avyakt7 01:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)