Talk:Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University/Archive07

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive

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
Current


Contents

The BKWSU IT team's response to Mediation request

I put in a request for mediation over the issue of using the BKWSU's own published material as being citable and referenceable. There appeared to be no point in entering into discuss or editing until this matter was resolved by a third party. I, of course, see no objection in using BKWSU produced material and indeed have requested the BKWSU IT team to produce even more for inclusion - only for the request to be ignored.

  • The Request for Mediation has been rejected due to the other editors refusing to participate. Could we just clarify what is going on here? Is it correct to say that none of the Brahma Kumaris that are engaged in re-writing this topic article in line with the organization's current PR were willing to accept third party mediation?

So, having tried that, the next step I am going to take is to put in a Request for Arbitration over the same issue.

In the meanwhile, there seems to be no point in engaging in repeating the citations and references already given on both the topic article and discussion page when the Brahma Kumaris editors are going to continue to ignore them. But, thank you Luis for confirming the channelling issue in the archived discussion, am I correct to say that gives others the green light to re-institute it into the topic?

  • Given your quoted academic use of Jagdish Chander's book "Adi Dev", does that mean that it is accepted by the other editors as a citable reference?

Thanks. 195.82.106.244 11:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


Dear .244,
Glad to see you are back!
It is interesting to note how none of your ex-bk supporters did not post their agreement. I wonder what is the matter with your team...
I would suggest next time to request for input in this page before you decide to do something. You are no longer the only one with unlimited access to this page, thus if you want to go on your own without requesting support or input... Be my guest.
As far as Chander. I have not quoted him. Walliss and other experts in this area with Ph.D degrees have. I have quoted them in turn. That is the way academia works and the way Wikipedia would like us to cite our reliable sources.
Be careful with your words about BK "PR." This is a fully researched material, non bias, written by experts in the field. One last thing, It seems that there is a tendency here to endlessly repeat what was stated before. I do not belong to the IT Team and... you cannot use BK material because: a) It is non reliable source (unless used by researchers) b) You are not a Brahma Kumaris member but antagonist to this organization and thus using it for your own purposes (to defame the institution)as stated by the Wikipedia policy about Reliability. c) You are not an expert in the field. Hope I will not repeat this again.
Best Wishes, avyakt7 14:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


Read what it says and stop avoiding the issue, "given your quoted academic use of Jagdish Chander's book "Adi Dev", does that mean that it is accepted by the other editors as a citable reference?". I appreciate that you have no intention of discussing these matters but I want your response recorded.
I am sorry but you are plain wrong in your prejudicial interpretation. Self-published sources are wholly acceptable, see; [1].
  • Firstly, the issue is "verifiability" when dealing with facts. A source need not be singularly academic. In case of opinion, fine; state the opposing schools of academic thoughts. But reported facts stand alone as long as the source is reputable and verifiable.
  • Secondly, one does not have to be a Brahma Kumari to record what has been published by Brahma Kumaris and as the Brahma Kumaris state that they have no official membership any way, your position is entirely moot. Such primary sources can be used to make "descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge" (see policy notes).
195.82.106.244 15:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


Dear .244,
Please go back to the archives. There we discussed the same issue. Please read your link fully. You are against Brahma Kumaris. You use Brahma Kumaris materials to show your animosity.Your BKINFO site is proof of that.Please do not repeat again what we talked before.
You either provide reliable cited resources by experts on the field or you simply cannot edit the article here. It is very simple.
Your membership is ABK (against Brahma Kumaris.) That is not moot. Just citations please, citations... don't try to find "loopholes" here. You have until Saturday before changes take place.
Best Wishes, avyakt7 16:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Use of repeated organized physical violence by BKs against PBKs

OK. It has taken considerable effort but I have an increasing number of referenced hospital and police reports from the Indian States of Haryana, Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Karnataka. These are primary sources but verifiable by date and reference number. Although, I agree, secondary sources are preferable, as they refer to current affairs according to Wiki policy they would be acceptable.

  • Is this agreeable to other editors?

Thank you.195.82.106.244 15:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear .244,
It seems that your are back with your animosity again. S here I go one more time:
Could you provide your citations? Wikipedia is not an obscure newspaper where you can place your "juicy gossips"..As far as I am concerned you have never provided any type of reliable resource for absolutely anything in this article.
Needs to be researched data by experts in this field.
  • No, this is not agreeable unless you have reliable sources. Best Wishes, avyakt7 16:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Different page for PBK

This wiki page is about BKWSU, there does not need to have so much information on the PBK'S, it only needs to be mentioned. This section should be removed JP

Dear JP,
Absolutely right on that one.
Best, avyakt7 18:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Channelling and mediumship

I want to discuss the re-institution of the references to channelling and mediumship.

