Talk:Brahma Kumaris/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Murlis

Danh, I disagree with "Mama's Murlis" being described as one type of Murli. BKs don't believe Mama was a medium of God, therefore I think placing it together as Sakar and Avyakt would only confuse that section, which is already unnecessarily lengthy. I think just a brief and objective explanation about what Murlis are believed to be is enough. If you want Mama's classes to be addressed somewhere in the article, I suggest "early history". GreyWinterOwl (talk) 11:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

This section needs better sources. Has anyone come across good ones? Changeisconstant (talk) 11:35, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure thing, I see your point Owl. Where I am coming from (which might be better managed as you suggest) was that:

1. Om Radhe/Mama held a completely unique and unparalleled position in the history of the BK's - her classes are always referred to as 'murli', a mark of respect not accorded to anyone else, and this aspect was overlooked in the article. As she wasn't a medium, it meant it was inaccurate for 'mediumistic messages' to keep being repeatedly used as a substitute for BK teachings through the article, so I changed that languaging. While it appears true (Mama's murli), CiC has a good point - Wikipedia can't be the first to report on it. The only evidence I have is one self published book of "Mamas murli's" (Gyan Sitar), and there is no sign of this anywhere online. I would be a bit of a hypocrite if I relied on that - that kind of thing was my main complaint about the earlier article.

2. Must admit, I'm not that comfortable with her name being dropped from the lede. However, I would agree 'co-founder' overstates the role and doesn't accord with resources. Reading the history, it was Om Radhe who was President of the organisation, who managed the trust and finance of the group, who students got letters from their parents to go and study with, who met officials who came to organisation, attended Court etc. However, this definitely can be addressed in the early history which in my view risks painting the organisation like another patriarchal 'gurudom' without her.

Conclusion: I will put sometime into fixing up the early history. Can someone else deal with deleting the other miscellaneous pages and talk pages mentioned above? It seems everyone is fine with that happening.

Destruction - please check if you think this is sub-section okay. I kept the references, but moved the wording around to more accurately represent them, provided some context and made the criticism more neutral. Feedback welcome. Regards Danh108 (talk) 15:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

PS - so Owl, please feel free adjust the section you refer to. I will add the information you remove in to the history later. If you can find the reference CiC mentions for 'avyakt' and 'sakar' murli, great. Regards Danh108 (talk) 16:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

The role of women has been clearly prominent and her details should certainly be picked from reliable sources and added appropriately. I removed it from Lede as it wasn't supported by references. However if you can establish her role in early history by reliable sources and if carries weight, I believe her name can reflect in Lede accordingly. Hope that's fine. Changeisconstant (talk) 17:27, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Hidden meaning or not? - following recent contribution by "new" editor

I deciphered the importance of the date of 18 Jan, but what does 24 June mean to the BKSWU? GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Graeme, January 18 is the date the founder passed away, June 24 is the date the first coordinator and co-founder, Radhi, passed away. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 16:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Well clearly there is someone who wants to mock Brahmakumaris by choosing key dates in their evolution and has gone a bit wild by restoring the old versions which Janaurythe18th was obsessively controlling for many months. Changeisconstant (talk) 17:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

June24th a brand new editor, I wonder who might that be?

A new editor June24th (BTW the date Mama, the first coordinator of Brahma Kumaris passed away, January 18 is the date the founder passed away), reverted the whole article to the version previous to Januarythe18th being indef blocked. Obviously, it's a sock. I suggest a sock investigation. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 16:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

BTW, the new sock follows the exact same pattern of the previous socks of [User:Lucyintheskywithdada], of returning with usernames that mock some BK belief or related information. For general information, here is the archive of sockpuppets tracing back to 2006: [1]. At the bottom, detailed evidence that Jan18 is the same user. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 16:27, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Even just vandalism might be appropriate for this kind of edit/account? Danh108 (talk) 16:24, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I've put it and the Admin Incidents Noticeboard. Anyhow, let him go wild. It's just emphasising there was always a serious problem with this editor. Regards Danh108 (talk) 16:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

BTW, how to revert more than one edit at once? I know only how to revert the last edit. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 16:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

What January did was to go to page history, open up the last version of the article he was happy with, then go to edit, then just save it. I opened up the article after you reverted, edited, then saved with the comment re vandalism. Regards Danh108 (talk) 17:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks like it wasn't January[2]. Danh108 (talk) 07:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

admin TP had a fair point in SPI case that it could have been someone wanting to make sure January doesn't get unblocked. That seems to be clarified by the new editor. Changeisconstant (talk) 09:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so sure it's not him. Strawman socking is a speciality of Lucy and this behavior is just a repetition of previous patterns. He also speaks in the exact same style of previous socks. "I know the truth", "the BKs want to hide the truth", etc. etc. I think his message on his talk page helps to indicate it's him. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 09:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Look at this link [3] to find many similar socks with names that mock BK, and speaking the same thing June24th said. "The previous version of the article is accurate, well referenced, true, etc." and "BKs want to hide the truth and should be banned". It's not unusual that a sock comes right after another is blocked. Same pattern, same behavior, same claims. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 09:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Forking of Beliefs and practices

I was thinking that there needs to be a section titled "Practices". My logic is that Meditation is not a belief, it's something BKs do. The lifestyle would fit nicely into a section on practices. It's also good encyclopedic info i.e. What is a BK? 1. What do they believe, 2. What do they actually do. That would then flow on nicely into the Activities section. Regards Danh108 (talk) 10:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd just rename the section to "Beliefs and practices". The latter come from the former and it would be better to keep cause and effect together in the same section. Eg sentence constructs such as "They believe that...and.... as a result they....." GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Can do Greame. Thank you

Also, I've never deleted pages before (AfD). Is there any thing that can go wrong or I should know? Or is it just fine now to list all the above mentioned for deletion? The reason I ask is because reading the page there were a number of aspects raised that I didn't know about like 'merging' etc. Regards Danh108 (talk) 15:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

In that case, I would suggest that you start with only one page - the "List of BK members" is probably a good starting candidate. Read the instructions at WP:AfD and see if you can identify suitable reasons for deleting the article. AfD is decided on strength of argument, not the mere numbers of opinions, so it helps to be able to quote the policies or guidelines applicable. When you have a reason (or two) mention your thoughts here and see what others think. Then once you've seen how an AfD runs, you can hone your skills by putting the Beliefs subpage forward for deletion. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. I actually didn't even see that page before, going through the BK category instead. The BK at the UN article isn't categorized for the BK either. If you know of any other articles not included in the category, feel free to add them to it, to make it easier for people to see that way which relevant articles exist. John Carter (talk) 17:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to do this. However I don't mind if Owl or CiC has more time than me...most welcome to do it! I would rather sort the early history and expansion sections out first....bit of a job list developing on this article :'(. Regards Danh108 (talk) 09:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Controversy and Criticism

This section was also such a big dump of information. I think it can be divided into Historical and Contemporary issues - subsections are making the article more 'readable'. The latter section I will put in reverse chronological order as I go through and check the references - you may have noticed I found 2 more comments that are not at all supported by the reference.

I have added the conjugal rights stir here as I thought it sat nicely against Prem Choudry's opinion.

I have found a couple points while reading to add on to this section as well. My opinion is that nothing can be 'buried under the carpet' i.e. I will insert it, but feedback is welcome if others think the view expressed is to obscure or in contradiction to a number of other independent commentators etc. Thank you Danh108 (talk) 14:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I observed that as well, that many of the references in this section were presented in a tabloid fashion. The new structure and chronological order makes sense as long as valid ones are not removed. Changeisconstant (talk) 18:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Domain name dispute

The domain name dispute, in controversies section, was originally placed as a self-advert of a critical website. It was moved to controversies but it was not established that an organization disputing its own name is controversial. Any organization would dispute the use of its own name for a website. If no Reliable Source refers to a domain dispute as something particularly controversial, then it's unsupported to be there. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 13:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

It really boils down to if there's secondary coverage of the dispute. If there's just one or two mentions in mostly regional sources, my inclination would be a small mention at most, but probably not much. If there's coverage in national or international sources, especially if there was any controversy around the case (either the decision to file itself or the outcome), I'd be more inclined to expect it to be covered. Domain name cases aren't automatically notable - they happen fairly often, especially "complaint" type domains. Some of them do become notable for various reasons. See People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Doughney and the coverage in the main PETA article for an example. Also see Nissan Motors vs. Nissan Computer for another example. Organizations file these cases all the time with some succeeding and some failing. Without significant secondary source coverage, it probably shouldn't be included here. Ravensfire (talk) 14:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Very well thought out response Ravensfire - thank you.

As far as I know there isn't a single secondary source that covers this event. It was a non-event for everyone except the group that had hijacked this Wikipedia article for the last 2 years. Hence they had previously dedicated a whole section of the article to it and grossly mis-stated what really happened.

Even now I am still just discovering how poor this article was - every reference I open up and read, quotes are skewed, comments taken out of context....it's thorough and systematic. Which reminds me of something else I noticed:

Looking at January's contrib's, this editors campaign is spread through out Wikipedia. In many places that BKs have been mentioned, he has posted some disparaging POV-laden remarks. Any comments/thoughts? (Just get on with the clean up and don't whinge too much?) Danh108 (talk) 16:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree - can not find any reference that makes this as a notable dispute. The editor in question has been on a mission; to spread anti-BK POV on all articles that can be possibly linked to BKs. Personally I have no doubt that January is involved with brahmakumaris.info web-site and has made Wikipedia a battleground which is unfortunate. What brought me to this topic was a drop in my faith in Wikipedia which is such an incredible resource by seeing that one editor can actually own an article for years and block all other editors; however thankfully, my faith in Wikipedia is getting restored now that sanity is established. Lets leave this issue to the Admins now and focus on clean up I guess Changeisconstant (talk) 20:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Cycle of Time

Removed "no religion" in Golden Age - As far as I understand, BKs believe there is a single religion - just not plurality. "No belief in God" in Golden Age also removed as this may well be understood as atheism, which is not a BK belief. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 18:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Cited source from Lawrence states on page 114 about this period (Golden age) that the social order is harmonious, there are no religious divisions because religion, as we know it, doesn't exist nor there is any political discord. Lawrence also states that its a state of innocence people live in without any knowledge of history or even supreme soul (God). So I think it can be stated differently as earlier text was a bit misleading as has been the case with most of this article. Changeisconstant (talk) 19:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Good to have the Lawrence reference - thank you. I'm not too fussed. My main interest in this line was that it makes it clear that 'Brahma Kumaris' don't exist there, nor any religion as we understand it, as the Lawrence points out. It would have been good if Musselwhite had understood this aspects. It might be something worth addressing in the 'Criticism's of BK belief' later. Regards Danh108 (talk) 10:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Suggesting removal of "Tree of Humanity" for being redundant

"Tree of Humanity" in "Central Beliefs" is the same belief as the Cycle, I see no reason to have the same belief documented twice, so I suggest removing "Tree of humanity". GreyWinterOwl (talk) 14:21, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

WP: BRD - sounds good to me Owl. Go for it. The beliefs section is a nightmare of misinformation at the moment.

CiC - I am remembering your Hindi - if you were still happy to sort out this errors with these newspapers in controversies, that would be great.

