Talk:Brahma Kumaris: Difference between revisions

The Arbitration Committee has placed this article on probation. The principals in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris are expected to convert the article from its present state based on original research and BK publications to an article containing verifiable information based on reliable third party sources. After a suitable grace period, the state of the article may be evaluated on the motion of any member of the Arbitration Committee and further remedies applied to those editors who continue to edit in an inappropriate manner. Any user may request review by members of the Arbitration Committee. Posted by Srikeit for the Arbitration committee. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris.

India B‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WPHinduismPeerreview

Archives
Nov 2005 - July 2006
July 2006 - Aug 2006
Aug 2006 - Sept 2006
Sept 2006 - Oct 2006
early Oct 2006
late Oct 2006
early Nov 2006
late Nov 2006
December 2006
Late Dec 2006 - Feb 2007
March 2007 - June 2007
Current

There haven't been any posts since early June so I thought now would be a good time to archive old discussions. Hope that's OK with everyone. Regards Bksimonb 06:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only archive it when it is necessary due to its size.PEACETalkAbout 06:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any debate that the talk page wasn't too large?! I just also try to take care with live conversation threads because archiving can be a bit of a conversation-killer (literally;-)) if done without consideration. In the past when there have been live threads I have archived everything else except the conversations that seem to be active since within a week. Regards Bksimonb 04:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Bksimonb for keeping up with this article maintenance. Certainly look forward to seeing further progress... Blessings, avyakt7 19:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded a marked up version of the article to my userspace, here. I have identified what I am certain are multiple issues with the article as it stands. I would say the majority of the issues are quite clear-cut with maybe a few that need more discussion. I have tagged the main article with the issues I have identified and will start cleaning up the most obvious problems after about two days wait.

Why I created a separate page in userspace? Originally, it was to brief an advocate on what issues I saw in the article, however the advocate has had to take a long Wikibreak and the AMA, it seems, is no more. Also, plastering loads of stuff on the discussion page trying to describe exactly where it is in the article etc is messy and floods the discussion page. I thought a marked up version of the article was a much better way to communicate the reasoning.

I would appreciate discussion to take place here, not on the userspace document, to keep things clear and manageable.

Thanks & regards Bksimonb 08:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bksimonb,

I take it the "red" sections are comments by you, or the mystery person that wrote you. I for one would fervently argue the point on monastic as being truthful and honest and still have other sources which I have yet to add. Personally, I can't think of meeting any practicing BK that said, "My s*x life has improved with Gyan". Yes, there are those that go to class and quickly fall off, those that say they are but are not, those that are "Holiday" BKs and I for one have more respect for those that tell the truth. I have no issues with you as I know you practice the beliefs, but find that skirting around this is simply wrong. Please, have the "Mystery Writer" provide a murli point, or an official edict from Mt. Abu, to add an amendment for non-practicing, non-surrendered BKs and I personally can attest that I will have it framed. For quick reference when needed or posting for others to reference.:-( Need I say more? I will copy the analysis, and get back with my point in bold. Does Barmy=nutty? PEACETalkAbout 00:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TalkAbout. The comment was more to do with the isolation aspect of a monastic life rather than just celibacy. Do you really think that I'm a monk?

Also, yes, barmy=nutty.Bksimonb 08:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bksimonb,

First, let me say there is nothing wrong with living like a monk, I fully respect monks. Now, since you asked if I thought you are a monk I will answer. As you know, I don't like to get personal. From a lokik (out here in the non-BK practising world) I would say yes, the life style is/could best be described as monk like. Now, a pretty bird once said, he lived in a palace of of Golden Gates, shinny, beautiful, with all the food it desired and had someone available to look after his needs with only a chirp. One day a child came along and told this pretty bird, "You have a lovely cage made of Gold". My point is, we may be in bliss and want to call it bliss, but the lokik world will still see it as monastic as it fits the definition. So, I would agree with the academics in their honest, description. Another term they banter about is tea totalers but monastic is clearly more descriptive and accurate given the diet, contact (otherwise I would have had you over for a home cooked dinner) and celibacy restrictions. So, I would say you are one "pretty little monastic bird"(I am told a rather "orthodox" one too, very respected too).PEACETalkAbout 20:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well, well, well...BK Simon, you got a fan! I like that: "pretty little monastic bird," PLMB...however; are birds monastic?