Reference of this appears in documents by Howells, Wallis and Whaling, and naturally in the organization's own literature and "scriptures" called the Murlis. But it has been removed by the BK operating together to re-edit this article.

I can understand why the organization and its members would want to whitewash this out of the article, it does not go along with the current PR, UN status etc and might put individual off from engaging with its practises; but in all fairness the article would not be complete if it was not mentioned.

There would appear to be 5 elements to this;

  • The direct possession of Lekhraj Kirpalani by the entity since named after the Hindu God Shiva, aka Shiva Baba.
  • The mediumistic channelling of this entity through Kirpalani by way of speach and actions
  • The mediumistic channelling of this entity through a BK follower called Gulzar by way of speach and actions
  • The mediumistic channelling of Lekhraj Kirpalani through a BK follower called Gulzar by way of speach and actions
  • The mediumistic channelling of Shiva through BK followers

With respect to the last, I refer to the easily referenced and verifiable Sakar Murli dated 11/02/2003 where it says, "If you are sometimes confused reading out the Murli, Shiv Baba will come and speak the Murli. Then children [ BK followers] don't reven realise that Shiva Baba came and helped. You can't even tell if it is Shiva Bab speaking or Brahma Baba speaking. You should realise that Shiv Baba came and spoke the Murli."

Looking at the experts we have reference to "someone entering" Lekhraj Kirpalani, the "incarnation and descent into", channelling via Gulzar, a different voice speaking. Looking at Walliss and Chander we have reference to Kirpalani's eyes and body glowing red which in case there is any doubt has been helpfully pictorized by the organization in a promotional video here, [2]. The Murli references are endlessly clear, once we have an agreement on whether they constitute acceptable citations. This is all rather different, and more direct, than the fey "inspiration" the BKWSU are claiming in public now and the public has a right to know.

  • It is also an important difference to classic Raja Yoga and so central to BK faith and practise that it should be highlighted at the beginning of the article as before.

Luis, you have attempted to twist a fair and impartial statement regarding this channelled entity being "God" without providing any acceptable citation that it is actually "God" claiming that allegedly is a "weasel word". I wrote that the BKWSU "alledge" that the spiritual entity that is being channelled through Gulzar and Lekhraj is God. We cannot know that it is. Academically, it would not be widely accepted that it was. And so, I think that it is safe that we stick to "allegedly God" because the very specific concept the BKWSU has of God is so widely different from any other religion.

Your comments please. 195.82.106.244 15:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

re: meeting BapDada (the combined form of "God" Shiva and the spirit of the deceased Lekraj Kirpalani) via a medium at the organization's headquarters in India, I can also add Joachim Finger, 1999. As you know, the current season for BKs to personally listen and speak to "God" via the medium is currently going and so can one of you ask him what he thinks of this business and, especially, the PBKs? Thanks. 195.82.106.244 15:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to include the sentence about the difference between BK faith and classical Raja Yoga in the introduction. It can be mentioned under "controversies." HeBhagawan 13:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

40 years Confluence Age and the PBKs

I see someone has removed the reference to the predicated date if Destruction in 1976 taking place at the end of a 40 years Confluence Age. The references and clear, easily verifiable and so this should be re-instituted. I appreciate that it does not fit the current PR of the BKWSU which seems to exist on a rolling 5 to 10 years even since this failure, but it is a key element to understanding BK teachings and modus operandi.

The PBK section is fine. They also have their own topic page. It is worth noting that it is only the BKs that see the PBKs as not being part of the "Godly Family". The PBKs see themselves are being part of the same organization. We have references to this is the references you have provided. 195.82.106.244 15:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


user: 195.82.106.244. the pbks have nothing to do with the bks, they are much like some of the business's that were under Names or Front Organizations such as Relax kids etc. the pbk was started off by someone taking bk philosophy conducting a new rendition of it.
Jesselp 16:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


Your opinion contradicts the quoted experts and is only your opinion. They are referred to as a breakway group in both the expert opinion and the topic. Acceptable self-published material state that they comprise of BK members, follow BK principles, believe in BK teaching and are part of the one and same spiritual organization. 195.82.106.244 16:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
if the expert said so then it is so. Jesselp 16:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Oxford Leadership Academy

Stop being be silly, just because the OLA was co founded by a Bk that does not make it a front. go to there website they are an management consulting company.

it will be removed... again....

http://www.oxfordleadership.com

Jesselp 16:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The section refers to fronts and business run by BKs. I think "there" in your comment should be written "their". They, the OLA teach so-called "Ancient Raja Yoga", although they mean BK Raja Yoga, at their courses and so the reference is fine.
195.82.106.244 16:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
ello 195.82.106.244
Just did a search on there website, and there was no result for Ancient Raja Yoga. Why would they though, that are a management consulting company, they have clients like McD's BA, Massive international.
Jesselp 17:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Janki Foundation

Janki foundation will be removed it again created by a bk, however has nothing to do with BKWSU.

