| Revision as of 18:24, 14 October 2006 edit67.79.31.88 (talk) →New Religious Movement or Cult?← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:24, 14 October 2006 edit undo67.79.31.88 (talk) →New Religious Movement or Cult?Next edit → | ||
| Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
| ===New Religious Movement or Cult?=== | ===New Religious Movement or Cult?=== | ||
| I think both terms should be avoided, primarily because they evoke negativity (per the previous statement). | 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 |
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) | |||
Revision as of 18:24, 14 October 2006
 | India Stub‑class  | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
|
|---|
| Nov 2005 - July 2006 |
| July 2006 - Aug 2006 |
| Aug 2006 - Sept 2006 |
| Sept 2006 - Oct 2006 |
| Current |
Discussion now archived
Previous discussion has now archived as page grew beyond guideline size, see Misplaced Pages:Article_size.
- 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, Misplaced Pages:Tutorial and especially, Misplaced Pages:Tutorial_(Talk_pages). If you are having difficulties, go find an admin to help you and have a play in the Misplaced Pages:Sandbox first.
- c) NPA tags belong on user's pages not discussion pages.
Thank you. 195.82.106.244 01:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Focus on the article
I am in no way connected to BKWSU, either pro or con, and I have no interest in changing that. I am a long-time Wikipedian, and an admin, and I want this page to move toward an acceptable encyclopedia article. The reasons for the NPOV and other tags must be delineated, no matter how blindingly obvious someone might think the reasons are. Those issues must then be addressed, either by proper citations, or by removing unsubstantiated claims from the article. The real-world identity or beliefs of any of the contributors to this article are completely irrelevant. This discussion/talk page is not the appropriate place to discuss those questions. Use this page to discuss the encyclopedia article only. –RHolton≡– 01:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for the voice of reason, at last! 195.82.106.244 01:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- I have restored the POV tag to the article. Do not remove it until things have been resolved. The other tags may also be restored if specific reasons are shown--but in general, one tag at a time seems sufficient. –RHolton≡– 02:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- RHolton, thanks for dropping by and I really appreciate you restoring the NPOV tag. It’s a small step towards fairness, but if it survives the night then it will be a significant one, as it will easily be the most substantial edit to do so other than that made by 244 or Talkabout, since I’ve been looking in.
- I am not best placed to discuss the article content. I am not a member of the BK nor an ex member. However, my support for the NPOV was because others who were qualified to contest the articles content and attempted to do so, where either stonewalled by proven sockpuppets or had their comments removed from the discussion section and their citation requests pulled down. I have supplied detailed links of examples of where I saw this happening, in a 9 point reply to the user Talkabout in the Searchin Man complaint section of the Sept – Oct 2006 discussion archive. searchin man 03:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
NPOVs for Discussion
OK. NPOVs for Discussions. One at a time. No more personal attacks. No more crapflood. No more discussing the discussion. If you use three equal signs before and after a topic, like this "===Topic===", 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. 195.82.106.244 03:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Please add your NPOV points below ;
Financial status and charitable giving
Membership figures
New Religious Movement or Cult?
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. 67.79.31.88 18:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Categories: