Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:52, 14 October 2006

Archives
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

Both figures from all zones please, Americas, India, Australasia, Africa etc.195.82.106.244 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 195.82.106.244 18:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

New Religious Movement or Cult?

I'd say cult 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 New Religious Movement. Any other suggestions? –RHolton≡– 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. 195.82.106.244 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. 67.79.31.88 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. 195.82.106.244 18:36, 14 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? 195.82.106.244 18:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject India

A bot has identified this is an article from inclusion in the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_India 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. 195.82.106.244 18:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)