| Revision as of 18:24, 14 October 2006 edit67.79.31.88 (talk) →New Religious Movement or Cult?← 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: |
|
{{WP India|class=Stub|importance=|auto=yes}} |
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|1= |
|
<!--Template:Archivebox begins--> |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Yoga|importance=mid}} |
|
{| class="infobox" width="180" |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject India|importance=low}} |
|
|- |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Spirituality|importance=mid}} |
|
!align="center"|] |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Hinduism|importance=mid}} |
|
] |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Women's History|importance=low}} |
|
---- |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Organizations|importance=Top}} |
|
|- |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Top|NRM=yes|NRMImp=Top}} |
|
|align="center"|] |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism|class=C|importance=Mid}} |
|
|- |
|
|
⚫ |
}} |
|
|align="center"|] |
|
|
|
{{Indian English}} |
|
|- |
|
|
|
{{Connected contributor|User1=Bksimonb |U1-declared=yes}} |
|
|align="center"|] |
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|- |
|
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|align="center"|] |
|
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|- |
|
|
|
|counter = 16 |
|
|align="center"|] |
|
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
| ⚫ |
|} |
|
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Brahma Kumaris/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
<!--Template:Archivebox ends--> |
|
<!--Template:Archivebox ends--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Sources == |
|
==Discussion now archived== |
|
|
Previous discussion has now archived as page grew beyond guideline size, see ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
*a) Would contributors please follow WIkipedia convention and always place new discussion points at the bottom of page. Use the + sign above if in doubt. |
|
|
*b) Would new contributors please learn a little bit about Wiki formatting, signing and dating your contributions. Failure to do so makes it very hard for other to follow or to fulfil admin tasks. See, ] and especially, ]. If you are having difficulties, go find an admin to help you and have a play in the ] first. |
|
|
*c) NPA tags belong on user's pages not discussion pages. |
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you. ] 01:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Focus on the article== |
|
|
I am in no way connected to BKWSU, either pro or con, and I have no interest in changing that. I ''am'' a long-time Wikipedian, and an admin, and I want this page to move toward an acceptable encyclopedia article. The reasons for the NPOV and other tags must be delineated, no matter how blindingly obvious someone might think the reasons are. Those issues must then be addressed, either by proper citations, or by removing unsubstantiated claims from the article. The real-world identity or beliefs of ''any'' of the contributors to this article are completely irrelevant. This discussion/talk page is '''not''' the appropriate place to discuss those questions. '''Use this page to discuss the encyclopedia article only.''' –]]– 01:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Thank you for the voice of reason, at last! ] 01:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I have restored the POV tag to the article. Do not remove it until things have been resolved. The other tags may also be restored if specific reasons are shown--but in general, one tag at a time seems sufficient. –]]– 02:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::RHolton, thanks for dropping by and I really appreciate you restoring the NPOV tag. It’s a small step towards fairness, but if it survives the night then it will be a significant one, as it will easily be the most substantial edit to do so other than that made by 244 or Talkabout, since I’ve been looking in. |
|
|
:::I am not best placed to discuss the article content. I am not a member of the BK nor an ex member. However, my support for the NPOV was because others who were qualified to contest the articles content and attempted to do so, where either stonewalled by proven sockpuppets or had their comments removed from the discussion section and their citation requests pulled down. I have supplied detailed links of examples of where I saw this happening, in a 9 point reply to the user Talkabout in the ''Searchin Man complaint'' section of the Sept – Oct 2006 discussion archive. ] 03:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== NPOVs for Discussion == |
|
|
|
|
|
OK. NPOVs for Discussions. One at a time. No more personal attacks. No more crapflood. No more discussing the discussion. If you use three equal signs before and after a topic, like this "<nowiki>===Topic===</nowiki>", we can create a manageable sub-list of points to discuss. My suggestion is that we work to create the list first, have a little cooling off period, order them according to the article and then discuss them. New issues arising can be discussed in new headlines. Alternatively, we can work our way down the page paragraph by paragraph. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
=== No === |
|
I would like to raise the the issue of membership, financial status and charitable giving, perhaps the later the UN relationship. I hope that BKs will come forward with the pre-requisite figures. ] 03:45, 12 October 2006 (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. |
|
Please add your NPOV points below ; |
|
|
|
* ], 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 === |
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Encyclopedia entries —— be it the Routledge Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements ''or'' else — ought to be sparingly used. |
|
===Financial status and charitable giving=== |
|
|
|
* 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
===Membership figures=== |
|
=== Yes === |
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Publications by John Walliss, esp. ''The Brahma Kumaris as a Reflexive Tradition: Responding to Late Modernity'' (Motilal Banarsidass; 2007). |
|
===New Religious Movement or Cult?=== |
|
|
|
* Prem Chowdhury's masterly ''Marriage, Sexuality and the Female 'Ascetic': Understanding a Hindu Sect'' (EPW; 1996). |
|
I think both terms should be avoided, primarily because they evoke negativity (per the previous statement). |
|
|
|
* Publications by Lawrence A. Babb. |
|
A broader reference term such as 'doctrine', maybe more suitable as it doesn't narrowly focus on religion (both so called new and old) and it provide an even plateau for comparison with all schools of thought. |
|
|
|
* Ramsay's article in ''Handbook of Hinduism in Europe''. |
|
|
] (]) 08:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC) |
