Misplaced Pages

User talk:Jesselp

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 195.82.106.244 (talk) at 22:08, 14 November 2006 (→Sevak Ram). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 22:08, 14 November 2006 by 195.82.106.244 (talk) (→Sevak Ram)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Comments to arbitrator

Hi.

out of decency, I'll cc you in on this discussion as you are working with Luis on this page.

Personally, I'd be careful how you are setting yourself and the BKWSU up for a fall within the public domain by pursuing these issues in an unfair and dishonest manner. In my opinion, matters really ought to be handled in a fair more subtle and delicate manner - and, of course, "taking the task ahead ... in an organized way and as per rules" as BapDada said.

We still have to address the matter of channelling and mediumship. I am happy to wait until arbitration is over as the sources given are inarguable.

Thanks. 195.82.106.244 10:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Response to Luis Riveros and Request to Jossi

Luis, to state that I have never provide a single reliable resource is laughable. Look back through the history of the topic and discussion page and anyone will see that I provide endless citations in balance mostly pro-BKWSU, academic or impartial. Yes, agreed, I mostly built this topic. If you look back at the original article prior to your re-write according to BKWSU PR, it is almost entirely verbatim BKWSU teachings - references; , comparison or through the Discussion pages anyone can see my input. You are being utterly dishonest and making prejudicial allegations you cannot support in an attempt to reach your goal.

Perhaps you could help here Jossi.

In Misplaced Pages:Verifiability it states that, "Material from self-published sources 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."

Luis has claimed that this only refers to the author(s) themselves using the material. I believe this is entirely wrong.

Luis has point blankly refused to allow any citation from BKWSU published material which in essence, of course, make fully public their teachings and beliefs even though the very same publications are used by the academics.

My question here is would such self-published material allow "reasonable" use of BKWSU published material where it is clearly and specifically referenced in a manner that anyone could purchase a book or attend one of their 7,000 centers and request a copy of said materials to check references? For example;

  • specific scriptural references or other publicly available materials and
  • the organization's own websites?

BK Luis has stated that it is only acceptable if it is easily downloadable but, of course, refuses to accept that if it is downloadable from http://www.brahmakumaris.info even though it is clearly BKWSU produced material, e.g. or where a BK produced teaching aid states End of the World/Destruction in 1976 after 40 years Confluence Age etc.

It is understandable why the BKWSU might want to bury this information but I believe in the public interest for it to remain.

Lastly, what group exactly am I meant to be a part of with any other contributor!?!

Thank you.

Luis?

Luis?

BK Luis Riveros of Tampa. Part of the team organized to "manage" the wikipedia article in the BKWSU's favour along with Simon and others. As a BKWSU sympathizer, you must have been told by now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Riveros11

By the way,

  • a) did they tell you or your family about the 1976 dates for Destruction, the 40 year Confluence Age and the Sevak Ram stuff? Your mum has been in for quite a while, she must know. How long does it take them to tell newcomers about the 5,000 year Cycle, the dinosaurs in the Copper Age and all that stuff or introudce them to the channelled messages now?
  • b) make sure to sign and date your comments with four tildes (~~~~)

Personally advice, it you want to make a good impression, it would probably be a good idea to write your comments - and website pages - out in Word and spellcheck them first before publishing them. If you want help, just ask. Sometimes it takes a third party to see typos and spelling errors. 195.82.106.244 11:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Sevak Ram

Type 4 tildes ~~~~ after your comments. Try it. It is easier and without them, it makes it harder for others to follow.

Sevak Ram; it is not that easy as an instant dismissal.

He existed. He is (or at least was before the re-writes) referred to in the Sakar Murlis. Sure as hell Lekhraj Kirpalani went to talk to him. He followed for a while, as did the other female mediums. There must have been sessions, seances, trance messaging/channelling sessions. What was the falling out about? Have you never wondered what was the real story?

It must have been a much more fascinating time that all these dry book launchs and NGO meetings.

I am not taking sides. The PBKs have stated their claims. Someone in the BKWSU must know. Perhaps it is even documented in Kirpalani's voluminous diaries. Why don't they sort the schism out instead of beating up the PBKs?

You have enough knowledge of psychology to know what denial means. Truth is more interested that PR spin. 195.82.106.244 22:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)