Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jossi (talk | contribs) at 03:36, 30 November 2006 (→Specific controversies). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

India B‑class

This 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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:WPHinduismPeerreview

Archives
Nov 2005 - July 2006
July 2006 - Aug 2006
Aug 2006 - Sept 2006
Sept 2006 - Oct 2006
early Oct 2006
late Oct 2006
early Nov 2006
Current

Sources

Dear Riveros11 aka sockpuppet 72.91.4.91

I am quite happy to use the academic sources you do Luis. Albeit, including parts you are trying to supress. But two admins have expressed a more complete understanding of policy than yours in which self-published materials are acceptable.

Actually, I am not so personally interested in websites but defend others' right to use such. The same published books the academic papers reference and the printed materials of the BKWSU including the easily referencable and citable channelled messages from God called the Murlis are fine.

Note that material from an organization's website and literature, can be used in an article about that organization providing that it is properly attributed, not unduly self-serving, and not defamatory to third parties. For example, a book published by an religious organization if available from stores, or online outlets, can be used to describe the views/beliefs/traditions of that organization (attributed to them and not asserted as fact, of course). Same applies for materials/statements/opinions, etc. described in that organization's website, under the same caveats of notability, of not contentious nature, and not unduly self-serving

Do you want to discuss the difficulties you have in accepting these comments? 195.82.106.244 23:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear .244,

Firstable The Ip you mention is me.. riveros11. I have never denied that. See the post by TalkAbout requesting me to use only one user name. Sometimes, it is more convenient for me to use the IP rather than signing in.

However, since you brought the subject on sockpuppets I have a little request for admins to take a look at it. I will make sure admins will take a look at this.

Tomorrow is your last day to present reliable sources for the headers in dispute. Please present them here in the talk page. I believe I answered your questions before. Take a look at the archives. You do a good job archiving this site.

Let me ask you this question: User 195.82.106.244 are you the user brahmakumaris.info?

Avyakt7

Just to once again try and qualify the word ‘reliable'’ in relation to ‘source’:

News media articles are typically only reviewed by a single editor before going to press. References are often not checked and consequently, at least in the West, legal firms continue to enjoy lucrative returns from the pursuit of news publication editors for libel. Just contrast this with the rigorous review that academic papers are subject to prior to publishing.

Regarding the citing of sources originating from personal websites, can everyone familiarise with point 2 made by Jossi in the now archived discussion section ‘User .244 (alleged) misinterpretation of Admin Jossi's writing’ ]. Sincerely searchin man 15:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Strange activity on pages linking to this page

User brahmakuris.info has edited all these pages ] on the 15th November that used to link to this page and replaced them all with identical text. I believe this is called a "forest fire". I request that this is looked into.

I suspect that user brahmakumaris.info is a sockpuppet of 244 based on the name similar to his website of the same name. Can this be confirmed?

Best Wishes,

avyakt7 14:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Ughhhhh as someone who is mostly on the outside, watching, I'd say bramakumaris.info is up to no good. He/she archived a lot of live discussions, and changed the name of the article without going for concensus.

All this as the page is in the middle of going into arbitration? Sethie 16:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not accurate. 'Please note the name of the article has not changed. There is no discussion going on. Just a lot of pointless and repetitive accusation and counter-accusation. For discussion there has to be a willingness of all parties to take onboard other's point of view and work to a consensus. 20:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Then I am in error. In looking over the history I thought I saw this happen. I really wish I had taken a clearer look before I had said that. Now that I take a closer look, I see that there are two pages that are being edited. I jumped to a false conclusion. Mea culpa, especially in the current climate.

I agree that you believe that "there is no discussion going on. Just a lot of pointless and repetitive accusation and counter-accusation." And now I understand why you chose to archive pages while there was still activity going on. And so I would ask you to unarchive any material (whether you want to call them "pointless and repetitive...." or discussions) that has activity going on in the last 14 days. Sethie 21:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sethie, I don't believe you are in error. I wasn't aware that those pages where about Brahma Kumaris world spiritual university as well. It seems that some of those pages are mirroring what user .244 and supporters had here before.

Am I supposed to discuss on those pages as well? Should those pages have the same content as this page? Look forward to your reply. Thank you. Best avyakt7 22:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I have reverted it back to the redirect. Sethie 23:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Sethie! Would redirect this one too? http://en.wikipedia.org/BKIVV

Best Wishes, avyakt7 01:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. Sethie 01:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Its also not true to say the page is going into arbitration. I tried to get BK Luis Riveros11 to engage in Arbitration. He was informed. He refused. I tried to engage BK Luis is meditation. He was informed. He refused. So, I put the article up for RfC regards the self-published citations aspect. Noting that two admins have already repeated the clear written policy on this. Luis refuses. What can I do?

As the target of all these BKs' accusation and incriminations, I see BK SimonB putting in complaints without notice and behind my back too, for my part I agree to work with the academic citation and some BKWSU self-published sources within the limits stated by Wiki policy. I cannot be more fair than that. 195.82.106.244 20:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Is user .244 = brahmakumaris.info?

Dear .244, It seems that you like for me to repeat things "ad infinitum." Please do not defame me. I have never refused the mediation nor the arbitration. The mediation was never signed by anyone but yourself. No even a single member of your supporters. Next time let us know here what you are planning to do rather than informing us after the fact. As far as your arbitration petition as stated by an admin in the page you archived without letting us know, the desicion was taken rather quickly. Now, I hope you are happy with my lenghty explanation. I just have a very simple question for you. Actually it is a "yes"/"no" question: Ready?

User 195.82.106.244 are you the user brahmakumaris.info?

Looking forward to your reply. Best, avyakt7 22:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

User TalkAbout: following steps of .244

Dear TalkAbout, Please do not change the contents of this article without previous discussion. Your comments of "fixing mess with references." (history) it is not appreciated. No one has asked you to do that task. Please let us know in this page what you are up to before you do it. I will revert that and next time I will place a "vandal tag" in your talk page. You are being kindly warned. Also, Friday is the last day for yourself and .244 and supporters to present "reliable sources" for the headers in question. Here is a copy of the article: take a look at "controversy", "destruction", "virgin birth", "front organizations" and "splinter groups." Evidence means that a link to a "reliable source" supports the paragraph in question. You have selected words for those paragraphs. Some of those words are "weasel words." In your supporting material you should point out so there is no doubt that the researcher used those words. If you point to a site it needs to be a reliable source, researched material. I will be looking forward to seeing that by the end of Friday in this page. In the past I have placed the quoted material in this talk page before updating the BK page. I am expecting the same from you. One last question: There is an IP coming from California in the "history" it is 64.121.65.67 Is that You? It seems that this IP has been involved with user .244 in the past. That Ip had changed this article as well without discussion. I will place a warning in that IP talk page. To make you happy and to be fair, I will make every attempt to sign as "avyakt7." If I couldn't I will add avyakt7 after my IP. here is a link of contributions of that IP, FYI Best Wishes, avyakt7 14:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Bogus Vandalism accusations, dishonest revisions and revision messages by Riveros11

I am looking at the following revision made by Brahma Kumari Luis Riveros, aka Riveros11 or 72.91.4.91 here, .

The message he has left says, " (Reverted page- Vandalism again by user Maleabroad - placed a last warning tag in his talk page.) "

• Now this is, a) not true and b) another bogus vandalism accusation

What he has done is remove all the contributions made by TalkAbout even though they were non-contention, referenced with clear academic or journalistic citations and positive. 195.82.106.244 01:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Time for changes

Dear All, As explained before in this talk page, I will go ahead and delete the material following admin Jossi's suggestion. There is not a single reliable source in this page which supports the tags left by Jossi in the article. Perhaps user .244 and supporters do not understand that their links are not reliable sources. Need to be researched materials by experts in the field. You have failed to provide those.

To admins Jossi and Sethie:

Please note the following:
1)I have asked a simple question to user .244 which (he) has ignored. Is he user brahmakumaris.info? Likewise user TalkAbout has not responded yet.
2) User .244 even though was blocked previously, still continues with his old behavior and is modifying this page without further discussion.
3)User .244 is using my real name instead of my user name. He is defaming me by labeling me a "recruiter." I would like to see his proof on this. He has posted my real name and location in the talk of "Maleabroad."
4) User .244 keeps defaming me. User Maleabroad has been blocked before for editing this page and insulting users. See admin Addhoc's reply
5)See this link about user .244 intentions:
6) User brahmakumaris.info has been creating several pages with different names which refer to Brahma Kumaris. I strongly suspect that user is a sockpuppet of .244. Is there a way to test this? (His unwillingness to respond to my simple question leads me to this request.)
7) User. 244 has blanked his talk page. He was advised by an admin not to do it before. He is not willing to listen. See admin Mer-c talk page
8) Finally, and I would like to bring this up to show his character. He has threatened me to contact my employers about using Misplaced Pages. He has published my personal information as well.
9) User .244 was caught misrepresenting (lying) about his membership to the antagonistic site brahmakumaris.info which he denied.

My question to both of you Jossi and Sethie is, how long do we (Brahma Kumaris) have to put up with an user like this? Thank you.. and now into the changes. I apologize for this lenghty explanation. Best Wishes, avyakt7 22:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I am not an admin. I would speak with admin Jossi or Mer-c about some of these charges, specifically the defaming, threat and publishing your personal information.

I asked Jossi to look into the #6 and I have not recieved a response from him, so I think we need to look elsewhere for that specific action.

My experience with wikipedia is that those who don't play by the rules DO get stopped, sometimes it just takes awhile.Sethie 22:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Policy and progress

And just to be fair, both ways, how long do we have to put up with a user that refuses to listen or participate in a "middle way" discussion or involve third parties, e.g. arbitration or mediation? I am sorry Sethie but it cuts both ways, it takes "two hands" to clap.

The wiki is full of people screaming "vandalism", and using all sorts of methods to block or intimidate others, when someone else adds or changes what they have written. I have stated that I perfectly well accept to use the citable sources Luis accepts BUT also that self-published sources are also acceptable. Two admins have corroborated this policy. I am receiving a complete blanking from Riveros11 over this which is the source of dispute.

If an organization publishes extreme beliefs, and even academics report them in papers the other editors reference, e.g. their founder "glowing red" and a "different voice speaking through him", "God descending into him" then that is not defamation; that is objective, cited reportage. In such a central claim to the BK faith, of God incarnating into their founder only, it cannot be ignored - even if it does not fit into their current or Western orientated PR.

If we can come to a decision over the self-published material within the limits that Wiki policy sets, I will be very happy. This to me would appear too be the only bridge left to cross. That is hardly an unreasonable position. With Luis, we have faced two immense resistances, a) to the channelling issue and b) to the Destruction issue despite, again, both being referenced in academia AND he himself putting the points forward them on other website. Again, it comes down to whether the Misplaced Pages is PR for such organizations and individuals OR accurate reportage.

If there is going to be two dialogue instead of tit-for-tat attacks, I am happy to engage in it. What more can I state? 195.82.106.244 09:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I hear your pain and I don't engage in big abstract dialogues. Pick a specific point, and if I feel the pull I will discuss it. Sethie 16:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear I am not getting involved in 90% of the arguements going on here. If I see something clearly out of wack, like Bhramakumaris.info changing all of those mirror pages, I will change it, otherwise I won't get involved. Sethie 16:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Sect or Cult

The French source cited lists it as a cult, not a sect, hence I have changed it back to cult. Sethie 16:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sethie, Please note: That link is not a reliable source. It is not a researched document. Note that none of the authors have any academic credentials or demonstrated expertise in the article. And.. because a report comes from France, a particular location.. it cannot be generalized...unless the link is meant to be detrimental on the image of BK... as the editor is hoping to accomplish. Best Wishes, avyakt7 20:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome to argue all of the above, and welcome to do so with someone else. My only concern at this point is that those articles ARE cited and it was incorrect to say they alledge it is a sect, they don't say that.

I've done the whole "reliable sources" argueing back and forth thing and have no interest in debating that with you or anyone else. Sethie 00:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sethie, Thank you for clarifying. Let me ask you this. Since you are not an admin, what is your interest in this article? or in this discussion? Best, avyakt7 02:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I thank you for asking, and the only response I feel pulled to make in this moment is that I will let my actions speak for themselves. Sethie 05:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

To Sethie

Dear Sethie, The changes I have made after following admin Jossi's suggestion have been removed by user .244. Note that even the section which he tagged to be re-written by me (since I was the author) has been taken away by .244 in a forceful manner without discussion... The re-written version will be published this week. I am following Misplaced Pages policies and practices. A user who has been recently blocked comes back and does the same vandalism again and ... nothing happens to him! I am certainly looking forward to hearing about the 9 points above. I have never refused to go into mediation nor arbitration. However, I request the article be changed as it was yesterday when I changed it while we wait for mediation or arbitration. User .244 has nothing to lose with this request on the other hand Brahma Kumaris does. I feel this inmediate change by a recently blocked user fits the "clearly out of wack" statement you made.

