Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bkangel (talk | contribs) at 23:22, 16 March 2007 (Hi). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The Arbitration Committee has placed this article on probation. The principals in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris are expected to convert the article from its present state based on original research and BK publications to an article containing verifiable information based on reliable third party sources. After a suitable grace period, the state of the article may be evaluated on the motion of any member of the Arbitration Committee and further remedies applied to those editors who continue to edit in an inappropriate manner. Any user may request review by members of the Arbitration Committee. Posted by Srikeit for the Arbitration committee. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris.

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
late Nov 2006
December 2006
Late Dec 2006 - Feb 2007
Current

The start of the article

Currently, the opening of the article is a real mess. I'd like to invite opinions of ALL editors on what they see as being important to include in the opening paragraph to the article. Currently - in my humble opinion - there is far too much prominence of words and themes like "mediums" and "channels". I think it's fair to include this stuff somewhere in the article, but not as the opening lines of it. I would prefer using a more academic approach to the intro - which gives a more neutral description of the BKs, based on who they are and what they actually do. Any thoughts greatly appreciated. I'll then take a crack at it myself. ~~Appledell (for some reason, my auto-signature doesn't seem to work)

Appledell,

The first paragraph is rather small and to the point. Might I add that the entries have been given citations and they do serve to state the truth:Dadi Gulzar is the medium that channels Bapdada (this can be explained at length later) and in addition I did provide an academic book on religions that Channel as the Brahma Kumaris do (rather unique) and so it is of great notation. As you know Avaykt7 was even quoting the murli spoken to the IT TEAM on 10/31/2006 in a posting here. I am aware of :IT TEAM:There will be opposition, but when you are firm in your own position, the opposition will end. So, I am at a little disadvantage in that I am alone, regardless of what Avyakt7 may say and I am respectful of the fact that the latter message was channeled via the mediumship of Dadi Gulzar. So, being that the faithful travel during the Season when the trance messages are channeled/recieved via the mediumship of Dadi Gulzar, removing it would be like removing the annual pilgrimage to Mecca for Muslims or removing Easter for Christians.PEACETalkAbout 06:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I haven't said the opening paragraph is without citation. What I am saying is that to what extent does it give appropriate/due weight to the identity of the BKs? A fully citated opening paragraph could say that the BKs are an organisation that have pioneered solar energy in India - but that would give undue prominence in the opening paragraph. By the way, I am not part of the BK IT Team, so I don't see the relevance of that assertion to the point I'm making. If you have an issue with Avyakt7, you can take it up with him on his talk page. ~~ Appledell

Neutrality warning

I am re-inserting a Neutrality warning box to reflect the current state of the article and the concerns raised by Appledell. Just quickly scanning through I can see quite a few contentious statements and weasel words such as "It is claimed that women control men". Exactly who is making the claim? Bryan Wilson? Does he actually use the phrase, "Misandry- It is claimed that women control men in a complete role reversal". Words like "Misandry", "control" and "complete role reversal" are a bit strong unless he used them himself. Is that just an interpretation of what he said? This needs to be clearly specified in the sentence especially since it is a contentious claim. Also, how about this classic, "but rather declines birth after birth until its lowest 'fag end' at the end of the 20th Century". "Fag end" is in quotes. Who is it quoting exactly?

Also there seem to be some factual errors, "Following this opposition, which curtailed their activities, the gathering moved from Karachi to their current location in Mount Abu, Rajasthan ". We discussed this a long time ago. The reference given does not cite opposition as the reason for the move to Mount Abu. Also, "The Murlis are no longer available for sale or to the general public and one must complete the Brahma Kumaris foundation course in order to attend morning murli class.", when were they ever on sale to the public and where is the citation?

OK. I've run out of lunch time. Will add some tags to the article soon, hopefully.

Regards Bksimonb 13:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Bksimonb,

Thank you for alerting me to the above. I checked and it wasn't within the citation and so I removed it. Yes, agreed in that it was not appropriate indeed. As to the other yes, it is within the academic book. I didn't feel the need to add their long findings as we don't need the term "housewives" in the article when addressing the roles of male BKs. To much expanding is not too beneficial. Short and to the point is clear enough. If you would like I can provide the passage here on Friday. I did add the to the part of Appledell's addition as it is not part of the citation. Thanks again..PEACETalkAbout 00:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear TalkAbout,

Yes if you could post the reference on the discussion page that would really be appreciated. One part of being NPOV is that when a contentious claim is made then it has to be written in a way that does not give the impression that Misplaced Pages is saying it. So it is OK to say something like "Bryan Wilson, Emeritus Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford, claims that women control men in a complete role reversal.." etc but to make the statement, "women control men in a complete role reversal.." is appearing to take what this guy says to be an indisputable fact Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view#A_simple_formulation. I know it adds to the word count but I guess that's the price of NPOV in this case.

Thanks & regards, Bksimonb 12:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Bksimonb;

Yes, I will look at that, and will change/adjust as other citation offer similar but not so clear views on this. Will put on my to do list.PEACETalkAbout 17:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

References

I noticed some dodgy references. There are some murli references which are internal documents and so not easily verifiable by the public. One thread on the arb com workshop indicates that they may not be used but only with regards to proving contentious points. If other editors feel strongly about this issue I can post a "request for clarification" on the arb com noticeboard. There was one reference simply labelled as "An early BK textbook states". Hmmm. Regards Bksimonb 12:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Bksimonb,

First, as to:"An early BK textbook states". Please feel to remove it as that is not a citation. As to the murli's I don't think they can be cited outright but if they are cited in books, with proper citation then I do believe it is a yes (many are within academic books). I will go back and look as this was one of my questions and I do believe they didn't say "no" I couldn't use them if within books. Please note the "dodgy references" were not made by me. PEACETalkAbout 17:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Talkabout. I never thought that it was you that put in the dodgy references. If the murlis are reproduced in a publicly available book or reputable website such as Hinduism Today in a non-"tabloid" context then I guess that is fine since they are easily verifiable by the public at large. As far as I can tell the murli quotes that were used in the reference section referred to documents and books that were only indented for BKs. Regards Bksimonb 18:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Misandry?

Apparently this word means "hatred of men". Should this be under "lifestyle"? It certainly isn't encouraged or considered to be a core BK belief. Hatred of any sort is defintiely a no-no. If Bryan Wilson is of the opinion that this takes place in the BKWSU then perhaps it should be under the "controversies" section and attributed to him.

Talkabout, did Bryan Wilson actually use this word? The reason I ask is because the word "Misogyny", meaning "hatred of women", was originally used and corrected to "Misandry" by Septegram.

Regards Bksimonb 07:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

OK in the absence of any response I have moved it to the Controversies section. Hope that's OK. For NPOV we also need to point out somehow that there are also men in senior roles within the organisation. Perhaps links to their bios would be OK as references (TODO). Regards Bksimonb 11:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Bksimonb,

Yes, the move for now is OK with me, since I miss placed the book. I am planning to place it in your talk page(your request..once I find them). As to the senior men do you mean Ken O'Donnell, Charlie Hogg, BK Karuna, Nirvir(wir...spelling, Brian Bacon,Lee James and you? Now, my understanding is that all have women, senior sisters above them (Sisters in Charge), with the exception of Ken (because he is special....but he too has a Sister in Charge:-( ) and that the one to take over from Dadi Janki is Senior sister Jayanti or Mohini and not a male brother. So, with ken being the one and only...and then Charlie being the lecturer that is still "primarily" run by women, wouldn't you say? When I get my second source I will put it back. But the bios would be great.

BKSimonB, I also want to start a section of BK BOOKs....I have several that have arrived and will begin to enter them as it would give it a missing part that other articles have.PEACE and thanksTalkAbout 00:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Bksimonb,

OK, I think I entered enough of Dadi Janki in the books section and most of the BK books. Do you have some other books to start Bios for the men? I will start the bios on Saturday provided there is enough material. I think Jagdish Chander deserves his own page/article, being the official scribe and so widely cited by academics even in non BK subjects...(quite a yogi that one). PEACETalkAbout 07:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi TalkAbout.

As you probably guessed I've been a bit maxed-out this weekend (organising a house party!). Certainly the university is run primarily by women in that virtually all centres, especially Indian centres are, but Madhuban itself is a notable exception since it consists almost entirely of men with just a few senior sisters. I would say that most prominent decision-making figures in M'ban are Dadi Prakashmani, Dadi Janki (in the months when she is there), BK Nirwair and BK Karuna (that's two men already!). Then there is Dadi Manoher and Dadi Ratanmohini who look after sections of the complex and Dadi Gulzar, who is based in Delhi, but obviously very prominent. There is also BK Ramesh in Mumbai. These are probably the most notable in terms of featuring them in the article. I had a look around the internet and found that there is virtually no bio data on some of these, except for the three main Dadis. I've raised this as an issue with the web team since it struck me as an important missing resource. The only BIO I could find for BK Nirwair was in Portugese .

Perhaps we can limit those mentioned to those who are full-time in service of the BKWSU. Mainly because some of them work in environments, such as working with hard-nosed business types who are not known for their religious tolerance. Certainly some jobs I've worked in I felt I needed to keep a very low profile, whereas now I work in a multi-cultural place along with Muslims, Hindus, Jains, BKs and Ex-BKs and we can all be quite relaxed about discussing our various paths. Not sure if Misplaced Pages even has a policy in this regard, and all the ones you mention are certainly citable. I can only suggest on compassionate grounds but it's your call :-)

Certainly I wouldn't say I was a prominent BK! Misplaced Pages is the first public exposure I've had and it isn't much of a task compared to the years of service others have put in. Perhaps, as Mr Green commented on the BKI forums, I should just stick to showing people how to operate the FM translation headsets ;-)

Not sure about the list of BK books. Do you think maybe that's making the article into an advert? Perhaps a section on books about the BKs, but not published by the BKs, would be useful and then just we could just include a link to the BK Publications website rather than duplicating what they do. What do you think?

Thanks & Regards Bksimonb 08:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Bksimonb,

The book section is not an advert but fact that the BKs publish these books and lists, the books by author, year, and ISBNs for said books (nothing beyond that). Please see Margaret Singer and other articles that list books produced by organizations or individuals.

As to the members I only included the ones that use the Brahma Kumaris in their PR, do PR for the organization, are public about their roles and use it in their activities. I will remove the actor since I don't have a link. I do believe that the others are/were prominent figures and did so in a public way. No, I do not intend to put you in, I merely asked since I saw the role you play within the BK IT TEAM as the senior for the UK and English speaking countries if I am not mistaken (so no worries..I respect you and glad we can communicate peacefully). No, I don't intend to upload anything, that is why I asked. As to the headsets (:-) often hard to do...), well you know he does have that dry homour and I am sure you both were fond of each other when he was still a surrendered brother. I must state that I do have the highest regard for BK Jagdish as he was heartfelt in his work and has been cited by many authors/academics. Did you place the link to Nirwair? Regards/PEACETalkAbout 05:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes I am OK with the books if that is standard practice on articles. I will add the link to Nirwair later since there is some disruption taking place on the article right now. Certainly Jagdish Bhai may be notable from an encyclopedic point of view for the reasons you state. A few years ago he visited London for an extended period of time for health reasons and would lecture almost every day. It was a great chance to get to know him. He had quite a sense of humour and would often reduce us all (including himself) to hysterical laughter with way he told the stories the early days.

Regards Bksimonb 22:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Bksimonb,

Yes, I have heard some of the stories from a couple of sources and yes he is by far the most notable yogi (Kumar/jagdish). Have you seen the picture of him in the BKinfo site? Would you object to having that large group photo in the article? I think it is a lovely photo and also has Nirwair too. I still have not heard back from the bot as to the protection of the page. So, take a look and see if you agree. I honestly have not seen a color photo that is that nice of the group. PEACETalkAbout 08:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

See new topic "Pictures" below. Regards Bksimonb 21:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Controversy Section

There seems to be a section on beliefs in the Controversies section. I am assuming this is a mistake. Perhaps we can either combine this with the existing beliefs section or just decide which one is best referenced to keep.

Also the Sunday Mail stuff is overblown and treated as if it were a reliable source for information, which is isn't. Surfice to say that the BKs get some negative press in tabloid newspapers and link to it as an example. I found a link to the citation by Walliss used here . It appears to be from abstracts to a lecture held in 2000 at the University of Exeter .

Regards Bksimonb 11:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Bksimonb,

Yes, some beliefs are in the Controversies section. I will check and move them. Please move back any that you feel should stay there or lack citations. I will place the Daily Mail piece in Media Controversies....PEACETalkAbout 00:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's much better now. Thanks :-) Bksimonb 08:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Bksimonb,

I have been busy at work and so my reply was delayed. I have requested the protection be placed on the article again as it was removed by a bot and not an Admin.PEACETalkAbout 05:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Section on "people associated with"

This is in my personal opinion a pretty dodgy section to keep...where does it end? There are thousands of people who are associcated with the BKs - what parameters are being set for this? Just people that certain editors might want to include for their own agendas? I of course appreciate that this section may well have been started in good faith, but it is wide open to abuse from banned editors who no doubt will be popping up again in a new incarnation - or people associated with them. I propose deleting this section in a week unless rigorous arguments can be given. By the way...hello to the new editors! See if you can play nice and discuss matters here first - it would be v helpful to maintaining the conducive relations that have formed here of late. Appledell 20:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC) Appledell

Appledell,

I think these individuals are in the public view, use their affiliation in their work (for benefit) and use the UN connection too. They write books, do interviews and are high ranking within the organization. So, by that very nature they are in the public arena. Now, the ones I started were quite good and I was working with Bksimonb on fixing them up. I will say that Jagdish Chander should have his own article at some point as he did write many books and is widely cited by academics. As for the other, they could go on an info box like the ones for Sai Baba so that it looks all tiddy. I am willing to work on fixing this but I do not agree that removing them is a correct solution. PEACETalkAbout 07:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Talkabout - you mention the three criteria you are using...can you make sure that each name has a reference alongside it for each criteria (they are in "public view", "use their affiliation in their work" and "use the UN connection")? I take it that you think only people to whom all three criteria apply to should be used and not just one of the three? I'm not in principle opposed to having names like the Dadis and senior brothers associated with the section, but there have to be very clearly defined criteria - what does being in "public view" and "using the UN connection" actually mean? I'm not clear, for example, why Lee James is on the list - or Robert Shubow (who I'm guessing 99% of BKs have never heard of). Please can you clarify. Thanks v much. Appledell 10:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Appledell,

I just made points, not that one has to meet all points (just hitting on in a prominent way). Yes, the links or information will be placed next to it or expanded on it. Lee James (actor...right) will be removed. Robert Shubow, is important to note as he is a "former/past" member and he was the Editor of Adi Dev, and Author of Voyager. So, he is important as even today students (met one that read his books, was very faithful and was surprised to learn he left....shock!) read these books, and the BK publications still have these books for sale. So, it is significant to point that out, and my research shows he was with the BKs for many years and was quite a prominent figure. So, when one makes ones self available in a public way, one is quite aware of the full ramification of that and well having played in that arena myself I can say that is why there is "NO COMMENT" available for those that do not want to make any statements public. Today the archiving system is much wider and accessible than in past years so things catch up quick and items are even archived in the big box of the internet even when removed from the original source. FYI I will also be listing the former member that wrote a doctoral thesis, as soon as I get my hands on the thesis. BTW the thesis covers the Brama Kumaris, is already in publication, but I am waiting for the English copy. PEACETalkAbout 15:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

There are many other ex-BKs that had prominent roles within the organisation...are you proposing to list all of those too? You still haven't answered the main thrust of my concerns either: 1) what is your definition of an individual being in "public view", 2) People who "use" their BK affiliation, 3) People who "use" the UN connection. It would have been nice if the parameters for who to include and who not to include had been discussed here first before the section was started, but never mind - as I said, I have no objection in principle to such a section. On a separate note, if you could also explain why it is significant to point that Shubow is no longer a BK? Is it to imply that what he wrote (Adi Dev, Voyager) is to be seen in a different light? Thanks again. Appledell 19:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Appledell,

As to the past members I think it has been stated above and no I don't think it changes what he wrote, only that he is now on another path as are others who were members for many years. I think it is valuable information from a "freedom of Information/accessible information" perspective. And thank you for stating that you have no objection to the section.:-) PEACETalkAbout 04:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

Hi Talkabout. I'm all for adding some pictures to the article where appropriate. Certainly it seems appropriate to show the main seniors and/or main buildings. The only concern I have is with Copyright, however such images may be covered under Fair_use. I have some concern about any image sourced from the BKI site since I am quite sure that no attempt would have been made to get permission from the author to upload it there, however if the image is non-contentious to all of us here, and it is covered under fair use, then we are in the clear.

Would you be kind enough to post a direct link to the picture? Let me see if I can trace it to source so we can be sure of the copyright if that turns out to be an issue.

The safest pictures are ones where the person that took the photo is happy to release it under GFDL. I took some of M'ban buildings last October such as Om Shanti Bawan, Madhuban Courtyard and Diamond Hall that I would be happy to upload under GFDL. I already uploaded one of them to a non-related article just to see how the process worked. Also, you may know Ex-BKs who have pictures they kept and would be willing to release for use here.

Thanks & regards Bksimonb 21:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Bksimonb,

This is the photo I am speaking about and no need to track it as it was a gift to all, to share as it is by far the best one I have come across and the photographer has no issues. Don't you agree that it is by far one of the best! I think it shows everyone in good form, Kamarka, Janki, Gulzar, Nirvair, and Jagdish too...etc. I would love to see the ones you have. As you may know I love to document things and love to see good historical photos. Yes, Diamond Hall would be good, Om shanti Bawan too, and the Courtyard would be good too as it seems to be the topic of discussions (memories of some). So, out of curiosity since I am just beginning to sort my books, what is the meaning of the bees in BK religious philosophy? Do tell! I will ask about one that I have seen that has not been released but did get a glimpse of. Did you notice in the gallery (BK.info site) there is a picture (black and white...old) of a very young Kamarka....she looks radiant in the photo, with a big smile. PEACETalkAbout 07:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the captioning of photos is important - that it is done in a fair and impartial way. Whatever photos you decide to upload, we need to make sure the caption is something the editors are happy with (I don't need to explain to you how a person with an anti-BK agenda might wish to caption the photo you linked to!). Thanks. Appledell 10:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Appledell.

I am assuming here that you agree that it is a lovely photo and of great historical value. So, in good faith let us put forth the captions for consideration. I will wait for Bksimonb and you to put forth captions for the next step in this process. The photo is of classic style and should receive a good caption...I am fully in agreement here (especially since some are deceased). PEACETalkAbout 15:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree it is a lovely photo! However, if the intention is to use a photo to show the seniors, then I think it is better to use a photo with *just* the seniors (as it is they that need to be identified), rather than other people too. In this photo, there are other people identified - have they all given their permission for this? It's not necessarily an issue about Misplaced Pages rules on this, it's just common courtesy. Appledell 19:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Talkabout. I will attempt to upload the images I have. Of course, we don't have to use them since I'm hardly a pro photographer, or we can replace them later. I only have one remaining concern with the proposed group picture, and that is with regards to the non-seniors also pictured. Being an 80s picture, there may be some ex-BKs amongst them. Do you think they would object to being shown on Misplaced Pages in their BK days? Otherwise I'd say my concerns have been addressed.

Next issue is how many pictures and how and where to place them. I did think of putting up a gallery but it seems that Misplaced Pages discourage that on bandwidth, storage and load-time grounds except when an article absolutely screams for it, such as an article on world flags Misplaced Pages:Galleries. We could perhaps model our approach on similar articles covering religious topics. Some examples being Ghost_Dance , Confucianism and the Bahá'í_Faith.

BTW there is no spiritual significance with bees in the BKWSU as far as I know! There is one building, Harmony Hall in Gyan Sarovar, that features an overhanging roof which this particular type of bee just love as a site to make their hives. It's fascinating to be able to watch them so close from the other side of a window so naturally I just had to photo them :-) Will try uploading images now. Regards Bksimonb 20:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. Here are the proposed images. Regards Bksimonb 20:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Appledell,

As far as permission goes, I think that there were many photographers and everyone knew that they were being photographed that is why they were on the VIP stage (please note others taking photographs). I always wear sunglasses when out to big public events that I don't want to be photographed in, but that is just a way of saying I haven't posed for them. As stated I think this shows a historical view and I am sure you would concur that the others such as Nirvair, Jagdish are just as important and truly show the BK Family together. To not show them would also be wrong as the fact remains that they were all together, perhaps today they only allow the Didis (continuing to just put forth the female administrators) on stage but in the past it was a BK Family affair...all seen as very valuable. From a PR point I would say it would be a good move forward. If your concern is for Jayanti or Mohini not being there, that can be fixed by placing a photo of them too. PEACETalkAbout 02:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Talkabout, this photo was not of a public event. Regardless of other photographers being there (and whether people were wearing sunglasses or not), the people on stage would have no reasonable way of knowing that the pic would be used on a public forum, let alone for the whole world to see on wikipedia. As good as the photo is, I would be uneasy using it. What is the purpose of such a photo? If it is to show the main players, then it should be a photo with *just* them in it. It might be nice to show a photo of a gathering of people on stage, but it serves little editorial purpose. Appledell 15:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Bksimonb,

I vote for this one as the main feature and the MadhubanBKSUOmShantiBawan as it is very nice and shows the front of the Building with similar colors to the first one Madhuban_Stage. Thanks for the explanation about the bees as I was busy looking already. PEACETalkAbout 02:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi TalkAbout. I'm OK with that then :-) The reason I raised a concern about the people in the picture is that we currently have this big thing in the BKWSU about photographing our programmes and making sure everyone in the images is happy for us to use it. This may or may not be an issue here. I'm prepared to just use the image on the basis that we can always pull it if it gets flagged as a problem. If Appledell feels strongly about it then I guess he/she can raise an Rfc.

Regards Bksimonb 09:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I refer you to the answer I gave Talkabout above. Pics of buildings are rarely going to be contentious, but when you use the one of people on the stage, I think there is an abuse of privacy (unless permission from all those who can be indentified is sought and given). If you *have* to use the picture (and I don't see why we can't wait until a better, more suitable, one is found), then let's do it as a temporary measure until it can be replaced by a better one (that features *only* the people that the article wants to identify). Appledell 15:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Or we could pixelate/blur the other faces? Bksimonb 15:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, that's a reasonable short-term compromise. Although I think we should make sure that if a better pic is found, the existing one can be replace and that it is not "set in stone". Appledell 15:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Appledell and Bksimonb,

I still insist that this is a historical photo and like stated above it is by far the most positive one I have seen, akin to "High Mass" in significance to Catholics. This is some thing of great value to folks like me (that have never been to Mt. Abu), new BKs, and academics. Truly I think it would be a missed opportunity and the public may begin to wonder about the objections? And with Jagdish no longer with the living, I think it would be a tragic missed opportunity and even an act of "erasure" (modifying the past). Thank you for your cooperation and good will.PEACETalkAbout 04:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I think my objections have been pretty clear - identification. I am happy to go with Simon's compromise of pixelating the pics of those who are not the prominent members of the organisation that are in that picture. And in that form, I'm happy for the pic to go up - as a short term measure. Yes, the pic has historical value, but so do hundreds of others. Let's be clear what the purpose of putting up a pic is, as your aim already seems to have shifted a bit from something that identifies all the main leaders of the organisation to one that has "historic" value. I hope you take these observations in the constructive manner they are meant. Thanks. Appledell 08:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Appledell,

I would like to say that your argument although well intentioned does not merit tampering with the photo. First, I give the example of the late Pope John Paul II, whose image the Brahma Kumaris post widely and for self serving PR purposes. I am sure when he received the flowers he did not intend for his image to be used as a PR piece on your website as some implied support or endorsement (in fact based on the position...he is not facing the camera...he was not even aware that his photo was being taken. To use a photo in this manner is not in good practice nor in good faith.). Keep in mind that he took flowers from everyone and even advocated for death row prisoners and so he was always kind and never turned anyone away. So, I am beginning to see that what we have here is certain rules for you, while you use others images without any consideration to those involved nor the impact upon the faithful (Catholics), image being used for a positive marketing/PR spin and little to no consideration for the individual (who was in no way associated with the Brahma Kumaris or any individual in the organization). Please keep in mind that the photo has been released and so it may be used by others in reference to the BKs, also it has been well over a decade if not two I think. I make it a point to tell folks I collect historical photos. I even travel to take some myself and will travel to obtain them too. I can recall a governor attending a private party with a group (not a positive PR group) and a photo being printed on the front page non the less, the point being that he was posing for photos for the organization and therefore there was implied consent. They even made a political cartoon about the incident which I still keep. PEACETalkAbout 15:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's try and stick to the point at issue here, rather than talking about pics of the Pope (the pic of the Pope was taken in a public place, by the way...so your objections are moot at best). I have already said that I don't mind the pic going up with non-prominent members of the BKs being pixelated. Whatever dislike you have about the BKs and what they do is irrelevant to what we do about *this* pic. It doesn't matter if the photographer has "released" this pic, my concern is about identification - not whether the photographer has given permission. Thanks. Appledell 19:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Appledell("the pic of the Pope was taken in a public place, by the way...so your objections are moot at best"), yes, one can have ones picture taken in a public place (in this case it was the UN I believe) but as a Head of State it is a clear violation to use his image as a marketing/PR tool on a "daily" basis. So, this gross disregard confirms my points above. If the picture was distorted tampered with, I would say it would lead to all kinds of speculation and prove to be a negative. I still hold fast to my previous point, that being that the Brahma Kumaris are anti men otherwise why the fuss. As to the internet being developed, well pictures exist in many venues prior to the internet and if you believe in the cycle why would you deny the Brahma Kumaris family a look at the photo. So, being that I refuse to tamper with someones work, I vote that we leave it out.

The photo has men in it, lord have mercy save our soul! "my concern is about identification"?!? OK, Buildings are in and men are out!PEACETalkAbout 01:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The Pope is a public figure in a public place, receiving flowers from the BKs - that's what the BK "PR" shows. Anything else is simply *your* interpretation - nothing more. I am not debating this aspect further - we both have biased opinions on it so we're not going to convince eachother. If you have pics of the leaders of the organisation *only*, then that's fine (whether it's men or women). I repeat again, my concern is identifying the other people in the pic. Appledell 08:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've added the one image that we agreed on, the picture of OSB, to the paragraph where Madhuban is mentioned. Is there really any need for things to get heated here? If one picture causes a problem then let's just look for others. There's plenty around it's just a case of getting them released under a suitable license for Misplaced Pages. I am working on this issue behind the scenes FYI. Regards Bksimonb 10:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't find anything in the Misplaced Pages:Image_use_policy about this concern. I'm sure that something would be there if it had ever come up before. Assuming that we are on unchartered territory here perhaps we could raise a Request for comment. I'm a bit puzzled as to why I can't find anything in Misplaced Pages about this issue. In a way in kind of makes sense to take the privacy of people in a picture into account if they thought their picture was only destined to a life in someone's photo-album only to find that 20 years later this internet thing got invented and they ended up being seen by every being on the planet ;-) Perhaps we could use some outside comment here. Just a suggestion. Bksimonb 19:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Bksimonb,

I like this one but could live with the others too. It would be nice to have another info box below for quick reference. Thanks for looking around as some thing pleasing visually always makes for better reading.PEACETalkAbout 05:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

POV and Totally Disputed tags

Template:TotallyDisputed Bksimonb, Can you place the above tag above the area you are "Totally Disputing" rather than the whole article. This will give us a working point and we can then remove the tags as the clarifications go forth.PEACETalkAbout 02:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi TalkAbout,

The "Totally disputed" tag was there before all the disruption. First 244 kept removing the tag altogether then started changing it to a "POV" tag. When Thatcher131 sprotected the page it was on a 244 version that Bsroiaadn reverted to by mistake thinking I was vandalising the page .

To demonstrate that the article is now in its correct form before the disruption, here is a diff between the last edit you made and what it is at the revert time . The only change is the Sprotect tag and a change that Tovojolo made. I didn't find Tovojolo's edit contentious but I have no strong views if you disagree. Also worth noting that the Sprotect tag is just an information tag. The actual act of protecting the article is invisible, expect in the history. You can see that Thatcher131 does this as a two-step operation. One step is the "admin op" of protecting the article, the other is the tag to indicate it. Thanks anyway for correcting the missing tag.

I've just scanned through the article and cleared up what I know are factual errors. On this basis I have downgraded the tag to an NPOV warning tag. I have a bit of a dilemma in terms of perceived Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest. Normally, if an editor sees stuff that is obviously wrong or original research they can just delete it. However if I do that then it would appear that I am "whitewashing" the article so I tagged it as a concern in the hope that other editors could attend to it. In terms of actual COI, I obviously have a biased viewpoint but at the same time I strongly believe in, and support, the ideals, policies and community of Misplaced Pages, even if that means the article contains critical information. After all an "interest" is a personal thing, it can only really be demonstrated in action. I am sure that will become clear in my working relationships with other editors over time. I hope you find the edits I just made to be acceptable, otherwise I am happy to discuss any outstanding issues.

I am aware that some of the edits that 244 made were non-contentious and useful. 244 is definitely a very intelligent and skilled writer, I'm not denying that! The problem is that he/she made all the "vandal" edits first so it isn't easy to do a simple revert and sift out the useful stuff. For example, the list of prominent BKs was augmented with some useful references. If you see any edits that you support then by all means use them if they are trivial and propose them if they are substantial. The only reservations I have is that,

• Most of the article is still 244's work and we dis-empower ourselves by relying on 244 to supply all the material and never really become more proficient editors ourselves (note: I don't necessarily include you as needing to become proficient since I know you already edit many other articles)
• Often the bias is subtle. I can feel that it's in there, and I am aware of the agenda behind it, but it takes some time and editorial skill to identify it and put the whole article into a fair context. In other words the text is somewhat tainted.
• It sends a clear message that using brute force to evade a ban and overpower consensus, admins, arbitration and other editors works. If 244 really, really wants to edit the article, and it appears that he/she is just itching to jump in, then we should provide an acceptable solution that we can all live with. That is why I suggested emailing suggestions in the edit comments, although I am probably not the first editor 244 would trust, but I can't propose on behalf of anyone else. I have set up my personal page to enable emailing a while ago but so far no one has used it from Misplaced Pages.

Regards Bksimonb 05:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Bksimonb,

I am Ok with what you did (recent edits) and yes if I go back and find some useful edits I will re-insert. I also will shore others up with additional citations if need be. I am glad we are moving forward as it is not a personal thing with me. If ever I write a book on the subject I hope I can contact you for a photo and an interview. Glad to see you recognize your "post BK family member" there as I take it .244 is still churning things even as an ex-BK and I have logged .244 in as an "orthodox" BK during .244's time there. Funny, for an outsider looking in.

• I want to command you for your civility. See, life is still continuing, and everyone is OK with learning/confirming some facts here on the article.
• Thank you for breaking it down with points for me (you must have read Milo's recent diagnosis of me.lol). I am a details person.
• So, am I reading this correctly, you want .244 to e-mail you? Good luck to you and might I add bring along some garlic for protection or at the very least an onion.lol Just kidding...:-)

PEACETalkAbout 04:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear TalkAbout, thank you for your kind words :-) I don't think me & 244 know each other personally since it seems he was a bit before my time. It's always good to make new friends, though. I just realised that if he did try and email me before today it would have probably got blocked as spam (he's been spamming all our centres). I've changed the email address it goes to now to a personal account so it should work from today onwards. I don't know if he will send anything. Let's see.

244 isn't somewhere in that picture by any chance, is he?

I couldn't find Milo's diagnosis of you. Could you post a link?

Thanks & regards Bksimonb 20:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Bksimonb,

It is a joke of sorts, not an authentic diagnosis.lol So, you mean to tell me that the objections are coming from .244 and not Appledell? I must get me a magnifying glass and look again. Does your intel report say he/she is on stage?

I don't do spam, so I can't help you there....don't know the story.

From an arbitration point, I do believe it would nullify the intent of their decision (allowing him to edit via you) and you would be placing yourself on a higher standing. So, I wouldn't be in support of that. If however you want to submit a statement to that effect into the arbitration record then you can do so. I frankly enjoyed his/her views, considering that once the academic books arrived it turned out he/she was telling the "truth". So, in an odd way all his/her jumping up and down was really a state frustration due to the denials. He really should have been placed on probation with editing allowed once per week, from 4-6 am UK time (so we could confirm the observance of amrit vela), but then I don't make the decisions, just a little Ole person. Que Sera Sera.:-( PEACETalkAbout 00:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi TalkAbout, I was just trying to be accommodating. Today was the first day I looked at my personal email inbox with a a feeling of dread! I was sort of relieved nothing was there. If we are all happy with "banned=banned" then let's leave it at that. It keeps things clean and simple.

As for "denials", that's a tricky one. Personally, I am quite happy to talk about stuff like celibacy, destruction and other aspects that are covered by the academic books and am quite happy to see them in the article, in context, with appropriate weighting. Allot of the "denial" stuff is projected by 244, IMHO. And they'd be presented in a "shock/horror" kind of way. Currently I stand accused of denying that murli books were on sale to the public in the 80s, the reasons for the move to Pakistan and perhaps the events around 1976.

There are some topics which sound alarm bells and so they need academic or other reliable 2nd party references to end up in the article. As an example, apparently Wallis has claimed there were a bunch of "failed predictions" of destruction, so it's cited, so it stays in the article, unless we find he has been misquoted.

In the background I have asked around on these issues and, believe me, there are BKs to ask with MUCH more experience than 244 could possibly have. So at least at a personal level I know what the score is on these issues. Also, I asked BKs were are not senior and couldn't possibly have any perceived motive to cover anything up. I am based in London, after all. The only reason I try not to get drawn into this stuff is that Misplaced Pages isn't really interested in what "biased" sources think a fact it. That includes me, 244 and anyone else with a connection with the BKs.

One thing I know an academic has reported that is misleading is Wallis on the "Advance party". To a BK the "advance party" is a group that build and populate the new world in advance. They are the considered to be the next incarnation of some deceased BKs. They are not the PBKs. Sure the PBKs call themselves the "advance party" but they are just rewriting BK concepts into their own concepts. What we are left with in the article is an ambiguity. Not sure how to resolve it since there are no other academic references to clarify it. A "wikitruth".

The bit about 244 being on stage was a joke. After all, the picture was taken in the '80s, which was 244's time, so you never know ;-)

Regards Bksimonb 08:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Bksimonb,

Sad to hear that John Wallis is no longer a favored academic in your circles. I know he was in communications with Riveros and he allowed his work to be used on the Godhascome.com website. I would like to state the following, even though I was a bit suspicious of John Wallis being overly friendly to your camp.

• "Wallis has claimed there were a bunch of "failed predictions" of destruction, so it's cited, so it stays in the article" On this I will have to say he is correct. Perhaps you are very young in terms of BK history. I have had a chance to speak to some of the earlier batch and yes they too confirmed this very point of "failed predictions". I promise you the ones that I spoke to are even considered/regarded by your kin in a positive way. Yes, they confirmed the original 1976 date and others confirmed the 1986, 1996 etc. I frankly was a bit shocked, as it is a very well kept secret. When the thesis comes out and I read through it I think it too will be revealing. So, although I am not a big fan of John Wallis, I will defend that part of his work. You do know he came onto the wiki to make sure we were spelling his name correctly!
• As to the "Advance Party", once again John Wallis is correct in that they are called that. Now, when many souls(including the one that fell down the stairs...I forget her name, I am told she was very nice) left a several of months back I did hear someone say that many were needed for the Advance Party (I presume in your heaven....to do work there). So, I guess John Wallis is correct and so are you. It would seem it is a case like Om Shanti....to Hindies it means some thing totally different than what it means to you.

• The Anti Party has been documented in Adi Dev and a couple of other books too. The Anti Party I am told is the equivalent of referring to one as the "Devil" or perhaps wickedness at best.

So, for now I would say I most likely will steer clear of joining your definition of the term "Advance Party", although we all have to go some time. PEACETalkAbout 15:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Ahhhhh! I sense the limitations of the internet are hindering our communications here. All of the above points could be clarified in a normal conversation in minutes. Please bear with me on this. I'm not saying Wallis is wrong about "failed predictions", nor is he out of favour with anyone. Although I will have to read up on exactly what he says about "failed predictions" to understand why he came up with these dates (apart from 1976 which is famous).

Do you have a copy of "John Walliss: When prophecy fails: The Brahma Kumaris and the pursuit of the millennium"? I just got a copy and it doesn't state that the BKs "issued" any "failed predictions" of any kind in the way that the "Controversies" paragraph in the article suggests. Also the claim that these predictions are to encourage donations is not anywhere to be found. Hmmm.

However Walliss does cover the "controversy" at the beginning of the institution quite well, with regards to the "Anti-Om Mandeli Party", so we could include that.

The "advance party" I do know about. Yes, the PBKs call themselves the "Advance Party". If you ever read about the "Advance Party" in a BK murli, however, then it most definitely is not a reference to the PBKs. That's the difference. This doesn't contradict Walliss, it's more just a case of him not documenting the BK concept of "Advance Party" also. If you know any BKs please ask them independently to clarify. Thanks & regards Bksimonb 16:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Rv Banned user

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/195.82.106.244_%282nd%29

Point of Order

To anyone who comments on this TalkPage:

• I do not intend to entertain cheap talk about individuals sexuality. If in relevance to the practices/beliefs and if you can provide a citation then put it into a proper perspective for discussion.
• Secondly, when addressing others it would be proper to simply state the question/relevance of citation or point.
• Thirdly, I don't entertain "sexy" talk nor is this the place for it. I won't address any thing beyond the points that merit discussion.

PEACETalkAbout 15:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi TalkAbout. It's only a troll . You are quite within your rights to delete such posts on site.

Regards Bksimonb 19:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Christianity

Hello.

I am from a Christian family and have observed the Brahmakumaris at a number of interreligious events. I would like to propose the following section on the Brahma Kumaris Spiritual University's view of Christianity.

The BKWSU's view on Christianity

", just as far as God the Father was now sharing a body with Brahma Baba, in the same way Christ had entered the body of Jesus. it was Jesus who suffered on the cross, not Christ. Christ, the pure Son of God left the body early and went to take rebirth to help guide his fledgling religion into maturity. many more secrets about Christ and the other religious founders have been revealed by Baba."

The quotation is almost word for word, except for grammatical additions marked above, from page 270 of 'A Reader in New Religious Movements' by George Chryssides and Marget Wilkins. Book number 0-80826-6168-9.

FAITH

Faithinhumanity 20:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I have added the suggested text to the article. I would appreciate it if you could quote the same text word for word without the grammatical corrections. Although the text is attributed in the article it isn't actually in quotation marks for this reason. I also come from a Christian family, so I would like to be more specific about the statement, "Contrary to the beliefs of Christianity", since I know that there are so many different views within Christianity it is a bit of a bold statement to make that no Christian holds a similar view. So what words did George Chryssides and Marget Wilkins actually use?

Regards Bksimonb 07:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I have done so as per request. Faithinhumanity 19:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

OK Thanks. Regards Bksimonb 20:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Faithinhumanity and Bksimonb.

I moved the entry to controversies as per the first words in the opening paragraph. I have ordered the book. Can you enlighten us as to who "they" are in the entry? Bksimonb, can you elaborated on the beliefs and since you are in it now. Also, can you add the other revelations that Baba made about other religious founders. Faithinhumanity, can you add some of the prior text before the opening line here to see under what context it was being referred to in the book. Many thanks to you both. Most interesting to know.PEACETalkAbout 23:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, for NPOV we need a attributed reference to make a statement such as, "Contrary to the beliefs of Christianity", since it is a generalisation. Also, the BK view of Christ may not be all that controversial since those of other faiths also have a view of Christ that is different to how a Christian may view it. For now I suggest we simply remove the words at the beginning since the phrase adds bias by suggesting controversy where perhaps there is none.

Regards Bksimonb 08:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi

I just wanted to say "hi".

I joined a while ago but I could not post on this page. I see the problems you have been having here. How can I help?

Omshanti.

Bkangel

• B-Class India articles
• Unknown-importance India articles
• B-Class India articles of Unknown-importance
• WikiProject India articles