It was lunched at Royal College of Physicians, London, The Janki Foundation is about supporting research and awareness in the field of health and spirituality.

http://www.jankifoundation.org/about_us/index.php Jesselp 16:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It was lunched at Royal College of Physicians, London where Brahma Kumari Dr Sarah Eagger is the chairperson of the "Spirituality and Psychiatry special Interest Group". It supports the BK run and staffed GLOBAL HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE and it teaches and promotes Raja Yoga meditiation. The President Janki Kripalani, is an administrative head of the BKWSU and it is supproted by two BK run organizations, Point of Life Inc and India Care. Amongst its advisors, although misleadingly not listed as such, are other senior BKs such as Dr Hansa Raval. We are documenting the BKWSU and how it works. Its works through status by assocation and creating such fronts. Expert opinion quoted by BK Luis supports this.
How do you qualify it has nothing to do with the BKWSU? 195.82.106.244 16:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


If more then one member of the bkwsu decided to start up something together this would count as a front?
JPJP 12:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


In the case of the BKWSU, sure. If it was start specifically as a "service programme", sure. If BK present themselves at event misleading representing the so called other independent organization, even more so. Numerous citations to offer. 195.82.106.244 22:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The Mantra: Reliable Sources

Dear .244, I would like to invite you to read the current article, if you have not done it or to re-read it if you have. In reference to "channeling" reliable sources have been provided citing experts in the field which mentions about Dadi Gulzar and the way the messages are received. The words "channelled messages" is clearly spelled out to satisfy those with a predilection to it. As far as "attempting to twist a fair an impartial statement." Please submit proof of that, otherwise it will be considered defamation. 99% of the material in the current BK page is quoted from experts in the field. Same holds true about Patanjali. His name has been mentioned as well as the difference between Raja Yoga and his teachings (they are not the same.) Any reader who would like to obtain further information can go ahead and look up the words in wikipedia.

Best Wishes, avyakt7 17:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Rest of Article

As stated before, tomorrow around Noon EST, I will be changing the rest of the article UNLESS reliable sources are shown. That means: a) citations supporting what is currently stated in the article. b) documents which are easily downloaded by anyone to verify the contents.

Otherwise, this is the way it will look tomorrow:

7 day course

Wallis when referring to "world service" which was started in 1952, states:"Lekhraj had from the very beginning published numerous pamphlets and written a huge amount of letters to important national and international figures in which he interpreted contemporary events with reference to his revealed knowledge. Rather, this marked an intensification of the process, with seven-lesson courses in the group's teachings being offered to outsiders." An overview of the seven-lesson course can be found here:http://www.bkwsu.org/whatwedo/courses/fcirym under "Foundation Course in Raja Yoga Meditation." and here: http://www.brahmakumaris.com/Courses/index.htm under "foundation courses in meditation."

From World Rejection to Ambivalence:The development in Millenarianism in the Brahma Kumaris." by John Wallis. Journal of Contemporary Religion, Vol.14,N 3, 1999

The Advance Party (PBK)

Wallis mentions the advent of a movement which may be seen as an "internal response to the University's world ambivalence;" Wallis refers to them as the Advance Party. http://www.shivbaba.org.pl/ Visit site for further information.

Best Wishes, avyakt7 17:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


OK thats good.
Jesselp 17:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Changes made

As stated, changes have been made. I suggest we concentrate on the links as well. Links must reflect the material on the page. Obviously, there are quite a few of them which do not reflect that. Same holds true for Bibliography. Time to check those. Best Wishes, avyakt7 18:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Improving this article

I came to take a look at this article after one of the involved editors placed a comment in my talk page. I have tagged several sections with the {{unreferenced}} tag, as the material in these sections are not supported by any reliable source as required by our verifiability policy. I also tagged one section with the {{cleanup-rewrite}} as it consist of long quotes from a source without any narrative. The source's quotes need to be summarized rather than using such extensive quotations. Think of the reader: as it stands now this article is quite hard to read and too long. A better lead wold be also nice to have. See WP:LEAD for some guidelines. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

A point of clarification: Unless sources are provided for the unreferenced material within a reasonable amount of time, that material needs to be removed from the article. As per WP:V the burden is on the editor adding material. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Response to Admin Jossi

I will follow Jossi's advice on giving you (.244 and "bkinfo" and TalkAbout) some additional days to provide reliable sources. [3] As Jossi stated here it goes the "official" statement: Unless sources are provided by Friday November 17th. The material in section "controversy" and section "Names or front organizaions" and the section "splinter groups" will be removed."

