Misplaced Pages

Talk:Brahma Kumaris: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:35, 21 October 2006 edit195.82.106.244 (talk) Professor Richard Barz and the use of Psychologist to determine Psychologically Coercive Techniques← 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=B|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)

== 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.

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)

Please add your NPOV points below ;

----

===Financial status and charitable giving===
Both figures from all zones please, Americas, India, Australasia, Africa etc.] 18:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

===Membership figures===
I have in my possession a letter from the BKWSU stating that they have "no membership" and merely operate an "open door" policy. (Pressumably open door unless you are a PBK). Alternatively BK administrative head Jank Kripalani states they will have 900,000 followers this year. Across the internet figure vary widely from 450,000 to 800,000 but may of these would appear undated or out of date. Obviously, big numbers constitute good PR, "900,000 people could not be wrong" so what is the official figure.

A question to ask here is, what constitutes a "member"? How long does it take to become a BK? How and at what point is one recognized as a BK? And does one ex-communicate oneself by leaving as the average lifespan is said to be about 5 years? Do only a whiteclad senior BKs or centre-in-charges count? Or reliable, 7 day a week Amrit vela and Morning Class attendee. How do they calculate their laity and what status do they have?

The organization is not forthcoming in these figures nor how they are culculated and so I think we should remove any claims in size. Likewise, how many centers to they have? I can only see tens listed on the internet and yet they claim thousands. This discrepancy is too large to be scientific. So can BKs accurately qualify the numbers of dedicated centers and separate them from the number of "Gita Pathshalas", or family homes used as makeshift centers? Again, actual figures rather than PR ] 18:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

===New Religious Movement or Cult?===
I'd say '']'' is problematic, as it almost always has negative connotations. As the Cult article says, no group ever calls itself a cult, only the group's opponents. On the other hand, I'm not particularly satisfied with ]. Any other suggestions? &ndash;]]&ndash; 04:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
:Its very difficult and it throws us into the very deep end of the academic and politic thought on the matter. I would say that not only opponents use the term cult. Indeed, Dr Eileen Barker who must been seen as a leading proponent, if not initiator, of the term "New Religious Movement" also uses the term cult and admits its interusability. Cult really has a neutral meaning, devalued by sensationalistic journalism and oppositional activists and its hard consonants.

:We also find ourselves at odd between the camps of sociology and psychology. If psychology identifies a series of psychologically coercive practises, and a NRM uses most or all of them, at what point does it cross the line? For example, given this list; I would say that the BKWSU uses most. '''The compromise would be to say, "of which some/many see as a cult", or "of which uses practises some/many/psychologists identify as coercive and used by groups identified as a cult.'''

:The BKWSU's own position is that they are not a cult; they are the one, only, true religion and the inspiration of all other religions and God comes to speak to them only. Every other religion is impure. Being Millenarianistic, believing in an immanent "Destruction" of the world, this immediately, in my opinion puts them in the cultic "stage" in their development. However, if we look at the Jehovah Witness, Seventh day Adventists, Mormons etc, we see how groups evolve from cultic stages, to NRM, to established minor religions usually with a re-writing of their credo, as the BKWSU is engaged in. As an aside perhaps it is time for academia to view cult as a stage in social and religious development development rather than an end point of definition for all such groups. See reference to average lifespan above and in cited documentation. ] 18:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

::I think both terms should be avoided, primarily because they evoke negativity (per the previous statement).
::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 provides an even plateau for comparison with all schools of thought. ] 18:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

:::The problem is we are not documenting merely the BKWSU Doctine, we are documenting the BKWSU as a whole. If there was a good argument or argeement to split the topic into doctrine from the historical social movement, then fine. NRM is a positive term.
::: Can we start by comparing BK lifestyle against academically accepted cult or psychologically coersive techniques given above? I would say that the doctine is operated within a cultic model, e.g. the secrecy surrounding the Murli teaching, the division between the "chosen few" Brahmins and the impure untouchables. Thank you. ] 18:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

::::],
::::As to ], ] or ], I would offer that the ] is more a ] in my humble opinion.
::::*They control through tenets ones toileting.....if there is no shower well you best not have that bowel movement. This instruction is even imposed upon children.
::::*One cannot enter areas of a centre unless they "meet higher requirements of being '''pure for six months''' and have showered". Most students do not realise this; it is only once you enter deeper that this is known.
::::*One must detach (have no contact) from ones family and friends.
::::*One must do service to ones family and friends: offer the knowledge and try and convert them.
::::*One must detach from ones children, as they are an obstacle to higher "spirituality".
::::*One must must not eat food prepared by non-BKs including ones own mother. Their food is impure, they are impure.
::::*One must follow a BK diet, often not very nutritional but by BK standard "Pure".
::::*One must not marry, one must be celibate.
::::*There is to be no sex, not even within marriage.

::::These are just some of the few things they control in members/followers lives via tenets/beliefs. I would say it is more a ] as the controlling factor is very clear. Members of such a ], ], ] will not see themselves as such, many suffer greatly once they realise they have been in a ] and there have been many suicides and many that have contemplated suicide post Gyan experience.
::::In fact the ] tries to state that they are not a religion so as to bring folks in with promises of “meditation”, “stress reduction”, “cultural understanding” and even “weight loss”. Oh, and '''there isn’t any “University”''', unless the location is in the subtle region (heaven to non-BKs). PEACE TalkAbout], 20:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

:Actually, the best solution would be to find a reliable reference (not BK or former BK) that talks about BKWSU and quote them. We could also mention how BK's refer to themselves, with an appropriate reference.&ndash;]]&ndash; 23:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

::],

::Below please find the quote from the Spanish Academic Report under lists of cults. This is referenced rather then the mention of the French Government report due to its academic value, in-depth analysis and conclusions about psychological outcomes. Below is the link to the French report as well.
::Enumeration of the followers of sects in 1995 by UNADFI Follers
::Cults in France
::• Raja Yoga or Spiritual Organization of Brahma Kumaris 200

::''List of Cults
::'''Characteristics, functionalism and psychological consequences of the cult phenomenon'''
::'''Santa Cruz de Tenerife Official College of Psychology'''
::'''Groups of Risk and Dangerous Cults'''
::Eloy Rodriguez-Valdes, Psychologist and Sexologist''


::'''In 1989 – The Spanish Parliamentary Commission: There was a commission for the Study, not investigations. None of the proposed conclusions by the Parliamentarian Commission has been put into practice.'''
::'''1995. - The National Assembly of France: One of the best informative /reports (Commission of Investigations), Profound and strongly made until this moment at present on the phenomenon of Cults. Realised by the Deputy J Guyard. It denounces a grand number/quantity of groups as destructive cults. In them, all are included the following:'''
::* Anthropos (Ágora)
::* Asociación L.J. Engelmajet (El Patriarca)
::* '''Brahma Kumaris (Universidad Espiritual Internacional)'''
::* etc.

::''Características, funcionamiento y consecuencias psicosociales del fenómeno sectario.''
::Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Santa Cruz de Tenerife
::SECTAS DESTRUCTIVAS Y GRUPOS DE RIESGO
::Eloy Rodríguez-Valdés
::Psicólogo-Sexólogo''

::1989.- Comisión del Parlamento Español: Se crea una comisión de ESTUDIO, no de INVESTIGACIÓN. Ninguna de las conclusiones propuestas por la Comisión Parlamentaria se ha llevado todavía a la práctica
::1995. - Asamblea Nacional Francesa: Uno de los mejores informes (comisión de investigación), más fuerte y profundo hecho hasta el momento presente sobre el fenómeno sectario. Realizado por el diputado J. Guyard. Se denuncia a una gran cantidad de grupos como sectas destructivas. Entre todos ellos cabe destacar:
::* Anthropos (Ágora)
::* Asociación L.J. Engelmajet (El Patriarca)
::* Brahma Kumaris (Universidad Espiritual Internacional)
::* etc.” PEACE ] 02:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


:::On the basis of the examples of cult-like behavior listed above, you can count me amongst the apologists and I would argue NRM. I do not think that they are particularly unique nor accurate either in detail or understanding. Some are merely a Western misinterpretation of cultural practises widespread in the Middle and Far East, i.e. food politics of the Indian caste system, toileting in tropical climates, monastic traditions all be they practised within domestic environments.

:::The third party sources are quite sound. The problem with falling back on other academic sources in that we fall back on the divides between apologists, apostates and the fads and fashions of academic funding. Religious sociology is a small field in which one man's funding application is a cult, when anothers is an NRM. Cult's political value has fallen whilst NRM's has had a minor revival and is sustaining itself. Just.