I have a little link as well [1] Some of the requirements to be monastic accordingly are:

Seclusion and Religious vows. As a Bk, i do not remember that is my case. I am a free bird... (pretty or ugly, little or big does not matter; but free)for most the 9 to 5 thing and the 2.5 kids secludes them from enjoying traveling for example or knowing many people, they are secluded in their cubicle/office/ prison. On the other hand, i go where i want and

when i want. So much for seclusion. As far as religious vows, i do not remember making any sort of "promise." Celibacy "restrictions"??

That is only from a "lokik" perspective. From my perspective that is not a restriction. I do not feel is natural to me. It is sort of having the opportunity to go to a disco.

Some will do it and some will not. From the perspective of those who go to the disco; those who do not go are "restricted." From the perspective of those who do not go, those who disco all night long are just senseless.

So, when writing this article whose perspective is being represented? Something to think about... Blessings, avyakt7 18:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC

Hi avyakt7. Long time no see. Welcome back :-) Please remember to correctly indent your responses or indicate "(outdent)" if you feel the indenting has gotten too intense. Regards Bksimonb 06:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TalkAbout. Yes the lifestyle changes are often components of a monastic lifestyle but usually some kind of social withdrawal is the most key component from my own understand and having read the monasticism article. I can't comment on the first reference (Bartholomeusz, Tessa J.) as I don't have the book although it seems to be associated with the word "renunciate" but the second reference, Mikael Rothstein, refers to just the "inner members" being monastic or semi-monastic, rather than all members. I guess the reason the description jars with some of us BKs is that we strongly support the idea of remaining active in family and society and not just walking off into the jungle, up a mountain or to a monastery somewhere. Those that do live in centres are there to keep the wheels turning rather than specifically to retreat from society. If an academic has concluded that BKs are, in fact, monastic then, yes, that's a significant view, but since it is not a universally held view perhaps it should be mentioned somewhere other than the first paragraph and attributed. Out of interest, what other sources have described the BKs as "monastic"?

Well, I've never been called "Orthodox" before. I've been trying to puzzle what an orthodox BK might be. Old fashioned? Old-school values? Set in ways? Traditional? Anyway, I'll take it as the compliment that I believe it was intended as :-) And, yes, sorry about the dinner, errrm... but at least since you already know about BKs I don't need to invent any excuses! Being tea-total does mean that tea still is a possibility though...

Best regards Bksimonb 20:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the welcoming message, Bksimonb. I will be careful on keeping my indentation in check...like a bit of an "orthodox."... :-) Blessings,

avyakt7 13:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i looked as far as the first red bit where it talks about the date of birth of lekhraj...........the correct date is referenced in the Om Radhe book.....she is your "Mama" Simon and writing in the late 1930s when lekhraj was still live ,I think she knows better

also if you look in jagdish chander writings in the 70s , he fudges the issue talking about approximate "55 to 60 years of age" for the incarnation of shivbaba . its on page 154 kripalani was aged 54 in 1938

the age of kripalani was given on documents prepared for legal proceedings.........

you see the problems lies in that in the murlis , it says shiva incarnates when the chariot is 60 years old but om radhe and the om mandli folk prove he was younger

kripalani is also how it is spelt then too , but it is not big deal the two ways are interchangeable......its just a problem with the english translation of it

so , yes, we know the BKWSU edits and re-writes the murli and we know that they re-write their history

the problem we have here is that you younger Bks really dont know your own organisations history and are believing in the PR version.....that ignorance should not prejudice the article , you should go back to your seniors and demand the truth you cant expect to drive home the whitewashed version of bk history Green108 15:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's say that I don't know the real birthdate of Lekhraj Khubechand Kirpalani. I want to find that out.

Where shall I go?... To Wikipedia?? ... ;-)

Some say "the correct date is referenced in the Om Radhe book" why is that the correct date?

Or a more concise "approximate 55 to 60 years of age for the incarnation of shivbaba."

