| Revision as of 22:53, 24 October 2006 edit195.82.106.244 (talk) →Origins← 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? –]]– 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.–]]– 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. –]]– 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! |
|
|
:–]]– 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, 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 citations that counteracts the BKWSU's and God Shiva's own claims. |
|
|
|
|
|
'''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!?!''' (Apologies to the good Professor but please appreciate I am using BK terms to illustrate here not my own). |
|
|
|
|
|
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 Professor Richard Barz's speciality in the Vallabhacarya sect but he must not be aware of the above. 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, is he aware of the child sex abuse cover up, the violent persecution of the PBKs, the failed prediction of Destruction in 1976 and so on? |
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
'''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.''' |
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Confusion between classical or Patanjali's Raja Yoga and BK Raja Yoga == |
|
|
|
|
|
For those not expert in yoga, a quick look at the Misplaced Pages ] article will help you appreciate what Classical Raja Yoga is. A yoga form with over 2,000 years of tradition, it is clearly entirely different from BK Raja Yoga. That the two are named the same is confusing, perhaps deliberately so on behalf of the BKWSU. |
|
|
|
|
|
The actual date of inception of BK Raja Yoga is not know but it must be after 1936-1937 when the ] ] named after the ] ] ] first ]ed Lekhraj Kirpalani and started ] his "Knowledge" through him. It is recorded that in the early days of the Om Mandali/BKWSU Lekhraj Kirpalani was not the medium through which the knowledge was channelled and it is also recorded in the Sakar Murlis and BKWSU publications that the "Knowledge" and practise was not delivered complete. Therefore we cannot say exactly when BK Raja Yoga was first taught but we can safely say it was only in the last 70 years at the very most and most likely much less. |
|
|
|
|
|
Increasingly, the BKWSU and senior faculty members of the BKWSU, such as Brian Bacon and Mike George of Oxford Leadership Academy. are referring to BK Raja Yoga as being "ancient" or "centuries old", e.g. at the 2004 Parliament of the World's Religions the BKWSU Erik Larson, Dadi Janki, Jayanti Kripalani did talk on "The Wisdom of Listening to God: Ancient Raja Yoga of Brahma Kumaris" or "Oxford Leadership Development Programme Learn the art of reflective inquiry, a deep reflection process based on the centuries old practice of Raja Yoga Meditation." Now, this I submit is both clearly untrue and that it does not require an expert academic opinion to point out the difference. Indeed, if a specialist opinion is required then it ought to come from a recognized yogic authority such as Vivekananda. Personally, I do not see anything contentious in this. |
|
|
|
|
|
BK Raja Yoga is new, less than 70 years old not centuries. ]'s ] ] or Classic ] is an enitrely different practise and more than 2,000 years old. I state that it is a confusion that needs to be clearly stated at the beginning of this article and so the statement as given does not need changed. If BK do wish to remove the statement, are they also going to assert that BK Raja Yoga is the original, Classical or Ancient Raja Yoga on the ] page as well? |
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you. ] 06:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: such intense debating seems to be going on, it is only and article!!! what's the big deal, why shouldn't people be able to read this stuff......this is a free world and Wiki is about expressing that, surely if the the Gyan of bks is the truth then the philosophy of the cycle cannot be stopped and will be fulfilled as it has been every 5000 years......it seems strange to me that bks take all this as such a threat ] 11:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== User: 195.82.106.244 last chance to offer reliable sources == |
|
|
|
|
|
Dear .244, |
|
|
Thank you for your quick reply. |
|
|
Let me be clear this time (perhaps I wasn’t before.) |
|
|
'''You either provide reliable sources or that first paragraph will be erased, according to Misplaced Pages rules.''' Before doing that, I will post a paragraph considering the evidence that we already have to replace the current one. I believe 3 days for you to produce reliable evidence for that first paragraph is plenty of time. If you did not have it and wrote the paragraph anyway, then … you don’t have evidence, don't waste our time here. As simple as that. |
|
|
|
|
|
.244 we all know how easy it is for you to write and send emails around. Just remember to post a website with '''the qualifications of your source''' so I can double check it. You know I will. |
|
|
|
|
|
