| Revision as of 23:47, 23 December 2011 editVecrumba (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers19,811 edits →January 18 reversed this talk page to a previous version: cleaned out irrelevant content← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 08:58, 24 July 2024 edit undoTrangaBellam (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers22,563 edits →SourcesTag: 2017 wikitext editor |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|1= |
|
{| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="background: #FFF0D9;" |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Yoga|importance=mid}} |
|
|- |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject India|importance=low}} |
|
| ] |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Spirituality|importance=mid}} |
|
| '''The ] has placed this article on ]'''. The principals in ] 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. |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Hinduism|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Women's History|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Organizations|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Top|NRM=yes|NRMImp=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism|class=C|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Indian English}} |
|
|
{{Connected contributor|User1=Bksimonb |U1-declared=yes}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|
|counter = 16 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Brahma Kumaris/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
<sub>Posted by ] for the Arbitration committee. See ].</sub><includeonly>]</includeonly> |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|} |
|
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes|1= |
|
|
{{WP India|class=B|importance=low|auto=yes}} |
|
|
{{Spirituality project|class=B|importance=}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Hinduism|class = B}} |
|
|
{{WPReligion|class=B|importance=Mid|NRM=yes|NRMImp=High}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{WPHinduismPeerreview}} |
|
|
{{WP1.0|v0.7=pass|class=B|category=Philrelig}} |
|
|
<!--Template:Archivebox begins--> |
|
|
{| class="infobox" width="180" |
|
|
|- |
|
|
!align="center"|] |
|
|
] |
|
|
---- |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|align="center"|] |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|align="center"|] |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|align="center"|] |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|align="center"|] |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|align="center"|] |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|align="center"|] |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|align="center"|] |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|align="center"|] |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|align="center"|] |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|align="center"|] |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|align="center"|] |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|align="center"|] |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|align="center"|] |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|align="center"|] |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|align="center"|] |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|align="center"|] |
|
|
|} |
|
|
<!--Template:Archivebox ends--> |
|
<!--Template:Archivebox ends--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Article revert == |
|
== Sources == |
|
|
|
|
Following from the archived discussion and a week's notice, the article will now be reverted from the current version to the proposed version . The rationale is that this version has far less issues than the current version and it will be more manageable to add material, if it is balanced, reliably sourced and represents a neutral point of view from the current version to the proposed version than to try and untangle the current article. The current version has multiple issues, some of which I have expanded upon in the archived discussion and an article analysis I started. The proposed version is at least free from stuff like concocted references, tabloid newpaper article references, cherry-picked quotes used to unbalance the article and bypass the NPOV requirement. ] (]) 14:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The revert is now carried out. For clarity, in the above post "current version" now means as it was before today and "proposed version" is what it is based on now. ] (]) 14:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Sounds good. Does it still need any tags? It'd be nice to get a review of it by a Hindu expert. ] (]) 00:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Hi Renee. I have added the FAO Project Hinduism tag. ] (]) 06:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Pro-BKWSU bias == |
|
|
|
|
|
I have no problems with this topic or related BKWSU topics remaining objective but non-involved editors and admins should release that what is going on here is and attempt at a persistent POV whitewash of the cult's related topics by an adherent, ], whose purpose on the Misplaced Pages appears to be solely to act as guard dog to this article. |
|
|
|
|
|
One has to ask questions about the ethics of this and the framing of any dissent as "bullying, harassment, drama" etc as Simon does. |
|
|
|
|
|
The Brahma Kumaris have invested considerable resources into convincing media control, historical revision and hagiographies over decades. This is nothing new ... merely a new environment. |
|
|
|
|
|
What is being attempted here is the moulding of "fact", as presented by the Misplaced Pages, to fit the current PR of the organization. |