My view would be that old reports of accusations are actually not worthy encyclopedic material until a Court has made a finding and that gets reported. So many things get reported in a newspaper and people are innocent until proven guilty. Regards Danh108 (talk) 15:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The Hindi newspaper references are reporting few crimes that are either claimed to be have been done in a BK centre (like suicide in Agra) or where BKWSU has been accused of the same. There is none where there is a court ruling involved in those or where anyone proven to be guilty. I can correct the presentation as per the facts published or do editors feel these should be removed? Changeisconstant (talk) 17:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi CiC. My view is that it depends on what the article is reporting, so that Wikipedia is different from journalism. Reporting someone reports something to the police has little value. Many complaints are made, but only if there is evidence will the police pursue the matter. Even then, not all matters the police try and prosecute are successful. It is fairer if people don't get 'trial by media', and an encyclopedia focuses on matters that are proven. Or where a party acknowledges guilt/involvement. Particularly with more recent matters where the actual legal outcome can be followed up.

If you think there is something in these old newspaper reports, an alternative could be something like: "On several occasions the Brahma Kumaris have received unfavourable media coverage in India"(reference x,y,z). Then at least it isn't an attempt at sensationalise 'buzz' words.

John, I defer to your greater experience. Are my comments fair? Regards Danh108 (talk) 00:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

@CiC - maybe just BRD on these Hindi newspapers. It can always be reverted if good cause can be shown. I don't have much confidence in there accuracy given the systemic issues this page faced with misrepresentation of references. Danh108 (talk) 09:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

@Danh, I have reviewed all the Hindi sources and have removed the overstatements & sensational presentation. I have represented what the sources say about allegations. Changeisconstant (talk) 20:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks CiC. However, if they are only reporting allegations, the whole lot can probably be deleted. Take for example these two BBC links:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/6189409.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/6194351.stm

BBC is in my view a reliable source. However the initial person arrested and charged on this occasion was later released and someone else charged with murder (and then the outcome of the trial is a different matter again). What would happen if the first media report was relied on? As we have seen from this talk page, there can be a lot of accusations made and it really can influence people, even if there is zero evidence offered.

If you really feel it has some substance, maybe the details can be googled to see if there is a subsequent report confirming the veracity of the allegations (e.g. so-and-so found guilty and sentenced to x years...). That would be great to get. Actually, same issue is there with the beginning of this organisation - allegations were made, but the only criminal proceeding I'm aware of relates to a breach of the peace, which was when the 'anti-party' held their Gandhi style protest that ended up getting a bit too rowdy.

Are you okay with that? Regards Danh108 (talk) 09:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

- I'll take silence as consent CiC. Sorry if I'm being impatient. By all means re-insert if good ref's can be found. Regards Danh108 (talk) 10:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

That's because I don't have the answer; there are no other references nor the crimes are proven in a follow-up news item. Keep in mind that particualrly in India, investigations can take forever and most of such news stories remain without outcome. This is where I am not sure Changeisconstant (talk) 11:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Changing the name of the Article

It was suggested by Vecrumba some time ago that the article would be better named [Brahma Kumaris]]. One is that the organisation has no accredited training programs so in many countries it is not allowed to use 'University', another is that because of this the name changes in different countries. At least reducing to Brahma Kumaris makes it international rather than regional? Opinions please :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danh108 (talk • contribs) 10:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

If "Brahma Kumaris" as a common name in all countries while "BKWSU" may not be, then I suppose better to name the main article just "Brahma Kumaris" GreyWinterOwl (talk) 01:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Meditation

Meditation needs improvement, with information describing what is the practice and/or why is it practiced or considered important. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 01:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:Synthesis

Quote from criticisms section: "Followers are encouraged to undergo a ‘death-in-life’ and ‘die towards the outer world’ renouncing their families and thus be ‘divinely’ reborn in the ‘divine family[94] consequently, the Brahma Kumaris have been accused of breaking up marriages and families since the 1930s.[95][96]".

Please note that the statement before the word "consequently" is supported by one reference, the statement after it is a completely different one with a completely different reference. Where did the word "consequently" came from? It's solely WP:Synthesis of 2 unrelated references to push a critical POV.

Regarding the first statement, all religions have some kind of metaphor that means accepting its own faith, etc. Obviously "death in life" is just a religious metaphor and not controversial by itself. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 10:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Removed claim misrepresenting reference and undue

The part of criticism that mentioned this reference: [4] was removed. It falsely attributed claims (for example, a magazine that reported a person who heard another person, etc. , but falsely attributed as a statement of a a cult expert), sounds more like gossip (it is a "gossip magazine" after all), can't see how any of those claims is really supported. Given their weight, they would need a more reliable and neutral source as basis (see WP:Exceptional).

The reference itself says "allegedly", "former members told me", which was misrepresented as "cult expert stated". GreyWinterOwl (talk) 11:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

In a similar vein, I scratched a bit deeper into the Russian conference mentioned in the Controversies section. This was a 'preaching to the converted' type conference with participation from people noted for their extreme views persecuting religious minorities[5]. The list of 'cults' included many minority groups with no explanation why they had been selected [6]

Including material like this from extremist groups/individuals gives their views undue weight. I have deleted reference to this conference.

On a separate note, there are some criticism of BK beliefs I intend to include later. My view is that it is better to deal with them here now, rather than try and bury them under the carpet. Also, at present some of the content in the beliefs section gets into the to-and-fro, rather than just explaining the belief, and dealing with commentary later e.g. the 'Destruction' section (a section which in itself gives undue weight to the position the belief is now given in contemporary reliable sources). Danh108 (talk) 13:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merger

I have proposed merging Brahma Kumaris at the United Nations into this article given the poor referencing and underdeveloped nature of that article, and support such a merger. John Carter (talk) 15:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I have some content destined for "BK at UN" in my sandbox. I simply don't know enough about Wikipedia to state if it supports a separate page or a merger - if you had 30 seconds to glance and advise, that would great. I'm still influenced by some stinging criticisms received for trying to introduce such content to this page earlier....but would prefer to get your view.

There was a separate website, but i just tried and it's currently 'under construction' [7] and some information here [8]. Regards Danh108 (talk) 15:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Give me a few days to review it. John Carter (talk) 15:46, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi John, if you get a chance to look at this, I seriously think it's worth considering keeping the page separate. I've started putting some of the content up on the page, and I don't think it will work if that content has to get squashed in as a subsection of the BK page. I await your thoughts on the matter. Regards Danh108 (talk) 18:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

"Common Misconceptions" section

Rather than have a 'criticism of beliefs and practices', I was thinking what I really had in mind was more of a 'clarification of common misconceptions'. Owl, you have given a good example above, with the 'dying alive' metaphor, common to a number of spiritual traditions. However rather than deleting these things, I think it would be better to post content expressing both sides - i.e. the common misunderstanding (often a literalisation of metaphor) and the actual meaning and way the metaphor is played out in life. But there are other things I want to do first, so I'm not rushing into establishing this section yet, just flagging a plan. Thanks Danh108 (talk) 18:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

@Owl Re One-ness etc - I personally don't mind that kind of language, and for most people I think they see the BKs in this kind of light. But happy with your modification. Regards Danh108 (talk) 10:00, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The trouble with using the phrase "common misconceptions" - in any article - is that they have to be common (as evidenced by sources, or at least not open to debate over whether common or not). For a relatively obscure group like the Brahma Kumaris, I think it unlikely that any misconceptions are "common", and the use of the word might jar with the reader, or create a false impression. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:12, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Greame. You always open up an aspect I hadn't thought about. I'll reflect if there is another more appropriate way to fit in what I'm thinking about. Best wishes Danh108 (talk) 14:53, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

4th paragraph on the lede

The 4th paragraph on the lede reflects the previous state of the article - a collection of sensationalist news and misrepresentation of sources. As was discussed here, no RS considers Brahma Kumaris to be a generally controversial NRM. That was the conclusion taken by an editor, not by a RS. Therefore, I suggest removing the 4th paragraph of the lede as undue weight. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 09:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the paragraph you removed is saying that way. It was stating that there have been criticisms and some controversies and they are listed in the article. So I think while January's representation was specific, the modified 4th paragraph looked fine to me and it was referenced. Changeisconstant (talk) 10:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the lede should represent the general view of RS over the subject? My point is that no RS considers "controversies" as a main or general point about Brahma Kumaris. Also "wide range of accusations" certainly refer precisely to the kind of undue sensationalism the article suffered the last months. The phrase itself was not referenced and I believe it classifies as WP:Label. I'm sure most if not all of the organizations and religions have suffered a "wide range of accusations", but that doesn't automatically make it due weight and reliable to be placed on the lede. Whatever accusations may exist, if they are due, are presented in their section, but no RS supports that as a general view over the NRM.

Jan18 may have used the argument of analogy with Scientology. But that argument is invalid. Scientology is covered by dozens of RS as a primarily controversial NRM, the same is not true about BK. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 12:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

While I am intending to have a break for a few days, I don't agree with this being removed. Even if you are correct, I think the timing is not good - IMHO more scrutiny needs to be given to the other controversies to see how much merit they have. You have 'jumped the gun'. Bear in mind that being controversial can also be a good thing, particularly when taking a stance against unjust social norms. While I agree the present status seems fairly uncontroversial, the origins were not. Hopefully a modified version (if not the original) of this can be re-inserted shortly. Regards Danh108 (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I do agree, Brahma Kumaris caused a storm during start-up and the previous statement can be modified to reflect it and current criticisms. The current statement on schools, hospitals etc is an overstatement in the lede and goes to the line of pushing a BK POV rather than looking at its due weight. As an example, BKWSU only has one hospital in their headquarters'city (right?) and not known generally for such activities. Schools? Where? Changeisconstant (talk) 19:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with CIC that the phrase about hospitals and schools, and maybe even environment is undue to be on the lede. Please note that I was not the one to write that phrase. I will remove it for now, but if any of you think you can reinsert an appropriate modification of it, please feel free to edit/suggest. I just made the edit and explained why I made, as per BRD. You can in the same way reinsert the statement about controversies in some modified way if you think it's due and explain here. However, what I am very convinced of, is that "wide range of accusations" is undue sensationalism. Virtually, any organization/religion of the same size have received many accusations and the phrase was not referenced. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 20:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

There are plenty of things to do on the article without getting into the areas our views 'rub', so perhaps more controversial changes could be deferred until the rest of the article is stabilised. Some aspects of the lede aren't reflected in the article...yet. There are school programs in India - this is something Vecrumba wrote for the lede, not me. I think it came from 'Flows of faith' 2012. But I can't confirm this. If anyone is near a library and can get a copy (pages 51-71), perhaps John Carter can share that around everyone?. I would have preferred 'citation required' rather than deleting it. Anyhow, I want my walk :-) Regards Danh108 (talk) 21:09, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Just in case I've started anyone looking...don't worry...Chapter 4 in Flows of faith 2012 (pgs 51-71) is the article "Brahma Kumaris: Purity and the Globalisation of Faith". It is already referenced in the article. If anyone knows how to upload things, I have a pdf version that can be uploaded. Regards Danh108 (talk) 19:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I added part of the "pro" BK paragraph back in. I have deleted the schools reference as I think that may have been referring to the living values program. Otherwise 'Flows of Faith' page 64 supports this well.