Please let us know about your qualifications before you try to argue here about religious studies and research. Show proof of that. |
|
|
Let me copy again what you wrote: '''"The real-world identity or beliefs of any of the contributors to this article are completely irrelevant."''' That applies to you too. Do not forget that. |
|
|
|
|
|
Oh yeah.. I was forgetting about your friend, Green108… What can I say… If you do not like this debate.. just don’t look at it. If you think this article is not a big deal, good for you.. Others and myself included, do not think so. |
|
|
On the same token, If you like this article, then .. this is your chance to submit reliable sources so it can stay here. |
|
|
|
|
|
As always the very best for both of you, ] 13:55, 21 October 2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
: why do you say your friend green108, and 'what can I say'.................why do you have opinions of me, i don't know who you are, i just logged on here and saw the debate had gone off at a strange and very tense angle and so asked a question, hoping to lighten the mood a bit. ] 20:33, 22 October 2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Dear Green108, |
|
|
:: Here is why: |
|
|
:: Please look at the archives. July 2006 is a good date. |
|
|
:: Any luck with those "reliable sources"? That will lighten up the mood quite a bit. |
|
|
:: Best Wishes, ] 21:36, 22 October 2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
::: Luis, |
|
|
|
|
|
::: I am sorry but I have been too busy working on an information pack for academics and educational institutes to have answered you sooner. |
|
|
|
|
|
::: As far as citations, why bother putting up any pretense of a conversion. You have never been interested in listening. I am perfectly happy with the references and citations as given, including the BKWSU own publications and the scriptural references as given by the Sakar Murlis which contain all the knowledge. |
|
|
|
|
|
::: Are you going to condescend to a response as to why they are insufficient? 3 Days should be fine for me to complete this .info pack and start mailing them out. ] 06:43, 23 October 2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
==Cult status, Jews' Karma, Earth's Axis tilting and Shiva entering Lekhraj Kirpalani== |
|
|
|
|
|
OK. I have a citation from The London Observer dated September 1996. The London Observer is a Conservative broadsheet newspaper of public record, first published on 4 December 1791, and easily comparable to the New York Times that published the recent Misplaced Pages article. Indeed the British media, whether right or left wing, is general trusted more worldwide for its impartiality and detachment. |
|
|
|
|
|
The London Observer records such BKWSU beliefs such as "'''the axis of the shall straighten from its angle of 23.5 degrees to the truly vertical'''", "'''The continents shall come together once more'''" and "There will be springtime all year long ... a paradise of endless happiness" following Destruction. |
|
|
|
|
|
It goes on to state that the "'''The Brahma Kumaris emerged in India in 1937, when a wealthy Hindu diamond merchant, Dada Lekhraj, began to claim that Shiva, God the Supreme Soul, had entered him to begin the task of creating a new world order'''" and the book "Adi Dev - The First Man" by Jagdish Chander. |
|
|
|
|
|
* '''Now, my question here, what is it called when one disincarnate spirit or soul enters into the body of another, takes control of it, starts talking etc?''' |
|
|
|
|
|
In plain English, that is ], or " the concept that gods, daemons, demons, animas, or other disincarnate entities may temporarily take control of a human body, resulting in noticeable changes in behaviour" to quote the wiki itself. There are no other word for it. Put that together with the BKWSU training manual, the Sakar Murlis and quotes given from Sister Jayanti regarding ] and we have the first paragraph. Nothing controversial there; we have a paper of note, scripture, a published author and a senior administrator of the organization backing it all up. |
|
|
|
|
|
'''In the article the journalist asks the BKWSU for comment on "whether six million Jews had died at the hands of the Nazis because of their 'bad karma'?" and the newspaper was told that, "Yes, indeed they had." My suggestion is that we include this in the section on Karma.''' |
|
|
|
|
|
On a separate issue, the newspaper reports that London based Cult Information Centre, which monitors the activities of new religious movements, describes the BKWSU as a "religious cult". "'''The Brahma Kumaris believe that the world is about to end in apocalyptic destruction, ushering in a Golden Age in which group members will be divine beings living in palaces 'decorated with multicoloured lights''''." |
|
|
|
|
|
'''I look forward to the convolutions of Wiki policy Luis is going to try to overcome this. My guess is that he is just going to try and use aggression and accusation to ignore it all, where I am sure that real academics and educational faculty members will not'''. ] 06:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
: * Lastly, LUIS, can you please work out how to use the Wiki because your signature/date stamp is not working. Use 4 tildas and check your user preferences please, e.g. <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> will add a name and datestamp automatically. Also, make it easier for us to follow what you write, perhaps you could have a play in the ] first to get a grasp on formatting, indentation etc. |
|
|
|
|
|
: Thank you again. ] 06:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Tuesday October 24 2006 is the deadline == |
|
|
|
|
|
Dear .244, |
|
|
Thank you for you advice about the "sandbox," I agree that I am becoming more familiar with the policies at Misplaced Pages than the way you edit it... |
|
|
|
|
|
Since you are preparing an "information pack to academics" right now, that means that you do not have the "reliable sources" as specified by Misplaced Pages to support |
|
|
your statements. Thus, you wrote this article without considering this important fact. Let me remind you that those references that you have are not cited at any point in that first paragraph in question. |
|
|
|
|
|
As far as your article in the London Observer, please show us the site or make it somehow available for us to see it (your BKINFO site perhaps) As far as the first paragraph is concerned there is little that could be used. As a matter of fact, let me point out a reference which you added in this article (under bibliography/references) but have no cited at all: |
|
|
Dr. Kranenborg's work: http://www.cesnur.org/testi/bryn/br_kranenborg.htm |
|
|
Please take a look at that article. Well written, in a non bias way, concise, "weasel words" are out of the question unlike the current article. See the difference? |
|
|
According to that article it says:"The movement was founded in 1936 in Karachi by Lekh Raj who was born in 1876." Thus, guess which "reliable source" is more reliable for an on line encyclopedia? Your newspaper or a scholar article. BTW, I obtained the permission from Dr. Kranenborg to quote his article...also take a look at the label he uses to describe BK: "Religion" or "new religion" thus in agreement with Dr. Richard Barz. |
|
|
|
|
|
I know "bkwatch" has been very busy lately... hope to see a "reliable source" from your part tomorrow. |
|
|
|
|
|
Best Wishes, |
|
|
|
|
|
] 14:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Conluence age phases== |
|
|
This is a citation request for the following paragraph, |
|
|
|
|
|
"Therefore their knowledge has become modified according to necessity in order to sustain their faith. At first it was taught 50 years for destruction and 50 for creation, then 60 / 40, now the Brahma Kumaris tend to try and avoid the issue." |
|
|
|
|
|
Please provide this otherwise I will delete the paragraph. ] 15:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sorry Avyakt 7, I can't be bothered to look up whatever it is your so upset about, but I would like to know why you are harbouring personal feelings and opinions about me, I have never spoken to you before as far as I am aware, it just seems strange, love is the key ] 17:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Green108, I have the highest opinion about you. I don't recall otherwise. Are you upset about something? Please be "light"... I totally agree with you, love is the answer... Now, down to business, my friend: |
|
|
'''I think Bksimonb raised a good question there, how about responding to it?''' |
|
|
Best Wishes Green108, |
|
|
] 17:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
yes i am upset by your comments, I quote 'Oh yeah.. I was forgetting about your friend, Green108… What can I say' |
|
|
this implies some feelings on your behalf about me that I don't understand, also I don't like you saying you have the highest regard for me, are you saying you know me?.......who are you and why do you have opinions about me? I have asked you three times now, why don't you answer,,,,this is the business I care about, not the silly article, it's not a point scoring game, it's just an article about an organisation, so when I just happen to come on here to see how it's going, I read comments from a stranger that I feel are not in the highest regard at all, if I am wrong could you please explain it to me |
|
|
] 15:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Green108, Here is my email:avyakt7atyahoodotcom. You can write me here to talk about this matter, if you wish. This space is to discuss about the "silly article" only.(quoting as you wrote it) '''Any reliable sources to support this article?.''' Best Wishes, ] 15:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Avyakt 7, you made those comments about me right here on this discussion board, so I feel here is the place for you to explain them, I have no wish to enter into private communications with you, please just explain yourself as I feel insulted, I just want to know what's behind them, otherwise I will make a formal complaint about you to Wiki ] 16:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==First paragraph modified== |
|
|
|
|
|
This is the way the first paragraph of this article will look tomorrow unless "reliable sources" are presented today (10/24/06). Needless to say, any attempt to revert back without providing the required support will be considered vandalism. |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Prajapita Brahma Kumaris Ishwariya Vishwa Vidyalaya''' or '''Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University''' is |
|
|
considered a new religious movement<ref> |
|
|
according to wikipedia policies</ref> according to John Wallis, Ph.D<ref> Culture and Religion 2 (2001)"The problem of tradition in the work of Anthony Giddens." John Wallis, Ph.D University of Warwick, UK.</ref> or a religion<ref> As suggested by Professor Richard Barz, Senior |
|
|
Lecturer, Faculty of Asian Studies. The Australian National |
|
|
University.[http://asianstudies.anu.edu.au/index.php/Dr_Richard_Barz</ref> or as stated by Professor R. Kranenborg “Brahma Kumaris is in |
|
|
fact a new religion, originating within Hinduism but going its own way.” The Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University ('''BKWSU''') teaches a form of meditation denominated Raja Yoga. According to Kranenborg: |
|
|
“''The entire way of the Brahma Kumaris can be characterized as raja yoga. One should not think here in the first |
|
|
place of classical yoga, as described by Patanjali. Central to raja yoga is that one becomes connected with the |
|
|
Highest Soul and with the highest in oneself. It is a way to the true self, which is to be expressed in everyday life."'' |
|
|
|
|
|
: '''Strong objection'''. There is clearly no consensus on this. Especially whether or not Shiva is the highest soul. You do not provide any citations to suggest that. |
|
|
|
|
|
: '''There is no need to remove the core millenarianistic issues of Destruction and the Nuclear Holocaust that is so central and identifying to the BKWSU and you make no justification as to why it should be removed.''' |
|
|
|
|
|
: You have been provided with adequate citations to counter your position. Your POV is not in a position to judge what is vandalism or not. What is currently written is accurate. It is just not to the taste of the BKWSU PR department. ] 22:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Origins== |
|
|
The movement was founded in 1936 in Karachi by Lekh Raj Kripalani who was born in 1876. |
|
|
"''When he wanted to withdraw from this life in 1936 so that he could devote himself to the spiritual life, he had a radical religious experience. He had the feeling that he had come into contact with the Supreme Soul or God; |
|
|
at the same time he experienced himself in this encounter as an eternal soul and the connectedness of that soul |
|
|
with the Supreme Soul.''”<ref> Reender Kranenborgh from Free University of Amsterdam |
|
|
</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
: '''Strong objection''' again. |
|
|
|
|
|
: Kirplani did not feel, it is stted clearly in BKWSU own publicity material that "God entered him". Whereas the initial possession by the so-called "Shiva", or "supreme Soul" of Lekhraj Kirpalani, and the ensuing psychic visions of Destruction, Vishnu, souls leaving body etc, may have taken place from around 1936, the formation of some type of organisation, took place in 1937. Again, you have had the citation given to you many times. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
=== No === |
|
: "From Landmarks in the History of Prajapita BrahmaKumaris Ishwariya Vishwa-Vidyalaya" - which is the BKWSU own webpage it states; |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* 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. |
|
: "'''(1937)''' - ''Formation of world's first Trust of women and Baba's surrender of all property to the trust ". In the year 1937, a spiritual trust was constituted and Baba surrendered all his movable and immovable property to a committee of women and girls. Never before, in the history of the world had any mate surrendered all his belongings to a trust, constituted only of ladies. Nowhere had women been given such an honour, as here, to head and run a spiritual organisation. Baba called them Bharat Mothers and said that these would open the doors to paradise by educating people to be pure.''" |
|
|
|
* ], 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. |
|
: I am afraid this underline how far out of touch with the reality of even your own organizations published history and how far you are pushing your own organization's PR agenda. This is not a Neutral Point of View. ] 22:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
==References== |
|
=== Yes === |
|
<div class="references-small" style="-moz-column-count:2; column-count:2;"> |
|
|
<references/> |
|
|
</div> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Publications by John Walliss, esp. ''The Brahma Kumaris as a Reflexive Tradition: Responding to Late Modernity'' (Motilal Banarsidass; 2007). |
|
Best Wishes, ] 22:13, 24 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) |
