Talk:Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.}

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.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

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

[edit] Archived

Long page and no activity for a while. Regards Bksimonb 12:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Broken references

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just to revise this discuss, I broadly agree with GlassFET to revise the articleback to the pre-edit war version as it was the more highly referenced and comprehensive. Recently, the article has been looking too much like an advert for the organization.

As GlassFET is an independent contributor, could those other contributors involves in the BKWSO or BKWSU please identify themselves as such?

Thank you. --AWachowski 22:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry but I wish to pick up on this discussion thread and I do not care for your censorship of it under the guise of "archiving".

I'd also like to repeat the question regarding how many of the BKWSU PR team have actually read any of these academic books that have been quoted and which ones?

As far as I am concerned, we all know the points are objectively true. I have provided citations for each one of them.I am afraid that you are merely attempting to exhibit ownership over this article, for the sake of your organization, under one guise of another. Thanks for allowing things to move forward in a gentlemanly fashion. --AWachowski 08:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Firstly please accept my apologies for archiving your new comments by mistake. It just looked like you had pulled out old discussion and pasted it here. Having said that it would have been helpful if you had started a new topic to explain why you had un-archived the discussion and to indicate that you had added to it. Unfortunately, calling it "censorship" is somewhat inflammatory on your part. For my part, "complete tosh" is probably quite inflammatory too. Sorry. Will tone it down.

The apparent "edit waring" is simply what happens when editors who do understand what a balanced, NPOV article should look like try and do something about it and, it seems, you don't happen to like it. We can't all be wrong. The article has been changed with consensus between editors, several of whom have no connection with the BKWSU or the "PR Team" that you keep trumpeting about, with RFCs on several important decision points. Your editing style seems to be to run rough-shod over that process and simply force the article the way you want it. And then blame us for edit waring!!

I don't see GlassFET's comments regarding a previous version of the article as being an endorsement for reverting to it. Specifically, some references had been orphaned and needed to be repaired. A process that was subsequently attended to. If you look at the last comment on your talk page you will see that GlassFET has raised the same concerns that we have about your editing conduct [1]. We are all saying the same thing: one point at a time, reasonable and meaningful discussion. That's all.

Regards Bksimonb 13:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing top banners

Can I suggest that we remove some or all of the top banners in order to make the discussion page more easy to read? Perhaps there are verticle rather than horizontal templates to use?

--AWachowski 22:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. Is there a vertical Talk page intro template? --AWachowski 01:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted article

I reverted the article to last known consensus article since a lot of old material that was removed, changed or added by consensus seems to have been re-inserted, deleted or changed back. There may well be some valid edits in there too but we can't be expected to sift through them all when the overall editing style is in such blatant bad faith.

One example is this paragraph that was removed because it now has it's own article. It was removed here [2] but re-inserted here [3]. The edit comment was "rv section removed by BKWSU PR Team on splinter groups" which is untrue since IPSOS removed it and has no connection with any BKWSU PR team.

There are plenty of other examples of this editing behaviour. I suggest the following: slow down, take just one point at a time and discuss it in a civil, reasonable way. That way we can move the article forward.

Thanks. Bksimonb 10:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please discuss changes first

Dear AWachowski,

I just checked your talk page and see that you are Lwachowski. (At first I thought you were new and didn't know Wiki but I see you've been over this same ground before.)

I've reverted your changes because this current version was reached by thorough consensus last time you were involved.

If some of the sections don't seem right to you, how about taking one section at a time, discussing it here and then we'll all come to consensus? I'd be happy to work with you on this.

Renee Renee 12:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Renee. Good to see you back :-) Strongly support your suggestions. Bksimonb 13:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry Renee, I lost my password and have reported the matter. It is unlikely that I can get back into my old account.

In answer to your reasonable sounding request, there is a point where the futility of such a suggestion becomes a kind of dishonesty, especially when a number of users are all reverting to the same version with the allegation of "Vandalism". Whatever my edits were, and as usual the bulk of them were either reliable citations/quotation or technical cleanups, they were not vandalism. I think the proponents that seek to own WP:OWN this topic are defeating their own credibility.

Looking through the archive, what is the nature of discussion if both BK and non-BKWSU contributors are not willing to answer questions, especially those related to their awareness of the literature on the topic? How can individuals who have not read the literature possibly comment on anything beyond simple technical or editor matters? (How can you write an encyclopedia without studying the topic matters?). I raised the issue of such editors as User:IPSOS introducing factual errors in your edits due to a lack of knowledge in this particular organisation.

I am sorry, I think anyone with any degree of objectivity will be able to recognise that all these Yuktis are really just methods of exclusion and control by interested parties. --AWachowski 22:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

AWachowshi, I've not introduced any factual errors because I haven't written any content. I am simply helping to enforce the requirement that new editors discuss their changes with the current editors and obtain consensus for their changes. I will continue to assist the current editors of this article to enforce your adherence to this basic policy of Wikipedia, regardless of what account name you come back with, this time or next time. You might want to read WP:SOCK before using to many user names. IPSOS (talk) 03:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you most certainly have in the past, as I pointed in the discussion Bksimonb archived, and again here with typos/tagging. But how would you know? What is your specialism in this subject and how much of the literature have you actually read?

Please inform us ... I await and will pay respect accordingly.

Let's just be clear. OK, you are here as a self-appointed "Enforcer". What status does an "Enforcer" have above any other informed contributor? I stand by the citations and quotation introduced and the typographic clean ups made. Is an "Enforcer" not just another word for a bully?

Why don't you just remove the content you consider not to meet Wikipedia's standards and leave the corrections? Or would that require work? How can you discuss what you do not know about? (I would expect to be treated exactly the same if I were to start editing, say,nuclear bombs or some topic I did not know about.

I am sorry to confront you directly with this IPSOS but, given the history of the BKWSU IT PR Team on this topic, your actions and accusation do seem a little bit contrived. You know how to make very good accusations but do you know anything about the subject? --AWachowski 03:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You are being incivil. Please read Wikipedia:Consensus, which clearly describes the situation you find yourself in and explains how to get out of it. It even has a flowchart. If what you are doing isn't working, try following the clearly described process. In particular, if your change is reverted, you are supposed to discuss your changes on the talk page. Your previous attempt at "discussion" was disasterous, because you insisted on trying to discuss all your changes at one. The linear format of the talk page dictates that this leads to confusion. Pick one proposed change, discuss it, achieve consensus, then lather, rinse and repeat. I'm sorry that you don't "get" that I am trying help you, and that you persist in using means that don't work on Wikipedia, and that you project opposition where you are simply using the wrong methods. That formula doesn't lead anywhere. I've been here long enough to see it repeated over and over. The problem is not with the "other editors". It's with your behaviour. It's not adaptive to the environment, and you and not listening to others trying to explain this. IPSOS (talk) 06:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I much appreciate IPSOS's "enforcement". Wikipedia has rules of engagement for resolving disputes and ensuring the editing process remains constructive. It is not just for admins to use, it is for all of us. Admins are simply editors entrusted to perform certain privileged operations. It seems AWachowski has already taking note of this by filing a sockpuppet case against me :-) Regards Bksimonb 11:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BKWSU IT PR Team and its continued influence

I am sorry to sink to this level but I think it is only fair play to make you aware of the complaint I have put in, giving you all a chance to answer. A courtesy that others have not had from the BKWSU IT PR team and self-appointed "Enforcers".

Looking back at the history and discussion of this topic, it is perfectly clear to any neutral reader what is going on here. It would appear that the BKWSU IT PR Team continues to attempt to defray and intimidate any objective contributors by reverting the article and making "vandalism", 3RR, consensus, sockpuppet, distracting arguments over what constitutes "Discussion", or whatever other method they can dream up. And needlessly erasing others good work. I see little commitment to moving forward.

The edits I made were clearly not vandalism, so please do not insult me, nor were they WP:3RR] as I am continuing to develop the article with citations, quotations, simple link formatting where you appear to be merely resisting any change. I will not be intimidated from working on the Wikipedia by you people.

See; Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Bksimonb (I do not chose the terms nor wish to accuse individuals as such, but this appears to be the correct medium or channel for placing "meatpuppet" notices).

I apologise to Bksimonb for having to put the group complaint in his name and the non-BK editors but it would seem that he is playing a central, and tactical, role in supporting the BKWSU's attempt at media control.

Thanks --AWachowski 04:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Utterly stupid. Your problems all stem from the fact that you won't discuss your changes with the several distinct editors of this page who have achieived a consensus. If you don't follow the correct process for achieving a new consensus with the existing editors, it is you who is violating WP:OWN. IPSOS (talk) 05:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Please dont insult me. You used a very dishonest summary to revert my work en masse. Having edited my user page, you new I was not a new user. You also have a short and memory User:IPSOS. I attempted an extensive and highly detailed conversation with you, of a like I have hardly seen on the Wiki, which you threw out of your pram declaring it was "not discussion" and you were not going to talk any more. Take a look over the archives before you do Bksimonb dirty work for him.

You are very good at what you do. You like use Wikipedia knoweldge to assert a dominant and domineering position as an "Enforcer". I never understood the motivation for such a position when one could be adding content or tidying up text.

You are clearly provoking for a reaction and I think you are very skillful in doing so. But I think that is all you are doing. You do not appear to have knowledge of the subject. You do not wish to engage in discussion, so what are you doing here?

From our previous discussions, I take it as a member of a minority religion you feel like you are heroically defending another minority religion and this is your motivation but I think the topic would benefit more IF you exhibited to study the topic and gain some expertise in it.

Can I ask you again, how much or any of the literature have you read? Thank you --AWachowski 22:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from getting personal. You are off the mark. I've clearly explained over and over again what my objections to your behaviour is. You are evading discussing it and projecting your own bullsh*t into the situation. None of what you say has anything to do with what I've been saying to you. Are you an idiot? or just being intentionally obtuse? IPSOS (talk) 02:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AWachowski Edits

Dear AWachowski,

I think some of your edits are perfectly valid, others I think the sources are questionable and need consensus, and others are not in line with Wiki policy. The problem is that you do a zillion edits all at once so the edits that probably would be uncontested get all mixed up with edits that other editors disagree with and some sort of discussion and consensus needs to be built. This is why I suggested taking one section at a time and gaining consensus.

The reason it looks like vandalism is because some of the edits seem to promote a POV and things like posting "ex-BK" sites is not appropriate for an encyclopedia (these types of edits are consistely removed from other sites as well). So, when one compares the dif of before vs after your edit it seems like vandalism.

Again, I think some of your edits would be completely uncontested and urge you to discuss them here. In particular, here is some feedback from some of the edits:

Unsure about this one. Check facts? Original does read as slightly pro-PR.
Adding external links like these are not appropriate for an encyclopedia.
This deleted lead sentence was crafted after much discussion and consensus and actually I wrote it based on research I did as a completely neutral outsider. Yoga simply means "union" and there are many different kinds of yoga. Your criticism that BKSWU is not regular yoga is addressed in the preceding sentence to give context.
This seems to be fine to me. Routledge is a good publisher.
This is fine; minor edit.
This statement is completely opinion with no fact basis and that's why it was removed in the past.
It's my understanding that there is now a separate Wiki article on this topic, so that's why this is not appropriate here. If I'm wrong then I think it needs clean-up because it currently reads very POV.
"Claimed" is a Wiki word to avoid because it is one of those words used to mould an article into a negative point-of-view. That's why this edit is not appropriate.
If in context then this edit seems okay to me. However, the quotation does not say that BKWSU is the precursor but Raja yoga, of which there are many types, so we would need to find a quotation that accurately reflects the sentence.
This is clearly biased with tabloid sources proven to print lies. Exceptional claims need exceptional sources (like scholarly sources).
With some editing I think parts of this could stay. For example, using the term "BK" suggests you have a real familiarity with the group that naive readers like myself would have no idea of what you're talking about. Here is a suggested version of your edit: "Recommends that companions be other group members as opposed to those given over to worldly pleasures, known as bhogis or Shudras (meaning Untouchables)."
This seems okay by me; excellent source (Oxford U publisher).
I think the first part of this edit is fine, but from line 124 forward there is a lot of POV inserted that was cleaned up through vigorous discussion and consensus this past summer.

Please note that some of your edit summaries are very misleading. For example, here you say "citations re early history" when really you added a boatload of text.

Feedback from other editors?

Renee 14:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

p.s. Accusing people that you clearly know are not socks, like IPSOS, myself, and Bksimon, sets a precedent of bad faith and seems to be simple revenge for changing your edits. It makes it appear that you are not willing to work with editors. I would ask that you show good faith and remove some of the names from your report that you know are not socks.

Hi Rennee. Thank you for taking the time to do this work. I recognise some of the edits, since they were discussed at length previously.

If it sounds pro-PR, then perhaps we can change the wording, although it is just stating the non-controversial facts as far as I can see. It is, however, under an "achievements" section. There is also a criticism section for balance.
Agree. This was decided by Rfc.
Not sure why this text is being removed. Seems innocent enough. No strong views.
This was removed after much discussion. The source was being used out of context and it was giving the first paragraph undue weight. The subject is covered later on in its own section. Remember? This was Faithinhumanity's pet subject.
Fine.
Agree.
This now has it's own article. No need to repeat here. The text is virtually identical.
Standard policy/guidelines. Agree.
Possible context issues with this quote. Walliss is relating discussion threads he has had with various BKs. Will paste whole section on talk page in context if it needs further discussion.
Agree. The news article in question was clearly sensationalist.
I like Renneholle's suggestion. The wording used in the reference is eccentric and needs to be put into plain, NPOV English. It's probably not even worth mentioning the Hindi words at the end. This article isn't a Hindi lesson ;-)
I'd like to see more of the reference in context. The language looks somewhat grandiose to the point of being comical. A plain-English, NPOV paraphrase would probably be better.
Agree.

Regards Bksimonb 15:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Would someone other than AWachowski please integrate the compromise that you've agreed on. He doesn't seem to get that his forcing his changes as a monolithic whole rather than slowly one at at time and allowing discussion is causing a problem. IPSOS (talk) 02:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Renee, sorry that you have to be dragged into this.

No, it appears that it is correct to report meatpuppet activity using the sockpuppet and there is most certainly meatpuppet activity going to control this page. If I have to re-apply to a different channel then I will. I know the way these people work together. By that I mean more considerable collusion between the BKWSU editors internationally than you could ever be aware of. You appear to have been dragged in unwittingly and out of good willl but if you play along with it and ape them ... then what can I do? I wish to protect the work and effort I have invested and under any other circumstances, they would be laudable.

As I stated to User:IPSOS, what do you actually know about this organization and how much of the literature have you read? It is very, very difficult for you to put into perspective any edits without having a good expertise or direct experience.

The ongoing debacle, which seems to have been going on for years, has all been about the BKWSU attempting to bend the topic around to match their PR. That it is as well referenced as it is, it witness to the effort that many individuals have put in to keep it objective.

You must not confuse 'objectivity' with 'judgement'. The citations all meet Wikipedia standards. And they are objectively true. I am not making judgement, I just do think the article ought to reflect the truth. it is not my fault if the academic sources paint the picture they do ... but that is the difference between academia and PR. An encyclopedia is not, unfortunately about being 'nice', in your case, or using all one's guile to get ones way, like others; its simple about being right and being able to back your facts up. I have done that all alone.

I will comeback to you in detail asap. Thank you for being reasonable. Its a nice change.--AWachowski 22:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You still don't get it. I have no opinion on the content changes you are making. I object to you not following the required process of discussion and achieving consensus with other editors. Why don't you try it? One point at a time. IPSOS (talk) 02:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a balance point between discussion and WP:OWN. So called "discussion point by point" can clearly be used by those that wish to own an article to "talk out" any progress. If the Wikipedia was forced to find consensus on each and every change, there would be no Wiki. WP:BB. In this situation we have a very clear desire to own and exclude by the organization's own skillful IT PR Team. You cannot be so naive as to ignore that.

Again, I ask you, how much do you actually know about the topic. Its impossible for you to judge what is balanced and informed if you have no awareness and ignore to read the sources.' Otherwise what are you doing here? Enjoying being provocative or just throwing your weight around? --AWachowski 01:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Given what happened in the last day resulting in the article being locked and the post regarding Scientology below, I get the impression that AWachowski's purpose here is to make a lot of commotion and noise rather than to actually create and improve an encyclopedia. I hope I can be proved wrong on this. Regards Bksimonb 09:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Renne, I took the time to check over your comments. Can I ask you again the same question. How much do you actually know about this topic and how many of the references have you actually read? For example, if we take Howell's comments on the taking of dowries from young girls, something you tried to soften in the past by editing to look like it happened in the past, in what way do you consider the current edit differs from the author's comments? Thank you.

If you have a copy in front of you, you will see that is a verbatim quote.--AWachowski 02:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear AWachowski, Please provide the exact diff you are speaking of. Yes, I have the Howell article on my computer and am only interested in creating a neutral article. Howell's article is a very neutral exposition of BK and focuses on gender roles and differential attritions from new religious movements (using the BK as an example) in the west vs India.