|
|
|
|
|
The call to "independent" editors, or even miscategorized "experts" (in Misplaced Pages terms ... ''the BKWSU is Indian not Hindu''), is really just a ploy, an attempt to introduce inaccuracy into the article, as much of the media presentation of the BKWSU has been highly doctored by the BKWSU. |
|
|
|
|
|
We should go back to the previous, pre-cultist edits. |
|
|
|
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University&oldid=362080713 |
|
|
|
|
|
It is just their intention is to control any topics relating to their cult or cult financiers for the sakes of their own PR and to match their own PR which is somewhat revisionary. That would seem to be against the greater aims of the Misplaced Pages. |
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you. --] (]) 02:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
: As I said elsewhere - I think a much better approach would be to look at the article rather than the people involved. A large part of the fighting which periodically breaks out at this article and its talk page comes down to both sides having personalised the dispute a long time ago. A focus on content would expose areas where the article needs assistance - a focus on editors would more likely than not see your standing block reinforced as those in opposition can simply say "That person is personally attacking me and is a sockpuppet" and most admins don't investigate beyond first impressions if the matter seems straightforward enough. (I've been guilty of that elsewhere.) |
|
|
: If you could identify issues with the article - particular areas of bias, omissions etc - as against the diff you have provided, in fairly specific terms, that would be of great assistance in trying to resolve the issues here. Once the issues have been identified then we can get some neutrals to look at it (and if the content is or is argued to be defensible, then we actually get to hear the defence of it.) |
|
|
: As you can understand, something that simply looks like a pitched battle between two permanently opposed sides is something neutral people are very unlikely to wade into, and I think more eyes is exactly what this environment needs. ] 04:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:: I certainly would welcome more eyes on the article. However it would be helpful if they could demonstrate a genuine commitment to respect other editors, consensus and an aim to produce an neutral, balanced and informative article. I have always been prepared to do that but in this environment I really don't have that much space to breath. I have ] the latest incarnation as more of the same abuse that this page, and I personally, simply don't need any more of. If Lucy wants to resume editing then the correct way to go about that is to post an unblock request on his own ] and convince the admins that he will not repeat the pattern of behaviour that resulted in him being blocked and that he has pursued in defiance of his block ever since. |
|
|
|
|
|
:: If this page is really biased in some way then there are enough other editors in the world to discuss it with. |
|
|
:: ] (]) 07:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::It's obvious to me that if this editor is blocked, they'll just, as they have numerous times in the last 2 years, come back and make essentially the same complaint again. This doesn't aid resolution of the matter. If we make a good faith attempt to find out what this editor believes the issues are, without the personal hostility, then they can be addressed in an analytical fashion, with some accepted, some rejected, and others adopted in some modified or limited form. Goes without saying that if no attempt is made to engage with the process I am proposing, then I can do little or nothing to assist and it'll be another admin with a lot less time dealing with this matter. (I should note that although I am semi-retired per my talk page, I've taken on this matter separately as I'm sick of seeing it lingering on my watchlist.) ] 10:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
I think there is an unethical attack against the Brahma Kumaris by antigroups which is the most unfair. Take for example the "Controversies" subsection is purely biased and is only present in for the BK article. Why don't we have similar sections for other articles like Islam, Hinduism, Christianity etc...? Does this mean that we don't have "controversies" with other religious groups(with all due respect). All these debilating comments under "controversy" should be transferred to PBK articles. I think that some parts of the articles need to be removed(sp. the "controversy" section)since it is very clear that it has been edited by individuals who wants BK bashing. |||| <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 11:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
::::You unblocked this editor on a previous occasion and his behaviour did not improve. In fact, he went on to cause widespread disruption before being blocked again. If you believe there may be a problem with the article then let's bring more eyes on to it and work together. I don't see how rewarding, or caving in to, persistent, abusive and disruptive behaviour solves anything. ] (]) 10:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Admittedly, that happened after I left the scene because I was busy studying offline - I don't intend to do so on this occasion. Having seen heaps of disputes in my time on here, I think a lot of these things happen through things spiralling out of control - if someone is around, things tend to stay within certain boundaries. Also, as I've already indicated, I'm not averse to letting the situation be dealt with in a more standard way if the guidelines I've set down here re the nature of discussion aren't adhered to - I can only help if people agree to be reasonable. In a way it's a last chance to solve the problem the way it should maybe have been solved years ago, and I don't even know if it can be done, but it's worth trying. ] 13:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Anti BKWSU bias == |
|
|
|
|
|
This is patently ridiculous. Any religion can be framed as a cult. Any wild assertion can be made against any religious group. |
|
|
|
|
|
As an information source, Misplaced Pages should be neutral, unbiased, and present verifiable information. |
|
|
|
|
|
"Verifiable" means that an independent, disinterested party can corroborate. |
|
|
|
|
|
If you're going to call something a "cult" you need to show proof of cult activities considered credible. A story carried by AP or UPI, for example, would generally be considered credible and verifiable. |
|
|
|
|
|
That being said, I'm seeing anti BKWSU bias in the article. |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 06:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==]== |
|
|
Needs wikilinking in the main article when this page is unprotected. ] - ] 10:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==NPOV== |
|
|
Till some days back, the section Controversies and criticism with citations served the purpose of keeping the article nuetral. The uncited things could be removed and others can be kept in the section. I hope a consensus can be reached soon here. --] ] 08:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Done. Included some of the better referenced ones. --] (]) 02:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Hi ], |
|
|
:: Thanks for dropping by. The intro section is good and the reference in the "Expansion" to Wallis is sound, although it kind of adds a lot of weight to the section which may be better placed in the ] article. |
|
|
|
|
|
::Please review and respond to the following issues with some of the material you have re-inserted. |
|
|
|
|
|
::* The institution uses Hindu terminologies such as Raja Yoga and Bhagavad Gita to attract people but what is taught in the organization is completely different from what there original meanings in Hinduism. |
|
|
|
|
|
::The reference for this is . Please indicate where he makes this claim and, if such a claim exists in the reference, it is cited as being a "controversy". I couldn't find it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::* Followers are encouraged to undergo a ‘death-in-life’ and ‘die towards the outer world’ renouncing their families and thus be ‘divinely’ reborn in the ‘divine family '''consequently''', the Brahma Kumaris have been accused of breaking up marriages and families since the 1930s. |
|
|
|
|
|
::I have highlighted the word that shows that the above point is a ]. Please find a reliable source that makes a connection between the first statement regarding "death-in-life" and the accusation of marriage break ups. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::* In 2007 Graham Baldwin, a former university chaplain... |
|
|
|
|
|
::The reference for this is an Independant article, the link for which is now broken. I found it in Archive.org and also in the Independent, . There is no mention of the Brahma Kumaris at all in the article. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::* Ian Howarth of the Cult Information Centre, was further quoted... |
|
|
|
|
|
::The two references are trashy tabloid articles in the Daily Mail. The articles are clearly sensational and not suitable as a source for an encyclopedic article. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::* The Brahma Kumaris have featured in the 'Wissen schützt' reports... |
|
|
|
|
|
::There are several references being used here. It is not clear exactly what the "critisism" is of any one particular source, or as a combination. The MIVILUDES report is no longer used since it had such a low threshold of inclusion. In this case the Brahma Kumaris were tagged for having "apocalypitic" beliefs. Some of the other references are in different languages. Please explain what these references are about and how they all fit together without synthesis to make a point of critisism. |
|
|
|
|
|
::* Since 1978, the BKWSU is accused of falsifying claims internationally |
|
|
|
|
|
::The reference used here was actually written by a Misplaced Pages editor. Please see ] for evidence. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::Thanks & regards, |
|
|
::] (]) 14:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I cannot be editing this article yet but I can be seeing no problems in the edits and the article. Too much diservices has been done on this homepage by fanaticals and we should be accepting how the world see us and using the language of the world to explain our beliefs. |
|
|
|
|
|
-- I am Baba's child. (]) 09:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:::The problem is that what has been re-inserted into the article doesn't represent what the "world" sees at all because the references have been misrepresented or are from obscure or unreliable sources as per my previous post. ] (]) 11:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
We are not splinter group we are all original children and part of same family. BrahmKumari Christian fanaticals attack us and remove from this homepage that is clear message. |
|
|
|
|
|
-- I am Baba's child. (]) 16:09, 5 March 2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: Please explain who you consider to be "BrahmKumari Christian fanaticals" and why. It's not clear. Can you give a specific example of said culprit "removing from this homepage" some information you consider should be there? Also can you outline what changes you intend to make to the article once you are able to edit it? Thanks ] (]) 09:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Best to attend a course to take the Advance Knowledge bhatti to be understanding. This is not a place to be discussing such things. (] (]) 23:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is a great mistake in part of meditation. Base of meditation "Raja Yoga" of BK is to look at Shiva who is represented by "a point of radiant light" (reproduced in logo of BK that is in the article). To stare to the point produces a state of deep concentration and great happiness. It can be made with a repeated affirmation that says Mahanmanavad, meaning "Be mine with your mind". The practice to see the other students and the teacher in the forehead (it os over Anja, the third eye center), is to give them Dristi, meaning "sight", that transfer to others the energy of Shiva in form of compasion. --] (]) 17:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, put in wrong place (] (]) 02:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)). |
|
|
|
|
|
== Controversies in the ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hi ], |
|
|
|
|
|
I have some ], ] and ] concerns and questions over edit and would appreciate your comments. |
|
|
|
|
|
I agree in principal that if there is a major and recurring criticism about a group that frequently appears in reliable sources then it should be in the first paragraph. However I don't believe the criticism cited fits that description. The BKWSU's inclusion in some government black-lists is not their main claim to fame. Most of these lists are politically or religiously motivated and have a low threshold of inclusion. In particular the ] was later revised in 1999 and 2006 and does not list the BKWSU in the revised versions. |
|
|
|
|
|
Also, if inclusion in these government lists should be mentioned in the first paragraph BKWSU article, then surely the same should apply to the Misplaced Pages article of every other group mentioned. How many such articles contain any mention of this at all, let alone the first paragraph? |
|
|
|
|
|
I can't comment on the "Enemy of the state" issue regarding Greece as I was unable to trace find more than the first 10 pages of the book on-line, "''Cults, religion, and violence'' by David G. Bromley, J. Gordon Melton 2002 ISBN 0521668980 page 113". I did, however find the article on ] and it appears he is opposed to "witch hunts" against NRMs. In view of this I am wondering if the reference was really as damning of the BKWSU as it has been made to appear. I would be most grateful if you could quote the passage from the book so that I can see it in context. |
|
|
|
|
|
I did have more luck finding the Poland reference, "''On the margins of religion'' by Frances Pine, João de Pina-Cabral 2008 ISBN 184545409X page 175" . |
|
|
|
|
|
The Polish Brahma Kumaris women stress that women who transcend this |
|
|
model are persecuted by society Therefore. they see It as their task to empower |
|
|
other women and lo help them to contribute to the transformation of the male- |
|
|
dominated world. |
|
|
Aspects of their endeavour to transform the male-domainated world have led. |
|
|
perhaps Inevitably to conflict between the Brahma Kumaris women and the |
|
|
male authorities of the local Catholic parish. A very Important factor |
|
|
determining development of the Brahma Kumarism in Poland is that the |
|
|
movement built their main meditation centre in very close vicinity of a Catholic |
|
|
church. The parish priest of this church took advantage of the anti-cult |
|
|
atmosphere in Poland (Koscianska 2004) to organise an anti-Brahma Kumaris |
|
|
campaign. Thus. the Brahma Kumaris have been labelled ‘a dangerous sect' |
|
|
and accused. among other things. of abnormal sexual behaviours. kidnapping. |
|
|
contributing to ecological pollution, and so on. These accusations, publicised by |
|
|
the priest. local newspaper and anti-cult organisations. limited the activity of |
|
|
the Brahma Kumaris. |
|
|
|
|
|
So the incident in question concerns a Catholic priest who "took advantage" of an anti-cult atmosphere to "label" the Brahma Kumaris with a bunch of accusations. The reference does not imply that there was any substance to his accusations. If you read the book in the wider context then you can see that this appears to be a reaction to the Brahma Kumaris promoting celibacy for women in a culture where women are (quoted from the same page)"expected to take care of their families and be subordinate to men". |
|
|
|
|
|
In fact, this is the main controversy surrounding the Brahma Kumaris that occurs frequently in reliable sources, that they advocate celibacy as a lifestyle choice for women and this doesn't sit well in societies that do not normally give women that option. If anything this is what should be mentioned in the first paragraph. An important distinction here is that the controversy is a public reaction to this lifestyle choice for women and not some cult-like atrocity being committed by the organisation itself. |
|
|
|
|
|
I look forward to your comments. ] (]) 11:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:So the long and short of your point is this: |
|
|
|
|
|
:* You think there is controversy. |
|
|
:* You think controversy should be mentioned in the lede. |
|
|
:* You think the controversies I mentioned are not the main ones. |
|
|
|
|
|
:As for other Misplaced Pages articles having to include lists of organizations declared as enemies of state and dangerous, that is other articles, not this one. The question then is what are the main sources of controversy? Celibacy may be one, but I do not see celibacy as the only one in these references. The fact that historically they have been listed, is an issue in itself. The French list may have been revised, but the fact that they were on it is part of their legacy. The other ref clearly lists them on those lists. I think the fact that they were on the list is not disputed at all anywhere. In other sources they get mentioned along with sects etc. I will add a modifier to that anyway. And the fact that the Polish papers accused them, is in the Polish papers. Whether the priest took advantage can be a modifier, but that is a question of opinion, what the papers published is a matter of what the press said. Whenever the press write something like that there is always "controversy", and that is what controversies are about: disagreements and accusations. There are no "nicely packaged" controversies in which all parties love each other. The controversies section should probably be expanded with those anyway if you like. I watch this page, so you can just leave messages here. |
|
|
|
|
|
: And I must say I find it really "unfathomable" to say that an organization had been considered controversial by various governments because they advocate celibacy. The ] sisters are all celibate, and that does not create controversy in a male dominated world does it? And there are at least 1,000 more totally celibate religious orders in the so called male dominated society which were never put on any such government lists and which have not had much controversy to speak of. So the statement that they are controversial just because they are celibate is just not logical at all. ] (]) 12:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Hi History2007, |
|
|
|
|
|
::"that is other articles, not this one" - The same editorial polices and guidelines apply equally to all articles. This article doesn't exist in a bubble where normal editorial standards don't apply. If you feel that an NRM listed in these reports should have the fact mentioned in the lead then why only do that to the BKWSU article? |
|
|
|
|
|
::"And I must say I find it really "unfathomable"...". Did you have a chance to look at the reference? If you read the context of it then you can see that that was the area of concern that gave rise to the parish priest's campaign. I don't know the exact reason why the BK were included on government lists. Perhaps you can throw some light on the matter by quoting the reference you used. |
|
|
|
|
|
::"Whenever the press write something like that there is always 'controversy'", what a incredible justification for inclusion! It sounds to me like a personal opinion. |
|
|
|
|
|
::The controversies section needs to be cleaned up before it is expanded. The content recently re-inserted was problematic because the references were cherry-picked, used out of context, of misused completely. Some of the links don't even work any more. A better approach is to either chase each claim to source and find re-write it in a neutral way that better reflects the reference being used where the references are actually reporting something that is actually a controversy. |
|
|
|
|
|
::Also keep in mind ]. Is piling loads of criticism and controversy on the article really what it needs right now? The article should reflect what the majority of reliable sources say about the subject in the proportion in which they say it. This requires reading the sources not just cherry-picking paragraphs that happen that suit a POV. Have you had a chance to read any of the main academic sources yet? |
|
|
|
|
|
::I would still like you to address my ] concerns. For something to be in the lead paragraph it would need to be a substantial issue reported by a number of reliable sources. Currently we don't have that. The minor change you made to the article doesn't really help that much. |
|
|
|
|
|
::Thanks & regards ] (]) 13:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::First let me get something straight: I saw the conflict of interest item on your page, so I have to ask. Are you typing here as a PR representative for that organization to keep their page in line with what they like? Is it part of your job to type here? Please clarify this first, then we go on? ] (]) 15:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::No I am not a PR representative to keep the page as they like. I am a member of the organisation and my concern is in common most other members of the organisation that I don't have to suffer undue prejudice because of an unfair and misleading Misplaced Pages article that most of the public will probably take at face value. I would have a conflict of interest if I wasn't prepared to settle for an article that meets Misplaced Pages's own editorial standards. However, I am prepared to settle for that. I get treated fairly by the article. Misplaced Pages gets a good quality article that is free from bias. That's what I'm aiming at. I'm prepared to give ground to achieve that but I think what you've put in the lead is not something that a consensus of editors would agree with. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Perhaps you could also disclose your potential conflict of interests. I notice that you edit a number of Christian articles. No problem with that, I've worked successfully with Christian editors before and I come from a Christian family so I can relate to them. Do you have any strong views about Indian-based NRMs that might affect your editing priorities? |
|
|
|
|
|
::::I am reluctant to edit the article directly and either discuss changes with other editors or time-out if no response before changing anything. That is how I address COI concerns. There is no rule that says a COI editor can't edit at all, only that one needs to be very careful. That's what I do. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Also, could you please address my requests for citations and previously raised concerns. ] (]) 16:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Ah, please ''give me a break''. This discussion is going nowhere. We can talk about this until the 2,500 year cycle is over (or is it 5,000 years), then I guess we can start it again. I do not know how to address a conversation in which claims are made that "the only controversy here is celibacy". And given that the controversies continue to change, I think it is best just to say in the lede that "there are a number of controversies" without giving specifics and refer to the section which may change every month. In the section the controversies will be listed and given more space. However, the fact that there are controversies must be mentioned in the lede per ]. I will change it that way, then I will take to you again in 2,500 years, so we can do it again. ] (]) 17:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,000 Years, Brother. The Baba teaches Kalpa Cycle repeats identically every 5,000 Years. 2,500 heaven for Brahmkumaris souls, 2,500 hell when other religions come. |
|
|
|
|
|
Their Baba says Destruction comes and washes away old impure world and impure religions. Pure deity religion must be starting again in 2036. Brahmkumaris teach only salvation is to surrender to them man, tan, dan. (mind, body, wealth). |
|
|
|
|
|
In fact, we been having the same problem with these fanaticals in India, isn't it. They are given their Dada's eyewash and believing anything. Then they become addict to pomp and show of self importance and attacking others like snake. |
|
|
|
|
|
In India Brahma Kumaris become stinking rich taking properties and gold jewelry from poor villagers. You can be reading this about them too. (] (]) 08:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)). |
|
|
|
|
|
This is insane. These are false claims that Brahma Kumaris are despots. How do you explain then that the UN, UNESCO, UNICEF, NGOs and governments worldwide approve and acclaim their community based projects. How do we explain that their CAD regression program is making wonders around the world(http://www.bkwsu.com/afr/mauritius/Outreach%20%28MRU%29/typeb.2008-03-30.2112039142) . These so called "controversy" happens with ALL religious groups; but do we have a controversy section in Islam, Hinduism, Christianity etc... So please, remove these dustbins claims from this article and that would fit more in PBK or Anti articles in Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 11:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Hello, |
|
|
The following "An independent resource accurately documenting the beliefs and lifestyle of the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University, including many of its channeled messages" was changed to a less biased, less flowery and more accurate: "Ex-Brahma Kumaris website." |
|
|
Reason: |
|
|
A bit too presumptuous to believe that their viewpoint is the "accurate" documentation of the BK movement. Also, they are not "independent" but rather "dependent" for it is documented by Ex-BK members. It could be "independent" if the individuals running that website didn't have an involvement with the BK movement at all other than sheer curiosity. |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 19:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Are you another Brahma Kumari adherent? Why is the site offending you? |
|
|
|
|
|
: It has best collection of academic papers on the topic, here . Most useful. --] (]) 04:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== the external link brahmakumaris.info== |
|
|
|
|
|
J, |
|
|
You know perfectly who I am as I know who you are. |
|
|
The issues I have with adding the link brahmakumaris.info are as follows: |
|
|
1) It is your personal website. It does not belong to an institution, corporation, non profit organization, etc. It is mainly a forum led by you, of ex members of the Brahma Kumaris institution who had a negative experience with the institution as whose main concern is to discredit the BK movement. There is proof for this. |
|
|
2) It is mainly a forum with "original research " by its members. Your site, is covering up its lack of scholarly /neutral research capability by merely gathering papers by known researchers in their field, papers which have been used in writing this article anyway. Those articles are being quoted as you see fit, meaning; as long as there is a negative connotation against Brahma Kumaris. |
|
|
3) Your edits now, are mainly about the controversial section of the article, which support the objective of your website, brahmakumaris.info. However, you fail to understand that many of those issues, if verifyable, are common and isolated issues in big institutions, such as any religious group. I said , ANY. That is the main concern of your website, the brahmakumaris.info site, to become some sort of "watch dog" for Brahma Kumaris. That is not what a researcher nor a research does. |
|
|
4) Your website has been used to insult some Brahma Kumaris editors. Your website has been used to insult some Brahma Kumaris leaders. That is against Misplaced Pages policies. |
|
|
5) Your website and you, make efforts to be known as "authorities" on the Brahma Kumaris life style and beliefs; however you nor anyone in your group that I am aware of, has any terminal degrees in religious studies or sociology. You think that Brahma Kumaris is a negative "cult" while the United Nations think otherwise. You are just an ex-member who thinks that "knows it all, " and think that things are the same as in your time in the Brahma Kumaris movement. Conveniently ignoring that there are members such as myself, who has the opposite viewpoint and experience, as many others have. |
|
|
6) Your website link is not providing an accurate information, for you do not have the authority to believe that you can "accurately" inform about the Brahma Kumaris belief or life style. It is merely an opinion. |
|
|
7) If your link is to be considered for this article, I suggested to add the accurate label "ex-bk members" and also to add the Bk open forum, which describes the life style and belief of their current members, in that way wiki readers will gain a full view of the Brahma Kumaris under a balanced perspective. |
|
|
|
|
|
I submitted the link to a wiki place to check the validity of that external link and it was deemed not worth to include your linksite in this article. As you are aware, your link has been excluded by admins in the past. Misplaced Pages suggests not to put a link while controversial until discussions are over. |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 19:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==user:"January 18" keeps deleting supportive evidence== |
|
|
{{RPA}} |
|
|
For the record: User "january 18" has deleted without previous discussion my contributions. On the other hand, I am trying to engage in a healthy discussion which he suggested. . January 18" has added a paragraph is the article titled:"legal actions against critics." |
|
|
|
|
|
January 18 statement:"In 2007, the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual Organization started legal action to shut down an independent website called Brahma Kumaris Info which allows critical views of its activities to be published on the basis it was breaching its trademark rights." That paragraph is not accurate. If we read the website which actually recorded the facts: Brahma Kumaris merely wanted the domain name "Brahma Kumaris.info" to be returned to them, for the name "Brahma Kumaris" belongs to "Brahma Kuumaris." The reason why that name wasn't returned to Brahma Kumaris as explained in the website, is because Brahma Kumaris is not a "trade mark". |
|
|
|
|
|
Please don't play the game of only allowing information which is convenient for your agenda and make Misplaced Pages another source of your personal agenda. |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 10:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
: Please note which personal attacks are consider most serious. |
|
|
|
|
|
: With regards to your comment, "Brahma Kumaris is not a 'trade mark' ". The Brahma Kumaris own 4 live US trademarks mainly relating to "online shopping" facilities reflecting their commercial activities; 77313590 for 'BRAHMA KUMARIS' , 77212561 for 'BRAHMA KUMARIS WORLD SPIRITUAL UNIVERSITY' , 77212547 for 'BKWSU' , and 77212153 for 'BRAHMA KUMARIS' UDRP cases are decided according to trademark rights. |
|
|
|
|
|
: In the linked to UDRP cases, the Brahma Kumaris claimed the disputed domain name was identical to their BRAHMA KUMARIS mark.--] (]) 22:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==No personal attacks off wiki.== |
|
|
|
|
|
I have received a couple of insulting messages from John Allan through an user ID of the http://brahmakumarisforum.net. Those messages are derogatory towards me and other specific BKs and the institution. |
|
|
|
|
|
Here an excerpt: |
|
|
|
|
|
'''“Listen you crack head, |
|
|
|
|
|
Do you really not understand that I am probably the worse person you should attack for the sake of that you love most ... the so called Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual Confidence Trick? |
|
|
|
|
|
Do I really need to spell it out to you? If you spit at me in public, in any way at all, all it does is reinforces my opinions about the butt end of Brahma Kumarism and gives me more evidence about the truth of your religion.”''' |
|
|
It goes on… |
|
|
Signed under user “paramsingh.” |
|
|
|
|
|
That is a serious violation of this |
|
|
No personal attacks off wiki. |
|
|
|
|
|
I will keep the Personal messages with me as further proof of a threat. I will not respond to any emails that John Allan through many of his impersonations (user Ids) sends me or will send me. I will only respond here to any of your impersonations. |
|
|
|
|
|
Now let me go into the article: |
|
|
|
|
|
1) If you don’t want your name to be in the article, just delete the whole paragraph about “Legal action against critics.” It is just you, John Allan whose name is mentioned as a Respondent. Be accurate. Do not try to hide yourself. Every BK that knows about the wikipedia article knows your name and the way you publish under different IDs on different forums. No mystery. |
|
|
2) There is another link on the internet where you have done the same action of taking their domain name. It was that article the one that added further information about you. You are very quick in adding negative things about Brahma Kumaris and its people but when you become a major player in a legal action; you do not wish to have your name and history mentioned. Be reasonable. |
|
|
3) Do not just include your website in the external links section. It needs to be balanced with positive information. Ex-BKs and current BKs. This goes with the advice I received through other editors, link which I shared before and it is a rule in wikipedia. |
|
|
4) DO not delete my contributions and add them in a different way into another section without previous discussion. You do not own this site. |
|
|
5) The links you showed about “trademarks” do not go anywhere useful. I have paraphrased what it is in the “official” decision below. If incorrect, I will be more than happy to accept a different interpretation. |
|
|
6) Your activities as critic were not “shut down” Brahma Kumaris just wanted the domain name back. What you have in the article is a plain lie. Below an excerpt for those who do not have time to read the entire thing: |
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/1075486.htm |
|
|
|
|
|
'''“Annex 2 to the Response includes a sworn affidavit by Respondent John Allan, paragraph 3 of which states, in part, as follows: |
|
|
|
|
|
I registered the domain name brahmakumaris.info and administer the website at www.brahmakumaris.info on behalf of a group of other individuals with varying degree of connection to the BKWSU who wish to make information about Brahma Kumaris more readily available, in particular to support other Brahma Kumaris souls who were experiencing difficulties and friends and family of Brahma Kumaris who were at a loss to understand the changes in their loved ones. We intended it to include information about various problems and criticisms which some elements in the movement have sought to suppress. However, we did not intend the website to be limited to this. On the contrary, we intended to provide a facility for discussion of all aspects of Brahma’s philosophy, history and practice, both good and bad. |
|
|
|
|
|
Registration and Use in Bad Faith |
|
|
|
|
|
The Panel concludes that Complainant has not met its burden of establishing that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Panel agrees with Respondent’s contention that the actions of Domains By Proxy, Inc., a non-party to this proceeding, may not be attributable to Respondent. The Panel further finds that the disputed domain name is not being used primarily to disrupt Complainant’s charitable work. Rather, as noted above, the Panel determines that the challenged domain name is being used primarily in connection with a site that includes both commentary and criticism of Complainant and that such use is protected under the Policy. Finally, given the Panel’s finding that Respondent is using the domain name in a noncommercial manner, the Panel rejects Complainant’s argument under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.”''' |
|
|
|
|
|
I am willing to play fair. Please do so. Compromise. I just wanted to change the blatant lie about your website being an “accurate account of the BKs believes and practices.” You responded by deleting my contribution an adding controversial information about the BKs, sending the message” if you don’t stop, look what I will do.” |
|
|
|
|
|
Please be civil. Put whatever feelings you have behind and move honestly. I am willing to work with you. If we cannot compromise, we will need mediation. I am willing to go through that as well. Your call. |
|
|
|
|
|
I will reverse to my changes . If you continue reversing back, I can play the game until an admin comes. I will just keep my additions in “achievements” “Links” and the paragraph that you started:”legal action” unless there is a healthy discussion on those items. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
=== No === |
|
] (]) 21:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Anything published by {{tq|brahmakumaris.org}} or {{tq|Om Mandali, Pharmacy Printing Press}} or {{tq|B.K. Raja Yoga Center for the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University}} ought to be treated as flatly unreliable. |
|
==January 18 reversed this talk page to a previous version== |
|
|
|
* ], again, ought to be treated as flatly unreliable. She had no academic expertise whatsoever and as far as I remember, what prompted her very-apolegetic portrayal of the movement was her husband veering away with the BKs into celibacy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
=== Meh === |
|
For the record: I have compromised by asking January 18 to just delete the whole paragraph about "legal actions" so John Allan's name will not appear at all as per January 18 wishes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Encyclopedia entries —— be it the Routledge Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements ''or'' else — ought to be sparingly used. |
|
January 18, will not discuss this suggestion and will not follow this advice to obtaing what he wants. Rather, January 18 will continue deleting my contributions. I have given January 18 a good opportunity to come to an understanding. Will look for other remedies per wiki policies. |
|
|
|
* Whaling's ''Understanding the Brahma Kumaris'' (Dunedin University Press; 2012) is a primer aimed at undergraduates. A merrily sympathetic treatment, in what is one of the two academic monographs on the subject, it is . |
|
|
* ] and Tomlinson are anthropologists by training; the latter, particularly of practiced religion. So, I have not much qualms with using ''Brahma Kumaris: Purity and the Globalization of Faith'' (Springer; 2012) but we ought not depend on it for reconstructing the curious history of Brahmakumaris (BK). |
|
|
* ]'s thesis from Monash University. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
=== Yes === |
|
] (]) 15:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Publications by John Walliss, esp. ''The Brahma Kumaris as a Reflexive Tradition: Responding to Late Modernity'' (Motilal Banarsidass; 2007). |
|
: I've cleaned up the "legal action" section to what's relevant and deleted the rest which had no bearing on the matter (unless you were out to discredit a website regardless of the lack of domain name arbitration findings against it). ]<small> ►]</small> 23:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* Prem Chowdhury's masterly ''Marriage, Sexuality and the Female 'Ascetic': Understanding a Hindu Sect'' (EPW; 1996). |
|
|
* Publications by Lawrence A. Babb. |
|
|
* Ramsay's article in ''Handbook of Hinduism in Europe''. |
|
|
] (]) 08:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC) |