I'm not sure about the controversies paragraph. I take your point that this doesn't feature in any major sources. I'm not sure if historical controversies merit inclusion in the lede. I will leave it for now basically because I don't I know and should probably follow my own suggestion about getting on with less contentious edits until an independent view can be sought. I hope this is fine with others.Danh108 (talk) 23:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the Lede is missing the aspect of Celibacy. This is what caused the storm in the beginning as represented in history section and also in the practice. Doesn't it deserve a place in the Lede being a key aspect of BKs' practice? Changeisconstant (talk) 17:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a strong view on this CiC. I would probably say that the resources don't tend to say the celibacy 'caused' the storm, but more like it symbolised something - a personal choice for a woman to make about her bodily integrity, by way of tradition, sat in the hands of men. Closely aligned to this was the absence of the right (particularly of unmarried women) to chose their own destiny (because celibacy would in many cases mean no wedding and no children by birth). Again, these life decisions were by tradition, in the hands of men. The reclaiming of these individual rights and freedoms caused the stir. So my pref would be something more along those lines. However I'm not sure the article has the content improved enough to warrant inclusion in the lede yet. I think you are right CiC, but I think you are probably also flagging a short coming in the article itself - maybe a subsection in the early history to do with the role of women/liberation of women. I will put some thought into this today and see if I can get something drafted and posted on the talk page. What do others think? Regards Danh108 (talk) 19:03, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm still working on this....coming soon..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danh108 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Here is a shot. I have references but find it easier to write it first and insert them later:

Om Mandali

The Brahma Kumaris was originally called Om Mandali. The group started in Hyderabad, Sindh in North-West India. It received this name because they would chant "Om" together, before having discourse on spiritual matters in the traditional satsang style. The original discourses were closely connected to the Bhagavad Gita, one of the most popular and revered religious texts in India. The Founder, Dada Lekhraj Khubchand Kripilani (then known as "Om Baba" – 1876 – 1969) was a wealthy jeweler and very well respected in his community. He had a series of visions and other transcendental experiences that commenced in approximately 1935 and became the basis for the satsang to start. He felt there was a greater power working through him and many of those who attended these gatherings were themselves having profound spiritual experiences. The majority of those who came were women and children from the Bhaibund caste - a caste of wealthy merchants and business people, whose menfolk spent considerable periods of time overseas for business. Once the group had been meeting for approximately 3 years it was starting to become clear that it was giving a very special importance to women and was also not adhering to the rigid caste system: the group named a 22 year old woman, Radhe Pokordas (then known as "Om Radhe" – 1916 - 1965) as its President, her management committee was made up of 8 other women, and they allowed people from any caste to attend satsang. In addition the group advocated that young women had the right to elect not to marry and that married women had the right to chose a celibate life. In tradition bound patriarchal India, these personal life decisions were the exclusive right of the men in their lives. On 21 June 1938 a group of males that had been forming in opposition to Om Mandali started to picket outside the organisation, preventing entry, causing considerable upheaval in the community and preventing Om Mandali from operating. Ultimately Om Mandali elected to avoid the uproar created and moved to Karachi in the latter half of 1938. Approximately 300 members made this move. They lived as a cloistered community seeking to understand the experiences they were having which ultimately comprise the BK beliefs and practices below.

Expansion

In April 1950 the organisation moved to Mount Abu in Rajastan India. From it's beginning the organisation's focus has been on education not forms of worship, and for this reason renamed itself as Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University...

• This section is to be continued.....Regards Danh108 (talk) 08:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

About Om Mandli, sounds much better than the current one. I fixed Lekhraj's birth date according to reliable sources. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 10:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

okay owl, I will insert references and make the change. We may have a squabble over the birth year. I was using a membership list the Mandali themselves provided to the District Magistrate - if you look at Is this Justice, original page number 154. IMO the BKs were very relaxed about historical accuracy (I don't agree with commentators who ascribe ill-motives) as their focus was on the feelings and the story, not the nitty gritty - Adi Dev is a good example. In all likelihood, my view is that 1884 is the year of birth. I agree that the vast majority of RS state 1876, but they are all based on oral history. Note Mama's age above is also against popular mythology which state 1918, 1919 & 1920.

other editors opinions welcome. Regards Danh108 (talk) 15:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Anti om mandali and the backlashes seemed to have toned down now which I believe needs to better represented. Changeisconstant (talk) 20:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Have a look in about 30 minutes :-) Danh108 (talk) 20:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I will insert something on the Tribuanl that in a sense re-instated the ban. coming soon....Danh108 (talk) 21:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

It will probably be after a week :-) On a one week holiday! Changeisconstant (talk) 19:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Enjoy your holiday CiC. I will be a bit sporadic until 11th November (also away :-)). RegardsDanh108 (talk) 16:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Good Wishes and Pure Feelings

Actually, it seems good wishes and pure feelings are part, although not necessarily, of the practice of soul consciousness. What do you think about the possibilities of either renaming that section to "soul consciousness" or spliting/adding a new "practices" section called "soul consciousness"? GreyWinterOwl (talk) 20:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

My view would be that this subsection title matches the weight the reference accords it. Perhaps the lacking that you are picking up is that the Meditation section carries a connotation of just sitting, when in many ways the descriptions I am reading of BK meditation are that it incorporates soul conscious practice and some amount of 'moving meditation'/integration into daily life. What do you think? Danh108 (talk) 01:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it is important that the article be as clear and understandable as possible. Meditation is technically, almost always done when sitting. And even BKs practice meditation sitting still. So I thought that a separate section for soul consciousness could let more clear the importance given to it even when not meditating. Anyway, the BK process of soul consciousness and connection with God is lacking clarity and barely explained except in "making affirmations about the soul and God" which is hardly a clear explanation of the process, which is as important for BKs as prayer in other religions. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 07:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

@Owl, I share your aim for the article - clear and understandable is best. For the same reason I thought that a distinguishing feature of the BKs is that there meditation is open eyed, and encouraged to be integrated into everyday life (as written in the updated meditation section). I had never heard of this before. I agree the pre-existing content is dribble. The article was a super-dud for so many reason....

In some ways 'soul consciousness' could be woven through every aspect of the Practices section, as this seems to be the main thing the BKs are about, and the lifestyle and practices are all directed to better support achieving this end, the foundation for their new world. By all means, continue this conversation...

PS - thank you for the salad, much appreciated. Danh108 (talk) 08:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Given the weight to "Purity" in various references (titles of book/articles) used I am tempted to call this section "Purity". Does that work? Changeisconstant (talk) 09:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sold on this suggestion CiC as goodwishes is a practice, and it's specific, where as purity is a theme/thread that underpins/runs through nearly all the BK philosophy and lifestyle. I think it would be confusing to rename it.Danh108 (talk) 16:16, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Article tags

Hi All, While I don't think the article is perfect - actually it still has quite a bit of work required and I'm still trying to get some photo's sorted out. However I neutrality has been achieved and have removed the tag. Comments are welcome if anyone is not comfortable with this. Regards Danh108 (talk) 08:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Destruction/Transformation

I plan to move this into the controversies section as it's not just giving the BK belief, but dealing with a lot of history and background issues that relate to the greater emphasis the BKs place on destruction at it's inception and early period. In most of the stuff I've been reading, Destruction is not a separate section, and if anything that's WP:Undue. It's just an aspect of the cycle of time. So I will put a cut back version of 'Transformation' into the cycle of time. Incidentally, the cycle of 4 ages only makes mention of 2 ages, so that gap needs filling sometime as well. Regards Danh108 (talk) 06:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The controvery is about failed predictions not the belief in itself. I don't think the entire section can be represented in controversy.It is still an important part of the belief while there have been controversies that BKs use it to encult new members particularly in India. In my view the emphasis should stay in the main article and its not WP:Undue. IMO, its more "Due" than the section on "Good Wishes" etc in terms of the emphasis and representation of BK beliefs Changeisconstant (talk) 09:08, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Cic - I completely agree. The problem I was seeing was that the belief not getting clearly explained and getting wound up with the controversy. I fully agree it needs to be in the main article, but normally it fits in with the cycle of time, not a stand alone section (though maybe that was the case 40-70 years ago) - see if you happy with the way it's included in there now....just updated it. Your feedback is very valuable - thank you. RegardsDanh108 (talk) 09:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it's WP:Undue. CIC: "there have been controversies that BKs use it to encult new members particularly in India." This, if true is just one more reason that it would be better in controversies. But then again, is that something given weight by reliable sources? As Danh said, most of the sources do not place emphasis on that belief as much as the basic and most important ones. My personal opinion is that the controversial aspects, and background/history be moved into controversies, if due and the aspects that actually describe belief be moved to "cycle of time", or remain inside "transformation".

"Good Wishes" is not a belief but practice, so there is no relevance whether or not it's due as belief. If you think it's undue as practice, renaming the section as "soul consciousness" would solve the problem as for BKs, soul consciousness, an essential practice, is intrinsically linked to good wishes. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 10:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Reference from Lawrence Babb defines two of the most distinguishing aspects about Brahma Kumaris being "Celibacy" pg142[9] and Dada Lekhraj's warnings about Universal doom pg 109 [10] with a sense of urgency. If you read the article in its current form, both of these aspects are obsure and one can question this de-emphasis of such distinguishing aspects about BKs. I would even consider adding Celibacy aspect into the Lede. Yes I agree that controversies pertaining to destruction can be put in controversies section but these two factors are "Due" weight. Apolgies on the other part on "Good Wishes" - yes its a practice not a belief- I am not sure yet whether this is rightly presented and need to see the sources. Changeisconstant (talk) 18:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks CiC. This makes sense. However I'm interested how you balance that against authors like Whaling (currently referenced in the transformation discussion in the article) who are more recent commentators and are effectively saying that the organisation has revised the emphasis it used to place on this. I think organisations also evolve over time e.g. my understanding when BK started was much more exclusive and whacky, and has shown a trend to progressively soften and adjust overtime, especially as it has had to adjust to different cultures/countries in the last 25 years. This is one of the points being made in Flows of Faith. So my interpretation of people like Babb is coloured with also allowing scope for the organisation to evolve. Regards Danh108 (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it needs balancing from various reliable sources to state what is a fundamental belief (i.e. destruction) and then show how it is evolving however what is also important to see how it relates to the controversies of failed predictions etc.- when you talk about evolution, it will be interesting to see what is the reason the movement is de-emphasizing a fundamental and distinguishing aspect? Is it just a euphemism for destruction or there is a fundamental shift to the belief etc...There are ample sources talking about Destruction even as recent as 2006 and that too from an encyclopedia (of NRMs) itself see here [11] - It states that according to BK movement, "we are now in the worst age on the eve of destruction". Same reference also emphasizes very strongly that Celibacy is the unique distinguishing practice of BKs compared to other NRMs. Changeisconstant (talk) 20:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The way I interpreted it, which may be incorrect, wasn't so much that the belief fundamentally changed (hence the write up in the cycle of time section is still fairly blunt "cataclysmic events" etc), but that there is a sense in which the organisation is really investing in legitimate "world-preserving" services like hospitals, meditation retreats, values based living, environmental initiatives. So the belief isn't ruling the psychology of the organisation - I haven't read anything about them building bomb shelters and stock piling munitions as other Millennialist groups do. I'm sure you're right, that failed predictions/dates have influenced this change.Danh108 (talk) 21:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Feedback on images

I'm keen to get feedback on the images inserted - feel free to improve the captions or give feedback about their placement/size. I'm still learning....hopefully it's okay. Regards Danh108 (talk) 21:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)Anti

Anti-Om mandali picture shows the picketing but the associated article in Early history section makes it look very biased- most of the section highlighting early history pertaining to anti-Om mandali is only using BK authors' sources that is making it skewed. I am not sure whether using BK sources is appropriate but if it is then equal weight should be given to the source from anti-Om mandali book that Januarythe18th was using. Changeisconstant (talk) 22:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

There isn't actually that much use of BK sources, most of the content comes from the legal cases and the correspondence with different government agencies at the time - it's just that I'm accessing that material through 'is this justice'. That work isn't a book by Om Mandali (except for the intro blurb), but rather a compilation of a lot of neutral factual material - correspondence, the judgements, the membership list, etc. Based on what the judges said, there is certainly a level of bias inherent in the events themselves - i.e. there is clear evidence of a 'victim-perpetrator' style of relationship where one group has actively persecuted another.