Below is the exchange I had with admin Jossi, it is unfortunately that he is not here to follow up on this at this moment, but perhaps he will a bit later... Dear Jossi,

Thank you for clarifying in the article. I need to point out that at least 3 days were given for a final attempt to provide reliable resources. Note "3 day drill" in the talk page for every single part of the article. Needless to say, the previous editors have never produce a single reliable resource. User TalkAbout and the IP address ending in .244 (user known as .244) were the main editors of that article. Since previous notification was given, when do you believe I should erase those parts without reliable resources? Thank You, avyakt7 21:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Three days is quite minimal. Be generous and wait a few more days. You can place a note that "unless sources are provided by such and such date, the material in secton X and sction Y will be removed." That way it is transparent and you give notice. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I have placed a note per Jossi's instruction in the talk page and performed the changes yesterday. I will wait for your answer on this, Sethie.

Best Wishes,

avyakt7 19:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

My answer is, find someone else to help out with this!

I will say that I like to give 1-2 weeks before erasing a sentence, and that is how I operate. Sethie 00:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your help and advice Sethie. Best, avyakt7 02:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

User .244 you asked for arbitration, why are you taking so long to respond?

Dear .244, I wrote in your talk page that I was willing to "negotiate" with you after I received an "invitation" from you. You requested either arbitration or mediation. I answered to you that I was fine with it and selected Arbitration. I told you that I wouldn't revert the page, even though I could and I will unless I hear from you today. I am not willing to play your games anymore and even though I am showing that you have been quite tricky in your dealings with us (are you brahmakumaris.info?) I have been patient enough by following admins advice however, with no support from them when the time comes. I would like to show you this page as well What are you trying to do? You know that you will get some people upset with those comments about BK and Hinduism. Here is your complaint that I have refused arbitration. You know it is not true. Here user Thatcher is willing to restore the arbitration petition you made. Lastly, I requested to have the page reverted as it was before your revert.. while we wait for the process. Do not complain again that I am not willing to go the "middle way discussion or involve third parties, e.g. arbitration or mediation." As far as I am concerned it is you who is unwilling to do it. Perhaps you feel that you can continue "free and clear" now? I seriously doubt it.

Best Wishes, avyakt7 20:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Controversy section

The controversy section is misquoting the source. Please take into account this information:

France's 1995 parliamentary commission report (Unofficial English translation), published a list of purported cults compiled by the general information division of the French National Police (Renseignements généraux) with the help of cult-watching groups.

On May 2005, former prime minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin issued a circular indicating that the list of cults published with the 1995 parliamentary report should no longer be used to identify cults.

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Also note that there are assertions made in that section that have no sources, or that are clearly not appropriate to include:

• Documented incidents of child abuse within the organisation brushed...

The sources is a personal page and thus not a reliable source

• Social and psychological problems faced by ex-followers including two suicides within one family.

The sources is a personal page and thus not a reliable source

• Rape and physical violence from families and partners of Brahma Kumaris.

No sources. Should be deleted if a reliable source is not forthcoming

• Questionable advertisement of relationship with United Nations Organisation

That is an opinion and in violation of WP:NOR

• All other bullet points are without sources, or the source provided is a dead link.

I leave the edit to remove the non-compliant material in the hands of involved editors. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your timely visit, Jossi. USer .244 is probably waiting to block me as soon as I make the change. He has blanked his talk page with all the warnings he had, thus Will I need to start all over again from warning 1 on his page? My talk page on the other hand, has never been erased. I will follow up with your suggestions. Best wishes, avyakt7 09:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words in this article

I use the phrase "weasel words" as they are defined by wikipedia ], not expressing a negative attitude to the author myself. There appear to be several examples of weasel words in this article, which cannot be conducive to any apparent neutrality (which I notice is disputed anyway). Under Controversy, it states "Seen by many as a cult". Please can you justify that term - many. Only two sources have been cited (leaving aside the question of how authoritative they are). Surely, that can't justify the term "many"? I'll amend it to "some", unless further evidence can be submitted. How much time should I allow? I think a week is reasonable. More to follow...Appledell 21:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Appledell, Thank you for stoping by and participating. Changes have been made in the article following admin Jossi's advice. Those "weasel words" which you mentioned were removed. Best Wishes, avyakt7 03:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Changes in Article

Dear All, Note that changes have been made without making a revert to a previous version. Rather whatever version was in place was modified according to discussions and suggestions from admin. Took care on leaving out remarks related with Hinduism which user Maleabroad seems to find not suitable. I placed a warning in his talk page as well. If user Maleabroad finds something which needs to be changed, he must discuss that issue here. Also, the segment on "beliefs and practices" which was tagged by admin Jossi for a re-write, was fianlly re-written. I had valuable help to re-write this part, being careful of maintaining the substance in Professor Kranenborg's cited article. One of the paragraphs named "activities" inside "beliefs and practices" was moved into "achievements."

Your contribution to make this article a researched and neutral one is appreciated. Best Wishes, avyakt7 03:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

7 days course

As you can see, the seven day course was mentioned. However, it does not have a single reliable source in it. Any one willing to support this?(with reliable sources) Best, avyakt7 03:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

BK teaching posters

I notice that the links to the "BK teaching posters" in the article forward you to a site that doesn't appear to be recognised by the BKs. As they purport to be the teaching posters used by the BKs (rather than any splinter groups), can the author please provide evidence/verification that these posters are indeed official BK teaching posters - or that the site that they are hosted on is a recognised official BK site (as I may be mistaken). I understand a week is a reasonable time for an author to provide the requested information. If it is not forthcoming within that time, I'll delete the entry. Appledell 19:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I have now deleted the link as per my note above. Appledell 19:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they are included in the books written by BK Jagdish Chander and published by the BKWSU which are referenced in the topic.

Have you actually read any of the references befor your attempt to ignore them!?! This is the problem with you BKs. All the references are given but because you have personally not read them, you think you have the right to remove elements.

Do you need to to give you actual page references or are you willing to go back to your Raja Yoga center and ask to read them there?