:::What is the difference between a minority religion and a cult? Just being weird doesn't make the BKWSU a cult. I have given a reference of psychologically coercive techniques from a regular expert witness above. What raises the cult question for me would be that within the framework of an absolute Millenarianism, the prediction of an immanent End of the World any day;

::*Undue influence: mind control - '''tick'''
::*Charismatic Leadership: Claiming divinity or special knowledge and demanding unquestioning obedience with power and privilege. Leadership may consist of one individual or a small core of leaders - '''tick'''
::*Deception: Recruiting and fundraising with hidden objectives and without full disclosure; use of front groups - '''tick'''
::*Exclusivity: Secretiveness or vagueness by followers regarding activities and beliefs - '''tick'''
::*Alienation: Separation from family, friends and society, a change in values and substitution of the cult as the new family; evidence of subtle or abrupt personality changes - '''tick''' (which is what the author above is stating)
::*Exploitation: Can be financial, physical, or psychological; pressure to give money, to spend a great deal on courses or "service" projects, inappropriate sexual activities even child abuse - '''tick'''
::*Totalitarian Worldview (we/they syndrome): Effecting dependence, promoting goals of the group over the individual and approving unethical behavior while claiming goodness - '''tick'''

::'''The BKWSU is certainly not a sect or sub-sect or another religion either by the definition of its channelled teachings nor its own beliefs about itself.''' According to its own beliefs of a 5,000 Year repeating Cycle of time, they are the foundation of all other religions, e.g. Christ will come to them now and study only to come back in 3,000 years to teach Christianity again after their heaven on earth is over. ] 21:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

===Sevak Ram's role in the founding of the movement===
One important issue we have to resolve is the role of Sevak Ram, Lekhraj Kirpalani's business partner, in the establishment of the Om Mandali "group", see . The author is the said piece is or was a BK and so there have to be some grounds for inclusion. Would any BK care to offer the official history of his role? ] 18:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)



==WikiProject India==
A bot has identified this is an article from inclusion in the ] project and as "stub class". I have removed the tab as it was not introduced nor discussed and the topic article is certainly by no means a stub. This raises valid discussion of its own. Personally, I see the BKWSU as an international and not merely Indian organzation.

This could conceivably again lead to forks in the article. ] 18:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

:I've restored the ] tag, though I've rated the article as a "B" class (I wonder how the 'bot decided this was a stub?). These sort of tags get applied to articles all the time, usually without discussion; we should feel free to alter the rating though, and I'm open to discussion on the "B" I gave the article. By the way, having a WikiProject_India tag doesn't (to me) suggest that the article is ''only'' relevant to India. &ndash;]]&ndash; 23:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

==Talk page etiquette==
Please, everyone be careful when you edit this page. In very recent history, an editor inadventantly obliterated another editor's post (which was later restored by a third editor). Serious misunderstandings begin this way.

Also, when archiving previous content, always archive in context. Don't pull pieces of a section out of the main talk page to the archive. Do the whole thing or nothing.

I'd also beg people to restrain themselves from messing with other people's posts, even if you're just wikifying or fixing a spelling error. If you ''must'' do this sort of editing, make sure that you do not in any way alter the content of the post, and do this sort of editing separate from adding your own contents. The problem is that these kind of edits make it almost impossible for someone attempting to follow the flow of conversation in the history.

Finally, please retain the posting order: add your posts to the bottom of the section, and if you're creating a new section, add it to the bottom of the page. Yes, there are ''rare'' exceptions, but let's keep them rare.

Thanks!
:&ndash;]]&ndash; 23:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

==Let us focus in the article==
Dear Souls,
Om Shanti! Hope you are doing well these days… I would like to acknowledge the timely input of RHolton; his input allowed some of us to smell
the roses, go to the beach, have regular meditations, etc… Things are great when you do not have to revert a long time expected and well deserved NPOV in this article. Thanks! Thus, now is about the article, “Past is Past…” Here I go...:

Let me start with this very important Misplaced Pages policy: '''VERIFIABILITY'''

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.
2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.
3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

'''Please keep in mind point #3.'''