I agree with you about the Anti-party source, however I think the use of affidavit material is not only an unreliable source, but unethical and unprofessional. If there was a way of removing the offending content that would be great - because there is some really excellent historical content in there. The "book" was actually read thoroughly, but I found alternative sources for the pieces I used because of the ethical problems. Regards Danh108 (talk) 01:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Even if we really came to the conclusion that the anti book should be used, which I don't think we will, let's remember that the only place it's available is the brahmakumaris.info site, and typed by the admin of the site. We don't have any guarantee that the book is even real to begin with. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 15:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

To make my point more clear, majority of the sources used in Early history section barring first paragraph are from BK or BK associated authors namely work from Jagdish Chander, a BK leader; Liz H, ex wife of Neville a BK leader(I am not so against using this one though); Is this Justice etc. This is the reason I suggested that we may be towards the boundary of reflecting BK bias therefore balance it with the anti-om-mandali book as it shows some press from those days which would be hard to find now. Incase this is an issue, then try and use more of the reliable sources that have been used elsewhere to balance. Changeisconstant (talk) 19:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Danh, how does "Is this Justice" material become reliable or verifiable if by the same definition Anti-om-mandali book is not- can you clarify please? Changeisconstant (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Quoting from WP:ABOUTSELF: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves". But they do give conditions for that, for example describing non-controversial events or information about itself. The BK published material pass these conditions, while the anti book, even if real and verified, doesn't. However, please note that one of the conditions is: "(as long as)the article is not based primarily on such sources." If you want to be sure, please read the guideline fully.

While I'm just pointing out what I read in a guideline, it doesn't mean I am in favor of any specific source. If you are not sure, there is always WP:3O and WP:RSN to ask a user or admins whether or not to use a source. If it be that some source, e.g., BK published, are unreliable, then what about making the "early history" shorter, with only the information considered reliable? GreyWinterOwl (talk) 20:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi CiC, perhaps when I get time I can trace the original sources i.e. the Judicial Commissioner of Sind reported cases etc and site that directly rather than 'care of' Is this Justice. As far as I'm aware Is this Justice doesn't contain affidavit material of allegations that were never proven in Court. Presumably if there was a case to answer they would certainly have taken it against Mr Lekhraj as that would have been the easiest way to stop the movement. Like our conversation with the Hindi newspapers earlier, allegations aren't encyclopedic and can have a highly prejudicial affect on people's minds (and Om Mandali alleges they intentionally leaked these materials to the media which is what ignited public opinion against them in '38). There were some inflamatory allegations by Om Mandali against the 'anti-party' about force feeding pig flesh, rapes, beating with weapons, public naming shaming and being walked through the city, and torture - in 'Peace and Purity' and some primary source material given to me. In the interests of fairness and keeping the 'encyclopedic feel', I didn't specify these details. I hope that clarifies. Best wishes Danh108 (talk) 23:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Brahmakumaris.info as controversy

Thank you, Graeme, you made exactly the edit I was going to make. No RS mentions the site, much less characterizes it as persecution. Saying so would be OR, a position not assumed by any RS. Until a reliable source mentions it and assumes a position towards it, there is no point in including the site. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 19:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Let alone a link to a single discussion on a Wikipedia talk page as an example of their activities. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Good to know more experienced people are keeping a caring eye on the content. Of course I thought it was okay to put up, particularly as one thing I don't agree with the BKs about is there silence towards the activities of disgruntled ex-members. I must say one small complaint - so much more poorly referenced content was allowed earlier/not reverted, where as I make one dud addition and it's gone in a few hours....maybe because you all know I'm a soft touch :-)

I think the comments were fair, so will poke around for some RS...but admittedly it's not a priority and I'm neglecting my other Wiki-interests a bit at the moment. Thank you for leaving comments on the talk page though, that helps me. Regards Danh108 (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

New Photo's

Hi Staphysagria, Maybe you were part way through your work, but the photo's inserted didn't correspond to the content, where as the photo you deleted did, and you also kind of mucked up the layout. I note that these are your very first edits on Wikipedia, so it would help if you explain yourself. Thanks Owl, I was thinking a similar thing. RegardsDanh108 (talk) 06:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Merging Brahma Kumaris beliefs and practices

This article covers everything the "beliefs and practices" do. Unless there are any objections, I will propose deletion of Brahma Kumaris beliefs and practices. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 16:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea. Earlier talk page discussions also showed a broad level of support for the suggestion. Thank you Owl. I remember Greame mentioned for completeness the associated talk page needs to be deleted too. Apart from being a duplicate, the size of the Movement/group hardly warrants having so many pages on Wikipedia. Regards Danh108 (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I have proposed deletion, but I also thought of the alternative of turning it into a redirect. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 16:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Given the size of BKWSU following, it makes sense to delete and make sure that the content is covered in the main article itself. Changeisconstant (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Merging List of Brahma Kumaris

Following the same reasons for beliefs and practices, I am proposing merger for List of Brahma Kumaris. Unless there is any objection, I will propose deletion. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 16:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The way the "List..." article is built, why is it even needed? Brahma Kumari is a term for the follower so is the list intended to list all the followers? And if not and is meant for BKWSU leadership, then there can be a section for key people in BKWSU within the main article and the "List.." article deleted. Changeisconstant (talk) 21:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

This page reads like an advert

This page reads like it has be written by Brahma Kumari followers to promote the religion. Has no one been discussing the changes on this page? It's become like an advert.

It's ridiculous. Where do I start? Where do I find the box that says so? Peace,

It's OK. I found it.

There are so many falsehoods or exaggerations on it I don't know where to begin. They have not even got the right date of birth for their leader! --Truth is the only religion (talk) 18:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that we've an advertisement here that clearly isn't being maintained to WP:MOS or our other basic content policies/guidelines. Lots of work to be done! --Ronz (talk) 19:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm just commenting on the state of the article. I've not looked at any editor's contributions to the article. --Ronz (talk) 16:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Most of the edits made didn't relate to advertising concerns. They deleted RS - lede content primarily lifted from other encyclopaedia's. Good if edit comments are directed towards content issues or Wiki policy. This page has also suffered from ongoing skirmishes between WP:SPA editors committed to the BK world view and WP:SPA editors who seem to have an aversion to that. Unfortunately User: Truth is the only religion you may have innocently walked into an article with a bit of history. Hope you understand. Please also read WP:JDL. Really, if you have legitimate concerns you should be able to identify the offending text and put forward your preferred rewording. Just wholesale deletion of RS doesn't make much sense. BTW, if you can find RS on the founders birth date that would be great. I tried to change it but got reverted and all the RS was stacked against me. Apparently the birth certificate isn't any good because it's not in a published source! Regards Danh108 (talk) 08:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know where to start regarding it being an advert.

Look at the beginning, "often references its association with the United Nations".

What does that mean in plain English? Firstly, the religion does not have an association with the United Nations, it has a consultative status with one office of one to two departs of UNESCO etc. That's a gross exaggerated the Brahma Kumaris like to make. So "often references its association with the United Nations" means just that, "the Brahma Kumaris often exaggerate their relationship with the United Nations".

Now, that is true but is it an important and notable enough to warrant being in the first paragaph? Of course not. It's only there because the BKs want it there for the PR value and to hide the rest of their beliefs and activities.

Then we look at their beliefs, to the bit you restored McGeddon.

There are the Brahma Kumari beliefs and there is how the Brahma Kumaris want their beliefs to be seen. Now, is that actually full, complete or accurate? The fact it is not. If we look at their beliefs, actually they think that all other religions are impure and degrades and all other human beings are "Shudra" (lowest caste), only they are Brahmins (highest caste). Therefore the advertising the BKs have insert is their PR version of their religion.

For the lack of discussion or opposition on this page, the Brahma Kumari followers have turned the article into a vague, misleading and inaccurate PR job.

I believe that is their intention. Ask them if it is true. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 18:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Truth is the only religion, it is great if we can focus on content. You have mentioned one point regarding the UN reference. My recollection was that banned User:Januarythe18th advocated for this reference as he/she held a firm view that the BKs were the ones referencing themselves to the UN (hence the way it's worded in the lede), so making a similar point to you. But now you are having a different take on that, so I have removed it. If you want it re-inserted with a more specific wording about the particularly departments etc the association relates to that's fine with me. I will reinstate the large volumes of RS that was deleted without explanation. Regards Danh108 (talk) 22:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Shocked at the state of this article. It's a puff-piece. Work to be done on it that's for sure. Gefetane (talk) 16:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Although I strongly disagree with the edits of TITOR, which bring the same kind of content of the previous blocked user Jan18 (fringe views, OR, etc.), I do agree that the article in its current state seems to have an excess of content that is possibly irrelevant or undue. Although I find irrelevant whether the excess of content is praising or cursing the subject, what I do find relevant is that we must identify what is due/undue weight and bring the article to a more encyclopedic state based on secondary sources. In my humble opinion, I think this article should be much shorter and more objective. Gefetane and McGedon, please do discuss here and/or edit the article if you think you can help with that. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 12:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Gefetane. Actually it's even a really badly written puff-piece. It's awful. But perhaps all you will say is that Gefetane must be Januarythe18th too? You're just trying to distract from the fact.

I have another concern. Many of the references are from Brahma Kumari followers. Basically, what you have are Brahma Kumari followers quoting other Brahma Kumari followers about their own religion. This must be a conflict of interest. It is distorting the objectivity of the topic. They have removed many of the third party references because they are critical of the religion but perhaps given their extreme beliefs, those criticism are valid? --Truth is the only religion (talk) 15:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think Gefetane is Januarythe18th because he doesn't make identical edits, comments and accusations like you do, nor is he a brand new account that all of a sudden has intimacy with the content of this article and understands how to edit WP fairly well.

Also what you call "third party sources" that have been removed, are primary sources, non-verified documents written by anti-BrahmaKumaris groups and published by an anti-BrahmaKumaris website. Those documents were only supported by Januarythe18th and were considered inappropriate by many users and admins. And it seems now you want to bring them all back too. It surely must be just a coincidence and I must be a mad zealot. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 23:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Confusion and inaccuracies

I cannot afford the time to go through everything today, but the BK followers have littered the topic with factual inaccuracies and misleading content that do not reflect the references given.

They have also added exaggerated elements which are not referenced.

In addition, they are using references written by other followers and their direct, often long term supporters.

It is nothing less than conscienceless and deliberate self-promotion. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 18:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The principle that articles should be based on independent sources seems to have gone out the window here. Needs addressing. Gefetane (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I as someone who has looked at the existing material in a number of reference sources on this topic have to say that many or possibly in some cases most of the references they provide are to BK literature. I wish that were not the case myself but it seems to be and unless good independent reliable sources are produced it isn't unreasonable for us to effectively duplicate the substance of the material in highly regarded reference books using basically the sources they use. I can and do wish that were not the situation but my wishes unfortunately aren't enough to bring such sources into existence.John Carter (talk) 23:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.

I also have to underline the bad faith involved with the current editors.

The date of birth of founder was 1884. Everyone knows that now. It's on his birth certificate. So why do they keep reverting it to 1876?

If they cannot admit his date of birth, and they are not committed to allow a simple accuracy over such a simple issue, how can they be trusted with the rest of the topic? What is their intention?

The thing is, left to their devices, the topic now reads terribly bad. It's full of uncomfortable constructions, unreferenced and fairly meaningless statements most relating to how they want to be seen not how what the religion is. It's a poorly attempted PR job.

Please start with an honest questions to the followers. Was your founder's date of birth 1876 or 1884. If the answer is 1884 then they credibility is zero. They are only here to confuse, distract and control it plain and simple. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why others revert the birth date but the reason I revert it is because all secondary sources say it's 1876. There is a document published by an anti-BK website that says 1884, but I can't see any particular reason or wikipedia guideline to support that document here, even if it's true. It basically classifies as WP:OR and no secondary source has ever refered to it. It might also be worth checking out the guideline WP:NOTTRUTH, so even the discussion about whether or not it's true is meaningless in Wikipedia. But even if that document is true and that alone mattered for WP, it says "Dada Lekhraj", and I don't think only one Lekhraj has ever lived in India, so it could easily be someone else with the same name. There is no reliability whatsoever for 1884. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 23:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Revert explained.

