This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jesselp (talk | contribs) at 16:21, 10 November 2006 (→Oxford Leadership Academy). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 16:21, 10 November 2006 by Jesselp (talk | contribs) (→Oxford Leadership Academy)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | India B‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
|
|---|
| Nov 2005 - July 2006 |
| July 2006 - Aug 2006 |
| Aug 2006 - Sept 2006 |
| Sept 2006 - Oct 2006 |
| early Oct 2006 |
| late Oct 2006 |
| Current |
The BKWSU IT team's response to Mediation request
I put in a request for mediation over the issue of using the BKWSU's own published material as being citable and referenceable. There appeared to be no point in entering into discuss or editing until this matter was resolved by a third party. I, of course, see no objection in using BKWSU produced material and indeed have requested the BKWSU IT team to produce even more for inclusion - only for the request to be ignored.
- The Request for Mediation has been rejected due to the other editors refusing to participate. Could we just clarify what is going on here? Is it correct to say that none of the Brahma Kumaris that are engaged in re-writing this topic article in line with the organization's current PR were willing to accept third party mediation?
So, having tried that, the next step I am going to take is to put in a Request for Arbitration over the same issue.
In the meanwhile, there seems to be no point in engaging in repeating the citations and references already given on both the topic article and discussion page when the Brahma Kumaris editors are going to continue to ignore them. But, thank you Luis for confirming the channelling issue in the archived discussion, am I correct to say that gives others the green light to re-institute it into the topic?
- Given your quoted academic use of Jagdish Chander's book "Adi Dev", does that mean that it is accepted by the other editors as a citable reference?
Thanks. 195.82.106.244 11:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Dear .244,
- Glad to see you are back!
- It is interesting to note how none of your ex-bk supporters did not post their agreement. I wonder what is the matter with your team...
- I would suggest next time to request for input in this page before you decide to do something. You are no longer the only one with unlimited access to this page, thus if you want to go on your own without requesting support or input... Be my guest.
- As far as Chander. I have not quoted him. Walliss and other experts in this area with Ph.D degrees have. I have quoted them in turn. That is the way academia works and the way Misplaced Pages would like us to cite our reliable sources.
- Be careful with your words about BK "PR." This is a fully researched material, non bias, written by experts in the field. One last thing, It seems that there is a tendency here to endlessly repeat what was stated before. I do not belong to the IT Team and... you cannot use BK material because: a) It is non reliable source (unless used by researchers) b) You are not a Brahma Kumaris member but antagonist to this organization and thus using it for your own purposes (to defame the institution)as stated by the Misplaced Pages policy about Reliability. c) You are not an expert in the field. Hope I will not repeat this again.
- Best Wishes, avyakt7 14:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Read what it says and stop avoiding the issue, "given your quoted academic use of Jagdish Chander's book "Adi Dev", does that mean that it is accepted by the other editors as a citable reference?". I appreciate that you have no intention of discussing these matters but I want your response recorded.
- I am sorry but you are plain wrong in your prejudicial interpretation. Self-published sources are wholly acceptable, see; .
- Firstly, the issue is "verifiability" when dealing with facts. A source need not be singularly academic. In case of opinion, fine; state the opposing schools of academic thoughts. But reported facts stand alone as long as the source is reputable and verifiable.
- Secondly, one does not have to be a Brahma Kumari to record what has been published by Brahma Kumaris and as the Brahma Kumaris state that they have no official membership any way, your position is entirely moot. Such primary sources can be used to make "descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge" (see policy notes).
- 195.82.106.244 15:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- I am sorry but you are plain wrong in your prejudicial interpretation. Self-published sources are wholly acceptable, see; .
- Dear .244,
- Please go back to the archives. There we discussed the same issue. Please read your link fully. You are against Brahma Kumaris. You use Brahma Kumaris materials to show your animosity.Your BKINFO site is proof of that.Please do not repeat again what we talked before.
- You either provide reliable cited resources by experts on the field or you simply cannot edit the article here. It is very simple.
- Your membership is ABK (against Brahma Kumaris.) That is not moot. Just citations please, citations... don't try to find "loopholes" here. You have until Saturday before changes take place.
- Best Wishes, avyakt7 16:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Use of repeated organized physical violence by BKs against PBKs
OK. It has taken considerable effort but I have an increasing number of referenced hospital and police reports from the Indian States of Haryana, Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Karnataka. These are primary sources but verifiable by date and reference number. Although, I agree, secondary sources are preferable, as they refer to current affairs according to Wiki policy they would be acceptable.
- Is this agreeable to other editors?
Thank you.195.82.106.244 15:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Dear .244,
- It seems that your are back with your animosity again. S here I go one more time:
- Could you provide your citations? Misplaced Pages is not an obscure newspaper where you can place your "juicy gossips"..As far as I am concerned you have never provided any type of reliable resource for absolutely anything in this article.
- Needs to be researched data by experts in this field.
- No, this is not agreeable unless you have reliable sources. Best Wishes, avyakt7 16:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Different page for PBK
This wiki page is about BKWSU, there does not need to have so much information on the PBK'S, it only needs to be mentioned. This section should be removed JP
- Dear JP,
- Absolutely right on that one.
Channelling and mediumship
I want to discuss the re-institution of the references to channelling and mediumship.
Reference of this appears in documents by Howells, Wallis and Whaling, and naturally in the organization's own literature and "scriptures" called the Murlis. But it has been removed by the BK operating together to re-edit this article.
I can understand why the organization and its members would want to whitewash this out of the article, it does not go along with the current PR, UN status etc and might put individual off from engaging with its practises; but in all fairness the article would not be complete if it was not mentioned.
There would appear to be 5 elements to this;
- The direct possession of Lekhraj Kirpalani by the entity since named after the Hindu God Shiva, aka Shiva Baba.
- The mediumistic channelling of this entity through Kirpalani by way of speach and actions
- The mediumistic channelling of this entity through a BK follower called Gulzar by way of speach and actions
- The mediumistic channelling of Lekhraj Kirpalani through a BK follower called Gulzar by way of speach and actions
- The mediumistic channelling of Shiva through BK followers
With respect to the last, I refer to the easily referenced and verifiable Sakar Murli dated 11/02/2003 where it says, "If you are sometimes confused reading out the Murli, Shiv Baba will come and speak the Murli. Then children don't reven realise that Shiva Baba came and helped. You can't even tell if it is Shiva Bab speaking or Brahma Baba speaking. You should realise that Shiv Baba came and spoke the Murli."
Looking at the experts we have reference to "someone entering" Lekhraj Kirpalani, the "incarnation and descent into", channelling via Gulzar, a different voice speaking. Looking at Walliss and Chander we have reference to Kirpalani's eyes and body glowing red which in case there is any doubt has been helpfully pictorized by the organization in a promotional video here, . The Murli references are endlessly clear, once we have an agreement on whether they constitute acceptable citations. This is all rather different, and more direct, than the fey "inspiration" the BKWSU are claiming in public now and the public has a right to know.
- It is also an important difference to classic Raja Yoga and so central to BK faith and practise that it should be highlighted at the beginning of the article as before.
Luis, you have attempted to twist a fair and impartial statement regarding this channelled entity being "God" without providing any acceptable citation that it is actually "God" claiming that allegedly is a "weasel word". I wrote that the BKWSU "alledge" that the spiritual entity that is being channelled through Gulzar and Lekhraj is God. We cannot know that it is. Academically, it would not be widely accepted that it was. And so, I think that it is safe that we stick to "allegedly God" because the very specific concept the BKWSU has of God is so widely different from any other religion.
Your comments please. 195.82.106.244 15:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- re: meeting BapDada (the combined form of "God" Shiva and the spirit of the deceased Lekraj Kirpalani) via a medium at the organization's headquarters in India, I can also add Joachim Finger, 1999. As you know, the current season for BKs to personally listen and speak to "God" via the medium is currently going and so can one of you ask him what he thinks of this business and, especially, the PBKs? Thanks. 195.82.106.244 15:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
40 years Confluence Age and the PBKs
I see someone has removed the reference to the predicated date if Destruction in 1976 taking place at the end of a 40 years Confluence Age. The references and clear, easily verifiable and so this should be re-instituted. I appreciate that it does not fit the current PR of the BKWSU which seems to exist on a rolling 5 to 10 years even since this failure, but it is a key element to understanding BK teachings and modus operandi.
The PBK section is fine. They also have their own topic page. It is worth noting that it is only the BKs that see the PBKs as not being part of the "Godly Family". The PBKs see themselves are being part of the same organization. We have references to this is the references you have provided. 195.82.106.244 15:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
user: 195.82.106.244. the pbks have nothing to do with the bks, they are much like some of the business's that were under Names or Front Organizations such as Relax kids etc. the pbk was started off by someone taking bk philosophy conducting a new rendition of it.
Jp
Oxford Leadership Academy
Stop being be silly, just because the OLA was co founded by a Bk that does not make it a front. go to there website they are an management consulting company.
it will be removed... again....
http://www.oxfordleadership.com jp
Janki Foundation
Janki foundation will be removed it again created by a bk, however has nothing to do with BKWSU.
It was lunched at Royal College of Physicians, London, The Janki Foundation is about supporting research and awareness in the field of health and spirituality.
http://www.jankifoundation.org/about_us/index.php
jp
Jesselp - sign your contributions
Jesselp - please sign your contributions. To do so, use 4 tilda signs, e.g.;~~~~
Categories: