Talk:Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University/Archive08

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

Sources

Dear Riveros11 aka sockpuppet 72.91.4.91
I am quite happy to use the academic sources you do Luis. Albeit, including parts you are trying to supress. But two admins have expressed a more complete understanding of policy than yours in which self-published materials are acceptable.
Actually, I am not so personally interested in websites but defend others' right to use such. The same published books the academic papers reference and the printed materials of the BKWSU including the easily referencable and citable channelled messages from God called the Murlis are fine.
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
Do you want to discuss the difficulties you have in accepting these comments? 195.82.106.244 23:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Dear .244,
Firstable The Ip you mention is me.. riveros11. I have never denied that. See the post by TalkAbout requesting me to use only one user name. Sometimes, it is more convenient for me to use the IP rather than signing in.
However, since you brought the subject on sockpuppets I have a little request for admins to take a look at it. I will make sure admins will take a look at this.
Tomorrow is your last day to present reliable sources for the headers in dispute. Please present them here in the talk page. I believe I answered your questions before. Take a look at the archives. You do a good job archiving this site.
Let me ask you this question: User 195.82.106.244 are you the user brahmakumaris.info?
Avyakt7


Just to once again try and qualify the word ‘reliable'’ in relation to ‘source’:
News media articles are typically only reviewed by a single editor before going to press. References are often not checked and consequently, at least in the West, legal firms continue to enjoy lucrative returns from the pursuit of news publication editors for libel. Just contrast this with the rigorous review that academic papers are subject to prior to publishing.
Regarding the citing of sources originating from personal websites, can everyone familiarise with point 2 made by Jossi in the now archived discussion section ‘User .244 (alleged) misinterpretation of Admin Jossi's writing’ [[1]]. Sincerely searchin man 15:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Strange activity on pages linking to this page

User brahmakuris.info has edited all these pages [[2]] on the 15th November that used to link to this page and replaced them all with identical text. I believe this is called a "forest fire". I request that this is looked into.

I suspect that user brahmakumaris.info is a sockpuppet of 244 based on the name similar to his website of the same name. Can this be confirmed?
Best Wishes,
avyakt7 14:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


Ughhhhh as someone who is mostly on the outside, watching, I'd say bramakumaris.info is up to no good. He/she archived a lot of live discussions, and changed the name of the article without going for concensus.
All this as the page is in the middle of going into arbitration? Sethie 16:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
This is not accurate. 'Please note the name of the article has not changed. There is no discussion going on. Just a lot of pointless and repetitive accusation and counter-accusation. For discussion there has to be a willingness of all parties to take onboard other's point of view and work to a consensus. 20:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Then I am in error. In looking over the history I thought I saw this happen. I really wish I had taken a clearer look before I had said that. Now that I take a closer look, I see that there are two pages that are being edited. I jumped to a false conclusion. Mea culpa, especially in the current climate.
I agree that you believe that "there is no discussion going on. Just a lot of pointless and repetitive accusation and counter-accusation." And now I understand why you chose to archive pages while there was still activity going on. And so I would ask you to unarchive any material (whether you want to call them "pointless and repetitive...." or discussions) that has activity going on in the last 14 days. Sethie 21:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sethie, I don't believe you are in error. I wasn't aware that those pages where about Brahma Kumaris world spiritual university as well. It seems that some of those pages are mirroring what user .244 and supporters had here before.

Am I supposed to discuss on those pages as well? Should those pages have the same content as this page? Look forward to your reply. Thank you. Best avyakt7 22:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I have reverted it back to the redirect. Sethie 23:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Sethie! Would redirect this one too? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BKIVV

Best Wishes, avyakt7 01:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. Sethie 01:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


Its also not true to say the page is going into arbitration. I tried to get BK Luis Riveros11 to engage in Arbitration. He was informed. He refused. I tried to engage BK Luis is meditation. He was informed. He refused. So, I put the article up for RfC regards the self-published citations aspect. Noting that two admins have already repeated the clear written policy on this. Luis refuses. What can I do?
As the target of all these BKs' accusation and incriminations, I see BK SimonB putting in complaints without notice and behind my back too, for my part I agree to work with the academic citation and some BKWSU self-published sources within the limits stated by Wiki policy. I cannot be more fair than that. 195.82.106.244 20:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Is user .244 = brahmakumaris.info?