• While I personally support the DOB date change to 1884, there is an issue with all the RS stating it's 1876. Somewhat like Jimbo's birth date being incorrect on Wiki....them's the rules.
• Apart from that, no other grounds were put forward for deleting 20% of the article in one shot. As per my comments on ANI, I'm not 100% confident in User: Truth_is_the_only_religion yet. But if he/she can find RS to support their date, I will definitely support that edit.
• Tags removed as no consensus. See comments/discussion here
• There is no doubt content to add to this article. The lede has relied primarily on other major encyclopedia's to ensure the Wikipedia article is of a similar standard - not that more obscure information about the group gets stuffed into the lede and littered randomly through the article (as was the situation previously).
• It would be really useful if talk page comments related to content rather than making accusations that turn the page into a battleground (incidentally, that was the reason User:JamesBWatson declined User:Januarythe18th unblock requests. I am happy to collaborate with other editors to improve the article.
• It would also really help if talk page comments corresponded to the edits made and could specifically identify text that people think should be changed. Just general assertions and accusations is the real 'puffery' that is presently happening on this talk page, and unfortunately accusations without evidence can be very influential....especially when Wikipedia can sometimes be a bit skeptical about anyone who edits pages on small religious/spiritual groups.

Regards Danh108 (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

TITOR, if you are genuinely interested in bringing back this article to Wikipedia standards, why not follow Wikipedia guidelines on taking consensus please. Deleting 20% of article in one go will not improve it. Please discuss changes here supported by sources Changeisconstant (talk) 09:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

It is inappropriate for an editor with a personal connection to the Brahma Kumaris group to decide that the article has no COI issues: under WP:COI such a person should not be editing the article directly at all. I have restored the {{coi}} template, and also the {{advert}} regarding the concerns raised above. --McGeddon (talk) 17:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry, I have been on holiday. And I am editing from a public internet connection today.

This article is awful. It is badly written. It is factually inaccurate. It has clearly be re-written by followers of the religion like an advert whether boasting about having an office at United Nations or this whole business about being a "spiritual organisation"? What is that?

It is a clear act of bad faith for one of them to deliberate provoke matters by reverting the topic to a version with specifically wrong facts.

I need more time to look at it but at present it is an embarrassment. That is the way I feel. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

You gave no argument at all for your 4000 characters bulk delete, except that "followers wrote it". Please explain what exactly is factually wrong based on secondary sources, and please follow WP:TPG to understand what are valid or invalid arguments about article content on WP. By the way, I have given multiple arguments why the only encyclopedic date of birth is 1876, you haven't answered any of them, yet you use DOB as a summary for your bulk delete. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 21:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

You all have a strong conflict of interest. The article reads like an advert and needs re-writing as I explained above. I have only started. The fact you revert to inaccurate facts on this and other topic is bad faith. Thank you --22:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes of course, now all other editors have a problem, except the editor who keeps deleting 4000+ words to change someone's date of birth - he's is the only sane one....ironically I disagree with User:GreyWinterOwl on this and would happily back you, but we need some RS behind us. Empty accusations are not really that helpful to getting this fixed. Regards Danh108 (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

It is true that all three of you have Brahma Kumari connections?

And that Brahma Kumari followers are coordinating their campaign on the Wikipedia?

I developed the article to be more accurate and put emphasis on the notable elements. The BKs are reverting to their advert version.

If the BKs would care to confirm or deny my first two questions, then I am happy to continue a discussion of why I think the changes are justified. I would like to suggest that their revision of facts which even they know to me truth is deliberately provocative and its intention is to provoke the appearance of a conflict which they can then use to promote their agenda and discredit anyone that questions them. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 17:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

If you want to prove that any number of editors here shouldn't be editing the article, then certainly the talk page is not the place to do that. I have asked you many times, but I'm going to ask again: Please read WP:TPG, it's a guide that says how a talk page of an article should be used, which is to discuss the content of the article. You don't discuss any content, you just spray accusations and personal attacks for which you have no evidence, and even if they were true, this is not the place for them. Your edits directly contradict all reliable, secondary sources about the subject, and are themselves based on no reliable source, just your assertion that they are true, and that what you don't like is an advert written by followers. Sorry, but that's not how Wikipedia works. Bring the reliable sources and valid arguments and see if they support your edits. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 20:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The beginning of discuss is simple. Please answer the two questions above first.

Thank you. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 19:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

No preconditions. You say you have problems with sections of the article. Say which bits and where the content is wrong. Propose alternate wording with sourcing. That's the way it's supposed to go. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The photoshopped glowing egg...

...happens to be the religion's representation of God, I don't think removing it is right. There are Christ pictures on Christian articles, Buddha pictures on Buddhist articles, etc. etc.

The reason why the Brahma Kumaris article can't have a picture of their believed God is because...?

BTW I agree with most of the other recent edits by McGeddon and Adjwilley, I think they have improved the quality of the article and removed some promotional tone, thanks. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Universal_Light.jpg was captioned as "showing the universality of the belief that God is a being of light", but this wasn't clear at thumbnail size, where the quotes about religions were illegible, and the image had an unencyclopedic poster style to it. I didn't realise it was meant to be a particularly literal illustration of a particular point of light. The German Wikipedia article uses File:Das_Bild_der_Höchsten_Seele_als_Lichtpunkt_TR.jpg, which is just a burst of white-orange light on a red background - perhaps this is more appropriate? --McGeddon (talk) 16:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the german one you suggested is actually better. I thought the text under the picture could be something like "Brahma Kumaris believe God to be an incorporeal point of light". What do you think? GreyWinterOwl (talk) 16:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure, sounds good. I've added it. --McGeddon (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Content Focus

The massive oscillations are getting a bit mundane. There are 'puff' allegations. Please substantiate something e.g. advertising tag has been used. WHAT IS THE TEXT THAT IS ALLEGED TO BE 'ADVERTISING' in this article. If anyone cares to read the RS used, the article is very much in line with other major encyclopaedia's. My understanding is that Wikipedia isn't meant to be a soap box for 'fringe views' and rolling out the cherry picked quote collection to try and portray the BKs as a "bunch of whacko's". This appears to be what User:Truth_is_the_only_religion wants to do. And yes, this page suffered an identical problem last year....until that user was blocked. Danh108 (talk) 21:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks McGeddon - in my view, these were fairly good edits. I relocated one piece of text from the lede to lower down in the article. I think it's a bit a more obscure aspect of the group and fits more appropriately in the detailed explanation of the groups teachings. This is the risk when using very detailed reference materials to try and write a more 'generalist' article - or at least this has been a challenge I've faced in giving a fair appraisal of the group. Regards Danh108 (talk) 10:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Everything. The fawning tone. The repeated revision of known false facts. Conclusions being draw about legal decisions not found in the original sources (which were self-published BK defences). Accusations of criminality which has never been suggested or proven.

BK followers using BK published materials written by BK authors.

It's outrageous. At what point does "conflict of interest" step it?

I believe we have passed that point a long time ago, that is why the first step towards discussion is for a disclosure. That is why I asks the questions

It is true that all three of you have Brahma Kumari connections?

Are Brahma Kumari followers are coordinating their campaign on the Wikipedia?

If they deny it, progress will be impossible because what they are doing is not playing by the Wikipedia's rules but using the Wikipedia and manipulating other editors to serve their own religion.

To editors or admins who are not Brahma Kumaris, please trust me on the importance of this and allow me explain why after they answer.--Truth is the only religion (talk) 17:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

This time you removed 15000 characters in one edit without explanation, instead of your usual 4000. I also noticed that you re-established many parts of the old version of the article, when it was owned by User:Januarythe18th.

Regarding content: As per WP:TPG, you need to be more clear about your concerns with the content, because your points that are supposed to justify the edits are vague and don't provide any basis from reliable sources. And I haven't seen you come up with any reliable source, despite you claiming that most of the sources are published by the subject. As John Carter said, the sources are the ones present in the article, and many of them were provided by him. If you know better sources, bring them to the article, but without them, you just have your own opinion, which is either WP:OR or WP:FRINGE. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 19:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I removed stuff like "In interfaith dialogue the BKWSU is often considered a spiritual organisation rather than a religion." because it is unreferenced and fairly meaningless. Same too, "sees itself as a vehicle for spiritual teaching rather than as a religion". It's also how the religion want to be seen (future), rather than how it is seen. Obviously it is a religion. As the edit was written by a follower, I suspect a conflict of interest or behind the scenes coordination of how the religion wants the page to be. To me, it is as if the followers are just turning the page into an advertising article about their religion.

Also, there is a problem between how they define the word "education" and how the rest of the world defines education. It think to the rest of the world it would be evangelism as they are not teaching real skills, such as reading and writing or subject.

I removed flowery irrelevant stuff like "one of the most popular and revered religious texts in India" because it is irrelevant and misleading. A simple like to the Gita is enough.

The Karma section needs to be re-written as it is unreferenced.

I removed "they consider these to be projections of body conscious thinking - trying to force the universe to fit the human life cycle" and "The primary enlightenment was the innate understanding of the self as a soul" as it is unreferenced and using cultic language which is unclear.

There are problems with the Education section as the education work it refers to is done by an organization which claims it is separate from the Brahma Kumaris Living Values, as is the governmental work which is done by Oxford Leadership Academy. This page is about the BKWSU, not them. Simple links will do.

There is a question how notable the organic farming section is as the Time of India article is a copy of a BKWSU press release.

I removed all links to retreats as advertising. No references, no notability.

There's also a problem with the way the BK followers have interpreted the conflicts the religion faced in its early period. Some of it is clearly unimportant, e.g. kids throwing stones. Some of it unproven, they claim it was coordinated by anti- leaders. They have also left out the original accusations against the Satsang, of the leaders breaking up families, encouraging minors to run away join the religion and of improprieties, sexual and other wise, between the elderly founder and the young women under his influence.

There is another problem with the word Paramdham and Nirvana. According to 'A Dictionary, Hindustani and English' by Duncan Forbes, Paramdham in Hindi refers to paradise not what the BK followers are saying. Nor does it equate to the Wikipedia page on Nirvana.

--Truth is the only religion (talk) 17:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Some of your many concerns trown at a time may be true, but even if all of them were true, they are far from justifying a mass-deletion of 20,000 characters. I suggest you slow down a bit. Wikipedia is a collaborative project based on discussion, reliable sources and consensus. I don't want to be against all of your ideas, but you could give each of your edits enough justification, instead of a general justification for a half-article deletion. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 01:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I've looked back at the points raised above, the majority of which seem reasonable and entirely justified, and have implemented the following edits:

• removing that others consider BKWSU to be a "spiritual organisation" as unsourced and redundant after introducing it as a new religious movement earlier in the paragraph;
• cutting that the Bhagavad Gita is "popular and revered";
• editing the Karma section to read as "BK believe" rather than a statement of fact;
• rewritten the "Cycle of time" more plainly and flagged the undated "present";
• copyedited and de-WP:PEACOCKed the environmental and achievements sections;
• cut the meditation retreat WP:LINKFARM;
• copyedited Dadi Janki and removed the award sourced only to a press release;
• flagged the Nirvana sentence as disputed.