Please be aware that plenty of days have been giving to you before. I have not received a single reliable source from you which supports any part of the article you have written.

I will leave the "7 day course" to the end... in the meantime, the section "beliefs and practices" will be re-written as per Jossi's instructions.

Best Wishes, avyakt7 02:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for stepping up and tending to this issue, both of you. Sethie 03:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


Note that material from an organization's website and literature, can be used in an article about that organization providing that it is properly attributed, not unduly self-serving, and not defamatory to third parties. For example, a book published by an religious organization if available from stores, or online outlets, can be used to describe the views/beliefs/traditions of that organization (attributed to them and not asserted as fact, of course). Same applies for materials/statements/opinions, etc. described in that organization's website, under the same caveats of notability, of not contentious nature, and not unduly self-serving. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


Dear Jossi and Sethie,
As the talk page shows in the archives, users "195.82.106.244", "talkabout" and supporters would like to use materials which belong to Brahma Kumaris which by definition are not considered "reliable sources." Besides, even if these materials were used by user .244 and group of supporters, these materials were being used in a highly biased way, in a detrimental way towards the organization which they pretend to use to "inform" the public thus, it could never be considered "self-serving" but rather contentious.
There is a point that I would like to stress. Articles which belong to an encyclopedia must be non-biased. User 195.82.106.244 and supporters being the originators of this article do not fit this category. They were "ex-Brahma Kumaris" and by definition, biased. As a matter of fact, user.244 has a public website located at: www.brahmakumaris.info which notably portrays an antagonistic vision towards Brahma Kumaris. I thought, I should mention this to you Jossi and Sethie as a background for your help in keeping this article as non-biased as possible. That is the reason why academia has been highly quoted in the majority of this article. It is non-biased research.
Thank you and look forward to hearing from you.
Best Wishes, avyakt7 16:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


http://www.brahmakumaris.info is not a reliable source for this article, as it is a self-published source by a third party. If there is criticism of this organization and their beliefs, these would be reported on secondary sources. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


Dear Jossi, Thank you for your prompt reply and your willingness to take a look at this article from a neutral perspective. I have one more issue to bring up to make my point about the lack of neutrality of the article edited by "Ex-BKs" supporters. The header "controversy and "use of force" is out of context. I took a look at other religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, etc. (Brahma Kumaris as defined, it is a religion according to researchers as cited in the article.)The only one that has such a header is Christianity. Further, if we go into the contents it is not the "tabloid material" stated here. I don't know of any religion where human problems have not come up. Christianity and child molestation is an example.However, we do not see that malicious intention on those articles. Same about "Heidi Fittkau-Garthe." An ex-member. Would that give me the right to say that Pinochet (ex-chilean president) who was accused for crimes against humanity, and to use that and put it in the Christianity page, because he is Christian? or the "use of force," which I am neither denying nor accepting, I am just questioning: Is that considered encyclopedic material? In conclusion, I am looking forward to seeing reliable sources used as citations in previous work done by researchers in the field of religion. After all, that is the quality of resources this article currently has.
Finally, you may want to take a look at this link. It seems to me that there are several of those mirroring wikipedia.
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University
This particular article is the one written by "Ex-Bks" supporters and the one published here before. Please note the lack of citations, the lack of knowledge about using "References" and "Bibliography" approprietaly, the lack of neutrality and the sheer number of "weasel words." Articles of this nature are obviously hurting the institutional image of Brahma Kumaris which as stated in the article quoted by researchers has dome quite a bit of good work for the benefit of our society.
Thank you for your attention to this. Best Wishes, 72.91.4.91 20:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC) avyakt7


There is nothing we can do about mirrors of WP. Some of these update their data once in a while by re-mirroring. As for your other comments, if there is controversy or criticism about the subject, that controversy will be certainly eported in reliable, secondary sources, that can be described in the article. An WP:NPOV article will include all significant viewpoints as described in secondary, reliable and published sources. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Jossi and Sethie,


Response RE:72.91.4.91,72.91.151.117, 72.91.28.223[4] AKA avyakt7,Riveros11 aka et all and possibly searchin man,

Is there some way to get the above member to stick to one ID as he posts various comments and even warnings to other members making it look like it is a different member when it is one person[5]? I’ve noted that he will leave postings on his talk page as 72.91.4.91 which is a little odd[6].

First, I would like to address one thing. I will not say what my contact with the Brahma Kumaris is, as this is part of Avyakt7’s sussing, but will state that what he says is far from the truth here. Having served on a Board that is Nationally recognised for advocating religious freedoms and practices I find this statement an effort of poisoning the well. I think I was being very neutral until I started to get the “the treatment” by the TEAM once I was not willing to go on their team. If you see the history you can see that I have been engaged in discussion with my supposed team member and we do not always agree. My position is they are trying to change the article in to a report by this fellow he has quoted so widely without doing any original writing or editing.

  • I might point out that Avyakt7 uses his own website http://www.godhascome.com and a journal http://avyakt7.livejournal.com/463.html along with a host of other sites he frequents to recruit and present the beliefs, invite folks to his website and to BKWSU sites. As such his main website should be listed under the BK section as he is actively recruiting members on their behalf. I place it in and he removes it?
  • I would also like to say that on several occasions I have tried to gain back his membership via the contact page to the http://brahmakumaris.info/indexbb.html forum and in doing so was advocating on his behalf. There are other active BKs on the site that have not had confrontations with the bSysop or (sp), PBKs or ExBKs. I tried my best as that seems to be a sore point with him.
  • I also think that the BBC, Time and other journalistic articles are acceptable.
  • I can see that Avyakt7 and the Team do not realise that if the world at large only accepted “Academic Reports” that the world would be void of information.
  • Most of wikipedia articles accept what is written with citation by magazines, journals and newspapers.
  • In other cult related articles I note that the documents that have been obtained have been used and to suppress such information is simply not good public policy.
  • I have written about politicians and have not had such issues as a request to verify it with academics.
  • I travel and taken photos and have submitted some things that involved high profile individuals, checked sources and had them published.

Now, onto this: "talkabout" and supporters would like to use materials which belong to Brahma Kumaris which by definition are not considered "reliable sources." First, I am most intrigued by “Supporters of the Faith” in this new activity since this individual has been open in the public arena and cites the very documents/beliefs that he says should not be allowed here but is presenting it to the public as “Truth”. If in communications/Murli documents they admit to beliefs/practices yet deny them here, I say we have someone trying to suppress factual information. It is tantamount to don’t believe what I say is Truth to the public or to members, only accept what we approve of and what I tell you here on wikipedia. So, I pose the questions:

  • Is wikipedia going to apply the policy that only academic material sources be accepted?
  • If so will it also be applied to all other articles as well?

Please keep in mind that they are using the very sources (magazines, journal and newspapers to do their PR spin and use them to gain members). I would also like to point out that some of what he cites as academic is by CESNUR which has no university affiliation and that CESNUR is seen by many as a Cult apologists organisation.

Please also note that some of the removed items had not been challenged once removed due to the waiting of the arbitration which is now nil. I have requested two-three days from work so I can review all the material cited as I already have found some items they removed which are within the very documents they cite.

  • My only agenda is to provide all the information available so that individuals can make an informed decision, if upon that they decide to continue, I give them all my good thoughts and wishes.

My apologies for the length of the reply. PEACETalkAbout 20:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


I removed unreferenced tag as references and citation have already been given. Please read them first please. This article has been in develpment for ver a year now. The references are all give in the bibliography, discussion and elsewhere.
I am getting a bit sick of folks coming along, knowing absolutely nothing about the subject, 'UTTERLY IGNORING THE REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY and then slapping tags on the article because they are too lazy or disinterested to actually read them. Please do first and then come back with questions. Thanks.
An article does not require to be a slavish collation of copy and paste quotations! 195.82.106.244 23:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Self published Material from the BKWSU

OK. I'd like to start by quoting the admin's repetition of Wikipedia Pollicy;


Note that material from an organization's website and literature, can be used in an article about that organization providing that it is properly attributed, not unduly self-serving, and not defamatory to third parties. For example, a book published by an religious organization if available from stores, or online outlets, can be used to describe the views/beliefs/traditions of that organization (attributed to them and not asserted as fact, of course). Same applies for materials/statements/opinions, etc. described in that organization's website, under the same caveats of notability, of not contentious nature, and not unduly self-serving. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


I am perfectly happy with that. I have always wholly accept that any conjecture from http://www.brahmakumaris.info may not meet Wikipedia until it is further further proven. I am sure that http://www.brahmakumaris.info will become a useful resource for professionals within the narrow field of "sociology of religion" in time but this topic covers various specialities and some non-academic, e.g. "yoga" and "mediumship", where expert witness must be also accepted from specific theological experts in their own fields if we are to avoid aan non-neutral Eurocentric or even racist view.