Dear .244, It seems that you like for me to repeat things "ad infinitum." Please do not defame me. I have never refused the mediation nor the arbitration. The mediation was never signed by anyone but yourself. No even a single member of your supporters. Next time let us know here what you are planning to do rather than informing us after the fact. As far as your arbitration petition as stated by an admin in the page you archived without letting us know, the desicion was taken rather quickly. Now, I hope you are happy with my lenghty explanation. I just have a very simple question for you. Actually it is a "yes"/"no" question: Ready?

User 195.82.106.244 are you the user brahmakumaris.info?

Looking forward to your reply. Best, avyakt7 22:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

User TalkAbout: following steps of .244

Dear TalkAbout, Please do not change the contents of this article without previous discussion. Your comments of "fixing mess with references." (history) it is not appreciated. No one has asked you to do that task. Please let us know in this page what you are up to before you do it. I will revert that and next time I will place a "vandal tag" in your talk page. You are being kindly warned. Also, Friday is the last day for yourself and .244 and supporters to present "reliable sources" for the headers in question. Here is a copy of the article:[3] take a look at "controversy", "destruction", "virgin birth", "front organizations" and "splinter groups." Evidence means that a link to a "reliable source" supports the paragraph in question. You have selected words for those paragraphs. Some of those words are "weasel words." In your supporting material you should point out so there is no doubt that the researcher used those words. If you point to a site it needs to be a reliable source, researched material. I will be looking forward to seeing that by the end of Friday in this page. In the past I have placed the quoted material in this talk page before updating the BK page. I am expecting the same from you. One last question: There is an IP coming from California in the "history" it is 64.121.65.67 Is that You? It seems that this IP has been involved with user .244 in the past. That Ip had changed this article as well without discussion. I will place a warning in that IP talk page. To make you happy and to be fair, I will make every attempt to sign as "avyakt7." If I couldn't I will add avyakt7 after my IP. here is a link of contributions of that IP, FYI[4] Best Wishes, avyakt7 14:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Bogus Vandalism accusations, dishonest revisions and revision messages by Riveros11

I am looking at the following revision made by Brahma Kumari Luis Riveros, aka Riveros11 or 72.91.4.91 here, [5].

The message he has left says, " (Reverted page- Vandalism again by user Maleabroad - placed a last warning tag in his talk page.) "

  • Now this is, a) not true and b) another bogus vandalism accusation

What he has done is remove all the contributions made by TalkAbout even though they were non-contention, referenced with clear academic or journalistic citations and positive. 195.82.106.244 01:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Time for changes

Dear All, As explained before in this talk page, I will go ahead and delete the material following admin Jossi's suggestion. There is not a single reliable source in this page which supports the tags left by Jossi in the article. Perhaps user .244 and supporters do not understand that their links are not reliable sources. Need to be researched materials by experts in the field. You have failed to provide those.

To admins Jossi and Sethie:

Please note the following:
1)I have asked a simple question to user .244 which (he) has ignored. Is he user brahmakumaris.info? Likewise user TalkAbout has not responded yet.
2) User .244 even though was blocked previously, still continues with his old behavior and is modifying this page without further discussion.
3)User .244 is using my real name instead of my user name. He is defaming me by labeling me a "recruiter." I would like to see his proof on this. He has posted my real name and location in the talk of "Maleabroad."[6]
4) User .244 keeps defaming me. User Maleabroad has been blocked before for editing this page and insulting users. See admin Addhoc's reply[7]
5)See this link about user .244 intentions:[8]
6) User brahmakumaris.info has been creating several pages with different names which refer to Brahma Kumaris. I strongly suspect that user is a sockpuppet of .244. Is there a way to test this? (His unwillingness to respond to my simple question leads me to this request.)
7) User. 244 has blanked his talk page. He was advised by an admin not to do it before. He is not willing to listen. See admin Mer-c talk page [9]
8) Finally, and I would like to bring this up to show his character. He has threatened me to contact my employers about using Wikipedia. He has published my personal information as well.[10]
9) User .244 was caught misrepresenting (lying) about his membership to the antagonistic site brahmakumaris.info which he denied.[11]

My question to both of you Jossi and Sethie is, how long do we (Brahma Kumaris) have to put up with an user like this? Thank you.. and now into the changes. I apologize for this lenghty explanation. Best Wishes, avyakt7 22:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


Just to be clear, I am not an admin. I would speak with admin Jossi or Mer-c about some of these charges, specifically the defaming, threat and publishing your personal information.
I asked Jossi to look into the #6 and I have not recieved a response from him, so I think we need to look elsewhere for that specific action.
My experience with wikipedia is that those who don't play by the rules DO get stopped, sometimes it just takes awhile.Sethie 22:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Policy and progress

And just to be fair, both ways, how long do we have to put up with a user that refuses to listen or participate in a "middle way" discussion or involve third parties, e.g. arbitration or mediation? I am sorry Sethie but it cuts both ways, it takes "two hands" to clap.
The wiki is full of people screaming "vandalism", and using all sorts of methods to block or intimidate others, when someone else adds or changes what they have written. I have stated that I perfectly well accept to use the citable sources Luis accepts BUT also that self-published sources are also acceptable. Two admins have corroborated this policy. I am receiving a complete blanking from Riveros11 over this which is the source of dispute.
If an organization publishes extreme beliefs, and even academics report them in papers the other editors reference, e.g. their founder "glowing red" and a "different voice speaking through him", "God descending into him" then that is not defamation; that is objective, cited reportage. In such a central claim to the BK faith, of God incarnating into their founder only, it cannot be ignored - even if it does not fit into their current or Western orientated PR.
If we can come to a decision over the self-published material within the limits that Wiki policy sets, I will be very happy. This to me would appear too be the only bridge left to cross. That is hardly an unreasonable position. With Luis, we have faced two immense resistances, a) to the channelling issue and b) to the Destruction issue despite, again, both being referenced in academia AND he himself putting the points forward them on other website. Again, it comes down to whether the Wikipedia is PR for such organizations and individuals OR accurate reportage.
If there is going to be two dialogue instead of tit-for-tat attacks, I am happy to engage in it. What more can I state? 195.82.106.244 09:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


I hear your pain and I don't engage in big abstract dialogues. Pick a specific point, and if I feel the pull I will discuss it. Sethie 16:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Just to be clear I am not getting involved in 90% of the arguements going on here. If I see something clearly out of wack, like Bhramakumaris.info changing all of those mirror pages, I will change it, otherwise I won't get involved. Sethie 16:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Sect or Cult

The French source cited lists it as a cult, not a sect, hence I have changed it back to cult. Sethie 16:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


Dear Sethie, Please note: That link is not a reliable source. It is not a researched document. Note that none of the authors have any academic credentials or demonstrated expertise in the article. And.. because a report comes from France, a particular location.. it cannot be generalized...unless the link is meant to be detrimental on the image of BK... as the editor is hoping to accomplish. Best Wishes, avyakt7 20:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


You are welcome to argue all of the above, and welcome to do so with someone else. My only concern at this point is that those articles ARE cited and it was incorrect to say they alledge it is a sect, they don't say that.

I've done the whole "reliable sources" argueing back and forth thing and have no interest in debating that with you or anyone else. Sethie 00:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sethie, Thank you for clarifying. Let me ask you this. Since you are not an admin, what is your interest in this article? or in this discussion? Best, avyakt7 02:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


I thank you for asking, and the only response I feel pulled to make in this moment is that I will let my actions speak for themselves. Sethie 05:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

To Sethie

Dear Sethie, The changes I have made after following admin Jossi's suggestion have been removed by user .244. Note that even the section which he tagged to be re-written by me (since I was the author) has been taken away by .244 in a forceful manner without discussion... The re-written version will be published this week. I am following Wikipedia policies and practices. A user who has been recently blocked comes back and does the same vandalism again and ... nothing happens to him! I am certainly looking forward to hearing about the 9 points above. I have never refused to go into mediation nor arbitration. However, I request the article be changed as it was yesterday when I changed it while we wait for mediation or arbitration. User .244 has nothing to lose with this request on the other hand Brahma Kumaris does. I feel this inmediate change by a recently blocked user fits the "clearly out of wack" statement you made.

Below is the exchange I had with admin Jossi, it is unfortunately that he is not here to follow up on this at this moment, but perhaps he will a bit later... [12] Dear Jossi,

Thank you for clarifying in the article. I need to point out that at least 3 days were given for a final attempt to provide reliable resources. Note "3 day drill" in the talk page for every single part of the article. Needless to say, the previous editors have never produce a single reliable resource. User TalkAbout and the IP address ending in .244 (user known as .244) were the main editors of that article. Since previous notification was given, when do you believe I should erase those parts without reliable resources? Thank You, avyakt7 21:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


Three days is quite minimal. Be generous and wait a few more days. You can place a note that "unless sources are provided by such and such date, the material in secton X and sction Y will be removed." That way it is transparent and you give notice. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I have placed a note per Jossi's instruction in the talk page and performed the changes yesterday. I will wait for your answer on this, Sethie.

Best Wishes,

avyakt7 19:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


My answer is, find someone else to help out with this!

I will say that I like to give 1-2 weeks before erasing a sentence, and that is how I operate. Sethie 00:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your help and advice Sethie. Best, avyakt7 02:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

User .244 you asked for arbitration, why are you taking so long to respond?

Dear .244, I wrote in your talk page that I was willing to "negotiate" with you after I received an "invitation" from you.[13] You requested either arbitration or mediation. I answered to you that I was fine with it and selected Arbitration. I told you that I wouldn't revert the page, even though I could and I will unless I hear from you today. I am not willing to play your games anymore and even though I am showing that you have been quite tricky in your dealings with us (are you brahmakumaris.info?) I have been patient enough by following admins advice however, with no support from them when the time comes. I would like to show you this page as well[14] What are you trying to do? You know that you will get some people upset with those comments about BK and Hinduism. Here is your complaint[15] that I have refused arbitration. You know it is not true. Here[16] user Thatcher is willing to restore the arbitration petition you made. Lastly, I requested to have the page reverted as it was before your revert.. while we wait for the process. Do not complain again that I am not willing to go the "middle way discussion or involve third parties, e.g. arbitration or mediation." As far as I am concerned it is you who is unwilling to do it. Perhaps you feel that you can continue "free and clear" now? I seriously doubt it.

Best Wishes, avyakt7 20:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Controversy section

The controversy section is misquoting the source. Please take into account this information:

For more details on this topic, see Parliamentary Commission about Cults in France.

France's 1995 parliamentary commission report (Unofficial English translation), published a list of purported cults compiled by the general information division of the French National Police (Renseignements généraux) with the help of cult-watching groups.

On May 2005, former prime minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin issued a circular indicating that the list of cults published with the 1995 parliamentary report should no longer be used to identify cults.[1]

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Also note that there are assertions made in that section that have no sources, or that are clearly not appropriate to include:

  • Documented incidents of child abuse within the organisation brushed...
The sources is a personal page and thus not a reliable source
  • Social and psychological problems faced by ex-followers including two suicides within one family.[24]
The sources is a personal page and thus not a reliable source
  • Rape and physical violence from families and partners of Brahma Kumaris.
No sources. Should be deleted if a reliable source is not forthcoming
  • Questionable advertisement of relationship with United Nations Organisation
That is an opinion and in violation of WP:NOR
  • All other bullet points are without sources, or the source provided is a dead link.

I leave the edit to remove the non-compliant material in the hands of involved editors. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


Thank you for your timely visit, Jossi. USer .244 is probably waiting to block me as soon as I make the change. He has blanked his talk page with all the warnings he had, thus Will I need to start all over again from warning 1 on his page? My talk page on the other hand, has never been erased. I will follow up with your suggestions. Best wishes, avyakt7 09:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words in this article

I use the phrase "weasel words" as they are defined by wikipedia [[17]], not expressing a negative attitude to the author myself. There appear to be several examples of weasel words in this article, which cannot be conducive to any apparent neutrality (which I notice is disputed anyway). Under Controversy, it states "Seen by many as a cult". Please can you justify that term - many. Only two sources have been cited (leaving aside the question of how authoritative they are). Surely, that can't justify the term "many"? I'll amend it to "some", unless further evidence can be submitted. How much time should I allow? I think a week is reasonable. More to follow...Appledell 21:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Appledell, Thank you for stoping by and participating. Changes have been made in the article following admin Jossi's advice. Those "weasel words" which you mentioned were removed. Best Wishes, avyakt7 03:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Changes in Article

Dear All, Note that changes have been made without making a revert to a previous version. Rather whatever version was in place was modified according to discussions and suggestions from admin. Took care on leaving out remarks related with Hinduism which user Maleabroad seems to find not suitable. I placed a warning in his talk page as well. If user Maleabroad finds something which needs to be changed, he must discuss that issue here. Also, the segment on "beliefs and practices" which was tagged by admin Jossi for a re-write, was fianlly re-written. I had valuable help to re-write this part, being careful of maintaining the substance in Professor Kranenborg's cited article. One of the paragraphs named "activities" inside "beliefs and practices" was moved into "achievements."

Your contribution to make this article a researched and neutral one is appreciated. Best Wishes, avyakt7 03:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

7 days course

As you can see, the seven day course was mentioned. However, it does not have a single reliable source in it. Any one willing to support this?(with reliable sources) Best, avyakt7 03:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)