Would suggest starting new talk threads for the education and conflicts issues. --McGeddon (talk) 09:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Worth noting that User:GreyWinterOwl has just said in an edit summary to my comments there that "BTW I fully agree with your edit, thanks.". --McGeddon (talk) 14:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

As long as we start editing from the neutral version. Not the advert version.

But I would still like an answer from the three BK editors; GreyWinterOwl, Changeisconstant and Danh108 whether they are being coordinated off Wikipedia to control this topic and no more accusations. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 15:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Calling your version that changes 20,000 characters the "neutral version" doesn't magically make it true.

About your accusations, as per WP:TPG, they should never have been made on a talk page of an article in the first place. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 16:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter where we start from, it's where we end up. (I'm not sure your reverting and attempting to reapply subsequent edits has helped, here; you've restored the "Peace Manifesto-2000 in the International Year of Culture of Peace −2,000 as proclaimed by the UN General Assembly in the year 2,000" mess I rewrote earlier.)

GreyWinterOwl has said "I fully agree" to the eight edits I made based on your concerns. If you're clear about the edits and people are clear about their objections (or are forced to agree that no, they have no objection to that bit because it's undeniably a contradiction or a self-published source or whatever), we can clean up the bulk of the article and discover the (possibly only two or three) issues that editors actually disagree on, and then focus on those issues in detail. This "oh, it's all advertising" "oh, you're just saying that" back and forth isn't getting anywhere, and just leaves other editors (with less interest in the subject) to do the actual cleaning up. If you care about getting this right, be scrupulously clear about each edit (even to the point of making small incremental edits with a full edit summary for each one), and those that deserve to stick will stick. --McGeddon (talk) 16:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, I'm trying to fix problems in the article myself, and it's a bit disheartening to come back every day to find all my changes wiped out in this edit war. Please, let's move on out of this mass reversion stage. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The easiest way to do so is not start from the version the BKs keep reverting to because it is so full of such glaring problems as I have documented and addressed. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 17:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with McGeddon here. Having flicked back to your earlier version to check...I'm sorry, but it's just so poorly written. Sentences jumping everywhere with hardly any structure. BTW, it's WP:Personal Attack and Uncivil to keep referring to other editors based on religion, particularly when some may not even self identify as that. Thanks Danh108 (talk) 17:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Adjwilley,

I don't want you to be offended but I disagree with your recent summary and edits many of which are unsubstantiated or contradicted by references, for example the claim Om Mandli attention was focused on education. In fact, one of the reasons for public criticisms of Om Mandli was that it was not educating the children at all. The old version of the BKWSU topic is just too full of some problems.

I welcome reasonable edits to develop the topic, but not such mass reversion as are going on. I've included most of your recent edits. Thank you. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 18:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The issue I have with the bulk reverts you are doing User:Truth is the only religion is that you are really just using it to smuggle in many contentious changes and ignoring the fact that about 4 editors just asked you not to do it....is it possible you could try and work other people and follow consensus? Danh108 (talk) 18:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

And look at the lede now - it mentions the founding of the organisation twice, has poor gramma, or the caption under the new photo....how do I know they're the 'leading medium' - stop trying to POV load the article.Danh108 (talk) 19:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Recent changes to article

It's quite nice to see some good editing happening that makes sense. In particular thanks to Adjwilley and McGeddon. There were a couple of things that seemed a bit funny to me:

1. I thought the world map pictorial was actually really helpful to give a snapshot impression of the groups origin and expansion. it's basic NLP that many people need a range of sensory modalities to be satisfied to understand something (so I don't think the suggestion it's 'redundant' helps). Was there some other reason for deleting it?

2. Some content being deleted is from RS e.g. in the lede it talked about the belief that God is the source of goodness. If the group has some kind of 'happy la-la' type beliefs, then I don't think that's advertising for those to be in the article. It's a statement of fact, based on RS. It's also a primary distinguishing characteristic of this groups theism.

3. BKs seem to like the word 'students' for their participants. I thought 'member' is a bit of a 'happy medium' in between students and 'adherents'

4. The article is about the BKs in general and their beliefs. If we write "BKs believe" in every paragraph, its a bit redundant, repeatedly states the obvious and makes it a bit clunky to read.

There could be good reasons, and these are minor compared to the over all tone of the changes i.e. these questions shouldn't detract from the feedback about the good editing. Thanks again :-) Danh108 (talk) 17:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

My opinion:

1. Since I don't commonly see religious articles with expansion maps, I don't consider that picture of much significance. I also doubt someone will look the little lines to understand where the BKs have gone to.

2. IMO, God being the source of goodness is ok to be on the lede, because it's an essential belief.

3. Why not see how the other religious articles call their members and use the same term?

4. Within "BK beliefs", could be redundant to say "BKs believe". Again, I suggest seeing how other religious articles describe beliefs and do the same. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

1. The article says that the group has centers in 100 countries. A map of arcing lines adds a very broad sense that those countries are distributed over several continents, but is otherwise difficult to read at thumbnail size (do they have any centers in North Africa, or are the lines passing over it?). If some aspects of the group's range are important, we should just name a few countries in the text.
2. I can't see what deletion you're talking about there - can you give a diff link?
3. I wasn't aware of the preference, but we should generally try to avoid WP:JARGON; if "students" is used, the term should be explained.
4. As with any religious article, statements like "All souls originally exist with God" and "God's purpose is to spiritually re-awaken humanity" shouldn't be stated as plain statements of fact. We could tone some of it down to a simple "it is believed" if we're clunkily repeating "BKs believe" too much. --McGeddon (talk) 17:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

How about using "followers" and not "students"? BTW, the article is getting in the right direction with McGeddon's and Adjwilley's experience- thanks! Changeisconstant (talk) 04:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

1. Maybe I'm just a more pictorially inclined person. My vote would be to keep it. But I take the points being made. User:GreyWinterOwl, I think only NRM's are relevant to contrast as these movements have recent expansion. It seems to me less relevant for well established (old) groups.

2. Here was the previous version of the paragraph I was referring to:

The BKWSU teaches a form of meditation that focuses on their identity as souls, and that the soul is intrinsically good. They believe that all souls are children of one God who is the source of all goodness,and that we are one human family. The BKs teach that identifying with labels associated to the body like race, nationality, religion and even gender, divides people and feeds human weakness. They aspire to establish a global culture based on what they call ‘soul-consciousness’ and believe that the present world is predominantly ‘body-conscious’ and therefore requires total transformation.

I prefer the cut back lede that has been created - i just think some RS has been cut. What if it read:

The BKWSU teaches a form of meditation that focuses on identity as souls (as opposed to bodies). They believe that all souls are intrinsically good and that God is the source of all goodness.[4] The university teaches to transcend labels associated with the body, such as race, nationality, religion, and gender, and aspires to establish a global culture based on what they call "soul-consciousness".

I know transcend is a bit flakey...but I think it does the job (I have not read 'rejection' anywhere...could be wrong). The "human family" ref is straight from the Encyc. of Hinduism, but maybe can be put in somewhere lower down in the article?

3. It sounds like everyone might be okay with 'members'. I agree 'students' is more part of the 'spiritual university' theme, a bit jargon-ish and implies a level of educational formalities that may not be present (i.e. courses, curriculum's, qualifications etc).

4. Agreed. Danh108 (talk) 09:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

You need to remove the references from your comment, it's messing up the talk page at the bottom.

If anyone is thinking of 3RR the page to the BK version yet again, could they please justify why so many factual errors, advertisement for retreat centres, self-published quotes, and missing or outdated references are being used before reverting yet again?

It strikes these are all against the Wikipedia's rules and so should clearly not be used. To keep 3RR the topic in face of such observations is becoming irrational. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

But by the definition of 3RR, it is your edit history that comes closest to it. You've done three in 30 hours or so. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

As User:McGeddon explained to you very patiently on your talk page, identify the specific problem you are referring to and lets go through the issues one by one. It does not help the process AT ALL to have you make bulk edits with bogus edit summaries and sneaking in POV laden statements. Danh108 (talk) 19:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Heaven on earth only for BK followers

The aims of the religion are stated in a too vague manner. BKs believe that Sat Yuga or heaven on earth is reserved for only 900,000 BK followers and that Europe and America (and the rest of Humanity) will be destroyed by nuclear war and sink under the oceans.

I found one references to support that which has their leaders quote and so it can be accepted at the religion's own view. Does anyone have any others, or is that good enough? TIA. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

So many religions believe heaven is only for them. Are you also going to propose a phrase on the "Christianity" article that says "Christians believe heaven is reserved only for them and everyone else will be tortured for eternity in hell"?

Try to go to the Christianity article and propose that and I'm sure you won't succeed. The reason being that religious beliefs, just as everything else in WP, should be described from a neutral POV. There are lots of context for the beliefs of each religion and the current article describes the beliefs you just mentioned, but within context and NPOV. The way you want to put it makes BKs seem like maniacs, just like the same style of phrase for other religions would have the same effect, but that's a POV style that shouldn't be used in WP.

Another important observation is that this article, which has been a festival of anti-BK POV in the past, had exactly what you want to highlight right on the lede, added by User:Januarythe18th. So many coincidences, right? GreyWinterOwl (talk) 16:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

COI Concern

User:Truth_is_the_only_religion I also note when I raised my COI concern on your talk page your response has been to blank the whole page. I am taking this as evidence you have something to hide. Danh108 (talk) 20:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

No idea what you are talking about again. I had a load of old messages and removed them to leave a message explaining to others what is going on.

It strikes me you are just trying too hard to blacken the character of any one who is not a BK that comes along to edit your page without actually addressing any of the problems with it.

BTW, if you want to remove a comment, why not just remove it rather than leave it for everyone to read? I think your actions are transparently attempting to prejudice others against me. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 18:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Am I allowed to remove something once it's posted? Sorry, I would have done that but thought there was some rule against it. btw the other editors you accuse of being BKs said they weren't, and my only problem is with editors who can't follow the Wikipedia behavioural guidelines - if you edited normally and behaved in a civil way, I would be quite happy to collaborate with you in building this article...it's not too late to start. Regards Danh108 (talk) 05:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• But if you are concerned about your character, why not openly state what your previous editing account was called. That will clear everything up.Danh108 (talk) 05:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Concerns about promotional tone/content

As the editors participating here must already be aware, many editors have expressed concern that this article appears promotional. For that reason, although I wish the consensus was more specific and actually described the parts of the article that appear promotional, and although, unfortunately, some editors have even jumped to accusations that include myself before they even attempted to edit the article directly or use the talk page, and after I have supported edits that removed promotional content, I will of course follow this consensus and search for everything that seems promotional about this article and delete it.

I must remind everyone once again that I never made a single edit to this article that added promotional tone or content. And until the contrary is proven, I want to assume good faith towards the ones who did, that they did so unintentionally.

I must let it clear, though, that in no way does this mean I agree with User:Januarythe18th's claims. I saw how this article was when he owned it (and anyone can see on the history), a festival of WP:OR to say the least. Even though I agree and never denied that this article at the moment appears promotional, I believe that to be, for Jan18, just an excuse to cover his real propaganda, and the reason why he made big reverts to try to insert contentious content without discussion. To all other editors, I sincerely respect all of you and am here for the purpose of Wikipedia, not any agenda as Januarythe18th exhaustively and falsely accused me. I hope there will be no doubt about my good faith based on my following edits and that they will please those who expressed the concerns. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 22:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I looked at the article and found that the part most likely to be promotional was the "Achievements and Recognition" one, and I decided to delete it completely. If anyone sees something else I missed, please express your concerns or edit the article yourself. I hope this addresses the concerns previously expressed. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 23:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It looks alright to me as there weren't any noteworthy achievements in-line with the practice and beliefs as such. I checked for some others like "Art of living" and while it didn't have an achievements section, it was still promotional in highlighting social services. Changeisconstant (talk) 17:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I never created the 'achievements' section either - that was there when I arrived. I get your point about its impact on the over all 'tone' of the article. I will try and fix up the early history soon. Please do give faster feedback if you consider any language 'flowery' - it's best to get these comments direct and at the time, about the specific text alleged to be 'offending'. Otherwise I can't use the feedback to learn. Danh108 (talk) 16:39, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Controversies Section

1. I think McGeddon suggested dropping the bullets. Makes sense to me - WP:Prose was referred to.

2. Ditching the 'historical' vs 'contemporary' distinction. It doesn't seem to add anything.

3. Is this a controversy? "In the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Howell reported the Brahma Kumaris protected itself from the practice of families 'dumping' their daughters with the organisation by requiring a payment from the families of those wishing to dedicate their daughters to the work and services of the organisation. The payment was to cover the living expenses incurred during the trial period"Danh108 (talk) 10:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Re 3 - it would be a controversy if anyone made a big fuss about it. From some angles it might be comparable to parents complaining about high school fees. If it ran counter to some other part of BKWSU doctrine, there might be a controversy there too. If it blocked access to the disadvantaged - again a possibility. But if there's no significant noise/protest about it - is it a controversy? GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Graeme. I will leave it then - if another editor agrees with me that it's a pretty boring controversy, I will support it's deletion. Danh108 (talk) 22:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for dropping off the radar for a bit - the usual competition from other commitments. Assuming editors were fine with this, so implementing it now. Danh108 (talk) 08:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposed inclusion of UN/ NGO role in lede

I was doing some homework on this, and it appears it is an interesting and distinguishing feature of this group. According to the UN website while there are over 2,700 NGO's associated to UN/UN departments, however there are only 147 that have general consultative status with ECOSOC. Flicking thru the list, it's not full of NRMs. It is interesting that the BKWSU has NGO functionality. While the UN itself is prone to being criticised as largely bureaucratic etc., the BKWSU must meet whatever the reporting requirements are to get to participate as an NGO. It's also given significance in the RS.

Incidentally when I was looking for diff's I found this post about BK related resources. In particular this one is written as a University text on the BKWSU by a Professor of Religious Studies who is not a BK. Given some of the earlier talk page commentary, I will seek to rely upon this a bit more. Regards Danh108 (talk) 17:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

As per the points above, I propose amending the lead to:

The Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University (Prajapita Brahma Kumaris Ishwariya Vishwa Vidyalaya) or BKWSU is both a new religious movement and an NGO with general consultative status to ECOSOC at the United Nations [12] . The movement originated in India during the 1930s.[1] The Brahma Kumaris (Hindi: ब्रह्माकुमारी, "daughters of Brahma") movement was founded by Dada Lekhraj Kripalani, who later took the name Brahma Baba.[2] It is distinctly identified by the prominent role women play in the movement.

It is something distinctive about this organisation and no doubt something that can be better developed in the article after the merger with 'Brahma Kumaris at the United Nations'. If people have preferred wordings or views about this, please to add them here. Regards Danh108 (talk) 09:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

You need to prove with RS that the view that BK is primarily an NGO has due weight. Certainly BK is a NRM much more than an NGO. Let's suppose the Catholic Church has participation in the UN, does that make them an NGO? I'm just trying to understand. This article suffered and maybe still suffers from content of promotional nature, and this proposal is likely to classify as yet another one. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 11:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I have explained why it's significant - this isn't the catholic church, it is a small pokey little group of maybe 800,000. There are only 146 NGO's of 2,700 registered NGOs that have the same level of whatever commitment/involvement it is with the UN organs. You can't register as an NGO if you're not one. I think it's incumbent on you to rebut the reasons for significance I have already stated. I posted this weeks ago and you didn't comment. Please see WP:lead. Please also explain how a basic fact - that the organisation operates as an NGO and has relationship with UN organs, is 'promotional'. To be be very frank, one troll editor drumming up peoples paranoia is still having far too much influence. i get that your intentions are good. If you really think this is a problem, let's use one of the 3rd party opinion noticeboards or see if McGeddon would like to comment?. From the RS it seems that in the last 15-20 years this movement has increasing expanded it's "social work' functions i.e. the healthcare, environmental and various UN activities, as per the article. I also note this article didn't receive any comments about it being promotional for 8 months, until the troll editor came back ranting (however I do agree there were mistakes made in the article (like the linkfarm), and I was responsible for that)Danh108 (talk) 16:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn't ask for evidence that BK is an NGO. I asked for due weight from RS describing BK as an NGO, which is what matters on WP. Until then, I think you are not right to revert. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 18:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Should be clear - you reverted my edit. I have explained significance based on numbers - you still haven't responded to this. If you want me to somehow find RS about what proportion of the movement can be defined as part of their NGO capacity, vs their NRM capacity, I have not found anything. Certainly all the major projects described in the article relate to the movement as an NGO. I am not aware of any statistics about it's 'religious work' and am not sure what activities fit under this. I don't agree with your unevidenced assertion "Certainly BK is a NRM much more than an NGO". Says who? From the article, it seems opposite to me - solar projects, farming, values education etc are all NGO things. This NGO has a 'religious' (they might say spiritual) constitution. Am I missing something? Thank you Danh108 (talk) 18:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

You are the one to affirm NGO should be on the lede, and so it's up to you to prove it. Unfortunately, for Wikipedia, it's not enough to say they do "NGO things". You need that said by at least one reliable source, and even then, it needs to be given proportional weight by the RS so that it can be on the lede, otherwise it can be referred to just within a section of the article. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 00:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

NGO addition in Lede is promotional in nature and undue. Agree with GWO here and this should be removed from Lede. Changeisconstant (talk) 07:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

@James, it probably answers the points you've raised if I address CIC's point at the same time. In essence, to my mind the inclusion is highly uncontroversial and I find the responses here amazing, and the fact that you all snubbed the talk page for 3 weeks and then get excited only when I edit the page is disappointing. It seems to me people with a personal religious connection to the group are biased to see the organisation in that light. But this whole article talks about NGO activities (not religious) that the organisation will have to report to ECOSOC on annually to maintain it's status - the article content is primarily NGO content. It strikes me as particularly empty to say it's 'promotional' - what exactly is it that editors are claiming is being advertised? The language is neutral, the facts described are in a wide range of RS (and James, if you click that link given, the heading below "Civil Society Participation" is "....Organisations in consultative status with ECOSOC - general") - pages 65-68 of Whalings 'Understanding Brahma Kumaris' goes into some detail about the UN/NGO connection. Having non-secular belief's does not mean the group is not an NGO. It is the activities (as per the article) which are definitional. I'm kind of speechless that this point is being debated. GWO and CIC especially, please read up on this (at least on NGO) and broaden your views (sorry if that sounds arrogant...but I don't think people realise how much the other editor influenced people's thinking). Danh108 (talk) 08:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Editors passing over a vague "it is interesting" talk thread but reacting when you actually make an edit is par for the course on lower-traffic articles, and a standard part of WP:BRD. It's not something to be disappointed by or suspicious about.

All religious groups are pretty much NGOs by definition, aren't they? Mentioning the UN connection seems potentially undue when it's a small part of the article and unclear how significant it actually is - it should only be there if the typical one-line description of Brahma Kumaris in a secondary source mentions its consultative status to the UN. (By comparison, other articles about organisations with this status mention it further down the lede, in the body alone, or not at all.) --McGeddon (talk) 10:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

@McGeddon: Do you really believe "all religious groups are NGOs?" Did you read my comments? It wasn't a vague thread - the heading is "Proposed inclusion in the lede"!! This group doesn't have any religious activities (at least not described in the article) - if the group is to be defined by what they actually do, they are an NGO and most of the article content supports this, so it's not undue at all. I will try and find if their reporting to ECOSOC is public record....my hunch would be all the stuff in this article will be being reported back to the UN as NGO activity.

I think one dilemma people are facing in understanding this organisation/group is that IMHO it did start out as a world rejecting cult. However it is interesting (and commentators like Wallis and Whaling have taken this up) how the movement has kept changing and has been 'trying to find its place in the world' - particularly as it internationalised and as the world didn't end. Most of the things the troll editor would throw up were very old because they wanted to paint movement as it was 70 years ago, but the modern operation is quite different. Anyway, that's my take on it. Danh108 (talk) 10:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources rather than hunches and humble opinions, please. How do present-day secondary sources tend to define Brahma Kumaris? --McGeddon (talk) 10:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question or respond to my concerns. This is the talk page, and as JBW just wrote on my talk page, I'm allowed to express hunches and humble opinions here - I was trying to politely help you understand the subject matter. Anyway, I'm being gently coerced into a holiday which is quite agreeable for meeting my offline commitments. Regards Danh108 (talk) 17:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Expansion section

The expansion section is extremely brief. However I don't propose to address that at present. I note that it states the movement started to expand overseas in the 1950's, then states later it spread first to London in 1970....these statements can't both be true. Plus 'international expansion program' sounds a bit weird. Any thoughts?Danh108 (talk) 11:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Addressing the above concerns I have drafted fairly plain summary that covers the period 1950 - 1974 and reworded/simplified the short paragraph that comes at the end of this section. Feedback on the draft section is welcomed. I will insert it in a couple of days. Regards Danh108 (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Any reason for cutting the line that "According to the BKWSU website, there are currently over 4,500 centres in 100 countries, mostly in followers' own homes with a tendency toward middle or upper class membership."? And is "there is no clear definition of the level of involvement required to be considered a member" a better summary of the Howell source than the current "it is reported that many were probably not completely committed to the group's worldview"? --McGeddon (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Good questions. I cut the line that relied on the BKWSU website as there is more independent RS available. The part about their own homes and social class wasn't substantiated by any RS and I couldn't find any thing that supported that view. I thought it may have also been open to the common complaint here, that it's self appreciating to claim your following is from higher class. Second point: There is perhaps a spectrum of participation from 'entire life and all belongings' to those who are 'part of the congregation'. By analogy to other religions, is being in the congregation membership, or is it being more heavily involved and part of the clergy/priesthood/a monk etc. So rather than directly repeat what Howell wrote, I was drawing out the point she was making, that these figures could be considered arbitrary or unreliable.Danh108 (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposing Changes to Early History

Okay, while there some good independent editors attention on this article I thought to do some tweaking. I propose the following modifications the early history section:

1. In the early history it states the founder was known as "Om Baba". This was a name specifically connected to the beginning of the movement, so I will clarify this/remove the ambiguity.

2. He 'claimed a series of visions'. Changing to 'reported'.

3. Inclusion of allegations against founder

4. Escalate allegation against 'anti group' - RS that Anti-group forced daughters to eat raw pigs flesh and public paraded them to try and stop them attending the satsang. 'Domestic violence' doesn't seem to be adequately capture this kind of treatment...bit more 'tribal' than that.

5. Om Radhe's compilation (not book) was in response to the Tribunals findings, not it's formation. Adjust accordingly

Danh108 (talk) 10:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I can't understand what you mean on the #3, can you explain? Also, #4 is about accusations back and forth, but what is the source from which you are taking those? GreyWinterOwl (talk) 10:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

In the article on the founder (which I think should be deleted or merged per this comment) there are allegations against him that should also be mentioned in the Early History. The RS for the other allegations is the Om Radhe compilation and 'Peace and Purity'. The allegation is coroborrated. Danh108 (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you specify which allegations you are talking about? And is that actually relevant to the article? Maybe it's just relevant to the founder's page? Also, the reference you mentioned, as I recall, is a self-published source, so should we really give weight to it? Also, I am sure people have called religious founders they don't like all sort of things, I've read about a priest that said Sri Krishna is the devil, and people from a given religion often claim that followers/saints/leaders of another religion to be possessed by evil spirits, etc. But I don't see WP articles on religions giving much weight to that kind of he-said she-said comments. And that's most of what constitutes the "huge scientology-like controversy" Januarythe18th had filled the article with. But that doesn't mean I am against your idea, if you explain better and more specifically, I might have a different opinion. BTW I will comment on your merge proposal on the Dada Lekhraj page, I'm still not sure if I agree with it. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Another error created by recent editing is the incorrect impression given that on 21 June 1938 an opposition group formed. That's wrong. As originally written the date relates the picketing and rabble rousing which was also the date of police involvement, commencement of Court proceedings resulting from that, which lead to the first 'ban'. The opposition group formed prior to this date. So I will edit to fix this up now. Danh108 (talk) 22:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Re the allegations - I will put them in as a stand alone edit and see what you think? Danh108 (talk) 22:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

0. This "movement" operates as a cult. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.222.177.9 (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Have any reliable sources used that description? --McGeddon (talk) 16:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Adding some more beliefs

Many beliefs are not mentioned in the article.I like to propose to add some beliefs.

1)Brahma kumaris say theory of evolution and big bang are wrong. 2)They say earth is flat and does not move.

Please view this video.

References

Supdiop (talk) 05:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)supdiop

You've been told that you can't use that video. It's not considered a reliable source. Unless you can find a reliable source that supports the material you want to add, you can't add it. BTW, that video is almost one and a half hours long. Just out of curiosity, where on the video does it say what you're talking about?--Bbb23 (talk) 06:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Earth is flat and static at 38:00

Evolution and big bang are wrong at 48:25

why isn't that video reliable? It is official Brahma kumaris video and it is from bk member. Supdiop (talk)supdiop — Preceding undated comment added 07:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

It's a WP:PRIMARY source; we'd have to be very careful not to "analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate" what the source was saying. (Does the source literally say that BK as an organisation "opposes scientific theories such as evolution and big bang", or does it say something vaguer that you're interpreting?) Wikipedia typically uses secondary sources that have reported on a belief - this also confirms that it's a significant enough part of a belief to be worth writing about. --McGeddon (talk) 09:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Did you watch the video? It clearly says evolution is wrong and big bang is also wrong. It says earth is only 5000 years old which also adds to the fact that Brahma kumaris clearly opposes evolution and big bang.

The video is from website which is run by official bk members. Brahma kumaris say that everything in universe repeats itself every 5000 years(You can find that in wikipedia article itself) which is itself denial of evolution and big bang. Supdiop (talk) 12:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The video isn't working for me. Can you give us a quotation? If all we've got is a primary source, we should usually present it in the exact context (rather than saying "BK opposes X", say "in a 1994 lecture, Mr Z described BK as being opposed to X"). If the BK view of the universe is fundamentally incompatible with evolution, the big bang and a spherical earth, though, it should be easy to find secondary sources that mention this. --McGeddon (talk) 13:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I want article to reflect real beliefs of BKs and I want you all to do the same.

The video may be not working for you but it clearly says Brahma kumaris denies theory of evolution and big bang,it also says earth is flat.

why do you need secondary source when I provided primary source? The video is as reliable as any other source in the article. thank you Supdiop (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Supdiop, I also think there is scope to increase the content in the article, particularly in the activities area. Wikipedia needs reliable sources published by independent third parties. This video seems to be self published and as you say, from a members website - it lacks impartiality. So your statement just above is incorrect. Introducing this kind of content can mean a wide range of views get construed as belonging to the group when it's actually the views of different members. I would have thought it's already obvious from the beliefs section that any group who believes in a repeating 5000 year cycle of time can't possibly subscribe to other theories like the big bang and evolution - they are mutually inconsistent and unreconcilable. Usually belief's sections focus on what is believed rather than all the things that are not believed, otherwise it would be endless.

I would be interested to get your opinion about adding this content - whether you would support that or not.

If you are interested in improving the article I am happy to suggest some of the resources I have found online. Cheers Danh108 (talk) 16:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay I am focusing on beliefs rather than non beliefs.brahma kumaris believe in flat earth.Actually there is very less information of bk in Internet.On official website we don't find any information.

Can you provide links in which it shows brahma kumaris believe in flat earth?

I found a conversation in which brahma kumari say earth is flat and conventional science is wrong. http://www.brahmakumaris.info/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=904

Is this enough?

Supdiop (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

No, your source is to a blog post in which one person expresses that opinion. That is hardly enough to impute to the entire movement.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Supdiop, have you read messages on your talk page? Sorry if that's a dumb question....there is content there that is relevant. As Bbb23 is saying, sources need to be credible otherwise WIkipedia will lose it's credibility.Danh108 (talk) 05:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Introduction

Hi everyone. You probably all know me from the article history. I can see that the conditions here are thankfully very different to when I retired a few years ago. I would like to help, if I can, to move the article to a state where there is a consensus that it is well written and doesn't have any remaining issues. I will be operating under COI restrictions. Bksimonb (talk) 11:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

It would be very useful if you are able to help this article grow. I have been trying to find extra eyes in the Wiki projects but they seem very sleepy and haven't lead to any interest in the page. There are a couple of really good old Wikipedians watching as well...McGeddon was okay (correct me if your view has changed) with this piece being inserted, but didn't consider just the 2 of us to be an adequate consensus to allow the edit...this would be a good place to start i.e. if you could give your view on this. Regards Danh108 (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dan. My view is that one non-COI editor may be enough in most situations to approve the constructive edits of a COI editor but this article isn't a typical situation. I have some suggestions on how you can attract the attention of other editors to build consensus that I will post on your talk page later. Bksimonb (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

RFC for adding the word "Cult"

There are reliable sources which say Brahma Kumaris is a cult. Based on a third opinion, it was removed that "Brahma kumaris is considered as cult". Please write your opinion in "Support" section if you want to re-add it (with suggested re-wordings) or write it in "Oppose" section if you don't want to re-add it. There is also a discussion section. Result of the RFC will be based on strength of the arguments not on the number of votes. Thanks

Does the article still "require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies"?

From what I can tell from the recent history, there was a consensus that the article recently had a promotional tone and an appropriate Conflict of Interest warning tag was applied.

It seems some clean up has taken place since then so my question is; has the article reached a point where it is sufficiently cleaned up such that the warning tag is no longer required? I am unable to contribute to that consensus myself since I also have a conflict of interest so this question is directed towards experienced editors with no particular association with this article.

I will leave this topic open for a week then, if no consensus is reached locally, file an article Request for comment. Regards, Bksimonb (talk) 07:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

"missing girl" story

Here is the whole article in question quoted from the Hindu.

Produce the missing girl by May 5: HC

The Orissa High Court on Wednesday directed the State police to trace, rescue and produce the missing Dalit minor girl from Pipili in Puri district before the Court by May 5 positively.

The girl reportedly went missing on a pilgrimage to Farrukhabad in UP in November last year.

Adjudicating over a habeas corpus petition filed by the girl’s father, a Division Bench comprising Justices Indrajit Mahanti and Biswanath Rath gave the direction to the Pipili police.

In his petition, the girl’s father had stated that his daughter had gone on a pilgrimage to a spiritual centre with two followers of Prajapita Brahma Kumaris :Ishwariya Vishwa Vidyalaya in November last year. The two followers have already returned but his daughter has gone missing, the petition said.

And here is the text in the article.

A petition has been filed in Orissa high court by a father that his daughter has gone missing after going to a brahma kumaris center in Farrukhabad, Uttar Pradesh.

Here are the reasons I removed the item.

• The Brahma Kumaris centre is cited as the destination of a "pilgrimage", not as a culprit to any crime.
• There are more ways for someone to go missing than to be as the result of a crime e.g. accident, animal attack, getting lost en route, medical event etc
• If there is any controversy cited then it is inaction by the police, not any wrongdoing by the Brahma Kumaris.
• There are no reliable sources that say that the Brahma Kumaris cause people to mysteriously disappear any more than any other destination in India. A single, isolated, inconclusive news item does not define the character of a 70+ year old organisation.

Best regards Bksimonb (talk) 07:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

This incident could have happened:

1) during traveling to centre

2) in the centre

3) during return journey

If any incident other than crime happened during journeys, other two followers would have known about it because she was traveling with them, but they don't know.

Also if any crime happened during journeys, other two would report it but they haven't, this leaves us with only place that incident could have happened i.e brahma kumaris center.

Evidence clearly points towards my conclusion. If other two followers also don't know what happened, then it means she had been abducted or something seriously wrong happened with her secretly. Abduction could also have happened during the journey but that does not remove the possibility that she could have abducted in the centre.

This is the text which is added to the article:

"A petition has been filed in Orissa high court by a father that his daughter has gone missing after going to a brahma kumaris center in Farrukhabad, Uttar Pradesh."

That is totally true and written in accordance with evidence.

My point is that incident is included in controversy section and it should not be removed until evidence suggests Brahma Kumaris have nothing to do with this case. Current evidence suggests Brahma kumaris is involved in this case. - Supdiop ^talk 11:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Any number of things could have happened but the news source doesn't say that they did. We also don't know what the other followers did or didn't say since the source doesn't quote them. You seem to be inferring a lot from an absence of information. That is not "evidence".

Please check WP:VERIFY, "Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it".

Of particular concern is this comment, "...should not be removed until evidence suggests Brahma Kumaris have nothing to do with this case". That's a complete reversal of the burden of proof. Not only in Indian or Western criminal law but also on Wikipedia WP:BURDEN.

Even ignoring the shortcomings of the source, "controversy" about an organisation would typically be an issue that is widely reported that is a prominent part of the organisation's history, or a critique from a peer-reviewed academic source.

If you are still not in agreement then I suggest we invite outside comment via WP:THIRD.

Best regards Bksimonb (talk) 12:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

As of now, there is no indication that Brahma Kumaris have anything do with this incident in the Hindu's article. In future, if there are any further news reports on this case confirming the involvement, then it might be worthy of inclusion. - Supdiop ^talk 19:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Supdiop. Much appreciated. Best wishes Bksimonb (talk) 07:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Suggested page move

To all intents and purposes the name, "Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University" is a bit of a mouthful. I suggest moving the page to "Brahma Kumaris" for the following reasons.

• The full name after "Brahma Kumaris" is different in different countries. For example, it is BKWSU in the UK, BKIVV in India, BKWSO in the US. The only part of the name that is common is "Brahma Kumaris"
• Most of the references refer simply to the "Brahma Kumaris", just a quick look at the reference book titles shows that
• The full name, "Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University" sounds long a precocious. I have a feeling that whenever this page is flagged up for outside attention editors take one look at the name and think "Ugh!". A simpler name may actually help get more editors to drop by.

Would be interested in hearing thoughts from others. Regards Bksimonb (talk) 14:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Support: Yes, current title is long and unpopular. I support the move. Supdiop ^talk 00:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Supdiop! Bksimonb (talk) 13:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

OK. Posting request for move.

Requested move 14 July 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Unopposed for over two weeks. Jenks24 (talk) 15:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

---

Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University → Brahma Kumaris – 1) Most references refer simply to the "Brahma Kumaris", 2) The organisation has different full names in different countries e.g. BKIVV in India and BKWSO in US. Only the name "Brahma Kumaris" is common to all countries, 3) The name as it is too long if a shorter common name is available. The request is potentially controversial only because of my WP:COI status. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 00:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC) Bksimonb (talk) 10:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Thank you. Much appreciated. Bksimonb (talk) 04:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Motion

The Arbitration Committee are proposing to combine the discretionary sanctions authorised for this topic area with those authorised in several similar areas. Details of the proposal are at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Motion: New Religious Movements where your comments are invited. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)