What is the situation where for the sakes of convenience - and Luis's non-wiki demand that it is an easily downloadable resource - a clearly BKWSU produced document, such a teaching aid poster, is linked to at a many third parties website, e.g.

The poster is inarguably BKWSU produced. It has been used publicly for many generations internationally. Permission has been granted to replicate it. To my thinking it makes no difference where the image is stored as long as it is clearly BKWSU. I can understand why Western BKs are embarrassed by statements like "Look! The Science proud European Yadavas will destroy one another in this international Atomic War (Mahabharata) like 5,000 years ago" [7] BUT it is a fair, objective and untampered with BKWSU quotation and so I cannot accept the accusations of slander and libel when such statements are the organization's own. So;

My understanding of the above quoted Wiki policy is that quotations from;

  • Adi Dev,
  • Jagdish Chander's widely published works,
  • BKWSU and senior faculty members' websites,
  • any clearly referenced BKWSU Murli scripture

are also therefore acceptable.


It that clearly accepted by all contributors?


Thanks. 195.82.106.244 09:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


User .244 (alleged) misinterpretation of Admin Jossi's writing

Dear .244,

Wait a minute there, my friend! Let me copy what Jossi wrote and what is meant based on the questions I asked above:

http://www.brahmakumaris.info is not a reliable source for this article, as it is a self-published source by a third party. If there is criticism of this organization and their beliefs, these would be reported on secondary sources. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


Which part of brahmakumaris.info as not being a reliable source you did not understand? Many of the posters and materials in this site were coming from your bkinfo site. Let me add this to the mix: Did Brahma Kumaris gave you permission to use its material? Wikipedia is very serious about this. Also, it may be possible that any other site is capable of modifying the picture to fit their needs. It is rather easy to accomplish that.Thus, you need to use pictures and materials coming from Brahma Kumaris site AND you need their permission to use it.

Now into the part which I think is the heart of the words you conveniently quoted from Jossi:

"not unduly self-serving, and not defamatory to third parties. For example, a book published by an religious organization if available from stores, or online outlets, can be used to describe the views/beliefs/traditions of that organization (attributed to them and not asserted as fact, of course). Same applies for materials/statements/opinions, etc. described in that organization's website, under the same caveats of notability, of not contentious nature, and not unduly self-serving. ≈ jossi ≈ t"

Your use of BK materials have been defamatory and they have not been "self serving." You need to use "materials/statements/opinions, etc." from the Brahma Kumaris site. As a matter of fact it is customarily good practice to request for permission before citing any material, as I have done when using extensive materials such as Kranenborg's and Wallis. In order to cite this you need permission from the source. The caveat of "non contentious nature" will be overlooked if you continue interpreting things the way you have done in the past.

Please concentrate on producing reliable sources by Friday for those sections which have been tagged by Jossi. You had ample time. I am so sorry to hear that TalkAbout requested time off from work to find citations for her writings. (hope I can use "her" rather than "his")Normally, when you write something, you do the research first, gather the citations, bibliography etc..It is not the other way around.. The "3 day drill" gave you plenty of time to produce those (If you 've done it right the first time...)

Finally, Who gave you permission to get rid of the NPOV tag? Who do you think you are? You did not place it there to begin with.. and without discussion in th e talk page ? Do you still think that Wikipedia is your BKinfo site?

Your question about using BK materials is strongly opposed. Ask about the NPOV tag too next time... we are just starting, my friend...please do not rush...Many more days off from work will be needed...

Best Wishes, avyakt7 17:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


Placed NPOV tag again. The way it was before which originally was placed by admin RHOLTON.
Best WIshes, 72.91.4.91


I almost forgot to add the policy in Wikipedia about verifiability:[8]
The policy:
1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources.
2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.
3. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.
As it is so far none of the links added to the paragraphs in dispute do not meet the requirement of RELIABLE SOURCE.
All links to http:///www.brahmakumaris.info site should be removed, accordingly.
Best Wishes, avyakt7 72.91.4.91 21:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


I will leave it up to the admin to decide what they meant Luis. Sorry, is not your own site http://www.godhascome self-published and so does not exclude any materials to be use from there?.
You seem to have a difficulty in understanding the difference between general material from http://www.bramakumaris.info and material from BKWSU. Just because material has been copied or quoted by other websites, it does not in some manner sully the original source! That is laughable.
≈ jossi ≈ t • @ clearly states that according to Wikipedia policy self-published material is fine as I always said. What is the problem in that? e.g. what about this one? [9] or this one [10]?
Please do not paraphrase me. Thanks
  1. Self-published material in an article about the author is acceptable, but only is not unduly self-serving or defaming of third parties. If the material was published by the author, refer to the author, not to a copy of the author's material on an other site, unless that site is a reliable secondary source (or a book, a scholarly article, etc.)
  2. Note that we are describing "author"; not the author's supporters. A personal website of supporters is not a reliable source for an article other than one about itself (if that website is notable enough to warrant its own article). Same applies to a non-notable website of detractors or critics.
  3. Rather than spend so much energy in traying to cite websites from proponents and critics, the article will be better served if old-style research is done by looking into scholarly books and articles that must exist for this religion. If there are none, which I doubt, then the article needs to be reduced to the minimum or maybe deleted for lack of notability. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


Hope you follow this, .244. I don't have any material that I am using in my website godhascome.org. What I have done is to obtain pdf files of the reliable sources and place them there to be easily downloaded by anyone. I guess I could put them some pplace else, if that is an issue. These PDF files are copies of reliable sources which I have not made up.

Hope you get the point right this time about admin Jossi's words. Thanks 72.91.4.91 21:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC) avyakt7

Someone entering Lekhraj Kirpalani

Is this a citable reference? I think so. It follows BKWSU self-published material such as Adi Dev perfectly.

Hinduism Today; http://www.hinduismtoday.com/archives/1995/5/1995-5-02.shtml

" ... Pulled into a state of intense meditation, he [Lehkraj Kirpalani] felt someone entering him ... Taking over his physical senses, the Being started to speak ...".

Basically, I want to address this channelling / mediumship / possession issue. As the corportate notepaper clearly refers to Kirpalani as a "medium", there are the academic references and even Luis used the term channelling, I can see no wrong with it. This documents the moment when the so-called Shiva first possessed Kirpalani and started to channel through him. This is distinctly different from "inspired".

Any objections? 195.82.106.244 22:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Many objections 72.91.4.91 03:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


Clarify what those are then Luis.

Dear .244, I have written several times the reasons why using BK materials are not proper. Why do you continue asking the same questions? Please refer to this page: "Non contentious material" and "self-serving." What you fail to understand or just want to oversee altogether, is the fact that you did not start this article in good faith. Thus your writings as I showed in the link above are not meant to inform the public in a aneutral fashion but rather to show animosity and revenge to this movement. You continue to paraphrase and interpret BK literature as you think it is meant to be. Moreover, BK materials are not reliable sources by definition. How many times do I need to repeat that?

Admin Jossi just suggested to keep our editions using "old-style research" ..." by looking into scholarly books and articles that must exist for this religion. If there are none, which I doubt, then the article needs to be reduced to the minimum or maybe deleted for lack of notability. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)" Do you understand that? Hinduism times does not fit this criteria. Old style research is made by academia. You have to have a graduate degree. You have to have credentials. If you do not follow this, you are asking for trouble. Jossi's suggestion is the most sensible in this case. I hope you realized by now that going through neutral, researched, non-biased material is the way to do it. Authors need to have credentials...you know, a Ph.D or someone along those lines. Hinduism Times is not a researched material.

72.91.4.91 13:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC) avyakt7

There are two possible areas of objection here;
a) Whether Hinduism Times is notable enough as a reference. - I'd say it is and these are the University's own words.
b) Whether the quotation is accurately copied. - it is and it is concurrent with the same academic resources you are using.
So what is the problem? 195.82.106.244 09:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem was explained above. It does not fit in the concept of "old style research." You need to have a degree and expertise in the field. A newspaper writer does not fit that category.

72.91.4.91 13:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC) avyakt7

User .244 please stop modifying my written words in this talk page

Dear. 244,

You are modifying the article which has reliable sources. I will revert this back. You will be vandalizing this page by making changes before discussing it. I will request a sprotect tag again if you continue. Below is what Jossi wrote. Hope you understand this well enough. As you know there are plenty of scholarly books available. Please take a trip to the nearest library before you attempt to modify anything in this page. Otherwise, you are heading for trouble.

  1. Rather than spend so much energy in trying to cite websites from proponents and critics, the article will be better served if old-style research is done by looking into scholarly books and articles that must exist for this religion. If there are none, which I doubt, then the article needs to be reduced to the minimum or maybe deleted for lack of notability. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Best Wishes, 72.91.4.91 03:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC) avyakt7


  • I am happy to quote the very same academic sources that you are using with regards the mediumship and channelling. Another contributor adding additional references to a topic is not vandalism.