If you'd like to start with the topic you mention just above, please provide the diff and let's work from there, but please refrain from making wholesale reversions to the article with misleading edit summaries. Bksimonb is just reverting to what was agreed upon by multiple editors through consensus. Please discuss first. Renee 00:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scientology topic as comparable

Renee, mostly,

I just wanted to offer the Scientology article as the most comparable topic. In it you see mention of splinter groups, critical links, objective and extensive documentation ... all the kind of stuff the BKWSU team keep trying to remove under a series of guises; block, complaints, collusion etc as it does not suit their PR. If in doubt, please read check the users in question contributions. I stated that they, as single topic accounts, had placed a disproportionate amount and I think that statement sticks as true.

I am sorry but I do not know any other way but to address these matters head on and I do not like bullies.

Both organizations seem to be keen on litigation as a tool to suppress informed open and independent discussion ... the only difference being that ... I think the Scientologists appear to growing out of that period of their history.(I have a friend who is a auditor, I have no problem with the honest and reasonable ones) --AWachowski 22:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

--AWachowski 22:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Though it's tempting, I'm not going to bite. If any other editor also feels that the above post is using the talk page as a forum then please feel free to delete it as such. Regards Bksimonb 08:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Its valid. The BKWSU Core IT PR Team seem possessed by the removal of any independent links to non-BKWSU. Even a contentious topic such as Scientology allows the likes.

Please address the comparison. --AWachowski 01:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

There are hundreds of sources about Scientology, many of which refer to the anti-Scientology websites that are referred in that article. That is not the case here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, so the key (if I understand you correctly) is that we just need to find valid articles that would refer to these websites? (we don't post them ourselves because Wiki does not have the vetting process that a mainstream or scholarly publication might have?) Thanks, Renee 23:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The BKs just try to whitewash everything away. They dont care. They bend rules. Sorry to say. Not so good in English. Ecsuse me. Ugesum

Dear Ugesum, Please do not make wholesale reversions without discussion. What kinds of changes would you like to make? Let's talk. Renee (talk) 12:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page protected

Page protected for one week. Note that edit warring never achieves anything useful. Engage in talk page discussions and try to find common ground instead. If you cannot, please pursue dispute resolution. Also note that this article is in probation, and any further edit warring after the protection expires will result in escalating blocks for these involved in edit-warring. If you find common ground before the protection expires, or to contest this protection place a request at WP:RFPP ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Please note meatpuppet and WP:OWN finding on sockpuppet report regarding BKWSU Team. --AWachowski 01:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a reminder again that this article is under probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator for:

Continuous edit warring
Questionable or malicious editing
Long running failure to improve from strongly biased or otherwise compromised quality.
Disruption
Generally any persistent violations of policies that aren't anyone in particular's fault.

All editors of this article should be ESPECIALLY mindful of content policies, such as WP:NPOV, etc. and interaction policies, like WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, and WP:POINT.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] achievement edits

Hi Folks, In reference to the #1 point above under the section "AWachowski edits" I think we agreed to neutralize the tone of the opening paragraph? (It sounds a bit overly enthusiastic in tone.)

Is this accurate? (changes are bolded)

In India, the BKWSU runs a charitable Village Outreach Programme in Mount Abu and administers the Global Hospital and Research Centre (GHRC), established in 1991 and funded by the J. Wattammull Memorial Trust...

Best, Renee (talk) 14:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Renee. Yes that looks better. Go for it! Bksimonb (talk) 16:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reliable, third party citation to suport this? This seems to be copy and pasted from the organization's own website.--Creationcreator (talk) 10:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources are acceptable for non-controversial facts. No controversial view is being expressed in just stating the existence of the hospital and the outreach programme, when it was established and the trust that funds it. Bksimonb (talk) 06:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR report filed about Bksimonb

3RR report filed about Bksimonb and BKWSU Internet PR team. [4]

--Creationcreator (talk) 10:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the right page to say so. Also you performed three reverts yourself. Pot? Kettle? Black? Bksimonb (talk) 11:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a shame you and your friend Primal Logic can't be civil and just discuss your edits before making them in an aggressive manor. Appledell (talk) 15:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sprotection

I am restoring semi protection, as the first edit after removing the protection was to resume the edit war. I remind editors that this pages is under ArbCom probation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Why did you semi-protect Brahma Kumaris? The WRONG version was page protected (one that a known sockpuppet and vandal kept reverting to) so I simply reverted to the agreed-upon consensus version before going through and cleaning it up to make it more neutral. If you look at my edits after the reversion to the consensus version you will see that they make the article more neutral or clear. They are NOT a part of an edit war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.146.8 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

We always protect the The wrong version. An immediate reversion after removal of protection is edit warring. The article is only semi protected. Editors with user accounts and a few days of editing can still edit the article.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Then how can one ever get back to a previously agreed upon version of an article without being confused of edit warring? I will not create a user name because I edited this article a long time ago and was harassed by Mr. Green who has continued true edit warring under a long list of sockpuppets. When will you lift the semi-portection? 76.79.146.8 (talk) 17:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

How? By discussing in this page and reaching WP:CONSENSUS. The sprotection has been set to indefinite. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry guys. I asked for unprotection but wasn't expecting this. I suggest 76.79.146.8 get a user account since it doesn't really make any difference with regards to being "harassed". If anything an IP account is more of a risk since it is easy to locate. Regards Bksimonb (talk) 18:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC) P.S. Merry Christmas.

Reverted to the pre-protected version. Its the BKWSU followers up to their usual tricks. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 05:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It's quite obvious to me that this is yet another incarnation of the same editor. I intend to restore the article to a version that has consensus in 24 hours. I don't see how such blatant disruptive tactics as constantly changing account, reverting and taunting other editors can qualify as part of any consensus process. Regards Bksimonb (talk) 11:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I've upgraded to full protection. Sorry, but from now on, the only recourse will be to use the {{editprotected}} template. Sorry. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I am happy with this outcome. I've filed a Request for Clarification. Regards Bksimonb (talk) 14:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

All this talk of "previously agreed" and "consensus" is entirely misleading. What we have are BKWSU followers (and in Simon's case, a leading member of the organization's Internet PR Team) "agreeing" with each other the organization's current PR agenda.

The first paragraph as it is, is entirely misleading and follows their PR spin. The BKWSU do not teach "Yoga" as the rest of the world understands it, no flexible ladies in leotards; and by "service" they really mean "evangelizing". it is entirely correct to highlight the use of mediumship and channelling, as they are unique amongst all religions for their adherence on said channelled messages, getting up at 4 am or 6.30 am every day, 365 days a year to listen to them.

There are other misleading errors that the BKWSU followers have introduced to improve its PR, e.g. its claiming credit for a charitable Village Project, on the basis of a credit on its own website whereas independent reference states it is run and funded by [5]. it also claims credit for the Global Hospital whereas, again, on the Hospital's own website there is no mention of this [6]. They share a director or trustee but it is NOT a BKWSU organization.

The use of the terms "Gyan, Dharna, Seva" are cultic, specific to the group and requiring definition if included; and unhelpful for an English language encyclopedia.

They have removed perfectly acceptable citations.

They have re-introduced formatting and punctuation errors. See 65 edits, here [7]

Could I suggest that the real intent in doing so is not about "discussion and consensus" part of a 'war of attrition' to waste other contributors time? Otherwise the BK followers would take the time to leave the perfectly good and neutral edits.

The BKWSU followers have also always gone to great pains to remove the balance of any independent weblinks, especially to those of the only independent and informed BKWSU resource, and support forum for ex-members and friend and family of followers. http://www.brahmakumaris.info.

It should be noted that the religion went to great legal expense recently to try and silence this website and take its domain name from it but were unsuccessful in doing so. Here we see them doing exactly the same thing. Attempting to silence any informed voices and exclude the public from independent sources of information. Not even the other New Religious Movement, Scientology, gets away with that on the Wiki [8].

--Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 20:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

You can make as many rants as you like on your own website, but this isn't the place to do it. When it comes to a wikipedia article, you have to abide by the clearly laid out ground rules. Your continual sniping is getting like a broken record. Make changes based on the wikipedia codes of practise and with consensus with other editors. If not, you will not get very far. Appledell (talk) 23:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not a BK member and knew nothing about the group until I came across the article from an RFA almost a year ago. I have no agenda regarding the article other than trying to help create a good encyclopedic entry.

There has been a consistent effort by a very angry ex-BK person who is a known sock puppet and who does not try to reach consensus, and instead accuses everyone of being part of a BK team even if they are brought in by an RFA. One can clearly see that Lucyintheskywithdada is extremely anti-BK and has no place trying to create an encyclopedic entry. He/she and all of his/her socks, see this and this belong on a blog where they can rant/say what they want. They do not belong here. 76.79.146.8 (talk) 03:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

User talk:76.79.146.8If you know nothing about the subject, as you state, how can you contribute to a good encyclopedic entry, know who is or what an ex-BK might be?

If you have never met someone, how do you know what their religious affiliation, position on spirituality is ... or even if they are angry? Would a Protestant writing on the Holy Roman Empire be necessarily "angry" just because they documented Knox's and Luther's criticisms? Would someone be wrong to point out that, say by comparison, one of the editors on the Catholic topic was part of the PR Team for Opus Dei and so therefore might have their own agenda?

How are we to know that you are not just another BKWSU meatpuppet ... because you immediately reverted to the BKWSU preferred version? One of the problems with the BKWSO is that legally it has "no members", just employees and followers. To me, your edits looks like those of a follower.

Appledell, as a BK follower you know that the BKWSU members are not here to work to consensus. You are here to work together on a damage limitation exercise and its all about PR ... which is underlined by the persistent insinuations ("rant, snipe, anger etc"), contrived blocks, bans, complaints, RfCs and collaboration by BKWSU members to exclude any non-BKWSU contributor.

So, let's take it from the top I underlined good reasons why the current first paragraph is misleading and why mediumship and channelling issues should be highlighted. It is concurrent with other criticism of the BKWSU for promoting its "Raja Yoga" as the ancient one, when it could only have started after 1950 or so, and Patanjali's tradition, which is commonly known as Raja Yoga, started approximate 2,500 year ago.

Thank you --Lucyintheskywithdada 05:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The first line is entirely fair. It makes clear it that the BK's practise a their form of Raja Yoga. It makes clear it is a form of meditation (so not physical yoga). It makes clear that the BK Raja Yoga is different to the classical Pantanjali version. So I don't see how your objection stands up to any form of scrutiny. Regards Appledell (talk) 10:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC) 10:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how "right" you think you are. The above post clearly indicates to me that you are not prepared to work with other editors and will discredit them at every opportunity, even if they are not associated with the BKWSU. The constant changing of accounts, ranting, self-proclamation of correctness, posting propaganda on just about every noticeboard that you know Google will scan and persistence leads me to believe I am observing obsessive behaviour to the point of neurosis. Please do us all a favour. Thanks Bksimonb (talk) 08:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid that the usual fallback for the BKWSU from everything to wiki contributions to suicides at BKWSU centers. "Always attempt to discredit others by accusing them of mental health issues".

But I stated, in detail above, where I see faults with the article. The version I am proposing is as finished a compromise as I can image. You ignore that and go instead for unfounded accusation and personal attack adding an IP address to a sockpuppet accusation merely because my browser logged me out. I think that says it all. [9]

The main difference between you and I is that I am really not willing to waste other people's time (the admins) instigating endless contrived attacks on others --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 11:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The above post looks like another troll to me. I will not bite again. Please don't waste any more of our time. Thanks Bksimonb (talk) 22:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I took Bksimonb's advice and got a user account, (formerly 76.79.146.8, now cleanemupnowboys). The version you proposed, Lucyintheskywithdad, reads biased. The other version does not except in a few areas, which I attempted to clean up upon coming on the article (see my edits before Jossi protected the page). Your edits Lucy are exactly the same as your socks. Why don't we be constructive and focus on specific parts? See next section. Cleanemupnowboys (talk) 16:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Cowboy, can I ask you;

What is your actual knowledge of this organization based on?
Which or how many of the academic references used in the article you have either read on hold in your possession in order that we can refer to them?

Thank you --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] first paragraph

Here is the first paragraph:

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. It teaches a form of meditation[1] called Raja Yoga, which differs from the classical Raja Yoga described by Patanjali.[4][1] Brahma Kumari (literally: "daughters of Brahma") advocates four main principles of life; Yoga, Gyan, Dharna, Seva (meditation, knowledge, practice, service) and advocates a vegetarian diet, celibacy, and avoidance of alcohol, drugs, and tobacco.

Lucyintheskywithdad/Egreen108/Lwachowski/etc. complaint here is that Brahma Kumari don't practice Raja Yoga in the traditional way. The first paragraph makes that clear already (i.e., "which differs from...". )

How would Lucyintheskywithdad/Egreen108/Lwachowski/etc. change that? Cleanemupnowboys (talk) 16:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This is true, accurate and involves no PR spin nor the use of any specific cultic terminology.

But, please, let us know what your knowledge about this organization is based on because your first edits were not sustainable if one is to take into consideration the academic documentation of the group and its own publicized history. In short, what you appear to be doing is copy and pasting the group's own PR taken from one of its websites. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 16:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Lucy, I think what you propose sounds fine and that given the centrality of channeling in the practice that it should include reference to channeling. I think the last line should be included too, i.e.:

Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University (BKWSU) or Prajapita Brahma Kumaris Ishwariya Vishwa Vidyalaya is a monastic, renunciate Millenarian new religious movement (NRM) of Indian origin. It teaches a form of meditation called Raja Yoga, which differs from classical Raja Yoga as described by Patanjali and involves mediumistic channelling. Brahma Kumari (literally: "daughters of Brahma") advocates four main principles of life; Yoga, Gyan, Dharna, Seva (meditation, knowledge, practice, service) and advocates a vegetarian diet, celibacy, and avoidance of alcohol, drugs, and tobacco.

My reading of the group includes perusing both pro and negative sites and then sticking with the academic work available via a university account. Being an outsider has its advantages in that one can immediately see tone problems that bias an article pro or negative. You can bet that the encyclopedia brittanica editors are typically not practicants nor ex-practicants of 99% of what they write. They do vet their writings for accuracy and ensure evenness of tone.

Do others agree with the above first paragraph? Cleanemupnowboys (talk) 19:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I can live with that. While we're on the first paragraph, would you describe the organisation as "monastic" based on the references you have studied? Regards Bksimonb (talk) 20:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's the definition of monastic from wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

cloistered: of communal life sequestered from the world under religious vows

monk: a male religious living in a cloister and devoting himself to contemplation and prayer and work

It doesn't seem to fit BKWSU because from my reading it seems most members live lives out in the community. I think someone was trying to convey the perceived austerity of the practice from the four principles, but those principles are spelled out in detail so I would delete the word.

Lucy, what do you think? Cleanemupnowboys (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Raja Yoga meditation (as practised by the BKs) does NOT involve mediumistic channeling. It is factually wrong and disingenuous to say it does. I've been practising it for many years and I've never channeled anything. But more important than my own experience is the fact that channeling is not mentioned in any way in the introduction to Raja Yoga meditation course run by the BKs. What it focusses on is connecting to God in the "Soul World", NOT channeling anything into your own body or allowing God or another spirit to enter you. This does not mean I object to channeling being referred to in the introduction as I think its fair to say its teachings are based on channeling. Here is my suggestion (have a problem with Monastic too - it is only true of a small number of BKs):

Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University (BKWSU) or Prajapita Brahma Kumaris Ishwariya Vishwa Vidyalaya is a renunciate Millenarian new religious movement (NRM) of Indian origin. Some of its members also live a monastic lifestyle. It teaches a form of meditation called Raja Yoga, which differs from classical Raja Yoga as described by Patanjali. Its teachings are based on mediumistic channeling. Brahma Kumari (literally: "daughters of Brahma") advocates four main principles of life; Yoga, Gyan, Dharna, Seva (meditation, knowledge, practice, service) and advocates a vegetarian diet, celibacy, and avoidance of alcohol, drugs, and tobacco. Appledell (talk) 10:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Appledell, the article is not about Raja Yoga, not even BK-style Raja Yoga. It is about the BKWSU and the most identifying feature of the BKWSU is the centrality or its investment into a variety of channelling and mediumship. No other religion meets 365 days a year to listen to channelled messages. What is you knowledge of channelling in general?

The topic is also about the entire history of the organization, which again would not exist where it not for a variety of trance and mediumship practises. Of course, the BKWSU does not mention the mediumship or channelling in the introductory course. But it is all in the academic sources.

I think we have to be very cautious about the use or suggestion that the channelled entity the BKWSU encourages its follower to have union with is actually "God". We can say the BKWSU says or believes it is God (or God and the spirit of their deceased founder if you wish). But to go as far as document its faith as fact would be wrong in this context.

As I have state, the problem with the "Yoga, Gyan, Dharna, Seva ..." quote is that it is cultic in its use of the terms both Hindi and English. The former do not belong in the leading paragraph of an English language encyclopedia. The latter are misleading unless defined and qualified, e.g. yoga meaning connecting to the channelled entity and "service" meaning the evangelism or proselyting of the faith. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 14:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a comment on the statement, "No other religion meets 365 days a year to listen to channelled messages". Doesn't what Appledell is proposing, "Its teachings are based on mediumistic channeling.", cover that?

What academic sources share your concern, if I understand it correctly, that BK followers are getting the wrong number when they try to dial God? Otherwise please don't introduce your own POV. Regards Bksimonb (talk) 19:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reminder and warning

This article is on article probation from the Arbitration Committee. As such, all users are expected to conform with Wikipedia norms of behaviour and conduct not just in the article but also here on the talk page. Both sides are throwing around personal attacks. One side seems to be a user with a declared conflict of interest and several meat puppets, the other side seems to consist of two single purpose accounts, who may or may not be sockpuppets. Both sides are, as far as any outside observer could be concerned, blatantly in violation of any possible interpretation of the ArbCom's findings in this case. Based on the terms of the ArbCom ruling, any admin can block users for an appropriate period of time, and should the present patterns continue, that will probably be the result for present parties. Orderinchaos 08:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I am prepared to invest some time in helping the parties move forward and get this article off protection and up to an encyclopaedic standard. If you're willing to work with me on this, assume good faith of each other and willing to use Wikipedia core policies (especially NPOV, which was highlighted by the Committee) and find independent sources which may or may not agree with your point of view but which accurately reflect the subject, then I think we can make some progress and get the issue off its present course. Orderinchaos 09:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Glad to have you here - and thanks for investing in the time. Appledell (talk) 10:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Though I obviously don't go along with the "meatpuppet" assessment, I appreciate that is how it may look to an outsider at first. I am confident that everything will transpire with time and intend to co-operate fully. Regards Bksimonb (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

To be honest Orderinchaos, the article has or has had reference to basically all of the academic works referring to the BKWSU. In comparison to most other wikipedia articles, it is highly to over-referenced. The arbcom judgement was one year ago and the comment does not apply anymore. The only papers I can think of that are or have not been included in some way are 1 or 2 written by BK followers who are also academics, (therefore would fail a conflict of interest challenge) and a few encyclopedic entries that are pretty much copy and paste the organization's own publicity materials.

If you want to make a honest start on the subject, I suggest that you start reading the books (not papers) by Drs John Walliss and Lawrence Babb, and Julia Howell's "Altered States of Consciousness (ASC) induction techniques, spiritual experiences within the Brahma Kumaris" first. I also think that we should split the article into more than one as per Scientology etc, e.g. history, beliefs, symbols etc. I think part of the problem is that too much is crammed into one topic but, again, the BKs have been determined to delete any other page starting up about their organization which I think is short sighted.

If you wish to discuss overall form, then I am very interested. My concern is that more uninformed contributors, especially a powerful admin, is only going to play into the hands of the BKs which, along with all the blocks, bans and accusation, appears to be their gameplan. Having said that, hopefully a truly independent contributor will allow some of the more important stuff like the child abuse report or breakup of families. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 13:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm approaching this from the point of view of having written an FA and a couple of GAs and regularly doing article improvement on topics that require some research and are not necessarily straightforward. While obviously I'm not in a situation to become an expert on this organisation overnight, the intention is to present an article which effectively summarises reliable sources on the matter while not giving undue weight to any one viewpoint, be it positive, negative or other. Any claims made, whether they be for or against or making tangential points, have to be substantiated. They don't have to be *true*, but it's all in the wording. Orderinchaos 16:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Let us be aware that in any such discussion, we are not just discussion the topic matter but the direction of the Wikipedia as a whole. I must admit that although the language you use and ideas your present are quite correct. For me personally, I have gone beyond the wonder of the Wikipedia as an open communicative tool and have reached the point where I think they have to lock it up and call in some experts. And I don't mean to look after the inmates, I mean to peer review the articles.

The main problem with a topic such as the BKWSU is that the ideas and behavior involved are so radical or entrenched in their cultic nature, that to faithfully documented and present it one topic will seem perhaps unbelievably extreme. This is one reason why I say it should be split into at least two separate articles. Here we do have followers that believe God possessed their deceased founder and both still speaks to them in a funny voice via their mediums. Whose leaders are working their way up through governments and the United Nations whilst telling their followers that the End of the World was meant to have come at various occasions and that they are going to become angels of light and worship worthy gods in the Golden Age.

Now, all of this is neither positive nor negative. It is objectively and inarguably true from the academic material. It might sound like ridicule and "defamation" but it is the way it is. My fear is that by introducing your idea of "article improvement" or "encyclopaedic standard", especially where there is no direct experience or study, really you are thinking to yourself, "surely this can't all be true" and "these people must be attempting to ridicule this organization or something" and are headed off to write a nice PR job for them ... which, of course, is what they have been trying to write for themselves. Or engage in damage limitation.

Now, in answer to your 'references and citations' note, we have cross that bridge a long time ago. All the whacky claims are backup-ed in properly referenced and professional academic citations. The organization is highly secretive about the channelled messages from God is bases its teachings on because they are so outlandish and would raise questions about their credibility if broadly made public. This then summarizes the real problem we have on this topic. Both the BKWSU is very uncomfortable about coming to terms such exposure and individuals BKs are being taken out of their comfort zones be discovering stuff they did not know. They have managed to control how their "Knowledge" is taught in a very well staged manner up until now but the internet and Wikipedia has changed all that democratizing access to both total information now, (e.g. dinosaurs 2,500 years ago) and the stuff the are unhappy with, such as the historical revision, child abuse reports or center suicides.

My suggestion is that think about where you could split the article to make a series of smaller ones and propose some versions. I will be very happy to peer review them and call in academic experts if you wish. But any honest contributor has every right to be unhappy at having to face the wrath and guile of an organization's PR wing whilst attempting to do so. A line has to be drawn on that. The Wiki is not for PR. You should also appreciate that the BKWSU is very keen for you to contribute purely because you do not know the subject very well and, with every good intent, obfuscate for them and this is part of the play that is going on here.

--Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) ]) 18:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Lucy, There's such a place for the type of article you're interested in, see Citizendium. It was started people frustrated in having perceived non-experts and vandals always mucking up their articles. It runs on a different model than Wiki. To start, "Wikipedia allows people to use pseudonyms, while Citizendium requires people to use their real names and even write a short bio of themselves." Wiki is a ~~game~~...errr...exercise in consensus building with the ideal that various people of different skills and knowledge coming together will produce the best articles. It works if people focus on content and substance in instead of persons and personalities.Cleanemupnowboys (talk) 21:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

<-- (drop indent) We have articles on every manner of thing. I recently contributed to an article entitled Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet and of course one of our most unusual Featured Articles is on Exploding whale. We have articles on bizarre anime plots and some of the most hilarious talk page arguments about events "in universe". (I would hesitate to wonder what an academic review would make of *that* ... some quite hilarious pictures enter my mind!) The only requirements on this are that the article be neutral and verifiable - verifiable, however, does not mean true (and WP:V is quite clear on this). We need to verify that the group believes something, and can in the section dealing with this be quite uncritical of it, as we're presenting a belief system in toto. I'm guessing this will be the longest section of the article. This will include any miracles, evidence or stories the group itself cites as evidence for its belief as well as its own historical (with hesitation, "in universe") narrative. (Imagine here for a second how crazy the basic Christian story would sound to someone who's never heard it - we're inured to it culturally, so we would actually have no problem with a historical narrative which sets its beliefs in order.) Then we might have a section such as views in support and views in opposition, where we present a summary of academic opinion which supports and opposes beliefs of the group or the group itself. Then another section which deals with any controversies that have arisen, whether they were controversies which favoured the group in a narrative sense (eg persecution of some form) or which disfavoured it (eg the group or some of its prominent members/representatives doing Bad Things (tm)). I haven't yet read in detail about the group, but from my broad knowledge of non-mainstream religious organisations, that would be the safest way to proceed. If anything seems overly positive (as in exultations) or overly negative (as in damnations), or makes a statement which jumps out at people and strikes them immediately as questionable, then we're not doing something quite right - cf. reading some random article in the Britannica.

In response to your concerns re sources - which I interpret as "there are academic papers which may be biased" - there are more sources than academic papers, and we can use any which are appropriate. Many of the political topics I edit on use news articles as central sources. WP:EL and WP:RS are really the only major limits, and one can use a non "reliable source" to indicate a view or render a quote. Orderinchaos 23:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

(The line below, for the record, is because I dropped the indent and was trying to make clear the posts below this were not a reply to mine. I understand one participant thought I was "drawing a line under the discussion" so I just wanted to clarify it served only an aesthetic purpose to keep clear who was replying to whom. Orderinchaos 05:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Lucy, this will go much more smoothly if you're not on the attack -- Please focus on the article and the specific lines that you'd like to revise.

Regarding channeling/mediumship, I'm very confused because in the preceding section you wrote:

the article is...about the BKWSU and the most identifying feature of the BKWSU is the centrality or its investment into a variety of channelling and mediumship...

Yet, on my page you wrote:

The problems with your first two edits is that they are factually wrong..the sandeshputris (and others) were not channelers, they were trance messengers or individuals "given gifts of divine visions"

Which is it? Please WP:AGF.

Also, more recent publications (2003, see p. 120 of this) state that there has been no attempt to expand to the West, which conflicts directly with line that says there was a programme of international expansion. I think we should go with more recent publications. Cleanemupnowboys (talk) 17:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

In all humility and politeness Cowboy,

you are really don't know anything about the subject or its many contexts
you are really out of your depth
the Wikipedia is not the place for spiritual seeking or whatever your interest is.

You appear to have returned with some misplaced personal agenda over some perceived smite and are just going to muddy the waters. Where you have an honest intent, my suggestion to you is,

a) go and study at a BKWSU center for 6 months or a year

b) join an internet discussion forum on the subject and speak to others with experience

c) come back and let us know how you got on. In the meanwhile, please buy John Walliss book and don't relying on Google for your education.

Good luck, --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 18:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I've already warned other editors in this subject for personal attacks, but commentary such as the above is unhelpful. We need to all be able to agree to proceed, and expressing bad faith towards other contributors does not lead to good outcomes. I think in the length of time some contributors have been here we do not / can not know what their "depth" is, and I'm deliberately overlooking all sorts of things as expressed previously to get this issue on track and off the ArbCom enforcement boards. Orderinchaos 23:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Or, the editors without an agenda can take the article line-by-line, read the literature, and get feedback on proposed changes and improve the article. Cleanemupnowboys (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Cleanemupnowboys. Just a comment about the western expansion reference. It states that Dada Lekhraj made no attempt to expand in the west, that it "became the mission of some of his followers". What actually happened was that international service outside India was only started just after his death in 1969, which fits what the reference is saying. Regards Bksimonb (talk) 20:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Cleanemupnowboys, you are Reneeholle, right?

This is not a personal attack but your first edit was a complete and willful revision to a version with factual and formatting errors and your subsequent post exhibit an almost complete lack of knowledge on the subject. Not an attack, just a statement of fact, I mean that very nicely.

To be fair, many people treat the Wikipedia as a game. "A knowledge game without consequences" is how it has been describe. Only it does have consequence, particularly in the usage, or wasting, of other people's time. Someone that has done their homework and is informed can have hours or work erased by a complete idiot (I am not accusing you here) who knows absolutely nothing and has made no more effort that clicking on Google.

It is also a little much to expect for us to be here to educate you or for error to be included in the topic ... especially as the issues you are raising are ones that were crossed a long time ago. Really, the onus is on you to reach a level of education or awareness on a subject and then come back and propose edits. Honestly, if you are interesting in spirituality of the BKWSU, please go and study with them directly.

In its early days, and still even now eslewhere, the Wikipedia was wide open to "grunt work". Filling in basic information. As it and topics develop, they reach a level of completion where really only very minor chances can be made (... or they can be vandalised). This grunt work behind this topic is highly developed, both in terms of context and formatting. It really is down to a debate between individuals with a broad expertise in the subject or perhaps some presentation.

How do we read all the books, letters and expensive presentations that Lekhraj Kripalani sent to royalty, politicians and even leaders of armed forces which are referred to in the literature? I would rather suggest that he made the attempts but no one was interested because of the nature of them. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 09:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, guess again.

Please stop the personal attacks and focus on substance; Arbcomm has made it clear that current & "former associates" must refrain from personal attacks; one more attack and I will file an ANI report.

The protected version is the consensus version (between 4-5 editors). One vandal under repeated different screen names keeps reverting it to the version you prefer.

One of the first changes I made was to add from your version the "mediumistic channeling" phrase, which the literature confirms. To my surprise, this good-faith edit was met with patronizing deprecation as being inaccurate here. But then, you flipped and strenuously argued the opposite to be true here andhere. Why won't you clarify this position and answer the question?

Do you want to build consensus? Do you want to respond in good faith? Where is the sandbox?

I now have the Walliss book. Cleanemupnowboys (talk) 14:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Content Issues

I moved the two content issues from the long thread above here so we can focus on that...Cleanemupnowboys (talk) 23:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. Cleanemupnowboys (talk) 23:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Lucy, Regarding channeling/mediumship, I'm very confused because in the preceding section you wrote:

the article is...about the BKWSU and the most identifying feature of the BKWSU is the centrality or its investment into a variety of channelling and mediumship...

Yet, on my page you wrote:

The problems with your first two edits is that they are factually wrong..the sandeshputris (and others) were not channelers, they were trance messengers or individuals "given gifts of divine visions"

Which is it? What is others' understanding based on the literature? Cleanemupnowboys (talk) 23:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict of Interest editing protocol

I've just completed a careful read of the arbitration case.

User 195.82.106.244 has been banned for a year due to incivility and personal attacks and then is on probation, with the risk of being "banned from editing any article which he disrupts by engaging in aggressive biased editing." He has a declared conflict of interest as being a "critical former associate." A such, he needs to take just as much care in editing (and achieving consensus) as those current associates of BKWSU do. User 195.82.106.244 and several IP addresses from Japan have been found to be sock or meatpuppets, see this. Given that User:Lucyintheskywithdada holds an IP address in Japan (IP 125.204.111.160, see this), I think it's safe to assume that he is a sock/meat puppet.

The question I have is, can Lucy engage in meaningful discussion on content and come to a consensus with other editors before making changes? If yes, then there probably is no need to file a sock/meat puppet report. If there are any more personal attacks, disruptive complaints, and/or disruptive editing, however, then it needs to be reported because it is the same pattern of behavior as previous sock incarnations and not conducive to article building. Cleanemupnowboys (talk) 01:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Mind you, there is 120 million + people in Japan, many of whom would have an interest in this topic, so I think it's unsafe to assume they are sock puppets of this person. I have asserted my belief previously that Lucy is a previous user, and I'm sure I know which one, but that user is blocked only for sockpuppetry in November and for no other offences, and this appears to be the only account they are using. As I said to Lucy two days ago, if they stick to this one account, there's no violation of WP:SOCK occurring as the accountability side of things is still there. It is never necessary to file a sock/meat puppet report - that is a step one takes to get someone banned or blocked. Orderinchaos 05:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sandbox Anyone?

Before this article is unblocked, I suggest that a sandbox be created, discussed, and agreed upon by all involved editors. (Actually, this was orderinchaos's idea, see point #2.) This should (presumably) stop any edit wars. This will get all of us into the habit of discussing and reaching consensus before making changes.

Lucy, since you seem to want the most changes, would you like to start a sandbox here, User:Lucyintheskywithdada/Proposed Brahma edits? Offering a rationale for changes will help the discussion and facilitate consensus.

Cleanemupnowboys (talk) 01:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, although I think the topic should be split into, say, BKWSU beliefs and BKWSU history, I am actually happy with the version that you immediately reverted, here; [10].

There was no logic to very many of the reversion you made, I think it was done out of spite, and I can see very few factual errors in it.

I have new information from published sources that details, e.g. membership levels in the late 60s, but those would be better placed in a more complete historical topic. So, no, my vote is that we return to the last protected version. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 10:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Note that a history article was previously deleted as being a POV fork based on original research [11]. I suggest we focus on one article at a time. Regards Bksimonb (talk) 12:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Not a terribly clear consensus given the lack of neutral parties in that AfD. I'd say if we had a consensus to move on it in here, that would be unlikely to be a problem, especially seeing as we're operating inches away from ArbCom here. Orderinchaos 12:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Lucy, The version you cite above is the version that started an edit war because so many were unhappy with it. The majority of the editors prefer the current saved version.

Why don't you paste the version you like into your sandbox and then everyone can come by and give their feedback on which parts work, which parts need work, and we can discuss it there? Maybe consensus will emerge over some version of your article with this process. Cleanemupnowboys (talk) 12:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

That is not a factual assessment of the situation and I rather think it is for you to justify your edits. Unfortunately, the whole use of the concept of "consensus" has been corrupted on this topic and I cannot see the situation improving until we address the conflict of interest issue.

Basically, the concept of "consensus" is being used as a tool to obstruct the topic, and exercise ownership, by the BKWSU team because they know it will never be achieve; Revert, block, ban, cry "consensus" ... and if possible place in the way uninformed contributors to act as an obstacle on their behalf.

Cleanemup, I will answer you in full on your talk page but in all politeness, by the quality of the question you asked it is possible to determine your knowledge level of the subject at hand. Not just to the extent of your knowledge but to the relevance of the knowledge you have.

So please explain your removal of The Three World section, the corrected formatting of the Yugas and the numerous qualified citations?

Thank you.

[edit] Sockpuppets of IPSOS

I just wish to add a brief subsection to illustrate the history.

The deletion of the History of the Brahma Kumaris movement page [12] was proposed by an indefinitely blocked user IPSOS, one of many a sockpuppets of an already indefinitely blocked Ekajati. He was engaged in the edit warring and banned shortly afterwards. [13]

Looking at the voting, GlassFET also voted against for deletion. GlassFET was another confirmed sockpuppet of Ekajati/IPSOS/999 etc [14]. IPSOS performed identical 3RRs [15] to the BKWSU team [16].

So, two votes against by this banned individual, two votes against by the active BK editors. It looks less than positive.

But these were also identical to those made immediately by 76.79.146.8/Cleanemupnowboys on their return, except for the issue of "trance mediumship". [17]. This is why I think we should be allowed a non-punitive checkuser on any new user such as Cleanemupnowboys who engages directly in the article with a such obvious "history". --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Re the AfD, that was the exact point I was making - re "lack of neutral parties" on the AfD. As such I was saying that the consensus was "not terribly clear" on it (I was being diplomatic - a DRV would throw it out as being entirely unsound) and that anything we do here could probably override it, given that we are already treating process as somewhat optional given the fact we're doing what we can to avoid another ArbCom. It's not necessary to drag it into an analysis, that was precisely what I was trying to avoid as I think it inflames the situation and loses the point in the detail. Orderinchaos 20:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Warning: WP:NPA and WP:OWN. You are violating Arbcomm's mandate that current and former associates refrain from aggressive and biased editing and personal attacks. Go ahead and file all the checkusers you want - diversionary tactics and fishing expeditions (and they'll reveal your allegations are false anyways).

Still no sandbox? Still no explanation as to why you first want "mediumistic channeling" then don't want it (it's "inaccurate") and then do want it. Still no assumption of good faith? Still no effort to build consensus? Cleanemupnowboys (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Note that while the article's under full protection it's technically impossible to violate WP:OWN. Even so, there's plenty of evidence of that prior to protection on both sides. It would not take much to conclude you are not entirely neutral - you were editing fluently on the topic within hours of your arrival on Wikipedia not even two weeks ago, just as Lucy was, had a ready made list of sources for publication on Lucy's talk page which had obviously taken some time to assemble, and the majority of your contributions have been in this area. That being said, I think if we stick to editing and productive work rather than allegations and (paraphrasing Monty Python here) bickering and arguing about who's really who, we'd get a lot more done and could get this article off protection and this dispute resolved. Orderinchaos 20:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I addressed the mediumship issue above [18]. My others efforts are on your talk page when you care to start answering them. I suggest that out of respect for others we keeping the topic talk page clean.

Please, just to establish good faith, you said you were attacked by green 108 when you first joined. Who were you then? (Diffs please). --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Lucy/Lwachowski/Mr.Green, that is no longer relevant and frankly none of your business.

Please focus on content. That is the purpose of Wiki.

Where's the sandbox of changes you want? Cleanemupnowboys (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this a productive enterprise? Given the fact one side of the debate appears to be connected with the group in question and the other radically opposed to it, I've already taken the view that it's not going to matter who is who in the discussion, and that productive edits from both are possible if we can put aside some of the bitterness and hostility and use Wikipedia policies on editing as our major focus. My suggestion somewhere above was to break the article into sections, and I envisaged it would largely be different groups editing different sections, with myself and other editors (once we get it moving I will be bringing in others with admin/editing experience) effectively acting as gatekeepers to ensure proper editing policies are adhered to. I think people will be genuinely surprised at the end result of such a process. Orderinchaos 20:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

No. This is not productive. I keep trying to focus on content and one person insists on harassment and personalities.

How would you break up the article? Another option is to revert the article to a stub and then start from there building it back up. Cleanemupnowboys (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Why would it be productive? To be honest, following up Cleanemupnowboys hard work on your talk page, Orderinchoas, and on the arbcom page. Why is she working so desperately to discredit me?

Regarding her previous user account. I would just be really happy to know that she is not the banned IPSOS come back from the dead. That would be fair in the case of a banned account.

Equally so, if she is Reneeholle, I would be very happy to avoid repeating the Kwork [19] / Alice Bailey incident ... which at present is looking incredibly similar in its nature. [20] Renee was reported as being partisan from her first arrival from a RfC ... just as she arrived here on a RfC.

For goodness sake, Alice Bailey incident even included Sethie who also voted for deletion of a BK History page ... Its becoming damned tiresome.

I have answered her point about mediumship and channeling.
I have answered her point regarding the sandbox.
I have raised several specific issues in order to start discussion about consensus here and on her talk page.

And yet in return the same questions repeated and hard core wiki-lawyering, to quote Kwork from above. Really the "previous user question" is just all about trying to establish, "are we going to open, fair and reasonable" or are we going to continue with this crazy, crapshoot, Pyrrhic gamble of "see who can get banned first" ... or let's just destroy the page! I suspect she is working up her admin complaint as I type.

Please, there is no group "radically opposed to the BKWSU". Personally I loath and detest PR spin ... but that is a separate issue. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we've (as in everyone here) gotten quite distracted. I have already addressed the stuff on my talk page, and I'm going to continue to act to stop unhelpful processes, no matter who initiates them (it's one-all at present), while there's still a chance that we can get some productive work happening on the article. The goal should be lifting protection and avoiding a repeat of the ArbCom. Orderinchaos 21:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another first paragraph

Okay, let's try this again. It seems that Lucy does want 'mediumistic channeling' in the lead. Bksimonb said he could live with that. Appledell proposed this version:

Lucy doesn't like the words Yoga, Gyan, Dharna or Seva and it seems those words could be replaced by their definitions "meditation, knowledge, practice, or service."

Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University (BKWSU) or Prajapita Brahma Kumaris Ishwariya Vishwa Vidyalaya is a renunciate Millenarian new religious movement (NRM) of Indian origin. Some of its members also live a monastic lifestyle. It teaches a form of meditation called Raja Yoga, which differs from classical Raja Yoga as described by Patanjali. Its teachings are based on mediumistic channeling. Brahma Kumari (literally: "daughters of Brahma") focus on four main principles of life: meditation, knowledge, practice, and service, and practice vegetarianism, celibacy, and avoidance of alcohol, drugs, and tobacco.

Can everyone live with this? Cleanemupnowboys (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Reading WP:LEAD, this seems reasonable, although needs expansion (probably after the end). Essentially the lead para should provide a snapshot of the article for a 5-second reader - we know what they believe but not who/where they are, role in society, any controversies (I'd have to imagine there'd be at least a couple given the hostility on this page). Wouldn't need more than a single sentence probably. Orderinchaos 20:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

One suggestion is to move this sentence,Its teachings are based on mediumistic channeling, to the end and then change it/expand it to include an explanation of and reference to the murlis, which seem to be a central component of the practice and the focus of controversy. A current or former practicant would have to craft the sentence though so that it's completely accurate. Cleanemupnowboys (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry but "It seems that Lucy does want 'mediumistic channeling' in the lead" is completely the opposite of what I said and I am sure this is deliberately miscontrued.

The reason for it being as it was is that the use of mediumship and channeling is much broader than just merely providing the teachings. It also includes the regular mediumship of deceased members, the alleged mediumship of deities such as Krishna and Radhe, regular trance mediumship, the relaying of administration guidance issues and, as was expressed in one of the citations removed by the BK team. It plays an importance part in the social order and status of individuals within the movement and sustaining the 'group myth' or 'ethos'. Historically, the psychism played other key roles.

The four main principles cannot be simply translated into English because, e.g. "Gyan" is specific and not knowledge as it is understood, meditation is not just any meditation but their communing with the channelled entity, service equals evangelism etc. Point that have been made before and, yes, with citations. If we have 40 editors who know nothing about the subject, they can make all the consensus they like. It does not mean it is factually correct.

This is why I think it should be left as it was. The further you can go is to add "advocates a vegetarian diet, celibacy, and avoidance of alcohol, drugs, and tobacco." if you really think it is that important --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Your original passage is factually wrong. BKs do NOT "channel" anything when they meditate. No spirit enters them, nor do they attempt to have a spirit enter them. As I've said before, I'm happy to have channelling in the opening paragraph, but it has to be in the proper context. If it helps, we could say this: "central to its teachings and administrative direction are channelled messages". I repeat, Raja Yoga meditation itself does NOT involve channelling. Appledell (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

sigh* Lucy, please review your dif here. Based on what you wrote it seemed that you did want it. Instead of assuming someone's trying to get you, review your dif and just say how you want it to be different. Please give your compromise paragraph. Cleanemupnowboys (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

How about the suggestion I made a few months ago, "The study is based on channeled messages, known as the 'Murli' said to be from God." Regards Bksimonb (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I apologise Cleanemupnowboys, dealing with all the tit-for-tat complaints and distortions you were making, I miss read that as 'does not want'.

No to Simon for the reasons given above. The channelling and mediumship goes much further than just the messages. I should have added to the list claims that other disincarnate spirits, e.g the dead founder, an "Advanced Party" of deceased and elevated followers, "work" or "do service" through current followers.

But my main concern is not to be distracted that we start from the last protected version your revised and work to split the topic into small, more specific and manageable articles. Too much is being crammed into this one and that is causing the problems. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 03:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you please refer to what reliable sources say rather than your own interpretation. We don't have anything to work with here otherwise. Thanks Bksimonb (talk) 05:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point Simon. Sources will need to back up statements.

Lucy, regarding breaking up the article into smaller chunks, do you propose reducing this article to a stub, and then branching out from there? What articles would you create? There's already an article on the Advance Party.

One comment on NPOV -- the words used to describe any religious practice often reflect whether or not one feels positively or negatively toward that religion, so we'll have to be realy careful to choose neutral words. "Disincarnate spirits" are loaded terms and don't appear in the Christianity article or articles on Saints, though members may claim to commune with Jesus or saints (arguably disincarnate spirits).

To retain neutrality, we can say something very simple and factual like, Members say they receive messages from their founder (now dead) in meditation. (I don't know if this is accurate; this is just an example of saying it simply without any value judgment.) Cleanemupnowboys (talk) 18:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

"Assert" perhaps? Agreed with general approach here - note also when we talk about beliefs we can to some extent enter an "in universe" situation that assumes the beliefs are correct within a context, but takes care to assert that such are the beliefs of the group or individuals and not a proven reality, probably under a section heading. (Hell, we do as much for TV shows and anime series...) Orderinchaos 15:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry if I continue on sounding like a grumpy professor to a class of freshman but all this talk of "neutrality" and "loading" is simple hogwash. One of the problems with the wikipedia is, due to the general level of insecurity or lack of expertise in the actual topics, the topics become littered with nervous conditionals and hasty counter-points, e.g. "claim ... assert ... however ... others believe" etc in an attempt to appear "balanced" or keep every one happy. It must be tiring for grumpy professors to have to teach the same class time and time again.

"Disincarnate spirits" is neither loaded nor POV. It is as objective as one could hope for. If one was to say; ghosts, spooks or evil spirits, then that would be POV and loading. Neither the BKWSU nor any of the academics claims that these 'dead people' (if you want to be accurate), are saints or ascended masters etc. Only one, according to their literature, might be claimed to be an Angel. There is no process of sanctification, indeed to do so is against the credo. It is an entirely different equation and so does not relate to the examples you have given.

Likewise, your proposed quotation is incomplete, fair to vague and sort of incorrect (and you have no citation to say they do). Followers actually do say but the organization would discourage this and it is not their official position.

As stated, the main channelling is God Shiva and the deceased Lekhraj Kripalani possessing one of their mediums, take control of its body, speak, meet and greet through it ... and then go away again. The trance messaging is something different again. The general channelling of "spiritual energy" or "light" something different again ... there are quotes from their leadership about this. Then the other "lower" disincarnate BK spirits working through the general followers something again.

How are you getting on reading Dr John Walliss's "Brahma Kumaris as a Reflexive Tradition" book? Personally, I do not think that you are even at the starting point until you do. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 06:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PBK's website - external link available

78.145.133.213 (talk) 12:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)The Adhyatmik Ishwariya Vishwa Vidyalaya - or Advance Party maintain a website - [21] - which contains written information plus audio and video recordings of the teachings of the AIVV / Advance Party, or "Shankar Party" as the BKs call it. The BKs believe the "Shankar Party" is illegitimate and try to conceal the information provided from the BK membership.

78.145.133.213 (talk) 12:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Lord! Is this spam or what? Next time someone will will post a letter from their mother in Nigeria who has 45 million in a checking account that she'd like to share with us if we just will give our account numbers. Cleanemupnowboys (talk) 18:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, we do have an article on Free Zone (Scientology) which seems to be an approximate equivalent. Orderinchaos 21:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

There is already an article for this group. Bksimonb (talk) 05:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

No problems - that probably answers the IP's question then. Orderinchaos 06:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

No, its not spam. Walliss covers this issue of BKWSU vs PBK in his book. Have you read it yet Cleanemupcowboy ? --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 05:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Definition of spam: "unsolicited messages of a promotional nature"...Cleanemupnowboys (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It didn't seem promotional - it appeared someone not terribly great at communicating believed the article to be missing or lacking something, not realising that information is elsewhere and they were at the wrong forum. As soon as I posted my understanding of the situation (which proved to be incomplete), Bksimonb posted a response in correction which completed the answer to the question and, were the IP to read it, would direct them to the appropriate location. Orderinchaos 15:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed page titles and examples of outline

Done. Follow my contributions as normal ... --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 05:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Where are these? Cleanemupnowboys (talk) 13:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It would appear Special:Prefixindex/Talk:Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University is the location. (Very handy Wikipedia function for finding lost subpages or even forgotten article names sometimes) Orderinchaos 15:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

"These" are the sandboxes you asked for and the proposed splits;

* History of the Brahma Kumari Movement

* Brahma Kumari Beliefs and Lifestyle

* Brahma Kumari Related Activities

Now, from my point of view, it is up for others to show goodfaith now and work on them but my feeling is, and trackrecord says, this is not going to happen.

The BKWSU team, who all the way through this process could have provide a great deal of support, information, citations and input, have not done so at all in the past. All the onus has been placed on independent editors to dig out what their organization has it its finger tips already whilst instead they engage in obstructing. For example, with the relation to the "trance messengers and mediumship" issue, something they have fought all the way, published literature supplies details right down to the names; (e.g. BK Sandesh, Jamuna, Sangtri, Kamal, Leela etc) and their activities.

My intuition is, and the previous example over the recent page revision displays, that they are happy for others to exhaust themselves, time and energy ... and then just revert it under some guise or another acting as a team.

So, here are your starting point to prove otherwise folks ... --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 06:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. There's no way to "talk" about these pages on their respective pages. I think it'd be easier to have a separate talk page for each. For instance, I read the first one and think it reads pretty good except for two areas. First, the statement "involves channeled messages" is vague and Appledell disputes it. I think something more specific anyways like what Bksimonb proposed is better, i.e., "The study is based on channeled messages, known as the 'Murli' said to be from God." Then, the nature of the channeling can be expanded later.

Second, the "accusations" section in the history paragraph is inappropriate. If the "accusations" were proven in a court of law (with a court ruling) then I think they can be included, but other than that it's just hearsay. I could accuse Bksimonb of being a sorcerer but it doesn't make it so and it wouldn't be appropriate to put it in an encyclopedic article. Also, (this is where good faith comes in, why wasn't this in there?), what about the fact that "The Om Mandali successfully appealed against the Government order in court."

Order, do you know how to create a talk page for these "talk" pages? Thanks, Cleanemupnowboys (talk) 12:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

What Simon say is not actually accurate. At first it was based on trance mediumship. It is not exactly clear when the channelling started. I am going to be hard here. It does not matter what anyone "thinks". It is down to the references and citations provided. The BKWSU have broken up family for 70 years and there are references from the 30s to the 2000s to sustain that. Even the BKs would not try and admit that was not true. The article is highly referenced and we have been around this "accusation" discussion before, I must go back and check the discussion for who put that point. Of course, you are completely ignoring all the details about the various channelling and mediumships I gave you that are sustainable via citations.

So ... accuracy please, it is "involves mediumistic channelling.[5][6]" not "involves channeled messages". Appledell does not offer any citations and can speak for themselves. I'd rather say something like "involves various forms of mediumship and channelling about which the individuals are afforded status within the organization". It is objectively true and what the references support. As I have stated very clearly now, it goes far beyond the Murlis.

What we wait to see is if the BKs will engage in writing these alternatives or if they are just sitting it out waiting to see if they get lucky with the arbcom. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I repeat: to claim that Raja Yoga meditation involves mediumistic channelling is wrong. I have already given my version which I believe is more accurate - and still includes medium channelling that you are so insistent in keeping. You use one reference to back up your version of wording. There are plenty of other academic sources that make no reference to mediumistic channelling at all that which I could use. But, I'd genuinely like to show some good faith in this. I think you are right to say that mediumsitic channelling is an important part of BK history, the murlis and the admitrative direction of the Brahma Kumaris (that covers a LOT of areas). My version I think covers all those areas, but I'm happy to work more on the wording with you on it. BUT, mediumistic channelling is NOT part of Raja Yoga meditation itself in any way as taught by the Brahma Kumaris. We are not as far apart on this as you might think, but this is a vital thing that needs to be made clear. Appledell (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

And what you are doing, is ignoring or not reading what I wrote.

The article is not about Raja Yoga, nor even BK style Raja Yoga. It is about the BKWSU (and soon to be History of the Brahma Kumari movement). And the BKWSU definitely does involve mediumship and channelling.

Not only does it involve mediumship and channelling BUT the academic references are their to back it up. If you care to read any of them. How many of the academic references have you read Appledell?

In fact, I was reading an interview with Hirday Mohini just today where she was talking about the experience of the spirits of Shiva and Lekhraj Kripalani entering into her body and how ti all started. Do you care to disagree?

Actually, there is also a direct quote from Jayanti Kripalani talking about channelling energy of the Shiva. Channelling is said to happen in two or three manners, three if you accept "overshadowing". My feeling is that you do not really know very much about channelling, and the use of the word channelling, and that is coloring your responses. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 07:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I shall keep my response civil. As I have already made clear, I do not have a problem in accepting that the BKWSU uses mediumship as an important part of its foundation (and including that in the opening paragraph). What I am saying - again - is that Raja Yoga meditation does not involve a mediumistic process. Yes, I realise that this article is about the BKWSU, but if you re-read what I had originally said, my objection was the the specific reference that you were proposing that says Raja Yoga meditation DOES include mediumship. Maybe you are confusing Raja Yoga, the practise of meditation, with Raja Yoga/BKWSU the organisation.Appledell (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. It is really just a question of clarify the written word, so I have included both proposals and clarified the difference by separating these into two sentences. Here it is, [22]

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 whose teachings are based on and practises involve both mediumship and channelling. [4][5] It promotes a form of meditation [1] called Raja Yoga, which differs from classical Raja Yoga as described by Patanjali. [6]

I would say that is accurate and just about perfect.

I note that I am the only one working on sandboxes.

For the attention of new editors, I am not at all surprised by this. It is as I expected. In my opinion, having achieve their primary objective (to remove independent or critical websites from "their" article and removing mention of the mediumship), the BKWSU team has little incentive to do anything productive. [[User:Appledell|Appledell], I notice your IP address is in London, do you attended the same BKWSU center as Bksimonb? Do you meet in person?

You have never clarified how much of the literature on this topic you have actually read. Thank you. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 06:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that's not bad, Lucy - thanks. Not surprised you did an IP check on me. As I understand it, based on wikipedia ettiquette, it's not really any of your business where I live, is it? :) If you think I live in London, that's fine by me. Lets stick to talking about the article. Appledell (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to read more about the proposed "mediumship" reference in the opening paragraph, so no comment on that yet. But channeling is vague; the Murlis seem to be such of such central importance that I think they should be in the lead, i.e., the practice is based on channeled messages called Murlis. Cleanemupnowboys (talk) 13:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

What is "vague" about the channeling issue? It is all inclusive, and already been agreed and conceded by nemeses within the BKWSU. Again, I do not know why you seek to limit or delay matters with your contradictory offering ... as I have stated, and as it is referenced, the use and importance of channelling goes much further than just the Murlis ... which feature further down the topic. Ditto, splitting the topic will allow us to go into more detail.

OK, I added some details to the proposed article. History of the Brahma Kumari Movement

Immediately, can we not re-introduce all the typographic and formatting improvements that you reverted?

Appledell, its is important that we establish for the arbcom what is going on here.

If you are not only a BK and part of the BKWSU's internet team, but also in regular direct personal contact with Bksimonb like Riveros11, then that strengthens my assertion that the BKs contributors are acting, essentially, as a meatpuppet team ... which I think is supported by your identical edits and united front. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Lucy - I think its better if I try and stick to talking about the article. But for the record, I'm not part of the BK internet pr team that you continually talk about (I'm not even sure such a team really exists, but that is another matter). I also don't think accusing others of hidden agendas is particularly useful - especially when the accusations come from you (pot, kettle?). Lets just try and get along as best we can and see if we can help put together a decent article. I won't be getting into any further conversations about things not relating to this article on this page. I'm happy to meet up for coffee and chat if you like :) Appledell (talk) 10:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I'm taking a wiki-break. Minor crisis in our household. Cleanemupnowboys (talk) 13:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

All the best. Appledell (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Waiting for some constructive development ...

Well ... I opened the door and laid down the foundations. I am waiting for some constructive development ... or at least some justification for the diffs between the two edits [23]. This did not include the just the simple ones such as copyediting or formatting links.

I flag up the detailed notes made on the changes [24] noting that it was the now "retired" IPSOS that addressed them as "not discussion".

Has the BKWSU achieved its aims by removing any critical external links and locking the article? Or are you just gambling on the arbcom?

We need to move beyond non-discussion. I offered the sandboxes as a starting point [25] to utter silence and non-cooperation. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 04:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Still waiting ... --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 04:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey Lucy. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm starting to go through the diffs you talk about. Am I right in thinking that I can ignore the bit at the start - the introduction (as there seems to be some consensus on that based on our interactions above)? I'll start at the "early history" bit of the diffs and, if its ok, will post any thoughts here - as I'm a little confused about the sandboxes. Appledell (talk) 10:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Still waiting ... the sandboxes are their to work into a finished form. Are you sure that you are just not refusing the suggest of splitting the topic? --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The article will be unlocked about 11:00 UTC (tonight in my time zone) - reasons for protection appear to have lapsed and parties are speaking to each other (relatively) civilly and negotiating changes. The sandboxes seem to be a positive development. Protection may be applied again if warring re-starts on the article. Orderinchaos 04:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for extending your trust. I hope that other parties take note of this and act accordingly. I intend to revert the article to the pre-locked state BUT include the recent changes to the introductory paragraph as seen above. I have raised on a number of occasions with the admins that much of the warring period involved the user IPSOS and his proven socks, who it turned out was an indefinitely banned individual. During this time, I raised in detail discussion on changes.

My position is clear. This version has a number of totally benign formatting and copy edits that have nothing to do with any content dispute. It is my opinion that the entire version was being reverted NOT because of the nature of those specific edits but out of laziness or churlishness and as a willful provocation or disincentive for others to invest in editing the page. If there are specific edits anyone wishes to make, they they ought be done in detail. From the point of view of an external third party, the differences are really quite immaterial.

I must highlight the recent lack of discussion or any extension of goodwill from other in developing the sandboxes.

External Links

Naturally, I defend the inclusion of independent or third party websites as the only way we have to offer a balance view according the model adopted by even the most contentious of Wikipedian articles. Welcome to the world stage. Thank you. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 06:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Naturally, I'm sure you would. If you genuinely want to revert to a version that just has better formatting as you suggest, then fine. Im happy for you to include the opening paragraph and change it from the current locked version. But the third party websites issue remains contentious - it will have to be categorised appropriately if it is included. And please - can you try and include just *one* post without attacking undertones? Appledell (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I base the inclusion of brahmakumaris.info [26] on its recent unanimous victory in the domain dispute where it was judged to be being used fairly and providing information, albeit critical at times, on the Brahma Kumaris movement and the BWKSO denied its transfer. The arbitrators of the Nation Arbitration Forum are not "mere individuals" but highly qualified legal professionals in the field of trademarks and domain rights.

The other sites are fair comment. A wikipedia article is not meant to be an uncritical advert for the subject of each topic.

Again, I draw parallel to other contentious new religious movements like Scientology. If Scientology topic can have a balance of links, I see no reason why the BKWSU one cannot. The only reason being that the BKWSU does not see to want it. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 11:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Comparing the BKWSU with Scientology in terms of how contentious it is - that's frankly ridiculous. Nice try though. I actually don't have a big problem with linking to the website that you appear to run - but please don't try and pretend that it is an unbiased or "neutral" website. I think your website does a pretty good job of showing its true remit - and I'm happy for visitors to reach their own conclusions about its motives (I know plenty have already). Carry on. Appledell (talk) 12:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Cult info

There are ton's of information available on net which lists this group as a harmful cult, most of them qualify WP:RS. Why is such an important section missing from the page ? --Cult free world (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

: Nice username :) Put up the refs you consider reputable on this page and lets discuss it. Appledell (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

::Thanks ;) i am going throuth the archive of this page, seems lot of trouble has passed already :) will post stuff here, once through with understanding what the dispute was about. we will work togather

:: ((-: :-)) --Cult free world (talk) 09:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe as a sign of good faith, you could put up things you want to change/add in the article on this discussion page first? Of course, it's not a requirement. RE the French govt report - can you explain where in the report it says the BKs are a "harmful" cult? You may or may not be aware that the report in question is infamous for listing pretty much every non-major religious movement as a cult - but of course, that doesn't mean it can't be listed in the "critical" section. Appledell (talk) 10:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Kindly refer to table Enumeration of the followers of sects in 1995 by UNADFI and see the listing Name of cult and its number of follower's, in the link provided, I don’t think that is the case with this particular report, however, Govt. of Belgium has a list which is pretty comprehensive, but they have not banned all organizations from their country, only a few. And Yes, i have read the UN report which objected to french governments crack down on cults, The miviludes or vigilance commission against sectarian aberrations, cracked heavily on few cults and initiated expulsion of some groups from their country. This link for instance gives a detailed explanation about the psychological harm caused by some of the group, and how, even though UN objected to method adopted by the law enforcement agencies which actually executed the order’s, the commission was not criticized per se. I will need some further time to understand the dispute on this page, and make sure that I do not repeat something wcich has already been discussed. There will be nothing added in the article which might give a hint of dispute directly in the page, everything will be discussed. :) --Cult free world (talk) 11:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

One minor suggestion - it might be helpful to drop the use of the word "cult" in this discussion, as it's somewhat of a loaded term. Stick to "movement" which is value-neutral but carries the meaning. Orderinchaos 11:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Tone tag

Re-publishing note on my talk page, is more relevant here..

Re "tone" tag on BKWSU - on quickly looking at the paragraph, you could probably rewrite the end part of the paragraph based on the sources provided (particularly the news story at Ref 54, which seems quite a balanced news story). Orderinchaos 13:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I would rather wait for some more time, to get other's involved, before making any major edit, the paragraph is controversial, as it talks about president of a country talking to ghosts. Probably those who have written it, may consider re-wording, so as to become more soft towards the president. Technically there is no problem with the paragraph, just that tone may be considered once more, so as to maintain respect to the position if not the person. --Cult free world (talk) 13:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason I addressed this one is it's peripheral to the main topic and easy to resolve as the media source from which the end part can be rewritten is sitting right there and is pretty factual. There seems little doubt she said it and that it was reported in a reliable source, but it comes down to emphasis and reporting (keeping in mind neutral point of view and the principle "let the facts speak for themselves" - it's important not to substitute one tone for another :)). I think tags can sometimes be inflammatory, especially if it's not over a core content issue, so it's best to resolve the issue quickly. Orderinchaos 18:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed :) facts speak for themselves --Cult free world (talk) 13:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

As I have no stake in either side, I've had a go at editing it. It's pretty minor - added some missing wikilinks, and chopped half a sentence from the end as it wasn't in any of the cited sources. Hopefully this will be OK. Orderinchaos 18:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Revert

Few ex-members of the group, have voiced their opinion in their website, stating that Brahma Kumari group is a cult. ^[1]. One of the report submitted in French national assemble, has also listed Brahma Kumari as a harmful cult. ^[2]

This section was removed form the article, what is the objection ? --Cult free world (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you have a little stab at the sandboxes instead of hacking at the main article? I think you ought to slow down and learn a little about the Wikipedia in general before you go tearing away at things, unless you have recently re-incarnated form being some other user.

With regards the 'See also category, that is exactly what it is. It is not used to mean that the BKWSU is also Hinduism or Raja Yoga, they are links to closely related subjects. If you have a look at the majority of topics on the Wiki, you will see this. I fully appreciate the debate over whether the BKWSU is or is not Hindu and the controversy over when it exploits or promotes its Hinduistic tendencies and not. Equally, you problem is to define what Hinduism is and is not. But there is no denying the connection, at least historically and symbolically.

I personally prefer the link to classic Raja Yoga, as it makes clear what is and is not, and think it needs clarifying right at the top of the article. Many BKWSU do not, of course, know anything about this nor can one expect the majority of editors to be yoga experts.

With regards to the cult issue, you will find it to try and use ex-members as "reliable sources" but there are governmental and academic sources and references to support this, particularly the French where the BKWSU was listed amongst their official "secte dangereuse" and, notably, members held in custody for promoting its beliefs to children. This would translate as cult in English not sect ... which clearly it is not.

It has most certainly been referred as a "cult" by numerous experts in both the academic and pejorative fashion, see earlier revisions for citations. This is debate is fair and worth mentioning, even though to include the commentary does not necessarily agree with or condone such a definition. I do not think we should shy away from this. (In my opinion, and this is not substantiated yet, the Brahma Kumaris are probably a cult within a new religious movement; particularly an increasing personality-based cult). One of the minor problems academics have had in categorising the BKWSU is that whilst, I also agree, not being a Hindu sect, it pre-dates the New Age or New Religious Movements. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I tend to think the use of the word "cult", entirely because of the way it's understood in society beyond the dictionary definition, is not terribly useful on an encyclopaedia anyway (although as you said, it can be mentioned somewhere in light of discussions on that topic in academic and other spheres). Ironically, it tends to be used most as a word by evangelical Christian churches who obviously missed the sermon about specks and planks. :) Sadly, their use of it in describing groups which have Christian doctrines tempered with their own philosophy/alleged new revelations but are not by any objective standard cultic demeans the good work they are capable of with groups which are far more dangerous (eg Scientology). Orderinchaos 19:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Your links above do not work. Such links do not work on Talk Pages. This suggests to me that you are new to the Wikipedia and inexperienced with the technicalities. Why not have a go at the BKWSU, or other, sandboxes?

As you note well, the topic has been through the wars and is coming out into, hopefully, a new age of peace. To be quite honest, it is probably not a good article to cut your teeth on and now is not really the time to go storming about. Thanks.

I removed the section on former members saying it is a cult ... if that is what is being said ... because the reference you used was not a good one on its own, whereas there are good ones. It wont stick with the 'BKWSU defence force', and it will just give them grounds to discredit you or any informed criticism, of which there is some. So, my advice is to work on your sources a bit more. To the best of my knowledge, the Belgium, German, Greek, Indonesia governments have mentioned the BKWSU in a similar light and so have cult victim support organizations. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 18:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you discussing BKWSU in general or this article in particular ? --Cult free world (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This article and attempting to offer advice regarding your conduct in order that you might be successful . --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I may or may not be wrong, but i sense this, please clarify so that i can put forward my reply. :) --Cult free world (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest reading the talk page. Lucy's on the other side from the BK-related editors, and there had until recently been conflict between them. I arrived pretty much because of that conflict (I know nothing about the subject but am here primarily as a Wiki admin to make sure the editing of the page is on track and things don't get too heated). Discussion now seems to be proceeding in good faith and a week or so I concluded it was safe to unprotect the article, and after talking with other admins, did so at the weekend. As a disclosure, in my teens I was involved with the word-faith evangelical movement, before becoming disillusioned with it and effectively becoming an agnostic. I have a lot of respect for people who can be true to a faith, but apart from attending the odd Uniting service once in a blue moon when my friends are speaking there, I'm happily non-committal and intend to stay that way. Orderinchaos 19:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, that however confirms WP:COI. It might be difficult to come to a conclusion with some-1 already confirming to a POV, i expect some amount of flexibility, here is my response.

WP:COI does not preclude having opinions. It specifically refers to outside interests. As far as I know only one user in the discussion has a direct conflict, which has been openly disclosed by the user (Bksimonb). Orderinchaos 20:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks but no thanks, i avoid free advices. :)

We can add Hinduism but Hindu reform movements ? That was Dayananda saraswati and Raja Ram Mohan Roy who are considered to be modern hindu reformists, where is BKWSU ?

See also indicates that BKWSU is in any way related to Raja Yoga but is a contradiction to Raja Yoga if viewed properly, that has been explained in the lead, there is no need to add that link in see also, except if you want to push POV of the group, that it has something to do with Raja Yoga.

You have removed the link which pointed to french report you are referring to, ex-member's do have a voice in criticism section as current members have in lead section.

"I do not think we should shy away from this ... in that case why remove this particular info from the page ?

I know that, link was not for talk page, but was copied from original page where it use work and you removed it, did you removed the statement without even reading it ?

Thanks but no thanks, i avoid free advices. :)

In criticism section what makes you feel that opinion of ex-members is not valid ? or a general report pointing BK's as a cult is not a good one ? please put forward some good one reference so that i can come up with something similar --Cult free world (talk) 19:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Lucy as I see it was not criticising use of ex-members' statements but more was reflecting Wikipedia's position through WP:RS. As a regular contributor to Australian geography and politics articles I am forever removing blog links and such things from posts. It's not specific to this article, and if reliable sources (eg. news reports) or academic exposition can be found which reports ex-members views then those sources can be cited. Re the "See also" above, being in a "See also" section does not actually mean it is related, the section is intended as a ready reference for a user who may wish to look that topic up. It more often than not means the link is *not* in the article, or only peripherally related. For example, the perennially contentious David Hicks article cites Terrorism in Australia, which he did not commit (he was in Afghanistan) and John Walker Lindh, a man unrelated to his case but broadly in the same position and circumstances. Orderinchaos 20:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement which was removed is

Few ex-members of the group, have voiced their opinion in their website, stating that Brahma Kumari group is a cult. ref [27]. One of the report submitted in French national assemble, has also listed Brahma Kumari as a harmful cult. ref [28]

Other links such as [29] , [30] and [31] were avoided deliberately so as to confirm WP:RS reference used is a .com, and from their statement, they themselves do not confirm any association with BK's as such, i feel it confirm WP:RS. As far as listing in french parliamentary report is concerned, that appears pretty much ok. Adding raja yoga in "see also" links BK with RY, in someway or the other, and may be it can be done away with, same has already been explained in the lead, and there is no need for additional info, which might give a push to one POV, but i do not object any further if it added. --Cult free world (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, just a reference to back up my comment on the translate of secte in French with regards the About-Picard Law; "Religious liberty and French secularism" by Robert, Jacques. Brigham Young University Law Review, 2003. Not directly relevent to this topic but useful all the same. See also, [32]

Secondly, Cult free world please just learn how to use the Wikipedia first. If you dont take free advice, send me $20 for telling you ... but listen to me.

You are going to discredit yourself, your ideas and pee a lot of people off if you do not do so. If you are going to reply to someone else's comments; do so afterwards, not in between. And, please, learn how to indent your posts so that we can follow them easily. We are obliged to be polite but are under no obligation to tutor you in Wiki-etiquette!

--Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, the link provided Groups_referred_to_as_cults_in_government_documents#Parliamentary_Inquiry_Commission_.281997.29 is Belgian, which is not used, i have already explained the UN comments.

Secondly you have removed my point by point response ??? why ?

pee a lot of people off is this the best that you can provide for a public record ? --Cult free world (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

As a habit, i do not read other's matter's and on wikipedia, i avoid reading user's talk pages just to ensure that i do not make a view about other user's, but your pushing language prompted me to look at your talk page :) please be polite. --Cult free world (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The link is good, I think it should definitely go in ... but where? External links or a beefed up controversy section because there are plenty.

Why moved responses? Because this (note good indentation) is the way it is done on the Wikipedia. It is good practise and will make you friends. It was very difficult to follow.

I assure you pee is very polite and girlie in English-English and all the nicest girls do it, as Johnny Depp will confirm for you. Far less offensive than stomping around talk pages. Good luck with your mission.--Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 05:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Noticed that many user’s got blocked due to mis-conduct, that has improved the stability of the article and on the negative side has prevented some useful info from flowing in, anyway, there are only two sentences in criticism section, and as I had noted above, voice of decedent must also be given appropriate share in encyclopedia article, along with those who are associated currently. For clarification, is the .com reference I had used violates WP:RS ? I am sure French report does not :) hence the statement in question can be added in article, "as it is" if it is agreed that .com reference comes under purview of WP:RS. Regarding Raja Yoga in “see also” I give a weak keep, but hindu reform movement, that does not belong in this article. --Cult free world (talk) 09:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Any response ?? (no news is good news !! :) )--Cult free world (talk) 08:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

What were people meant to have been responding to? Orderinchaos 06:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

without wishing to sound partisan, (I just want to get down to hard core facts) I completely agree with you, 'Cult free world', that the article has been tilted towards a positive bias due to the unlimited efforts of the BKWSU own Internet PR team leader, or members and that they invested a tremendous amount of energy in attempting to restrict independent contributors. I do not see this and a pro- versus anti- debate. Critical investigation should and does stand on the references and citations alone.

Is the BKWSU "reforming Hinduism"? They think they are. Of course, that is their POV only. Have the academics defined them as such? Perhaps, have you checked what Lawrence Babb and VS Lalrinawma wrote of them? I think that would lead to a "keep". Are they Hinduism, or is their practise Hindu ... no, not at all by their own philosophy; Bhakti is looked down upon. They are entirely opposite to Hinduism (whilst at the same time claiming to be the inspiration for it and the individuals worshipped by it) but they like to use it as a cover.

If you have other citations about them, especially from Indian academics, please let us know. For an Indian organization, I think the article is notably slim on Indian citations. (One man's reform is another man's poison)

My freely ignorable advice would be skip being a policy jockey and dig out some more references. Policy is theory, citations are god on the Wikipedia. And get a new username ... you are only going to put people's backs up with that one unnecessarily. The Wiki is a already a warzone between culties and anti-culties, you are not doing your cause any good with that one.

*Do you have access to Indian academic resources?

*Would you be willing to put in some hoof work with Indian government departments and find out what the BKWSU's annual revenue and reports state? They are a registered trust (World Renewal Trust of Bombay) and so all documents will be in the public domain. They may also have subsidiary organizations to handle their investments etc. (Of course, the BKs could also readily provide such useful information too ...)

Good luck ... --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 06:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Few ex-members of the group, have voiced their opinion in their website, stating that Brahma Kumari group is a cult. ref [33]. One of the report submitted in French national assemble, has also listed Brahma Kumari as a harmful cult. ref [34]

Is this statement acceptable in criticism section? What is the concern if this statement is added? Will respond to Lucy's comments soon. --Cult free world (talk) 12:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Lucy,

I would not like to deviate the discussion from its current form, and would focus entirely on content of the article, would really appreciate if expectations are low, i will provide all reference which are needed for the article, keeping in mind that wikipedia today caters to 19% of internet traffic, and hence non-biased view is really needed, policies are the key here....

Regarding my user-name, it is hypothetical :) as there are no cults in this world, as people who belong to any group, which is listed as cult, do not accept it, as the moment anyone accept that the group they belong to, is a mind controlling cult, they would de-associate themselves. Hence technically there are no cults. If there is anyone who feels offended by this user-name, then it indicates that they do not have enough conviction in their group, and are on the verge of leaving it, any problems by this user-name is a positive sign, as questioning and reasoning which is suppressed, due to obedience factor, is getting strong, and the initial phase of rejection has started....I have no problem if this rejection starts with me, as all that is needed is the process to start, threshold is needed, and if this user-name can become that, why object to it ?

Regarding making friends, i came to wikipedia alone, making friends on wikipedia is not my intention, and i will focus entirely on making sure, that philosophy which such groups use as their public face, is not distorted, Raja Yoga needs no medium, Adwaitya (non-dual) Vedanta is unity of soul (all are extension of same Lord). These names are used as marketing tools, as advertisement, truth however is hidden, Raja Yoga cannot be sold in market, neither can it be attained by devoting oneself to any leader or mission. It can very well be done inside our home, with our family. No group is needed for selling Raja Yoga. This is all that i would say at this point of time, Please respond to my query above, do you find any objection to the statement i have provided ? can that be added in criticism section of the article as it is ? --Cult free world (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, a fairly detailed revision including the recent corrections and proposals made, yours too CFW. I added a number of new and uptodate citations, made a serious of basic typographic and formatting corrections, included the new introduction from the sandbox and returned some elements removed during the edit-warring with the then 'blocked indefinitely' IPSOS.

I need to take a break now ... Thanks. It needs work but it is all there and looking tight if one want to reshape it editorially.

(I am trying to help you, CFW. You are going to put some well known and skillful admins backs up, never mind ordinary users, and it is not going to help you at all in whatever your cause might be, for good, bad or philosophical. I think that you are underestimating the history of cultic wikiwars that have gone before you ... that is not hypothetical. It will be counter-productive) --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Great work done Lucy, keep it up. and thanks for your concern, if you understand my stand, thats enough, other will also understand that. --Cult free world (talk) 07:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Daily Mail

This argument has been had on here before, but just to re-iterate...it's not a POV to say the Daily Mail is a British tabloid. In the controversy section, the article that is referenced to is a good example of that - it's a classic Daily Mail attack article on Cherie Blair (who the paper hated with a passion). It helps overseas readers not familiar with the British press to have that context. All the quotes from the "cult expert" and the Cult Information Centre have to put in that context too - the journalist needed them to say derogatory things about the BKs (regardless of whether what they said was right or wrong) to make the article stand up (make Cherie Blair look bad by trying to associcate her with some whacky cult). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Appledell (talk • contribs) 12:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Tabloids are not reliable sources for Wikipedia articles. The Daily Mail-generated statements probably should be removed. Rumiton (talk) 14:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is not a tabloid in the sense that is being referred here, e.g. like National Enquirer. (What is being pushed here is a POV over the Mail's standing to obfuscate the valid issues).

In the UK, "the Red Tops", e.g. The Sun [35], The Daily Sport [36], The Mirror [37] are considered tabloids. The Mail is not. It was a broadsheet, it has been republished smaller than a broadsheet, But then so are The Guardian and The Independent published in that format. The Daily Mail is a center-right family newspaper.

This is EXACTLY the inference and the effect the BKWSU editor is wanting to assert here, and it is false ... and we have been round this all before with Appledell.

The article concerned the then Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. The story had a chief editor and two others on it. They were obviously covering themselves entirely and so it can be considered a reliable source. More to the point, the two quote sources of information are acceptable on their own as one side of the debate ... and what they say is actually true.

Actually, those are the opinions of the CIC who are involved in counseling ex-members and friends and family of members as are other organizations in the UK and abroad. One cannot assign intent without good evidence to suggest it. They both offer counseling services to BKs, ex-BKs and their families ... as do others. The BKWSU was also quoted saying "it happens". They think it is "a minority thing". The families involved do not. So it is evidenced and a valid part of the dialogue.

The BKs do have "cultic" aspects and their beliefs are extreme as documented, e.g. 5,000 Cycle of time, failed predictions of Destruction, followers beliefs in becoming heavenly god etc .... so I cant see the issue here.

Incidentally, The Peace and Purity author Liz Hodgkinson is a real tabloid journalist (The Sun etc), should we exclude her and her book on that basis? its ridiculous to try and exclude this part of the BKWSU's story. I say keep both and accept things as they are. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 14:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid your taunts are wasted on me. The Daily Mail is a tabloid newspaper in journalism as well as design - this is widely accepted in Britain. To put it in the same category as the Guardian and Independent is pathetic. The Sun often have more than one journalist working on a story, so I don't know what point you prove there. But rather than me or you deciding on this, I'd like a neutral editor (neither of us are) to actually read the Daily Mail article and judge for themselves what the context of it is. As for Liz Hogkinson - I'm sure you'll agree her book is not tabloid in writing style. So where she used to work doesn't mean squat. If you don't understand why your comment about her is ridiculous, I can break it down in more simple terms if you need me to. Appledell (talk) 19:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The Mail is not on a par with The Sun and Daily Sport either. It occupied the middle ground and is aimed at ABC1 with family readership (in short, no bare breasts, sex line ads and less football pages ... as we understand as *tabloid* to mean).

My point was that it was a chief editor. They were writing about a multi-millionaire, barrister and first lady; and so therefore they would have covered themselves extremely well with reliable sources before going to print in order to avoidbeing sued [38] [39]. It was not some "Freddy Starr Ate My Hamster" or "B-47 Found on the Moon" story. Obviously BOTH "family" and "tabloid" have their prejudicial POVs and so I have proposed a neutral alternative on the page ... newspaper. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Can I re-iterate my request for a neutral editor/admin to look at this Daily Mail article? Lucy - to say the Daily Mail is a tabloid is not POV - and is entirely relevant to the context with which it is being referenced. I can't believe you *genuinely* don't understand that it is within the context of the British newspaper industry, but maybe you just have a different understanding. Like I said, I'd like someone other than the two of us to determine this. Appledell (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that this is the only type of press the BKWSU generally manages to give rise to in the mainstream press. Even broadsheets have lightweight articles in them. Even The (British) Times, a "newspaper of record" has recently given itself to publishing pictures of attractive, bare-breasted, young women under the guise of "fashion" articles, previous the exclusive domain of the British "tabloids". It would be naive to suggest that they were not meant for male sexual titillation.

The Daily Mail does not. It is a family newspaper. Personally, I do not share its politics, which are center-right, but my objection is that the use of the word "tabloid" is pejorative and unless a reader knows the significant difference between Associated Newspapers titles and the red tops like the The Sun. To quote the publisher, "It is a compact newspaper that dominates the middle market for national newspapers. A family paper with strong female readership, it has won many awards for editorial flair, outstanding reporting, design and print quality."

My further objection would be that the intent of unnecessarily labeling it as a tabloid (proper) is designed to discredit the points of views dutifully recorded within the article and remove them. For me, those records are a valid part of the discussion around this group and its activities and are common amongst those that put families first. You note that the quotes within the family newspaper are written from a family's concern.

The point is ... can we accept that the newspaper fulfilled its duty of care and professional responsibility, and is it easily checkable? In this case, the answer is a resounding "yes". Those are real people and real quote. The compromise is messy, inaccurate and unnecessary. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 05:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Whilst I continue to be amazed at your interpretation of the Daily Mail, let me re-iterate again - can we have an independent editor/admin give their views on this? Thanks Appledell (talk) 07:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Golo

I make a note about Golo. The initiative for the trust and the solar energy stuff did not come from BKWSU. The BKWSU did not set out to do what happened and instructed it, it just accepted it with open hands when it came about. I do not see why he should not have credit. I will dig out the references, they exist within technical discussion, e.g. non-cultic renewable energy websites/papers.

Again, if the BKWSU wished to assert their version, please show us the evidence for it. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I checked. Wolfgang Scheffler (Scheffler concentrator) is not a BKWSU member and it was his concept/design. Neither were ICNEER, Gadhia Solar (Deepak Gadhia), or HTT GmbH (Guenther Schmitt). The German government gets a credit too for funding (from GATE) ... To be honest, I think this whole issue is moot. To suggest that the BKWSU is "about" promoting renewable energy is ridiculous, they just lucked out with a near to free cooking system donated. So, do we credit everyone involved?

Appledell, can you tell us how much money the German and Indian Governments have put in by now? I read the Indian Gov is funding at a rate of 50% now. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 15:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh look - more anti BK taunts. There's a surprise. Maybe you've forgotten that your (or my) opinion doesn't mean squat on wikipedia. You're welcome to rant away on your website. There is a perfectly good BBC reference connecting Golo and the BKs. The ref will therefore stay. Appledell (talk) 19:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No, Appledell, I was being entirely genuine. Let's document things fairly and accurately. Find and stick to facts. The solar system was designed and constructed in partnership with the inventor and funding was from public sources.

Is there any disagree with the facts, e.g. individuals and entities that I have present above? All I am arguing is, no to overworking the PR angle and, yes to crediting those due credit. Is that unreasonable? --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 20:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be unwilling to give the BKs any credit in this - which is the *angle* I object to. Appledell (talk) 16:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Give them the due they deserve but only that due. Document the whole story. Why exclude the others credit? It was a partnership. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 05:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Did we have any objections to naming the inventor and funding partners in this aspect? --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Links

[edit] Reachout Trust

The link to the ReachOut Trust report currently comes under the banner "non BK". Their report of the BKs is critical - unsurprising, considering the aim of the trust is to "Examine in the light of the Christian gospel the beliefs and spirituality of people within the cults, occults, new age and all not upholding to biblical truth". If a link to their report is to be kept (I'm not entirely sure why it should), should it not be made clear that the link is to a Critical site? Can an admin comment on this? Appledell (talk) 17:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rick Ross article

Further to Reachout Trust link above, the Rick Ross link would be more appropriate if it was under the header "Critical links", rather than just "non BK" - which give them the veneer of neutrality. Again, based on the Rick Ross website's own aims, which say it studies "destructive cults, controversial groups and movements" - it's hardly a website without an agenda (again, I query the pretty flimsy article of the BKs that is actually linked to as being given undue weight). Again, would appreciate the thoughts of an admin or other neutral editor. Appledell (talk) 17:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

One of the issues Cult free world, who I have been directly but politely critical of their choice in username, did bring back to the article was that the BKWSU had unmistakably been listed as a cult or even destructive sect in a number of governments' documents. I make no judgement on that but it is a fact of public record.

Therefore, the individuals can quote this fairly as a reliable source and not personal opinion. I have no prejudice against the Christian religion and the testimony of the individual appears to me to be reasonable enough.

I am sorry but in general I think your edits are being deliberately discrediting of any non-BK sources be they newspapers, individuals or other groups rather than chosing the neutral option.

I attempted to find a balance between the two POV on The Daily Mail, neuutralising it to newspaper and allowing the reader to decide. I tidied up a few formatting errors and returned the URL to one quote.

As a historical note to new editors, one of the reason that this article is so heavily and explicitly referenced is the vigor that the pro-BKWSU side has put in to challenge all and any statements that have made on this topic. It has appeared to non-BK editors that working in tandem one would remove a quotation and then later the statement would be removed as well because it was not supported. Diffs by request. Although I am not suggesting this was conscious nor orchestrated, the end result has been the same. Hence their existence.

And whichever BK editors you are referring to have ensured that this article is far better for their persistence. Remember the days when the innane ramblings of 244 created a heavily anti-BK article? Maybe you weren't around then :) You see to be completely ignoring the vigor of the anti-BK editor/s here. I wonder why that is? Appledell (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, I think "non-" is fine, or have no sub-sections. Give the independent reader the credence to make up their own opinion. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'd like the opinion of a neutral editor/admin on this. But thanks for your thoughts on this. Appledell (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, all (may be most of them!!) non BKWSU site's are critical, as per BK standard, it does not make any difference, as long as links to those sites are present in the article. if they are non BKWSU or anti/critical to BKWSU, wikipedia is not going to decide that, let reader's decide it.--Cult free world (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I'd like the view of a neutral editor on this, Cult Free World. :) Also, can someone explain why the Rick Ross article has been decided upon as being worthy of inclusion? Appledell (talk) 17:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

And why not ? --Cult free world (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the question should be "Why should it?". The external links policy on Wikipedia says external links have to be justified - no-one has done that as far as I can see. The onus isn't on me to say why it shouldn't be linked. But as you ask: the article is not a news report, but contains lots of personal (derogatory) commentary from the writer. Appledell (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

If you feel there is something which is added in the article which is not as per WP:RS kindly point out the variation, it should be removed, but i feel input from a well know (and respectable for its neutrality) source, does comply with wp policies, and still if you feel that statement from a third party source is not acceptable for Brahma Kumari article, you need to place sufficient convincing arguments for its removal, till that happens, third party view should be present in an encyclopedia article. --Cult free world (talk) 06:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to having a third party article being linked to. My issue is why this article? The person who originally put up the link to it did it without any explanation on this page. That is required as part of wikipedia links policy, as I understand it. As for neutrality - the Rick Ross institution is clearly not "neutral" (it's a 'cult' bashing organisation - read its own explanation on the "about us" bit of their website). But like I said before, I'd like the view of a neutral editor on this issue, but thanks for your opinion. Appledell (talk) 07:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Can we link both these objections together as, say, "BKWSU objections"'. It makes more sense than to post to the same person on different parts of the page.

I read the article and also looked at the definition of tabloid on the Wikipedia, which I think is very well reasoned. Interestingly, whilst Le Monde, The Guardian and other are featured, the article makes a point of the form of "compact" newspapers, as mentioned above AND separates the "blacktops" (naming specifically The Daily Mail) from the "redtops" which is what people think of when one writes tabloid, see; [40]. It has an ABC1 readership of 66%, case closed I think. The compromise on the topic looks terrible. Its typical of the type of compromise one reads on the wiki. "Newspaper" is the neutral option, the topic is not about the Daily Mail.

With regards the Pete Daley article, which I read for the first time, I think it is a very comprehensive article, perfectly accurate and highlight a number of important issues. In fact, the BKWSU themselves released a note about the erroneous claims being about leader Janki Kripalani (most stable mind in the world etc) telling centers not to do so.

You have a real person reporting in their own name for accountability, a site with expertise in the specialist field albeit representing one side of the debate, you have a named newspaper, you have positive quotes from the subject themselves, e.g "Mr. James did admit to exaggerating his resume in the past", and a quick search on google suggests that Lee james is an internationally important individual within the BKWSU organization.

Honestly, I think it is time to let go, leave the article be and start work on subsidiary articles going into depth on specific areas. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 11:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

*Sigh* Can I repeat - let's have the view of an impartial editor on this (this is not an attack against you, I'm glad orderinchaos lifted your ban). You are mis-reading the wikipedia entry on tabloid - it is clear in that entry that the Daily Mail (and the Express) both come under the journalistic reference of a tabloid even though they are "black tops". Also, check out the first line of the wikipedia entry for the Daily Mail. Appledell (talk) 14:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Rick Ross is neutral as far as Bramha Kumari is concerned, till one does not accept, that it is indeed a cult.!! They do not bash any or all organization's, till it is not proven that the group is involved in mind control and other form of psychological terrorism, such as brainwashing etc. their study is well established and is based on some hard facts and un-deniable proof's, in essence, opinion of a group which deals with similar kind of organization and has a proven track record about the subject (cult's) cannot be omitted from an encyclopedia article, is BK a cult ? well, WP:RS say's it is, hence Rick Ross view about BK is paramount to this article.--Cult free world (talk) 12:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of your view - thanks. Now, can any neutral editor post their thoughts? Appledell (talk) 13:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who is not in sync with your POV is non-neutral, otherwise are !! :)--Cult free world (talk) 15:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly ... can you deal with the tabloid issue Cult free? I am finished for the day. "Tabloid" is just deliberately misleading. The Mail is not equal to The Sun. I am not stupid Appledell. There is the technical use of the word tabloid, i.e. to describe the size of the paper and the pejorative use of the word, to describe a different sort of paper to the Mail, e.g. National Enquirer, The Sun etc. You are confusing the first to ascribe the values of the second.

If there is a disagreement over the Daily Mails status, then why can we not restrict ourselves to the utterly neutral without the slur? At least we are agree it is a newspaper. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 15:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Whether you are stupid or not is not for me to say. Let me repeat - for the final time for anyone who still doesn't get it - neither me, nor the two of you (Lucy, Cult) are really neutral. I was hoping for someone like Orderinchaos to take a look at my objections and give some comments. It's not unreasonable. I honestly accept I might be making a lot out of nothing - but I think I have a point and I don't think the two of you are the best people to adjudicate on it (and just to be clear, neither am I). This article is looking pretty good - we're nearly there...hang in there :)Appledell (talk) 19:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Input from everyone should be considered, there is no point in rejecting one view, just because of user name, i understand, it is diffi(cult), but give it a try ! --Cult free world (talk) 05:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't rejected your view, I've just said I wanted a neutral view. Try and keep up. :) Appledell (talk) 10:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tabloid

it's not just tabloid in format - as the wikipedia entry on tabloid itself makes clear

Justify this.--Cult free world (talk) 10:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Read the wikipedia entry for "tabloid". You might also want to read the wikipedia entry for "daily mail". And if you don't understand, then there's not much more I can do - other than wait for a neutral editor to come along. Regards Appledell (talk) 11:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It appears as if you are not even willing to discuss the matter with anyone who is not in sync with your POV, (i.e non-neutral!!), anyway, i will stick with the rules, I have already gone through with wp articles you have referred, and came up with that solution, that Daily Mail is a tabloid in format only, you need to provide some reference in accordance with WP:RS which justifies your stand that Daily Mail is not just tabloid in format. --Cult free world (talk) 11:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I refer you to the previous answer I gave you. Appledell (talk) 11:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok kindly allow me to put what is stated there...

1. tabloid:- A tabloid is a newspaper industry term which refers to a smaller newspaper format per spread the image used in that page has Daily Mail !!!

2. The Daily Mail:- The Daily Mail is a British newspaper, a tabloid, first published in 1896 - Britain's second biggest-selling daily newspaper.

Now kindly explain where to find the reference and verify the claim, that it is not just tabloid in format --Cult free world (talk) 12:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

If you look under the section that says "As a sensational, gossip-filled newspaper" in the Tabloid wikipedia article, you will see that it includes the Daily Mail and the Express as examples of tabloid (in journalism style) newspapers that are "black tops". One of the criteria of qualifying as a tabloid (in journalism style) is to what extent a newspaper has an entrenched political position that has a heavy influence on its news agenda. The Daily Mail is one such paper. Orderinchaos says that both our versions are acceptable - so it comes down to how entrenched we are in terms of keeping the term "tabloid" or not. I'm clear it *has* to be inclulded as it gives context to the other quotes that are referred to in the article under that section. Appledell (talk) 14:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Read that page again! :) --Cult free world (talk) 14:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts on it are that both versions are acceptable and neutral enough (the first line of the Daily Mail article says "tabloid" quite clearly, so it's not strictly necessary to say it in the BK article, but to use it to provide context isn't a problem especially as we're only talking about one word). The issue here is really only whether it's duplication to have it here or not. Personally I think it's helpful to have as international readers might not know what the Daily Mail is and not be interested enough to click the link to find out, but either with or without is entirely acceptable. Orderinchaos 12:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - based on that, is everyone ok if we keep "tabloid" in? I know Lucy is a firm internationalist :) By the way, Orderinchaos, it's my version - rather than "the BK one". I only speak for myself. I'm sure you wouldn't say "the anti-BK one" when referring to Lucy or Cult's version. :) Appledell (talk) 14:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood - I was using BK as shorthand for this article. Fixed the wording to clarify. Orderinchaos 14:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Got it...gosh, how sensitive must I sound? :) As you are here, would you also be able to contribute your thoughts on the external links discussion (Rick Ross, cult institute) above too? Appledell (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Would really appreciate if you can add FREE also when you are referring to me, you can omit the "WORLD" however, as of now. ;) --Cult free world (talk) 15:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem, Cult Free :) Appledell (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I rather prefer "faux broadsheet", as used in the "barf" edit, which captures its essence far better. But having said that, surely any Texan IP address editing on the BKWSU topic is definitely not a reliable source! I fixed the confusion over formats on the Daily Mail page as well and added a reference. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 16:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

"faux broadsheet" is just a bit poncy, isn't it? :) Appledell (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Posh, perhaps. Like I said, it captures the essence of the The Mail. I mean, it does city and international news, it aspires to being conservative and "British". Actually, it is does more reporting/promoting of alternative health/therapy type subjects than other papers. But it is a distinctive cut above the red tops, aka tabloids. There is really no need to be constantly diminishing everything non-BKWSU. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 14:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Erm, thanks. But we'll stick with tabloid. Appledell (talk) 09:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

Whilst I still question a couple of the links - would still like neutral editor/admin comment on them - I have amended the wording on the external links. It now matches the links wording in the Scientology article, which some editors here are so fond of referring to. I personally think it makes the nature of the links clearer. I also think there is an argument for having a third category - neutral/independent articles/sites. I wonder if some of the academic papers that are cited as refs could be pointed to for this? Maybe it's not necessary. Appledell (talk) 10:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It does not make sense. Surely "a BK source" is a BK source and means it is from the BKs whether it is propagandistic or critical. Ditto you cannot say all of brahmakumaris.info is critical because a large part is purely informative and it has a strong, or regular, BK and PBK following.

Again, readers are not stupid, so let them decide. "Official" and "Independent" or "Third Party" would be non-POV (but perhaps third party is 'too high' again for general readership? I am not sure it is in common use in the USA? Why not just leave things as they are now? I think it is fairly complete now and representative. You cant argue that either "The Gyan" (knowledge) or details of the lifestyle is incorrect or unreferenced. And with the Rick Ross link, it is a good counter point to the "official" publicity. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 14:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Let neutral editor/admin make changes in the article as well. --Cult free world (talk) 05:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Cult Free...I'm happy to abide by the thoughts of neutral editor/admin on this issue. If a reader is looking for critical information (and that of course is a v legitimate thing to want to know), then it's helpful to make it easier for them to find it. While appreciate you may have links with Brahmakumaris.info, while some of the information on it is undoubtedly useful, it doesn't negate the fact that its editorial line is critical (even leaving aside the forum, which is only one part of the website). I wouldn't waste your time trying to dispute that. But I'm sure you will :) Appledell (talk) 09:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I was asked for my opinion on my talk page, and I think the section is alright as it currently is (I just renamed "External Links" to "External links", per WP:EL#External links section). And I apologize for reverting, I was using huggle, and it's sometimes hard to differentiate between large scale changes and vandalism. I'm sure the same happened to Voyagerfan. · AndonicO ^Hail! 10:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks for coming by. Appledell (talk) 11:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Please, keep it neutral and non-POV. Let the readers decided. I was not sure why we kept the Peace Village link. In an earlier incarnation Bksimonb nominated its own page for deletion as non-notable etc. That does not seem to have changed. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 08:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem about Peace Village link. But the links wording we don't agree on. One neutral editor says they preferred the version where it said "critical links". I can ask others to come along a comment too if you like. But the two of us won't resolve it (as usual). Appledell (talk) 09:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, "critical" is POV. They may actually be objective. To constantly label them as critical smacks of persecution complex. Again, I think keep it neutral and allow the read to decide.

I mean ... how would you feel it I labeled the BKWSU ones as "Propagandistic" or "PR" sites? --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 10:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Critical is not POV - it's actually informative to the reader in this instance. Don't worry...hopefully another neutral editor/admin will come along for their thoughts. Again, I accept I might be making too much of it, but I don't think I am. Appledell (talk) 12:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

In that case start thinking ! --Cult free world (talk) 13:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I think "critical" is fine, but the term "critical links" makes little sense. (To an English purist it sounds like the links are criticising the sites to which they belong! :) I looked over at Sc. and their editors seem to have found a better solution, so I copied theirs. I also copied "Official" from that article, but I note others have a range of things.

Pro - "Authorised", "Official"
Anti - "Critical resources", "Alternate views", "Dissenting views" (don't really like that one due to the normativity implied by it), the ubiquitous "Other sites".

(IMO "views" in this context is confusing, as sites don't have a view, rather the expression of their owner's view in a particular way - be it through source documents, writings, a forum, etc - so I think "sites" or "resources" is better.)

Some sites don't distinguish at all and have all links under "External links" (Transcendental Meditation and Seventh-day Adventists). Orderinchaos 00:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Great - thanks for pitching in again. Appledell (talk) 11:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I notice Lucy and Cult Free are still not happy. Your versions will not stick, as much as you might want to try. Two independent/admin editors have already said they think "critical" is acceptable. If you don't like it - bring in other independent editors to add to the discussion. Otherwise, it's just our own POVs, which clearly won't get us very far. Appledell (talk) 13:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

How b'ut Alternate informative views ? sounds neutral ? critical is a POV push, mostly cult member's want to advertise any neutral information as critical which it is not !! (Experience on wikipedia!!) have a look at my contributions for proof's. :) this is generic (neutral=>critical) what makes u feel that I am not neutral as for BK’s ?

--Cult free world (talk) 14:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Critical is not POV in this instance as I have explained earlier. Your message makes is perfectly clear where your POV lies. Appledell (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

May be you would like to explain more about my POV, from my side, just authentic information!! btw what is your objection to Alternate informative views i have stated mine to critical links, it discredits the information and label’s it as critical which it may NOT. i feel Alternate informative views is more balance and just. --Cult free world (talk) 14:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, for a start, you've just alluded to me being a "cult member". I've already stated my views on why it should stay as "critical" - feel free to read further up. We both have POVs on opposite sides to this issue - which is why I brought in independent editors to give their views. They both said critical was acceptable. That is how we are going to proceed. Bring in other independent editors if you like. If they have other views, I'm happy to listen to what they have to say. Appledell (talk) 14:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

One editor whom YOU called changed L to l, and other presented options, out of which I feel Alternate informative views is best. It is we who disagree, and anyone who come up with an option should vent in some time here in discussion, so that, concerns of all parties involved is considered, reach a conclusion and then edit the article. I have read you argument in support of critical and i disagree... :), so there is no consensus as of now, lets stick to the rules and keep our options of common sense open. BTW where have I alluded you to be "cult member" I agree labeling information against the cult as critical, is symptom of that disease (cult control) only, which i have noticed as per my experience of wikipedia but this is very personal view and is highly ignorable. :) Do you feel BK is a mind controlling cult ? please present your argument as why Alternate informative views is not acceptable to you ? --Cult free world (talk) 16:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Because I don't think "informative" is an acceptable term in reference to those sites. What is common about those sites is that they all have a critical editorial line against the BKs - whether they are informative or not. Naturally, I am biased. I'm happy to admit it. That's why I asked for independent, neutral editors to come in and give their opinions. Two of them have. I'm not stopping you from doing the same. The more indepedent editors that get involved with this article the better. I don't consider you to be in that category (neither is Lucy - and I'm happy to repeat again - am I). Appledell (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean "uninformed" editors rather than independent, don't you? They all see quite objective to me and there is no need to push slurs on others ... --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 08:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I mean what I said - independent editors. I can admit my bias and am taking constructive action to try and negate it. Thanks Appledell (talk) 08:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

When you admit that your edits are not neutral, why are you editing the article ? Please refer WP:NPOV --Cult Free 08:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cult free world (talk • contribs)

The problem is on a topic like this that most neutral editors (myself included) aren't going to be able to contribute to any great depth, simply due to a lack of understanding/knowledge of the topic (my expertise is in politics and geography generally...) So most editors will be non-neutral, it's whether a balance can be effected between them that is always the issue. Orderinchaos 10:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

As orderinchaos says, it's next to impossible to find any genuinely neutral editor to work in depth on an article like this. I'm trying to foster a sense of reality about this by admitting my own bias. Hence, I am tring to get the help of admin/non-involved editors to come by and help out. With the issue of the wording of the links section, I think it is something they can help with (as with the "tabloid" issue) as it does not require in-depth knowledge of the subject matter, just a good overview of best practise for wikipedia. Appledell (talk) 19:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

At times we need to be brutally honest, especially when we are in public domain, as whatever we say, will be scrutinized thoroughly, and lies cannot remain hidden anymore, as in case of murli’s, I had the opportunity of listening to some of them, for example, in one such talk (video available!!) it is stated that “bapdada” teaches “Raja Yoga”, for those who are under hallucination they will not find any thing absurd in such statements, but for someone who is student of science and has explored ocean of Hindu philosophy and has analyzed critically thoughts of great philosopher’s like Kapil muni, BK’s thoughts will sound childish to say the least. But everything has a reason for its existence, evil exists only to make us realize the divine. But if due to intoxication or hallucination, evil appears as divine, no-one can help, what these cults claim, does exist, a thousand fake cannot deny one truth. Manipulation is wrong.

Once again i put forth my concern in labeling informative links as critical, they are not critical for neutral observer's, but informative, just change your plain of vision, you will feel the difference, those links are not critical but informative, and hence labeling them as critical is wrong!! --talk-to-me!! (talk) 06:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent job of revealing your POV...well done Cult free/Talk to me :) Appledell (talk) 07:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

So now, can we replace the critical sites with informative sites ? --talk-to-me! (talk) 12:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Critical is not a POV - it's simply an observation in an article about the group that the articles or sites take a critical stance towards BK. Worth pointing out here that critical does not necessarily mean negative - I once did a Philosophy unit at uni called "Critical Thinking" and on this site by UNSW, one can see a similar use of it. It *can* mean negative, and is quite able to accommodate both. Informative is ambiguous in this instance and could be easily mistaken for a content judgement or rating. (I can see what you mean by it though - as in a site which provides information, which is not inherently a judgemental observation - it's just it would confuse even me if I were to see it without knowing the context of this discussion.) Orderinchaos 14:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If we cant agree on an entirely neutral heading, then I am going to sit this one out. As stated, my position is to take an entirely neutral position on the links and allow the readers to make their own minds up.

I do not think that the intent of the non-official sources is "criticism" and I do think, on the basis of the history between the groups and others, that the intention of the BKWSU here is to discredit others. Sadly, only a minority of individuals are at an 'academically critical' level or thought, e.g. prepared to think the unthinkable, without position, in order to achieve a greater understanding of the whole.

I am always deeply saddened when discussion is dragged down to a subjective level, or "the subjective" is used as a argumentative ruse, e.g. "that's you way you see it" or accusations of "POV". We should set aside personal interest and allow objectivity to rule as much as possible. Such argument 'is' at a tabloid level where a lie told a thousands times becomes a truth and followers are fed a language to use.

In this case, objectively, I have always underlined that the confusion over the use of the term Raja Yoga is damaging to both parties, those following the classical path and the BKWSU by usurping its title. If you start something new, give it a new name. Its not quite moral that the leaders now go about registering what they consider their own trademarks but purloining others that, due to ancient traditions or spiritual principles, do not trademark. You could add all of the Hindu terms that they have taken such a list. It is unfairly confusing to non-adherents and individuals without any background in Vedanta. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 06:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. But "critical resources" stays. The rest is just noise. Appledell (talk) 12:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally i came across another version of Raja Yoga, which an Indian court says promotes incest behavior. Now imagine thoughts of a person who has understood only classic Raja Yoga of Patanjali. Wikipedia is an open forum, where *just* information should be presented which is authentic, promoting a groups version must not be allowed. labeling any information as critical is not justified to say the least, it is informative and should be stated such. --talk-to-me! (talk) 07:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

There does not seem to be any mention of Raja Yoga or "Marga" in the topic or linked court paper ... I think that making broad unreferenced inferences does not help your position, nor this discussion and you are headed way off the topic with this line of thought. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 08:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I am referring to the reference provided for sahaj marg, if you view the groups website, it also teaches Raja Yoga which is in absolute contradiction to BK's version of Raja Yoga as well as patanjali's Raja Yoga. What do they get by these antic's ? --talk-to-me! (talk) 12:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Subtle link change again

I am watching the subtle change made on the link to PBKs.info.

Isn't "Shivbaba" the name given to the individual who is making them? I mean, it is just HIndi for 'benevolent father' and the BKWSU has not have applied for a trademark on that yet. India is full of Shivs and Babas, e.g. he works at Stanford [41] and is incorporated in Jackson, Florida [42].

So why downgrade this one? Isn't a little POV yet again? Am I wrong to say, let the reader decide again? --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 07:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I changed the link wording to make it clearer what it was pointing to. The original wording wouldn't have made much sense to an ordinary visitor to the page. I fail to see how it is POV. It's simpler and clearer. In actual fact, it will probably get more "click-throughs" because of it.Appledell (talk) 10:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moved section.

I am grateful for the new editor for highlighting the "God" section which, for such a central section, reads pretty poorly ... and definitely off into Hindu bhakti territory. I suggest it needs some work. There are duplications without other sections, contradictions to the given sources, non-BK language, inaccurate reflections of BK philosophy, non-referenced material and a mix up between between deities ...

This was how it was ... I cut it down to a minimum in the meanwhile.

" God (Shiva), addressed by most BKs "Shiv Baba" is considered to be an eternal soul, a personality like human souls, but the Supreme One (Paramatma) and "knowledgeful". His purpose is to awaken humanity and restore harmony, giving power through the Brahma Kumaris' practise of Raja Yoga, eliminating evil and negativity. He is not the creator of matter which is itself considered to be eternal.[6] He speaks through the mouth of Dada Lekhraj.[3] God is the destroyer of evil[38], or Ekambaranatha as He is usually called by BK and non-BK devotees. Like Lord Shiva, the BKs attempt to become great yogis as The Lord is Mahāyogi.[3] Lord Shiva is also known as "Shankara" meaning auspiciousness.[39] There is a BK faction known as the "Shankar Party". Although Lord Shiva is God Almighty in the BKWSU, Dada Lekhraj, the Brahma Baba is said to have had visions of Lord Vishnu also, one in of which, Vishnu says, "Thou art that", a well-known verse from the Chadogya Upanishad. [40] Brahma Baba further taught that everyone should visualize themselves as a "tiny star, a minute point, of invisible luminous energy that is the soul."[41] Those starts centered around Shiv Baba, who is the brightest luminary. Nearest of Shiv Baba, is Lord Krishna, followed by Goddess Laxmi. The superior beings wanted to 'explore' the physical world; Krishna and Laxmi went first, followed by other superior beings. The BKs believe that as Shiv Baba destroys the world through the Shankara avatar, through his Vishnu form He sustains it.[4] There is also a BK faction named the "Vishnu Party." " --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 17:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the above version did not read very well - I'm happy with your changes. Appledell (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Flagged up Special:Contributions/Auto Correct as a possible sock of Special:Contributions/Maleabroad (I know about these things) and reverted their edits. Misspelt summaries don't match edits, edits to match either BKWSU or academic opinion. Usual misplaced classical terminology and neo-Hindu propaganda. I think it is agreed that the BKWSU do not project themselves as "Hindu". They certainly have no rational connection with Patanjali etc. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I was searching for God in another cult and could not find it there, so i had to drop that section altogether, explaining God, as per definition of any group can be cumbersome exercise, just wanted to let you know about the challenges you might face while defining God. :) --talk-to-me! (talk) 09:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Defining God may well be problematic. Defining the BK view on God is easier and not that difficult. Appledell (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I replaced the karma section in the obvious position with a formatted reference. It was really an oversight on my behalf to remove it. I think more could be said about the BKs particular implementation but do not have any suitable references at hand. I removed "Hindu" because, strictly speaking, BK do not consider themselves Hindu per se.

Added references re funding and extended solar energy section. Hope it reads fair too. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 04:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC).

I've added a line to it. Think that bit reads well now. Appledell (talk) 19:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Two "pioneers" in one line reads very 'clumsy' and unnecessary. The previous statement reflects the truth better. "It has been the beneficiary of pioneering work ..." is more accurate.

May be after the bit about Golo's et al pioneering work, add "which was adopted by the governing body" or something. The impetus came from outside the trust/leadership/god. The funding and cash savings more than likely swung the deal. Would they have adopted it if it was NOT funded or cost more ... I doubt it. It is run by the accountant, isn't it? Is the BKWSU "about" clean energy or saving the planet? ... no way. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 06:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - as always. But, in case I've not made it clear in the past, your opinion has never held much interest for me :) Lets stick to what's verifiable. Happy with your amendment - I've added one word to the start of it "work". Appledell (talk) 10:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmn, I read back over the edits I made and, no, those look like fair objective and well-referenced statements. And I am proud to give the individuals in question their credit due. Do you have any evidence to suggest the opposite? --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 05:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm "happy with your amendment". I've added one word, that's all. Take a chill pill. Appledell (talk) 08:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External Links wording

I've amended wording slightly on external websites that are being linked to. I think they changes better reflect what is being linked to. Appledell (talk) 10:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone want to check what the policy is on this? My guess it is that links alone are fine without the spindoctoring or attempts to play them down. But I fixed one and made them all the similar in the meanwhile. Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 05:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If in doubt, accuse of spindoctoring and PR whitewash, heh? I guess some things never change. But I agree - more than happy for other neutral editors to give their views on this. The wording of the links is not subjective, but informative and accurate - in my humble opinion of course (I'm aware of the irony of that last statement). And thanks for fixing and making similar - credit where its due. Appledell (talk) 08:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Critical" links

This has been discussed above - I've put it back as it fits the description of all the websites under that sub-heading. We've had this discussion before and had valuable input from impartial, independent editors/admin and lets stick by the result of that (which was that "critical links" was indeed acceptable). Appledell (talk) 08:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we settle with Other Links, not defining the nature of links and allow, those who wish to follow the links take it as critical or informative or what-ever!! It sounds much neutral to me. --talk-to-me! (talk) 09:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

"Other" is a little meaningless. We've had this debate about "critical links" before - see discussion above. Feel free to bring in other neutral editors for their thoughts though, they are always welcome. Appledell (talk) 09:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it matters much though... but i still feel Other is more neutral then Critical, we should not feed meanings but state that what is available, Critical sounds more of a POV, Other's does not !--talk-to-me! (talk) 10:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Great - if you dont think it matters much, then we can stick with the result of the earlier discussion. Thanks Appledell (talk) 10:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I will not push in for that, but will state for sure, that it is not as neutral as Other would have been :)--talk-to-me! (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

"Critical" *is* neutral. Added to that, it accurately describes each website that is linked to. That helps the casual reader. That's a good thing. Appledell (talk) 16:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I at least agree with talk-to-me, so the consensus is not with you Appdell. It is for me to judge? My vote is leave is to neutral. ––Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 02:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not surprised you agree - as it was you that made the change without discussion in the first place (knowing full well it had been discussed already). Bring in other neutral editors for their input then. That's what I did originally - and they said critical links was fine. So it stays until you can find others to chip in to the debate. You are not railroading this through, sorry. Regards. Appledell (talk) 10:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately i do not see any railroading, Critical is judgmental, while Other is more open, this is how we can move closer to WP:NPOV--talk-to-me! (talk) 16:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No, you're wrong. Re-read the earlier discussion. In fact, re-read the message Orderinchaos directed at you specifically about this. "Critical" IS WP:NPOV. BTW, I used "railroading" because Lucy made the change without discussing it here - knowing it was a contentious change and also knowing that it had been discussed before. Appledell (talk) 23:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Beliefs they hold

Religious Members Argue that their religion is beneficial or great as their thought process has been swayed to think so.

When someone says anything with enough passion or has authority or is able to teach one to think in an irrational manner this can change ones thought process. Low self esteem can make this persuasion easier.

If we lived a life of where we think everyone is nasty then our manner feelings and response will change according. If you have ever user the London underground, people avoid eye contact. why ? prob because when we were younger we were told "never to talk to stringers!!" in a way which we thought "Yes ok i must never do that" at least in some shape or form it was taken on board.

Most times people are actually okay to have a casual conversation. However sometimes people give you the look that your after their life.

Bks have certain believes, such as eating food prepared from non-member or spending time with non-members will influence them and make them "impure". Bk members talk about their "stage" this refers to become 16'oC pure("stage" to normal people refers to mental health & wellbeing). They keep their "stage" good by "Doing" (or in most cases Not doing) X Y Z. e.g eating food made by jo blogs will make their stage go down. however this is just a belief instilled that will result in them feeling depressed.... then they will say see this is proof, my experience was such so it must be true, which is associated learning / classical condition. you can make a dog salivate to a Light bold. with enough time and practise a philosophy/ believe can become reality. This is why bks say it take time to "understand".

I have tried to make this as Rational and friendly as possible, i don’t know if i have done this correctly. This is not an argument for or against. but demonstrating that we can be taught and be introduced to Concepts into our lives that does not allow harmony with society and ourselfs. Fluctuation of “stage” is in your hands not in the hands of a universal law. As bks tend to believe.

This is something which is generic to control mechanism, association with outside people lead to information from external prospective, which will eventually lead to a broader view point about the subject, and hence is condemned inherently in cultist methodological concepts.--talk-to-me! (talk) 19:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Relative to Hindu belief, I replaced an edited and clean up-ed version of the edit removed by Appledell regarding the use of Hindu concepts and the entirely different meaning because this is a point supported broadly in the literature written about the BKs. Of course, to the BKs, their interpretation is the right one.

There is considerable conflict between, e.g. the charity registration documents which state they were constituted to "promote Hinduism" and the channelled messages/belief system which says the intellects of all the Hindu bhagats are all "impure" and "unself-realised", there is no benefit but only downfall within Hinduism etc ... and so I think it is entirely valid and fair comment to include within the controversy section of the article. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 07:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Critical sites"

Orderinchaos asked someone to step in and look over the latest issue (should it say "critical links" or "other links"?) Based on the above discussion, and, yes, my own review of the sites within the section, I have changed it to "other sites". Critical can have two meanings - the meaning Orderinchaos mentioned above (as in "critical thinking") or the more common negative way - "critical" implies "opposed to". A quick review of the sites within the section doesn't suggest they exist solely to oppose BKWSU in some way. They may contain such content, but not exclusively. Given the negative implications of the term "critical", "other" appears a more neutral term to use. Neıl ☎ 11:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Each of the links you talk about goes to a page that is critical of the BKs - in both senses of the term. It is surely irrelevant what else is on those sites if the *actual* page being linked to is the one that is at issue and being referred to (eg the article hosted on the Rick Ross website)? Am I missing something here? But anyway - I appreciate you dropping by and making the change. I'd be interested in your thoughts on the actual sites in question - do they all deserve to be linked to? I have my own thoughts on this, which are a little irrelevant due to by inherent bias, but would be interested to hear what you have to say (and orderinchaos for that matter). Appledell (talk) 17:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems fair enough. I think the IP editor (124.168.174.230) did not get that the consultant term for Rick Ross was not so much a judgement on his standing (which should be argued out on that topic page) but merely a link to a specific article. Not sure it needs to be explicitly spelt out either. Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 01:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to re-word it, just that this defination was something that we agreed upon on RickRoss page!! and i agree that we don't need to explain RR here, a link is enough. --talk-to-me! (talk) 06:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I went for the 'compromise' position and toned it down just a little. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 09:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Skbhat's edit

I am replacing Skbhat's edit removed by Appledell. I am perfectly aware as a BK supporter, Appledell is going to pretty much remove or challenge anything I support or add. This ding-dong takes us right back to the start of the BKs involvement where all and every word was basically challenged by them, even thought it was all true. (Hence the extensively referenced article we have now). But I think it is also fair that other voices have some input, will defend them where accurate and consider the persistent revision deliberately provocative.

The comment is accurate, especially related to the Indian experience of BKWSU, and supported in the writing of Kranenborg, Babb and to some extent Walliss, e.g. "The ideas concerning Shiva deviate considerably from what we encounter within Hinduism as a whole." --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 07:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

A short clarification for non-BK editors; the root of this dispute lies in the beliefs taught by the Brahma Kumaris that all of existence is limited a single, yet identically repeating, 5,000 year cycle renamed after the traditional Hindu "Kalpa". According the the BKs, Hinduism of the past 2,500 years is merely a limited and corrupt remembrance of their religion of the last 70 years, that the deities the Hindus worship are memorial of the Brahma Kumari leadership. This is not opinion, it is verbatim and well documented in the literature.

Obviously, to a traditional Hindu, this is ridiculous and the Brahma Kumaris are some offshoot development or corruption of Hinduism. The Brahma Kumaris use many of the major names, terminologies and titles of Hinduism but have entirely different meanings for them. Meanings which to the BKs are the correct ones whilst the Hindus are in "ignorance", "impure", or "unself-realised". Again specific terms are used.

In my opinion, the article should reflect a secular not the cultic view and, given that the Wikipedia is international (and India is widely English spoken), it is fair to include the traditional Hindu POV, and what might be considered controversial from it, where supported by the literature. I hope this clarifies my defence of the other editors contribution.--Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 09:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, just popping in briefly to say that my time here is over. You are free to do as you see fit Lucy. Appledell (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Hinduism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Guidelines: Manual of Style - Naming conventions How you can help: Notice board - Discussion board
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.