Now, let me dissect the article paragraph by paragraph. As we move along, besides the "verifiability" policy; I am sure other policies will come up, which I will make sure to provide.

The first paragraph of the NPOV article in question: “Prajapita Brahma Kumaris Ishwariya Vishwa Vidyalaya or the BKWSU, is a new religious movement that began in 1937 based on the experiences of Lekhraj Kripalani in Sindh (present day Pakistan).The BKWSU teaches of a form of meditation involving spirit channeling it calls Raja Yoga, in confusion with classical Patanjali's Raja Yoga, through Raja Yoga Centers worldwide."

'''Questions:'''

1) What is the source for the above mentioned statement?

The source may need to be academic, researched by holders of graduate degrees. Would you kindly point out your source? Please check this page out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Finding_good_sources. Please, if applicable provide the ISBN number since readers would like to
double check the source.

2)Brahma Kumaris is being labeled as "]" in the article. Sources? please.

3) ] pointed out in RHolton’s talk page the following: “We are going to have problems Mr Holton because you have admin status to throw around but your opening comments are factually inaccurate. The BKWSU was not founded in 1937, the precursor Om Mandali was World Renewal Trust followed. The "University" is not real university and as such not founded, it might be misleading. Additionally, the founder was not Brahma Baba but Shiva Baba. And the citation are clearly available and non-contentious. So caution please if we are to be accurate. ] 18:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)”

Accordingly, why is not “ShivBaba” in this paragraph? ("the founder was not Brahma Baba but Shiva Baba.") Is 1937 the real date? Sources, please...sources.

4) What is the source for the "The BKWSU teaches of a form of meditation involving spirit channeling it calls Raja Yoga, in confusion with classical Patanjali's Raja Yoga, through Raja Yoga Centers worldwide."? I am really curious about the source of this excerpt.Please provide the references. As an aside, I just want to comment that I do not foresee any problems with Mr. Holton’s input, on the contrary; his impartial input is truly appreciated.

Note: If there are no '''verifiable''' references for these points, the paragraph must be deleted from Misplaced Pages.

]


: One of the problems in your approach Luis is that you ignore what you do not like to see or cannot win, go for the personal attack, adopt a full on and aggressive distortions to the facts without addressing the multifold citations that have already been offered to you. As you see above, we have the '''"The Spanish Parliamentary Commission"''' and '''"The National Assembly of France"''' both label the BKWSU a ''']'''. Is that not satisfactory? Are we happy therefore to label the BKWSU a cult instead of a ]? I am actually happy either way but NRM is more diplomatic.'''

: Sources do not need to be academic, for example, an article on Christianity can perfectly well quote the Bible as source . An article on the BKWSU can reference the Murlis or its own materials. The guidelines state "easily verifiable", so, for examples, if I state that the '''BKWSU has been accuse of torture and kidnapping''' and then offer the reference of the Deccan Times that is perfectly adequate. If I give an actual date of a Sakar Murli, any interested researcher can attended their local BK Raja Yoga center and request a copy of it to check or the see the increasing number published on the internet, e.g. .

:* With reference to ''']''', the easily verifiable source is the BKWSU's own teaching manual mid to late-1990s which has been reproduced in full here, . In which it is clearly stated by the BKWSU that the method by which so-called Shiva talks through Lekhraj Kirpalani is spirit channelling. Just out of interest, what else would you call it?

:*With reference to the '''various stages and dates of founding''' in the history of the BKWSU, I am very happy for you to provide your detailed information. The legal entities, e.g. Word Renewal Trust, might be the most easily referenced and there is going to be debate as to when the spirit Shiva established what when as many BKs will argue that it was actually done via Lekhraj Kirpalani's business partner Sevak Ram through which Shiva explained to Kirpalani what was happening. As the early gatherings were informal, I think it will be very hard to put precise dates but am surprised the dates of the initial possession were not recorded.