It is unless you discuss it previously. Otherwise, I have plenty of things to add myself too.Of course, plenty of reliable sources.

Best, 72.91.4.91 21:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC) avyakt7

Jossie also said
  1. Note that material from an organization's website and literature, can be used in an article about that organization providing that it is properly attributed, not unduly self-serving, and not defamatory to third parties. For example, a book published by an religious organization if available from stores, or online outlets, can be used to describe the views/beliefs/traditions of that organization (attributed to them and not asserted as fact, of course). Same applies for materials/statements/opinions, etc. described in that organization's website, under the same caveats of notability, of not contentious nature, and not unduly self-serving. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


  • I added "alleged" to your accusation as it is not proven and otherwise prejudicial.
So where does that leave us?
As far as the channelling and mediumship, it is clearly stated in the academic papers your refer to and so I am happy to use those references as the involvement of channelled spirits and deceased members is central to BK practise, in contrast to Classical Raja Yoga, and being written out of the topic by you.
  • What is your object to their inclusion?
On a personal note, I think you should stop making prejudicial attacks on others in public. I reserve the right to render than neutral or remove them in line with policy.
195.82.106.244 09:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


Dear .244,

You are not supposed to modify anything written by anyone. Yes, I know that old habits are hard to break, .244. You have been warned by admin Rholton before about not changing other people's input. Are you willing to listen?[11] (example of deleting his talk page with all warnings) Please do not try to drift our attention to other matters specially if they have been addressed before. Just Go to the library, be nice to the librarian and make a couple of photocopies of reliable sources, scan it, make a PDF file out of it and place it in your website bkinfo for easy download. Then add the pertinent references under the reference section which I started, so anyone can go to their own public library and get a copy of the article you quoted. Of course, you should get materials which support your writings. You do not need to revert this page to see what you wrote.. it is still out there being mirrored by other sites.

I hope this is clear: You are vandalizing this page. We went through a period of change before. Everything had been placed in the talk page for people to see and to make adjustments/suggestions. You and supporters failed at that time to provide reliable sources to your "original writings." (see last month archives.)

I will place a tag in your talk page warning you about "vandalism." Do not attempt to erase it as you have done in the past, because it is convenient for you. If you keep making changes without previous discussion I will request that your IP be blocked as a vandal. You have been warned. Please concentrate on presenting reliable sources on or before this Friday; otherwise those sections in question will be erased. Best Wishes, 72.91.4.91 13:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC) avyakt7

User .244 new tactic: to get other admins attention

Dear .244, How many admins do you need to side with you? You know that they need to be informed of everything that is going on here before they act on your one sided story. I have never refused your arbitration. A result was given before I had the chance to post. You need to remember that I have a chance to put everything I find important in less than 500 words, I need time. You do not run my time. [12] See admin page of Fred Bauder. Admin Jossi has given already a path for us to follow. When are you going to understand that?

Best Wishes, avyakt7 15:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration

I think I may have erred in voting to reject the arbitration. But it was taken down rather quickly. I encourage all of you to seek reliable sources and use them appropriately. I think material published by the organizations may be used as a source for non-controversial material such as basic beliefs or well-known assertions. Fred Bauder 16:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for you input Fred Bauder. As you stated Reliable Sources is the way to go. As you can see in the article, citations have been used and those include "beliefs and well-known assertions." As wikipedia states in his policy for verifiability:
The policy:[13]
1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources.
2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.
3. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.
That is exactly what we have been trying to do. "Non-controversial" material could become controversial if it is interpreted by editors which display animosity towards the BK religion.( As it has been proven in the previous article)
Best Wishes, avyakt7 16:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


  • Well, that is two admins against you BK Luis both stating the same thing that according to policy, self-published materials are fine.
"Basic beliefs or well-known assertions" are fine by me. Thank you. 195.82.106.244 17:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


Dear .244, I can explain the wiki policy to you: 1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources. Can you read that? That is the wiki policy. then, take a look at this "I encourage all of you to seek reliable sources and use them appropriately." Finally: Rather than spend so much energy in trying to cite websites from proponents and critics, the article will be better served if old-style research is done by looking into scholarly books and articles that must exist for this religion. If there are none, which I doubt, then the article needs to be reduced to the minimum or maybe deleted for lack of notability. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Please .244 realize that reliable sources is the primary means of writing a good article. There are plenty of scholar works which you can refer to. Please go to your library and do a research. Friday is your last day to give any support to your previous writings. Best, 72.91.4.91 17:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC) avyakt7