Then comes another "document" the "Murli." which claims that Kirpalani was 60 when Shivbaba incarnated...So, which document do I believe? and why?

and of course to top things off, "kripalani" is the same guy as "kirpalani" it is just a problem with the translation...(they couldn't get the right place for the 'r')

...but, it is no biggy...and then of course, the real problem being that younger Bks do not know the 'real' history...Does anyone know it? and most importantly, why do i have to believe in what someone says? where is the proof? Even in history the dates change as new evidence comes up and a group of "experts" decides about the "truth." Dates are not set in stone and then we just need to trust historians because there is no one else...it is about trusting the current evidence, knowing that it could change. IMHO, I agree with the red comments (a la Kirpalani) Wikipedia is about scholar sources, right? so what Wallis have to say about it? Best Wishes, avyakt7 18:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Green108. I am really sorry that you still appear not to have understood what Wikipedia is after this break. Thanks and regards Bksimonb 18:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i understand perfectly well what the Bkwsu are trying to use it for simon

with regards kripalani's age , i gave you a page number all you got to look at it . its not "original research" to copy a fact from a book

simon , just one honest question to you.........if you are a member of the Bkwsus core IT PR team , and tucked up nicely with sister jayanti and dadi janki in GCH...........why cant you access these books and documents from within the Bkwsu? what is their response to such a request? there must be others.its a simple question that really deserves a proper answer.........

btw , we all read how dadi janki was not the most stable mind in the world after 30 years of using it for pr.........in the om radhe book she is not even listed amongst the members in 1938 , still they say she was on the managing committee

why cant we depend on the Bkwsu for a single accurate history?Green108 20:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Green108, you seem to be making some sort of political point here. Perhaps a blog or forum might be a better outlet. I suggest you read WP:OR again very carefully. The above post indicates a lack of understanding in this area. Regards Bksimonb 06:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i asked an very important, honest question and you ignored it simon

one of the problems we have with you young Bks is that you come along and want to change the article to suit your current PR and you have not even read many of the reference........in short , you dont actually know the real history.......you only know the PR version

have you or can you access these original books and documents from within the Bkwsu? what is sister jayanti's and dadi janki's response to such a request?

it is impossible to enter into a discussion with you if you insist on ignoring them

i made a historical point. the article reflects the reality of the Bkwsu which is they have faked and re-written their history , many younger Bks dont know the truth of it........and consequently reporting of it is mixed.

look, you are a key member of the BKWSU Core Internet PR Team ,aren't you? and riveros some fanatical Bk follower that goes about posting about "the bombs being ready and they are going to be used" on public forums and faking ids to mess with this article..................this isnt PR for western Bks , we are trying to document the BKWSU in the whole

in that analysis of the article you try to discredit the original posters.......in 1949 there was no mention of Shiva, just God Brahma Green108 11:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your "important" questions are not relevant to Wikipedia. If you want to discuss such things why don't you make an appointment visit us in person at GCH. We have already invited Ex-L/244 by email and are patiently awaiting his response. Please do not use Wikipedia to pursue an agenda. They just don't need it. Thanks and regards Bksimonb 12:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this is where you are wrong..............if it is shown that you are refusing to actually read over the references you are criticising and check the citations given then it undercuts your credibility as a neutral contributor

it is utterly relevent to show what the intention of the Bkwsu is with this topic Green108 12:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are using primary sources in ways that Wikipedia's polices on WP:OR expressly forbid. It seems we are in deadlock here so I will invite a third opinion and start to escalate this. Bksimonb 13:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i disagree

i am trying to establish trust by giving the Bkwsu internet PR team a chance to be open and honest , to actually engage in discussion rather pull the rug from under other contributors feet

i am asking you a question , can you access these documents from within the Bkwsu and what is the response of the seniors to them because to me you appear to be ignoring them as they dont fit in your organisations aim to re-write this topic along the lines of current pr

that poster , dated 1949 ,clearly states Destruction within one year and as a matter or interest ,why is there no mention of shivbaba only Prajapati God Brahma?

Green108 03:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To all: I removed the "or monastic" because the source was one sentence combined with IKSON:"The same appears to be the case with inner members of Brahma Kumaris which, like ISKCON, is a monastic or semi-monastic religious order"[2]. The citation that remains is academic, in goes into the area in detail on the Brahma Kumaris and doesn't compare/contrast nor add "appears" which is conjecture with no examples. I have ordered all his books and will look to see if he can prove his conjecture as posted on the website cited. As to the editor that claims he is not celibate and goes on to MT ABU, I guess he tells tall tales to get in or is celibate for six months prior, then falls off his stage. There are those that want to practice according to their beliefs in all religions, but when adjusting the beliefs to suit their life style, I do believe they are called "heretics". I have yet to meet a practicing BK yogi, that is not celibate and is off to the discos on the weekends. Please provide information on how someone can be a semi-yogi! PEACETalkAbout 18:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TalkAbout. OK Thank you. Do you have the exact words for the "spirit possession" bit because as it stands the into is quite misleading. Imagine reading the article for the first time and reading that these people teach a form of yoga that involves "spirit possession". I'm sure a lot of readers would immediately associate it with something like this! I certainly wouldn't want to meet a Raj Yogi like that at a disco. Maybe that's why I stopped going to discos. It also sounds like spirit possession is part of what you would be taught to do if you chose to learn BK-style Raj Yoga. Scary huh? I realise that Dadi Gulzar is technically "possessed" when the murlis are spoken but that's not "Raj Yoga", that's a particular role she alone is playing. Other trance messengers used to do that too, as noted later in the article, but that system stopped some time ago. Also, it is a custom in India to invoke departed relatives into trance medium priests so in an Indian context it isn't seen as that much of bizarre practice.

Channeling I can live with although it is still associated with bringing messages which is not what regular BKs do (trance messages are fetched while the body is inactive and so nothing is actually being "channeled" in that case).

To make the second para more representative, would you be open to something along the lines of, "It teaches a form of meditation[1] called Raja Yoga (not the classical Raja Yoga as described by Patanjali[4]) and a study of messages brought via a medium." References aside, (we can easily find academic references to back up the process in a nutshell), do you agree that the sentence could be improved and if so how would you phrase it?

Maybe the editor in question doesn't visit Madhuban as a BK student. There are various spiritual, medical and other forums held there as well as the usual BK meetings.

Thanks & regards Bksimonb 19:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bksimonb, I think I fixed it, as it reads now, it is very clear that the primary function of the medium is to channel the murlis and information. So, no worries about thishttp://www.fromthebalcony.com/images/2005/exorcism_of_emily_rose_the/emilyrose03.jpg. I also included a section from another book which refers to communication between the living and the dead, but I think this one citation will suffice and no need to over do it.

• "New Religious Movements: challenge and response" Edited by Bryan Wilson (Emeritus Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford) and Jamie Creswell (Director of the Institute of Oriental Philosophy European Centre), Contributors Eileen Barker, James Beckford, Anthony Bradney, Colin Campbell, George Chryssies, Peter Clarke, Paul Heelas, Massimo Introvigne, Lawrence Lilliston, Godeon Melton, Elizabeth Puttick, Gary Sherpherd, Colin Slee, Frank Usarski and Bryan Wilson. Pages 157-158, 1999, ISBN 0-415-20049-0
  • "However, as with sannyasins, Brahma Kumaris women become core members by being fully ‘surrendered’, and their prominence derives from their mediumistic capacities, channeling murlis (sermons) from their dead founder. As a result, ‘their power is veiled…through the device of possession. Women, even when they possess power, cannot be seen to wield it. Hence, the importance of spirit possession where women are the instruments or mouthpieces of a male spirit.”

• Theorising Religion: Classical And Contemporary Debates
  • "John Walliss is a lecturer in Sociology at Liverpool Hope University. He published works on several topics, including millenarianism within the Hindu New Religious Movement, the Brahma Kumaris; ‘fringe archaeology’; relationships between the living and the dead within contemporary Spiritualism."

Bksimonb Qoute: "It teaches a form of meditation[1] called Raja Yoga (not the classical Raja Yoga as described by Patanjali[4]) and a study of messages brought via a medium."

• How is this:
  • Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University (BKWSU) or Prajapita Brahma Kumaris Ishwariya Vishwa Vidyalaya is a monastic, renunciate[1]Millenarian[2][3] new religious movement (NRM) of Indian origin." END QOUTE

Current22:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It teaches a form of meditation[1] called Raja Yoga (not the classical Raja Yoga as described by Patanjali[4]), involving spirit possession(women are the instruments or mouthpieces of the male spirit) [5] and mediumistic channelling.[6][7] The murlis (sermons) are received via Dadi Gulzar or Dadiji, currently their main medium. [8][9]

Please let me know what you think. I will look for the other books as well, but they may be more aligned with Walliss. PEACETalkAbout 22:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

one aspect we also covered in previous discussion was the mediumship or channelling of other spirits such as deceased leaders...this was covered by accepted referenceGreen108 11:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did I miss the discussion on the tagging of the article by the BKs? Or was it just a unilateral action again?

I also disagree with Simon. Tagging the article with a huge tag like that is just another ploy on behalf of the BKs to try and devalue and discredit the article as it is.

There was no consensus sought about this. Simon, why did not you just make a template up that says, “The BKWSU doesn’t like this. Its does not fit in with our PR and marketing and it exposes facts we don’t like to tell non-BKs.”?

The problem is, as a leading member of the BKWSU’s “Internet PR Core Team on behalf of the RCOs”, as it is called, your vision is deeply biased. Most people think the article is fine. It is very well researched and referenced.

BTW, just to see how fair and even handed you are, do you think we can we mention the stuff about the Dadi Janki not being the “most stable mind in the World” - as was widely claimed - as one of the controversies? I would say that was a fairly serious abd continous deceit on behalf of the old girl and her followers.

Green108 15:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Most people think the article is fine." Really? Any proof? Best, avyakt7 18:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Green108. You are respectfully reminded that Wikipedia is not a battleground. The tag is not applied by a vote or consensus but by the simple fact that it does not comply with Wikipedia's own policies for reasons which are far from subtle. Thanks and regards Bksimonb 18:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

simon , leave it out.............one post and you are back to your old tricks of trying to personalise things , wind folks up and act like some playground prefect

Green108. Well if I'm the "playground prefect" then I wonder what role you might be playing on the "playground"! I'm sorry if being reminded of some very important Wikipedia policies "winds folks up". If you were to drive on the wrong side of the road, keep mounting the kerb and knock over loads of "keep left" signs you might find people reciting the highway code to you a lot too. I'm not sure how you interpret this as "personalising things". To me, "personalising things" involves commenting on the other editors personal affiliations off-Wiki and misrepresenting them in a derogatory manner as per your previous posts.

Regards Bksimonb 07:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lets discuss which tags would be best where.......imho , really , you have just chosen the biggest broadest possible tag you could find to try and discredit this topic............which is already ridiciulously over referenced for its real world importance .its a question of intention , this does nothing for the readers benefit and will inconveniece people using smaller screens and old pcs

btw , both you Bks still have not answered by other questions about whether you have actually read any of the citations we have offeredGreen108 14:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Green108. Each point in the tag relates to a problem found in the Article analysis I did. The tag does help the reader in that it warns them that they are reading a misleading article. It would be better to constructively address the problems with the article than to edit war over the tag or market it as some sort of conspiracy, as in, "try and discredit this topic". Perhaps the article is trying to discredit the BKWSU. Using phrases like "discrediting the article" is an indicator of feeling ownership to it. As is reverting just about any valid change that challenges it WP:OWN.

Also yes, I have read the sources. They are primary sources and are therefore unsuitable for drawing conclusions and doing so is considered original research WP:OR. The burden of proof is on the editor who wants to include something in the article to show that it has reliable, secondary sources. Particularly, controversial or novel claims that are different from established facts, especially those coming from reliable secondary sources, need extraordinary proof from a secondary source WP:REDFLAG. Primary sources just don't cut it.

An example of how a primary source is limited is like this, it is acceptable to say something like, "a leaflet, printed in 1988 by xyz org, claims the world is flat" but it is not acceptable to say, "xyz org thought the world was flat in 1988". Also the leaflet would have to have the actual words, "the world is flat", not something that just implies it like, "the radius of the world tends toward infinity".

Regards Bksimonb 15:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i just fixed a small typo made by a new user , the line is not exactly accurate according to gyan.......you know the Bk stuff about nuclear war , natural disasters , the continents sinking and only india being left for krishna to reincarnate in

i am not fussed by it the way it is just if you want accuracy then you want accuracy Green108 20:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Placed template stating a dispute. According to wikipedia custom made templates stating a discussion or/and dispute are valid.The article per say hasn't been changed, thus there is no reason to take the tag off, since it does not affect the article. The cycle started to repeat again, eh? Best, avyakt7 03:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User green108 reverted article tag. Left a friendly warning in his talk page[3] requesting proof of his statement. Will place template tag again. Best, avyakt7 13:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Riveros11 is a BK follower and member of their IT team

since he was shown in the dispute mentioned at the top of the page to have multiple sockpuppet accounts to try and gain control of the article and have other contributors banned his integrity is in doubt

your collective actions are causing an identical repeat of the previous case

please discuss proposed changes before you make themGreen108 14:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User Green108: Innocent until proven guilty. Did you know that? You are accusing me innecesarily and tarnishing my integrity. I have not been found guilty of anything, according to wiki rules. That is the game here. I haven't made any changes to the article. The tag in the article is to show any reader that there are some issues with the article which they need to be aware of. Please be reasonable. The proposed changes are here [4] Please read the "red" items and discuss about them here, hopefully with reliable sources to back up your claims. You have broken 3RR. I will not. Simple. Yes, things are repeating.. (it is a good time to review the cycle class...)hope you don't make the same mistakes... Best, avyakt7 16:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There has been widespread reporting in the media of this. The Indian president candidate Pratibha Patil has been to the Brahma Kumari headquarters to talk to their "ghost". The ghost apparently backed her campaign.

Should this not be reported here as a media controversy? If others agree, I will present the most reliable references.

I must say. Although I am not a member. I knew a family that lost a son to this group. They encouraged him to give up his studies. He gave them thousands of pounds. When he was in it, you could not talk him. He was very much like these other followers. I think they encourage fanaticism within their followers.

Faithinhumanity 17:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes , i agreeGreen108 19:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to seeing reliable sources not references. You know, Mr. Studious Ph.D in Religious Studies said .. so and so... that sort of thing.. reliable sources, Got it? great!!! Best, avyakt7 20:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Faithinhumanity,

As per the consensus here along with plenty of citations as requested:[5]

This has got to be the BEST example of VIP service.:-)PEACETalkAbout 05:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see this is already covered in the Pratibha Patil article and does not need to be covered here since the controversy is about something Pratibha Patil said, not the BKWSU itself. The BKWSU has had many VIP visitors over the years and the fact that they had another one visit does not merit article space.

This article does not need yet more negative-biased input right now no matter how it is sourced. It has serious WP:UNDUE issues that need to be resolved first. Can we please give that the priority it deserves.

Also, Faithinhumanity, your opinion and claim about the BKWSU is superfluous and sounds bogus. BKs are not taught to exclude their parents. From personal experience I can tell you that I am in regular contact with my parents and enjoy a very good relationship with them. I think you got the wrong group. Maybe you have been reading about cults. Also, I notice that you claimed in previous posts to be a Christian and yet you have only ever contributed to this one article. Why the narrow field of interest if you are neither a BK or an ex-BK? Why are all the additions you propose always negative? You don't have to answer, of coarse, but I am curious to know.

Regards Bksimonb 06:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I partially take back what I said about the Pratibha Patil issue being included. With all due credit to TalkAbout, it actually been presented in quite a neutral tone and doesn't really make the BKWSU look bad as such. So my question regarding whether it should be in the article still stands but I don't really feel so strongly about it if it stays. Regards Bksimonb 07:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bksimonb,

Yes, the item is neutral, factual and an item of world value. As you know I am fascinated by the VIP contact and only very recently did I get information on the origins of VIP service and "MIKE". Yes, the concept had eluded me, but as you know I plug away, researching, keeping open to contacts within and on the outside. I personally think it should go under VIP service, if you would approve, as Pratibha Patil doesn't see it as negative and the current President Abdul Kalam also went to seek blessings too, as did Sonia Gandhi. So when put in that context, no it is not a negative at all, rather a positive for your organisation.

This is one area that I disagree with another editor on here, frequently, why hide the truth, simply present them as facts. I spent several thousand dollars on research material and now have a considerable BK library filled with most of the BK original material. See, there was no point in hiding the medium/channeling aspect of the faith, as it turns out that government officials in India like Pratibha Patil see it as a communication with the "Divine". So, as always, keep in mind that I am only presenting the facts and not doing this from a negative position. I must say she is by far a gutsy lady in that she simply came out and said it, stated her beliefs, her devotion and what she sees as "Divine Indication". So, she may well be the first female President since the last female leadership of Indira Gandhi.

So, would you be open to the idea of discussing "MIKE"? I would agree to place in the concept even with a {citation needed} tag, until it is documented else where by academics. Seeing that it took me several years to learn this, I think it has value. Please consider it.

I do thank you for being open to the collaborative process, perhaps that is what someone interpreted this as you having a "fan". In fact it is a simple mutual appreciation and respect, one that I hope will continue.PEACETalkAbout 16:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

very interesting.....look at that! World_Renewal_Trust_Deed

ramesh shah started the world renewal trust in 16th january 1969 and lekhraj kripalani / kirpalani died the day after he was shown it from a heart break..........and to think that the BKs actually celebrate his death on january the 18th.

ok ,we have to have this in the article.........is it agreed as a reliable date?

this is perfectly sound evidence and imagine , the BKs have said all along they were run by women and here is proof that a man set up the trust and was a trustee from day oneGreen108 19:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. it is not agreed. Do you know what reliable sources are? Take a look at some of the "back issues" of this article. Probably October/November. It was explained at lenght what a reliable source constitutes. Waiting for your proof about "many people think the article is alright." Best, avyakt7 20:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Green108 This is an encyclopedia not a tabloid newspaper. Also the document has been tagged with an inappropriate license. Fair-use? Possibly. But GFDL??? Also the edit summary contains significant opinion, conjecture and a quote from an unspecified source (presumably at channeled message courtesy of Mr.Dixit). Why are such primary documents being uploaded to Wikipedia anyway? This is not a document repository.Bksimonb 04:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I started adding some citations tags where citations are needed in the article. If those citations are not provided in a reasonable amount of time, ( A week sounds good to me...according to Jossi's previous suggestion) the contents under those citations will be deleted... so, that is 7/24/07... Best, avyakt7 20:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what we need is for you to prove you have actually read any of the citations or reference...............to be honest , bro..........i think you have some sort of learning difficulty

we have been over this ground before.........every word does not need to have a citation beside it , every referenece does not need to be verbatim from its original source.what you flag up is referenced in the article, the bibliograpy etc, newspapers of note are adequate references

but then you are not interested are you ? so why pretend..............you are just going to attempt your Nazi BK re-write of history ,aren't you?

here we go again..........Bk simon is off complaining to the admins already trying to build up a case against me [6], [7] and Bk riveros is doing his bootcamp sergeant impersonation.........both of them ignoring any genuine input

how sadGreen108 03:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Green108. How sad indeed. You must understand that your behaviour has been disruptive and harmful both Wikipedia and beneficial to the BKWSU. I will now pursue all means possible to bring some kind of sanity back to this article. I am really sorry it has come to this. Bksimonb 04:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, well, well it seems that ex-bro green108 finally want to talk with me.. wah, how fortunate! OK so you have your way of thinking and then we have wikipedia protocols. Unfortunately it seems to me that you do not understand what is a reliable source It is not what you think is "OK." It is what Wikipedia establishes as OK. how do you like my new role? It is all about roles, bro...you know. Best, avyakt7 15:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a little cleanup because the article was looking really ugly with all those unnecessary templates. I've removed unsourced statements (except a few, which are tagged with {{fact}} or {{page number}} and can be removed after some time if no source is provided). I've also trimmed down the "Controversies" section -- half the stuff mentioned in the section involved no controversy. Also, I've removed some original research, which was referenced, but the references didn't support the statements made.

In future, instead of tagging the article with so many tags, please consider using tags for relevant sections and statements. utcursch | talk 16:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi utcursch. Thank you so much for taking the time to work through this article. It's a huge improvement already. Appreciate your comments regarding tagging sections but when I did the article analysis I realised there would be so many tags. Maybe I could have split between the more pervasive problems at the top and the one-off issues in the text to get a balance.

Thanks & regards Bksimonb 16:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Utcursch could you offer some of the specific quotation referred to e.g. Abbott, Elizabeth Hardy, Hardayal (1984)Green108 11:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a contributor has introduced the theory of om mandli being "a committee"

this is of course entirely wrong..........om mandli was "the gathering of souls" all 500 of them at its height , the management committee was chosen from amongst the om mandli members , its also difficult to see how this was the "nucleus" of the Bkwsu........it was the precusor , incidentally where is the evidence that Lekhraj handed over his wealth?

having been accused myself of original research to make such constructions goes too far

i also notice the introduction of very specific cultic language........for example , murli in the top paragraph and rasa lila in the early history Kripalani being referred to as "Dada" , so i suppose we are dealing with more BKWSU intervention here........

rasa lila is the real world is a folk dance , rasa lila to the Bks means that Lekhraj kripalani was krishna and the Bk followers were the gopis surrounding him.........all very unencyclopediac ,a sort of double language that only Bks might get

it is riduculous to suggest that "dancing" was a key component of Om Mandli......likewise "preached" Bhagavad Gita

so , no, i am afraid not.......we will have to revert some of that to neutral "lokik" languageGreen108 11:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record Utcursch had no prior communication that I know of with me or any other editor here and was responding to a "Request for comment" regarding the article. If he changed the name from "Kripalani" everywhere it was probably for a very good reason. All the most reliable secondary references refer to him by that name. It's what the community at the time referred to him as. From the readers point of view it is most useful to use the name the subject is most likely to be referred to as by the BKs and the majority of the literature about them. It might be useful to refer to his second name just once in the article but no more than that. It just makes reading it ugly otherwise. Your assessment of this as being "very cultic language" is extreme beyond belief. Sorry. It sounds as if you have a serious axe to grind WP:TEND. I see you elected to revert it without further discussion. Your editing style indicates a clear tendency to drive the article into a state where it conveys a negative impression on the reader.

"...it is riduculous to suggest that "dancing" was a key component of Om Mandli..." Actually dancing whilst in trance was quite a common occurrence at the begining according to Dadi Nirmal Shanta. (Adi Dev p.59)

I leave the rest for Utcursch to comment on.

Regards Bksimonb 12:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lekhraj's did consititue a managing committee to which he transferred his fortune. As you point out, the Om Mandali wasn't limited to this particular committee, so I've removed this particular sentence.

As about the evidence that Lekhraj handed over his wealth, please go through the source provided in the article: Abbott, Elizabeth (2001). A History of Celibacy. James Clarke & Co. p. 172. ISBN 0718830067.

If the book is not available in your library, you can check out a snippet at Google Book Search:

http://books.google.com/books?q=A+History+of+Celibacy+lekhraj+personal+fortune

As for "Dada Lekhraj", it is not "cultic language" -- Lekhraj Kripalani is known as "Baba Brahma" among his followers, not "Dada Lekhraj". Kripalani was better known as "Dada Lekhraj", just like "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" was better known as "Mahatma Gandhi":

Google search:

• http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Dada+Lekhraj%22 (1520 results)
• http://www.google.co.in/search?q=%22Lekhraj+Kirpalani%22 (436 results)
• http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Lekhraj+Kripalani%22 (305 results)

Google Book search:

• http://books.google.com/books?q=%22Dada+Lekhraj%22 (30 results)
• http://books.google.com/books?q=%22Lekhraj+Kripalani%22 (1 result)
• http://books.google.com/books?q=%22Lekhraj+Kirpalani%22 (0 result)

As per the guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), "Dada Lekhraj" is a more suitable name.

The reference for Ras Lila and preaching Bhagvad Gita is also provided in the article: Hardy, Hardayal (1984). Struggles and Sorrows: The Personal Testimony of a Chief Justice. Vikas Publishing House. p. 38. ISBN 0706925637.

Again, if you don't have access to a library with this book, you can view a snippet at Google Book Search:

http://books.google.com/books?q=Hardayal+Hardy+lekhraj+gita+ras+lila

If you feel that Dada Lekhraj's Ras Lila was something different, feel free to change the content after providing a reference. The Ras Lila page redirects to Ras Lila (dance), you might wish to turn the Ras Lila page into a disambiguation page.

Last but not the least, I would like to emphasize that I'm not personally involved with Brahma Kumaris. As the category on user page points out, I am an Atheist. I edited this page only because I saw a huge cleanup template, consisting of nine issues. utcursch | talk 12:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]