:Otherwise, what do you want to do ... erase the entire article? But whilst you are here, please address the issues raise above re '''Sevak Ram, finances, membership and centers'''. Thanks ] 01:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


Dear .244,
I am glad to see that my post is complete…
Now, let me address your points:
Please read the post in Spanish which TalkAbout referred to: what I read there is not the word “cult.” I read “sect” Do you see that? (In Spanish both words are different) The note posted had Eloy Rodríguez-Valdés as the author. He is a psychologist. Do you believe that a Psychologist is in fact authoritative to write about religion and spiritual movements? Please follow this wikipedia rule: “published by reputable sources.”
Since you mentioned about Christianity, here is a link to the wikipedia site:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Christianity
Please note the neat references.
As far as “sect, “ cult” or “NRM” what should be posted in the wikipedia article is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Cult.2C_sect
Then, yes.. I agree with you…According to Misplaced Pages (see link) the term NRM should be used, and “sect and cult” avoided. See? That is reasonable. I am helping you with this source to support the addition of NRM in the article.
Of course, that is not how Brahmins see ourselves, or some else but since we are in WIKIPEDIA, we need to follow WIKIPEDIA conventions.

Please take a minute to read the following: “Misplaced Pages articles include material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. That is, we report what other reliable sources have published, whether or not we regard the material as accurate. In order to avoid doing original research, and in order to help improve the quality of Misplaced Pages articles, it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data, has been published by a reputable third-party publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Misplaced Pages) or through a public library. '''It is very important to cite sources appropriately, so that readers can find your source and can satisfy themselves that Misplaced Pages has used the source correctly.”''' From: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:No_original_research

When writing an article, it is very important to know what is a “primary source, ” “secondary source, “ etc. An on-line newspaper it is not a “reputable source.” ''unless'' it is in the same category as the “New York Times.”
See this article in the same newspaper you used in your link: http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/oct172006/update8203720061017.asp See their use of proper English, grammar, etc. This is far from “reputable.” As far as the article you linked, note that is one sided (Bias). We do not know the comments or arguments of the other side.

Let me reiterate:
''Reliable publications'': “Reliable publications include peer-reviewed journals, books published by a known academic publishing house or university press, and divisions of a general publisher with a good reputation for scholarly publications.”
In you example about Christianity, the sources are taken from “known academic publishing house or university press.”
When you say: “Sources do not need to be academic.” That is true; however they must be reliable. Your newspaper link nor the site BKINFO fulfill this requirement. The same holds true for any publication made by a Brahma Kumaris publication. You cannot use that as “reliable” source because it does not fit the concept of “reliable publication” according to Misplaced Pages. Please see the link above. You cannot “just give a date of a sakar murli” you need to quote that from a reliable source. See that?
With that in mind, you have not disclosed any “reliable” source for that first paragraph.
In short: Please comply with this requirement. Use a scholar or a reputable source to back up your statements. Do not use a Brahma Kumaris publication because it does not comply with the concept of reliability stated by Misplaced Pages.

You wrote: “Otherwise, what do you want to do ... erase the entire article? But whilst you are here, please address the issues raise above re Sevak Ram, finances, membership and centers. “ I do not pretend to erase the whole article, but if you do not present any reliable sources, according to wikipedia we will need to consider that. As far as the other issues, if they are in the current article, they may need to be addressed at the proper time. Please do not try to modify or add any more information to the current article.

Best Wishes,
]


: '''So you are saying to us that the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University is not a proper academic institute like any other University and that dcuments or papers produced by its senior faculty members are not permissable? That all and any publications from it are unreliable by Wiki standards?'''

: That is a strange position for you to take and for me to argue against. If it is a University, then surely its materials are perfectly adequate? Please confirm the BKWSU's status in your mind and why you would exclude materials from it in this article.

: That is a bit like the ]s arguing, "you cant write an article on ] if it includes materials ] produced". If we look at the ] article, we discover that such materials are perfectly acceptable, and it is not even a University. ] 19:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


:: Dear .244,

:: Let me write the WIKIPEDIA policy one more time: '''Reliable publications:''' “Reliable publications include peer-reviewed journals, books published by a known academic publishing house or university press, and divisions of a general publisher with a good reputation for scholarly publications.” This is self-explanatory. BK press is not included here. See that?
::Brahma Kumaris is a Spiritual University. It is not an academic university. University is derived from the Latin universitas, meaning corporation (since the first medieval European universities were often groups of scholars-for-hire). In BK we have seniors who have achieved a high degree of spiritual awareness, thus our "faculty." Even though, someone may have several academic degrees, he/she may not fit that qualification (spiritual awaraness). Please do not argue against.. just provide the reliable publications as established by WIKIPEDIA...and remember those are not my rules, those are WIKIPEDIA's.

:: BTW, Since you have mentioned scientology, here is a thread in the scientology talk page FYI:
:: '''"Misplaced Pages is real clear on that. First everything has to be "published by a reliable source" or it can't be included WP:V. This is to keep out original research, ideas posted on bulletin boards, blogs, newsgroups, rumors, and such. Without that, Misplaced Pages would soon be glutted with all kinds of advertisements and stuff which was not at all encyclopedic. Its got to be good, reliable, published information. Well, the Scientology data is something like 40 million words. But you are hard pressed to find good, reliable publication against it. And critical stuff is mostly not about aspects of Scientology but more like, "critical to the reputation of Scientology". I've yet to find a critical, well reasoned, article about Scientology Technology. Terryeo 09:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)"'''

::As you can see, I am not the only one asking for "RELIABLE SOURCES." Please comply.

::Best Wishes, ]


:::And direct scriptural quotations, I see no problems in that?

:::The problem with your responses is that your and the other's agenda is always too apparently and you keep chosing to ignore what you dont like to read. Were you involved with Scientology before Gyan because what the BKWSU team working on this is up to is just like Roll Back, Black PR Rundown and Truth Rundown Training.

:::Quoting Misplaced Pages legalese is like quote the Bible as a defense. Quoting Scientologists as witnesses in defense ... !

:::In reply to the use of BKWSU materials, that would include training manuals, Murlis, Jagdish Chander's work and BK websites, I offer from ];

:::''Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information so long as:''
:::*'' It is relevant to the organization's notability;''
:::* ''It is not contentious;''
:::*'' It is not unduly self-serving;''
:::*'' It does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;''
:::* ''There is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it.''

:::'''re Cult status''', those reports above translates as "cult". If a respected national assembly finds a group to be a Cult, then it is worth nothing. On the basis of what you have written, I submit that we really have to note the BKWSU's fraudulent representation of itself as a University, although I accept increasingly BK members are becoming "scholars-for-hire", and its cult-like nature in the article as a whole. Do you have any citations from reliable sources that have investigated the BKWSU and found it not to be a cult? What else could it be? I am not say that it does not do good, we should document that too but it is for you to provide verifiable sources. ] 23:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


Dear .244,
I am glad you are finally using wikipedia to support your claims!
Please do not start name calling and going into personal attacks. Remember this line you wrote:''"The real-world identity or beliefs of any of the contributors to this article are completely irrelevant."'' You are the main editor of this article, thus you need to provide reliable support when requested. Otherwise, anyone can post whatever they want about BK. See that? Just concentrate on the article. OK?
This is going to be a long one, my friend. But I needed extra time to obtain
all the info you requested. I hope you will do the same for me when I request
a "reliable source."

If you read in the same policy you quoted (verifiability) under “sources of dubious reliability” you will find the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Verifiability&diff=81858242&oldid=81856805
In general, sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no fact- checking facilities or editorial oversight.
Sometimes a statement can only be found in a publication of dubious reliability, such as a tabloid newspaper. If the statement is relatively unimportant, remove it. If it is important enough to keep, attribute it to the source in question. For example: "According to the British tabloid newspaper ''The Sun''..."
'''As a rule of thumb, sources of dubious reliability should only be used in articles about themselves.'''
] However, even those articles should not – on the grounds of needing to give examples of the source's track record – '''repeat any potentially libellous claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by more credible sources.'''
October 16, 2006.

I am showing this link from October 16 so, readers can note the changes that have happened since then (a few days ago.)

There are 3 problems with your (.244) citing of this policy:

1)The sources that you mentioned qualify under “sources of dubious reliability” since as I mentioned before, they do not belong to the category of “reliable sources” until it is quoted by a reliable publication. Therefore, these “dubious sources” can only qualify as sources for this article '''IF they are being used in an article about “ourselves”''' thus, the author(s) of this article are far from qualifying of being considered “ourselves.” As a matter of fact, it is an article written by a group (or individual) against “ourselves.” (The BK) Therefore, your claim does not fit this rule.

2)Quote:“Even those articles should not – on the grounds of needing to give examples of the source's track record – repeat any potentially libellous claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by more credible sources.”
Claims that main editors are making in this article clearly fit under the “libellous” label (harmful and often untrue.) You cannot use those articles to do that. UNLESS you have a reliable source.. a “credible source.” (which you don’t.)