I will, of course, revert this. 195.82.106.244 00:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism by Riveros11 AKA Avaykt7

Jossi, On November 17th Riveros11,avyakt7,72.91.4.91,72.91.151.117, 72.91.28.223et All, reverted all my citations which were part of the discussion here. His claim was that citations were vandalism, which is what he was asking for which seems contradictory. Today he deleted several sections, including ones with citations by the BBC and Time. I ask now in a most concerned way, is User Riveros afforded some special treatment in that I feel he should have been cited for vandalism for removing my items and for doing so with whole sections today saying that it was under your direction in the edit summary. Please explain as I just spent over $1,500 in research material feeling that I would meet the challenge (since he wants numbers of pages etc) but now feel that fairness is not being afforded to those of us that seek a fair and equitable view of this organisation beyond what has now become a copy of a report/PR view by Riveros. Please note that the references were there in plain view and that not once has Riveros nor any of the IT Team said no they were not true. Using the system to gain what they sought the whole time. What we have here is a piece meal removal of all that their (BKWSU) via their PR Chief KarunaBK wanted removed and the PR spin put in place. See that the very sections that he removed are the very sections Karunabk wanted removed without discussion. Here Riveros is intimidating and busy placing big Stop signs on peoples pages yet feels he is beyond the rules that all must follow:

As you may recall I asked for help on November 12th due to his multiple deletions . He said he would cooperate but I see not such cooperation or good will given that he has gone and done the exact thing and removed the citations. I can understand he wants to defend his "Faith" but if he wants a PR point perhaps he can do that in his website http:/www.godhascome.com.

• I am requesting the items cited to be placed back.
• I am requesting that Riveros11 whole deletions be placed back if in deed they were not under your direction.
• His intimidation tactics have been dully noted on multiple occasions. He has even begun on Sethie. Sethie has done good work on wiki efforts to link to other pages for meaning as is common in all other articles.
• I would like it said that upon the citation being noted that the material should be placed back with out further ado by Riveros since the only point of argument was that the citations were not next to the very entry

I will await your response. TalkAbout 21:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear TalkAbout, Are you 64.121.65.67? Please answer that question. All your so called "citations" were never discussed in this page and most important, they are not considered reliable sources (researched material by authorities in the field of study) Also, please note that you are using one incident which is unrelated to this artcile to give a bad impression of Brahma Kumaris. Admin Jossi pointed out about the "child abuse case." Another one is Heide. Just because she was a BK member at one time, just like yourself or .244 that does not make her a representative of BK. As I said before, many well know criminals are out there who profess christianity, and that does not mean that I can put them in the Christianity page as examples. Please be resonable. Your work should be discussed here. You are not an exemption. You had ample time to do so, other than the fact that you come into this picture, whenever user .244 cannot, will not or does not contribute here,that makes you a non-regular editor who only shows up to change things around without previous discussion. Please submit reliable sources. Look forward to seeing them in this page before being added. Thank you. avyakt7 22:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to understand this dispute, and I would appreciate if it can be discussed one item at a time.

External links section

The EL section needs to be pruned. Please read WP:EL for some useful guidelines on what to link to and what to avoid linking to. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Following Jossi's suggestion, I propose the following deletions from the external links: In the ex-bk section, deletion of brahmakumaris.info - as it contains a lot of the unfounded assertions that Jossi termed not appropriate above (eg child abuse claims, etc). This is in breach of the links policy on wikipedia, which prohibits the linking to "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research." I would also question the reason for having links to "ex bk sites" at all. Would any other faith/organisation have links to ex-members of their wikipedia articles? What is the relevance? There may be relevant reasons that someone can provide for keeping this section - but if not, I will delete it. I also propose deleting all the PBK links - as they are an organisation that are not part of the BKs or have any official relationship with the BKs. For the same reason, I also propose the link to the "Vishnu Party" be deleted. I will allow a week for the author/s who put up the various links I mention to verify the reasons for them to stay. Appledell 10:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear All,

I would like to point out even the bibliography has some items that are not suitable and consistent with Jossi's and Appledell's input. Best Wishes, avyakt7 10:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Since this is an article about BK, not an article BY or FOR Brahma Kumaris, an ex-BK site is TOTALLY appropriate, if it meets wikipedia standards.

What people have said about BK, if they meet wiki standards, is what we use to write articles, whether they are "pro," "con" or neutral. Sethie 20:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

That is not totally correct. Only these sites that are considered reliable sources can be used in articles. Personal websites, blogs, anonymous websites and the like are not considered reliable sources for Misplaced Pages. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Jossi I am not seeing the difference between your and my statement. I said "if they meet wiki standards" it is appropriate to use a website. You said, "only these sites that are considered reliable sources" can be used in articles.

Help me understand how what I said is different from what you said? Sethie 01:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I may have misunderstood what you said. But in reviewing the site in question, I doubt it meets the standards required. If there is material in that site that has been published by a reliable source, editors could link/cite these sources. All other commentary and OR, unless described on secondary/reliable sources, has no place in the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that clears it up for me, my post was not about a specific site. Sethie 03:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I have now made made the deletions I suggested above - one week notice has passed without anyone challenging. Appledell 19:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear All, Here are the wikipedia standards: I would like to point out: "Self-published sources (online and paper) Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." It is well know that brahmakumaris.info it is an ex-bk site and user.244 (one of the main editors) is not an authority in the field and that site is his own site (archives back in october have the proof for this.) Thank you. Best, avyakt7 23:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• There are two issues here you are working hard to override Luis. The policy also states;

Self-published and dubious sources in articles about the author(s)

Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources in articles about the author(s) of the material, so long as:

it is relevant to their 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 as to who wrote it.

What that means is that material published by the BKWSU is perfectly acceptable within these guidelines; websites, Murlis, teaching posters etc. by whoever choses and, frankly, where ever it is referenced.

Just out if interest, why is it acceptable to have links and reference to material on your own site God has come? But not material on other sites such as the BKWSU produced material on http://www.shivbaba.org.pl? Who is trying to reference any self-published material on http://brahmakumaris.info anyway?

195.82.106.244 02:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Why on earth you spending $1000 on research. you take life too seriously. people like have a shorter life expectancy. this is the problem with ego it carries with no expense, trash your life and worry over nothing, Find a hobby that you enjoy doing. JP 18:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

JP my request is that you do not include such personal comments on this discussion page. My thought is, "there is already enough tension here." It also goes contrary, in my opinion, to Misplaced Pages:Civility and Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks Sethie 21:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yup, and please learn how to sign into the Wiki, Jesselp. 195.82.106.244 02:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sethie, i am not here comment to create more tension, i do apologies if this has happened, but i feel health and safety advice should be given to individuals, as people can live in a way without knowing, can harm themselfs or develop symptoms which will result into something more tedious to resolve, which i am able to see in here. as a psychologist so i feel some what irresponsible if i can see issues that people are displaying and not give information/advice in how to deal with the situation. i made this comment public as he/she is not the only.

And when i sign with the ~ it comes up with jp auto. again i do apologize things were taken wrongly.  ;)

JP 13:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey JP- you know I felt that as I read your response, I really had the sense that behind your words was a place of caring and concern.

In terms of participating here, I'd ask that: a) you don't post such comments HERE on the discussion page and b)if you do place them on individual talk pages, to express yourself as you did just above: "Hey, I am concerned. I see this. I feel the need to express my concerns" and c) add to that expression: Would you like to here more? If you expressed yourself along that lines, it would not violate wp:No personal attacks or WP:civility. love, Sethie 15:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Ahh yes, and in terms of singing use four of those ~ in a row. :) Sethie 15:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

So, how do we square this with comparible topics such as the Moonies or Scientologists where what could be conceivably "self-published" sites are referenced to give a balance point of view? ,e.g. http://www.rickross.com or http://www.xenu.net

I am sorry, I don't consider this issue resolved. 195.82.106.244 00:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Given that the proponents behind silencing any impartial view are BKWSU members, can we adopt the format on the Moonies page?

Official links

Supportive views

Opposing views

Balanced views

195.82.106.244 00:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

7 day course deletion

Dear All, On Nov. 22nd a post was made regarding the seven day course. We have not received any support on this as far as reliable sources to back up the explanations in it. As pointed out before, it will be very hard to find an expert explanation on it. However, there are a couple of links to the BK site which fully explain the expected content on these classes. If there are not reliable sources available then this content will be erased on Dec.7th. (Note that 15 days have been given). Thank you. Best Wishes, avyakt7 10:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

There was one clear reference already to the correspondence course published by the BKWSU. I have just added another to an earlier version of the same title by Jagdish Chander. This is self-published material by the BKWSU that meets Misplaced Pages standards stated above. Any contributor wishing to follow up these references can attend any of the 7,000 Raja Yoga centers worldwide or purchase copies online.

I must check exactly where your PR whitewash has got to but see no reason make significant changes to this section. 195.82.106.244 02:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear 244,I do not appreciate your comments about "my PR whitewash" You know that is not true. I have placed a "civil" tag in your talk page. There is no need to put down anyone efforts. Best Wishes, avyakt7 16:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, "your" is not just singular but also collective in English. I was address to the entire BKWSU team working on this topic article. Even those not actively using keyboards. 195.82.106.244 00:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Achievements

Achievements were better in bullet point form. dont need an essay for it.

JP 19:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear JP, Thank you for your input. Would you re-write this paragraph maintaining the substance of it and post it here? Best Wishes, avyakt7 02:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

sure, jesselp 18:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Million Minutes not a UN project.

Hi

The Million Minutes of Peace was not a UN project as stated. It was a BKWSU project. Factual error.

Removed running courses as achievement. Hardly ...

195.82.106.244 03:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

But the bkwsu were given a award for it by the UN..so it was an achievement.

or we could have a new topic called awards if it is not an achievement

jesselp 18:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

jesselpI note your insults on my talk page suggesting I need counselling. In all humility, do you also have a problem with English comprehension? Can you read what was written above? I said, "running courses" hardly warrants being listed as a notable "achievement".

I also stated correctly that the Million Minutes of Peace was not "a UN project" as written. It was entirely a BWSU and so this is a factor error which the BK contributor cannot possibly verify. Please read things through carefully before knee jerking.

195.82.106.244 03:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Removal of mediumship and channelling from intro

OK. I am challenging the removal of mediumship and channelling from intro and have replaced it as per earlier edits.

The reason for this is plain. It is the one single element that so distinguishes BK Raja Yoga from Classical Raja Yoga and this has to be made clear. The academics all refer to it so there is no objection from that corner.

It also highlights the issue that Shiva, the channelled being that is being mediumistically channelled through Kirpalani and Gulzar, cannot easily be referred to as "God" without qualification. One can state that the BKWSU believes that is it God but as the concept is so radically different from any other world religion, and would bring it into immediate conflict with all of them, we have to go cautious on this claim and not pander to BKWSU propaganda.

I am sorry but one can no more accept one sociologists view of yogic or psychic matters where they repeat BKWSU obfuscation of this matter, than one would accept Einstein's expertise in violin playing; because they are outside of their specialism. In preference, we have to rely on the organization's own original material. 195.82.106.244 05:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I note no objection to this being replaced as it is clearly referenced in the academic works chosen by Riveros11. Thank you. 195.82.106.244 04:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Removal of links

I see Luis is wanting to remove third party links that expose or criticize the BKWSU.

I had a look at similar topic on the Wiki, e.g. Scientologists or Moonies, and I see that the topic include links to such critical/opposing or balance views and so I see no difference to why the BKWSU article should exclude them.

Ditto, to "Controversies" and so I am restoring that section as well. The references to these have already been discussed on these pages.

Thanks. 195.82.106.244 05:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the "controversy" section again - as per jossi's comments above. If you have a problem with that - answer Jossi's concerns. DONT just make edits without prior warning on this page. You have been extended this courtesy - try and do the same.

Appledell 10:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The references to these have already been discussed on these pages. 195.82.106.244 03:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes they have - and admin Jossi has deemed them inappropriate for use in the article (see his comments above). Unless you can provide more substantial reasoning, this section will be deleted later today - as per my 7 day rule warning (feel free to provide others this courtesy - as has already been suggested by Jossi and Sethie). Appledell 07:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Not all. If you go back into the archives of the Discussion pages you will find the further references.195.82.106.244 01:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

removal of mediumship from intro

OK. Back to basics.

"FRONT" organisations

I propose replacing the word "front" with "affiliated" organisation. The use of the word "front" is clearly loaded and implies the organisation is trying to hide behind the identity of these other organisations. Better to just state that these other organisations are affiliated to the BKs - it's up to the individual to decide if they are "fronts" or just natural extensions of the BKs work. I also propose deleting the phrase: "At events promoted by any one of these entities, one might find other BKs present under the mantle of "representing" one of the other organizations rather than the BKWSU in a self-reciprocating manner." This is just commentary and contains sinister undertones, which is not relevant. I will amend within a week, unless a suitable argument can be put up. Appledell 10:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It is difficult. Most are not affiliated organisation in the true meaning of the words, except perhaps the hospital. They are wholly run BKWSU fronts or "trading names" the BKWSU uses for "service". I dont see that the word "front" has negative connotations.

And the statement of how BKs turn up at meetings representing themselves as representatives of other BK organizations is certain true. I'll have a root around the references to see how this is best documented. Thanks. 195.82.106.244 04:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"Front" does have negative connotations - as it implies that the BKs are hiding behind the name (as you yourself clearly imply). I will replace it with "affiliated" unless you come up with a better, neutral, term. BKs may well come to events representing these different affiliated groups/fronts/wings. I don't see why that has any relevance. It is commentary. Again, I will wait until the 7 day limit for discussion I've put has been reached before I make the change. Appledell 08:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

And I will revert it beause the references have been given and I disagree that front is negative (just as academics disagree that the word cult is negative).

An affiliation is between entirely separate groups. These are groups, or service campaigns, raised entirely by the BKWSU and quite specifically in the case of Inner Spaces, "shop fronts" to the organization.

If we look at the Wiki definition; a front organization (or organisation), also known as a front group (if it is structured to look like a voluntary association); a front company, a shell corporation or simply a front (if it is structured to look like a company), is any entity set up by and controlled by another organization. A front organization may simply be a proxy that keeps the parent group's name out of the picture or it may look publicly as if it is set up to do one thing, but actually be set up to do something else on behalf of its parent group. Front organizations are also commonly used to shield the parent organization from legal liability; this is the most common reason for the creation of shell corporations. it would appear to be quite accurate.

If we look at the websites of these front groups we can inspect the stated relationship with the BKWSU and it is on occasions clearly obfuscated.195.82.106.244 01:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Contributions by user 195.82.106.244

Dear .244, I am glad to see you back again! However, you know the rules of Misplaced Pages. You must discuss your proposed changes here before you attempt to change anything in this article. Note the ample margin which is given to you and supporters to come up with reliable sources. On the other hand, you just appear after a prolonged absence and change things around... Please act in a civil fashion. I will be more than happy to discuss things with you here. I have the time...plenty of time. I have posted a warning sign in your talk page, actually you deserve the "last warning" because you are recurrent, but again...you deserve a chance.

I will revert the article back as it was. You have been warned. You know that we are following procedures clearly outlined to us by admin Jossi. One more time, please behave correctly. Best Wishes, avyakt7 13:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear- I do very much support talking changes over for this page first AND there is no official wiki policy that I am aware of that says we have to. See my discussion below for a proposal how can move this page closer to that! love, Sethie 15:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Luis.

• You played a very clever trick of using intimidating vandalism warnings to have me blocked and during that time you pushed through your re-write.
• You continue your intimidation of other editors by doing the same.
• I offered you the change of mediation and arbitration, informed you and these page of such and you refused to engage.
• I have attempted to engage you in accepting Wiki policy sources on many occasions and you ignored it as you do others concerns.

• You have no intention of discussing matter and neither do the rest of the BKWSU team. What are you going to do next? We have even had senior BKs writing to the Mediawiki foundation making false claims and accusations. Knowing the BKWSU, I fully expect Jimbo Wales will be receiving flattering invitation to soem conference, VIP dinner or the BKWSU headquarters and to discover BK sisters in white saris camped out at the Misplaced Pages offices like they have done all across the Indian media controlling it.

• OK, let's discuss. Why are we going to remove all mention of channelling and mediumship from the start of the topic and why should we obfuscate the BKWSU's belief that this channelled being is God with general opinions of what is God?

What do you have to say then? 195.82.106.244 04:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

To user Appledell

Dear Appledell, Once the article has been reverted by someone without previous discussion, that article will be reverted back again. Thus, whatever changes you made will be gone as well. I suggest if you could revert the article back to its version now ( containing Dr. Walliss correction of his last name, ver Nov 28, 2006 13:33) and make your changes there, if they have been previously discussed here. If you gave a notice on previous links and the time has elapsed without response, you may go ahead and make the proposed changes. Thank you and Best Wishes, avyakt7 13:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I did not know that - thanks. Appledell 16:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I am glad to discover Dr Walliss consistent interest in the actions of the BKWSU and BKs. You have no such authority to make statement such as "that article will be reverted back again " Luis. 195.82.106.244 04:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Controversy Tag

I have added the controvery tag to this talk page. Assuming no one objects to me placing it (if so, please discuss here), that does make it actual policy for this page that every significant change BE DISCUSSED HERE, after the change, and that you place descriptions in the edit summary field.

Given the current climate, I concur with Riveros that disucssion should happen BEFORE major change.... and this is the best I know how to move in that direction.Sethie 15:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sethie, Thank you for your constructive suggestion. Best, avyakt7 16:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

To user "Maleabroad"

Dear Maleabroad, I have placed a "last warning" tag for vandalizing this page and reverted the article. You will be blocked again if you continue. Best, avyakt7 21:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I want to change the subsection "Concept of God" as following:

"However this is nothing new, as Shaiva Hindus also worship Shiva as representing Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesh Himself. Shiva creates by entering the world through a corporeal medium, awakening humanity and restoring human souls to their original state of harmony (creator aspect). Because He is Mahāyogi (Sanskrit महायोगी) in Hindu Dharma He develops and sustains this balanced and complete human personality through the power of raja yoga and the knowledge he imparts to humanity (preserver aspect). He gets evil and negativity eliminated through the practice and lifestyle of raja yoga (destroyer aspect Ekambaranatha )."

If this appears fine, I will post it.-Maleabroad

Dear Maleabroad,

Can you give an explanation as to why your suggested change is needed in this article? What difference does it make if the belief is "nothing new"? Nowhere in the article does it say that the concept of God that the BKs have IS new. By your logic, does every aspect of BK belief need referring in the article as being new or old? It just seems to be over-complicating the article.

Appledell 22:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Maleabroad, Thank you for following the guidelines. Your post is appreciated. Let me point out some things: 1)It appears to me that we need to provide reliable sources to back up our posts. 2) It was pointed out by admin Jossi that this article needs to be written having the "reader" in mind, which not necessarily may be knowledgful of Hinduism or a BK member, ex-member. 3)This article is about Brahma Kumaris. Brahma Kumaris is not Hinduism, just as Calvinism is not Christianity. Christianity is the root, but Calvinism is a colorful branch on its own right. I could make a similar analogy by introducing the concept of the "holy trinity" in Christianity (Father , Son and holy ghost) as well and compare it with the BK concept of the Trimurti. 4) Sanskrit is not used by BKs but rather Hindi. Would like to hear your side on these points as well.

Best Wishes, avyakt7 00:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

How is the Brahma Kumaris not a Hindu organization? A Hindu is a person who practices karma and bhakti for the achievement of Moksha. Obviuously you are not of Indian/Hindu background. You were not even born as a BK. Your attempts to create a wedge between Hinduism and BKs is vandalism and you will be reported! Just because the BKs prefer not to use Sanskrit does not make it non-Hindu. Several scriptures such as Puranas were written in Tamil and Tamil is said to be a holy langauge. The BKs are Hindus just as the Shias are Islamics.

Furthermore, I think it is necessary to add the Mahāyogi (Sanskrit/Hindi महायोगी) as the paragraph derscribes Lord Shiva as creating the raja yoga and I think it is also necessary to add Ekambaranatha because the paragraph also describes Him as destroying evil and negativity.

Maleabroad

Dear Maleabroad, You are right, I am not Hindu. In this life, I wasn't born in Bharat. I am a Brahma Kumar. There is a difference here. You elect to become a Brahma Kumar, but yet it is in your fortune. There are many westerners who are Brahma Kumaris, but yet none of them Hindus. I am one of them. Best Wishes, avyakt7 20:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, so the Brahma Kumari is a spiritual group of which anyone can become a part of. It has a Hindu orientation but even a Christian or Muslim can be a part of it. if however the Westerners that become BKs practice both karma and bhakti for achieving Moksha, then by all means they are Hindus.

I will post what I previously discussed unless someone has an objection why it is not appropriate and a logical reasoning. Maleabroad

Dear Maleabroad, Thank you for your response. I do have an objection. I do not consider myself Hindu AND I do not practice bhakti, BUT I am a BK. As a matter of fact, in BK the whole aspect of devotion is replaced by knowledge. Physical devotion as when performing "puja" is out of the question. Thus, please do not jump in to posting yet. You need to demonstrate (hopefully with reliable sources)why do think that by practicing "karma" and "bhakti" for achieving Moksha makes a BK a Hindu. As a matter of fact, the state of Moksha is not permanently attainable according to BK knowledge, unlike the beliefs of other religions. Finally, according to BK knowledge; Karma is not something that you "practice" but rather is a mandatory requisite of experiencing life in the physical world. This is my logical reasoning. Best, avyakt7 23:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Riveros11 continued intimidation of other contributors by the use of wiki tricks such as screaming vandalism

• While agree that Maleabroad's contributions are actually plainly inappropriate, if not just inaccurately placed, for the article on the BKWSU, I do not agree that his input in 'vandalism and have to caution you on your current tactics.

Luis, I appreciate that you are taking Shrimat on all this from your senior sister. It is clear that you are working for the BKWSU and so I appreciate your position BUT screaming "vandal" at an individual that is plainly a fairly inexperience newcomer is against wiki guideline of Please do not bite the newcomers.

Just stop Luis. It his opinion, it is different from your. It not vandalism. He just needs a polite word and help. Stop dumping vandalism tags on other contributor's talk pages, playing the game to supress others through intimidation.

I am perfectly happy to play by the rules and use the references provided. I am happy that we have now clarified the BKWSU's own self published sources as it will make my life much easier.

No angry mastodons either, eh? ... 195.82.106.244 03:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear 244, Please do not change my words around. Maleabroad contributions are always welcome. I do not think they are inappropriate, I think they are appropriate; however, they may need the elements which I stated before. I am glad you finally understood that we need reliable sources in this article and BKWSU literature do not meet this criteria. I do not appreciate that you are placing me as the "bad guy" to earn user Maleabroad's trust. Please stop playing infant games and concentrate in the article. Best Wishes, avyakt7 14:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Changes to controversy

I removed the reference to UN relationship as at present it is uncited. What happened is that the BKWSU was cautioned by the UN for over use or over exaggeration of the UN relationship. I guess someone will have to write to the UN to clarify this or wait until an academic or media picks up on this. The rest are all adequately referenced previously.

I left in the child abuse stuff because I found this citation;

Church, A., Edwards, L. and Romain, E. (1990) Cooperation in the Classroom. London, Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University: Global Cooperation for a Better World.

Which substantiates the self-published author of the report on the senior sisters response to the child abuse incidents, Romain, E., as an expert in the field of child care within the BKWSU. Indeed a former representative of the BKWSU.

195.82.106.244 05:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Having taken a fair amount of time reading the report (as I clearly have nothing better to do), it seems to me that the author clearly doesn't take an academic approach (look at all the repeated personal commentary in it). I agree this person may well have published academic works in the past, but the report you refer to isn't an academic work. The report highlights two individuals suffering child abuse in the organisation's 70 years history. Can you explain why including this is fair to mention in the context of this article, bearing in mind the size of the organisation? This reference in the controversies section will be removed later today as per my previous note above. Just to remind you (again)...here are admin Jossi's views on the controversy section:

Also note that there are assertions made in that section that have no sources, or that are clearly not appropriate to include:

   * Documented incidents of child abuse within the organisation brushed...

       The sources is a personal page and thus not a reliable source

   * Social and psychological problems faced by ex-followers including two suicides within one family.

       The sources is a personal page and thus not a reliable source

   * Rape and physical violence from families and partners of Brahma Kumaris.

       No sources. Should be deleted if a reliable source is not forthcoming

   * Questionable advertisement of relationship with United Nations Organisation

       That is an opinion and in violation of WP:NOR

   * All other bullet points are without sources, or the source provided is a dead link.

   Appledell 08:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Page reverted (again)

OK, I've reverted the page as - again - user 244 has made wholesale changes withour prior discussion or warning on this page. That breaches the guidelines set out by admin Jossi and Sethie for this article. Appledell 09:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

At least for what I have brought to the disucssion, I do not believe that is wholly accurate. I posetd the controvery tag which basically says: a)read the discussion b)cite sources and use the edit summary field c) discuss changes here AFTER you make them. Maybe Jossi set things up where people were to discuss things first, I'm not sure. Sethie 15:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sethie, sorry to have misquoted you - I was referring to what you said above: "Just to be clear - I do very much support talking changes over for this page first AND there is no official wiki policy that I am aware of that says we have to.". I might have misunderstood what you mean't, but as a first principle for working on this particular article, I think it would be very helpful if people would discuss changes on this discussion forum FIRST so people are not endlessly reverting pages. Appledell 18:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I concur with you, Appledell. Once there is an agreement, then posting makes sense. Otherwise, readers will be baffled when looking at this article, with so many changes within a short period of time. This in itself takes away the value of an on-line encyclopedia.

Best Wishes and thank you for becoming such an active user in this page, avyakt7 20:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

User .244 keeps vandalizing this page and erased previous warning

Dear .244, You have been given warnings. There is a policy for this talk page which Sethie helped to set up to avoid further tensions. Admin Jossi as well has been very clear as to what is proper in this article and what is not. It is evident to me that you have other intensions besides informing the readers of wikipedia in a neutral way. Your activities leave me with no choice but to report you for repeated vandalism and for disobeying regulations clearly stated in this page.. and of course for removing a warning tag in your talk page. Hope you understand that using "force" rather than a friendly discussion will not take you any place. Thank you Appledell for reverting the page. Best, avyakt7 13:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

To user .244

If you want your edits to remain, you would be better advised to find good sources that report the criticism. If such criticism exist, it will be most certainly reported by scholarly articles, books on the subject, encyclopedias of religion, journals, etc. Do some research, find these sources and then develop a criticism section that is well supported by solid references, and then your edits will stay unchallenged. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Also note the aspect of WP:NPOV#Undue weight as it pertains to citing obscure and/or singular cases that have had no further implications and that have not been widely reported. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted link to the "child abuse report" from the "Critical" section of the links page. This is as per Jossi's comment about it when it was included originally in the Controversy section: " * Documented incidents of child abuse within the organisation brushed...The source is a personal page and thus not a reliable source" In addition to that, I sight the aspect of WP:NPOV#Undue weight. The report looks into two cases in the organisation's 70 years history. It gives too much weight to them in the context of the organisation's history and the organisation's size. The report that is linked to is not an academic work. Reading the author's personal commentary throughout the report makes that pretty clear. Also note that Jossi's comments about the link were made on 21st Nov - more than a week has gone by and no-one has given any adequate reason for maintaining the link. Appledell 23:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I am sure that, as any other religious organization, there must be some criticism that can be sourced to reliable publications, so one way you can demonstrate your commitment to NPOV, would be to do some research and find such sources for the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I disagree with this aspect of Misplaced Pages policy and am not the only. I have had some tiny influence in changing policy and must take this up sometime. I know how policy does and has changed through pressure but your point is valid and I have taken the time to forward the report to academics referenced and working within the field. Whereas child sex abuse in cults is old news and the BKWSU lightweight offenders - you would be wrong to limit it to two case on the basis of this report alone - the response of the group's leaders has interested the scholars. The author is a qualifed academic, expert witness and previously one of the BKWSU published specialists in child education.

I agree that verifiability must takes precedence over truth. The problem with depending on academia alone is that the truth is subject to the delays in the academic or publishing process, academic fashion (e.g. the NRM versus cult debate) and ultimately through financial influences, politics. And politics is manipulated by manipulators.

In such topics as the BKWSU, the subject matter strays far beyond subjects considered to be worth and possible of academic study, e.g. the entire psychic/mediumistic element. Although clearly referenced in the curent citations, it would be professional suicide for any academic to venture into such a field. The quoted "experts" may be academic but are mainly sociologists and not all knowing gurus - or even theologians. There are also other elements in which academics would not be recognised as experts, especially that of "yoga".

• I wholly refute any expertise in the field of the quoted author Kranenborg re his comments on Raja Yoga which is why I remove it.

With Yoga, as with many schools of world religion, there are an entirely alternative/non-academic but utterly valid peer review system and "experts", through the 1,000+ year old schools of lineage. Personally, I find the Eurocentric and imperialist values prevalent through Wesern academia limited and offensive to non-whites which is why I think they should make room for those other expertises.

I know how certain elements within BKWSU work. But their own Murlis, they are religio-political cult and highly controlled. I bet that they will already be working to exert pressure on the Misplaced Pages Foundation and head hunting Mr Wales to work to silence critical exposure in the media. Just as they have done so across India. Let me know if you are pulled up by the hierarchy, it will be interesting to document.

Now, can you help me to hold the BKWSU team to discussion rather than blanket censorship and intimidation?

Thanks 195.82.106.244 00:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Reversion to earlier edit and more bogus vandalism warnings

Appledell

• the problem with your position is that you are reverting to the later edit, not the earlier edit.

I am reverting to the earlier edit, taking into consideration the recent citations/criticism that was changed without discussion.

'What happened is that Riveros11,

• avoided any discussion,
• ignored the arbitration and mediation I offered him and
• managed to have my IP addressed blocked using bogus vandalism warnings. As indeed he is using the tactic of making bogus vandalism to intimidate other contributors, not just myself, outside of the team of BKWSU supporters naturally.

• Please note, calling for bans or blocks of another contributor is considered Uncivil behaviour by wiki standards. Removing uncivil comments

195.82.106.244 23:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no way of knowing what you are saying is indeed accurate - as no doubt Riveros would contest it (and yes, I have no way of knowing if what he is saying is accurate, either). I leave this to admin to sort out (thank God!) :)

I'm not aware of ever calling for anyone to be banned or blocked or ever acting in any way uncivil. Can you point out where I do? If not, just for purposes of clarity, can you retract the inference that I do. Thanks. Appledell 01:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The comment is clearly direct at Riveros11. 195.82.106.244 01:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks

To involved editors: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Please do not make them. It is your responsibility to foster and maintain a positive online community in Misplaced Pages.

Some suggestions:

• Discuss the article, not the subject;
• Discuss the edit, not the editor;
• Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is;
• If you feel attacked, do not attack back.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

.244 reverts page arbitrarily *again*

I'm not getting involved in a "reverting war". It's clearly not conducive to wikipedia ethics. But I have deleted various things from .244's reverted version that has been discussed above - including the controvery section, link to brahmakumaris.info, link to BK teaching posters , link to PBK and Vishnu Party sites. All of these were done after having given 7 days notice to discuss them (look back up this discussion forum if you are unsure). Please do not revert back to your version by deleting my changes (which had also taken effect in Riveros's version on the same basis). Appledell 01:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd say arbitrarily was a prejudical. You are late in on all this Appledell. Much of it we have been round and round on many times. See above.

The posters are the Jagdish Chander books referenced. If you need to check they appear in unedited form. Have you seen these? Do we need specific page references or is this not enough. The accusation is that I have in some way doctored them but I have absolutely no connection with the website in question. 195.82.106.244 01:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Specific controversies

I was wondering about the "Rape and physical violence from families and partners of Brahma Kumaris." bit.

This refers to firstly, the time a high profile case that was reported in the Australian press of which my sympathies lay entirely with the sister victim; and secondly during beginning of the BKWSU when it was called Om Mandali. This was refered to in Adi Dev and Purity and, I think, the "world rejecting" academic papaer. I must did it out. It does seem to have been formative in the orgs world view about "anit-parties" and sex lust as violence.

Should it not be kept? Let's go thrugh these one by one instead of the blanket whitewash approach please.

195.82.106.244 01:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Rather than keep adding unreferenced material, that will obviously need to be deleted as per policy, it would be more useful if you move these to talk and discuss one at a time. You can do that to show some good will in this dispute. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Reverted page to Appledell's version with erased unreferenced material. User .244 keeps blanking his talk page from all warnings ignoring recent policy to discuss before changes. User was reported for vandalism. Best, avyakt7 02:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

To all involved editors: Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.. Alternatively, I will not hesitate locking the article if the edit warring continues. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Circulaire du 27 mai 2005 relative à la lutte contre les dérives sectaires

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• B-Class India articles
• Unknown-importance India articles
• B-Class India articles of Unknown-importance
• WikiProject India articles