3) Note that out of all the bullets you pointed out to support your use of “dubious sources” the following do not apply:
*It is not contentious: Clearly what the editors wrote in this article is contentious.(As explained above.)
*It is not unduly self-serving: Far from true. It is completely the opposite, the statements in the article, the written form of it have a high tendency to discredit the BK. The use of “weasel” words to discredit the BK movement is high.
*It does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject: This article has been referring to several other groups and how BKs are the “bad guys” when dealing with them. Your links about obscure newspapers and bias websites lacking reliability are the proof for that.
*There is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it: Proof? How?

Therefore, please use reliable sources. Otherwise this article lacks validity.

I would like to note the style in writing this paper. It is a standard on all good articles to use citations. You can use the Harvard style for instance. It is not just a matter of saying: “I used so and so” cite his work accordingly and show us where it belongs in the article. Anyone can write footnotes with different things, but they have to match, so a reader can check the accuracy of your writing. As it stands right now, we see plenty of books and websites, but the article does not show at which point they were cited. You need to do this, however; it will be a waste of your time (but a good typing practice, nevertheless)unless you produce “reliable sources.”
Let me give you a link that you can use for citing sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/WP:CITE

Now, I see that you are adding references and there is a new user who is making “small, almost unnoticeable changes in the article,” “wikifying it.”
Old habits are hard to break... Thank you wikipedia for the back up copies.

Also, let’s get the tasks straight here. It is your job to provide sources. Why? Because you are the main editor of this article. That is not my job. If you feel with the authority to write about an institution which you do not belong to and whithout a doubt feel animosity towards it, then the very least you can do is to show reliable sources for your writings.

Nevertheless, to set the example about “doing your work the right way” let me share with you this scholar source: '''Richard Barz, Ph.D.'''
Professor Barz has visited Mt. Abu in 1967 and 1984.
You can see his qualifications and expertise in the link below
.244…'''''PLEASE: this is what you need to provide: “reliable sources.”''
'''
http://asianstudies.anu.edu.au/index.php/Dr_Richard_Barz

I contacted him and below you will see his reply in relation with the “cult” word that you seem to enjoy so much and use without caution: (I had changed our email addresses, in order to avoid spamming, but I know you can get that info, right?)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Richard Barz <richard.barzAT??.edu.au>
Date: Oct 18, 2006 2:04 AM
Subject: Re: About Brahma Kumaris
To: Luis Alberto Riveros <riveros??ATsomesubtleplace.com>
'''My view is that the Brahma Kumaris are a religion. I don't feel that
'''they are a sect as that would imply that they are an offshoot of some'''
'''other religion, which is not the case. I wouldn't use the term cult for'''
'''them as it has a feeling of secretiveness which does not apply. The'''
'''Brahma Kumaris could also be called a new religious movement since they'''
'''are a modern form of a Hindu religious tradition that is very ancient.''''''

Some of the articles that Professor Barz has written about BK:
* /Brahma-Kumari's: vrouwen aan de (spirituele) macht/ in
*Inforient* Richard K.Barzand H.Pauwels, 8:1, pp.17-24 (1988)
* /A reinterpretation of Vaishnava theology: from the pushtimarg to
the Brahma Kumaris/
* /In *Devotional literature in South Asia* ed.
R.S. McGregor, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp.298-313 (1992)

Article in *Devotional literature in South Asia* ed. R.S. McGregor
includes a good bibliography of materials on the Brahma Kumaris up to 1992.
http://prp.contentdirections.com/mr/cupress.jsp/doi=10.2277/0521413117

You can read his scholar article about BK in this book.
.244, to be an editor requires some work. It is not a matter to throw in whatever comes to mind.

Last but not least… hope you are fluent in Spanish before you pretend to make me believe that “cult” and “sect” are the same. Keep in mind that there is a strong bias in Spanish speaking countries. The religion there is Catholicism. Anything else is usually labeled as “cult”, “sect”, “nrm” etc.

Therefore, as it stands: The first paragraph of the article has the necessary support to name BK as either NRM (according to Misplaced Pages) or a “Religion” according to Professor Barz expert opinion in this subject. Anything else in that paragraph does not have any reliability as of today. If you provide the “reliable sources” then we can move on into the second paragraph. Please do not delay, I am eagerly looking forward to it.

Best Wishes .244,

]

== Professor Richard Barz and the use of Psychologist to determine Psychologically Coercive Techniques ==

Luis,


=== No ===
no, I am afraid the first paragraph is not done. We still have governmental assemblies stating "Cult". Additionally, you are ignoring the BKWSU's own published literature both in terms of publicity, teaching manuals and Murlis which are both entirely supportative of the statements in the first paragraph, which the BKWSU finds credible and are fine by wikipedia standards. If your argument is to disclaim what the BKWSU states about its own activities, then you will have to produce citation that counteract the BKWSU's and God Shiva's own claims.


* 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.
'''If you want to go down in the history of the 5,000 Year Kalpa as the BK Brahmin that argued that BK Raja Yoga was a "Vaishnavite religion", that is your business. For the sake of our BK Brahmin audience (this wont make much sense to non-BK Brahmins), you as a BK are saying that "Gyan" is Vaishnavite "Bhakti" because a "Kali Yugi Shudra" said so!?!'''
* ], 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 ===
I will state that the protection of "God's Words" channelled through the medium of Lekhraj Kirpalani, called the Sakar Murlis, behind pgp encryption and password protected websites is secretive and the re-editing of the same manipulative of the truth. I am interested in his speciality in the Vallabhacarya sect. I understand how, as Lekhraj Kirpalani was related to it (a fact that I was challenged on by a BK), it might be possible to misconstrue a connection, but I find it hard to see how any religion that "worships" Shiva can be called Vaishnavite. Surely, it should be Neo-Shiavite? Shiva is not an incarnation of Vishnu, and I do not need citations to back that up! This brings his understanding, or exposure, into doubt. How much access he has been allowed to the original Murlis, to see if he is aware of the child sex abuse cover up, the violent persecution of the PBKs, the failed prediction of Destruction in 1976 and so on?


* Encyclopedia entries —— be it the Routledge Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements ''or'' else — ought to be sparingly used.
As regards BK Raja Yoga being Bhakti; unfortunately, Professor Barz is entirely contradict by God Shiva in the Sakar Murli and numerous BKWSU published books referenced on the topic page. So which takes precedence? As a BK, you are essentially contradicting the BKWSU own publilcations and falsifying what you know to be true.
* 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 ===
'''As far as the use of psychologist to determine psychologically coercive techniques in religions - whether new, orthodox or cultic - who else would you use? A theologian cannot be expect to be expert in psychologically damaging practises. A practitioner or recruiter even less so.'''


* Publications by John Walliss, esp. ''The Brahma Kumaris as a Reflexive Tradition: Responding to Late Modernity'' (Motilal Banarsidass; 2007).
BTW, personal emails of this sort are not acceptable by Wiki standards. But, by all means, if you want me to start emailing around for a second opinion, I will do so. Thanks. ] 05:35, 21 October 2006 (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)

Latest revision as of 08:58, 24 July 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Brahma Kumaris article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconYoga Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Yoga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Yoga, Hatha yoga, Yoga as exercise and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YogaWikipedia:WikiProject YogaTemplate:WikiProject YogaYoga
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconIndia Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSpirituality Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirituality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spirituality-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpiritualityWikipedia:WikiProject SpiritualityTemplate:WikiProject SpiritualitySpirituality
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconHinduism Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconWomen's History Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconOrganizations Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconReligion: New religious movements Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as Top-importance).
WikiProject iconVeganism and Vegetarianism C‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of veganism and vegetarianism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Veganism and VegetarianismWikipedia:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismTemplate:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismVeganism and Vegetarianism
CThis article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
The following Misplaced Pages contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.


Sources

No

  • Anything published by brahmakumaris.org or Om Mandali, Pharmacy Printing Press or B.K. Raja Yoga Center for the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University ought to be treated as flatly unreliable.
  • Hodgkinson, 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.
  • 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 quite flawed.
  • Manderson 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).
  • Tamasin Ramsay's thesis from Monash University.

Yes

  • Publications by John Walliss, esp. The Brahma Kumaris as a Reflexive Tradition: Responding to Late Modernity (Motilal Banarsidass; 2007).
  • 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.

TrangaBellam (talk) 08:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Categories: